I dropped my N7-2012 an insane number of times. Whenever it fell out of a pocket, it did a backflip and landed flat, unharmed. Every single time. Knocking off tables was the same deal... tumble, tumble, *slap*! I did finally knock it out of a laundry basket onto a sidewalk, and it didn't have a chance to flip at that angle, because when it slides off a curved surface it can't do the backflip balance tricks. So then it finally hit direct and smashed the corner bad.

OTOH even then, since everything is accessible I could order the part and put a new touchscreen on for ~$65.

If some anonymous person claims a rare, unlikely hardware fault, my thinking is, that is possible but not a real concern since others don't report the same problem.

When that coward claims to have had a rare problem twice, I'm assuming either they used some sort of third party battery over-charger, or else they're just full of shit.

And really, if all we know is that it "stopped charging," you probably torqued the plug until it was loose, and could just bend the housing back and get it working again.

I did have to re-solder a headphone jack, but that was only after yanking on the cord a bunch of times like a brute. Unlike many devices, the repair was accessible. If I didn't know how to fix it, the whole audio module was easily removed for replacement. A+ design there.

ASUS built it, but unlike cowards with nothing but wishy-washy negative language, I know it is quality hardware.

One of the great things, this was true of the original, is the balance; I dropped this thing out of my shirt pocket over 30 times. It landed flat every... single... time. No damage.

Also, since it is not locked down I don't have play games to get control, or worry I'll lose control later. GPS performance is great, I've used hundreds of hours in the forest, often in wet weather. (mushroom foraging)

The original had a sucky front-facing camera and no back camera. But that isn't worth complaint because you know that before you buy it and was a cost/price issue.

I'm sticking with 4.4. Upgrades are optional.

Just bought a new Nexus 7 last month. It may be an old model at this point, but it is still the best tablet under $200. Nothing else was even good enough to get serious consideration.

lol based on his statements since then. Duh. Look it up.

As opposed to, either buying a bracelet as a fashion accessory, if you're into that, or else buying a nice looking watch that tells time.

Or waiting until somebody figures out what problem "smart watches" solve. All the examples I've seen are just replacements for an exercise assistant comp with email notification. Unless you're a 1%-er who is allowed to exercise while you're supposed to be working, you don't need the email notification; you're on break, you'll get it after you shower and go back to work.

If you're into accessories enough to want useless computerized jewelry, you're that much less likely to be interested in the very cheapest model. Probably the only reason to have one at $350 is to sell to developers who want to write apps for the expensive ones.

This is exceptionally bad for their brand image IMO. They're back-ordered, of course they are; the company has a lot of "fans" in addition to regular customers. The fans cause the back-ordering of everything they make, but the regular customers who follow after are the source of most of the profit. The biggest danger is a product like this that makes the fans look really foolish to the normals. The brand image they've developed, the fans look a bit silly in buying things early, but the perception is that they're buying something that they like for certain important reasons. There is the presumption that it is aesthetically superior. That sort of brand image can be substantially undermined if the perception shifts from artistic elitism to money elitism.

... that's all consistent with what I said, but you phrase it like a smoker looking for excuses.

I'm not sure what you thought you were adding to what I said.

The only way to end up in Guantanamo is to be captured on a known battlefield bearing arms without a uniform.

Hong Kong's light handed period is ending, the transition plan to being a regular part of China was recently announced.

That wikileaks guy found a neutral embassy to hide in. There are lots of places. New Zealand, of course, is not a "neutral" country. They are First World ally. If he can't get to the Americas, that is rather pathetic. He could have just hired McAfee.

We can just use Jupiter as fuel for Spaceship Earth.

Woven graphene, all the way to space. The Yellowstone Space Elevator.

You seem to be mistaken in your logic. If you prevent it sometimes, then you do in fact prevent it. Your argument is based on a perceived absolute that is not actually implied by the words used.

It is well established that in people who eat a non-balanced diet, introducing anti-oxidants reduces their cancer risk. (that means it prevents cancer!) However, people who eat whole foods (e.g., a traditional balanced diet) already have the protective level of nutrients that the human body is evolved to expect, and additional anti-oxidants don't help. Nor does eating only whole foods, or extra whole foods.

If you're ready to vilify peanuts because a small number of people have allergies, I don't think you're really ready for rational discussion.

You're conflating the nutters with the real research, unfortunately. Presumably you think you're being very sciencey. But no amount of lame, fraudulent diet books will undo the giant mountain of research that says a traditional diet including substantial amounts and variety of whole fruits and vegetables will reduce the risk of cancer. (and almost all other significant ailments) The risks don't go away, but almost any "grandma diet" is going to be protective when compared to a diet based on processed foods.

Eating processed meats is correlated with increased colon cancer, for example.

Eating "fiddleheads" is known to cause cancer.

Eating foods rich in anti-oxidants is known to prevent cancer... in people with low anti-oxidant levels. So it is true that a traditional healthy diet of balanced ingredients can appear protective for people currently eating a narrow diet of processed foods. However, additional anti-oxidants beyond the levels achieved by a traditional balanced diet do not appear protective.

But there are absolutely known foods that increase cancer risks.

If the bacon is natural bacon, then it is not a risky food for cancer. If it is the processed, reformed lard attached to small pieces of processed pork scraps, then it has not been studied to see if it has the same risks as processed lunch meats and hotdogs.

But if it was herd immunity instead of herd mentality, then maybe the conclusion would be different too. ;)

That said, you succeed in introducing probability in one place, then you follow by trying to reject it when working in the other direction. The word "prevent" does not require or imply an absolute, though. If the context is already probabilistic risk of some event (cancer) then you only have to reduce the event in order to have prevented some cases.

If you're pointing out that "preventing some cases" is not "preventing all cases," you're just correcting the part you misunderstood, not what was being said. And preventing some is still preventing. ;)

Your attempted correction doesn't prevent any misunderstanding, that much is certain.

That is not consistent with the current medical theory of cancer, where all of the different risk factors each could cause cancer, but the actual cancer you get was caused by a single one of those instances of cell damage.

Very very different than the theory for nearly every other type of disease based on harmful substances, where only past certain thresholds or combinations do things start to cause disease.

Not true; diet is known to have lots of effects on cancer treatment. Many of the treatments involve taking lots of toxic medicines, and a healthy diet can make the difference between a successful treatment, or not.

Learning the wrong thing is just as stupid as believing some book based on an individuals claimed experience.

The lesson here is just that the specifics she claimed were not true for her; it actually tells us nothing about the relative value of nutrition in cancer treatment; it doesn't support or refute any science at all, and in fact, it has nothing to do with science and it never did.

Reasonable beliefs about diet and cancer risk/treatment can only be based in medical science. Anything else is wild speculation, and a false speculation is just garbage.

This is just the kind of ignorance I'd expect to see on slashdot voted up to +5, especially since it is nasty and full of excrement-language and logical fallacy. It even throws out the word "snake oil" while also making unsubstantiated medical claims. But the opposite bullshit is not truth, it is just horseshit.