It would cost a hell of a lot more than $30. The entire reason for removing the jack is to make the phone thinner and provide more space for things like more battery capacity.
Not saying I LIKE the idea -- I'm saying your suggestion is unworkable. They'd have to have two models with completely different specs from motherboard to case design.
My son's service is limited by his resources. About $8 per month on Freedompop -- He's got about 500MB of data per month. Phone service sucks (it's VOIP) but outgoing calls uses sprint's cell network which are very good. There's other things for which he'd like to use is money.
And the phone is off ebay -- basically $100.
My daughter (13), on the other hand, was a $19 nokia t-mobile prepay. I paid $100 for minutes on t-mobile way-back-when and have dropped $10/year (yes year) to keep the phone active. Still has over $90 worth of minutes/texts the phone 3 years later. She barely uses it.
But you are absolutely right. I've seen some of my son's friends with iphone 6s' and cracked screens already. Thats crazy money to spend on a kid or even a young adult. My son cracked his screen -- he paid $50 of his own money to repair at a ubreakifix shop. Since then, he's been ultra careful with his phone.
Very 'this'. My wife watches TV and she want's me there. I watch TV and she's around maybe yes/maybe no -- not a big deal for me.
Real Housewives of %SOMETOWN% was my squeal point. She's learned to enjoy her quite time in front of the TV alone watching stuff that would make me want to gouge out my eyes.
I'm not that strict with the phones or anything else -- but I'm not far behind.
My kids have RDP terminals in their rooms with just enough bandwidth to run word/excel. The main computer is in the dining room (on wheels when we need the full space for guests). All homework is done at the dining room table.
Only my son (16) has a smart phone and he pays for service himself. The phone, however, is mine. He's not allowed to "own" a phone until he pays rent. Phones aren't allowed in the house during the week except early evening (after homework/dinner and before 10pm). Weekends are a bit more generous.
The cool thing is I wrote a chore tracker which they need to fill out every day or they automagically lose internet access on all their devices (except access to the tracker). They just need to fill out if they did a task and if not provide a reason. It wont cut them off if they dont do their choirs -- just if they dont report it. I can cut them off or return access from my phone anywhere with an internet connection. They're pretty honest about filling it out and know if they lie and get caught it's a week without internet.
What 7 year old needs a $400+ phone? "Smart phones" in particular are huge distractions. My 16 year old has an iphone 5 and when home it's not in use (my rules) until after homework and dinner. Then it's back on the table for charging at 10pm. My 13 year old uses a little nokia candy-bar phone with a flip keyboard.
"When you have the choice to be an asshole or a reasonable person, why be an asshole?"
When I'm talking to someone and I want to be understood I speak the common tongue (English in my case). If I want to speak to someone who doesn't speak english maybe I switch to THEIR tongue so I can be understood.
When someone *IS* unreasonable and *IS* an asshole sometimes they only UNDERSTAND the language of 'asshole'.
"...some people think it is because of Political Correctness is taking over. It isn't it is because we as a culture are trying to flatten the class structure."
We've been flattening class structure since the 1600s and has nothing to do with Trump's popularity. PC is fairly new and it *IS* causing huge unnecessary problems and conflict. By labeling nearly EVERYTHING racist or sexist to silence your opposition there can be no middle-ground or compromise. I believe it's impossible to govern a republic based on democratic principles for very long without compromise -- you end up with sometimes more than 50% of the population against the establishment. .
Trump is popular because he's talking about things both the Ds and the Rs wont talk about -- like illegal immigration for instance. PC crap and 'micro aggressions" are just really starting to piss people off. I swear its right out of George Orwell how we're changing language to change perception. "Pro Life" vs "Pro Choice"? That's so crazy minor compared to a young black woman calling out a young white man with dreadlocks for stealing her culture -- or taking "felon" and "criminal" out of our lexicon in favor of "persons who have been involved in the justice system" or "individuals who have been incarcerated". I'm not making that up!
When the press and the establishment both refuse to use the term "illegal immigrant" and refer to those who have a PROBLEM with unregulated and vetted migration across our sovereign borders as "anti - immigrant" (rather than anti-ILLEGAL-immigration) it's appalling.
You can only shut down the opposition so much via tactics like this for so long before something fractures. There's no more ability to compromise and "meet in the middle". You are right that people feel less empowered -- but not just white people (how long until we want to call ourselves 'melanin lacking individuals'?) And it's because our system broke. Things that should require a constitutional amendment are being forced on a country not fully ready for it by judicial fiat. That takes sovereignty out of the hands of the individual.
It's no wonder why Trump is so popular. It's also no wonder why he's so hated.
*I'm not a Trump supporter. He strikes me as a psychopath the way he attacks and loves in almost the same sentence. That doesn't mean I can't see the appeal to FINALLY have someone speak honestly and blow off PC dribble and talk about topics that are basically quasi-taboo to the establishment of both parties.
"Yeah, because regulated Restaurants NEVER have issues (Chipotle)"
You appear to respond to posts but don't actually read to what you are responding.
Example: You claim that I said regulated restaurants NEVER have issues -- and provided an obvious and recent example that proves my claim (which never made) is false. Cool, if fake win for you.
What I did say is: "By applying for a license and submitting to inspection we dramatically minimize that risk"
It, in fact, does do that.
By saying there are instances where a regulated restaurant inappropriately prepared food proves that the regulation isn't necessary is such an amazing fallacy that surprises me that someone's neurons could fire in way to produce that thought.
"At some point, the "regulation" designed to keep you safe, actually endangers you, because you ignore or trust them too much."
Just... wow. So, the answer is to let anyone sell and store food any way they want, right? Good idea.
Now... lets put on our reality glasses. There were what? 50 something cases with Cipotle -- to the point that it reached a national hysteria? How many deaths? Zero?
Pick up almost any news paper from the past. Say early 1900s. You'll find weekly articles about food poisoning outbreaks many with numerous deaths. Any local news papers from any largish town in the US. Now, most food poising is individuals or families from poorly prep'd or stored meals at HOME. Chipotle was in the news BECAUSE it's the odd ball -- and not a valid argument that regulation is useless.
Are you sure? I've been poor. I've been homeless. I lived out of a locker and got a $25/night hotel once or twice a week to shower/get good sleep when I couldn't afford a roof over my head AND school.
What did I get out of that? I got a college education and zero debt.
I never thought of myself as a victim. I never thought that society was victimizing me. This was my circumstance at the time and, not being stupid, figured out what I needed to do to change my circumstance.
I work with a local shelter (one that helped me way-back-when). I know what a motivated person can do to get out living in a shelter. It's not complicated. Those that follow some simple rules are "back on their feet" and have a roof over their head in a few months if not weeks. Those that dont have a self-imposed life-style. They are not victims.
"I hate sounding preachy, but you shouldn't use wealth to give yourself some moral superiority."
Most "opportunity" is available and achievable at the cost of some sacrifice. What we have are few people who are willing to live elsewhere (where they might find a job) or even more basic -- holding off marriage and parenthood until one can afford a family.
If you want to dramatically reduce a chance to live in poverty, don't do drugs, dont drink, work hard in school and DO NOT HAVE KIDS without a spouse and until you can afford them. After that, it's about living where you can find work.
" Why does it bother you that selling food to earn a living, and is such a problem that it needs government intervention?"
Because without someone checking on the how the food is prepared and stored is a recipe for food poisoning.
By applying for a license and submitting to inspection we dramatically minimize that risk. This is a good thing.
What I'm seeing in my area are bunches of food trucks (over several blocks) -- which are putting local restaurants out of business. This isn't necessarily bad as the trucks are licensed, clean and inspected. It's just a 'shift' which is to be expected when someone finds a way to do something cheaper.
However, cutting out "rent" as part of one's overhead is a LOT different that cutting out proper cleaning procedures and storage procedures for perishables. The former saves a business owner money as does the latter -- but not at the expense of risking their customers health.
"The product page for the Sony Dash [sony.com] does not really shed any more light on what it is, but the pictures indicate it is a clunky tablet-like device which you can be stood on a table against a backdrop of different home furnishings, mostly in soft focus."
How about some better context? Like it's not a "tablet" -- clunky or otherwise. It's a clock. It has some functions in common with tablets -- or phones -- or PCs but it doesn't make a TV a "clunky phone" if it has Skype -- or a phone a "clunky PC" if it runs apps.
Without some type of stand, a tablet makes a poor alarm clock. With a stand, a tablet STILL makes a poor alarm clock. The shape is all wrong -- the placement of buttons -- it's easy to knock over by accident and a PITA to 'snooze' without tapping "just the right spot" on the screen.
I'm glad sony resolved the issue. I like having it scroll through a few sites during the day (news, pics, etc) -- showing the weather, play Pandora when I want or Netflix or listen to MP3s. The interface isn't great -- but that's because it's a clock -- not a tablet.
I paid about $50 for my Dash around it's end of life around 2012. I figured it be fun to hack. Instead, I've been using it for it's intended purpose for the past 4ish years.
So, a tablet makes a poor alarm clock. And the Dash makes a poor tablet -- but a damn good alarm clock.
I have a pebble. It works perfectly with my iphone 5. It cost me $100 (free, actually -- it was a gift) and I charge it once a week (friday night before I go to bed. If I forget, I get a 20% battery warning around sunday or monday). For those counting, that's about 13-14 days if I let it go that long (I don't use a watch-face that shows second hand).
It does everything I 'need' a smart watch to do:
o notifications (email, call, text -- all can be filtered to be from specific accounts or specific senders) o looks decent enough to wear at formal social events o long enough battery life that I'm not charging it several times a week.
Right now, any other features (using the watch as a speaker phone, sending voice/text replies, pretty colors, touch screen, showing pictures) all take away from battery life without really offering much in true functionality.
Not needing to take my phone out a few dozen times a day to see if my last email was from a sales rep asking something dumb or an alert letting me know server went down somewhere is a god-send. In a theater if I get a call my phone doesn't make a sound -- doesn't buzz. My watch doesn't light up like a phone -- just a very dim backlight and a vibrate that can barely be heard in a quite room -- enough to see if it's something I can ignore.
That is why I would by a pebble. 2 years ago I would have said they were stupid. After a few weeks wearing one, I'm quite happy. Plus I like the Dr. Who watch face (1:00 = Hartnell, 2:00 = Troughton, 3 = Pertwee, etc. with john hurt showing up between 8:30 and 9).
"Saying, "Check the box" doesn't provide anything that anyone can build a budget on."
The various governments of the United States (city, state and nation) have been ignoring reality when building budgets for quite some time. How do you really think this would impair them?
"Where are you on a cloud SERVICE when the magic goes away?"
With an alarm clock. That's the way it DOES work. The problem is that *IF* it has internet access but cannot reach 'home' is locks as described in the article -- it's a stupid fail that no user would expect. Shut off the power, disable your home wifi, restart and POOF, it boots to just the alarm clock. You get an annoying "network" message but it will wake you up when you want it to.
"Why would you EVER used an alarm clock that NEEDS the internet to even work... Like wtf?"
Actually, it doesn't need the internet to work AS AN ALARM CLOCK. The problem is the damn thing chokes if it HAS internet access and cant reach 'home' after a reboot. If it DOESN'T have internet access, just the alarms work. It's a stupid fail that no user would expect and a serious oversight by Sony.
I knew exactly what I was buying when I bought mine. I spent $50 for a device near it's end of life which might be fun to hack. Instead I've been using it exactly as its been designed. I've gotten a few years of use out of it and it's been great.
A tablet is an alternative -- but the SHAPE, weight and location of the buttons on the Dash is what makes it an excellent desk clock.
Sort of. But this was out when a current $40 tablet would run $300+.
I have a dash and I paid $50 new towards their end of life a few years ago. Its a nice device. Yes, you can do more with a tablet but except for this lame requirement that it find the server to fully boot *IF* it's on a network, it's a great -- the right size, balance, snooze button locations etc. it's a CLOCK, not a tablet. It's shaped like a clock.
Heres the annoying thing: If I shut off my wifi at home and boot the device it will start to JUST the alarm clock (nothing else will work). If it can connect to my wifi but can't 'phone home', it's as described in the article. There would be less anger from the dash users if the damn thing would just default to the "clock mode" as if no network was available.
If you do a factory reset and dont bother setting up a network you can use it as a 'dumb alarm clock'.
"You said "Founding Fathers", as in plural, but let's not let technicalities such as language or, say, being mentioned in the fucking CONSTITUTION get in the way. A simple "I don't have a cite because I pulled this out of my ass" would have sufficed."
Yawn.
"Do realize that there are many, many, MANY things uttered by the Framers that never actually made it into the Constitution, and that these things are not law?"
You don't realize that many of the things they 'uttered' puts reason behind why they set things up the way they did. And the words of Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and Morris in particular post convention lay it all out and what the pitfalls are by going in certain directions. Pitfalls we see happening before our very eyes.
"Please cite a SINGLE Supreme Court ruling that is based on "passion"
You are being obtuse and/or not reading what I said but I'll attempt to answer you anyway. I would say many if not all since a short time after the 17th amendment. Virtually all since Bork was 'borked'. Do they CITE passion (as used by by our founders) in their decisions? No. But clearly many weren't based on the Constitution without doing liberal amounts of linguistic gymnastics.
Example: Obergefell v. Hodges. Scalia had it right when he said in his dissent:
Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create ‘liberties’ that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.
How is this not the direct result of the "passions" we were warned about? "right" or "wrong" of the decision really doesn't enter in to it. There's a process to allow the Constitution to be amended and it should not be by arbitrary interpretation based on the popular views at the time and bypassing it does nothing but nibble away at the mechanisms put in place to secure our liberty and freedoms. Which is what we get when a justices personal/political views become the center stage issue for confirmation.
Or Kelo v New London? McCollum v BoE Dist 71? That was in the 1940s! What changed in the 150ish years that preceded it other than popular passions and a fear of catholics?
"Where it is written in our Constitution that there shall be "no taxation without representation", much less, "no representation without taxation"?"
Where did I say it was? Or maybe I was pointing to a problem that was a direct result of the popular "passions" to which you seem to take exception.
"Why is it you can decry seizing the wealth from the 1% and say nothing about seizing the wealth from the 99%?"
I don't. I do say that everyone who votes and has income should have skin in the game at some level. But again, you appear to not be reading what I wrote. I also believe that public assistance should be considered income for tax purposes. Same reason. Want to raise taxes -- then raise them for EVERYONE. That way we ALL have skin in the game and will vote more on need than want.
"This is where a citation would come in really handy. I just LOVE it when people channel their inner Founding Father"
Really? I'm not interested in providing a high-school style research paper for lazy folks on material that SHOULD be common knowledge -- but how about Madison in Federalist 10 or 49?
"Passions? Really? Hey, here's an idea! How about a FUCKING CITATION so we know that the fuck you're talking about? Please cite for me a SINGLE Supreme Court ruling that is based on "passion"?"
Yes. Passions. That's actually the language used by the framers. Again -- look it up and don't be lazy. Franklin wrote a wonderful speech to argue the delegates to sign the Constitution. Look it up.
" it's hard to tax people working three jobs who have next to nothing, but hey, math is just a technicality and anyway"
I'd say that if you have income then you should be taxed. Minimum of 1%. And tie that to the highest tax bracket (say 30%). Tax rates should be tied together so a raise goes across the board anyway. Bump the highest from 30% to 35%, bump the lowest from 1% to 2%. That way EVERYONE has skin in the game. But when you remove that technicality of "math" completely out of the life of people who have the right to vote you effective bring on what our founders warned about.
"No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity." and "Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." -- Both Madison. There, I saved you some work.
Slashdot Mirror
Zeno, son. About 2500 years ago, he inadvertently proved we live in a digital world when he described what the fsck Parmenides was talking about.
Look up the paradox of the tortoise and Achilles. There's only so "small" you can slice space up...
It would cost a hell of a lot more than $30. The entire reason for removing the jack is to make the phone thinner and provide more space for things like more battery capacity.
Not saying I LIKE the idea -- I'm saying your suggestion is unworkable. They'd have to have two models with completely different specs from motherboard to case design.
"Shelter your kids..."
Excellent advice!
"...they're in REAL trouble"
I know what you mean!
See what I did there? Maybe next time you can address a full sentence instead of just a snip.
My son's service is limited by his resources. About $8 per month on Freedompop -- He's got about 500MB of data per month. Phone service sucks (it's VOIP) but outgoing calls uses sprint's cell network which are very good. There's other things for which he'd like to use is money.
And the phone is off ebay -- basically $100.
My daughter (13), on the other hand, was a $19 nokia t-mobile prepay. I paid $100 for minutes on t-mobile way-back-when and have dropped $10/year (yes year) to keep the phone active. Still has over $90 worth of minutes/texts the phone 3 years later. She barely uses it.
But you are absolutely right. I've seen some of my son's friends with iphone 6s' and cracked screens already. Thats crazy money to spend on a kid or even a young adult. My son cracked his screen -- he paid $50 of his own money to repair at a ubreakifix shop. Since then, he's been ultra careful with his phone.
Very 'this'. My wife watches TV and she want's me there. I watch TV and she's around maybe yes/maybe no -- not a big deal for me.
Real Housewives of %SOMETOWN% was my squeal point. She's learned to enjoy her quite time in front of the TV alone watching stuff that would make me want to gouge out my eyes.
I'm not that strict with the phones or anything else -- but I'm not far behind.
My kids have RDP terminals in their rooms with just enough bandwidth to run word/excel. The main computer is in the dining room (on wheels when we need the full space for guests). All homework is done at the dining room table.
Only my son (16) has a smart phone and he pays for service himself. The phone, however, is mine. He's not allowed to "own" a phone until he pays rent. Phones aren't allowed in the house during the week except early evening (after homework/dinner and before 10pm). Weekends are a bit more generous.
The cool thing is I wrote a chore tracker which they need to fill out every day or they automagically lose internet access on all their devices (except access to the tracker). They just need to fill out if they did a task and if not provide a reason. It wont cut them off if they dont do their choirs -- just if they dont report it. I can cut them off or return access from my phone anywhere with an internet connection. They're pretty honest about filling it out and know if they lie and get caught it's a week without internet.
What 7 year old needs a $400+ phone? "Smart phones" in particular are huge distractions. My 16 year old has an iphone 5 and when home it's not in use (my rules) until after homework and dinner. Then it's back on the table for charging at 10pm. My 13 year old uses a little nokia candy-bar phone with a flip keyboard.
"When you have the choice to be an asshole or a reasonable person, why be an asshole?"
When I'm talking to someone and I want to be understood I speak the common tongue (English in my case). If I want to speak to someone who doesn't speak english maybe I switch to THEIR tongue so I can be understood.
When someone *IS* unreasonable and *IS* an asshole sometimes they only UNDERSTAND the language of 'asshole'.
"...some people think it is because of Political Correctness is taking over. It isn't it is because we as a culture are trying to flatten the class structure."
We've been flattening class structure since the 1600s and has nothing to do with Trump's popularity. PC is fairly new and it *IS* causing huge unnecessary problems and conflict. By labeling nearly EVERYTHING racist or sexist to silence your opposition there can be no middle-ground or compromise. I believe it's impossible to govern a republic based on democratic principles for very long without compromise -- you end up with sometimes more than 50% of the population against the establishment. .
Trump is popular because he's talking about things both the Ds and the Rs wont talk about -- like illegal immigration for instance. PC crap and 'micro aggressions" are just really starting to piss people off. I swear its right out of George Orwell how we're changing language to change perception. "Pro Life" vs "Pro Choice"? That's so crazy minor compared to a young black woman calling out a young white man with dreadlocks for stealing her culture -- or taking "felon" and "criminal" out of our lexicon in favor of "persons who have been involved in the justice system" or "individuals who have been incarcerated". I'm not making that up!
When the press and the establishment both refuse to use the term "illegal immigrant" and refer to those who have a PROBLEM with unregulated and vetted migration across our sovereign borders as "anti - immigrant" (rather than anti-ILLEGAL-immigration) it's appalling.
You can only shut down the opposition so much via tactics like this for so long before something fractures. There's no more ability to compromise and "meet in the middle". You are right that people feel less empowered -- but not just white people (how long until we want to call ourselves 'melanin lacking individuals'?) And it's because our system broke. Things that should require a constitutional amendment are being forced on a country not fully ready for it by judicial fiat. That takes sovereignty out of the hands of the individual.
It's no wonder why Trump is so popular. It's also no wonder why he's so hated.
*I'm not a Trump supporter. He strikes me as a psychopath the way he attacks and loves in almost the same sentence. That doesn't mean I can't see the appeal to FINALLY have someone speak honestly and blow off PC dribble and talk about topics that are basically quasi-taboo to the establishment of both parties.
I heard an awesome quote yesterday:
"Yeah, Trump needs to prove he's not Hitler but Hillary needs to prove she's not Hilary which is a lot harder to do".
"Yeah, because regulated Restaurants NEVER have issues (Chipotle)"
You appear to respond to posts but don't actually read to what you are responding.
Example: You claim that I said regulated restaurants NEVER have issues -- and provided an obvious and recent example that proves my claim (which never made) is false. Cool, if fake win for you.
What I did say is: "By applying for a license and submitting to inspection we dramatically minimize that risk"
It, in fact, does do that.
By saying there are instances where a regulated restaurant inappropriately prepared food proves that the regulation isn't necessary is such an amazing fallacy that surprises me that someone's neurons could fire in way to produce that thought.
"At some point, the "regulation" designed to keep you safe, actually endangers you, because you ignore or trust them too much."
Just... wow. So, the answer is to let anyone sell and store food any way they want, right? Good idea.
Now... lets put on our reality glasses. There were what? 50 something cases with Cipotle -- to the point that it reached a national hysteria? How many deaths? Zero?
Pick up almost any news paper from the past. Say early 1900s. You'll find weekly articles about food poisoning outbreaks many with numerous deaths. Any local news papers from any largish town in the US. Now, most food poising is individuals or families from poorly prep'd or stored meals at HOME. Chipotle was in the news BECAUSE it's the odd ball -- and not a valid argument that regulation is useless.
Geez.
"blame the victim,"
Are you sure? I've been poor. I've been homeless. I lived out of a locker and got a $25/night hotel once or twice a week to shower/get good sleep when I couldn't afford a roof over my head AND school.
What did I get out of that? I got a college education and zero debt.
I never thought of myself as a victim. I never thought that society was victimizing me. This was my circumstance at the time and, not being stupid, figured out what I needed to do to change my circumstance.
I work with a local shelter (one that helped me way-back-when). I know what a motivated person can do to get out living in a shelter. It's not complicated. Those that follow some simple rules are "back on their feet" and have a roof over their head in a few months if not weeks. Those that dont have a self-imposed life-style. They are not victims.
"I hate sounding preachy, but you shouldn't use wealth to give yourself some moral superiority."
Most "opportunity" is available and achievable at the cost of some sacrifice. What we have are few people who are willing to live elsewhere (where they might find a job) or even more basic -- holding off marriage and parenthood until one can afford a family.
If you want to dramatically reduce a chance to live in poverty, don't do drugs, dont drink, work hard in school and DO NOT HAVE KIDS without a spouse and until you can afford them. After that, it's about living where you can find work.
" Why does it bother you that selling food to earn a living, and is such a problem that it needs government intervention?"
Because without someone checking on the how the food is prepared and stored is a recipe for food poisoning.
By applying for a license and submitting to inspection we dramatically minimize that risk. This is a good thing.
What I'm seeing in my area are bunches of food trucks (over several blocks) -- which are putting local restaurants out of business. This isn't necessarily bad as the trucks are licensed, clean and inspected. It's just a 'shift' which is to be expected when someone finds a way to do something cheaper.
However, cutting out "rent" as part of one's overhead is a LOT different that cutting out proper cleaning procedures and storage procedures for perishables. The former saves a business owner money as does the latter -- but not at the expense of risking their customers health.
"The product page for the Sony Dash [sony.com] does not really shed any more light on what it is, but the pictures indicate it is a clunky tablet-like device which you can be stood on a table against a backdrop of different home furnishings, mostly in soft focus."
How about some better context? Like it's not a "tablet" -- clunky or otherwise. It's a clock. It has some functions in common with tablets -- or phones -- or PCs but it doesn't make a TV a "clunky phone" if it has Skype -- or a phone a "clunky PC" if it runs apps.
Without some type of stand, a tablet makes a poor alarm clock. With a stand, a tablet STILL makes a poor alarm clock. The shape is all wrong -- the placement of buttons -- it's easy to knock over by accident and a PITA to 'snooze' without tapping "just the right spot" on the screen.
I'm glad sony resolved the issue. I like having it scroll through a few sites during the day (news, pics, etc) -- showing the weather, play Pandora when I want or Netflix or listen to MP3s. The interface isn't great -- but that's because it's a clock -- not a tablet.
I paid about $50 for my Dash around it's end of life around 2012. I figured it be fun to hack. Instead, I've been using it for it's intended purpose for the past 4ish years.
So, a tablet makes a poor alarm clock. And the Dash makes a poor tablet -- but a damn good alarm clock.
That is one of the most insightful comments in this thread.
I was concerned about that for longevity of the industry.
I have a pebble. It works perfectly with my iphone 5. It cost me $100 (free, actually -- it was a gift) and I charge it once a week (friday night before I go to bed. If I forget, I get a 20% battery warning around sunday or monday). For those counting, that's about 13-14 days if I let it go that long (I don't use a watch-face that shows second hand).
It does everything I 'need' a smart watch to do:
o notifications (email, call, text -- all can be filtered to be from specific accounts or specific senders)
o looks decent enough to wear at formal social events
o long enough battery life that I'm not charging it several times a week.
Right now, any other features (using the watch as a speaker phone, sending voice/text replies, pretty colors, touch screen, showing pictures) all take away from battery life without really offering much in true functionality.
Not needing to take my phone out a few dozen times a day to see if my last email was from a sales rep asking something dumb or an alert letting me know server went down somewhere is a god-send. In a theater if I get a call my phone doesn't make a sound -- doesn't buzz. My watch doesn't light up like a phone -- just a very dim backlight and a vibrate that can barely be heard in a quite room -- enough to see if it's something I can ignore.
That is why I would by a pebble. 2 years ago I would have said they were stupid. After a few weeks wearing one, I'm quite happy. Plus I like the Dr. Who watch face (1:00 = Hartnell, 2:00 = Troughton, 3 = Pertwee, etc. with john hurt showing up between 8:30 and 9).
"Saying, "Check the box" doesn't provide anything that anyone can build a budget on."
The various governments of the United States (city, state and nation) have been ignoring reality when building budgets for quite some time. How do you really think this would impair them?
"Where are you on a cloud SERVICE when the magic goes away?"
With an alarm clock. That's the way it DOES work. The problem is that *IF* it has internet access but cannot reach 'home' is locks as described in the article -- it's a stupid fail that no user would expect. Shut off the power, disable your home wifi, restart and POOF, it boots to just the alarm clock. You get an annoying "network" message but it will wake you up when you want it to.
"Why would you EVER used an alarm clock that NEEDS the internet to even work... Like wtf?"
Actually, it doesn't need the internet to work AS AN ALARM CLOCK. The problem is the damn thing chokes if it HAS internet access and cant reach 'home' after a reboot. If it DOESN'T have internet access, just the alarms work. It's a stupid fail that no user would expect and a serious oversight by Sony.
Dont turn it off. If you do it wont come back until (or if) sony gets their service back up.
I knew exactly what I was buying when I bought mine. I spent $50 for a device near it's end of life which might be fun to hack. Instead I've been using it exactly as its been designed. I've gotten a few years of use out of it and it's been great.
A tablet is an alternative -- but the SHAPE, weight and location of the buttons on the Dash is what makes it an excellent desk clock.
Sort of. But this was out when a current $40 tablet would run $300+.
I have a dash and I paid $50 new towards their end of life a few years ago. Its a nice device. Yes, you can do more with a tablet but except for this lame requirement that it find the server to fully boot *IF* it's on a network, it's a great -- the right size, balance, snooze button locations etc. it's a CLOCK, not a tablet. It's shaped like a clock.
Heres the annoying thing: If I shut off my wifi at home and boot the device it will start to JUST the alarm clock (nothing else will work). If it can connect to my wifi but can't 'phone home', it's as described in the article. There would be less anger from the dash users if the damn thing would just default to the "clock mode" as if no network was available.
If you do a factory reset and dont bother setting up a network you can use it as a 'dumb alarm clock'.
"You said "Founding Fathers", as in plural, but let's not let technicalities such as language or, say, being mentioned in the fucking CONSTITUTION get in the way. A simple "I don't have a cite because I pulled this out of my ass" would have sufficed."
Yawn.
"Do realize that there are many, many, MANY things uttered by the Framers that never actually made it into the Constitution, and that these things are not law?"
You don't realize that many of the things they 'uttered' puts reason behind why they set things up the way they did. And the words of Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and Morris in particular post convention lay it all out and what the pitfalls are by going in certain directions. Pitfalls we see happening before our very eyes.
"Please cite a SINGLE Supreme Court ruling that is based on "passion"
You are being obtuse and/or not reading what I said but I'll attempt to answer you anyway. I would say many if not all since a short time after the 17th amendment. Virtually all since Bork was 'borked'. Do they CITE passion (as used by by our founders) in their decisions? No. But clearly many weren't based on the Constitution without doing liberal amounts of linguistic gymnastics.
Example: Obergefell v. Hodges. Scalia had it right when he said in his dissent:
How is this not the direct result of the "passions" we were warned about? "right" or "wrong" of the decision really doesn't enter in to it. There's a process to allow the Constitution to be amended and it should not be by arbitrary interpretation based on the popular views at the time and bypassing it does nothing but nibble away at the mechanisms put in place to secure our liberty and freedoms. Which is what we get when a justices personal/political views become the center stage issue for confirmation.
Or Kelo v New London? McCollum v BoE Dist 71? That was in the 1940s! What changed in the 150ish years that preceded it other than popular passions and a fear of catholics?
"Where it is written in our Constitution that there shall be "no taxation without representation", much less, "no representation without taxation"?"
Where did I say it was? Or maybe I was pointing to a problem that was a direct result of the popular "passions" to which you seem to take exception.
"Why is it you can decry seizing the wealth from the 1% and say nothing about seizing the wealth from the 99%?"
I don't. I do say that everyone who votes and has income should have skin in the game at some level. But again, you appear to not be reading what I wrote. I also believe that public assistance should be considered income for tax purposes. Same reason. Want to raise taxes -- then raise them for EVERYONE. That way we ALL have skin in the game and will vote more on need than want.
"This is where a citation would come in really handy. I just LOVE it when people channel their inner Founding Father"
Really? I'm not interested in providing a high-school style research paper for lazy folks on material that SHOULD be common knowledge -- but how about Madison in Federalist 10 or 49?
"Passions? Really? Hey, here's an idea! How about a FUCKING CITATION so we know that the fuck you're talking about? Please cite for me a SINGLE Supreme Court ruling that is based on "passion"?"
Yes. Passions. That's actually the language used by the framers. Again -- look it up and don't be lazy. Franklin wrote a wonderful speech to argue the delegates to sign the Constitution. Look it up.
" it's hard to tax people working three jobs who have next to nothing, but hey, math is just a technicality and anyway"
I'd say that if you have income then you should be taxed. Minimum of 1%. And tie that to the highest tax bracket (say 30%). Tax rates should be tied together so a raise goes across the board anyway. Bump the highest from 30% to 35%, bump the lowest from 1% to 2%. That way EVERYONE has skin in the game. But when you remove that technicality of "math" completely out of the life of people who have the right to vote you effective bring on what our founders warned about.
"No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity." and "Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." -- Both Madison. There, I saved you some work.