Now, tell me again: Exactly how is this a Bad Thing? How does it make the MacBook Pro less "Pro"?
Because I don't want to carry around 2 laptop sized devices, and then tether them together. Because I want the laptop have the functionality built in precisely so they don't have to carry a bag of crap to attach to it to make it work.
IE I want, as I said, my laptop "built into the dock".
What good is a dedicatedHDMI port if what you REALLY need is another port to connect to a SAN? What good is a dedicated Ethernet Port when what you really need another USB? So, having multiple, high-speed, identical I/O ports that can be easily and relatively inexpensively be adapted to one or more simultaneous uses is actually much more flexible and "future-proof" than having a fixed-number of dedicated ports. It. Just. Is.
LMAO. That argument falls flat on its face. It would be true if for some reason you could only have 2-3 ports on your laptop. So each spot was choice... thunderbolt/usbc or hdmi? thunderbolt/usbc or ethernet? It's not a choice. You can have it all.
It's simply NOT an either or question you can buy a 15" dell precision laptop with all the ports a macbook pro has. (thunderbolt + usbc). So it's got ALL the same flexibility and future proofing of the macbook pro.
And it has displayport, hdmi, ethernet (rj45), sdcard reader, headset jack, and 4 USB 3 ports.
That Dell comes with Windows 7 pro, 10 pro, or even Ubunutu linux. I can even get it with a Xeon and 64GB ram if I want. Doesn't matter how much money i try and throw at apple, I'm stuck with 16GB ram with no option to upgrade.
Dell makes a PRO laptop. Apple doesn't make one anymore.
Apple should make something like the Dell but... with OSX.
But instead they keep turning their pro laptop into a faster macbook air plus. Which is great for the people looking for that. But damn... it sure would be nice if Apple made a pro laptop again.
Your argument is essentially that because the macbook pro has a couple thunderbolt ports it has the potential for the functionality you need. But the Dell has all the functionality built right in, AND it has all the potential to plug in more stuff that mac has AND you don't have to tie up the thunderbolt port with your network card and external keyboard so it'll actually be available if you need it. The mac pro isn't even in the same league anymore. Its a joke.
since they provide a seldom-used (but still used) function in a laptop with good WiFi.
Used an an awful lot by mobile pros who work with large files, or pros who configure networks. Maybe Apple should create a sku with a couple extra usb ports, a gigabit port, as thick as the 2011 mbp with the extra space used for battery. They could call it "Macbook Pro".
They can renamed the current macbook pro, macbook Air+
In the end, it actually provides more flexibility for individual needs,
Fewer options is greater freedoms! Taking things out provides more flexibility! What double think! What newspeak! Much wow!
without overly-complicating base designs or unnecessarily increasing hardware costs.
Nobody buying a $2500 pro laptop in 2016 is concerned about the cost of a few ports. Indeed that's what the $2500 is for... because we want it to have all these capabilities built in, and we're willing to pay what ever it costs to get it.
It's reached the point where I'm considering buying a thunderbolt dock to keep in my laptop bag. Has all the ports I'll need, and I'm less likely to misplace or forget it. And its cheaper than the combined price of all the hubs, adapters, and dongles I currently need to carry around.
But you know what would be really cool... if they put some extra battery in the dock. And added a keyboard, screen, touchpad, CPU, SSD, and RAM. Then I could just carry around the dock, and not bother with a useless laptop.;-)
PS:
Those Ethernet "Dongles" (as you call them)
A dongle is a piece of hardware that attaches to a computer and allows a piece of secured software to run. [...]
The term dongle has expanded beyond software protection to include any small device that plugs into the Universal Serial Bus (USB) or other computer port, regardless of what it does. These devices are usually used to provide some function that is not built in to the computer itself. This includes adding memory, supplying Bluetooth® and WiFi® connections, and adding adapters so that other devices can be plugged in.
nvidia's presence on linux is what it is because its not a mainstream OS.
Consider Nvidia's geforce experience software for windows, which now requires you to create an account to get the automatic driver updates.
If Linux were in Windows position in terms of Marketshare. Geforce experience **would** be a linux app. Its not a necessary app for Linux... its not even a necessary app on Windows.
But it would be the same borderline malware it is in windows, if it existed for linux. The only reason it doesn't exist for linux today is the marketshare.
Contrast that to Linux. Normally, you plug something in and it works great. If it doesn't then you probably should have researched your purchase better.
Because Linux isn't mainstream. If linux were mainstream all that crap that doesn't work great... well now there's a 300MB malware installer for it from the vender. And they'll be actively sabotaging the open source drivers by tweaking their devices just enough every hardware/software revision to break them so that the path of least resistance is the proprietary malware blob.
Linux is free from all that commercialism garbage because not enough people use it to attract them. As mac's have grown more popular... more and more crap is being ported over. The same would happen with linux.
That installer is practically malware.
Yes. It's also their business model. So they aren't going to stop doing it.
Windows is already shipping with lots of crap. Compare that to linux, where only very few parts are crap.
In large part because it's not mainstream. If it were mainstream then logitech and razer and your printer and adobe and so forth would tart the place up in no time...
Instead I do everything Windowsy inside a VM on top of Linux.
So instead of maintaining one operating sytem you maintain 2.
Win!
Seriously, getting a Windows box infected is tragically easy even with 3 virus scanners simultaneously installed. Sometimes you don't even have to do anything.
Your not wrong. But if regular windows users ran linux desktops in the hundreds of millions they'd get them full of crap too. And it would be drive by malware ads taking advantage of flaws in the browser, and ransomware there their user account etc. They'd disable the firewall to get quickbooks to connect. And sony would install a backdoor/rootkit at the factory as part of some horribly misguided attempt at providing remote firmware update management tools...
No, actually that's already battery. Leaning in with your finger raised to give someone an unwanted tap someone on the shoulder is assault.
on the other end is murder.
No, that's not assault either, that's murder.
It really matters where on the spectrum a particular instance is.
It really matters that you choose points ON the spectrum too.
Offering unwanted first aid, or a helping hand is at one end, and apprehensions of serious bodily injury or death at the other.
Unwanted kisses are on the shallower end of the pool for sure, but even here we have a spectrum... from a chivalrous dry kiss on the hand as probably the least or a barely perceptible 'European style greeting kiss' on the cheek to more wet versions of those to kisses on the mouth... etc... etc.
By all accounts he was going for a kiss on the mouth with someone he just met. That's pretty far over the line.
Meh. Most people who carry around USB devices can carry around a different cable just as easily. In the grand scheme of don't care, it's a lot less annoying than the headphone jack would have been.
Until someone hands you a flash drive... your need to move a file via flash drive between two computers.
That would be yet another fucking dongle for mac owners to have to carry around for no good reason. (first was the ethernet dongle)
Watch them go back to something useless like minihdmi or minidisplayport too.
If true, this is a crippling blow for standards. And I really have to ask what makes this laptop "pro" at that point.
And the anwser is: Nothing. Its just got more diskspace and more ram.
a set of soft-reconfigurable action buttons at the top of the keyboard. Whee.
Pretty much. I've had pro mac laptops for years, and each one gets less "pro" than the one I had before. I was already waffling between dropping mac laptops and getting something else with my last "upgrade". But I stuck with it... this time... there is literally no reason to stay with mac. Mac has jumped off a cliff and the other venders are making perfectly good units. I'll buy a cheap macbook air for the house just to keep a hand in OSX, and get something else to use for work.
last I checked a laptop computer still works fine when you put it on a desk
Unless you expect it to perform as well as a desktop, with all the peripherals... multiple monitors, multiple networks, multiple audio devices, gobs of RAM, oodles of storage, and a video card that makes even the latest macbook pro look laughable.
"To help ensure the security of Apple Pay, you must have a passcode set on your device and, optionally, Touch ID. "
So what happens if you opt not to use it? Since apparently that IS an option.
TouchID is a potential dealbreaker for a lot of people; because it is LESS secure than a passphrase. It's easier to spoof and the current legal environment appears to make it easier to be compelled to provide a touchid unlock than it is to compell someone to divulge their passphrase since the latter violates one's right to remain silent. While the former is more like being required to submit to having your fingerprints and photo taken.
Same way WiFi being on is a security risk. Or being plugged into a network is a security risk. If there is a flaw in the chipset/drivers/firewall/listening services/etc/etc that can be exploited there may be a way to do anything from crash the phone to gain access.
An attacker could also deliberately keep the phone in a higher power state as it repeatedly initiates communications with it to drain the battery. It just seems to me that its needless and unnecessary to have NFC on when the phone is locked.
That's not to say I think wifi should be off, and the phone stored in a lead box... but i do support minimizing the attack surface. And I can't really see any reason why NFC should be on when the phone is locked.
You don't have to unlock the screen either. Once you tap on a terminal, you just tap on the card.
Tap on the phone you mean? So that tap ISN'T touchid? Its just a physical contact required? Anyone could do it? Or is it doing an authentication.
Lets say you didn't want to use fingerprint to unlock, and prefer a passphrase (lots of good reasons for this).
Can you still use ApplePay? Do you just tap on the phone even without a fingerprint stored and it works? Or do you in that case have to enter the passphrase?
I get that you do have to 'unlock' per se, but you DO have to authorize the transaction by entering your 'unlock credentials' right? (which is essentially the same as unlocking) Or am I mistaken?
Also, this means NFC is active even when the phone is locked. That seems like needless battery drain, and needless security risk.
All of your cards are displayed on your phone screen.
Right. My bad. You just have to futz with settings to change the default. But you still have to unlock the phone. And if you aren't using touchid that's going to slow you down. (And even touchid isn't perfect... )
Do you have to unlock the phone to use apple pay? (or android pay for that matter)
Yes.
I can't imagine that being easier than taking out my wallet, clicking the button to eject my card, and holding it to the terminal. Much faster than entering a 14 character password.
Yes, it's relatively tolerable if you are using a fingerprint unlock. But if you are using a long pin or passphrase to secure your device it's not exactly convenient.
Pretty much every settlement ever offered anywhere ever comes with language that you won't talk about it.
Its not 'odious' its not 'illegal'. Its completely mundane.
Let's consult a dictionary shall we?
Sure, let's.
Its not definition one, because this guy ISN'T in a "position of trust". He's just some rando with a broken phone.
That leaves definition #2..."something that serves to induce or influence" which covers everything from offering a child a cookie to clean up their room to, to advertising in all its forms, to wearing perfume... pretty much anything that affects another human being's actions or thoughts is a 'bribe' by #2.... actually it doesn't even require it be another human being... so attracting ants with sugar is bribe too. It's "by definition" right?
My parents kitchen renovations went slightly sideways and my parents were slightly unhappy (final result was fine, but there were some issues along way) so the contractor offered them some extra discounts to 'make things right'. The contractor only did it so my parents would have a more positive outlook on the work he did; so they'd be more satisfied customers. Wait... Gasp... he was trying to *influence* them! with money! That's the definition of a bribe! So its not just large corporations... now small independent contractors are doing it too! How odious! How corrupt! much anger!
I've got to ask: is he unlocking the phone and going into the Wallet app when he uses it?
He could well be doing it less than ideally.
So.. Unlocking it: yes. But actually going into the wallet app no. But he does wait after unlocking it for the home screen; to verify that it unlocked. He does have touchid enabled; it frequently takes 2+ attempts to unlock with it though; so he always makes sure its unlocked ~before~ putting it to the scanner. Maybe that's strictly unnecessary... but it seems to be how he (and most people) ive seen use it do it.
Arguably a phone would be more convenient than a wallet for some people, since they're more likely to have their phone already out
I'm not saying you are wrong; just that it has not been our experience. I've read that some retailers can require a pin even for contactless, or that a pin can be required for some transaction sizes... so there's definitely a few 'modes' it can operate under. But by default, (and in my experience) I've never been asked for a pin, and i the transaction is too large, I have to do chip and pin.
Nevertheless the point stands that its definitely not a general requirement of the system to enter in a pin regularly.
I mentioned having a Watch, which is what I use
Ok. I'll consider your argument from that context, and in that context you get points for convenience.
In any case most people have a smartphone now; and most people don't have a smartwatch and I'd go as far as to say most people don't really want one either. So I'd ask you to consider apple pay from that standpoint.
Pulling out a phone would arguably be easier than pulling out your wallet and then card,
I don't think it is.
My father has one of those iphone cases with the flap to hold cards -- the phone case doubles as his wallet. Its pretty much the ideal test case; He's got his DL, and a couple cards in it. Its faster for him to pull his phone out, pop the card and tap with it, then it is to use the phone itself to pay. He'll have his card, back in his phone case, and the phone back in his pocket before apple pay has authenticated.
I'm not quite sure why... perhaps because the phone itself is a distraction; he has to unlock it before using it, he has to wait for it to bring up the home screen; and then perhaps because the screen updates during the process he stops to looks at it again after the transaction...
where with the card it goes straight from phone/wallet to tap, and back into the case as soon as the machine registers it. There's no reason to stop and look at your visa card before and after a transaction... so maybe? I don't know. But it is consistently several seconds slower to use the phone from what I've observed.
I can't speak for the rest of the world, but in Canada debit contactless payments require a PIN every three transactions to reduce fraudulent charges from card theft and Apple Pay tied to a debit card does not, tacitly admitting that it's more secure.
I use contactless credit all the time and have never once ever had to enter a pin. I realize you said contactless *debit*; my wife does that but I never do, so i asked and she's NEVER had to enter a pin doing contactless *debit* either.
And Yes. In Canada.
Apple Pay tied to a debit card does not, tacitly admitting that it's more secure.
WTF? If you enable apple pay you are required to use an unlock or fingerprint to approve each transaction. So Applepay doesn't require a pincode because it requires a fingerprint scan or an unlock code.
It's slightly more convenient (very slight, but you still notice when you have to pull out your card)
As opposed to pulling out your phone? Which might occasionally have a dead battery. Or maybe its raining or frigid or sweltering and your fingerprint scanner won't read your finger; so you try that 3 times before giving up and entering the passcode....
Or maybe you have more than one card and you want to use a different card, so now you have futz around in settings to change which card to use.
Frankly I find my credit card much faster to use. I don't have to unlock it. I don't have do anything but tap and go. The smartphone payment systems are universally LESS convenient.
Yeah, it's not really especially innovative.
No its not. Its a good implementation. But its not innovative.
The ease-of-use and security factors plus Apple's shine, however, acted as a convenient way for consumers to apply some pressure to banks/merchants to update payment systems in the US.
While the refusal to allow the use of alternative (non-applepay) payment apps is anti-consumer/anti-competitive and should be stomped on.
If that's what it really were, you wouldn't have had this need to substitute one term for another
I'm not substituting terms. An unwanted kiss is sexual assault. This is a hard reality. You are the one trying to minimize the behavior. You are the one trying to say its 'just' a kiss or "maybe an unwanted kiss". I'm calling it what it is.
But that is not, what Trump is accused of doing. Kissing, even if unwelcome, does not qualify as any of that.
Dude. Read my post. Unwanted first-aid can lead to charges of assault and battery. Unwanted kissing absolutely qualifies as "any of that". Pull your head out of the sand, and accept reality.
The ladies may not have actively wanted him to kiss them, but, as the same recording says, they haven't objected either: "When you are a celebrity, they let you do it."
And if your boss sexually harasses a woman and she doesn't want to get fired or bring attention to it, then she's consenting and its not sexual harassment right? The fact that people 'let' rich and powerful people get away with things is not consent. Many of these women spoke to laywers etc, and they were advised that it's ultimately he-said / she-said vs a vindictive guy will billions of dollars... the courts aren't always a winning move. What does she hope to acheive, other than to have her name dragged through the mud?
Some dictionaries would define, what Trump boasted of doing in 2005, as assault. Because it involved physical contact, it would also be considered battery in the court of law.
Not "some dictionaries". The law defines it that way. At best some pretty shitty dictionaries don't include the legal definition.
Therefore, Trump should disgust you, dear viewer, as if he were boasting of beating women.
Trump disgusts me because he boasts of doing exactly what people accuse him of doing, unwanted sexual advances - unwanted kissing, groping, touching. That's sexual assault. Everyone understands this. Nobody is equating it with beatings except you.
Because it involved kissing, it must've been sexual assault too, which is, according to some other dictionaries, a synonym for rape.
Nope. Rape requires penetration. All rape is sexual assault. Not all sexual assault is rape. They are not synonyms although they do overlap. I'm not calling it rape, nobody else seems to be either. First you minimize it calling it 'maybe an unwanted kiss' then you accuse others of inflating it to equate with rape, which nobody seems to be actually doing. Its not "just maybe an unwanted kiss. And its certainly not rape. Its sexual assault.
You don't need to be anything of Anderson Cooper's caliber to put the above together
What are you hung up about with Anderson Cooper? He never accused Trump of being a rapist that I can find. Just of sexual assault. For someone so hung up on "word juggling" why are putting words into people's mouths?
Moreover, this sudden â" and synchronized â" swiftboating is rather suspicious in itself.
Really? Its suspicious how? That's how these things ALWAYS go down -- once a celebrity starts to come under pressure for conduct like this the victims come out of the woodwork ending their silence -- in solidarity with those who came before, emboldened by the knowledge that there were others, giving them confidence, and credibility, etc. This isn't suspicious. This is how the world works. These things hit a critical mass, and then other victims that hadn't gone public before because they were embarrassed or thought no one would believe; or thought they'd side with the celebrity against them just because he's rich, famous, they like his movies or tv shows or whatever... once the 'tide' starts to turn, more victims come forward.
Its not a conspiracy theory. Its human beings 101.
It really is. Raising your fist and threatening to hit someone is "assault". Spitting at someone and missing is "assault".
My dictionary defines it somewhat differently:
Yours isn't a legal dictionary. Actually... yours isn't even a dictionary at all. (see below).
And nobody got beaten
Legally, where assault is merely the apprehension of harmful or offensive contact, battery is harmful or offensive contact actually taking place. Taking your raised fist and striking someone is battery. Spitting at them and hitting them is battery. Pinching someone is battery. etc.
which is the usual understanding of the term "battery".
Even wordnet nails it:
"S: (n) battery, assault and battery (an assault in which the assailant makes physical contact)"
And wordnet isn't completely wrong about assault either, not really... it gets that it is threatened or attempted physical contact.
"S: (n) assault (a threatened or attempted physical attack by someone who appears to be able to cause bodily harm if not stopped)"
Its just a shitty example. A quadriplegic in a wheelchair spitting at you is an attempted physical attack by someone who appears to be able to cause bodily harm (landing spit on you) if not stopped. (Bodily harm is just any injury to your body -- including the injury of violating your right not to be spat upon.)
In any case all dictionaries are imperfect, but wordnet isn't even really a dictionary. Its a hypertext of synonym groups. The definitions are more illustrative than robust; as that isn't the focus of the project.
Plus its not exactly in good shape...
"Due to funding and staffing issues, we are no longer able to accept comment and suggestions." "Due to limited staffing, there are currently no plans for future WordNet releases." http://wordnet.princeton.edu/
Which is why it is better (as in "more honest") to simply call it, what it is: "a kiss" or, maybe, "an unwanted kiss".
Although the words âoeassault and batteryâ usually conjure up images of clearly hurtful and unwanted touches like being punched or kicked, a plaintiff does not have to prove she actually suffered injury to win an assault or battery case. Rather, she must merely prove that the touching was unwanted. Hugging, kissing, or providing seemingly helpful touches like first aid can count as assault and battery if the plaintiff does not want to be touched. In the torts of assault and battery, what matters is what the plaintiff does or does not want, not what the defendantâ(TM)s motives are in touching the plaintiff.
Yeah, "an unwanted kiss" is assault and battery. That is calling it what it is. This isn't obscure. Its been well established forever legally; and they've been teaching it in corporate sexual harrassment training sessions for decades now. I'm pretty sure even McDonalds covers it in their new employee orientations.
By carefully manipulating dictionaries, a professional word-juggler like Anderson Cooper could really convince the audience, Trump is approving of assault as defined in your dictionary, and then casually switch to mine to start calling him "rapist".
Huh? There's no 'careful manipulation being done by 'professional word jugglers'.
Its far worse than that, twitch isn't about the enjoyment of playing games, twitch is about being seen playing the games.
Twitch is to gaming, what instagram is to dining.
I, personally, have no interest in twitch and rarely watch other people play games for any reason; i'd rather play than watch. So I have the same disdain for watching other people play games that I have for watching sports on TV. I could not care less.
That said, I know lots of people watch sports for fun, and I'm not surprised lots of people now watch others play video games for fun. Whatever floats your boat.
I expect though, that games literally designed to be steamed via twitch, will generally be as shit as those "free2play/pay2win games designed to extract as much money as possible from microtransactions. Because in both cases they didn't set out to make a great GAME, they set out to subvert the game to other goals.
F2P games have shit timesinks and grinding and deliberately missing content in order to try and sell you shortcuts to the less shitty parts of the 'game'.
Likewise, I expect games designed ground up for twitch will compromise the integrity of the game in service to ""Taunt every interception, celebrate every kill, and highlight your dominance with instant replays" -- like a restaurant that has no atmosphere because the lighting is set up to make instagram photos looks better rather than foster an intimate dining experience...
I remember a couple decades ago a local reporter ran a story where he registered at multiple precincts and voted in each one (tearing up his unmarked ballot on camera before dropping it in each box so they wouldn't be counted), just to demonstrate how easy it was. He still got a few months in jail for voting fraud.
And you think that was right, and just, and served the ideals of society?
What if instead of a couple months in jail, it was successive life sentences? What if it had just been a few dozen hours community service? Or a suspended sentence?
You want to convict Snowden, and give him a couple months in jail; I'm sure few of his supporters would even raise much of a stink over that.
Just because Johnny threw rocks off a freeway overpass, does that mean it's ok for you to throw rocks off an overpass, even if it's for the explicit purpose of demonstrating to the public how easy it is to throw rocks off of overpasses?
That's a non sequitur.
Does anybody really need an object lesson in how easy it is to throw rocks from overpasses? Is that a secret hidden from the public? Is throwing rocks from an overpass likely to be informative? How egregious and corrupt is the city/state/country's mishandling of the problem? And what steps were taken to mitigate the risks to the public? Was the highway closed off with lookouts, and people retrieving the stones... or was I just throwing boulders into rush hour traffic while holding a camera phone?
Slashdot Mirror
Now, tell me again: Exactly how is this a Bad Thing? How does it make the MacBook Pro less "Pro"?
Because I don't want to carry around 2 laptop sized devices, and then tether them together.
Because I want the laptop have the functionality built in precisely so they don't have to carry a bag of crap to attach to it to make it work.
IE I want, as I said, my laptop "built into the dock".
What good is a dedicatedHDMI port if what you REALLY need is another port to connect to a SAN? What good is a dedicated Ethernet Port when what you really need another USB? So, having multiple, high-speed, identical I/O ports that can be easily and relatively inexpensively be adapted to one or more simultaneous uses is actually much more flexible and "future-proof" than having a fixed-number of dedicated ports. It. Just. Is.
LMAO. That argument falls flat on its face. It would be true if for some reason you could only have 2-3 ports on your laptop. So each spot was choice... thunderbolt/usbc or hdmi? thunderbolt/usbc or ethernet? It's not a choice. You can have it all.
It's simply NOT an either or question you can buy a 15" dell precision laptop with all the ports a macbook pro has. (thunderbolt + usbc). So it's got ALL the same flexibility and future proofing of the macbook pro.
And it has displayport, hdmi, ethernet (rj45), sdcard reader, headset jack, and 4 USB 3 ports.
That Dell comes with Windows 7 pro, 10 pro, or even Ubunutu linux. I can even get it with a Xeon and 64GB ram if I want. Doesn't matter how much money i try and throw at apple, I'm stuck with 16GB ram with no option to upgrade.
Dell makes a PRO laptop. Apple doesn't make one anymore.
Apple should make something like the Dell but... with OSX.
But instead they keep turning their pro laptop into a faster macbook air plus. Which is great for the people looking for that. But damn... it sure would be nice if Apple made a pro laptop again.
Your argument is essentially that because the macbook pro has a couple thunderbolt ports it has the potential for the functionality you need. But the Dell has all the functionality built right in, AND it has all the potential to plug in more stuff that mac has AND you don't have to tie up the thunderbolt port with your network card and external keyboard so it'll actually be available if you need it. The mac pro isn't even in the same league anymore. Its a joke.
since they provide a seldom-used (but still used) function in a laptop with good WiFi.
Used an an awful lot by mobile pros who work with large files, or pros who configure networks. Maybe Apple should create a sku with a couple extra usb ports, a gigabit port, as thick as the 2011 mbp with the extra space used for battery. They could call it "Macbook Pro".
They can renamed the current macbook pro, macbook Air+
In the end, it actually provides more flexibility for individual needs,
Fewer options is greater freedoms! Taking things out provides more flexibility! What double think! What newspeak! Much wow!
without overly-complicating base designs or unnecessarily increasing hardware costs.
Nobody buying a $2500 pro laptop in 2016 is concerned about the cost of a few ports. Indeed that's what the $2500 is for... because we want it to have all these capabilities built in, and we're willing to pay what ever it costs to get it.
It's reached the point where I'm considering buying a thunderbolt dock to keep in my laptop bag. Has all the ports I'll need, and I'm less likely to misplace or forget it. And its cheaper than the combined price of all the hubs, adapters, and dongles I currently need to carry around.
But you know what would be really cool... if they put some extra battery in the dock. And added a keyboard, screen, touchpad, CPU, SSD, and RAM. Then I could just carry around the dock, and not bother with a useless laptop. ;-)
PS:
Those Ethernet "Dongles" (as you call them)
A dongle is a piece of hardware that attaches to a computer and allows a piece of secured software to run. [...]
The term dongle has expanded beyond software protection to include any small device that plugs into the Universal Serial Bus (USB) or other computer port, regardless of what it does. These devices are usually used to provide some function that is not built in to the computer itself. This includes adding memory, supplying Bluetooth® and WiFi® connections, and adding adapters so that other devices can be plugged in.
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-i...
nvidia's presence on linux is what it is because its not a mainstream OS.
Consider Nvidia's geforce experience software for windows, which now requires you to create an account to get the automatic driver updates.
If Linux were in Windows position in terms of Marketshare. Geforce experience **would** be a linux app. Its not a necessary app for Linux ... its not even a necessary app on Windows.
But it would be the same borderline malware it is in windows, if it existed for linux. The only reason it doesn't exist for linux today is the marketshare.
So what if he is just a private citizen and doesn't even have access to (supposedly) secure government servers.
Nobody is expecting him to be using servers audited and monitored by the NSA.
They expect him to be using servers that aren't running EOL versions of Windows 2003. Because, in Trump's own word's...
"Iâ(TM)m going to surround myself only with the best and most serious people. We want top of the line professionals."
I
Contrast that to Linux. Normally, you plug something in and it works great. If it doesn't then you probably should have researched your purchase better.
Because Linux isn't mainstream. If linux were mainstream all that crap that doesn't work great... well now there's a 300MB malware installer for it from the vender. And they'll be actively sabotaging the open source drivers by tweaking their devices just enough every hardware /software revision to break them so that the path of least resistance is the proprietary malware blob.
Linux is free from all that commercialism garbage because not enough people use it to attract them. As mac's have grown more popular... more and more crap is being ported over. The same would happen with linux.
That installer is practically malware.
Yes. It's also their business model. So they aren't going to stop doing it.
Windows is already shipping with lots of crap. Compare that to linux, where only very few parts are crap.
In large part because it's not mainstream. If it were mainstream then logitech and razer and your printer and adobe and so forth would tart the place up in no time...
Instead I do everything Windowsy inside a VM on top of Linux.
So instead of maintaining one operating sytem you maintain 2.
Win!
Seriously, getting a Windows box infected is tragically easy even with 3 virus scanners simultaneously installed. Sometimes you don't even have to do anything.
Your not wrong. But if regular windows users ran linux desktops in the hundreds of millions they'd get them full of crap too. And it would be drive by malware ads taking advantage of flaws in the browser, and ransomware there their user account etc. They'd disable the firewall to get quickbooks to connect. And sony would install a backdoor/rootkit at the factory as part of some horribly misguided attempt at providing remote firmware update management tools...
Assault is a spectrum.
Yes, of course.
On one end is an unwanted tap on the shoulder,
No, actually that's already battery. Leaning in with your finger raised to give someone an unwanted tap someone on the shoulder is assault.
on the other end is murder.
No, that's not assault either, that's murder.
It really matters where on the spectrum a particular instance is.
It really matters that you choose points ON the spectrum too.
Offering unwanted first aid, or a helping hand is at one end, and apprehensions of serious bodily injury or death at the other.
Unwanted kisses are on the shallower end of the pool for sure, but even here we have a spectrum... from a chivalrous dry kiss on the hand as probably the least or a barely perceptible 'European style greeting kiss' on the cheek to more wet versions of those to kisses on the mouth... etc... etc.
By all accounts he was going for a kiss on the mouth with someone he just met. That's pretty far over the line.
Meh. Most people who carry around USB devices can carry around a different cable just as easily. In the grand scheme of don't care, it's a lot less annoying than the headphone jack would have been.
Until someone hands you a flash drive... your need to move a file via flash drive between two computers.
That would be yet another fucking dongle for mac owners to have to carry around for no good reason. (first was the ethernet dongle)
Watch them go back to something useless like minihdmi or minidisplayport too.
If true, this is a crippling blow for standards. And I really have to ask what makes this laptop "pro" at that point.
And the anwser is: Nothing. Its just got more diskspace and more ram.
a set of soft-reconfigurable action buttons at the top of the keyboard. Whee.
Pretty much. I've had pro mac laptops for years, and each one gets less "pro" than the one I had before. I was already waffling between dropping mac laptops and getting something else with my last "upgrade". But I stuck with it... this time... there is literally no reason to stay with mac. Mac has jumped off a cliff and the other venders are making perfectly good units. I'll buy a cheap macbook air for the house just to keep a hand in OSX, and get something else to use for work.
last I checked a laptop computer still works fine when you put it on a desk
Unless you expect it to perform as well as a desktop, with all the peripherals... multiple monitors, multiple networks, multiple audio devices, gobs of RAM, oodles of storage, and a video card that makes even the latest macbook pro look laughable.
"ApplePay requires TouchId. If you could just enter a pin on your phone to use Apple Pay, it would be no more secure than a credit card"
https://support.apple.com/en-c...
"To help ensure the security of Apple Pay, you must have a passcode set on your device and, optionally, Touch ID. "
So what happens if you opt not to use it? Since apparently that IS an option.
TouchID is a potential dealbreaker for a lot of people; because it is LESS secure than a passphrase. It's easier to spoof and the current legal environment appears to make it easier to be compelled to provide a touchid unlock than it is to compell someone to divulge their passphrase since the latter violates one's right to remain silent. While the former is more like being required to submit to having your fingerprints and photo taken.
http://mashable.com/2014/10/30...
"How is NFC always being active a security risk?"
Same way WiFi being on is a security risk. Or being plugged into a network is a security risk. If there is a flaw in the chipset/drivers/firewall/listening services/etc/etc that can be exploited there may be a way to do anything from crash the phone to gain access.
An attacker could also deliberately keep the phone in a higher power state as it repeatedly initiates communications with it to drain the battery. It just seems to me that its needless and unnecessary to have NFC on when the phone is locked.
That's not to say I think wifi should be off, and the phone stored in a lead box... but i do support minimizing the attack surface. And I can't really see any reason why NFC should be on when the phone is locked.
You don't have to unlock the screen either. Once you tap on a terminal, you just tap on the card.
Tap on the phone you mean? So that tap ISN'T touchid? Its just a physical contact required? Anyone could do it? Or is it doing an authentication.
Lets say you didn't want to use fingerprint to unlock, and prefer a passphrase (lots of good reasons for this).
Can you still use ApplePay? Do you just tap on the phone even without a fingerprint stored and it works? Or do you in that case have to enter the passphrase?
I get that you do have to 'unlock' per se, but you DO have to authorize the transaction by entering your 'unlock credentials' right? (which is essentially the same as unlocking) Or am I mistaken?
Also, this means NFC is active even when the phone is locked. That seems like needless battery drain, and needless security risk.
All of your cards are displayed on your phone screen.
Right. My bad. You just have to futz with settings to change the default. But you still have to unlock the phone. And if you aren't using touchid that's going to slow you down. (And even touchid isn't perfect... )
Do you have to unlock the phone to use apple pay? (or android pay for that matter)
Yes.
I can't imagine that being easier than taking out my wallet, clicking the button to eject my card, and holding it to the terminal.
Much faster than entering a 14 character password.
Yes, it's relatively tolerable if you are using a fingerprint unlock. But if you are using a long pin or passphrase to secure your device it's not exactly convenient.
Pretty much every settlement ever offered anywhere ever comes with language that you won't talk about it.
Its not 'odious' its not 'illegal'. Its completely mundane.
Let's consult a dictionary shall we?
Sure, let's.
Its not definition one, because this guy ISN'T in a "position of trust". He's just some rando with a broken phone.
That leaves definition #2..."something that serves to induce or influence" which covers everything from offering a child a cookie to clean up their room to, to advertising in all its forms, to wearing perfume... pretty much anything that affects another human being's actions or thoughts is a 'bribe' by #2. ... actually it doesn't even require it be another human being... so attracting ants with sugar is bribe too. It's "by definition" right?
My parents kitchen renovations went slightly sideways and my parents were slightly unhappy (final result was fine, but there were some issues along way) so the contractor offered them some extra discounts to 'make things right'. The contractor only did it so my parents would have a more positive outlook on the work he did; so they'd be more satisfied customers. Wait... Gasp... he was trying to *influence* them! with money! That's the definition of a bribe! So its not just large corporations... now small independent contractors are doing it too! How odious! How corrupt! much anger!
I've got to ask: is he unlocking the phone and going into the Wallet app when he uses it?
He could well be doing it less than ideally.
So.. Unlocking it: yes. But actually going into the wallet app no. But he does wait after unlocking it for the home screen; to verify that it unlocked. He does have touchid enabled; it frequently takes 2+ attempts to unlock with it though; so he always makes sure its unlocked ~before~ putting it to the scanner. Maybe that's strictly unnecessary... but it seems to be how he (and most people) ive seen use it do it.
Arguably a phone would be more convenient than a wallet for some people, since they're more likely to have their phone already out
Fair enough.
Totally willing to accept that I'm wrong on that
I'm not saying you are wrong; just that it has not been our experience. I've read that some retailers can require a pin even for contactless, or that a pin can be required for some transaction sizes... so there's definitely a few 'modes' it can operate under. But by default, (and in my experience) I've never been asked for a pin, and i the transaction is too large, I have to do chip and pin.
Nevertheless the point stands that its definitely not a general requirement of the system to enter in a pin regularly.
I mentioned having a Watch, which is what I use
Ok. I'll consider your argument from that context, and in that context you get points for convenience.
In any case most people have a smartphone now; and most people don't have a smartwatch and I'd go as far as to say most people don't really want one either. So I'd ask you to consider apple pay from that standpoint.
Pulling out a phone would arguably be easier than pulling out your wallet and then card,
I don't think it is.
My father has one of those iphone cases with the flap to hold cards -- the phone case doubles as his wallet. Its pretty much the ideal test case; He's got his DL, and a couple cards in it. Its faster for him to pull his phone out, pop the card and tap with it, then it is to use the phone itself to pay. He'll have his card, back in his phone case, and the phone back in his pocket before apple pay has authenticated.
I'm not quite sure why... perhaps because the phone itself is a distraction; he has to unlock it before using it, he has to wait for it to bring up the home screen; and then perhaps because the screen updates during the process he stops to looks at it again after the transaction...
where with the card it goes straight from phone/wallet to tap, and back into the case as soon as the machine registers it. There's no reason to stop and look at your visa card before and after a transaction... so maybe? I don't know. But it is consistently several seconds slower to use the phone from what I've observed.
I can't speak for the rest of the world, but in Canada debit contactless payments require a PIN every three transactions to reduce fraudulent charges from card theft and Apple Pay tied to a debit card does not, tacitly admitting that it's more secure.
I use contactless credit all the time and have never once ever had to enter a pin. I realize you said contactless *debit*; my wife does that but I never do, so i asked and she's NEVER had to enter a pin doing contactless *debit* either.
And Yes. In Canada.
Apple Pay tied to a debit card does not, tacitly admitting that it's more secure.
WTF? If you enable apple pay you are required to use an unlock or fingerprint to approve each transaction. So Applepay doesn't require a pincode because it requires a fingerprint scan or an unlock code.
It's slightly more convenient (very slight, but you still notice when you have to pull out your card)
As opposed to pulling out your phone? Which might occasionally have a dead battery. Or maybe its raining or frigid or sweltering and your fingerprint scanner won't read your finger; so you try that 3 times before giving up and entering the passcode....
Or maybe you have more than one card and you want to use a different card, so now you have futz around in settings to change which card to use.
Frankly I find my credit card much faster to use. I don't have to unlock it. I don't have do anything but tap and go. The smartphone payment systems are universally LESS convenient.
Yeah, it's not really especially innovative.
No its not. Its a good implementation. But its not innovative.
The ease-of-use and security factors plus Apple's shine, however, acted as a convenient way for consumers to apply some pressure to banks/merchants to update payment systems in the US.
While the refusal to allow the use of alternative (non-applepay) payment apps is anti-consumer/anti-competitive and should be stomped on.
If that's what it really were, you wouldn't have had this need to substitute one term for another
I'm not substituting terms. An unwanted kiss is sexual assault. This is a hard reality. You are the one trying to minimize the behavior. You are the one trying to say its 'just' a kiss or "maybe an unwanted kiss". I'm calling it what it is.
But that is not, what Trump is accused of doing. Kissing, even if unwelcome, does not qualify as any of that.
Dude. Read my post. Unwanted first-aid can lead to charges of assault and battery. Unwanted kissing absolutely qualifies as "any of that". Pull your head out of the sand, and accept reality.
The ladies may not have actively wanted him to kiss them, but, as the same recording says, they haven't objected either: "When you are a celebrity, they let you do it."
And if your boss sexually harasses a woman and she doesn't want to get fired or bring attention to it, then she's consenting and its not sexual harassment right? The fact that people 'let' rich and powerful people get away with things is not consent. Many of these women spoke to laywers etc, and they were advised that it's ultimately he-said / she-said vs a vindictive guy will billions of dollars... the courts aren't always a winning move. What does she hope to acheive, other than to have her name dragged through the mud?
Some dictionaries would define, what Trump boasted of doing in 2005, as assault. Because it involved physical contact, it would also be considered battery in the court of law.
Not "some dictionaries". The law defines it that way. At best some pretty shitty dictionaries don't include the legal definition.
Therefore, Trump should disgust you, dear viewer, as if he were boasting of beating women.
Trump disgusts me because he boasts of doing exactly what people accuse him of doing, unwanted sexual advances - unwanted kissing, groping, touching. That's sexual assault. Everyone understands this. Nobody is equating it with beatings except you.
Because it involved kissing, it must've been sexual assault too, which is, according to some other dictionaries, a synonym for rape.
Nope. Rape requires penetration. All rape is sexual assault. Not all sexual assault is rape. They are not synonyms although they do overlap. I'm not calling it rape, nobody else seems to be either. First you minimize it calling it 'maybe an unwanted kiss' then you accuse others of inflating it to equate with rape, which nobody seems to be actually doing. Its not "just maybe an unwanted kiss. And its certainly not rape. Its sexual assault.
You don't need to be anything of Anderson Cooper's caliber to put the above together
What are you hung up about with Anderson Cooper? He never accused Trump of being a rapist that I can find. Just of sexual assault. For someone so hung up on "word juggling" why are putting words into people's mouths?
Moreover, this sudden â" and synchronized â" swiftboating is rather suspicious in itself.
Really? Its suspicious how? That's how these things ALWAYS go down -- once a celebrity starts to come under pressure for conduct like this the victims come out of the woodwork ending their silence -- in solidarity with those who came before, emboldened by the knowledge that there were others, giving them confidence, and credibility, etc. This isn't suspicious. This is how the world works. These things hit a critical mass, and then other victims that hadn't gone public before because they were embarrassed or thought no one would believe; or thought they'd side with the celebrity against them just because he's rich, famous, they like his movies or tv shows or whatever... once the 'tide' starts to turn, more victims come forward.
Its not a conspiracy theory. Its human beings 101.
You are in denia
It is not even an assault.
It really is. Raising your fist and threatening to hit someone is "assault". Spitting at someone and missing is "assault".
My dictionary defines it somewhat differently:
Yours isn't a legal dictionary. Actually... yours isn't even a dictionary at all. (see below).
And nobody got beaten
Legally, where assault is merely the apprehension of harmful or offensive contact, battery is harmful or offensive contact actually taking place.
Taking your raised fist and striking someone is battery. Spitting at them and hitting them is battery. Pinching someone is battery. etc.
which is the usual understanding of the term "battery".
Even wordnet nails it:
"S: (n) battery, assault and battery (an assault in which the assailant makes physical contact)"
And wordnet isn't completely wrong about assault either, not really... it gets that it is threatened or attempted physical contact.
"S: (n) assault (a threatened or attempted physical attack by someone who appears to be able to cause bodily harm if not stopped)"
Its just a shitty example. A quadriplegic in a wheelchair spitting at you is an attempted physical attack by someone who appears to be able to cause bodily harm (landing spit on you) if not stopped. (Bodily harm is just any injury to your body -- including the injury of violating your right not to be spat upon.)
In any case all dictionaries are imperfect, but wordnet isn't even really a dictionary. Its a hypertext of synonym groups. The definitions are more illustrative than robust; as that isn't the focus of the project.
Plus its not exactly in good shape...
"Due to funding and staffing issues, we are no longer able to accept comment and suggestions."
"Due to limited staffing, there are currently no plans for future WordNet releases."
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/
Which is why it is better (as in "more honest") to simply call it, what it is: "a kiss" or, maybe, "an unwanted kiss".
http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-li...
Although the words âoeassault and batteryâ usually conjure up images of clearly hurtful and unwanted touches like being punched or kicked, a plaintiff does not have to prove she actually suffered injury to win an assault or battery case. Rather, she must merely prove that the touching was unwanted. Hugging, kissing, or providing seemingly helpful touches like first aid can count as assault and battery if the plaintiff does not want to be touched. In the torts of assault and battery, what matters is what the plaintiff does or does not want, not what the defendantâ(TM)s motives are in touching the plaintiff.
Yeah, "an unwanted kiss" is assault and battery. That is calling it what it is. This isn't obscure. Its been well established forever legally; and they've been teaching it in corporate sexual harrassment training sessions for decades now. I'm pretty sure even McDonalds covers it in their new employee orientations.
By carefully manipulating dictionaries, a professional word-juggler like Anderson Cooper could really convince the audience, Trump is approving of assault as defined in your dictionary, and then casually switch to mine to start calling him "rapist".
Huh? There's no 'careful manipulation being done by 'professional word jugglers'.
"But that's even less of a stretch than the feat Anderson Cooper accomplished recently by redefining assault to include unappreciated kiss."
Try an actual legal dictionary.
http://legal-dictionary.thefre...
"an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact."
That's ALL that's required for assault.
An unwanted kiss is actually assault AND battery; since there was unwanted ('offensive') physical contact too.
Its far worse than that, twitch isn't about the enjoyment of playing games, twitch is about being seen playing the games.
Twitch is to gaming, what instagram is to dining.
I, personally, have no interest in twitch and rarely watch other people play games for any reason; i'd rather play than watch. So I have the same disdain for watching other people play games that I have for watching sports on TV. I could not care less.
That said, I know lots of people watch sports for fun, and I'm not surprised lots of people now watch others play video games for fun. Whatever floats your boat.
I expect though, that games literally designed to be steamed via twitch, will generally be as shit as those "free2play/pay2win games designed to extract as much money as possible from microtransactions. Because in both cases they didn't set out to make a great GAME, they set out to subvert the game to other goals.
F2P games have shit timesinks and grinding and deliberately missing content in order to try and sell you shortcuts to the less shitty parts of the 'game'.
Likewise, I expect games designed ground up for twitch will compromise the integrity of the game in service to ""Taunt every interception, celebrate every kill, and highlight your dominance with instant replays" -- like a restaurant that has no atmosphere because the lighting is set up to make instagram photos looks better rather than foster an intimate dining experience...
see also:
debus - unload/ exit motor vehicles / esp. busses
detrain - get off a train
debark - get off a boat
depart - to leave a place
Seems we have pattern.
I thought that was related that Tinder, where you swipe one way to 'accept' a prospective match/hookup/whatever, and the other way to 'reject' them.
I couldn't tell you whether left or right is accept or reject, but its probably obvious from the context.
I remember a couple decades ago a local reporter ran a story where he registered at multiple precincts and voted in each one (tearing up his unmarked ballot on camera before dropping it in each box so they wouldn't be counted), just to demonstrate how easy it was. He still got a few months in jail for voting fraud.
And you think that was right, and just, and served the ideals of society?
What if instead of a couple months in jail, it was successive life sentences? What if it had just been a few dozen hours community service? Or a suspended sentence?
You want to convict Snowden, and give him a couple months in jail; I'm sure few of his supporters would even raise much of a stink over that.
Just because Johnny threw rocks off a freeway overpass, does that mean it's ok for you to throw rocks off an overpass, even if it's for the explicit purpose of demonstrating to the public how easy it is to throw rocks off of overpasses?
That's a non sequitur.
Does anybody really need an object lesson in how easy it is to throw rocks from overpasses? Is that a secret hidden from the public? Is throwing rocks from an overpass likely to be informative? How egregious and corrupt is the city/state/country's mishandling of the problem? And what steps were taken to mitigate the risks to the public? Was the highway closed off with lookouts, and people retrieving the stones... or was I just throwing boulders into rush hour traffic while holding a camera phone?