chrismacguy
Apr 13, 12:57 PM
Put a big, thick, security door between the cockpit and the passengers that can take a stronger blast than the plane's hull.
Problem solved; the risk of a man with a knife on a plane is identical to that same man on a public train or bus.
No ridiculous pat-downs and feeling up of children needed. Allow profiling and leave the metal detectors in place (similar security to our local courthouse) to prevent casual idiots, and have the security door to minimize damage from an organized attempt (if they can't hijack the plane, and can only kill the people on board, it's not worth the trouble; they can just go blow up a bus), and you've got a pretty good balance of security.
Actually, that wont work, because someone somewhere on that plane outside of the cockpit will have to know the code, and the door will end up being opened mid-flight regardless - otherwise how are pilots supposed to eat/go to the loo on longer flights? Organised groups would take advantage of that in a second, making your idea null and void on any flight over approx 3 hours. The Shoot-up on a plane also wont cause that much damage. While a bullet may exit the aircraft and cause a decompression, in theory the most that should rip away of the aircrafts outer-skin is a 10-10 square. Not drastic, and definitely survivable. Even with multiple bullet holes, the plane would still in all likelihood get down to 10,000ft and then proceed to land with no loss of non-shot-at life, which is what the TSA actually cares about
Problem solved; the risk of a man with a knife on a plane is identical to that same man on a public train or bus.
No ridiculous pat-downs and feeling up of children needed. Allow profiling and leave the metal detectors in place (similar security to our local courthouse) to prevent casual idiots, and have the security door to minimize damage from an organized attempt (if they can't hijack the plane, and can only kill the people on board, it's not worth the trouble; they can just go blow up a bus), and you've got a pretty good balance of security.
Actually, that wont work, because someone somewhere on that plane outside of the cockpit will have to know the code, and the door will end up being opened mid-flight regardless - otherwise how are pilots supposed to eat/go to the loo on longer flights? Organised groups would take advantage of that in a second, making your idea null and void on any flight over approx 3 hours. The Shoot-up on a plane also wont cause that much damage. While a bullet may exit the aircraft and cause a decompression, in theory the most that should rip away of the aircrafts outer-skin is a 10-10 square. Not drastic, and definitely survivable. Even with multiple bullet holes, the plane would still in all likelihood get down to 10,000ft and then proceed to land with no loss of non-shot-at life, which is what the TSA actually cares about
balamw
Apr 26, 08:21 PM
Post your code, and let us know what you are trying to accomplish.
Nekbeth, let me suggest that you take some time to read over http://whathaveyoutried.com and http://mikeash.com/getting_answers.html.
dejo, ulbador and wlh99 are genuinely trying to help you, but you have not defined the problem or given them (or anyone else) enough information to work with in order to be able to help you.
Part of the problem, which dejo already alluded to, is that without a common understanding of fundamental assumptions you both end up frustrated. You might well be able to ask for a coffee in French, but if you are in a dentist's office in Austria that might not lead to satisfaction all around. Your assumptions aren't in sync.
B
Nekbeth, let me suggest that you take some time to read over http://whathaveyoutried.com and http://mikeash.com/getting_answers.html.
dejo, ulbador and wlh99 are genuinely trying to help you, but you have not defined the problem or given them (or anyone else) enough information to work with in order to be able to help you.
Part of the problem, which dejo already alluded to, is that without a common understanding of fundamental assumptions you both end up frustrated. You might well be able to ask for a coffee in French, but if you are in a dentist's office in Austria that might not lead to satisfaction all around. Your assumptions aren't in sync.
B
slamshut
Oct 6, 11:20 AM
Ill tell you this they are better then sprint and t-mobile as far as verizon it they had the iphone im pretty sure they will have issues with there network. For all the data traffic that att handle now they can do way better, but like i said there are worse carriers out there.
pknz
Sep 12, 12:16 AM
Here's to a ripe Apple Wednesday morning, followed by a Liverpool win.
headfuzz
Apr 15, 05:10 PM
Google should sort out their Android media player before trying to wangle record deals.
No gapless playback makes my iPhone 3G live to fight another day as an iPod.
No gapless playback makes my iPhone 3G live to fight another day as an iPod.
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
Links
Aug 9, 06:49 PM
Would someone who bought what they assume to be the newer
version of this display with improve brightness and contrast
please post part of your serial number.
Mine: 2A6211XXXXX (Xs represents the rest of my number)
date of manufacture: May 2006
Determined from the decoder at:
http://www.chipmunk.nl/klantenservice/applemodel.html
I'm trying to detemine if the one I just bought is in this new batch.
And if it isn't I want to return it quickly.
I have 15 days to return it and exchange if I don't want this display to the store
where I bought it (not from an Apple store).
version of this display with improve brightness and contrast
please post part of your serial number.
Mine: 2A6211XXXXX (Xs represents the rest of my number)
date of manufacture: May 2006
Determined from the decoder at:
http://www.chipmunk.nl/klantenservice/applemodel.html
I'm trying to detemine if the one I just bought is in this new batch.
And if it isn't I want to return it quickly.
I have 15 days to return it and exchange if I don't want this display to the store
where I bought it (not from an Apple store).
Chundles
Sep 12, 02:53 AM
That's 7pm here in the UK... Just when I get home from work! :)
Are any sites offering live feeds, etc?
Macrumorslive.com does text feeds (the whole site shuts down, although at WWDC this year was the first time I've been able to access the forums the entire time, and the front page auto-refreshes every 60 seconds) from the event. They're not there but the feeds come from people who are.
We'll be well informed, don't worry.
Are any sites offering live feeds, etc?
Macrumorslive.com does text feeds (the whole site shuts down, although at WWDC this year was the first time I've been able to access the forums the entire time, and the front page auto-refreshes every 60 seconds) from the event. They're not there but the feeds come from people who are.
We'll be well informed, don't worry.
kopite19
Mar 17, 06:53 PM
I have to agree with OP. I paid �500 for my iPhone (i work for a UK mobile network so wanted to use my staff sim rather than get on a 18/24m contract) on launch and every day I have to deal with snide remarks from people I work with. One with a WP7 and one with a Palm Pre. They usually revert to the antenna or flash argument which have never been an issue for me.
It's always unprovoked and usually occurs when comparing an app with another iPhone user, to which they'll bulldoze in and start wittering on about Steve Jobs or calling me a "fanboy"...heh
Nothing you can do but accept this will always be the case when purchasing an Apple product as I got exactly the same kinds of retorts when using my MBP or even the little Magic Mouse...
It's always unprovoked and usually occurs when comparing an app with another iPhone user, to which they'll bulldoze in and start wittering on about Steve Jobs or calling me a "fanboy"...heh
Nothing you can do but accept this will always be the case when purchasing an Apple product as I got exactly the same kinds of retorts when using my MBP or even the little Magic Mouse...
Calidude
Apr 16, 04:58 PM
Sure it is. I find your particular brand of narrow-mindedness offensive. Therefore it is an affront.
...and with that you have nothing to offer me anymore... Goodbye...
Definition of AFFRONT
1
obsolete : a hostile encounter
2
: a deliberate offense : insult <an affront to his dignity>
fat people funny. Funny Names
...and with that you have nothing to offer me anymore... Goodbye...
Definition of AFFRONT
1
obsolete : a hostile encounter
2
: a deliberate offense : insult <an affront to his dignity>
Amazing Iceman
May 4, 08:51 AM
Since I am the local technology guru, people are just shy of harassing given the constant barrage of questions just asking if I own one. They are amazed that I do not own an iPad or tablet since they are "popular".
I can afford one but the lack of MKV playback is the deal killer. So that makes it $499 to browse the internet.
Funny Names For Fat People. Love my name injure themselves; Love my name injure themselves. entatlrg. Mar 13, 02:04 PM
funny names for fat people.
funny names for fat people.
funny names for fat people.
Fat People Funny Pictures. Funniest Fat People Pics; Funniest Fat People Pics. martinX. Mar 16, 02:48 AM. I think we#39;re making progress.
Funny names for fat people
Pictures of Fat People
funny fat people pictures
I can afford one but the lack of MKV playback is the deal killer. So that makes it $499 to browse the internet.
*LTD*
Mar 16, 09:52 AM
Purely due to the amount of manufacturers creating Android devices.
Which is the entire problem with Android. And which is why you will never, ever, see any single Android device outsell the iPhone.
Which is the entire problem with Android. And which is why you will never, ever, see any single Android device outsell the iPhone.
macenforcer
Nov 24, 02:39 PM
You are correct!
I should go back to the Apple store, and give them $101 + the extra tax associated (making it $107.56) for the MacBook I just bought. Only because this sale is lame! :rolleyes:
Yeah you should. You could have gotten it cheaper from Macconnection. No tax, free shipping, free carrying case, free mouse and $100 off. Hmmm :rolleyes:
I should go back to the Apple store, and give them $101 + the extra tax associated (making it $107.56) for the MacBook I just bought. Only because this sale is lame! :rolleyes:
Yeah you should. You could have gotten it cheaper from Macconnection. No tax, free shipping, free carrying case, free mouse and $100 off. Hmmm :rolleyes:
ct2k7
Apr 16, 11:12 AM
Which leads me to believe Apple may be going for a design like this:
http://www.phonesreview.co.uk/2010/03/30/iphone-4g-aka-hd-mock-up-design-and-details-photo/
After the iPad, I agree. but it's an iPhone.
http://www.phonesreview.co.uk/2010/03/30/iphone-4g-aka-hd-mock-up-design-and-details-photo/
After the iPad, I agree. but it's an iPhone.
Cutwolf
Mar 17, 11:53 AM
Me? Mad? Lol
You sound mad
You sound mad
mabaker
Apr 16, 08:26 AM
Aw, I almost feel sorry for Google not trying to compete with Apple with their own ideas but blatantly copying them. Pathetic.
tvguru
Sep 12, 08:45 AM
I reckon Wool-on-gong (spelt Wollongong) is waaay easier to say than Okanagan or Saskatchewan. And yes, I say Saskatchewan properly.
Those are easier for me because I grew up with them. I can't even say the name of my street right in this country. :P Terowi, like what's that?
Anyways I degrees, this update better be for all stores since they are all down otherwise it'll be the first of a few disappointments of the evening.
Yes there will be disappointments we always shoot to high and feel cheated.
Those are easier for me because I grew up with them. I can't even say the name of my street right in this country. :P Terowi, like what's that?
Anyways I degrees, this update better be for all stores since they are all down otherwise it'll be the first of a few disappointments of the evening.
Yes there will be disappointments we always shoot to high and feel cheated.
Lancetx
Oct 6, 04:53 PM
Obviously YMMV, but I've never had any significant issues at all with AT&T's service in the nearly 2 1/2 years since I switched to them for the original iPhone. The same has continued since I upgraded to the 3GS as well. Verizon doesn't have the iPhone and won't be getting it anytime soon (if ever), so they're not on my radar screen anyway. And even if they did ever add the iPhone at some point, I doubt I'd ever switch because my own personal experience with Verizon's service several years ago was that it was absolutely dreadful.
leekohler
Apr 26, 10:24 AM
He is a male, just like me, I can't believe you don't understand that...
He thinks he is female which is a whole other thing
Oh boy- the ignorance displayed in this forum sometimes can be staggering.
I bolded a key word in your quote. IMO
I'm not looking to stir anything up, so stop insinuating.
Just because I have a different opinion from you doesn't justify your annoying statement, "your act is wearing thin"
Really guy? I could care less about what you think so stop -__-
You certainly do come off as less than compassionate. That's for sure.
He thinks he is female which is a whole other thing
Oh boy- the ignorance displayed in this forum sometimes can be staggering.
I bolded a key word in your quote. IMO
I'm not looking to stir anything up, so stop insinuating.
Just because I have a different opinion from you doesn't justify your annoying statement, "your act is wearing thin"
Really guy? I could care less about what you think so stop -__-
You certainly do come off as less than compassionate. That's for sure.
KnightWRX
Mar 7, 04:42 AM
Also, because of the tight competition, companies are afraid to take risks. Remember when the USB por had just been introduced? This was a real chicken and egg situation for PC makers. No PC maker wants to be the first to switch to all USB ports because (a) it will cost more money to put the new ports into the board, and (b) they know it will annoy customers who will have to buy all peripherals. Customers will simply buy the competing brand because it's cheaper. Now, someone eventually sells a PC with both USB and PS/2 ports so you can slowly start the upgrade trend, but it's slow for all the above reasons.
Same for the floppy drive: nobody wants to be the first to ship without one. It would be seen as being "too different" and cause lost sales to the competition.
Preserving backwards compatibility has nothing to do with taking risks. It's just plain nice and doesn't hurt forward compatibility. Motherboards, to this day, still have PS/2 ports. Does it hurt anybody ? No. But that guy with his keyboard from 1995 he just loves and takes care of is pretty happy.
Same with the floppy drive. Apple removed it from the iMac because it would "hurt" the design. PCs didn't remove it because frankly, what are you going to do with those 3 1/2" holes in the case anyhow ? And while manufacturers did finally stop shipping them, guess what is on motherboards these days ? FDD connector headers. Yep, still there and ready to read all those little Sony invented disks, or even those big ass 5 1/4" really floppies. Does it hurt anyone ? No, it's a 0.01$ part.
Windows 98 did more for USB adoption than the limited run Apple had with its original iMac. Common sense removed floppy drives a lot more than Apple forced it with the iMac, and a lot later too.
Some of you need to open up your boundaries a little beyond what Apple does.
Same for the floppy drive: nobody wants to be the first to ship without one. It would be seen as being "too different" and cause lost sales to the competition.
Preserving backwards compatibility has nothing to do with taking risks. It's just plain nice and doesn't hurt forward compatibility. Motherboards, to this day, still have PS/2 ports. Does it hurt anybody ? No. But that guy with his keyboard from 1995 he just loves and takes care of is pretty happy.
Same with the floppy drive. Apple removed it from the iMac because it would "hurt" the design. PCs didn't remove it because frankly, what are you going to do with those 3 1/2" holes in the case anyhow ? And while manufacturers did finally stop shipping them, guess what is on motherboards these days ? FDD connector headers. Yep, still there and ready to read all those little Sony invented disks, or even those big ass 5 1/4" really floppies. Does it hurt anyone ? No, it's a 0.01$ part.
Windows 98 did more for USB adoption than the limited run Apple had with its original iMac. Common sense removed floppy drives a lot more than Apple forced it with the iMac, and a lot later too.
Some of you need to open up your boundaries a little beyond what Apple does.
fr0
Apr 15, 08:34 PM
Using aluminum would hinder the cellular reception wouldn't it ?
Ummm, you use AT&T too, right? I couldn't imagine we'd see much of a difference :D
Ummm, you use AT&T too, right? I couldn't imagine we'd see much of a difference :D
dunk321
Mar 17, 12:46 AM
I am a reward zone member, the receipt said I paid $530.00 cash. I also received my reward zone points for purchase believe it or not. Funny thing is the kid looked like he was having a crappy day to begin with and probably had it with the madness in the store and looked like he didn't know how to take 2 different forms of payment.
Joshuarocks
Apr 8, 02:11 PM
Best Buy = Worst Buy.. I hold my opinion that they are worst buy.
mgguy
Mar 3, 09:35 PM
I heard somewhere that federal employees are not able to collectively bargain for their benefits package. If this is true, why are recent states' attempts to restrict unionized bargaining seen as being so draconian, and why isn't there an outcry to give federal employees the same "rights"?
0 comments:
Post a Comment