So . . . .
. . . . that's what an "old school technology reviewer looks like?
In flagrant negation of the forces of nature, I seem to be growing less clumsy as I get older. That is, I break fewer things and do it less often. This is partly the result of a series of conscious decisions to be more careful. One such was choosing to don my spectacles before making breakfast rather than after, thus cutting …
Several reasons, actually, @Small Wee Jobbie:
It makes the article NSFW (in many Ws, probably).
It's insulting (it suggests that readers click links to see titillating pics, not to, you know, read the article).
It's irrelevant (unless you're seriously suggesting that she's either carrying out a stress test, or is correctly attired to carry out such tests).
It's irrelevant, 'cos this is the internet, and if you want pictures of scantily-clad women (or men, or goats), then they're over there. But please don't let el Reg get cluttered up with irrelevant irrelevancies.
And FFS, it's another brick in the wall of mindless Page 3/Daily Mail/Heat/Closer/etc objectification of women
for no apparently better reason than "because I like looking".
A bloke in a similarly-irrelevant-to-the-claimed-context outfit, posed and dressed in such a way as to suggest that the undercarriage may be flapping in the breeze (but just about hidden from plain view) and with no real relevance to the article?
No, no, of course that would be completely different.
If you're going to defend randomly sticking photos of semi-naked women in articles allegedly about technology, at least be honest while doing so rather than using crap straw-man arguments. It makes you look less of a prat.
*shrug* She's not semi-naked, unless we're now living in some kind of conservative world where showing leg is considered semi-naked.
If anything the best reason to have it is to make irrational people angry, so I get to laugh at all the "it's objectifying blah", "but what if it was a man blah", "it's irrelevant blah", what it is, is a girl showing off her legs and probably earning a reasonable amount of cash for a perfectly legitimate career.
As far as I'm concerned you could have a stark bollock naked man with a sledge hammer and his wang flapping proud and I'd probably think much the same as I do with this lass and her legs doing whatever it is she's doing. "Heh" actually if it was naked man I'd go direct to the comments to see the unbridled rage!
It's not "showing leg", she's at best got a greyhound skirt on and at worst is wearing nowt from the waist down. Which, you know, is fine if its what you want to look at - but it's bog-all to do with the article and the kind of thing that's considered NSFW in many workplaces.
Nothing against the woman in question doing whatever she feels like doing in front of a camera - my objection is the use of her picture in an article where "tangential" is too generous a description of the connection between the two.
>A bloke in a similarly-irrelevant-to-the-claimed-context outfit, posed and dressed in such a way as to suggest that the undercarriage may be flapping in the breeze (but just about hidden from plain view) and with no real relevance to the article?
Here you go:
(IT angle?- image taken from Black Books, a Graham Linehan series that pre-dated The IT Crowd)
"It's insulting (it suggests that readers click links to see titillating pics, not to, you know, read the article)."
How would the reader know there was a picture of a lady in a short skirt prior to opening the article?
"It's irrelevant (unless you're seriously suggesting that she's either carrying out a stress test, or is correctly attired to carry out such tests)."
It's a stock photo of someone expressing anger at a piece of tech.
"it's another brick in the wall of mindless Page 3/Daily Mail/Heat/Closer/etc objectification of women"
I hate to tell you but people have been using 'sex' to sell things for a very long time, oh and thanks for pointing out that we are all incapable of treating half the species as nothing other than eye candy.
NSFW, Insulting, Irrelevant, objectifies women.... Oooh, you forgot gender stereotyping!! El Reg readers, being techie types, will be mostly male and therefore will mostly prefer to see an attractive girl than an attractive guy.
Will anyone think about El Reg's femael and gay readership?
This post has been deleted by its author
Can someone please point me to the semi-naked woman? I seemed to have missed that part. -_-
Or are you referring to the to the woman wearing far more then the holiday photos of their SOs most people put on the desk in professional environments?
Good lord, you're prudish.
Why are people getting so worked up over a humorous stock photo acompanying a lighthearted piece?
And where would you have to be employed for the pic to be considered nsfw?, puritan industries inc.?
Sexist?, pffft, its usually fat munters and lesbo`s that cry sexist out of petty jealousy because noone wants to drool over em.
Some people just have to read too much into everything.
1) Blatant sexism. Grow up.
2) The "test" seemed to favour the Apple (or maybe that's just the result of the totally unscientific nature). In the frist drop test, the SIII is allowed to land face first, the Apple is dropped edge-on. In the final drop test, the flat surface of the bottle strikes the Apple, by the bottom corner of the bottle strikes the SIII (much harsher impact). The only test where the Apple could be safely said to have "won" is the wet test, and that was quite impressive.
""Misogyny .... is a central part of sexist prejudice and ideology and, as such, is an important basis for the oppression of females in male-dominated societies. Misogyny is manifested in many different ways, from jokes to pornography to violence to the self-contempt women may be taught to feel toward their own bodies.""
(Johnson, Allan G. The Blackwell dictionary of sociology: A user's guide to sociological language. )
Immediately not impressed that they dropped the S3 at a 45 degree angle so it landed on the edge of the screen and then hit the screen on the ground and dropped the iphone on it's end so the screen didnt impact.
That can not be considered a test. So it's a video of some plonkers breaking phones.
Rest of the video becomes irrelevant, rather see them blended..
Mythbusters once built a machine to drop buttered toast, to see whether they'd land butter-down more often than butter-up. I'm sure that with minor modifications it could be used to drop smartphones in a brand-agnostic and orientaion-neutral way. Then we'll have a true statistically-valid drop test.
..who actually looks after expensive things?
If I spend £500 on a phone, I put it in a protective case, screen protector and don't make a habit of throwing it around. Same with laptops, games consoles etc.
Whether they belong to me or not, I feel like technology items need my protection, not abuse.
I view most technology as a tool, I use it, treat it with some respect but am not overly protective of it.
a good example is my laptop which is covered in scrapes (9 inch scrape across the back of the screen) however after 4 years it is still working perfectly and has no damage to the keyboard or screen, if I was overly protective of it then it would be in pristine condition but wouldn't have done 75% of the jobs it has.
as I said.. it's a tool I will use it till it falls apart and then repair or replace it but I won't avoid using it because it might pick up some damage.
.who actually looks after expensive things?
No, you're not. Having said that, my experience with the iPhone is that it works best for me "naked" (blame the pic, grin). I did have it in a case for a while but it got annoying, so it only got back into a case because I wanted more battery power (and it gives it a normal micro-usb connector, also a win).
Personally, if you want to test how robust tech is, all you need to do is give it to some 5..10 year olds. The 5 year olds will stress the hardware, the 10 year olds will do things with the software you'd never dream of. If it survives that, you're probably up to military spec..
I've noticed that toddlers are more attracted to cameras, spectacles, mobile phones (even when the phone is turned off) and wristwatches [in short, expensive stuff designed to appeal to adults] than they are to toys. They seem to instinctively know what you don't want broken, and make a beeline to it.
You would have though that toy designers would have noticed this too, but no.
Fortunately, the whole post-a-jam-sandwich-in-the-VCR-door experiment is a thing of the past in most households.
Don't need 5 or 10 year olds... Just give said piece of tech to some of my users... It's amazing how quickly they can make a brand new mobile phone look like it's been underwater for three years and then left in the middle of a road to be run over repeatedly. Note these are company-supplied mobiles. I'm willing to bet their own personal stuff lasts a lot longer.
It depends. I can't stand having a case on my portable devices, but I make a major effort not to drop them. I dropped my original Droid *once* and discovered the power button does not deal with impacts. Lesson learned. Fortunately I was able to set up Cyanogen to power on with the camera/volume buttons.
The only protective rule I adopted for my new smartphone was that it goes in a pocket separate from the keys & change.
We'll see how my Nexus 4 does with the glass front *and* back (if it ever gets here)
Surely that all depends on how likely it is to be dropped?
If it's a piece of test equipment that is used on building sites, the ability to survive being dropped onto hard concrete or into a muddy puddle verges on essential. For a camera to be used by a war reporter, even more so. If it's a 24inch office monitor or printer, it doesn't matter at all. OTOH surviving a cup of coffee being spilled onto it, or surviving a sheet of jammed paper being wrenched out backwards by an 800lb gorilla called "sir", are useful attributes for a printer. I've watched speechless as that sheet of paper come out along with a handful of small broken plastic pieces.
My list of unexpectedly tough kit has Fluke DVMs and IBM ThinkPads near the top, and Sony VAIOs near the bottom. An HP LasetJet 4 is tough and longlasting, but does not survive a flight of concrete stairs at the hands of a "professional" removals company.
And the most memorable "failed" drop test of all was an 80Mb (yes MB) disk drive the size of a washing machine back in the 1980s. The engineer unpacked it, took one look at it, and told us he needed to call the insurers. I asked what was wrong - it looked fine. "Well", he said, squinting, "it's an inch wider at the top than at the bottom". Indeed, it was. "And it rattles when you wobble it. And [grin]... it's got a hole the shape of a fork lift truck prong in the side, right through all the controller boards".
I remember watching a Compaq Proliant 5500 being moved down stairs on a barrow, it was carefully lowered down one flight onto a flat bit of floor and then, for no reason anyone could see, leapt like a large, beige lemming down the remaining two flights.
The only damage was a ding in the door which had flown off and made its own way down. I think we ran that for the rest of the year before it went out to stud.
They literally don't make them like that any more.
"And the most memorable "failed" drop test of all was an 80Mb (yes MB) disk drive the size of a washing machine back in the 1980s"
After waiting many weeks we had a memory extension delivered to our overseas site. A classic 6 x 2 x 2 feet steel cabinet filled with a whole 128Kbyte of core memory. It was in perfect condition - so it was taken off the transport pallet and carefully unwrapped. On opening the door the inner PCB frame was no longer a rectangle but a rhombus. It appeared that some where en route it had been dropped on its side without damaging the paintwork.
As a FS tech I've heard of many such stories.
Like the PDP11 that kept misbehaving, board swap after board swap after board swap. Finally it was decided to swap the entire machine, and a replacement was delivered and hooked up. The misbehaving one was rolled out the door towards the van; on that route lay a somewhat sloping footpath. It got away from the movers, rolled with ever-increasing speed down the slope, and when it reached the kerb, it toppled forward as Newtons Laws dictated, crashed into the pavement, and made a fair impression of one of those exploded views you find in service manuals. It was decided to change the status of the swap unit to 'permanent'.
Or the mainframe that had to be manhandled, using stairwalker lorries, to reach the floor where the computer room was (presumably, machines installed earlier fitted in the elevator, but this one was a bit bigger). On the final stairs someone lost his grip and back down the machine went, through the staircase's glass facade, into the parking lot. Again, the pavement won.
And on a site I worked for a few months there had been a rather failed delivery attempt of a server and storage unit, each in their 19" rack. After undoing the straps securing the systems for transport, the driver found the van wasn't positioned right, and moved forward with the intention of then moving backward again with the lateral correction needed. In stepped good old Isaac again, stating "An object at rest remains at rest unless an external force acts upon it". Well, the horizontal forces were absent due to the unhooked straps, but once the van had moved out from underneath the racks, gravity got free rein. It then turned out that due to standard Government purchasing procedures they were insured by weight, which added up to about Dfl.500 (a bit over ten years back) for the lot.
@snowlight: I'm assuming that the 'landing zone" of the tests was the bin they were destined for, to reduce the time needed for the post-mortum area cleanup?
a while ago* I was given the task of tossing a bunch of non-functional CRTs into the local skip. Those things can take one hell of a beating- I never got any of the tubes to blow.
* before all the enviromental laws went into effect forbidding such things.
> a while ago* I was given the task of tossing a bunch of non-functional
> CRTs into the local skip. Those things can take one hell of a beating-
> I never got any of the tubes to blow.
The weak point in a CRT is the neck at the back. The front part
that's normally exposed can take a phenominal amount of abuse...
In the early 1960s neighbours were starting to throw away their ancient TVs. We kids requisitioned them to scavenge useful electronics components, wire, and big magnets. The tube was put in the metal dustbin face down. We would then throw a big brick in very hard with one hand - while holding the dustbin lid as a shield against any implosion fragments. As I recall there was just a disappointing sharp sound like a deflating tyre as the stem broke off at the neck.
and you don't quite want to have the front crack and implode on you. High-velocity glass shards are bad for your health.
Up to about 1960 television sets, especially the bigger ones, tended to have a pane of sandwich glass in front of the actual tube. Apparently the production process back then wasn't quite up to manufacturing tubes with a sufficiently low chance of maiming the viewer..
Now, I can't say I'm a massive fan the cliché semi-naked female photo appearing in this article. But if you're going to have them, it would be nice if (for once) female readers were recognised too, with a similar picture of a scantily clad attractive male posing alluringly with some piece of tech. (The first IT/gaming/tech website that actually manages to do this will win kudos from yours truly, at least).
Before we do that, I think we should at least ask the female readers.
Personally, I do find semi-clad males more annoying than interesting (and certainly substantially less, umm, decorative), but as a male I'm probably biased. Only an in-depth survey can answer this question - anyone else for the pub?
"And unless you’re an easily impressed tit who finds it shocking that a Samsung Galaxy S III screen risks cracking every time you throw a bottle of beer at it, even delicate smartphones can survive an extraordinary amount of rough treatment."
I slipped while walking down a flight of stairs. Galaxy S2 fell out of hand and plummeted 4 metres onto concrete, landing on corner.
Result: one _slightly_ mashed corner (you can feel it rather than seeing it).
It didn't even spring the battery cover open.
When you use the next laptop review sample to fend off fireworks.
That would be fun to watch - a tech writer using the latest ultrabook as a shield to block fireworks fired at him by the rest of the office. If it had a solid state drive, and decent build quality, and the hack didn't drop it, it'd probably survive.
Actually, that might be a good test of build quality, you know...
I always unpack things very carefully - including taking pictures if necessary. Then when the item is DOA or fails after a few hours it can be neatly repacked for the RMA. Seems to happen a lot these days.
The only thing that defeats that strategy is shirts held on a cardboard former with lots of pins.