I'm pretty sure they think that caring for that just isn't part of their job. Maybe they're even right with that, it's the job of others to reign them in.
Furthermore, sexual attraction is not the same thing as actually wanting sexual intercourse. It ranges from simple and almost universal things like the benign interest in the aesthetics of human bodies -- no matter the gender --, over gendered group bonding (best example: sports clubs) up until bonding with a specific individuals (best example here: soldiers in war).
This sounds like it came straight from some feminist university professor. It is not true. This bonding has nothing to do with sexual attraction. If you can 'admire' the same sex's sexual characteristics, you're gay!
So if you can 'admire' your own sexual characteristics you're gay?
(This is one point I could never understand about homophobes: Do they detest their own bodies? I mean, every man has a male tongue in his mouth all day long and often enough a dick in this hand too. Yuck!)
Here's a much better link: SpaceX successfully launches debut Falcon 9 v1.1.
Then, this F9 "v1.1" was much more of a version 2.0. It had its engines uprated from 95,000 lbf (sea level) to 140,000 lbf (sea level). They also are arranged in different way (from a 3x3 grid to a circle of 8 with one engine in the center) which meant a new thrust structure. It also has its fuel tanks stretched by 60% making it much heavier. This is as far as you can go from the 1.0 and still keep the name. Succeeding with this in the first try is good.
There's no news though on them recovering the first stage. It was meant to brake and reenter intact and try for a "landing" on water. Or maybe they just want to tow it home first (but its hard to imagine Musk not bragging about it).
As soon as I did the iOS7 update, I noticed that you could access the camera from the lock screen, and I didn't want someone taking inappropriate pictures on my iPad if they stole it.
You could access the camera from the lock screen from iOS 5 on.
As a current iPhone user who has had over 2 years of headaches trying use such a tiny touch screen,I would be all over getting a new iPhone if Apple would release a model of phone that was phablet-sized
Apple can't come with a phablet all that easily. The iPhone is stuck with it's 1136 x 640 resolution and this would just look crappy with a larger display. The only way they can come with a larger display is again doubling the resolution to 2272x1280 (which would give 434 DPI with a 6" display) and this is still a bit far out. Maybe next year.
Apple really had a headstart with apps due to their pixel-perfect approach, but this is haunting them now. Android is much more flexible here, even if it means somewhat crappy apps if the devs are sloppy and can't test and optimize for dozens of screens sizes and resolutions.
Apple's engineering varies between fairly good and awesome
True, but their control fetish varies between fanatical and fascist. While they have the advantage of being the sole hardware provider their products need to work with, they cripple their devices so much it greatly reduces the flexibility.
Maybe, but flexibility is the last thing you want because then you would need to find out what the damned thing is actually good for all by yourself. You'd get maximal flexibility out of a smartwatch that just runs Android on a 2" screen. It also would be totally useless for most people.
The point of such appliances really is that someone else already put lots of work and thought into what it's good for and optimizes the device for that. Some people call that "control fetish" other call it outsourcing boring work and getting a device that gets to the point and does something useful as it is.
Do you know what's really funny? Even as you smirk at Apple and Apple's customers you totally expect Apple to come up with a better product than Samsung is able to.
Nobody knows, that's the problem.
But: Don't call it a watch. Or only if you call your smartphone a "pocket watch" just because it can display the time and you have it in your pocket.
I think selecting features that make sense and executing this in a way that you want to use them is the really hard thing here. Just squeezing a small Android device with a tiny screen and battery into a huge watch isn't going to make it sell.
The thing that always scrambles my brain when thinking of this is consciousness:
If you can do that, if you make a digital copy of ones brain, then logically you can "install" it into multiple bodies. So lets say you do that.. You die and they install a copy of your brain into two bodies. Picture yourself waking up.. as two people? To the outside world these two would behave as you would, but where is the conscious you. The one that's staring that the computer screen right now. How does that duplicate or even what the hell is that.
I generally consider myself scientifically minded and am an athiest, but this aspect of things always throws me through a loop.
I really don't see what's so complicated about that. There would be two individual people thinking they're you (and both would be right), with all your memories and whatever but they wouldn't have any more or less a "common consciousness" than any other two people. From that moment on they would have different experiences, would think, see, do and learn different things and would slowly become more and more different over the years. Not totally different (they would be very similar), but very much like identical twins who still are two people.
Only people who exercise some magic (or religious) thinking about their consciousness or "soul" being somehow a magic entity that cannot be copied or multiplied without still hanging together in a ghostly way have a problem with thinking this through.
But at what cost?
Apparently Germans pay 2+ times the price that Americans pay.
So essentially this news story is stating that Germans are setting new records at getting fucked by their inefficient electricity generation strategy.
Germans may pay more per kWh of energy, but in absolute terms they still pay less because they consume much less energy.
I'm paying 22 Euros a month (100% solar/hydro/wind), that's $30. How much do you pay? If I'm paying twice as much, you're paying $15, right? Right? Come on, tell me.
Neckbeard teasing? Or what?
Unix (in some incarnation) is running the world. It runs on servers, on embedded systems and basically all tablets and smartphones (both Android and iOS are Unix).
I cannot believe I'm wasting 30 seconds on this. Die, Slashdot, die.
I don't think there was actually a functional ICBM available during WW2, although the V-2 came close, I don't think it was capable of achieving a stable orbit.
The V2 was FAR from orbit or anything like that. About an order of magnitude or more from orbit in fact.
Yes, but: Encryption already exists, so we need to change it from a server-client relationship to a peer-peer relationship. Adding it to HTTP is easy: Simply embed the public key in the 'GET' request. The server can encrypt all responses so only the client computer can decrypt it.
Excuse me, but why should this work? "They" would just intercept the GET request, replace the key with another one they have the private key for, intercept the response, decrypt it, and encrypt it again with your key to send it along to you. Make a scheme like that a "standard" and they would make this kind of MITM attack standard.
Encryption without authentication is worthless. Trying to make it work is like trying to invent a perpetuum mobile.