redraider11

About

Banned
Username
redraider11
Joined
Visits
56
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
374
Badges
1
Posts
186
  • Apple restricts iOS 10 to iPhone 5, 4th-gen iPad or newer [u]

    No A5 device, especially ones Apple isn't selling anymore, should get iOS 10. The user experience is bound to be crap.
    I would go a step further and say only 64-bit devices should be supported. And this is coming from someone with a 32-bit iPad. 
    baconstangrezwitsnetmagedoozydozen
  • Apple moving to 3-year 'major' iPhone cycle, adding complex vibrations to 2017 model - report

    Makes sense to me. Cars used to be the same way 60+ years ago with new designs coming out almost yearly. Now you're lucky to get a complete redesign every 7-10 years with a minor refresh in the middle. The technology Apple is wanting to use is getting harder and harder to implement and I think they are just wanting more time to make sure it's done right. Also, redesigning and retooling machines and training people every couple of years to make a completely new device gets expensive. 
    nolamacguybaconstangcornchip
  • Apple's 'iPhone 7 Plus' rumored to use 3GB of RAM for dual-camera image processing

    tzeshan said:
    Apple has a problem here with this product strategy.  What will be the new innovations for iPhone 7?  Without new innovations, all the users that don't want the extra size of Plus will refrain from upgrade just like those people don't want the extra size of 6 or 6s chose to stay with 5S.
    Count me as one of those people. I like the size of the 6/6S, but I've held my wife's 6+ and I couldn't imagine carrying that thing all day in my pants pocket. No big deal for her since she just puts it in her purse. I would upgrade for the new tech, but I'm out on that size of a phone. 
    patchythepiratelarryamike1
  • Alleged 'iPhone 7' cable suggests Apple could include 3.5mm headphone jack after all

    hodar said:

    Other than "ALLEGED" size, there is no reason to get rid of the 3.5mm jack.  All headphones, all speakers are analog devices.  They are simple motor windings that move a diaphragm either up or down; depending upon current flow and the displacement is based upon the amount of the current.  If Apple went digital, all they would be doing is moving the D/A converter from the phone, to the speaker - simply moving the conversion a matter of a foot or two would do ZERO to the fidelity of the music.  I would say that the fidelity of the music would be more affected by the overall quality of the D/A converter, and the quality of the Power Supply that would power the D/A converter.

    Odds are that the Quality of the D/A converter in a vast majority of headphones, would be inferior to the quality of the D/A converter and power supply found in your common cell phone.  Why?  Well, for starters your cell phone has a pretty nice microprocessor and a pretty robust battery.  There is a huge quality in your cell phone, and the price drop found in mass production cannot be discounted - when compared to the individual costs that would be passed on to the consumer among the multitudes of headphone suppliers - who will all use their own brand of D/A converters and other cost savings in power supplies - in order to maximize profits.  The odds are that unless you spend an inordinate amount of money, you will be worse off with a USB-C headphone, than you are with a decent quality 3.5mm headphone.

    "No reason" to get rid of the headphone jack? You mean other than the fact that less holes in the phone mean better sealing from water and dust right? Or what about the fact that it is an old technology that eventually will fade out. There are other reasons too, but to say no reason is extremely ignorant. 
    mike1
  • US Supreme Court approves search warrants for computers in any jurisdiction

    maestro64 said:

    Wow the supreme court is now making rules, talking about legislating from the bench. This shows you how out of control the entire 3 branches of government are these days.

    I agree electronic activated they need not have jurisdiction battle going on and it is too had to get warrants in multiply places at the same time and execute them at the same time. However this is something the congress and president are suppose to decide not the Supreme court.

    Our Founding Fathers set up our government the way they did on purpose. It's not supposed to be easy to pass laws and get warrants. But you are right, the job of the Supreme Court is not to pass law or make law. They're only supposed to be the final say in any given court case that makes it to them. Whenever you hear the President make a fuss about how it's hard to get anything done in congress, we should all be smiling and thanking the people who founded this country. 
    buzdotsjbdragonwetlanderlostkiwicornchip