"Not as good as a PC" is not the same as "crap". And they don't have to be as good; they only have to be good enough, thanks to the added convenience. We have a post further up from a guy who explained how the added convenience helped him write a novel entirely on his phone. I recently did my taxes on my phone while relaxing on a lounger by the pool side. Would it have been "easier" for me to do them inside on a computer? Yeah, maybe. Might have been a bit quicker. But it would have been a lot less enjoyable.
Again, for business use desktops and laptops still have their place, but for the vast majority of home use they are completely unnecessary.
Exactly this. Only the shareholders who buy stocks specifically looking for growth are demanding growth. More conservative investors tend to buy stocks which have a strong history of paying out regular, predictable dividends.
In the absence of growth companies would just need to focus more on paying dividends, and investors would have to tame their get-rich-quick ambitions. The market would still work fine.
Your paranoia is silly on it's own, but the ridiculous inconsistency of it is even worse. You think Microsoft or Apple can't access your "idea" stored on a desktop computer running their OS?
Your response has nothing to do with the utility of phones vs desktops; it's just a nutty rant about google.
People keep saying this as if it were self evident, but it's just nonsense. Capitalism tends to create and encourage growth, but there's nothing about it which requires growth.
From what I've seen amongst friends and acquaintances, there are only three reasons most people upgrade these days:
1. The battery life has decreased to the point that it's unusable, and they don't seem to understand that you can change the battery. 2. The phone stops working and is out of warranty. 3. They're on a "plan" which amortizes the cost of the phone over several years, it's time for a renewal, and the provider has offered them a "deal" which they think is good.
Personally I just upgrade on a 2-3 year cycle and buy second hand phones which are about a year old. By that point they cost half or less of the original price, and they've been on the market long enough for me to evaluate the relative performance and reliability based on consumer reviews. Plus I can check and make sure they have an active development community on XDA and a way to unlock the bootloader.
The people who only used computers for social media will only use phones for the same thing, sure. But what made the desktop unnecessary is all of the other things which you can now do with a phone. Document viewing and editing, music storage and playback (or even composition), photo capture manipulation and categorization, finance management, tax preparation and filling... phones can now do the vast majority of the things we used to need computers for. So what's left? Not much that would interest 95% of home users. Business/professional use is a different thing.
Well that's the first time I hear it was done forty years ago.
It wasn't. The guy you're talking to is just an asshole who is heavily invested in shorting Tesla, so will regularly tell all kinds of lies about anything Elon touches.
If you scroll up on the page you can watch him claim that the Linux kernel was more revolutionary than anything SpaceX has done. And as insane as that it, it's not even the most ridiculous thing he's ever said!
Sounds more like your personal convenience is worth more than the desires of hundreds of millions of people. If you had half a brain you would just turn off the ringer on that second phone and change the voicemail to say "this phone number is not being monitored, please call me back at the number I gave you". But no, everyone else has to suffer because you're lazy or incompetent.
Of course I did. I published it in the same journal as my paper on why Santa won't bring you any presents this year. Why the fuck would you try arguing about this topic if you're not even familiar with the literature???
It's incalculable in the sense that you can't calculate it because you can't predict what's going to happen 100 years from now.
But I'm pretty sure that you mean "incalculable" as in "FUCKING HUGE!!!", which is stupid. You are assuming that people 100 years from now will have the same technology as we do today. That's ridiculous.
Also you're missing the fact that the whole issue with Chernobyl isn't so much the reactor but rather the contamination in the environment around it. Also all the dead people. And the deformed babies.
Some of the solid waste might be usable in modern reactors. Most of the waste seems to be liquid, though. That stuff could be loaded onto a tanker and dumped into the middle of the ocean without causing any measurable harm. If you had Greenpeace following the tanker I suppose they might find one or two radioactive fish in it's wake, but otherwise it would diffuse into the ocean and make no difference to anything.
But, apparently, it's a better idea to spend $100 billion turning it into glass, or something. Because reasons.
Eh. Even the monetary cost is overblown and largely due to NIMBYs. Do the math on what it would cost to provide conventional fuel for an aircraft carrier for 60 years, vs what it costs to make them nuclear. Include decommissioning costs for good measure. You'll still get a very favourable result.
The community, as I mentioned in my last paragraph...
I asked what it has to do with my comment, and you just repeated your complaints about "the community". You didn't answer me at all.
Why should it matter how I...
I asked what the difference was, and why it bothered you. Again, you didn't answer my question at all.
Your last point is basically the problem; android consistently gets ridiculous amounts of bloatware and crapware included in it. Why does iOS and even windows phone (when it was a thing) manage to avoid that?
They don't; you're delusional. Let's see what T-Mobile says about their phones.
You're whining about android devices as if they were all the same. How about you exercise that brain of yours and buy one which is loaded with less crap than an iPhone or a Windows Phone, rather than more?
AOSP is open source, while Android on all phones being sold, is not.
AOSP is android. You know, as in Android Open Source Project. Android is open source. This isn't hard.
Replacing the entire OS requires an unlocked bootloader, something which is not always available.
It's never available on non-android phones, except unofficially. I'll take "available sometimes" over "available never", thanks.
This is google/manufacturers doing a bait and switch, but the neckbeards haven't quite caught on, because while they may proclaim these features, reality is even they don't use them, but think they're still there.
I've unlocked and re-flashed every android phone and tablet I've ever owned. My current phone is running LineageOS 15.1; my old phone (backup for travel) is on 16.1. I've gone through multiple tablets; the one I currently have was good enough stock that I didn't bother unlocking the bootloader for about 2 years, but I did it recently after the last manufacturer update pulled an Apple and made it slower with worse battery life. It is now also on LineageOS, and performing better than when it was new.
Well of course being poorer is only one reason. The other reasons are things like lower business taxes, fewer regulatory hurdles, and nonexistent environmental regulations. All of that makes it much cheaper to manufacture stuff in dirt poor nations.
Slashdot Mirror
"Not as good as a PC" is not the same as "crap". And they don't have to be as good; they only have to be good enough, thanks to the added convenience. We have a post further up from a guy who explained how the added convenience helped him write a novel entirely on his phone. I recently did my taxes on my phone while relaxing on a lounger by the pool side. Would it have been "easier" for me to do them inside on a computer? Yeah, maybe. Might have been a bit quicker. But it would have been a lot less enjoyable.
Again, for business use desktops and laptops still have their place, but for the vast majority of home use they are completely unnecessary.
From profits.
Maybe you need to look up what dividends are?
Exactly this. Only the shareholders who buy stocks specifically looking for growth are demanding growth. More conservative investors tend to buy stocks which have a strong history of paying out regular, predictable dividends.
In the absence of growth companies would just need to focus more on paying dividends, and investors would have to tame their get-rich-quick ambitions. The market would still work fine.
Your paranoia is silly on it's own, but the ridiculous inconsistency of it is even worse. You think Microsoft or Apple can't access your "idea" stored on a desktop computer running their OS?
Your response has nothing to do with the utility of phones vs desktops; it's just a nutty rant about google.
P.S. google docs isn't the only option on phones.
However, capitalism requires growth
People keep saying this as if it were self evident, but it's just nonsense. Capitalism tends to create and encourage growth, but there's nothing about it which requires growth.
From what I've seen amongst friends and acquaintances, there are only three reasons most people upgrade these days:
1. The battery life has decreased to the point that it's unusable, and they don't seem to understand that you can change the battery.
2. The phone stops working and is out of warranty.
3. They're on a "plan" which amortizes the cost of the phone over several years, it's time for a renewal, and the provider has offered them a "deal" which they think is good.
Personally I just upgrade on a 2-3 year cycle and buy second hand phones which are about a year old. By that point they cost half or less of the original price, and they've been on the market long enough for me to evaluate the relative performance and reliability based on consumer reviews. Plus I can check and make sure they have an active development community on XDA and a way to unlock the bootloader.
The people who only used computers for social media will only use phones for the same thing, sure. But what made the desktop unnecessary is all of the other things which you can now do with a phone. Document viewing and editing, music storage and playback (or even composition), photo capture manipulation and categorization, finance management, tax preparation and filling ... phones can now do the vast majority of the things we used to need computers for. So what's left? Not much that would interest 95% of home users. Business/professional use is a different thing.
Which is why they plan on using active cooling during reentry. The fact that it's harder to melt just means less need for cooling.
Well that's the first time I hear it was done forty years ago.
It wasn't. The guy you're talking to is just an asshole who is heavily invested in shorting Tesla, so will regularly tell all kinds of lies about anything Elon touches.
If you scroll up on the page you can watch him claim that the Linux kernel was more revolutionary than anything SpaceX has done. And as insane as that it, it's not even the most ridiculous thing he's ever said!
Sounds more like your personal convenience is worth more than the desires of hundreds of millions of people. If you had half a brain you would just turn off the ringer on that second phone and change the voicemail to say "this phone number is not being monitored, please call me back at the number I gave you". But no, everyone else has to suffer because you're lazy or incompetent.
He will probably point you to Snopes and tell you to piss off. And your disbarment request will generate a lot of laughs.
Of course I did. I published it in the same journal as my paper on why Santa won't bring you any presents this year. Why the fuck would you try arguing about this topic if you're not even familiar with the literature???
Yeah, definitely, because all chemicals are totally the same. Thanks Dr. Science!
It's incalculable in the sense that you can't calculate it because you can't predict what's going to happen 100 years from now.
But I'm pretty sure that you mean "incalculable" as in "FUCKING HUGE!!!", which is stupid. You are assuming that people 100 years from now will have the same technology as we do today. That's ridiculous.
Also you're missing the fact that the whole issue with Chernobyl isn't so much the reactor but rather the contamination in the environment around it. Also all the dead people. And the deformed babies.
Forcing government workers to be unproductive and still pay them (afterwards) costs money. Therefore the shutdown has a cost.
You say that as if you think that most of them would normally be productive ...
It's like a Chernobyl ... except instead of killing thousands of people it's killed zero. Otherwise, totally the same!
Some of the solid waste might be usable in modern reactors. Most of the waste seems to be liquid, though. That stuff could be loaded onto a tanker and dumped into the middle of the ocean without causing any measurable harm. If you had Greenpeace following the tanker I suppose they might find one or two radioactive fish in it's wake, but otherwise it would diffuse into the ocean and make no difference to anything.
But, apparently, it's a better idea to spend $100 billion turning it into glass, or something. Because reasons.
Eh. Even the monetary cost is overblown and largely due to NIMBYs. Do the math on what it would cost to provide conventional fuel for an aircraft carrier for 60 years, vs what it costs to make them nuclear. Include decommissioning costs for good measure. You'll still get a very favourable result.
He doesn't have a nifty robe, and hippies don't swoon over his wisdom.
I didn't say it was perfect, just more sane.
I've never found Rotten Tomatoes to be particularly useful. IMDb seems much more sane:
https://www.imdb.com/search/ti...
The community, as I mentioned in my last paragraph ...
I asked what it has to do with my comment, and you just repeated your complaints about "the community". You didn't answer me at all.
Why should it matter how I ...
I asked what the difference was, and why it bothered you. Again, you didn't answer my question at all.
Your last point is basically the problem; android consistently gets ridiculous amounts of bloatware and crapware included in it. Why does iOS and even windows phone (when it was a thing) manage to avoid that?
They don't; you're delusional. Let's see what T-Mobile says about their phones.
https://support.t-mobile.com/d...
Apple iOS 12 = 44 applications.
https://support.t-mobile.com/d...
Microsoft Lumia 640 = 46 applications.
https://support.t-mobile.com/d...
Galaxy S8 = 49 applications.
That's a difference barely worth mentioning. Apple and Microsoft come with plenty of bloat, and no, you can't remove it.
Compare them to a lighter android phone:
https://support.t-mobile.com/d...
OnePlus 6T = 32 applications.
You're whining about android devices as if they were all the same. How about you exercise that brain of yours and buy one which is loaded with less crap than an iPhone or a Windows Phone, rather than more?
AOSP is open source, while Android on all phones being sold, is not.
AOSP is android. You know, as in Android Open Source Project. Android is open source. This isn't hard.
Replacing the entire OS requires an unlocked bootloader, something which is not always available.
It's never available on non-android phones, except unofficially. I'll take "available sometimes" over "available never", thanks.
This is google/manufacturers doing a bait and switch, but the neckbeards haven't quite caught on, because while they may proclaim these features, reality is even they don't use them, but think they're still there.
I've unlocked and re-flashed every android phone and tablet I've ever owned. My current phone is running LineageOS 15.1; my old phone (backup for travel) is on 16.1. I've gone through multiple tablets; the one I currently have was good enough stock that I didn't bother unlocking the bootloader for about 2 years, but I did it recently after the last manufacturer update pulled an Apple and made it slower with worse battery life. It is now also on LineageOS, and performing better than when it was new.
It sucks but it could be worse - you could have an Android phone that will never get any security fixes.
Err. This is an application. You understand that applications and the OS are two different things, right?
Well of course being poorer is only one reason. The other reasons are things like lower business taxes, fewer regulatory hurdles, and nonexistent environmental regulations. All of that makes it much cheaper to manufacture stuff in dirt poor nations.
What about them?