Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Same old discussion (Score 1) 129

by l3v1 (#47399849) Attached to: Android Wear Is Here
Hehh :) while I agree, I can't easily place my version in the list, so here it goes: I'd like it to not be bigger than a regular watch, to have looks closer to some jewelry than some nerdy toy thingy (i.e., no plastic, not rectangular), to be waterproof (at least to the extent as regular waterproof watches are), and the battery to last at least 24 hours straight (normally don't need that much, but I'm also thinking about long flights, e.g. LHR-SIN-SYD).

I don't even care if it's just a 'dumb' watch relaying every and each function and command to the phone and displaying notifications, don't need it to be any smarter than that, but until the above properties are met, I couldn't care less.

Comment: Re:Fitness pretty much covers it (Score 1) 427

by l3v1 (#47322091) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Would It Take For You To Buy a Smartwatch?
Yeah, rumors are above $200 [1] so good luck with that.

I've been wearing watches all my life, and no phone could change my habit of checking the time on my wrist. The first thing I'd expect from any watch (smart or not) is to last at least a semi-comfortable 4-6 weeks on a charge. I just want to use it more than I charge it, I don't think that's unfair to ask, and be able to go on extended trips without worrying that I won't be able to tell the freaking time.

Also, I'd never want a smartwatch that's dumb - i.e., it doesn't really do anything, it's just a clunky extension of your phone... thanks, but keep it.


Comment: what it computes (Score 1) 772

by l3v1 (#47107417) Attached to: Belief In Evolution Doesn't Measure Science Literacy
"human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals," shouldn't be included when computing "science literacy."

Very roughly, IMHO, believing in someting based on available provable facts, data and information stands closer to science, and believing in something even without (or despite of) them stands closer to religion [*]. However, without definitive proof for the quoted statement, if only yes-no can be chosen one might answer 'no' even when not being a religious fanatic. Thus, I'd say not asking the question is a good compromise (vs. starting yet another religion-science debate).

That said, the above question could've been left to be part of the test, if formulated more correctly [i.e. scientifically, yes], e.g. including something like 'based on currently available scientific data and information, human beings, as we know them today, likely developed/originated from earlier species of animals' - or something similar, you hopefully you get my point.

Comment: grain of salt? (Score 2) 138

by l3v1 (#46987669) Attached to: Can Google Influence Elections?
Or a rather huge rock of salt. If lots of people are interested in a subject, create pages that link to pages dealing with it, tweet about it, post about it, etc, that will - or should, at least - create a change in ranking, regardless of it being about politicians, or snakes (oh, sorry, they just might be the same :P). Calling the changes in rankings that reflect people's interest - or lack of it - about a certain subject 'influencing' sounds to me very largely misinterpreted. Anyway, if some people can really be influenced by the rankings of a search engine, that's more a testament of those people's intellect or ignorance, than anything else. Plus, the numbers in the mentioned study, and how they were obtained, can't convince me of any 'science' behind them, let alone make me even consider their significance - if any. Especially this one: 'Biased search rankings also changed the extent to which participants indicated they trust the candidates' - which, to me at least, simply sounds crazy stupid.

Comment: Re:Snow Leopard (Score 1) 96

by PlusFiveTroll (#46818627) Attached to: Apple Fixes Major SSL Bug In OS X, iOS

Windows Vista still receives security patches, which was released in 2007. Most computers of that age will install W7 fine, though you might want to bump the RAM if you want it to be enjoyable. XP was supported with patches for over a decade. Apple locks you into expensiev hardware and wants you to buy new every few years,

"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson