The design is actually reasonable on the subs we bought, and they were probably decent subs when built. The problem is that they sat around in salt water with no maintenance for many years between when the British stopped using them, and when Canada wanted to start using them. That "maintenance" part seems to be important...

So what you're saying is that you CAN'T just copy MP3s accross like you can with any other device on the market. Instead you need to install special software on your computer to do it.

With so many good mp3 players on the market, why on earth would you do that to yourself? I'll forgive someone who bought the marketting hype and bought one of those, but to have bought both... You might want to seek counselling!

If you just want to copy files to a device, why on earth would you need ANY special software?

Why would windows explorer need to support playlists? doesn't the phone itself have that ability?

This concept of having to have a special app to do ANYTHING on your phone is ridiculous and reminds me of the state of computing more than 10 years ago. These days I expect to be able to plug in any device to any computer and simply drag and drop, no software install required. There are standards for a reason.

Minor nit-pick, gold is actually not a great conductor, it's prized property is that it doesn't generally corrode, that's why connectors are usually gold plated, and not entirely gold. the plating keeps the corrosion at bay, and the underelying metal conducts better.

Gold is "valuable" for it's uses in many industries, including electronics, chemistry, and jewlery. People also drive the price up because they think it will protect them from a crash of fiat currency, but I don't really believe that people would revert to using gold if civilization fell apart, more likely people would barter for things of more immediate importance, food, shelter, heating fuel, clothing, etc. Gold would have relatively little value in such a society.

Except that I don't want to constantly fight with the iphone that simply can't do any of the things I want it to, has an extremely inconsistent user interface, and is only useful for fun little fad-hobby activity.

I buy an android because it just works. I can get on with my business/social life without constantly running in to artificial barriers put up by Apple.

I never said that they spent more on marketing than anyone else. I said they had a better marketing department. There is a huge difference.

Only Apple can convince people to spend more for an inferior product and still feel smug about it. They have the best marketing department in the industry.

And don't worry, I'm not confusing anything, Apple doesn't have a history of selling high quality products, only expensive ones (you made the same mistake that you made in your first line, assuming that more money means better)

Considering that Apple has less usability, less polish, and a worse user interface than their major competitor, there is ZERO risk of me mixing up the two.

Apple has marketing, they have convinced people to pay more for an inferior product, and feel smug about doing so. It's a truly impressive feat. They have among the absolute best marketing department on the planet.

Except that doing things well is also not their strong suit, and "better than anyone else" is a pathetic joke, they make products that work poorly, with horrid user interfaces, limited features, extreme lock in... and market them really well.

Apple does one thing extremely well, better than any of their competitors, and among the best of any company in the world. It isn't engineering, it isn't design, it isn't usability. It's marketing, and they are proof positive how gullible large portions of the world are.

More likely due to the loss of marketting might since Steve Jobs died. They never had "innovation" as the iphone has consistently been behind other leading devices (usually by a year or more) on features.

Apple is brilliant at marketting, but that's really about it.

FTFY

Apple doesn't bother making a better product, they never really have. They have brilliant marketting though such that people who don't know better flock to the thing in droves because it's an iphone. They know what an iphone is, and equate it with smart phone. never mind that the competing phones do more, do it better, and do it at a lower price. The iphone is consistently a year or more behind the major Android players in features, the usability and interface really improved since the first iphone launched (and it badly needs to) and yet they manage to get people to line up every year to buy the new iphone, even when there's no real change from the last one.

There is one thing Apple is absolutely amazing at, and it has nothing to do with physical devices or software. It's all about the hype, and they sure know how to do that well.

Sure you can, and then you can use only wifi in your house and have no ability to communicate with the outside world when you leave your basement.

Or you can spring for a cell phone plan with a carrier, at which point you might as well take the "free" phone, because you pay for it whether you take it or not. (Most providers do not offer any discount to the contract plan if you bring your own phone, and pay as you go is always more expensive than a contract)

Now there are signs (as this article states) that this may be changing. And while I don't know about the prices going down as claimed in the article, I would say that in the long run it can only be a good thing for competition and for the end customers. I would say that the ideal situation is one where the cellular companies give the customer the choice, I should be allowed to finance an expensive device over the term of the contract if I want, I should also have the option to bring my own phone and save the cost of the financing. The end result would be stiffer competition between providers as they know you can take your device and run, and at the same time, more competition in the phone retail market as more retailers spring up to sell phones which should allow more variety in devices, as well as eventually lower device prices. (right now you pretty much have to buy your phone through your cell phone provider, because nobody in their right mind would buy a device elsewhere knowing that they still have to pay for the one included in the plan even if they don't take it)

I don't see how that's a problem. If a site is advertising IPv6 availability, and you have a real IPv6 connection, you won't "fail over" at all. If they don't advertise IPv6 availability, then you don't even try them on IPv6.

Your issue should only occur for a site that claims to be available on IPv6 and isn't. And I don't see how that's any different than a site having a bad DNS entry on IPv4 either. (except that in the IPv6 vs IPv4 thing there is actually a failover possibility instead of outright failure, so it's actually less of a problem)

There is zero risk to turning on IPv6 now. Assuming proper ISP level CGNAT back to IPv4 for those sites that haven't migrated yet.

NAT already "destroyed the internet as we knew it" (but we got used to the "destroyed" internet), CGNAT destroys the internet as we know it even further (we'll get used to that too). If the ISP cared at all about not destroying the internet as we know it, they'd implement IPv6 instead of this disaster.