What makes you think it was Democrats? Most of the people I know loathe Trump regardless of their political affiliation. It's the "Those Other Guys did it" mentality that is really destroying the country. I actually think Trump as president would really help the country. Not in the short term and not because I'm a Republican, but because I'm intelligent enough to understand that when he brings the country to the brink of collapse, people will finally start to take notice and participate in their government. Long term thinking. It's in short supply.

Trump will balloon the deficit

You seem to have missed the tiny detail that it's the congress, not the president, that decides how much is spent.

-jcr

this is how civilization ends

Idiotic Malthusian hyperbole much?

-jcr

This summary title reads like an "apps apping apps" troll. I've read it several times now and it still just seems like random words. However, I'm hopeful that it means that we'll finally get those 17 razor blade shaving razors.

Being online has enriched my life in countless ways. I don't find it stressful. I have plenty of time with my family, some spent online, and a lot spent in person. We are all happy, healthy, well-adjusted, and most of us get lots of benefits from being online. I met my wife online!

I don't see what the problem is.

Why would I believe something that you made up in your own head to fight as a strawman? Oh, I get it. Because you're hoping that by distracting with that juvenile rhetorical technique, that people will forget that the Clintons DO in fact rake in millions of dollars for their own family and cronies (only a sliver of their foundation's revenue goes to anything other than internal paychecks and perks/expenses) in exchange for providing political access to those who pile on the cash. Of course you know this, and are trying to wish it away. Especially the part where she was encouraging that while she was in office, giving lots of access to those who paid her husband. But do carry on, and pretend it didn't happen. Feel better now?

Who cares about filtering these images? I want to hook this up to an internet spider and have it go out and fetch me a vast collection of glorious pornographic images.

I think this pretty well summarizes the issue that most preppers seem to not understand: If you want to ride out a freak temporary crisis, you can do that pretty cheaply and without turning it into an overriding paranoia/lifestyle. But, in the case of a fundamental collapse of society, what's the point? Your choices are A) Die like the majority of people. B) Live in complete isolation and hope that you don't literally lose your mind before you run out of food/water. C) Be at perpetual war with the remaining humans in a resource scarce environment. Preppers seem to focus on B and C without understanding that such an existence would be so miserable that A is almost certainly preferable.

I still come across Flash from time to time, mostly for live streaming video. DASH works, but it's still a young standard, and a lot of people haven't switched over.

You're undoing your own argument. Culturally, nobody gives a damn if you dance at the Jefferson Memorial, though some people might give a damn if a bunch of people wasted time writing and fussing about legislation to change that law that nobody cares about. On your other topics, you've made your own counterpoint. Culturally, the west has moved very quickly on areas like gay marriage. In practical terms, it's a done deal. There will be lots of little rough edges to clean up for a few years yet. Meanwhile, the Wahabbists and their ilk in the Middle East are going full-throttle backwards into the medieval days they miss so badly.

With respect, I don't think any of that's true, but it's one of these great assertions of utter donkeyballs that, if thought about, actually leads to the truth.

Wanting a more rugged phone with a decent battery life has nothing to do with "nostalgia", and battery life is actually one of the top complaints amongst smartphone users. So why doesn't the market support that?

Well, because the market is not the same as "most smartphone buyers". Most smartphone buyers do not spend $600 on a f---ing smartphone. Most smartphone buyers spend under $200 on a device with the biggest screen they can find, and then $10 on a "case" that makes it three times as thick.

Who doesn't do this? The people who pay $600 for a phone.

What's so special about $600 phones? Is it the innards? (No) Is it the screen? Uhm.... kinda, but you're looking at a screen that probably cost Apple or Samsung a cool extra $20 to incorporate. Better camera? Ditto.

No, what's special about a $600 phone, which cost maybe $50 more to build than the $60 BLU R1 HD in my pocket, is that has a very pleasing to the eye design.

That is it. That's the difference between a very good $150 phone, and a top of the line Galaxy.

This is why, more than likely, that under $200 phone will actually be more useful than the $600 iGalaxy. It may well have on bezel buttons, resulting in a less awkward UI. It may have a removable battery, or an SD card slot, or both. It may well have dual SIM support.

It may even have a battery that lasts more than eight hours before spluttering out.

The majority of smartphone users want better batteries, features, robustness, and we really don't care about how slim it is. But the majority of smartphone users are barely profitable, with tiny single digit percentage margins. So they literally don't care about us: they care about that minority that's willing to pay $600 for a phone with a build cost of well under $200.

And that minority is the group that wants paper thin phones.

Well, that and what given a bunch of cash to the Clinton family will get you, of course.

Look, all that really matters is that Hillary Clinton has the Saudis' backs, as long as they give her family a bunch more cash.

That's because the people who run around screaming about "social justice" do that primarily to distract from the fact that justice is the LAST thing they actually want. How about providing some examples of people who stamp their feet, shout down speakers at colleges, and otherwise rant away ... being actually constructive people interested in open conversation rather than repression of anyone deemed insufficiently onboard with their agenda? Some specific examples to counter the well-earned broad brush of derision would be helpful. But what are you going to trot out ... BLM? Occupy Everything? The Eat The Rich With Bernie Sanders movement? People who insist we switch all pronouns to "it?"

No. Calling out liberal totalitarians is not the same as seeking to actually DO the things (like squelching speech through the power of government) that liberal totalitarians actually do. Though you are performing the approved-by-liberal-elites correct response to being called out - immediately lie about it in hopes that will deflect reality.