Pedantic correction - Donald Trump might actually offer good advice on how to be born rich, as he has first-hand experiences.

"Oh wait.." as in, the present situation is comparable to the worst of Microsoft excesses where they were justifiably criticized? If that was your point, then yes, I agree.

Issue with rooting, is that almost anything in mobile space defaults to auto-run. This is not a big deal if permissions are severely restricted in non-rooted phone and the worst stuff won't survive the reboot. Modifying this default promiscuous behavior is not a simple configuration change and is beyond abilities of majority of technically-inclined /. crowd.

>>>They can be removed if you have unlocked the bootloader and flashed an OS image that contains su. Then you can become root, remount the OS partition read-write, and remove the apps completely.

This is why mobile space computing devices will always be toys in my eyes. They system designed to dictate how you suppose to use it. Sure, with enough effort you could bypass and regain control that should have been there from the beginning.

As for quoted response - imagine buying a PC during 90s era where you didn't have enough permission to uninstall AOL. Plus you'd get prompted for AOL credentials to use unrelated productivity software. Even MS in its prime wasn't that evil. Google, on other hand...

than that.

It's not that the public doesn't trust the abilities of scientists.

It's that they don't trust their motives. We have a long literary tradition that meditates on scientists that "only cared about whether they could, not whether they should," and the politicization of sciences makes people wonder not whether scientists are incompetent, but whether they have "an agenda," i.e. whether scientists are basically lying through their teeth and/or pursuing their own political agendas in the interest of their own gain, rather than the public's.

At that point, it's not that the public thinks "If I argue loudly enough, I can change nature," but rather "I don't understand what this scientist does, and I'm sure he/she is smart, but I don't believe they're telling me about nature; rather, they're using their smarts to pull the wool over my eyes about nature and profit/benefit somehow."

So the public isn't trying to bend the laws of nature through discourse, but rather simply doesn't believe the people that are telling them about the laws of nature, because they suspect those people as not acting in good faith.

That's where a kinder, warmer scientific community comes in. R1 academics with million-dollar grants may sneer at someone like Alan Alda on Scientific American Frontiers, but that sneering is counterproductive; the public won't understand (and doesn't want to) the rigorous, nuanced state of the research on most topics. It will have to be given to them in simplified form; Alan Alda and others in that space did so, and the scientific community needs to support (more of) that, rather than sneer at it.

The sneering just reinforces the public notion that "this guy may be smarter than me, but he also thinks he's better and more deserving than me, so I can't trust that what he's telling me is really what he thinks/knows, rather than what he needs to tell me in order to get my stuff and/or come out on top in society, deserving or not."

What people are missing is that market segmentation is what counts, not how many chips fall into which bins. If the company sells ten times as many inexpensive GPUs as expensive ones, but the yield on the production floor is more like ten good chips for every crippled one, then it's not hard to imagine that most of the cheap cards will end up with perfect chips.

The market detects this sales strategy as bullshit and routes around it.

The retail replacement cost is why it's insane to put it in your pants pockets.

"I just dropped a grand on this. I know, I'll subject it to huge forces and see what happens!"

Why would you do that?

I frankly don't see any difference. Big, fat force, tiny little space. That's not good for a sheet of glass, a sheet of metal—hell, you've seen what happens to a sheet of paper after spending all day in your pockets. People learn that in grade school.

If it really has to be on your waist somewhere, get a holster. Otherwise, just carry the damned thing, or put it in a shirt or coat pocket, briefcase, backpack, etc.

Since the '90s, I've never regularly carried a mobile device in my pants pockets. Obviously, it would break, or at least suffer a significantly reduced lifespan. On the rare occasions when I do pocket a device for a moment, it's just that—for a moment, while standing, to free both hands, and it is removed immediately afterward because I'm nervous the entire time that I'll forget, try to sit down, and crack the damned thing.

Who thinks it's okay to sit on their phone? Why do people think they ought to be able to? It literally makes no sense. It's an electronic device with a glass screen. If I handed someone a sheet of glass and said, "put this in your back pocket and sit on it!" they'd refuse.

But a phone? Oh, absolutely! Shit, wait, no! It broke?!?!

Please, try being a Pastafarian. I get cursed with a terminal disease at least once before my morning coffee. Considering our vengeful god, it is amazing any of us still alive.

Partially due to above circumstances, on a long enough scale, Pastafarian mortality approaches 100%.

In a world of digital time devices, that makes no sense :-)

I purchased couple L-Prize winning Phillips LED bulb when they first came to market many years ago and they are still going. Under heavy use. YMMV.

>>>"I like and believe very much that we should be able to take the contents,"
 
Do you also believe in the Santa Claus?
 
In closing, fuck you. No.

Turn out, all our water is greywater .