That's 80+ years from now, in other words we have time.
I hear that the sea levels are rising.... at about a foot per century. We can adjust to that without getting all in a panic.
I've been told that the corn belt is moving north. Unless this happens in the span of a single growing season then I find it hard to get worked up about this. Farmers already rotate crops for reasons of keeping soil in good shape. If over a few decades the rotation of crops needs adjusting then they'll figure it out.
Rain this, droughts that, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, blah, blah blah. We got this figured out.
We've all been hearing this panic for decades now. All we are doing is getting the next generation stressed out over nothing. They are getting bombarded with climate change disasters in movies, cartoons, in the news, and on and on. Kids can't get away from this but when they grow up and have to deal with this on their own they will realize like I did that this is a big nothing.
A quick read of the comments on this article so far tells me that I'm not alone in how I feel on this. The climate change alarmists have been pushing the panic button so often for so long, with nothing to really show for it, that no one pays attention any more.
Here's the problem now. If this climate change that is coming is in fact a real problem then we're all screwed anyway because no one listens any more. Because the climate change alarmists would not police themselves and point out bad science when it came up no one can tell what is true any more.
Do you really want somebody living off of really low wages poking around your house? Poverty creates desperation.
This is a different kind of job. Not like others where getting fired means going home and not going to work the next day. This kind of work means being potentially homeless if fired. That's got to be a motivator to behave. Also, there's more than just the stipend to compensate them, like perhaps living in a nicer house and neighborhood than they could afford at even twice the minimum wage.
They're not getting much of a real wage, but they are getting food and shelter as part of their pay. Just a roof over their head can be worth something like $5 an hour if they work a 40 hour week watching kids, doing laundry, sweeping floors, and so forth. Add in that they get fed, that's worth something. Other expenses like utilities would be paid. Living on their own means having to pay their own cable and internet bills, sharing with a family is nearly free for both parties. There might be other perks that could be offered that cost little for the family but be valuable to the housecleaner/babysitter, like being able to join them on road trips.
I can imagine this being something of a norm for a lot of people. Hire someone out of high school to babysit and do housework while the parents are away working. They'd be expected to prepare breakfast, and lunch, but once the parents are home they're workday is done. At that point they can go take college classes, on a computer in their room or go to a traditional campus. Maybe they go work a part time job in the evenings. After four or five years of this the parents might be comfortable with allowing the children to be at home unsupervised, and the person moves on to something else, or doing the same with a different family.
Maybe the person, now with a college education, takes on home schooling the children, and can demand a higher stipend because of the greater demand for his/her skills. Other roles are possible to maintain this relationship over time with the same family, such as being their personal assistant, doing their accounting/taxes, or being a kind of handyman.
In the days when personal mobility (physically I mean, not financially) was not like today such relationships were something of a norm. A trip to the next town might be a day long ride by horse for example. A person might not get paid much but they'd have food and shelter, and learn a trade or two. That trade might be just being able to handle a couple children but if you want to be a teacher, go into medicine, or even be a train conductor (or whatever the modern equivalent might be), this can be valuable experience.
That's how Germany does this but how might this go over in some other part of the world? In a place like China or North Korea I can see a manager doing this but since the government owns everything that's just life in a dictatorship. What about free parts of the world where people are free to work and live where they like?
I've heard of places with union rules that prevent such monitoring. That might not stop the practice but it does require being quiet about it. Places where people work on government contracts might have some pretty heavy handed rules on monitoring computer use, but protecting lives when dealing with potential data leaks is different than just finding out if a code monkey is goofing off.
Some of this employee monitoring is getting out of hand and cheap electronics is making this possible. A "first world" problem I guess. Sometimes people just need to be able to stare at the ceiling for a bit to think, or make a few quick phone calls. Allowing employees to bullshit when things get tense, boring, or just because, helps with morale.
I suspect this guy isn't being honest about how long he's spent away from his work while on the job. I still don't care if the company got slapped about for logging every keystroke. Maybe instead of taking screenshots of his computer screen they should have managers that, you know, manage those under their charge.
I should have been more specific. Do people wear wristwatches as anything other than jewelry or status symbols?
People can get a wristwatch that can keep time with incredible accuracy for less than $10. People obviously buy them since I can still see them for sale. What I don't see though are people wearing them. There's a very limited market for a watch as a mere timepiece. What there is a large market for are people that buy wristwatch like devices that are more jewelry than a time piece, or more of a fitness monitor that happens to keep time too.
The wristwatch has transformed into a fashion accessory and/or multi-function device. Pagers had a similar transformation into the cell phone and these computers on a wristband. The portable music player has also evolved, and like the wristwatch have become a fashion accessory or multi-function device.
So I can replace $150 worth of dedicated music player with $1000 worth of bluetooth headphones, a watch, and a phone? Sign me up!
No. If you already have invested $1000 in headphones, cell phone, and fancy watch then why spend another $150 on something to do what the other things you already own can do?
Companies didn't stop making pagers because the competition made better pagers. They got out of that business because people got cell phones instead. What does an iPod Shuffle do for someone that likely already has an iPhone and/or Apple Watch? Even cameras and GPS units have the ability to play music now. The iPod Touch is so small, cheap, and light that it's pushing the other iPods out of the market. The iPod Touch also does much more than just play music.
Do people even wear a wristwatch any more? I haven't had one in years. I have a iPhone in my pocket all the time, and it tells me the time just fine. It also plays music, gives me access to e-mail, all kinds of stuff. I used to carry a flashlight with me too but my iPhone replaced that. Not a perfect replacement but it's good enough to get me to where I keep my "real" flashlights.
One thing I've pondered recently is how much I rely on my iPhone for everything. I thought it might be wise to get an iPod Touch as a "hot spare" in case I lose or break my iPhone. At $199 or $299 it's pretty cheap for what it does. Now, if they'd only offer one without that stupid headphone jack.
In college as an intern I remember talking to the experienced engineers about this interesting video I saw about a guy talking about the concept of a "paradigm shift". The response was something like, "Oh, you mean that guy that couldn't sell his funny looking bicycle seat?" Apparently this guy had already developed a reputation.
The video was about a funny looking bicycle seat, and it was interesting from an engineering perspective. What was wrong though was the product he was trying to sell was crap. I remembered the video and as someone that then rode a bicycle regularly I'd see people start to use bicycle seats with features he mentioned in his video, but the idea he was trying to sell was not a great idea.
Progressive web apps sounds like just another funny looking bicycle seat. There's some good ideas there but the product they want to sell as a "paradigm shift" is crap. The article even spells out the problems, like needing a constant internet connection to work. Data still costs money even if it's real cheap, and people might not be fond of constantly getting charged for using "too much" data on their cell plan.
Progressive web apps are stupid. Apple is smart to be reluctant to support them. Maybe they have some good ideas here that will find their way into future products and services but this just sounds stupid.
I expect that to happen. About the time when Apple starts to make headphones with the iPod functions built into them.
I can imagine a headset that takes voice commands for playing music, or taking notes, or whatever. It will double as a headset for an iPhone, or pair with another Apple device. If voice commands are impossible because of noise then use a small set of buttons on the earpieces, or use your phone to control it.
Alternatively there will be enough headphones with Lightning connectors, or whatever comes to replace it, that people call those the "headphone jack".
Do a search on "Lightning headphones" and "USB-C headphones" and perhaps you too can see why the days of the headphone jack is numbered. Wireless charging and wireless headphones could mean seeing a phone soon with no ports on it.
You can buy plenty of name brand stuff at Walmart that is exactly the same as found elsewhere, just less expensive.
Still not worth it. I can go to a Target, Sears, Best Buy, or whatever and buy what I came to get for a few bucks more and not have to go somewhere else to buy the other stuff I went to go shopping for that day. The margins on the savings for even big purchases are not worth my time. I might save $5 or $15 on a $300 piece of electronics but that's not worth it. Something like an iPod, or XBox, or whatever the latest gadget might be could be only pennies cheaper. Something like a TV set, even from a known brand, could be a Wal-Mart specific product that lacks the support the main line products would have.
For example, my brother gave me one of those inflatable camping mattresses because he lost the cap that would hold the air in or something, he couldn't find a replacement part right away, so he just bought a new one. It was worthless to him so he gave it to me. After doing some digging I found out this was a Wal-Mart specific model and the manufacturer did not stock replacement parts for them.
Even getting stuff from a respected brand might not save you. You have to look real careful at the model and make sure it is in fact the same thing you can get elsewhere, or you run the risk of buying junk. You'll see products at Wal-Mart that are labelled "CheapShit - from RespectedBrand", or "RespectedBrand CheapShit Edition", or "RespectedBrand Model 1234cs" which is the CheapShit version of the "RespectedBrand Model 1234" you'll find at the store at the other end of the parking lot.
They will remain the store of last resort until I see years of them not pulling stunts like that. Since that is their basic business model I don't expect that to change in my lifetime.
With battery and storage technology improving these devices got small enough to put on a wrist band. Also, cell phones are not the luxury items they used to be and some are more capable than many low end laptops.
The Apple Watch was considered a flop by many, I think Apple learned from that. Anyone remember the Apple Newton? That's just and early prototype of the current iDevices. They'll take their lessons from the Watch and iPod and come out with something new. I'm quite sure of that.
With electronics getting so light and people wanting these augmented reality things then maybe Apple will come out with a computer that has a screen you wear on your head and call it "iGlass". "iPatch"? I'm sure people will call them "iSores" though.
That said, if you can manage it, the quality of products you buy at a different store will probably last a lot longer and save you money in the long run.
I just tell people I'm too poor to shop at Walmart, I can't afford to buy my stuff twice.
I'm sure people are aghast at the thought of getting rid of a "living wage" but hear me out. Imagine how much it would cost you in real dollars to lose the use of one of your bedrooms. I know a lot of people on Slashdot are college students, so just imagine a small family in a typical three bedroom house with two parents and one or two children. What does one bedroom "cost" in real dollars? Not much, it's hard to put a number on it with so many variables but I think we can agree the cost is small.
What is that room worth to someone looking for somewhere to stay? In real dollars? That could be somewhere between half and a quarter of the mortgage. Now the family, with two working parents, might just love to have a young trustworthy person to watch the house and children while they work. If they have to pay minimum wage then this is priced right out. If they can agree to pay in shelter, food (because what would one extra person cost in food for a family of four?), and a small monthly stipend then this might be a worthwhile job for a lot of people.
I could see this as a valid career for someone. They might specialize in certain kinds of care, perhaps going from family to family every couple of years to care for small children, or older people, or whatever. If they are good then they could perhaps demand a good stipend and retire to a place and hire their own house keeper.
I'm sure if someone was willing to do the proper paperwork to avoid the minimum wage laws that this is possible now. Certainly wealthy people do this already. If more people can get a start working at any wage then they can demand a higher one later.
I think it all starts with doing away with the minimum wage.
You are comparing 8 months to 8 years. Can you even give a meaningful comparison with such a disparity of time frames? Especially when speaking of a something that inherently moves as slow as government?
I'm not a big fan of our current POTUS but perhaps, just maybe, we could give him some time to clear out the old Obama holdovers and see how their replacements act before calling him worse than Clinton, Obama, AND Bush?
How long should we wait before judgement? I don't know, two years perhaps, let him go through one election cycle at least. We really can't judge until he's out of office though. There's a lot of stuff he could pull on us yet, or make up for past problems. Obama pulled a lot of stunts in his last term, and only got worse after he knew the Republicans swept up in the election. Trump might not also show his true colors until he is also faced with a similar defeat.
I don't like Wal-Mart. I remember a long time ago when Wal-Mart would advertise that everything they sold in the store was made in the USA. Then one day those advertisements stopped. They still had ads on TV but the claims of everything made in the USA wasn't part of it. Then it was how every day they dropped prices. Cheap, cheap, cheap, that's what they sold.
When I had to move to a new town and buy some things for my apartment I didn't know where I could shop. I did happen upon a Wal-Mart though. The place was dimly lit. It smelled like cheap plastic. And, the other shoppers looked like extras from a horror movie. The wastebasket I bought then stunk up the whole apartment. I told myself that I'd only go back to Wal-Mart again only if there was no other alternative.
I'll still go back once in a while. Usually because I'm taken there by someone I'm shopping with. The stores are brighter now. The stench is gone. The quality of the shoppers is hit and miss. I've learned what is "safe" and "not safe" to buy for the most part. Milk is usually safe, fruits not so much. I've learned to also look for brands I recognize. Schumacher? Never seen them before, probably crap. Deltran? I've heard of them, I'll get that instead.
If I need to buy something right away I've got lots of choices besides Wal-Mart. Would I go on-line to buy anything from them? Not likely. Sorry Wal-Mart, you lost me when you prioritized price over quality. I can't afford you because I cannot be bothered to buy my stuff twice. I'd rather go somewhere else and buy a quality product in the first place so I don't have to go looking for a replacement. I see you have not changed your ways.
I think that there is a lot to this. Would any politician be honest enough to admit it though?
I recall something about how some politician saying we should increase tobacco taxes to discourage smoking and pay for child health care. So, what happens if this works? Do children go without healthcare? Does this not create a perverse incentive to not quit because a person can claim that with every pack some kid gets care they might not otherwise?
I'll believe that the government wants to get rid of smoking when it gets rid of tobacco taxes. I'll believe it wants to be rid of alcohol when it gets rid of alcohol taxes. Same for gas and diesel taxes, gun and ammo taxes, soft drink taxes, and on and on.
It goes the other way too. I'll believe that the government is behind wind and solar energy when they start to tax it. As long as it is subsidized then they can use it to buy votes. Either they know they cannot succeed or they will do what they can to keep them from succeeding. Once they start to actually make a profit on their own though then the government can't buy votes with subsidies any more.
The government is addicted to tobacco as anyone. This "oil addiction" that people speak of afflicts the government too. To break either addiction means getting rid of the tax.
In fact PCIe, DP and HDMI are now bundled in TB3 so in practice you have only two ports:
TB3: All of the above USB3: USB data + power
Oh, how I wish it were that simple.
There are still lots of cell phones and tablets, even high priced ones, that have USB-C ports but only support USB 2 features. They might support MHL output like their older micro-USB versions but usually not. If they support some charge rate greater than the USB 2 10 watts this does not mean they are following the USB spec, but instead doing some vendor specific voltage and current that can mean setting something on fire if that charger is used with anything other than the device it came with. This also means getting a replacement charger would mean not getting anything better than 10 watts.
If you see a laptop with USB-C it's a coin toss on if that port supports 10GBps or just 5Gbps. Flip the coin again on if this USB-C port can be used to charge the laptop. Another coin toss and you will find if it supports DisplayPort output. This is improving as newer laptops seem to support charging, Thunderbolt, DisplayPort, and 10Gbpc USB on the USB-C port, so perhaps this is encouraging.
If you see a USB-C port on a desktop system then all bets are off. You will have no idea what that port supports until you dig into the spec sheet. You'll quite likely get 5Gbps and 10 watts of power from it, but other than that you cannot be sure if it supports power delivery or any higher data rate.
A quick Google search gave plenty of articles written in the last year on the sad state of the USB-C port. Go surf for a bit, you will be enlightened and appalled.
I am a veteran too and I'm quite certain that there are LGBT people serving, and that they have been ever since there have been armies.
The LGBT soldiers that have their head on straight won't be going about fucking everything that moves, dressing in rainbows, or demanding to be addressed as "sir" vs. "ma'am" or vice versa. They will recognize that they are part of a team and their personal beliefs on certain matters are not as important as having discipline and order.
I don't care where you put your dick on your own time or what you like shoved up where. If you can do your job then all is well. Here's the problem though, some (not all) trans people disrupt this system. They want mind and body altering drugs because they think their body does not match their mind. They want costly surgeries that can remove them from battle readiness for long stretches of time. These drugs and surgeries can impair their ability to fight, heal from injury, and just generally are experimental with unknown side effects and differing results.
Some trans people don't get the surgeries, or the hormones, but insist on a grooming standard outside of what the military specifies. As much as this might seem trivial it is a matter of safety. Men are required to cut their hair short and refrain from growing a beard because in the event of a gas attack the mask needs to fit tightly to the skin and head. Women are allowed to have longer hair as they are not required to be in combat, and no doubt due to social norms. The uniform is made to fit for the sake of safety and comfort. Wearing the wrong uniform might not mean the difference between life and death but it's made that way for a reason. Women and men are different. Because of this very basic biological fact the military treats them differently. Someone that cannot conform to the standards set by the military is a hazard to themselves and others.
If there was one definition on what it meant to be "transgendered" then this might not be much of a debate. If a person thinks they are a woman, but is biologically male, dresses like a male, allows others to address "her" using male pronouns, and keeps their personal details to "herself" then the military quite likely doesn't give a fuck. Same for a person that thinks they are a man but lives a life in uniform as a woman. If a person undergoes surgical or hormonal treatments then this causes problems for the military, just like any other experimental surgery, mind altering drugs, or what have you.
Consider this, would you want a man in the military that was taking steroids? Does that not create a risk for psychological and physical dysfunction? Would not the same apply to a woman taking the same steroids? Even if a man was injured, deformed, or whatever where steroid treatments were considered medically necessary this still creates problems logistically for the military that would render that person unfit to serve. Again, flip male/female, hormone types, or whatever if it bothers you I gave one example as opposed to the other.
This is a heavy handed approach since LGBT people can and do serve honorably. It's the ones that dishonor themselves with the inability to maintain their own discipline and health that mean the good soldiers have to keep this under their hats.
I'd prefer a more nuanced policy but that would have its own problems as well. This is "don't ask, don't tell" all over again. It's not perfect but it's what we got.
Some might argue that these are not "USB" cables because they violate some specification as defined by the people that own the USB logo. These are cables, with USB-C connectors on both ends, and that cannot be argued.
These are not unknown small time manufacturers either. Apple is a huge company and Griffin has been making computer cables for 25 years.
No, I took your claim and ran with it. You claimed it takes X dollars for treating the medical issues of transpeople, and 5X dollars to treat men. The study you cite says there are 5,000 transpeople, and I can find roughly 500,000 men are in the military. So therefore the treatments for group A (transpeople) is 100X group B (men). Seems to me that doing away with group A would have little effect on military readiness and save money.
If you want to narrow down group B to men with erectile dysfunction and recompute the costs then we might have a different conclusion. That conclusion might be to do away with both group A and group B.
The report you cite does not say there is no cost to keeping transpeople in the military, only that the cost is small. If this was more than 5000 people that might be affected then it might be worth the cost to keep the policy as is.
Also, as I understand the policy, the policy only affects those that are OPENLY transgendered. If people can adhere to the norms the military defines for each sex then there is not a problem. If someone insists on "ma'am" vs. "sir" or vice versa then that is a problem. This is just "don't ask, don't tell" all over again.
Alright, so if a study comes out saying that black people have a higher risk of suicide, then we should ban all black people from military service as well?
If any identifiable group has a suicide risk rate of 40%, like transgendered do, then, yes, they should be banned from military service.
No rational person would say that blacks are "too-criminal" to be in the army.
That's because being black does not have a 40% chance of being in prison. Gender identity disorders have a higher than 50/50 chance of being a suicide risk or other mental issue. That's not a good bet to make. A quick Google search tells me that transgendered people have a 40% chance of a suicide attempt. And you want to trust these people with rifles? About 60% of transgendered people report depression. Even if these people aren't in a position where they could be a suicide risk then do you want to have people with a known indicator of depression at this rate in the military?
It's not just being "more likely" that's a problem, it's "more likely than not" where it's a problem. If the norms of mental issues was not ten times the national average then this might not be a problem. Blacks might be ten times more likely to have a criminal record, or whatever that rate is really, but with the norm being something like one out of a million then that 10x difference is a very small risk.
Everyone should be treated as an individual. If a transgender individual is insane- don't let them in the army. We shouldn't assume they're all nutters that are going to "off-themselves".
I agree. What happens though is that once people announces themselves as transgendered then they are easily identified as a risk for depression and suicide. This isn't necessarily a ban on transgendered people, but OPENLY transgendered. If a person can maintain the physical, grooming, and other behavioral standards consistent with their biological sex then they will not "out" themselves as a risk. If the person has no issues of depression, or can have them treated within the norms of the military, then they can stay. A person that insists on hormone treatments, surgeries, or even just dressing as the opposite sex, then this is a problem. This becomes a cost for the military in having to accommodate their medical needs or merely their whimsy.
I read the conclusion (on page 69 of the document) and it says that there are less that 10,000 people out of nearly a million affected by this. It is a non-issue. If it costs anything to keep trans people in the military above what it costs for non-trans then kick them out. It may be harsh to kick them out but people are forced to leave for much less, because keeping them in costs money.
How many men-that-think-they-are-men are in the military and how many men-that-think-they-are-women are in the military?
A quick Google search tells me that there are something like 1 million people in the military in some capacity. About 3/4 of them are men. There's how many trans people in the military? Some say 4000, some say 10,000. If the military is spending 5x for Viagra to keep 500,000 or so men healthy and happy, than it does for 5000 or so transgendered people then I think that is a good investment and likely makes good economic sense to discharge the transgendered for cost savings alone.
I've seen those stories about the exceptional trans-people (is that a word? it is now) in the military that risk discharge because of policies like what Trump just announced. I have to wonder, are all trans-people as exceptional? I doubt it. By their very nature these people are a problem for combat readiness. Someone that is taking hormones is a cost that they don't have to take on. People get discharged for much milder physical issues, I don't see why they get an exception.
Even if they take no hormones, or had no surgeries, but merely choose to wear a different uniform, this is a problem. The uniform is a safety device. They are designed to fit the body in a way to protect from injury. Wearing a poorly fitting uniform just because one is "male" and the other "female" is an issue for safety.
This became a problem that was addressed with a new uniform. The military saw that women were having problems from ill fitting uniforms. They don't always call them "male" or "female" but sometimes "A-type" and "B-type" but people know what they mean. (There's a third type called "maternity" but we'll ignore that for now.) If a soldier refuses to wear the proper uniform because that's for the "wrong sex" then this is not just a matter of safety but of discipline. We cannot tolerate soldiers that refuse to wear the proper uniform out of a preference for how they look.
We are talking about accommodating, at the top end, 1% of the military population for something that costs a lot of money, is driving exceptional warriors from service for a lot of bullshit and discipline problems, and gains them nothing. There's necessarily a continuous flow of people of exceptional quality coming into the military. This small fraction of people driven out by the policy change will be replaced in no time.
RPGs (regulation prescription glasses) are a thing.
I've heard them called BCGs, birth control glasses/goggles. Also "Buddy Holly's" or "Drew Carey's" glasses after the people known to where similar glasses. Drew Carey got his "look" with the short hair and heavy framed glasses because he was in the Marines when he started his comedian career.
The military will assess their needs with every decision before ordering a discharge. An Army buddy of mine talked about an old sergeant that had knee problems. This was fine on base but when orders came to prepare for deployment this sergeant was ordered to retire. He was "fit for service" right up to the point they had to go overseas.
For job duties where even glasses would be a problem those soldiers that excel in every other way are offered vision correction surgery. If they refuse, or the surgery cannot give 20/20 correction, then the soldier is offered a different position or offered a severance.
Some jobs require a security clearance. If you cannot pas then you have to choose a different job, or leave. I've seen this happen. A soldier had her clearance denied and she was offered the choice of a job as a medic or discharge. She chose discharge.
Stop being a troll if you want to be taken seriously. If you'd been paying attention you'd realize all the phones i've purchased have been premium phones and i've already upgraded to USB-C, so clearly it's not the price that concerns me, it's the stupidity and wastefulness of it.
I wasn't speaking to you specifically, just generally to all that complain of the lack of a headphone port on a top notch phone.
As you say you already have a newer phone so all of my over the top commentary does not apply to you. I was being absurd to highlight the absurdity of it all.
I've had Apple iDevices for a long time now. Over the years I've collected three iPods with the 30 pin port before getting my iPhone 7. I paid something like $500 for it knowing I'd have to spend another $100 on accessories to get the convenience I had with my iPods. I got a Lightning to 30 pin adapter for the stereo in my truck, an extra 2 meter charge cable so I wouldn't have to trip over the short one that came with it, and a short Lightning cable for the charger I keep by my bed. It came with the headphone adapter, like the Motorola does, and I keep that in my book bag with the headphones and the charger that came with it.
One reason I don't miss the headphone jack is that the headphone jack on my iPod touch broke. While in my truck I used the cable in there to listen and charge the iPod. When at home I'd listen to the built in speakers, stream to the Airport base station by my stereo, or stream to a Bluetooth speaker. I missed the ability to listen to the iPod in the library as I studied but I knew if I wanted that function back again I could pick up a Bluetooth headphone set.
With an $800 phone and headphone adapters available for $10 a pair it seems absurd to bitch about the lack of that headphone port. Especially when they tend to wear out or break like what happened in my iPod. If you can pry open your wallet far enough to pull out $800 then you can find another $10 or so for the adapters, lacking that then perhaps you can find a $700 phone and pick out $100 of accessories like I did and be much happier in the end.
Such complaints on the lack of a built in headphone jack just sounds as absurd as buying a $800 TV set and then complaining you have to use the $10 adapter that comes with it to plug in your old rabbit ear antenna. Sure you might have to buy another adapter or something so you can use your old Nintendo AND get your cable TV but not many people do that any more. You are in the minority, and that comes with a cost when buying consumer devices.
Slashdot Mirror
That's 80+ years from now, in other words we have time.
I hear that the sea levels are rising.... at about a foot per century. We can adjust to that without getting all in a panic.
I've been told that the corn belt is moving north. Unless this happens in the span of a single growing season then I find it hard to get worked up about this. Farmers already rotate crops for reasons of keeping soil in good shape. If over a few decades the rotation of crops needs adjusting then they'll figure it out.
Rain this, droughts that, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, blah, blah blah. We got this figured out.
We've all been hearing this panic for decades now. All we are doing is getting the next generation stressed out over nothing. They are getting bombarded with climate change disasters in movies, cartoons, in the news, and on and on. Kids can't get away from this but when they grow up and have to deal with this on their own they will realize like I did that this is a big nothing.
A quick read of the comments on this article so far tells me that I'm not alone in how I feel on this. The climate change alarmists have been pushing the panic button so often for so long, with nothing to really show for it, that no one pays attention any more.
Here's the problem now. If this climate change that is coming is in fact a real problem then we're all screwed anyway because no one listens any more. Because the climate change alarmists would not police themselves and point out bad science when it came up no one can tell what is true any more.
Again, 80 years, we have time.
Do you really want somebody living off of really low wages poking around your house? Poverty creates desperation.
This is a different kind of job. Not like others where getting fired means going home and not going to work the next day. This kind of work means being potentially homeless if fired. That's got to be a motivator to behave. Also, there's more than just the stipend to compensate them, like perhaps living in a nicer house and neighborhood than they could afford at even twice the minimum wage.
They're not getting much of a real wage, but they are getting food and shelter as part of their pay. Just a roof over their head can be worth something like $5 an hour if they work a 40 hour week watching kids, doing laundry, sweeping floors, and so forth. Add in that they get fed, that's worth something. Other expenses like utilities would be paid. Living on their own means having to pay their own cable and internet bills, sharing with a family is nearly free for both parties. There might be other perks that could be offered that cost little for the family but be valuable to the housecleaner/babysitter, like being able to join them on road trips.
I can imagine this being something of a norm for a lot of people. Hire someone out of high school to babysit and do housework while the parents are away working. They'd be expected to prepare breakfast, and lunch, but once the parents are home they're workday is done. At that point they can go take college classes, on a computer in their room or go to a traditional campus. Maybe they go work a part time job in the evenings. After four or five years of this the parents might be comfortable with allowing the children to be at home unsupervised, and the person moves on to something else, or doing the same with a different family.
Maybe the person, now with a college education, takes on home schooling the children, and can demand a higher stipend because of the greater demand for his/her skills. Other roles are possible to maintain this relationship over time with the same family, such as being their personal assistant, doing their accounting/taxes, or being a kind of handyman.
In the days when personal mobility (physically I mean, not financially) was not like today such relationships were something of a norm. A trip to the next town might be a day long ride by horse for example. A person might not get paid much but they'd have food and shelter, and learn a trade or two. That trade might be just being able to handle a couple children but if you want to be a teacher, go into medicine, or even be a train conductor (or whatever the modern equivalent might be), this can be valuable experience.
That's how Germany does this but how might this go over in some other part of the world? In a place like China or North Korea I can see a manager doing this but since the government owns everything that's just life in a dictatorship. What about free parts of the world where people are free to work and live where they like?
I've heard of places with union rules that prevent such monitoring. That might not stop the practice but it does require being quiet about it. Places where people work on government contracts might have some pretty heavy handed rules on monitoring computer use, but protecting lives when dealing with potential data leaks is different than just finding out if a code monkey is goofing off.
Some of this employee monitoring is getting out of hand and cheap electronics is making this possible. A "first world" problem I guess. Sometimes people just need to be able to stare at the ceiling for a bit to think, or make a few quick phone calls. Allowing employees to bullshit when things get tense, boring, or just because, helps with morale.
I suspect this guy isn't being honest about how long he's spent away from his work while on the job. I still don't care if the company got slapped about for logging every keystroke. Maybe instead of taking screenshots of his computer screen they should have managers that, you know, manage those under their charge.
I should have been more specific. Do people wear wristwatches as anything other than jewelry or status symbols?
People can get a wristwatch that can keep time with incredible accuracy for less than $10. People obviously buy them since I can still see them for sale. What I don't see though are people wearing them. There's a very limited market for a watch as a mere timepiece. What there is a large market for are people that buy wristwatch like devices that are more jewelry than a time piece, or more of a fitness monitor that happens to keep time too.
The wristwatch has transformed into a fashion accessory and/or multi-function device. Pagers had a similar transformation into the cell phone and these computers on a wristband. The portable music player has also evolved, and like the wristwatch have become a fashion accessory or multi-function device.
So I can replace $150 worth of dedicated music player with $1000 worth of bluetooth headphones, a watch, and a phone? Sign me up!
No. If you already have invested $1000 in headphones, cell phone, and fancy watch then why spend another $150 on something to do what the other things you already own can do?
Companies didn't stop making pagers because the competition made better pagers. They got out of that business because people got cell phones instead. What does an iPod Shuffle do for someone that likely already has an iPhone and/or Apple Watch? Even cameras and GPS units have the ability to play music now. The iPod Touch is so small, cheap, and light that it's pushing the other iPods out of the market. The iPod Touch also does much more than just play music.
Do people even wear a wristwatch any more? I haven't had one in years. I have a iPhone in my pocket all the time, and it tells me the time just fine. It also plays music, gives me access to e-mail, all kinds of stuff. I used to carry a flashlight with me too but my iPhone replaced that. Not a perfect replacement but it's good enough to get me to where I keep my "real" flashlights.
One thing I've pondered recently is how much I rely on my iPhone for everything. I thought it might be wise to get an iPod Touch as a "hot spare" in case I lose or break my iPhone. At $199 or $299 it's pretty cheap for what it does. Now, if they'd only offer one without that stupid headphone jack.
In college as an intern I remember talking to the experienced engineers about this interesting video I saw about a guy talking about the concept of a "paradigm shift". The response was something like, "Oh, you mean that guy that couldn't sell his funny looking bicycle seat?" Apparently this guy had already developed a reputation.
The video was about a funny looking bicycle seat, and it was interesting from an engineering perspective. What was wrong though was the product he was trying to sell was crap. I remembered the video and as someone that then rode a bicycle regularly I'd see people start to use bicycle seats with features he mentioned in his video, but the idea he was trying to sell was not a great idea.
Progressive web apps sounds like just another funny looking bicycle seat. There's some good ideas there but the product they want to sell as a "paradigm shift" is crap. The article even spells out the problems, like needing a constant internet connection to work. Data still costs money even if it's real cheap, and people might not be fond of constantly getting charged for using "too much" data on their cell plan.
Progressive web apps are stupid. Apple is smart to be reluctant to support them. Maybe they have some good ideas here that will find their way into future products and services but this just sounds stupid.
I expect that to happen. About the time when Apple starts to make headphones with the iPod functions built into them.
I can imagine a headset that takes voice commands for playing music, or taking notes, or whatever. It will double as a headset for an iPhone, or pair with another Apple device. If voice commands are impossible because of noise then use a small set of buttons on the earpieces, or use your phone to control it.
Alternatively there will be enough headphones with Lightning connectors, or whatever comes to replace it, that people call those the "headphone jack".
Do a search on "Lightning headphones" and "USB-C headphones" and perhaps you too can see why the days of the headphone jack is numbered. Wireless charging and wireless headphones could mean seeing a phone soon with no ports on it.
You can buy plenty of name brand stuff at Walmart that is exactly the same as found elsewhere, just less expensive.
Still not worth it. I can go to a Target, Sears, Best Buy, or whatever and buy what I came to get for a few bucks more and not have to go somewhere else to buy the other stuff I went to go shopping for that day. The margins on the savings for even big purchases are not worth my time. I might save $5 or $15 on a $300 piece of electronics but that's not worth it. Something like an iPod, or XBox, or whatever the latest gadget might be could be only pennies cheaper. Something like a TV set, even from a known brand, could be a Wal-Mart specific product that lacks the support the main line products would have.
For example, my brother gave me one of those inflatable camping mattresses because he lost the cap that would hold the air in or something, he couldn't find a replacement part right away, so he just bought a new one. It was worthless to him so he gave it to me. After doing some digging I found out this was a Wal-Mart specific model and the manufacturer did not stock replacement parts for them.
Even getting stuff from a respected brand might not save you. You have to look real careful at the model and make sure it is in fact the same thing you can get elsewhere, or you run the risk of buying junk. You'll see products at Wal-Mart that are labelled "CheapShit - from RespectedBrand", or "RespectedBrand CheapShit Edition", or "RespectedBrand Model 1234cs" which is the CheapShit version of the "RespectedBrand Model 1234" you'll find at the store at the other end of the parking lot.
They will remain the store of last resort until I see years of them not pulling stunts like that. Since that is their basic business model I don't expect that to change in my lifetime.
With battery and storage technology improving these devices got small enough to put on a wrist band. Also, cell phones are not the luxury items they used to be and some are more capable than many low end laptops.
The Apple Watch was considered a flop by many, I think Apple learned from that. Anyone remember the Apple Newton? That's just and early prototype of the current iDevices. They'll take their lessons from the Watch and iPod and come out with something new. I'm quite sure of that.
With electronics getting so light and people wanting these augmented reality things then maybe Apple will come out with a computer that has a screen you wear on your head and call it "iGlass". "iPatch"? I'm sure people will call them "iSores" though.
I thought it was the "iRack"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I can't wait to see how the iRan turns out.
That said, if you can manage it, the quality of products you buy at a different store will probably last a lot longer and save you money in the long run.
I just tell people I'm too poor to shop at Walmart, I can't afford to buy my stuff twice.
Get rid of the minimum wage and they might.
I'm sure people are aghast at the thought of getting rid of a "living wage" but hear me out. Imagine how much it would cost you in real dollars to lose the use of one of your bedrooms. I know a lot of people on Slashdot are college students, so just imagine a small family in a typical three bedroom house with two parents and one or two children. What does one bedroom "cost" in real dollars? Not much, it's hard to put a number on it with so many variables but I think we can agree the cost is small.
What is that room worth to someone looking for somewhere to stay? In real dollars? That could be somewhere between half and a quarter of the mortgage. Now the family, with two working parents, might just love to have a young trustworthy person to watch the house and children while they work. If they have to pay minimum wage then this is priced right out. If they can agree to pay in shelter, food (because what would one extra person cost in food for a family of four?), and a small monthly stipend then this might be a worthwhile job for a lot of people.
I could see this as a valid career for someone. They might specialize in certain kinds of care, perhaps going from family to family every couple of years to care for small children, or older people, or whatever. If they are good then they could perhaps demand a good stipend and retire to a place and hire their own house keeper.
I'm sure if someone was willing to do the proper paperwork to avoid the minimum wage laws that this is possible now. Certainly wealthy people do this already. If more people can get a start working at any wage then they can demand a higher one later.
I think it all starts with doing away with the minimum wage.
You are comparing 8 months to 8 years. Can you even give a meaningful comparison with such a disparity of time frames? Especially when speaking of a something that inherently moves as slow as government?
I'm not a big fan of our current POTUS but perhaps, just maybe, we could give him some time to clear out the old Obama holdovers and see how their replacements act before calling him worse than Clinton, Obama, AND Bush?
How long should we wait before judgement? I don't know, two years perhaps, let him go through one election cycle at least. We really can't judge until he's out of office though. There's a lot of stuff he could pull on us yet, or make up for past problems. Obama pulled a lot of stunts in his last term, and only got worse after he knew the Republicans swept up in the election. Trump might not also show his true colors until he is also faced with a similar defeat.
I don't like Wal-Mart. I remember a long time ago when Wal-Mart would advertise that everything they sold in the store was made in the USA. Then one day those advertisements stopped. They still had ads on TV but the claims of everything made in the USA wasn't part of it. Then it was how every day they dropped prices. Cheap, cheap, cheap, that's what they sold.
When I had to move to a new town and buy some things for my apartment I didn't know where I could shop. I did happen upon a Wal-Mart though. The place was dimly lit. It smelled like cheap plastic. And, the other shoppers looked like extras from a horror movie. The wastebasket I bought then stunk up the whole apartment. I told myself that I'd only go back to Wal-Mart again only if there was no other alternative.
I'll still go back once in a while. Usually because I'm taken there by someone I'm shopping with. The stores are brighter now. The stench is gone. The quality of the shoppers is hit and miss. I've learned what is "safe" and "not safe" to buy for the most part. Milk is usually safe, fruits not so much. I've learned to also look for brands I recognize. Schumacher? Never seen them before, probably crap. Deltran? I've heard of them, I'll get that instead.
If I need to buy something right away I've got lots of choices besides Wal-Mart. Would I go on-line to buy anything from them? Not likely. Sorry Wal-Mart, you lost me when you prioritized price over quality. I can't afford you because I cannot be bothered to buy my stuff twice. I'd rather go somewhere else and buy a quality product in the first place so I don't have to go looking for a replacement. I see you have not changed your ways.
the government hates me avoiding tobacco taxes
I think that there is a lot to this. Would any politician be honest enough to admit it though?
I recall something about how some politician saying we should increase tobacco taxes to discourage smoking and pay for child health care. So, what happens if this works? Do children go without healthcare? Does this not create a perverse incentive to not quit because a person can claim that with every pack some kid gets care they might not otherwise?
I'll believe that the government wants to get rid of smoking when it gets rid of tobacco taxes. I'll believe it wants to be rid of alcohol when it gets rid of alcohol taxes. Same for gas and diesel taxes, gun and ammo taxes, soft drink taxes, and on and on.
It goes the other way too. I'll believe that the government is behind wind and solar energy when they start to tax it. As long as it is subsidized then they can use it to buy votes. Either they know they cannot succeed or they will do what they can to keep them from succeeding. Once they start to actually make a profit on their own though then the government can't buy votes with subsidies any more.
The government is addicted to tobacco as anyone. This "oil addiction" that people speak of afflicts the government too. To break either addiction means getting rid of the tax.
In fact PCIe, DP and HDMI are now bundled in TB3 so in practice you have only two ports:
TB3: All of the above
USB3: USB data + power
Oh, how I wish it were that simple.
There are still lots of cell phones and tablets, even high priced ones, that have USB-C ports but only support USB 2 features. They might support MHL output like their older micro-USB versions but usually not. If they support some charge rate greater than the USB 2 10 watts this does not mean they are following the USB spec, but instead doing some vendor specific voltage and current that can mean setting something on fire if that charger is used with anything other than the device it came with. This also means getting a replacement charger would mean not getting anything better than 10 watts.
If you see a laptop with USB-C it's a coin toss on if that port supports 10GBps or just 5Gbps. Flip the coin again on if this USB-C port can be used to charge the laptop. Another coin toss and you will find if it supports DisplayPort output. This is improving as newer laptops seem to support charging, Thunderbolt, DisplayPort, and 10Gbpc USB on the USB-C port, so perhaps this is encouraging.
If you see a USB-C port on a desktop system then all bets are off. You will have no idea what that port supports until you dig into the spec sheet. You'll quite likely get 5Gbps and 10 watts of power from it, but other than that you cannot be sure if it supports power delivery or any higher data rate.
A quick Google search gave plenty of articles written in the last year on the sad state of the USB-C port. Go surf for a bit, you will be enlightened and appalled.
I am a veteran too and I'm quite certain that there are LGBT people serving, and that they have been ever since there have been armies.
The LGBT soldiers that have their head on straight won't be going about fucking everything that moves, dressing in rainbows, or demanding to be addressed as "sir" vs. "ma'am" or vice versa. They will recognize that they are part of a team and their personal beliefs on certain matters are not as important as having discipline and order.
I don't care where you put your dick on your own time or what you like shoved up where. If you can do your job then all is well. Here's the problem though, some (not all) trans people disrupt this system. They want mind and body altering drugs because they think their body does not match their mind. They want costly surgeries that can remove them from battle readiness for long stretches of time. These drugs and surgeries can impair their ability to fight, heal from injury, and just generally are experimental with unknown side effects and differing results.
Some trans people don't get the surgeries, or the hormones, but insist on a grooming standard outside of what the military specifies. As much as this might seem trivial it is a matter of safety. Men are required to cut their hair short and refrain from growing a beard because in the event of a gas attack the mask needs to fit tightly to the skin and head. Women are allowed to have longer hair as they are not required to be in combat, and no doubt due to social norms. The uniform is made to fit for the sake of safety and comfort. Wearing the wrong uniform might not mean the difference between life and death but it's made that way for a reason. Women and men are different. Because of this very basic biological fact the military treats them differently. Someone that cannot conform to the standards set by the military is a hazard to themselves and others.
If there was one definition on what it meant to be "transgendered" then this might not be much of a debate. If a person thinks they are a woman, but is biologically male, dresses like a male, allows others to address "her" using male pronouns, and keeps their personal details to "herself" then the military quite likely doesn't give a fuck. Same for a person that thinks they are a man but lives a life in uniform as a woman. If a person undergoes surgical or hormonal treatments then this causes problems for the military, just like any other experimental surgery, mind altering drugs, or what have you.
Consider this, would you want a man in the military that was taking steroids? Does that not create a risk for psychological and physical dysfunction? Would not the same apply to a woman taking the same steroids? Even if a man was injured, deformed, or whatever where steroid treatments were considered medically necessary this still creates problems logistically for the military that would render that person unfit to serve. Again, flip male/female, hormone types, or whatever if it bothers you I gave one example as opposed to the other.
This is a heavy handed approach since LGBT people can and do serve honorably. It's the ones that dishonor themselves with the inability to maintain their own discipline and health that mean the good soldiers have to keep this under their hats.
I'd prefer a more nuanced policy but that would have its own problems as well. This is "don't ask, don't tell" all over again. It's not perfect but it's what we got.
Every USB C to USB C cable is at least USB 3.1.
No, they are not.
Exhibit A:
https://www.apple.com/shop/pro...
Exhibit B:
https://griffintechnology.com/...
Some might argue that these are not "USB" cables because they violate some specification as defined by the people that own the USB logo. These are cables, with USB-C connectors on both ends, and that cannot be argued.
These are not unknown small time manufacturers either. Apple is a huge company and Griffin has been making computer cables for 25 years.
you're pulling excuses out of your butt.
No, I took your claim and ran with it. You claimed it takes X dollars for treating the medical issues of transpeople, and 5X dollars to treat men. The study you cite says there are 5,000 transpeople, and I can find roughly 500,000 men are in the military. So therefore the treatments for group A (transpeople) is 100X group B (men). Seems to me that doing away with group A would have little effect on military readiness and save money.
If you want to narrow down group B to men with erectile dysfunction and recompute the costs then we might have a different conclusion. That conclusion might be to do away with both group A and group B.
The report you cite does not say there is no cost to keeping transpeople in the military, only that the cost is small. If this was more than 5000 people that might be affected then it might be worth the cost to keep the policy as is.
Also, as I understand the policy, the policy only affects those that are OPENLY transgendered. If people can adhere to the norms the military defines for each sex then there is not a problem. If someone insists on "ma'am" vs. "sir" or vice versa then that is a problem. This is just "don't ask, don't tell" all over again.
Alright, so if a study comes out saying that black people have a higher risk of suicide, then we should ban all black people from military service as well?
If any identifiable group has a suicide risk rate of 40%, like transgendered do, then, yes, they should be banned from military service.
No rational person would say that blacks are "too-criminal" to be in the army.
That's because being black does not have a 40% chance of being in prison. Gender identity disorders have a higher than 50/50 chance of being a suicide risk or other mental issue. That's not a good bet to make. A quick Google search tells me that transgendered people have a 40% chance of a suicide attempt. And you want to trust these people with rifles? About 60% of transgendered people report depression. Even if these people aren't in a position where they could be a suicide risk then do you want to have people with a known indicator of depression at this rate in the military?
It's not just being "more likely" that's a problem, it's "more likely than not" where it's a problem. If the norms of mental issues was not ten times the national average then this might not be a problem. Blacks might be ten times more likely to have a criminal record, or whatever that rate is really, but with the norm being something like one out of a million then that 10x difference is a very small risk.
Everyone should be treated as an individual. If a transgender individual is insane- don't let them in the army. We shouldn't assume they're all nutters that are going to "off-themselves".
I agree. What happens though is that once people announces themselves as transgendered then they are easily identified as a risk for depression and suicide. This isn't necessarily a ban on transgendered people, but OPENLY transgendered. If a person can maintain the physical, grooming, and other behavioral standards consistent with their biological sex then they will not "out" themselves as a risk. If the person has no issues of depression, or can have them treated within the norms of the military, then they can stay. A person that insists on hormone treatments, surgeries, or even just dressing as the opposite sex, then this is a problem. This becomes a cost for the military in having to accommodate their medical needs or merely their whimsy.
Is this "fair"? Perhaps not. Life is not fair.
I read the conclusion (on page 69 of the document) and it says that there are less that 10,000 people out of nearly a million affected by this. It is a non-issue. If it costs anything to keep trans people in the military above what it costs for non-trans then kick them out. It may be harsh to kick them out but people are forced to leave for much less, because keeping them in costs money.
How many men-that-think-they-are-men are in the military and how many men-that-think-they-are-women are in the military?
A quick Google search tells me that there are something like 1 million people in the military in some capacity. About 3/4 of them are men. There's how many trans people in the military? Some say 4000, some say 10,000. If the military is spending 5x for Viagra to keep 500,000 or so men healthy and happy, than it does for 5000 or so transgendered people then I think that is a good investment and likely makes good economic sense to discharge the transgendered for cost savings alone.
I've seen those stories about the exceptional trans-people (is that a word? it is now) in the military that risk discharge because of policies like what Trump just announced. I have to wonder, are all trans-people as exceptional? I doubt it. By their very nature these people are a problem for combat readiness. Someone that is taking hormones is a cost that they don't have to take on. People get discharged for much milder physical issues, I don't see why they get an exception.
Even if they take no hormones, or had no surgeries, but merely choose to wear a different uniform, this is a problem. The uniform is a safety device. They are designed to fit the body in a way to protect from injury. Wearing a poorly fitting uniform just because one is "male" and the other "female" is an issue for safety.
This became a problem that was addressed with a new uniform. The military saw that women were having problems from ill fitting uniforms. They don't always call them "male" or "female" but sometimes "A-type" and "B-type" but people know what they mean. (There's a third type called "maternity" but we'll ignore that for now.) If a soldier refuses to wear the proper uniform because that's for the "wrong sex" then this is not just a matter of safety but of discipline. We cannot tolerate soldiers that refuse to wear the proper uniform out of a preference for how they look.
We are talking about accommodating, at the top end, 1% of the military population for something that costs a lot of money, is driving exceptional warriors from service for a lot of bullshit and discipline problems, and gains them nothing. There's necessarily a continuous flow of people of exceptional quality coming into the military. This small fraction of people driven out by the policy change will be replaced in no time.
RPGs (regulation prescription glasses) are a thing.
I've heard them called BCGs, birth control glasses/goggles. Also "Buddy Holly's" or "Drew Carey's" glasses after the people known to where similar glasses. Drew Carey got his "look" with the short hair and heavy framed glasses because he was in the Marines when he started his comedian career.
The military will assess their needs with every decision before ordering a discharge. An Army buddy of mine talked about an old sergeant that had knee problems. This was fine on base but when orders came to prepare for deployment this sergeant was ordered to retire. He was "fit for service" right up to the point they had to go overseas.
For job duties where even glasses would be a problem those soldiers that excel in every other way are offered vision correction surgery. If they refuse, or the surgery cannot give 20/20 correction, then the soldier is offered a different position or offered a severance.
Some jobs require a security clearance. If you cannot pas then you have to choose a different job, or leave. I've seen this happen. A soldier had her clearance denied and she was offered the choice of a job as a medic or discharge. She chose discharge.
Stop being a troll if you want to be taken seriously. If you'd been paying attention you'd realize all the phones i've purchased have been premium phones and i've already upgraded to USB-C, so clearly it's not the price that concerns me, it's the stupidity and wastefulness of it.
I wasn't speaking to you specifically, just generally to all that complain of the lack of a headphone port on a top notch phone.
As you say you already have a newer phone so all of my over the top commentary does not apply to you. I was being absurd to highlight the absurdity of it all.
I've had Apple iDevices for a long time now. Over the years I've collected three iPods with the 30 pin port before getting my iPhone 7. I paid something like $500 for it knowing I'd have to spend another $100 on accessories to get the convenience I had with my iPods. I got a Lightning to 30 pin adapter for the stereo in my truck, an extra 2 meter charge cable so I wouldn't have to trip over the short one that came with it, and a short Lightning cable for the charger I keep by my bed. It came with the headphone adapter, like the Motorola does, and I keep that in my book bag with the headphones and the charger that came with it.
One reason I don't miss the headphone jack is that the headphone jack on my iPod touch broke. While in my truck I used the cable in there to listen and charge the iPod. When at home I'd listen to the built in speakers, stream to the Airport base station by my stereo, or stream to a Bluetooth speaker. I missed the ability to listen to the iPod in the library as I studied but I knew if I wanted that function back again I could pick up a Bluetooth headphone set.
With an $800 phone and headphone adapters available for $10 a pair it seems absurd to bitch about the lack of that headphone port. Especially when they tend to wear out or break like what happened in my iPod. If you can pry open your wallet far enough to pull out $800 then you can find another $10 or so for the adapters, lacking that then perhaps you can find a $700 phone and pick out $100 of accessories like I did and be much happier in the end.
Such complaints on the lack of a built in headphone jack just sounds as absurd as buying a $800 TV set and then complaining you have to use the $10 adapter that comes with it to plug in your old rabbit ear antenna. Sure you might have to buy another adapter or something so you can use your old Nintendo AND get your cable TV but not many people do that any more. You are in the minority, and that comes with a cost when buying consumer devices.