> What exactly is the reason to have this as well, as opposed to pulling your phone out of your pocket?

That.

What, you think that's silly? Tell that to all the hands-free vendors.

> There's absolutely no way the iPhone has enough storage space to make recording
> video viable without removable storage

Yet it is the number 1 video source on the planet. So, clearly, the argument is logically wrong.

Here, let me re-phrase your argument so it is logically correct:

"There's absolutely no way the iPhone has enough storage space to make recording *the long videos I make* viable without removable storage"

Which is a pointless argument, akin to saying you can't use an iPhone to drive nails. The iPhone wasn't invented to do everything, it was invented to do some things really well. And the fact that it is the #1 camera and #1 camcorder in the world is proof positive that they have succeeded.

> So if you lose or upgrade your phone you have to re-setup all your stored cards

Ummm, what do you do if you lose your wallet? Re-set up all your cards, very rapidly, using a *phone*. Then you wait for days while they arrive. Or you go in person to a *bank* and get a new one.

Whereas with this you simply take another photo of your card.

> If not then they're storing it in your device

Wow. Did you even bother reading ONE SENTENCE about how this works before coming here to complain?

Really, this is just making you look foolish.

> Apple doesn't middle-man the banking/merchant transaction in their model.

*THAT* was the big takeaway from the announcement. They're not doing PayPal, they're simply providing tokens to the bank, like any NFC credit card.

That said, the film about the payment process falls on deaf ears anywhere outside the US. I did about four transactions today, three of them were tap-to-pay, one was cash. Having all my cards in one place and eliminating my wallet (I *rarely* use cash, maybe twice a week) is something worth paying for.

> But something more focused on security versus the "bling" that apple is trying to promote

Really, you're claiming you're interested in an *Android phone* because of *security*.

> my 2c

Is obviously worth 0c.

> the gs5 --:> bigger, new features, better battery life then the last model, better processor

The iP6 -> bigger, new features, better battery life than the last model, better processor

You did actually watch the 'cast before writing this moronic post, right?

> Because I still have a camcorder hanging around and I use it when

And I'm guessing the last time you used it there were two zeros in the date?

> I want to take a video that lasts longer than a couple of minutes

And that puts you into 0.1% of the population.

Should we put a 5th wheel on everyone's care because they might want to pull a 1/2 container some time? I suspect that's about the same percentage, judging by the number of times I've seen it on a pickup.

> making it a toy at taking pictures and video

Making it the most used camera and one of the most used video systems, regardless of what you think.

I'm just guessing, of course, but I strongly suspect you have never sold a picture or video, so why do you think your judgement on what makes a toy is remotely valid? When you make your first photo sale to NatGeo or feature film you let us know.

> I agree - the stream was terrible

It worked perfectly on the Apple TV, which I tried after repeated failures on two browsers.

This statement:

"This situation is further amplified by the adoption of virtual private networks (VPNs) and proxy servers by some users, allowing them to circumvent geo-blocking technologies and further evade detection," the BBC explains."

Doesn't appear to be remotely close to what the topic claims:

"BBC: ISPs Should Assume VPN Users Are Pirates"

Quite the opposite, it very clearly that "some users" use it for multiple purposes.

Yet that hasn't stopped anyone here from simply assuming the article header is correct and complaining. Which is precisely why everyone ignores nerds.

> If I open a company tomorrow, how can I get away with not paying taxes?

You ask the local government. They all do it. They just have different ideas of which ones to fund and which ones not to.

But if you have a factory you want to build, and it's going to employ, say, 1000 people, you'll find a lineup of governments willing to give you a tax break.

"all of its own energy using a combination of solar, wind, and geothermal"

No, that's not what it says. It says it will be net-zero. That's a big difference.

This plant will be grid-connected. It will simply produce as much energy as it uses. Not all the time, not 24 hours.

@sythesize MY_ASS

When I first used it, circa '99, it was small, light, and looked great.

Now, not so much.

No more needs to be said.

"Margaret Thatcher forced François Mitterrand to give her the codes to disable Argentina's deadly French-made missiles during the Falklands war"

Bologna.

I've seen the insides of 70's era AM39 Exocet. They don't have codes. They certainly don't have remote turn-off codes.

And then there's the fact that they worked perfectly. Six (five AMs, one SM) launches, four hits. Two sinkings. Much better results than anyone could have predicted.

> This paragraph was enough to stop me:

So let me make sure I understand what you're claiming here.

First, you're claiming that you made it to page 3, where you find the quote in question, but you *didn't* read page 2 where it said:

"Certain Alternative Energy generation technologies are cost-competitive with conventional generation technologies under some scenarios, before factoring in environmental and other externalities (e.g., RECs, transmission and back-up generation/system reliability costs) as well as construction and fuel cost dynamics affecting conventional generation technologies"

Is that what you're saying?

And further, that you stop reading things because you find a *single thing* in them that you disagree with?

Ok.

> This is actually pretty common practice on large-scale projects that are going to benefit the local economy

The local economy in this case was on the far side of the planet. The economy that paid for it had already dumped about $50 billion into the company by this point, so they could have the privilege of paying more so other people could get it for free.

> come to a completely bogus conclusion ("they took it off our hands")

Oh no, I didn't come to that conclusion from the other premise. I came to that conclusion because that's precisely what everyone involved says:

http://www.candu.com/en/home/news/mediareleases/CanduEnergyandChinaNuclearPowerEngineering.aspx

Basically if you read the articles on the topic, you'll see that SNC handed off all marketing and sales to China. China is selling them and funding them, so it's their problem now.

> And why would the Canadian government need to second-guess the environmental assessment
> of a construction site in China? It's the Chinese government's job.

So if you want to sell a reactor to North Korea, are you saying its perfectly OK to take their word for it on non-proliferation. Or might you insist your own inspectors have a look?

Forget proliferation then, would you be happy selling one of your reactors to, say, Sudan, without checking their ability not to destroy their local environment?

Because there's no possible way that anyone would blame *you* if *they* screw up, right? That *never* happens.

They passed the law for good reasons. They overturned it one day after no debate for bad ones.

> Could the Canadian government have gotten a better deal? Maybe

In the end AECL was funded to the tune of $55 billion, and sold off for negative $750 million.

Please, let me know about this better deal you're thinking of!