But here's the problem. Unlike in the past we really do have the technology to put everyone out of work. Everyone including...

* The factory worker. Once thought as a safe job, now being replaced by robots.
* The warehouse worker. Again, once thought as a safe job, now being replaced by robots. We had an article about this on this very site. http://hardware.slashdot.org/s...
* Retail employee working the cash register, replaced by self-scan registers.
* Fast food worker, replaced by self-order kiosks and machines that can even make a burger.
* Customer and technical support agents on the phone, replaced by the likes of IBM Watson.
* Janitor, replaced by a robot that can clean toilets, mop floors, etc.

And that's just the start of the jobs that everyday people rely on for their very survival that simply won't exist anymore. Not everyone can have a college degree. Hell, we have too many of them as it is in the USA. Tons of people with college degrees, even technical degrees, and they can't find work. Why? Because either the job has been completely automated by a computer or a robot.

So when all of that happens, what do you think is going to happen? The very people who were once the life-blood of the economy will quite simply have no way to earn money. The system will collapse.

How will you be able to buy anything at Walmart if you don't have any cash to buy said products? That's the situation that we are very much looking at coming within the next 5 to 10 years.

I eventually see this entire system collapsing within the next ten years and not just IT (Information Technology) but the whole economy. How can the economy continue if you have nobody working and earning anything? That's right, it can't. And when that happens the entire system is going to simply collapse. Like I said before, I give the system another ten years (if we're lucky) or five years (if we're not lucky) and then... poof, gone. Total and complete world wide economic collapse that will make the Great Depression of the 1920s and 1930s look like a historical footnote in comparison. Anyone with half a brain can see the writing on the wall.

In some ways, that's why we have the problems that we have in the software industry to begin with. Everyone wants new features and they want them fast but at the same time they want it to be stable as well. Code that's developed rapidly and is stable is an oxymoron, especially if you have project managers hovering over you asking you why the software hasn't been released yet.

iOS 8.3 is an exception, yes, that's because Apple has decided that perhaps packing everything in including the kitchen sink is maybe not a good idea. Apple has already stated that iOS 8.4 and the future iOS 9 is concentrating more on efficiency and stability than past versions of iOS.

I've not had any issues on my iPhone 6 Plus either. iOS 8.3 solved a lot of nagging issues, it nearly perfect now.

Holy hell, that video had me shouting "Oh f***!" a couple of times.

So that's why I always had people tell me that I sounded like I was either under water or in a tunnel when I was on Verizon. I switched to AT&T and everyone said I sounded better on their end, I told them I switched carriers.

Hell, I don't even has a rocker to be off of!

I think it's more like we are catering to the morons.

I was able to recover 95% of the data from the drive after letting the drive cool in a refrigerator (not freezer) so I all that a win for me. But, I'll never trust a Seagate as long as they exist. And yes, a lot of my drives were Seagate drives. Thanks for that bit of info.

Oh, and let me guess.... those SSDs were OCZ SSDs? Right?

I beg to differ on the "average user" comment.

Take my brother's notebook with a slow 5400 RPM hard drive and boot-up times of more than three minutes. I put an SSD into it and it took off like a rocket with sub one minute boot-ups. Same thing happened with my desktop. Even launching a simple desktop program such as Microsoft Word can benefit from an SSD. You double-click the icon instead of waiting as the HDD retrieves several different DLLs from all over the drive to load into RAM, the SSD can load it all in one shot and have the program on the screen in less than two seconds.

SSDs have absolutely stunning performance numbers when it comes to retrieving random bits of data from all over the drive and that's what counts, random read speeds. HDDs absolutely suck at random read speeds and it all comes down to seek times, which absolutely suck.

You're talking about sequential reads. Yes, multiple drives can help in sequential read speeds but 4K Random Read Speeds is what spinning hard drives absolutely suck at. And before you mention that I'm just talking about benchmark numbers, yes... I am talking about benchmark numbers but 4K Random Read benchmark tests very closely mirror real world activity.

You can see this in how the average OS boot-up is slow as shit on an HDD. This is because OS boot-up is pulling seemingly random (at least to the HDD) bits of data from all over the drive which results in having to find the data (seek times) and that's what HDDs absolutely suck at.

I'd have to call bullshit on the "most give you either SMART warning or "delayed write failure" errors long before they die" part. I've had many a drive that was working fine one day, monitoring software showed no signs of pending drive failure, and then... dead the next day. *click* *click* *click* *click* *cry*

You say the problem with SSDs is when wafer shrink, well... it seems that manufacturers have thought about that and have gone back to larger lithograph processes. In fact, Samsung has done just that with their 850 Series SSDs by going to 40nm and 3D-NAND. Not only has Samsung done this but Intel has also been considering SSDs of their own to have 3D-NAND.

I thought the sampling rate refers to how many times per second changes in the wave form are tracked. Obviously the higher the amount of times the wave form changes are tracked per second the more true to the analog form of the wave the digital version of it will be (if that makes any sense). And isn't that what we want? A more true to the original wave form representation? More data should equal less interpretation the DAC needs to do to convert the digital back to analog.

Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't a higher sampling rate make up for the stair-step look of the wave form? Obviously the higher the sampling rate the more bits you need to represent the wave form thus resulting in a larger uncompressed audio WAV file.