At least until a smart phone becomes cheaper than a dumb phone - which imho is possible considering a smart phone doesn't have all those mechanical buttons a dumb phone has. And a dozen or so buttons may very well be more expensive to produce than a single touch screen display.
It's not the price. It's the battery life. My wife wants a phone that can stay turned on for over a week without charging. I want a phone that can stay in my car, turned off, and work after three months, for emergencies.
That is a foolish statement coming even from a second-rate moron. Nothing is perfectly safe, especially your bed. It is statistically true that more people die in bed than anyplace else. Therefore, bed is the most dangerous place to be. Don't go to bed tonight!
Just for fun, google for "deaths falling out of bed". Apparently 450 cases in the USA, and comparable numbers in many other countries (it didn't say which time frame though, which makes the number worthless),
Unlike RMS, you people have short memory. Kazaa the company was quite sleazy, especially towards the end. Kazaa the program installed various malware onto users computer, without notification or opt-out. For example spyware Cydoor and hijacker New.net, as well as many others. Read it up on Wikipedia.
But that is not what RMS was complaining about. If they had been the greatest saints on earth, and if they had donated all the income from sales to some good cause, Stallman's criticism would have been exactly the same: Kazaa was evil because it wasn't so-called "free" software.
I respect RMS' position on software, even if I don't fully agree with it. As I understand it, he says that a software developer should be able to make money by selling services, e.g. maintaining/customizing software, and there are people out there who do just that.
On the other hand: Who the fuck is this "RMS" guy to tell me how to make my living? And what would Emily White say to him? "Thank you for your advice?" More likely: "Get out of my face, you look like a bloody tramp and you smell".
But I think the argument falls down for music. Sure, following the 'services' argument, performers can make a living (in theory) by performing the music. But not all song-writers are also performers. So in this case, how would RMS propose that a songwriter get reimbursed? What about the people involved in the production of music, e.g. sound engineers.
Question: If you had had the idea of creating "Angry Birds", how would you have managed to make a living fom "services"?
Of course the DAC is in the dock. The dock in this case is the computer, and the iThingy is the server. It's just downloading a file and playing it. How that's patentable in this day and age boggles the mind. Just because they take a traditional 'computer' app to play digital music files and package it in a single-purpose device doesn't mean they've invented anything.
You should really have read what this is about, because what you are saying here has nothing whatsoever to do with the case. Hint: This whole case has nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with Apple. Apple isn't suing anyone, and Apple isn't being sued.
Besides, this stuff is getting crazy. Somebody designs a system. Somebody else says, hey, if we moved this component of the system from right here to over there, making one wire longer, and one wire shorter, then it would have some benefit. It sounds like this hinged on where the DAC was placed.
It hinged on whether the DAC was part of the docking station (which was accused of infringing on a Bose patent) or part of the iDevice. If I'm accused of stealing your car, surely whether the car is placed in my garage or whether it is still placed in your garage makes a difference.
Finally lets not forget that there is just simply more opportunity for fatal error with an automatically driven car. There is going to be software glitches causing cars to veer off a cliff. Sensors are going to fail causing the computer to make the wrong calculations for position. I mean what happens if a passing car kicks up a splash of water or slush that suddenly blocks a visual sensor, the car is going to think its about to hit another vehicle and slam on the brakes or veer away suddenly.
Software glitches happen in human drivers all the time. Currently, visual sensors of humans are inside the car protected by the wind screen, so why not for autonomous cars?
I always find it amazing how people are so defeatist that they believe problems cannot possibly be solved. Replace sensor with camera with high speed image recognition. Then consider that a computer driven car has much better reaction time than a human, doesn't panic, is much more capable of calculating a path that the car will follow, and can communicate with other cars. So if let's say some cars tyre explodes and the car changes speed and course very abruptly, autonomous cars would find it much easier to avoid the problem. Let's say a car in the middle lane stops abruptly without any reason. The following cars could just merge into the other lanes, with some cars on the outside lanes accelerating, others slowing down, to create the required gaps.
No, you just send you're car to a parking lot complex at the edge of the city. It doesn't have to be near you.
Autonomous cars could park side by side, or one behind the other with no gap. Take a small space where normally five cars would park, side by side with enough space to allow drivers to get in and out. Autonomous cars might fit seven cars with almost no gap in between, plus another three behind them. When you need your car, some other cars might have to move a bit, then your car comes out of the parking spot.
Air resistance is roughly proportional to the square of the vehicle speed. This means that the influence of air resistance on fuel efficiency is roughly linear in vehicle speed.
No, it is worse than linear. The _force_ of the wind is quadratic with speed. Since power = force * speed, the power needed is cubic with speed. That means at double speed you spend eight times more power to overcome wind resistance, but since you also cover twice the distance, the fuel used per mile grows quadratic. Rolling resistance is constant force, and constant fuel per mile independent of speed. And I think engine losses are quadratic with rpm, so choosing a higher gear will safe fuel - as long as you are in a range where the engine works reasonably well.
Have you reviewed the millions of lines in the Linux kernel? Have you reviewed OpenSSL? Have you reviewed GnuPG? Have you reviewed glibc, libstdc++, ld, bash, gcc, your python interpreter, your X server, your email client, your web browser, etc?
There was a story a while ago with some reasonable mathematics that showed that if your CPU delivers a predictable incorrect result for _one_ 64x64 bit multiplication then this could be used to crack certain encryption. And that would be totally undetectable.
Fact is, domestic and foreign govt agencies have moles working at Microsoft and apple to insert back doors or defeat encryption at the source. This is how stuff like flame happens. The only way out of this is to use an open source operating system where you can do your own code review, and where one guy doesn't have a bottle neck of control. Same goes for ios vs android.
If that rabid nonsense that you are posting about Microsoft and Apple were true, what makes you think that the Linux code that you look at is the Linux code that gets compiled and shipped?
It appears that any Mac purchased within the last 3.5 years is ok, judging by the list on that site. I'd say that it's not too horrifying that a computer 4 years old may not run the latest upcoming system. It's a tough balancing act deciding between supporting older equipment, but nobody should be surprised that Apple only looks forward in that regard. That's how they've always been.
And in previous years, Apple had more time between releases. If 10.8 were released one year from now, then it would have been 4.5 year old machines.
it is supposed to and Google gets fined? Shouldn't Apple also get fined?
You go to jail for burglary. You don't go to jail for selling locks that a highly experienced burglar can open. Apple did provide security against Random J. Hacker, they just didn't provide enough security against a multi billion dollar company working hard to break the security.
I bet if you built a safe then Google could find someone who manages to open it as well.
If you cannot disassemble them to separate the components, then they are not recyclable. Thats the big issue here: Apple is now making their products so it is impossible to taking it apart by gluing dissimilar components together.
You use the word "impossible" very lightly. If you were working for the recycler who gets a few hundred thousand Apple laptops for recycling, and your boss would tell you to figure out how to recycle them, would you say "its impossible"? I think your boss would say "if it is impossible for you, I'll hire someone who can figure it out".
make sure it is required in judgment that the money do not go to the guardian, but is stored on an account which can't be touched until 18, and on which the guardian has no procuration.
In other words, make sure the kids are raised in poverty.
I suggest that people should need a license to use advanced technology like mobile phones. And someone sticking their mobile phone into a microwave should lose that license for life.
Apparently Apple dump the problem of recycling their devices onto a third-party contractor, which gives them a lot of plausible deniability. I'd be interested to see an investigation into what actually happens to Apple hardware once it's handed over for recycling - even if Apple has said that the hardware that's handed over is recycled, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's actually economically feasible for its recycling subcontractors to do so.
Using a third-party contractor doesn't give Apple any plausible deniablity. They have full responsibility. But in the end, what you are saying is that Apple is evil because you didn't visit the place where the recycling happened.
However, this discussion here is about EPEAT, and their requirement that products must be capable of being taken apart with bare hands or with commonly available tools. That is a requirement because all the crap that is shipped to third world countries, where someone with no regards for their environment (because feeding hungry children is more important) takes them apart. Whatever recycler Apple is using, they would have the right tools. So EPEAT rules for protecting uneducated and unequipped workers in third world countries are pointless as long as Apple guarantees that their products are recycled.
The new Apple batteries which are glued in to the machines can't be replaced, full-stop. When removed, they rupture. Surely the government should act responsibly, no?
Apple offers battery replacement for these batteries for $199. Now we apply Occam's razor to the question: Is it more likely that Apple designed the batteries and at the same time designed a way how Apple can replace them without rupturing, or is it more likely that this never occured to Apple, and when the battery ruptures and spills its content inside the MacBook, they give you a new laptop for $199?
What the OP asked is not "Differential GPS"; actually it is the opposite.
We can assume that if you measure GPS coordinates at a given time and location, you will have a systematic error (inaccuracy in satellite position, different speed of radio signal due to weather) that is the same for all GPS receivers in an area, plus a random error different from GPS to GPS. Taking lots of measurements would tend to cancel out the random errors and leave you with the systematic error.
With differential GPS, you put one GPS at a known location, compare its known location with its measured location, and you get the systematic error + random error of that GPS. Then you take a second GPS at an unknown location, subtract the known error of the first GPS, and your second location is known with (twice random error).
How is that a bad thing? This is not a key that is used to protect military secrets, it's a key that serves exactly one purpose: to prevent people from running modified software.
Anyone who knows the key can then write malicious software that can be installed. For example, a hacked Windows 8 version. On any device made by any OEM that allowed not only Windows 8, but also Ubuntu on their device. I know you don't care, but Microsoft does, and if that happens, they will do their best to bankrupt whoever is responsible.
Bullshit. Source code is a trade secret, and nobody is 'entitled' to those. The only legitimate reason for requiring a 'deposit' (escrow) of source code is that you are so dependent on it that it would cause you irreparable harm if it were no longer available. And in that case, you can get the software put in escrow, but it is going to cost you a fortune. Games sure as hell don't qualify for escrow.
Source code is rarely a trade secret. Source code is obviously copyright protected, so if you had a copy of my source code, you wouldn't be allowed to use it without some license. And after spending lots of time and money on writing the source code, I obviously have some advantage over you by having the right to use the source code, and you don't.
But for source code to be a trade secret, I would need to have a commercial advantage over you by the fact that I can see the source code, and you can't. That is in many situations not the case.
Now imagine the lowest two of your ten people team just left. Who would you want as replacement? Certainly not anybody who is better than you at their job.
Slashdot Mirror
At least until a smart phone becomes cheaper than a dumb phone - which imho is possible considering a smart phone doesn't have all those mechanical buttons a dumb phone has. And a dozen or so buttons may very well be more expensive to produce than a single touch screen display.
It's not the price. It's the battery life. My wife wants a phone that can stay turned on for over a week without charging. I want a phone that can stay in my car, turned off, and work after three months, for emergencies.
Pedestrians and cyclists are rarely hit on highways, which would be more or less the only place where faster car speed would come into play.
UK statistics: Four percent of traffic fatalities are on motorways. Of these, 20 percent are pedestrians.
That is a foolish statement coming even from a second-rate moron. Nothing is perfectly safe, especially your bed. It is statistically true that more people die in bed than anyplace else. Therefore, bed is the most dangerous place to be. Don't go to bed tonight!
Just for fun, google for "deaths falling out of bed". Apparently 450 cases in the USA, and comparable numbers in many other countries (it didn't say which time frame though, which makes the number worthless),
Unlike RMS, you people have short memory. Kazaa the company was quite sleazy, especially towards the end. Kazaa the program installed various malware onto users computer, without notification or opt-out. For example spyware Cydoor and hijacker New.net, as well as many others. Read it up on Wikipedia.
But that is not what RMS was complaining about. If they had been the greatest saints on earth, and if they had donated all the income from sales to some good cause, Stallman's criticism would have been exactly the same: Kazaa was evil because it wasn't so-called "free" software.
I respect RMS' position on software, even if I don't fully agree with it. As I understand it, he says that a software developer should be able to make money by selling services, e.g. maintaining/customizing software, and there are people out there who do just that.
On the other hand: Who the fuck is this "RMS" guy to tell me how to make my living? And what would Emily White say to him? "Thank you for your advice?" More likely: "Get out of my face, you look like a bloody tramp and you smell".
But I think the argument falls down for music. Sure, following the 'services' argument, performers can make a living (in theory) by performing the music. But not all song-writers are also performers. So in this case, how would RMS propose that a songwriter get reimbursed? What about the people involved in the production of music, e.g. sound engineers.
Question: If you had had the idea of creating "Angry Birds", how would you have managed to make a living fom "services"?
Of course the DAC is in the dock. The dock in this case is the computer, and the iThingy is the server. It's just downloading a file and playing it. How that's patentable in this day and age boggles the mind. Just because they take a traditional 'computer' app to play digital music files and package it in a single-purpose device doesn't mean they've invented anything.
You should really have read what this is about, because what you are saying here has nothing whatsoever to do with the case. Hint: This whole case has nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with Apple. Apple isn't suing anyone, and Apple isn't being sued.
Besides, this stuff is getting crazy. Somebody designs a system. Somebody else says, hey, if we moved this component of the system from right here to over there, making one wire longer, and one wire shorter, then it would have some benefit. It sounds like this hinged on where the DAC was placed.
It hinged on whether the DAC was part of the docking station (which was accused of infringing on a Bose patent) or part of the iDevice. If I'm accused of stealing your car, surely whether the car is placed in my garage or whether it is still placed in your garage makes a difference.
Finally lets not forget that there is just simply more opportunity for fatal error with an automatically driven car. There is going to be software glitches causing cars to veer off a cliff. Sensors are going to fail causing the computer to make the wrong calculations for position. I mean what happens if a passing car kicks up a splash of water or slush that suddenly blocks a visual sensor, the car is going to think its about to hit another vehicle and slam on the brakes or veer away suddenly.
Software glitches happen in human drivers all the time. Currently, visual sensors of humans are inside the car protected by the wind screen, so why not for autonomous cars?
I always find it amazing how people are so defeatist that they believe problems cannot possibly be solved. Replace sensor with camera with high speed image recognition. Then consider that a computer driven car has much better reaction time than a human, doesn't panic, is much more capable of calculating a path that the car will follow, and can communicate with other cars. So if let's say some cars tyre explodes and the car changes speed and course very abruptly, autonomous cars would find it much easier to avoid the problem. Let's say a car in the middle lane stops abruptly without any reason. The following cars could just merge into the other lanes, with some cars on the outside lanes accelerating, others slowing down, to create the required gaps.
No, you just send you're car to a parking lot complex at the edge of the city. It doesn't have to be near you.
Autonomous cars could park side by side, or one behind the other with no gap. Take a small space where normally five cars would park, side by side with enough space to allow drivers to get in and out. Autonomous cars might fit seven cars with almost no gap in between, plus another three behind them. When you need your car, some other cars might have to move a bit, then your car comes out of the parking spot.
Air resistance is roughly proportional to the square of the vehicle speed. This means that the influence of air resistance on fuel efficiency is roughly linear in vehicle speed.
No, it is worse than linear. The _force_ of the wind is quadratic with speed. Since power = force * speed, the power needed is cubic with speed. That means at double speed you spend eight times more power to overcome wind resistance, but since you also cover twice the distance, the fuel used per mile grows quadratic. Rolling resistance is constant force, and constant fuel per mile independent of speed. And I think engine losses are quadratic with rpm, so choosing a higher gear will safe fuel - as long as you are in a range where the engine works reasonably well.
Have you reviewed the millions of lines in the Linux kernel? Have you reviewed OpenSSL? Have you reviewed GnuPG? Have you reviewed glibc, libstdc++, ld, bash, gcc, your python interpreter, your X server, your email client, your web browser, etc?
There was a story a while ago with some reasonable mathematics that showed that if your CPU delivers a predictable incorrect result for _one_ 64x64 bit multiplication then this could be used to crack certain encryption. And that would be totally undetectable.
Fact is, domestic and foreign govt agencies have moles working at Microsoft and apple to insert back doors or defeat encryption at the source. This is how stuff like flame happens. The only way out of this is to use an open source operating system where you can do your own code review, and where one guy doesn't have a bottle neck of control. Same goes for ios vs android.
If that rabid nonsense that you are posting about Microsoft and Apple were true, what makes you think that the Linux code that you look at is the Linux code that gets compiled and shipped?
It appears that any Mac purchased within the last 3.5 years is ok, judging by the list on that site. I'd say that it's not too horrifying that a computer 4 years old may not run the latest upcoming system. It's a tough balancing act deciding between supporting older equipment, but nobody should be surprised that Apple only looks forward in that regard. That's how they've always been.
And in previous years, Apple had more time between releases. If 10.8 were released one year from now, then it would have been 4.5 year old machines.
it is supposed to and Google gets fined? Shouldn't Apple also get fined?
You go to jail for burglary. You don't go to jail for selling locks that a highly experienced burglar can open. Apple did provide security against Random J. Hacker, they just didn't provide enough security against a multi billion dollar company working hard to break the security.
I bet if you built a safe then Google could find someone who manages to open it as well.
If you cannot disassemble them to separate the components, then they are not recyclable. Thats the big issue here: Apple is now making their products so it is impossible to taking it apart by gluing dissimilar components together.
You use the word "impossible" very lightly. If you were working for the recycler who gets a few hundred thousand Apple laptops for recycling, and your boss would tell you to figure out how to recycle them, would you say "its impossible"? I think your boss would say "if it is impossible for you, I'll hire someone who can figure it out".
make sure it is required in judgment that the money do not go to the guardian, but is stored on an account which can't be touched until 18, and on which the guardian has no procuration.
In other words, make sure the kids are raised in poverty.
That may cost Apple its market share.
That would cost Apple some customers (customers that you really don't want as your customers, actually), but I doubt it would cost them market share.
I suggest that people should need a license to use advanced technology like mobile phones. And someone sticking their mobile phone into a microwave should lose that license for life.
Apparently Apple dump the problem of recycling their devices onto a third-party contractor, which gives them a lot of plausible deniability. I'd be interested to see an investigation into what actually happens to Apple hardware once it's handed over for recycling - even if Apple has said that the hardware that's handed over is recycled, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's actually economically feasible for its recycling subcontractors to do so.
Using a third-party contractor doesn't give Apple any plausible deniablity. They have full responsibility. But in the end, what you are saying is that Apple is evil because you didn't visit the place where the recycling happened.
However, this discussion here is about EPEAT, and their requirement that products must be capable of being taken apart with bare hands or with commonly available tools. That is a requirement because all the crap that is shipped to third world countries, where someone with no regards for their environment (because feeding hungry children is more important) takes them apart. Whatever recycler Apple is using, they would have the right tools. So EPEAT rules for protecting uneducated and unequipped workers in third world countries are pointless as long as Apple guarantees that their products are recycled.
The new Apple batteries which are glued in to the machines can't be replaced, full-stop. When removed, they rupture. Surely the government should act responsibly, no?
Apple offers battery replacement for these batteries for $199. Now we apply Occam's razor to the question: Is it more likely that Apple designed the batteries and at the same time designed a way how Apple can replace them without rupturing, or is it more likely that this never occured to Apple, and when the battery ruptures and spills its content inside the MacBook, they give you a new laptop for $199?
What the OP asked is not "Differential GPS"; actually it is the opposite.
We can assume that if you measure GPS coordinates at a given time and location, you will have a systematic error (inaccuracy in satellite position, different speed of radio signal due to weather) that is the same for all GPS receivers in an area, plus a random error different from GPS to GPS. Taking lots of measurements would tend to cancel out the random errors and leave you with the systematic error.
With differential GPS, you put one GPS at a known location, compare its known location with its measured location, and you get the systematic error + random error of that GPS. Then you take a second GPS at an unknown location, subtract the known error of the first GPS, and your second location is known with (twice random error).
How is that a bad thing? This is not a key that is used to protect military secrets, it's a key that serves exactly one purpose: to prevent people from running modified software.
Anyone who knows the key can then write malicious software that can be installed. For example, a hacked Windows 8 version. On any device made by any OEM that allowed not only Windows 8, but also Ubuntu on their device. I know you don't care, but Microsoft does, and if that happens, they will do their best to bankrupt whoever is responsible.
Bullshit. Source code is a trade secret, and nobody is 'entitled' to those. The only legitimate reason for requiring a 'deposit' (escrow) of source code is that you are so dependent on it that it would cause you irreparable harm if it were no longer available. And in that case, you can get the software put in escrow, but it is going to cost you a fortune. Games sure as hell don't qualify for escrow.
Source code is rarely a trade secret. Source code is obviously copyright protected, so if you had a copy of my source code, you wouldn't be allowed to use it without some license. And after spending lots of time and money on writing the source code, I obviously have some advantage over you by having the right to use the source code, and you don't.
But for source code to be a trade secret, I would need to have a commercial advantage over you by the fact that I can see the source code, and you can't. That is in many situations not the case.
Now imagine the lowest two of your ten people team just left. Who would you want as replacement? Certainly not anybody who is better than you at their job.