This is the most ridiculous argument. Anyone and everyone can (and does) afford iPhones. You can get a used iPhone 7 for a few hundred dollars and be indistinguishable from a new iPhone 8. You can get 0% financing from the major carriers. You can but refurbished models direct from Apple.
For some people, having the "in" thing is important.
The only thing we know is that you are one of those people. You'd have to to think like this.
You know, it's okay to not be able to afford something. I can afford an iPhone, but I can't afford a Bugatti. I don't go around saying there's something wrong with everyone that owns a Bugatti.
Some people just have to have the 'latest and greatest', for whatever reason, and that reason doesn't have to be (and very often is not) anything practical.
I've never felt bad about buying things I use. I feel crappy that I spent $200 on an industrial CO detector only to determine I did not have a CO leak then never use it again. When I spend $1,000 on a smart phone that I use literally every hour of every day for such a wide variety of tasks they are too many to enumerate here... I don't feel so bad.
doesn't have to be (and very often is not) anything practical.
What's not practical about an iPhone? Maybe you are confusing practical with affordable.
I don't know if complete satisfaction can be found outside of anything you are meant to spend more than a day with.
And talking in absolutes is pointless. What the OP means is that generally the iPhone 8 is going to be a no-surprises quality, durable, stable mobile device.
You are welcome. The next time someone says "EVERYONE loved the new blah blah blah movie" you'll know they don't literally mean everyone.
Government intervention is necessary because the Free Markets will ALWAYS end up in a monopoly and hurt consumers.
Or, like cable in most locales, end up with a few large competitors owning the market, and refusing to engage in true competition. It's great because they can't be classified as a monopoly but they are able to fix prices to their hearts' content.
I'm fairly certain Apple wants people to buy the iPhone X.
What are you trying to say? Apple wants people to buy the more expensive product? Pretty controversial statement. You'd better have the data to back up that claim.
Wireless charging isn't a compelling enough reason to drop an extra $150.
The only reason I can see to buy last year's model of something is if you don't have the $ up front to by the current model.
You paid less, but you now own a phone that's worth less if you ever want to sell it. You own a phone that will reach it's EOL a year sooner (which means you'll have to buy a new phone a year sooner). When you factor those in, your decision amounts to no money saved (and possibly money lost), and the pleasure of using a lesser product.
That it can do so with less than half the weight of the subcompact is a positive thing.
No, it's not. There's a reason why cars are built sturdy (and therefore heavy). It's so you don't get smeared across the highway in an accident. There are reams of rules and regulations as to what sort of collisions a car must withstand to be allowed on the road. That's a good thing.
Your 1,000 aircraft won't even come close to meeting those standards. No airplane would even come close. Not even a military aircraft. Aircraft are made of paper compared to even the most poorly built automobiles.
There are on-line courses that can help improve reading comprehension in the privacy of your own home.
If I were you I'd be more concerned about basic everyday knowledge.
But anyway, you're a smart guy. Why don't you explain to me why these magical traffic-jumping aircraft don't exist? Is it because no one as smart as you has proposed it yet? Or is it a liberal conspiracy?
You can buy an autogyro now with an empty weight of 585 lb and gross weight of 910 lb, seating two and a couple of sacks of groceries, which is comparable to a ForTwo
A ForTwo weights over 2,000 pounds. I'm not going to bother reading the rest of what you wrote. When you aren't capable of googling the most basic facts about your argument it isn't worth my time.
Airplanes with broken engines tend to glide (like a not as well optimized gliger).
When it comes to turning you into a red smear, there's not a lot of difference between dropping and "gliding" at a 45 degree angle when you are travelling at 200MPH+ (which you would be because your breaks don't work in the air).
Powered aircraft are not controllable or safely operatable without power. On the other hand, if you build it light enough to safely glide then it's less structurally sound. Screwed either way.
In terms of fuel economy, large airliners beat cars in fuel consumption per passenger-mile
We aren't talking about airplanes. We are talking about something that'd need to fly slower than an airplane most of the time and hover a decent part of the time. In other words, a 'copter of some sort.
Plagiarized from a Aviation Stack Exchange,
When helicopters are traveling slow, they need more energy to hold their weight. When traveling fast (according to their standards), the rotor drag is very high. This is the primary reason they need more power. More Power = More Fuel.
Conventional aircraft have much less drag at a given weight and speed than a chopper.
Helicopters travel slow. When they burn more fuel per hour and travel slowly, fuel consumption per mile is much worse. They also stay low. Most have turbine engines, turbines burn lots of fuel at low altitudes.
with fold-out quad rotors and you'll be imagining a true flying car.
It'd be 1/2 engine and use an enormous amount of fuel. And you'd need ear protection to drive it.
increase the size of its battery
Nothing in the form factor of a car is going to fly on battery. Even if you could get the power, you'd never get the longevity required to make it a viable transportation device. Have you ever picked up a quad drone? They have to be as light as a feather to get off the ground.
Capable of jumping over traffic jams. Performing U-turns on divided roadways. Roof top parking.
So a free-for-all basically? Sure that scales. The fact that it's happening hundreds of feet in the air where any mishap will result in death makes it all the more fun.
A self driving Car in a Traffic Jam is still a Stuck Car. How about self driving buses ?
The science is that cars that can coordinate and drive consistently will improve traffic. Self-driving cars can also do things like follow very closely at high speeds making freeway travel more efficient. Certainly won't solve everything of course.
Mozilla has chosen to repeatedly screw over it's user base with gratuitous UI changes... now that it's user base is dwindling they've decided the solution is to do it again.
The main complaint I've read here about FF's UI is that it's "Chrome-like". I'd have to say that since Chrome is the most popular browser on the planet, FF's problems are most likely not related to it's UI choice.
Anyway to repeat myself... I just loaded it up. It's a window. Tabs at the top. Location bar under that. There's a back button. Pretty much like any other browser today and in the past back to Netscape. What are we talking about here? The size of the back button? The font in the location bar? Those choices are "screwing over" the user base?
If you think bluetooth headphones are an ideal solution to the lack of a headphone jack, you're also not a "watches videos" or "plays games where audio cues and timing matter" kind of guy.
I've used BT headphones exclusively for years and years and I watch videos including Youtube, movies, Netflix etc and have zero issues. I have never, not once, noticed any lag or sync issues.
As for games, I'm guessing that's not an issue either but then again I do not rely on audio cues to excel in Candy Crush and Barbie Makeover Extreme Edition.
Slashdot Mirror
You people are aliens as far as I am concerned.
To show everyone that you can afford it
This is the most ridiculous argument. Anyone and everyone can (and does) afford iPhones. You can get a used iPhone 7 for a few hundred dollars and be indistinguishable from a new iPhone 8. You can get 0% financing from the major carriers. You can but refurbished models direct from Apple.
For some people, having the "in" thing is important.
The only thing we know is that you are one of those people. You'd have to to think like this.
You know, it's okay to not be able to afford something. I can afford an iPhone, but I can't afford a Bugatti. I don't go around saying there's something wrong with everyone that owns a Bugatti.
Some people just have to have the 'latest and greatest', for whatever reason, and that reason doesn't have to be (and very often is not) anything practical.
I've never felt bad about buying things I use. I feel crappy that I spent $200 on an industrial CO detector only to determine I did not have a CO leak then never use it again. When I spend $1,000 on a smart phone that I use literally every hour of every day for such a wide variety of tasks they are too many to enumerate here ... I don't feel so bad.
doesn't have to be (and very often is not) anything practical.
What's not practical about an iPhone? Maybe you are confusing practical with affordable.
How many people daily drive their Veyrons?
How many are owned by Saudi princes?
I don't know if complete satisfaction can be found outside of anything you are meant to spend more than a day with.
And talking in absolutes is pointless. What the OP means is that generally the iPhone 8 is going to be a no-surprises quality, durable, stable mobile device.
You are welcome. The next time someone says "EVERYONE loved the new blah blah blah movie" you'll know they don't literally mean everyone.
Government intervention is necessary because the Free Markets will ALWAYS end up in a monopoly and hurt consumers.
Or, like cable in most locales, end up with a few large competitors owning the market, and refusing to engage in true competition. It's great because they can't be classified as a monopoly but they are able to fix prices to their hearts' content.
I'm fairly certain Apple wants people to buy the iPhone X.
What are you trying to say? Apple wants people to buy the more expensive product? Pretty controversial statement. You'd better have the data to back up that claim.
Wireless charging isn't a compelling enough reason to drop an extra $150.
The only reason I can see to buy last year's model of something is if you don't have the $ up front to by the current model.
You paid less, but you now own a phone that's worth less if you ever want to sell it. You own a phone that will reach it's EOL a year sooner (which means you'll have to buy a new phone a year sooner). When you factor those in, your decision amounts to no money saved (and possibly money lost), and the pleasure of using a lesser product.
That it can do so with less than half the weight of the subcompact is a positive thing.
No, it's not. There's a reason why cars are built sturdy (and therefore heavy). It's so you don't get smeared across the highway in an accident. There are reams of rules and regulations as to what sort of collisions a car must withstand to be allowed on the road. That's a good thing.
Your 1,000 aircraft won't even come close to meeting those standards. No airplane would even come close. Not even a military aircraft. Aircraft are made of paper compared to even the most poorly built automobiles.
There are on-line courses that can help improve reading comprehension in the privacy of your own home.
If I were you I'd be more concerned about basic everyday knowledge.
But anyway, you're a smart guy. Why don't you explain to me why these magical traffic-jumping aircraft don't exist? Is it because no one as smart as you has proposed it yet? Or is it a liberal conspiracy?
doesn't the Shield just play Android games anyway?
There are a few last-gen AAA titles that have been ported. Certainly would not satisfy a hardcore gamer though.
You can buy an autogyro now with an empty weight of 585 lb and gross weight of 910 lb, seating two and a couple of sacks of groceries, which is comparable to a ForTwo
A ForTwo weights over 2,000 pounds. I'm not going to bother reading the rest of what you wrote. When you aren't capable of googling the most basic facts about your argument it isn't worth my time.
Airplanes with broken engines tend to glide (like a not as well optimized gliger).
When it comes to turning you into a red smear, there's not a lot of difference between dropping and "gliding" at a 45 degree angle when you are travelling at 200MPH+ (which you would be because your breaks don't work in the air).
Powered aircraft are not controllable or safely operatable without power. On the other hand, if you build it light enough to safely glide then it's less structurally sound. Screwed either way.
In terms of fuel economy, large airliners beat cars in fuel consumption per passenger-mile
We aren't talking about airplanes. We are talking about something that'd need to fly slower than an airplane most of the time and hover a decent part of the time. In other words, a 'copter of some sort.
Plagiarized from a Aviation Stack Exchange,
When helicopters are traveling slow, they need more energy to hold their weight. When traveling fast (according to their standards), the rotor drag is very high. This is the primary reason they need more power. More Power = More Fuel.
Conventional aircraft have much less drag at a given weight and speed than a chopper.
Helicopters travel slow. When they burn more fuel per hour and travel slowly, fuel consumption per mile is much worse. They also stay low. Most have turbine engines, turbines burn lots of fuel at low altitudes.
https://aviation.stackexchange...
Visualize an electric Smart Fortwo car
Ok yes let's visualize that.
with fold-out quad rotors and you'll be imagining a true flying car.
It'd be 1/2 engine and use an enormous amount of fuel. And you'd need ear protection to drive it.
increase the size of its battery
Nothing in the form factor of a car is going to fly on battery. Even if you could get the power, you'd never get the longevity required to make it a viable transportation device. Have you ever picked up a quad drone? They have to be as light as a feather to get off the ground.
Capable of jumping over traffic jams. Performing U-turns on divided roadways. Roof top parking.
So a free-for-all basically? Sure that scales. The fact that it's happening hundreds of feet in the air where any mishap will result in death makes it all the more fun.
Airplanes can be highway drivable cars also.
Practically, no, they can't. Anything light enough to fly wouldn't come close to meeting road safety standards.
A self driving Car in a Traffic Jam is still a Stuck Car. How about self driving buses ?
The science is that cars that can coordinate and drive consistently will improve traffic. Self-driving cars can also do things like follow very closely at high speeds making freeway travel more efficient. Certainly won't solve everything of course.
Wow. I hope more people watch this.
Head "AI" honcho at Google tells let's everyone else know that aren't really doing AI.
AI companies also implement modern development practices, like frequent deployments.
I really fail to see how the software development processes one follows defines if you are doing "AI", or not.
That means it's possible to change the product and learn from the changes.
Tell me more Mr. Wizard!
Well, since he's the one and only big name and largest supporter behind OpenAI
So, if throw some money at a tech that makes me an expert in it. Got it.
Assuming that users are stupid makes the users stupid.
So true. That's why I advocate not wearing your seat belt. What's better than the threat of death / dismemberment to improve your driving skills?
Mozilla has chosen to repeatedly screw over it's user base with gratuitous UI changes... now that it's user base is dwindling they've decided the solution is to do it again.
The main complaint I've read here about FF's UI is that it's "Chrome-like". I'd have to say that since Chrome is the most popular browser on the planet, FF's problems are most likely not related to it's UI choice.
Anyway to repeat myself... I just loaded it up. It's a window. Tabs at the top. Location bar under that. There's a back button. Pretty much like any other browser today and in the past back to Netscape. What are we talking about here? The size of the back button? The font in the location bar? Those choices are "screwing over" the user base?
I don't think this is that complicated
Adding to "using your phone while in full motocross regalia", here's a list of other use cases for which FaceID fails,
1. Eyeballs gouged out
2. Permanently cross-eyed
3. Shapeshifter
4. Decapitated
5. Elephant boy
We should be very concerned that Apple has lost touch with it's user base in not considering these. They are circling the drain I tell you.
Seems pretty unlikely that every interactive app I use that makes sounds it coding for bluetooth delays. Anyway.
though so, yes, it is an issue when you hear the gunshot a second after your head's been blown off
You know that bullets exceed the speed of sound by a factor of 2 or more right?
Are you really complaining about the fact that you have to type 4 or six digits on your phone 1x per week?
If ***this*** is what's really getting your goat, you are what's known as a satisfied customer.
No one cared when HTC did it either, mainly because the Google Pixel has very limited sales numbers vs the other majors.
Sorry, what? The Pixels have headphone jacks. Some HTC models do not, but the Pixels do.
If you think bluetooth headphones are an ideal solution to the lack of a headphone jack, you're also not a "watches videos" or "plays games where audio cues and timing matter" kind of guy.
I've used BT headphones exclusively for years and years and I watch videos including Youtube, movies, Netflix etc and have zero issues. I have never, not once, noticed any lag or sync issues.
As for games, I'm guessing that's not an issue either but then again I do not rely on audio cues to excel in Candy Crush and Barbie Makeover Extreme Edition.