More like this, but preferably slider (like the Nokia 8110) or flip, so it can easily fit in a shirt or jacket pocket.
If I could get a bluetooth handset that worked great as a one-handed receiver, with no more than an on/off-hook button, and big enough to reach both my ear and my mouth, I would keep my smartphone in my pocket and use the handset.
Thing is, no such device exists. There are headsets and bluetooth earsets, but both require excessive fiddling, and the earsets don't even work if you have a bushy beard and a deep voice. I *miss* being able to just pick up the receiver and talk, without having to yell because people can't hear me.
And yes, I mostly use the smartphone as a PDA. Because, quite frankly, it sucks at being a phone. So much so that I'll get up and walk to the landline when I need to make a call. My cell phone phone usage has averaged around 2 minutes per month.
2. You can get a bazillion different kinds of headsets... why on earth would you hold your phone to your ear like a caveman? (unless maybe very temporary circumstances)
Because when you receive an urgent call is not the time to fiddle with a headset.
Cavemen were lucky - their women and other bosses did not call them.
The problem isn't the size as much as the shape.
The best phone I have ever owned was the Nokia 8110, because it wasn't too wide to be held, but was long enough that the mic was in front of my lips, and not resting against my side beard.
If I could get a smartphone with that design, I'd buy it in a heartbeat, at twice the price.
Today's phones are good for everything - except phone calls.
Yes, that the recipient of the attention is the sole judge on what is unwelcome and bothersome is a problem.
But thankfully there's another qualifier too - "sexual", which is interpreted by the law, not the recipient.
You've made two incorrect assumptions here:
1: That the translation to "troublesome" is correct.
2: That words mean the same in different languages.
1: The word translates better to "bothersome".
2: There is no implication of causing actual trouble in the Norwegian word no matter which English word you translate it to. Discomfort qualifies. So does repeat of an unsolicited action or statement, even if all it does is wasting a fraction of a second of someone's time.
Google Translate should not be used for translations. It's a good tool to bypass IP/country restrictions, though...
"By sexual harassment, [the law] means unwanted sexual attention which is bothersome for the recipient of the attention"
The problem with this definition, as earlier said, is that it hits way outside its intended target - flirting ends up as collateral damage. Any attempt to establish whether such attention would be welcome or not will risk being classified as sexual harassment.
Which might help explain why ethnic Norwegians have one of the lowest procreation rates in the world.
Then you should also realize that over 90% of security vulnerabilities in programs written in unsafe languages wouldn't have occurred with safe languages
Good luck starting a security company with the slogan "We provide 90% security!"
Sorry, no, you're dead wrong. Most exploits are due to human errors they could have done in any language. Extending trust. Not seeding a rng. Leaving a developer backdoor. Not scaling.
I do use Haskell myself for certain things, and I can tell you it's no problem creating insecure applications in Haskell. And if you count DoS as a problem, Haskell with ghc is worse than most of them. There may be other compilers that doesn't create horribly bloated code that lends itself to resource exhaustion by doing what it's supposed to do, but I don't know of any.
With a theorem prover like Coq, you can statically check any property you want.
And that you know of. The problem is that you do not know everything.
And no matter how safe a programming language is isn't going to stop programmers from making mistakes like saving input that's later used by another app that trusts the input, or set up a database or filesystem with too wide privileges, or any other kind of things that are outside the language itself.
You won't be safe just because the language is safe. That's foolish thinking.
Not if you take appropriate precautions, like using a safe programming language.
That's the most hilariously funny comment I've read in a long time.
I'm sure there are people out there that believe it too.
It's the buzzword of the year. Give it 3-4 years to die out.
Words that have peaked and are on the way down and out include freemium, cloud, neet, big data, crowd[anything], agile and emoji.
Slightly worrying is that [anything]gate has not petered out yet.
The good things about the buzzwords is that they serve to positively identify those who use them as sheep, not wolves.
Ah. Mystery meat navigation. Got to love it.
The real killers with Windows 8 and 10, though, are
1: Edge detection. Edge detection only works well on single monitors. It really doesn't work at all if you run a VM in a window.
2: Apps that automatically go full screen, and many of which don't even have a windowed mode. That's a huge productivity killer, and source of errors. It kills drag/drop, but even worse, you can't have source and references visible at the same time, nor copy/paste between multiple windows.
3; No activate without auto-raise. Which now is auto-raise-and-zoom. Why won't you let me type in or paste into a window that isn't on top? It makes no sense. Do people really like to bring an entire IM session to the foreground, and, depending on the program, obscuring everything else, just to type in "ok"?
4: Inconsistent menus and windows, self-organizing depending on use. It's a support nightmare when you can't tell someone how to do something, because the menus and windows are going to be different on each user's machine. You have to shoulder-surf people to support them.
5: Dumbing down DPI support. In W7 and to a smaller extent W8, you can set the DPI correctly and control the physical (as opposed to pixel) size of what you display. in W10, scaling changes on you as you try to work. it doesn't matter if you actually want a 10 dpi font to be, you know, 10 dpi in size. No, what matters now is how to scale a random amount to fit a full-screen window with huge unused borders, and your own settings be damned.
It's like they have looked at Gnome 3 and iPads, and taken all the worst "features", making an unparalleled productivity killer.
Eye candy doesn't make up for that. Sorry.
Aero was at least semi-useful, as you can see other windows through the borders. But W8/W10? It's looks for the sake of looks. And bad looks at that.
It's also bullshit. For a weapon this age, there are no patents, and parts can and are supplied by a multitude of vendors. The number of vendors that specialize on supplying parts for firearms that are no longer produced is quite high.
What I see is an unfounded belief that buying long-term non-OEM support will be more expensive than buying support for a new weapon. In the real world, it's the other way around - new weapons are far more expensive to support. Never mind all the other costs of switching.
Mark my words: Five years from now, there are going to be Canadian news articles about how the original budget was blown several times over.
My guess: Someone has been promised kickbacks and incentives, and the choice of a replacement has already been made. It will now be followed by a circus to "determine" that it's the best choice. And it will end up costing the tax payers a fortune. I.e. a smaller version of the F-35 scam. Follow the money trail.
How about the Lee-Enfield
Obsoleting something because it's old is stupid. If they were obsoleting it because of requirements it doesn't fulfill outweighing the requirements the replacement doesn't fulfill, I can see it being a viable option.
But as it is, using the age as an argument is foolish. There's plenty of tech we use that's far older design.
It weight is a problem, do a root cause analysis, asking a few why's.
1: Why is weight a problem now?
1a: Rengers have to carry more other stuff.
1b: Rangers are not as fit as before
and so on. Presumably most of the root causes have nothing to do with the gun.
Only if coming up with a solution that replaces the rifle, and the risks or problems that may cause does not outweigh the current situation should a replacement be even considered.
People still buy factory new Colt 1911s, precisely because it's an old proven design.
Having done pretty much what this article is calling for. Dont do it.
Both methodologies work. They are however like oil and water. It allows for sloppy planing with the idea you can change it later. It does not work.
I think the point of TFA was that it does work. And on average, better.
Emulsions can be good.