 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/09/2012 05:15 AM, Darren New wrote:
> "Is it supposed to smoke when I turn it on?"
>
> "What? No, of course not!"
>
> "Should I turn it off, then?"
This thing is brilliant! I mean, it's ACTUALLY ILLUMINATING THE ROOM!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> OK, but... like what?
Well nowadays you can implement pretty much anything as a web page, so
you could argue that any phone app could instead be implemented as a web
page. The point of an app is that it can take on the same UI as the rest
of your device (menu options, saved data, sync options etc) rather than
being more limited as a web page.
Maybe there are some things web pages can't do though, like take control
of your microphone, camera, acceleration sensors etc, so you'd need an
app for them. For example I have a guitar tuner app, not sure if that
would be possible as a web page. Or the one that allows me to control
the camera remotely, again not sure a web page could manage that.
> Full HD, on a screen only an inch across. How pointless...
>
> (You realise that the human eye can only focus on objects a certain
> distance away from your face, right? Never mind if you want to see it
> with both eyes simultaneously.)
Most arguments against higher dpi displays forget/ignore the fact that
images typically displayed are not perfectly anti-aliased. Even images
from the camera are scaled by some non-optimal algorithm before being
sent to the display (unsurprisingly Apple's algorithm seemed to be the
best at this). Image that are computer generated, especially in
real-time, are likely to have far more aliasing artefacts even with so
called "AA" features enabled. You've seen how slow POV goes when you use
"+am2 +r4" - you can't afford to do that (or similar) on a mobile device.
When you have images like this you can *easily* spot the difference
between a 300 and 600 dpi display at a normal 30 cm viewing distance. At
my previous job we did lots of testing on this, and the worst image we
had was something like this, supposedly from a game (not this exact
image, but it had a lot of aliasing around certain parts of the cars):
http://cdn.digitaltrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/gran-turismo-5-sema-2009-screenshots-9.jpg
A lot of people could even tell the difference between the 600 and 1200
dpi version of that one. 600 dpi = full HD on a ~4" phone.
> Oh, I know Facebook is /constantly/ trying to shove stuff like that in
> my face...
Surprising, I thought it detected the device that was requesting the
webpage and only popped up the message if you were on a phone or tablet
etc - never seen it on the desktop site.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Damn. And here I was thinking that's what people watch the news and read
>>> newspapers for...
>>
>> Not WHILE they are being shot at!
>>
>> Did you miss the part where I said that "There were lots of people _in
>> that theater_ who wanted to know what the heck was going on."
>
> And I thought the only people who use electronic communications rather
> than running for their lives are the people who write those IRC quotes
> on bash.org :-P
Ok, maybe being shot at was a little exageration. The shooting happened
outside the back entrance.
Premier is on stage giving her speech. Slight commotion is heard
backstage. Plain clothes police officers rush her off stage. Uniformed
cops appear everywhere... Everyone - including the 5 tv channels
covering the event - goes "Whuh?" *Tweet* *Tweet* *Tweet*
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 08:21:54 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 05/09/2012 10:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 20:53:37 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/09/2012 05:43 PM, nemesis wrote:
>>>> hello, caveman. Our minimum smartphone screen sizes are now 4"
>>>
>>> Wouldn't that make the phone too small to fit in your pocket?
>>
>> Is there /any/ physical circumstances where something could be /too
>> small/ to fit in a container?
>
> *facepalm*
>
> Obviously I meant to type "too big"...
It was funnier the other way. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/09/2012 5:20 AM, Darren New wrote:
>>
>> And you use an on screen keyboard.
>
>
> http://blog.makezine.com/2012/08/30/mechanical-typewriter-keyboard-for-ipad/
>
What no CR/LF lever?
Actually that video left me gobsmacked.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/5/2012 10:27 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/4/2012 11:43, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> "Lamarr's and Antheil's frequency-hopping idea serves as a basis for
>> modern
>> spread-spectrum communication technology, such as Bluetooth, COFDM
>> used in
>> Wi-Fi network connections, and CDMA used in some cordless and wireless
>> telephones."
>
> Or, more specifically,
>
> http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/04/Howspreadingactuallyworks.shtml
>
Well, complain to wikipedia, and the TV show they had one a few weeks
back, that made the same claim about her invention being used in moderns
networks. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/6/2012 20:25, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Well, complain to wikipedia, and the TV show they had one a few weeks back,
> that made the same claim about her invention being used in moderns networks. ;)
The basic idea is used. But "not exactly" as I said.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Hold your phone closer to your eyes then, Nokia have a full-HD
>> (1920x1080) phone in the pipeline/announced, so quality should be fine
>> for making out actors faces :-)
>
> Full HD, on a screen only an inch across. How pointless...
5" phone display with Full HD - production starting, presumably they
have a customer...
http://sharp-world.com/corporate/news/121001.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotron ca> wrote:
> > On 05/09/2012 05:05 PM, scott wrote:
> >>
> >> Hold your phone closer to your eyes then, Nokia have a full-HD
> >> (1920x1080) phone in the pipeline/announced, so quality should be fine
> >> for making out actors faces :-)
> >
> > Full HD, on a screen only an inch across. How pointless...
> Where do you get this 1" figure that you keep repeating?
I get the impression that he opposes most of the new technology that
happens to be popular, just out of principle, and uses exaggeration to
denigrate the achievements of technology and progress that he doesn't
like. It's popular, therefore it must suck.
That kind of attitude doesn't make much sense, IMO. Rather than marvel
about the giant leaps in progress that technology has had during the
past couple of decades, he's more driven by prejudice, denying himself
the joy of the things that, ironically, he loves: Namely technology,
science and progress. And only because of this twisted logic that if it's
popular with the masses, it's unlikeable.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> Hold your phone closer to your eyes then, Nokia have a full-HD
>>>> (1920x1080) phone in the pipeline/announced, so quality should be fine
>>>> for making out actors faces :-)
>>>
>>> Full HD, on a screen only an inch across. How pointless...
>
>> Where do you get this 1" figure that you keep repeating?
>
> I get the impression that he opposes most of the new technology that
> happens to be popular, just out of principle, and uses exaggeration to
> denigrate the achievements of technology and progress that he doesn't
> like. It's popular, therefore it must suck.
You know, it's odd. I never set out to do that. I've always been
interested in technology and the interesting directions it can take us
in. And yet, just lately, I find myself feeling like a stereotypical old
guy who doesn't understand new stuff. I don't set out to dislike things
because they're new or trendy - and yet, all the things I have a problem
with seem to turn out to be new or trendy things.
In the case of the phone thing above, it's simple: If the screen was any
bigger, the device wouldn't fit in your pocket. It's that simple. Just
some basic physics.
When you think about it for more than six consecutive seconds, the
purpose of watching a movie is total immersion. Even today, with the
rise of "home cinema systems" and so forth, people will still willingly
pay really quite large sums of money to go and watch movies in an
/actual/ cinema. Because no matter how big your plasma TV at home is, it
just doesn't compare to a cinema screen that's bigger than your entire
house. Plus, your neighbours wouldn't let you turn the sound up to the
point where the building physically shakes. But cinemas can do that.
Of course, that's not to say that watching movies at home is an empty
experience. It's still quite enjoyable, it's just not as awesome.
Now, imagine watching a movie on a screen that's so tiny that you have
to hold it a few inches in front of your face to even be able to /see/
it. I just have to ask: What the hell is the point? I mean, other than
the bragging rights for saying "I have an expensive piece of equipment".
It just seems pointless to me...
(Then again, that's fine. I don't have to pay for one.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
