A touchscreen is capable of displaying a keyboard, so yes, it can be a keyboard.
And thanks for answering my question, idiot.
Ah, so no argument then. I thought so.
Or, if we're going by your logic, the iPhone wins because it's the lightest. I mean, it can display a keyboard on the screen too so it counts.
How is it a clear criminal offence?
The law that the original article tried to "gotcha" her with went into effect years after she left office.
As far as can be determined there's no "clear" criminal offence here, unless the law is applied retroactively, in which case she's not the only secretary of state who is apparently subject to a law that wasn't in effect at the time of their "crime".
Think you got your logic flipped there, mate.
Leaving aside the playground-quality insult skills (given the low UID did you borrow your dad's
It's one of the funniest things I've read all week.
I see you didn't actually address the point. Consumer Electronics are a different market segment from luxury jewellery for the reasons I implied. Apple is about to learn this the hard way.
I find that when certain keywords like "iToy", "fanbois", "sheeple", "Crapple" and so on are in the post, addressing the point with factual rebuttals tends to be futile.
That train has already sailed.
For the record on this one, the idea that there will be a thriving industry for the repair of niche mechanical timepieces in 100 years but not one for niche electronics is not a point that can be easily answered, but a decade from now? Are you kidding?
1.76 lbs. The touchscreen is part of the computer, hence it is already attached.
Are you trying to move goalposts or are you just an idiot?
How am I moving the goalposts by asking about the keyboard?
A touchscreen is not a keyboard.
A keyboard is a device with physical keys that you press. A touchscreen is a touch-sensitive layer over the top of a physical screen.
How does this make me an idiot? I'm struggling here. Please help me out "n00b".
Also, you forgot to log in again.
It isn't a good idea to completely deplete a lithium-ion battery on a regular basis. Keeping its charge above 25% makes makes an 18-hour battery a 13.5-hour battery, which means it must be charged 1.8 times a day, unless you charge it overnight while you sleep.
Still, its battery life is a step back from conventional watches. If you're going to invent a new mousetrap, you should try to make it at least as good as the old one in every way--no regressions.
You don't think Apple are quoting the usable life of the battery?
That buffer zone is already included in the battery's charge controller. When it says "0%" it isn't really at 0%.
And this can be done by any number of watchmakers who have been plying their trade for over 100 years, and will still be doing so in another 100. Good luck getting parts for your iToy in even 10 years time...
Goodness, the hate is strong in this one.
Let it flow through you. It makes you stronger.
Seriously, you're going with that as an argument?
It's as if you think technology exists in some separate reality from... well, anything that allows you to make a case against Apple, I guess.
Microsoft Surface Pro 3. 1.76 lbs, 9.1 mm.
Pwned, n00b.
What does it weigh with a keyboard attached, "n00b"?
Am I doing this right?
almost any netbook, on top of that you can get um for under half the cost of this
next?
Citation needed.
Let's see the links.
You posted this same exact troll cut and paste in the same thread to another poster.
Man, the haters are getting lazy.
You could at least remember to log in. It's one extra checkbox after you hit control+v.
You have no idea how bills are passed, do you?
It really shows.
The temperature last June was -135.4 degrees below 0. Laugh at that. Its just
That was in the year 2000. 15 years later with winters colder than ever we see that his "science" was wrong. The number of people freezing to death has not gone down. The number of snowfalls in Florida has not gone down (it snowed there in January). Now if you still believe in whack-jobs who are doing politics and not science then just keep supporting them and not requiring to disclose where they came across this new-found alien science that no one knows about but the Environmental Quacks and no one can see but them. That is how we wind up with anti-vaxxers and the zealots behind the GMO hysteria.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present the clearest demonstration of the anti-climate-change camp's lack of understanding about the difference between weather and climate and the total lack of understanding of the concept of an average.
Also interesting to note here that according to Slashdot, it's official that Safari is more notable than Chrome.
Must be market share or something.
And to warp up, what makes money from the fossil fuel industry so dirty when its tied to papers that disagree with AGW but clean as white snow when its given to the AGW camp side? Because I'm sure you know that there is just as much, if not more money given by big energy to the AGW camp, from Shell, to Exxon, Koch and others.
I know - I mentioned this specifically earlier in the comments.
I have been funded by exactly that sort of money, in fact, in past research, although I am currently funded via a large general programme grant.
You're inferring that I think "oil money" is dirty. All I'm saying is that not disclosing your funding source *regardless of what your science says* is suspect.
He worked, as did his co-authors, on this paper on his own time.
As was disclosed.
Given the nature of the material in it, that is a very convenient dodge, and is certainly an unusual way to go about it.
There's obviously nothing wrong with that (assuming that your other funding sources can pay your bills), but it's not typical. Whether it is suspicious or not, it looks suspicious.
UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker
