The Second Amendment clearly (to anyone who understands how English was used at the time) forbids the Federal Government from interfering, in any way, with obtaining and carrying weapons. (infringe ~ "even meddle with the fringes of")
there is not a single word about an individual right to a gun for self-defense in the notes from the Constitutional Convention
Nor in the Constitution!
The public's understanding of the 2nd Amendment started to be distorted by the NRA early in the last century. The NRA has been filling the minds of gun owners with an interpretation that was never intended by the Founders for some time, so no one can blame you for your incorrect interpretation when a propaganda machine like the NRA has been bombarding you with selective truths and out-right lies.
Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia.
That includes gun trafficing, because stopping gun sales makes it harder to exercise the right.
Wow... THAT is OUT THERE. Of course, you are completely mistaken, and this bold statement of yours is wildly, dangerously inaccurate. Gun regulation is legal, and necessary.
Have you seen the Soviet's bio-weopons program? Its a bunch of old refridgerators filled with tupperware of plague, tuleremia, anthrax, etc. Its not locked or guarded or anything. I think we can safely continue to condemn the Soviets.
Isn't that just a workaround for "you can't kill people," by letting them kill themselves? I am as romantic as any nerd about space. I even spearheaded a "Get Off the Planet" campaign in college. At the time, I didn't realize the truth of the matter is, the hard cold reality is, there is no place to go, even if it was economically or physically feasable. The only "space" to rationally escape to is Earth's orbit, where its possible to be resupplied.
But the summary premise ignores the fact that there is still plenty of room, i.e. most of the Earth's hard surface is unihabited, and there is even more liquid surface and subsurface uninhabited, quite a bit more. Currently, a lot of those areas may be unihabitable, but terraforming Earth, irrigating deserts, draining swamps, that sort of thing, is going to be so much easier, so much cheaper, so much quicker, so much more successful than trying to terraform Mars or any moons of Jupiter or Saturn, where sunlight, the ultimate source of all our energy, is deficit and more deficit the further you get from the Sun.
Seriously, this is the worst planet ever, except for all the others.
You can try tuning middle A to 480Hz, which is a harmonic of 60Hz... but in practice this does not lower the noise floor when multitracking, and sounds like poop.
You're at a very straight, very long beach. Imagine parallel waves striking the shore at a vanishingly slight angle. The point that the wave meets the shore moves along as the intersection of wave and beach occurs. As the waves get closer and closer to parallel with the beach, but not quite parallel, eventually that intersection point will be moving much faster than c.
But the interesection point between waves and shore doesn't have mass, isn't really a "thing" that's moving.
Relativity requires that nothing can move through space faster than light.
Relativity requres that nothing can move through space as fast as light (c). Nothing with mass moving slower than c can reach c by moving faster, due to increase in mass and infinite energy required to reach c, and nothing moving faster than light can slow down to c, for the same reasons. The quote from teh article is at best misleading and at worst, false.
Maybe you're right. Hey, did you see this?. For all we know, the reasonable budgets of a national space program with a Moon mission are a bargain for the new technology this mission might discover, and someday provide to prevent mass population die-offs due to poverty. But I really doubt it and I can't agree. India's space program is a bad idea considering they have such severe national problems. If the US in the 1960's was half as bad as India is today, the Moon missions would probably not have happened, even if Russia's program was putting pressure on US dominating races to every possible technical achievement. First feed your kids, istartedi... THEN you can go to the Moon.
You are clinging to your misconception about what CS is by arguing something entirely new: there are no CS "jobs." You are mistaken, btw. And what we are talking about is not a negligible chunk of change, as outside academia the starting salary of a B.S. computer scientist with zero experience is close to $70-80K these days, while I think you know any software developer graduating with any degree with zero experience won't touch that. Your ignorance of any positions for an actual, bone fide "computer scientist" is not a good foundation to argue from, IMO.
My point really simply was (sorry for the feigned ignorance) that maybe the Clinton Foundation, certainly Slashdot editors, and obviously you, mistakenly believe that the purpose of "Computer Science" in society in practice, is to fill the jobs for software developers. This is absurd on its face, and your academia-vs-real-world strawman does not change this.
Please refrain from limiting computer scientists to the labor of developers. All developers can do is code. Computer scientists have a much larger bag.
they're going for more people being able to understand CS and possibly do CS
Do you really think that not teaching a subject to kids will get more of them to learn it?
I truly believe they have misnamed the subject in question, and couldn't possibly be talking about CS, but perhaps skills, incidentally related, often attributed to CS incorrectly. IT WOULD BE AWESOME if some CS got into lower education. It shouldn't be expensive... no PCs necessary. But symbolic logic corses would be just as useful. Again, I don't think this is their (Clinton Foundation's) intention, but (perhaps slashdot editors) are misusing CS to mean either programming or confident graphic interface operation and document creation, or both. It is maddening the damage Slashdot has done to Computer Science, relegating it to "the stuff you can do with computers," instead of what it is, the science of computating.
Why would a CS grad want to be a software developer? That doesn't make any sense. They should have studied software development and programming. That's like an MD hoping to get a job as a medical tech... a noble profession, but the MD can earn much more, be more fulfilled properly applying their education as a doctor, and the same is true of a CS grad. Their ideal employment will have little to do with coding.
Headline is wrong... should not be "Lack of CS Savvy" but "Lack of COMPUTER Savvy." Once again, Computer Science has been misunderstood and its title abused by those that cannot understand... computer science IS a science... and it has hardly anything to do with computers... the "computer" in computer science is NOT A DIGITAL MACHINE, per se, but one who computes... it is the science of reckoning, not the science of (or application of) advanced programming techniques.
I'm surprised that India waited this long to ditch those pompous morons.
I'm surprised, too, but not by that. Well, thinking positively, I hope India can get off the ground and get to the Moon and can there find safe drinking water, sanitation, housing, health infrastructure as well as something to reduce the malnutrition for the hundreds of millions in their country that find they are still in very short supply.
Agreed. I control all commercial flights with an Atari joystick from 1982 that I customized to be on the same frequency as the InFlight entertainment system of all commercial aircraft. So this researcher is a fraud, or the FBI is lying. I know, because its me. I'm doing all the flying. Now... all I need to do is get the FBI to repeat this, then everyone will start asking "how does he do it?" without asking "why would anyone believe something so nutty?"
I think it's likely that the test is faulty, but they need to figure out why or how the test is faulty.
There is actually a better chance that curiosity, need, whatever, will continue to drive development of practical technology without science having uncovered the secrets of how it achieves its practice until long after its wide adoption. You may have heard of boat building, which our species invented here on Earth a long time ago and long, long before anyone realized what water really was and why things sink or float. NASA is one of the few organizations that justifiably has been long prided by I think everyone to be a group of ideally dedicated smart likeably cooperative over-achievers that successfully apply science rationally to develop technology to achieve the goals set before them. If you had the capital and need to do so, who would you hire to get you safely there and back if "there" was Earth's orbit or beyond? NASA's on everyone's short list. I'm interested because this is pretty good nerd news, and not any weekly world tripe, that some scientists with merit have (with transparency and established process) produced eye-popping results in an experiment and with an apparatus that does not share the secret of its result in any obvious way, IOW, wtf, that's impossible... what gives? I can't just hand-wave off that obviously one of these bozos messed up... it's NASA, they really can't afford bozos... just the regular type of professional scientists and engineers that excelled in such a way professionally to interest NASA into hiring them, and they're neither a dime a dozen nor are there very many dozens of them to begin with... considering... Merica... today... a little soft in the middle, but some of our agencies and facilities are still intact. NASA is one of them, and very much alive... everyone, everyone, should just fucking send NASA $10, you know they won't steal it, they'll actually use it to complete their mission. The first thing I'd doubt before doubting NASA was the fidelity of the information between reports and what NASA really did and said. So you can bet that somehow NASA did a faulty test, while I can bet that somehow between you me, the editer, reporter and the laws of physics something might have slid a little and a small error, in comprehension or reporting, whatever it was... a small error has turned into something now widely reported. Or maybe there is no error... something really great is happening and our best guys don't know why but they're sure the best guys we have to mess around with this and develop if it indeed is doing what they're reporting... even if it reads like a practical joke, I don't really care, its so much better news than... you know all the other crappy news... crime... war... etc...
there's nothing more frustrating trying to solve a problem you've encountered with your design that YOU pushed for, can't figure out why it's not working
Actually, an impenetrable ruse would be slightly more frustrating.
If wired broadband internet is a critical feature of any house you buy, verify before you buy.
What verification steps can you possibly take beyond what he did? Hack into their computers to determine if there really had been service at that address?
Obviously, all that is necessary is to order the service, rather than fruitlessly engaging in this ridiculous "verification" ritual. Schedule the damn install, and see what happens. If they show up, you can reschedule. If they don't, don't buy the house.
The math is very clear. What isn't clear to you is the history of nuclear power. The only reason the US invested so much in nuclear power in the 1950s is because someone massively overestimated the need for fuel for bombs. A single plant could have produced enough fuel for nuclear weapons, yet we built 110 or so of them. It really isn't fair to ask why solar hasn't quiet yet overtaken nuclear because of the massive investment in nuclear from 1940-1970. Had a fraction of the capital invested in nuclear been diverted to solar R&D in the 1950's, you better believe solar would be everywhere you could imagine now, and cheaper than spit. Only since the call for alternative energies has commercial interests taken up development of solar power. In the last 10 years alone, there have been massive advances in solar manufacturing processes and the efficiency of photovoltaics. Give it 10 more years, and nuclear will be a joke, unable to compete with solar, which is very nearly at cost of energy parity right now. Solar isn't perfect, and is no free lunch. But it is simpler, available to anyone and not just rich governments to implement, and as I said, in very short order solar generated energy will be cheaper than nuclear generated energy.
Nuclear power is the answer. I know someone is going to point out the nuclear waste that comes from nuclear power now.
Yes, waste is a concern. But the real concern is the economics of nuclear energy has never made any sense. It is outrageously expensive, and never has a nuclear power plant been able to have been built without massive capital from governments. An individual can install wind and solar and other alternative energies on a local scale. There are solvable problems involved. Eventually, the problem of energy storage will be solved. But the problem with nuclear power, which is that is the most expensive form of energy ever conceived, will never be solved. Nuclear energy proponents ignore this, but it is the only thing standing in the way of your dream of nuclear power being the solution to the world's energy needs: its just too damn expensive. Money wins every time.
and how many innocents had their lives taken by it.
This and this alone invalidates the death penalty in all circumstances, according to Blackstone's Formulation.
But it goes much deeper. Statistics prove the death penalty does not deter crime. Many have been executed, yet we still have murders and violent crime. Those who commit murder do not care about life, and thus the threat of a death penalty will not deter them from their committed acts.
Due to appeals, lawyers fees, court costs, the death penalty is far more expensive than keeping a convict in prison for life.
And the coup de gras, the death penalty is overwhelmingly biased towards killing black men, many whom have been shown to be innocent after it was carried out... the stats don't lie, the death penalty is racist.
If only those voting for the political Right would put their economic interests first, there would be no GOP, no nanny/police state, no unregulated out-of-control capitalist interests destroying our planet, and no inneffective, expensive, and racist death penalty.
the model that goes on sale on April 24th will be nothing like the updated version that catapults it to mainstream popularity.
This.
Apple competitors have had an actual watch that is a phone, no tethering to any other device necessary, on the market already for a year or two, at least. Apple is obviously going that direction, but can't quite get it to be the size they want yet... so they left the obvious killer function out for now, and are misdirecting the expected criticism of the absence of this function with all this haptic feedback stuff, a flashy interface and oooo checks my pulse wow. When Apple finally does release an actual watch phone, everyone will act like Apple invented it or at least perfected it... five years after you could have had that function (but not slick Apple design) from another tech company.
IMO, the entire idea is flawed if Apple expects it to carry the company's success through another decade. Apple is a hardware company, not a jewelry company. Apple is completely ignoring its actual customers (education and home computing markets) to go after the high hanging fruit. I think Apple needs a product to compete here, but I don't think they should expect great things at the expense of their bread and butter products. Those that buy expensive watches know a thing or two that Apple apparently does not: a good watch is a good investment. There are no good digital watches that appreciate. They're not going to get the high hanging fruit, i.e. new customers that were former Breitling customers. They're going to get the same customers they've always had, their loyal customers Apple keeps ignoring. I know this because I have been a loyal Apple customer for more than 20 years, and I have salivated over each new product... brainwashed maybe... but this... idk what this thing is... I am so stunned by it, it has deprogrammed me. Its having the same effect on me as if Apple was releasing a rectal thermometer as their new flagship product, a beautifully designed thermometer that doesn't yet give you a temperature and only works in conjuction with your iPhone.
Slashdot Mirror
The Second Amendment clearly (to anyone who understands how English was used at the time) forbids the Federal Government from interfering, in any way, with obtaining and carrying weapons. (infringe ~ "even meddle with the fringes of")
Your interpretation is quaint, and incorrect, at least it didn't mean that until 2008, Columbia v. Heller
Nor in the Constitution!
The public's understanding of the 2nd Amendment started to be distorted by the NRA early in the last century. The NRA has been filling the minds of gun owners with an interpretation that was never intended by the Founders for some time, so no one can blame you for your incorrect interpretation when a propaganda machine like the NRA has been bombarding you with selective truths and out-right lies.
That includes gun trafficing, because stopping gun sales makes it harder to exercise the right.
Wow... THAT is OUT THERE. Of course, you are completely mistaken, and this bold statement of yours is wildly, dangerously inaccurate. Gun regulation is legal, and necessary.
Have you seen the Soviet's bio-weopons program? Its a bunch of old refridgerators filled with tupperware of plague, tuleremia, anthrax, etc. Its not locked or guarded or anything. I think we can safely continue to condemn the Soviets.
Isn't that just a workaround for "you can't kill people," by letting them kill themselves? I am as romantic as any nerd about space. I even spearheaded a "Get Off the Planet" campaign in college. At the time, I didn't realize the truth of the matter is, the hard cold reality is, there is no place to go, even if it was economically or physically feasable. The only "space" to rationally escape to is Earth's orbit, where its possible to be resupplied.
But the summary premise ignores the fact that there is still plenty of room, i.e. most of the Earth's hard surface is unihabited, and there is even more liquid surface and subsurface uninhabited, quite a bit more. Currently, a lot of those areas may be unihabitable, but terraforming Earth, irrigating deserts, draining swamps, that sort of thing, is going to be so much easier, so much cheaper, so much quicker, so much more successful than trying to terraform Mars or any moons of Jupiter or Saturn, where sunlight, the ultimate source of all our energy, is deficit and more deficit the further you get from the Sun.
Seriously, this is the worst planet ever, except for all the others.
Make it 440Hz; then I can tune my piano from it.
You can try tuning middle A to 480Hz, which is a harmonic of 60Hz... but in practice this does not lower the noise floor when multitracking, and sounds like poop.
The Cap'n needed 2600Hz, which was useful once upon a time.
You're at a very straight, very long beach. Imagine parallel waves striking the shore at a vanishingly slight angle. The point that the wave meets the shore moves along as the intersection of wave and beach occurs. As the waves get closer and closer to parallel with the beach, but not quite parallel, eventually that intersection point will be moving much faster than c.
But the interesection point between waves and shore doesn't have mass, isn't really a "thing" that's moving.
Relativity requires that nothing can move through space faster than light.
Relativity requres that nothing can move through space as fast as light (c). Nothing with mass moving slower than c can reach c by moving faster, due to increase in mass and infinite energy required to reach c, and nothing moving faster than light can slow down to c, for the same reasons. The quote from teh article is at best misleading and at worst, false.
Nothing can go as fast as light. Slower or faster, sure, but not c.
Maybe you're right. Hey, did you see this?. For all we know, the reasonable budgets of a national space program with a Moon mission are a bargain for the new technology this mission might discover, and someday provide to prevent mass population die-offs due to poverty. But I really doubt it and I can't agree. India's space program is a bad idea considering they have such severe national problems. If the US in the 1960's was half as bad as India is today, the Moon missions would probably not have happened, even if Russia's program was putting pressure on US dominating races to every possible technical achievement. First feed your kids, istartedi... THEN you can go to the Moon.
You are clinging to your misconception about what CS is by arguing something entirely new: there are no CS "jobs." You are mistaken, btw. And what we are talking about is not a negligible chunk of change, as outside academia the starting salary of a B.S. computer scientist with zero experience is close to $70-80K these days, while I think you know any software developer graduating with any degree with zero experience won't touch that. Your ignorance of any positions for an actual, bone fide "computer scientist" is not a good foundation to argue from, IMO.
My point really simply was (sorry for the feigned ignorance) that maybe the Clinton Foundation, certainly Slashdot editors, and obviously you, mistakenly believe that the purpose of "Computer Science" in society in practice, is to fill the jobs for software developers. This is absurd on its face, and your academia-vs-real-world strawman does not change this.
Please refrain from limiting computer scientists to the labor of developers. All developers can do is code. Computer scientists have a much larger bag.
they're going for more people being able to understand CS and possibly do CS
Do you really think that not teaching a subject to kids will get more of them to learn it?
I truly believe they have misnamed the subject in question, and couldn't possibly be talking about CS, but perhaps skills, incidentally related, often attributed to CS incorrectly. IT WOULD BE AWESOME if some CS got into lower education. It shouldn't be expensive... no PCs necessary. But symbolic logic corses would be just as useful. Again, I don't think this is their (Clinton Foundation's) intention, but (perhaps slashdot editors) are misusing CS to mean either programming or confident graphic interface operation and document creation, or both. It is maddening the damage Slashdot has done to Computer Science, relegating it to "the stuff you can do with computers," instead of what it is, the science of computating.
Why would a CS grad want to be a software developer? That doesn't make any sense. They should have studied software development and programming. That's like an MD hoping to get a job as a medical tech... a noble profession, but the MD can earn much more, be more fulfilled properly applying their education as a doctor, and the same is true of a CS grad. Their ideal employment will have little to do with coding.
Headline is wrong... should not be "Lack of CS Savvy" but "Lack of COMPUTER Savvy." Once again, Computer Science has been misunderstood and its title abused by those that cannot understand... computer science IS a science... and it has hardly anything to do with computers... the "computer" in computer science is NOT A DIGITAL MACHINE, per se, but one who computes... it is the science of reckoning, not the science of (or application of) advanced programming techniques.
I'm surprised that India waited this long to ditch those pompous morons.
I'm surprised, too, but not by that. Well, thinking positively, I hope India can get off the ground and get to the Moon and can there find safe drinking water, sanitation, housing, health infrastructure as well as something to reduce the malnutrition for the hundreds of millions in their country that find they are still in very short supply.
USA today "FBI: Computer expert briefly made FBI investigation fly sideways"
FTFY
Simple, but unnecessary. They found Flight 370 in his garage. This guy is in a lot of trouble.
Agreed. I control all commercial flights with an Atari joystick from 1982 that I customized to be on the same frequency as the InFlight entertainment system of all commercial aircraft. So this researcher is a fraud, or the FBI is lying. I know, because its me. I'm doing all the flying. Now... all I need to do is get the FBI to repeat this, then everyone will start asking "how does he do it?" without asking "why would anyone believe something so nutty?"
Let me know when your scientists discover Tuna.
I think it's likely that the test is faulty, but they need to figure out why or how the test is faulty.
There is actually a better chance that curiosity, need, whatever, will continue to drive development of practical technology without science having uncovered the secrets of how it achieves its practice until long after its wide adoption. You may have heard of boat building, which our species invented here on Earth a long time ago and long, long before anyone realized what water really was and why things sink or float. NASA is one of the few organizations that justifiably has been long prided by I think everyone to be a group of ideally dedicated smart likeably cooperative over-achievers that successfully apply science rationally to develop technology to achieve the goals set before them. If you had the capital and need to do so, who would you hire to get you safely there and back if "there" was Earth's orbit or beyond? NASA's on everyone's short list. I'm interested because this is pretty good nerd news, and not any weekly world tripe, that some scientists with merit have (with transparency and established process) produced eye-popping results in an experiment and with an apparatus that does not share the secret of its result in any obvious way, IOW, wtf, that's impossible... what gives? I can't just hand-wave off that obviously one of these bozos messed up... it's NASA, they really can't afford bozos... just the regular type of professional scientists and engineers that excelled in such a way professionally to interest NASA into hiring them, and they're neither a dime a dozen nor are there very many dozens of them to begin with... considering... Merica... today... a little soft in the middle, but some of our agencies and facilities are still intact. NASA is one of them, and very much alive... everyone, everyone, should just fucking send NASA $10, you know they won't steal it, they'll actually use it to complete their mission. The first thing I'd doubt before doubting NASA was the fidelity of the information between reports and what NASA really did and said. So you can bet that somehow NASA did a faulty test, while I can bet that somehow between you me, the editer, reporter and the laws of physics something might have slid a little and a small error, in comprehension or reporting, whatever it was... a small error has turned into something now widely reported. Or maybe there is no error... something really great is happening and our best guys don't know why but they're sure the best guys we have to mess around with this and develop if it indeed is doing what they're reporting... even if it reads like a practical joke, I don't really care, its so much better news than... you know all the other crappy news... crime... war... etc...
there's nothing more frustrating trying to solve a problem you've encountered with your design that YOU pushed for, can't figure out why it's not working
Actually, an impenetrable ruse would be slightly more frustrating.
If wired broadband internet is a critical feature of any house you buy, verify before you buy.
What verification steps can you possibly take beyond what he did? Hack into their computers to determine if there really had been service at that address?
Obviously, all that is necessary is to order the service, rather than fruitlessly engaging in this ridiculous "verification" ritual. Schedule the damn install, and see what happens. If they show up, you can reschedule. If they don't, don't buy the house.
The math is very clear. What isn't clear to you is the history of nuclear power. The only reason the US invested so much in nuclear power in the 1950s is because someone massively overestimated the need for fuel for bombs. A single plant could have produced enough fuel for nuclear weapons, yet we built 110 or so of them. It really isn't fair to ask why solar hasn't quiet yet overtaken nuclear because of the massive investment in nuclear from 1940-1970. Had a fraction of the capital invested in nuclear been diverted to solar R&D in the 1950's, you better believe solar would be everywhere you could imagine now, and cheaper than spit. Only since the call for alternative energies has commercial interests taken up development of solar power. In the last 10 years alone, there have been massive advances in solar manufacturing processes and the efficiency of photovoltaics. Give it 10 more years, and nuclear will be a joke, unable to compete with solar, which is very nearly at cost of energy parity right now. Solar isn't perfect, and is no free lunch. But it is simpler, available to anyone and not just rich governments to implement, and as I said, in very short order solar generated energy will be cheaper than nuclear generated energy.
Nuclear power is the answer. I know someone is going to point out the nuclear waste that comes from nuclear power now.
Yes, waste is a concern. But the real concern is the economics of nuclear energy has never made any sense. It is outrageously expensive, and never has a nuclear power plant been able to have been built without massive capital from governments. An individual can install wind and solar and other alternative energies on a local scale. There are solvable problems involved. Eventually, the problem of energy storage will be solved. But the problem with nuclear power, which is that is the most expensive form of energy ever conceived, will never be solved. Nuclear energy proponents ignore this, but it is the only thing standing in the way of your dream of nuclear power being the solution to the world's energy needs: its just too damn expensive. Money wins every time.
and how many innocents had their lives taken by it.
This and this alone invalidates the death penalty in all circumstances, according to Blackstone's Formulation.
But it goes much deeper. Statistics prove the death penalty does not deter crime. Many have been executed, yet we still have murders and violent crime. Those who commit murder do not care about life, and thus the threat of a death penalty will not deter them from their committed acts.
Due to appeals, lawyers fees, court costs, the death penalty is far more expensive than keeping a convict in prison for life.
And the coup de gras, the death penalty is overwhelmingly biased towards killing black men, many whom have been shown to be innocent after it was carried out... the stats don't lie, the death penalty is racist.
If only those voting for the political Right would put their economic interests first, there would be no GOP, no nanny/police state, no unregulated out-of-control capitalist interests destroying our planet, and no inneffective, expensive, and racist death penalty.
the model that goes on sale on April 24th will be nothing like the updated version that catapults it to mainstream popularity.
This.
Apple competitors have had an actual watch that is a phone, no tethering to any other device necessary, on the market already for a year or two, at least. Apple is obviously going that direction, but can't quite get it to be the size they want yet... so they left the obvious killer function out for now, and are misdirecting the expected criticism of the absence of this function with all this haptic feedback stuff, a flashy interface and oooo checks my pulse wow. When Apple finally does release an actual watch phone, everyone will act like Apple invented it or at least perfected it... five years after you could have had that function (but not slick Apple design) from another tech company.
IMO, the entire idea is flawed if Apple expects it to carry the company's success through another decade. Apple is a hardware company, not a jewelry company. Apple is completely ignoring its actual customers (education and home computing markets) to go after the high hanging fruit. I think Apple needs a product to compete here, but I don't think they should expect great things at the expense of their bread and butter products. Those that buy expensive watches know a thing or two that Apple apparently does not: a good watch is a good investment. There are no good digital watches that appreciate. They're not going to get the high hanging fruit, i.e. new customers that were former Breitling customers. They're going to get the same customers they've always had, their loyal customers Apple keeps ignoring. I know this because I have been a loyal Apple customer for more than 20 years, and I have salivated over each new product... brainwashed maybe... but this... idk what this thing is... I am so stunned by it, it has deprogrammed me. Its having the same effect on me as if Apple was releasing a rectal thermometer as their new flagship product, a beautifully designed thermometer that doesn't yet give you a temperature and only works in conjuction with your iPhone.
Proxima Centauri Might Not Be the Closest Star To Earth
Put another way, Sol Might Be the Closest Star To Earth
Depending on when the last periodical mass extinction was, Nemesis is.