Malice? No. Cynical amusement? Maybe. Like I posted, I saw myself 20 years ago so my post was directed at me as well. After all, I didn't call you "Crash Gordon" did I?

First: You invent an image of to justify your position and also associate that image with me to devalue my response. The truth couldn't be further from reality. The indirect ad hominem does nothing to support your position.

Second: How we reacted is very different. You see a vehicle as a means to get from point A to B. That's probably the only value you see in it so you are not going to invest more time in a endeavor than is required. Other people actually enjoy driving and are willing to invest more time than the minimum requirement. I fall in the latter of the two. This difference between us shows because there is one very important thing you left off your list. Arguably the most important because it can have an affect on everything else on the list. That is: Don't overestimate your ability as a driver. A point you seemed to have completely missed with your boast.

There is something I'm curious about. Why did you feel the need to announce to the world the type of car you drive? What purpose did it serve to make your point?

Wow... It's like I'm looking at myself in a mirror. Only 20 years ago when I had more testicles than brains and my friends nicknamed me "Crash Gordon".

So, have you experienced that moment yet? You know, the slam on the breaks, sphincter tightens so much you'll swear you've ripped the leather off the seat, stomach leaps up to give your tonsils a goodbye hug, type moment. Induced by the "bet you $1000 I can drive faster AND safer" attitude combined with a wall of red break lights. Reminding you about statistics in the sense that you are about to become one.

If you have, did you laugh it off? Blame the "idiot" driver ahead of you? Or perhaps both?

I prefer the infinite loop generated by just toggling the last bit with xor.

Coffee?

What the hell are you doing on Slashdot?!

HERETIC!!!

Get 'em!.... ... one of these quick

I'm sure they will. Though that's no reason not to add another patent to their portfolio.

It's a half impression of the jack in the side of the device rather than enclosed port*. Hence the need for a cover ( or case ) to enclose the impression and complete the other half of the port. That impression will not be aesthetically pleasing even with the proposed solutions. It will be interesting to see what wins. Aesthetics or functionality. I have my own bets on that.

* before you say RTFA, I did.

"Current jacks will fit the new port design, but since the port is cut in half and exposed to one side of the device shell, a traditional connector would simply drop out: Apple proposes a magnetic interface that would keep a thin audio connector in place. The second issue is that an exposed jack would not look especially appealing, which is why Apple believes that new “custom” jacks should be covered with a “cosmetic cap” on one side."

RTFA again.

"Current jacks will fit the new port design, but since the port is cut in half and exposed to one side of the device shell, a traditional connector would simply drop out:"

It's a half impression of the jack in the side of the device rather than enclosed port. Hence the need for a cover ( or case ) to enclose the impression and provide the other half of the port or a magnet to allow the jack to rest in the impression and cling to the device.

Well, actually there's two issues then. The first is criminals turning evidence in gained while committing a crime and is it usable. The second is the channel through which law enforcement gets access to the evidence. My example applies to the first.

For the second: If someone posts a video on Facebook of a friend in the act of committing a crime, or publishes their manifesto stating their plans for murder, are you (general) saying that evidence can't be used because it was in the public domain first? That's false.

Criminals turning evidence in gained while committing a crime is usable evidence
Evidence gained through a public release is usable evidence.

Let me clarify something though. I would have preferred that any evidence be gained through legal means. I just don't necessarily agree with the sentiment that the evidence, if there is any, is now tainted so much that it is unusable.

I think that applies only to evidence obtained by the court. Not criminals turning evidence in against other criminals. e.g. Paedophile jailed after burglars with a conscience tip off police about child abuse pictures on stolen laptop ( new window )

I do honestly think that an analog face on a watch can be more artistic and more attractive that a LCD. Battery or spring behind the face regardless.

... that they no longer think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.

They have started going back to analog.