Apple is talking about the kernel itself, which it calls the "kernel cache"
TFA is talking about the kernel, which Apple calls the "kernel cache"
They're talking about the same thing, Apple just uses a funny term for it.
To be fair, Apple uses a weird terminology with regard to the kernel in iOS (don't know about macs or any other XNU-running devices, don't have any experience with them)
the kernel in iOS is in fact called a kernel cache. It's prelinked, ready to be dumped into memory and executed.
Apple is in fact referring to the kernel when are talking about the kernel cache.
Apple and "security experts" are talking about the same thing.
Non digital cabling is more prone to error and interference
That is a pile of bullshit, right there, chief. Digital, Analog, it's all about SNR. Transmitting digital data over an analog medium (copper) is no less prone to interference than sending analog over it. Digital simply provides you a way to see the errors and shut the entire stream off if the interference becomes impacting.
I often have to used wired ports because of either poor connectivity or overcrowding of the spectrum. I expect bluetooth etc to eventually have the same problem when there are no wired headphones. Copper is good stuff. The radio ether....sometimes not the best!
I actually have this exact problem at my condo.
I have an SNR of ~2-5dB on any of the 2.4 channels. My phone can't even talk to my watch over bluetooth whenever a few people in the complex are using any significant amount of wifi bandwidth. Need 5Ghz BT:(
Rather than having the phone send out an amplified analog signal, if the phone sends out a simple digital stream it would use LESS - not more - power. With a dongle it would use the same amount as it does today to convert to an audio stream, but if you had battery powered headphones they could do all of the amplification (and plenty of really nice headphones already do additional application in the headphones).
The DAC must exist somewhere.
Whether it's in the phone, or the phone-powered headphones makes no difference. There is no power savings to be had here, except in the instance where you are plugging it into a self-powered peripheral... which is probably not 99% of peoples' non-charging use case (headphones, car AUX). Power is an irrelevant argument.
This is such a dick move. I've maintained 2 phones for a long time (A personal Android phone, and a work iPhone) but I won't buy an iPhone with this "feature" unless they can make some kind of dual-connection dongle so that I can charge it while I listen to it.
And let's be real, I think we're all quite sure they won't be using the.4 cubic centimeters of real estate they get from this change to "give us more battery power." They will be using it to make the phone slightly thinner. Which is something a lot of people care about... I guess?
The good news for me, is I won't be too terribly impacted. They have Apple Music for Android now, so I will just switch to using my Android phone for music
A civilian SIG MCX may not be an "assault rifle", but it is damn close.
It fits in every portion of the definition minus the automatic...
I'd argue that it fits "rapid-fire" pretty damn well. You can very easily squeeze off 4-5 rounds a second with that weapon, and with a 30-round mag, that's 6 seconds to wipe out 20-30 people.
Very fun gun to shoot. Really only good for feeling like you're playing real life counterstrike against targets... or people.
I've owned firearms since I was a wee boy... but christ, are you really so intellectually dishonest as to argue that it's reasonable for every fucking person in the country to be toting these fucking things around?
That gun doesn't just *look* menacing- as available online, it IS fucking menacing. The only self-defensive purpose that rifle will ever serve is self defense from a Swat raid that's coming to kill your ass because you've got hostages in a bank.
I think this is a VERY small group indeed. Yes, I'm sure these people exist, but is it a large enough group for Apple to design a product around? I'm sure Apple knows that better than any of us.
I'm sure you're right that the group that will affect Apples sales is very small, but many I think will simply buy adapters. And I do see it as perfectly feasible for that to be a well understood market demographic for Apple, and they expect to capitalize off of it. And I think that sucks. But it's their device, and their choice. The world isn't subject to my whims with regard to which direction it goes, and Apple has a lot more influence in that direction than I do. So I'm not too bent out of shape over it, I just think it's a dick move on Apple's part
I suspect it's a software bug. My 5s did it, and my 6s does it. Some kind of interaction with the BT of my car, I assume, as before now, I hadn't heard of anyone else having the problem. Mine doesn't happen as frequently as his (I think it's only happened maybe 3 times in the year that I've had my car, but a reboot of the phone is the only thing that will make it come back to life)
My dad's 2008 Ford Mustang is AUX only, my 2011 has BT.
I'm betting it was probably an option on my dad's 2008, but whether it was or not, he does not have it. I use an AUX cable when I'm visiting him and using his car.
I'm betting it was an option for lots of cars in 2008, and is close to standard on most from 2013+
Since it's a serious question, I won't give a sarcastic answer- it was however my first instinct.
iPhones are pretty ubiquitous amongst my friends, and I am one of 2 people I know with a car that does bluetooth.
I live in Seattle, WA. We're not too poor to afford one here, there's just a tendency for people to own cheaper older commuters, even if they have means to get better.
People with cars new enough to have stock AUX plugs use those, people rolling their 1990s corollas have FM transmitters.
and since grass dies and decomposes you actually would need a great deal more to even just slow DOWN the rise in CO2 levels.
It doesn't work this way.
Think of the carbon cycle as a still that recirculates the condensed water back into the evaporation tank. By adjusting the temperature, you'll adjust the amount of water that is vapor, or condensed at any point in time.
Yes, that grass, and those trees will die and decompose, and go back to the air... But as long as the the biomass remains fixed at a greater size than before we started reducing it, less of it is in the gaseous portion. That is- when a plant dies, generally, in nature, one grows to take its place.
As for the space requirements... I suspect you're pretty far off the ball, there.
There's a lot more land on this planet than we use for habitation. We've deforested a lot of it for no reason other than having some grass to look at, or crops that are better grown elsewhere.
They sure do, my girlfriend and I both use my prime account, and we live in different parts of the Seattle area
In downtown Seattle, they'll even deliver you hot lunch from local restaurants.
Probably not going to happen.
The current American fitness equation doesn't really include anything for long-term individually variable genetic morality. I do quite fine...
I'm certainly glad you've got it from here, though. I can feel my progeny's chances for a better life increasing with every word you type.
What do I need to do if I just don't give a shit?
I'm an atheist. I acknowledge no wider metaphysical context containing science (though this is in no way in conflict with atheism...)
Human to me is some definition of a collection of genes widely agreed upon to be the constituents of the extant human genome. Would a pig with a human brain be human? Na. But it probably needs some kind of rights since it's going to be a self-aware animal with a relatively high level of intelligence (But I'd also argue all [within reason] animals need *some* kind of rights)
Not that what they're doing is anywhere close to this question even needing be answered. They're not going to put a human brain in a pig. The genetics required for it are far far far more complex than we currently understand.
Are you really trying to form an equivalency between genetic construction of a Chimera, and research on harvested fetal stem cells?
And really with the political shit? left-wing?
I'm a lefty (I think... hard to say these days), and I'm all for GMO chow, nuclear power, catdogs, bunnygirls, and not wasting the stem cells from terminated pregnancies. I don't feel like it's... political at all for me. Just logical.
You need to get over yourself and your politics. Try to look at issues by their merit instead of whatever your coach tells you your team is all about.
Could not agree more on all points.
I have a first gen, and Pebble Time Steel (also kickstarter bought)- same deal, though the newer Pebble is "nicer" with the color screen.
I have my 2 pebbles, and an Apple Watch, and it's a seriously tough decision to decide which I want to stick with. The Apple Watch has some cool ass functionality available to it via Watch apps... better (for me) than the Pebble's available apps- but the Pebble (color, at least) looks pretty damn nice, gets the job done, and I don't have to charge the damn thing for over a week... And I honestly don't use all the Apple Watch apps I have any more than I use the Pebble ones, in spite of cooler ones being available... It's definitely a matter of personal preference, and it's definitely not clear cut which is... "Better"
Prime Now- if you live in certain locations (We have it here in Seattle), Amazon will send a dude in a car to drop your stuff off in a couple hours. It's awesome, though the merchandise available is more limited than Amazon in general, it does in fact include Pebbles and other electronics gadgets.
When you're burning the results of millions of years of biomass accumulation on century scales it's not possible living biomass to come anywhere close to keeping up with current emissions.
I know. But it's a step in the right direction, and it's the only realistic way to move the needle in the other direction once we've stopped injecting fossil carbon into the atmosphere.
By increasing biomass. Total carbon in the system is fixed.
As we are currently massively altering its equilibrium by pulling solid carbon out of the dirt, and turning it into gas, and burning solid carbon forests, and turning it into gas (without replanting an equal amount of forest), it can be altered in the other direction.
The extant forests of the world are "locked" from the cycle (Though, not the air... but carbon flux isn't what matters. Just what the proportions of the different stages of the cycle)
even plants that do get eaten transfer some of the carbon to another organic material, not air. so on and on.
Even if they get eaten- this isn't a problem. There's a fixed amount of carbon in the cycle, existing as biomass and CO2 in various other reservoirs (air, sea).
We as humans have artifically altered the balance of biomass-gaseous carbon by cutting down and burning a shit ton of those trees. We have also done it by injecting carbon functionally outside of the cycle (for relevant time-frames) back into it.
Let the forests grow. Double the size of extant forests, and you'll have removed that much carbon from the gaseous portion of the cycle.
Plants themselves are carbon neutral in their no-longer-growing state, but at that point they are sequestered carbon. Until they decay (partially) and give that carbon back to the atmosphere. The growing of a plant is not carbon neutral. The overall process of increase in biomass (forestation) is not carbon neutral.
Growing more trees (increasing biomass) will absolutely help alter the balance of the cycle.
Unfortunately, we'd have to grow enough trees to a) offset the trees we have already cut down and burnt, and b) offset the hydrocarbons we've pulled out of the dirt and turned into CO2. That may be... realistically insurmountable.
Photosynthesis is just the process by which biomass is increased at the expense of atmospheric carbon.
If you're removing the overall biomass faster than it can photosynthesize more of it (deforestation), all the photosynthesis in the fucking world doesn't make a difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple is talking about the kernel itself, which it calls the "kernel cache"
TFA is talking about the kernel, which Apple calls the "kernel cache"
They're talking about the same thing, Apple just uses a funny term for it.
To be fair, Apple uses a weird terminology with regard to the kernel in iOS (don't know about macs or any other XNU-running devices, don't have any experience with them)
the kernel in iOS is in fact called a kernel cache. It's prelinked, ready to be dumped into memory and executed.
Apple is in fact referring to the kernel when are talking about the kernel cache.
Apple and "security experts" are talking about the same thing.
Non digital cabling is more prone to error and interference
That is a pile of bullshit, right there, chief. Digital, Analog, it's all about SNR. Transmitting digital data over an analog medium (copper) is no less prone to interference than sending analog over it. Digital simply provides you a way to see the errors and shut the entire stream off if the interference becomes impacting.
I often have to used wired ports because of either poor connectivity or overcrowding of the spectrum. I expect bluetooth etc to eventually have the same problem when there are no wired headphones. Copper is good stuff. The radio ether....sometimes not the best!
I actually have this exact problem at my condo.
:(
I have an SNR of ~2-5dB on any of the 2.4 channels. My phone can't even talk to my watch over bluetooth whenever a few people in the complex are using any significant amount of wifi bandwidth. Need 5Ghz BT
Rather than having the phone send out an amplified analog signal, if the phone sends out a simple digital stream it would use LESS - not more - power. With a dongle it would use the same amount as it does today to convert to an audio stream, but if you had battery powered headphones they could do all of the amplification (and plenty of really nice headphones already do additional application in the headphones).
The DAC must exist somewhere.
.4 cubic centimeters of real estate they get from this change to "give us more battery power." They will be using it to make the phone slightly thinner. Which is something a lot of people care about... I guess?
Whether it's in the phone, or the phone-powered headphones makes no difference. There is no power savings to be had here, except in the instance where you are plugging it into a self-powered peripheral... which is probably not 99% of peoples' non-charging use case (headphones, car AUX). Power is an irrelevant argument.
This is such a dick move. I've maintained 2 phones for a long time (A personal Android phone, and a work iPhone) but I won't buy an iPhone with this "feature" unless they can make some kind of dual-connection dongle so that I can charge it while I listen to it.
And let's be real, I think we're all quite sure they won't be using the
The good news for me, is I won't be too terribly impacted. They have Apple Music for Android now, so I will just switch to using my Android phone for music
A civilian SIG MCX may not be an "assault rifle", but it is damn close.
It fits in every portion of the definition minus the automatic...
I'd argue that it fits "rapid-fire" pretty damn well. You can very easily squeeze off 4-5 rounds a second with that weapon, and with a 30-round mag, that's 6 seconds to wipe out 20-30 people.
Very fun gun to shoot. Really only good for feeling like you're playing real life counterstrike against targets... or people.
I've owned firearms since I was a wee boy... but christ, are you really so intellectually dishonest as to argue that it's reasonable for every fucking person in the country to be toting these fucking things around?
That gun doesn't just *look* menacing- as available online, it IS fucking menacing. The only self-defensive purpose that rifle will ever serve is self defense from a Swat raid that's coming to kill your ass because you've got hostages in a bank.
How many of your friends are willing to spend $650 on a new iPhone, but NOT willing to spend $15 on a BT to 3.5mm adapter?
I agree entirely- I think this will have almost no effect on marketability of the iPhone. I just think it's a dick move.
I think this is a VERY small group indeed. Yes, I'm sure these people exist, but is it a large enough group for Apple to design a product around? I'm sure Apple knows that better than any of us.
I'm sure you're right that the group that will affect Apples sales is very small, but many I think will simply buy adapters. And I do see it as perfectly feasible for that to be a well understood market demographic for Apple, and they expect to capitalize off of it. And I think that sucks. But it's their device, and their choice. The world isn't subject to my whims with regard to which direction it goes, and Apple has a lot more influence in that direction than I do. So I'm not too bent out of shape over it, I just think it's a dick move on Apple's part
In 5 years, will anyone care?
Less people will... I'm not actually arguing your overall point that it isn't that big of a deal, just that it does actually affect a lot of people
I suspect it's a software bug. My 5s did it, and my 6s does it. Some kind of interaction with the BT of my car, I assume, as before now, I hadn't heard of anyone else having the problem. Mine doesn't happen as frequently as his (I think it's only happened maybe 3 times in the year that I've had my car, but a reboot of the phone is the only thing that will make it come back to life)
Even the Chevy Spark LS, for $13,500, has BT...
Not the 2014. It was an option.
My dad's 2008 Ford Mustang is AUX only, my 2011 has BT.
I'm betting it was probably an option on my dad's 2008, but whether it was or not, he does not have it. I use an AUX cable when I'm visiting him and using his car.
I'm betting it was an option for lots of cars in 2008, and is close to standard on most from 2013+
Since it's a serious question, I won't give a sarcastic answer- it was however my first instinct.
iPhones are pretty ubiquitous amongst my friends, and I am one of 2 people I know with a car that does bluetooth.
I live in Seattle, WA. We're not too poor to afford one here, there's just a tendency for people to own cheaper older commuters, even if they have means to get better.
People with cars new enough to have stock AUX plugs use those, people rolling their 1990s corollas have FM transmitters.
and since grass dies and decomposes you actually would need a great deal more to even just slow DOWN the rise in CO2 levels.
It doesn't work this way.
Think of the carbon cycle as a still that recirculates the condensed water back into the evaporation tank. By adjusting the temperature, you'll adjust the amount of water that is vapor, or condensed at any point in time.
Yes, that grass, and those trees will die and decompose, and go back to the air... But as long as the the biomass remains fixed at a greater size than before we started reducing it, less of it is in the gaseous portion. That is- when a plant dies, generally, in nature, one grows to take its place.
As for the space requirements... I suspect you're pretty far off the ball, there.
There's a lot more land on this planet than we use for habitation. We've deforested a lot of it for no reason other than having some grass to look at, or crops that are better grown elsewhere.
They sure do, my girlfriend and I both use my prime account, and we live in different parts of the Seattle area
In downtown Seattle, they'll even deliver you hot lunch from local restaurants.
https://primenow.amazon.com/
"View all cities" - it appears they have it in lots of metro areas.
Probably not going to happen.
The current American fitness equation doesn't really include anything for long-term individually variable genetic morality. I do quite fine...
I'm certainly glad you've got it from here, though. I can feel my progeny's chances for a better life increasing with every word you type.
What do I need to do if I just don't give a shit?
I'm an atheist. I acknowledge no wider metaphysical context containing science (though this is in no way in conflict with atheism...)
Human to me is some definition of a collection of genes widely agreed upon to be the constituents of the extant human genome. Would a pig with a human brain be human? Na. But it probably needs some kind of rights since it's going to be a self-aware animal with a relatively high level of intelligence (But I'd also argue all [within reason] animals need *some* kind of rights)
Not that what they're doing is anywhere close to this question even needing be answered. They're not going to put a human brain in a pig. The genetics required for it are far far far more complex than we currently understand.
Are you really trying to form an equivalency between genetic construction of a Chimera, and research on harvested fetal stem cells?
And really with the political shit? left-wing?
I'm a lefty (I think... hard to say these days), and I'm all for GMO chow, nuclear power, catdogs, bunnygirls, and not wasting the stem cells from terminated pregnancies. I don't feel like it's... political at all for me. Just logical.
You need to get over yourself and your politics. Try to look at issues by their merit instead of whatever your coach tells you your team is all about.
Could not agree more on all points.
I have a first gen, and Pebble Time Steel (also kickstarter bought)- same deal, though the newer Pebble is "nicer" with the color screen.
I have my 2 pebbles, and an Apple Watch, and it's a seriously tough decision to decide which I want to stick with. The Apple Watch has some cool ass functionality available to it via Watch apps... better (for me) than the Pebble's available apps- but the Pebble (color, at least) looks pretty damn nice, gets the job done, and I don't have to charge the damn thing for over a week... And I honestly don't use all the Apple Watch apps I have any more than I use the Pebble ones, in spite of cooler ones being available... It's definitely a matter of personal preference, and it's definitely not clear cut which is... "Better"
Prime Now- if you live in certain locations (We have it here in Seattle), Amazon will send a dude in a car to drop your stuff off in a couple hours. It's awesome, though the merchandise available is more limited than Amazon in general, it does in fact include Pebbles and other electronics gadgets.
When you're burning the results of millions of years of biomass accumulation on century scales it's not possible living biomass to come anywhere close to keeping up with current emissions.
I know. But it's a step in the right direction, and it's the only realistic way to move the needle in the other direction once we've stopped injecting fossil carbon into the atmosphere.
By increasing biomass. Total carbon in the system is fixed.
As we are currently massively altering its equilibrium by pulling solid carbon out of the dirt, and turning it into gas, and burning solid carbon forests, and turning it into gas (without replanting an equal amount of forest), it can be altered in the other direction.
The extant forests of the world are "locked" from the cycle (Though, not the air... but carbon flux isn't what matters. Just what the proportions of the different stages of the cycle)
even plants that do get eaten transfer some of the carbon to another organic material, not air. so on and on.
Even if they get eaten- this isn't a problem. There's a fixed amount of carbon in the cycle, existing as biomass and CO2 in various other reservoirs (air, sea).
We as humans have artifically altered the balance of biomass-gaseous carbon by cutting down and burning a shit ton of those trees. We have also done it by injecting carbon functionally outside of the cycle (for relevant time-frames) back into it.
Let the forests grow. Double the size of extant forests, and you'll have removed that much carbon from the gaseous portion of the cycle.
Plants themselves are carbon neutral in their no-longer-growing state, but at that point they are sequestered carbon. Until they decay (partially) and give that carbon back to the atmosphere. The growing of a plant is not carbon neutral. The overall process of increase in biomass (forestation) is not carbon neutral.
Growing more trees (increasing biomass) will absolutely help alter the balance of the cycle.
Unfortunately, we'd have to grow enough trees to a) offset the trees we have already cut down and burnt, and b) offset the hydrocarbons we've pulled out of the dirt and turned into CO2. That may be... realistically insurmountable.
Photosynthesis is just the process by which biomass is increased at the expense of atmospheric carbon.
If you're removing the overall biomass faster than it can photosynthesize more of it (deforestation), all the photosynthesis in the fucking world doesn't make a difference.