I think you're quite a bit too optimistic about the future with respect to the watch taking over from the phone. Even without doing 99% of what the phone does, the watch's battery life varies from modest (typical Android Wear now) to downright miserable (Apple Watch and, in the early days, Moto 360).
However, as a password killer my watch is already there. My phone is locked when it's more than about 15 feet from my Moto 360 smartwatch (and therefore, from me). I can still get into my phone easily, but others can't -- and dozens of times a day the watch stops me having to take the second or two to unlock the phone. And while it'd be awesome if the watch could be paired to my tablet at the same time and do the same thing for it (it can't), my tablet senses the presence of my phone and unlocks when it's around too, which is almost as good (if not quite as secure).
As for the PC, my laptop has a fingerprint scanner that gets me into Windows in a fraction of a second with no fuss. It can also log me into websites using Internet Exploder, but sadly not with Chrome, so we have some work to go still. Solve that nut, though, and passwords will be a thing of the past for me about 95% of the time.
...at which the blurry dots are moving. At least, if the ISS happens to be overhead at just the right moment for you. And it's daytime. And not cloudy.
There's a whole lot of hype behind urthecast, but I have a feeling this thing is rather less useful than it's been made out to be...
Exactly. There's about an equal chance it's compromised or not, and there's no way to no. It could be a double bluff, it could be a triple bluff. The only thing we know absolutely for sure is that we're not getting the whole story, because if you'd really compromised it, it'd be a valuable source of data and you wouldn't want to let the other side know. Unless, that is, you're hoping they'll think it's a double-bluff...
Sure they do, and that's why they signed a one-sided treaty that allows people to be extradited to the US for breaking a US law even though they were resident in and operating in the UK, while there is no such reciprocal right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Nope. PS4. If I'm going to lose backwards-compatibility anyway, there's no point remaining on the same platform, is there? And many, many, MANY other people have already made that value judgement and shifted platforms just like me -- which nicely confirms that Microsoft's backpedaling comes far too late.
No, he's not. Otherwise he wouldn't be in the UK in the first place, because the UK, too, has an extradition treaty with the US. He didn't enter the embassy until June 2012. That's well over a year AFTER he had leaked documents and pissed off the US government. If he had been worried about extradition, he'd never have gone to the UK in the first place, and certainly wouldn't have handed himself over to the British police.
I should have been a no-brainer for Microsoft to sell an XBOX One to. I bought the original XBOX shortly after it came out; I followed up with an XBOX 360 purchase as well. I'd never purchased any other console brand, and had been a faithful XBOX user from day one. But Microsoft XBoned its launch with a bunch of boneheaded, anti-customer moves like over-the-top DRM, always-required internet access and a refusal to provide backwards-compatibility, requiring extra shelf space and an extra input on my TV just to keep my existing games.
Sure, they have backpedaled on all of this by now, but it's far too little, too late. I haven't forgotten how Microsoft made clear to me that they saw me with disdain, and they've lost me for good. This promise of backwards-compatibility comes only out of desperation because they're being outsold more than two to one by Sony. There is zero chance I will ever consider an XBone, and the chances of me even considering their next next-gen console are slim to none unless Sony does something even more boneheaded.
They've lost the battle *and* the war, and yet now they've decided to actually put up a fight once it's already too late. It's laughable, really...
Arguably a far, FAR more important metric than performance for the majority of users, given that tablets are used mostly for media consumption, is battery life. I have a feeling that the Surface Pro 3 will trail the field badly here. (I don't know what the iPad series can manage these days, but a good Android tablet can manage close to 20 hours of screen-on time at a brightness of 170cd/m2.
If it extends the battery life by only 10%, it is almost certainly *not* worth it. Priced at $2.50, it's appearance suggests a relatively flimsy product that's unlikely to last very long before you break it. Looking at the most popular AA batteries on Amazon, price per cell is just 24 cents.
That means a 10% increase in battery life is saving you 2.4 cents per cell, so you'd have to run 104+ cells through each Batterizer you need to buy before you first break even. (And most products, in my experience, use at least two cells, suggesting that you'll need multiple Batterizers and will have to run multiple hundreds of cells through them before you break even.)
Add in the fact that despite Batterizer's claims, the deeper you drain a battery, by far the more likely it is to leak, coupled with the fact that the kinds of things that are likely to leave any significant power in the cells in my experience tend to be those which drain power very slowly, and the chances of you saving any money with Batterizer are zip. This is a product for morons who lack the ability to think critically: No more, no less.
I've routinely tested my batteries for years, and only a handful of kids toys died at 1.3 to 1.35V, but they were in the extreme minority. And the summary is wrong, anyway -- Batterizer didn't claim 1.3 volts, they claimed 1.35 to 1.4 volts, which is utter nonsense. I've never seen a single product I own that died at 1.4 volts. (And the Batterizer PR folks didn't say "some" products, they said "most" or even all, which is a bald-faced lie.)
Again, what value does the show/hide link add for the reader, versus just showing the content in the first place? Frankly, it seems to me to have been designed NOT to be noticed, and therefore not to be used.
Except I'm not American. I am British by descent, and have lived and worked on three continents. But your point is irrelevant anyway: The term is commonly used outside the USA as well. For example:
Just because you're ignorant of its usage, that doesn't mean the term isn't broadly used around the world in countries with large English-speaking populations.
Do go ahead and enlighten me, then. What, precisely, is the reason for the content to be hidden from the page until a link is clicked *other* than to make it less likely to be noticed, and force people to watch the video that they've made pretty clear they don't want to watch in the first place?
Tell you what, if Slashdot gets any more videocentric, I'll just take my clicks elsewhere. I'm certainly not forced to watch anything, and indeed I don't watch Slashdot's videos. The transcript beneath, rather bizarrely hidden to try and get me to watch the video instead, told me I wasn't missing anything in all of about five seconds.;-)
NO VIDEO, SLASHDOT. Interviews are much better when read, not when I have to sit through a lengthy video to get the same information much more slowly with no visual benefit over just reading it myself.
sideslash:3. Obviously the demo uses phrases that work. I guarantee you an ordinary person will often get "Sorry, I didn't understand the question" or whatever SoundHound's equivalent is.
Got it in one. That should also have been obvious to the idiot "reviewer" when...
"We tried pinging Google Now with the same query and were directed to a list of Google search results, which showed a bunch of entries for Hound."
Ever stop to consider why you might get a bunch of entries for Hound when you search for the expression using Google Now, Paul Lilly of Hothardware? I can tell you why. Because you're using stock expressions provided by the PR guy for Soundhound. Try making up similarly complex phrases of your own that DON'T follow the the precise structure provided by the PR guy, and I guarantee the results will suddenly look much, much less impressive.
I mourn for the days of real journalism using critical thinking, rather than hyped up press release copy.
Yes, because "Upgrading App 1 of 11,234" is so much better.
/Note: I am an Android user, and wouldn't switch my phone or tablet to another OS. However, I can recognize nonsense when I see it, and criticizing the update system when it's basically the same as any other OS is nonsense.
Because the Apple Watch has an incredibly dated, bland, boring design that looks like a cross between retro and a child's toy. Enough with the hype about the Apple Watch already -- the reviews have slated it for its terrible interface, poor apps and terrible battery life. Next topic, please?
And the immediate response would be a reduction in the amount of wasteful packaging, as well as a smaller reduction in the amount of goods being purchased. Not to mention that locally-produced goods would have a significant advantage in cost. Sounds like a win in all respects. Let's do it!
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're quite a bit too optimistic about the future with respect to the watch taking over from the phone. Even without doing 99% of what the phone does, the watch's battery life varies from modest (typical Android Wear now) to downright miserable (Apple Watch and, in the early days, Moto 360).
However, as a password killer my watch is already there. My phone is locked when it's more than about 15 feet from my Moto 360 smartwatch (and therefore, from me). I can still get into my phone easily, but others can't -- and dozens of times a day the watch stops me having to take the second or two to unlock the phone. And while it'd be awesome if the watch could be paired to my tablet at the same time and do the same thing for it (it can't), my tablet senses the presence of my phone and unlocks when it's around too, which is almost as good (if not quite as secure).
As for the PC, my laptop has a fingerprint scanner that gets me into Windows in a fraction of a second with no fuss. It can also log me into websites using Internet Exploder, but sadly not with Chrome, so we have some work to go still. Solve that nut, though, and passwords will be a thing of the past for me about 95% of the time.
no way to know, even. Blast these useless sausage fingers of mine!
...at which the blurry dots are moving. At least, if the ISS happens to be overhead at just the right moment for you. And it's daytime. And not cloudy.
There's a whole lot of hype behind urthecast, but I have a feeling this thing is rather less useful than it's been made out to be...
Exactly. There's about an equal chance it's compromised or not, and there's no way to no. It could be a double bluff, it could be a triple bluff. The only thing we know absolutely for sure is that we're not getting the whole story, because if you'd really compromised it, it'd be a valuable source of data and you wouldn't want to let the other side know. Unless, that is, you're hoping they'll think it's a double-bluff...
Sure they do, and that's why they signed a one-sided treaty that allows people to be extradited to the US for breaking a US law even though they were resident in and operating in the UK, while there is no such reciprocal right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Nope. PS4. If I'm going to lose backwards-compatibility anyway, there's no point remaining on the same platform, is there? And many, many, MANY other people have already made that value judgement and shifted platforms just like me -- which nicely confirms that Microsoft's backpedaling comes far too late.
No, he's not. Otherwise he wouldn't be in the UK in the first place, because the UK, too, has an extradition treaty with the US. He didn't enter the embassy until June 2012. That's well over a year AFTER he had leaked documents and pissed off the US government. If he had been worried about extradition, he'd never have gone to the UK in the first place, and certainly wouldn't have handed himself over to the British police.
I should have been a no-brainer for Microsoft to sell an XBOX One to. I bought the original XBOX shortly after it came out; I followed up with an XBOX 360 purchase as well. I'd never purchased any other console brand, and had been a faithful XBOX user from day one. But Microsoft XBoned its launch with a bunch of boneheaded, anti-customer moves like over-the-top DRM, always-required internet access and a refusal to provide backwards-compatibility, requiring extra shelf space and an extra input on my TV just to keep my existing games.
Sure, they have backpedaled on all of this by now, but it's far too little, too late. I haven't forgotten how Microsoft made clear to me that they saw me with disdain, and they've lost me for good. This promise of backwards-compatibility comes only out of desperation because they're being outsold more than two to one by Sony. There is zero chance I will ever consider an XBone, and the chances of me even considering their next next-gen console are slim to none unless Sony does something even more boneheaded.
They've lost the battle *and* the war, and yet now they've decided to actually put up a fight once it's already too late. It's laughable, really...
Arguably a far, FAR more important metric than performance for the majority of users, given that tablets are used mostly for media consumption, is battery life. I have a feeling that the Surface Pro 3 will trail the field badly here. (I don't know what the iPad series can manage these days, but a good Android tablet can manage close to 20 hours of screen-on time at a brightness of 170cd/m2.
Perhaps you should stop buying only poorly-designed crap.
If it extends the battery life by only 10%, it is almost certainly *not* worth it. Priced at $2.50, it's appearance suggests a relatively flimsy product that's unlikely to last very long before you break it. Looking at the most popular AA batteries on Amazon, price per cell is just 24 cents.
That means a 10% increase in battery life is saving you 2.4 cents per cell, so you'd have to run 104+ cells through each Batterizer you need to buy before you first break even. (And most products, in my experience, use at least two cells, suggesting that you'll need multiple Batterizers and will have to run multiple hundreds of cells through them before you break even.)
Add in the fact that despite Batterizer's claims, the deeper you drain a battery, by far the more likely it is to leak, coupled with the fact that the kinds of things that are likely to leave any significant power in the cells in my experience tend to be those which drain power very slowly, and the chances of you saving any money with Batterizer are zip. This is a product for morons who lack the ability to think critically: No more, no less.
I've routinely tested my batteries for years, and only a handful of kids toys died at 1.3 to 1.35V, but they were in the extreme minority. And the summary is wrong, anyway -- Batterizer didn't claim 1.3 volts, they claimed 1.35 to 1.4 volts, which is utter nonsense. I've never seen a single product I own that died at 1.4 volts. (And the Batterizer PR folks didn't say "some" products, they said "most" or even all, which is a bald-faced lie.)
Again, what value does the show/hide link add for the reader, versus just showing the content in the first place? Frankly, it seems to me to have been designed NOT to be noticed, and therefore not to be used.
Except I'm not American. I am British by descent, and have lived and worked on three continents. But your point is irrelevant anyway: The term is commonly used outside the USA as well. For example:
UK:
http://arstechnica.co.uk/gamin...
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/new...
http://www.theguardian.com/tec...
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news...
http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/...
CA:
http://circanews.com/news/cord...
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/n...
http://www.chathamdailynews.ca...
http://www.canadiancordcutting...
http://shayne.tablotvweb.nomad...
AU:
http://www.computerworld.com.a...
http://www.theaustralian.com.a...
http://www.businessinsider.com...
http://www.cnet.com/au/news/co...
http://www.pcauthority.com.au/...
Just because you're ignorant of its usage, that doesn't mean the term isn't broadly used around the world in countries with large English-speaking populations.
Do go ahead and enlighten me, then. What, precisely, is the reason for the content to be hidden from the page until a link is clicked *other* than to make it less likely to be noticed, and force people to watch the video that they've made pretty clear they don't want to watch in the first place?
Tell you what, if Slashdot gets any more videocentric, I'll just take my clicks elsewhere. I'm certainly not forced to watch anything, and indeed I don't watch Slashdot's videos. The transcript beneath, rather bizarrely hidden to try and get me to watch the video instead, told me I wasn't missing anything in all of about five seconds. ;-)
NO VIDEO, SLASHDOT. Interviews are much better when read, not when I have to sit through a lengthy video to get the same information much more slowly with no visual benefit over just reading it myself.
You do realize that somebody who uses terms like "buzzword bingo" is probably a native English speaker, making your comment utterly irrelevant, right?
sideslash: 3. Obviously the demo uses phrases that work. I guarantee you an ordinary person will often get "Sorry, I didn't understand the question" or whatever SoundHound's equivalent is.
Got it in one. That should also have been obvious to the idiot "reviewer" when...
"We tried pinging Google Now with the same query and were directed to a list of Google search results, which showed a bunch of entries for Hound."
Ever stop to consider why you might get a bunch of entries for Hound when you search for the expression using Google Now, Paul Lilly of Hothardware? I can tell you why. Because you're using stock expressions provided by the PR guy for Soundhound. Try making up similarly complex phrases of your own that DON'T follow the the precise structure provided by the PR guy, and I guarantee the results will suddenly look much, much less impressive.
I mourn for the days of real journalism using critical thinking, rather than hyped up press release copy.
The latest...? You do realize this term has been in regular usage for close to a decade now, right?
[citationneeded.jpg]
Yes, because "Upgrading App 1 of 11,234" is so much better.
/Note: I am an Android user, and wouldn't switch my phone or tablet to another OS. However, I can recognize nonsense when I see it, and criticizing the update system when it's basically the same as any other OS is nonsense.
If it has nothing to do with the Apple Watch, why are we promoting it in the summary? (That sound was my point whooshing right over your head.)
Because the Apple Watch has an incredibly dated, bland, boring design that looks like a cross between retro and a child's toy. Enough with the hype about the Apple Watch already -- the reviews have slated it for its terrible interface, poor apps and terrible battery life. Next topic, please?
And the immediate response would be a reduction in the amount of wasteful packaging, as well as a smaller reduction in the amount of goods being purchased. Not to mention that locally-produced goods would have a significant advantage in cost. Sounds like a win in all respects. Let's do it!