froo
Why would they show their hand? There's little to be gained from it and it would harm their brand when these technologies don't pan out how they would want. See Google Glass - huge fanfare but no real substance.
Besides, we hear of technology that is supposedly being worked on inside Apple. Project Titan, the AR headset that is looking at a 2020 release date.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfZLWEAiixo
They are also dipped in dextrose for colour and Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate to reduce the graying from freezing them.
https://www.cnet.com/news/former-mythbuster-goes-on-mcdonald...
I call a car that is cornering, accelerating/braking, actively dealing with traffic and finally parking itself a self driving vehicle.
Some times, things just take time. Especially when you're trying to create machines capable of not killing the general public.
In case of tablets, my partner is still using her iPad 2 and Netflix has a version of their app that still runs on that.
The core software on her tablet, like the core software on my older phones that were given to family members still work fine.
Its the 3rd party apps that seem to be abandoned by software developers. That's going to happen regardless of what phone manufacturer's want.
My vision isn't great, so I upgraded from my iPhone 4 to the 5 because of the larger screen, and the 5 to the 6+ due to a larger screen.
Really, the screen size has been the main driving factor in my phone purchase decisions.
My 4 & 5 have been passed down to my mother, so they're still in use. Hell, I was still using my 1st gen iPad until just over a year ago when the screen just failed.
I really don't understand this sentiment.
I've still got my iPhone 6 Plus. I haven't seen the need to upgrade yet. It does absolutely everything I want.
At this rate, the only reason I'm going to upgrade is if I destroy my phone somehow (I've yet to even put a major scratch on any of my smartphones over the years) or if a vendor comes out with some feature where I'm like "yeah, I could really see myself getting use out of that"
>> Technology should assist you so that you can get on with enjoying life.
It's a smartphone for crying out loud. It's a platform designed for communication. Bonus points for having a camera in my pocket and some apps which help me for various tasks.
> The first actually open platform phone is the one that will have longevity.
Exactly, I feel that we're kind of getting there with all of the recent phones that have come out in the last couple of years. There's no real killer feature anyone's come out with, just nice things to have.
When I heard that Disney was leaving Netflix, I'm not inclined to sign up to Disney as well. To be honest, unless they give me a unique value proposition (like having their feature films available on site weeks after theatrical release) I'm unlikely to want to fork out extra bucks for the one studio.
If they give me something that is a better experience than the competition, I'll throw my money at them. Other than that, meh
From a personal perspective, I agree. I think we generally forget though, we are vastly in the minority and this technology is designed for the layman
Basically my litmus test for this stuff is "would my technologically illiterate mum use and understand this. Will it enrich her computing experience". If yes, it's not a dumb idea. We'll see how the market reacts though
I sure as hell am not getting into a car with an unlicensed driver
There may be some equilibrium somewhere, but I don't believe it will be in the users best interest having to wait for cars.
Just my thoughts. I'm probably wrong.
Why risk opening that Pandora's box? If the tool doesn't exist, it can't be exploited by bad actors
While many around the world consider that a terrorist activity, it had not been labeled as such by US officials (the guy is only being charged with murder and not additional offenses).
I find the double standards to be what is truly offensive.
The FBI defines domestic terrorism[1] as:
> "Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
> - Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
> - Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
> - Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
The first point, I imagine mass shootings qualify as acts dangerous to human life that violate law.
For the second point, I would argue that sending a manifesto[2] to media with nuggets like what follows are designed to intimidate/coerce a civilian population
"Thanks to you, I die, like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the Weak and Defenseless people — my Brothers, Sisters, and Chil- dren —that you fuck. Like Moses, I spread the sea and lead my people —the Weak, the Defenseless, and the Innocent Children of all ages that you fucked and will always try to fuck —to eternal freedom. Thanks to you Sinners, you Spillers of Blood, I set the example of the century for my Children to follow."
Lastly, the attack occurred on US soil.
1 - https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism... 2 - https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/cho_manifest...
Not trying to nitpick, but with this definition, any police officer who has used the threat of shooting someone with their firearm or taser is using the threat of violence to coerce people.
I'm not a supporter of terrorist organisations in the slightest. I am just sick of the racial profiling that goes on which is helping to fuel their cause.
The Virgina Tech shooter sent an 1800 word manifesto and 27 videos to NBC News during his rampage. I'd say that qualifies as making statements.
What qualifies this as being a terrorist attack? Is it because the colour of the perpetrator's skin wasn't white? Sandy Hook had double the number of resulting deaths and so is technically more deadly.
Virgina Tech was done by a South Korean born man with even more deaths than Sandy Hook.
Poor reporting WSJ
I remember watching a video the other day of a guy talking about his gear for the AT and he went so far as to cut his toothbrush down and even talked about drilling holes in the remaining handle to further cut down on weight.
Don't forget limitless quantities of beer and jerky.
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYeVTzPWYAAQuTl.jpg
I suspect you're blatantly trolling, but I'm going to answer you for the sake of completeness
Pirate activity is most often limited to certain parts of the world. I have no desire (or real need) to visit the Gulf of Aden anytime soon to respond to that image you posted as that is one of the hotspots. Another hotspot is the Straight of Malacca, where it occurs against shipping and less against smaller pleasure craft.
Circumnavigations adhering to WSSRC rules typically dictate that each circumnavigation needs to be 21,600 nautical miles and crossing antipodal points. To stay within these guidelines, I can quite easily plot courses that avoid most pirate hotspots, since most of the time will be spent in the Southern Ocean.
I'm more concerned about colliding with whales, squalls and suffocation from leaky gas hoses than I am with pirates.
And I don't consider firearms as a broad subject paranoid. It's when talking about the use of firearms to injure other human beings alongside the best way to store flour is where I draw the line.
I'm just looking at food storage. I'm not interested in surviving apocalyptic-level events via good old wild-west justice.