You seem to have missed the sarcasm inherent in my original comment.

The GP was claiming that they could just hose the wings down rather than using an anti-bug coating.

I was just wondering out loud how that would work when the plane is in flight given that the hose probably has a finite length.

You think there are piles of answers to this question, but as with all armchair quarterbacks you seem to think that the people who are actually working on the problem are stupid.

So how do wash the wings right after takeoff?

I think that's going to add quite a lot of time if the plane has to circle really low for multiple passes each time for Jose to hose the wings off.

Do you touch the trackpad to make it work?

Then you're using the force touch feature, even if you don't click.

Perhaps if you log in we can discuss it. It's pretty obvious.

If you're following the comments, why didn't you log in?

It was clear that the original poster didn't understand how the technology worked.

Also, if my comment to him is considered "being a dick" then my goodness he must have a thin skin. He'd better be careful on the internet. What specifically about it is me "being a dick"?

I do get it. He is saying that he has never used the force touch feature when that's literally impossible, even if he taps it lightly enough to just register his finger - the cap sensor and the strain gauges work together on the new trackpad. Je just didn't understand that.

Ah, so you're changing your argument. Fair enough.

I was just pointing out that you were factually incorrect and based an argument on it. Next time you say that you don't use any part of a technology that you literally have to (because that's how the trackpad works in its entirety) you'll know a little more about it.

Err, no.

Apple's implementation of force touch on the Macbook Pro trackpad (where it is current used, not counting this rumour that it will be on the iPhone) uses a set of strain gauges to measure the applied pressure. It doesn't use the touchscreen controller.

You might want to actually look up how it works before trying to score a "sick burn" (is that what the kids call it these days?) from your armchair quarterback position.

I also don't see where Apple are hyping it up to make it seem like a revolution. They are advertising that the MBPr and MB have it, but I fail to see how their advertising materials claim it's revolutionary. Unless you think the term "whole new way to experience a trackpad" means that, and not "this trackpad works differently than the old ones due to the numerous new ways you can use it due to the force sensors"

Apple is frequently guilty of hyperbole when it comes to advertising, but on the force touch it's pretty understated. Did you just assume they would claim it was a revolution that had never been seen before? Given that you don't understand how Apple's implementation works I have to assume you've done zero research on it. Google (a popular search engine) can tell you quite a lot about it if you're interested.

Apple's implementation (at least on the trackpad on the Macbook Pro) is a set of strain gauges and a haptic feedback device that simulates the "click".

No, it really doesn't.

Look at the teardown of the MBPr's trackpad - it doesn't physically have a clickable button any more. It is 100% exclusively totally (just for redundancy) controlled via haptic feedback.

It does not physically click. Not even a little bit.

It is a flat plate with no moving parts that has a haptic feedback device fixed to it.

Wow, you need to calm down kid.

That is not a site for consumer.... you know what, if you didn't get it the first time, I'm not sure I'll be able to explain it any more simply.

What reality distortion field? I'm not sure what part of my comment would result in that, given that I was replying with a factual statement to a comment that seemed to think that Mackeeper was software written by Apple, or that somehow Apple devices were immune to bad code. Or is that just your go to attempt at an insult? Pretty weak either way.

You're arguing from a position that does not really exist - the whole "Macs don't get viruses" thing (let's ignore that this is a trojan and not a virus, but whatever) hasn't been the current talking point officially or otherwise for a very long time, and it was never actually Apple's official advertising (because it wasn't literally true - they talked a lot about how it was more secure than Windows but never said immune).

What Apple bashers like to keep stating is that that's what they believe Apple fans are all saying, when it really isn't. OS X is as secure as any Unix system - that is, pretty good, but not immune.

What we have here is a trojan, which is a problem common to all operating systems that run on computers. But of course, that doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to push.

No one is claiming that infections are "impossible" on a Mac - but you can claim that that's what Apple fans are claiming if you like.

For the record, there aren't any actual viruses for OS X in the wild. DISCLAIMER: THIS DOES NOT MEAN I THINK OS X IS IMMUNE /END DISCLAIMER, but there are plenty of trojans and other malware. The Microsoft Office trojan torrent being one of the most famous. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it. A torrent that claimed to be a pirate copy of Office that was a trojan. Got a lot of people that one.

So, from what I can see, you're the only one claiming that people are claiming that Macs don't get viruses. Perhaps this is the source of your confusion.

Pssssst! Mackeeper is not code written by Apple! Keep it under your hat!

Just thought I should let you know before you make yourself look like a fool.... oh, sorry. I was delayed in traffic. If only I'd made it here sooner!

Never mind.

The power that the labels have is very strong. It's hardly scary to know that they hold all the cards - why do you think the rise of indie labels has been greeted with such enthusiasm by artists.

In this case, what Apple did was exchange a longer free period for higher per-song royalties after the free period ends, but it does this on a per-label basis and clearly hammers out these sorts of deals with the biggest ones first. The smaller labels and indies can negotiate different deals if they like, but do you think they'll be able to do better than Sony, for example, will be able to manage (making the assumption that Sony will press Apple for the best deal that is good for Sony)? They can't deal directly with the artists even if they want to because the rights to the music aren't owned by the artists themselves.

The fact that the music labels hold all the cards is separate issue - artists have been getting the short end of the stick since long before Apple was even allowed to compete in the music business by law (hello Apple Records vs Apple Inc lawsuit).