Yes. I don't just think that; the science, physical objective testing and blind subjective testing all bear that out. Take the experience of sitting at the console out of the mix and play you a purely analog version of that same recording vs AAC/256 and 99% of people will not know any difference. The remaining 1% will be split 50/50 as to which recording sounds better.
Except that in every objective test the iOS devices show a near 0 THD, nearly flat recency response and a nearly perfect dynamic range. While perhaps "technically better" is the case with the Pono, the simple, physical, physiological and demonstrable fact that 100% of humans can not hear the differences you are taking about in any testing case means the different and "bitterness" is simply snake oil. Right up there with Monster 'monitor interconnects' and speaker isolation stands.
Is Apple's security model for iOS with local passcode (simple or complex), 100% encryption, tracking, auto and remote wipe capability and the device is incapable of being used unless you log it in to it with the proper credentials so the activation server allows it to go past the lock screen whenever you restart it or even re-install the OS on the device.
I'm guessing if I say you should just get an iPhone that you'd complain about the "walled garden" and "overseer status" of Apple, which is of course ironic given that those exact features are what it will take to lock any phone from hackers and thieves. You need to make up your mind... customizable Android based phone or highly secure iPhone.
The way I see it is that such a secure setup could never happen with the Android system: No manufacturer wants to run stock Android as there would be little competitive differentiation. Since all Android installs are different you can't easily implement the activation server model or OS level encryption, plus who would do it? Carriers would want to raise prices to offer the service, manufacturers don't want to support phones for longer than it takes to sell them and Google doesn't seem to think security is a priority for the OS. Who's left?
The liquid floating around in the helmet would have eventually drowned him. Doing nothing was 100% certain death; the liquid water was effectively toxic.
Drinking the liquid (which may have been toxic) would have prevented the drowning and provided more time to evacuate him to the interior of ISS. If the liquid were poisonous, medical attention could then be rendered and an evacuation to Earth would be possible.
This is similar to being stranded in the wild: it is always better to drink even smelly water than to die of dehydration. You will most likely be found and returned to civilization before any toxic effect or biological infection from the water you drink would cause any serious health risks. Not drinking could cause your death in a few hours, toxic water would usually take at least a few days to a week to kill you (if you remain untreated).
This of course ignoring the entire question of HOW to drink the water.
If I were NASA I'd take a two-step approach to the issue:
1. Fix the damed leaks.
2. Install a large hydroscopic surface area water/air separator inside the helmet with a straw within reach of the astronaut's mouth. In emergency you can breath through the straw.
Regardless of this issue, it is apparent that the astronauts need an external "man down" signaling device they can activate from muscle memory. The device needs to alert on each of: the comms frequency, visually (flashing light) and on some other dedicated emergency radio frequency with detectors both within the station as well as on Earth.
They ignore obviously risk laden malfunctions and events until someone is killed or put in serious jeopardy in a public manner. If this astronaut had not almost drowned the issue would still be getting ignored.
Time, and time again NASA managers ignore risk and push the "go" mentality. I can't think of a single death or significant injury/risk in the NASA programs where the end result of investigation was "well, it was an unforeseeable accident". Each and every case I recall there were engineers saying "there's a problem we need to fix" and managers just kept ignoring it. From Gemini and Apollo through the SST and now the ISS; this is a disease at the core of NASA that needs to be sterilized.
My TDI VW Golf holds 16gals and gets about 40MPG for 640 mile range. At 75MPH.
The Tesla's range drops to closer to 200 miles at 70MPH. Their web site won't even let you choose 75MPH as a calculation for range; why not?
Funny how Tesla doesn't tell you how many hours they spent actually charging so you can compare it against the driving time. They only fall back to quoting the marketing talking point of "50% charge in 20 minutes" from a super charging station. 75+ minutes to get to 100%.
Let's just ignore that and assume that charging is linear and 1hr from empty to full charge and that a full charge gets you 300 miles(assuming the 80kWh battery option) at 55mph as the Tesla marketing materials claim.
How does a weekend getaway look for a 650 mile drive?
650mi / 55 mph = 12 hours of driving and need 2 charge stops (2 hours)
A total of 14 hours of travel time and an average speed of 46.5mph
If you drive at a more common 70mph** on such a trip instead of the anemic 55mph and your range is 240 miles
650 / 70mph = 9 hours of driving and need 3 charge stops (3 hours)
A total of 12 hours of driving and and average speed of 54mph
**Tesla's web site won't even let you choose 75MPH as a calculation for range despite that being the standard rural speed limit on many Interstate highways.
Remember: those numbers are the most optimistic range and charging estimates from the Tesla web site. More realistic charge times are about 50% longer if you go to 100% each charge) If you don't have access to a 120kW SuperCharger, don't have the 80kWh battery and don't have the dual onboard charger options then charging times increase significantly. A residential 240V 40A charging station takes 9 hours to charge to 300 miles of range!
Use a gasoline fuel engine based car and you'll spend about 10 minutes refueling. Diesel will probably make the round trip without refueling. A 9 hour trip takes... about 9 hours.
The Tesla S is a nice, all-electric short distance commuter car. Why can't they just leave it at that and stop trying to prove that you can take cross-country trips with it even when all the most optimistic numbers say it just doesn't work unless you don't care when you get to your destination?
No, Slashdot is Frankenstein's monster.
There is much wrong with this article.
Geeks today aren't what they used to be.
Not the cobbled together monster!
No, #2 excludes them from the offence
Most laws are written such that the monitor needs to be able to receive and/or send content. GPS doesn't receive or send content and can only use the data within itself. Legally it is the same as a paper map as a "driver aid"
As soon as your device can communicate you fall under these laws. Using your iPhone for nav could get you nabbed as it can send/receive data.
All the officers in the Phoenix metro area are on BMW or Honda bikes. Mostly BMW. Small, fast, maneuverable and reliable.
You do need a payment method to open the iTunes Store account. After 24 hours you may remove the payment method from the account, but the CC is a form of identity and age verification in the process.