Best advice for those wanting iPad
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Ray Fischer on 22 Apr 2010 22:46 Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >news:4bd07c5a$0$1618$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>>> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message >>>>>> Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>>>>>>"sobriquet" <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> On 20 apr, 23:22, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2010-04-20 10:29:18 -0700, sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> said: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > Laws of physics are a mere figment of our lively imagination. >>>>>>>>> > Reality >>>>>>>>> > is under no obligation to live up to our expectations, however >>>>>>>>> > entrenched. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Your lack of credibility has been fully confirmed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is a first for this NG, a failed product of the Dutch special >>>>>>>>> education system, with a graphic sense of entitlement, and an >>>>>>>>> overestimate of his abilities. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You have certainly dismissed reality from your World. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You probably have never watched a philosophy of science course, or >>>>>>>> you'd >>>>>>>> realize that science can only provide a provisional conceptual >>>>>>>> framework >>>>>>>> to interpret and explain observations. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=4100 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Absolutely wrong. Theoretical scientists quite often develop concepts >>>>>>>that >>>>>>>are only later confirmed by observations. One recent example is >>>>>>>Einstein's >>>>>>>theory of relativity. >>>>>> >>>>>> And another is Newton's theories on gravitation. >>>>> >>>>>Newton's motion theory of gravitation has been controvertated. >>>> >>>> Not for several hundred years. Why do you think that Einstein is >>>> finally correct? >>> >>>Please look up the meaning of the word: "controverted." >> >> You didn't answer the question. >> >>>Does the peer reviewed article really say Einstein was correct? >> >> Non sequitur. >> >>>And what does the period of time have to do with my point. >> >> You're not too quick, are you? >> >>>>> According to >>>>>Einstein what we call gravity is caused by a curvature in space. In >>>>>turn, >>>>>Einstein's theory may very well be disproved by the theory of Quantum >>>>>Gravity. >>>> >>>> So laws of physics are really just human creations. They are not >>>> reality. >>> >>>Huh! >> >> Gesundheit. >> >>>I realize this is to complicated for you. Sorry. >> >> I can spot bullshitting like yours from a long way off. You don't >> actually say anything at all because you really don't have any >> response. > >I refuse to get into a pissing contest. Too late. > You obviously have not supported >your argument. You've obviously realized that you don't have the brains and so you're going to declare victory and run away. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Peter on 21 Apr 2010 08:48 "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message news:4bce6dbe$0$1601$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>"sobriquet" <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>news:d5194c4a-9bfe-45ac-8c01-e39622febbab(a)r1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >>> On 20 apr, 23:22, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >>>> On 2010-04-20 10:29:18 -0700, sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> said: > >>>> > Laws of physics are a mere figment of our lively imagination. Reality >>>> > is under no obligation to live up to our expectations, however >>>> > entrenched. >>>> >>>> Your lack of credibility has been fully confirmed. >>>> >>>> This is a first for this NG, a failed product of the Dutch special >>>> education system, with a graphic sense of entitlement, and an >>>> overestimate of his abilities. >>>> >>>> You have certainly dismissed reality from your World. >>> >>> You probably have never watched a philosophy of science course, or >>> you'd >>> realize that science can only provide a provisional conceptual >>> framework >>> to interpret and explain observations. >>> >>> http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=4100 >> >>Absolutely wrong. Theoretical scientists quite often develop concepts that >>are only later confirmed by observations. One recent example is Einstein's >>theory of relativity. > > And another is Newton's theories on gravitation. > Newton's motion theory of gravitation has been controvertated. According to Einstein what we call gravity is caused by a curvature in space. In turn, Einstein's theory may very well be disproved by the theory of Quantum Gravity. http://www-scf.usc.edu/~kallos/gravity.htm BTW if you really think this is too complicated, why do you make positive statements, instead of asking? -- Peter
From: Savageduck on 21 Apr 2010 18:53 On 2010-04-08 16:09:40 -0700, RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> said: > Wait for HP to release its version. No USB port Apple? Are you THAT > paranoid about content control?? New Yorker's Least common complaints about the new iPad; http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2010/04/26/100426ta_talk_kimball MacWorld suggests adding; It 's really just a small 27-inch iMac No front facing food processor Too much multi-tasking No support for Internet Explorer 8 Remains waaay too cool after hours of intense usage. Lousy at curing, or preventing acne. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: George Kerby on 21 Apr 2010 20:39 On 4/21/10 5:53 PM, in article 2010042115533351501-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > On 2010-04-08 16:09:40 -0700, RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> said: > >> Wait for HP to release its version. No USB port Apple? Are you THAT >> paranoid about content control?? > > Lousy at curing, or preventing acne. > Next model will have built-in UV. That also helps with the tanning, but the battery life is another thing.
From: whisky-dave on 27 Apr 2010 08:41
"Allen" <allent(a)austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:0YudnZcGOc3_X1DWnZ2dnUVZ_rwAAAAA(a)giganews.com... > whisky-dave wrote: >> "Alan LeHun" <try(a)reply.to> wrote in message >> news:MPG.2636697fa8d00f879897d3(a)news.x-privat.org... >>> In article <hqhk2p$qum$1(a)qmul>, whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear says... >>>> There's little proof that the human brain can mulititask, what is does >>>> is >>>> ignore whatever other inmut is present, it's more time slicing than >>>> multitasking. >>>> >>>> >>> There is plenty proof that the human brain can multi-task on two tasks. >>> This is due in no small part to the fact that our brain is in fact a >>> pair of brains. >> >> No, that's still time slicing. >> One of the basic laws of physics is that two things can not occur at the >> same instance in time. >> One of the reasons you have a clock frequency in electronic devices is to >> make sure everything >> has it's own time slot and is 'clocked properly. >> >> In the human world magicians use this 'trick' as the human eye can not >> see >> everything at the same time i.e it can;t multitask, humans can't >> multitask. >> They just think they can because they aren't clever enough to realise >> they can't. >> >> >> > You mean no one can ride a bicycle and chew gum at the same time? > Allen They can certainly think they can and attempt it like some do with mobile phones and driving, but when people walking into you because they are talking on their mobile and can;t walk and talk at the same time it makes me wonder whether it is truly possible to chew gum and walk at the same time. perhaps they chew then look where they are going and then chew again. You know like some people look at the road while driving while others can look at the dials/radio or anything else that takes their fancy. Why do people crash in these situations if tehy can do two things at the same time ? |