You *do* know IOS has a search, right? Makes it kind of difficult to fail to find an app you're actually looking for.

As for the rest, different strokes, etc. I have no objection if you choose not to use such a feature (for that matter, perhaps the OS could contain a switch to turn it off for those who are unable to manage more than a single level of folders.

As for not being useful, you're not qualified to say what's useful to me.

Would you care to explain how, or point the way to a howto?

Thanks.

Missed this, sorry:

Perhaps they have never even thought about the topic at all (no thoughts == no knowledge). Nor do they form their identity through comparison with others.

These are not the issue, though. If they hold a belief in a god or gods, they are theist. If they don't, they are atheist. You can change from one to the other, in fact many times, but at any point in time, you *are* one or the other.

That's all the theism / atheism issue addresses. Belief in a god or gods -- or not. Has nothing to do with why, how, which or one's idea of identity. It's a state of being, like being alive, or not, or being able to hear, or not.

Is there a difference between knowledge and belief

Yes. Always.

Knowledge is based, either directly or through a proxy, upon known facts that are some combination of repeatable, consensually experiential, and testable. Sound travels at a particular speed in our atmosphere. This is knowledge.

Beliefs are based upon faith, and cannot be proven, although they can be described and so passed along. Animals cross the rainbow bridge when they die. This is belief.

Either one can be mischaracterized as the other, but examining the issue at hand for the required elements of knowledge will very quickly determine just what it is you're dealing with. Likewise, conviction isn't the issue.

The thing to remember is that just because you have an idea in your head, that doesn't qualify it as knowledge.

My palm TX sees your blackberry and drops the bar several inches all at once. :)

Did they enable nested folders yet? The current single level folders are limiting and create unnecessary clutter.

For instance, it'd be nice to have one games folder, inside which might be a folder for board games, one for shooters, one for tower defense, etc.

One that would be of interest to me would be arranged around photography. One main folder, then one for editors, one for astrophoto conditions and apps, one for auroral conditions and apps, one for IR work, one for special effects, etc., one for a DB of my lenses and cameras, one with my portfolio, one with links to photography websites, etc.

Folders within folders is a very natural way to arrange things in a hierarchy; I have never understood Apple's resistance to giving its customers tools they can use to make using IOS easier. In the case of nested folders, you don't *have* to use the feature if you don't want to, anyway... but if you need it, you probably *really* need it.

So here's hoping.

[...] it's very likely it was a computer generated image and not even a photograph to begin with.

QFT. A friend of mine is a graphic artist who does, among other things, product catalog illustrations. It's standard practice for him to create a 3D computer model and render a photorealistic version of *that* instead of actually photographing the product. The time it takes him to create and texture the model is nothing compared to the time to set up lighting and everything for a photoshoot. That's especially true when you consider the time for retakes because the marketing manager decides the image would look better with the product rotated another 3 degrees counter-clockwise.

I'd be surprised if the close-up pictures of any new product were actually photographs. Model it, then churn out renders from any angle with any lighting effects you want. Yes, even an angle that manages to hide an embarrassing bulge here and there. It's nothing that hasn't been done by marketeers ever since... well, ever since advertising, really.

When you select the link in the text "tool to make it possible to remove the album from your iTunes library in a single step." wouldn't you expect to see an article about the tool and actually have a link to the tool?

I clicked the link and got a Philadelphia NBC affiliate site. The article is titled "Apple Releases Tool to Remove Free U2 Album", so I'm definitely seeing an article about the tool. Within the article, in the first and last paragraphs, are links to the tool.

So what the hell are you bitching about?

Let's flash back 20 years...

Ok... 20 years ago? I got an AOL CD in the mail about once a week, and it went straight into the trash. I was also signed up to Columbia house 11-cds-for-a-penny-deals and routinely got their unsolicited discs because i wasn't always great about sending in the go-away postcards.

The AOL disks went in the trash, the Columbia house discs, if they weren't explicitly ordered were returned to sender. And the stuff I actually ordered, naturally I kept.

If I'd had a maid, that's what she'd have been instructed to do with any CDs that arrived in the mail too. Assuming she wouldn't be able to tell unsolicited from solicited purchases, she'd have been instructed to set them aside.

Apparently if this had been your house, once a week the maid would have dutifully installed a new 30 day impossible to cancel AOL trial on your laptop for you, and once a month you would have found unbelievably crappy CDs on your rack coupled with collection notices from columbia house (or maybe your maid just paid those for you to)?

No... 20 years ago, the maid would definitely not have put anything that just showed up at the house away like you seem to think.

I guess a better example would be the nearly exclusively Catholic IRA fighting against a protestestant majority. Bombings, torture, murder, rape... yep all present. Sympathetic Catholics in other countries providing them support, aid, even joining them, etc... yep that happened too.

Didn't get as bad as Iraq/Afghanistan mind you, but that's not on the merits of Islam vs Catholicism, that simply because the UK was never a failed state the way Iraq and Afghanistan have been. The UK even at its "worst", still overall had very well functioning national and regional governments, military, and police forces. Its impoverished were still "first world poor" not "3rd world poor". Had a 3rd party, primarily interested its its own exploitative resource extraction concerns toppled the UK government and bombed out the nations infrastructure, creating widespread issues and a power vacuum; had it been reduced to 3rd world poverty levels -- is it really unreasonable to imagine things getting a whole lot uglier?

My point is its not "Islam". Its just "people". That we have a problem with Muslim terrorism right now, is simply some people who happen to be muslim have been oppressed and driven to terrorism to fight back. If Afghanistan had been predominantly westboro baptist... we'd have westboro baptist terrorist groups causing problems right now. Its really that simple.

You can interpret it that way. That's not the only way to interpret it.

You took a structure like:

"You aren't allowed to prepare, eat, or serve sticky or messy foods while sitting in the car. Some examples of prohibited foods include donuts, chocolate fondue, ."

And then claimed that it said you aren't allowed to ever eat donuts.

Its plainly wrong.

Except in reality for every player that plays regularly and shows up to practice daily, there are 10 players that drop in once in a while. Lets say the local league has 110 players in it. 10 guys that are obsessive about showing up, and 100 that drop in once a week or so to a game or practice.

Which pool is the "average" player? Is it the 100? or the 10? I'd say common sense is going to put the average a lot nearer the mean ability of the 100 than of the 10.

At any given match, 15 people will show up from the regular once a week pool. But at least 9 of the 10 obsessives will be there. And those 9 players will dominate the match.

Your argument speculates that 'hard core players' somehow outnumber 'casuals', and that the hard-core therefore ARE the average, and that's incorrect. The casuals out number the hard core players 10 to 1. But it doesn't matter, the hardcores are still there dominating every match.

Whether gun owners are responsible or not (my observation is that most are, and there's a few that scare me) is irrelevant to the "smart gun" debate.

Of the collection of gun owners that are not responsible one of the ways that irresponsibility manifests is leaving loaded guns lying around the house where kids find them and play with them. Quite a few kids are injured and killed this way.

"smart guns" could help with that group, and prevent those injuries and deaths, amongst other scenarios.

But the clear straightforward text is: proxies are listed on the list of things you are specifically not allowed to use or run

No.

The clear straightforward text is: proxies are listed on the list of things you are specifically not allowed to use or run on your premises for the use of people off your premises

You could do the lawyer thing and claim to interpret it the way you say.

  That's not a lawyer thing, that's a basic reading comprehension thing.

I parsed the sentence and I showed you how I parsed it, so that if you disagreed with me you could point to the exact point you disagree with. If you feel there was an error in the parse, point at it.