It's probably just a matter of not wanting to keep transferring tracks onto and off of the device every time you're in the mood for a different genre. Alternatively, it's nice to not have to worry about hitting the capacity limit.

plus it's also possible to use the iPod as a drive to carry files around, and if you do a lot of photoshop work, those suckers get really big really fast. You can never have "too much" hard drive space.

Judging by the fact that my 2GB mp3 player is perpetually full, I can imagine that a lot more storage space than 2GB might be desired. 160GB seems way more than anyone would need, but I can imagine filling it up, particularly with all the audio-books I listen to.
Whether I would actually use all those files is another matter. The iPod would probable end up like the computer I use; filled with a lot of stuff that seemed like a good idea (or even important) at one point, but are completely unused for the most part.
As it is, I'm satisfied with 2GB. If I want to listen to something besides what's currently on the player, I just delete a few files and copy some new ones over. It may not be the best arrangement, but its good enough for me.

By the way, I noticed the message editor underling misspelled words in red as I wrote this post. PNQ: How long has this been going on? Or is this a feature of Firefox that I haven't encountered before because I only recently switched from IE?

I use my PSP as an mp3 player fairly often these days (still prefer actual CDs, but this is convenient for individual tracks). I find 1 gig a little tight, but that's because the music has to share space with everything else I use the PSP for. I can't even conceive of filling 160 gig with just mp3s. Hell, that's nearly as much space as my (admittedly old) computer has.

On the other hand, I have no trouble at all keeping my 60-CD stereo full. But that's because I mentally divide it into sections and fill some of them with a band's whole discography, for when I'm in a mood to listen to that particular band. (Sometimes these are albums I know well, but more often it's a band whose albums I've picked up used and haven't yet given a proper listen to -- putting them in the stereo prods me to do so.) I would guess most people who use the full 160 gig are doing something similar. They probably don't listen to all of it regularly; some is current and some is "archives".

It's Star Wars Prequel Day in the PNQ thread, partially inspired by confusedmatthew's reviews:

1: Was the definition of a "Sith" ever explained in the movies themselves?
2: Was what they were getting revenge for explained in the movies themselves?
3: So is the Trade Federation part of the Republic or not? If so, why are there these disputes in the first place? If not, why do they get a representative in the Senate?
4: Is Anakin and Padme's marriage really a secret? All the Jedi seem to know about it, so why is Anakin still a Jedi, and why wouldn't they tell everyone else about the marriage?
5: If the age at which a Padawan can enter training has passed for Anakin, and yet Anakin still got in, what's the point in having the age cutoff?
6: If Qui-Gon can't teach Anakin, why is Anakin still allowed to accompany him? Are Jedi really allowed to adopt children on a permanent basis without training them to be future Jedi?
7: We have loads of cartoons and novels about the space between Episodes II and III, but what about the space between I and II?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESHN0...eature=channel

Part One of SFdebris' review of The Outrageous Okona

PNQ: Why does this episode keep getting a bad rap? It's certainly not classic Trek, but I liked it, and there are far worse episodes available (Shades of Grey comes to mind immediately).

I was just pondering this "every decision splits off a new parallel dimension" thing...

PNQ: Where would all this matter and energy come from to create zillions of new timelines each and every second?

PNQ: Is anyone else ticked by people using up the first post in ANY online conversation with nothing but an announcement that they are indeed the first poster?

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/vid...jg/14644-ep005

So That Jewish Guy has posted a video about some Hanukkah misconceptions...

PNQ: Why hasn't the Jewish community put their foot down and said "THIS is how you spell Hanukkah in English"? I mean, it's not like English-speaking Jews haven't been celebrating this holiday for hundreds of years or anything!

I just don't like multiple transliterations; it's annoying.

As I learned the rule, as long as it has eight letters (for the eight-day festival), any reasonable combination of the consonants and vowels is acceptable.

Chanukah
Channuka
Chanukka
Hannukah
Hanukkah
Hannukka

all fair game.

PNQ: But why? What purpose does it achieve to confuse all of the non-Jews in the audience every single year? And if no particular spelling is any more or less proper, than it shouldn't matter which the Jewish High Council (or whatever) deems to be "official."

Well, remember "chutzpah". The H-sounding C-H seems to be a pattern.


I'm not terribly fond of multiple trans-whatevers myself. But if they don't mind, neither do I.

I've now heard two British video game reviewers pronounce NES as "nezz."

PNQ: Is this a common thing in places other than the U.S.? Here it's always "en-ee-es."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok_VQ...eature=channel

First off, a plug for the Commoncraft Show and their "X in Plain English" series.

PNQ1: Why is a strict popular vote for President of the United States unfeasible? Why do we need electors again?
PNQ2: What's this "#electors=#senators+#representatives" business really all about? Doesn't this give smaller states a bigger voice than usual, with larger states getting a smaller voice? How is this fair?
PNQ3: How is it fair that some states allow multiple candidates to split the electors, while others are strictly "majority winner claims all electors"?

It all boils down to the way things were when the Constitution was written. At that point, the States considered themselves to be sovereign entities, entitled to make their own decisions. The Constitution was framed so that the States and their populations would be fairly represented in the federal government. The legislature, for example, was divided into two bodies, with the Senate representing the States and the House of Representatives representing the population.

Likewise, the electoral collage was devised with the same number of electors per State as the total number of the State's Senators and Representatives, so that the States are each fairly represented in electing the President. So, yes, the smaller States get a bigger voice in the electoral process than they otherwise would have, because the framers of the Constitution were concerned about fairly representing the States, not just the people.
As time has gone on (especially after the American Civil War), the States have become less autonomous and the federal government has become more important, so the idea of representing States equally has become less relevant, but the Constitution's rules for presidential elections stay the same.

As for why some States give all their electors to one party while others split the electors, that goes back to the days of the Constitution too. The States were each given the right to choose their electors however they wanted. Originally, I believe, the State legislatures chose the electors directly, without consulting their populations at all. As time went on, democracy became more popular and the States started to choose their electors by popular election. Some let the majority party take all the electors, while others split the electors, just because they individually decided how to choose the electors.

I wish more States would split the electors according to the proportion of the popular vote each party received. My own State of California has 55 electors (over 10% of the electoral college) and these days they all go to the Democratic party. There's not much reason to vote either way, because there's a large enough Democratic majority to make it unlikely that the State would ever go to the Republican candidate. If the electors were split, there would be more of a contest and more reason to vote. But that's just my opinion.

I just find it unfair that there's such blatant hypocrisy in the selection. If I belong to Party A and live in a state where not only is it guaranteed that Party B will win the popular vote but all of the electors will go with the majority, why should I vote at all? What's the point? Seriously, what is the freakin' point in voting if the way the system is set up guarantees that my vote will be rendered utterly meaningless?

It exists solely to confuse foreigners.

It can't solely exist to confuse foreigners, 'cause there are plenty of confused natives, too.

Now that tgwtg.com is letting anybody post a blog for posterity, it's becoming far too easy for wannabe reviewers to put up drek without any regard for quality control.

PNQ: Why isn't there some quality control in there?

Major complaints:

1. There are far too many two-paragraph blogs that basically amount to "I am about to start a blog series. This is what it'll be about. See you next time!" Too bad I can't see any other posts by you on any topic; thanks for wasting time and bandwidth.
2. Far too many "part one" posts where I can't see where the "part two" post is, if one was ever made. Again, thanks for wasting time and bandwidth.
3. Rehashing topics that have been done to death already. Superman 64 stinks? I never knew that!
4. Incessant follow-the-leader tactics. If you're not going to differentiate yourself from a preexisting reviewer, why should I follow your stuff when the preexisting reviewer is better at doing his own style than you are?

Let me make myself clear. It's one thing to open up a forum to wannabe reviewers; it's quite another to allow anyone to post an entry on the real site without quality control.

Welcome to the Internet, you must be new here.