I'm a bit curious. Are you judging the suicides becuase you've been a similar situation? That is to say, worked absurdly hard to get a small business rolling, only to fail and be judged as a failure by many of the people you know (plus whatever contacts you have on social media). Or, are you just playing the "they can't handle that much negative stimilus, how pathetic" card?

Well, the rationale is that some folks want to have a protector on their phone no matter what since they want to keep them in the best condition possible. For them I can kind of see more thin being an asset (the protector + phone combo is less bulky). But yea in a general sense Apple is taking the "thin is in" mindset a bit too far.

As bizarre as it might seem, I do know some folks who got the iPhone because it's too small size made it so that once they put it into a case, it went from too small (and unprotected) to usable (and protected).

Many clothes for women also have no front pockets. But then since this IS slashdot, the choices you listed are probably more likely.

Since you aren't sexist, it's safe to say you don't believe there's anything better or worse about the two pronouns. In that case, does it really matter what pronoun someone uses to substitute a proper noun? We've used he as the default for years and the general consensus was mostly "meh." Why is "she" so bothersome? Is it aesthetic? Is it because the usage of "she" brings up images of shrill anti-male feminists? If it's because of the second reason... well think of it this way. That's like being the polar opposite of groups who cry "female oppression!" each time someone uses the masculine pronoun in a mixed gender setting. I don't think being on either camp is a good thing. Both sides are too sensitive and whatnot.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but from I know of human history the expectation of children was that they should be able to quietly observe their parents and learn from them. And of course early actions like hunting would require paying close attention for long periods of time. I suppose ADHD would've been ok when we were hunter gathers, but once we moved on to tool useage and planning on ways to procure food, it it would've become a liability.

Patreon might fit the bill. In that crowdfunding site, people pledge to pay x amount of cash each time a product is released. I've seen this used for internet video producers, but there doesn't seem to be a reason this can't be used for regular documentation.

As my pappy would say, there's a different between smart and diligent. Being able to calculate pi while masturbating? That's smart. Reading a contract cause you're concerned there might be dubious clauses? That's diligent.

It's always the RoK when people just say Korea. If a news organization is talking about North Korea they will specifically spell out that NORTH Korea did XYZ. It's analogous to having two Bobs in one house. One's an average dude, while the other locks himself in his room, stepping out every once in awhile to brag about how awesome his 2" penis is. In everyday conversions, they'll be Bob and crazy Bob.

While userbase may be the number one reason to not develop for the PSP, it's likely the ease of piracy was another major concern. Cause lets fact it, free beats paid any day. Doesn't help that piracy was in many ways a superior option since it let you carry multiple games in 1 card and saved battery life by not utilizing the umd drive.

An anon calls for a site to put in steps to prevent any random Joe/Jane from posting on a site? The irony, oh it hurts...

Not always. Nintendo played things safe with the N64, giving us another iteration of their family friendly cartridge using console and came in second. Sony did to the PS3 what they did to the PS2, and gave us a machine that was hard to program but (supposedly) powerful, and they did.. poorly.

All in all, I think the most important factor in the gaming market is simply price. PS1 was cheaper than the N64, PS3 was the most expensive console in it's generation etc.

I'm genuinely curious, how would damaging/destroying the economy get our country back? I'm been thinking on it for a few minutes and I can't see your logic. Mayhap you're saying that we need to destroy the country before we can save it? If that's the case, all I can say is, it's easy to destroy a government, it's far harder to then build a better one. If you don't have a serious plan on what to do after shit hits the fan (and enough people supporting you) the initial result will inevitably be worse than what you started with. Only times this isn't the case is if a government is so corrupt that anything else ends up being better.

As someone noted in another comment, developers were shown hardware that was much faster than the actual Xbox One. Creating a rather awkward situation where they were creating games that couldn't be run on the actual machine w/o some cuts and/or issues. Interesting enough, the N64 apparently also had similar issues.

If you don't want to be the victim of a crazy asshole that will steal half your money, don't get married in the first place.

While there's nothing wrong with your logic, human relationships are based on trust, so people will always do things that could screw them up if the relationship is damaged. Sure, many folks are pessimistic and will play things safe (prenups, no sexy pics etc). Still, many others are more trusting and/or young and will do things just to make their significant other happy, and will probably be offended if you tell them to view the ones they love as a potential liability.