Umm, really? This is just the last 40 days or so... True, they didn't invent a lot of things, but they do invent A LOT of things. I double-dog dare you to search the USPTO site. They are crazy prolific at inventing things.
This might be a new record or maybe not. The headline currently states "120 Degrees..." when it should say "210 Degrees..." Summary and article both state 210 degrees.
And, lest we not forget "Heads-Up Display"? Really, it's a Head-Mounted Display (HMD), a Head-Up Display (HUD) is something completely different. I think timothy should lose his geek card for this last ungeekly act.
[shakes head and wonders what happened to the real/.]
To make full use of that resolution ("Retina" quality, i.e. indistinguishable pixels) at a viewing distance of 10ft you'd need a screen 150" screen. That's 8ft wide 4ft6in tall.
Like a comment above, Huh? What?!! They are not going to have pixel densities on 65" or above displays at Retina display densities for 4K. 4K means the horizontal pixel width is 4,000 pixels, or so. If you can see pixels on a current 65" HD display from five feet away, you have bionic man vision.
Truth be told: Tools won't survive. They're notoriously fickle. That said, this is one place where good development practice can really help. Here are some of my guidelines:
Get off the bleeding edge. Let the youngsters and startups do the bleeding. Learn from them, and use cutting-edge tools after they've matured a bit and have widespread market adoption. Yes, I was late to the jQuery party. No, I don't feel bad about that, as I could have just as easily chosen a failed alternative and been left with something that's damn near impossible to maintain.
Quality separation of concerns is VITAL for survival. Keep your data store separate from your business logic, and for Knuth's sake, keep your UI the HELL away from everything else, since the UI is the most volatile bit.
Don't resist your platform: Working on the web? Learn JavaScript. Learn jQuery. Do not use things like SharpKit to turn one platform into another.
Use things for which the were initially intended, and ignore many of the add-on features. Use databases to store data, not as process engines. Use JavaScript / jQuery for user interface goodness, not your entire application logic.
APIs / web services / interfaces are your friend... Not just to use, but for you to enforce separation and flexibility.
I will second everything you said and add some more web dev wisdom. I am assuming that the OP is developing middle-ware or other web apps (social, ecommerce, etc). Sound development practices should mitigate the impact of changes in component architectures, from data stores to UI you need to compartmentalize as much as possible and use each underlying tech as they were intended.
I have developed dozens of web apps from FileMaker Pro (mid to late 1990s) to PHP/MySQL today; with a few things in between. If you know this is more than a one-off project or you are just really a good dev you will want to make sure that the product is as serviceable and extensible as possible, even if you're doing C# or.NET stuff, or Tomcat, or Ruby, things that have been around a while and evolved. Just because it's good today doesn't mean it will still be good five to ten years from now.
You will always have things like deprecation to deal with no matter what. You should be dealing with these framework disappearances in a similar way to you dealing with legacy functions that are no longer supported. As the person making the decisions you should also be doing annual evals and almost constant research into emerging frameworks that may be useful or have more longevity to what you are currently using. In the web world there are few instances where you can rest on your laurels and stick with one framework for long. Things change WAY too fast and you need to account for that going in. The desktop world tends to change at a slower pace to the web and that seems why those frameworks tend to stick around longer. The web is much more buzzword, tech-o-the-day oriented. Keep up or get left behind! Basically, use what works today, but keep an eye on tomorrow with your code structure knowing that in a year or two you may have to retool.
b.) they didn't get caught they got exposed by Snowden
c.) Other countries (France and England included) spy on the U.S. all the time...since, well, as long as the U.S. has existed. Just because their an ally doesn't mean we don't gather intelligence on them clandestinely. It's part of the way the world works. It's the spying internally that is bad, bad, bad, bad, bad! That's what Snowden was trying to point out and (rightfully) get stopped. He unfortunately caused a lot of collateral damage in the process. Trust me, it's going to take more than a "hey-you're-spying-on-us" incident to sour collaboration against terrorism. We might lose some trade deals or something like that, but France and other allies don't want their citizens injured in an attack either and will cooperate to thwart a plot. To not act on U.S. intelligence and have French citizens killed would be much worse for those in charge than some spying.
You quite possibly are the dumbest person alive. Your reasoning is unsound and your math is even worse. Are you a member of Fox News because you're really good at the false equivalency game?
Boo freekin hoo. This is what the NSA is supposed to do.
Um, no. They are supposed to focus on the activities of groups who are directly threatening American interests.
Ummm, no, please read. They are supposed to be building and looking through haystacks. That *IS* their job by mandate. Their mandate did not extend to U.S. soil until the (Un-)Patriot Act. That's when everyone's panties got in a bunch. The NSA is supposed to support intelligence and counterintelligence information gathering to support national and departmental interests. That includes spying on our allies. Always has. And they have always spied on us too, so welcome to the real world!
I don't think you understand how electric cars work in real life. Most people expect that electric cars will be an option when all gas stations become charging stations. This will never happen, because it is not needed. Every morning when you leave home, your battery is full. No need to stop at a station to swap battery or get a fast charge. Every morning. This is the reality of electric car owners. The future is now!
So the fast charge or battery swap stations will only exist in certain locations (along highway for example) and there will be very few compared to gas station. Very few.
I don't think you understand how a lot of the population live around the world. See not all of us live in single family detached housing where we have a garage and an outlet to plug our car into. Also, not all of us drive short distances daily to and from work, the store and relatives. For most of us those drives can be a quarter to a third the overall range of today's typical electric car, then there's the once the car is at Point B away from home, how does one charge it? And yes, the only way electric cars take off is if they supplant the infrastructure that's already there, that includes LOTS of swap stations. You would want lots of them so you didn't get stuck somewhere should you get a bad battery, or yours just fails for some reason. To delude yourself into thinking the problem of refueling (regardless of source) goes away because you can plug in at home is just ludicrous. Me thinks you live in a reality distortion field that makes you the example for everyone else. See in the REAL world, we all live differently and need flexibility in our technology offerings. We don't all want to be like you!
Yes, I know, but people are familiar with cars getting dented. It was more the act than the damage I was referring to. Failure modes are many. Have to remember the fiber laminate is only strongest in two dimensions, usually the way they are oriented, so an impact from a perpendicular source to the plane of orientation would result in damage very easily. I am not familiar enough with the technology being developed to know if damage to the laminate panel would cause complete failure, but I'd have to imagine that it very well might. Losing integrity of the system might also pose other risks, i.e., fire.
Exactly, it doesn't really matter if it is a real quantum computer or not, only that it can complete certain computations that people need much faster than a traditional computer. If it solves that problem for someone then the rest of the debate is academic.
Wait, it does matter whether this is a quantum computer or not. If it *is* a quantum computer then the calculations can be trusted to be accurate and precise based on the fundemental principles driving the solutions. If it is *not* a quantum computer all the results from the machine may be so horribly wrong that they cause serious accidents, damage or loss of life. The problem as stated above in the comments is that some of the calculations take so egregiously long ("eons") on traditional computation devices that we will have no way to verify them for decades if not centuries. That's a real problem that QC needs to solve before it can be trusted. I don't know where the ball sits right now, but from all the fervor I'd say the jury is still out on whether the Dwave machine results can be trusted. I am skeptical, but hopeful. It sure would be nice to have QC working sooner than later. But, trust is still out on this whole deal and is the real sticking point for the physicists and mathematicians that are challenging the current tech. How do we really know if some of the results the Dwave machine cranks out are correct if we don't have known results to point to? That was rhetorical, I know the answer to that question, btw.
1. If you're in a crash or just dent a body panel with this crap in it how much is that going to cost?
2. What happens when you need to replace the batteries because they don't hold a charge? You replace all the body panels?
I totally understand the "problems" with batteries in EVs. As the summary states "they're big, heavy, and expensive", but they also need to be serviceable, easily swapped or replaced, and then made smaller, lighter, cheaper over time. The barriers to EVs are gas/petrol stations. There's a lot of them! Sure, some have chargers now, but what EVs need are battery swap stations. Of course, this would also require a standard for battery placement, shape and technology to work, but the battery swapping (like propane tanks a la Blue Rhino) I feel is the best solution for competing with internal combustion based cars and the multitude of fueling stations available. Range issues all but disappear if I can pull over just about anywhere and swap out the battery for a fully charged new one in two minutes or less. Integrating batteries into other parts of the car seems dumb to me. Sure, something that makes electricity to help charge the battery pack would be nice, but batteries in body panels for a vehicle that runs on them? Don't see that as a good idea. Standardization of a battery pack and mass deployment of swap stations would be the big win for EVs. Going to be a while yet. Lots could happen.
and spend hundreds of $$$ to play CoD or Battlefield or whatever
spending all the money pre-ordering a game system where you know next to nothing about a product. funny how these little details only come out so soon before it starts to ship
What's funnier is the Rev B, C, D... hardware will cost the same or less and be readily available on a shelf when I want to go buy it in February, when I get my tax return. It's not like it's limited edition or there's something special about the first ones. The days of that kind of treat I fear have ended. All you get now is barely out of BETA hardware and software for all that waiting in the cold, overnight, in a line outside a Walmart, or Best Buy, or GameStop. No thanks. I'll get the Rev B/C/D hardware a few months later once a bunch of bugs are worked out and there are more titles available. Sorry, I guess that happens when you become wiser and get burned a few times by the shiny. Be wary the hot-off-the-assembly-line shiny electronic gizmo! They bite!
Maybe it would be easier for them to tell us what DOES work. Do they have some new headset with some sort of weird proprietary connector (hard as it is to picture Sony going with a proprietary device)?
Hell, does it have an 1/8" stereo jack (NO!) or did they just throw headsets entirely under the bus? Of course, you could just use a set of headphones with your stereo attached, but that doesn't get audio in, so this is still odd for them to do given how many games use teamed audio nowadays. WTF Sony?
Ok, I read the articles and most of the comments above. This seems more like an implementation issue on Google's part than a licensing or compatibility issue with Java. Compatibility with older TLS implementations may have been the reason for the use of RC4 and MD5, but that certainly falls back to a Google decision, not having anything to do with Oracle. I think everyone is a little overly paranoid given the current security--or lack thereof--climate, but I don't see this as any kind of capitulation to a three-letter government agency. Certainly, not a good decision, but also not a government coerced one. I am a bit surprised that this is just coming up now given the configuration has been in Android source since version 2.3.4! Isn't 4.3 on its way? At least Schmidt now knows why there were chuckles to his Android security statement(s) recently.
Ok, I actually read the comments before I went to the link. OMG, I am a true/.'er now!
Sorry, I had an epiphany in my head on that front as I started typing this. Let me get back to the constructive comments.
I have been doing UI design for 20 years. I started doing interface design for CD-ROM based multimedia projects in 1992. I started designing websites in 1993 with the draft release of HTML 1.0. I don't say this to be arrogant--I say this so that the person reading this comment understands that I am not speaking from ignorance, or just because "I know what I like." I have made award winning interfaces and I've made some real bombs, but I have learned some valuable lessons that I don't think the current editors or design team that created the "redesign" (I'll explain the quotes here later) have learned from doing or from study of good interface design principles.
The best interface is one that is beautiful, simple and gets out of the way to let the content shine. Antithesis analogies jump to mind, "lipstick on a pig," "polishing a turd." You can't make bad content better with a shiny interface, but you can destroy good content with a crappy interface. The new beta design is a crappy interface for the content being displayed. It sacrifices usability and readability for pretty. It kneecaps key features that recurring users/readers/posters enjoy and clutters the screen--albeit a very narrow portion of the screen as has been pointed out numerous times.
Websites are designed for your audience, not yourself or your client. In this case, the audience is the thousands of people that submit, read and comment on your site. Technically, they are the client, not the person paying you to do the design. If your design team hasn't figured that out, then you don't have enough experienced designers on your team. Your audience *IS* your paycheck. No audience, no traffic, no paycheck. Also, what exactly was designed for this "redesign"? Hence, the quotes. It really looks like you took an existing Drupal/Wordpress template and modded some graphics. I seriously hope you didn't pay more than $60.00USD for the template and no more than 100 hours of labor for that design or you REALLY got taken.
When designing your website, take audience feedback seriously and keep them happy. I saw some comments from Soulskill in the threads. One, bad idea to comment on feedback until the feedback period is over. It shows a lack of focus and a tendency to be premature with evaluating feedback. Two, you will only stir the cauldron of discontent by jumping into things being said during an obviously, highly emotional period for your audience.
If you're going to take something away, make sure you put something better somewhere! This is especially true when redesigning any user experience. If you're going to sacrifice readability with narrow content divs and useless pictures you damn well better be doing something functionally better for the users somewhere. I think this is probably where the redesign really fails for most folks and they are expressing it as "This sucks!" or the like. I will agree, it sucks, but explaining why is important and useful feedback. There are too many examples above my comment for me to reference, but the explanations are there to extract. The fact that the design may look "better" to some folks doesn't change the fact that it doesn't implement anything new and better that your audience may want or have been asking for repeatedly for years. If the audience has been asking for features for years, it might be a good idea to try to implement a few of them with every new design.
I hope that I've been helpful. I am going to stop at four important points because I usually get paid for this sort of work, and it seems to me that someone lacking was paid for the work that has been done so far. Bottom line, implement the current beta as-is will destroy your audience and your ad revenues will go down the toilet
Oh, you asked for this and all the others that modded you up, you AC, you!
Says the single guy who can't even comprehend life-changing events like having a child.
Ummm, so life changing events only happen to married people with children? And, I'm sorry but even single guys had childhoods and would have the ability later to recognize when one is about to get fucked up.
News Flash: Life happens. Even when you plan on having children, one cannot even remotely plan for every event forthcoming (especially four years later) that would elicit the need for a 4-year old to have a cell phone.
And if you would have shown even an inkling of experience in parenting in your smart-ass comments, you might have seen that.
There is *NO* reason a four year old "needs" a cell phone. None, zip, zero. If you were a reasonably sane adult you would know exactly why!
So, either father a child yourself and then come to the adult table to talk shop, or kindly STFU.
Again, you have to father a child to be an adult and talk "shop"? WTFTM
And no, it's not every parents fault if a kid grows "fucked up". That is likely more due to the influence of ignorance coming from society, as you have so deftly demonstrated.
Again, had you a shred of experience in this matter, you might have known that.
Actually, there are hundreds of studies that show that most fucked up children get fucked up by the home environment they are brought up in, i.e., Mom and Dad did it. "Fucked up" children seek acceptance and emotional support from outside the family and often in or with the wrong people that end up reinforcing bad behavior or leading them into new bad behaviors, all to get back at Mommy and/or Daddy. The "influence of ignorance coming from society" is the finger pointing BS that every bad parent tries to run up the flag pole to duck blame for their effed up child. One only wonders how many of yours need psychotherapy.
To the OP, cellphones aren't allowed in university classrooms let alone kindergarten. You truly are cracked and should get some help for yourself before you really screw things up. The child is young enough to forget this stupid crap if you stop now and think of something other than your needs, because that cell phone is certainly NOT fulfilling any four-year old's needs. Based on what I've read so far I'd say the child would be better off away from you and the mother, frankly.
You should probably work on being less jaded. I'd say a large majority of people are reasonable enough to only text at a red light and stay off their phones while driving.
Ok, he may be jaded, but you're delusional. If most people were reasonable enough to know not to text while driving the laws wouldn't be necessary. Bust them all! If you're drunk in a car that's *off* with the keys in the ignition, you will still be charged with drunken driving in the state I live in. I would imagine it's similar elsewhere. Same state, if you have a radar detector out of the glove box--again, off--you can get it confiscated and be charged. Don't like it. Petition for new legislation or STFU and live with it.
If they're down to busywork like writing tickets on technicalities that are obviously endangering nobody, they're already well past the point where they should be re-assigning.
Someone should mod you down. All laws are based on "technicalities" otherwise they could not be enforced. There is also no such thing as a victimless crime, society gets hurt if nothing else. And, the "busywork" that cops do is the tons of paperwork and the going to court they have to do to help stick dumbasses charged with infractions the appropriate penalties. It's been said once in this thread, just because you don't like a law doesn't mean it's a bad law. Texting while walking is dumb enough to try. Texting while driving is simply, stupefyingly moronic to even attempt. Written language takes too much brain power to do much of anything while reading or writing. Don't have to believe me, go look it up in cognitive psych journals, there have been many studies done of late. Or, just do a simple test yourself. Please do it on Mulholland Dr. or some other twisty road of your choice and do us all a favor. Just make sure you do it at 4:00 AM when no one else is around.
Possibly related, I also find it intensely uncomfortable to use trackpads, I much prefer a mouse or the rubber pointing stick type controller used on ThinkPads, older Toshibas, and some other machines.
Wow, really? The ThinkPad stick-thingy always gave me hand cramps from straining to use it and the mouse buttons. As far as trackpad vs. mouse, depends on the application. If I'm doing CAD related stuff or anything that requires pixel level precision--mouse. Day-to-day applications (Browsing, word processing, etc.), I prefer a trackpad with gesture support. Your definition of "a lot of devices" is pretty narrow, in my experience, btw. I go from Windows, to Linux, to Mac OS, to iOS daily at present, and have crossed a lot more spectrum in my past, so covering only six years worth of devices ("original 1st gen iPhone to a Galaxy S4 (my current phone), and tablets ranging from the 1st gen Galaxy Tab 7" to an Optimus Prime 10.1", Acer Iconia A700, and my current 7" tablet") is minuscule to me. I work with a variety of devices older than that, also on a daily basis.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple didn't invent a lot of things.
Umm, really? This is just the last 40 days or so... True, they didn't invent a lot of things, but they do invent A LOT of things. I double-dog dare you to search the USPTO site. They are crazy prolific at inventing things.
This might be a new record or maybe not. The headline currently states "120 Degrees..." when it should say "210 Degrees..." Summary and article both state 210 degrees.
And, lest we not forget "Heads-Up Display"? Really, it's a Head-Mounted Display (HMD), a Head-Up Display (HUD) is something completely different. I think timothy should lose his geek card for this last ungeekly act.
[shakes head and wonders what happened to the real /.]
To make full use of that resolution ("Retina" quality, i.e. indistinguishable pixels) at a viewing distance of 10ft you'd need a screen 150" screen. That's 8ft wide 4ft6in tall.
Like a comment above, Huh? What?!! They are not going to have pixel densities on 65" or above displays at Retina display densities for 4K. 4K means the horizontal pixel width is 4,000 pixels, or so. If you can see pixels on a current 65" HD display from five feet away, you have bionic man vision.
Truth be told: Tools won't survive. They're notoriously fickle. That said, this is one place where good development practice can really help. Here are some of my guidelines:
Get off the bleeding edge. Let the youngsters and startups do the bleeding. Learn from them, and use cutting-edge tools after they've matured a bit and have widespread market adoption. Yes, I was late to the jQuery party. No, I don't feel bad about that, as I could have just as easily chosen a failed alternative and been left with something that's damn near impossible to maintain.
Quality separation of concerns is VITAL for survival. Keep your data store separate from your business logic, and for Knuth's sake, keep your UI the HELL away from everything else, since the UI is the most volatile bit.
Don't resist your platform: Working on the web? Learn JavaScript. Learn jQuery. Do not use things like SharpKit to turn one platform into another.
Use things for which the were initially intended, and ignore many of the add-on features. Use databases to store data, not as process engines. Use JavaScript / jQuery for user interface goodness, not your entire application logic.
APIs / web services / interfaces are your friend... Not just to use, but for you to enforce separation and flexibility.
I will second everything you said and add some more web dev wisdom. I am assuming that the OP is developing middle-ware or other web apps (social, ecommerce, etc). Sound development practices should mitigate the impact of changes in component architectures, from data stores to UI you need to compartmentalize as much as possible and use each underlying tech as they were intended.
I have developed dozens of web apps from FileMaker Pro (mid to late 1990s) to PHP/MySQL today; with a few things in between. If you know this is more than a one-off project or you are just really a good dev you will want to make sure that the product is as serviceable and extensible as possible, even if you're doing C# or .NET stuff, or Tomcat, or Ruby, things that have been around a while and evolved. Just because it's good today doesn't mean it will still be good five to ten years from now.
You will always have things like deprecation to deal with no matter what. You should be dealing with these framework disappearances in a similar way to you dealing with legacy functions that are no longer supported. As the person making the decisions you should also be doing annual evals and almost constant research into emerging frameworks that may be useful or have more longevity to what you are currently using. In the web world there are few instances where you can rest on your laurels and stick with one framework for long. Things change WAY too fast and you need to account for that going in. The desktop world tends to change at a slower pace to the web and that seems why those frameworks tend to stick around longer. The web is much more buzzword, tech-o-the-day oriented. Keep up or get left behind! Basically, use what works today, but keep an eye on tomorrow with your code structure knowing that in a year or two you may have to retool.
Two words combined that don't make sense.
(see title) FTFY
a.) their job is to collect foreign intelligence ("information" for those ignorant of the correct definition to use for the word)
b.) they didn't get caught they got exposed by Snowden
c.) Other countries (France and England included) spy on the U.S. all the time...since, well, as long as the U.S. has existed. Just because their an ally doesn't mean we don't gather intelligence on them clandestinely. It's part of the way the world works. It's the spying internally that is bad, bad, bad, bad, bad! That's what Snowden was trying to point out and (rightfully) get stopped. He unfortunately caused a lot of collateral damage in the process. Trust me, it's going to take more than a "hey-you're-spying-on-us" incident to sour collaboration against terrorism. We might lose some trade deals or something like that, but France and other allies don't want their citizens injured in an attack either and will cooperate to thwart a plot. To not act on U.S. intelligence and have French citizens killed would be much worse for those in charge than some spying.
You quite possibly are the dumbest person alive. Your reasoning is unsound and your math is even worse. Are you a member of Fox News because you're really good at the false equivalency game?
Boo freekin hoo. This is what the NSA is supposed to do.
Um, no. They are supposed to focus on the activities of groups who are directly threatening American interests.
Ummm, no, please read. They are supposed to be building and looking through haystacks. That *IS* their job by mandate. Their mandate did not extend to U.S. soil until the (Un-)Patriot Act. That's when everyone's panties got in a bunch. The NSA is supposed to support intelligence and counterintelligence information gathering to support national and departmental interests. That includes spying on our allies. Always has. And they have always spied on us too, so welcome to the real world!
I don't think you understand how electric cars work in real life. Most people expect that electric cars will be an option when all gas stations become charging stations. This will never happen, because it is not needed. Every morning when you leave home, your battery is full. No need to stop at a station to swap battery or get a fast charge. Every morning. This is the reality of electric car owners. The future is now!
So the fast charge or battery swap stations will only exist in certain locations (along highway for example) and there will be very few compared to gas station. Very few.
I don't think you understand how a lot of the population live around the world. See not all of us live in single family detached housing where we have a garage and an outlet to plug our car into. Also, not all of us drive short distances daily to and from work, the store and relatives. For most of us those drives can be a quarter to a third the overall range of today's typical electric car, then there's the once the car is at Point B away from home, how does one charge it? And yes, the only way electric cars take off is if they supplant the infrastructure that's already there, that includes LOTS of swap stations. You would want lots of them so you didn't get stuck somewhere should you get a bad battery, or yours just fails for some reason. To delude yourself into thinking the problem of refueling (regardless of source) goes away because you can plug in at home is just ludicrous. Me thinks you live in a reality distortion field that makes you the example for everyone else. See in the REAL world, we all live differently and need flexibility in our technology offerings. We don't all want to be like you!
Carbon fiber doesn't really dent.
Yes, I know, but people are familiar with cars getting dented. It was more the act than the damage I was referring to. Failure modes are many. Have to remember the fiber laminate is only strongest in two dimensions, usually the way they are oriented, so an impact from a perpendicular source to the plane of orientation would result in damage very easily. I am not familiar enough with the technology being developed to know if damage to the laminate panel would cause complete failure, but I'd have to imagine that it very well might. Losing integrity of the system might also pose other risks, i.e., fire.
Exactly, it doesn't really matter if it is a real quantum computer or not, only that it can complete certain computations that people need much faster than a traditional computer. If it solves that problem for someone then the rest of the debate is academic.
Wait, it does matter whether this is a quantum computer or not. If it *is* a quantum computer then the calculations can be trusted to be accurate and precise based on the fundemental principles driving the solutions. If it is *not* a quantum computer all the results from the machine may be so horribly wrong that they cause serious accidents, damage or loss of life. The problem as stated above in the comments is that some of the calculations take so egregiously long ("eons") on traditional computation devices that we will have no way to verify them for decades if not centuries. That's a real problem that QC needs to solve before it can be trusted. I don't know where the ball sits right now, but from all the fervor I'd say the jury is still out on whether the Dwave machine results can be trusted. I am skeptical, but hopeful. It sure would be nice to have QC working sooner than later. But, trust is still out on this whole deal and is the real sticking point for the physicists and mathematicians that are challenging the current tech. How do we really know if some of the results the Dwave machine cranks out are correct if we don't have known results to point to? That was rhetorical, I know the answer to that question, btw.
Looks like ANSI and others are working on it.
1. If you're in a crash or just dent a body panel with this crap in it how much is that going to cost?
2. What happens when you need to replace the batteries because they don't hold a charge? You replace all the body panels?
I totally understand the "problems" with batteries in EVs. As the summary states "they're big, heavy, and expensive", but they also need to be serviceable, easily swapped or replaced, and then made smaller, lighter, cheaper over time. The barriers to EVs are gas/petrol stations. There's a lot of them! Sure, some have chargers now, but what EVs need are battery swap stations. Of course, this would also require a standard for battery placement, shape and technology to work, but the battery swapping (like propane tanks a la Blue Rhino) I feel is the best solution for competing with internal combustion based cars and the multitude of fueling stations available. Range issues all but disappear if I can pull over just about anywhere and swap out the battery for a fully charged new one in two minutes or less. Integrating batteries into other parts of the car seems dumb to me. Sure, something that makes electricity to help charge the battery pack would be nice, but batteries in body panels for a vehicle that runs on them? Don't see that as a good idea. Standardization of a battery pack and mass deployment of swap stations would be the big win for EVs. Going to be a while yet. Lots could happen.
and spend hundreds of $$$ to play CoD or Battlefield or whatever
spending all the money pre-ordering a game system where you know next to nothing about a product. funny how these little details only come out so soon before it starts to ship
What's funnier is the Rev B, C, D ... hardware will cost the same or less and be readily available on a shelf when I want to go buy it in February, when I get my tax return. It's not like it's limited edition or there's something special about the first ones. The days of that kind of treat I fear have ended. All you get now is barely out of BETA hardware and software for all that waiting in the cold, overnight, in a line outside a Walmart, or Best Buy, or GameStop. No thanks. I'll get the Rev B/C/D hardware a few months later once a bunch of bugs are worked out and there are more titles available. Sorry, I guess that happens when you become wiser and get burned a few times by the shiny. Be wary the hot-off-the-assembly-line shiny electronic gizmo! They bite!
too bad I only have two receptors for those 4 sounds.
LMAO...love you man. Surround sound zealots make me laugh.
Maybe it would be easier for them to tell us what DOES work. Do they have some new headset with some sort of weird proprietary connector (hard as it is to picture Sony going with a proprietary device)?
Hell, does it have an 1/8" stereo jack (NO!) or did they just throw headsets entirely under the bus? Of course, you could just use a set of headphones with your stereo attached, but that doesn't get audio in, so this is still odd for them to do given how many games use teamed audio nowadays. WTF Sony?
Ok, I read the articles and most of the comments above. This seems more like an implementation issue on Google's part than a licensing or compatibility issue with Java. Compatibility with older TLS implementations may have been the reason for the use of RC4 and MD5, but that certainly falls back to a Google decision, not having anything to do with Oracle. I think everyone is a little overly paranoid given the current security--or lack thereof--climate, but I don't see this as any kind of capitulation to a three-letter government agency. Certainly, not a good decision, but also not a government coerced one. I am a bit surprised that this is just coming up now given the configuration has been in Android source since version 2.3.4! Isn't 4.3 on its way? At least Schmidt now knows why there were chuckles to his Android security statement(s) recently.
Ok, I actually read the comments before I went to the link. OMG, I am a true /.'er now!
Sorry, I had an epiphany in my head on that front as I started typing this. Let me get back to the constructive comments.
I have been doing UI design for 20 years. I started doing interface design for CD-ROM based multimedia projects in 1992. I started designing websites in 1993 with the draft release of HTML 1.0. I don't say this to be arrogant--I say this so that the person reading this comment understands that I am not speaking from ignorance, or just because "I know what I like." I have made award winning interfaces and I've made some real bombs, but I have learned some valuable lessons that I don't think the current editors or design team that created the "redesign" (I'll explain the quotes here later) have learned from doing or from study of good interface design principles.
The best interface is one that is beautiful, simple and gets out of the way to let the content shine. Antithesis analogies jump to mind, "lipstick on a pig," "polishing a turd." You can't make bad content better with a shiny interface, but you can destroy good content with a crappy interface. The new beta design is a crappy interface for the content being displayed. It sacrifices usability and readability for pretty. It kneecaps key features that recurring users/readers/posters enjoy and clutters the screen--albeit a very narrow portion of the screen as has been pointed out numerous times.
Websites are designed for your audience, not yourself or your client. In this case, the audience is the thousands of people that submit, read and comment on your site. Technically, they are the client, not the person paying you to do the design. If your design team hasn't figured that out, then you don't have enough experienced designers on your team. Your audience *IS* your paycheck. No audience, no traffic, no paycheck. Also, what exactly was designed for this "redesign"? Hence, the quotes. It really looks like you took an existing Drupal/Wordpress template and modded some graphics. I seriously hope you didn't pay more than $60.00USD for the template and no more than 100 hours of labor for that design or you REALLY got taken.
When designing your website, take audience feedback seriously and keep them happy. I saw some comments from Soulskill in the threads. One, bad idea to comment on feedback until the feedback period is over. It shows a lack of focus and a tendency to be premature with evaluating feedback. Two, you will only stir the cauldron of discontent by jumping into things being said during an obviously, highly emotional period for your audience.
If you're going to take something away, make sure you put something better somewhere! This is especially true when redesigning any user experience. If you're going to sacrifice readability with narrow content divs and useless pictures you damn well better be doing something functionally better for the users somewhere. I think this is probably where the redesign really fails for most folks and they are expressing it as "This sucks!" or the like. I will agree, it sucks, but explaining why is important and useful feedback. There are too many examples above my comment for me to reference, but the explanations are there to extract. The fact that the design may look "better" to some folks doesn't change the fact that it doesn't implement anything new and better that your audience may want or have been asking for repeatedly for years. If the audience has been asking for features for years, it might be a good idea to try to implement a few of them with every new design.
I hope that I've been helpful. I am going to stop at four important points because I usually get paid for this sort of work, and it seems to me that someone lacking was paid for the work that has been done so far. Bottom line, implement the current beta as-is will destroy your audience and your ad revenues will go down the toilet
Oh, you asked for this and all the others that modded you up, you AC, you!
Says the single guy who can't even comprehend life-changing events like having a child.
Ummm, so life changing events only happen to married people with children? And, I'm sorry but even single guys had childhoods and would have the ability later to recognize when one is about to get fucked up.
News Flash: Life happens. Even when you plan on having children, one cannot even remotely plan for every event forthcoming (especially four years later) that would elicit the need for a 4-year old to have a cell phone.
And if you would have shown even an inkling of experience in parenting in your smart-ass comments, you might have seen that.
There is *NO* reason a four year old "needs" a cell phone. None, zip, zero. If you were a reasonably sane adult you would know exactly why!
So, either father a child yourself and then come to the adult table to talk shop, or kindly STFU.
Again, you have to father a child to be an adult and talk "shop"? WTFTM
And no, it's not every parents fault if a kid grows "fucked up". That is likely more due to the influence of ignorance coming from society, as you have so deftly demonstrated.
Again, had you a shred of experience in this matter, you might have known that.
Actually, there are hundreds of studies that show that most fucked up children get fucked up by the home environment they are brought up in, i.e., Mom and Dad did it. "Fucked up" children seek acceptance and emotional support from outside the family and often in or with the wrong people that end up reinforcing bad behavior or leading them into new bad behaviors, all to get back at Mommy and/or Daddy. The "influence of ignorance coming from society" is the finger pointing BS that every bad parent tries to run up the flag pole to duck blame for their effed up child. One only wonders how many of yours need psychotherapy.
To the OP, cellphones aren't allowed in university classrooms let alone kindergarten. You truly are cracked and should get some help for yourself before you really screw things up. The child is young enough to forget this stupid crap if you stop now and think of something other than your needs, because that cell phone is certainly NOT fulfilling any four-year old's needs. Based on what I've read so far I'd say the child would be better off away from you and the mother, frankly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24326413
Let me take a guess, you're a white, Tea Party, ignorant fuck, yes? Go ignorance! Oh, and you're a coward. Nice.
You should probably work on being less jaded. I'd say a large majority of people are reasonable enough to only text at a red light and stay off their phones while driving.
Ok, he may be jaded, but you're delusional. If most people were reasonable enough to know not to text while driving the laws wouldn't be necessary. Bust them all! If you're drunk in a car that's *off* with the keys in the ignition, you will still be charged with drunken driving in the state I live in. I would imagine it's similar elsewhere. Same state, if you have a radar detector out of the glove box--again, off--you can get it confiscated and be charged. Don't like it. Petition for new legislation or STFU and live with it.
If they're down to busywork like writing tickets on technicalities that are obviously endangering nobody, they're already well past the point where they should be re-assigning.
Someone should mod you down. All laws are based on "technicalities" otherwise they could not be enforced. There is also no such thing as a victimless crime, society gets hurt if nothing else. And, the "busywork" that cops do is the tons of paperwork and the going to court they have to do to help stick dumbasses charged with infractions the appropriate penalties. It's been said once in this thread, just because you don't like a law doesn't mean it's a bad law. Texting while walking is dumb enough to try. Texting while driving is simply, stupefyingly moronic to even attempt. Written language takes too much brain power to do much of anything while reading or writing. Don't have to believe me, go look it up in cognitive psych journals, there have been many studies done of late. Or, just do a simple test yourself. Please do it on Mulholland Dr. or some other twisty road of your choice and do us all a favor. Just make sure you do it at 4:00 AM when no one else is around.
but we have secure WiFi where I work
LMAO...no such thing.
Possibly related, I also find it intensely uncomfortable to use trackpads, I much prefer a mouse or the rubber pointing stick type controller used on ThinkPads, older Toshibas, and some other machines.
Wow, really? The ThinkPad stick-thingy always gave me hand cramps from straining to use it and the mouse buttons. As far as trackpad vs. mouse, depends on the application. If I'm doing CAD related stuff or anything that requires pixel level precision--mouse. Day-to-day applications (Browsing, word processing, etc.), I prefer a trackpad with gesture support. Your definition of "a lot of devices" is pretty narrow, in my experience, btw. I go from Windows, to Linux, to Mac OS, to iOS daily at present, and have crossed a lot more spectrum in my past, so covering only six years worth of devices ("original 1st gen iPhone to a Galaxy S4 (my current phone), and tablets ranging from the 1st gen Galaxy Tab 7" to an Optimus Prime 10.1", Acer Iconia A700, and my current 7" tablet") is minuscule to me. I work with a variety of devices older than that, also on a daily basis.