Unfortunately, USB requires much CPU power. Some folks believe Intel pushed USB so hard specifically because it required higher-powered CPUs to run effectively, unlike the competing FireWire which is DMA.

The assumptions are simple: assume that the user hasn't given you permission to do anything. Your app may be useless at that point, but it shouldn't crash. It should just not do anything. If the user then asks the app to search their contacts, you ask them for permission to the contacts again. It happens all the time in iOS apps.

I think the wisdom comes from knowing what is necessary and what isn't. Elegance is always defined by the lack of complexity, not by the addition of it. That's why the best code is as pared down as it can be--it does the most with the least.

It's an interesting saying; I've never heard it before. :)

How did Apple drop the ball, exactly?

I've had apps ask me permission for my GPS, microphone and photos all individually. I've rejected allowing all those things at various times for various reasons with no problems. I've gone back and given permission later, or denied permission when I didn't want that functionality any more. Every app that requires location services asks me individually at the first moment it tries to use them if it's okay. If there's a flaw with the Apple system, I suppose you could say that it's that you get the same questions over and over again, or that apps that absolutely require certain permissions (photo editing apps need access to your photos, duh) can't get them automatically. (But honestly, I don't mind answering that question.)

I test-drove a Nexus 4 for a week, and it really grated on my nerves that I had to give permissions at time of download, couldn't revoke any of them, and had to take it on faith that the app would play nice. No. Ask me for each individual thing, ask me each time.

Heh, I didn't think you were talking to me.

It's also worth noting that I've got a few really nice bikes anyway. ;)

Yeah, and all the best designers for dams and canals are from there, it's true. What your startlingly naive comment doesn't take into consideration is that it's ALWAYS been there, and the cities that we've built on the coasts in the last 50 years HAVEN'T been underwater. This is a new thing. They weren't designed for it.

But sure, take the coastal cities of the world out of the equation. The costs are still enormous, and still real. Agriculture, storms, unpredictable weather, weather patterns shifting substantially (snow where there wasn't snow previously, no snow where there used to be lots of snow), coral bleaching, ocean acidification, desertification...the list is really long. This is to say nothing of the stuff that we don't even know is coming; I suspect that we've failed to capture the entirety of the problem. The things that we ALREADY know about will cost a shit-tonne of money. The stuff that we DON'T know about are going to be even worse because it'll be impossible to prepare for them in any way.

Cost-benefit analyses really start to fall apart at this point.

The thing is, there are lots of little things that we can do, individually and societally, that don't cost much but slowly make a big difference. They've started adding sails to really big cargo ships. It's free energy. It helps. I walk to work, drive my car very little, and try to be good about my own personal energy usage. I use less energy now than I have ever before in my life. It wasn't a step down in my quality of life in the least. I live close enough to home that I can walk home for lunch now. I have fewer, nicer things.

Collapsing economies and cave-dwelling are a line that we've been sold by interests that have a stake in us not changing. I provide less revenue for oil companies than I used to. Because I pay a little more for better things, I don't dispose of things as often. As a consumer, I'm much less lucrative than I was 10 years ago.

The cost is immaterial if the benefit is making sure coastal cities aren't completely or partially submerged, wouldn't you say? I mean, relocating people in North America away from the coasts runs a monetary cost that is just incredible to contemplate.

Then you've got weird weather effects coming. Places that get too little rain to grow crops, or too much. Or just really unpredictable weather, so setting up agriculture is just extra difficult. That's going to cost money.

Even things like tourism suddenly take a hit--the Great Barrier Reef generates an enormous amount of revenue from tourism, but coral bleaching will slowly kill the reef off. Bye bye tourism dollars. Beyond that, the reef is also a natural barrier (duh) from large waves coming into the coast. AND it serves as a nursery for lots of different kinds of fish that we enjoy eating.

The costs associated with NOT acting (assuming that we can reverse any of these changes; climate change has momentum) are staggering. These are just a few things that I came up with off the top of my head. Check the Stern Review that someone else already linked you. The projected costs are in numbers so large that you're unlikely to be able to fully grasp them (I don't mean that as an insult; I can't fully grasp the enormity of the costs myself).

1) Why were the hippies the only ones that were capable of seeing what a threat there is?
2) Why are people in need of convincing? There's a lot of very convincing science (done by non-hippies) available.
3) How did they hijack it, exactly? Are you the kind of person that accuses others of being 'fake geeks' or 'fake gamers'?

We wouldn't have this problem if people and government were less interested in short-term profit than long-term health. Don't pin it on a small segment of a smaller sub-culture.

It may not have been the gas stations in the USA that did it, it's true. My anecdote is true, to the extent that I can verify that the conversation happened and that this is what they people at Visa thought the likely problem was. After that, it IS speculation.

"SEE ID" is also highly unreliable because of weird corporate policy. I did that for a few years (many years ago; I have a chip and PIN card now), after seeing advice at a police station that said I should. I took my card to FutureShop, and they refused to process my card unless I'd signed it. They claimed that it was VISA's policy that they needed a signature. I signed the back of my card right there, in front of them. They never checked my ID.

Then I called Visa and Visa said that they have no such policy against forcing the retailer to check the ID. Then I called FutureShop and THEY said they have no policy against checking ID.

There are too many humans involved when you're doing swipe and sign. Most of them are useless.

I do the same. And, predictably, I've had my credit card number stolen and then had to replace the card.

When I was talking to the person on the phone that was telling me that my card number was stolen, they asked me if I'd bought anything online recently, or what have you. I told them that I'd bought petrol in the States, and they went, "Oooooh, that must be it. Okay."

I don't think you can write off solar instantly. The point wouldn't be so much to recharge the battery to full as delay the arrival of empty as long as possible. Any watch is going to have a necessarily small body. If Apple wants the watch to last at least a full day, be slim AND do lots of stuff, they'll have to come up with something novel.

So, yeah, it's a hard sell to keep the watch charged all the time through solar, but it may give the battery just enough life to make it for 16 hours (which is what counts as a full day in my books).

Not based on, but actually total fiction inspired by.

Some folks still think it was local jet traffic that made the noise that scared them all so much that they ran out of the tent, lost their lights and senses of direction, and died of exposure. It's just much more likely than a freak sound event.