Reticent
Mar 24, 05:10 PM
Huzzah! I remember using an Apple IIe. It's come a long way, and I've loved every second that I've been a part of it (except things did get a liiiittttlee sketchy around the "grey box" era).
snberk103
Apr 15, 08:03 PM
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
tattoo of flowers.
banner tattoo flash. flash,.
more...
Tribals Flower Tattoo # 1
Flower Tattoo Flash Art.
more...
flower tattoos
tattoo flash flowers.
more...
Lily flower Dragonfly Tattoos
fantasy tattoo flash
more...
Tattoo Flash by Passi (Tattoo
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
shawnce
Oct 31, 10:57 AM
and until they closed the source, Darwin worked on most generic x86 platforms anyway. umm... they didn't close the source...
TheSlush
Apr 15, 01:11 PM
LOL at the perspective on the text in the 3rd photo. :D
FAKE.
FAKE.
more...
peas
Sep 28, 12:56 PM
sweet, guess i need to read between the lines more.
i just noticed on the box cover it had a monster sticker on it that said
NO UPDATES ON ACADEMIC VERSIONS so i figured this .5 update wouldnt be allowed.
thanks for the heads up
i just noticed on the box cover it had a monster sticker on it that said
NO UPDATES ON ACADEMIC VERSIONS so i figured this .5 update wouldnt be allowed.
thanks for the heads up
zioxide
Jan 12, 12:57 AM
Everyone is making comments that suggest that the Gizmodo guys are professionals and have broken some code of ethics.
They are BLOGGERS. There are no rules in blogging. There are no codes of ethics.
Sure they were over the top, but that drove traffic to their site. The only thing they are worried about is traffic to the site, that is how they make money.
Should they be banned? Why? It's not like they are journalists.
They were there with a press pass.
Anyways, according to a story that just went to the digg frontpage, the Gizmodo employee who did it has been banned from future CES events and they're still discussing actions against Gizmodo and Gawker media.
I say ban them. That was retarded. Companies pay tons of money for these shows trying to get them to go off without a hitch. Having displays randomly turning off is bad for them. It could cost them millions of dollars and could have even cost the people who set everything up their jobs.
Additionally, there's still a debate about whether bloggers are journalists... personally I'd say they are. But some idiots doing this just gives a bad name to bloggers everywhere.
I hope their whole company is banned from CES and other events so that they go out of business.
They are BLOGGERS. There are no rules in blogging. There are no codes of ethics.
Sure they were over the top, but that drove traffic to their site. The only thing they are worried about is traffic to the site, that is how they make money.
Should they be banned? Why? It's not like they are journalists.
They were there with a press pass.
Anyways, according to a story that just went to the digg frontpage, the Gizmodo employee who did it has been banned from future CES events and they're still discussing actions against Gizmodo and Gawker media.
I say ban them. That was retarded. Companies pay tons of money for these shows trying to get them to go off without a hitch. Having displays randomly turning off is bad for them. It could cost them millions of dollars and could have even cost the people who set everything up their jobs.
Additionally, there's still a debate about whether bloggers are journalists... personally I'd say they are. But some idiots doing this just gives a bad name to bloggers everywhere.
I hope their whole company is banned from CES and other events so that they go out of business.
more...
kuwisdelu
Apr 29, 03:47 PM
Hmm, I thought the way it was in the older Lion builds looked nicer.
SPEEDwithJJ
Mar 17, 12:49 AM
I am a reward zone member, the receipt said I paid $530.00 cash.
Haha. Congrats then. :) It looks like you won the lottery at BestBuy! :D
Haha. Congrats then. :) It looks like you won the lottery at BestBuy! :D
more...
hob
Nov 16, 07:44 AM
The Register reports (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/11/16/apple_amd_laptop_claim/) that Apple may be developing an AMD based solution, although details are very sketchy at this moment in time.
As they say, Core 2 Duo still has the lead, but there is the fact that AMD just bought ATI... Apple may prefer to get more bits from one supplier...
Hob
As they say, Core 2 Duo still has the lead, but there is the fact that AMD just bought ATI... Apple may prefer to get more bits from one supplier...
Hob
wlh99
Apr 27, 11:34 AM
I see where you going wlh99, and don't worry.. my full intention is to learn, not to get code from all of you. Many people in this thread underestimate my knowledge of objective C (and I understand why, I got lost with the pointers). I have 2 1/2 months since I started development and had 0 idea of the language or programming (I was a Pastry Chef actually :D, which is the name of my first app).
Believe me when I tell you that I know what's going on with my code. I'm aware that If you release an object that it doesn't exist you'll get an exception every time.
Making it work is a lot less important than knowing how to do it, for future work.
Back to the Code, let me go give it try.. b-back
UPDATE**
Ok, it doesn't crash now but timer still won't restart. I'm going to create another timer object (not pointer, I'll use the same pointer). I get this idea that I can't reuse or reset the same timer over again (invalidating and releasing it only pauses the timer). Wish me luck :)
Good luck.
Post your echoIt: method. If you are displaying elapsed seconds or something, the code to calculate and display that might be your issue.
Believe me when I tell you that I know what's going on with my code. I'm aware that If you release an object that it doesn't exist you'll get an exception every time.
Making it work is a lot less important than knowing how to do it, for future work.
Back to the Code, let me go give it try.. b-back
UPDATE**
Ok, it doesn't crash now but timer still won't restart. I'm going to create another timer object (not pointer, I'll use the same pointer). I get this idea that I can't reuse or reset the same timer over again (invalidating and releasing it only pauses the timer). Wish me luck :)
Good luck.
Post your echoIt: method. If you are displaying elapsed seconds or something, the code to calculate and display that might be your issue.
more...
JayMysterio
Dec 6, 12:41 AM
I was playing this game today and the final kill cam was of a guy getting shot who was standing in the middle of a road (where he spawned) aimed at the sky shooting at a helicopter with what looked like a Light Machine gun of some sort. The guy who shot him was in a room looking out a window. As the replay was going on i stated over the mic "now there's an intelligent player" referring to the guy who was under no cover trying to take down a chopper with a gun. The guy who was shooting at the chopper stated that he was trying to fulfill and achievement by taking the chopper down.
I thought about this and realized that this goal/reward system in the game (this goes for most online FPS's) in a way made this player do something so stupid. The player was only looking to fulfill his own personal goals and thought nothing of the team and the loss that occurred cause of it.
So I ask you, (the reader) does this make sense to have in the game when it forces players to go out of there way for personal goals and shift away from the overall team play?
Flower Tattoo Flash
more...
flower tattoo pics
Posted under Flower Tattoo
more...
free tattoo flash designs
Tattoo Flash Art Flowers
more...
Татуировка ,,,. ,,,Татуировка
Tattoo Flash Art | Pain For
japanese maple leaves tattoo.
I thought about this and realized that this goal/reward system in the game (this goes for most online FPS's) in a way made this player do something so stupid. The player was only looking to fulfill his own personal goals and thought nothing of the team and the loss that occurred cause of it.
So I ask you, (the reader) does this make sense to have in the game when it forces players to go out of there way for personal goals and shift away from the overall team play?
petvas
Oct 29, 02:10 AM
Logic Pro 7 has yet to be cracked, so Apple has people who know how to do copyright protection. I suspect Leopard will employ very strong TPM integration compared to Tiger.
Well, Logic Pro 7 has been cracked and can be downloaded via usenet...
Well, Logic Pro 7 has been cracked and can be downloaded via usenet...
more...
dethmaShine
Apr 5, 03:04 PM
I remember a girl/woman submitting such an app to Apple.
It was rejected on the grounds:
'Not required => redundant'.
I see something changing now. :rolleyes:
It was rejected on the grounds:
'Not required => redundant'.
I see something changing now. :rolleyes:
drsmithy
Oct 5, 02:33 AM
It'd be pretty easy to check actually, and really quite legal. The part of Mac OS X that actually implements SMP is the kernel, which is part of Darwin. You can install Darwin without fear of repurcusions, on your toaster, if you want.
Isn't the version of Darwin underpinning OS X/Intel no longer Open Source ?
Isn't the version of Darwin underpinning OS X/Intel no longer Open Source ?
more...
840quadra
Sep 25, 11:13 AM
Waits for an iGary™ post regarding this!
Anyway, this is good news. I am seriously looking into purchasing this. I am now taking over 1gb of photos at each motocross event I am going to recently. That is allot considering i am also racing those events (taking pictures of other races duh! )
So far I am not impressed with the Adobe offering unveiled today. Unless I am doing something wrong, it doesn't seem to have full screen editing features ?
I need something more with more power than iPhoto, and would love to be able to batch edit, and Watermark (can Aperture even do this ? )
Anyway, this is good news. I am seriously looking into purchasing this. I am now taking over 1gb of photos at each motocross event I am going to recently. That is allot considering i am also racing those events (taking pictures of other races duh! )
So far I am not impressed with the Adobe offering unveiled today. Unless I am doing something wrong, it doesn't seem to have full screen editing features ?
I need something more with more power than iPhoto, and would love to be able to batch edit, and Watermark (can Aperture even do this ? )
ghostlines
Apr 6, 04:37 AM
My experience with iAds has been good, you sometimes see interesting stuff. But what I like about them most is that somehow they don't seem intrusive or annoying. They're just a a record in tableview that we can just easily flick pass.
Normal ads on website stick on the banner or sidebar if you don't have any adblock plugins installed, and that makes those so annoying.
Normal ads on website stick on the banner or sidebar if you don't have any adblock plugins installed, and that makes those so annoying.
more...
ThaDoggg
Apr 10, 07:29 PM
Not the OP but here ya go! (http://lockwaresystems.com/swanm10b-179.html)
Awesome..wasn't aware of these guys.
Awesome..wasn't aware of these guys.
iBug2
Apr 29, 08:30 PM
It'll only happen if people put up with it. The only way to voice your opinion sometimes in a capitalistic society is to simply walk away and not buy/put up with the offending product. I don't like Windows, but I wouldn't like the closed/app store only system on OSX proper either. Linux would be fine if they would standardize a few areas and get some commercial developers on-board (but a good part of that community doesn't like commercial anything).
No, it'll happen whether we like it or not. Because the industry is going to the iPad like dumbed down devices for every day use, and in 10-15 years those devices will be fast enough for all of us to do almost everything on them. And those devices work much better (actually every device works much better) with a closed App Store due to much less App issues compared to an open market. I can't remember how many times my parents managed to "break" their apps on their mac and call me and fix it for them on the phone. They can't do the same on an iPad as easily. That's the whole idea of a closed system and closed App store. Which is what it should be in the first place.
PC's aren't actually personal computers. PC's have been designed by engineers, for engineers. So the people who use PC's with zero issues, and solve all their problems themselves are almost as technically proficient as engineers at the moment. And they don't want this to be so. They want every day idiots (I don't like calling my own parents idiots, but when it comes to computers, they are), be able to use these things without any issues. And that's gonna happen with this new paradigm.
Cloud computing is gonna be huge in 15 years or so. After some point we won't have CPU's at all, all the computation will be done in cloud and we'll just have inputs at home, like a keyboard and mouse or touch, and a screen. Many things will change, and the closed app store will be the least of your worries by then.
No, it'll happen whether we like it or not. Because the industry is going to the iPad like dumbed down devices for every day use, and in 10-15 years those devices will be fast enough for all of us to do almost everything on them. And those devices work much better (actually every device works much better) with a closed App Store due to much less App issues compared to an open market. I can't remember how many times my parents managed to "break" their apps on their mac and call me and fix it for them on the phone. They can't do the same on an iPad as easily. That's the whole idea of a closed system and closed App store. Which is what it should be in the first place.
PC's aren't actually personal computers. PC's have been designed by engineers, for engineers. So the people who use PC's with zero issues, and solve all their problems themselves are almost as technically proficient as engineers at the moment. And they don't want this to be so. They want every day idiots (I don't like calling my own parents idiots, but when it comes to computers, they are), be able to use these things without any issues. And that's gonna happen with this new paradigm.
Cloud computing is gonna be huge in 15 years or so. After some point we won't have CPU's at all, all the computation will be done in cloud and we'll just have inputs at home, like a keyboard and mouse or touch, and a screen. Many things will change, and the closed app store will be the least of your worries by then.
true777
Sep 29, 12:42 AM
Man, that is a crummy little house by Silicon Valley standards if I ever saw one. I live in the neighboring town (Portola Valley), which is essentially the same as Woodside, and hence know many homes in the area (including the one I live in). And by current standards around here, not having a private bathroom for EACH bedroom, and a LARGE closet, is pretty substandard. Also, to only have *1* walk-in in the master rather than 2 is not good. No home theater? Large gym with panoramic views? Sauna/steam room/? Sun room? Library? Detached guest suite or guest house (in-law/nanny quarters, etc.)? Swimming pool? Hot tub? This honestly doesn't look like a place where a man of his caliber would be living full-time. Of course his house in Palo Alto isn't huge, either, but at least it is charming, historic, enchanted.
He has a number of kids, so I'm not sure how they would all fit into this small space with their friends when, e.g., everyone comes home for summers, holidays, etc. Typical houses for higher level people in the Woodside area would have at least 6-7 bedrooms, a bathroom for each bedroom, plus several additional half bathrooms, and probably about 10,000 squ. ft.
Only thing that makes sense to me is that he would view this as his retirement house since it'll only be done ~5 years, anyway. And I suppose for retirement people like to keep it small and simple. That would make sense to me and might hint at when he might be planning on retiring.
He has a number of kids, so I'm not sure how they would all fit into this small space with their friends when, e.g., everyone comes home for summers, holidays, etc. Typical houses for higher level people in the Woodside area would have at least 6-7 bedrooms, a bathroom for each bedroom, plus several additional half bathrooms, and probably about 10,000 squ. ft.
Only thing that makes sense to me is that he would view this as his retirement house since it'll only be done ~5 years, anyway. And I suppose for retirement people like to keep it small and simple. That would make sense to me and might hint at when he might be planning on retiring.
Ommid
Apr 25, 01:19 PM
ok, thought it was
mcorf
Apr 10, 01:08 PM
I went to pick up my ipad yesterday(which I reordered) and asked if they had any more for sale. They said they had a lot of the verizon 3G(which I didn't want anyway), but were not allowed to sell them. I asked why and they said because of what happened at some of there other stores, but wouldn't tell me what.
grmatt
Apr 6, 07:39 AM
This is possibly the dumbest thing Apple has ever done.
I can't WAIT to go browsing though this list of stupid banner ads! I wonder if I can collect them all???!!! I LOVE pop up windows in my browser and I've always wanted to be able to view them at anytime, without having to go to annoying websites just to get each one to load. Now I can have a crap ton of banner ads right at my fingertips!!! THANKS APPLE!!!
I hope they release a pro version of this app for the Mac OS!! Maybe they will incorporate a version inside the mail program that allows me to see ads for VIAGRA and STOCK OPPORTUNITIES IN AFRICA in cover flow!!!
Hmmm... I must've missed the part where you are forced to download the app...
I can't WAIT to go browsing though this list of stupid banner ads! I wonder if I can collect them all???!!! I LOVE pop up windows in my browser and I've always wanted to be able to view them at anytime, without having to go to annoying websites just to get each one to load. Now I can have a crap ton of banner ads right at my fingertips!!! THANKS APPLE!!!
I hope they release a pro version of this app for the Mac OS!! Maybe they will incorporate a version inside the mail program that allows me to see ads for VIAGRA and STOCK OPPORTUNITIES IN AFRICA in cover flow!!!
Hmmm... I must've missed the part where you are forced to download the app...
prady16
Sep 12, 08:28 AM
damn..
since they haven't take down apple store for update, does that mean no new product? just new service? i'm waiting for a MB/MBP update
If not today, we could see an MB/MBP update sometime after Sep 16th when the free ipod nano promo expires. That's my best guess, but even i am hoping desperately for the update to happen today!
since they haven't take down apple store for update, does that mean no new product? just new service? i'm waiting for a MB/MBP update
If not today, we could see an MB/MBP update sometime after Sep 16th when the free ipod nano promo expires. That's my best guess, but even i am hoping desperately for the update to happen today!
SavMan
Oct 11, 08:11 PM
For the last time, folks...
THE MATERIALS ON THE 5G iPOD ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THOSE ON THE 4G!
The main differences are the addition of black underlay on one model, and the change to squared edges from rounded. The top layer of acrylic on an iPod is clear, and like any clear solid, will shunt light along it. Ever look at fiber-optic cable? Notice this: if you shine a light at the terminal of the cable (the leading edge of the fibers) they will duct light to the other end. You won't see the light from the sides, nor will shining a light at the side of the cable cause light to be refracted through the cable ends.
What happens on the new iPods that didn't happen on the old ones is that a large amount of light is coming through the flat edges of the acrylic. When your iPod is shiny and new (or if you're smart enough to put a modicum of protection on your $250�$400 appliance) light just shunts from one side of the iPod to the other. When you start making scratches in the acrylic however, the light escapes through the new "edge" (the gouge), effectively illuminating the otherwise innocuous scratch. This is also why the black iPods seem more affected than the white: the contrast is obviously higher against a black background.
Another huge issue: most iPod users prior to this year owned the nearly scratch-proof iPod mini. The contrast between the anodized aluminum's resilience and the acrylic's proclivity to mar caused a lot more people to bitch. A lot of nanos were sold to folks who assumed they could just toss it in their pocket next to their coins and keys.
To recap: there were no material changes in the acrylic used on the new iPods. Period. The only difference is the manner in which the acrylic is shaped. The round sides of the old iPods didn't allow light to enter the skin to any significant degree. Check out a 4G sometime, God knows I see enough on a daily basis myself. They'll be every bit as scratched (usually more), but it won't effect the appearance nearly as much. Thank you.
(I wish I had a "The More You Know" image right here.)
THE MATERIALS ON THE 5G iPOD ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THOSE ON THE 4G!
The main differences are the addition of black underlay on one model, and the change to squared edges from rounded. The top layer of acrylic on an iPod is clear, and like any clear solid, will shunt light along it. Ever look at fiber-optic cable? Notice this: if you shine a light at the terminal of the cable (the leading edge of the fibers) they will duct light to the other end. You won't see the light from the sides, nor will shining a light at the side of the cable cause light to be refracted through the cable ends.
What happens on the new iPods that didn't happen on the old ones is that a large amount of light is coming through the flat edges of the acrylic. When your iPod is shiny and new (or if you're smart enough to put a modicum of protection on your $250�$400 appliance) light just shunts from one side of the iPod to the other. When you start making scratches in the acrylic however, the light escapes through the new "edge" (the gouge), effectively illuminating the otherwise innocuous scratch. This is also why the black iPods seem more affected than the white: the contrast is obviously higher against a black background.
Another huge issue: most iPod users prior to this year owned the nearly scratch-proof iPod mini. The contrast between the anodized aluminum's resilience and the acrylic's proclivity to mar caused a lot more people to bitch. A lot of nanos were sold to folks who assumed they could just toss it in their pocket next to their coins and keys.
To recap: there were no material changes in the acrylic used on the new iPods. Period. The only difference is the manner in which the acrylic is shaped. The round sides of the old iPods didn't allow light to enter the skin to any significant degree. Check out a 4G sometime, God knows I see enough on a daily basis myself. They'll be every bit as scratched (usually more), but it won't effect the appearance nearly as much. Thank you.
(I wish I had a "The More You Know" image right here.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment