 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Aerghareblkn, what is this "reply" button, I expected it to have the
function of "followup".
Laaaaame. Oh well.
(Speaking of not liking newfangled technology...)
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Let's try this...again.
On 2012-10-03 06:32, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>> Full HD, on a screen only an inch across. How pointless...
>>> Where do you get this 1" figure that you keep repeating?
> 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.
I dunno, my Droid 2's screen is 2"x3.25", and it tends to be more useful
to play videos rotated so it comes out to 3.25"x2". It's a /little/
bigger than one inch.
...but not by terribly much, honestly.
And yet they've squoze 800x480 pixels into that space. Why, I remember
when it was normal to do 640x480 on a 9"x12" CRT! (And 320x200 for games.)
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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...
Agreed, never watched a movie on my phone before, it would be horrible.
A FullHD screen is not just for movies though, obviously everything else
running on the phone can take advantage of it (photos, the GUI, YouTube
videos, maps, ebooks, websites, etc.).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
