Slashdot Mirror

There are 3 possibilities here. 1. Apple performed the calibration 2. someone else performed the calibration and display mate is wrong 3. someone else performed the calibration for Apple but display mate still credit them as the integrator

No there are than 2 possibilities here that are important. DisplayMate is right or they are wrong. Since they are in the businesses of displays it makes it their business to know about such things. You can believe them or not. It appears that you decide not to believe them because of your deep denial.

I am not denying any of the above 3 is possible. You are denying 2 and 3.

I have never denied 2 out of 3. Please show me where I said it. I said it's fairly standard for Apple (and any manufacturer) to do their own calibration on a part they buy. It's part of QA. Here's where your thoughts are completely one-dimensional: Parts vendors do their calibrations, too. But nothing precludes the buyer from doing one too. Comparing both vendor and buyer calibrations might pinpoint any problems that arise in shipping. For this case, shipping may not affect the readings; but in general how a part gets jostled and abused during shipping might affect the part.

Yes, I do. Please read the words you just quoted again. It,s one thing to misread. But it's another to make a point out of it over and over again. You are pathetic

Oh I did get that wrong. But you are still claiming that calibration isn't that important right?

A professional monitor has many different characteristics.

No. The one factor that makes a monitor "professional" has always been color accuracy.

The first 4k monitors may have been professional ones.

Not factually true The first 4K monitor was consumer not professional probably because I'm guessing the color accuracy requirements for the professional would have been hard to do at the time.

So at that time, the only way to get that resolution was to get a professional monitor

So what? That wasn't your point. Your point was that someone would get a professional monitor for the resolution not the color accuracy. Your point wasn't at the early days of 4K, a person would get a professional monitor just for the resolution.

That's because the scale is a measuring tool. A display is not a measuring tool. Anyway if you are testing a scale, you won't be calibrating it. You'll make sure (test) that it was properly calibrated. The calibration of the scale should happen during production, before QA.

Bahahaha. You are testing the function of the display to make sure it passes a specification but you're not going to calibrate anything to make sure your results are solid? There will be multiple calibrations done. Some will be done on the instrumentation. Like I said above: you can test the display before you calibrate it but the "before" results are not as important as the "after". It has to meet specifications after calibration not before.

No. It was your assertion that they know because it's their business to know. I simply replied with the fact that it's not their business. I never claimed that they can't know because they rate displays.

Besides the part where you said: "I disagree It's their business to rate displays." Denial?

Yes I know that. You didn't seem to know however.

And yet you said the opposite: "Checking whether it meet the specs isn't the same thing as calibrating. " Denial?

Well you inferred it. As every display is different. Calibrating one out of two would be useless, an

Wake up dude, its 2009 already.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Actually, a couple decades ago, I don't think most people would've minded since "update" was generally synonymous with "new features". But the last 15-20 years has seen a marked increase in the number of software updates which removed functionality. i.e. Stuff you could do previously, you couldn't do anymore after an update. That's led to people taking a defensive attitude towards software updates - unless the update delivers a crucial security patch or necessary feature, they'd rather not risk it and prefer to stick with the tried and true. Feeding developers mildly useful but not earthshattering ideas just gives them an excuse to shove an unwanted update down users' throats.

There's actually a really easy way, steal some BTC from some ridiculously insecure mechanism like a brain wallet, then go to a carder forum and buy someone else's credit card. Then you can buy all the drugs, pr0n, and other crap you like, and someone else will get prosecuted for it.

Heh. Maybe you just haven't done enough phone repair. The entire world of tech doesn't fit inside a review blog, you know.

http://www.alphr.com/apple-iph...

It looks like the OS doesn't suck, but the hardware does...

http://www.digitaltrends.com/c...
"The Marshall London looks fantastic, and its musical ability lives up to expectations, but it's a terribly mediocre, overpriced smartphone."

http://www.androidauthority.co...
"What the Marshall London does have going for it is its near-stock Android experience. Marshall didn't try too hard to make Google's OS different, something that might have helped keep the phone snappier. Just keep in mind you would be getting a mid-to-low tier performance out of this phone. That's really the important part....
With that said, we also have to mention casual smartphone users will have to cut too many corners to live with superior sound. That's the main issue here, Marshall took a generic phone and put its name on it. Cool apps and a good design won't be enough to put this phone in the hands of people outside the target niche. Especially when considering that price."

http://www.alphr.com/mobile-ph...
"A distinct lack of imagination continues throughout the handset."

Also: The BSA's "nauseating" anti-piracy tactics - Piracy watchdog threatens small businesses with court, but hasn't pursued a single case in years

http://www.alphr.com/realworld...

I used a music app on my phone for a while and after a few months, it's buttons were permanently burned in because I left the screen on so I could skip songs while driving. It kinda sucked.

Social Security is a dedicated tax, but the money goes into a general fund and even the government has no idea exactly how much of it is really SS... Much less how they are going to take care of the baby boomers.

What I don't understand is the shortsightedness in defense spending. Yes, some things don't work. The F-35 is a shining example of that, though it is now showing promise after going over budget and schedule. That is part of R&D, and part of DARPAs mission. Develop new technologies to solve advanced problems. Some are winners. Most are losers. That same defense spending also has yielded some great stuff that we use every day. Here's a few examples (sorry for the multiple page nonsense, they don't have a "print version" link).

Fact of the matter is due to the financial accountability for every dollar spent, there's multiple layers of approvals for the simplest purchases. One hammer can require 4 signatures just to purchase it, to say nothing of all the arrangements made so the government can buy from that supplier in the first place. There's your $300 hammer.

Here's the actual quote.