Then it's a good job that Apple won't be installing anything in a vehicle.

This is about the Carplay protocol, not about Apple making head units or stereos.

Man, I know that slashdot users can't read the articles, but it's getting bad when they don't read the summary either before rushing to post.

My goodness you really made yourself look foolish didn't you?

This is about a protocol that head units can support. It is not about an Apple-made head unit. Apple will not be making a head unit. Companies like Alpine and Pioneer (and others, but not Apple) who do make head units can implement the CarPlay protocol allowing the extension of the phone's interface beyond more than the current protocol enables.

These head units, of course, can/will/may not implement other protocols, such as the similar one that supports Android phones.

You mean the new magsafe connectors that have a $10 adaptor that Apple sells to convert between the two?

Oh, sorry, you were making an uninformed Apple bash for karma, sorry to interrupt with something as trivial as fact.

http://store.apple.com/us/prod...

You're old enough to drive? You do surprise me!

I charge my iPhone with an Android charger.

Next question?

I see you have absolutely no understanding of how science works, or have any understanding of the current state of research into fusion power, if you suggest that we could have had it already based on the money spent so far.

If we'd have spent two orders of magnitude more money on it over the past 40 years then that's still less than a year's expenditure on oil surveying by a single oil company.

Bargain.

So, given how you're clearly an expert on these sorts of things, how much should we be spending on cryogenic coal cracking as a way to extend our useful fossil fuel lifetime?

The evidence is the amount of money that has been spent on that research - it's a tiny drop.

Large scale research projects are required to probe science at this level - look at the development of fission reactors, for example. The money poured into that was vast, and it cracked the fundamental engineering problems associated with it.

Fusion power is not a theoretical concept - it happens all the time (and life on earth is reliant on it), but the practical challenges are large. The lines on that graph are obviously projections, but they are projections based on the science and engineering of the time as it pertained to fusion science. They weren't just "made up", and they do not take unforeseen circumstances into account, but they are based on the costs of solving the challenges inherent in fusion power production which were known at the time the graph was made.

You don't believe that fusion researchers are doing anything useful, so it's clear you don't understand how science works, so this is likely lost on you, but the amount of money on that graph in total since 1978 is so small that it is laughable, and yet here we are. It outlines one of the main problems with large scale science - that short sighted people such as yourself consider pure research to be "harmful" because it isn't immediately profitable or an obvious path to near-term profits.

From my perspective, the 20 billion per year air conditioning the desert in Afghanistan is wasted - what exactly has the war in Afghanistan accomplished? Apart from destabilising the region, increasing xenophobia, damaging the USA's reputation and giving a few people some closure because some terrorists who weren't from either of the two countries you invaded in response flew some planes into a couple of buildings in NYC.

Solving fusion power will change the face of civilisation and is an almost-necessary step in transitioning into an era where the bulk of our energy doesn't come from fossil sources (it could be done with purely fission power too, but again, PR issues and funding problems dog it). The worst part is we could have already solved it by now had we actually spent any reasonable amount of money on it. If it had been funded at 5 billion dollars per year since 1976 then you could have had twenty thousand simultaneous fusion power research programs running over those 40 years for every eight-year Iraq war (using low estimate for the cost of the war).

The point being, fusion power is being funded for peanuts, and even the "aggressive funding" is a tiny amount.

It's actually vastly, vastly, vastly underpriced and underfunded.

It is an absolute disgrace that fusion power hasn't seen the funding necessary to succeed given the importance of energy to modern civilisation.

ITER is a necessary step in the chain to produce working fusion power plants. It's amazing they've come this far while being funded with what amounts to hunting for pennies in vending machine coin return trays.

Here's a picture that paints a thousand words that makes the laughable troll headline of "skyrocketing" cost for ITER make the idiot who wrote it seem like he has trouble tying his own shoes:

http://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg

Also note the scale on the y axis, and remember that the annual cost of the air conditioning the troops in Afghanistan is $20 billion.

Keep to the science! ahahaha ahahahahahaha! AHAHAHAHA

You are fucking gold.

The efficiency of fusion power doesn't come from anything as trivial as the energy used to grow food or refine the fuel. Fusion power derives its energy from the strong nuclear force. This energy density is already present in each atom of your fuel.

When you start fusing atoms and releasing the energy from those reactions it starts going well beyond "well, it cost us x amount of energy in the truck to bring the fuel to the reactor". The strong nuclear force is orders of magnitude above any of the other forces involved and that potential energy has been locked up in your fuel since the beginning of the universe.

Processing it into usable fuel, transporting it, feeding the workers that do that is not even a rounding error in the calculations.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how fusion (and fission for that matter) works.

I think you misunderstand the laws of thermodynamics.

The sun converts mass into energy at an enormous rate. There is no "net power gain" in any closed thermodynamic system, but from the reference frame of the earth, the sun "makes power" insofar as it takes the fuel it has in the core and fuses it, and as a helpful side effect it the energy released in said fuel consumption is released as heat, light and other EM radiation.

It doesn't even compare.

For example, the cost of running the air conditioners in the tents in Afghanistan is $20 billion *per year*. So, if the US just pulled out of Afghanistan a few weeks ahead of schedule, they could fully fund their minuscule contribution to ITER.

You are describing the literal job role of a CEO (or at least, one of the many roles the EO has).

So how many? "A lot".

Or perhaps "more than enough for this to be a serious problem".

Why? People do it all the time, from both sides of almost any conceivable argument.

It's human nature.

They key thing to take away from it is that while you are free to express any belief, you are not immune to the consequences of that belief.

It's not oppression for someone to disagree with you. This wouldn't even be a story if the guy was a racist - the bad PR for Mozilla would mean that his beliefs made him incompatible with the role of CEO. This is exactly what this is.

People will go on holding and expressing beliefs long after this is over. Of course, if those beliefs (that previously had been casually accepted by society, and thus had never been challenged) start to face opposition it doesn't mean you're suddenly being oppressed.

Yes, he is entitled to his opinion. He is not entitled to a job if that job is as the public face of a company that has values that are at odds with that belief, especially if that company derives the bulk of its funding from a company that is very definitely at odds with those beliefs.