 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:55:52 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>> > Of course the millions of people who use iPhones all day long for
>> > surfing the net and play games are delusional.
>
>> Naturally. I'm sure my 9" tablet is running about 320x200 and requires
>> a magnifying glass to use.
>
> I'm not even sure what you are talking about.
>
> An iPhone5 has a screen resolution of 1136x640 pixels. And people use it
> without magnifying glasses all the time.
No, that can't possibly be true. ;)
(I'm being hyperbolic. My Nook HD+ tablet runs at full HD, something
that's clearly impossible unless I spent about three trillion dollars on
it).
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:26:56 +0100, Doctor John wrote:
> On 23/04/14 14:55, Warp wrote:
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>> Of course the millions of people who use iPhones all day long for
>>>> surfing the net and play games are delusional.
>>
>>> Naturally. I'm sure my 9" tablet is running about 320x200 and
>>> requires a magnifying glass to use.
>>
>> I'm not even sure what you are talking about.
>>
>> An iPhone5 has a screen resolution of 1136x640 pixels. And people use
>> it without magnifying glasses all the time.
>>
>>
> Umm, I think Jim was being ironic. Either that or he bought his tablet
> off a market stall in a 3rd world country.
;)
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I saw games going from atari stick figures from my childhood into the nearly
photorealistic games of today. Same for much better photos being taken and
instantly shared to anyone in the world.
what you really don't get is this: what you used to call a PC is today
everywhere. It's in your pocket, in your TV, next to it, on your desk, on your
lap, on your hand... same for screens. And all are interconnected and
wirelessly communicating with each other. then again, you didn't even knew
youtube was 1080p now...
that's far more impressive than raw CPU power in an old beige box in the
basement
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/04/2014 08:58 AM, scott wrote:
> Sure plastics have been around for ages, but
> today we take for granted there are plastics that you can leave in
> direct sunlight for decades without fading or going brittle.
Really? Where are they?
> Another large part of the change is making things more efficient to
> manufacture, and thus affordable for more people. Food processing and
> transportation has become hugely more efficient over the last few
> decades, just look at the sort of things the average person could afford
> to eat in 1900 or even 1960 compared with today.
Yeah, well, that's a bit before my time, so I don't really have a handle
on that.
>> I don't know, man. I think Internet speeds have now reached the point
>> where page loading is near-instant, and any further boost is of no real
>> benefit.
>
> Who would ever need more than 640KB?
Nobody. 640KB is enough to store a *vast* amount of text.
...and then they invented ways to store stuff that isn't text. And
suddenly that 640KB looked really puny.
That's kinda my point. When the Internet first started, the limiting
factor with surfing the web was how damned long it took to load the HTML
and all the images. That has long since stopped being a problem. So
until the next bandwidth-heavy thing comes along, there's no real reason
to increase.
BTW, I just saw on the news that Peterborough is getting gigabit-speed
Internet access. (Quite how that's physically plausible I'm not sure,
but presumably they know what they're on about.) My employer's *LAN*
isn't that fast! The politician was standing there enthusing about how
this is going to "super-charge local businesses", but I can't think of
too many businesses where this extra speed will be of any use... (Unless
you're a web-hosting company or something - in which case, you *already*
have gigabit speed - or more...)
>> From what I've seen, the limitation is that all projectors work at
>> 800x600, or if you buy an expensive one, 1024x768. Christ only knows why
>> they don't make them in any higher resolutions...
>
> Have you felt the *heat* from a modern portable projector? If they made
> the pixels even smaller, they'd need an even bigger light and a fridge
> to stop the thing melting. There's still a way to go until you have
> something small that can project clearly and sharply on to a big wall
> without filling your room with heat and fan noise.
I guess the problem is that you're generating a lot of light, and then
trying to selectively absorb the colours you don't want. If you could
somehow do it the other way around - only generate the optic power you
actually want in the first place - it could be a lot more efficient.
But I'm not sure how you would do that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> (I'm being hyperbolic. My Nook HD+ tablet runs at full HD, something
> that's clearly impossible unless I spent about three trillion dollars on
> it).
I have an iPad Mini that has a resolution of 2048x1536. And it's
incredibly thin and light.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 21:57:11 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> BTW, I just saw on the news that Peterborough is getting gigabit-speed
> Internet access. (Quite how that's physically plausible I'm not sure,
> but presumably they know what they're on about.)
*headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk*
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:13:33 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> (I'm being hyperbolic. My Nook HD+ tablet runs at full HD, something
>> that's clearly impossible unless I spent about three trillion dollars
>> on it).
>
> I have an iPad Mini that has a resolution of 2048x1536. And it's
> incredibly thin and light.
That's completely and physically impossible. It must have cost you a
quadrillion dollars.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Sure plastics have been around for ages, but
>> today we take for granted there are plastics that you can leave in
>> direct sunlight for decades without fading or going brittle.
>
> Really? Where are they?
If you buy a 10 year old BMW you don't expect the dashboard to crack if
you lean on it or for it to have gone yellow. Or most bumpers on cars
now are plastic that can withstand 2 tons forcing them into another car
at a few mph without damage (IIRC that's an EU requirement now). That
sort of performance from plastics has been developed gradually after
they were initially invented. The first LCD displays were around the
70's, but it's not like nothing has changed since then, the "invention"
is only the first step, after that Engineering and development takes over.
> That's kinda my point. When the Internet first started, the limiting
> factor with surfing the web was how damned long it took to load the HTML
> and all the images. That has long since stopped being a problem. So
> until the next bandwidth-heavy thing comes along, there's no real reason
> to increase.
I remember when an mp3 took hours to download, today it's an mp4 and
software that takes hours. Until everyone has 500ppi screens with all
content at that resolution downloadable within seconds then I see no
reason for the continual increase in speeds to stop.
> BTW, I just saw on the news that Peterborough is getting gigabit-speed
> Internet access. (Quite how that's physically plausible I'm not sure,
> but presumably they know what they're on about.)
Is that not just fibre to the house? The obvious next step after fibre
to the cabinet. My village is looking forward to FTTC in a few months
and Peterborough is just up the road!
> isn't that fast! The politician was standing there enthusing about how
> this is going to "super-charge local businesses", but I can't think of
> too many businesses where this extra speed will be of any use...
I would imagine this would benefit medium-size companies (around 50-200
people) that currently cannot justify the cost of a really fast
connection but due to the number of employees would make good use of
more bandwidth.
> I guess the problem is that you're generating a lot of light, and then
> trying to selectively absorb the colours you don't want. If you could
> somehow do it the other way around - only generate the optic power you
> actually want in the first place - it could be a lot more efficient.
That's exactly the problem, and also that the light source itself is
very efficient at converting electricity to heat :-) People have looked
at using lasers but it doesn't look like that technology has worked out yet.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:13:33 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> (I'm being hyperbolic. My Nook HD+ tablet runs at full HD, something
> >> that's clearly impossible unless I spent about three trillion dollars
> >> on it).
> >
> > I have an iPad Mini that has a resolution of 2048x1536. And it's
> > incredibly thin and light.
> That's completely and physically impossible. It must have cost you a
> quadrillion dollars.
It depends on whether you are talking about American quadrillions or
European quadrillions.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2014-04-22 20:43, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 20:02:17 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> I honestly don't know where you get the crazy idea that higher
>>> resolutions aren't available. I mean, if you're projecting on a 8-10
>>> foot 16:9 diagonal area, 1024x768 is going to look like shit. 800x600
>>> even more so.
>>
>> Well, he also is of the opinion that the screen of an iPhone is
>> postal-stamp-sized, you have to keep it an inch from your eyes to see
>> anything, it's impossible to use a web browser on one because of the
>> small size, and the screen gets so dirty in 10 seconds that it won't be
>> usable after that.
>
> True. Wait, you mean that isn't the case? ;)
>
>> Of course the millions of people who use iPhones all day long for
>> surfing the net and play games are delusional.
>
> Naturally. I'm sure my 9" tablet is running about 320x200 and requires a
> magnifying glass to use.
Andy has also assured me that iPads, Kindles, Nooks, and the various
android-based thingamajigs weren't tablets at all, because tablets were
2 inch thick laptops that weigh 20lbs and on which you write with a
Palm-Pilot stylus.
--
/*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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
