Major cities and highways are all that are covered in this part of the world. Now tell me that the cellphone GPS works in say Carrizozo, Datil, or hell Farmington or Jemez Springs and I'll be impressed.
Sure... but if you're walking, chances are you either know where you are or can easily find out (you don't often walk along, say, remote West Texas highways with nothing in sight in any direction, do you?) And if you know where you are... well that's where the iPhone's Google Maps integration comes into play. That's how Apple's focused on the problem, and what they've included.
And you have market studies to back up this claim? I believe what you mean is that you, and maybe a couple of people you know don't care about slimness (or at the very best, that some consumers don't care about it), but that doesn't really mean anything. Hell, I don't particularly like chocolate, yet M&M Mars seems to be doing OK. I just don't understand that... don't they know I don't like chocolate and would by one of their stupid candy bars if it were macaroon based instead? Who do they think is going to buy a candy bar not based around macaroons?
AT&T's smartphone unlimited data plan is 19.99/month. 9.99 for the 5MB/month plan. Whether this applies to the iPhone is still anybody's guess, however.
And I fail to understand why anyone would use FireFox on OS X without being required to. Ugly, slow, bloated, doesn't interface well with the OS, etc. I use it for about 10 minutes a month for some poorly designed pages at work, and then put it away for as long as I can.
Yes. Because most people carry around their high-end home stereo and a really long extension cord when they go out with their iPods.
This is just a guess, but I'm willing to wager that the majority of plays that iTunes Store bought songs get are via iPod through some type of headphone, earbud or otherwise. And it's in that arena that a test like this (although I have my doubts about the quality of this particular test) is perfectly valid. Anecdotally speaking, 90% of the songs I listen to are through headphones as I'm riding my bike with traffic around me. Hell, some days I could probably get away with 64 bit AAC pumped through tin cans and not notice a difference.
Sexy touchscreen with multi-touch! This is new to any consumer device, not just phones.
* looks down at Fingerworks Touchstream keyboard * * blink * * blink *
Nope... still there. I didn't imagine it after all.
Actually, this is one of the reasons I'm not concerned about the multi-touch interface. I've been using the tech behind it for years now, and I know how well it can work.
Re:Do you have any idea what's wrong with you post
on
Treadmill Workstation
·
· Score: 1
I'm sorry, but this statement alone: "If you take IN more than you USE, you gain weight. If you USE more than you TAKE IN, you lose weight." either indicates that you are specifying the nonstandard usage of "take in", or it highlights that you're an idiot that's ignoring the fact that the body doesn't use all of the caloric content that is "taken in" in the standard sense thus making your statement only half true -- your second part holds under either definition.
So... would your rather be considered an idiot for not knowing what you wrote, or an idiot for not understanding some of the more basic aspects of the human body? You may want to ponder that for a while.
Re:Do you have any idea what's wrong with you post
on
Treadmill Workstation
·
· Score: 1
And your use of "take in" here is highly nonstandard. When used with nutrition it's generally taken to mean what is ingested, not what is used by the body, because what is used by the body is highly variable. And unless you can come up with a good way of not just measuring, but predicting how much energy will be absorbed by the body, and how it will be used (generally, people care about losing fat, not weight), your observation is utterly worthless, despite its correctness. It's like the old joke about the helicopter pilot and Microsoft.
How does it feel to be a tired old joke?
Re:Do you have any idea what's wrong with you post
on
Treadmill Workstation
·
· Score: 1
You cannot lose weight without decreasing your caloric intake.
Well, that all depends on how you define intake. You can eat the exact same amount of the exact same food at two different times, and your body may very well handle the food differently in terms of how much energy it take in from the food versus how much it lets you flush down the crapper. So, did you decrease your caloric intake there? You put the same content into your mouth, so no. But your body did different things with what it was given, so... yes.
Also, the body can do different things with the nutrients it's given depending on a whole host of situations. Are those nutrients being used to build muscle? To store as fat? To replenish muscle glycogen supplies? To replenish liver glycogen supplies? It all means something very different in terms of your body composition (which in turn affects how you will process future nutrients).
You seem to have a very simplistic view of the way the body works. Yes, it always obeys the laws of thermodynamics, but there is plenty of play in the way it obeys those laws, and your ignoring them is not doing you any favors.
Well, while we do have showers where I work, I've never used them. What I do is keep a couple pairs of jeans and a week's worth of shirts at work and change into those when I arrive, rotating the clothes out throughout the week (though I suppose I could carry a change every day -- rolling your clothes tightly prevents wrinkles). The nice thing about living in the high desert is that it's nice and cool in the morning, so you don't sweat too much, and even if you do, it evaporates instantly while you're riding, so I only have a 5 or so minute period between the time I get off the bike and the time I cool down that I'm actively sweating.
If you don't have showers, and you live in a stickier area, you can always do the baby wipe quick bath to get you more presentable. Hit google for bicycle commuting resources, and you'll find an awful lot of info. Or go to someplace like bikeforums.net and ask the people there.
Agreed on pretty much all points (though with all the goddamn goatheads around here, tubes and patches are an annoying expense -- of course I'll take 7$ every couple of weeks over the 5$ and change every day that it costs me to commute by car. The savings in gas alone has already covered the new bike I bought last summer). Sure, it adds about an extra 45 minutes of travel time daily (and that extra time is shrinking as more people are moving into my side of town and clogging the streets), but I'm getting two hours of exercise for that 45 minute overhead. As for being faster than the city bus, I often race the crosstown express for a bit of motivation on my rides -- I usually beat it 70% of the way across town, but it always catches and passes me once I hit my long climb towards the end of the route. Damn hills.
And finally, not only it it much more interesting and engaging than a stationary bike, but with a real bike, you can (and should) get it fit properly for your body. You are highly unlikely to get a stationary bike that fits you properly, resulting in an uncomfortable, possibly harmful ride. No, I can't watch TV while I ride, but my iPod and the world around me are much better anyway.
Ipod earpiece that detects activity level of the user - for each mile they walk, they get a free download. Kids get into the competition to get free downloads.
This would be great for me. I do about 30 miles a day on my bike commuting to/from work. Hell, I'd make out like a bandit at just one download per 10 miles. Somebody get cracking on the giving me free stuff!
Of course, there's nothing piscine about the smell of fresh fish either (at least what one associates as a "fishy" smell -- I'd suppose the smell of fish in any condition is inherently piscine).
For one thing, the ticket doesn't need to be stamped with any clear-text identifying information, so you can know that I possess a ticket that proves that someone voted a certain way, but you don't know how I got that ticket
But if this is the case then you can't verify that your vote was tabulated correctly, either. Either your receipt has to have some official linkage to the system (otherwise you could generate a false receipt and falsely claim there was a flaw in the tabulation of your vote), or the receipt has to be devoid of information for everybody, the voter included.
For example, a cell phone camera will have good enough resolution, and everybody has one.
Yes, that's the equivalent of the analog hole in DRM. And as I believe it is, it's already illegal to take photographs of your votes (I could be wrong on that). You don't want to add a weakness into the system that doesn't have to be there.
That will supply the voter with a third party verifiable proof of who they voted for. This is a bad thing. What you want is the ability for the system to prove to you that it tabulated your votes correctly, but to do it in a way that you can't use that proof to convince a third party.
There's a whole lot of other niggling problems that are desirable and seem to oppose each other. Voting is a tough nut to crack correctly.
Slashdot Mirror
Cut back on picking your nose, that ought to help a bit.
Yes, that one did too. The switch on the back had three positions, Off, Sequential, and Shuffle.
Um... by typing on the virtual one that comes with the iPhone?
You know... the one that doesn't take up all that space when it's not needed?
So were they in Phoenix or Tucson?
Major cities and highways are all that are covered in this part of the world. Now tell me that the cellphone GPS works in say Carrizozo, Datil, or hell Farmington or Jemez Springs and I'll be impressed.
But it's got the second smallest volume, and the highest density!
I'm sure someone here actually cares about one of those...
Sure... but if you're walking, chances are you either know where you are or can easily find out (you don't often walk along, say, remote West Texas highways with nothing in sight in any direction, do you?) And if you know where you are... well that's where the iPhone's Google Maps integration comes into play. That's how Apple's focused on the problem, and what they've included.
slimness is not what consumers care about
And you have market studies to back up this claim? I believe what you mean is that you, and maybe a couple of people you know don't care about slimness (or at the very best, that some consumers don't care about it), but that doesn't really mean anything. Hell, I don't particularly like chocolate, yet M&M Mars seems to be doing OK. I just don't understand that... don't they know I don't like chocolate and would by one of their stupid candy bars if it were macaroon based instead? Who do they think is going to buy a candy bar not based around macaroons?
Well, I'd suppose that would depend on if this is true, or just yet another Apple rumor that doesn't come true. Wouldn't it?
AT&T's smartphone unlimited data plan is 19.99/month. 9.99 for the 5MB/month plan.
Whether this applies to the iPhone is still anybody's guess, however.
Why would you use the Weather Channel? The NOAA is where it's at.
Pleased to meet you. I only have it installed for the very rare poorly designed web page that I need to access at work.
And I fail to understand why anyone would use FireFox on OS X without being required to. Ugly, slow, bloated, doesn't interface well with the OS, etc.
I use it for about 10 minutes a month for some poorly designed pages at work, and then put it away for as long as I can.
Preferences are a funny thing...
So a name and email address in a standard MPEG-4 atom intended for such purpose is now a "watermark"?
Yes, it's a watermark. It's just not a robust or stealthy one.
Yes. Because most people carry around their high-end home stereo and a really long extension cord when they go out with their iPods.
This is just a guess, but I'm willing to wager that the majority of plays that iTunes Store bought songs get are via iPod through some type of headphone, earbud or otherwise. And it's in that arena that a test like this (although I have my doubts about the quality of this particular test) is perfectly valid. Anecdotally speaking, 90% of the songs I listen to are through headphones as I'm riding my bike with traffic around me. Hell, some days I could probably get away with 64 bit AAC pumped through tin cans and not notice a difference.
Sexy touchscreen with multi-touch! This is new to any consumer device, not just phones.
* looks down at Fingerworks Touchstream keyboard *
* blink *
* blink *
Nope... still there. I didn't imagine it after all.
Actually, this is one of the reasons I'm not concerned about the multi-touch interface. I've been using the tech behind it for years now, and I know how well it can work.
I'm sorry, but this statement alone: "If you take IN more than you USE, you gain weight. If you USE more than you TAKE IN, you lose weight." either indicates that you are specifying the nonstandard usage of "take in", or it highlights that you're an idiot that's ignoring the fact that the body doesn't use all of the caloric content that is "taken in" in the standard sense thus making your statement only half true -- your second part holds under either definition.
So... would your rather be considered an idiot for not knowing what you wrote, or an idiot for not understanding some of the more basic aspects of the human body?
You may want to ponder that for a while.
And your use of "take in" here is highly nonstandard. When used with nutrition it's generally taken to mean what is ingested, not what is used by the body, because what is used by the body is highly variable. And unless you can come up with a good way of not just measuring, but predicting how much energy will be absorbed by the body, and how it will be used (generally, people care about losing fat, not weight), your observation is utterly worthless, despite its correctness. It's like the old joke about the helicopter pilot and Microsoft.
How does it feel to be a tired old joke?
You cannot lose weight without decreasing your caloric intake.
... yes.
Well, that all depends on how you define intake. You can eat the exact same amount of the exact same food at two different times, and your body may very well handle the food differently in terms of how much energy it take in from the food versus how much it lets you flush down the crapper. So, did you decrease your caloric intake there? You put the same content into your mouth, so no. But your body did different things with what it was given, so
Also, the body can do different things with the nutrients it's given depending on a whole host of situations. Are those nutrients being used to build muscle? To store as fat? To replenish muscle glycogen supplies? To replenish liver glycogen supplies? It all means something very different in terms of your body composition (which in turn affects how you will process future nutrients).
You seem to have a very simplistic view of the way the body works. Yes, it always obeys the laws of thermodynamics, but there is plenty of play in the way it obeys those laws, and your ignoring them is not doing you any favors.
Well, while we do have showers where I work, I've never used them. What I do is keep a couple pairs of jeans and a week's worth of shirts at work and change into those when I arrive, rotating the clothes out throughout the week (though I suppose I could carry a change every day -- rolling your clothes tightly prevents wrinkles). The nice thing about living in the high desert is that it's nice and cool in the morning, so you don't sweat too much, and even if you do, it evaporates instantly while you're riding, so I only have a 5 or so minute period between the time I get off the bike and the time I cool down that I'm actively sweating.
If you don't have showers, and you live in a stickier area, you can always do the baby wipe quick bath to get you more presentable. Hit google for bicycle commuting resources, and you'll find an awful lot of info. Or go to someplace like bikeforums.net and ask the people there.
Agreed on pretty much all points (though with all the goddamn goatheads around here, tubes and patches are an annoying expense -- of course I'll take 7$ every couple of weeks over the 5$ and change every day that it costs me to commute by car. The savings in gas alone has already covered the new bike I bought last summer). Sure, it adds about an extra 45 minutes of travel time daily (and that extra time is shrinking as more people are moving into my side of town and clogging the streets), but I'm getting two hours of exercise for that 45 minute overhead. As for being faster than the city bus, I often race the crosstown express for a bit of motivation on my rides -- I usually beat it 70% of the way across town, but it always catches and passes me once I hit my long climb towards the end of the route. Damn hills.
And finally, not only it it much more interesting and engaging than a stationary bike, but with a real bike, you can (and should) get it fit properly for your body. You are highly unlikely to get a stationary bike that fits you properly, resulting in an uncomfortable, possibly harmful ride. No, I can't watch TV while I ride, but my iPod and the world around me are much better anyway.
Ipod earpiece that detects activity level of the user - for each mile they walk, they get a free download. Kids get into the competition to get free downloads.
This would be great for me. I do about 30 miles a day on my bike commuting to/from work. Hell, I'd make out like a bandit at just one download per 10 miles.
Somebody get cracking on the giving me free stuff!
Of course, there's nothing piscine about the smell of fresh fish either (at least what one associates as a "fishy" smell -- I'd suppose the smell of fish in any condition is inherently piscine).
For one thing, the ticket doesn't need to be stamped with any clear-text identifying information, so you can know that I possess a ticket that proves that someone voted a certain way, but you don't know how I got that ticket
But if this is the case then you can't verify that your vote was tabulated correctly, either. Either your receipt has to have some official linkage to the system (otherwise you could generate a false receipt and falsely claim there was a flaw in the tabulation of your vote), or the receipt has to be devoid of information for everybody, the voter included.
For example, a cell phone camera will have good enough resolution, and everybody has one.
Yes, that's the equivalent of the analog hole in DRM. And as I believe it is, it's already illegal to take photographs of your votes (I could be wrong on that).
You don't want to add a weakness into the system that doesn't have to be there.
That will supply the voter with a third party verifiable proof of who they voted for. This is a bad thing.
What you want is the ability for the system to prove to you that it tabulated your votes correctly, but to do it in a way that you can't use that proof to convince a third party.
There's a whole lot of other niggling problems that are desirable and seem to oppose each other. Voting is a tough nut to crack correctly.
Also, you can change the shell via NetInfo Manager and change your file manager by using something like PathFinder.