It extends the battery life of your phone because you are not powering it on as often.
So constantly communicating wirelessly with a device on my wrist is more battery efficient than turning the screen on once in a while?
It's like a fitness band you wear all the time but without the single minded pointlessness.
Except that you can't wear it all the time because it's not waterproof. You even have to take it off in the shower. Also, it only gets around 18 hours of use on the battery, which means you have to plug it in every night, which means it can't track your sleep like a lot of other fitness devices.
Seems like this should really be IBM's forte. I wonder why they didn't jump into it with both feet.
Apple are merging OS X into IOS, albeit very slowly.
Nope. I've been there, and nobody at Apple has any such intention. Features will get passed back and forth between them, but they're very aware of the reasons that Tablet PCs failed, and they're not going to copy MS's mistakes.
Get your meds adjusted, kid. I'm not going to quit signing my posts with my initials, no matter how much you whine about it.
The Start/Select-Start isn't part of the actual code, but rather just get's you into the game. You need to use Select if you want to play 2 player.
MIT Developing AI To Better Diagnose Cancer
FFS, it's not AI. It's a mindless program. Unthinking software. Data analysis software. Innovative to some degree perhaps, but AI? Hardly. No better than me stumbling in here and calling some DSP code I'd written "AI." Well, except I wouldn't do that.
When AI gets here, we'll have to call it something else what with all this crying wolf going on.
And Yes, I called multiple companies, include WM, to find out how this works.
But legal skills create money.
No. Legal skills take money from place A and move it to place B. Lawyers don't create value. Engineers do.
There is absolutely nothing stopping them from selling their hardware manufacturing arm to someone like ACER and then releasing OSX to the market.
Been there, done that, and NeXT nearly went out of business. Not to mention, how much of a pain in the ass it was to configure Dells or other generic PCs to run NeXTSTEP.
Margins are thin
Not for the Mac, they're not. Apple's the only PC maker who doesn't have to operate on razor-thin margins.
Apple needs the Mac for their own use, and so do all of the iOS developers. They won't get out of the PC business until and unless an iPad can drive a" 5K display.
He took "full responsibility" the same way that Janet Reno did for the Waco massacre.
Australia has the right attitude of using Robotics to part out items.
I'm not disappointed at all. Drones are so much better than actually invading Pakistan, and reduces the number of kids that get killed in war.
I never got the hate for drones in the first place. Why would you want to launch a ground invasion instead, which means MORE kids getting killed?
Sure, if you want to kill someone, you're right. I think the argument against drones is that if you push a button and someone dies on the other side of the Earth and you didn't have to go to war to do that
And since Pakistan refuses to own their Al Queda problem, we have to take care of it for them.
No, no we don't. You might say "Al Queda hit us now we must hunt them to the ends of the Earth" but it doesn't mean that diplomacy and sovereignty just get flushed down the toilet. Those country borders will still persist despite all your shiny new self-appointed world police officer badges. Let me see if I can explain this to you: If David Koresh had set off bombs in a Beijing subway and then drones lit up Waco like the fourth of July and most of the deaths were Branch Davidians, how would you personally feel about that? Likewise, if Al Queda is our problem and we do that, we start to get more problems. Now, that said, it's completely true that Pakistan's leadership has privately condoned these strikes while publicly lambasting the US but that's a whole different problem.
Also, we must always assume that war = killing kids. The fact that people think kids shouldn't be killed in war basically gives people more of an incentive to go to war in the first place. When Bush invaded Iraq, the public should have asked "OK, how many kids are we expected to kill?" Because all war means killing kids. There has never been a war without killing kids.
The worst people are the ones that romanticize war, by saying war is clean and happy and everyone shakes hands at the end. War is the worst, most horrible thing, and we need to make sure people understand that, or they'll continue to promote war.
Yep, think of the children -- that's why we should use drone strikes, right? Look, war means death. Death doesn't discriminate and neither does war. If you're hung up on it being okay to take a life the second that male turns 18, you're pretty much morally helpless anyway. War is bad. Drone strikes are bad. There's enough bad in there for them both to be bad. This isn't some false dichotomy where it's one or the other. It's only one or the other if you're hellbent on killing people.
News flash: you can argue against drone strikes and also be opposed to war at the same time. It does not logically follow that since you're against drone strikes, you're pro war and pro killing children. That's the most unsound and absurd flow of logic I've seen in quite some time.