iPod nano has a Secret Diagnostic Mode

[CZroe]

How big a flashing neon sign you need, he just answered it.

No he didn't. "Got it in one" does not mean "The current-gen iPod nano does not have video playback."

Let's look at that again...
"Got it in one"
WHAT has got WHAT in one WHAT? Without answering any of those NECESSARY questions, it is completely *meaningless*

You must not be speaking English because, using the only assumptions one could possibly make, this is the most sense it can possibly make and it STILL doesn't answer the damn question:
"[The iPod nano has] got [video playback] in one"

Even then, WHICH iPod nano has video playback in WHAT? We already know now, thanks to someone more eloquent and helpful than sdjmchattie could ever be (thanks, Silencer_0), that it DOES NOT have video playback, yet there is not a negative to be found in the "Got it in one" statement.

If you intend to insult me, you really need to explain how you got the illogical answer, "the current-gen iPod nano no longer supports video playback" from some guy saying "Got it in one."

[sdjmchattie]

No he didn't. "Got it in one" does not mean "The current-gen iPod nano does not have video playback."

Let's look at that again...
"Got it in one"
WHAT has got WHAT in one WHAT? Without answering any of those NECESSARY questions, it is completely *meaningless*

You must not be speaking English because, using the only assumptions one could possibly make, this is the most sense it can possibly make and it STILL doesn't answer the damn question:
"[The iPod nano has] got [video playback] in one"

Even then, WHICH iPod nano has video playback in WHAT? We already know now, thanks to someone more eloquent and helpful than sdjmchattie could ever be (thanks, Silencer_0), that it DOES NOT have video playback, yet there is not a negative to be found in the "Got it in one" statement.

If you intend to insult me, you really need to explain how you got the illogical answer, "the current-gen iPod nano no longer supports video playback" from some guy saying "Got it in one."

OK, not sure why this has so much hate towards me - and I'm sorry you didn't understand my reply, but I assure you my English is better than yours given that I am from England where the language originated.

Anyway, it turns out, though I didn't know this before, that the expression "Got it in one" is a British expression and not as global as I first thought. It means, "you had one guess and got it right first time".

[one1]

OK, not sure why this has so much hate towards me - and I'm sorry you didn't understand my reply, but I assure you my English is better than yours given that I am from England where the language originated.

Anyway, it turns out, though I didn't know this before, that the expression "Got it in one" is a British expression and not as global as I first thought. It means, "you had one guess and got it right first time".

No, it's just as common in the US and pretty easy to understand IMO.

[CZroe]

OK, not sure why this has so much hate towards me - and I'm sorry you didn't understand my reply, but I assure you my English is better than yours given that I am from England where the language originated.

Anyway, it turns out, though I didn't know this before, that the expression "Got it in one" is a British expression and not as global as I first thought. It means, "you had one guess and got it right first time".

Thank you for the explanation. If One1 had done that instead of attempting to shame my understanding of the English language, I would not have taken that tone with either of you. My attitude toward you was partially due to another post of yours that didn't make sense (GellBrake'rrrr even called you out on it), but I'm sure that was an honest mistake. When you said "Don't are what use it would be on an iPod that can only play music, but maybe it's just for the audio." I now think you meant "[I d]on't [know] what use it would be on an iPod that can only play music, but maybe it's just for the audio." I could not have guessed earlier, considering that I didn't understand your other post, and "are" is a far cry from "know." I'm not considering the common you/your typo earlier in that post of yours. Even then, as far as I knew, you weren't sure about the capabilities either, which could imply that you take the presence of a video output feature to mean that it probably CAN play video because you would not see the use of it otherwise.

No, it's just as common in the US and pretty easy to understand IMO.

No, I believe you're mistaken. In fact, I know you are because it was asked again by others in this thread as well (like mikerlx). The answer did not make sense to us. Yes, I've heard similar statements used in a different context, like when someone is making a series of guesses (obviously, the origin of the phrase), but this other usage is not common at all. "You guessed it [right/correctly]." is much more common and more easily understood even with the word "correctly" being left off and assumed. To insist that this usage of "Got it in one." is particularly well understood here is like the hard-headed people who go around saying "Ten of Twelve" to mean "Ten minutes before Twelve o'clock." It doesn't make any sense in English and they go about using it as if everyone understood them despite most of the country and the English-speaking world having never heard it said that way in their lives. The usage needs to die. I touched off a huge debate in a public forum once where many people from the NE USA thought that everyone understood them (it's even in their textbooks for children's time-telling lessons), insisting that it was the most commonly understood way even after many of their close neighbors(regionally) said that they, too, had never heard it nor would they have understood it if they had heard it. In their attempt to argue that it could be understood without prior knowledge, those same people LOVE to point out that "o'clock" means "of the clock" without realizing that the relationship is BACKWARDS. If I am half OF the way to a destination, I mean that I have traveled half of the way, not that half of the total distance remains. This is obvious once you say something like "one-third of the way." Three hours of the clock, AKA "Three o'clock," means that three hours have passed since the start of the clock, yet "10 of Three" means that ten minutes remain until the Three o'clock hour. I bolded the word they should have used instead. To relate minutes before the hour, "till," " 'til," "until," "to," and "before" CAN be universally understood in the English language without having been heard in that specific arrangement before. That's why you have movies with names like "10 'til Noon" and not "10 of Noon." Mainstream media professionals would NEVER use "[minutes] of [hour]" in anything intended for a national or international audience, so these closed-minded people shouldn't expect to use it in professional conversation and argue to protect their habits.

[robertr1]

but I assure you my English is better than yours given that I am from England where the language originated.

That makes no sense. Just because the English language originated in England doesn't automatically mean you're english is better.

[sdjmchattie]

That makes no sense. Just because the English language originated in England doesn't automatically mean you're english is better.

Maybe not, but the fact you used "you're" instead of "your" reassures me that it is!

[Cer0]

Get back on topic.

[coolguy742]

Maybe not, but the fact you used "you're" instead of "your" reassures me that it is!

This is a thread about the iPod nano not languages retards.

[Sarah Hastings]

I wonder,what more can we get from this diagnostic mode?