I think the infographic they put out said that the "always listening" features were not available in the EU and China. Although honestly I don't see how anyone can trust the hardware when the "always recording conversations" features are part of the SIP.
I can't wait to see how many places ban this Apple Watch entirely. First, there's no way this is legal in two-party consent states, and I don't care how Apple tries to re-define "record."
Secondly, I don't think anyone really cares how secure Apple says "Private Cloud Compute" is, no one is going to trust that a device that's designed to "listen" (but not "record") every conversation in the vicinity isn't "recording" especially when it can produce an AI summary of a conversation.
There's no way this Apple Watch will be allowed in government buildings or anywhere else that people may not want to be recorded, no matter Apple's privacy claims. I expect to see "No Apple Watch Allowed" signs start appearing all over the place once this releases.
I'll give my good-faith best guess answer. Apple has focused on exactly the question you're asking: what is this thing really for? They've figured out you can infer the user's intended use from how the user is manipulating the physical object. This is a well-trodden path for Apple. For example, taking an AirPod out signals a user intends to stop listening to the AirPod and so it automatically stops.
And the other thing Apple has focused on, coupled with this, is that there are more physical states than just open and closed; there's also an L-shaped seated mode, a tented mode, an upright L-shaped mode, etc. Apple uses the OS to infer user intent and adapt controls, panes, layouts etc in response. Apps don't have to do that for themselves, and instead can simply take advantage of the OS doing it for them. Hence the example of the user putting the device into the L-shaped seated mode while watching Netflix, and the video smoothly transitions to the upper screen while the controls smoothly transition to the lower screen.
Making this all work smoothly and intuitively is where Apple hopes to differentiate: a coherent experience that's properly thought through.
Have they succeeded? Dunno. We shall see. But they've definitely put major effort into it
I would like a folding phone if it actually made the phone smaller and not larger/thicker.
This is me. I don't need or want a folding phablet (remember those?) but I'd love to be able to fold my normal Pixel in half like a clamshell phone from the 2000s. It would protect the screen and make it slip into a pocket much easier.
Never going to happen, though. Most phone manufacturers aren't interested in what people *want*, proven by the fact that we *still* don't have a thicker phone with a larger battery that doesn't need a case to avoid slipping out of your hands and smashing on the ground. They make what they think they can sell for a premium to people who have more money (or debt) than sense. For example, this new foldable iPad.
No - this isnâ(TM)t a solution to the navier stokes equations, itâ(TM)s a demonstration that theyâ(TM)re unstable in a physically unrealistic way in certain circumstances.
That sounds strange too. If we understand how to make all the energy in a fluid dynamic system suddenly converge on one point and form an incredibly high spike, Iâ(TM)m pretty sure weâ(TM)d come up with uses for that. Barnes Wallace certainly would have been very interested. Iâ(TM)m pretty sure his successors in the weapons industry would too.
To be fair to them, itâ(TM)s not *quite* that simple - it proved something more than they had so far managed to. But itâ(TM)s pretty clear that all the significant ideas of where to go with the proof came from this guyâ(TM)s work. Itâ(TM)s using the same terminology for all his ideas by âoepure coincidenceâ.
>You can't use the TV without accepting
You have to accept the top two, but it is perfectly usable without clicking accept on the bottom three. The top two I don't believe (though I haven't double checked) do anything malicious. The bottom ones do.
It’s ordinance, not ordnance!
Ordinance = local laws
Ordnance = munitions.
In the very posh area of London called St John’s Wood, there’s a was an army barracks for many years (from 1804 to 2012. It was said to be there to act as a deterrent to anyone looking to commit crimes against the rich locals, although there’s no evidence for this). Consequently, the road running past it is named Ordnance Hill. You can buy a row house on Ordnance Hill for the cheap cheap price of just £3.8m (about 5m USD) and you get a whole 2000 square feet for that. You even get a 33 foot garden! Although that’s not really the pricey end of the spectrum, which is better represented by £10m houses on places like Acacia Road.
How old are the current Air Force One planes?
What does that have to do with trump stealing a billion dollars in a single day from the Pentagon budget?
How far behind schedule (and over budget) are the replacement Air Force One planes?
What does that have to do with trump stealing a billion dollars in a single day from the Pentagon budget?
Who holds title to the donated plane the federal gov't accepted as a gift from Quatar? Will the donated plane ever be actually given to Trump? (No, it is gov't property, it will go to the Trump Presidential library when it goes out of service -
And for the record, the Foreign Emoluments Clause (art. I, 9, cl. 8): “[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
What was the money you claim was 'stolen' from the pentagon spent on? (Installing military equipment and defensive weapons systems... on a gov't plane)
Yes, you fucking moron, that is both a felony and a direct violation of our constitution. In the constitution, the power of the purse is with Congress (Article 1). And Congress did not designate that $934 million for that purpose, so the president explicitly violated the constitution and stole $934 million from the Pentagon (and from taxpayers like me). You defend corruption, theft, and the violation of our constitution. Why? Hint: You are defending a child rapist, a traitor, and a corrupt piece of shit. That says a lot about you.
Yes, it appears the SPLC was among the largest donors to countless hate groups, including the KKK. It has even been alleged that the SPLC directly funded certain aspects of the Charlottesville protest (the "good people on both sides" event). [..] The SPLC was caught violating many federal banking regulations, including, but not limited to, illegal wire transfers, creating non-existing corporations to hide payments, etc.
No, the SPLC was not caught doing those things. Your stephen goebbels miller DoJ has appeared on Fox News making such nonsensical claims, but until that is proven in a court of law, it's complete bullshit, just like every other claim out of your treasonous and corrupt White House clown show.
Let's see: We could trust a group that spent 60 years fighting racists and fascists like you, or we could trust the racists and fascists in the White House who lie every time they open their mouths. Really tough call there
When called before Congress, I found the SPLC officials that were questioned to be very concerned about self-incrimination, why is that?
Nobody fucking cares what you "found". You're a bootlicking supporter of a child-rapist, a felon, and a traitor. Seriously, just fuck off and die, you treasonous piece of bootlicking shit. You confederates suck, as you did the first time you attacked our country.
A sheet of paper is an ink-lined plane. -- Willard Espy, "An Almanac of Words at Play"
