Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Take the long view (Score 1) 449

by Sockatume (#47926707) Attached to: Scotland's Independence Vote Could Shake Up Industry

Rather raises the question of why we went from devomax from full-independence-or-nothing in the space of twenty-four months. When the referendum was first mooted I'd just accepted a job in England; I've not been able to return to my home country to vote in arguably the most important political decision in my homeland, and I'm feeling railroaded.

I sometimes cynically wonder if Salmond didn't decide that he needed to push through independence before his retirement, lest he be seen as a failure. At the current progress rate it was going to happen in my lifetime, but it would've been one of his successors, and not him, that got the credit.

Comment: Re:at least the nuclear weapons will be gone (Score 5, Insightful) 449

by Sockatume (#47926023) Attached to: Scotland's Independence Vote Could Shake Up Industry

You seem to have misunderstood. Most of Europe's non-nuclear states are protected - de factor if not by treaty - by the European nations that are armed. Scotland would be an unremarkable addition to that list.

Part of being a nuclear power in a geographically close-knit federation is that your umbrella will cover people other than your allies. That's just the lay of the land.

Comment: Re:This isn't scaremongering. (Score 1) 449

by Sockatume (#47926003) Attached to: Scotland's Independence Vote Could Shake Up Industry

One one hand, you talk about economic-governance "sweet spots" which is a perfectly reasonable way of discussing this sort of issue; on the other hand you've drawn independence as some sort of discontinuous cliff-edge, which seems like exactly the sort of ridiculous hyperbole the "yes" campaign get so rightly chastised for.

Unfortunately all rationality aside, the "no" campaign have done themselves absolutely no favours in the debates, from choice of talking points to choice of speaker. (Has Darling never been in a debate before? You would think so from the way he was getting walked all over.) Salmond, against all odds given his hitherto remarkable inability to convey any sort of statesmanship, is winning the PR war. Make no mistake about that.

Comment: Re:Silly design decision (Score 1) 406

by Sockatume (#47924835) Attached to: Apple Edits iPhone 6's Protruding Camera Out of Official Photos

One of the great advantages of a larger phone is that you get a proportional increase in volume for the battery without needing to worry about thickness; the 6 is 38% larger in area which offsets a 12.5% reduction in thickness from 8mm to 7mm. By all accounts the iPhone 6 lasts a day and a half, and the 6S two days, which is par for the course in large phones but very impressive for an iPhone.

+ - Apple tastefully edits iPhone 6's protruding camera out of official photos 2

Submitted by Sockatume
Sockatume (732728) writes "If you've been browsing Apple's site, eagerly awaiting the iPhone 6 launch, you might've noticed something a little odd. Apple has edited the handset's protruding camera out of every single side-on view of the handset. (The camera is, necessarily, retained for images showing the back of the device.) The absence is particularly conspicuous given the number of side views Apple uses to emphasise the device's thin-ness; perhaps they felt that the camera was an unslightly blemish upon the device's clean, elegant lines."

Comment: Re:Lie. (Score 4, Informative) 188

by Sockatume (#47918497) Attached to: Tim Cook Says Apple Can't Read Users' Emails, That iCloud Wasn't Hacked

...because that's not what he actually said. He has previously stated that iMessage and Facetime, by design, can't be intercepted (it's all encrypted client-side); in this new interview he stated that they don't read your email, and that as a general principle they try to design systems so that they can't capture data, or at the very least aren't capturing anything they don't need to do what they're supposed to be doing.

Comment: Re:You mean... (Score 5, Insightful) 235

by Sockatume (#47916481) Attached to: AT&T Proposes Net Neutrality Compromise

I think the idea is that you pay the ISP for a "Netflix booster", and then your Netflix traffic gets un-humped into the fast lane. Meanwhile everyone else's Netflix is slow, and they're griping at Netflix about why they have to pay this extra fee, and Netflix eventually gives up and pays AT&T to un-hump all of its customers' traffic.

"Just think of a computer as hardware you can program." -- Nigel de la Tierre