Too small and the phone will be more snaggy.

Too big, and the available rectangular screen real estate shrinks.

Sure, there is an acceptable window, and this isn't rocket science, but it isn't pure art, either.

Your assertion that rounded corners are purely functional is self serving and only caused by your prejudices.

How is it self-serving? Samsung isn't paying me anything.

So, from the hotel's perspective, it's an extra revenue stream they aren't paying anything for.

According to the wikipedia page on wayport, AT&T now operates 45,000 hotspots.

The "rounded corners" were not a utility patent -- it was a design patent, and only one element of it.

Yes, it was included in a design patent, but it shouldn't have been -- at least not in a way that allowed Apple to beat up Samsung over rounded corners. Rounded corners on a device you slip in your pocket are purely functional.

Whether you believe in punishment by the state or by a higher being, whether you believe in the death penalty for chewing gum, or don't believe in it for murder -- it doesn't make sense to not kill somebody, to let him out of jail, and then to make it impossible for him to earn a decent living.

Dynamic languages don't have to be dynamically typed.

This may well be because their study cannot discern the amount of programmer effort per check-in, but it is a fatal flaw. Open development methods mean that a lot of dirty laundry gets checked into repositories. If dynamic languages have more bugs per check-in, but require significantly less work per check-in, then measuring bugs per check-in without measuring effort per check-in is meaningless, and that's before you even get to the functionality provided by the checked-in code.

That seems an awfully low threshold for disrupting air traffic, since wireless access points can be had for just a few dollars these days.

Parent:

If our threshold for fear has become so low that some kid's not-so-funny practical joke can now result in several hours of delays to long distance transportation,

Me:

Don't scare the horses.

Seriously. Even before 9/11, any joking about a bomb in an airport would be problematic. You can't expect everybody in a position of power to be intelligent, so don't frighten the ones at the airport.

Now, you can argue it shouldn't be that way, and you may well be right. That's just like arguing you ought to be able to walk anywhere in Chicago any time of the day or night. True, but immaterial to reality.

Even though they disclaimed it in the fine print, Snapchat's entire premise was that you could send you pictures to people, and they could only see them once, for a little bit.

The analogy about the cash is off-point -- the entire reason people use credit cards instead of cash is security; same as the reason they use snapchat instead of email.

The difference between the bank and snapchat is this: with the bank, although they didn't promise and you didn't expect perfect security, they will make you whole financially by refund money taken due to fraud, while snapchat is completely the opposite -- they effectively promised better security than they delivered, and none of their users will be made whole.

I'm not sure if this has always been the case, or was added later, but for a very long time now, at least the Play Store's description has included:

Yeah but that's like the really fast voice at the end of the drug commercial talking about death.

So nobody should have been under the illusion that it was, in fact, impossible to save these images even if they lived a sheltered life and never imagined the analog loophole.

Snapchat's entire premise when it started out was that things were transient. Everybody told the founders it was a stupid idea, because, well, it's a stupid idea. But the people saying it was a stupid idea were making those statements based on impossibility, that the concept was akin to founding a company that would rent out genies that could give out wishes to people.

Obviously, the founders have the last laugh, because one way to make a lot of money is to rely on a gullible public and ignore the laws of reality. They aren't the first, and won't be the last, to make fortunes based on snake oil.

No, it's like a bank telling you that it's not their fault when you make a check out to "cash" and someone other then who you intend cashes it.

I don't think that analogy is right at all; OTOH, I think I can improve mine a bit: it's like the bank telling you to use their credit card for all your transactions because it's safer than any other banks' credit card (never mind cash), but then disclaiming all liability when there is a hack that makes that not true.

Snapchat's response was "they captured images by violating the TOS".

That's like a bank telling you it's not their fault if you lost money because the bank robber violated their posted TOS.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of saying that the trolls win simply because you take some measures to avoid them.

You didn't point that out. You used a poor analogy. Because most people would consider burning a Koran on TV to be trolling itself, rather than a normal, everyday thing that people do until they are themselves trolled.

I didn't start with the extreme IF/THEN logic.

Umm, yes, you did. The trolls are looking to cause a behavior change, so yes, they have "won" if they cause it. You didn't refute that. Instead, you gave a very poor, extreme "Because you are so concerned about getting beheaded by some crazy person that you wouldn't dare burn a silly book." when nobody who is not themselves trolling wants to publicly burn such a book.

The other party in this discussion said if I change my behavior in any way to avoid the trolls it has a chilling effect and the trolls win. that's just bullshit.

It's not bullshit if your original behavior wasn't something that a normal human being would not consider incendiary. It probably is bullshit if your normal behavior is to burn books on TV for the lulz.

Next issue. This is boring.

Yeah, I get it. You've had your say. And so have I.