276 posts • joined 23 May 2007
Re: Wot? No wireless charging?
Here you go: http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones-accessories/EP-VG900BBUSTA
So, yeah, wireless charging!
Re: Speaking of the law...
Dear Petrea Mitchell...
The reason it hasn't "gotten" attention is that it's 100% completely irrelevant.
Had Eich been fired, it may have been. But he wasn't, he quit.
And had Eich been fired _for supporting Prop 8_ (although he wasn't fired at all), then it may have been relevant; but had he been fired (although he wasn't) for being an incompetent CEO in his handling of the Prop-8-support-issue it would not have been relevant.
Glad to help.
Re: No win.
I see no reason why churches should be tax exempt. I see no reason why churches should get special treatment.
Consider the current farcical situation at the US Supreme Court, where a bunch of employers are claiming to be exempted for aspects of the law because it allegedly violates their alleged religious beliefs (specifically, it requires them to provide insurance that covers contraception, etc.).
But consider the position of a sincere pacifist. Could be a sincere atheist, or perhaps a Quaker. Do they get to refrain from paying taxes that fund the military? If not, why not?
Religion can be great. Most churches could be wiped from the face of the earth with a net benefit to all mankind.
Re: No win.
Hmmm... one of the largest financial backers of Prop 8 ("no marriage for gays because gay is icky and everybody knows if you let gays marry next thing that'll happen is that we'll be forced to gay-marry someone!") was those whacky Mormons.
Also known as "LDS".
Now, should a church be sticking it's tax-advantaged nose into politics? Here's a hint: no.
You can spend all the money you like on political stuff, but you can't do it tax-free.
Naughty LDS. Perhaps we should strip their tax-free status?
Re: Freedom of speech goes both ways here
Let's grant your "there is no human right to marriage" thesis, for the sake of argument. However, there is a _legal_ right to marriage, as long as you meet certain criteria (like not already being married, being over a certain age, etc).
And once married, there are a vast number of privileges and advantages available which are not afforded to unmarried people. Despite your claim about money, consider who gets to make medical decisions for someone incapable of making them for themselves. Sure, there are ways to circumvent the problem, but why should one group have to jump through hoops because they are denied the ability to marry who they want?
Fun fact: Prop 8 (supported by Eich-the-useless-CEO) was a reaction to the previous "Knight Initiative" (Prop 22) which was passed in 2000 and struck down as unconstitutional in 2008. Prop 22 was passed on March 7, 2000; the Fox TV show "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" aired on February 15th, and the "marriage" was annulled on April 5th. Obviously, people in California cared deeply about "traditional marriage".
Another fun fact: "traditional marriage" obviously includes arranged marriages and child marriages.
Re: The elusive brain cell discovered at last!
The idea that "small connectors are more prone to breakages" is, to say the least, debatable.
In experience, supported by design, anecdotal and experimental data, the micro B connectors are more reliable than the mini B ones. And I think everyone here will have come across a damaged A connector (often where the "tongue" has been broken).
And in non-USB connectors, I tend to find HDMI and Displayport better than DVI and VGA, just because of the issues with bent pins. Apple's "Magsafe" connector is small but rugged (not, in my view, worth all the hoopla that pro-Apple people associate with it, but it's neat). Etc.
FYI... since the aircraft appears to be Swiss registered, and for the majority of the flight will not be in Chinese or Russian airspace, altitude would be specified in feet, not meters. And if you want to use MPH, that further suggests that feet are the appropriate unit. So what the aircraft will be doing is climbing to around 26,000ft (FL260) during the day, and descending to around 5,000ft at night.
In a lot of the Eich-should-be-allowed-to-be-a-CEO-bigot moaning, I see few people commenting on the unassailable fact:
Eich was a crap CEO.
Something controversial came up (both within and outside Mozilla). Eich failed to do anything vaguely effective towards managing the controversy.
Ergo Eich was an ineffective leader, and thus a crap CEO who should have been kicked out had he not left. Not because he is a bigot, but because he cannot manage the controversy.
There is a secondary side, too: the board that appointed Eich was a crap board, too. But that doesn't change the crapness of Eich.
As most sane people know, there is in fact zero evidence connecting same sex families with "problems". The attempt to push the thesis that "studies are now starting to arise" is utter bullwossname, and cannot be substantiated in any way, shape or form. The not-terminally-dumb know this because every time some anti-same-sex bigot tries to raise it in (say) a court challenge to the discriminate-against-LGBT laws, it gets thrown out.
So there are, in fact, no studies linking any kind of child rearing problem with same sex parenting. None, Zip. What there are are studies linking dysfunctional families with problems, but the overwhelming majority of dysfunctional families are opposite-sex, leading to the obvious conclusion...
Lastly, the "choice" statement is without doubt utterly vile bigotry. But being a vile bigot is a choice, not a condition.
Aye... every time I've had to define a database table in SQL, I've thought fondly of COBOL's Data Division. Of course, if you don't care about internal representations, COBOL is overkill, but I've found that I'm usually wrong if I think I don't care!
The strange thing in all this is a key data point is being overlooked:
Mozilla has/had five directors. One (apparently) had been planning to leave as soon as the new CEO was selected, leaving four. Two of those resigned as a result of Eich's appointment (granted, one may have been looking for a way out). But that's a significant data point: either 25% or 50% of Mozilla's (remaining) directors didn't want to be directors with him as CEO.
And I think this fracas shows they were right: the man was not a good choice, and failed at controlling the situation as it started to spiral out of control. There were many things he could have done (e.g. appoint an LGBT advisory panel to watch for places where his personal beliefs conflicted with the organization's)., but he failed. So he goes.
Of course, there is also some irony in the fact this week saw the Supreme Court reiterate that money=speech. And if one supports free speech (including giving money to hate groups), how can you not support free speech (including not giving business/money to an organization that hired someone you dislike)?
So who's fault is this? I won't blame Eich for being socially retarded, and I won't blame people for getting annoyed at a "community" organization appointing a social retard as the glorious leader. But I will blame the idiots on the board (that didn't resign in protest) for not understanding that they had picked a potentially controversial character and then failing to stand by their choice when they discovered the mistake.
By the way, one of the reasons anti-gay bigotry is so insidious is that it is indisputably a fact that it has absolutely no impact on anyone except the oppressed class (i.e. gay people). If you are straight (or gay and determinedly single) there is not a shred of difference that it can make to you whether the two similarly-gendered people at the next table/in the next flat/whatever are gay, straight, married, single, or whatever. It's exactly like the nineteenth century anti-Irish bigotry that existed: an Irish labourer and a Cornish labourer looked alike, could sound vaguely similar, and yet one was accepted ("salt of the earth") and the other wasn't.
I once found myself trundling up the Stuart Highway about 200 miles from Alice at midnight.
As a break and to celebrate the vastness, we pulled over, cranked up the CD player and went dancing... in the middle of the road, in the middle of Australia, in the middle of the night.
Best part was the certainty that no-one would see my "dancing"...
Looking at the TWIT's page, while the twat Singer claims that everything was taken on the freeway, it's also clear that at least some of his "gotchas!" are of people in stop-and-go traffic. If you are mostly stationary, only a self-absorbed loon (although for a "facebook exec" that's probably redundant) would equate the risks of texting with the risks if you happen to be doing 60.
Plus, of course, most of his pics seem to be of people looking at a screen. Could be reading a text, could be reading a map, could be choosing a playlist, could be trying to decide whether to answer that call on speakerphone, could be reading facebook updates.
Apple Innovates Again; first it was corners, now sticks!
This "invention" is all the proof you need of Apple's policy of "innovation".
I am reminded of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, when King Arthur invites a person who sounds as if they may be of Gallic extraction to join his quest. The possibly-Francophone individual responds by saying "I'll ask him, but I don't think he'd ver' keen... he already has one".
Or, to put it another way, the stylus in my Note II has a changeable tip. And an actuator, although to be fair the Note II's actuator is where it is actually useful (on the body), not where an idiot would put it (the tip). So my stylus can provide a "first input" and a "second input".
Now, even with the US PTO's evident policy on "prior art" (i.e. "sort it out in the courts"), nothing in that filing is an "invention". By any stretch of the imagination.
Granted, the general concept that the patent is attempting to claim is marginally different (although the specific text of the claims, which is what counts, is not): the idea seems to be for a nib that you can slide out for one effect, and slide back for another. This sounds like a great idea, unless you've actually used technology like a propelling pencil, which would have taught you that moving the nib requires changing your hand position on the shaft of the pencil. So the Wacom/Samsung concept of putting the actuator under a finger actually works much better anyway.
It's also worth noticing that the patent application was filed on September 14th. The Note II was launched 17 days earlier (and the original Note was obviously much earlier than that).
Re: Let this be a lesson
Please lay off the spin.
Seeking declaratory judgment is the appropriate response to someone threatening a lawsuit that you believe to be merit-less. We have all heard of situations (often involving patent trolls) where part of the game plan is to drive up the costs of a "potential infringer" so that the "potential infringer" finds it easier to settle than fight. Seeking declaratory judgment is the appropriate and most practical way to get a simple answer to the key question: is the supposedly infringing use an actual infringement or fair use?
Now, regardless of whether you or I think it was (or wasn't), if the toy company believed that they were covered by the parody exemption (and remember, the lyrics were heavily modified and the "plain meaning" of the result was the complete opposite from the original), then having some "intellectual property rights management" company come the heavy hand (which is what happened) may legitimately result in a desire to get a court to say that no, actually you're on safe ground.
To their credit, when the artists (as opposed to the "IP rights management" company) started talking to the toy company, the toy company responded very differently (pulling the ad). Possibly in order to protect their position in case it all went pear shaped, the artists subsequently filed suit... but this seems as reasonable a position as asking for declaratory judgment, i.e. an appropriate step based on their position (right or wrong).
(The above comment is factually erroneous in the assertion that the original contact to the toy company was "nice" or "polite" or indeed from the Beasties).
i don't think the response is 100% removed from being a slap: Apple gets nothing except a restatement of the monitor's frame of reference. As others have noted, "relevance" is a subjective concept, and there was no change to his charter.
I interpret the "relevance" bit as a statement that the only challenges that the court will tolerate are those concerning relevance, and that's a high bar to prove (alleging irrelevance is easy, but that can be countered with something along the lines of "we won't know whether it's relevant unless you tell us what's in it"!)
Chris 201: you're quite right about destruction of evidence, etc. But the point is that IF you act in such a way as to prevent The Authorities from rampaging through your files, THEN you can be done for the offense of Preventing Authorities Rampaging aka obstruction of justice. Likewise, if they can't prove the suspect actually did the burgling, but can prove he wiped the door handles knowing that so doing would impede the investigation, that's obstruction.
And the point of the Doe case was that the government COULD compel Mr. Doe to authorize the banks to release information; they couldn't magically force him to sign the document, but they could hold in contempt of court (in jail) until he did... and they could continue to hold him indefinitely.
To those who have suggested that the US protections against self-incrimination are somehow a magic bullet against this sort of intrusion, the reality is not so clear cut.
US courts (up to and including the Supreme Court) have regularly ruled that e.g. you do not have the right to prevent a search pursuant to a warrant just because that search might/will incriminate you. And in 1988's Doe vs United States (487 U.S. 201) the Supremes held that could compel a defendant to sign a document authorizing foreign banks to disclose information on any accounts owned or controlled by the defendant, even though IF the banks did provide any data, THEN it would be prima facie evidence of a criminal offsense (in that case, failing to respond to a lawful subpoena to disclose all banking records).
So the argument by the defendant boiled down to "if I unlock the door of the safe, then you'll open it and find stuff which will land me in trouble", whereas the government argued that unlocking the door to the safe is not in itself an act that could incriminate you (although the contents could). The government won.
A similar situation exists with destruction of evidence: if your husband burns the letter you wrote that instructed someone to tap the phone of the the prime minister (to be topical), your husband is likely to find himself on trial for obstruction of justice charges. So if you destroy (or cause to be destroyed) evidence by triggering anti-tamper devices, you're still in hot water (although the charge may be different).
Re: Phablet calling
I don't see this as a I* device _user-based_ phenomenon, but rather an example of some extremely good marketing by Apple: iPhone (and iPad, and iPod) are all extremely good monikers for the device, better than "smartphone" ("tablet", "MP3 player").
This should come as no surprise, because by and large Apple's strength is in "technical marketing", rather than true pure innovation: to paraphrase BASF, they didn't invent the mouse/MP3 player/smartphone/tablet/whatever, they packaged up a bunch of existing stuff (and did very well), and then SOLD it to consumers.
Re: This was a resurrection of a failed proposal...
I very much doubt that Antares would ever carry a human-rated capsule, for several reasons:
1. SpaceX has made it fairly clear that their projects are all centered around reducing the cost of putting a tonne into orbit (so they can achieve Elon Musk's stated goals with regards to Mars). Putting Dragon on Antares achieves nothing that Dragon on Falcon 9 doesn't achieve in that regard.
2. Antares can lift 6 tones to LEO. Falcon 9 baseline can carry 10 tonnes, and the Falcon 9 v1.1 can lift 13 tonnes. Those figures show that if Antares were to carry a manned capsule, the Soyuz would be a better fit (and the comments about solid rocket motors, above, really do apply), and that's not a likely outcome (that goose lays golden eggs). For reference, the Shuttle could put 24 tonnes into orbit (which is largely how the ISS got there), and the Falcon Heavy is supposed to shift about double that; Saturn V, of course, could do more than 4 times what the Shuttle could, making Skylab a much easier proposition than ISS was.
3. Orbital currently has, what, 50-odd Kuznetsov engines, equating to 25 more Antares vehicles, 15 of which are committed to COTS with Cygnus. Sure, various schemes are afoot to restart NK-33 production or produce derivative engines, but those are not yet qualified solutions (and at least one scheme produces a significantly more powerful engine -- 25% more thrust, suggesting that the vehicle to which it would be attached would be different from the current Antares; Antares 2, anyone?).
4. The virtues of the Aeroject/Kuznetsov engine lie mainly in its excellent thrust-to-weight ratio. That performance metric is exceeded only by an indigenous SpaceX engine, so putting Dragon on it seems a bit of a sideways move.
Realistically, (western) human-rated launchers are either going to come from SpaceX, or from some restart of NASA's constellation. The latter seems politically unlikely any time soon.
Re: You're allowed more booze than that.
One of the (many) fundamental failings of the "recommended maximum units of alcohol per week" nonsense is that is assumes that the effects of alcohol are discrete and linear. There is no mechanism for, e.g., factoring in the positive effects of alcohol in managing stress, so someone with a high stress job might genuinely be able to absorb more units with beneficial effects, before the negative effects starts to outweigh the positive ones.
Another ignored phenomena is that, for some individuals, drinking is a displacement activity that displaces other, more harmful, actions (over-eating, narcotics, etc). For this population, although alcohol may (or may not) be problematic in itself, it is less problematic than the alternative.
@curtis, Actually your inference is bass-ackwards: the reason for seeking a declarative judgment (as Goldieblox did) is to shutdown merit-less litiguous thuggery. No-one with a clue would go to court seeking a declaration that they were NOT infringing, unless they seriously believed that they weren't.
Therefore the fact that Goldieblox filed suit for declaratory relief (i.e. they didn't ask for anything from the Beastie Boys at all, all they asked for was a ruling that they did not infringe) is strong evidence that they believe that they do not infringe AND case law is on their side (which, incidentally, it is).
Their alternative is to sit around waiting to see if the (Beastie Boys) rights agents would sue, which (if they were smart) they would take their time over, because they (the agents) want to maximize the settlement, and the best way to do that is to sit back and wait until the toy company has sold a gazillion things, and then argue that the BB's are entitled to a percentage of each.
What really happened here is that some lawyer acting for the Beastie Boys got called on their tactics. And the fact that the BB's have now sued Goldieblox even though GB has done asked of them is more evidence that the BB's don't give a flying wossname about anything other than trousering pots of cash. So no change there, then.
Re: VW Badge
It's usually better to present the actual facts, rather than fabricate a narrative. In this instance, the Beastie Boys sent a "cease and desist" letter threatening a lawsuit (and it did NOT have an "unless you do this we will sue" modifier). Given that the Beastie Boys opened with a piece of attempted thuggery, it is disingenuous in the extreme to then go wailing about how mean it was of the people they attempted to thug for those people to ask a court to rule on the validity of the claims in the attempted thuggery.
Re: Pretty much my thoughts too
Your entire argument fails on an baseless argument: that you believe that the "creative motive" matters. Plus the fact is that the advertisement _as an advertisement_ has a "commentary or political expression" as its core: the (socially sound) idea that STEM for women is A Good Thing. Despite your pontification, in the USA corporations have free speech rights, and corporations can be argued to be ALWAYS selling something whenever they speak, so the entirety of your argument fails.
Re: Pretty much my thoughts too
And the other factor that has many folk all riled up was, equally, justifiable: the rights agents for the Beastie Boys sent a threatening "cease and desist" letter, and in my world if you're not prepared to deal with the consequences of your threats, you shouldn't make them. In this instance, the toy company went to court to get a ruling that they were NOT infringing, which seems like the appropriate response to threats based on the accusation that they were.
Plus, when the toy company DID back down, what did the people who issued the threats do? They filed suit.
Re: @rh587 wrt: Campbell vs Acuff-Rose Music
Utter tripe: "if the song has no existence outside the advert"!
You may want to check up on copyright law.
The fact that the motive behind the creation of the work was for commercial gain (selling other stuff) as opposed to commercial gain (selling records) is only a minor consideration, at least per the US Supreme Court. To consider otherwise would be ridiculous, because you would have to judge the motives of each creator.
Re: @Tom ... Take 'em for every penny you can boys.
How is this a parody? The words have been changed to convey the exact opposite of the original, which is pretty much the bellwether definition of a parody...
There's a lot of retro-justification which says that the original version was ironic, therefore there is no change in message (ironic "girls are good for nothing but serving boys" -> non-ironic "girls are good for STEM"), but there's also a fair amount of opinion that the original version wasn't actually ironic.
Re: I'm with the beasties on this one
The BB's have stated that no-one may ever use any of their songs in commerce, and in particular Adam Yauch made that a condition, and he's dead so can't change his mind.
So anyone claiming that they would have been more receptive is, bluntly, wrong.
Re: I'm not mono-browed....
@Josco... you possibly have a different problem, in that there's a place 8 miles from Harrogate that is likely sucking up all the comms infrastructure in the region. The sort of place that thinks in terabits/sec, not megabits...
I would opine that, since Lockheed Martin is publishing stuff about this, they've already lost the argument with the DoD as to whether they'll get funded for it.
The current tack looks like "persuade the voters to support Congress funding this", which is a very poor second place to "the DoD wants this really really badly, and even better we should keep the development under wraps so just slip it into the black budget, thakyouverymuch". The latter, of course, being how the SR-71 got built.
@Dave 52: People stick weird things in their ears and wander around apparently talking to themselves. It may not be "stylish" (but style, like taste, is subjective, so who are you or I to judge?), but it is effective at doing the job that people want done.
Another, even more remarkable, fact is that apparently people voluntarily stick devastatingly ugly things on their faces and stare at TV's, in the idea that 3D illusions apparently enhance the viewing experience.
In both cases, the key issue seems to be whether the perceived benefit exceeds the blow to their fashion sense.
Charles Brett is flat out wrong in his first paragraph, and @Chris Miller's observation (above) that "most people" don't refer to Gibibytes isn't actually relevant.
I submit that "most people" are correct in their belief that a megabyte is a million bytes and a gigabyte is a billion of them. The fact that "computer science" (at least, according to Charles Brett) seems to think that an integer power of two is a better definition is not relevant (nor correct, come to that).
The reason for the absolute lack of relevance is that the same companies that are pricing data plans in megabytes (and confusing poor Charles Brett into thinking they're actually talking about Mebibytes) ALSO talk about data rates. And while the data storage industry got lazy and conflate mega- and mebi-, the data communications never did: modems came in 300, 1200, 9600, 14400, 28800, 33600, 56000 bits per second, with the higher rate ones being (correctly) referred to as 14.4k, 28.8k, 33.6k, 56k bits per second. And a T1 line runs at 1.544mbits per second, meaning 1,544,000 bits per second.
So if your carrier (as mine does) offers 3GB of data before dropping the data rate from "3G/4G to 2G speeds" (i.e. from about 21Mbps to about 56Kbps), you need a distorted mind to interpret the "GB" as binary and the "Mb/Kb" as decimal.
Anyway, the rest of the article is doing nothing more than pointing out the bleeding obvious, namely that either the supplier or the consumer could pay for the "freight" costs. Simple examples include the WiFi service offered by many airlines: accessing the airline's website is frequently free, and accessing some content providers likewise, but general internet access requires payment. Another example can be found in Amazon's Whispernet for Kindle: buy from Amazon, and you get the content delivered for free.
The premise of the article is codswallop: tape is great as long as the use cases for recovery permit enough time to accomplish the recovery.
So it's great for true disaster recovery, and its great for "archival snapshots" (to show the rozzers, f'rinstance).
It's also great for the "we probably will never need this data, but if we do, it will be priceless".
And example of that can be found here: http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-111408a.html
They could either recover the data, OR go back to the moon. And since the use for the data was, err, going back to the moon, the value of the data that successfully recovered from those tapes is simply incalculable.
I mean, those tapes contained the original Earthrise.
T-Mobile just don't know how to run a mobile network
This is just another example of T-Mo's US incompetence.
First, of all the US carriers, they are the ONLY one to not understand the point of carrier lock-in. Unlike the smooth operators like AT&T & Verizon, T-Mo are incapable of grasping that you have to forbid customers from changing the SIM (a technique that Verizon handles by not using GSM in the first place). T-Mo, believe it or not, will GIVE you the unlock code if you, err, ask for it. Oh, sure, they have rules about how the handset has have been active on their network for 30 days (or some such), but they'll waive that if you e.g. spent a lot of money buying the handset.
Then they support WiFi calling (not VOIP, but using WiFi for the "last mile"), which works extremely well in, e.g., hotels with WiFi and allows one's US phone number to be used exactly as if it were in the US on T-Mo's network, even when you're in some hotel in Osaka or Dusseldorf (hmm... I'll have to check about Beijing, 'cos it may not get out of the Chinese Firewall).
And now they're making it unnecessary to change the blasted SIM OR use WiFi calling, even though they make it practical to do both of those things.
Oh, and the twits support tethering etc. without mandatory raping OR pillaging, too.
Fools. Fools I say.
@Algingautr you do realize you're interrupting some good old EU bashing here by posting those so-called "facts", right?
I mean, that response you posted seems rational, and it reports a rather different viewpoint: it was an MoU (not a regulation), the MoU has expired, the EU is looking at the results, considering whether it worked, and on the basis of the previous experience looking to see if it would be worthwhile doing something similar and/or more ambitious again.
How are people supposed to getting hysterically nationalistic about that ?
(OK, the bit about getting an answer in Dutch is, obviously, a hint that IF you asked the question in that language, your answer would have been something like:
Ja! Ve vill force der stupid Englanders and Yankee scum to zeir knees! Vive Edam!
Re: RIM fail as well as Apple
Granted, that won't totally do my laptop (a bit of a monster that would _like_ 120W) I'd be happy with a 100W system that would run the thing or charge the battery, but not both (which is what happens when I plug in a 90W adapter instead of the 120W one).
And it works over the normal USB connectors.
Re: Here we go again
No, the EU hasn't produced an Apple, a Microsoft, or a Google.
But they have produced an ARM, which Apple, Microsoft, and Google all rely on.
Re: Best connector
Why no MagSafe on any other device (except some TomToms)? Perhaps you missed the information that Apple is a litigious troll?
The simple answer is that Apple blustered and threatened, and no vendor wanted to fight them for a benefit that, while real, is small (or perceived as quite small). I know people do suffer from accidents that would have been prevented by MagSafe, but despite Apple's marketing efforts, it doesn't seem to be enough of a problem that people worry about it (my HP laptop's connector generally just pops out with no magnets involved)!
Actually, I think your assertion is flatly and fatally incorrect.
It _is_ a reasonable assertion for a smartphone or a tablet. But for a headset? A feature phone? Not even close: Lightning requires support circuitry to handle the symmetry, which is reasonable, even elegant, for the use case that Lightning was designed for (i.e. carrying high-speed a/v signals and incidentally power), but for a huge number of DEVICES it's ridiculous overkill.
So, there is an existing population of millions of devices, some of which need no or only speed (e.g. 12Mbps) communications, while others need medium (100's of Mbps) or high (Gbps) data rates.Is there any rational use case to insist that the complexity of Lightning must be forced on the low end?
Of course not. USB would win in your scenario. Not because it's "better", but because it is a simpler, cheaper solution for the low end, and more low end devices get bought (and the associate charger eventually dumped) than do high end devices.
Whether you like it or not is one thing, but "fragile" is a bogus description based on FUD. The "notch" in the middle actually improves the strength of the thing compared to e.g. HDMI, SATA, DisplayPort, etc., as well as providing 100% backward compatibility.
Re: Have you seen the new micro USB 3.0 cable?
P.s. I forgot to mention that the USB Power Delivery standard does exactly what I described: up to 60W using 20V over a MICRO USB connector, and up to 100W (again, at 20V) using larger connectors -- again, limited by that 5A thing.
Re: Have you seen the new micro USB 3.0 cable?
Hideous is in the eye of the beholder, but "new" it is not.
Based on actual testing, the Micro USB (and Micro USB "B") are far more resilient than Mini USB, both in life expectancy and in failure modes.
However, the level of obtuseness here is astounding: the issue is not about the connector, but about how the charger and device communicate. A USB device can "demand" 500mA without much in the way of negotiation, and so a 500mA charger would do fine. But 500mA is a low charge rate for tablets and most smartphones, so clever engineers pondered the problem of how a smart device (tablet, phone, headset, etc) could interrogate the charging brick to see what current it was designed for, and if the brick signalled that it could handle more than 500mA (e.g. 2000mA), then the smart device should feel free to suck 2A, but otherwise it should trickle at 500mA lest it melt the fuse in the brick, etc. etc.
Now, Apple (as usual) have their own "magic" way of figuring out the power delivery capability of a USB brick: the voltages on the (USB) data lines (D+ and D-) are driven to particular voltages, and thereby signal whether the brick can provide 500mA, 1000mA, or 2000mA. Of course, this sort of trick doesn't actually define quite useful things like maximum inrush current, but it's a good start...
HOWEVER... whether it's with a USB connector or a Lightning connector on the device, the charging VOLTAGE is more-or-less standardized at 5V, which is mildly problematic since the USB "A" type connector on the brick is pretty much only good for 5A, and the operating inefficiencies of having to use a boost converter in cases where the battery is more naturally a 12V or 20V thing are obvious.
So wouldn't it be just lovely if there was a standard by which a device could indicate "hey, I'll take 500mA @5V if that's all you can do, but I'd prefer 3A @ 20V if you've got it"?
And THAT's what this is about: it's not an issue of one charger that can charge both an iPhone and a Galaxy S4, but rather one charger than can charge your Bluetooth headset and your "NotePod 12s" 17-inch gaming tablet.
@Steve Davies 3: your argument seems to fail on its face: yes, ECC RAM is more expensive and less common than the non-ECC variants. But nothing that ARM does or does not do changes that. So comparing an Atom solution with an ARM one you either have to agree (bizarrely) that your data doesn't matter and ECC is therefore unimportant or you have to buy much the same ECC RAM whether you use an ARM or an Atom.
As to the number of DIMM slots, within reason that's often a choice the implementer, not the chipset,
Re: Google is providing DNS not hosting, check your facts
.... errr, dude, if you're in the IT biz, now would be a good time to either:
b) take some continuing education.
According to the actual DNS records, the nameservers are all in the UNC.EDU domain. Not Google.
Google, though, handles the email hosting.
Ibilio handles the web hosting (i.e. www.groklaw.net is in fact groklaw.ibilio.org).
Once again, for emphasis: GOOGLE HANDLES THE EMAIL HOSTING.
Have a nice retirement...
It's a little misleading to suggest that the "the DoD requirements are higher than those required for the FIPS 140-2" because you're mixing apples and oranges (err... pears and pomegranates, to avoid names already used in the mobile biz).
In reality, FIPS 140-2 certification is a necessary (but not sufficient) _element_ of the DoD certification requirements; there is no way a company could "bypass" getting the FIPS 140 certification and just get the DoD approval, which is what the "requirements are higher" implies.
[ Maybe I'm just picking nits -- no, really -- but if the article had used "broader" in place of "higher", I wouldn't have commented... ]
Re: Simple Answer
Bang on: no-one should be complaining about the security, the only issue is that the time waiting for it is unpaid.
Tangentially, the most creative and sensible scheme I've seen involved having a pack of cards in a gambling casino-type "shoe" on the security guard's desk. Every employee took a card, and if it had a big red dot on it, then their bags were searched; no red dot, no search.
Management could increase or decrease the number of cards with dots, but it was obviously and manifestly random and so extremely effective without being intrusive.
Re: Proper mobile benchmarking
Ah, but are they really cheating? The handset is actually running the benchmark, and if the battery life is worsened while benchmarks are being run, then surely it is a failure of the individual performing the tests that they assume stupid things about the linearity of current draw under varied conditions.
"Cheating" would be if the system didn't do the work, e.g. by optimizing out routines that it had been told weren't important to the benchmark.
All this is is a system that is optimized to run those benchmarks. Whoopie. If that really matters to you, is there anything fundamentally preventing you from applying those same optimizations to whatever app you care about (i.e. stuff the name of the app into the tweak file)?
Clearly you have no idea what a HUD does: it is precisely because you do worry about school kids running out between parked cars that you want to have them.
Your knowledge of the situational awareness of a pilot compared to a driver is naive: a pilot needs three dimensional awareness, while a drive typically only needs two: the school kid isn't going to pop up from the middle of the road or from the sky, by the AA missile might.
The whole point of a HUD is that it keeps the eyes looking out, and a head-mounted HUD based on something like Glass will allow drives to see their speed and (potentially) anti-collision warnings when they are distracted and looking "the wrong way".
Unit error... stick to Bulgarian Airbags?
"4.8TB of capacity and 100GB/s of bandwidth" sounds a bit daft: you could fill the thing in 48 seconds.
So should it be 4.8PB or 4.8EB?
Re: What about pre-flight tests?
Err.. the sensor was apparently a vertical motion sensor. So until the thing actually starts to move, no-one knows there's a problem.
- Review Ubuntu 14.04 LTS: Great changes, but sssh don't mention the...
- Vid CEO Tim Cook sweeps Apple's inconvenient truths under a solar panel
- Antique Code Show WTF happened to Pac-Man?
- HTC mulls swoop for Nokia's MASSIVE Chennai plant
- Study shows dangerous asteroid impacts hit Earth every six months