With a dongle it would use the same amount as it does today to convert to an audio stream
Until you add in a USB controller on each end (yes, Lightning is USB), the Lightning "auth" chip in the port, the Lightning "auth" chip in the plug, and resistive losses in the cable that will cause an external DAC and amplifier to draw more current from the phone just to get the same amount of power (lower voltage and higher amperage) at the other end.
You can see this today, if you don't believe me. There are external iPhone DACs on the market, the iPhone shuts down its DAC and amp when you plug one in. You get about 10% less iTunes listening time when using one.
The UIs have different use cases; which one is better depends on who is using the device and how they're using it. I find that Android's UI lends itself to grabbing bits of info very quickly, much moreso than iOS, which makes it a better choice for how I use my phone; I do love my S7. However, for longer or more involved tasks, where interacting with the OS is trumped by interacting with the app, I do find iOS to be more usable, thus why I've thrown out more than a handful of Android tablet but still have (and use) every iPad I've ever owned, a total of four ranging from the original iPad to the newest iPad Pro 9.7" model.
Sounds like you like comparing low-end devices to devices that cost 2.5x as much. Have you ever compared a $2000 PC laptop to an MBP? I'm typing on my MBP right now because my $1700 PC laptop, the one I actually work on, the one that absolutely destroys my 2014 MBP despite being a 3mo older model, lives on my desk most of the time, while the MBP lives in my living room because it just can't keep up. Try making a similar comparison with Android; find a $649 flagship device to compare to the iPhone 6S ot a $749 flagship device to compare to the iPhone 6S Plus. Android has come a long way since the Motorola Atrix was top-of-the-line; most mid-to-low-end Android phones available don't quite meet that mark (and that was more than 5 years ago) so there's really no comparing them to the high-end.
You want to say one platform is better than the other? Compare like to like; stick with the high-end of both or your comparison is invalid.
People will claim "they're removing the DAC and amplifier, those will live in the headphones now, so it won't affect battery life" and, assuming the headphone port uses a different DAC and amp than the speaker, well, they'll still be wrong. Even if its a separate DAC and amp in the phone, and that DAC and amp are going away, the data now has to go through the USB controller (Lightning is USB) in the phone, through the "authenticity" chip in the Lightning port, through the "authenticity" chip in the Lightning plug, through the cable (resistive loss), through the USB controller in the headphones, to the DAC in the headphones, then to the amp in the headphones. Each of those steps is added power consumption.
The two USB controllers and the two Lightning "auth" chips are completely new parts in the audio path; they're completely new sources of power drain while playing audio over headphones plugged directly into the phone. The resistive losses of the cable (no matter how small) will cause the DAC and amplifier in the headphones to draw more current than a DAC and amplifier located on the phone's motherboard, just to end up with slightly higher current at a slightly lower voltage at the other end.
From a purely on-paper engineering perspective, they're going to need a 10% bigger battery to get the same iTunes playback time, assuming the same DAC and amplifier that exist within the phone are used in the headphones. This seems to fit with the currently available crop of Lightning DAC adapters, which reduce the phone's battery life by approximately 10% while in use, despite the phone's internal DAC and amplifier shutting down when one is plugged in.
I'm sure they will; they'll think of the ability to sell a $40 charge cable with a pigtail to plug your lightning headphones into; i might actually buy one if you can also plug the Apple Pencil into it to charge both it and an iPad Pro at the same time; iPhone just isn't for me, but I do love my iPad.
Second, if you want third party headphones, you don't need an adaptor unless you want to use them with your iPad, iPod, laptop, Android devices, other MP3 players, or anything else you already own
Firefox does definitely have a memory leak; for me it takes a couple weeks, maybe a month, to become an issue. In that same timeframe, I often catch Chrome using the same amount of RAM, or more, with the same tabs open (testing the same work on the same sites); eventually, Firefox does crap itself and nearly double its RAM usage, though I'm not sure if that's Firefox or one of my add-ons. I could disable add-ons to find out, but I don't want to be without them for a month or longer; it happens so rarely that it's not an issue worth my time to track down. I just kill it, reopen it, restore the session, and carry on.
For me, it only seems to get sluggish when I have a broken or poorly-coded add-on, or when it craps itself after a few weeks. I've also gone into about:config and turned off all the superfluous crap; and I'm running the developer builds, so that might have something to do with it, as well.
The interesting part is actually how Firefox is the worst performing browser in the test.
Did you not even read TFS? Because:
Google's Chrome browser was the first to completely exhaust the battery
Which leads to:
We often hear from Firefox supporters that Firefox is more efficient than Chrome and other browsers.
It's clearly more efficient than Chrome, as per the results of this test.
I can't afford to be ideology-driven, as I'm a web developer and must test my work in all browsers. I'm comparing them side-by-side, day in and day out; yes, if you manage to wrangle all of Chrome's little sub-processes and add up their memory usage, Chrome is using more memory about half the time. Sometimes it swings in the other direction, and by about the same amount, so I'd say, honestly, on average they use about the same amount of RAM.
The market hasn't moved on to bluetooth headsets. A segment of the market uses bluetooth headsets (myself included) but I'd hardly say we've moved on to them. They're great for making calls or listening to music in noisy environments where difference a quality pair of headphones makes can't be heard anyway, but bluetooth uses very heavily lossy compression, unless you're lucky enough to have a phone and headset that both support Apt-X, in which case you only lose quality to re-compression. A good pair of wired headphones simply can not be beat, though; no re-compression, no signal loss, no dropouts due to interference when everyone else on the bus or train has their own headset and half of them have a smartwatch, all using the very narrow sliver of spectrum available to bluetooth and all within range of each other.
I have more than a basic understanding of statistics; enough to know that data that exists trumps data that does not, flaws or otherwise. As you have not provided any data of your own, I can only assume such data does not exist and is, therefore, inferior to the data I have provided.
All data will have a bias. While you seem to point to a potential source of bias in the FBI's data, I'd be willing to wager that you can't identify the actual bias; if you could, and had a basic understanding of statistics, you could correct for it.
I'll repeat: a skull is bone. Which is it? Is it rare for a bullet to ricochet off of bone, or is it common? You can't say it's common for a bullet to ricochet off of one bone and not another, save for a few of the smaller, thinner bones in the body.
And you're still ignoring range. Firing on someone in a night club, they're not going to be that far away,.22LR is going to do the job. Impact won't come into play, as you'll have penetration at that close range; that might be why I'm ignoring it.
You do realize that your entire argument boils down to the use of hollow point ammo, which I conceded to very early on in my post, right? Beyond that, weight and speed affect penetration, not wound size; these factor can affect the size of the exit wound, but that can be field dressed to stop blood loss and keep the victim alive long enough to receive proper treatment. That's not so with internal damage.
You then go on to contradict yourself, saying that it is rare for a.22LR to ricochet off bone, then say it is more likely to ricochet off the skull (which is bone). Which is it? Also, note that I didn't say "ricochet", I said "bounce around"; while, perhaps, I should have said "fragment", the end result is the same. A slower-moving bullet that fragments inside the target is going to do more internal damage as the fragments bounce off of whatever the slug hit. A faster bullet will just go through with minimal fragmentation and all internal damage being constricted to a single straight line, the flight back of the bullet. Remember, when you stuff a t-shirt into the wound to stop (or at least slow) the bleeding, it's the internal damage that kills.
So your.223 might go through 3 people and hit one organ in each, while your.22LR might hit 3 organs in one person. If all wounds are field dressed and bleeding is controlled, you're just as likely to kill one victim with the.223 as you are to kill one victim with the.22LR.
Have you actually seen what you talk about, or did you just read it somewhere? I could guess, but I'd rather you say it here for all to see.
They're the same damn caliber bullet, my friend. The difference is that the 223/556 round has a bigger powder charge and, thus, moves a fair clip faster. You'll get more penetration and, if using a hollow point, you'll get faster and potentially wider expansion of the slug, but they're the same caliber slug. The advantage to the faster round is penetration; yes, a 223/556 will pierce light body armor that a.22LR would not, but we're talking about people in a night club here, so body armor isn't an issue, and a round that bounces around inside the target is going to do more internal damage than one that simply passes through.
Absent body armor, a well placed.22LR round will do more damage to the human body than a 223/556 round at the range he was shooting from in the club. this is because the.22LR has enough inertia at that range to enter the body and, upon striking bone, ricochet inside the body to hit other organs; it won't leave the body, it will remain inside and do more damage than the through shot you can expect from a 223/556 round. The notable exceptions being central nervous system shots and heart shots, where the shockwave of the faster round will have the "desired" effect; even at that, a.22LR slug bouncing around in your skull is no laughing matter, nor is getting one lodged in your heart.
At longer distances, or when dealing with light body armor, yes, a 223/556 round is going to have the extra oomph to traverse the distance and piece the armor. In an active shooter scenario involving a sniper at long range, shooting from a high window of a building for example, I agree,.22LR would be a poor choice of round, the 223/556 would be much more effective. In your typical "walk into a building and shoot people" scenario, you might hit more people per round with the 223/556 if you're just going for injuries, but you'll kill more with the.22LR every time in that scenario.
Unless, of course, you place your shots well; then it really doesn't matter as long as it reaches the target.
I believe he was being neither sarcastic nor douchey. To me, it seemed like he was relaying the mindset of at least a subset of Apple users, and I think he nailed it.
I might even be willing to pay for it, either by paying for the app or by *GASP* paying a monthly fee. Apple's missing out on a revenue stream here; iPhone users aren't sticking with iPhone because of iMessage, they're sticking with iPhone because they like the way it works.
Because my point was more that they're not common enough to be relied on for cross-platform communications. Yes, I know they exist, I've just never seen one, despite being heavily involved in tech for over two decades, thus supporting my point.
Try to think logically, rather than worshiping a god named Gun.
There's one anti-gun sentiment.
You are happy with dead people, so long as you get to play with your toys.
And another.
Sir, I'm neither lying nor a gun nut; again, I don't even own a gun, so I'm not quite sure how you can call out my fanaticism or label me a gun nut. You, on the other hand, have yet to refute any of the facts I have posted, instead opting to refer to them as the "Chewbacca Defense". It was you who insisted on facts, so I gave them to you, only to be told I was going "off on 1,000,000 tangets" when they didn't fit your narrative.
If you're not anti-gun, what are you? And if you're not calling for a gun ban, what do you suppose should be done, then? The ball's in your court; something tells me I can expect you to take it and go home long before you refute any of the facts I have presented.
First of all, i never said you said anything explicitly anti-gun, I was pointing out the anti-gun sentiment of your post. Are you honostly going to deny that? Second, you strongly implied a gun ban, even if you didn't outright call for it.
I didn't support either of the claims you attacked becaise I didn't make either of those claims, they wetlre your own strawmen. Meanwhile, I don't see you being able to pick apart my points.
Slashdot Mirror
With a dongle it would use the same amount as it does today to convert to an audio stream
Until you add in a USB controller on each end (yes, Lightning is USB), the Lightning "auth" chip in the port, the Lightning "auth" chip in the plug, and resistive losses in the cable that will cause an external DAC and amplifier to draw more current from the phone just to get the same amount of power (lower voltage and higher amperage) at the other end.
You can see this today, if you don't believe me. There are external iPhone DACs on the market, the iPhone shuts down its DAC and amp when you plug one in. You get about 10% less iTunes listening time when using one.
The UIs have different use cases; which one is better depends on who is using the device and how they're using it. I find that Android's UI lends itself to grabbing bits of info very quickly, much moreso than iOS, which makes it a better choice for how I use my phone; I do love my S7. However, for longer or more involved tasks, where interacting with the OS is trumped by interacting with the app, I do find iOS to be more usable, thus why I've thrown out more than a handful of Android tablet but still have (and use) every iPad I've ever owned, a total of four ranging from the original iPad to the newest iPad Pro 9.7" model.
Sounds like you like comparing low-end devices to devices that cost 2.5x as much. Have you ever compared a $2000 PC laptop to an MBP? I'm typing on my MBP right now because my $1700 PC laptop, the one I actually work on, the one that absolutely destroys my 2014 MBP despite being a 3mo older model, lives on my desk most of the time, while the MBP lives in my living room because it just can't keep up. Try making a similar comparison with Android; find a $649 flagship device to compare to the iPhone 6S ot a $749 flagship device to compare to the iPhone 6S Plus. Android has come a long way since the Motorola Atrix was top-of-the-line; most mid-to-low-end Android phones available don't quite meet that mark (and that was more than 5 years ago) so there's really no comparing them to the high-end.
You want to say one platform is better than the other? Compare like to like; stick with the high-end of both or your comparison is invalid.
Signed,
An Android user who loves his iPad.
P.S. - Yes, I really do use both. No bias here.
People will claim "they're removing the DAC and amplifier, those will live in the headphones now, so it won't affect battery life" and, assuming the headphone port uses a different DAC and amp than the speaker, well, they'll still be wrong. Even if its a separate DAC and amp in the phone, and that DAC and amp are going away, the data now has to go through the USB controller (Lightning is USB) in the phone, through the "authenticity" chip in the Lightning port, through the "authenticity" chip in the Lightning plug, through the cable (resistive loss), through the USB controller in the headphones, to the DAC in the headphones, then to the amp in the headphones. Each of those steps is added power consumption.
The two USB controllers and the two Lightning "auth" chips are completely new parts in the audio path; they're completely new sources of power drain while playing audio over headphones plugged directly into the phone. The resistive losses of the cable (no matter how small) will cause the DAC and amplifier in the headphones to draw more current than a DAC and amplifier located on the phone's motherboard, just to end up with slightly higher current at a slightly lower voltage at the other end.
From a purely on-paper engineering perspective, they're going to need a 10% bigger battery to get the same iTunes playback time, assuming the same DAC and amplifier that exist within the phone are used in the headphones. This seems to fit with the currently available crop of Lightning DAC adapters, which reduce the phone's battery life by approximately 10% while in use, despite the phone's internal DAC and amplifier shutting down when one is plugged in.
I'm sure they will; they'll think of the ability to sell a $40 charge cable with a pigtail to plug your lightning headphones into; i might actually buy one if you can also plug the Apple Pencil into it to charge both it and an iPad Pro at the same time; iPhone just isn't for me, but I do love my iPad.
Second, if you want third party headphones, you don't need an adaptor unless you want to use them with your iPad, iPod, laptop, Android devices, other MP3 players, or anything else you already own
Fixed that for you.
So, what you're saying is you want the D, and you think everyone else should want the D, too?
Firefox does definitely have a memory leak; for me it takes a couple weeks, maybe a month, to become an issue. In that same timeframe, I often catch Chrome using the same amount of RAM, or more, with the same tabs open (testing the same work on the same sites); eventually, Firefox does crap itself and nearly double its RAM usage, though I'm not sure if that's Firefox or one of my add-ons. I could disable add-ons to find out, but I don't want to be without them for a month or longer; it happens so rarely that it's not an issue worth my time to track down. I just kill it, reopen it, restore the session, and carry on.
For me, it only seems to get sluggish when I have a broken or poorly-coded add-on, or when it craps itself after a few weeks. I've also gone into about:config and turned off all the superfluous crap; and I'm running the developer builds, so that might have something to do with it, as well.
It also ensures that the kernel on the device wasn't modified (think: desolder NVRAM, solder onto your own board, modify, replace).
The interesting part is actually how Firefox is the worst performing browser in the test.
Did you not even read TFS? Because:
Google's Chrome browser was the first to completely exhaust the battery
Which leads to:
We often hear from Firefox supporters that Firefox is more efficient than Chrome and other browsers.
It's clearly more efficient than Chrome, as per the results of this test.
I can't afford to be ideology-driven, as I'm a web developer and must test my work in all browsers. I'm comparing them side-by-side, day in and day out; yes, if you manage to wrangle all of Chrome's little sub-processes and add up their memory usage, Chrome is using more memory about half the time. Sometimes it swings in the other direction, and by about the same amount, so I'd say, honestly, on average they use about the same amount of RAM.
Thanks for that, I honestly wasn't sure. That would seemingly further support the point I was attempting to make, so really; thanks.
The market hasn't moved on to bluetooth headsets. A segment of the market uses bluetooth headsets (myself included) but I'd hardly say we've moved on to them. They're great for making calls or listening to music in noisy environments where difference a quality pair of headphones makes can't be heard anyway, but bluetooth uses very heavily lossy compression, unless you're lucky enough to have a phone and headset that both support Apt-X, in which case you only lose quality to re-compression. A good pair of wired headphones simply can not be beat, though; no re-compression, no signal loss, no dropouts due to interference when everyone else on the bus or train has their own headset and half of them have a smartwatch, all using the very narrow sliver of spectrum available to bluetooth and all within range of each other.
I have more than a basic understanding of statistics; enough to know that data that exists trumps data that does not, flaws or otherwise. As you have not provided any data of your own, I can only assume such data does not exist and is, therefore, inferior to the data I have provided.
All data will have a bias. While you seem to point to a potential source of bias in the FBI's data, I'd be willing to wager that you can't identify the actual bias; if you could, and had a basic understanding of statistics, you could correct for it.
FBI crime statistice are biased? Thats rich.
They're just pre-emptively ensuring they can continue to use US-made encryption for the foreseeable future.
I'll repeat: a skull is bone. Which is it? Is it rare for a bullet to ricochet off of bone, or is it common? You can't say it's common for a bullet to ricochet off of one bone and not another, save for a few of the smaller, thinner bones in the body.
.22LR is going to do the job. Impact won't come into play, as you'll have penetration at that close range; that might be why I'm ignoring it.
And you're still ignoring range. Firing on someone in a night club, they're not going to be that far away,
You do realize that your entire argument boils down to the use of hollow point ammo, which I conceded to very early on in my post, right? Beyond that, weight and speed affect penetration, not wound size; these factor can affect the size of the exit wound, but that can be field dressed to stop blood loss and keep the victim alive long enough to receive proper treatment. That's not so with internal damage.
.22LR to ricochet off bone, then say it is more likely to ricochet off the skull (which is bone). Which is it? Also, note that I didn't say "ricochet", I said "bounce around"; while, perhaps, I should have said "fragment", the end result is the same. A slower-moving bullet that fragments inside the target is going to do more internal damage as the fragments bounce off of whatever the slug hit. A faster bullet will just go through with minimal fragmentation and all internal damage being constricted to a single straight line, the flight back of the bullet. Remember, when you stuff a t-shirt into the wound to stop (or at least slow) the bleeding, it's the internal damage that kills.
.223 might go through 3 people and hit one organ in each, while your .22LR might hit 3 organs in one person. If all wounds are field dressed and bleeding is controlled, you're just as likely to kill one victim with the .223 as you are to kill one victim with the .22LR.
You then go on to contradict yourself, saying that it is rare for a
So your
Have you actually seen what you talk about, or did you just read it somewhere? I could guess, but I'd rather you say it here for all to see.
They're the same damn caliber bullet, my friend. The difference is that the 223/556 round has a bigger powder charge and, thus, moves a fair clip faster. You'll get more penetration and, if using a hollow point, you'll get faster and potentially wider expansion of the slug, but they're the same caliber slug. The advantage to the faster round is penetration; yes, a 223/556 will pierce light body armor that a .22LR would not, but we're talking about people in a night club here, so body armor isn't an issue, and a round that bounces around inside the target is going to do more internal damage than one that simply passes through.
.22LR round will do more damage to the human body than a 223/556 round at the range he was shooting from in the club. this is because the .22LR has enough inertia at that range to enter the body and, upon striking bone, ricochet inside the body to hit other organs; it won't leave the body, it will remain inside and do more damage than the through shot you can expect from a 223/556 round. The notable exceptions being central nervous system shots and heart shots, where the shockwave of the faster round will have the "desired" effect; even at that, a .22LR slug bouncing around in your skull is no laughing matter, nor is getting one lodged in your heart.
.22LR would be a poor choice of round, the 223/556 would be much more effective. In your typical "walk into a building and shoot people" scenario, you might hit more people per round with the 223/556 if you're just going for injuries, but you'll kill more with the .22LR every time in that scenario.
Absent body armor, a well placed
At longer distances, or when dealing with light body armor, yes, a 223/556 round is going to have the extra oomph to traverse the distance and piece the armor. In an active shooter scenario involving a sniper at long range, shooting from a high window of a building for example, I agree,
Unless, of course, you place your shots well; then it really doesn't matter as long as it reaches the target.
Which was my point.
This is where we're heading? Seriously? Fuck, just shoot me now.
I believe he was being neither sarcastic nor douchey. To me, it seemed like he was relaying the mindset of at least a subset of Apple users, and I think he nailed it.
I might even be willing to pay for it, either by paying for the app or by *GASP* paying a monthly fee. Apple's missing out on a revenue stream here; iPhone users aren't sticking with iPhone because of iMessage, they're sticking with iPhone because they like the way it works.
Because my point was more that they're not common enough to be relied on for cross-platform communications. Yes, I know they exist, I've just never seen one, despite being heavily involved in tech for over two decades, thus supporting my point.
I don't know anyone that uses it since all of my iOS-based friends switched to Skype before iOS 7 came out, so I didn't know that.
Try to think logically, rather than worshiping a god named Gun.
There's one anti-gun sentiment.
You are happy with dead people, so long as you get to play with your toys.
And another.
Sir, I'm neither lying nor a gun nut; again, I don't even own a gun, so I'm not quite sure how you can call out my fanaticism or label me a gun nut. You, on the other hand, have yet to refute any of the facts I have posted, instead opting to refer to them as the "Chewbacca Defense". It was you who insisted on facts, so I gave them to you, only to be told I was going "off on 1,000,000 tangets" when they didn't fit your narrative.
If you're not anti-gun, what are you? And if you're not calling for a gun ban, what do you suppose should be done, then? The ball's in your court; something tells me I can expect you to take it and go home long before you refute any of the facts I have presented.
First of all, i never said you said anything explicitly anti-gun, I was pointing out the anti-gun sentiment of your post. Are you honostly going to deny that? Second, you strongly implied a gun ban, even if you didn't outright call for it.
I didn't support either of the claims you attacked becaise I didn't make either of those claims, they wetlre your own strawmen. Meanwhile, I don't see you being able to pick apart my points.
Are you trolling or just dumb as a box of rocks?