I knew the Apple Watch was not going to work out when Apple offered a 50% discount to their employees and my friend who works at Apple offered me to use his discount to get one. If Apple employees are not willing to buy it at 50% why would the public buy it at full price?
Because a watch is a bigger advertisement than a phone (always visible). They want people to see other people wearing apple watch everyday.
I'm I missing something or this have already been done? There's even a Billboard that filter the humidity in air to make drinkable water : http://bigthink.com/design-for...
Personally if I was going to carry around a 7" tablet device, I would just carry a real tablet that can do so much more.
*I would just carry a real tablet that can do differently stuff./FTFY
Since when people use tablet to play AAA games? NVIDIA Shield's failure is a good example about how the AAA games are yet to enter the tablet market. This is a bold move from Nintendo to succeed where all other have failed. They look at the number of tablet on the marked and are thinking about how much money they'll make if this market were massively buying their 60$ AAA games.
In my mind, it's their last attend to lead that hardware market. If they fail again, the 'switch' (get it?) to iPad/Android is going to be a lot more simpler than WiiU.
Nintendo's goose is Pokemon. Without it they would have followed sega years ago.
Nintendo would have gone a different path, but it's a little big to speculate that far. You can't really just get all the money they got from Pokémon, subtract it to their finance and yell "Hey, they would have been bankrupt with that less money". For instance, the company could have opted for a simple Wii2 instead of the extravagant WiiU and be more successful now.
Compared to SEGA's Sonic, Nintendo have far more "money maker" franchise like Mario, Zelda, Metroid, hell just look at the cast of their Smash Brother Series. Good Pokémon game would have become good Kid Icarus game instead. Calling them dependant to their best franchise is a little big.
"Proof" is an absolute. It's either waterproof or its not.
Otherwise it's water-resistant.
It might be water-resistant at a greater depth, but if you're claiming water-resistance, it should at least be resistant to any reasonable depth the average (non-diver) might use to in anyway.
"Better waterproofing" just means it wasn't waterproof before.
The apple watch is rated IPX7. The first digit ‘X’ means that there's no certified protection rating for solid particle. But we can easily guess that's it's the equivalent of 6, which is "Dust tight" protection.
The second digit '7' mean that it's certified for immersion up to 1m depth. So you can bring your watch in a small pool, but not if you like to dive.
So, in this case, TFA is probably implies that the Apple Watch 2 will be IP68 (like Samsung Gear S2) or better.
The apple watch is rated IPX7. The first digit ‘X’ means that there's no certified protection rating for solid particle. But we can easily guess that's it's the equivalent of 6, which is "Dust tight" protection.
The second digit '7' mean that it's certified for immersion up to 1m depth. So you can bring your watch in a small pool, but not if you like to dive.
So, in this case, TFA is probably implies that the Apple Watch 2 will be IP68 (like Samsung Gear S2) or better.
It baffle me that we now buy watch that fail at it's actual main purpose : being a watch.
So far, most smart watches are inferior at their main job compared to "not smart" one. And the key feature (in my mind) are :
- Give you the time efficiently - No need to recharge - It's look (will you wear it in a interview?)
So far, the first apple watch fail at those three task (like most smart watch anyway). I wouldn't be wearing one if it wasn't for a girlfriend that bough me one as a Christmas present and I'm glad that she bough me a Pebble Steel since it's the one that does the best job :
- Always-on display, so do you don't have to "wake" the watch to look at the time - A week long batteries. Still far from the years-long from standard watch but, oh well, it perform a lot better than it's competitor. - And it look good. The screen isn't black when others look at it and it's doesn't shout : "Oh look, I'm a "Apple Fanboy/Nerd" too much.
They can add any gadget they want, but for me the main flaw of the apple watch were the battery, the lack of an always-on display and it's look. So it's Three Strikes Out for me.
But what really matters is standard of living. Sure, they might make less money, but in the 1980s a cell phone cost thousands and barely worked, compared to what you can get for a few hundred bucks and $30 a month. Earning less money != worse life.
I don't know if it's the case in your region, but in mine there was a huge raise in residential value and taxes. Same could be said in a lot of other things like food.
Even if we got more cheap stuff, I got the feeling that life is more expensive than before.
I'm pretty sure it's already planned and it's a trap. Something like triple time for the employee that do overtime to upgrade your machine and a setup to do update real quick.
Well, I do feel/. should try to put a nerd/tech spin on things and not be just another general news source but it requires some tact and delicacy to not come across as "oh and 84 people died too". Maybe something like:
"Bastille Day terror in Nice, Alert App warns three hours later"
I sincerely try to understand your point but I just don't get why. Why do we need to put something "nerdy" when 95% of all discussion will be about the actual tragedy anyway?
I know that news such as this one always attract criticism about the lack of technology from "some" people ion the community, but as many others/. users have pointed out,/. is also supposed to be about "stuff that matters".
So, my question is, how did it occurred in the editor's compassionless mind that the stupid delay of the terror app was more relevant than the +300 victims of this tragedy?
Here's what I wrote in Avast Acquiring AVG thread. It's even more relevant in here.
First off, all virus come from the internet nowadays. Yeah there's USB stick, but, in most case, you plug them between stuff at your house.
Add a good browser paired with ad-block kinda remove all threat from your usual website. Now even Chrome block you from entering website with reported attack. Even sending virus through email seems like a challenge with build-in antivirus check scanning the crap out of every byte in your attached file.
And, as a final layer of security, there's the new Microsoft antivirus (Defender, ex. Microsoft Security defender) that seem to give a decent security. And it's got the most importing feature that all others antivirus seem to lack, it's not a virus itself.
How many time I have checked a slow laptop only to uninstall Norton and see it running fine again? And what about the other free antivirus? When they don't put adware and trick you into giving them money, they just simply sell your data : http://www.pcmag.com/article2/...
So, back to my initial question, are antiviruses still relevant today?
First off, all virus come from the internet nowadays. Yeah there's USB stick, but, in most case, you plug them between stuff at your house.
Add a good browser paired with ad-block kinda remove all threat from your usual website. Now even Chrome block you from entering website with reported attack. Even sending virus through email seems like a challenge with build-in antivirus check scanning the crap out of every byte in your attached file.
And, as a final layer of security, there's the new Microsoft antivirus (Defender, ex. Microsoft Security defender) that seem to give a decent security. And it's got the most importing feature that all others antivirus seem to lack, it's not a virus itself.
How many time I have checked a slow laptop only to uninstall Norton and see it running fine again? And what about the other free antivirus? When they don't put adware and trick you into giving them money, they just simply sell your data : http://www.pcmag.com/article2/...
So, back to my initial question, are antiviruses still relevant today?
Yes they could survive the trip and the crash on Europa (or other planet/Moon). But it have to feed on plant to survive no? Unless they fear they'll feed on aliens plants, or am I missing something?
..is that they haven't added or changed a bunch of stuff. Currently I'm on an LG G3; I really appreciate how the LG apps are minimal and unobtrusive.
I don't think I'm alone.
While they are far from Samsung, any forced software is a bad one in my book.
I also have a LG G3 and it happened many time that I had to root my phone to remove it's stuff. Hell, even LG's emoji are root-binded on the phone and you cannot remove them. Talk about sending LG signature every time you text someone...
If I cannot remove a supplier custom software and return the phone in it's stock status, it's crapware.
Of course text are deathless. This debacle make me remember when TV appeared and everyone were foreseeing the death of the radio. Well guess what? It's still there and it'll be remain for a long, long time because it's main flaw it's also it's biggest strength : It have no screen. There's time where you just want to listen while your eye can do something else.
In this case, it's more or less the same thing where with text. More and more people use their cellphone for social media and most of the time you just want to use it without sound and just want to read quick social update.
Slashdot Mirror
I knew the Apple Watch was not going to work out when Apple offered a 50% discount to their employees and my friend who works at Apple offered me to use his discount to get one. If Apple employees are not willing to buy it at 50% why would the public buy it at full price?
Because a watch is a bigger advertisement than a phone (always visible). They want people to see other people wearing apple watch everyday.
I'm I missing something or this have already been done? There's even a Billboard that filter the humidity in air to make drinkable water : http://bigthink.com/design-for...
Personally if I was going to carry around a 7" tablet device, I would just carry a real tablet that can do so much more.
*I would just carry a real tablet that can do differently stuff. /FTFY
Since when people use tablet to play AAA games? NVIDIA Shield's failure is a good example about how the AAA games are yet to enter the tablet market. This is a bold move from Nintendo to succeed where all other have failed. They look at the number of tablet on the marked and are thinking about how much money they'll make if this market were massively buying their 60$ AAA games.
In my mind, it's their last attend to lead that hardware market. If they fail again, the 'switch' (get it?) to iPad/Android is going to be a lot more simpler than WiiU.
Elok
Trump is not the Secretary of State. He doesn't have the country's classified documents on his server.
And it's certainly not a requirement for the head of one of the two major political party running for presidency, right?
The new Apple.
People used to copy us, now we copy others. Even Python versioning system.
With courage!
Nintendo's goose is Pokemon. Without it they would have followed sega years ago.
Nintendo would have gone a different path, but it's a little big to speculate that far. You can't really just get all the money they got from Pokémon, subtract it to their finance and yell "Hey, they would have been bankrupt with that less money". For instance, the company could have opted for a simple Wii2 instead of the extravagant WiiU and be more successful now.
Compared to SEGA's Sonic, Nintendo have far more "money maker" franchise like Mario, Zelda, Metroid, hell just look at the cast of their Smash Brother Series. Good Pokémon game would have become good Kid Icarus game instead. Calling them dependant to their best franchise is a little big.
"Proof" is an absolute. It's either waterproof or its not.
Otherwise it's water-resistant.
It might be water-resistant at a greater depth, but if you're claiming water-resistance, it should at least be resistant to any reasonable depth the average (non-diver) might use to in anyway.
"Better waterproofing" just means it wasn't waterproof before.
I guess the article talk about better IP rating : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The apple watch is rated IPX7. The first digit ‘X’ means that there's no certified protection rating for solid particle. But we can easily guess that's it's the equivalent of 6, which is "Dust tight" protection.
The second digit '7' mean that it's certified for immersion up to 1m depth. So you can bring your watch in a small pool, but not if you like to dive.
So, in this case, TFA is probably implies that the Apple Watch 2 will be IP68 (like Samsung Gear S2) or better.
Something is waterproof or it is not.
I guess the article talk about better IP rating : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The apple watch is rated IPX7. The first digit ‘X’ means that there's no certified protection rating for solid particle. But we can easily guess that's it's the equivalent of 6, which is "Dust tight" protection.
The second digit '7' mean that it's certified for immersion up to 1m depth. So you can bring your watch in a small pool, but not if you like to dive.
So, in this case, TFA is probably implies that the Apple Watch 2 will be IP68 (like Samsung Gear S2) or better.
It baffle me that we now buy watch that fail at it's actual main purpose : being a watch.
So far, most smart watches are inferior at their main job compared to "not smart" one. And the key feature (in my mind) are :
- Give you the time efficiently
- No need to recharge
- It's look (will you wear it in a interview?)
So far, the first apple watch fail at those three task (like most smart watch anyway). I wouldn't be wearing one if it wasn't for a girlfriend that bough me one as a Christmas present and I'm glad that she bough me a Pebble Steel since it's the one that does the best job :
- Always-on display, so do you don't have to "wake" the watch to look at the time
- A week long batteries. Still far from the years-long from standard watch but, oh well, it perform a lot better than it's competitor.
- And it look good. The screen isn't black when others look at it and it's doesn't shout : "Oh look, I'm a "Apple Fanboy/Nerd" too much.
They can add any gadget they want, but for me the main flaw of the apple watch were the battery, the lack of an always-on display and it's look. So it's Three Strikes Out for me.
Basically it means "on one out of 5 drops, it's guaranteed to break. For the other 4, you may have hope."
Do you know what 80% mean? It doesn't mean "1 out of 5 drop is a 100% break chance, and the other 4 out of 5 are 50% break chance".
Of course, that figure are for 0.6mm and I'm guessing manufacturer will prefer the 0.4mm which, oddly, doesn't have it's how survivability statistic.
WTF? The headline makes it seem like this is a done deal, but the text makes it clear this is legislation proposed by one of the govt ministries.
An accurate headline would read "German transportation ministry proposed requirement for black boxes in autonomous vehicles."
SMH.
*Gasp*
A misguiding headline on Slashdot?!? Who would have thought!! I'm so surprised and upset right now!!
But what really matters is standard of living. Sure, they might make less money, but in the 1980s a cell phone cost thousands and barely worked, compared to what you can get for a few hundred bucks and $30 a month. Earning less money != worse life.
I don't know if it's the case in your region, but in mine there was a huge raise in residential value and taxes. Same could be said in a lot of other things like food.
Even if we got more cheap stuff, I got the feeling that life is more expensive than before.
bring it in 5 minutes before store closing time
profit!
I'm pretty sure it's already planned and it's a trap. Something like triple time for the employee that do overtime to upgrade your machine and a setup to do update real quick.
Well, I do feel /. should try to put a nerd/tech spin on things and not be just another general news source but it requires some tact and delicacy to not come across as "oh and 84 people died too". Maybe something like:
"Bastille Day terror in Nice, Alert App warns three hours later"
I sincerely try to understand your point but I just don't get why. Why do we need to put something "nerdy" when 95% of all discussion will be about the actual tragedy anyway?
I know that news such as this one always attract criticism about the lack of technology from "some" people ion the community, but as many others /. users have pointed out, /. is also supposed to be about "stuff that matters".
So, my question is, how did it occurred in the editor's compassionless mind that the stupid delay of the terror app was more relevant than the +300 victims of this tragedy?
Didn't take long to find this little jewel to solve all your problem : https://pcpartpicker.com/
https://xkcd.com/397/
I'm glad you posted this. I didn't knew that xkcd comic and it's a good one.
Here's what I wrote in Avast Acquiring AVG thread. It's even more relevant in here.
First off, all virus come from the internet nowadays. Yeah there's USB stick, but, in most case, you plug them between stuff at your house.
Add a good browser paired with ad-block kinda remove all threat from your usual website. Now even Chrome block you from entering website with reported attack. Even sending virus through email seems like a challenge with build-in antivirus check scanning the crap out of every byte in your attached file.
And, as a final layer of security, there's the new Microsoft antivirus (Defender, ex. Microsoft Security defender) that seem to give a decent security. And it's got the most importing feature that all others antivirus seem to lack, it's not a virus itself.
How many time I have checked a slow laptop only to uninstall Norton and see it running fine again? And what about the other free antivirus? When they don't put adware and trick you into giving them money, they just simply sell your data : http://www.pcmag.com/article2/...
So, back to my initial question, are antiviruses still relevant today?
Your reliance on ad hominem (the animal porn jibe), shows the weakness of your position.
And using latin won't impress anyone here.
Windows defender sucks ass. See here: https://www.av-test.org/en/ant...
Far below industry average. So yes AV is still relevant. For more data, try here: http://www.av-comparatives.org...
And other website are saying defender is getting quite decent, especially for a free/no installation AV : http://www.pcworld.com/article...
Furthermore, the core of my point is that no virus are supposed to reach that last layer of defence. Unless you are dependant on animal porn?
First off, all virus come from the internet nowadays. Yeah there's USB stick, but, in most case, you plug them between stuff at your house.
Add a good browser paired with ad-block kinda remove all threat from your usual website. Now even Chrome block you from entering website with reported attack. Even sending virus through email seems like a challenge with build-in antivirus check scanning the crap out of every byte in your attached file.
And, as a final layer of security, there's the new Microsoft antivirus (Defender, ex. Microsoft Security defender) that seem to give a decent security. And it's got the most importing feature that all others antivirus seem to lack, it's not a virus itself.
How many time I have checked a slow laptop only to uninstall Norton and see it running fine again? And what about the other free antivirus? When they don't put adware and trick you into giving them money, they just simply sell your data : http://www.pcmag.com/article2/...
So, back to my initial question, are antiviruses still relevant today?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Possibly.
Yes they could survive the trip and the crash on Europa (or other planet/Moon). But it have to feed on plant to survive no? Unless they fear they'll feed on aliens plants, or am I missing something?
Am I missing something or NASA already confirmed that ten years ago?
..is that they haven't added or changed a bunch of stuff. Currently I'm on an LG G3; I really appreciate how the LG apps are minimal and unobtrusive.
I don't think I'm alone.
While they are far from Samsung, any forced software is a bad one in my book.
I also have a LG G3 and it happened many time that I had to root my phone to remove it's stuff. Hell, even LG's emoji are root-binded on the phone and you cannot remove them. Talk about sending LG signature every time you text someone...
If I cannot remove a supplier custom software and return the phone in it's stock status, it's crapware.
Of course text are deathless. This debacle make me remember when TV appeared and everyone were foreseeing the death of the radio. Well guess what? It's still there and it'll be remain for a long, long time because it's main flaw it's also it's biggest strength : It have no screen. There's time where you just want to listen while your eye can do something else.
In this case, it's more or less the same thing where with text. More and more people use their cellphone for social media and most of the time you just want to use it without sound and just want to read quick social update.