So I have a solution which will keep me from both getting angry and going to jail: I just won't go to the theater.
Exactly. The theater experience is about as much fun as going to the emergency room. Filthy theaters, sticky shit on the seats and floors, yammering undisciplined children, the over exuberant people on their smartphones, the texters. The price.
Nope, nope, nope, and nope.
As well with almost all movies being reboots or remakes, and predictable, and Hey! another Marvel Comics superhero flick! How original!
Screw that. Perhaps if the experience and the movies were good, they wouldn't have to beg people to show up.
Mister Nolan and Ms Coppolla - how much are you going to pay me to go to a theater? Otherwise I'm busy that evening. Cleaning up the garage maybe. I'll find something anyhow.
That's a storyline that has been being re-hashed for... around 4000 years, if not longer.
There's also Leda and the Swan, where we are treated to a woman and a bird yencing.
Frome the Wikipedia article:
The subject undoubtedly owed its sixteenth-century popularity to the paradox that it was considered more acceptable to depict a woman in the act of copulation with a swan than with a man. The earliest depictions show the pair love-making with some explicitness—more so than in any depictions of a human pair made by artists of high quality in the same period.
Seriously - we humans are so incredibly fucked up. We're worried about gay people destroying the sanctity of Marriage, yet humans screwing animals is somehow really fucking awesome? Worthy of cartoons and movies and performed by Gods?
I appreciate your well thought-out post and everything, but what the hell does that have to do with TRUMP and the RUSSIANS? Can't we just talk about that All The Time, like CNN?
Is tht the time honored start talking about something else argument like "What about Trump and the Russians", and the answer is "But Benghazi!" - or was that a joke? Anyhow, as a joke - it workes pretty well.
For myself, I dunno about him and the Russians. But in the grand tradition of things, we can see by exact history that Republicans are more worried about a blowjob than possible treason.
We'll really know once that we get their internet browsing history. Oh, those unintended consequences.
In the aftetmath of a serious event perfect information can be hard to come by, the result is that sometimes legitimate news outlets make mistakes.
The difference between NPR in this case and, say, infowars on just about any day is that when the realized the info they had was incorrect they updated their story and went on to report correct things. Infowars will continue to report the same debunked BS for the next 6 months.
Some people think that doubling down on fake news is somehow a mark of integrity on the liars part.
Problem is, it's all confirmation bias. These kooks still believe that Bush was behind 9-11, and the moon landings were faked. SO they'll listen to anyone who tells them what they already believe.
So what's a normal person to do? cynical? Believing nothing?
I've never found a healthy dose of skepticism to be a bad thing. You consider the source. Even then, you should get your news from a number of different sources. If BBC and NPR are reporting the same thing, it is pretty likely to be true.
You've just demonstrated the problem. There's no guarantee that the BBC and NPR didn't get the information from the same (incorrect) source.
So what? Is the solution to believe news from outlets that make up shit out of whole cloth? If we demand that there is not ever one mistake, that we then declare nothing believable, then we have made the ultimate perfection the mortal enemy of good.
To specifically answer your question is that there is an overriding difference. NPR and BBC will issue a retraction, while fake news sources will double down on the claim,
Is your local police department a reliable source? A few years ago, when Arizona congresswoman Gabriel Giffords was shot, NPR reported that she had died. Where did they get that information? From the local Sheriff's Department.
And then they retracted it. New reportage during dramatic events suffers it's own version of the fog of war. If you lose all trust in the veracity of reputable services, and choose someone like Alex Jones, it reflects on your own confirmation bias.
Yes, the example stories provided are crazy and no one should believe them. So what should we believe? Not the government, which lies about really, really big important things like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, etc.
I see. You take specific incidents, and turn that into the case in all cases. You're providing the exact description of the alt-universe's raison d'etre.
This is how some people will believe that former president Bush had the planes fly into the World Trade Center, because Gulf of Tonkin! Or that certifiably insane idea that the Navy Seals were responsible for the Boston incident.
One does not make the other true.
And not that I would ever try to undertake a Quixotic task of changing your mind. It's just kinda fun to piss you off. Meanwhile, how are your plans coming to liberate that pedo-pizza ring and save JonBenet Ramsey from the Demoncrats?
We're past there. Bullshit has won the information war and pissed on the grave of truth.
There has always been a lunatic fringe. And yes, there is some of that in the reply posts here.
But the alt-universe posts are really pretty easy to spot. As an example, why on earth would the Navy have a Seal team perform the Boston Marathon incident? That's batshit crazy, and th eonly people who would believe that are likewise batshit crazy.
So what's a normal person to do? cynical? Believing nothing?
I've never found a healthy dose of skepticism to be a bad thing. You consider the source. Even then, you should get your news from a number of different sources. If BBC and NPR are reporting the same thing, it is pretty likely to be true. If the rest of the mainstream media concurs, you are getting good intel. If the politically motivated quasi-mainstream media concurs, you're probably as close to the truth as you're going to get. The alt-universe sites get no veracity at all. They are the noise part of the signal to noise ratio of news reporting.
To deny this sort of correlation takes the ability to think there is a group of Illuminati setting around a table in some fortress of magnitude, and having all the members of the press being likewise members. More tinfoil hat stuff for the alt-universe.
Fair enough. I was taking "You guys can cry fake news all you want" as an indication that I was being lumped in with those who thought Samsung simply got a bad rap with the Note 7 (i.e. with the people who thought there wasn't an issue at all), but if that wasn't your intent, then I think we're on the same page about everything.
No problem - it's slashdot, so we're often on a heightened sensory level for trolling 8^)
So are you saying that teh S7's had no problem? Was that all staged? After all, you must have some verifiable basis for pre-declaring this.
The S7 had some problems. I don't think anyone is saying they didn't. But there were a lot of the reports of fire where the people that seemed not to actually exist, or were found out to have faked their reports.
Okay, Here is th eonly cite that I found. http://www.trustedreviews.com/...
So Samsung claims 26 false reports. they call faulty on 12 handsets that they checked, and declared the phones okay.
There were seven people they couldn't get hold of, so they declared thos fake as well, and seven other either withdrew their claims of said they threw the phone away. So they declared those fake as well.
Certainly one might be expected to have some doubts as to the veracity of an investigation done by Samsung ( think of you you think that there is not problem and the reports are fake - the same can be applied to my own declarations, because I'm not so certain that a report is fake if I cannot get in touch with the person.
Regardless, I'd love to see your cites of an independent agency, declareing this a fake, because I'm a little skeptical that Samsung just thought it would be awesome to recall the entire line of phones when there is some very good reason to believe that it was all a lie, the batteries are sbject only to random failures, and nothing to see here.
I never suggested that the problem with the Note 7 was random fires (note that I was discussing their problems going forward, not their previous problems). It ABSOLUTELY had a major design flaw, exactly as you described. I was suggesting that random fires will be a problem with the 8 for Samsung. And if they have yet another engineering design flaw, then the problem will be compounded further.
I don't know that I was actually disgreeing with you.
Ain't that the truth! As much as I love Linux, when I have a problem, it becomes a real pain in the ass.
When I have a problem, I hit a search engine and usually find solutions quickly and easily. Often I'm amazed at how easily.
As do I. Ther eis a lot of knowledge out there. The last resort is a conversation with a guru. Some times you get someone who is willing to work with you, but often as not, you get someone who is trying to impress himself with his superiority.
Dunno if it is the independent mindset, or sensitivity, but if those folks are so sensitive that asking a question gets interpreted as a personal attack, maybe they should try something else.
The problem for Samsung is that when that inevitably happens to one of their phones, it won't be treated as the uncommon, unlikely occurrence it likely actually is
The problem for Samsung is not the random phone fire. The problem for Samsung was that there was a big design flaw in their phones and batteries. The case was too small for the battery expansion, or the battery was too big for the allotted area, depending on whose ox you want to gore. P
This was simply going to happen pretty often as the battery would expand - especially during charge. It would hit the sides of the enclosing space, then start to compress. Eventually a hot spot would form, ant then you got thermal runaway.
You guys can cry fake news all you want, but the 7 was not going to negate the laws of physics and what happens when you try to overly restrain an energy dense power source like a Lithium based battery. You do as it demands you do, not the other way around.
Tech blogs and YouTube "celebrities" will be champing at the bit to get the first exploding S8.
There will be reports, likely even before the official launch, of S8's going kablooey. We'll even see video or photographic "proof" of an S8 exploding/burning.
It'll all be staged.
So are you saying that teh S7's had no problem? Was that all staged? After all, you must have some verifiable basis for pre-declaring this.
The only really major advance in phone hardware in the last year was the Google Pixel camera, and even that is about 75% software.
Even so... We still don't have the perfect phone. The OnePlus 3 is close, just needs wireless charging to be complete.
For those who believe that wireless charging is somehow a good thing. If wireless charging meant I carry the phone in my pocket and it charges, or if ir charges in any place I set it down, that would be okay - although harmful to people - but the business of placing a transformer secondary and the other associated circuitry inside a device where the real estate is already so crowded that not allowing for the inherent battery expansion gets us marketing based fires, exactly what advantage is there to placing a phone on a dock that could be served more efficiently by using a radio type dock?
I have a number of portable radios where you charge them simply by placing them in a little dock. All of the charging current massaging is done in the dock. With the wireless charging devices, you have to place the phone in - a dock.
But marketing is such a powerful thing. It gives us Ketchup we can't get out of a bottle, milkshakes so thick, you have to eat them with a spoon - making them ice cream, and wireless charging which does something that can be done more efficiently and safer with a device that has been around a long time.
Samsung Galaxy S phones are quite boring really, same silly price tag as an iPhone but little to offer over other phones costing half or a third as much. Since this is News for Nerds, how about more stories about phones from less mainstream manufacturers like OnePlus and Xaomi? They are affordable, hackable, high end and great build quality, probably of much more interest to the average geek.
Well, I guess that the number of people here who actually are all that interested in smartphones aren't interested in hacking them - witness the number for whom plugging in an adapter to an iPhone is a demand too heinous - and those of us who might be interested in it, find our smartphones to be more of a utility. I want my phone to make phone calls, texts, some driving guidance, and if I need to look something up where I don't have access to a real device, I can do a little research.
Although the guy who made a cell phone out of a raspberry Pi - that was kinda interesting.
Nope, it's a sealed battery again. This year even LG seems to have gone for the sealed battery. Alas, it seems removable batteries in flagship phones are a thing of the past. It seems most people don't care about removable batteries. I do and I don't know what I'll buy when my current phone dies.
A flip Phone?
But yeah - you're right. Most people don't care at all about removable batteries. It's all in the length of time before they get a new phone versus battery life. A lot of my Android using friends get a new phone just about every year. When the entire device is disposable, and the batteries last as long or longer than the replacement period does, the tiny percentage who want to hang on to their phones forever don't outweigh the design issues of access covers, and where to put other things in the phone.
The profit margins in Android phones are pretty slim, so these will add significantly to the cost of a phone that only a tiny number of people want the feature, and who are probably going to be replacing their phone at a much longer interval, and are probably demanding rock bottom prices anyhow.
Slashdot Mirror
like sex?
Divorces and child support are a lot less expensive that way.
So I have a solution which will keep me from both getting angry and going to jail: I just won't go to the theater.
Exactly. The theater experience is about as much fun as going to the emergency room. Filthy theaters, sticky shit on the seats and floors, yammering undisciplined children, the over exuberant people on their smartphones, the texters. The price.
Nope, nope, nope, and nope.
As well with almost all movies being reboots or remakes, and predictable, and Hey! another Marvel Comics superhero flick! How original!
Screw that. Perhaps if the experience and the movies were good, they wouldn't have to beg people to show up.
Mister Nolan and Ms Coppolla - how much are you going to pay me to go to a theater? Otherwise I'm busy that evening. Cleaning up the garage maybe. I'll find something anyhow.
That's a storyline that has been being re-hashed for ... around 4000 years, if not longer.
There's also Leda and the Swan, where we are treated to a woman and a bird yencing.
Frome the Wikipedia article:
The subject undoubtedly owed its sixteenth-century popularity to the paradox that it was considered more acceptable to depict a woman in the act of copulation with a swan than with a man. The earliest depictions show the pair love-making with some explicitness—more so than in any depictions of a human pair made by artists of high quality in the same period.
Seriously - we humans are so incredibly fucked up. We're worried about gay people destroying the sanctity of Marriage, yet humans screwing animals is somehow really fucking awesome? Worthy of cartoons and movies and performed by Gods?
Eeeeww.
I appreciate your well thought-out post and everything, but what the hell does that have to do with TRUMP and the RUSSIANS? Can't we just talk about that All The Time, like CNN?
Is tht the time honored start talking about something else argument like "What about Trump and the Russians", and the answer is "But Benghazi!" - or was that a joke? Anyhow, as a joke - it workes pretty well.
For myself, I dunno about him and the Russians. But in the grand tradition of things, we can see by exact history that Republicans are more worried about a blowjob than possible treason.
We'll really know once that we get their internet browsing history. Oh, those unintended consequences.
See what I did there? 8^)
Y Fuck your dishonesty.
You'd never go back to sheep.
In the aftetmath of a serious event perfect information can be hard to come by, the result is that sometimes legitimate news outlets make mistakes.
The difference between NPR in this case and, say, infowars on just about any day is that when the realized the info they had was incorrect they updated their story and went on to report correct things. Infowars will continue to report the same debunked BS for the next 6 months.
Some people think that doubling down on fake news is somehow a mark of integrity on the liars part.
Problem is, it's all confirmation bias. These kooks still believe that Bush was behind 9-11, and the moon landings were faked. SO they'll listen to anyone who tells them what they already believe.
So what's a normal person to do? cynical? Believing nothing?
I've never found a healthy dose of skepticism to be a bad thing. You consider the source. Even then, you should get your news from a number of different sources. If BBC and NPR are reporting the same thing, it is pretty likely to be true.
You've just demonstrated the problem. There's no guarantee that the BBC and NPR didn't get the information from the same (incorrect) source.
So what? Is the solution to believe news from outlets that make up shit out of whole cloth? If we demand that there is not ever one mistake, that we then declare nothing believable, then we have made the ultimate perfection the mortal enemy of good.
To specifically answer your question is that there is an overriding difference. NPR and BBC will issue a retraction, while fake news sources will double down on the claim,
Is your local police department a reliable source? A few years ago, when Arizona congresswoman Gabriel Giffords was shot, NPR reported that she had died. Where did they get that information? From the local Sheriff's Department.
And then they retracted it. New reportage during dramatic events suffers it's own version of the fog of war. If you lose all trust in the veracity of reputable services, and choose someone like Alex Jones, it reflects on your own confirmation bias.
Yes, the example stories provided are crazy and no one should believe them. So what should we believe? Not the government, which lies about really, really big important things like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, etc.
I see. You take specific incidents, and turn that into the case in all cases. You're providing the exact description of the alt-universe's raison d'etre.
This is how some people will believe that former president Bush had the planes fly into the World Trade Center, because Gulf of Tonkin! Or that certifiably insane idea that the Navy Seals were responsible for the Boston incident.
One does not make the other true.
And not that I would ever try to undertake a Quixotic task of changing your mind. It's just kinda fun to piss you off. Meanwhile, how are your plans coming to liberate that pedo-pizza ring and save JonBenet Ramsey from the Demoncrats?
We're past there. Bullshit has won the information war and pissed on the grave of truth.
There has always been a lunatic fringe. And yes, there is some of that in the reply posts here.
But the alt-universe posts are really pretty easy to spot. As an example, why on earth would the Navy have a Seal team perform the Boston Marathon incident? That's batshit crazy, and th eonly people who would believe that are likewise batshit crazy.
So what's a normal person to do? cynical? Believing nothing?
I've never found a healthy dose of skepticism to be a bad thing. You consider the source. Even then, you should get your news from a number of different sources. If BBC and NPR are reporting the same thing, it is pretty likely to be true. If the rest of the mainstream media concurs, you are getting good intel. If the politically motivated quasi-mainstream media concurs, you're probably as close to the truth as you're going to get. The alt-universe sites get no veracity at all. They are the noise part of the signal to noise ratio of news reporting.
To deny this sort of correlation takes the ability to think there is a group of Illuminati setting around a table in some fortress of magnitude, and having all the members of the press being likewise members. More tinfoil hat stuff for the alt-universe.
The crowd goes mild. Raspberry Pi performance, coming to a gastraphagus near you.
Fair enough. I was taking "You guys can cry fake news all you want" as an indication that I was being lumped in with those who thought Samsung simply got a bad rap with the Note 7 (i.e. with the people who thought there wasn't an issue at all), but if that wasn't your intent, then I think we're on the same page about everything.
No problem - it's slashdot, so we're often on a heightened sensory level for trolling 8^)
So are you saying that teh S7's had no problem? Was that all staged? After all, you must have some verifiable basis for pre-declaring this.
The S7 had some problems. I don't think anyone is saying they didn't. But there were a lot of the reports of fire where the people that seemed not to actually exist, or were found out to have faked their reports.
Okay, Here is th eonly cite that I found. http://www.trustedreviews.com/... So Samsung claims 26 false reports. they call faulty on 12 handsets that they checked, and declared the phones okay.
There were seven people they couldn't get hold of, so they declared thos fake as well, and seven other either withdrew their claims of said they threw the phone away. So they declared those fake as well.
Certainly one might be expected to have some doubts as to the veracity of an investigation done by Samsung ( think of you you think that there is not problem and the reports are fake - the same can be applied to my own declarations, because I'm not so certain that a report is fake if I cannot get in touch with the person.
Regardless, I'd love to see your cites of an independent agency, declareing this a fake, because I'm a little skeptical that Samsung just thought it would be awesome to recall the entire line of phones when there is some very good reason to believe that it was all a lie, the batteries are sbject only to random failures, and nothing to see here.
Is there anything they won't rape for money?
A Republican would sell the rope that is used to hang his mother. And call it freedom string.
I never suggested that the problem with the Note 7 was random fires (note that I was discussing their problems going forward, not their previous problems). It ABSOLUTELY had a major design flaw, exactly as you described. I was suggesting that random fires will be a problem with the 8 for Samsung. And if they have yet another engineering design flaw, then the problem will be compounded further.
I don't know that I was actually disgreeing with you.
Ain't that the truth! As much as I love Linux, when I have a problem, it becomes a real pain in the ass.
When I have a problem, I hit a search engine and usually find solutions quickly and easily. Often I'm amazed at how easily.
As do I. Ther eis a lot of knowledge out there. The last resort is a conversation with a guru. Some times you get someone who is willing to work with you, but often as not, you get someone who is trying to impress himself with his superiority.
Dunno if it is the independent mindset, or sensitivity, but if those folks are so sensitive that asking a question gets interpreted as a personal attack, maybe they should try something else.
The problem for Samsung is that when that inevitably happens to one of their phones, it won't be treated as the uncommon, unlikely occurrence it likely actually is
The problem for Samsung is not the random phone fire. The problem for Samsung was that there was a big design flaw in their phones and batteries. The case was too small for the battery expansion, or the battery was too big for the allotted area, depending on whose ox you want to gore. P This was simply going to happen pretty often as the battery would expand - especially during charge. It would hit the sides of the enclosing space, then start to compress. Eventually a hot spot would form, ant then you got thermal runaway.
You guys can cry fake news all you want, but the 7 was not going to negate the laws of physics and what happens when you try to overly restrain an energy dense power source like a Lithium based battery. You do as it demands you do, not the other way around.
Tech blogs and YouTube "celebrities" will be champing at the bit to get the first exploding S8.
There will be reports, likely even before the official launch, of S8's going kablooey. We'll even see video or photographic "proof" of an S8 exploding/burning. It'll all be staged.
So are you saying that teh S7's had no problem? Was that all staged? After all, you must have some verifiable basis for pre-declaring this.
lawyers, man. foaming. rabid. just you wait.
Call Marcus and Mack. You may be eligible for substantial compensation! And tell them You...Mean...Business!"
The only really major advance in phone hardware in the last year was the Google Pixel camera, and even that is about 75% software.
Even so... We still don't have the perfect phone. The OnePlus 3 is close, just needs wireless charging to be complete.
For those who believe that wireless charging is somehow a good thing. If wireless charging meant I carry the phone in my pocket and it charges, or if ir charges in any place I set it down, that would be okay - although harmful to people - but the business of placing a transformer secondary and the other associated circuitry inside a device where the real estate is already so crowded that not allowing for the inherent battery expansion gets us marketing based fires, exactly what advantage is there to placing a phone on a dock that could be served more efficiently by using a radio type dock? I have a number of portable radios where you charge them simply by placing them in a little dock. All of the charging current massaging is done in the dock. With the wireless charging devices, you have to place the phone in - a dock.
But marketing is such a powerful thing. It gives us Ketchup we can't get out of a bottle, milkshakes so thick, you have to eat them with a spoon - making them ice cream, and wireless charging which does something that can be done more efficiently and safer with a device that has been around a long time.
Samsung Galaxy S phones are quite boring really, same silly price tag as an iPhone but little to offer over other phones costing half or a third as much. Since this is News for Nerds, how about more stories about phones from less mainstream manufacturers like OnePlus and Xaomi? They are affordable, hackable, high end and great build quality, probably of much more interest to the average geek.
Well, I guess that the number of people here who actually are all that interested in smartphones aren't interested in hacking them - witness the number for whom plugging in an adapter to an iPhone is a demand too heinous - and those of us who might be interested in it, find our smartphones to be more of a utility. I want my phone to make phone calls, texts, some driving guidance, and if I need to look something up where I don't have access to a real device, I can do a little research.
Although the guy who made a cell phone out of a raspberry Pi - that was kinda interesting.
Nope, it's a sealed battery again. This year even LG seems to have gone for the sealed battery. Alas, it seems removable batteries in flagship phones are a thing of the past. It seems most people don't care about removable batteries. I do and I don't know what I'll buy when my current phone dies.
A flip Phone?
But yeah - you're right. Most people don't care at all about removable batteries. It's all in the length of time before they get a new phone versus battery life. A lot of my Android using friends get a new phone just about every year. When the entire device is disposable, and the batteries last as long or longer than the replacement period does, the tiny percentage who want to hang on to their phones forever don't outweigh the design issues of access covers, and where to put other things in the phone.
The profit margins in Android phones are pretty slim, so these will add significantly to the cost of a phone that only a tiny number of people want the feature, and who are probably going to be replacing their phone at a much longer interval, and are probably demanding rock bottom prices anyhow.
Is there anything they won't rape for money?
Vote Republican. They are the party of personal freedom, and the privacy of the individual.
A lot of steps to adjst lights and (glasses?)
Android is Linux and there are desktop versions.
By that definition, so is MacOS.
Give us your citations that support your hypothesis.
I didn't even think of the "no expansion" problem the circular airport would have.