Impact Protection Case
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
94 comments displayed.
#73 to #1
-
feedtehtrollz (12/08/2015) [-] It's fake, in the full video the camera pans up high so the phone is out of view and they switch it with an already broken one.
#38 to #1
-
supersixfourr (12/08/2015) [-] STUPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#5
-
wellimnotsure ONLINE (12/07/2015) [-] wait, people actually think those things work? You can drop them from 2 feet inside those things and they shatter.
#112 to #5
-
ueatpooyesudo (12/08/2015) [-]
Yea if anything they just amplify the drama of your **** shattering.
#3
-
camzore ONLINE (12/07/2015) [-] Senju this is the second time in 5 minutes I've caught you doing cheeky puns in your posts, see me after class.
#7
-
gongwiththewind (12/07/2015) [-]
impact not hammer....
meaning you can drop it from 3-4 feet and it be fine....
meaning you can drop it from 3-4 feet and it be fine....
#8 to #7
-
thevaulthunter (12/07/2015) [-] Impact:
"the action of one object coming forcibly into contact with another"
Hammer came forcibly into contact with phone case.
It was an impact
"the action of one object coming forcibly into contact with another"
Hammer came forcibly into contact with phone case.
It was an impact
#10 to #8
-
gongwiththewind (12/07/2015) [-]
by that definition and logic nothing is impact resistant as you can just shoot it with a naval rail-gun to "impact it" ....
The case was clearly not designed to protect from hammers... in the phone market impact means a drop.
The case was clearly not designed to protect from hammers... in the phone market impact means a drop.
#113 to #10
-
anon (12/08/2015) [-]
Nothing is impact PROOF, but a lot of things are impact resistant. Impact does include a hammer. The phone could fall on the hammer, or the hammer could fall on the phone, it is still considered an impact and thevaulthunter's definition is correct.
Now, if the manufacturer advertises impact PROOF and the phone breaks, then you are eligible for refund/law suit.
Fun fact: that applies especially to water proof and water resistant product. Some will even clarify that it's water RESISTANT and will only work under splashes of water but not submersion. Water Proof is rated to certain pressure (depth), but the idea is that as long as the product is within the safe pressure, it will remain water proof indefinitely.
Now, if the manufacturer advertises impact PROOF and the phone breaks, then you are eligible for refund/law suit.
Fun fact: that applies especially to water proof and water resistant product. Some will even clarify that it's water RESISTANT and will only work under splashes of water but not submersion. Water Proof is rated to certain pressure (depth), but the idea is that as long as the product is within the safe pressure, it will remain water proof indefinitely.
#11 to #10
-
thevaulthunter (12/07/2015) [-] "That definition" is THE definition. A hammer hitting an object is an impact, and saying it is not is stupid. Even if those cases were designed to survive a drop: they don't work from 1 foot and beyond.
#22 to #11
-
imoriginalposter (12/08/2015) [-] The difference here is it's built for the most potentially damaging drops for a device like that, corner impact. Front and back impact spread across a wide area like the front or back are unlikely and in fact pretty much impossible unless you do somthing like the video. Corner impacts on the otherhand are increibly damaging to devices like this and cases like that above do their job of dispersing the impact away from the glass of the screen.
#12 to #11
-
gongwiththewind (12/07/2015) [-]
Manufacturers hardly every use the REAL definition when using that word to define something...
ALL hard drives are in base 10 not base 2....(1kb advertised is 1000 bytes not 1024 bytes)
The definition used by the manufacturer would be "drops and other small impacts" a hammer is not a small impact.
"they don't work from 1 foot and beyond." thats just sillly... MOST modern phones dont need a case (except apple phones) for drops less than 3-5 feet (on a clean flat surface) cases generally give an extra few MM of clearance for the screen which can and most likely will save the screen unless it hits a rock.....
ALL hard drives are in base 10 not base 2....(1kb advertised is 1000 bytes not 1024 bytes)
The definition used by the manufacturer would be "drops and other small impacts" a hammer is not a small impact.
"they don't work from 1 foot and beyond." thats just sillly... MOST modern phones dont need a case (except apple phones) for drops less than 3-5 feet (on a clean flat surface) cases generally give an extra few MM of clearance for the screen which can and most likely will save the screen unless it hits a rock.....
#15 to #12
-
slobiscuit (12/07/2015) [-] **slobiscuit used "*roll picture*"**
**slobiscuit rolled image**Kilo-Byte != Kilo-Bit
1TB=1000GB ( i dont see your point here...)
What do you not get exactly? Its THE definition... so what if they hardly "ever use the REAL definition"? theyre gonna loose the law suit if someone sues them... cos guess what. if its says something you go look up the definition... if it does not do that as advertised its false advertisement and yaddi yaddi yadaa....
**slobiscuit rolled image**Kilo-Byte != Kilo-Bit
1TB=1000GB ( i dont see your point here...)
What do you not get exactly? Its THE definition... so what if they hardly "ever use the REAL definition"? theyre gonna loose the law suit if someone sues them... cos guess what. if its says something you go look up the definition... if it does not do that as advertised its false advertisement and yaddi yaddi yadaa....
#20 to #15
-
gongwiththewind (12/08/2015) [-]
you clearly dont know what a BYTE means...
a byte is 8 bits a bit is either 1 or 0. That means its base 2
a Kilobyte is 2^10 which is 1024 NOT 1000.
And as far as saying they will loose a lawsuit because they dont use the definition from one source is just wrong.... Companies can EASILY redefine things for use in it's own contracts.... such as saying impact is only a drop from a specific height max.
a byte is 8 bits a bit is either 1 or 0. That means its base 2
a Kilobyte is 2^10 which is 1024 NOT 1000.
And as far as saying they will loose a lawsuit because they dont use the definition from one source is just wrong.... Companies can EASILY redefine things for use in it's own contracts.... such as saying impact is only a drop from a specific height max.
#23 to #20
-
slobiscuit (12/08/2015) [-] I get that, but they are not lying. You have to watch out for upper and lower cases, in this case. you know KiB, KB, kB, kb, Kb...
They cant change the definition itself. They can however add to the meaning or explain what they mean. If they would advertise and say only "impact" without saying what they mean by that, it would surely mean trouble for them. thats one of the reasons why they add specific heights and what not.
impact can be the phone dropping to the ground, but it could also be that something can be dropped on it
they have to be more specific than just saying "impact proof" or w.e. thats all im sayin...
They cant change the definition itself. They can however add to the meaning or explain what they mean. If they would advertise and say only "impact" without saying what they mean by that, it would surely mean trouble for them. thats one of the reasons why they add specific heights and what not.
impact can be the phone dropping to the ground, but it could also be that something can be dropped on it
they have to be more specific than just saying "impact proof" or w.e. thats all im sayin...
#25 to #23
-
gongwiththewind (12/08/2015) [-]
The case makes NO difference in this case...
KB vs Kb is a difference of 8...
1 KB = 8 Kb thats all....
you cant magically LOOSE 24 bytes from going from kilobytes to kilobits....
Manufacturers round off (and as such created their own definition of kilobyte) the "extra" so its an easy clean number.... this is one of the MAJOR reasons why you dont have the exact space amounts on a drive that they advertise....
you get a 750GB drive and its only 640GB usable... well a good chunk of that lost space is from them using 1000 instead of 1024...
750,000,000,000 bytes are what they advertise as selling
BUT
Computers can only think in base 2...
1000 is base 10...
so that 750,000,000,000 gets divided by 1024x3 (giga to mega, mega to kilo, kilo to byte) and it comes out to 698GB that the computer can use and sees....
KB vs Kb is a difference of 8...
1 KB = 8 Kb thats all....
you cant magically LOOSE 24 bytes from going from kilobytes to kilobits....
Manufacturers round off (and as such created their own definition of kilobyte) the "extra" so its an easy clean number.... this is one of the MAJOR reasons why you dont have the exact space amounts on a drive that they advertise....
you get a 750GB drive and its only 640GB usable... well a good chunk of that lost space is from them using 1000 instead of 1024...
750,000,000,000 bytes are what they advertise as selling
BUT
Computers can only think in base 2...
1000 is base 10...
so that 750,000,000,000 gets divided by 1024x3 (giga to mega, mega to kilo, kilo to byte) and it comes out to 698GB that the computer can use and sees....
#27 to #25
-
slobiscuit (12/08/2015) [-] But if you use ubuntu or w.e that uses the kilobytes instead of bits then you get the correct amount... anywayyyyyyy
this is what I mean
this is what I mean
#29 to #27
-
gongwiththewind (12/08/2015) [-]
For storage medium ALL computers USE BYTES
for data transmissions speeds ALL computers USE BITS
Plus i NEVER talked about bits at all....
a bit to byte conversion only changes the value by multiplying or dividing by 8.
1 Kilobyte is 1024 bytes which is the EXACT SAME AS 8 Kilobits or 8,192 bits
1024 bytes aka a KB is NOT 1000 bytes. That is just incorrect the only reason that hardware makers get away with it is because the change the definition of KB to 1000 not the 1024 it should be...
have you noticed that most computer things are on this counting scale
1
2
4
8
16
32
64
128
256
512
1024
ect
computers think in multiples of 2 not of multiples of 10 which the size is advertised in...
for data transmissions speeds ALL computers USE BITS
Plus i NEVER talked about bits at all....
a bit to byte conversion only changes the value by multiplying or dividing by 8.
1 Kilobyte is 1024 bytes which is the EXACT SAME AS 8 Kilobits or 8,192 bits
1024 bytes aka a KB is NOT 1000 bytes. That is just incorrect the only reason that hardware makers get away with it is because the change the definition of KB to 1000 not the 1024 it should be...
have you noticed that most computer things are on this counting scale
1
2
4
8
16
32
64
128
256
512
1024
ect
computers think in multiples of 2 not of multiples of 10 which the size is advertised in...
#32 to #31
-
gongwiththewind (12/08/2015) [-]
your doging the point....
you are wrong in assuming computers thing in multiples of 10... that is a fundamental error on your part... learn even 1% of how a computer works and you would understand that...
you are wrong in assuming computers thing in multiples of 10... that is a fundamental error on your part... learn even 1% of how a computer works and you would understand that...
#36 to #32
-
slobiscuit (12/08/2015) [-] isnt 1TB like ~1,000,000,000,000 bytes ? thats what i meant to say. i was picturing all these zeros and though oh i can make it short as in 1000GB , which would still be wrong tho... lol
#42 to #36
-
gongwiththewind (12/08/2015) [-]
that little ~ symbol means approximately...
and 1TB is approximately 1,000 GB (this is what most manufacturers use to advertise size because they can squeeze out more space so it appears larger) but the number is so large that even a small change becomes exponential larger with the size of the drive...
A computer interprets each size jump as 1024 (not 1000 as the manufacturer advertises)
this is the largest reason why functional sizes are NEVER the same as advertised sizes.
#25 explained that
if they would advertize a drive using 1024 instead of 1000 the space on the computer (that you can use) would be about 99% of what was advertised (compared to the 85-95% of today)
and 1TB is approximately 1,000 GB (this is what most manufacturers use to advertise size because they can squeeze out more space so it appears larger) but the number is so large that even a small change becomes exponential larger with the size of the drive...
A computer interprets each size jump as 1024 (not 1000 as the manufacturer advertises)
this is the largest reason why functional sizes are NEVER the same as advertised sizes.
#25 explained that
if they would advertize a drive using 1024 instead of 1000 the space on the computer (that you can use) would be about 99% of what was advertised (compared to the 85-95% of today)
#46 to #42
-
slobiscuit (12/08/2015) [-] ohhh man, wrong video. here 
I think Ubuntu displays 1TB as 1TB (or at least much closer to 1024GB)and not like 931GB.
And I know I dont get a full 1024GB when I buy an HDD. I have 11TB in my PC atm and could have another 1TB or so more
I think Ubuntu displays 1TB as 1TB (or at least much closer to 1024GB)and not like 931GB.
And I know I dont get a full 1024GB when I buy an HDD. I have 11TB in my PC atm and could have another 1TB or so more
#30 to #29
-
thevaulthunter (12/08/2015) [-] I just said a hammer impact is still an impact. It's a hard impact, yes, but saying it's not an impact is incorrect.
And you all are talking about bytes.
And you all are talking about bytes.
#43 to #27
-
sniffythebird ONLINE (12/08/2015) [-] He's telling you the difference in how a megabyte / gigabyte / terrabyte is calculated on a computer vs advertised storage capacity.
The amount of capacity you see any storage drive will display on your computer is calculated in base 2, or multiples of 1024 for each "bigger" unit. For example, a real terrabyte is 1024 gigabytes, not 1000. A "1TB" hard drive is 1,000,000,000,000 bytes. But as you can see it's not a multiple of 1024, otherwise you'd get a very different number. So in reality you're actually getting roughly 931 TRUE Gigabytes instead of 1000. You can get to the exact number by taking 1000 and multiplying by itself, then divide by 1024 and multiply by 1000 again, repeat the last two steps to get each different unit (kilo, mega, giga, terra, etc).
The real ancronyms for those true measurements have an i inbetween, so a real megabyte that's 1024x1024 bytes is 1MiB, a real gigabyte is GiB, and so on.
Google can convert them for you, just search "xxGB to MiB" or anything like the sorts, and you'll see. For example my "64GB" flash drive shows up as "59,5GB" (that's actually GiB) on my computer. Well guess what? 64GB is roughly 59,6GiB (I'd assume about 100MiB is reserved or something).
Same deal if you check the properties of any file on your PC. It'll show both variations: puu.sh/lNoTK.png (911,627 bytes becomes 890KiB)
The amount of capacity you see any storage drive will display on your computer is calculated in base 2, or multiples of 1024 for each "bigger" unit. For example, a real terrabyte is 1024 gigabytes, not 1000. A "1TB" hard drive is 1,000,000,000,000 bytes. But as you can see it's not a multiple of 1024, otherwise you'd get a very different number. So in reality you're actually getting roughly 931 TRUE Gigabytes instead of 1000. You can get to the exact number by taking 1000 and multiplying by itself, then divide by 1024 and multiply by 1000 again, repeat the last two steps to get each different unit (kilo, mega, giga, terra, etc).
The real ancronyms for those true measurements have an i inbetween, so a real megabyte that's 1024x1024 bytes is 1MiB, a real gigabyte is GiB, and so on.
Google can convert them for you, just search "xxGB to MiB" or anything like the sorts, and you'll see. For example my "64GB" flash drive shows up as "59,5GB" (that's actually GiB) on my computer. Well guess what? 64GB is roughly 59,6GiB (I'd assume about 100MiB is reserved or something).
Same deal if you check the properties of any file on your PC. It'll show both variations: puu.sh/lNoTK.png (911,627 bytes becomes 890KiB)
#47 to #43
-
slobiscuit (12/08/2015) [-] no no I understand all of this. I've just messed up my spelling/writing as I was thinking of a video that Linus made. this one
I think that ubuntu shows a much closer number than Win tho
I think that ubuntu shows a much closer number than Win tho
#49 to #47
-
sniffythebird ONLINE (12/08/2015) [-] Windows shows MiB / GiB / TiB as MB / GB / TB.
Storage drives show their capacity wrong, in base 10.
That's all.
Storage drives show their capacity wrong, in base 10.
That's all.
#50 to #49
-
slobiscuit (12/08/2015) [-] yes but ubuntu does this i.stack.imgur.com/PVcnY.png
i.stack.imgur.com/8vuus.png
It doesnt show it as 931GB as win does. so if people used ubuntu they would get the right amount of space?
isnt it then windows's fault? windows shows GiB = GB , but ubuntu GB = GB
i.stack.imgur.com/8vuus.png
It doesnt show it as 931GB as win does. so if people used ubuntu they would get the right amount of space?
isnt it then windows's fault? windows shows GiB = GB , but ubuntu GB = GB
#53 to #50
-
gongwiththewind (12/08/2015) [-]
Ubuntu is doing the same thing that windows does (all computers do it...)
the only difference is that your computer is set up to display in MB not GB... if it was swapped over it would be almost the exact same size 976.76171875GB or so.... (the remaining space would be various file system space requirements
the only difference is that your computer is set up to display in MB not GB... if it was swapped over it would be almost the exact same size 976.76171875GB or so.... (the remaining space would be various file system space requirements
#118 to #53
-
slobiscuit (12/08/2015) [-] From what I see, its Windows that does not display HDD size correctly.
But ubuntu is making the "correct" conversion or it displays it correctly.
Like sniffythebird say " windows shows GiB as GB". Which is incorrect.
If ubuntu shows GB as GB, and you buy 1TB and you see it as 1024GB, then you didnt get " ****** " over. Correct?
Ubuntu shows the correct amount of space and Windows doesnt.
Then its not exactly "lost space" since its windows that displays the information incorrectly, right?
There is one system that shows you information correctly (1TB as 1024GB) and then there is the other one that does it incorrectly and that shows 1TB as 931GB. So you are NOT losing any space, because you should be looking at the system that does this correctly in the first place, right? This is solely on microsoft, since they decided to show GiB as GB.
But ubuntu is making the "correct" conversion or it displays it correctly.
Like sniffythebird say " windows shows GiB as GB". Which is incorrect.
If ubuntu shows GB as GB, and you buy 1TB and you see it as 1024GB, then you didnt get " ****** " over. Correct?
Ubuntu shows the correct amount of space and Windows doesnt.
Then its not exactly "lost space" since its windows that displays the information incorrectly, right?
There is one system that shows you information correctly (1TB as 1024GB) and then there is the other one that does it incorrectly and that shows 1TB as 931GB. So you are NOT losing any space, because you should be looking at the system that does this correctly in the first place, right? This is solely on microsoft, since they decided to show GiB as GB.
#51 to #50
-
slobiscuit (12/08/2015) [-] > so if people used ubuntu they would get the right amount of space
See** not get
See** not get
#26 to #15
-
gongwiththewind (12/08/2015) [-]
ALSO NO...
1 TB is = 1024 GB this is the RULE everywhere for every computer....
1 TB is = 1024 GB this is the RULE everywhere for every computer....
#99 to #15
-
buddywuggle (12/08/2015) [-] That picture. Absolutely beautiful. I need to binge watch both series soon.
#61 to #11
-
captchakid ONLINE (12/08/2015) [-] You have to agree on a definition in an argument, otherwise your argument will be circlular forever at the claims stagee.
#116 to #61
-
thevaulthunter (12/08/2015) [-] I'm not saying that the impact thing is misleading, of course a hammer would break it. I'm just saying a hammer impact is still an impact.
#102 to #8
-
mrsexmuffins (12/08/2015) [-] Keyword impact resistant
Everything has some sort of resistance, doesn't mean it'll stop a hammer, it's just common sense
Everything has some sort of resistance, doesn't mean it'll stop a hammer, it's just common sense
#52 to #8
-
alucardhell (12/08/2015) [-] They are rated for impacts up to a certain level. The impact of a hammer is outside of the bounds of the design. So yes a hammer is an impact, but it is outside the bounds. They are rated for a 4-6 ft fall onto a flat surface usually.
#45 to #8
-
ninjabadger (12/08/2015) [-] If you want to get technical it's an impact protection case. Protection =/= 100% assurance. I see the point you're trying to make, but consider this.
Example: Bullet proof vest might stop small arms fire and even medium calibers, but unlikely to stand up to .50 cal shots. It still does better than having nothing, but it's not a guarantee.
It would be impractical to build something like that with assurance for heavy and pinpoint force, as that is not the typical form of impact a phone comes into contact with. I feel it's better to call them shock absorbing cases, because that's all they really do (although some like mine actually do protect from pretty hefty force is struck from the back).
Example: Bullet proof vest might stop small arms fire and even medium calibers, but unlikely to stand up to .50 cal shots. It still does better than having nothing, but it's not a guarantee.
It would be impractical to build something like that with assurance for heavy and pinpoint force, as that is not the typical form of impact a phone comes into contact with. I feel it's better to call them shock absorbing cases, because that's all they really do (although some like mine actually do protect from pretty hefty force is struck from the back).
#117 to #7
-
butiloveu ONLINE (12/08/2015) [-] You could hammer it if there wouldn't be any resistances on the other side.
The force of the impact needs a way to flee.
The desk was in the way so the impact was going full force on the display.
I know what I talk about because I'm a impact protection case myself.
The force of the impact needs a way to flee.
The desk was in the way so the impact was going full force on the display.
I know what I talk about because I'm a impact protection case myself.
#79 to #76
-
boomerpyro (12/08/2015) [-] SEVERE UNDERTALE SPOILER: the somewhat bad guy who ate every soul like a goat drink iron tasting human blood
#87 to #81
-
thejusticar (12/08/2015) [-] even if you dont like the game, ya gotta admit his battle theme is pretty dank 
#101 to #87
-
thegamepixel ONLINE (12/08/2015) [-] 
It still doesn't beat the Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky battle theme
#82 to #81
-
boomerpyro (12/08/2015) [-] it's kind of cutesy, the backstory and immersion is great but the humor is predictable and immature, so the game isn't that funny but it's a bit of a tearjerker
#103 to #97
-
sonexthehodgeheg (12/08/2015) [-]
Let's hope his sanity didn't crack due to the impact of losing his phone did I do good?
#24
-
studbeefpile (12/08/2015) [-] Goodness. And those were the daintiest hammer swings I've ever seen, too. Case really it **** .
#74
-
EmulateSnes ONLINE (12/08/2015) [-] I used to half to work for my allowance. When I bought my GBA color back in the day and then finally could afford pokemon blue I guarded that **** like Fort Nox. It's Obvious this little Twat had that given to him. I hope his parents force him to work for his 2nd one.
#64 to #35
-
grumpythefirst (12/08/2015) [-] It's a new age mate.
I just passed my old gaming computer down to my sister because I built a new one.
I just passed my old gaming computer down to my sister because I built a new one.
#65 to #64
-
kibbleking (12/08/2015) [-] I see kids at every restaurant, completely alienated from their parents discussion. I can only imagine what it's like at home for them. They all wear huge earphones and all are absolutely glued to their ipads. Then they complain they didn't have enough time to order when the waiter comes back with their drinks.
Shut the **** up with the 'new age' ******** . The Bolsheviks probably told the White Party that in 1922.
Shut the **** up with the 'new age' ******** . The Bolsheviks probably told the White Party that in 1922.
#68 to #67
-
grumpythefirst (12/08/2015) [-] by new age, I meant a new age for technology. It's getting easier and easier to get technology, as is it is easier to pass it down or even cheap enough to buy new technology for the younger population.
#89 to #68
-
idontknowwhattouse (12/08/2015) [-] his point was every "tomorrow" is technically a new age. normally things dont just magically blossom over night to create a "new age". research and development constantly takes place and makes for an ever changing dynamic system
#91 to #35
-
idontknowwhattouse (12/08/2015) [-] tell me about it. my 11 year old sister has an iphone 6
#108 to #91
-
itskennyandjosh ONLINE (12/08/2015) [-] **itskennyandjosh used "*roll picture*"**
**itskennyandjosh rolled image**And that is an absolute spoiled child, if you aren't rich then that'll be wasted money.
My 9 year old nephew has had more phones than i have, he's had like 10 phones and managed to break them all, while i've only had one phone but sold it for more than it was worth My sister is a prick who cares about her phone more than her kids so she just passes her phones to him when she upgrades, still stupid of her
**itskennyandjosh rolled image**And that is an absolute spoiled child, if you aren't rich then that'll be wasted money.
My 9 year old nephew has had more phones than i have, he's had like 10 phones and managed to break them all, while i've only had one phone but sold it for more than it was worth My sister is a prick who cares about her phone more than her kids so she just passes her phones to him when she upgrades, still stupid of her
#54 to #35
-
hackenschlock (12/08/2015) [-]
you can rest assured he won't get another until he buys it himself now...
#85
-
thejusticar (12/08/2015) [-] how could he of thought in any way, that hitting a smart phone with a hammer would be smart.
#111 to #85
-
blackmageewizardt ONLINE (12/08/2015) [-] The phone is suposed to be smart, by extention, this does not have to include the user.
#9
-
syntheticdoll (12/07/2015) [-] This is why you get breakage warranty, kids.
Seriously, most stores don't take back broken items for repair but when you pay extra and the warranty covers it you basically drop your phone and get a new one.
Seriously, most stores don't take back broken items for repair but when you pay extra and the warranty covers it you basically drop your phone and get a new one.
#13 to #9
-
mooghens (12/07/2015) [-] They don't. You just pay up front for someone else to take the bill for the repair. Odds it wont even be the store you bought it at. If the product truly is at fault for the failure, the manufacturer will cover the repair cost. Paying extra for breakage warranty effectively signifies you are a ******* child who cant take care of your **** . Or do **** like the kid in the OP on a regular basis.
#14 to #13
-
syntheticdoll (12/07/2015) [-] My phone fell 2ft and the screens's corner cracked, my last phone fell because it got caught in a girl's bag, the headphone pulled it out, slammed screen-first into the concrete and bam, useless. I'm just making sure I don't lose a ******* of money since these newer phones break like crystal glass.
#77
-
billymc (12/08/2015) [-]
Tis a rare sighting to see one's own world shatter before their very own eyes, by their own hands. Tis even rarer to catch it on tape. Godspeed cameracorder!
