or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

That's one of the problems with long threads like this. There is an apparently inexhaustible supply of people who can't be bothered to read the discussion and just end up posting the same arguments with the same flawed assumptions over and over again.
 I don't want to get embroiled in an argument on the merits of the AGW hypothesis, because there is no doubt that some of the science has been questionable, some of the data are open to dispute, and the political and economic implications make dispassionate debate difficult. I will make a few philosophical points though: It is very important not to conflate a lack of conclusive evidence for a hypothesis with positive evidence that the hypothesis is wrong - that requires...
 Agreed - it just looks like miniature metro re-imagined with circular tiles, and too gaudy for an otherwise spectacular design. Certainly won't stop me from buying one though.
Flexible for manufacturing purposes, presumably, since nothing about the design released so far, at least that I have seen, indicates a flexible device - in fact quite the opposite.
You should have prefaced that comment with "Attention Internet Users".
 Maybe they just wanted to keep the test conservative. But also bear in mind that uniform beam loading is much harder to achieve on an Instron.
 I think he is actually trying to get himself banned. Weird. Anyone willing to do us all a favor and oblige?
Further engagement is probably counterproductiive. When someone responds to a reasoned set of points with a one liner that comprises the tired old fanboy insult and no attempt to address even a single point, it just reeks of trolling. The only alternative is simple rank stupidity, but I don't think that is credible in this case.
Ok - well if all you want to do is throw insults and blatant non sequiturs then no point continuing the discussion.
It's an interesting look at why the phone fails where it does under bending, but it doesn't remotely prove a design flaw. All structures will fail under sufficient load, and most structures will fail preferentially either at weak points or stress risers. So explaining why it fails at the buttons (which is the trivially obvious weak point) doesn't mean the design is flawed.That would require one of two possibilities: either the design called for inadequate strength for...
New Posts  All Forums: