Doesn't it confuse and annoy programmers at Microsoft? I am sure most of them have been around long enough to see that "!" is used everywhere to designate logical negation.
Thanks for the explanation. In other words, the pronunciation of the "!" is preserved, but the meaning is different than the old "NOT". Is this just a Microsoft thing to use "!" for such extensions, or do other do it as well? I am not familiar with that convention.
Did you ever stop to think how silly and also how dangerous it is to live our lives with absolutely no monitoring of our body's medical status?
Actually, our bodies provide lots of feedback. It's just that we are never taught how to listen to those signals. It's usually after the injury occurs that we learn to listen on our own. You would be amazed how well many diabetics can tell their sugar level at any given moment. It doesn't take more than a month of measuring to learn that. I know I may sound heretical on a geek board, but I would consider that skill more vital to many people than calculus.
Absolutely. It is still not as quick and intuitive in operation as traditional phones, but it is heaps better than Blackberry 8300. Right now I don't have a choice, but I will consider iPhone when something changes.
Not that this is important, but was it really pronounced "bang exploitable" when it started its life? It sounds to me like some top brass (or a journalist) wanted to show off that they know how "!" was pronounced in old UNIX speak, but without a real understanding of what it meant. You know, as in, "I am one of you, but I have no idea what the hell I am talking about".
Ever since I've been forced to use Blackberry 8300, I long for a regular, dull phone. One where I don't have to put magnifying glasses on to know what the heck I am doing. One where I can easily do what I need without having to go through layers upon layers of incomprehensible menus.
If not for the fact that I have to use it, and that the company is paying the bill (that is the only good aspect of it), I would use it for target practice and go back to my old, dull, basic clamshell Motorola, where I could do everything with one hand without even looking at it.
What makes you think AT&T wants you to circumvent them using Skype?
Same reasons we pay flat rates for DSL and Cable. It's good for business - attracts more customers. In case of AT&T customers would still pay monthly subscription but use someone else's bandwidth.
Grow a f'n brain!
Sigh. Every time you see a crude, primitive response like that, you know they have very little to say.
Thanks, AndrewNeo. Yes, I do believe it is available elsewhere. Still, since the thread is about Apple iPhone (and since I like the rest of it), I would like to see what I consider critical functionality incorporated into it.
Could ANYONE explain to me how my post above was modded "flamebait"? I know there are brand fanboys, but my god... this is beyond ludicrous. With militant advocates like that, Apple doesn't need enemies.
22, eh? That was before I was even able to make my first post to USENET. To think, all my sharpest and quickest wit is lost to humanity for ever. Now I can safely tell my grandkids how funny I used to be, and they won't be able to Google it up.
What I really want in my phone is full integration of communication methods I normally use. Can I connect to a 802.11 wireless network and launch Skype and Yahoo Instant Messenger (with voice, of course)? No, I don't mean over cellular network.
I agree that pixel density helps, but only up to a point where the well becomes too small, and DR drops. We are reaching that point. P&S have reached that point a good while ago. Hence notoriously blown highlights.
Also, at some point there is so much noise that camera processing software confuses fine detail with it and smears it all away if the area is not in perfect focus. Shooting RAW is not always a solution for that. You are just shifting the unpleasant task from in-camera processing to post.
Yes, I am quite interested in the micro 4/3, but Olympus has to become serious and take the next logical step - eliminate mechanical shutter. Sounds like blasphemy to old SLR users, but so did EVF.
There are some very significant advantages to the 4/3rds system, that go beyond the sensor size.
I think the advantages will be realized with the micro 4/3 and the EVF, but not when employed in the traditional SLR format. The latter imposes weight and size penalty that almost defeats the benefits of a smaller sensor.
When Olympus takes their own message seriously and commits to the micro 4/3 and also eliminates the mechanical shutter, I will stand in line to buy it.
I think it's a bit of a catch 22. Microsoft might undertake such a porting venture only if the new hardware platform is sufficiently popular (30-40% of the market?). BUT - how do you get there without having Windows run on it in the first place?
Akira Watanabe, head of Olympus' SLR planning department, said that 12 megapixels is plenty for most photography purposes
Akira Watanabe is playing self-serving marketing games. It is not about any particular number of megapixels, it is about the size of the light well of each pixel, or "pixel density" if you will. That determines the dynamic range and sharpness per pixel. Mr. Watanabe's company has pushed that past their main competitors despite the fact that those competitors have larger number of megapixels in their top cameras. How is it possible? Sensor size. Let's look at some of the offerings today on the market (the smaller the density the better):
So yes, Olympus is now hitting 5+ MP/cm2 on their SLRs despite having much lower number of pixels than Canon with their 5DMkII, Sony A900, or Nikon D3X. This is because Olympus boxed themselves into a smaller sensor (4/3). All the posturing about how 12MP is enough is only designed to hide their shortsightedness.
how many people do they have to piss off before people start looking elsewhere
Alas, looking is not enough. I've been a great fan of FreeBSD for many years (like you, I see), and a dozen or so years ago I could have sworn that by now we would all be running *BSD and Linux. However, for normal people (those who have no idea what 'make' or 'kernel' mean) being ticked off is not enough. They have to have a viable alternative - one that does not require extensive tinkering. That also means a wide availability of common business and entertainment software. Even folks like me give up when faced with reality. We need to share our computers between work and fun. Good luck telling your company they should switch all software to open source (please don't give me anegdotal evidence of such things happening - in the scale of the business landscape, they are unnoticeable).
Even for personal use, I am not so sure I want to switch to all *BSD/Linux. I can get zsh and all common utilities (including vi) running on my Windows machine along with all business software. I cannot get the reverse if I change the OS. Sorry, Gimp is not Photoshop, and nothing in the open source comes close to Adobe suites (an advice to use LaTex instead of Framemaker gets the rest of your arguments automatically disqualified).
I think the penetration of the natural space for open source - server space - was a great success. Desktop is a different game, and I am not sure that the current open source development model is well suited to that space. Strangely enough, the "If you don't like it, why don't you write it yourself" advice does not resonate too well with most normal users.
I asked you a simple question you can't answer. Then you make some nonsensical statements about cause and effect, and decide you won. Right. Too bad we all lose.
Sorry, it is a bad old habit of mine. I still remember growing up UK outside of the EU. Perhaps I should start getting used to the idea that UK is now a part of "Europe" (as in "common market").;)
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't it confuse and annoy programmers at Microsoft? I am sure most of them have been around long enough to see that "!" is used everywhere to designate logical negation.
Thanks for the explanation. In other words, the pronunciation of the "!" is preserved, but the meaning is different than the old "NOT". Is this just a Microsoft thing to use "!" for such extensions, or do other do it as well? I am not familiar with that convention.
Actually, our bodies provide lots of feedback. It's just that we are never taught how to listen to those signals. It's usually after the injury occurs that we learn to listen on our own. You would be amazed how well many diabetics can tell their sugar level at any given moment. It doesn't take more than a month of measuring to learn that. I know I may sound heretical on a geek board, but I would consider that skill more vital to many people than calculus.
Absolutely. It is still not as quick and intuitive in operation as traditional phones, but it is heaps better than Blackberry 8300. Right now I don't have a choice, but I will consider iPhone when something changes.
Not that this is important, but was it really pronounced "bang exploitable" when it started its life? It sounds to me like some top brass (or a journalist) wanted to show off that they know how "!" was pronounced in old UNIX speak, but without a real understanding of what it meant. You know, as in, "I am one of you, but I have no idea what the hell I am talking about".
Ever since I've been forced to use Blackberry 8300, I long for a regular, dull phone. One where I don't have to put magnifying glasses on to know what the heck I am doing. One where I can easily do what I need without having to go through layers upon layers of incomprehensible menus.
If not for the fact that I have to use it, and that the company is paying the bill (that is the only good aspect of it), I would use it for target practice and go back to my old, dull, basic clamshell Motorola, where I could do everything with one hand without even looking at it.
Most people I know suffer through MS Office only because the companies they work for force them to. That's why I run it on the company laptop.
On the other hand, when someone gets Adobe suites to run on Linux, I will sit up and listen.
Thank you. A well-informed response. Is fring a standard app, or does it require "jail breaking" or anything similar?
Same reasons we pay flat rates for DSL and Cable. It's good for business - attracts more customers. In case of AT&T customers would still pay monthly subscription but use someone else's bandwidth.
Sigh. Every time you see a crude, primitive response like that, you know they have very little to say.
Thanks, AndrewNeo. Yes, I do believe it is available elsewhere. Still, since the thread is about Apple iPhone (and since I like the rest of it), I would like to see what I consider critical functionality incorporated into it.
Could ANYONE explain to me how my post above was modded "flamebait"? I know there are brand fanboys, but my god... this is beyond ludicrous. With militant advocates like that, Apple doesn't need enemies.
22, eh? That was before I was even able to make my first post to USENET. To think, all my sharpest and quickest wit is lost to humanity for ever. Now I can safely tell my grandkids how funny I used to be, and they won't be able to Google it up.
Another question one should ask is 'do new generations get smarter?
Looking at MTV today, I have to emphatically say, "Hell, NO!"
What I really want in my phone is full integration of communication methods I normally use. Can I connect to a 802.11 wireless network and launch Skype and Yahoo Instant Messenger (with voice, of course)? No, I don't mean over cellular network.
I agree that pixel density helps, but only up to a point where the well becomes too small, and DR drops. We are reaching that point. P&S have reached that point a good while ago. Hence notoriously blown highlights.
Also, at some point there is so much noise that camera processing software confuses fine detail with it and smears it all away if the area is not in perfect focus. Shooting RAW is not always a solution for that. You are just shifting the unpleasant task from in-camera processing to post.
Yes, I am quite interested in the micro 4/3, but Olympus has to become serious and take the next logical step - eliminate mechanical shutter. Sounds like blasphemy to old SLR users, but so did EVF.
Interesting. Was it ever workstation or only server?
I think the advantages will be realized with the micro 4/3 and the EVF, but not when employed in the traditional SLR format. The latter imposes weight and size penalty that almost defeats the benefits of a smaller sensor.
When Olympus takes their own message seriously and commits to the micro 4/3 and also eliminates the mechanical shutter, I will stand in line to buy it.
Actually, Polish colloquialism for "syphilis" is singular "syf". "Syfy" (plural) means "zits", which is strangely fitting here. :O
Still, my nomination for the dumbest name ever.
I think it's a bit of a catch 22. Microsoft might undertake such a porting venture only if the new hardware platform is sufficiently popular (30-40% of the market?). BUT - how do you get there without having Windows run on it in the first place?
People who? Do you really think that 99% of the computer users even know what x86 means?
Akira Watanabe is playing self-serving marketing games. It is not about any particular number of megapixels, it is about the size of the light well of each pixel, or "pixel density" if you will. That determines the dynamic range and sharpness per pixel. Mr. Watanabe's company has pushed that past their main competitors despite the fact that those competitors have larger number of megapixels in their top cameras. How is it possible? Sensor size. Let's look at some of the offerings today on the market (the smaller the density the better):
So yes, Olympus is now hitting 5+ MP/cm2 on their SLRs despite having much lower number of pixels than Canon with their 5DMkII, Sony A900, or Nikon D3X. This is because Olympus boxed themselves into a smaller sensor (4/3). All the posturing about how 12MP is enough is only designed to hide their shortsightedness.
(BTW, /. seriously needs to allow <pre> tags)
Are you saying I should switch from Windows to Linux so that I can run Windows in a VM?
Alas, looking is not enough. I've been a great fan of FreeBSD for many years (like you, I see), and a dozen or so years ago I could have sworn that by now we would all be running *BSD and Linux. However, for normal people (those who have no idea what 'make' or 'kernel' mean) being ticked off is not enough. They have to have a viable alternative - one that does not require extensive tinkering. That also means a wide availability of common business and entertainment software. Even folks like me give up when faced with reality. We need to share our computers between work and fun. Good luck telling your company they should switch all software to open source (please don't give me anegdotal evidence of such things happening - in the scale of the business landscape, they are unnoticeable).
Even for personal use, I am not so sure I want to switch to all *BSD/Linux. I can get zsh and all common utilities (including vi) running on my Windows machine along with all business software. I cannot get the reverse if I change the OS. Sorry, Gimp is not Photoshop, and nothing in the open source comes close to Adobe suites (an advice to use LaTex instead of Framemaker gets the rest of your arguments automatically disqualified).
I think the penetration of the natural space for open source - server space - was a great success. Desktop is a different game, and I am not sure that the current open source development model is well suited to that space. Strangely enough, the "If you don't like it, why don't you write it yourself" advice does not resonate too well with most normal users.
I asked you a simple question you can't answer. Then you make some nonsensical statements about cause and effect, and decide you won. Right. Too bad we all lose.
Sorry, it is a bad old habit of mine. I still remember growing up UK outside of the EU. Perhaps I should start getting used to the idea that UK is now a part of "Europe" (as in "common market"). ;)