That's exactly what I told my calculus prof.

Paradoxically, that would require a miracle.

Because it's an easy intellectual compromise to make.

It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden ...oh wait, it IS the fall that kills you.

You paid for it knowing the OS limitations imposed on it by the manufacturer. They never tried to fool you into thinking it was an open platform. I don't see how this could be, in any way, considered to be "abusive" behavior.

So it didn't do video over Micro USB then.

GP was the one who called it a "diamond" rather than a D-pad or cross. As another poster pointed out, he may have been commenting on the layout of the A, B, X, Y buttons. If that's the case, then I misunderstood him, but nobody calls the buttons a "diamond", either.

The Colecovision did NOT have a flat D-pad style controller... it had a joystick. Get educated before trying to get smart.

Yeah, because communication wasn't invented until the internet. We just sat around with tape on our mouths with no means to express our opinions.

There was a console before the SNES called the NES. People didn't immediately jump on it because 1) it was released just after the massive video game crash of '83 and 2) nobody had heard of Mario before ("You mean that dude from Donkey Kong had a name?") 3) it was expensive and came with a stupid robot and 4) it had a weird control pad instead of a joystick.

Look it up sometime when you aren't too busy spouting off your ignorance to everyone.

When people first saw the diamond on the NES control pad, they said "The controller design is awful. Why the fuck would you get rid of the traditional joystick?"

I personally have mixed feelings about the controller, but I'm at least willing to wait to give it a try before passing judgement on it.

The max iOS that the original iPad can run is iOS 5.1.1, so he must be talking about a later model. That being said, I downgraded my iPhone 5 to 6.1.4 after playing around with iOS 7, so you're comment is wrong regardless.

You are making the assertion that these gear-like structures are proof of a creator, so how do you differentiate between living structures that are created and living structures that evolved? These particular structures are proof? How so? How do you define complexity and what order of complexity is the threshold for what could have evolved and what you assert must have been created?

In order for this to be accepted as proof by anyone other than yourself and your cult, you need to provide detail and methodology that can be used to complete testable research. Until then, it's nothing more than your assertion that somehow you are capable of looking at morphological structures and making the determination as to what had to be created by the finger of god and what is "too simple" to have required divine intervention.

Again, how do you tell the difference between a living structure that was designed and one that evolved?

My Xtremes begin with an X, you lightweight...

"Why do people keep spouting this nonsense?"

Because it's easier to repeat a lie than to accept the truth...

Wait... you mean this isn't the only shark in the ocean? Someone should tell the researchers!

Think of all the disasters that the research team averted by alerting authorities that a shark was close to the shore! It would have been a blood bath for sure!