• latest news
  • Car tech
  • Cell phones and smartphones
  • Computers and hardware
  • Digital photo and video
  • Gadgets
  • Gaming
  • Green tech
  • Home theater
  • MP3 and portable video players
  • Televisions
• awards
  • Best of CES
  • People's voice
• video
• photos

About me

My posting summary

1 to 10 of 733

My comments

• So by your logic you were already 1 year old on the day you were born? How old were you during your first year of life?
  
  Did the decade called the "70's" include 1980? Did the "80's" include 1990? Do you say 2000 as part of the "90's"? Because by your twisted logic 1990 was part of the 80's, 1980 was part of the 70's, and everyone was already 1 year old on the day of thier birth.
  
  A decade is simply a measurement of 10 years and has always been done from 0 to 9. Only in the age of the internet, were any moron can pretend to be an expert on everything, could the centuries old and traditional method of designating a decade suddenly be called wrong. Idiots. In reply to: "The decade's 30 biggest tech flops"

  January 1, 2010

  0 replies

• This only get's bumped because certain people feel the need keeping posting comments and re-bumping it. ;) In reply to: "The decade's 30 biggest tech flops"

  December 31, 2009

  0 replies

• The problem with people like you is you somehow think you are smarter then everyone else by nitpicking details as stupid as this. When you have nothing relevent or intelligent to add to a conversation you bring up stupid details like "decades"
  
  Were you 1 year old on the day you were born? NO! Your first birthday marked the end of your first year, not the beginning. The 60's were 1960-1969, the 70's were 1970-1979 and the 80's were 1980-1989. Those were decades. Since when does anyone include 1990 as part of the 80's? Or 1980 as the 70's?
  
  A decade is a measurement of time, not objects. Zero is a number and any real scientist knows that. A decade is a simply a measurement of ten years, traditionally done from 00 to 09. This decade ends on 12/31/2009. In reply to: "The decade's 30 biggest tech flops"

  December 31, 2009

  0 replies

• Earbuds and headphones have been around since the 80's. The volume control is there for a reason. Thanks god the court had common sense in their ruling. In reply to: "Apple wins appeal in earbud hearing-loss lawsuit"

  December 31, 2009

  0 replies

• The lawsuit was about hearing loss, not sound quality. Maybe you should try reading the article before making stupid and irrelevent comments about it. In reply to: "Apple wins appeal in earbud hearing-loss lawsuit"

  December 31, 2009

  0 replies

• Random_Walk, a single printed book that's sold then traded around versus a digital copy that's duplicated uncontrollably. There is a difference. ...but then again asking someone as cynical as you to objectively see the entire issue would be futile.
  
  If all people did was "backup" or re-purpose the stuff they actually owned and purchased then non of us would have to deal with DRM and copy protection. Now of course, we'll start seeing "backups" available on torrents and FTP's and people making convenient excuses for it. All you pentest's, and Random_Walk's of the world just making excuses know damn well that so long as people continue abusing the system, DRM and copy protection will only get worst and more cumbersome for all of us to deal with. In reply to: "Hackers claim to crack Kindle copyright armor"

  December 26, 2009

  0 replies

• Hopefully your GPS will take you to the nearest elementary school because your writting skills need a refresher. In reply to: "Getting started with your new GPS"

  December 22, 2009

  0 replies

• If you compare against most other SLR light rings, $50 is cheap since many go up into the $300-$500 range. What's expensive to one person may be justified to another. Plus not everyone has the skills and or desire to make one themselves. (if you add up parts and time it get's awfully close to $50) Not to mention IT IS a light ring for an SLR camera and SLR photography isn't exactly a cheap hobby in the first place. Lastly, if you don't understand the reasons for "over engineering" problems like natural light and color temperature then you're simply not qualified to make that judgement call. In reply to: "Sunpak's inexpensive LED ring light"

  December 22, 2009

  0 replies

• @protagonistic "Don't hold your breath. Greed does not listen to reason. :-)"
  
  That's right. Whether it's the people trying to sell a product or the people who want those products but refuse to pay for it. Greed does not listen to reason.
  
  
  Your just as greedy as those you accuse. The only difference is you're trying to keep your money while gaining a product versus someone trying to make money by selling a product.
  
  $5 for a Movie that probable cost over $100 million to make? Sure. That will happen. At the current cost of living and minimum wages the only way a movie could ever drop to $5 is is everyone on the planet, including yourself was willing to work for less. How willing are you to walk into your bosses office and ask for a pay cut? Until that time, keep dreaming.
  
  Either way it's basic right from wrong and you're just trying to rationalize it to yourself. In reply to: "Accused 'Wolverine' pirate calls charges 'ridiculous'"

  December 22, 2009

  0 replies

• Yeah. Right. The company behind the OS running on 90% of the desktops on the planet. The OS used on everything from Cash registers to Elevators to Bank ATM machines to the NORAD defense system. The company that enabled hundreds of other companies, from Dell to Intel, Nvidia to AMD, IBM to even Apple to sell products...is suddenly going to become a footnote in history?!
  
  Excuse me while I laugh at your naive stupidity. Microsoft may change course. They may change tactics or business models. They may even shrink or grow. But you have to be completely foolish to think they won't continue having an influence and just become a footnote in history. In reply to: "Is it Ballmer's fault?"

  December 21, 2009

  0 replies