You're not their target market. There are a lot of old-school tinkerers who are familiar with Dremel - and a lot of people who are familiar with Home Depot - who know nothing about 3D printing. Many of those folks would be very interested in 3D printing if they knew about it. So here we are.

I think Dremel is going to raise the stature of 3D printing in an entirely new market and that will quite frankly help every other company out there in this space.

The point of the experiment was that "falling in a hole" was equated to "death".

People are conflating the "iMessage & Facetime" part of the quote with the "email" part. He says that they cannot (that is to say "do not have the ability") to read iMessage & Facetime. He then states that they do not read your email. People are pulling the "cannot" along with them when they read that sentence, but it doesn't say that they cannot read email, only that they choose to not read your email.

Your description of the iMessage encryption is good, but what the original poster said was true given a few constraints. So let me restate it in a logically consistent manner: if I can read my icloud email on any browser then apple also has the ability to read it.

But, but, maybe they encrypt it using your password on their server! If they did, "change password" would always require the old password and if you forgot your password your email would be lost forever. So, no, they're not doing that.

The bottom line is that if they can show me my email in any browser (which they can) then they can also read it trivially.

This isn't inconsistent with Cook's statement - he merely says that they choose to not do that.

The real question is "how well do normal humans perform the same task?" My guess is "no better than the robot". Making those decisions is difficult enough when you're not under time pressure. It can be very complex, too. Normally I'd want to save the younger of the two if I had to make the choice, but what if the "old guy" is "really important"? Or something like that.

He says "How retarded can you be that you believe anyone is burning freshly cut trees, anyway?"

Did you catch the word "anyone" in there? Right in the middle?

He's calling the guy above him retarded for believing that *anyone* would want to burn freshly cut trees, yet there definitely is talk of doing just that and it's easy to find with Google.

Look up the "clean hands doctrine". There's a reason that you don't see street gangs suing a drug supplier over a missing shipment....

The real question is "How retarded can you be that you make a statement like that without researching reality first?"

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/bl...

"First, just like fossil fuels, when trees are burned in power plants, the carbon they have accumulated is released into the atmosphere. However, because freshly cut wood is nearly half water by weight, a lot of energy is required to boil off this water before useful energy can be generated. This makes biomass facilities far less efficient than fossil fuel."

They're even using your exact nomenclature.

Another:

http://www.garp.org/risk-news-...

Yes, the idea has been out there for awhile - that you haven't heard of it isn't surprising. But that you make an ass of yourself over it says a lot about you.

The problem is that "high blood pressure" refers to two different things: 1. your blood pressure is above the normal range (120/70) at a given time and 2. you have chronic hypertension - your blood pressure is *always* above the normal range. Eating a bunch of salt can temporarily raise your blood pressure due to water retention but there's never been any evidence that this temporary effect has any long-term effects. Chronic hypertension is normally caused by poor health habits, particularly in regards to having excess weight. Eating salt has nothing to do with it.

I deal with this all the time because my wife the RN was always taught in school that eating too much salt leads to "high blood pressure". Well, yes, by definition "1" above. But that's a temporary condition and there's no evidence that it's bad for you. It took me 10 years to "unteach" her this little factoid, and I still have to deal with her telling the kids to not eat too much salt "because it's bad for you."

The only way to solve this long term is to use only the term "chronic hypertension" to refer to the chronic condition.

Yep. I've often pointed out that life is like a fire that has the ability to gather its own wood. Ultimately, that's what we are - not a fire per se but a well-controlled chemical reaction.

What do you mean by "wasted"?

That list is the source for the linked "article".

Purposely interfering with competing businesses isn't part of a free market. People who complain about "free markets" don't know what a free market actually is....

What I really don't get is the nutjobs (looking at you) who don't understand where Taxi regulation has ended up. It's easy to say how bad it used to be but now we have the end game of any regulatory regime where entrenched players totally control the "regulation" in order to tilt the playing field in their favor and erect barriers to entry that are all but impossible for a newcomer to overcome.

It's shameless. In NYC you have to buy a "medallion" in order to have a taxi. Hey, sounds easy, right? I mean, just go to the city and buy one, right?

Wrong.

They sold a very limited number of them and then quit. The secondary market has pushed the price of the medallion into the high 6 figures last I looked, possibly over a million dollars now. Note that's just to run one single cab. The medallions are owned by rich people who use them as an investment and rent them to taxi drivers on a monthly basis.

Now, you tell me: how does that "help" me, the taxi industry, or anybody else besides the people who own the medallions?

In Nashville they had new regulations a few years ago backed by Gaylord (owners of Opryland) to "regulate" the limousine/sedan industry here. Again, utterly shameless. Gaylord was specifically exempted *by name* from the "regulations". The whole point was to drive a company called "Metro Livery" out of service, and hurt others. The regulations force companies to have cars that are no more than 5 years old and prices could be no lower than $50/ride among other things. Yes, they specifically put a minimum price in the ordinance. I had used Metro Livery to get rides to the airport so I knew who they were targeting. Their cars were a few years older but I could get personal sedan service for less than the cost of a taxi.

The entire point was to put a lower cost competitor out of business. Again, how does that help anybody except the big players? Hint: It doesn't.

I agree that this industry needs to be lightly regulated - having a meter requirement for taxis is an example of useful regulation. What we have now is not the regulation that is needed and has nothing to do with helping consumers.

I've been on /. for 15 years. That's the first time I've clicked an image link here that actually went to the image that I was expecting. Thank you.

Holy shit, dude. It's not the propaganda from the Cold War, it's the tens of millions of dead bodies that Communism produced last century. In my book, that is EVIL, yes. That doesn't mean there aren't other evils in the world or that the US has always been the bastion of freedom that we should be or any of that.

I cannot fathom how someone could be arguing in 2014 that Communism isn't evil.