>"how the most revolutionary product of our time was designed and developed."
Oh what marketing-driven pompousness! Shall I barf now or later (or both)? In whose time? Mine? I can think of a zillion "revolutionary" products/inventions/technologies in MY time, none of which include the incremental step of the iPhone over the many PDAs and smart phones before it. Here are a few-
Unix, LED, computer mouse, GUI, MRI, GPS, Ethernet, ATM, Tesla Roadster/S/whichever, solar panel, pocket calculator, DNA sequencing machines, TiVo, so many things. Pick a first product from any of those and be amazed. Then add the internet- something you can't "buy" and isn't a product, but wow... THAT is "revolutionary."
Well, ultimately it doesn't matter the motivation, just the result. Consumers end up with products they can't really own, control, keep alive, or repair. When the industry moves completely in such a way, consumers have no more choices. It is sad and frustrating. It is also annoying that so many companies are desperate to clone what other companies are doing without really offering a wide variety of choices, assuming that all or most consumers all want the same thing.
Only when they don't know or understand. The moment I explained some of this about certain phones to some people, most seemed horrified. But yeah, many didn't care because they couldn't understand how/why/who would have a phone for more than two years. Even so, a little different with a laptop.
Consumers need to know this and punish device makers like this by not buying it and telling them WHY. If you use it a lot, the battery will be shot in just a few years, rendering a very expensive device to the landfill. It is one thing to not have a "user replaceable battery", and another thing to make it difficult, but quite another universe to make it impossible to replace the battery.
First manufacturers lock things down to prevent people from installing their own OS or trying to "unlock" it so that at least they can root it so they can get full control over what they bought. And now this?
>"Cable giants might not be in dire straits, but they're clearly focusing on their most lucrative customers as others jump ship for the internet."
"Focusing on"? How? By holding on to more and more useless channels? By raising prices continuously? By offering only deceptive "introductory" pricing models? By constantly fighting and making life difficult for TiVo and other third-party box owners? If this is their "focus", they are doing to be in dire straits before they know it.
They don't necessarily have to stream to compete (because DVRs can provide an excellent experience), but one thing they need to do soon is to offer a pay-for-each-channel-wanted model and allow customers to customize what they want to watch. I am BEYOND SICK of paying for crap I don't want and subsidizing others' channels. Sports is perfect example. I bet a HUGE portion of my cable TV bill is poured into sports, something I have ZERO interest in, but yet comprises probably 30 or more channels. Now throw out all religious channels, infomercial channels, game show channels, non-English channels, and reality TV channels. I bet I am now up to about 85%.
Oh, and when they do offer streaming, it is just the same crap content on their existing channels, but with the bonus of being only in stereo not Dolby 5.1, with a crappy low-bandwidth picture, and often forced commercials. All with silly time limits, a poor interface, and sometimes flaky as hell.
>"By its very text, the 10th Amendment already granted said authority."
It grants the authority of the Fed to do the several several specific things listed, all the rest (millions+ of things) reserved to the States or the "people" (meaning no government).
>"Ars Technica notes that "the Pixel is seen as Google's answer to the iPhone, but considering Apple sells 40 to 50 million iPhones in a quarter, Google has some catching up to do."
Seen by whom? It is just a phone, one of many Android phones. Add up all the Android phones and it dwarfs the number of iPhones. What are they trying to say, that selling a million Pixel phones is somehow a failure? Yeesh, you can make statistics say anything...
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
>"Do you believe calls made from a VOIP phone to a number in the same state uses a different communication system than a VOIP phone to an out-of-state phone?"
It doesn't matter. It is still a caller from within the State calling someone else within the same state State at a State facility and being billed in the same State. It is not a Federal matter, it is a State matter.
>"Firefox now uses up to four processes to run webpage content across all open tabs "
I just hope they have and will retain a method to turn off such threading, too, when/if wanted. There are systems (yes, pretty rare, but they are out there) where having processes use more than one core/CPU can devastate performance for everyone else. User choice is important.
>"Except that the States are also benefiting both by the creation"
But that is their right and mandate....
I agree the rates are silly and some States are doing the wrong thing and also that some private prisons should have much better oversight. But it is not the Fed's domain and the court ruled correctly (which is shocking).
>"This is about whether a federal agency can regulate purely intrastate activity. The FCC's rules capping costs for state-to-state calls stand."
+1 Insightful
Bingo. It has nothing to do with if we think the rates are fair or not. It has to do with the autonomy of the States. If you don't like it in your State, complain to your State, not the Fed.
It is really, really hard for many to swallow the concept that we are are the "United States of America" and not the "Federal State of America."
>"But no, I have no interest in a fugly family style electric car."
Then you would have no interest in a fugly family style gasoline car either. That has to do with your taste in cars, not what is under the hood. The same range of power options (or more) will likely be available across the same range of car styles, no doubt, when they go electric. Besides, it is easier and cheaper to make a fast electric car than a fast ICE car (of course, range is a different issue).
Loud does not equal powerful. Neither my car nor motorcycle are loud compared to what is typically on the road, and both are more powerful than what is typically on the road (both are very powerful). I don't need noise to advertise or self-assure that I have mad acceleration:)
>"And I'd never want an electric motorcycle, period. That would take all the fun out of riding one."
Really? Even if it meant it could accelerate faster AND be much lighter AND handle better AND be smooth and quiet? I don't think it would take any fun out of it at all, except maybe not having a transmission. But, no fear- we are far away from electric motorcycles; battery technology has to improve tremendously or there would be no range at all. Cars have the volume to contain storage, motorcycles don't.
You are correct that there were some incentives placed. But the real driver was the availability of something that worked and could pay for itself in energy savings. Once the public was offered products that produced acceptable quality light (good color, no strobing, good distribution), in a compatible package, at an affordable price, it was easy to make the switch through just education about the higher price of the bulb paying for itself.
The same thing will happen in other markets.
Another example- recycling. Many (including me) recycled, even when it meant separating things and hauling an inconvenient tub to the road every few weeks. But once the separation technology improved and it could be done centrally, large bins were made available just like regular trash bins. Regular pickup with no silly separating of the items into various sub-bins, and voila! No need for regulations or laws FORCING people to recycle- it just happened naturally. In my neighborhood (which is by no means liberal nor rich) recycling went from perhaps 20% to perhaps 90% in just a few years.
>"Sorry, but this was an anti-US agreement. Obama did a whole lot of those, and had no problem telling the world how he felt about the US, so that should not be a surprise.Read the damn thing! Pulling out is Pro-American. Being willing to negotiate a fair treaty, as the Trump administration said they would attempt to do immediately..."
Here we go again, someone trying to be logical with the ultra-liberal progressive-religious out there. Haven't you learned yet that nothing Trump does could possibly be good or make sense? And everything the press says must be true? You simply MUST be chastised for this critical and independent thinking...
>"Most of these efforts are being funded by profit-seeking capitalists, not "countries".Build a better battery, and the world will beat a path to your door."
Exactly. There are many, many millions of Americans, regardless of political party, who are itching to jump on clean, affordable, efficient products. Look at LED bulbs as a perfect example. We didn't need legislation or mandates or public service messages. We just needed a good product and some time. After several years, they are taking over and flying off the shelves.
Next up, electric cars- who doesn't want a powerful, quiet, efficient, vehicle with a fraction of the moving parts and things to fail? The private solar panel industry is just exploding now. People can't get enough!
And who in the USA doesn't want the country to be energy-independent?
Artificially trying to force things down people's throats is nowhere near as effective as education and motivation followed by real products people can buy.
>"Seriously, if you're going to participate or be part of the leadership of an organized protest, consider all your "command and control" participants use - get this! - "burner phones", and then at some point, ditch them."
Or better yet, protest but don't break the law...
NOT that I am excusing this ridiculous delay in getting their phones back because it is wrong. But something tells me that is pretty typical nowadays for any phone seized during an arrest in which they want data, too.
Slashdot Mirror
>"how the most revolutionary product of our time was designed and developed."
Oh what marketing-driven pompousness! Shall I barf now or later (or both)? In whose time? Mine? I can think of a zillion "revolutionary" products/inventions/technologies in MY time, none of which include the incremental step of the iPhone over the many PDAs and smart phones before it. Here are a few-
Unix, LED, computer mouse, GUI, MRI, GPS, Ethernet, ATM, Tesla Roadster/S/whichever, solar panel, pocket calculator, DNA sequencing machines, TiVo, so many things. Pick a first product from any of those and be amazed. Then add the internet- something you can't "buy" and isn't a product, but wow... THAT is "revolutionary."
>"So malice or not, that is still the question"
Well, ultimately it doesn't matter the motivation, just the result. Consumers end up with products they can't really own, control, keep alive, or repair. When the industry moves completely in such a way, consumers have no more choices. It is sad and frustrating. It is also annoying that so many companies are desperate to clone what other companies are doing without really offering a wide variety of choices, assuming that all or most consumers all want the same thing.
>"Consumers do not care. Really, they don't."
Only when they don't know or understand. The moment I explained some of this about certain phones to some people, most seemed horrified. But yeah, many didn't care because they couldn't understand how/why/who would have a phone for more than two years. Even so, a little different with a laptop.
Consumers need to know this and punish device makers like this by not buying it and telling them WHY. If you use it a lot, the battery will be shot in just a few years, rendering a very expensive device to the landfill. It is one thing to not have a "user replaceable battery", and another thing to make it difficult, but quite another universe to make it impossible to replace the battery.
First manufacturers lock things down to prevent people from installing their own OS or trying to "unlock" it so that at least they can root it so they can get full control over what they bought. And now this?
>"Cable giants might not be in dire straits, but they're clearly focusing on their most lucrative customers as others jump ship for the internet."
"Focusing on"? How? By holding on to more and more useless channels? By raising prices continuously? By offering only deceptive "introductory" pricing models? By constantly fighting and making life difficult for TiVo and other third-party box owners? If this is their "focus", they are doing to be in dire straits before they know it.
They don't necessarily have to stream to compete (because DVRs can provide an excellent experience), but one thing they need to do soon is to offer a pay-for-each-channel-wanted model and allow customers to customize what they want to watch. I am BEYOND SICK of paying for crap I don't want and subsidizing others' channels. Sports is perfect example. I bet a HUGE portion of my cable TV bill is poured into sports, something I have ZERO interest in, but yet comprises probably 30 or more channels. Now throw out all religious channels, infomercial channels, game show channels, non-English channels, and reality TV channels. I bet I am now up to about 85%.
Oh, and when they do offer streaming, it is just the same crap content on their existing channels, but with the bonus of being only in stereo not Dolby 5.1, with a crappy low-bandwidth picture, and often forced commercials. All with silly time limits, a poor interface, and sometimes flaky as hell.
Focus, indeed.
>"By its very text, the 10th Amendment already granted said authority."
It grants the authority of the Fed to do the several several specific things listed, all the rest (millions+ of things) reserved to the States or the "people" (meaning no government).
>"Then you mean the 'States of America' not United."
No, because the Constitution holds the States together and gives the Fed some very limited and specific powers. That is the "United" part.
>"Ars Technica notes that "the Pixel is seen as Google's answer to the iPhone, but considering Apple sells 40 to 50 million iPhones in a quarter, Google has some catching up to do."
Seen by whom? It is just a phone, one of many Android phones. Add up all the Android phones and it dwarfs the number of iPhones. What are they trying to say, that selling a million Pixel phones is somehow a failure? Yeesh, you can make statistics say anything...
Nothing you just quoted usurps the 10th Amendment or gives the Fed powers beyond what is spelled out in the Constitution.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
>"Do you believe calls made from a VOIP phone to a number in the same state uses a different communication system than a VOIP phone to an out-of-state phone?"
It doesn't matter. It is still a caller from within the State calling someone else within the same state State at a State facility and being billed in the same State. It is not a Federal matter, it is a State matter.
>"Firefox now uses up to four processes to run webpage content across all open tabs "
I just hope they have and will retain a method to turn off such threading, too, when/if wanted. There are systems (yes, pretty rare, but they are out there) where having processes use more than one core/CPU can devastate performance for everyone else. User choice is important.
>"Except that the States are also benefiting both by the creation"
But that is their right and mandate....
I agree the rates are silly and some States are doing the wrong thing and also that some private prisons should have much better oversight. But it is not the Fed's domain and the court ruled correctly (which is shocking).
>"This is about whether a federal agency can regulate purely intrastate activity. The FCC's rules capping costs for state-to-state calls stand."
+1 Insightful
Bingo. It has nothing to do with if we think the rates are fair or not. It has to do with the autonomy of the States. If you don't like it in your State, complain to your State, not the Fed.
It is really, really hard for many to swallow the concept that we are are the "United States of America" and not the "Federal State of America."
"Darwin"
>"But no, I have no interest in a fugly family style electric car."
Then you would have no interest in a fugly family style gasoline car either. That has to do with your taste in cars, not what is under the hood. The same range of power options (or more) will likely be available across the same range of car styles, no doubt, when they go electric. Besides, it is easier and cheaper to make a fast electric car than a fast ICE car (of course, range is a different issue).
Loud does not equal powerful. Neither my car nor motorcycle are loud compared to what is typically on the road, and both are more powerful than what is typically on the road (both are very powerful). I don't need noise to advertise or self-assure that I have mad acceleration :)
>"And I'd never want an electric motorcycle, period. That would take all the fun out of riding one."
Really? Even if it meant it could accelerate faster AND be much lighter AND handle better AND be smooth and quiet? I don't think it would take any fun out of it at all, except maybe not having a transmission. But, no fear- we are far away from electric motorcycles; battery technology has to improve tremendously or there would be no range at all. Cars have the volume to contain storage, motorcycles don't.
Believe what you like, it changes nothing
Yes, I do have answers, but you don't deserve them and I won't discuss with you.
You are correct that there were some incentives placed. But the real driver was the availability of something that worked and could pay for itself in energy savings. Once the public was offered products that produced acceptable quality light (good color, no strobing, good distribution), in a compatible package, at an affordable price, it was easy to make the switch through just education about the higher price of the bulb paying for itself.
The same thing will happen in other markets.
Another example- recycling. Many (including me) recycled, even when it meant separating things and hauling an inconvenient tub to the road every few weeks. But once the separation technology improved and it could be done centrally, large bins were made available just like regular trash bins. Regular pickup with no silly separating of the items into various sub-bins, and voila! No need for regulations or laws FORCING people to recycle- it just happened naturally. In my neighborhood (which is by no means liberal nor rich) recycling went from perhaps 20% to perhaps 90% in just a few years.
>"So how are they forcing it down your throat, dickwad?"
Sorry, I don't respond to anonymous name throwers (other than to point out what they are). Grow up
>"Sorry, but this was an anti-US agreement. Obama did a whole lot of those, and had no problem telling the world how he felt about the US, so that should not be a surprise.Read the damn thing! Pulling out is Pro-American. Being willing to negotiate a fair treaty, as the Trump administration said they would attempt to do immediately..."
Here we go again, someone trying to be logical with the ultra-liberal progressive-religious out there. Haven't you learned yet that nothing Trump does could possibly be good or make sense? And everything the press says must be true? You simply MUST be chastised for this critical and independent thinking...
>"Most of these efforts are being funded by profit-seeking capitalists, not "countries".Build a better battery, and the world will beat a path to your door."
Exactly. There are many, many millions of Americans, regardless of political party, who are itching to jump on clean, affordable, efficient products. Look at LED bulbs as a perfect example. We didn't need legislation or mandates or public service messages. We just needed a good product and some time. After several years, they are taking over and flying off the shelves.
Next up, electric cars- who doesn't want a powerful, quiet, efficient, vehicle with a fraction of the moving parts and things to fail? The private solar panel industry is just exploding now. People can't get enough!
And who in the USA doesn't want the country to be energy-independent?
Artificially trying to force things down people's throats is nowhere near as effective as education and motivation followed by real products people can buy.
What if you didn't, but other people in the protest did ?
Good point, but there is an old saying about that....
"if you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
>"Seriously, if you're going to participate or be part of the leadership of an organized protest, consider all your "command and control" participants use - get this! - "burner phones", and then at some point, ditch them."
Or better yet, protest but don't break the law...
NOT that I am excusing this ridiculous delay in getting their phones back because it is wrong. But something tells me that is pretty typical nowadays for any phone seized during an arrest in which they want data, too.
>"My country is single payer, so we will help you pay for it at a price that is acceptable to both parties."
You just probably won't have any company ever actually invent any drugs in your country because there is no money to pay for the development.