I've not over years of use, I guess it's that weak-ass Gorilla Glass 2 the original post was wishing for. Hopefully Apple ditched them if you can simply scratch it with keys.
I've kept a number of different iPhones in pockets with keys for years, zero scratches. I've not seen an iPhone screen witch scratches (cracks if it's dropped, yes, but not scratches).
Also, they HAVE used Gorilla Glass. In fact I'd imagine the newer ones ALSO use Gorilla Glass, they just aren't saying that (which they did not in the past also).
We should have the morality to stand on our own, not rely on the authority of others.
I dont think you are aware of the irony of your statement
What's wrong with saying 'I don't know?' Demanding that atheists know how the Universe came to be seems just as wrong as demanding that you explain how God came to be. Except that the atheists can at least claim to have at least some evidence that the Universe exists (even if it could all be false), so they can at least start their search for an answer with relatively solid footing.
If you are in a normal discussion as to how something knowable works but of which you have no knowledge, saying "I don't know," would be quite reasonable. Unfortunately, quite a few of the "true believers" seem to take someone saying, "I don't know," in this context as an invitation to be "educated" with their particular mystical explanation. So, unless you want to hear the current mystical explanation, just say the scientific explanation works well enough for you and let them expend their energies attacking that. It's usually much more entertaining than the lesson you get with "I don't know."
Maybe, "I'm OK with not knowing," would work better than "I don't know." Trying to convey that you're more comfortable with a blank slate than one that is filled with mystical gobbledy-gook is hard to get across to those who embrace the mystical gobbledy-gook.
Cheers,
Dave
to a well regulated militia.
Ahh yes the ol "regulated" argument
you are aware that "well regulated" at the time written simply meant "working weapons" right? I mean all you have to do is think about it logically and you would understand it does not mean regulated as we use the word today.
the second amendment was written as a way to protect us FROM the federal government. As such, why would we need to be regulated by the same people the amendment is supposed to give us the option of protecting ourselves from said federal government?? Its simply not logical on top of the fact that it doesnt mean what you think it means.
most of this problem is the NRA. the NRA targeted the first safe-gun and wiped it from stores everywhere. they spun uncited rhetoric about the unreliabiltiy or the technology and pounded the communism/fascism fear, uncertainty, and doubt into the public that a biometric or safer firearm was simply another cobblestone in the road to hitler/stalin/mao.
No we can blame places likeNJ who have laws on the books that bans all existing weapons as soon as one of these smart guns becomes mainstream. If it were not for laws like that, the NRA would not have to go out of their way to point out the flaws. Im no fan of the NRA as a whole, pulled my membership years ago, but the problem is with the government, not the NRA
The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin