In fairness, if the murderers find murder entertaining, they weren't really abusing the resources. They're still wrong but, as a supposedly neutral platform, that's not Facebook's fault or problem.
Unpopular opinion, I know, but some of us know a slippery slope when we see one. This is a problem for Thai and Burmese law enforcement to deal with, not Facebook.
You don't know that overcharging was not the cause of the fire, and neither does anyone else that hasn't been officially involved in the investigation from the fire department, the insurance company, or Apple.
When fully charged, the charge current must be cut off.
Which is handled by the charge controller on most devices with lithium battery chemistries...
Please keep blame where it needs to reside.
You mean with the company that used a charge controller that fails to cut off charging current properly when the battery is full? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's where the blame was placed to begin with.
To clarify, I would expect the headphones to stop working as soon as power is removed, because I'm not an idiot. I would also expect the phone to continue trying to send audio to them until it realizes they're no longer there (e.g. until it doesn't receive an ack packet in time), and that's precisely what it does. When the bluetooth headphones disconnect, the phone either stops playback altogether, or reverts to its internal speaker. Because ack packets are being sent constantly, this is almost immediate, as well.
I also, perhaps foolishly, expect that people here will have some reading comprehension. Now, if you re-read what you quoted, and use those reading comprehension skills I'm sure you learned in 3rd grade, you'll note that I'm talking about how long the phone continues trying to send audio to the headphones after you remove their battery, not how long the headphones stay on.
In summary, your text editor works with text. Dropbox works with files on a very fundamental level. It stands to reason that they need to care about the underlying filesystem.
Dropbox reads and writes files using the same filesystem drivers as every other application. It reads and modifies file attributes through those drivers, as well. Anything it does at the filesystem level can be achieved with the mv, rm, cat, chmod, touch, and mkfifo commands.
there's actual technical reasons why a program like Dropbox needs to understand the abilities of the underlying filesystem and not treat it as a dumb pipe via some API.
For damn good reason, most operating systems prevent direct-to-disk modification of a mounted filesystem (e.g. bypassing the driver for writes), which makes much of what Dropbox does simply impossible on those systems unless it's done via the filesystem driver APIs. Since you can't mount a filesystem twice, Dropbox accessing the filesystem directly would require the OS to unmount it and cede control to Dropbox; which would leave the OS (and thus the user) unable to access the files contained therein. As additional food for thought: if Dropbox were accessing the filesystem directly, think about it, it wouldn't work on a Mac at all, as Apple filesystems are proprietary, meaning that the Dropbox team would have no way of writing interface code for Apple's filesystems. Yet it works on a Mac.
In short, Dropbox is very much accessing files the same way your text editor does. It does a few things with those files that your text editor probably doesn't do, but it's not reading directly from, nor writing directly to, your disk.
My text editor doesn't give a shit what filesystem I'm using. There's no real reason Dropbox should, either; they're doing file-level transactions, not block-level.
Yes, you can still run X11 today... Apple no longer supplies it, it's now a 3rd-party download. OpenGL isn't quite the same thing; it lives at the driver level, while X11 lives in userland. If Apple does to OpenGL what they did to X11, we can't get it back.
Oh well look at what I've found. Bluetooth receiver with headphone amp plus analog out plus digital out.
Yup, and it's only about $60. Not super portable looking, though, and yet another thing to charge; it also doesn't appear to support Apt-X or AAC, so we're back to crap audio quality, not that Apt-X is the greatest and for anything that's not already AAC (and fed straight to the bluetooth stack, rather than being re-encoded) AAC just means more compression artifacts -- and re-compression artifacts are audible.
Actually, it's a lot less. The antenna is behind the screen, which acts as a shield. I was being polite and ignoring that fact in order to give Artem's argument a fighting chance. Now, back when we had flip phones with external antennae, you would have been correct.
What you are forgetting is that they're actually constantly transmitting acknowledgment packets so the device knows they're still there. If you have a pair with removable batteries, try pulling the battery sometime while they're playing music, and count how long it takes the phone to realize they're no longer there and stop playback. It's almost instantaneous, because there is a constant flow of ACK packets (to borrow a term from the TCP stack) being sent.
Wow, I should buy Apple stock shortly before the release, and sell shortly after. Launch day profits will be phenomenal, which will shoot the stock through the roof, but I expect it to tank shortly after.
If only what you said were true... and I had enough cash on hand to buy a few thousand shares.
That'd be what I was getting at. A receiver that also transmits is called a transceiver; the idiot I was replying to was insistent that bluetooth headphones were only receivers.
also, turn a light or two on... maybe turn on the light in an adjacent room, then turn out the light in the first room a second or so later, so it seems like someone is moving through the house
Indeed. The ignorant, and the people who must work with or for them. I own Macs because my clients use them and I have to make sure the work I do for them works on their platform of choice.
You still have closer proximity with AirPods. The antenna is in the piece that hangs down, which rests against your earlobe. Same power, same distance, dissipation is going to be 1/6 rather than 1/2, but over 1/6 the surface area, so double the dose per cm^2. AirPods are actually worse in that regard.
Wireless cans (and good on you for using those, earbuds are shit to begin with) are going to give you about 1/4 the radiation at he point where the antenna resides. Offset by the fact that you likely use them 4x longer than the average phone user would use their phone, it's a wash...
...
... until you factor in frequency.
We, as a society, still have much to learn in this field. It may well be perfectly safe, but it may well not be. Don't discount that simply because the aggregate transmit power is lower than phone (which we're still not sure are safe) because, as demonstrated, the dosage is the same; in some cases, even higher.
You can, Jobs certainly did, it's just that Cook is only focusing on margin. That's short-term thinking and, eventually, people will realize the brand is nothing more than a name now. It won't kill Apple, but it will hurt them the same way it hurt Sony, and countless other before them.
... or sound all that great. Better than the $2 pairs that come with most phones, but garbage compared to the AKGs that came with my S8, and complete shit compared to anything I'd buy (the same applies to the AKGs, by the way). In fact, all the lightning (or USB, for that matter) headphones I've encountered in the $200 price range have been complete shit compared to the $170 headphones I use daily; the same is said of bluetooth, as well.
Funny how that works out, no? A $200 price point used to mean speakers and cans worth $200. Now, $190 of that goes to the radio, the DAC, the amplifier, the battery to power it all, and the "new shiny", and you're left with $10 headphones. For 20x the price.
Slashdot Mirror
In fairness, if the murderers find murder entertaining, they weren't really abusing the resources. They're still wrong but, as a supposedly neutral platform, that's not Facebook's fault or problem.
Unpopular opinion, I know, but some of us know a slippery slope when we see one. This is a problem for Thai and Burmese law enforcement to deal with, not Facebook.
You don't know that overcharging was not the cause of the fire, and neither does anyone else that hasn't been officially involved in the investigation from the fire department, the insurance company, or Apple.
Fixed.
When fully charged, the charge current must be cut off.
Which is handled by the charge controller on most devices with lithium battery chemistries...
Please keep blame where it needs to reside.
You mean with the company that used a charge controller that fails to cut off charging current properly when the battery is full? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's where the blame was placed to begin with.
$99 attachments, at that. I lost mine by giving it to a friend who bought an iPad Pro because I never actually used the damned thing.
They may very well have a legitimate use for extended attributes
And Linux filesystem drivers expose APIs for those...
This is, coincidentally, one of the specific use cases cited in the getfattr man page.
And getfattr doesn't care what filesystem it's reading those attributes off of, because it makes use of the APIs to read them.
To clarify, I would expect the headphones to stop working as soon as power is removed, because I'm not an idiot. I would also expect the phone to continue trying to send audio to them until it realizes they're no longer there (e.g. until it doesn't receive an ack packet in time), and that's precisely what it does. When the bluetooth headphones disconnect, the phone either stops playback altogether, or reverts to its internal speaker. Because ack packets are being sent constantly, this is almost immediate, as well.
I also, perhaps foolishly, expect that people here will have some reading comprehension. Now, if you re-read what you quoted, and use those reading comprehension skills I'm sure you learned in 3rd grade, you'll note that I'm talking about how long the phone continues trying to send audio to the headphones after you remove their battery, not how long the headphones stay on.
Yeah, Cisco is, truly, a small company.
Ugh... that 3rd link should only be on the word "library".
In summary, your text editor works with text. Dropbox works with files on a very fundamental level. It stands to reason that they need to care about the underlying filesystem.
Dropbox reads and writes files using the same filesystem drivers as every other application. It reads and modifies file attributes through those drivers, as well. Anything it does at the filesystem level can be achieved with the mv, rm, cat, chmod, touch, and mkfifo commands.
there's actual technical reasons why a program like Dropbox needs to understand the abilities of the underlying filesystem and not treat it as a dumb pipe via some API.
No, not really. Look at OwnCloud's sync app as an example of how all of the things DropBox does can be done on any filesystem, on any OS, treating the filesystem as a dumb pipe via some API. Including notifying users via their file browser that files are in a certain state (done via OS-level APIs that may or may not exist at the filesystem level). On Windows, you do this via Overlay Handlers, you use Finder Sync Extensions on a Mac. On Linux, the method varies based on window manager (not filesystem) but there exists at least one library for that; the bonus is that it's cross-platform. Phantom downloads are easily done using named pipes and filesystem monitors, which are used by every realtime-scanning antivirus, exist at the OS level, and are filesystem independent. With a little creativity, I'm sure you can figure out how it's done. Here's a hint: the named pipes don't exist until you open the directory.
For damn good reason, most operating systems prevent direct-to-disk modification of a mounted filesystem (e.g. bypassing the driver for writes), which makes much of what Dropbox does simply impossible on those systems unless it's done via the filesystem driver APIs. Since you can't mount a filesystem twice, Dropbox accessing the filesystem directly would require the OS to unmount it and cede control to Dropbox; which would leave the OS (and thus the user) unable to access the files contained therein. As additional food for thought: if Dropbox were accessing the filesystem directly, think about it, it wouldn't work on a Mac at all, as Apple filesystems are proprietary, meaning that the Dropbox team would have no way of writing interface code for Apple's filesystems. Yet it works on a Mac.
In short, Dropbox is very much accessing files the same way your text editor does. It does a few things with those files that your text editor probably doesn't do, but it's not reading directly from, nor writing directly to, your disk.
No, I understand perfectly well. If it's encrypted at the filesystem level, it's not encrypted at the file level.
Do you think every application you use handles filesystem encryption itself?
You're the one who, clearly, does not understand.
My text editor doesn't give a shit what filesystem I'm using. There's no real reason Dropbox should, either; they're doing file-level transactions, not block-level.
Yes, you can still run X11 today... Apple no longer supplies it, it's now a 3rd-party download. OpenGL isn't quite the same thing; it lives at the driver level, while X11 lives in userland. If Apple does to OpenGL what they did to X11, we can't get it back.
Read what I wrote... The phone reacts immediately.
Oh well look at what I've found. Bluetooth receiver with headphone amp plus analog out plus digital out.
Yup, and it's only about $60. Not super portable looking, though, and yet another thing to charge; it also doesn't appear to support Apt-X or AAC, so we're back to crap audio quality, not that Apt-X is the greatest and for anything that's not already AAC (and fed straight to the bluetooth stack, rather than being re-encoded) AAC just means more compression artifacts -- and re-compression artifacts are audible.
Actually, it's a lot less. The antenna is behind the screen, which acts as a shield. I was being polite and ignoring that fact in order to give Artem's argument a fighting chance. Now, back when we had flip phones with external antennae, you would have been correct.
What you are forgetting is that they're actually constantly transmitting acknowledgment packets so the device knows they're still there. If you have a pair with removable batteries, try pulling the battery sometime while they're playing music, and count how long it takes the phone to realize they're no longer there and stop playback. It's almost instantaneous, because there is a constant flow of ACK packets (to borrow a term from the TCP stack) being sent.
Wow, I should buy Apple stock shortly before the release, and sell shortly after. Launch day profits will be phenomenal, which will shoot the stock through the roof, but I expect it to tank shortly after.
If only what you said were true... and I had enough cash on hand to buy a few thousand shares.
That'd be what I was getting at. A receiver that also transmits is called a transceiver; the idiot I was replying to was insistent that bluetooth headphones were only receivers.
also, turn a light or two on... maybe turn on the light in an adjacent room, then turn out the light in the first room a second or so later, so it seems like someone is moving through the house
I have... for letting him post.
Indeed. The ignorant, and the people who must work with or for them. I own Macs because my clients use them and I have to make sure the work I do for them works on their platform of choice.
You still have closer proximity with AirPods. The antenna is in the piece that hangs down, which rests against your earlobe. Same power, same distance, dissipation is going to be 1/6 rather than 1/2, but over 1/6 the surface area, so double the dose per cm^2. AirPods are actually worse in that regard.
...
... until you factor in frequency.
Wireless cans (and good on you for using those, earbuds are shit to begin with) are going to give you about 1/4 the radiation at he point where the antenna resides. Offset by the fact that you likely use them 4x longer than the average phone user would use their phone, it's a wash...
We, as a society, still have much to learn in this field. It may well be perfectly safe, but it may well not be. Don't discount that simply because the aggregate transmit power is lower than phone (which we're still not sure are safe) because, as demonstrated, the dosage is the same; in some cases, even higher.
Lucky. It's 3 seconds in the 2012 models.
You can, Jobs certainly did, it's just that Cook is only focusing on margin. That's short-term thinking and, eventually, people will realize the brand is nothing more than a name now. It won't kill Apple, but it will hurt them the same way it hurt Sony, and countless other before them.
... or sound all that great. Better than the $2 pairs that come with most phones, but garbage compared to the AKGs that came with my S8, and complete shit compared to anything I'd buy (the same applies to the AKGs, by the way). In fact, all the lightning (or USB, for that matter) headphones I've encountered in the $200 price range have been complete shit compared to the $170 headphones I use daily; the same is said of bluetooth, as well.
Funny how that works out, no? A $200 price point used to mean speakers and cans worth $200. Now, $190 of that goes to the radio, the DAC, the amplifier, the battery to power it all, and the "new shiny", and you're left with $10 headphones. For 20x the price.
Progress.