Slashdot Mirror

Giving percentage numbers without saying what fraction of the American population were using it in the first place gives misleading numbers. One estimate is 68%, so about 1/3 did not use Facebook anyway.

For Intel, ARM is the invisible bite that doesn't show up directly because it is related to the PC market decline, which is entirely explained by people doing without PCs in favor of mobile ARM devices.

The processing power is in the cloud instead of in people's hands. The market for high-end processors may well have shrunk as virtualization means higher resource utilization, but it hasn't shrunk so much as the increasing dependence on handhelds translating into a reduced dependence on desktops might imply.

Meanwhile. AMD is nice enough to not undercut too much. Not because they don't want to, but because they can't afford it.

That's not nice, though. That's just being responsive to market forces.

A curious kind of detent we have going on now, with AMD enthusiasts the big winners.

As if we weren't already the big winners :D

The comment period for the NN rules was a shit show all around, and utterly failed to fulfill it's purpose because people on both sides faked and spammed millions of times. By far, most of the fakes / spams were opposing the rule. Roughly 87% of the crap was opposed, probably because those who were in favor (isps) were more likely to understand that spamming shit comments would be absolutely pointless, as opposed to the Facebook reactionaries who had until then never heard of a "comment period".

It's helpful to understand what the comment process is all about. The agency publishes a draft of the rule and then people interested can comment on the wording, structure, and details of the draft. The agency then looks at each comment and adjusts the wording where appropriate, where they agree adjustments are needed, in order to produce the final draft. Occasionally, there is a second round of comments, with an interim draft.

It is NOT American Idol, not "press 2 to vote for Ajit Pai". It's not anything like a vote, in any way. It's a process to refine the wording and details, turning a proposed draft into the final rule.

Useful / proper comments which can effect this process point to specific words in specific sections, such as:

In section 2, subsection c, the proposed list does not indicate whether those requirements are "or" or "and". The word "or" should be inserted like so:
ISPs may block traffic that is:
1. Spam in violation of the CAN-SPAM act
2. A ddos attack as defined in 3(b)y
OR
3. Authorized to be blocked by the commission

I've had success with very minor policy "adjustments" as well, saying the list should also include and item #4 foobar because while it is similar to a ddos, it doesn't exactly fit the definition in 3(b)y because whatever. I've never seen a policy reversal, or anything remotely resembling a reversal, take place during the comment period. Rather, it's minor adjustments to the details.

That's the type of comment that gets a change made. The FCC isn't asking what their policy should be, they are looking for bugs in the way they have written the rules.

Of the top fake / spam comments, six of the top seven bogus comments, the ones bulk-submitted the most times, were OPPOSING the policy:

http://www.pewinternet.org/201...

Such spam is utterly pointless since the comment process is not a vote. It's more like proofreading.

I have met millennial's who were proud of the fact that they have never ever read a book from cover to cover.

That person was an outlier. The median 18-29 year old reads more books than any other demographic. The mean 18-29 year old reads the same or more than all but the over-65s. (source: Pew book reading survey appendix A).

Well, that would not seem wise, to be voluntarily shutting yourself off from a large amount of potential business, just to not take cash.

That depends heavily on what you are selling and who you are selling it to. I guarantee the Apple Store isn't doing a lot of cash transactions. Amazon seems to be doing alright and the vast majority of what they sell doesn't involve paper money at all. Other companies like McDonalds or Walmart do rather a lot of cash business. Cash isn't inherently good or bad but companies shouldn't be obligated to handle it if it reduces their profits.

And hey, not everyone has a smartphone, you know?

No but the number of people who do is a huge number - presently around 77% of Americans. It's plausible that the money saved by not having to handle cash more than makes up for the lost customers. Honestly I don't know anyone in my personal life who dogmatically uses cash. Most I know use it when they have to but don't prefer it.

I have plenty of credit...I could use, but I also would rather buy with cash and not have my purchases associated with my identity as much as possible.

That's fine as long as you recognize that the vendors are under no obligation to sell to you if they prefer to be paid with credit cards or some other form of payment. I think you are being a little paranoid but I understand valuing privacy and respect the impulse.

I"m certainly not alone with wanting to use cash for one of any number of valid reasons, and I can't imagine a business wanting to bar itself from a large amount of potential revenue.

It's not about the amount of revenue. It's about the amount of PROFIT. Not all revenue generates equal profits. Cash transactions tend to be small in value so you need a lot of them to make handling cash worthwhile. Many businesses fit this profile but many others do not. For my company cash would be a LOT more hassle than checks or credit cards since most of our transactions with our customers are thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars.

It's true that the RSS feed single account twitter feed would account as a bot and it could muddle the discussion but it would be odd if Pew would mess up the analysis by including these in the 'scattergun bot' group. This page says the verified accounts from news sites do not affect the results because their contribution is insignificant http://www.pewinternet.org/201...

http://www.pewinternet.org/201... is probably what Nilanjana Roy used as the statistical source.

Young, college-educated, urban women are the biggest Facebook user demographic. Doesn't sound too red-state to me!

Women are physically weaker than men.

Have you seen a photograph of James Damore, the former Google employee who wrote a ten page document about diversity without a single reference? Here, let me help you. Here is a photograph of James Damore.

https://heavyeditorial.files.w...

Now I don't know if you meant to imply that physical strength is required to be a software engineer. I don't know if you've ever met a software engineer. But James Damore looks like he could get his ass kicked by a 12 year old girl scout with asthma. And by the way, James Damore, software engineer ubermensch, has exactly four years' experience writing code. Maybe he should have channeled some of the energy and outrage that he used on his 10-page manifesto (without a single reference, did I mention?) into actually spending some time becoming a software engineer and growing some hair on his balls.

We can start with a similar field and try to figure out why boys play video games significantly more than girls.

Boys do not play video games significantly more than girls. About the same percentage of boys and girls play video games (nearly all, by the way). But boys play video games more often and for longer, because (my theory) they are less inquisitive and more likely to put in 8 hour sessions of Tekken.

And "playing video games" is not a "similar field" to being a software engineer. The first is repetitive and non-creative, and the second requires some modicum of problem solving. If you've logged 400-plus hours into COD4 Modern Warfare, you are no longer problem solving, you're banging a lever that gives you a cookie.

http://www.pewinternet.org/200...

If you read the actual survey it has categories like "physically threatened", "stalked" and "sexually harassed".

Same that the summary links to some clickbaity reporting rather than the actual study. It's not the best study, but it's not measuring how often people were told they are wrong.

Show any data demonstrating that Independents are one way or the other on climate change.

Nearly 70% of registered voters believe the US should participate in the Paris Climate Agreement

While only 53% of Independents believe the Earth is getting warmer primarily because of human activity, they overwhelmingly believe we should at least be working with other world leaders to do what we can about climate change.

You mean that the United States isn't a perfect representation of what the rest of the world wants? I'm shocked! Newsflash: Outside the US (and to some extent Australia), issues of global warming aren't nearly as politicized or controversial as they are in the US. Heck, previous studies have shown that even in the US the majority of Americans think that global warming is a serious problem http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/. The fact that many Senators and Congresspeople don't is to a large extent a reflection of how two aspects of our government system (the ability to gerrymander congressional districts, and the fact that senators are elected by state and many low population states lean right) distort what our elected government ends up looking like compared to what it would on a strict population basis.

Trump, plus a good percentage of the US population, which means the ratios must be much higher in the other countries surveyed in order to average out to 80% overall. According to Gallup, just 42% of Americans "Think global warming will pose a serious threat in their lifetime." Obviously that's not exactly the same thing as "catastrophic risk" with no time constraint, but it's frankly lower than I expected.

Pew has a more lengthy survey which does a detailed breakdown of views by political affiliation. Here's one aspect I found intriguing:

One thing that doesn’t strongly influence opinion on climate issues, perhaps surprisingly, is one’s level of general scientific literacy. According to the survey, the effects of having higher, medium or lower scores on a nine-item index of science knowledge tend to be modest and are only sometimes related to people’s views about climate change and climate scientists, especially in comparison with party, ideology and concern about the issue. But, the role of science knowledge in people’s beliefs about climate matters is varied and where a relationship occurs, it is complex. To the extent that science knowledge influences people’s judgments related to climate change and trust in climate scientists, it does so among Democrats, but not Republicans. For example, Democrats with high science knowledge are especially likely to believe the Earth is warming due to human activity, to see scientists as having a firm understanding of climate change, and to trust climate scientists’ information about the causes of climate change. But Republicans with higher science knowledge are no more or less likely to hold these beliefs. Thus, people’s political orientations also tend to influence how knowledge about science affects their judgments and beliefs about climate matters and their trust in climate scientists.

Assuming this is talking about tickets and not boarding passes than I would say the time to retire paper ticketing infrastructure was a long time ago as its not useful and I can't think of really any reason why anyone anywhere needs to use.

While 88% of the US population has Internet, only 77% have broadband. Dial-up would make it hard to shop for, and purchase, plane tickets. Plus, 92% of the population has cell phones, only 77% have a smart phone - which makes it impossible to pull up your electronic documents. Reference

Just because you can't imagine why anyone would need it, doesn't mean there aren't valid reasons for it. You just need a bit more imagination. I mean, we didn't even get into foreign tourists who might not have a cell plan in the US. The elderly. The disabled (ex: blind). Or people who do not use technology for religious reasons (Amish). Or who live where there is no Internet or cell service - at all (Nowhere, Alaska).

Polls and research do show that people think GMO food is unsafe. Take for example http://www.pewinternet.org/201... I'm not sure people care about conditions of the animals so much, but they do care about the concept of "real, natural food." Whatever that means.

Looks like it is around 90% of people who know about government spying , 50% of are angry about it and 50% of it think it is a good thing.

http://www.pewinternet.org/201...

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

http://www.pewinternet.org/201...

Looks like it is around 90% of people who know about government spying , 50% of are angry about it and 50% of it think it is a good thing.

http://www.pewinternet.org/201...

http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

http://www.pewinternet.org/201...

And no, there is not nearly as much consensus that genetic modification is safe as there is for anthropogenic global climate change.

WRONG

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/29/pewaaas-study-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety-stronger-than-for-global-warming/

There's a reason that skepticism of climate change actually rises amoung PhDs.

Except it doesn't. You have this backwards.
Fifty percent of US adults agree with the statement "climate change is mostly due to human activities," while 88% of working Ph.D. scientists agree with that statement.
From a survey by the AAAS: http://www.pewinternet.org/201...

Most of us are too busy with important things to be using Facebook or Twitter or WhatsApp or whatever all day.

Usage statistics show this to be factually incorrect. Most of us are not too busy to communicate with friends and family using social networks. I'm in the small minority who doesn't use social networks.

As usual... clowns likes you shriek about abuse/harassment and have NEVER once actually looked at the stats.

Studies

Pew

Demos

Both these studies show that:

1. Men get more harassment
2. Women are the majority DOING the harassment.

In fact, these studies show not that men hate women, but that women hate everyone. Strangely, the media keeps fucking quiet about this.

Whether the person who agrees with evolution believes it with understanding and reason or just because it's what they were told is relevant to your point, but that's not really what we're talking about.

What we are talking about is trying to explain why Americans generally do a bit worse on science, in particular when the science is politically tinged.

My explanation is that these questions don't actually measure the understanding of science by the population; understanding science can't be measured by "Man is descended from animals. True/False?" type questions, because those questions measure scientific beliefs not scientific understanding, and are influenced by a large number of social and cultural factors (e.g., this).

I'm also pointing out that skepticism of received scientific beliefs is generally a good thing, even if that leads to higher rates of wrong answers on questions about scientific conclusions on average. And even if there were meaningful differences in actual scientific understanding (rather than belief), it is not evenclear why increasing that understanding would be beneficial to society.Some understanding of science and some knowledge about scientific results is useful, but a lot of scientific understanding and knowledge is simply irrelevant to anything.

Interesting. Thanks. I found the following about GMO foods that suggests there is "no statistically significant differences on the safety of eating GM foods between Republicans and those who lean to the Republican Party as compared with Democrats and those who lean to the Democratic Party." - http://www.pewinternet.org/201...

So perhaps my perception on at least that technology is skewed.

While we're on the subject of unrealistic counterfactuals... If each American had to choose between keeping their cellphone or their gun, how many would choose which?

Considering only about 1 in 3 Americans either owns a gun [1] I'd say most people by default would choose their smartphone since 2 in 3 Americans [2] own one of those. I assume in both cases, they're counting adults - but regardless, that means 2x smartphone owners vs gun owners. If I owned a smartphone but no gun, I'd have to answer to keep my real smartphone and not keep my (not owned therefore theoretical) firearm.

Among gun owners, you're talking about a biased group - you don't need to own a gun in most parts of the country - and lack of firearms has rarely prevented someone from finding employment unlike say, not having a car.

[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...
[2] http://www.pewinternet.org/201...

Thankfully polling has been done on privacy issues with results freely available to all: http://www.pewinternet.org/201...

Here's the problem with the poll - they ask people about privacy, security and surveillance - but they don't test to see if people understand those topics, or how much they REALLY care about it.

For example, people claim they care about things being made in America - http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/05/01/gallup-60-percent-of-u-s-willing-to-pay-more-for-american-made-products/ - However, one look at how much we import from overseas, and it is obvious how much they (don't) care.

Here's a (bad) car analogy - if I asked, "Do you want cars to be safer?" Most people would probably answer, "Yes." However, if I followed that with, "Do you want cars to be limited to 35 MPH?" Most people would think I'm crazy.

Here's the reality - even people who are aware of their data, how it might be shared, and are actively trying to protect it, are leaking data like a sieve. Most aren't willing to go to the lengths necessary to protect their information properly. Using gmail or any web mail provider? You are leaking information. Buying something online? Name, address, credit card info. Carrying a cell phone? GPS location and contacts. Using iCloud, Dropbox or any online storage service? I hope you have everything encrypted - and I mean your encryption, not their baked in service. I also hope you have never accidentally clicked a link or ad you didn't intend to (or even intended to) - because that info is going all over the place. See the complexity of ad networks here: http://www.lumapartners.com/resource-center/lumascapes-2/

You might claim you care about privacy, security and surveillance; but how much effort are you really putting into protecting it?

That is a concern of the fringe minority, those who post on Slashdot perhaps, but it isn't a major concern of the average Joe.

Assuming only people who are into computers care about being spied on seems rather silly. Seems more likely perceived lack of concern is driven by ignorance not indifference.

Thankfully polling has been done on privacy issues with results freely available to all:
http://www.pewinternet.org/201...

If Snowden's NSA revelations didn't cause mass riots, nothing MS does is going to do so.

I forget, how many billions of dollars was Snowden revelations estimated to cost US tech companies?

Besides, Google has been doing it for years, and look how popular Android is.

Android is an open source Linux based operating system free of Google spyware. Spyware comes separately with google play services or with installing just about any app from the cesspool that is the Android app store.

I did not make that up, though I'll admit that I did mis-remember the magnitude of the difference. I thought it was more than a single percentage point. Would have been more accurate to say that they were essentially equal, instead of one being stronger than the other. Doesn't really change my point much 88 and 89% are both pretty high.

BSE - Has nothing at all to do with GMO. No GMO has ever inserted a prion protein into a plant so BSE and other transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (Kuru, CJD, and variant CJD in humans; chronic wasting disease in deer, etc.) are not relevant. EXCEPT that some researchers have developed a gene knock-out strain of cattle that does not contain the gene for the prion protein in the first place. Clearly a GMO that could make food safer.

Thalidomide - lots of chemicals can affect fetal development by interfering with the genome. That's why multigenerational genotoxicity studies in lab animals are part of the normal battery of tests to which a GMO are subjected before they can be considered safe. Generation interval for humans (disregarding the moral issues raised by testing on humans) is measured in decades. Generation interval in mice is measured in weeks. We can therefore look at multi-generational outcomes, with controlled doses, much more quickly and thus make decisions as to the safety of a new GMO in years instead of decades.

I've got no idea what you were getting at with regard to the jellyfish gene. All GMO at this point are based on well characterized single gene traits. The presence or absence of a single gene, producing a single protein, which performs a single well characterized action. It's not like companies are inserting random DNA segments to see what happens (that's what viruses do every day BTW). It is certainly *possible* that something could go wrong, which is why companies perform extensive internal testing before they decide to seek regulatory approval. The pipeline for developing gene traits is ~ 10 years from first concept to commercial approval, with the majority of that being internal testing. It's not like a new gene is discovered today and in seeds next year for sale.

Finally, you are essentially advocating infinite testing, which is both impractical and unnecessary. Testing under all possible permutations, no matter how similar they may be to permutations already tested. That is not science, that is paralysis based on irrationally high fear. This kind of testing is not really a call for testing, but a backhanded way to prevent approval. To pull out the tired old automobile analogy, cars kill thousands of people every year in the US yet we don't DEMAND that auto manufacturers make a perfectly safe car. We don't call for them to be tested on every single road in American at every single conceivable speed. Instead we've developed a battery of safety tests that we believe are highly predictive of the ultimate safety of a car. We simulate specific driving conditions and specific accident conditions, and base assessments on that. The same thing is done for GMO crops, with a much better success record thus far since no death or harm has ever been attributed to consumption of GMO food. Ironically, the same cannot be said for non-GMO organic foods.

Women in tech have a 4:1 advantage over men, and men are much more likely to experience harassment and more severe harassment than women.

And of course there's nothing that harasses and abuses women in this world nearly as much as feminism.

A segment of the population has views that are different from the average of the entire population.

Bingo here - if you read the TFA, you would know that the pollsters weren't looking at a sub group of the general populace vs a the entire populace, they were comparing a a sub group of scientists with the general population. Which is exactly opposite of your proposition.

Looks like the moderators didn't bother to read TFA (or TFS for that matter). Congratulations on your success at befuddling them with bullshit.

No, they don't. You do not speak for women, nor do you get to override the facts with your toxic and misogynist fearmongering. Reality is that men experience more and more severe harassment online than women by far but people like you use your toxic attempts to convince everyone otherwise as a means to degrade and control women through fear, literally terrorizing them when they don't meet up to your standards.

But perhaps you'd like to tell us what a "harasser" is, because at the moment this appears to be "anyone who doesn't agree with me, mocks me or quotes facts which contradict my beliefs"

Yours sincerely
The rest of the Internet

The geek --- whose rules of play are under fire these days --- can be rather too quick to claim that he speaks for the Internet as a whole.

Pew Research asked respondents about six different forms of online harassment. Those who witnessed harassment said they had seen at least one of the following occur to others online:

60% of internet users said they had witnessed someone being called offensive names
53% had seen efforts to purposefully embarrass someone
25% had seen someone being physically threatened
24% witnessed someone being harassed for a sustained period of time
19% said they witnessed someone being sexually harassed
18% said they had seen someone be stalked

Those who have personally experienced online harassment said they were the target of at least one of the following online:

27% of internet users have been called offensive names
22% have had someone try to purposefully embarrass them
8% have been physically threatened
8% have been stalked
7% have been harassed for a sustained period
6% have been sexually harassed

In broad trends, the data show that men are more likely to experience name-calling and embarrassment, while young women are particularly vulnerable to sexual harassment and stalking. Social media is the most common scene of both types of harassment, although men highlight online gaming and comments sections as other spaces they typically encounter harassment.

Young women, those 18-24, experience certain severe types of harassment at disproportionately high levels: 26% of these young women have been stalked online, and 25% were the target of online sexual harassment.

While most online environments were viewed as equally welcoming to both genders, the starkest results were for online gaming. Some 44% of respondents felt the platform was more welcoming toward men.

Online Harassment [October 22, 2014]
The full report can be downloaded as a free PDF from this page.

Dial-up was already very rare by that time. There were already more 'broadband' (or at least, what was understood by that term at that time) connections than dial-up accounts around 2001.

Perhaps you're suffering from selection bias, either from your peer group, socioeconomic group or area. Or perhaps you're simply forgetting what time all this happened.

I'm afraid you'll have to take it on trust, but these were literally the first two meaningful results (from different sources) that I clicked on when I did an image search for a graph:-

Home Broadband vs. Dialup (American adults, 2000 to 2013) - Source: Pew Internet

Web Connection Speed Trends - US - Source: Nielsen (After noting that some others were taken from the same Pew Internet source, this was the first I found that apparently wasn't).

These figures are for the United States- although I live in Scotland, I never had the impression that the United States was that different to the situation here, and this essentially confirms that belief.

In short, this backs up what I said even more accurately than I'd ever intended the original statement to be. Yes, broadband *was* around in the late 90s (as I was already aware), but only a small proportion of domestic users had it back then. It was 2004-05 (*not* 2001) before it reached around 50% in the US, and I'd say Scotland (and the rest of the UK) were somewhat similar there.

These show the frightening level of ignorance about science in the general US population:
http://news.nationalgeographic...
http://www.pewinternet.org/201...
Depending on which study you look at, apparently only 40% - 66% of Americans even believe evolution is real. What are you guys smoking over there?

People *do* care about privacy. 86% have taken some steps to clean up digital footprints. There's other stats that show the interest, but there's some serious overtones of impotence -- that there's just not that much anyone can do about it -- we all need all these super valuable cloud services so we must lock ourselves in to big vendors, who then might abuse our trust (or get hacked themselves, being a rich target).

But Greenwald is absolutely right, we must provide for our own safety, we cannot ever delegate the ultimate responsibility for that, and yet, does this mean that we must throw in with mega-corps, to trust with our freedom?

I think there is another way.

http://cloudstead.io/ is something I've been working on for the better part of 2014. Cloudstead is a free & open (AGPL'd) cloud operating system, designed to free you and me and everyone from dependence on the mega-cloud services. And more generally, to start owning more your cloud apps instead of renting everything and paying the landlord with your privacy, your cash or both.

A lot of common apps have been commoditized; excellent open source versions are available. Cloudstead's default setup includes email, calendar, and file sharing but it can run any app -- php, rails, java, python, you name it. Lots of integrated features -- single sign on, app-wide search, address book, automated backup/restore, this is a cohesive cloud OS, not a hodgepodge of apps. And it's totally portable: it can move itself from one place to another, from a public cloud (ec2) to private hardware (your datacenter or office), or if you're getting really paranoid, onto a USB stick (bring it live later, somewhere else, when you feel safe). A cloudstead really is your cloud and will do only your bidding.

Cloudstead is currently in beta testing. If you would like a cloudstead to take for a spin and see how easy it is to own your cloud, please send me an email: jonathan (shift two sym) cloudstead.io

recent demo: http://www.cloudstead.io/2014/...

Any/all feedback is appreciated.

thanks.

Before asserting that death and rape threats are the result of online bigotry, at the very least one should examine who exactly is getting these threats. Hint: it's not just women and minorities; it happens to plenty of white males.

Indeed, while women are more likely to be sexually harassed, men are more likely to be harassed overall and more likely to be physically threatened on-line: "Overall, men are somewhat more likely than women to experience at least one of the elements of online harassment, 44% vs. 37%. In terms of specific experiences, men are more likely than women to encounter name-calling, embarrassment, and physical threats."

In a Pew Research Center survey of 2,849 Internet users, one out of every four women between 18 years old and 24 years old reports having been stalked or sexually harassed online.

But if one actually follows the link, one reads that "Overall, men are somewhat more likely than women to experience at least one of the elements of online harassment, 44% vs. 37%. In terms of specific experiences, men are more likely than women to encounter name-calling, embarrassment, and physical threats." [emphasis added]

That blows are rather large hole in the thesis which the poster and many others seem to be implying, that internet harassment is primarily rooted in misogyny.

This is not to in any way justify the harassment of women. But if you want to know why there's a backlash, part of the cause (not a justification, a cause) may be the ongoing distortion of the facts about violence and harassment.

According to the actual study, men are the most common victims of trolls. Only if you restrict yourself to looking at sexual harassment, are women more likely to be targeted, and only by a small margin (3%).

Online men are somewhat more likely than online women to experience some level of online harassment overall. Some 44% of men and 37% of women have experienced at least one of the six types of harassment. Men are somewhat more likely than women to experience certain less severe forms of harassment like name-calling and being embarrassed. At the same time, online men are also slightly more likely to have received physical threats. While the differences are small, women are significantly more likely than men to report being stalked or sexually harassed on the internet.

No it isn't. Do you remember 2004?

In 2004, most people did not have phones that could stream video. In the US, about 1/3 of adults didn't even have any cellphone (cite: http://www.pewinternet.org/200...). Most people age 15 and younger did not, and now they are 25 and younger and thus probably make up a nontrivial portion of the slashdot userbase.

I got my first cellphone in mid-2004 (note: I am not from the US). It certainly could not stream video. I don't remember when I first saw a cellphone streaming video, but I think it was years later (I think it was post-iPhone). I had barely seen it on a desktop computer. Remember, youtube didn't exist yet. Mostly it was one-off shockwave flash cartoons of the type you'd find at albinoblacksheep.com, and a few embedded quicktime or windows media player clips. And oh how people hated quicktime.

Besides which, it might not be innovation *in a phone* to just increase/decrease the number sizes or improve the adjectives, but those improvements aren't possible without real innovation. 32GB was literally impossible without innovations to storage technology that allowed us to pack more memory units per unit area and manufacture them at scale. HD video playback on the phone required big advances in screen technology, network infrastructure technology, battery technology, and hardware video processing technology.

At some point everything, everything is incremental, but that point is beyond the point of absurdity. An incremental change is swapping out an off-the-shelf 16GB chip with an off-the-shelf 32GB chip of the same size. But it took a lot of innovation to make that first 32GB chip in the first place.

> The only problem with your critique is the actual fact that smartphones aren't that pervasive.

There are lots of problems with that post, but smartphone ubiquity is not one of them. 58% of americans have a smartphone. That number is only going to increase as smartphones get cheaper. By the time something like Uber is in small town america nearly all cell phones will be smart phones. Today you can buy a $50 smart phone without a contract. You can't play 3d video games on it, but you can certainly run basic apps and log into simple websites which is all that is needed for this utopia of user-ratings.

It's 2014 so the Internet has been around a long time and it's not surprising growth is slowing. What surprises me is that according to the article there are only 632 million Internet users in China in June, whereas the total population of 1.35 billion is over twice that number. In other words, most people in China do not access the Internet - only 47%. In the US the figure is 87%.

Why all the focus on some archaic form of communication that's more a historical curiosity a few old people cling to than a relevant tool?

Usage statistics seem to say differently. The average adult (i.e., age 18 and over) cell phone owner makes or receives about 5 calls a day. People who send and receive lots of texts also make or receive a lot of phone calls. Cell phone ownership is heavily skewed toward the younger population, so it isn't a bunch of senior citizens making it look this way. With all due respect, perhaps you and your friends are outliers and a little out of touch with the real world.

Your argument: "Being poor does not stop people from buying smart phones". The evidence for your conclusion: seeing many panhandlers and other assorted "street people" using smart phones. While your anonymous anecdotal evidence is compelling, the counter argument "poor people are less likely to own a smart phone" is backed by actual "research". For instance, a Pew study published in 2011 that considered the adoption rates of smartphones among different demographics concluded that

Smartphone ownership is highly correlated with household income.

(link), drawing this conclusion from the 22% ownership rate among households with an annual income of less than $30,000.

I'm not sure if they would be wrong in assuming that the majority will be on a touch device soon. Laptops and ultrabooks (I think we should have called them codpieces personally since they are smaller than your lap but still rest there :)) are coming out with touch screens. A lot of people have a tablet (> 34% now apparently: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Tablet-Ownership-2013.aspx) and more people are buying laptops as their primary PC rather than desktops. It is kind of a cycle but MS optimizing for touch would push OEMs to produce more products with touch, lowering the cost of touch screens and eventually it just becomes a standard feature on pretty much every screen.

Admittedly a specialist market but a bunch of developers at my work have a 3 monitor setup dual ~24" + a 30" reclined touch monitor that sits in front of their keyboard/below the main screens. I could see a layout like that working for some people with a much smaller screen as the third one (say 6"): just a small monitor with the metro screen on it the main screens still the primary work area but you have a touch access to volume, media controls, casual gaming, zooming etc. Heck throw a battery into it and bluetooth and you have a touch remote: you aren't limited to a preset configuration of buttons anymore.

7.117 billion * 1% = seventy-one million

If all the richest 1% lived in the us

313.9 million / seventy-one million = ~22% of the usa.

http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Smartphone-Ownership-2013/Findings.aspx 56% of American adults are now smartphone owners

If all the rich lived in the usa then 3-4% would be able to read the web on their phones.

----

using a more worldwide view

http://www.go-gulf.com/blog/smartphone/

There are already more than 1.08 billion smartphone users in the world

1.08 billion )/ 7.117 billion = 15%

Internet was in many households long before Microsoft implemented it on the "commodized PC platform".

The numbers aren't there to support such a claim. In fact, they prove just the opposite. The US Census figures are particularly striking and persuasive.

Households With a Computer and Internet Access 1984 to 2003

Internet Adoption 1995-2011

In 1990 the Internet had existed for only 7 years; just 3 million people had access to it worldwide. 73% of these people were living in the United States, 15% were in Western Europe.

Internet Users 1990

People who use a handheld computer while driving should have their license suspended, and the circumstances should be used to determine the amount of time they spend in jail... no exceptions should be allowed, in my not-so-humble and somewhat emotionally outraged opinion. There are very few people I know who are adept at utilizing the interface to most of the Apps or other built-in functionality of a complex device like a smarphone, without error or distraction, while they are concentrating on it alone. Doing it while operating a 2-4 ton vehicle jeopardizes the lives of others. Professional drivers shouldn't be excepted either. If Fedex or UPS needs GPS routing, it should be predetermined and the relevant segment should be set before it's begun. I see people, even truck drivers, almost every day who have their little plastic digital appendage hanging off the side of their heads, oblivious to some subset of the information around them. The only reason the law isn't severe in this regard is the whim ("interests") of the industrial heads who want to enhance so-called "worker productivity." By and large we just aren't equipped to split our consciousness effectively between the complex metaphorical representations of information processing commands and the tasks inherent to safely operating a vehicle while it's moving among other vehicles and pedestrians, while also trying to discern between irrelevant commercial signage and nearby road markers and traffic signage which might be critical for the lawful operation of said vehilce. It's hard enough to write a brief description of the variables, let alone executing the tasks in a timely fashion. There's plenty of research that's be done, and we've all been directed to it from time to time. Some of the latest indicts adults more than kids. (Not that this should surprise anyone since the distinction is arbitrary as far as brain science is concerned.) Whether that direction comes from television, newspaper reporting, academic journals or news aggregators like Slashdot doesn't really matter. The courts need to be empowered to stop punish people who use lethal devices under circumstances where it's not reasonable to expect due care and consideration are possible for your fellow citizens. People need clear rules as well as swift and sure punishment when they endanger others through lack of adequate concern.

Fuck Pew, they also said bloggers aren't journalists. (Sure, not automatically, but they aren't automatically not, either.) Listening to Pew at this point is like trusting Elsevier.

Hmmm..."not automatically, but they aren't automatically not"...yes, clearly we should "fuck" Pew here and follow this logic.

Sensationalism is what sells ratings. Like we should be shocked that this is now applied to the "news" hour?

After all, at the end of the day it's not about news it's about ratings, and you're competing against MTV. Looking at their "entertainment" lineup, you can see why it is a formidable mental challenge to cull the dumb-masses away from watching Honey Boo Boo with baited breath.

Fuck Pew, they also said bloggers aren't journalists. (Sure, not automatically, but they aren't automatically not, either.) Listening to Pew at this point is like trusting Elsevier.

This is so far down the page that likely no one will see it but I am posting for the record.

From Pew ...

In April of 2009, 7% of American adults age 18+ used dial-up internet at home. (As of April 2012, this number is 3%) These are the reasons they gave for not switching to broadband.

Price must fall -- 35%
Nothing would get me to switch -- 20%
Don't know -- 16%
It would have to become available where I live -- 17%
Other -- 13%
http://pewinternet.org/Commentary/2012/May/Pew-Internet-Broadband.aspx

So, in this survey, only 17% of 3% said that high speed internet was unavailable.

Why would I need a citation? That's like asking for a citation that the sun is yellow. Open your damn eyes.

But anyway, quick google citation for your assness: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Smartphone-Update-Sept-2012/Findings.aspx

35% of the population with a household income of $30k/year own smartphones.