a sapphire/glass composite is not a sapphire. if they've only got a thousandth or less, the soft substrate will dominate the test.
Not a composite – a laminate structure.
You are right that a scratch test on a thin laminate layer would be complicated by the elastic compliance of the substrate (glass).
How thick is the sapphire laminate layer? And more importantly, what size and geometry of tip did the experimenter use when conducting the test? Was it much larger than the laminate layer? If so, the results are invalid.
I don't think optics would be the problem: It's impact resistance. While it's great for scratches & abrasions, sapphire is easy to shatter & crack.
When you have a lens that sticks out of the phone, impact resistance is probably something to consider.
When I moved from an iPhone 4 (which had lens-scratching problems), to an iPhone 6, the first thing I checked out was the camera lens. The lens is recessed within its metal mount by about 0.3 mm. This is obviously to protect the lens surface from abrasions, such as when an iPhone is slid across a table.
Try it yourself. You can feel the recess with your fingernail.
If they imply it has hardness 9 like sapphire does and it only has 6 that's false advertising. In practice that's the difference between being scratched by sand or not.
Well, the guy characterized the lens, and found that the surface laminate was indeed sapphire. If his subsequent hardness test found a hardness other than 9, then the guy needs to go back and learn to conduct a proper measurement.
The Mohs'-scale value of 9 is defined by that of sapphire.
If you check their website Apple states 'Sapphire crystal lens cover' in the specs of their phones: http://www.apple.com/ca/iphone... , so if you are trying to scratch the underside claiming sapphire, then you are probably doing something wrong?
Is this a non-story or did I miss something?
This is a non-story. No one would make a lens entirely out of sapphire.
First, why waste money machining something so hard? Just laminate your lens with it.
First, sapphire has an anisotropic crystal structure. Its index of refraction will vary with the direction light is traveling through the sapphire. That means image aberrations, or in simple language: blurry, doubled, or color-fringed images.
(Do CPUs even die these days?). When I did my upgrade, it was a pretty dramatic difference and, for $400, totally worth it. It extended the life of a really nice machine by several years.
Historically, CPUs were designed to have a service-life of 40 years.
That probably changed roughly 10 years ago. They learned from the lightbulb manufacturers to limit the designed-life of the products. For lightbulbs, it was an obvious 'bottom-line enhancer'. But for CPUs, backing off from 40 years made sense, what with all the Moore's Law scaling and such.
I do not know the current physical-engineering life-time design for CPUs, but I guarantee you that it ain't 40 years. OS companies and software vendors have obviated any utility of long-life CPUs – they add bloat (*cough* features) that keep that CPU far busier than it needs to be, so you'll be buying a new computer within a few years in any case.
Brag: My IBM PCjr (c.a. 1985) still runs like a champ.
Effectively everything after 1921 has some kind of copyright complication with it complicating access and long term archiving. Since corporations can own stuff that ownership can go on forever. Even the Happy Birthday song is owned and nobody puts it in film or video as a result. I'm happy that google is winning the court cases its fighting to get copyrighted material on line, but its sad that it takes one corporation to take on other corporations to win.
"Happy Birthday" is a prime example, but was recently and properly put into the public domain.
Better Example: The PBS documentary film series "Eyes on the Prize", a highly detailed 10-episode series covering the civil-rights era of the 1960s. A few copies still exist in obscure libraries and video stores, but PBS is prohibited from producing copies of this extremely important series by copyright law.
The problem is that only the final mix-down exists, and it is interspersed quite heavily with snippets of music from that era. That music is copyrighted. But even the not-for-profit entity – PBS – is prohibited from re-issuing the series on DVD or streaming (extant copies are in VHS or Betamax). They are prohibited from making and selling any new copies (ones you can "buy") of this historically significant documentary.
There is a group trying to sort through this morass, and Episode 1 has been out for quite some time now, but the rest is locked-up in the corporate copyright jail.
If you find a copy of the series available, rent or check-out the whole thing. Digitize it –– doing so is absolutely fair use. Just don't distribute copies until the dust settles (or some other situation makes you impervious to copyright infringement lawsuits from the big five (six?) rights-holders.
Buzzfeed is a corporation, just like Citizens United is a corporation. We heard it was wrong for Citizens United to spend money to make a political film. Where's the outrage about Buzzfeed spending corporate money against Trump?
Please post your expressions of outrage here. Unless your outrage was phony. Or selective, partisan outrage. Or you can explain why corporation B can legitimately spend on politics, but corporation C can't.
My first time on BuzzFeed, so I clicked a few links.
My IQ dropped by at least 20 points in those few minutes on Buzzfeed.
What a garbage website. One can find snark (fark.com). Or satire (theonion.com). And so on... But insipid time-wasting idiocy – that isn't even funny or entertaining – seems to be the domain of buzzfeedcom.
Google searches for "SSD upgrades" may outweigh searches for "CPU upgrades" but that would represent a very small segment of the computer buying public. Most storage is acquired with the purchase of a new machine and never changes.
I think you meant the opposite.
Almost nobody upgrades their CPUs, but they upgrade or add internal HDDs all the time. CPU sluggish? Either regret installing Windows 10, or but a new computer because the CPU is the computer (in totality, to most people).
The first thing a typical user dares touch inside the case is RAM. Second is HDD add/replacement. Way down the list is replacing the (GASP!) CPU with a faster one. Yes, it is dead easy, but not everyone in the world is a/. techie.
The last I'd heard, news fact-checking organizations were reporting that he told the truth 15% of the time. Why would I ever care what the opinion of someone like was?
And don't tell me "because he's going to be president". The people of the United States are still smarter than that.
No. No one knows what Trump thinks. That is not the point of his rhetoric.
He simply disagrees with whatever his opponent agrees with – or whatever reasonable people think – or what everyone knows is true. This stirs up controversy, resulting in free campaign ads disguised as articles in the press.
Don the Con has run a simple side-show distraction from the beginning. Please stop debating about his points or positions! They are foils designed to distract.
His campaign is, and always has been, a media campaign to increase the 'value' of his 'brand'. Nothing more.
BTW –– PLEASE tell me of a single Trump supporter who even knows what ICANN is or does! His base could not care less about what he is blabbering about – only that he is blabbering about something, and opposing someone else to "Make Syria Great Again". Oh, er, "Make America Great Again.
Apple, why kill your "in" on the professional audio market?
No self-respecting audio engineer, recording artist, session musician, or listener is going to tolerate the series of A/D/A/D/A conversions required to get a dongle to work with an all-digital audio-monitoring system. No one.
And anyone who is a Pro is not going to sacrifice a lightning port for simple audio output.
Insulation on the inside of the fuel tanks? Who puts insulation on the inside of a fuel tank?
Reading between the lines, it is probably an anti-corrosion coating, not some foam or fiberglass.
There's really only one product on the market for this, from ATFI, and the company relies upon knowingly upon falsified data-analysis to make the sale. ATFI bragged about their contract as a subcontractor to the F-35 in a press release a year or two ago . . .
Looking today, I see that ATFI has disabled their RSS scroller, and has disabled their previously-functioning linkNEWS menu-link at the top of their website.
Huh. No better way to show that they are the guilty party, eh?
This isn't about education either. This is about profit. Current business practices emphasis maximized profit over human presence and with the demand for higher wages to match the cost of living while robotics continue to drop in price, it's inevitable that humans will be replaced (Most 'job creators' have an antagonistic view towards labor anyway). No amount of education will stop this. There will, for a time, be refuge in jobs like repairing the various robots. Google cars won't repair themselves after all. But even that can and will be automated in time.
Those few of the population that are the inventors and knowledge-creators are treated even worse than the daily-grind employees. That is, they get intellectually raped, so that all profits from their inventions or discoveries are usurped.
Poverty and corruption are inextricably linked. The only way out will be the universal basic income. And the automation will basically be a replicator. Then an "income" really won't be necessary. The only other option is extermination, either through neglect or by more active measures.
No, extermination of the unemployed or poor will not solve anything.
What the rich want, on a fundamental level, is to have more than most everybody else.
Hence, exterminating the poor would simply re-draw the borderline. Society would then be prepared afresh for another culling. And another. And another.
You cannot have "The Rich" without there being a lot of "The Poors".
They are already doing an effective DDOS attack on everyone's phones. I'd guess over 2/3 of people don't even answer the phone unless the number is already in their contact list. They just let it go to voicemail.
Worse, actually.
HR Departments typically set up "phone rings". Call HR idiot #1, and it says "for immediate service, call HR idiot #2. Call HR idiot #2, and the message sends you to HR idiot #3.
I have, on occasions of writing complaint letters, followed the chain all the way through to discover and document that idiot #nn refers me to HR idiot #1. That completes the loop, and is a good basis for a written complaint to the C-levels. Just be certain to record each call––it is a recording that does not respond when you state that "this call will be recorded."
...like Niggardly?...or Pussy (as in pusillanimous)?
Because nobody's ever figured out how to get around filters before.
A few years ago, a primary-school teacher was fired for using the word "niggardly", despite using it in its original, antediluvian context – while reading aloud a passage from a book!
Restaurants and retail businesses should get together and start an anti-Yelp campaign. Come up with a sign you put in the front window of your restaurant -- "We don't pay Yelp for advertisements because we don't think Yelp is fair in their reviews of businesses. As a result you may find that Yelp displays overly negative reviews of our business. We don't care and we don't think you should either."
Once a high percentage of businesses display that in their window, people will get the message and lose interest in Yelp.
The Comedy Central show, South Park did an episode on this exact topic a season or two ago.
In the end, Yelp! reviewers were given special "mayor-awarded" pins or T-shirts. (I am presuming it was so that restaurants would know to wipe their steaks on their asses before cooking them.) LOL
Of course. Everyone accuses yelp of manipulating reviews...but nobody has actual evidence of it. I have just as much hatred of bullshit companies as the next guy, but manipulating reviews would actually run afoul of federal law. A certain other company I shall not name actually DID pull the bullshit mentioned above...and they had to settle a very expensive lawsuit behind closed doors.
I do.
I print to paper and/or PDF when I post or read important things.
PLEASE provide me more detail on the federal agency that this other company ran afoul of, and to which department thereof that the complaint was submitted to. I have seen them do it.
PLEASE also provide further information of the specific case that you mentioned (by PM, if necessary).
Yelp! actively engages in the payola game. I know BOTH sides of a current review-alteration campaign on Yelp!. The power of subpoena can gain a lot of evidence if the pre-trial phase of evidence appears to merit digging a little deeper.
Slashdot Mirror
a sapphire/glass composite is not a sapphire. if they've only got a thousandth or less, the soft substrate will dominate the test.
Not a composite – a laminate structure.
You are right that a scratch test on a thin laminate layer would be complicated by the elastic compliance of the substrate (glass).
How thick is the sapphire laminate layer? And more importantly, what size and geometry of tip did the experimenter use when conducting the test? Was it much larger than the laminate layer? If so, the results are invalid.
I don't think optics would be the problem: It's impact resistance. While it's great for scratches & abrasions, sapphire is easy to shatter & crack.
When you have a lens that sticks out of the phone, impact resistance is probably something to consider.
When I moved from an iPhone 4 (which had lens-scratching problems), to an iPhone 6, the first thing I checked out was the camera lens. The lens is recessed within its metal mount by about 0.3 mm. This is obviously to protect the lens surface from abrasions, such as when an iPhone is slid across a table.
Try it yourself. You can feel the recess with your fingernail.
If they imply it has hardness 9 like sapphire does and it only has 6 that's false advertising. In practice that's the difference between being scratched by sand or not.
Well, the guy characterized the lens, and found that the surface laminate was indeed sapphire. If his subsequent hardness test found a hardness other than 9, then the guy needs to go back and learn to conduct a proper measurement.
The Mohs'-scale value of 9 is defined by that of sapphire.
If you check their website Apple states 'Sapphire crystal lens cover' in the specs of their phones: http://www.apple.com/ca/iphone... , so if you are trying to scratch the underside claiming sapphire, then you are probably doing something wrong?
Is this a non-story or did I miss something?
This is a non-story. No one would make a lens entirely out of sapphire.
First, why waste money machining something so hard? Just laminate your lens with it.
First, sapphire has an anisotropic crystal structure. Its index of refraction will vary with the direction light is traveling through the sapphire. That means image aberrations, or in simple language: blurry, doubled, or color-fringed images.
(Do CPUs even die these days?). When I did my upgrade, it was a pretty dramatic difference and, for $400, totally worth it. It extended the life of a really nice machine by several years.
Historically, CPUs were designed to have a service-life of 40 years.
That probably changed roughly 10 years ago. They learned from the lightbulb manufacturers to limit the designed-life of the products. For lightbulbs, it was an obvious 'bottom-line enhancer'. But for CPUs, backing off from 40 years made sense, what with all the Moore's Law scaling and such.
I do not know the current physical-engineering life-time design for CPUs, but I guarantee you that it ain't 40 years. OS companies and software vendors have obviated any utility of long-life CPUs – they add bloat (*cough* features) that keep that CPU far busier than it needs to be, so you'll be buying a new computer within a few years in any case.
Brag: My IBM PCjr (c.a. 1985) still runs like a champ.
Effectively everything after 1921 has some kind of copyright complication with it complicating access and long term archiving. Since corporations can own stuff that ownership can go on forever. Even the Happy Birthday song is owned and nobody puts it in film or video as a result. I'm happy that google is winning the court cases its fighting to get copyrighted material on line, but its sad that it takes one corporation to take on other corporations to win.
"Happy Birthday" is a prime example, but was recently and properly put into the public domain.
Better Example: The PBS documentary film series "Eyes on the Prize", a highly detailed 10-episode series covering the civil-rights era of the 1960s. A few copies still exist in obscure libraries and video stores, but PBS is prohibited from producing copies of this extremely important series by copyright law.
The problem is that only the final mix-down exists, and it is interspersed quite heavily with snippets of music from that era. That music is copyrighted. But even the not-for-profit entity – PBS – is prohibited from re-issuing the series on DVD or streaming (extant copies are in VHS or Betamax). They are prohibited from making and selling any new copies (ones you can "buy") of this historically significant documentary.
There is a group trying to sort through this morass, and Episode 1 has been out for quite some time now, but the rest is locked-up in the corporate copyright jail.
If you find a copy of the series available, rent or check-out the whole thing. Digitize it –– doing so is absolutely fair use. Just don't distribute copies until the dust settles (or some other situation makes you impervious to copyright infringement lawsuits from the big five (six?) rights-holders.
. . . some very smart people ARE already working on this issue, and have been for a long time. See the Digital Preservation Network and Internet Archive for starters.
Yep. True.
Thank you, Vint, for once again parroting observations I made 8 years ago, and taking credit for them.
But Vint, you again missed mentioning my solution (patented). Ah, but if all you want is more fame, then you go girl.
Buzzfeed is a corporation, just like Citizens United is a corporation. We heard it was wrong for Citizens United to spend money to make a political film. Where's the outrage about Buzzfeed spending corporate money against Trump?
Please post your expressions of outrage here. Unless your outrage was phony. Or selective, partisan outrage. Or you can explain why corporation B can legitimately spend on politics, but corporation C can't.
My first time on BuzzFeed, so I clicked a few links.
My IQ dropped by at least 20 points in those few minutes on Buzzfeed.
What a garbage website. One can find snark (fark.com). Or satire (theonion.com). And so on... But insipid time-wasting idiocy – that isn't even funny or entertaining – seems to be the domain of buzzfeedcom.
Don't think the AC has to worry. The ones that swear fealty to the leader are usually safe in an authoritarian regime.
You might want to ask the (deceased) friends of Lenin and Stalin before repeating the above.
HINT for the lazy: They killed them, to create an 'air gap' between their iron fist on power, and anyone below who served them.
Oh yeah, and didn't Kin Jong Un have his mentor, who was also his uncle, killed.
Fealty to "the leader" indeed.
Don't think the AC has to worry. The ones that swear fealty to the leader are usually safe in an authoritarian regime.
You might want to ask the (deceased) friends of Lenin and Stalin before repeating the above.
HINT for the lazy: They killed them, to create an 'air gap' between their iron fist on power, and anyone below who served them.
Google searches for "SSD upgrades" may outweigh searches for "CPU upgrades" but that would represent a very small segment of the computer buying public. Most storage is acquired with the purchase of a new machine and never changes.
I think you meant the opposite.
Almost nobody upgrades their CPUs, but they upgrade or add internal HDDs all the time. CPU sluggish? Either regret installing Windows 10, or but a new computer because the CPU is the computer (in totality, to most people).
The first thing a typical user dares touch inside the case is RAM. Second is HDD add/replacement. Way down the list is replacing the (GASP!) CPU with a faster one. Yes, it is dead easy, but not everyone in the world is a /. techie.
DANGER!
Troll post above.
The last I'd heard, news fact-checking organizations were reporting that he told the truth 15% of the time. Why would I ever care what the opinion of someone like was?
And don't tell me "because he's going to be president". The people of the United States are still smarter than that.
No. No one knows what Trump thinks. That is not the point of his rhetoric.
He simply disagrees with whatever his opponent agrees with – or whatever reasonable people think – or what everyone knows is true. This stirs up controversy, resulting in free campaign ads disguised as articles in the press.
Don the Con has run a simple side-show distraction from the beginning. Please stop debating about his points or positions! They are foils designed to distract.
His campaign is, and always has been, a media campaign to increase the 'value' of his 'brand'. Nothing more.
BTW –– PLEASE tell me of a single Trump supporter who even knows what ICANN is or does! His base could not care less about what he is blabbering about – only that he is blabbering about something, and opposing someone else to "Make Syria Great Again". Oh, er, "Make America Great Again.
This is why I invest every bit of my money with Bank of America.
The know things. . .
Sheesh, the one time that I don't copy-edit a post. . .
It was supposed to be: They know things. . .
This is why I invest every bit of my money with Bank of America.
The know things. . .
Apple, why kill your "in" on the professional audio market?
No self-respecting audio engineer, recording artist, session musician, or listener is going to tolerate the series of A/D/A/D/A conversions required to get a dongle to work with an all-digital audio-monitoring system. No one.
And anyone who is a Pro is not going to sacrifice a lightning port for simple audio output.
Insulation on the inside of the fuel tanks? Who puts insulation on the inside of a fuel tank?
Reading between the lines, it is probably an anti-corrosion coating, not some foam or fiberglass.
There's really only one product on the market for this, from ATFI, and the company relies upon knowingly upon falsified data-analysis to make the sale. ATFI bragged about their contract as a subcontractor to the F-35 in a press release a year or two ago . . .
Looking today, I see that ATFI has disabled their RSS scroller, and has disabled their previously-functioning link NEWS menu-link at the top of their website.
Huh. No better way to show that they are the guilty party, eh?
...
This isn't about education either. This is about profit. Current business practices emphasis maximized profit over human presence and with the demand for higher wages to match the cost of living while robotics continue to drop in price, it's inevitable that humans will be replaced (Most 'job creators' have an antagonistic view towards labor anyway). No amount of education will stop this. There will, for a time, be refuge in jobs like repairing the various robots. Google cars won't repair themselves after all. But even that can and will be automated in time.
Those few of the population that are the inventors and knowledge-creators are treated even worse than the daily-grind employees. That is, they get intellectually raped, so that all profits from their inventions or discoveries are usurped.
Capitalism kills the Golden Goose.
Poverty and corruption are inextricably linked. The only way out will be the universal basic income. And the automation will basically be a replicator. Then an "income" really won't be necessary. The only other option is extermination, either through neglect or by more active measures.
No, extermination of the unemployed or poor will not solve anything.
What the rich want, on a fundamental level, is to have more than most everybody else.
Hence, exterminating the poor would simply re-draw the borderline. Society would then be prepared afresh for another culling. And another. And another.
You cannot have "The Rich" without there being a lot of "The Poors".
It's basic sociology.
They are already doing an effective DDOS attack on everyone's phones. I'd guess over 2/3 of people don't even answer the phone unless the number is already in their contact list. They just let it go to voicemail.
Worse, actually.
HR Departments typically set up "phone rings". Call HR idiot #1, and it says "for immediate service, call HR idiot #2. Call HR idiot #2, and the message sends you to HR idiot #3.
I have, on occasions of writing complaint letters, followed the chain all the way through to discover and document that idiot #nn refers me to HR idiot #1. That completes the loop, and is a good basis for a written complaint to the C-levels. Just be certain to record each call––it is a recording that does not respond when you state that "this call will be recorded."
I have had to call 911 before –for a good and appropriate reason.
911 didn't work then.
How can anyone tell whether 911 is working as usual, or is crippled by a DDOS attack?!?
...like Niggardly? ...or Pussy (as in pusillanimous)?
Because nobody's ever figured out how to get around filters before.
A few years ago, a primary-school teacher was fired for using the word "niggardly", despite using it in its original, antediluvian context – while reading aloud a passage from a book!
Oh, those pernicious books!
Language evolves. Those internet keyword-searching algorithms will be out-of date within hours of a new version being published.
Fsck, how do "educated" people remain so gullible?
Restaurants and retail businesses should get together and start an anti-Yelp campaign. Come up with a sign you put in the front window of your restaurant -- "We don't pay Yelp for advertisements because we don't think Yelp is fair in their reviews of businesses. As a result you may find that Yelp displays overly negative reviews of our business. We don't care and we don't think you should either."
Once a high percentage of businesses display that in their window, people will get the message and lose interest in Yelp.
The Comedy Central show, South Park did an episode on this exact topic a season or two ago.
In the end, Yelp! reviewers were given special "mayor-awarded" pins or T-shirts. (I am presuming it was so that restaurants would know to wipe their steaks on their asses before cooking them.) LOL
Of course. Everyone accuses yelp of manipulating reviews...but nobody has actual evidence of it. I have just as much hatred of bullshit companies as the next guy, but manipulating reviews would actually run afoul of federal law. A certain other company I shall not name actually DID pull the bullshit mentioned above...and they had to settle a very expensive lawsuit behind closed doors.
I do.
I print to paper and/or PDF when I post or read important things.
PLEASE provide me more detail on the federal agency that this other company ran afoul of, and to which department thereof that the complaint was submitted to. I have seen them do it.
PLEASE also provide further information of the specific case that you mentioned (by PM, if necessary).
Yelp! actively engages in the payola game. I know BOTH sides of a current review-alteration campaign on Yelp!. The power of subpoena can gain a lot of evidence if the pre-trial phase of evidence appears to merit digging a little deeper.
Just PM me.