Seriously? You need to explain yourself here. I've had a smart phone for about 6 years now, and every time I help my grandpa do something on his flip phone I wonder how the fuck I ever thought they were handy. Cumbersome sonsabitches.
Pretty much. Anybody who has an issue with smartphones can feel free to try a Nokia or Razor again and then change their mind instantaneously.
Yeah, you're going to need to explain yourself. Do you remember having to look shit up in the yellow pages? I do. Fuck that noise. Or having someone give you directions somewhere and them being like "Take the thing down to the thing, make a left at that thing, then you'll see a really big thing, next to a little thing, make a right there, spin around 2 times, then do down the block to the cool looking thing then BAM IT WILL BE RIGHT THERE!"
What old school stuff is better than new school stuff? Maybe that would be a good thread. GPS and having GPS on the phone is fantastic . . . but a 3-4" screen is of no use for getting "the big picture." Sometimes, getting from point A to point B in the most logical way involves unfolding a map. This also prevents general stupidity to keep from getting turned around, because your GPS picked up the wrong address and you were driving East for 10 minutes before realizing that's completely the wrong direction. Being dependent on electronic devices does actually make people stupid, because they fail to exercise the part of their brain that merges common sense and basic problem solving.
A military example is the M2 Bradley. In an attempt to make a tank amphibious, the M2 was fitted with a rubberized curtain contraption that did indeed enable it to float. But the curtain took 10 minutes to deploy, by hand, and required the entire crew. Once up, the curtain prevented the use of the turret, and blocked all of the weapons ports. Furthermore, it could be deflated fairly easily under fire. So what you wound up with was a tank that could cross a river or small water body, but was incredibly vulnerable during the whole process.
Google maps navigation has a button that zooms out and shows you the whole route so you don't do that. It's super easy on a phone.
Bad Implementation: Animal bounties. Sometimes you have too many of X pest so the government offers a bounty on their tails or bodies or whatever. Then people set up farms to breed them so they can easily make more money. Government shuts down the program. The farmers then just abandon their breeding farms and.... they escape into the wild and you wind up with a greater population of the pest in question than when you started. Pigs, rat, FUCKING COBRAS, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect
Children's toys are better old. METAL, dude. Matchbox/Hotwheels cars will outlast bacteria on this earth. Tougher than a coffin nail.
No shit. But that doesn't change the fact that the screen is 3-4" and if I zoomed out to fit three or four states, I wouldn't even be able to read city names, much less interstate numbers. Unless there's a phone that also unfolds to be 24" x 36" inches, it simply does not replicate it. Apple Newton. I don't know if that was an implementation issue or not. The way people foam at the mouth when the new iPhone comes out, Apple obviously figured out how to get it right. Basic PDA's had been out for a year or two when the Newton launched, but it flopped. Palm kicked Apple to the curb and dominated that market until all the PDA features began being easily incorporated into cell phones.
The implementation of smart phones was to make a device capable of a being a cell phone, keep track of important notes, be an alarm clock, a useful distraction with games, Internet access on the go, etc. But it was so effective it's created a new class of shithead: People who stare vacantly at their smart phone, making it their constant companion and babysitter. So maybe that's more a complaint about stupid people, not smart phones. Sorry if I shit in anyone's meatloaf with my un-explained statement.
I will agree with that part-- phones these days have created a massive antisocial demographic that hasn't been seen since everyone thought their next door neighbour was a witch. Any time I go watch one of my kid's activities-- dance, karate or swimming lessons I look around and 19/20 patents are buried in their phones, never looking up even once. Their kids are looking to their parents for approval and vocal/visual support but aren't getting it, because getting a new high score on Candy Crush or whatever the fuck is more important. There's nothing that boosts a kid like having their mom/dad cheer them on, and that's virtually gone the way of the dodo bird. I'll never get why people prefer the fake online reality to the ACTUAL, good-old-fashioned reality unfolding before their eyes known as "Life".
In a similar vein; wanting purebred species for their "uniqueness". Examples I can name off of the top of my head are white-headed ducks and introduced North American ruddy ducks hybridizing, Eastern gray wolves mating with coyotes to make "red wolves", various whale and dolphin species, even humans (during the last Ice Age Homo Sapiens interbred with Denisovans and Neanderthals both) However, there's this weird idea that genes from a closely related species to increase another species's genetic health is bad. If you know anything about the more fucked-up breeds of domestic dogs, you know why a limited gene pool is a bad thing. Who cares that a Eastern Black Rhinoceros, a subspecies of the main species, fucking a Western Black Rhinoceros, which is down to only four specimens and is STILL the same species!? It's not like you're breeding a liger or a mule, the offspring of both sexes from the pairing will be healthy, genetically sound and will do nothing but good for the species, but you think that if some Ethiopian Wolf has domestic dog genes or some Hawaiian duck has introduced Mallard genes will be a bad thing when the resultant offspring thrive in the wild, I can't understand your logic.
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/2 ... ciary-rule TLDR: The Department of Labor may implement a higher standard for financial advisers advising people on things like rollovers from 401k plans. A little off focus because it hasn't happened yet, but this is one of those "We did it for the lower and middle class, but they're the ones we're screwing" moments. Essentially, all the advisers who are paid by commission to give this advice will have to become fee-based planners, pricing a lot of people out of getting financial advice who need it most. There are better ways to deal with shitty advisers.
Hats. The idea of a fedora is pretty awesome: Spoiler The reality of fedoras being worn? Spoiler Same with flat caps. Flat caps are, in theory, classy hats: Spoiler The reality of flat caps? Ugh. Spoiler I'll just have to buy an umbrella for when it's raining. And while we're here, tuxedos: