(takes out his autonomous, self-contained smartphone to post on Slashdot)

what where you saying about new stuff having more dependencies ?

Oh. Yeah.

I would expect that for most apps, it won't reduce power consumption.

Why would you expect that? What apps will be able to do will be extremely curtailed - e.g. they will probably follow the original iPhone model of halting the process whenever the user isn't using it. Aside from the display, the radio is probably the biggest power draw on the system, plus there won't be any length negotiation with the phone, so having non-background applications run directly on the device will probably help battery life, not harm it.

So then the police just cut your hand off. One more reason why biometrics isn't such a great idea.

But... you'd be surprised how often it happens that I've learned a new tool, technique, or technology, only to be presented with an opportunity to use that new technology shortly thereafter.

You miss many opportunities simply because you don't see them as such because you lack the context, understanding, or tools to recognize them as such. Broadening your horizons helps you see the solutions and opportunities for what they are.

For a watch where a regular watches battery lasts years, a watch with a battery life of a single day at best is hilariously bad.

But nobody needs a watch battery to last years though - the comparison is meaningless. People don't use their watches while they sleep - charging every night in exchange for the extra functionality is a good deal for most people.

If a brand new one has only 30% at the end of the day, a year from now (or an OS update, whichever happens first) you'd better get used to charging your watch at lunch.

You're being ridiculous. No OS update or battery degradation over a year is going to reduce the capacity to less than half. The battery itself is is rated to retain 80% capacity for a thousand cycles and battery tech is pretty predictable.

why would Apple keep such a thing quiet

Because it's a sealed diagnostic port for a non-end-user serviceable product, not a feature. They aren't wishing anything up, it's just not something they have a reason to publicise.

when the Apple Watch's battery-life isn't what most people would consider impressive?

Actually, people's opinions on this are very mixed. Some people are reporting great battery life and improved battery life on their iPhone as well as they switch the screen on less. Some people report the opposite. Chances are, people who have just got a new gadget are playing with it all day, which obviously isn't representative of normal usage patterns or battery life.

Apple's lack of transparency here doesn't much matter, though

Why are you describing lack of publicity about a sealed diagnostic port for non-end-user serviceable goods as a "lack of transparency"? That is bizarre. You wouldn't expect that for any other company, let alone Apple.

As it is now, you are not notified of security issues when you have no security whatsoever. HTTP sites should be given a dire, red warning because they represent the least secure position online. An SSL site with an expired certificate is far more desirable than an HTTP website.

Green should represent proper SSL certificates, as it does now.

But there's one more problem with SSL/HTTPS sites that nobody talks about: the fake SSL certificate. Your browser *probably* trust a multitude of SSL certificate vendors, and *any* of them can issue a certificate for *any* domain.

So there are literally hundreds of SSL certificate vendors that could issue a cert for google.com or whatever, and you wouldn't know. If the NSA offered a bit of $$ to a commonly trusted (but otherwise unheard of) certificate vendor to issue a few certificates to be used discreetly....

See the problem?

If I go to Thawte or RapidSSL to get a cert, I should have the ability to publish my vendor of choice, and nobody else's certificates should be considered trustworthy. Similarly, I should be able to publish revoked certificates the same way.

Why hasn't this already been done?

By spec, wireless N, up to 300 Mbit.

In practice, I've gone through 4 different routers, and so far, this one has come out on top. It has two decent antennas which may be some of that difference, to be fair.

My house was (over)built in the 1970s with 3/4" sheet rock, making each room almost like a Faraday cage - getting wifi signal *at all* from two rooms over is spotty at best. In my bedroom (2 doors away from the hotspot) I see about 15-20 Mbits, but in the same room I see up to ~ 40 Mbits for torrents. (50 Mbit connection, shared)

Oh, and it being open source, I'm gonna bank on its code quality being a bit better...

I felt this way for a decade or more before buying my first wireless mouse.

In my mouse, AA Batteries 6 months to a year, even with daily use. The hassle of replacing the batteries is soooo much less than the hassle of fighting with cords on the road.

You could do that, or you could buy a router pre-configured with OSS from the factory. It's not even expensive at ~ $50.

I bought a similar model about a year ago, and its large antennas and decent range/speed make it the best router I've yet had. If it's not even more expensive, why not support a vendor that supports (more) secure, Open Source solutions?

I have no relationship with this vendor other than being a happy customer

Nope. What causes crashes is hunks of metal ramming into other hunks of metal. It would be complicated except that it's not. We choose to ascribe "cause" to other events that precede the ramming behavior, but it's really arbitrary.

For example, it's widely understood that driving cars is *dangerous* and yet we don't ascribe standard risk factors for *driving at all*.

Skiing is inherently dangerous. In order to use a ski slope, I have to acknowledge this risk. Why aren't car manufacturers covered with a similar legal conract?

Except in this case, the patent is for the use of VFAT, which is a very specific file system format that even Microsoft doesn't use much anymore, but is commonly understood by their systems.

There is no reason, for example, why Microsoft couldn't implement an open file system like EXT4 or UFS and update all their operating systems to recognize it, except that it would mitigate the value of their VFAT patents. So they don't bother.

I remember reading that they make more money on their patents from Android vendors than they make *gross* from their Windows Mobile sales.

I have a Moto Razr Maxx HD, now working on its 3rd year. It's been basically perfect. I reboot it perhaps once every few months, and half of those reboots are due to an OTA OS upgrade.

With it's amazing battery life, and durable, sturdy case, it's a phone that feels like a "partner" that doesn't leave me hanging and even when I'm really putting the screws to it, (EG: on trips) it's "just there" for me.

It is no longer a "flagship" phone, it's not the fastest phone, and it doesn't have the biggest/brightest screen any more, but it's still a very, very good balance for a phone that I probably won't be replacing until it actually dies.

My only honest complaint is that its bluetooth reception seems weak. I use $20 wired headphones as a result.