Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:OMFG compile! (Score 1) 109

by jo_ham (#46825735) Attached to: WRT54G Successor Falls Flat On Promises

You know the man pages are the manual right?

How about you bother to learn something instead of coasting on the work of others for a decade then complaining things don't fulfil your every need after you've contributed exactly bugger all.

I assume you synthesise your own medicines, right?

And build your own car.

No, I expect you're just coasting along on the hard work of others. Next time you take any medication remember that you're contributing nothing but reaping all the benefit.

Comment: Re:Snow Leopard (Score 0) 96

by jo_ham (#46825439) Attached to: Apple Fixes Major SSL Bug In OS X, iOS

My Macbook Pro is from mid 2010. I stopped "upgrading" at Snow Leopard because that is when OS X went off the deep end. Snow Leopard itself actually annoys me with the "integrated app store" bullshit. I wanted a Unix based laptop with a semi-reasonable GUI and all I would have if I upgraded to the latest is an ugly IOS device doing everything it can to get me to buy shit.

Loving the hyperbole.

OS X looks nothing like iOS. It has the launchpad, which is clearly derived from the iOS springboard, but using it is totally optional (I never do - I just launch apps the way I've been doing it since 10.1).

OS X also doesn't "do everything it can" to get you to buy shit - using the App Store is optional for anything other than the core apps and OS. It's where you get core updates from (for the OS and built in apps), but it is far from the sole source of software, nor is it intrusive.

I'm struggling to think of what you mean when you say OS X is "doing everything it can" to "force you" to buy things. Can you give me some specific examples?

Also, I wasn't aware that they removed all of the Unix underpinnings and command line with OS X beyond 10.6. Again, can you give me some specific examples of what is missing from OS X after Snow Leopard that means it would no longer be a "Unix-based laptop with a semi-reasonable GUI"?

Comment: Re:Not a open source issue. (Score 1) 96

by jo_ham (#46818631) Attached to: Apple Fixes Major SSL Bug In OS X, iOS

Tell me again how this whole issue with SSL is due to the nature of open source and how it's only the commie OpenSSL which can't be trusted...

Seems to me Apple's got a bit of a quality control issue itself.

What's Apple's excuse ?

Apple's SSL implementation is also open source.

Oh, sorry, I interrupted you in the middle of an uninformed Apple bash. Do carry on. My apologies.

Their excuse is "open source means lots of eyes!" No wait, it's "whatever we do we'll be attacked, so we just dropped the ball and said 'fuck it'".

Comment: Re:The Real Breakthrough - non auto-maker Maps (Score 1) 194

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) 194

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) 194

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) 194

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) 194

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:Stop Now (Score 1) 174

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) 174

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.

Passwords are implemented as a result of insecurity.