Wow, as a European I just feel obliged to respond to this guy below.
Okay.
Well, it would be a bit odd if you - as an American born in America - would want to 'return' to Europe. You've probably never been there, and if you have probably only for a short period in a specific region.
Well, probably like most immigrants: get a better life.
And you can't in Europe (or in most other, richer parts of the world)?
[qutoe]We can have it simple if we want, which I give no credit to Europe for. Usually not wanting to show off is more of a reason. Just follow the KISS way of doing things. I was always taught that KISS, keep it simple stupid, idea is best. In that way you could have more without consuming more.
Who do you give credit? Certainly not the Americans. It's not like "simplicity" was 'discovered' somewhere in the past 500 years.
And oh, Americans are, for a big part, European (and African, and Asian).
Wow. Nice thing you are doing here. First you tell us we cause all wars in the world and than you want to make us feel bad by saying we still have a lot to thank to the US.
I first want to 'battle' this claim of "It seems that Europe is great at getting the rest of the world to go to war & come back & die for them."
I don't want to be a big pain in the ass, but a lot of big wars since World War II were started, or heavily influenced, by the Americans. To name a few examples in the past few years... Afghanistan, Iraq and more recently Libya. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars were completely started by the Americans and caused more damage than good. You dragged us along in those ridicilous wars and I sincerely hope European governments will think twice before they answer a request of the US to help fight in another war somewhere in the near future (I suppose Iran). The Libya 'war' was a big innitiative by the US and while I can not deny that Europe was more like a 'co-founder' of this war, the cause was the US (and not the 'revolution').
So in short: don't say Europeans are the causes of most wars in the world, because that's definitely not the case. In the past decades, it's safe to say America caused more people in the world harm than any other country.
Now, that second part where you are trying to make us feel guilty: you do realize that the biggest reason to help Europe was not to help, well, us
but to avoid that Europe would become communist? A big part of the world was communist in those days and the only allies America really had was Western-Europe.
If Western-Europe became communist (make no mistake, Eastern-Europe already was communist), than that would be a huge blow in the face for the American government. And they, the government, knew the United States would follow (America was, at least at that time, unable to fight communism at it's own).
Sure, you 'rescued' us but it was also more of a selfish act.
And who is to say life would have become so bad if, let's say, Hitler would have won the war?
Oh, that reminds me of something: Europe is NOT one big country you know? Every country in Europe has a very different culture and it's own government and (military) powers.
The only thing Hitler wanted to do is to make life better for the German people. In truth, Hitler's idea were good. His execution of these ideas was bad.
Again, nobody really cares where the style of simplicity was first used. It certainly were not the Americans. And it weren't the Europeans as well. I suppose somewhere in Asia (China, Japan, Indonesia, India - that region).
I don't own a bible. I'm a 'non-believer'. The idea of God was nice for the time being, but hey, humans are becoming smarter and it's time to step off the idea of God to explain everything.
----------
Heck, why would they call it an iPad 2S if there are huge changes? The 'S' addition is only used when there is a really small update (camera, processor + software).
A retina display definitely isn't a small upgrade. As Apple said during the WWDC 2010 keynote: even if the only upgrade in the iPhone 4 was the retina display, than this iPhone woul still be the biggest upgrade ever.
This my guess for the
third-generation iPad:
Release date: February-April 2012
Announcement: about two weeks before release
Display: LED-backlit with 2048*1536 resolution (LCD IPS)
Name: iPad 3
Processor: A6 processor (one of the two: 1) Dual Core but higher clocked and more RAM 2) Quad Core and more RAM)
Cameras: front: 2 megapixel, FaceTime HD - back: 3-5 megapixel without flash
iOS: iOS 5.1
Siri: not sure, but for now I think "no" (Apple has never included Voice Control with their iPads).
Battery: 9-11 hours[/QUOTE]
Mhhh i think that the A6 is a quad core processors, so there won't be a dual core.
The retina display is now considered from Apple a small upgrade because it's a 2 years old technology, even if we are talking about bigger screens.
Trust me, the name will be iPad 2S. This year iPad 2S and iPhone 5 and a partly-renewed Mac series.
