Hardly a bug, is it...
People who waste money on Apple Watch bling: plonkers.
People who abuse their bodies by getting tattoos: plonkers
So people with massive tattoos who buy Apple watches: plonkers squared. I waste no pity on them.
The Apple Watch can't figure out if the wearer has a pulse when worn on a tattooed wrist, Register reader Michael Lovell tells us. All is well on his un-inked left wrist, but when he switches to the right, "the wrist detection is playing up," he said, as the watch "keeps asking for the passcode." Michael made the video below …
Whilst tattoos and not my favorite things, what he does with his body is up to him!
The issue here is more around if Apple know / knew about this issue before his purchase and if it was made clear to him (if purchased in person) or stated somewhere (if purchased online...) if it was - his problem - Read The Product Description, If not... i have not seen anything about this before this article but then i have no intention of buying an Apple Watch...
The issue here is more around if Apple know / knew about this issue before his purchase
Putting on my dev hat, this really doesn't count as an "issue". If someone wearing a nose ring gets it tangled up in a towel (yes, really) we wouldn't call on towel manufacturers to sort it out for them, and the same goes here.
On the bright side, mums and dads will finally have an argument to use against sleeve tattoos that their darlings will consider.
>The issue here is more around if Apple know / knew about this issue before his purchase
Big visible tats aren't likely to be an Apple employee thing, are they? Everyone in the ads is super-clean and oh-so-shiny, so I'll bet no one at Cupertino even considered the ink problem.
>I have the body of a god.
>Unfortunately it's Buddha
Pedant Alert - Buddha technically isn't a god (upvoting anyway because it's still funny)
Sadly the only thing I took away from this article was "Apple User buys flakey Product but would rather continue using it because it's so Shiny than actually try and get the MF fixed".
Depressing state of affairs.
>Sadly the only thing I took away from this article was "Consumer buys flakey Product but would rather continue using it because it's so Shiny [rather] than actually try and get the MF fixed".
FTFY
>Depressing state of affairs.
Rational: along the lines of "but I need it nowwwwwwww". All too common behaviour, and childish. Nothing to be done to counter it, I'm afraid.
"Remember your body is a temple."
And only an idiot graffitis the outside of it in non removable paint. Tattoos are just a naff fashion statement for trend sheep and the people who get major body tats (I'm not talking about a small concealed one) are going to be the same idiots who in 20 years time when they've matured and realise what a dick they look, will be complaining that the NHS won't pay for their laser removal. Well tough sh1t.
>>"Tattoos are just a naff fashion statement for trend sheep"
Oddly enough, I have never heard anyone judge a person they don't know for not having tattoos. It seems to be the preserve of a certain sub-set without who get to pontificate on the moral / intellectual / social status of others based on this.
And on principle, I tend to reserve my contempt for those that stereotype and judge others, not those who don't.
My oldest son got a full sleeve of tattoos starting years ago in college. He's now 30 years old with a wife and family.
Told him back then that he should keep them under the confines of a short sleeve shirt, but was told that I didn't know anything and that common misperceptions about tattoos would be gone soon.
Now he regrets not listening to me because there are still people that think less of him and he has not gotten the promotions and respect he deserves.
Now he regrets not listening to mebecause there are still people that
think less of him and he has not
gotten the promotions and respect he
deserves.
It's a shame this shit still happens. promotions should be made based on merit not the boss's opinion of your body art.
Tattoo's are part of traditional European culture. I suspect that if tatoos were a part of a minority culture or religion there'd already be legislation protecting against this sort of discrimination.
Wow, news shocker: older person counsels younger person on the inadvisability of an action, older person told s/he's wrong, out of touch, etc. and then younger person discovers older person was right all along. Well, maybe you can get the attention of the grandkids......
Now he regrets not listening to me because there are still people that think less of him and he has not gotten the promotions and respect he deserves.
Obviously he's not as clever as you think he is then, neither are you if you honestly believe that is the true reason.
"People who waste money on Apple Watch bling: plonkers.
People who abuse their bodies by getting tattoos: plonkers
What a risible bunch of trolls seem to be here lately. Seems that the Reg forums are creeping ever closer to being the natural home of nasty minded trolls.
Thinking perhaps it's time to look elsewhere for my daily bit of IT fluff.
> Seems that the Reg forums are creeping ever closer to being the natural home of nasty minded trolls.
Expressing an opinion you don't agree with doesn't make a someone a troll.
> Thinking perhaps it's time to look elsewhere for my daily bit of IT fluff.
There ya go ... I'm sure you'll fit right in. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
This post has been deleted by its author
People who abuse their bodies by getting tattoos: plonkers
How very two generations ago of you. Most people these days have realized that tattoos are not long-term harmful and are a valid form of self expression. Judging someone because they choose a form of self expression you don't happen to agree with? Care to guess what that makes my opinion of you?
Fuck you, AC.
Many servicemen (and ex-servicemen like me) have very large tattoos. Why? Because they are incredibly useful. If you get blown to bits or badly burned, tattoos are an excellent and distinctive way of identifying your corpse. Nobody wants their family left in the dark forever on whether they lived or died.
I agree about the Apple Watch though.
If you want to smear ink all over yourself go ahead, just don't try justifying it with some specious bullshit about it being of any utility. Ever seen a corpse after it's rotted in the (tropical) sun for a while?
Your tattoos aren't going to be worth jack shit, teeth or DNA? that's a different matter.
Good luck scraping DNA out of a hole in Helmand. Most death reports are made by the officer in command and most IDs are done by sight.
And tattoos retain their design after burning.
I know this because I suffered 3rd degree burning to my upper left arm - kerosene fire - but the ink was (and still is) fully recognisable. Further, tattooing is a great way to cover scars.
You don't like tattoos, fine. Don't pretend they're not useful just because they don't reflect your preference (or you're afraid of the pain of tattooing, which seems just as likely).
Good luck scraping DNA out of a hole in Helmand. Most death reports are made by the officer in command and most IDs are done by sight.
And yet there is a murder case working its way through the courts in London at the moment where a man is on trial for murder because his fingerprints where found on a fragments of a roadside IED in Iraq that was next to one that killed a US serviceman. The bomb that killed him was built by someone else, someone not now living in the UK..
The fragments from that bomb were sent to the US and analyzed, and then sent to the UK and analyzed. Did someone have a massive hard-on for that specific bomb, or do they actually take more care?
> So how many recorded cases are there where a corpse has been so blown to bits and their family would have thought their loved one might still be alive but for their tattoo? (I'm presuming all their DNA was destroyed in the process)
Not many but enough to make it worthwhile. Five were reported on the Sir Galahad in the Falklands War. Their faces had been melted. Their tattoos were still intact.
I am not suggesting their family might still think they were alive (but people do hold out irrational hope without an actual confirmation) but I am suggesting they had a lot less waiting to find out whether to plan for a homecoming or a funeral. And I think making people wait in the dark for news of a loved one's death is cruel. But since AC doesn't like tattoos, none of that matters. Families don't matter. Information doesn't matter. Apparently.
None of you guys needs to justify why humans tattoo their bodies. We've been doing it for the whole of recorded history (and beyond - Ötzi the Iceman's tattoos are over 5,000 years old), but suddenly (according to some posters who really ought to stick to the Huffington Post) we're idiots if we have tats and buy Apple Watches?
No doubt if Bluetooth headsets had been found to be affected by certain metals in ear-studs we would have had comments about "plonkers having their ears pierced".
I refer AC (asking how many recorded cases etc) to one King Harold Godwinson
A very fair point: but if tattoos are there to help identifying body parts wouldn't it make more sense to just have ones service number tattooed on each limb, head, torso, buttock etc? Seems more reliable than massive artworks of Judge Dredd or the name of an ex-girlfriend.
When evaluating someone, I do not care what their skin color is, or if s/he has glasses, or hearing aids, or an artificial limb or scars from accident or disease. I DO care if the person has visibly altered themselves voluntarily, THEN I get to infer their mental processes from their outward alterations. Maori facial tattoos on a Maori? Fine. The insignia of a branch of the armed services on a forearm? Assuming I find that it is genuine (i.e., that person WAS a member of that service), fine. But full-sleeve decorative tats on someone I might be evaluating for a financial-services position? The person has proved that at some point in their life, they had more regard for show and fashion than for money, and don't mind advertising that fact. NO, I would not use that person for that purpose. As a driver or as a laborer, maybe. But I might be inclined to favor someone without that kind of tattoo. Judgmental? Whose name HAS to be on the check I'm paying them with?
>>"But full-sleeve decorative tats on someone I might be evaluating for a financial-services position? The person has proved that at some point in their life, they had more regard for show and fashion than for money, and don't mind advertising that fact."
I would bet cold, hard cash that if someone turned up in an expensive suit and shoes, that you wouldn't hold it against them that they were showing more regard for "show and fashion" than for money. In fact, do you drive a car that is more expensive and stylish than you actually need? Because the differential between some cheap but perfectly adequate Nissan and some slicker looking Audi is far more than the average tattoo costs.
And as to "at some point in their life". Heaven forbid that people have different values at stages of their life! Aren't you finance types always big on telling me that "past performance is no indication of future performance?"
You're just prejudiced, basically. And illogical, as it happens: You don't know how much impact the cost has on them. You see two people with tattoos that might have cost a few hundred pounds. One of those people might have spent that money on the tattoos in place of something essential whilst the other person spent it out of what is petty cash to them and it's a complete non-issue. But you calculate based on your own preconceptions (because that's all that you have) the same reaction - they have wasted money. Completely irrational response to judging someone's priorities because you don't distinguish at all. Like I said: prejudice.
>>"As a driver or as a laborer, maybe"
You're just dripping with snobbery, aren't you. I know builders and plumbers who earn significantly more than the average IT bod. And who work harder, too. But neither earning nor work ethic are what you assess people's right to express themselves, are they? It's just social class.
I hope your eyes are opened some day to what an obnoxious, prejudiced snob you are.
> A very fair point: but if tattoos are there to help identifying body parts wouldn't it make more sense to just have ones service number tattooed on each limb, head, torso, buttock etc?
Not really, if you think about it. The last four digits of your service number would probably be extremely unhelpful and the middle four would be even worse. Part of a picture is almost certainly more use since humans are well-trained to identify partial pictures.
I don't know if I believe that the military keep up to date photographic records of all service personnel tattoo markings. Imagine a unit that by tradition has their regiment/squadron/crew emblem tattooed in the same place.
And as for this quote: Good luck scraping DNA out of a hole in Helmand.
If there's no DNA in the hole then good luck scraping out an identifiable tattoo.
Basically, tattoos as ID of mutilated bodies is never going to be very useful.
Personally I have nothing against tattoos, I find them subjectively very ugly but I have no prejudice against them, just as I have no prejudice against any other disfigurement.
"The last four digits of your service number would probably be extremely unhelpful"
Au contrair, the last 4 are what most squaddies scrawl over their kit to identify it (along with their surname)...
In an 8 man section or 30 man platoon it'd be more than enough to ID you...
> Au contrair(sic), the last 4 are what most squaddies scrawl over their kit to identify it (along with their surname)...
This is true but the first four digits are almost meaningless and the middle four* are utterly meaningless. You can still make out a picture when it's smeared, burned or discoloured. A number? Not so much.
Unless the picture has been retouched by a spanish grandmother, of course.
(Four is arbitrary, I'm talking about fragments, basically).
Optical Properties of Circulating Human Blood in the Wavelength Range 400-2500 nm
Absorption spectrum of melanin
Blood approx peak 633nm.
Melanin peak approx 335 nm
Skin colour should have no effect.
P.
It's possibly a licence feature. On the event of death, revoke licence so iWatch can't be resold.
Or it's a zombie app ready for the impending apocalypse. No pulse, but still moving.. Send GPS location to DHS/CDC for immediate intervention.
But I'm curious what you can't do with it if it's removed from your wrist. So if you take it off at night but just want to check the time, having to log in requires a higher level of consciousness than may be convenient.
There are several Sports watches on the market with optical detectors integrated into the body of the watch.
A company called Scosche has produced an arm worn band with an optical detector which uses an extra LED to transmit light of a different frequency which penetrates further into dark skin.
I would have thought that Apple had taken this into consideration during the design / testing stage, but perhaps not.
Well, I don't have any tattoos and, at the time of writing, I'm certainly in no mind to ever have one - but to to use such a huge catch-all as "tattoos are so ugly" I find rather sad.
I've seen some absolutely beautiful works of art inked into people's skin - and I mean that literally, they are art - a good tattoo artist is just that - an artist - they just happen to use human skin as their canvas.
(There's an image going round on FB at the moment that FB keeps trying to ban - of a woman's torso after she had a double mastectomy - and rather than have a breast rebuild she had a very beautiful tattoo done to cover the scars - so no - even if you don't like them - [not all] tattoos are ugly)
to use such a huge catch-all as "tattoos are so ugly" I find rather sad.
True, but if he'd just the qualifier 'most' then he'd be quite right (and I say that as someone with a tattoo and plenty of scars).
Not many look good to start with (IMHO) but zero of them improve with age - skin sags, inks fade and regret often sinks in.
Hopefully the woman with the post-masectomy tattoos will want them all her life.
Without being narky... it probably wasn't tested with tattoos. I would hope that they tested with a wide a range of skin pigmentation and body fat weight ranges as they could, but even though I'm around quite a few folk with tattoos I wouldn't have considered testing directly on a tattoo. From this particular example it would appear to be a specific type of ink that caused the problem rather than any tattoo ink so Apple may have even tested on tattoos.
I'd guess that this will be included in the tests next time around and / or there would be a new option to disable the sensors that no longer work as a result of particular tattoo inks.
I assume the next thing will be for hipsters getting the tattoos to have rounded rectangular voids in the pattern on their wrists. A whole new thing in parlors will be a list of designs with a strategic gap so that the pulse detection works.
Maybe we should get a patent on that now? Anyone with the know how get it written up, we list as co-creators, straight 50% split.
If you measure blood optically, anything that isn't standard issue skin will give problems, such as scar tissue, tattoo ink, not peeling the protective foil off (these people do exist too).
Given the futuristic claims about this watch I would have expected a laser in there - I mean, it was part of James Bond movies since, what, the 60s? And a laser would surely be able to make a tiny opening to see that pulse. It may just be short lived with the blood supply leaking out, but sacrifices have to be made - consider it a Darwinian approach to problem solving :).
Alternatively, maybe some of this can be switched off? Edge cases will always exist..
This isn't a 'bug'. It is skin ink preventing Apple's pulse metering system from working properly. Actual skin without normal skin color transmission and reflection alteration is required. We know enough about how this system works, found under the watch against the skin, to know why skin ink would prevent it from working properly.
"Lovell's so keen on his watch he says he just wants to keep using it, rather than visit an Apple store to seek support" - What kind of idiot would rather "just keep using" a dodgy piece of kit that either needs to be repaired, replaced, or refunded due to it's not working properly, rather than get it looked at and sorted out, according to warranty, i.e. Applecare? A Fashionista idiot who's more concerned with being in style than having a bit of kit that works properly... >:-) He needs to book a genius appointment and get that thing fixed or replaced.
OK - so a quick question here.
I was aware that the watch checks periodically (roughly every 10 minutes I believe) for a pulse to a) record it and b) confirm it is still being worn. If skin-ink causes this process to fail - then I have to assume that the issue with all the current Android Wear watches - sweat will also cause it to fail. Does this therefore mean that everytime your wrist gets a bit sweaty the watch will need you to input your passcode?
Optical Properties of Circulating Human Blood in the Wavelength Range 400-2500 nm
Absorption spectrum of melanin
Blood approx peak 633nm.
Melanin peak approx 335 nm
Skin colour should have no effect.
P.
PS Apologies for posting this twice, wasn't sure where the thread was going, and nobody else posted facts....
I couldn't help but notice that after 30 seconds of walking, the distance remained at 0 feet. Is the distance supposed to increase as the amount of distance covered increases?
I'm not trolling - although I'm very much anti-Apple, I'm genuinely curious about that.
(Afterthought: Perhaps it relies on GPS in the paired phone, and he wasn't carrying it for the purposes of the demonstration?)
For fucks sake, Watergate was actually a significant moment in history that exposed a deep level of government corruption.
This constant use of "gate" to describe any slight peeve people have because their chosen hipster device doesn't work perfectly after they fell for the advertising shite hook, line and sinker, just goes to show how these twats aren't original, creative, or even intelligent.
/rant
I've never seen a set of comments where the first comment set the tone and subject of the discussion quite so much as this one.
Personally I initially identified with the first ACs comments a little at first but then thought of some of the very intelligent and good looking people I know with large tats' and realized that was wrong.