It's called CallerID.
And I don't need to look at my phone to know whether someone important is calling, because that's what distinctive ring/vibration is for.
Since you didn't say why, True wins.
I said why in the parent post, and in the post I made before that too.
loolololol since it's not tied to iTunes in any way, invalid.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/ap...
"lololololol" right back at you. What's the domain called? Maybe you thought I meant the itunes application? If so your retort is understandable, but you still misunderstood.
I could use only third party apps and no Apple services
How do you get third party apps without using Apple services (for example without using itunes.apple.com) smart ass?
Apple watch is vastly less reliant on Apple than Android Wear is on Google.
If only there was some way of getting apps for it without relying on apple, that might actually be true. But there is not, so its not.
Android wear might completely dependent on google than I thought; I really don't know. I speculate that if you can run it cyanogenmod you don't need google services to use it... but perhaps not. It doesn't really matter... I'm not advocating an android wear anyway.
Without Google Now it's a paperweight.
Without Apple so is your apple watch. Because without itunes (itunes the service not itunes the app), there are no 3rd party apps for it.
The numbers Solar City gave me showed a net savings of $30 a month. That's it - 30 bucks a month. And that is assuming you buy into their calculations - which I don't.
You really don't think energy costs will go up over time? Ironically, the only way they wouldn't is if we committed to more renewables.
But the real "so what" is that they are OCRing the mail
Lot's of people still actually hand-write addresses. It needs to get OCRed in order to be sorted.
You have to finish the sentence before you can understand it. I'd bet you just interrupt in the middle of sentences all the time, and thus fail to understand what people are telling you by preventing them from actually finishing a complete thought.
If you go back and read the complete sentence, which expresses a complete thought, then it makes perfect sense.
You use a lot of big words, I don't think you know what any of them mean.
You've proven full well that I do.
What I argue is that there's structural differences that makes this a better idea to to centrally than at home,
But you're wrong.
If it's cost effective for you to store the power in a battery and use it in the daytime it's going to be more cost effective for them to store the power in a battery and sell it to you in the daytime.
Cost-effective for who, and on what basis?
The very reason they sell it cheap at night is that there's no cost effective way to store the excess power for later,
It's not cost-effective for them, because they don't have a secondary use for the battery.
You're on the wrong end of the Dunning-Kruger effect here, buddy.
You still have failed to support your argument in the slightest. We're waiting, though we're not holding our breath, because we want to live.
The problem with that plan is that so many aspects of the way the system is designed give people with money and/or time an advantage that you'd basically have to scrap it.
This is a problem?
What damage, specifically?
Could you give some examples of the truly toxic?
Most of the stuff you highlight can be handled by a feature phone, though, except reading books. I use my 6-year-old Android, doesn't seem to crash or need to reboot unless the battery is on empty (and shocking the battery still works pretty well after 6 years - will go 12+ hours between charges). You don't need anything fancy - what you want is something stable.
I'm really struggling with what to get next - the screen on my phone has been cracked for a couple of years now, so I should probably replace it one of these days. But now it's all these damn giant phones that don't fit in my pockets, don't have replaceable batteries - what ever happened to cell phones getting smaller?
When someone sends me a text or an email, there's no "he said - she said" disputes over what was said. Try doing that with your home phone.
If you have that problem often enough to care, you need better friends, not a better phone!
Fact: Putting the word "fact" before your sentence does not absolve you of the need to back it up with actual evidence.
Inflation was cooked up to explain most of that after the fact, though, so it's unsurprising that it does. The fundamental problem with inflation is that too much is tunable. Penrose's cyclic cosmology explains all the same stuff, and at least has the decency to make some bizarre (and very likely false) predictions outside of the early universe.
Theories of the very early universe that require new fields that there's a way to detect today are interesting. Certainly there are ideas to explain dark energy as an extension of inflation that fit that bill. But theories that propose a bunch of cool new physics that all conveniently vanished early on are a bit sketchy, at least until we can somehow make an equivalent of WMAP for the neutrino background radiation, and observe the very early universe directly. I hope I live to see that!
If you can avoid traveling in normal space-time, then you've just potentially solved the problem entirely.
That doesn't help in the least. It doesn't matter how you travel: two events, separated in space, that happen "at the same time" in my frame of reference don't do so in another. If I depart A and arrive at B "instantly" in some reference frame, then I have travelled backwards in time from another. There's no getting around that: we live in a relativistic universe.
The pool of people who are knowledgeable about the practices, challenges, and daily business realities of the telecommunications industry (or any industry for that matter) is a small one indeed; good luck finding someone in that pool with the experience necessary to lead an agency the size of the FCC who hasn't worked for the industry at one time in his or her life.
You seem to think the QM guys cooked up this really weird story while particularly high one night, then went looking for a way to make it fit the universe. It's the observations themselves that bring the weirdness. Sure, the universe at these scales far from human experience doesn't fit with our intuitions, but that shouldn't surprise, as our intuitions are based entirely on human experience. Sure the math is intricate, far from simple or elegant, but there's no actual reason to believe the universe is simple and elegant, other than it would be nice if it were so.
Is this all some complex expression of some simpler, underlying truth that we just haven't found yet? Certainly everyone working in the field hopes so! But the horrible, crufty Standard Model just keeps making accurate predictions, and all the clever ideas of physicists to create a simpler underlying model that could explain everything we measure keep failing to do so.
"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne
