Comment Re:April Fools stories are gay (Score 3, Insightful) 1482
People blithely unaware they're acting much the same as those who opposed civil rights laws in the first place.
Yes, except for the fact that they aren't lynching niggers.
People blithely unaware they're acting much the same as those who opposed civil rights laws in the first place.
Yes, except for the fact that they aren't lynching niggers.
Because the National Safety Counsel produces conclusions that do not match their own data.
What the National Safety Council actually says is that there is no trustworthy data available, so they extrapolate from the data they have and predictions based on driver performance studies.
Motor vehicle crashes involving cellphones are "vastly underreported" in national statistics on fatal automobile crashes, according to a new study by the National Safety Council.
Researchers for the Itasca, Ill., -based non-profit organization reviewed 180 fatal crashes from 2009 to 2011 that resulted in one or more deaths. It independently confirmed that those crashes were cellphone-related through means such as the driver admitting it, a caller or texter on the other end during the crash reporting cellphone use, a passenger reporting the driver's cellphone use or police finding an unfinished message on the phone at the crash site.
The NSC pored through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), the national database of fatal motor vehicle crashes and their causes to see how the government had classified those 180 fatal crashes. The council found that, in 2011, the government database had identified 52% of the crashes as cellphone-related. In 2010, it was 35%, and in 2009, 8%.
Even in fatal crashes where the driver admitted using a cellphone, only 50% of those crashes in 2011 were coded in FARS data as involving a cellphone, NSC said.
People in power trying to stay in power ?
Almost, but this guy doesn't have the brains to think that far.
George Brandis is s sneering scumbag and lying rodent who wants to be Dick Cheney when he grows up, but lacks the compassion, gun skills and wit.
He used taxpayer money to go to a friend's wedding, but has accepted the task of writing a ministerial code of conduct. He's also told the Australian arts community that they don't have the right to refuse funding from corporate sponsors whose ethical values conflict with those of the artists, and plans to punish them if they don't comply.
I can't see how that wasn't what you were saying there, but okay.
Nobody said they were first to build a device with a capacitative screen, just they were first to market with an OS purpose designed for them. E.g. the multitouch pinch-to-zoom stuff that wowed the audiences.
Other phone OSs were more capable than the early versions of iOS, but they didn't have any of the gee-whiz effects, and adding a capacitative screen to an OS that didn't support multitouch actually made them worse, not better to use..
First with capacitive touchscreen you say? That's interesting...
Nobody actually said that, and I am (and was) aware of the Prada's hardware capabilities. It was an excellent design, and I have no doubt at all that Apple paid it a LOT of attention when they were planning the iPhone, but...
The OS and software didn't match the hardware design. Running an OS written in Flash on top of WinCE very quickly exposed the limitations of both of those products, including no possibility of multitouch.
did you even use a so called smartphone phone before the iphone?
I did. I developed for Palm, WinCE, Psion/Symbian and Nokia N770/800 (including for SIP/Skype calls) etc before the iPhone as well.
The single biggest differentiator between iPhone and its predecessors was the capacitative screen. Everybody in the business knew it was coming, and would change interfaces. Even Microsoft was experimenting with the multitouch Surface, but Apple were fastest to get in with a phone that had multitouch and dispensed with the stylus (needed for resistive screens).
They did well, and with Fingerworks, managed to patent some of the early multitouch ideas, but they were not especially novel concepts, even at that time.
I wonder how long before we accept that we will have to wear batteries to power the MRI that reads out brainwaves and turns them into text. It will happen.
Why wait?
This is a case of "silly grandma" Not Apple's problem.
I believe you're thinking the way Apple's thinking. It's great you're on the same page with them.
Me, I'm thinking about what it'd be like if my mum or dad died and left me their documents in a storage facility. I'd want to be able to read their recipes, look at the photo albums, read letters they'd saved. I'd expect to be able to do that with reasonable ease by providing the same level of proof I'd need to take possession of all the other goods they left to me.
Pretty much what the family has already provided.
If the vendor then chose to deny me access and insist I get a court order, I'd be unhappy, angry and deeply disappointed. And I very certainly would never use that vendor again, and I'd warn everybody I could to stay away from that vendor.
So I think we all owe Josh Grant a vote of thanks for speaking up and warning us about this heartless company. Anyone who values their family's thoughts and images should avoid buying their product, and warn their friends and family away from it as well.
Yep. That sounds like a working security model.
You're right.
If Apple can't plan for a common contingency like this in their security model, then they shouldn't choose to be in control of other people's property.
One way or the other, there will be problematic edge cases - and this sort of thing is one of them.
It may be problematic for Apple, but it's not the family's responsibility to resolve it.
Apple chose to hold the keys to other people's valuables. They are responsible for making them available when needed.
Apple is right, your mother gave you the iPad, not the data on it.
The data does not belong to Apple.
The iPad does not belong to Apple.
Apple should have no skin in this game, they don't own any part of it.
I can see where you're coming from, but I read it as comparing the early universe to molasses, not the effect of the Higgs field as such. Soupy and homogeneous (mostly).
Yeah if it were this cheap I'd buy it instead of acquiring it through *ahem* other means.
It will be close to free soon.
This means Microsoft has joined a race to the bottom, and while they have done that before with Vista and W8.n etc, this time they're doing it on price instead of quality.
Them pulling stuff out of their ass to make their product look better.
They're not trying to make their products look better. They're trying to make competitor's products look worse.
It's an important distinction, because it means they don't have to compete on quality or price.
Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.
