http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/ Engadget Comments for The Engadget Show returns Sunday, December 20th! http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/

Mind = Blown


00's flew by...]]>Dec 12th 2009 2:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/
I feel old now... spongebob is like 10 years old, but it feels like it just came out a year ago...]]>Dec 15th 2009 5:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/Dec 12th 2009 2:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/Dec 12th 2009 2:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/62407

If you are in firefox, download Greasemonkey first.]]>Dec 12th 2009 2:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/Dec 12th 2009 2:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/Dec 12th 2009 2:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/You beat me to it. Honestly, I didn't see the Nokia sponsorship lasting long anyway because Nokia probably expected to get less criticism in return when instead Engadget told it like it is. I'm sure Engadget is more comfortable with a Sprint sponsorship. I know I would be.]]>Dec 12th 2009 4:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/Dec 12th 2009 6:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/Dec 12th 2009 2:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/Dec 12th 2009 2:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/Oh.Snap.]]>Dec 12th 2009 2:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/ Okay, you can't bash us everyday and still expect us to sponsor you, you know.
... er ...
This ends here.
...

2 minutes later

It's okay Josh, we got your back...

And so begins a new era of Engadget Shows.]]>Dec 12th 2009 5:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/Why does there always have to be a show 3 DAYS before i get home!!
Does anyone know if there is going to be another show btwn December 20th and January 20th? Because I leave the country for 6 months on January 20th and would LOVE to go the show of the blog that I've 50 times a day for the past 5 years!]]>Dec 12th 2009 2:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/Dec 12th 2009 2:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/Dec 12th 2009 3:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/Dec 12th 2009 4:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/
One point of constructive criticism: This is still supposed to be journalism, no? New medium, same high standards of communication. While it's a conversation with your buddies, really bad habits of speech grate on the listener. Saying "you know" a shit-ton when you are not actually asking or telling someone if or what they know is not a part of professional audio broadcasting, as far as I know. You know, I don't think you know this.]]>Dec 12th 2009 4:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/
Or . . . is this the last engadget show until january 1st 2011?

The decade ends on December 31st 2010.

You can say 'the last show of the '0' if you want.

As recap. We wait until a year is up before we clock a number onto our age. When it comes to years we clock the number from the first day/hour,minute/second so Jan 1st 2010 is the first day of the last year of 'this' decade'.

Change it to 'the last show of the penultimate year of this decade'.]]>Dec 12th 2009 5:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/Depends on how you define decade: It can go from 00-09, or from 01-10. When people mention, say, "the 50s" or "the 90s", they go based on the first digit (i.e., from 50-59 and 90-99, respectively).

It's no less valid to define decades based on your method, because, let's face it: Measurement of time is, in many ways, arbitrarily constructed by people. Don't take these things too seriously.]]>Dec 12th 2009 5:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/
You are wrong.

If society wants to choose another messurment system then they can but so far, and despite it probably being off by a number of years, we date things from the 'percieved' birth of Jesus. Jesus maybe have been called 'one year old' 'after' a year but from the moment of his birth we recon it as year one.
Don't bother getting into a debate about whetehr he exited or not, that's tedius.
You messure a dacade from year 1 to year 10 then you start again with the next decade and guess what; 201 decades later nothing has changed. We don't deviate in this for naming millenia, centuries, months or days so why should we do it for decades. You are just adjusting logic to fit people's mental confusion. ]]>Dec 12th 2009 8:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/My point is: Arguing semantics here is pointless. Who the hell cares whether we say the new millennium started on January 1st, 2000, or 2001? It's not like everyone even celebrates the New Year on the same day anyway (solar versus lunar calendars).]]>Dec 12th 2009 10:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/
1. Oxford dictionary. dec•ade: a period of ten years, especially a period such as 1910-1919 or 1990-1999
2. Cambridge dictionary. decade: a period of ten years, especially a period such as 1860 to 1869, or 1990 to 1999
3. Longman dictionary. (Unverified): dim-witted user who doesn't know what he's talking about and is not happy until he's shown everyone his ignorance
]]>Dec 13th 2009 8:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/
decade definition dec·ade (dek′ād′; also, and for 3 usually, dek′əd, -id; Brit also di kād′, də-)

noun

1.a group of ten
2.a period of ten years; esp., in the Gregorian calendar
a.officially a ten-year period beginning with the year 1, as 1921-1930, 1931-1940, etc.
b.in common usage, a ten-year period beginning with a year 0, as 1920-1929, 1930-1939, etc.


b. is to 'the proof is in the pudding' what a. is to 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'.

gp: I'm not a believer that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit as it's actualy the second lowest, cliches that are the lowest form. Your reply though somehow manages to combine both. Ooooo a dictionary quote with a made up sarcastic dictionary quote also. Gosh, you really zinged that one didn't you?
Talk about 'dim witted'. You can't even read. You are so blinded by vacuous thinking and dictionary clinging that you just assume that if something is in the dictionary it must be supporting your point. You kind of missed the phrase 'such as'. It coud easily say 'such as 1994 to 2003'. Those dictionary quotes 'only' establish the meaning of the length of a decade and in no way seek to assert the true beginning and end point of a decade. Weak minded fool that you are though you see what you want to see in them.
Dude, as with many fools you mistake data retention for intelligence and cliche for wit.
You need to learn to think rather than compute. ]]>Dec 13th 2009 3:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/
Yup - I usually rely on the dictionary for the definition of words. So your argument is that because the dictionary says that 'especially a period such as' (I guess the word 'especially' escaped your half-brain) my point is not supported. Right. Do you realise how moronic that is? No, of course you don't, because you're wrong again, this time about the lowest form of wit. You know what it is? Yours, numskull.]]>Dec 14th 2009 6:50AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/
Oh thats sharp. 'The lowest form of wit is yours' haha did you think all day to come up with that zinger dude? ;)

Again, thank's for helping me out in showing what an idiot you are. You admit that you use the dictionary to get the definition of 'words' yet rely on it to tell you what a 'concept' such as a decade is. I think you need an encyclopedia for that. Maybe you got mixed up somewhere so I'll let it slide.

Human thinking and communication is rife with ingrained errors and they usually stay ingrained because lazy thinkers like you are happy to live with the errors rather than switch your brain on and correct and train them out. That's the reason that as well as my pudding example, 99% of people say 'pronounciation' when they should be saying 'pronunciation'. There are thousands of examples of messed up thinking from the trivial to the deadly serious. It's losers like you the waste billions of dollars and man years as space probes overshoot other planets beause 'hey, cm or inches it's all the same'.
Ok so most people threw a party a year early thinking they were actually in the new millenium on Jan 1st 2000, so most people get the decade thing wrong too and dictionary staff who's job is to define words not intangibles such as concepts just go along with the error of the masses and thats good enough for you isn't it. If most people think something it must be correct eh.

Dude you are a smug, mental midget. You are practiced in nothing except the use of disdainful tone in service of reinforcing your sense of self importance. I guess i can keep expaining this elementary stuff to you but you are gonna have to take a brave step. You are gonna have to engage your dusty brain rather than just scouring the net for quotes that fail to make your point. ]]>Dec 14th 2009 10:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/
This is not an opinion, it's a simple fact. If you disagree with that, complain with the Pope.]]>Dec 15th 2009 7:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/Rojas. I'll be glad for the interview, but I was so used to the calibre of Ballmer and Rubinstein.
Good luck!]]>Dec 12th 2009 5:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/Dec 12th 2009 5:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/
Can't say I blame them, although I respect engadget's independence from advertisers.

I wish they had good enough products that wouldn't require such derision.]]>Dec 12th 2009 7:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/Dec 13th 2009 12:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/Dec 15th 2009 11:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/Dec 15th 2009 5:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/Take a shot every time Nilay says "right". ]]>Dec 15th 2009 5:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/Dec 15th 2009 5:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/Dec 15th 2009 6:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/You can just download the copy from the website. You don't need to use iTunes.]]>Dec 15th 2009 11:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/Dec 16th 2009 1:39AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/Dec 16th 2009 7:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/15/the-engadget-show-returns-december-20th/Dec 16th 2009 1:05PM