Y2HH

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 01:49 PM) Maybe it fits but it looks strange and probably feels strange. Those giant phones are about the size of Ti-85's now. You can walk around with one of those kindles in your pocket, too. But would you want too? They're NOT designed for that, whether people do it anyway or not.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 01:26 PM) Some people have seriously small hands... My hands aren't big (I'd call them average), but I can text on my Galaxy Nexus just fine with one hand. In fact, I did it yesterday while riding on my bike. Just like your phone ran perfectly smoothly, too...before project butter and without Cyanogen. One handed texting isn't easy on an iPhone, which is far better designed for it than a Nexus...yet for some reason, it's easy for you on a 4.65" screen. Nobody is saying you "can't" use these huge devices with one hand...they're saying you can't do so easily...and you can't. I can type with one hand on a qwerty keyboard, too. But it wasn't designed for that, either.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 12:34 PM) To be fair, my phone sits on my computer plugged into the USB charger while I'm at work. But I honestly don't notice it when I'm out-and-about. How often are you consciously aware of your wallet in your pocket, or your car keys? My clothes aren't baggy, either. Always. Or I'd be in a state of panic 100% of the time.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 12:31 PM) Well, current fashion trends have men wearing much more form-fitting pants than in past years. Maybe you're just unfashionable. Also this. Baggy clothing isn't very modern...unless you're in a gang, anyway.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 11:51 AM) Any minute now you'll receive responses to this that it fits fine in your pocket. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 12:29 PM) Maybe you guys just have small hands and pockets. I never notice my Droid X2 in my pocket. I told you. Yes, you do notice your droid x2 in your pocket...whether you want to admit it or not. I notice my iPhone in my pocket and it's way smaller than your droid x2...so to claim you don't notice it's there is an outright lie...otherwise you'd be looking to see if you lost your phone every 3 seconds. The issue isn't whether you notice it or not...it's how much you notice it. And if you work in any sort of profession where you cant wear baggy shorts/carpenter jeans to work everyday, you'd sure as hell notice it.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 12:03 PM) Yep, how can I protect myself against a govt with nukes, unless I have a nuke? You can't even if you have a nuke.

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 11:52 AM) High school is bad for everyone. It's worse for gay kids. That's probably not going to change anytime soon. It's also bad to be fat, ugly, short, poor, black, hispanic. I also associate with dozens of gay people that I like but don't really consider more than about 5-7 people true "friends." I'm really sorry that you're friends have been treated that way and I fully support them in their fight. I just think that it's really not as bad as civil rights were for black people. I'm not saying it's not horrible but that s*** was super violent and I think the hate was more on the surface. I wasn't there so I guess I wouldn't know. We're moving in the right direction and I hope it continues. Too bad most kids these days are fat.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 11:40 AM) Scalia has an interesting take on the 2nd amendment. While recognizing some limits imposed by the phrase "keep and bear arms," such as restricting the right to hand-carried weapons only (somehow?), and also noting that the founders clearly believed in other restrictions such as on head axes, he believes that things like surface-to-air missiles may be protected by the 2nd amendment. This represents an obvious deficiency in his jurisprudence to me. If your Originalism leads you to the conclusion that restrictions on certain types of axes are ok but restrictions on rocket launchers might not be, you should probably re-evaluate your philosophy. The interpretation of this law has to coincide with the times...often it does not. In modern times, air-superiority is a reality...and those civilians on the ground "should" be afforded the right to some sort of self defense mechanism against this. The idea behind this amendment is the people could conceivably defend themselves from a government run astray. In current times, that would necessitate the need to keep and bare arms that include SAM's...otherwise how would you defend yourself against a military that would clearly have air superiority?

QUOTE (BigEdWalsh @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 11:25 AM) I love that area and the Badlands are awesome too. Stopped there, too...but like I said, this was probably my fourth time in the area...I love that area. RMNP is also a nice area. All of our national parks/forests are excellent. I wish they had more funding, however.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 11:01 AM) Right, I like how fast EVO is and would love to try it out, but I don't want a palm pilot in my pocket all day. Same with the windows phone. It's fine if you have a purse, but, I have only pockets. Any minute now you'll receive responses to this that it fits fine in your pocket. I've had one in my pocket...does it fit? Yes. Does it fit comfortably where you can sit/kneel/stand, without having to move or adjust it? No. It's flat out uncomfortable unless you're wearing 2 gallon pockets. Personally, I find the iPhone a little small...but I do not want it to be much larger than it is. I'd be fine with 4.0". I've handled plenty of 4.5" inch Android phones and I have no interest in a phone that large.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 09:53 AM) No shame in tending bar while you keep trying, either. If you're an exceptional bar tender, and you can get a position at a nice posh restaurant...you can make some pretty damn good money.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 09:52 AM) By virtually any standard of evidence that we adopt, the impacts are already here. We're already paying for them. And when this science can set the doomsday date, with definitive evidence, perhaps those in denial will begin to listen, mostly because this is what sounding doomsday alarms does to people. But right now, sounding alarm bells and screaming the world is going to end...only we aren't sure when...or if it will actually end...is equal to crying wolf over and over again. Eventually, people will start ignoring you or looking for ways to tell you to take a one way train to shuttie-town. It's all in the approach, and from the get go in regard to this subject, the AGW crowd took a poor approach in getting peoples attention by crying wolf too soon...and too often. If you launch a rocket up into the stratosphere, an exact calculation can be done telling you exactly when it will hit the ground. Back before we understood gravity, etc...all we could do is say...hey, that rocket might come back down! I bet back then, there were people that denied it just the same.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 09:28 AM) tl;dr WSJ editorial pages are terrible on many subjects and I reserve the right to mock them Perhaps that's because they're editorials in a financial newspaper, not published peer review studies in scientific magazines/newspapers or journals?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 09:28 AM) That was more a shot at their terribly hacking article from January that we discussed here which had a companion piece in the Daily Mail that denied that the planet is even warming (there's more links to people taking apart that editorial in follow-up comments): But as Balta explained back then and then recently, the facts are speaking for themselves, and they're overwhelming clear that CO2 is a driver and that anthropological sources of CO2 are the main driver of current warming. As more data is collected, vetted, and mined, we find more and more support for AGW. Yet we do not see any evidence of this reflected in mainstream discussions of the topics. As was noted back in January, the WSJ was eager to publish an editorial full of oft-refuted arguments by denialists but rejected an article signed by hundreds of scientists at NAS. I was specifically condescending towards the WSJ's editorial pages because they're replete with terrible arguments on all sorts of subjects, not just AGW. As you said, it's important to be open-minded and to accept what the evidence shows you. That was the the point of Balta's post! The BEST study group started out as a bunch of skeptics but in the end have been overwhelmingly convinced that AGW is very real and very much a threat. But we don't see that acknowledged by the WSJ or guys like Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That, leading denialist blog); hell, Watts was all gung-ho about BEST until their results came up, and then he backpedaled like crazy. I honestly see little difference between the denialist movement and creationism, which is why I'm skeptical(!) that letting the facts speak for themselves will ever convince those who simply refuse to accept reality. First, we do see this being discussed in mainstream sources or we wouldn't be discussing it right now. It's clear that CO2 is *a* driver...but it's not the only driver. There is a lot more to know about this before people like you continue sounding the alarm bell. Science based on politicized fear is a poor approach to discussion and it's the main driver of the denial you seem to hate. You propagate this attitude in your posts, as do others who continue chanting, "The British are coming!", in regard to AGW, when, in fact...they only *might* be coming, we're pretty sure they're coming...but we aren't positive...yet...and IF they are coming, they'll get here in 75 years when none of us will be alive. This is a piss poor way to convince people of something.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2012 -> 09:28 AM) tl;dr WSJ editorial pages are terrible on many subjects and I reserve the right to mock them We need those that deny it's existence, because they'll fund science to disprove it...they can uncover holes in the evidence which will help correct the path those that are trying to prove it. Both sides are necessary because this has become politicized science. True science goes from the middle...they don't look to prove something without trying to disprove it at the same time (or visa versa)...they simply look for the facts on the subject at hand. Take with a grain of salt any "science" that's looking to do just one or the other...not both at the same time.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 29, 2012 -> 09:38 PM) I'm awaiting the WSJ's next editorial from a random collection of people who doubt AGW. This is the exact attitude I take issue with on this topic. I see no reason to look down on people who doubt mans actual contribution to global warming at the moment, any more than I feel you should look down on those who bought into the science regardless of how little study was done at first. Over time, let the facts speak for themselves. This is the entire point of scientific study. As more data is collected, vetted, and mined...the more we learn. There is nothing wrong with being a doubter/believer so long as you are willing to look at the scientific facts as they unfold over time, and be willing to change that opinion/stance to the direction science continues to point too versus jumping in head first (on either end of the pool) and refusing the swim in whatever direction the scientific study dictates you should. When the Global Warming craze began, I was a doubter in every regard. It reeked of another money making scam. Now, it's about 10 years later, and we know much more (to the magnitude of about 100,000 times more than we did just 10 years ago), and I'm very much less of a doubter. Global Warming (or climate change) is real, then again, it always has been, so this wasn't much of a revelation. How much man has contributed too it is what's in doubt...but to what degree does it remain in doubt is the question? I'm more convinced we've made a contribution too it now than I ever was before, but I'm still not convinced this wouldn't have happend with or without us here. That said, I also don't hold the attitude that my opinion will never change regardless of what facts emerge over time. I see nothing wrong with that opinion, either. What I see wrong is people who believe we are 100% at fault and do exactly what you're doing...with that smug condescending attitude toward anyone that questions anything you happen to agree with.

QUOTE (Yoda @ Jul 29, 2012 -> 12:06 PM) Good post. I've been past benching my own weight and am currently working towards benching 100lbs more than that. I'm at 235lbs and I'm sure this week I will get 240 since I felt pretty good doing the former early last week. There's a bench competition they have in the fall at my gym and am hoping if all goes well (no injuries, fall semester courses, etc) I'll be competing. I asked the athletic director to give me last years results and the year before that (which I was a part of) and it seems like it's the same guy coming out on top. An asian guy coming in at 135lbs and benching 245 so its an automatic that I have to bench at least 100lbs or more my own weight. It's sometimes hard to know what your max bench is without a spotter...so if you tend to work out alone, such as I do, performing maxouts isn't easy. I currently weigh about 162 (IMO, I'm about 10lbs over my target weight), and I can bench over 230...how much over, I don't know...because without a spotter I won't even try. Don't overdo it unless you have a spotter. Just go after small gains, a week at a time.

I just got back from a week in the Black Hills/Custer State Park/Rushmore/Deadwood area. Though this is the fourth time I've been there. It's good to get out on the road once in a while and away from the City life.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 28, 2012 -> 04:52 PM) Apple once thought that everybody preferred small screens. They were clearly wrong. Apples design philosophy on phones is one handed operation, not necessarily that people prefer small screens. There does come a point where a phone is too big for 1 handed operation regardless of what Fandroid users claim. They are merely the mirror equilivant of Apple fanboys that claim Apple has no room for improvement because they're perfect, when they're obviously not. For example, how long have we heard from Android users how smooth their phone experience was...when it really wasnt? To the tune of Google actually launching and highlighting "project butter" in their latest version? If it was already smooth and buttery...such an initiative wouldnt have been necessary, and surely not necessary to highlight as a big deal. It's because it wasn't smooth, and Google knew it regardless of Fandroid claims. And I'm not talking about the tinkerers that run Cyanogen, because that actually WAS fast/smooth as it should have been. I've long held the opinion that the iPhone should've been bumped up to the 4-4.2" range...but not bigger. I actually don't want to have to adjust my hand position in order to reach certain areas of the screen because it's so large.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 28, 2012 -> 04:11 PM) I'm never going back to 3.5 inch screens. Apple even thinks they're outdated, after all, the iPhone 5 is going to have a 4.08 inch screen. Playing catchup. Screen size has nothing to do with playing catchup. Resolution or pixel density might, but not size, that's merely a preference. Some people do not want those monster screens in small portables. I think 4" is a sweet spot, 4.2" is pushing the "jump the shark" area, and anything bigger actually did jump it, that's a tablet, not a pocket portable at that point, only a gimped tablet.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 20, 2012 -> 10:43 AM) Actually, I think people like this want/expect to be killed (many do it themselves) and having to rot in jail for 60 years might be more punishment than getting it over with now. If that was the case, they could quite easily just overdose on any number of drugs. It's not hard to do.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 20, 2012 -> 09:30 AM) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/j..._n_1688776.html What kind of parents take children, let alone infants, to a midnight showing of a movie? IMO, bad ones. That said, even if they did...they shouldn't have to worry about some sick f*** dressed like Bane/SWAT showering them with bullets.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 20, 2012 -> 09:21 AM) I doubt he was actually dressing up as bane. He used some sort of gas, tear or otherwise, and was apparently wearing a gas mask. He also wore a kevlar vest. I'm guessing this had more to do with knowing the theatre would be packed, than anything with the movie. This has worried me for a while, I remember Chechyan rebels had done this in Russia to just terrifying results. The packed crowd + funneled exits, it's just awful. I've been sick for hours after hearing this. It's just a coincidence...but the gas mask/kevlar vest just happens to be very Bane like.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 20, 2012 -> 09:16 AM) Linking a laughably partisan website's interperetation of a laughably shallow political talking head's words about it, yes, is a political post. Just leave that s*** out of it, please, or else make a new thread in the Buster. You knew this was going to eventually break down into a political argument...I don't know why you didn't move it to the buster to begin with...it was inevitable.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jul 20, 2012 -> 09:15 AM) only in america do they use the phrase "quality of food" and chick fil a in the same sentence in an approving manner. Yea, like I said...not true at all. This tells me you need to get out more.