Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:the real reason theyre arguing it. (Score 1) 306

Once you get past a certain point, the phone begins to lose its structural integrity, requiring a thicker case to preserve it. We met this point with the iPhone 5 and have been pushing past it ever since.

Since the plastic and rubber used to make cases is weaker than the metal used to make the phone body, every millimeter of phone needs to, necessarily, be replaced by more than a millimeter of case. You're absolutely right, we do notice it, but not the way you imply; our phones actually end up thicker after being placed into a truly protective (read: ugly) case than they would be if they were just made structurally sound in the first place. In fact, a properly durable phone plus a purely decorative case would likely be thinner than the current batch of weak phones in Otter Boxes, and look better to boot.

Of course, I say this being completely unaffected by any of it. I don't put my phone in my back pocket and sit my fat ass on it, I don't leave it on the edge of the desk or table, I take care not to drop it, and I don't work in a profession where I'm required to put it in harm's way; so, I don't use a case anyway. But, I do wish my phone was 1-2mm thicker so I could have that extra battery life -- it would more than double.

Comment Re:the real reason theyre arguing it. (Score 1) 306

f they made a removeable battery that would make the iPhone at least 3 or 4 millimeters thicker and only Die Hard anti-MSFT people would still buy Apple with this kind of law in place

Apple would lose their thinness advantage only if you have your blinders on and pretend that the law would only affect Apple. Also, you have to honestly believe that Apple has a thinness advantage, which means ignoring all of the PC laptops that are within 1mm of the thickness of Apple's laptops and all of the non-Apple phones that are within 1mm of thickness of the various iPhone models.

In short, Apple never had a "thinness advantage", there simply exist a lot of idiots, who took their word for it and never looked at what else is out there, who believe that they do.

Comment Re:One standard to rule them all (Score 2) 153

Interesting, I have audio equipment dating back to the 40's and 50's with 1/4" plugs and as far back as the 60's with 3.5mm plugs and all of them work just fine. I do recall having to resolder one back in the mid 90's, on a late 80's portable CD player that had been dropped on concrete and landed on the headphone plug just right. This is a connector that was chosen by audio professionals as a standard specifically because it is so robust; we haven't had it for over a hundred years because we're afraid of change, we've had it for that long because nothing truly better has come about.

We've had USB DACs for nearly 2 decades by now, and the idea of integrating one directly into headphones is also nothing new. If it were truly better, we'd have been using them. I have several, some high end, some low end, and I can tell you they are, at their best, on par with the 3.5mm jack; but, more typically, they're far worse. That's on top of the added cost, of course.

Comment Re:Security expert? (Score 1) 377

"that's the way things are. Theft happens so live with it"

Huh, funny, i never said that. I said don't make yourself the victim of choice. You know, if everyone chose to not make themselves the victim of choice, it would be much more difficult to make a living as a thief and, yes, we'd have less theft.

Move to Japan or Singapore and suddenly you realize it's not the way things are rather it's the way we let them be because we assume it's the way it is.

Except that theft still occurs in those places. You've never been to either of them, so you simply assume that's the way it is.

Yes, there's a fair bit less theft there, but there's still plenty; usually at the expense of American tourists with their "thieves just shouldn't steal" attitudes, who think they have no personal responsibility to protect themselves.

Comment Re:Deliberately missing the forest for the trees (Score 1) 386

Oh, I got your point, but here's the thing: the people who live there don't think there are problems. It's not for me, I don't even like visiting my friends who live there, but they don't see the problems the way you or I might. I suppose that makes them... well... not problems, since the people there like the situation and the people who don't like it don't have to live there.

My point, which you clearly missed, is that it is very short-sighted and ignorant to call someone stupid for their preference in living conditions. Perhaps they simply have different priorities than you? I tend to think if it similar to how I wouldn't call someone who prefers Clover brewed coffee stupid for going through that complicated brew process (or paying someone to do it for them) just because I, personally, think it's a complicated waste of time on top of tasting awful. It's what they like and there's no other way to get it.

Is it possible to live better for a fraction of the cost of living in San Francisco? Well, it is certainly possible to live for a fraction of the cost; however, "better" is subjective. you and I may agree that life outside of that particular city is "better", but there are many who do not. Clearly, there are more who believe life is better there than there are places for them to live there. The smart ones figure out how to make it happen.

Comment Re:Deliberately missing the forest for the trees (Score 1) 386

they don't insist that their morning lattes come from the same block they live on

Actually, insisting that your morning latte comes from the same block you live on can be very smart, if you do it right. After all, the Keurig in my kitchen on the same block I live on.

Would a drip brew be even smarter? Perhaps, if I were brewing more than one cup at a time. When I need to use enough grounds to brew a full pot just so the water doesn't bypass them, and I'm only interested in a single cup (or maybe two), the Keurig actually comes out ahead, even with the "expensive" K-cups. It's even farther ahead with reusable K-cups, as I need use only one Tbsp of grounds per cup and there is no water waste; my previous 8-cup drip needed 12Tbsp to brew 8 passable cups and water would simply bypass the grounds, resulting in a weak brew if you used less than 6Tbsp, which meant using enough coffee to brew 4 cups at a minimum, even if I only wanted one or two. Rather, it meant using enough coffee to brew 6 cups in my Keurig if I wanted anywhere between 1 and 4 cups, or enough to brew 12 cups in my Keurig if I wanted 8.

But yes, circling back around, leaving my block (let alone my house) to get a latte seems brilliant.

Comment Re:Security expert? (Score 5, Insightful) 377

No, you actually do have an obligation to not be naive and pretend crime can't happen.

That's not quite the same as saying dressing a certain way makes sexual assault not a crime; in fact, it states quite the opposite! Read the statement again, with your head located outside your rectum. When a rapist rapes, it is the rapists fault, as the rapist should not rape; when a rapist rapes YOU, however, you must ask yourself why that rapist (who would have raped anyway and is still full at fault for the actual rape) chose you and not someone else.

Is it okay for a rapist to rape you if you dress a certain way? Oh hell no, and nobody said it was. But, just knowing that the rapist is there and that the rapist will rape, regardless of you, you have a responsibility to acknowledge that fact and make yourself less of a target. Will that prevent the rape? No, because, and I'll repeat this again so you can't get confused and think I'm victim blaming, the rape is the rapist's fault. What it will prevent is your rape.

Now, let's apply that logic to a less sensitive subject so you can see how things work in the real world. If you, knowing that people steal shit from cars, leave a laptop sitting on the passenger seat of your unlocked car over night and it gets stolen, it is the thief's fault a laptop was stolen, but it is your fault it was your laptop that was stolen.

How does this work? It's quite simple, really.

The thief is going to steal a laptop, that is a decision the thief made and the thief is completely responsible for that decision. Neither you, nor me, nor the police, nor the thief's parents, nor anyone else holds any responsibility for that decision. However, you know that there exist people who make such decisions and it is up to you to protect yourself from them. If you do not, that is a decision you made and you are completely responsible for that decision. Neither the thief, nor me, nor the police, nor your parents, nor anyone else holds any responsibility for that decision.

If you didn't leave the laptop in plain view, would a laptop still have been stolen? Yes, because the thief decided they were going to steal a laptop. Wold it have been yours? No, because you decided not to allow it to happen.

As a victim of both theft and rape (among other various crimes) in my younger, more naive, years, I quickly developed an understanding of this concept. Perhaps not quickly enough, but I did develop it, nonetheless, where you (and many others) still seem to have not figured it out.

Is it my fault my rape occurred? No, but it is my fault I was chosen over someone else. Is it my fault an MP3 player was stolen from me? No, but it is my fault I left it unattended so that it may be stolen. Is it my fault I was robbed at gunpoint twice? No but, in both cases, it is my fault I was unarmed and alone in a high-crime area late at night.

Should I have been able to trust my rapist not to rape me? Should I have been able to leave my MP3 player (back when those were a new thing, mind you) at my desk for 5 minutes? Should I have been able to safely walk around, alone and unarmed, at night? In an ideal world, yes.

We, however, do not live in an ideal world, and you're not doing yourself, or anyone else, any favors by ignoring that fact while you insist that we should.

One thing we agree on, though, is that we should live in an ideal world. Our main point of contention is how to reconcile the fact that we do not. My belief is that we should not let ourselves be attractive victims to the crimes we know will be committed anyway. You seem to believe the exact opposite, for which I suppose I should thank you, as you make it that much easier to do what I believe is right when you set the bar so low for criminals.

You can have the crime and victimhoood, I've been done with it for over a decade.

Slashdot Top Deals

The party adjourned to a hot tub, yes. Fully clothed, I might add. -- IBM employee, testifying in California State Supreme Court

Working...