boltsfan17

hentaiboy said:

2018 car shipping in 2017? Ah you wacky Americans 

I understand it has something to do with Super Bowl. 

That has nothing to do with the Super Bowl. The reason next years model cars come out 4 months early (in the fall typically) is due to vehicle production. Manufacturing plants in the USA typically re-tool their assembly line in July/August for next years model. That's why you will see 2018 models coming out in the fall. The reason American auto manufacturers started releasing next years models in the fall is due to farmers. This started before WW2 and after the war, auto manufacturers agreed that October 1st  would be the official start of the new model season. 

I'm not surprised by Cook's response, but I highly doubt the executive orders are affecting that many people at Apple or any other tech firms. What Trump is doing is saving us from the disaster like Merkel has created in Europe. We need to have a stronger vetting process and not just open our borders to everyone like the liberals want.

Yev said:

boltsfan17 said:

cali said:

If Apple enters the market I expect one MAJOR change:

iPhone-less glasses.

hooking up an android to bulky glasses is the past. I expect Apple's glasses to be more expensive and non goofy.

Not sure if that would work. You would still need the phone hooked up to the glasses somehow. Only option would be a cable. That's more cumbersome than hooking up phone directly into the glasses. 

Jeezuz don't be so thick, what do you think AirPods tech is about, and their own W1 chip.

AirPods aren't even comparable. You do realize VR needs a lot of processing power and a power source. With the processing power required, a wireless option wouldn't work at this point because of battery drain and the issue with latency. 

I love these new screen savers. If you want to use these on your Mac, here are the directions:

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2015/10/27/new-apple-tv-aerial-screensavers-mac/

retrogusto said:

 Precedent for this was set in a 1988 Supreme Court decision, which suggested that while a person could be forced to turn over a key to a strongbox, for instance, they couldn't be made to share the combination to a safe.

Writing on behalf of a three-judge panel however, appeals court judge Anthony Black questioned "whether identifying the key which will open the strongbox -- such that the key is surrendered -- is, in fact, distinct from telling an officer the combination," as well as the viability of any such argument with growing advances in technology.

If you can't be forced to hand over the combination to a safe, how is the combination to a phone any different? And don't you always have the right to remain silent? It seems like this would be covered by the fifth amendment.

The court is wrong about this so hopefully the defendant takes it to a higher court. There was a case similar to this one and the federal court ruled providing a password is self incrimination so its a violation of the 5th Amendment. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Kirschner