I am too invested in the 3.5mm headphone jack to give it up. That standard has been around since 1964, and Apple is deluded if they think they can make it disappear.
Apple didn't start this path, most major companies are planning for the death of the 3.5mm jack. Apple is just getting on the train.
But also..what if you have a car that has a bit older head unit that isn't bluetooth or otherwise wireless capable and need the jack to plug your phone into it to play?
How many people are buying a new $650 phone, but have a car so old it doesn't have Bluetooth?
Not only do I like to save YT videos, but it's also the only way to watch long ones without interruption, especially recently. YT has been hanging and even crashing my browser a lot lately.
My company is a content creator, we have over 50 videos on YouTube that we make money with, both from adds and from subscriptions/donations. We post a new video every week.
My take on the whole downloading thing is that it is way beyond my control. If you can watch the video on your computer, then you can download it, nothing is going to stop you.
So downloading doesn't bother me. If you are downloading for personal use, that is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. Now if you download because you want to make money with the video, then we'll have a problem, but that doesn't remotely sound like what you're doing.
If you took 15 second clips from our videos, along with 9 other videos, and posted a video saying "here are my 10 favorite educational videos and links to the channels", I wouldn't care, that strikes me as fair use (so long as you're quoting sources and using only small snippets of video). In fact, if you're doing that, shoot me an e-mail and let me know, I could provide you with better source clips.:)
I don't see ads anyway, because I am blocking them.
:) So do I, I hate ads, but we have to have them for income.
That being said, we do ask those people who watch our videos every week, if you're able, donate $1 a month via Patron if you wish to support us and block ads.
If Google asked me if I wanted my videos blocked from people using ad-blockers, I'd say no. Those people might subscribe, or might choose to support us on Patron, or perhaps they have no money, have a crappy internet connection, and block ads because they pay for bandwidth. What do I gain by blocking them? That would just be stupid, I hope our videos are still helpful to them.
People who use an ad-blocker aren't going to turn it off if they are site-blocked, they'll just go somewhere else.
My company is one of those content producers, we have over 50 videos on YouTube that we make money with.
I'm sure someone has downloaded them.
Do I care? Not really, it is beyond my control. I try and worry about stuff that is in my control and if someone wants to use a tool like this to download videos, or use an ad-blocker, oh well.
Our business model has to survive that, because we can't stop it, and bitching about it is a waste of our time.
We post a video each week, our business will survive if we offer a good product that people want to come back for again and again and want to support us, not because we get lots of lawyers.
New York does not impose a waiting period prior to the purchase of a firearm (although it may take up to six months to obtain a license to purchase a handgun).
I don't know about you, but "up to six months obtain a license" strikes me as a hell of a waiting period.
The above are STATE laws, try it in New York City itself and it is much worse...
By 1943 Germany did have hundreds of U-Boats, so they could have had both, had they been prepared for war.
The advantage to Bismark and Tirpitz is their speed and firepower. A few destroyer escorts would not have been all that useful. Had Bismark come across a large convoy, she might have sunk the whole think.
Even in cases when a wolfpack of 6 U-Boats encountered a large convoy, they only ever could sink part of it and had to run away when the escorts engaged.
The battleships also could have hunted the really big ships, the large oceanliners such as the Queen Elizabeth which were much too fast for U-Boats.
---
You also have to consider why Bismark and Tirpitz were built. They were laid down in the 1930s when the French were the big threat, and when Germany was trying to have a "fleet". A lot changed between 1935 and 1940.
Hitler started WWII completely unprepared for it on the high seas, played catch up, and in 1941 almost got the UK cut off, but couldn't quite pull it off.
Had Operation Rheinübung had the full fleet it was meant to, they could have ripped the convoys a new one...
Just what I expected, you didn't bother to learn anything...
Instead you just repeat your ignorance over and over...
For heavens sake, how the hell is the world supposed to get better if people won't learn anything?
Yes, I'm annoyed, because you're part of the problem, you're an ignorant fuck who doesn't want to learn anything and you keep repeating the same stupid things.
The human race is so screwed because of people like you, and the sad part is that you don't even know it.
And you're a moron, what's new? Seriously, it amazes me how stupid some people really are...
You of course don't know that you're stupid, nor would you be willing to admit it, so pointing out your errors is a waste of time, since you'll just ignore anything that doesn't match your false beliefs...
* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]
Guns are good, criminals are bad... banning guns does not remove criminals, it simply makes victims out of good people.
That's a fact, no matter how much CNN doesn't want you to know it...
Guns work very well to keep crime out of the non-gang areas...
I live in Texas... home invasions are rare here, only a moron will try to storm into a home that has more than a 1/3 chance of having an armed gun owner in it...
Look at the numbers state by state, which states have more problems with such crime. The more guns each state has, the less such crime.
What use is your do when the criminal is pointing a gun at your head? What happens if you miss? What happens if you drop your gun because you're terrified.
What if nothing... you didn't bother to read the news story I linked to...
If guns are magic wands that keep you safe, why doesn't the US have the lowest crime rate in the developed world? I'm not against gun ownership but I'm tired of the bullshit.
Then be tired of being ignorant to the facts...
The US does have one of the lowest crime rates in the developed world, outside of a few select areas. Stay out of Compton, the South Side, and a few other places and the US is amazingly crime free...
We have a gang problem and a black problem, but no one wants to talk about it because that is "racist". No it isn't, it is the truth...
We are talking about an addition of a few thousand to a 40 million dollar aircraft. That's roughly 1/100 of one percent.
More like $60,000, this question is not new and it has been asked before...
It also adds ongoing expense, it is something else to monitor, maintain, and it adds weight which costs fuel (even if not very much, it adds something)...
Slashdot Mirror
I am too invested in the 3.5mm headphone jack to give it up. That standard has been around since 1964, and Apple is deluded if they think they can make it disappear.
Apple didn't start this path, most major companies are planning for the death of the 3.5mm jack. Apple is just getting on the train.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/4...
Intel wants USB-C to replace the headphone jack
because removing the headphone jack is one of the more idiotic decisions that I think Apple can make, and by God it does affect me.
Everyone said that about the floppy drive on the first iMac, and Apple turned out to be right.
In 5 years, the idea of a 3.5mm audio jack will seem quaint.
But also..what if you have a car that has a bit older head unit that isn't bluetooth or otherwise wireless capable and need the jack to plug your phone into it to play?
How many people are buying a new $650 phone, but have a car so old it doesn't have Bluetooth?
Serious question...
Not only do I like to save YT videos, but it's also the only way to watch long ones without interruption, especially recently. YT has been hanging and even crashing my browser a lot lately.
My company is a content creator, we have over 50 videos on YouTube that we make money with, both from adds and from subscriptions/donations. We post a new video every week.
My take on the whole downloading thing is that it is way beyond my control. If you can watch the video on your computer, then you can download it, nothing is going to stop you.
So downloading doesn't bother me. If you are downloading for personal use, that is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. Now if you download because you want to make money with the video, then we'll have a problem, but that doesn't remotely sound like what you're doing.
If you took 15 second clips from our videos, along with 9 other videos, and posted a video saying "here are my 10 favorite educational videos and links to the channels", I wouldn't care, that strikes me as fair use (so long as you're quoting sources and using only small snippets of video). In fact, if you're doing that, shoot me an e-mail and let me know, I could provide you with better source clips. :)
I don't see ads anyway, because I am blocking them.
:) So do I, I hate ads, but we have to have them for income.
That being said, we do ask those people who watch our videos every week, if you're able, donate $1 a month via Patron if you wish to support us and block ads.
If Google asked me if I wanted my videos blocked from people using ad-blockers, I'd say no. Those people might subscribe, or might choose to support us on Patron, or perhaps they have no money, have a crappy internet connection, and block ads because they pay for bandwidth. What do I gain by blocking them? That would just be stupid, I hope our videos are still helpful to them.
People who use an ad-blocker aren't going to turn it off if they are site-blocked, they'll just go somewhere else.
My company is one of those content producers, we have over 50 videos on YouTube that we make money with.
I'm sure someone has downloaded them.
Do I care? Not really, it is beyond my control. I try and worry about stuff that is in my control and if someone wants to use a tool like this to download videos, or use an ad-blocker, oh well.
Our business model has to survive that, because we can't stop it, and bitching about it is a waste of our time.
We post a video each week, our business will survive if we offer a good product that people want to come back for again and again and want to support us, not because we get lots of lawyers.
As expected, you don't bother to read and learn, you just repeat lies and false beliefs without regard to the truth.
You're a fool, and worse, you don't even know it.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/3...
This right here is another example of all that is wrong with the gun conversation.
"stopping gun deaths" translates to "well, if we take away all the guns, we'll be fine!"
Stupid idiots...
The problem with murders and deaths has nothing to do with guns, everything to do with poverty, crime, and other issues...
2/3 of all gun deaths are suicide, but the US doesn't have a higher suicide rate than the rest of the modern world, we just use guns to do it.
That 33,000 gun death number that Clinton keeps tossing out is crap, almost 20K of it are people who shot themselves.
People who want to die, will find a way to do it...
When you consider that the majority of gun murders are gang related, that means that fewer than 5,000 gun deaths in the US are non-gang related.
Considering the 300+ million guns in the US (1 in 3 homes has a gun in it) and the 320 million people, that is a rounding error.
Guns are not the problem, poverty and culture are the problem, but people refuse to become educated on the subject.
Why are they hard to legally get?
Like I said, you have opinions on things you don't know anything about...
http://smartgunlaws.org/new-yo...
New York does not impose a waiting period prior to the purchase of a firearm (although it may take up to six months to obtain a license to purchase a handgun).
I don't know about you, but "up to six months obtain a license" strikes me as a hell of a waiting period.
The above are STATE laws, try it in New York City itself and it is much worse...
no son
I'm not your son, and you remain stupid, willfully so...
Go troll somewhere else, you suck at it...
By 1943 Germany did have hundreds of U-Boats, so they could have had both, had they been prepared for war.
The advantage to Bismark and Tirpitz is their speed and firepower. A few destroyer escorts would not have been all that useful. Had Bismark come across a large convoy, she might have sunk the whole think.
Even in cases when a wolfpack of 6 U-Boats encountered a large convoy, they only ever could sink part of it and had to run away when the escorts engaged.
The battleships also could have hunted the really big ships, the large oceanliners such as the Queen Elizabeth which were much too fast for U-Boats.
---
You also have to consider why Bismark and Tirpitz were built. They were laid down in the 1930s when the French were the big threat, and when Germany was trying to have a "fleet". A lot changed between 1935 and 1940.
Hitler started WWII completely unprepared for it on the high seas, played catch up, and in 1941 almost got the UK cut off, but couldn't quite pull it off.
Had Operation Rheinübung had the full fleet it was meant to, they could have ripped the convoys a new one...
So in other words, you have chosen to be ignorant...
What are you doing on Slashdot, if you willfully wish to be stupid?
I don't think you quite understand what the Bismark was meant to do...
By itself, it might not have been successful, but it would have been very painful had they not stopped her.
Germany came very close to cutting the convoys off from Britian, a few more U-Boats, the Bismark and Tirpitz, and she might have done it.
Just what I expected, you didn't bother to learn anything...
Instead you just repeat your ignorance over and over...
For heavens sake, how the hell is the world supposed to get better if people won't learn anything?
Yes, I'm annoyed, because you're part of the problem, you're an ignorant fuck who doesn't want to learn anything and you keep repeating the same stupid things.
The human race is so screwed because of people like you, and the sad part is that you don't even know it.
By that logic the gang areas should be super safe because they're full of guns.
No, not at all... guns are hard to LEGALLY get in those gang areas...
Seriously, stop having opinions about shit you know nothing about...
https://www.gunowners.org/sk08...
you're willing to sacrifice all the other lives lost to guns?
Guns save more lives than they take, at least the good ones...
Why do you want to kill good people? You're pretty sick...
Note: Read and learn the facts, instead of the bullshit you THINK you know...
https://www.gunowners.org/sk08...
And you're a moron, what's new? Seriously, it amazes me how stupid some people really are...
You of course don't know that you're stupid, nor would you be willing to admit it, so pointing out your errors is a waste of time, since you'll just ignore anything that doesn't match your false beliefs...
https://www.gunowners.org/sk08...
Read and learn...
* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]
Guns are good, criminals are bad... banning guns does not remove criminals, it simply makes victims out of good people.
That's a fact, no matter how much CNN doesn't want you to know it...
It isn't "entertainment", it is fact...
Thousands of people every week defend themselves with a gun, many of those people would not be here without it...
The media doesn't report on it that often, doesn't fit with their "message".
https://www.gunowners.org/sk08...
Read and learn...
Guns work very well to keep crime out of the non-gang areas...
I live in Texas... home invasions are rare here, only a moron will try to storm into a home that has more than a 1/3 chance of having an armed gun owner in it...
Look at the numbers state by state, which states have more problems with such crime. The more guns each state has, the less such crime.
Again, you miss the point...
Having guns or not having guns has nothing to do with the crime rates...
Removing all the guns wouldn't change them. It is an economic problem and a cultural problem.
But those are harder to fix than just saying "evil guns".
What use is your do when the criminal is pointing a gun at your head? What happens if you miss? What happens if you drop your gun because you're terrified.
What if nothing... you didn't bother to read the news story I linked to...
If guns are magic wands that keep you safe, why doesn't the US have the lowest crime rate in the developed world? I'm not against gun ownership but I'm tired of the bullshit.
Then be tired of being ignorant to the facts...
The US does have one of the lowest crime rates in the developed world, outside of a few select areas. Stay out of Compton, the South Side, and a few other places and the US is amazingly crime free...
We have a gang problem and a black problem, but no one wants to talk about it because that is "racist". No it isn't, it is the truth...
What do you do if you're not physically strong, but someone bigger and stronger than you attacks you?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016...
We are talking about an addition of a few thousand to a 40 million dollar aircraft. That's roughly 1/100 of one percent.
More like $60,000, this question is not new and it has been asked before...
It also adds ongoing expense, it is something else to monitor, maintain, and it adds weight which costs fuel (even if not very much, it adds something)...
Perhaps, though there is a lot to be said for anonymous money, which I'd think parts of the government would agree with.
And the IRS would disagree... If it no longer became possible to move money around without the government knowing about it... :)
Unlikely. As an example, fuel monitoring units for an A380 cost $250,000. Each. You can fit one in the palm of your hand...
My $50K figure was meant to counterbalance the "hundreds of USD" the OP provided...
Yes, $50K is probably low, but it is several orders of magnitude higher. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There is an estimate to install such a thing at $60K per airplane if you do 500 airplanes.