ok, there is actually some cool stuff involved here.
1) It's not just a pedometer... if it's anything like the other Nike running gear, it actually uses an accelerometer and some other crazy stuff to figure out how far you're running. Instead of just saying that a single step = X number of feet it tries to figure out how far you really moved your foot.
2) As others have mentioned, it actually reads the status to you so you don't have to look at your iPod as you run.
3) Perhaps my favorite: Power Song activation. You can assign the middle button of the iPod to your power song. That way when you need that extra kick from a high energy song it's easy access. Once it's done playing, it goes back to your regular music.
The only thing that would make this better would be if Nike wasn't so anti-GPS.
IBM made the exact same claims with the SOI (silicon on insulator) technology they introduced before. Guess what though, their chips stagnated for a couple years and Apple was left looking like an idiot for claiming that 3GHz chips are going to be out "next summer."
Intel managed to be just as fast as IBM, if not faster, for the whole time frame. What would lead you to believe that there would be anything different this time?
It costs $300 now for a lifetime subscription and $12.97 a month for the monthly one. I just got a Series2 for Christmas. I have purchased the lifetime at the moment, but I think I may have to cut it back to a monthly so that I can upgrade to the new one and not feel like I'm wasting the extra $150 I spent on service for the other one.
I thought that they originally had no replacement program and the iPod was not popular enough for replacement batteries to be cheap and ubiquitous. Now however, Apple has lowered the cost of their replacement program to $60-$70 or you can buy a replacement battery yourself for $20.
Clearly it would be better if the battery was easier to replace yourself, but it's really not that big of a deal.
Wow, you guys sure seem to care a lot. Still you ignored most of my statistics. I don't see the point of owning a gun. You do. I think that guns aren't really equalizers but rather accidents waiting to happen. I understand that in some situations guns can save lives. I also understand that in other situations guns can take them away. The point of gun control, though, _IS_ to keep criminals from getting guns. By now there are so many guns in this country it seems like it would be very hard to completely eliminate them but that doesn't mean we should just through our hands up in the air and give up. Guns may not be the entire problem but they are certainly a very deadly symptom.
You are right, my goal is to reduce the number of deaths. I think our government should outlaw SUV's, cap the maximum speed of automobiles at a much lower level, and require stricter standards to get a license. I think we should do lots of things to reduce the number of deaths. To just give up and say, "Well, something else kills just as many people" is stupid. In the end, the facts I've seen ahve not convinced me that there would be just as many deaths if guns weren't around.
Look, I'm not going to take your guns away (you'd probably shoot me if I tried). I just think that the answer to violence isn't violence. I think no one has the right to take the life of another person (even if they are trying to kill you). Guns are much more fatal with a lower level of skill than most other weapons so many accidents that do occur with firearms are more likely to result in death. For many people guns are simply toys and the cost of life that those toys cause obviously outweigh any fun they may be. I think it is easy to see how my ideas could quickly translate into a total loss of freedom. Say we take away guns and murders do go down. The next obvious solution would be to take the next most deadly thing away and so on and so forth until eventually we are all trapped in a little room and not allowed to touch anything.
However, owning a gun should be discouraged as should owning a car. Both are used irresponsibly and cause far to many deaths. Still, I don't think I'd actually try to get any legislation enacted to ban firearms. There are other societal problems that make guns particularly dangerous in the US. I just wish we didn't have these problems and don't think encouraging more people to buy hand guns and giant SUV's to protect themself with is the solution. It just makes us more isolated or gives us a false sense of security.d
Anyway, I'm not going to respond to any more of these things because I really don't care that much. I think we both have valid points and it really ends up just coming down to opinion. I think my points outweigh yours and you feel that yours outweigh mine. That's fine, we live in a democracy so we can vote and work it out that way. Anyway, it's Saturday and it's nice outside so I'm going to enjoy my day. We'll just settle this at the polls and have to let our elected representatives take care of this.
You say I'm spewing fear, paranoia, and propaganda? What planet are you living on?
Let's see: sport, self-defense, revolution against an oppressive government. Those are three good ones. Go study a little history. Without citizen-owned guns in the hands of Minutemen we wouldn't have a U.S.A. Same applies to many other countries.
How are these good reasons to own a gun? Because it's fun? My neighbors dog was accidentally shot by some guy hunting for sport. People get injured in hunting accidents all of the time. Why was some guys fun worth a person or even a dogs life? As far as needing to own guns in the US, the point of the guns was to help us set up a government where the guns no longer needed to be used. I'm not saying that in countries with oppressive regimes guns should be outlawed. I'm saying that once the country completes its revolution and is firmly governed by the rule of law, guns pose more a threat to the residents than a defense to outside invasion or way of motivating the government.
I'd rather have more decent people with guns so that they outnumber the criminals with guns. Then criminals would think twice about using their gun.
Think about it though, if no one had guns this wouldn't even be an issue. If what your saying is that right, now criminals don't think twice about using their guns that is all the more reason to improve gun control.
But your point is moot, because if someone wants to kill someone, they will do it, whether they do it with a legitimately-obtained gun, a stolen gun, a black market gun, a homemade gun, or a knife.
You tell me to go look up facts and yet you say something like that with no proof to back it up. People do things because it's convenient . A gun makes killing more convenient. If you couldn't buy sniper rifles would we have to deal with the whole Washington D.C. sniper or not? If it was some guy who had to run up to you and stab you it is a lot less likely that he would have gotten away or not been identified. How about drive-by shootings? I don't know how many times I've read articles about people being killed in their homes or on the street due to stray bullets from drive-by shootings. That wouldn't happen if the person had a knife. How about Columbine, could those kids have walked into the school and killed 13 other people if they didn't have guns? We all know they couldn't have.
You make up "facts" to try to support your already unfounded argument.
I'm sorry I didn't feel like wasting time looking up obvious facts but if you want me to here they are: here, here, here, and here.
For "gun" you could substitute "car," "computer," "house," "baseball bat," and a billion other things. Remember what happens when you assume. A piano could possibly fall on your head tomorrow. Does that make it a valid point?
Obviously you're right and I'm just a complete idiot. Wait, a second, I'm having an idea . . . a car, a computer, and a baseball bat can't fire rounds of ammunition into people. That makes them slightly safer than the average gun.
Owning a gun is a pointless risk. Our government generally does what it can to eliminate pointless risks. Our cars all have chips in them that make them top out at 155 MPH, medication has safety caps, and cigarettes are illegal until you turn 18. As I said before, I don't need a gun to defend myself and I certainly don't want to trust that everyone else who buys a gun to be responsible enough to not kill someone or themselves with it. There is more than one way to the problem of gun related violence and deat (like social programs) but it seems like the most obvious and easy thing to try first would be to reduce the number of guns that exist in this country. It may not be the permanent solution to stopping murders in this country but it would certainly be a decent start.
What was asinine about that comment? Does it seem like the accountability of individuals is doing just fine? How many people die from guns each year? Aren't you required to get a license to drive a car? Do you have to prove your ability to not kill someone before you buy a gun. With a waiting period and background check that is a start but by no means stringent enough controls to help make sure that only people who would be responsible gun owners actually buy guns. Even if it was only responsible people who bought guns it would still be very difficult to make sure those guns were never misused.
Personally, I don't own an automobile and I don't own a gun. I think both are very dangerous and often unneccessary. The point is that I don't see the point of anyone needing to own a gun. We already have far to many murders (many of which are caused by guns). In other developed nations (most of which have strict gun laws) the number of murders is significantly lower. I don't have any exact figures on me but I know that they are tens or hundreds times lower.
We live in a violent culture and when you have a gun lying around it is only natural to assume that it could possibly become involved in a dispute. If you don't have a gun around it CAN'T POSSIBLY HAPPEN!!! I'll gladly wave my right to bear arms in order to help try to save the lives of individuals around me. If you want to be the selfish jerk who ends up helping someone get killed because you think it's cool to own a glock help yourself. Actually, no. Don't help yourself. Go get your gun destroyed and spend any of the money you would have spent on future gun purchases on a charity that help families who have been forced to deal with a death caused by guns. It may be people who kill people, but guns help people kill more people.
Important feature for whom? I'm certainly not going to shoot anybody and I certainly don't need a gun to make me feel safe.
In fact, if there's anything I've learned from the government's anti-drug commercials it's that we need more gun control. Otherwise when little Jimmy and his friend get high (and we all know they will) they'll accidentally shoot each other.
Apparently, most people don't realize what the movie theater situation is like in China. They don't exist for all practical purposes. The government caps the number of foreign films permitted into theaters to 10 per year. Then, all of these films are dubbed into Mandarin and released months later. I was in China for several months this past spring and they were just getting the first Harry Potter then. For those people who like to watch movies in their original language (or those people who are living abroad for a while) the rampant piracy is a godsend.
I remember I was over there when both AOTC and Spider-man came out and you could find videocammed copies of new releases and DVD quality copies (Oscar evaluation copies) of others. I had a sweet copy of LOTR on DVD in April. This piracy is allowed because the government doesn't want to actually refuse people the opportunity to watch the movies but they also don't want to allow them outright either. With this situation they can crack down on some store if they feel like it and say it is because of some 'piracy issues.'
I'm quite sure that there actually is a copy of the Two Towers out there though.
If that were true we wouldn't have passed the "Patriot" Act. We, in general, gave up our right to privacy with little to no fuss. All we need is the right example of why our right to guns is wrong to give up that right as well.
Still, if you don't have a gun you can't kill someone, so maybe the US government should look into providing its citizenry with more non-lethal methods of self defense. Then, even if violence did go up there would be far fewer deaths. We'd just have a bunch of idiots passed out on the street because they were 'non-lethally' attacked. Ahhh, the fun of non-lethal weapons.
Actually the bus costs 5 to 10 cents and closer to 25 cents if you want an air conditioned one.
Still, stuff is a lot cheaper there. I mean pirated DVD's are $1 a disc! It makes buying all those crappy movies that you normally only watch occasionally when they are on cable late at night possible. Gotta love that piracy.
Re:If this is not "anti-competitive", then what is
on
Microsoft Buys Rare
·
· Score: 1
Anyone who don't think you are suffering because of this game developer buy-out thing: remember: Halo was supposed to be released for PC first. and now Halo 2 is about to come out... where is the PC version?
I could have sworn that Halo was originally supposed to come out for the Mac first not PC.
Slashdot Mirror
ok, there is actually some cool stuff involved here.
... if it's anything like the other Nike running gear, it actually uses an accelerometer and some other crazy stuff to figure out how far you're running. Instead of just saying that a single step = X number of feet it tries to figure out how far you really moved your foot.
1) It's not just a pedometer
2) As others have mentioned, it actually reads the status to you so you don't have to look at your iPod as you run.
3) Perhaps my favorite: Power Song activation. You can assign the middle button of the iPod to your power song. That way when you need that extra kick from a high energy song it's easy access. Once it's done playing, it goes back to your regular music.
The only thing that would make this better would be if Nike wasn't so anti-GPS.
Wooster represent!
IBM made the exact same claims with the SOI (silicon on insulator) technology they introduced before. Guess what though, their chips stagnated for a couple years and Apple was left looking like an idiot for claiming that 3GHz chips are going to be out "next summer."
Intel managed to be just as fast as IBM, if not faster, for the whole time frame. What would lead you to believe that there would be anything different this time?
It costs $300 now for a lifetime subscription and $12.97 a month for the monthly one. I just got a Series2 for Christmas. I have purchased the lifetime at the moment, but I think I may have to cut it back to a monthly so that I can upgrade to the new one and not feel like I'm wasting the extra $150 I spent on service for the other one.
I thought that they originally had no replacement program and the iPod was not popular enough for replacement batteries to be cheap and ubiquitous. Now however, Apple has lowered the cost of their replacement program to $60-$70 or you can buy a replacement battery yourself for $20.
Clearly it would be better if the battery was easier to replace yourself, but it's really not that big of a deal.
Wow, you guys sure seem to care a lot. Still you ignored most of my statistics. I don't see the point of owning a gun. You do. I think that guns aren't really equalizers but rather accidents waiting to happen. I understand that in some situations guns can save lives. I also understand that in other situations guns can take them away. The point of gun control, though, _IS_ to keep criminals from getting guns. By now there are so many guns in this country it seems like it would be very hard to completely eliminate them but that doesn't mean we should just through our hands up in the air and give up. Guns may not be the entire problem but they are certainly a very deadly symptom.
You are right, my goal is to reduce the number of deaths. I think our government should outlaw SUV's, cap the maximum speed of automobiles at a much lower level, and require stricter standards to get a license. I think we should do lots of things to reduce the number of deaths. To just give up and say, "Well, something else kills just as many people" is stupid. In the end, the facts I've seen ahve not convinced me that there would be just as many deaths if guns weren't around.
Look, I'm not going to take your guns away (you'd probably shoot me if I tried). I just think that the answer to violence isn't violence. I think no one has the right to take the life of another person (even if they are trying to kill you). Guns are much more fatal with a lower level of skill than most other weapons so many accidents that do occur with firearms are more likely to result in death. For many people guns are simply toys and the cost of life that those toys cause obviously outweigh any fun they may be. I think it is easy to see how my ideas could quickly translate into a total loss of freedom. Say we take away guns and murders do go down. The next obvious solution would be to take the next most deadly thing away and so on and so forth until eventually we are all trapped in a little room and not allowed to touch anything.
However, owning a gun should be discouraged as should owning a car. Both are used irresponsibly and cause far to many deaths. Still, I don't think I'd actually try to get any legislation enacted to ban firearms. There are other societal problems that make guns particularly dangerous in the US. I just wish we didn't have these problems and don't think encouraging more people to buy hand guns and giant SUV's to protect themself with is the solution. It just makes us more isolated or gives us a false sense of security.d
Anyway, I'm not going to respond to any more of these things because I really don't care that much. I think we both have valid points and it really ends up just coming down to opinion. I think my points outweigh yours and you feel that yours outweigh mine. That's fine, we live in a democracy so we can vote and work it out that way. Anyway, it's Saturday and it's nice outside so I'm going to enjoy my day. We'll just settle this at the polls and have to let our elected representatives take care of this.
Let's see: sport, self-defense, revolution against an oppressive government. Those are three good ones. Go study a little history. Without citizen-owned guns in the hands of Minutemen we wouldn't have a U.S.A. Same applies to many other countries.
How are these good reasons to own a gun? Because it's fun? My neighbors dog was accidentally shot by some guy hunting for sport. People get injured in hunting accidents all of the time. Why was some guys fun worth a person or even a dogs life? As far as needing to own guns in the US, the point of the guns was to help us set up a government where the guns no longer needed to be used. I'm not saying that in countries with oppressive regimes guns should be outlawed. I'm saying that once the country completes its revolution and is firmly governed by the rule of law, guns pose more a threat to the residents than a defense to outside invasion or way of motivating the government.
I'd rather have more decent people with guns so that they outnumber the criminals with guns. Then criminals would think twice about using their gun.
Think about it though, if no one had guns this wouldn't even be an issue. If what your saying is that right, now criminals don't think twice about using their guns that is all the more reason to improve gun control.
But your point is moot, because if someone wants to kill someone, they will do it, whether they do it with a legitimately-obtained gun, a stolen gun, a black market gun, a homemade gun, or a knife.
You tell me to go look up facts and yet you say something like that with no proof to back it up. People do things because it's convenient . A gun makes killing more convenient. If you couldn't buy sniper rifles would we have to deal with the whole Washington D.C. sniper or not? If it was some guy who had to run up to you and stab you it is a lot less likely that he would have gotten away or not been identified. How about drive-by shootings? I don't know how many times I've read articles about people being killed in their homes or on the street due to stray bullets from drive-by shootings. That wouldn't happen if the person had a knife. How about Columbine, could those kids have walked into the school and killed 13 other people if they didn't have guns? We all know they couldn't have.
You make up "facts" to try to support your already unfounded argument.
I'm sorry I didn't feel like wasting time looking up obvious facts but if you want me to here they are: here, here, here, and here.
For "gun" you could substitute "car," "computer," "house," "baseball bat," and a billion other things. Remember what happens when you assume. A piano could possibly fall on your head tomorrow. Does that make it a valid point?
Obviously you're right and I'm just a complete idiot. Wait, a second, I'm having an idea . . . a car, a computer, and a baseball bat can't fire rounds of ammunition into people. That makes them slightly safer than the average gun.
Owning a gun is a pointless risk. Our government generally does what it can to eliminate pointless risks. Our cars all have chips in them that make them top out at 155 MPH, medication has safety caps, and cigarettes are illegal until you turn 18. As I said before, I don't need a gun to defend myself and I certainly don't want to trust that everyone else who buys a gun to be responsible enough to not kill someone or themselves with it. There is more than one way to the problem of gun related violence and deat (like social programs) but it seems like the most obvious and easy thing to try first would be to reduce the number of guns that exist in this country. It may not be the permanent solution to stopping murders in this country but it would certainly be a decent start.
What was asinine about that comment? Does it seem like the accountability of individuals is doing just fine? How many people die from guns each year? Aren't you required to get a license to drive a car? Do you have to prove your ability to not kill someone before you buy a gun. With a waiting period and background check that is a start but by no means stringent enough controls to help make sure that only people who would be responsible gun owners actually buy guns. Even if it was only responsible people who bought guns it would still be very difficult to make sure those guns were never misused. Personally, I don't own an automobile and I don't own a gun. I think both are very dangerous and often unneccessary. The point is that I don't see the point of anyone needing to own a gun. We already have far to many murders (many of which are caused by guns). In other developed nations (most of which have strict gun laws) the number of murders is significantly lower. I don't have any exact figures on me but I know that they are tens or hundreds times lower. We live in a violent culture and when you have a gun lying around it is only natural to assume that it could possibly become involved in a dispute. If you don't have a gun around it CAN'T POSSIBLY HAPPEN!!! I'll gladly wave my right to bear arms in order to help try to save the lives of individuals around me. If you want to be the selfish jerk who ends up helping someone get killed because you think it's cool to own a glock help yourself. Actually, no. Don't help yourself. Go get your gun destroyed and spend any of the money you would have spent on future gun purchases on a charity that help families who have been forced to deal with a death caused by guns. It may be people who kill people, but guns help people kill more people.
Important feature for whom? I'm certainly not going to shoot anybody and I certainly don't need a gun to make me feel safe.
In fact, if there's anything I've learned from the government's anti-drug commercials it's that we need more gun control. Otherwise when little Jimmy and his friend get high (and we all know they will) they'll accidentally shoot each other.
Apparently, most people don't realize what the movie theater situation is like in China. They don't exist for all practical purposes. The government caps the number of foreign films permitted into theaters to 10 per year. Then, all of these films are dubbed into Mandarin and released months later. I was in China for several months this past spring and they were just getting the first Harry Potter then. For those people who like to watch movies in their original language (or those people who are living abroad for a while) the rampant piracy is a godsend.
I remember I was over there when both AOTC and Spider-man came out and you could find videocammed copies of new releases and DVD quality copies (Oscar evaluation copies) of others. I had a sweet copy of LOTR on DVD in April. This piracy is allowed because the government doesn't want to actually refuse people the opportunity to watch the movies but they also don't want to allow them outright either. With this situation they can crack down on some store if they feel like it and say it is because of some 'piracy issues.'
I'm quite sure that there actually is a copy of the Two Towers out there though.
Still, if you don't have a gun you can't kill someone, so maybe the US government should look into providing its citizenry with more non-lethal methods of self defense. Then, even if violence did go up there would be far fewer deaths. We'd just have a bunch of idiots passed out on the street because they were 'non-lethally' attacked. Ahhh, the fun of non-lethal weapons.
Ah yes, Chinese word play. I think everyone can agree that if you're not Chinese (or don't live in China) it's generally not that funny.
Still, stuff is a lot cheaper there. I mean pirated DVD's are $1 a disc! It makes buying all those crappy movies that you normally only watch occasionally when they are on cable late at night possible. Gotta love that piracy.
Anyone who don't think you are suffering because of this game developer buy-out thing: remember: Halo was supposed to be released for PC first. and now Halo 2 is about to come out... where is the PC version? I could have sworn that Halo was originally supposed to come out for the Mac first not PC.