Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:The Real Breakthrough - non auto-maker Maps (Score 1) 193

by jo_ham (#46786435) Attached to: How Apple's CarPlay Could Shore Up the Car Stereo Industry

Sure, how?

Looks like it only has a "lightning" interface:

  Plug the cable into the android charger. You know, the same way you plug the micro-usb cable into the Apple charger to charge the Android phone.

i know, you use your USB 2 Lighening dongle?

Comment: Re:No Thank You. (Score 1) 193

by jo_ham (#46782495) Attached to: How Apple's CarPlay Could Shore Up the Car Stereo Industry

One of the reasons I didn't buy a Ford was because of the Microsoft crap and I am not going to buy a vehicle with anything from Apple installed. If they want to conform to an industry standard port / interface then maybe their products will have a use in my vehicles.

Then it's a good job that Apple won't be installing anything in a vehicle.

This is about the Carplay protocol, not about Apple making head units or stereos.

Man, I know that slashdot users can't read the articles, but it's getting bad when they don't read the summary either before rushing to post.

Comment: Re:Apple head unit? (Score 1) 193

by jo_ham (#46782447) Attached to: How Apple's CarPlay Could Shore Up the Car Stereo Industry

My goodness you really made yourself look foolish didn't you?

This is about a protocol that head units can support. It is not about an Apple-made head unit. Apple will not be making a head unit. Companies like Alpine and Pioneer (and others, but not Apple) who do make head units can implement the CarPlay protocol allowing the extension of the phone's interface beyond more than the current protocol enables.

These head units, of course, can/will/may not implement other protocols, such as the similar one that supports Android phones.

Comment: Re:Burned once (Score 1) 193

by jo_ham (#46782407) Attached to: How Apple's CarPlay Could Shore Up the Car Stereo Industry

I'm sad to say I have to agree with Curunir... Apple has this nasty habit of breaking adapters for reasons I can't understand and then failing to provide a way to intermingle the old and new ones without buying a new computer. The new magsafe adaptors come to mind.

You mean the new magsafe connectors that have a $10 adaptor that Apple sells to convert between the two?

Oh, sorry, you were making an uninformed Apple bash for karma, sorry to interrupt with something as trivial as fact.

Comment: Re:The Real Breakthrough - non auto-maker Maps (Score 0) 193

by jo_ham (#46782327) Attached to: How Apple's CarPlay Could Shore Up the Car Stereo Industry

Any device can charge by USB now so your griping looks like lunacy.

So please take your "standard" USB on one and and mini or micro on the other and charge any apple product with it.

orginal IPOD -firewire and dock connector

Next gen ipod - USB and dock connector

Now what is it, usb on one end and "lightening" on the other?

I charge my iPhone with an Android charger.

Next question?

Comment: Re:Wat? (Score 1) 579

by darkonc (#46764071) Attached to: How Does Heartbleed Alter the 'Open Source Is Safer' Discussion?
Anybody who states it that categorically is stupid, ignorant, full of hubris -- or setting up a straw-man.

The problem here is that people have been using the argument that Open Source is better because these issues can't happen "because" of the visibility.

Pretty much anything built by man is subject to errors. That includes source code -- open or closed. Any sane programmer knows this. The difference with open source is that the code is open to the users. Especially in the case of security, correctness is a high priority for many users, and those users can drive the bug-hunt process. As such, bugs tend to get found and fixed (sometimes proactively) faster with Free and Open Source code than with proprietary code.

For companies, on the other hand, security and correctness, in general, is a cost centre. It's often only pursued to the extent to which ignoring it affects profits. If it's considered better for the bottom line to ignore/hide a critical security bug than to fix it, then it may never get fixed. -- "Better for the bottom line" includes being paid to keep a bug open by the NSA/KGB/MOSAD/etc. The well-being of the customer base is only a (indirect) part of the profit calculation.

"Bad for the bottom line." Includes fixing code that you're no longer actively selling -- unless the bug hurts your public image too badly.

That's why, for example, XP is no longer going to be supported -- despite the fact that perhaps hundreds of millions of machines still use it.

Redhat 7.2 isn't officially supported by Red Hat, either -- but despite the fact that the current user base is probably in the range of hundreds or thousands, somebody who considers it critical infrastructure and can't/won't upgrade it can still arrange to get bug fixes because the source is legally available. RedHat isn't the gatekeeper for support the way that Microsoft is for Windows. RedHat is simply the (highly) preferred source of support.

Comment: What's needed is a Class-Action Lawsuit. (Score 1) 321

by darkonc (#46761983) Attached to: Netflix Gets What It Pays For: Comcast Streaming Speeds Skyrocket
Comcast has been messing with people's net feeds for a while now. People have been paying for N-Megabit connections and, to the extent to which those connections have been with NetFlix, those connections have been wilfully and needlessly degraded to well below N-Megabit.

TIme for a mass refund. period.

(also time for some law firm to make megabucks litigating this issue)

Comment: Re:Probably typical (Score 1) 121

by ron_ivi (#46748239) Attached to: 44% of Twitter Users Have Never Tweeted
I've done this on Twitter (signed up, thought it crap, forgot my password, never returned(as that same account)) at least a dozen times.

Same with Facebook. I have one throwaway facebook account for just about every damn application or website that makes me "log in / sign up using facebook" - and in each case I promptly forget my username and password and never log in again.

I imagine that's more typical than those companies care to admit.

Comment: Re:Stop Now (Score 1) 172

by jo_ham (#46736737) Attached to: Cost Skyrockets For United States' Share of ITER Fusion Project

I see you have absolutely no understanding of how science works, or have any understanding of the current state of research into fusion power, if you suggest that we could have had it already based on the money spent so far.

If we'd have spent two orders of magnitude more money on it over the past 40 years then that's still less than a year's expenditure on oil surveying by a single oil company.


So, given how you're clearly an expert on these sorts of things, how much should we be spending on cryogenic coal cracking as a way to extend our useful fossil fuel lifetime?

Comment: Re:Stop Now (Score 1) 172

by jo_ham (#46735343) Attached to: Cost Skyrockets For United States' Share of ITER Fusion Project

The evidence is the amount of money that has been spent on that research - it's a tiny drop.

Large scale research projects are required to probe science at this level - look at the development of fission reactors, for example. The money poured into that was vast, and it cracked the fundamental engineering problems associated with it.

Fusion power is not a theoretical concept - it happens all the time (and life on earth is reliant on it), but the practical challenges are large. The lines on that graph are obviously projections, but they are projections based on the science and engineering of the time as it pertained to fusion science. They weren't just "made up", and they do not take unforeseen circumstances into account, but they are based on the costs of solving the challenges inherent in fusion power production which were known at the time the graph was made.

You don't believe that fusion researchers are doing anything useful, so it's clear you don't understand how science works, so this is likely lost on you, but the amount of money on that graph in total since 1978 is so small that it is laughable, and yet here we are. It outlines one of the main problems with large scale science - that short sighted people such as yourself consider pure research to be "harmful" because it isn't immediately profitable or an obvious path to near-term profits.

From my perspective, the 20 billion per year air conditioning the desert in Afghanistan is wasted - what exactly has the war in Afghanistan accomplished? Apart from destabilising the region, increasing xenophobia, damaging the USA's reputation and giving a few people some closure because some terrorists who weren't from either of the two countries you invaded in response flew some planes into a couple of buildings in NYC.

Solving fusion power will change the face of civilisation and is an almost-necessary step in transitioning into an era where the bulk of our energy doesn't come from fossil sources (it could be done with purely fission power too, but again, PR issues and funding problems dog it). The worst part is we could have already solved it by now had we actually spent any reasonable amount of money on it. If it had been funded at 5 billion dollars per year since 1976 then you could have had twenty thousand simultaneous fusion power research programs running over those 40 years for every eight-year Iraq war (using low estimate for the cost of the war).

The point being, fusion power is being funded for peanuts, and even the "aggressive funding" is a tiny amount.

Comment: Re:Stop Now (Score 3, Informative) 172

by jo_ham (#46733155) Attached to: Cost Skyrockets For United States' Share of ITER Fusion Project

It's actually vastly, vastly, vastly underpriced and underfunded.

It is an absolute disgrace that fusion power hasn't seen the funding necessary to succeed given the importance of energy to modern civilisation.

ITER is a necessary step in the chain to produce working fusion power plants. It's amazing they've come this far while being funded with what amounts to hunting for pennies in vending machine coin return trays.

Here's a picture that paints a thousand words that makes the laughable troll headline of "skyrocketing" cost for ITER make the idiot who wrote it seem like he has trouble tying his own shoes:

Also note the scale on the y axis, and remember that the annual cost of the air conditioning the troops in Afghanistan is $20 billion.

Thus spake the master programmer: "When a program is being tested, it is too late to make design changes." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"