Can this be put in an unpowered thumb drive? I feel it would be nice to have large, easily removable, USB storage that does not require external power. Right now, I store my accounting files on a 64MB stick that I can remove and take with me in an emergency much easier than taking my whole computer.
Let me be the first to scoff at your miniscule sized 64MB stick. scoff, scoff, scoff. Please immediately upgrade to a 1GB (minimum) stick for no reason beyond bragging rights.
But yes, the distinction of "flash" memory is that it is non-volitile, meaning it requires no power to keep the data once written, so it's exactly what is used for these kind of memory sticks/keydrives.
What they should consentrate on is making it scratch proof, I can't stand so many scratches.
They should make the case of aluminum and hard annodize it, that would be pretty much scratchproof.
Hell, I discovered with my calphalon cookware that if you hard annodize aluminum, and then stir-fry zucchini in it, you'll end up with an indestructable and permanent coating that could protect space shuttles during re-entry. Who the F*CK thought non-nonstick cookware was a good idea ????:-(
The scientists discovered that the Suspended-load Backpack altered the gait of the test wearers, causing them to walk more efficiently.
I can just imagine the look on the test subjects faces when they're told that the bouncing spring/weight contraption on their back was making them "walk more efficiently" than that plain old fashioned method that was developed through millions of years of evolution.
I don't think any of you know this, but this is the same Deskstar line that IBM sold to try and save face. I personally lost seven hard drives due to the poor manufacturing quality. Those hard drives contained data that was invaluable to me.
Well, I was going to call bullshit and accuse you of being overly emotional and exaggerating a bit.
Then I realized that the 250gig drive I just boxed up to send back to NewEgg for going tits-up after 8 hours of use...was a Deskstar.
So I have to agree, I don't get a warm fuzzy feeling about anything with the Deskstar name on it.
That depends on how much you're able to amplify the signal your car's stereo system is given without distortion or hiss. Which was kinda the point of the reviewer's statement.
no actually it doesn't depend on that at all. At 70mph in a convertable, the best stereo in the world is going to have at a baseline more "noise" in the resulting soundfield than the cheapest stereo in a quiet living room.
That's what makes the point of hte reviewers statement a nonsensical bit of page filling tripe.
You kids these days don't realize that 24 bits at 96 KHz isn't worth jack shit if you don't have a clean signal chain all the way through... digital audio is only pristine as long as it stays digital;)
I'm not sure YOU realize that a "pristine" audio signal isn't worth jack shit in a convertable going 70mph. It simply doesn't matter very much how clean your source is with 25db or so of white noise in the background.
And since you clearly didn't read the article, the quote was:
Plugged into my car speakers, it was able to belt out the new Fountains of Wayne rocker, "Maureen," loudly enough to be heard perfectly, even though I was going 70 mph in a convertible with the top down.Notice that he said "loudly" enough, being impressed by the volume that his car stereo was producing, not the volume of the iPod. Face it, the guy made a nonsensical statement in his effort to gush all over the nano.
Well, an effective consumer boycott was organized. People were informed about how much Divx sucked, and so they didn't buy it. Their VHS tapes were good enough and they stuck with that. In the end, Circut City took a bath to the tune of $100 million and Divx died.
That is a completely revisionist view of the failure of Divx.
The product failed not because of any imagined "organized boycott", it failed because it was a stupid product that was overpriced and poorly marketed. Consumers aren't stupid, they know the difference between buying something and renting something at a higher price than renting used to cost.
You are certainly correct though that if this idea offends you, just don't buy it. Anyone who actually buys a heavily DRM'd product loses the moral authority to bitch about it.
And yes, you are correct, the American United Way CEO does in fact make $400k a year. So does the American Red Cross CEO. However, the the CEO salary is 1% of the total United Way overhead expense, while only.01% of the Red Crosses.
I'm not sure what difference that makes, but this website does rate the United Way much lower than the Red Cross on their scale.
I don't know that it's fair to say that charitable organizations shouldn't compensate executive officers well. They are in charge of multi-gagillion dollar companies after all and if they're not paid a market level salary, they'll only be able to get below-market level quality people in the job.
Personally, I rate charities based on how much of their annual expeditures goes to charitable uses, and how much goes to administrative overhead.
Of course they did. How else would they be able to get the record companies to agree to sell music digitally over the internet? I'm willing to accept such limitations. But it isn't like I didn't know about them when I purchased my ipod.
Again with the apple-centric world view. Are you even aware that iTunes is not the only online music store, they weren't even the first one. There's also about a hundred competing.mp3 players that manage to get by without DRM overload.
But that's outside of this discussion anyway, we were talking about iPod, not iTunes. Unless you consider them to be one product, which honestly IS pretty much how Apple is marketing them. Considering that they ARE #1 in the market, it may be a little hard to find fault with it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a case of forcing people to fit the market, not vis versa.
Giving blood is simply a "feel good" mechanism that americans use in time of crisis to make themselves feel like they've done something to help, without actually having to give any money or anything that costs money.
An influx of blood donations is of extremely little use in a flood situation, so anyone considering giving blood "to help out" should really re-examine their motivations and maybe break out the checkbook instead.
And yes, you're correct that the massive blood donations following 9/11 were mostly thrown out. The red cross had no way to deal with the huge amount of blood americans suddenly decided to donate, but made the political decision not to tell people to stop donating.
The Red Cross and Salvation Army are both going to need money or donations of goods/services that they will tell you about if you only ask, far more than they'll need anything else.
So listen to Oliver, if you want to help pick up the phone and ask Red Cross or Salvation Army what they need, don't waste the chance to actually hellp out.
Unfortunately I will not support the Red Cross in anyway. This includes giving blood. The Red Cross is one of the most poorly managed organizations in the country. They have horrible financial management and I will not in any way support them.
Which brings me to another thought. Does anyone know of any other organization or way to donate blood other then through the American Red Cross?
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!
That is either a malicious lie, an ignorant statement intended to make the poster look educated on some issue that he is obviously not, or a disturbed mind trying to get people not to help in a time of disaster.
10 seconds with Google will pull up just about any charitable organizations overhead expense ratio, the American Red Cross is under 8%. That means 92% of every dollar donated goes to charitable uses.
I am personally sickened that someone would level such an attack against one of the premier legitimate charitable organizations on the fucking planet!
Right. When you rip your own CDs to MP3 and put them on the iPod they're all covered in DRM.
Oh, wait, they're not at all. My mistake.
Maybe you have a different word you use for it when you're required to use a proprietary app to load music, then can't pull it back off once there. Sounds like DRM to me, but then I'm probably not defining the word so narrowly I can dance with Apple around the issue.
I'm going to anticipate your response touting aftermarket hacks that allow you to get around Apples ridiculously intrusive proprietism in the iPod, but that doesn't change the fact that they deliberately crippled the unit to try to drive purchases to their music store, and to cover DRM as well.
None of it even makes a shitpile worth of sense. Apple joined the MP3 player game almost 4 years late and brought not a damn thing new with them except for classic Apple styling and marketing (which IS what they do best, so no knock there).
Now, every 14 year old kid who learned there's a world outside of their parents basement about 18 months ago thinks Apple invented the whole F'n concept of digital music, portable players, and online music sales. Completely oblivious of the fact that Apple "stole" every one of those ideas from existing products, and leapfrogged the competition with better marketing, not innovation.
And for the record, there's not a damn thing wrong with that, except for the idiocy/hypocrasy that the slavering apple fanatics toss at everyone else in the market, but grant apple total immunity from.
p.s. I have an iPod mini, my 5th portable mp3 player and I hate it. it works fine, but it's wrapped up with so much DRM and big-brotherism that I'd trade it in a minute for a Creative Labs or iRiver unit.
Apple shouldn't have blundered with this patent oversight, but its shit like this that really ends up stifling the market (frivolous lawsuits). If anything I view this patent as Creatives admission to Apples domination in the mp3 market (slow the big-boy down so we can catch-up).
If you put the two players side-by-side Creative has clearly mimicked Apples Ipod. Anyone remember the first generation Creative players? The thing looked like a CD player! Apple has strayed very little from its initial design for its Ipod. Who's copying who?
I don't know how idiocy gets modded "insiteful", but this statement is so wrong I don't know where to begin.
What does Creative getting awarded a bullshit patent have to do with "admission to Apples domination..."? There's a hell of a lot more companies that make MP3 players than apple, how is it that some people manage to forget that? It's not like Creative ran out and patented the iPod, they patented a data structure that's used by pretty much every player in existance and the patent won't survive the first challenge.
As to copying Apples design, by your claim then Apple copied pretty much every MP3 player that came before THEM becaues they were square boxy things.
Are there really people out there who think Apple invented everything, even the things that existed for YEARS before they joined the market with a "me too" product?
Let's forget for a a minute that that is illegal.
This is a stupid way to think. Having a Cert doesn't make a candidate any worse than having a Cert makes them good.
I'll overlook the fact that you clearly have no idea what is or isn't legal in hiring practices, but certs can certainly be a detriment.
When you look at a resume, what is on the paper is all you know about the person, and I have to screen dozens of resumes for every person who gets face time. I get resume's all the time that have line after line of alphabet soup certifications, those go right in the trash.
overload of certs tells me one thing about a person right off the bat, they spend TOO MUCH TIME on certifications and not enough time working.
Clickwheel not an effective interface? What do you have that is better?
First of all, I didn't say "effective", I said "not very good". It's effective in that it does what it's supposed to, but not as well as other alternatives.
the players that use a simple roll and click thumbwheel on the side is my prefered interface. It doesn't require the two handed, or very tenatious one handed grip that the clickwheel does, it lets you hold the player with your hand away from the screen and still have a secure grip. It also doesn't suffer from the ipod's problem of accuracy. the clickwheel forces you to constantly correct over tracking and selections that move when you meant to click, etc. It's a "form over function" interface. it looks cool, but it's far from the best.
This is something I've heard from ipod fanatics time and again. they insist that ipods are the greatest music players ever, but they've never actually used any other one to know better.
My ipod mini is the 5th mp3 player I've owned, the first one beign the original Diamond Rio 300. Apple brought absolutely nothing new to the mp3 player game with the ipod other than the apple name and the wheel interface, which is inherently flawed.
I promise you that "a lawyer" did not get $10 million out of this
actually, I'm pretty sure "a lawyer" did, although possibly not the ones who actually did the work on the case. Law firms are usually owned by lawyers after all.
At any rate, the question remains: how much would the individual consumer rec'd w/o the suit?
that's exactly the type of question I'd expect from someone defending the jackpots that lawsuits represent for lawyers. No suit, obviously no money. but when the lawyers involved cash in HUGE on the settlement, and the "victims" typically get a coupon for a couple bucks off their next purchase, you can't reasonably expect the public opinion of lawyers to improve.
Let me ask you this. if the victims of a wrongdoing are only entitled to $25, why should the lawyers each get any more than that? Obviously because the lawyers value the work they put into the lawsuit HIGHER than they do the compensation due to the victims. Do you think anyone would really go to the trouble of suing for $25? Of course not, so who was really driving this and these kinds of lawsuits? Surely not the lawyers who only have goodness in their hearts.
the fact is people don't think much of lawyers. That perception didn't come out of nowhere, and nobody but the legal profession can change it. So don't whine to me, look in the mirror.
Slashdot Mirror
But yes, the distinction of "flash" memory is that it is non-volitile, meaning it requires no power to keep the data once written, so it's exactly what is used for these kind of memory sticks/keydrives.
Hell, I discovered with my calphalon cookware that if you hard annodize aluminum, and then stir-fry zucchini in it, you'll end up with an indestructable and permanent coating that could protect space shuttles during re-entry. Who the F*CK thought non-nonstick cookware was a good idea ????
Maybe I'm missing something, but who exactly is it that is slobbering over variable transparancy windows, and flipping backside notation stuff?
I think I've seen that here before.
are you suggesting I pulled that number out of my ass?? How dare you. MY CAR GETS 40 RODS TO THE HOGSHEAD, AND THAT'S THE WAY I LIKES IT!
Then I realized that the 250gig drive I just boxed up to send back to NewEgg for going tits-up after 8 hours of use...was a Deskstar.
So I have to agree, I don't get a warm fuzzy feeling about anything with the Deskstar name on it.
That's what makes the point of hte reviewers statement a nonsensical bit of page filling tripe.
And since you clearly didn't read the article, the quote was: Plugged into my car speakers, it was able to belt out the new Fountains of Wayne rocker, "Maureen," loudly enough to be heard perfectly, even though I was going 70 mph in a convertible with the top down.Notice that he said "loudly" enough, being impressed by the volume that his car stereo was producing, not the volume of the iPod. Face it, the guy made a nonsensical statement in his effort to gush all over the nano.
The product failed not because of any imagined "organized boycott", it failed because it was a stupid product that was overpriced and poorly marketed. Consumers aren't stupid, they know the difference between buying something and renting something at a higher price than renting used to cost.
You are certainly correct though that if this idea offends you, just don't buy it. Anyone who actually buys a heavily DRM'd product loses the moral authority to bitch about it.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/cont ent.view/catid/2/cpid/48.htm
And yes, you are correct, the American United Way CEO does in fact make $400k a year. So does the American Red Cross CEO. However, the the CEO salary is 1% of the total United Way overhead expense, while only .01% of the Red Crosses.
I'm not sure what difference that makes, but this website does rate the United Way much lower than the Red Cross on their scale.
I don't know that it's fair to say that charitable organizations shouldn't compensate executive officers well. They are in charge of multi-gagillion dollar companies after all and if they're not paid a market level salary, they'll only be able to get below-market level quality people in the job.
Personally, I rate charities based on how much of their annual expeditures goes to charitable uses, and how much goes to administrative overhead.
But that's outside of this discussion anyway, we were talking about iPod, not iTunes. Unless you consider them to be one product, which honestly IS pretty much how Apple is marketing them. Considering that they ARE #1 in the market, it may be a little hard to find fault with it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a case of forcing people to fit the market, not vis versa.
An influx of blood donations is of extremely little use in a flood situation, so anyone considering giving blood "to help out" should really re-examine their motivations and maybe break out the checkbook instead.
And yes, you're correct that the massive blood donations following 9/11 were mostly thrown out. The red cross had no way to deal with the huge amount of blood americans suddenly decided to donate, but made the political decision not to tell people to stop donating.
The Red Cross and Salvation Army are both going to need money or donations of goods/services that they will tell you about if you only ask, far more than they'll need anything else.
So listen to Oliver, if you want to help pick up the phone and ask Red Cross or Salvation Army what they need, don't waste the chance to actually hellp out.
That is either a malicious lie, an ignorant statement intended to make the poster look educated on some issue that he is obviously not, or a disturbed mind trying to get people not to help in a time of disaster.
10 seconds with Google will pull up just about any charitable organizations overhead expense ratio, the American Red Cross is under 8%. That means 92% of every dollar donated goes to charitable uses.
I am personally sickened that someone would level such an attack against one of the premier legitimate charitable organizations on the fucking planet!
You sir, are an asshat.
I'm going to anticipate your response touting aftermarket hacks that allow you to get around Apples ridiculously intrusive proprietism in the iPod, but that doesn't change the fact that they deliberately crippled the unit to try to drive purchases to their music store, and to cover DRM as well.
Now, every 14 year old kid who learned there's a world outside of their parents basement about 18 months ago thinks Apple invented the whole F'n concept of digital music, portable players, and online music sales. Completely oblivious of the fact that Apple "stole" every one of those ideas from existing products, and leapfrogged the competition with better marketing, not innovation.
And for the record, there's not a damn thing wrong with that, except for the idiocy/hypocrasy that the slavering apple fanatics toss at everyone else in the market, but grant apple total immunity from.
p.s. I have an iPod mini, my 5th portable mp3 player and I hate it. it works fine, but it's wrapped up with so much DRM and big-brotherism that I'd trade it in a minute for a Creative Labs or iRiver unit.
What does Creative getting awarded a bullshit patent have to do with "admission to Apples domination..."? There's a hell of a lot more companies that make MP3 players than apple, how is it that some people manage to forget that? It's not like Creative ran out and patented the iPod, they patented a data structure that's used by pretty much every player in existance and the patent won't survive the first challenge.
As to copying Apples design, by your claim then Apple copied pretty much every MP3 player that came before THEM becaues they were square boxy things.
Are there really people out there who think Apple invented everything, even the things that existed for YEARS before they joined the market with a "me too" product?
When you look at a resume, what is on the paper is all you know about the person, and I have to screen dozens of resumes for every person who gets face time. I get resume's all the time that have line after line of alphabet soup certifications, those go right in the trash.
overload of certs tells me one thing about a person right off the bat, they spend TOO MUCH TIME on certifications and not enough time working.
I mean you'd have to be an idiot to confuse the words "compile" with "support", right?
Anyone else feel bad for their developers? Having to develop two parallel code branches for years to come? ouch...
the players that use a simple roll and click thumbwheel on the side is my prefered interface. It doesn't require the two handed, or very tenatious one handed grip that the clickwheel does, it lets you hold the player with your hand away from the screen and still have a secure grip. It also doesn't suffer from the ipod's problem of accuracy. the clickwheel forces you to constantly correct over tracking and selections that move when you meant to click, etc. It's a "form over function" interface. it looks cool, but it's far from the best.
This is something I've heard from ipod fanatics time and again. they insist that ipods are the greatest music players ever, but they've never actually used any other one to know better.
My ipod mini is the 5th mp3 player I've owned, the first one beign the original Diamond Rio 300. Apple brought absolutely nothing new to the mp3 player game with the ipod other than the apple name and the wheel interface, which is inherently flawed.
I got nothing against d-slr's except for $$$$$$$ they so 'spensive!
Let me ask you this. if the victims of a wrongdoing are only entitled to $25, why should the lawyers each get any more than that? Obviously because the lawyers value the work they put into the lawsuit HIGHER than they do the compensation due to the victims. Do you think anyone would really go to the trouble of suing for $25? Of course not, so who was really driving this and these kinds of lawsuits? Surely not the lawyers who only have goodness in their hearts.
the fact is people don't think much of lawyers. That perception didn't come out of nowhere, and nobody but the legal profession can change it. So don't whine to me, look in the mirror.