Uber drivers are subsidized by everybody else. Taxi drivers have to pay high insurance rates because the act of driving a long distance every day for a ton of strangers is a job that inherently leads to a much higher statistical rate of payouts. If they're driving as a taxi on regular car insurance, it's you that's paying the bill for their swindle of the insurance system.

Yeah, wouldn't that be great if I had linked it in my first post, and then if you had actually read my post well enough to see it?

What you don't appreciate is that there is always a cost to adding UI. If the phone has windowing then there has to be some means of activating it. And that's extra UI. And if that extra UI has to work with the iPhone, then that has implications for how it's implemented on the iPad.

The windowing system on the iPad is really sweet. It uses the dimensions of the screen really well. Why potentially fuck it up for no gain by implementing windowing on iPhone?

What people miss about the essence of good design is it's as much about what you leave out as what you add.

When you can't tell the difference between literal rul-of-thumb finger pattern on a capacitative screen and strain gauges, it just makes you look stupid.

It says nothing about Apple.

Yeah, right, those right button clicks on a mouse are so pointless aren't they. There can't possibly be two different purposes for tapping a point can there.

How do you come to that assumption?

By linking to a peer-reviewed paper on the subject?

A nuclear warhead has lots of trouble to even "hit" an asteroid.

Essentially every space mission we have launched for the past several decades has had to navigate with a far more precision than that needed to get close to an asteroid and activate a single trigger event when close by.

We send spacecraft on comparable missions all the time. And it doesn't really take a spectacularly large payload to destroy (yes, destroy) an asteroid a few hundred meters in diameter. 1/2-kilometer-wide Itokawa could be blown into tiny bits which would not recoalesce, via a 0,5-1,0 megatonne nuclear warhead, a typical size in modern nuclear arsenals (in addition, the little pieces would be pushed out of their current orbit).

I know it's a common misconception that "nuking" an asteroid would simply create a few large fragments that would hit Earth with even more devastation, but that's not backed by simulation data. And anyway, even if it didn't blow the asteroid to tiny bits (which simulations say it would) and even if it didn't push the remaining pieces off trajectory (which they say it does), anything that spreads an Earth impact out over a larger period of time is a good thing - it means the higher percentage of the energy that's absorbed high in the atmosphere rather than reaching the surface (less ejecta, lower ocean waves, a broader (weaker) distribution of the heat pulse, etc), the weaker the shockwaves, the weaker the total heat at any given point in time, and the more time for Earth to radiate away any imparted energy or precipitate out any ejecta cloud. If the choice is between 15 Chelyabink-sized impactor (most of which will strike places where they won't even be witnessed) or one Meteor Crater-sized impactor (same total mass), pick the Chelyabinsk ones. 50 10-megatonne meteor crater impactors or one 500-megatonne Upheaval Dome impactor? Pick the former. The asteroid impacts calculator shows the former generating a negligible fireball and 270mph wind burst at 2km distance, while the latter creates the same winds 25km away (156 times the area) and a fireball that even 25km away is 50 times brighter than the sun, hot enough to instantly set most materials on fire.

But that's all irrelevant because, quite simply, simulations show that nuclear weapons do work against asteroids.

What we need is enough detection lead time to be able to launch a nuclear strike a few months before the impact date (to give time for the debris to disperse). There is no need to "land" or "drill" for the warhead. There is no pressure wave; instead, an immense burst of X-rays is absorbed through the outer skin of the asteroid on the side of the explosion, causing it to vaporize (unevenly) from within, especially near the ground zero point, and creating powerful shockwaves throughout its body. In addition to ripping it apart, the vaporized material and higher energy ejecta flies off, predominantly on the side where the explosion was detonated, acting a broad planar thruster.

We need to preserve the diversity of life to survive.

Right, but what if we engineered ourselves out of this necessity? It's completely conceivable that we could. Do we maintain diversity of living things just because human beings require a diversity of food? Or do species have a right to exist independent of the human need for survival?

On the other hand, if they're doubling capacity, then you only need half the number of cycles (it actually even works *better* than that, as li-ion cells prefer shallow charges and discharges rather than deep ones - but yes, fractional charge cycles do add up as fractional charge cycles, not whole cycles). If you have a 200km-range EV and you drive 20 kilometers a day, you're using 10% of a cycle per day. If you have a 400km-range EV and you drive 20 kilometers a day, you're using 5% of a cycle per day.

Top commercial li-ion capacities are about 30% more than they were 5 years ago. And today's batteries include some of the "advances" you were reading about 5 years ago.

I'm sorry if technology doesn't move forward at the pace you want. But it does move forward when you're not looking. Remember the size of cell phone batteries back in the day?

Are you talking about graphics tablets - separate from the screen? Can you point to an actual product you are referring to? I already came back with an affirmative on your WACOM query, if you're being more selective even than that, then be explicit and actually state what you're talking about.

It's pretty obvious how the iOS stylus works, but if you point to what it is you are thinking of it'll be easier to explain by comparison.

That was the most irrational message I've read in a while.

A new hardware feature leaves users of older devices "out in the cold"? How is that different for iPhones than any other smartphone?

And "after a few months"? Android manufacturers release new phones every month. iPhone has a new model once a year. How can you possibly have not worked out that your stupid criticism applies to Android not iPhone?

And windowing? iOS has windowing on the iPad, where it makes sense. Windowing on a phone makes no sense whatsoever. It's too small.

WACOM you say? Yes they do them for iOS.

http://uk.pcmag.com/tablets/13...

And there are several other companies that also do pressure sensitive styluses for iOS.

People that believe in Apple's reality distortion field are the kind of people that fall for perpetual motion machines.

If Apple didn't actually deliver devices that people love, they wouldn't be able to continue to be the most popular brand of smartphones whilst charging a significant premium.

The so called RDF Is a simply a trustworthy brand. A brand is a promise of quality, and even though they aren't perfect, they do deliver better quality than any other manufacturer. They deliver on their promise. They beat all other companies in customer satisfaction surveys year in year out.

Of course that will change by the time it's a production car, thanks to how pagerank works.