Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Viewers hate political correctness (Score 4, Insightful) 251

I never watch Top Gear. It's not my kind of thing. But I always had a sneaking admiration for the ability of Jeremy Clarkson, the wildly popular former host, to retain his job whilst thumbing his nose at everything the politically correct thought-police hold dear. When they finally find an excuse to sack Clarkson, the cheering and whooping from Broadcasting House could be heard all over the British Isles.

I always imagined that a politically correct replacement show would tank badly with its core demographic of non-metropolitan blokes. Viewers hate being told what to think, and I'm delighted to see they've rebelled in huge numbers.

Comment Re: Wow. (Score 2) 470

The problem is the label doesn't help consumers make informed decisions, it just helps them make irrational ones.

Maybe so. But people should be free to make irrational decisions.

Vitamin pills, homeopathy and feng shui are just a few examples of irrational things that lead people to spend their money unwisely. In a free society, that's just part of life's rich tapestry.

If a sufficiently significant proportion of the population wants labels, they should have labels. Your definition of irrationality is irrelevant.

Comment Re:cost reduction (Score 1) 595

IOW you want a waterproof phone with lots of holes in it.

What's the problem people, if you have a 5 bucks wired headphone you don't want to ditch for an 800$ phone, just don't buy it!

Garmin makes waterproof watches and bike computers with electrical connectors. Even the touch screens work when they're wet.

No-one minds replacing £3 headphones unless the cheapest alternative is £50. But no-one wants to replace their existing high-end headphones.

And I definitely don't want to be forced to use expensive headphones when I'm cycling. Sweat, rain, mud and road grime mean that I regularly chuck out my cycling headphones. I don't care about sound quality because I'm breathing too hard, so cheap is good. Besides, cheap headphones tend to allow traffic noise through, which helps to keep me alive.

And I want plenty of choice for my running headphones - a narrow range from one lender is unlikely to find something that hits the sweet spot between comfort and staying in place when I'm doing interval training.

Comment Re: cost reduction (Score 1) 595

Sony has phones and tablets that are thinner than iProducts and waterproof

Oh? Google doesn't seem to find any for me. Nor does Carphone Warehouse's website. For reference, the iPhone 6 is 6.9mm and the 6S is 7.1mm.

Besides, Sony says that its phones have only been tested underwater in standby mode. You can't actually use them when they're wet. Seawater is a no-no, too.

Waterproof phones have a long way to go before you can treat them with the same casual disregard as a waterproof watch.

Comment Re: cost reduction (Score 1) 595

I said that a thin, waterproof phone is highly desirable. The current iPhone is slimmer than the waterproof Samsung models, and dropping the headphone jack would presumably allow it to be thinner still.

I'd be willing to shove a £2 adapter on my headphones if it shaved a millimeter off my phone. Most things in life are a compromise, and that's one that wouldn't trouble me in the slightest.

Comment Re:cost reduction (Score 4, Interesting) 595

You're forgetting they'd most likely include a lightening port to 3.5mm dongle, which would cost more than the 3.5mm jack in the phone.

If they simply change the socket shape to something smaller and more waterproof, I'm good with that. I can put a cheap and light adapter onto all of my existing headphones and life will continue unchanged. A thin, waterproof phone is highly desirable - I once killed a high-end phone by falling into a river on my mountain bike, and I hate the faff of having to keep my phone in a waterproof case when I'm hiking or out on my road bike in showery weather (it always rains in Wales!).

But if they require an expensive adapter (active electronics or royalties), that's a big problem. I guess I'm not alone in using multiple headphones with my phone. I have good quality headphones at home and in the office, cheap disposable in-ear phones for cycling, sports headphones for running, a lightweight spare set that I keep in my laptop bag for travelling, etc. I don't mind buying a £2 adapter for each of these, but I don't fancy buying multiple £20 adapters, and I'm certainly not willing to carry an adapter with me just in case I need to use it.

Comment Re: It's simple (Score 1) 371

It maybe a technicality, but the terms of service for those websites are unlikely to be regarded as a contract under UK law. We require consideration to pass from both parties before a contract is valid, and it's hard to see what co side ration is given by a user of a free website.

That's not to say that terms of service have no legal force, but they're very unlikely to be subject to the law of contract.

Comment Re: It's simple (Score -1, Flamebait) 371

So here's the issue.

Landlords face real financial costs from tenants who don't pay their rent, who damage the rental property, or who are a problem to their neighbours. The vast majority of well behaved tenants subsidise the bad guys.

If you're a decent tenant and you can demonstrate that you're unlikely to cause problems to the landlord, you should be able to procure higher quality housing, have more choice of properties, enjoy lower costs or maybe a mixture of all three. If you are unable or unwilling to demonstrate good character, you'll have to continue to subsidise the bad guys.

There's a price to pay for privacy. Some people will pay it - and it's not your or my right to cast moral judgement on their decision.

Comment Re:That doesn't surprise me (Score 3, Interesting) 314

Looking at my non-technical family and friends, 5-10 years ago many people had home PCs so they could send emails, order stuff from Amazon and read the BBC's website. A smartphone now meets all their requirements so they no longer need the PC.

I know several people who've dumped their PC and now rely solely on their phones. They don't even bother with a tablet. Those folk are part of these statistics.

Comment Re:This article smacks of fat acceptance (Score 1) 381

I'm male, 5'11 (184cm) and 169lb (12st 1lb / 77kg) and very happy with my weight. I enjoy exercise so much that I need to eat around 3,000 calories per day, but I can't begin to imagine eating 590 calories for lunch except as an occasional blow-out.

You eat 3,000 calories per day but cannot imagine eating 20% of your daily calorie consumption in a single meal? You have a very poor imagination.

I said that I can't imagine working with that much food in my stomach, not that I can't imagine ever eating a large meal.

As described by Wikipedia, postprandial somnolence is a normal state of drowsiness or lassitude following a meal. Eating a large lunch is associated with poor work performance in the early afternoon. I want to be good at my job, not a drowsy glutton dozing quietly in my office. Much better to go for a run lunchtime - the exercise stimulates my brain.

Comment Re:This article smacks of fat acceptance (Score 1) 381

590 calories is a light lunch? How do you work with all that food in your stomach?

Google tells me that an egg and cheese sandwich is 233 calories. An apple and an orange as bring my typical working day total to 332 calories.

I'm not surprised that people put on weight if they regard 590 calories as a light lunch

How tall are you? Male/Female? It makes a huge difference in how many calories your body needs to maintain a healthy weight. Especially height. If you're 5 foot tall, you'll need around 1200-1400 calories. At 6 foot, that jumps to 2000. That's a difference of your entire "light lunch" right there.

I'm male, 5'11 (184cm) and 169lb (12st 1lb / 77kg) and very happy with my weight. I enjoy exercise so much that I need to eat around 3,000 calories per day, but I can't begin to imagine eating 590 calories for lunch except as an occasional blow-out.

Comment Re:The real reason? (Score 1) 381

I draw a simple takeaway here: it's critically important not to become overweight or obese in the first place.

If you see yourself, your child or your partner starting to gain weight, immediate lifestyle and dietary changes are needed. Polite short-term denial is a long-term health disaster. I would rather my wife be blunt with me now than have to face a lifetime of wight-loss battles.

Comment Re:This article smacks of fat acceptance (Score 1) 381

590 calories is a light lunch? How do you work with all that food in your stomach?

Google tells me that an egg and cheese sandwich is 233 calories. An apple and an orange as bring my typical working day total to 332 calories.

I'm not surprised that people put on weight if they regard 590 calories as a light lunch

Comment Re:True of anything confidence boosting (Score 3, Insightful) 69

Of course having more data to run statistical models against gives more confidence.

Not necessarily. Data sets of a few thousand records are generally sufficient for decent p values unless you're looking for effects that are so small that they're of limited commercial value. The trouble with a really big data set is that data quality and data volume are often inversely related.

Far more relevant than a larger data set are the answer to questions like these: Is my data set representative or does it have important biases? Is my data set stable over time? What important causal variables might be missing from my data? Am I looking at causality or common cause? Are my errors normally distributed? Are my missing data points representative of the remaining data? What does this data mean in the real world?

In almost all cases, I would far rather work with a small, high quality data set than a large set of uncertain quality.

Slashdot Top Deals

If God is perfect, why did He create discontinuous functions?

Working...