Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Technology => Topic started by: _Stefan_ on 30/09/2009 19:25:38
-
I'm trying to decide on a good cover for my Ipod Classic. I want it to be shock resistant, and the most protective combination I've seen so far is a cover with two parts: a silicone rubber layer and a hard polycarbonate layer.
I would like to know about how much damaging force would be experienced by the ipod from a fall from approximately waist height with this combination in use.
Would it be more protective if the rubber was between the Ipod and the polycarbonate?
Or if the polycarbonate was between the Ipod and the rubber?
Does it matter which order the layers are in?
Many thanks in advance [:)]
-
I've dropped my iPod 120gb classic so many times and it hasn't broken, and I have no cover for it. Honestly, it won't make much of a difference to whether the iPod works or not (or even how scratched it gets, a cover is a cover if it's intact) they are very solid and do not get easily broken by normal physical damage - the drop tests are quite impressive if you care to search Youtube for them. I'd go for polycarbonate outside just because it won't suffer obvious, visible wear and tear as easily as rubber.
Edit: but then, the rubber would be fairly useless as a shock absorber, I think. It depends on your situation. If you think you are more likely to drop it often than scratch, go for the rubber outside. If you think you are more likely to scratch it than drop, then go for poly outside.
-
Thank you :)
I'm very protective of my 120GB Classic but I still manage to drop it occasionally.
I have a plain polycarb case for it, but I have my eye on this case because I work around water a lot (I breed ornamental fish) and would also like to be able to sterilise the case without worrying about damaging the ipod:
http://justanothermobilemonday.com/Wordpress/2008/02/22/review-otterbox-armor-series-case-for-ipod-classic/
-
Yeah, that'll be good for waterproofing it (and probably has good protection against nuclear explosions or something)
For general use/weekends though you might wanna keep the poly case, since that one is quite big and cumbersome comparatively.
I love my iPod. I'm slowly falling more and more in love with audiobooks.
-
Haha @ nuclear explosion protection [:D]
Audiobooks are awesome! Have you got Richard Dawkin's "The Greatest Show ON Earth" Unabridged audiobook yet? It was fantastic! [;D]
-
No, his anti-religious stance is presented in an irritatingly extreme way. Beliefs have more value than just how true they are, or how well they can be tested, though they are an important part of them. I listened to Obama's The Audacity of Hope though recently, that was really good, and it was read by the man himself. [:)]
Is The Greatest Show on Earth about religion? It doesn't sound like it from the title. I've seen it in the bookstore, but like I said, the extremity of his views irritate me, so I just gave it a wide berth.
-
I'm not sure whether you've actually heard or read Richard Dawkins himself? His work is not as extreme or strident as people make out; he's actually a rather nice man. We both know that so many people take the softly-softly approach to religion. I think it's great that a few people like Dawkins are promoting the no-nonsense scientific perspective. He has acknowledged that he does not argue the comfort-value but rather the truth-value of religion, and that he would never, for example, force anti-religion on a grieving or dying person.
The Greatest Show on Earth is a scientific book about the overwhelming evidence for evolution. The audiobook is beautifully read by himself and his wife Lalla Ward. It does not promote anti-religion, but it is very anti-creationism. Have you read Dawkins' previous biology books?
-
Yes, I listened to The God Delusion a few months ago, and found it extreme and uninteresting (I've already heavily explored philosophy of religion and science - it's all I spent my younger years doing). He might be nice enough, but polarising the world into religious people and non-religious people, where the former are all considered moronic is not praiseworthy. If he argues against the truth value, then he is effectively destroying people's comfort without giving them anything to replace it. People without a good scientific education may find it much, much harder to find comfort in science - to those not in it it can seem cold and unconcerned, and so provides no comfort. Dawkins does nothing to encourage people to come to science and revel in it when he writes books like this. A more efficient and humane way is by trying to encourage science and let them come to their own conclusions, but I think he's too impatient with the world, and can easily envisage a world tomorrow without religion. What he fails to realise is that nothing will quickly replace it. Religion is equal to solace in a lot of people's minds, whether he likes that or not.
Yes, people act upon their beliefs and if they are false that can be bad, but religion is not bad. It actively encourages moral behaviour, though is not the only source of it of course.
I can't say I've read his previous biology books. I accept evolution as readily as I accept the Earth revolves around the sun. I see creationism as a possibility, about which we have next to no information so we cannot judge the likelihood of it. Like all other such things, I don't believe them because there is no evidence for them that I can tell. I do believe that people might have evidence personally which I am unable to access simply because of the seperateness of persons.
-
Fair enough. I do not agree with some of what you have said but I am not in the mood at the moment to debate something that will likely go round in circles [:)]
I will suggest that you read some of his earlier books, including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unweaving_the_Rainbow , because you will find that Dawkins has already provided the "replacement" of religion, and they will place The God Delusion in context.
Cheers [;D]
-
you sound a little agnostic glovesforfoxes? i have to say i am of two minds on that one myself, how do you explain colour to a blind man? just because there may be no way of perceiving something does it mean that it is 100% guaranteed that it is not there?
On the note of the value of truth, i thought science didnt accept value judgments anyway given that 'worth' is biased, ie in the eyes of the beholder. Also, perhaps science, in the context of value to an individual is a 'faith' like any other, just another way for people to feel secure and safe in certainty and understanding of the meaning of their lives....
-
http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Logical-value
In logic and mathematics, a logical value, also called a truth value, is a value indicating to what extent a proposition is true.
It is not a subjective value at all, it is a logical and an empirical value.
-
ah i see. Still, im of the opinion that just because there is no evidence of something does not guarantee it can not in any way be true. Sure it is understandable that a person may believe what they can SEE but that doesnt mean that it is most definitely seeing everything.
-
logic is limited to what there is indeed evidence for....
-
Not only is there no evidence that deities (or faeries) exist, but there is no logical or empirical reason why they should exist. There are also many good reasons why a deity does not exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God
-
Fair enough. I do not agree with some of what you have said but I am not in the mood at the moment to debate something that will likely go round in circles [:)]
I will suggest that you read some of his earlier books, including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unweaving_the_Rainbow , because you will find that Dawkins has already provided the "replacement" of religion, and they will place The God Delusion in context. (though saying that, I did only listen to a part of it)
Cheers [;D]
Haha yes, fair enough! The next time I visit a bookstore I'll be sure to check it out and post here if I think of anything interesting to say.
Maybe the problem that I have with The God Delusion then is it's lack of context. At least, it's still going to lack context, and I think that's Dawkin's problem to sort out rather than his readers'.
Yes sillymilly, I am agnostic, and I agree with the colourblind man analogy. Usually I have to say that I am atheist because agnostic is equal to undecided in some people's minds, though being atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive they can be somewhat confusing if said together.