They had great battery life because you couldn't actually do much with them.

That said I REALLY wish the phone manufacturers would get off this thinner=better treadmill and make a phone with a thicker battery that will actually last at least a day. The fact that companies like Mophie have a successful business selling cases with built in batteries is all you need to know to understand that lots of customers actually value battery life over thin and light.

Generally speaking no they do not. I would argue that they never really did aside from plainly obvious things like screen size or ability to access data. Certain features are basically table stakes (good screen, camera, adequate storage, etc) but it's pointless to pay for features I'm not going to need or use. Sure I'm happy if the phone is faster but I don't really give a crap how many Mhz the processor has or how much RAM it has unless it somehow gets in my way. I want enough performance that I can do the activities I want without the perception that the phone is holding me back. Whether the Samsung or the Apple device has marginally higher screen resolution is not something I care about at all unless the difference is very noticeable.

Personally though I wish the phone makers (Apple I'm looking at you) would get over this obsession with making the phone as thin as possible and put a bigger battery in the damn things. There is a reason companies like Mophie are making a lot of money selling battery cases. Lots of us value longer battery life over thinness and weight.

You seem to be having a hard time with this. I explicitly said I have and do participate in debates in where I don't care about the eventual outcome. Scientific debates are often like this. I might not actually care what the outcome is and I often don't have a position of my own (I'm neutral) but I do have an interest in the debate based in curiosity and an interest in the truth. I don't really care if dinosaurs had feathers or not and I am neutral on the subject but I am interested in whatever the answer turns out to be. Even when the issue at hand is solely a matter of opinion then sometimes people will debate the issue because they like to debate - not because they actually have a position of their own. Hang around law school students sometime. They LOVE to debate and don't really give a shit about whatever is being debated all the time.

Yes it is. A neutral one. The argument was that you cannot be simultaneously neutral on an issue and debate it. I'm explaining (for the last time) that that is demonstrably not true. I understand plenty of issues well enough to argue one position or the other while my own opinion on the matter at hand is neutral. I don't care if emacs is better than vi or vice-versa but on occasion in years far past I have taken one side or the other just to point out that someone isn't being factual. I don't actually have a preference between the two and use both but the debate itself I find rather pointless and annoying hence my "position" of "a pox on both your houses".

Very true. Most of the time it is something tribal. You see our "leaders" in washington holding or disputing opinions based solely on whether the other side holds that opinion.

Not necessarily in the position being argued. Sometimes my only interest is in promoting a factual discussion. That means I am neutral on the issue. Scientific debate is often like this. I don't really care about what the outcome of scientific issues actually is (because the nature of the world doesn't care about my opinion of it) and I often don't understand the nuances well enough to have a well formed opinion of my own. But I do care that the debate happens, that it is accurate and that whatever is being debated gets sorted out.

Straw man. We don't know what kind of conference this is.

But only to build his army of gay-married socialist drones.

In certain circles there's no such thing as good news.

Enjoy throwing away your android phone once a new one comes out with an incremental improvement because you are not going to have anyone wanting to buy your used Android. iPhones, however, retain a great deal of resale value.

That's fine until the brats from next door hack into your exoskeleton and make you do the Gangnam routine for 48 hours straight.

The stuff he scoffs at, exercise, mental puzzles, weird cocktails, have little to do with prolonging life and everything with improving the quality of life, or at least trying to. I wouldn't mind living to 90 in relatively good health, and if there's something I can do when I'm 70 to improve my chances, I'll be doing it.

nVidia technology fell into the past through a wormhole.
Luckily it was properly static-bagged, because it actually went back to 1912 and had to be stored until a computer could be developed to interface to it

If it's so simple, why did you make such a sophomoric error? This is about the funding being available, but the decision not being made to spend it in this fashion.

So which is it, do you understand that the funding is available, or don't you?

Ignorance, you're displaying it freely. Every job pretty much demands that you take on other duties as required. The world is a changing place, and jobs change with it or companies go away. As the world changes, training is needed.

Your (note lack of apostrophe) employer is under no requirement to pay for training unless they want to stay in business. Then they should probably think about paying for people to have the skills they need to succeed.

If your company is laying stone or something, this may not apply to you. But if you are doing anything technical, then it does. If you think it doesn't, you are on the road to destruction.

CTO: Unfortunately, the world is changing, and we need to change with it.

Oh, no CTO? Too bad, so sad. Thou shalt fail, o maker of buggy-whips. Enjoy this moment while it lasts.

False. That is the opposite of reality. Companies save money by making cuts, but they make money by making investments.

Have you ever met someone who renewed?

Very good point, thanks.