It looks like the Lollipop Smart Lock can unlock your phone when it's in proximity to your PC, whereas nearlock will unlock your PC when it's in proximity to your phone.
This feature is only available within Android 5.0, however, and the pool of devices running Lollipop at the moment is pretty much limited to the Nexus line.
Although it is only available on Lollipop, I find it pretty neat that these features have native support. The caveat about setting a trusted place to unlock is straight out of Tomorrow Never Dies[0]:
"Be aware that location signals can be replicated or manipulated — someone with access to specialised equipment could unlock your device."
>For some reason shrimp which are essentially bugs are no problem because (I think) they come from the ocean, so there's an obvious mental line that can dissassociate them from other bugs.
Generally, we eat the innards, not the exoskeleton.
At a Japanese noodle place in NYC, my wife and I were served shrimp with our miso ramen, with the exoskeleton still in place (you were meant to peel and eat it yourself).
My wife wanted no part of it, although she likes shrimp with the eyeballs and antenna and stuff already removed. Go figure.
If you ever watched Fear Factor, you might remember that pretty much anything is edible, including blended raw cow eyeballs and such :) It's always a matter of whether it's enjoyable.
I thought he talked about giving money not buying shares. Any gift at all can be thought as an investment in the broader sense of the word so beloved of governments spending taxpayers' money.
Former ActionScript developer here. Can confirm, it was actually pretty great. It's a hell of a lot more of a cleaner language than Javascript, for instance.
Don't forget that most game UIs are still built in ActionScript, and they're just fine.
It's a bit misleading of a conclusion to make, because most of those changes likely aren't non-compatible changes.
For instance, maybe a chip goes out of manufacturing, and they can no longer get it supplied, but a successor product from the same supplier meets all the same requirements.
Perhaps a bracket goes out of manufacture, but an almost identical bracket is sourced from a different supplier.
This would qualify as a hardware modification, but is a non-breaking change.
They still have to track all those changes - NHTSA requires it for recall & safety purposes -- cars & highway gear are highly regulated.
A good example is the company that changed the design of their guard-rail endcaps. They reduced the size by an inch, which allegedly resulted in 5 deaths (court cases are ongoing). They (again, allegedly) failed to test the change, and failed to report the design change to NHTSA and the various state highway departments that specified it's use.
Another example is the ignition switch in GM cars. The engineer changed the design, but did not issue a new part number for it. Externally, same shape & mounting points & connector pinouts. Internally, very different.
So while a design change in a part might be "like for like", it requires a full lifecycle of testing and documentation. And that's expensive, so auto makers try very hard to get their designs correct up front.
I wonder if this is a place where being young hand having lots of automation really helps out. Organizations invariably grow organically, GM had no way of knowing what would be required of them 50 years ago, so the processes are likely weird.
Tesla's processes will be weird in 50 years - if they're even around. but today, I'd imagine that kind of complexity is way way easier to manage if you're aware of it from the start. Rather than getting it right the first time, build the whole organization around coping with those little variations.
OTOH, i have no evidence they actually do that... Just seems possible for Tesla and very hard for GM.
