I use the adaptor in my own car, which provides a custom cable from 30-Pin iPod to the car's USB port (but it needs that cable in order to run an app specific to the car).
I've been using the lightning adapter with the iPhone 5 every since it came out, it charges just fine.
You know those USB ports in the back of some airlines seats? You can use them to stream video from an iPad.
That was from 2006... I thought I had read recently where some airline was working on a system where you could get in-flight movies on your iPad.
To me, phone GPS is plenty good enough for car use (either Google or Apple). I've been using a car mount to hold my phone for years and have never had issues with it reporting where I was accurately, outside of one odd anomaly somewhere in the middle of Utah where for about thirty miles GPS assured me I was 500 feet off the side of the road.
Will this be similar to how apple "broke the monopoly on ebooks" http://online.wsj.com/news/art...
Possibly, Apple tried to save us from an Amazon monopoly and failed.
Ever heard of getting a third party GPS for like $99 at costco with lifetime maps?
Yes, and they suck compared to a smartphone because they aren't integrated with anything. I have some left over from the Old Days.
Really, you think that is fair? Would it work the other way as in i think apple should be mandated
Get the stick out of your ass man. I was talking about car regulations. Any device can charge by USB now so your griping looks like lunacy.
How much do I pay for Maps updates with Apple? 0.
How much do you pay for mapping updates in most cars? LOTS AND LOTS (sometimes over $1k!)
Not to mention Apple maps can be fed locations from any application, whereas the car nav can only get input through whatever torturous interface the car make has put in place.
I don't know if CarPlay will gain any traction. Since Apple has no control over quality of implementation, we'll see some really awful interfaces on top of CarPlay...
But one great aspect of CarPlay has already done something I thought would not happen for a while - breaking the car manufactures monopoly on in-car mapping. Car makers have been constantly pushing very over-priced terrible in-car GPS systems for a while, and CarPlay at least brings a reasonable and cheap mapping system into cars without having to replace the whole stereo system and/or shoe-horn in a screen. I could see many people adopting a CarPlay stereo just for that.
One thing I really wish would happen would be to have the car industry be also mandated to provide third-party access to all of the screens that will be mandated in cars soon because of the back-up cameras... that could lead to a real renaissance in what smart-phones can do for you in-car.
This is the only game I really care about right now: Planetary Annihilation.
There are others, but really, nothing else matters to me besides my own experiments. I really tried to care about some 1st world problems concerning about who got what tablet that will be burning in a waste pile in Ghana in two years, but I just really couldn't bring myself to do so. I mean, don't get me wrong. I can love me some games, but I just can't give a flying fuck about who got what data on which Starfleet PADD.
Know what I do care about on games.slashdot.org? Actual games. It's in the subdomain, damnit. This isn't reviews.accountability.tard, we all know journalistic integrity in game reviews does not exist (seriously, if you don't give them at least a 7 (or 6 at the worst) then you don't get a review copy of the next game and everyone else scoops you). SO FUCKING WHAT. I don't go to theaters based on movie reviews. I don't go to museums based on art critics reviews. I don't play games based on advertising either. What's the big deal?
I suppose next you'll be whining about how the mainstream news is just a bunch of filtered statist propaganda messages? No, that's decades old not news, you dorks. We know the slant is there. The real news would be if there were some form of actual integrity springing up in game journalism.
It means we need to raise the bar for contributors and maintainers. If they are not using 100% code coverage fuzz testing in their unit tests (the bare minimum a security researcher will use against a product to detect exploitable code) then they don't need to be a maintainer. End of discussion. Period. You either maintain unit tests with at least range checking (which you can automatically generate if your doc comments aren't stupid) and fuzz tests for the same unit tests (which can be generated from the unit tests) for every damn line of your code, or you need to STOP. Period. No one else should be running your fucking piece of shit untested code. If you CAN'T do this basic fucking step of code coverage, unit tests for edge cases and fuzz testing then you should not be releasing open source software. Period. If you're not doing this and you're the maintainer of a security related product? Well, then you should hang yourself as soon as possible, because you are a worthless despicable piece of shit. Period.
And, if you are an arm-chair apologist who thinks I'm being too harsh in my insistence maintainers and developers follow basic security precautions or not work on open source, because you don't give a flying fuck about security: Fuck you too, You're part of the problem. Go jump in a tar-pit because you're hindering the herd.
Bottom line: People who don't give a flying fuck about security shouldn't be producing software. You shouldn't let such people maintain FLOSS projects. You get the fucking security you pay for. Yes it's free, but I'm talking development costs. Since NONE OF YOU FUCKERS actually cares about security YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY.
Either SHUT THE FUCK UP, or USE THE DAMN TOOLS WE GAVE YOU AND DEMAND THE OTHER IDIOTS DO TO.
"Wah, we don't fucking care about security! Why don't we have any security?!" Blow it out your ass, morons. This is why I develop my own hobby OSs and compilers. Because you really can't trust ANYONE to do it right in this day and age. Your moronic double standards are your own damn fault. You don't want to pay the time in development costs to test your software properly, but you want it to be secure. Something has to give, idiots! All the pundits sound like a bunch of imbeciles. Fact: The were NOT using the available memory checking, code coverage and input fuzzing tools. OF COURSE IT'S NOT SECURE!
how do we know it isn't some government plot designed to snare activists or criminals? A couple of ways, actually. One of the Snowden leaks show the NSA complaining about Tails in a Power Point Slide
And that, ladies and gentleman, is how you play the Really Long Game.
Sadly, you are probably right. No grey water - it's for the children!
That link leads to a microscope that looks a cheap piece of crap.
The Foldscope (or whatever it is) looks way easier to store, easier for most people to use, and looks like it would also be substantially brighter. If I were choosing between the two I'd pay 10x the cost of that Alibab scope to get a Foldscope instead.
What is even the magnification on that thing? 0x?
Great. Now, what I want you to do is make it origami onto the cameras everyone is toting around and connect it to an image recognition library / service. Blam. Instant bug detection. Not so sure about the diag? Snap the shot, post it online / send it off and have some pros ID the doodads. Also, video. Microscopic Vine Compilation Videos. I can hear the semen commentary now.
Actually we would all be better off if we had a source of potable water for showers & drinking, and cheaper grey water we could use for things like watering the lawn. Then fewer resources would be used processing all water to the tolerance of drinkability...
But it would also require double the piping infrastructure, so sadly probably not worth it.
Pretty much. They are also removing the heartbeat feature as well support for some other operating systems in their fork.
In other words it is a PR grab.
THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE
