Is it that we do not care or is it that we are not at all surprised?

More importantly, who feels empowered to make a difference?

or does it?

Don't get me wrong, I want Apple to innovate and improve and there is room to do that. Just don't lose sight of the fact that the hardware isn't tripling in performance every 18 months, like it used to.

The recent new Intel chips aren't impressing a lot of people right now (https://www.cnet.com/news/intel-kaby-lake-7th-gen-7700-7600-7350/) and the AMD FX chips today are almost the same speed AND PRICE they were two years ago.

Lack of competition in the high end graphics cards means high prices for top of the line GPUs too. A recent quote from Toms Hardware: "Further up the hierarchy, prices haven’t changed much. There’s just nothing new from AMD to make Nvidia flinch." (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gpus,4380.html)

Can Apple do better? Absolutely!

After three years, are components that much better? Yeah, somewhat.

When good VR capable GPUs become affordable, then we may see a major refresh. Until then, an i5 and a 2GB GPU is more than enough to do most everything I need or want to do. Even an i3 is good enough for many (most?) games.

Bad Predictions:

Claim from the late 20th to early 21st century: Global Warming means that the planet it getting hotter. Temperatures will rise.
Life: Record lows in winter
Reaction: Change the term from Global Warming to Climate Change.

Claim from 2007 post multiple hurricanes: Global warming will only make hurricanes more frequent and more powerful.
Life: They haven't, they aren't.
Reaction:Just wait

Claim: Global warming will cause droughts.
Life: Flooding and heavy rains.
Global Warming Experts Reaction: Dry places will get drier, wet places will get wetter.

Claim: People who deny global warming should be discredited as scientists.
Life: Debate, discussion, new data and learning happen. Global Warming/Climate change has had its share of bad science and reckless predictions on both sides of the fence and it makes it easy for people to believe what they want OR what they SEE OR simply become resistant to the concept believing the issue to be more political than scientific.
Slashdot Reaction to this post: Predictable

I wonder how you parents feel about that?
Orphan? Legal guardian, then.

Did you learn nothing in K-12?
No college education, I assume, or it was totally useless.
No professor or teacher ever added value to your life.
You were just born with all of the tools you needed to be a self made success.

Have you EVER worked as part of a team...on a project, perhaps?
Did no one other than you do any work?
Have you ever been a part of anything bigger than yourself?

No one does it completely alone. I suspect you have had more help than you are willing to admit.
5, Insightful?

To each, his own. I'm still using the iPhone5. I love the size. It feels like nothing in my pocket and I have only dropped it once. It's also so touch, I don't need a case. So far it is the best one yet.

I'm a long, long tie Apple user (Apple II, anyone?) and I absolutely, positively will NOT buy any phone sans 3.5mm headphone port. The desire for more memory to hold more music is the only reason I have even considered upgrading my iPhone 5.

There must be several megatons of Beats headphones (among others) out there that are going to be made ewaste with this brain dead idea. And no, I do not want to have to use an adapter, even if it comes free with purchase.

Perhaps I missed it, but how often are people killed by guns that they would not have been authorized to use?
How often do law enforcement officials get shot with their own guns?

These are the problems, right? That's what this is supposed to solve. Where is the data?

The only data I saw was: "A recent Johns Hopkins survey found that six in 10 Americans want safer guns.", which speaks volumes.

Did I completely misread this or did we just spend $46 million on a website because of 238 "potentially unsafe" operations? Does the Federal Government even have the right to do this for "aviation" that never crosses state borders?

From the rules (http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=19856):
The FAA estimates that in calendar year 2014, 200,000 small unmanned aircraft were operated in the NAS in model aircraft operations. During this period, the FAA received 238 reports of potentially unsafe UAS operations.

In order to implement the new streamlined, web-based system described in this IFR, the FAA will incur costs to develop, implement, and maintain the system. Small UAS operators will require time to register and mark their aircraft, and that time has a cost. The total of government and registrant resource cost for small unmanned aircraft registration and marking under this new system is $56 million ($46 million present value at 7 percent) through 2020.

It seems presumptuous to think the government can handle even one problem. Do you have an example in mind?

It would be interesting to talk to this individual as they hit heir 74th birthday and see if they felt the same way if we didn't already know they would be desperately clinging to life like get rest of us. Perceptions have a way of changing as we get older. Of course science and technology might have a teeny impact as well.

I understand the purpose and value of malware protection but from the article we first read:

then

Doesn't that seem to come off as a slightly counter-intuitive statement? Is it unreasonable to come away from this article asking yourself "Why buy anti-virus when the malware just avoids it anyway?"

We are so quick to condemn the US based on the words of politicians but I sometimes wonder if we can glean the truth from the events.

One September 11, 2001 the U.S. suffered it's most devastating and deadly attack in history. With the death of over 3,000 U.S. civilians and the destruction of property that will likely never see it's equal, Americans faced an enemy they could not easily identify knowing only their approximate (financial, political, support) origin. The question of the new era was how to fight an enemy without a country, without a standing army. How do you fight an enemy so ruthless that they will slaughter innocent men, women and children without warning and without regard to their own destruction?

America's response was simple. They invaded the lands of their enemies. The politicians spoke of weapons and camps and funding but the words of politicians are for sheep. Their actions spoke to the enemy. They destroyed armies, killed the leaders of nations and their families and left behind the smoking ruins of two nations as a message to a people never truly swayed by the words of American politicians. "If you attack us, we will lay waste to you. We will destroy your armies, we will destroy your government and we will destroy your past and we will destroy your future. We don't care who among you truly did it. We are sending a message to you all, this is what happens when we are attacked. Consider this while you wonder who among you is next."

And so America continues to fight a war on two fronts. Politically it insists that it is the world's policeman enforcing justice that mirrors its own enlightened legal system while militarily it responds to the threats of the new world in a way that it believes the new world can understand, ruthlessly, selfishly and decisively. At home, the only place America truly cares about, the words of the politicians sooth those want to be soothed. Others see the actions of the military for what they are, revenge and warning. The rest continue to rail against the U.S. because they have some misplaced and completely unfounded belief that their elected leaders words should somehow match their actions. Over 200 years of history has taught them nothing. The words of politicians are for sheep and the actions of the military, like all great military, are ultimately for destruction.

When did massacre become a "downgrade" from terrorist attack?

I just can't take it. I have to say it. Troll me if you must but all of you "typical Republican" or "Leave it to the Democrats" people are just that. Idiots. You look at the opposing party and shake your head and condemn them for mindless, greedy, morally bankrupt actions as if your party would do any better. They won't. I've sat in Senate Arms committee meetings and heard both parties pander to their own constituencies. They will spend every dime we have buying votes from their own state. There is no long term vision among them.

You blame the republicans because they won't cut defense spending. Well, at least providing for the common defense is a part of the governments clear responsibility. It's only 25% of the budget . Healthcare and pensions make up a whopping 46% of the budget. I'm not sure the Constitution supports that. In fact, the 10th amendment would seem to support the contrary. In fact, for every $1 we spend on the military we spend 50 on welfare (another 12% on top of the aforementioned 46%). Why is the federal government spending money on welfare (see 10th amendment)? So screw you Democrats.

But wait, G.W. Bush and the Republicans had 6 years controlling every aspect of government, didn't they? How much streamlining did they do? Did they cut the budget? No. Screw you Republicans.
In fact, did Reagan get rid of the then recently formed Department of Education? My best friend works for the Dept. of Ed. I can't believe the horrible waste going on there. And what the hell is the federal government doing getting involved in education? That's a state matter if not a county matter. Refrain (screw you republicans and democrats)

But wait, the Democrats (and some of you sub-geniuses on slashdot) want to fix the deficit by increasing taxes. In fact, some have criticized republicans for funding wars without tax increases. But, in 2011 the federal budget was ~3.8 trillion dollars while the income was less than 2.2 trillion dollars. That means we would need to increase our income (READ TAXES) by ~73% in order to balance the budget. THAT's a 73% tax increase children!!! If the average American is taxed ~18%, their new tax rate would become ~31%. Do you have any idea what would happen to the American economy? Worse, we don't get any new benefits from this tax increase and we don't even pay off the debt, we just keep it from getting worse. Oh and those of you who want to tax the wealthy consider that their tax rate would be over 60%. How many wealthy people would simply take their money and go elsewhere at that rate? Remember, that's just federal income tax. Add state income tax, sales tax, property tax. How close to 100% can you get before even the wealthy become poor?

Now some brilliant people like to say "tax the corporations." Well guess what. Corporations aren't people. They are entities. If Exxon makes 100B profit and you tax 50% of it, that's a free 50B in taxes, right? Wrong! Where do you think that money was going to go? Some was going to R&D. You know research and technology advancements. Something slashdotters seem to love and something that benefits pretty much everyone as advancing technology eventually tends to do. Well the rest goes into the pockets of the employees in the form of bonuses and is paid out to shareholders in the form of dividends or price increases. No fair, the government doesn't get that oh wait they all get taxed and what is left tends to stimulate the economy. If you don't believe that last part then you MUST be dead set against any form of government stimulus so you are already saying screw you democrats. In other words, taxing corporations takes the money out of the hands of people who would have paid taxes on the additional income so there is little or nothing or less than nothing to be gained there.

I'm sorry to be such a jerk about this but you slashdotters forgot a very simple saying: "The more you learn, the less you know." Hopefully a few facts, a few calculations (mine), and a slightly broader perspective will help you to understand that you don't know anything.

Even if the information I posted above is not exactly correct, it's pretty close. You should get the idea.

I don't have the answer. I don't know who does. I know the American system of government is designed to be inefficient and our government was never designed to fix our problems. Only we can do that. Regardless of the party, they are just writing more and more laws (that's what lawyers do) at a time when most of the important stuff was already a law ~200 years ago. I'm pretty sure blaming the "other" party, whoever they are, only elevates the opposite party to an undeserved height.

So, consider this the next time you say those &^*@@# republicans or those ^@$*& democrats. What are you accomplishing? They all suck.

End of rant.

I wonder if anyone actually read this tirade all the way through.

Perhaps he should visit the library or, if he wants to stay online, he could visit our web site.