Your posts in this thread lead me to believe you lack either empathy or basic understanding of human psychology (or both--is it the same thing??)
Funny you say that...when I'm not in rant mode, I'm generally accused of having too much of both.
What's the point in bitching about the fact that a company came up with a term to describe a new product that is loosely based on physics? ie, what are you getting out of this conversation?
Asshole answer: Because I like making people nerdrage.
Honest answer: Because it was a really, really slow day at work
Do you realize how much you are playing into Apple's hands by spending so much time talking about this product? They LOVE the fact that people are writing articles about their new screen and discussing it weeks before it's even out.
Most people will call me a liar for this, but I don't care...it's the truth. I honestly think Apple makes decent products, and, despite my own views on marketing, I can't deny their sheer genius when it comes to getting people to want something. That being said, the ferocity with which people defend Apple makes it a prime target to get them riled up. Rarely do I get a reasonable, calm, non-confrontational response; I find that (and fanboyism in general) to be quite amusing. Dickish, I know.
Compare to the Androids where it's a different model every several months that people (mostly the nerd demographic as far as I can tell? I' m judging this off of advertising campaigns as well) lust after.
The two main reasons I prefer Android over the iPhone is 1. No AT&T and 2. I don't like the walled garden. If the iPhone came to Verizon, I MIGHT consider getting one...but as long as the walled garden is in place, I highly doubt it would happen. Chances are, the appstore has everything I could ever possibly need...but I still don't like the idea of being tied to it, nor do I like the idea of violating my warranty just so I can install whatever I want.
But I have a hard time seeing how an unbeliever could reconcile it with an evolutionist worldview.
That's ok, I don't understand how someone can be a Christian without banging their head against the wall over the plot holes in the Bible;) I kid, I kid.
If you actually understand and buy into Darwinism, the logical conclusion would be that anything that goes extinct for any reason was "deselected" because it was unfit. If humans evolved from lower life forms, and some of those lower life forms go extinct as a result of humans, that would be the expected natural and desirable result of evolution at work, if you believe in that sort of thing.
I personally feel that humans are both exactly the same as other animals (in that we are nothing more than flesh and bones) and something more (an "advanced" state of consciousness driven by self-awareness rather than pure reflex.)
To believe that we should protect a species from extinction at the hands of human actions, you'd have to believe that we are responsible for them. Responsible to whom, if you don't believe in a creator?
Ourselves. "Animals" do not have the ability to distinguish between whether we should live or die...they either attack us because they think we are a threat, or don't attack us because they don't think we are a threat. Exercising our ability to consciously choose is part of what makes us human.
You'd also have to believe that we're not better off without them, that every kind of organism that exists is here for some reason, some purpose. Whose purpose, if you don't believe in a creator?
Dung beetles are a good example. They help prevent us from being covered in shit. I'd say it's in our best interest to keep them around.
You'd have to believe that genetic information should be retained, even if it's apparently inferior to our own, because it won't simply be replaced by newer and better stuff.
Newer isn't necessarily better. Mother nature is a cold hearted bitch, and she isn't always right. If we have the ability to change her decision, why shouldn't we?
Conservation of biological diversity doesn't fit with evolutionism. It's inconsistent. In fact, it's more or less the opposite philosophy.
On the contrary, if we are to be considered higher beings than animals (something that Christianity subscribes to), then it is our duty to exercise that by choosing to save certain species. Not because we have to, but simply because we can.
Huh? Is this a philosophy of yours that has rules about how humans should and should not behave?
No, it's just my opinion. Calm down.
'Cause it seems to me like marketing works on a large percentage of the population directly, influences nearly everyone whether they want it to or not, and that's just a fact.
And if I had four wheels, I'd be a wagon.
Facts happen, saying that marketing "shouldn't" work is like saying that gravity shouldn't work. It does, deal with it.
Words, BTW, are almost never "meaningless". We can disagree on the meaning, twist them, play with them, and even misuse them to trick people, but they do mean something; maybe just not what you'd like them to.
Fair enough.
One good thing about Apple using "Retina" may be that it can be used as a reference resolution to compare other devices to.
So I guess HTC is going to be releasing the "Iris" display next? Or maybe the "Cornea" display?
I'm still a sheeple consumer...I still go to the movies, buy clothes from brand-name retailers, buy video games, buy comics, buy music, etc...I just choose to buy them because they interest me, not because someone in a suit tried to figure out a way to convince me to buy them. I do my research, find something that matches up with what I'm looking for, and go out and get it.
Making my buying decisions based on what I want and not on marketingspeak makes me a prick? How do you figure?
Yes. At the least they would realize it's a better looking display...which is the point.
Which proves my point that it's meaningless, unecessary marketing drivel. If people would have noticed, why put an official stamp on it? Why not just say "look at how awesome this looks!"
Like I said earlier in the thread...let the device speak for itself.
They care about something that gives them value for their dollars, and marketing is all about conveying the value.
you mean like meaningless words? In keeping things simple, why use something like "Retina Display" that requires an explanation, when they could have just called it "Brilliant Display", or "Gorgeous Display", or any other dozens of adjectives that convey a clear, crisp screen?
I understand that marketing-driven words work...my point is that they shouldn't.
If you want the steak, you need the sizzle. Products only come to market if there's a sufficient market there to come to. Far to many great technical ideas and products have come to market and failed because no one was able to show the sizzle.
In keeping with the analogy, a fresh turd still sizzles if you put it on a grill...but it won't taste nearly as good as a high-quality steak.
I wasn't referring to us affecting things as being sad, I was referring to the fact that many scientists have blamed things on human beings when we have had nothing to to do with.
"Sad" in this case being a more polite way of saying "a fucking disgrace".
I can guarantee that you refer to something every now and then by a simplified term that was developed purely for marketing reasons.
Ignorance, yes. marketing reasons, no. A perfect example would be the fractures I suffered to my wrists a few years ago. I've referred to them as navicular fractures, because that is what they are called...despite the fact that navicular bones are in your foot.
Unless you consider that marketing, then the answer to your question is no. Copiers aren't Xerox machines, tissues aren't Kleenex, and cotton swabs aren't Q-tips. The Genesis didn't "blast" the SNES with its processing, Strontium Units should never have been called Sunshine Units, and the iPhone's new screen should be referred to as a nice looking display...not a part of your fucking eye.
The difference here is that "blast processing" was a vague, nebulous term that was never really elaborated on,
Oh really?
"Sega's advertising continued to position the Genesis as the "cooler" console, and at one point in its campaign, it used the term "Blast Processing" to suggest that the processing capabilities of the Genesis were far greater than those of the SNES."
Do the specs speak for themselves? No, they don't, because while 326ppi makes perfect sense to me, I don't know anything about the maximum sensitivity of the human eye, and I'm interested to hear where that bar is set, whether this display really exceeds that, and what caveats I should be aware of in taking this metric into consideration when selecting screens for my own use.
Placebo effect. Do you honestly think the average, non-technical person would notice this detail about the display had Jobs not said anything?
Having a beautiful, smooth screen isn't enough. People have to be told their eyes can't even tell how awesome it is to make it worth it. That's just fucking sad.
Which, as I've said before, speaks poorly of the average consumer. I don't know about you, but I don't sizzle. I eat steak. I don't care if it makes noise or not, I care if it tastes good.
In what way is "retina" a special word? Are you some kind of retard?
Possibly. I've been called worse.
And I can just imagine the marketing division that would go up to the CEO of any company and say "You know what you should say in the big keynote speech? The resolution or dots per inch on this cellphone is so dense that one will not be able to distinguish one pixel from its neighbouring pixels. They'd all get sacked, and rightly so.
I think this speaks poorly of the general public, not the marketing department.
People wouldn't do shit like this if it didn't work. The fact that it works is disparaging enough, let alone the fact that people take advantage of it.
True, we indirectly or directly affect most living things on this planet due to our technology and waste...but I think implying that we affect everything is just as ludicrous as implying that we affect nothing.
If it's anything like PowerGig, there will be a little bumper that you can raise up against the strings while using it as a guitar controller. That will go a long way to keeping it in tune. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a tuner built into the guitar accessible through the game as well.
I can't read the article due to work filter, but since the game will come with a "real" midi controller, can I use my own with the game? I have an M-Audio Axiom 25.
The problem is that, in their guilt trip, biologists have blamed man for the state of pretty much every endangered species on the planet.
You are, sadly, correct with this statement. I wish you weren't, but you are -_-;;
So that means that we are supposed to preserve every single species that happens to exist at this particular moment in our planet's history, like some weird zoo where we've effectively stopped natural selection?
Absolutely not...but, as you implied, due to the politicization of the issue, it would be near impossible to only actively work to save the species that we have directly affected.
Again though, why the use of meaningless words? Couldn't he have just said "the resolution/DPI is so dense that your eyes won't be able to distinguish individual pixels"? What, does the average Apple customer really seek the need of some special word to wrap up the device's capabilities in? And if they do, what does that say about their average customer?
I think it's insulting to the people that buy Apple's products, regardless of whether people seek it out or not.
I don't think it is our responsability to save "every" species...but I think it's our responsability to save species that we have directly endangered through our own actions, whether those actions are on purpose or a mistake.
It's still marketing drivel along the lines of "blast processing". Wholly unnecessary...just tell us the resolution, Jobsy. No need to spice it up, the specs should speak for themselves.
Good attempt, but we can refine the argument a little more and get a better result.
"Goodness" or "badness" is necessarily measured by the impact resulting from the action, mitigated by the degree of proximity of the action to the result and the degree of intent/knowledge that one would lead to the other. There is nothing inherently wrong with thrusting your fist outwards, unless you happen to hit someone.
The problem with the MS/Install-without-permission and Apple/Appstore-lock-in is that the action and the result are absolutely intertwined (by other facts). The problem with MS is the result - unwanted and often undesirable (i.e. "bad") software on the computer. Put another way, they are 'damaging' your property, also called trespass to chattel (legalese - IAAL). There is nothing inherently wrong with the act of MS installing software on the computer - sometimes we want that (e.g. useful security updates). However, the act isn't merely installing software, it is installing software without permission, a more specific act. This more specific act is bad because of the result, the alteration (i.e. damage) to the computer (i.e. property). The act is inherently bad because the bad result is inescapable from the act.
This is as if it were impossible to thrust your fist outward and NOT hit someone. Or rather, the fist thrusting was always a punch (and not a stretch, reach, etc.). The act is only inherently bad when it is inextricably linked to the bad result. If these two things can be decoupled, then we've created a nice [potential] solution.
Damn, you MUST be a lawyer:p Joking aside, well said.
Because around here, whenever I don't include that disclaimer and my opinion grates against the common opinion, people do assume that what I write is 100% objectively factual. This happened a couple of days ago here on Slashdot with my opinion on the iPhone.
I'd rather not go through that malarky again, hence the disclaimer.
Slashdot Mirror
Your posts in this thread lead me to believe you lack either empathy or basic understanding of human psychology (or both--is it the same thing??)
Funny you say that...when I'm not in rant mode, I'm generally accused of having too much of both.
What's the point in bitching about the fact that a company came up with a term to describe a new product that is loosely based on physics? ie, what are you getting out of this conversation?
Asshole answer: Because I like making people nerdrage.
Honest answer: Because it was a really, really slow day at work
Do you realize how much you are playing into Apple's hands by spending so much time talking about this product? They LOVE the fact that people are writing articles about their new screen and discussing it weeks before it's even out.
Most people will call me a liar for this, but I don't care...it's the truth. I honestly think Apple makes decent products, and, despite my own views on marketing, I can't deny their sheer genius when it comes to getting people to want something. That being said, the ferocity with which people defend Apple makes it a prime target to get them riled up. Rarely do I get a reasonable, calm, non-confrontational response; I find that (and fanboyism in general) to be quite amusing. Dickish, I know.
Compare to the Androids where it's a different model every several months that people (mostly the nerd demographic as far as I can tell? I'
m judging this off of advertising campaigns as well) lust after.
The two main reasons I prefer Android over the iPhone is 1. No AT&T and 2. I don't like the walled garden. If the iPhone came to Verizon, I MIGHT consider getting one...but as long as the walled garden is in place, I highly doubt it would happen. Chances are, the appstore has everything I could ever possibly need...but I still don't like the idea of being tied to it, nor do I like the idea of violating my warranty just so I can install whatever I want.
Yes, I know, it's petty...but it's the truth.
And there, THAT is the point.
"He sounds like Wally Gator!" -Captain Murphy
But I have a hard time seeing how an unbeliever could reconcile it with an evolutionist worldview.
That's ok, I don't understand how someone can be a Christian without banging their head against the wall over the plot holes in the Bible ;) I kid, I kid.
If you actually understand and buy into Darwinism, the logical conclusion would be that anything that goes extinct for any reason was "deselected" because it was unfit. If humans evolved from lower life forms, and some of those lower life forms go extinct as a result of humans, that would be the expected natural and desirable result of evolution at work, if you believe in that sort of thing.
I personally feel that humans are both exactly the same as other animals (in that we are nothing more than flesh and bones) and something more (an "advanced" state of consciousness driven by self-awareness rather than pure reflex.)
To believe that we should protect a species from extinction at the hands of human actions, you'd have to believe that we are responsible for them. Responsible to whom, if you don't believe in a creator?
Ourselves. "Animals" do not have the ability to distinguish between whether we should live or die...they either attack us because they think we are a threat, or don't attack us because they don't think we are a threat. Exercising our ability to consciously choose is part of what makes us human.
You'd also have to believe that we're not better off without them, that every kind of organism that exists is here for some reason, some purpose. Whose purpose, if you don't believe in a creator?
Dung beetles are a good example. They help prevent us from being covered in shit. I'd say it's in our best interest to keep them around.
You'd have to believe that genetic information should be retained, even if it's apparently inferior to our own, because it won't simply be replaced by newer and better stuff.
Newer isn't necessarily better. Mother nature is a cold hearted bitch, and she isn't always right. If we have the ability to change her decision, why shouldn't we?
Conservation of biological diversity doesn't fit with evolutionism. It's inconsistent. In fact, it's more or less the opposite philosophy.
On the contrary, if we are to be considered higher beings than animals (something that Christianity subscribes to), then it is our duty to exercise that by choosing to save certain species. Not because we have to, but simply because we can.
Arguably, the same could be said for your God.
Huh? Is this a philosophy of yours that has rules about how humans should and should not behave?
No, it's just my opinion. Calm down.
'Cause it seems to me like marketing works on a large percentage of the population directly, influences nearly everyone whether they want it to or not, and that's just a fact.
And if I had four wheels, I'd be a wagon.
Facts happen, saying that marketing "shouldn't" work is like saying that gravity shouldn't work. It does, deal with it.
I'm still allowed to express my opinion, aren't I? What, do I need a disclaimer before every post I make or something?
Words, BTW, are almost never "meaningless". We can disagree on the meaning, twist them, play with them, and even misuse them to trick people, but they do mean something; maybe just not what you'd like them to.
Fair enough.
One good thing about Apple using "Retina" may be that it can be used as a reference resolution to compare other devices to.
So I guess HTC is going to be releasing the "Iris" display next? Or maybe the "Cornea" display?
I'm glad I don't know you
You seem like a pretenious prick.
I'm still a sheeple consumer...I still go to the movies, buy clothes from brand-name retailers, buy video games, buy comics, buy music, etc...I just choose to buy them because they interest me, not because someone in a suit tried to figure out a way to convince me to buy them. I do my research, find something that matches up with what I'm looking for, and go out and get it.
Making my buying decisions based on what I want and not on marketingspeak makes me a prick? How do you figure?
Yes. At the least they would realize it's a better looking display...which is the point.
Which proves my point that it's meaningless, unecessary marketing drivel. If people would have noticed, why put an official stamp on it? Why not just say "look at how awesome this looks!"
Like I said earlier in the thread...let the device speak for itself.
They care about something that gives them value for their dollars, and marketing is all about conveying the value.
you mean like meaningless words? In keeping things simple, why use something like "Retina Display" that requires an explanation, when they could have just called it "Brilliant Display", or "Gorgeous Display", or any other dozens of adjectives that convey a clear, crisp screen?
I understand that marketing-driven words work...my point is that they shouldn't.
True...after all, if people are willing to buy something like this...
If you want the steak, you need the sizzle. Products only come to market if there's a sufficient market there to come to. Far to many great technical ideas and products have come to market and failed because no one was able to show the sizzle.
In keeping with the analogy, a fresh turd still sizzles if you put it on a grill...but it won't taste nearly as good as a high-quality steak.
I wasn't referring to us affecting things as being sad, I was referring to the fact that many scientists have blamed things on human beings when we have had nothing to to do with.
"Sad" in this case being a more polite way of saying "a fucking disgrace".
I can guarantee that you refer to something every now and then by a simplified term that was developed purely for marketing reasons.
Ignorance, yes. marketing reasons, no. A perfect example would be the fractures I suffered to my wrists a few years ago. I've referred to them as navicular fractures, because that is what they are called...despite the fact that navicular bones are in your foot.
Unless you consider that marketing, then the answer to your question is no. Copiers aren't Xerox machines, tissues aren't Kleenex, and cotton swabs aren't Q-tips. The Genesis didn't "blast" the SNES with its processing, Strontium Units should never have been called Sunshine Units, and the iPhone's new screen should be referred to as a nice looking display...not a part of your fucking eye.
The difference here is that "blast processing" was a vague, nebulous term that was never really elaborated on,
Oh really?
"Sega's advertising continued to position the Genesis as the "cooler" console, and at one point in its campaign, it used the term "Blast Processing" to suggest that the processing capabilities of the Genesis were far greater than those of the SNES."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega_Drive#Console_wars, with the source cited as coming from 1up.com
Do the specs speak for themselves? No, they don't, because while 326ppi makes perfect sense to me, I don't know anything about the maximum sensitivity of the human eye, and I'm interested to hear where that bar is set, whether this display really exceeds that, and what caveats I should be aware of in taking this metric into consideration when selecting screens for my own use.
Placebo effect. Do you honestly think the average, non-technical person would notice this detail about the display had Jobs not said anything?
Having a beautiful, smooth screen isn't enough. People have to be told their eyes can't even tell how awesome it is to make it worth it. That's just fucking sad.
Because you sell the sizzle, not the steak.
Which, as I've said before, speaks poorly of the average consumer. I don't know about you, but I don't sizzle. I eat steak. I don't care if it makes noise or not, I care if it tastes good.
In what way is "retina" a special word? Are you some kind of retard?
Possibly. I've been called worse.
And I can just imagine the marketing division that would go up to the CEO of any company and say "You know what you should say in the big keynote speech? The resolution or dots per inch on this cellphone is so dense that one will not be able to distinguish one pixel from its neighbouring pixels. They'd all get sacked, and rightly so.
I think this speaks poorly of the general public, not the marketing department.
People wouldn't do shit like this if it didn't work. The fact that it works is disparaging enough, let alone the fact that people take advantage of it.
True, we indirectly or directly affect most living things on this planet due to our technology and waste...but I think implying that we affect everything is just as ludicrous as implying that we affect nothing.
Absolutes aren't really the way to go...
If it's anything like PowerGig, there will be a little bumper that you can raise up against the strings while using it as a guitar controller. That will go a long way to keeping it in tune. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a tuner built into the guitar accessible through the game as well.
I can't read the article due to work filter, but since the game will come with a "real" midi controller, can I use my own with the game? I have an M-Audio Axiom 25.
The problem is that, in their guilt trip, biologists have blamed man for the state of pretty much every endangered species on the planet.
You are, sadly, correct with this statement. I wish you weren't, but you are -_-;;
So that means that we are supposed to preserve every single species that happens to exist at this particular moment in our planet's history, like some weird zoo where we've effectively stopped natural selection?
Absolutely not...but, as you implied, due to the politicization of the issue, it would be near impossible to only actively work to save the species that we have directly affected.
"In an honest world", and all that.
Don't you mean bizzaro Alaskan Salmon?
Again though, why the use of meaningless words? Couldn't he have just said "the resolution/DPI is so dense that your eyes won't be able to distinguish individual pixels"? What, does the average Apple customer really seek the need of some special word to wrap up the device's capabilities in? And if they do, what does that say about their average customer?
I think it's insulting to the people that buy Apple's products, regardless of whether people seek it out or not.
I don't think it is our responsability to save "every" species...but I think it's our responsability to save species that we have directly endangered through our own actions, whether those actions are on purpose or a mistake.
It's still marketing drivel along the lines of "blast processing". Wholly unnecessary...just tell us the resolution, Jobsy. No need to spice it up, the specs should speak for themselves.
Of course it didn't, the question was specifically directed at me:
What do you like about Microsofts products?
Why would I talk about other people if someone is specifically asking why I like something?
I'm still hoping for Shamisen Hero.
Good attempt, but we can refine the argument a little more and get a better result.
"Goodness" or "badness" is necessarily measured by the impact resulting from the action, mitigated by the degree of proximity of the action to the result and the degree of intent/knowledge that one would lead to the other. There is nothing inherently wrong with thrusting your fist outwards, unless you happen to hit someone.
The problem with the MS/Install-without-permission and Apple/Appstore-lock-in is that the action and the result are absolutely intertwined (by other facts). The problem with MS is the result - unwanted and often undesirable (i.e. "bad") software on the computer. Put another way, they are 'damaging' your property, also called trespass to chattel (legalese - IAAL). There is nothing inherently wrong with the act of MS installing software on the computer - sometimes we want that (e.g. useful security updates). However, the act isn't merely installing software, it is installing software without permission, a more specific act. This more specific act is bad because of the result, the alteration (i.e. damage) to the computer (i.e. property). The act is inherently bad because the bad result is inescapable from the act.
This is as if it were impossible to thrust your fist outward and NOT hit someone. Or rather, the fist thrusting was always a punch (and not a stretch, reach, etc.). The act is only inherently bad when it is inextricably linked to the bad result. If these two things can be decoupled, then we've created a nice [potential] solution.
Damn, you MUST be a lawyer :p Joking aside, well said.
Because around here, whenever I don't include that disclaimer and my opinion grates against the common opinion, people do assume that what I write is 100% objectively factual. This happened a couple of days ago here on Slashdot with my opinion on the iPhone.
I'd rather not go through that malarky again, hence the disclaimer.