So you seem to be saying that the older style Xenon flash is better than LED flash. I couldn't find any references that back up that assertion. The articles I did find described pros and cons for each and the final picture quality seemed to be subjective as to which is best.
Are we really having that discussion? I had a 3MP camera in 2001, and trust me, the flash is not even remotely comparable to a dual or single LED flash that you can find on a phone right now. I am not saying LED flash are useless, but they have a much much shorter range.
LED can also be used with video and Xenon can't.
That's a good point.
You also seem to be saying that a 3MP sensor is better than a 5MP without knowing the size of the sensors. Do you know the size of the sensor?
Let's quote you in your previous post: "According to the specs it has a [...] 5MP sensor so should take fairly good pictures". So it is you that did make the assumption that a 5MP camera makes good pictures. I am just saying that a 5MP camera deosn't imply "good pictures". It merely implies that the pics are going to be bigger than on a 3MP camera, nothing less, nothing more.
Also, do you know that the video can't zoom digitally on the Nexus? It's certainly possible technically (the still camera has a digital zoom).
Well, that's what I was saying - unless I'm mistaken. No zoom on camera phones in video mode.
The flash is a LED flash. It's really nothing to do with a compact camera's flash. The 5MP sensor guarantees that the pictures are going to have lots of pixels. It doesn't guarantee the quality of the pixels. I prefer a nice 3MP picture over a crappy 5MP one. As far as video is concerned, remember there is no zoom at all while filming on a still camera. Phones are no exception.
To be really fair, quality of these pictures are getting close to the first 2-3MP cameras. Sure, you don't have a (real) flash nor a zoom, but you carry it around everywhere.
While these camera phones were just a gadget a couple of years ago, they can now take pretty nice shots. Not in the dark of course.
It's always been easier to not follow rules than it is to follow them.
It's easier to not pay taxes (less forms to fill in) It's easier to not follow the street lights (you get there faster, if at all) It's easier not to care about others (less worries)
Not that I like DRM, but the argument doesn't hold water.
Maybe Monty can *buy it back* from Sun before they sell to Oracle - seems like that would be fair to all parties involved, and clear the way for the Oracle/Sun merger.
Well, maybe not for Oracle, unless you don't count them as a party involved. Maybe, just maybe, they are interested by MySQL, would it be to kill it.
The problem he is having (in case Oracle stops MySQL altogether) is that MySQL will be GPL forever with no more hopes for dual licensing. Well, it doesn't sound that bad from my point of view.
Well, it is almost perfect, except that you can get back to Windows if you're not happy with your new OS. Your old gf with the big new bf is another matter altogether.
If I remember right, book before last was available within about a half hour of being released in stores - an enterprising group of people typed and proof-read the book into an e-book version in that short of a period of time. So NOT offering a electronic version did jack to prevent an illegal copy being available.
Given the typos, I'd guess that they scanned and OCRed it. And trust me, nobody proof read it. Who would type and proof read that thing???
But closed systems are "opened" by hackers (think Jailbreak for the iPhone) in a very short time. Everyone can obtain illegally and for free any app in the appstore in less than 15 minutes. I'm not sure the locked system is the answer. Maybe the proportion of jailbroken iphones is insignificant and thus the model kinda works...
Actually, yes, you did state that, or implied as much. Simply because you didn't use the word "I" doesn't mean you aren't held accountable for the implications of your words. YOU were making a statement about free speech and it's relationship to digital works. Whether you personally believe in the concept you are presenting, they are still your words and your name is on the post.
Well, read my original post one more time. I make statements, for which I take full responsibility, don't worry about that. But they merely link digital data with free speech. Never do I state that free speech is sacred and must not be touched. I said it is information (hard to disagree on that one) and hence it is free to copy. It *is*, not it *should*. Stating a fact is not showing an opinion on whether it's a good thing or not. I'm saying that in my opinion it is inevitable. I am not saying it is a good or bad thing.
So yes, those were my words, and my name was on the post, and I still stand by them. What I don't stand by is your interpretation of my words.
What makes you think they don't? And if they don't, why do you think it is?
Right. Because the "try before you buy" idea for a book has worked so well in the past... Have you ever actually published a book? Do you know how rare it is for an author to make any profits off of royalties? Do you know why that is? Publishers subtract books "returned" from books sold, and frankly, an amazing number of people return books that they have read. It's so easy to say, "they return them because you're a lame author." But this isn't even the case (oh, who knows, *I* may indeed be a lame author), because I see this with every other author I have ever talked to. But even if the author IS lame, why is it acceptable to return a book you have already read, and not software you have already purchased, copied to and used on your computer? Or for that matter, even music.
Agreed, but how does that answer my questions?
And for reference, I'm not advocating DRM for books. I hate it for many of the same reasons that you do. But as an author, I can honestly say that free digital books won't work if writers expect to actually make a living from writing. I wish there was an alternative, like maybe being able to permanently mark a digital book with the name of it's owner (I do that with my paper books) such that you can give it away or copy it as much as you like, but YOUR name is going on those copies.
It works for music, why shouldn't it work for books?
While I agree that DRM on a book is wrong, simply stating that a book is just information and therefore should be free to copy at will is unbelievably naive and insulting to anyone who has ever tried to make a living off of published works.
Then it's good that I never stated that! Your mistake is in the 'should'. I said that I believe that nobody will be able to stop the information flow, nothing else. It's a belief in what will happen, not a wishful thinking.
If people weren't such shits, and actually paid for books they read, then DRM wouldn't be necessary (but probably still there, because publishers are shits too).
What makes you think they don't? And if they don't, why do you think it is?
I personally started pirating books when I started reading on a screen (PDA, phone). Why? Because there is no alternative. And the DRM crap is not an alternative. I buy books that I don't necessarily read instantly, but sometimes one, two or 6 month later. If my PDA broke in the meantime, I don't want to buy my books all over again. I want to own them, just as I did when buying dead-tree books.
Until they start selling TXT or HTML books, I'm nowhere close to buying legit digital copies. There are other open formats which would work equally fine. But no DRM.
Fsck you DRM! You SUCK! The written word is to important to be censored!
You actually forget the one thing that makes a digital copy vs a physical book: It takes half a millisecond to duplicate it, and it is free to do so. This is of course scaring the publishers, distributors and authors out of their minds. So they "invent" stuff to make sure only the original owner can read the book. In the process, they make the whole experience nightmarish, but hey...
This goes down to the root of one primordial liberty: Free speech. If you can talk freely, it means you can communicate freely with your neighbor. So you can give hime any information. Including a movie, MP3 or a digital book. Because down to its core, digital data is just information.
Trying to prevent someone to distribute a digital book (for non profit) is the equivalent of preventing him/her to have free speech. And this problem is new because only with a computer you can communicate data in such a bulky way with absolutely no loss.
Mindsets will change, and I firmly believe that noone will be able to prevent the information flow. This is the very nature of the human mind. Look at MP3s, they are now wold with no DRM whatsoever. Because no other way will work better than that one.
Have you read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article you are linking to? Let me put it there for you, with relevant portions highlighted:
The byte (pronounced/bat/) is a unit of digital information in computing and telecommunications. It is an ordered collection of bits, in which each bit denotes the binary value of 1 or 0. Historically, a byte was the number of bits (typically 6,7,8, or 9) used to encode a character of text in a computer[1][2] and it is for this reason the basic addressable element in many computer architectures. The size of a byte is typically hardware dependent, but the modern de facto standard is 8 bits, as this is a convenient power of 2. Other factors behind this particular size may be the IBM System/360 architecture, introduced in the 1960s, and the 8-bit microprocessors, introduced in the 1970s. No formal definition exists however, and other sizes have been used in various computers historically.
The sad thing is that the open-source community hates flash (with *very* good reason), but hasn't brought forth any legitimate alternatives.
HTML5+CSS3 is all we should ever need in the next few years. Other than that, if you need more, Flash and/or JavaApplets are fine. But only if you specifically need to.
Of course, it will never be used because f****ng M$ decided no to include it in its 40%+ market share browser, so that noone can decently propose this for a large website. But it is another story, right?
Seriously, is somebody taking seriously the 1 to 10 ratio of the story?
I mean, maybe raw execution of pure code is going 10 times slower in PHP than C++ (ouch, I didn't know that) but even then, it's far from representing the same ratio when talking about a number of servers. You have to take into account all other parameters (disk access, network, IO, etc... Those aren't 10 times as slow in PHP one would guess).
I would be astonished if this ratio is close to be the truth. Does anyone have any insight/information on this?
Slashdot Mirror
So you seem to be saying that the older style Xenon flash is better than LED flash. I couldn't find any references that back up that assertion. The articles I did find described pros and cons for each and the final picture quality seemed to be subjective as to which is best.
Are we really having that discussion? I had a 3MP camera in 2001, and trust me, the flash is not even remotely comparable to a dual or single LED flash that you can find on a phone right now. I am not saying LED flash are useless, but they have a much much shorter range.
LED can also be used with video and Xenon can't.
That's a good point.
You also seem to be saying that a 3MP sensor is better than a 5MP without knowing the size of the sensors. Do you know the size of the sensor?
Let's quote you in your previous post: "According to the specs it has a [...] 5MP sensor so should take fairly good pictures". So it is you that did make the assumption that a 5MP camera makes good pictures. I am just saying that a 5MP camera deosn't imply "good pictures". It merely implies that the pics are going to be bigger than on a 3MP camera, nothing less, nothing more.
Also, do you know that the video can't zoom digitally on the Nexus? It's certainly possible technically (the still camera has a digital zoom).
Well, that's what I was saying - unless I'm mistaken. No zoom on camera phones in video mode.
The flash is a LED flash. It's really nothing to do with a compact camera's flash. The 5MP sensor guarantees that the pictures are going to have lots of pixels. It doesn't guarantee the quality of the pixels. I prefer a nice 3MP picture over a crappy 5MP one. As far as video is concerned, remember there is no zoom at all while filming on a still camera. Phones are no exception.
To be really fair, quality of these pictures are getting close to the first 2-3MP cameras. Sure, you don't have a (real) flash nor a zoom, but you carry it around everywhere.
While these camera phones were just a gadget a couple of years ago, they can now take pretty nice shots. Not in the dark of course.
Swim?
Were any provisions of the Patriot Act set to expire soon or something?
They'll extend it, don't worry. In any case, I think I read that the supreme court did rule some of it unconstitutional already.
I guess they plan to forbid planes from destinations where passengers weren't scanned before entering the plane.
...like the Maginot Line.
Didn't it work? Oh wait....
It's always been easier to not follow rules than it is to follow them.
It's easier to not pay taxes (less forms to fill in)
It's easier to not follow the street lights (you get there faster, if at all)
It's easier not to care about others (less worries)
Not that I like DRM, but the argument doesn't hold water.
It took me a week to find how to install it... I kept looking for an entry in a repo ;-)
OEM Windows can be re-installed on the same machine! And you can't always buy back your former girlfriend !
Maybe Monty can *buy it back* from Sun before they sell to Oracle - seems like that would be fair to all parties involved, and clear the way for the Oracle/Sun merger.
Well, maybe not for Oracle, unless you don't count them as a party involved. Maybe, just maybe, they are interested by MySQL, would it be to kill it.
The problem he is having (in case Oracle stops MySQL altogether) is that MySQL will be GPL forever with no more hopes for dual licensing. Well, it doesn't sound that bad from my point of view.
But then it would be BSDL forever. Only the copyright owner can relicense.
Well, it is almost perfect, except that you can get back to Windows if you're not happy with your new OS. Your old gf with the big new bf is another matter altogether.
If I remember right, book before last was available within about a half hour of being released in stores - an enterprising group of people typed and proof-read the book into an e-book version in that short of a period of time. So NOT offering a electronic version did jack to prevent an illegal copy being available.
Given the typos, I'd guess that they scanned and OCRed it. And trust me, nobody proof read it. Who would type and proof read that thing???
I otherwise agree to your point of view.
But closed systems are "opened" by hackers (think Jailbreak for the iPhone) in a very short time. Everyone can obtain illegally and for free any app in the appstore in less than 15 minutes. I'm not sure the locked system is the answer. Maybe the proportion of jailbroken iphones is insignificant and thus the model kinda works...
Actually, yes, you did state that, or implied as much. Simply because you didn't use the word "I" doesn't mean you aren't held accountable for the implications of your words. YOU were making a statement about free speech and it's relationship to digital works. Whether you personally believe in the concept you are presenting, they are still your words and your name is on the post.
Well, read my original post one more time. I make statements, for which I take full responsibility, don't worry about that. But they merely link digital data with free speech. Never do I state that free speech is sacred and must not be touched. I said it is information (hard to disagree on that one) and hence it is free to copy. It *is*, not it *should*. Stating a fact is not showing an opinion on whether it's a good thing or not. I'm saying that in my opinion it is inevitable. I am not saying it is a good or bad thing.
So yes, those were my words, and my name was on the post, and I still stand by them. What I don't stand by is your interpretation of my words.
What makes you think they don't? And if they don't, why do you think it is?
Right. Because the "try before you buy" idea for a book has worked so well in the past... Have you ever actually published a book? Do you know how rare it is for an author to make any profits off of royalties? Do you know why that is? Publishers subtract books "returned" from books sold, and frankly, an amazing number of people return books that they have read. It's so easy to say, "they return them because you're a lame author." But this isn't even the case (oh, who knows, *I* may indeed be a lame author), because I see this with every other author I have ever talked to. But even if the author IS lame, why is it acceptable to return a book you have already read, and not software you have already purchased, copied to and used on your computer? Or for that matter, even music.
Agreed, but how does that answer my questions?
And for reference, I'm not advocating DRM for books. I hate it for many of the same reasons that you do. But as an author, I can honestly say that free digital books won't work if writers expect to actually make a living from writing. I wish there was an alternative, like maybe being able to permanently mark a digital book with the name of it's owner (I do that with my paper books) such that you can give it away or copy it as much as you like, but YOUR name is going on those copies.
It works for music, why shouldn't it work for books?
While I agree that DRM on a book is wrong, simply stating that a book is just information and therefore should be free to copy at will is unbelievably naive and insulting to anyone who has ever tried to make a living off of published works.
Then it's good that I never stated that! Your mistake is in the 'should'. I said that I believe that nobody will be able to stop the information flow, nothing else. It's a belief in what will happen, not a wishful thinking.
If people weren't such shits, and actually paid for books they read, then DRM wouldn't be necessary (but probably still there, because publishers are shits too).
What makes you think they don't? And if they don't, why do you think it is?
I personally started pirating books when I started reading on a screen (PDA, phone). Why? Because there is no alternative. And the DRM crap is not an alternative. I buy books that I don't necessarily read instantly, but sometimes one, two or 6 month later. If my PDA broke in the meantime, I don't want to buy my books all over again. I want to own them, just as I did when buying dead-tree books.
Until they start selling TXT or HTML books, I'm nowhere close to buying legit digital copies. There are other open formats which would work equally fine. But no DRM.
Fsck you DRM! You SUCK! The written word is to important to be censored!
You actually forget the one thing that makes a digital copy vs a physical book: It takes half a millisecond to duplicate it, and it is free to do so. This is of course scaring the publishers, distributors and authors out of their minds. So they "invent" stuff to make sure only the original owner can read the book. In the process, they make the whole experience nightmarish, but hey...
This goes down to the root of one primordial liberty: Free speech. If you can talk freely, it means you can communicate freely with your neighbor. So you can give hime any information. Including a movie, MP3 or a digital book. Because down to its core, digital data is just information.
Trying to prevent someone to distribute a digital book (for non profit) is the equivalent of preventing him/her to have free speech. And this problem is new because only with a computer you can communicate data in such a bulky way with absolutely no loss.
Mindsets will change, and I firmly believe that noone will be able to prevent the information flow. This is the very nature of the human mind. Look at MP3s, they are now wold with no DRM whatsoever. Because no other way will work better than that one.
To be fair, the lack of flash plugin (or so the summary says) is enough for me to endorse the browser.
Have you read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article you are linking to? Let me put it there for you, with relevant portions highlighted:
The byte (pronounced /bat/) is a unit of digital information in computing and telecommunications. It is an ordered collection of bits, in which each bit denotes the binary value of 1 or 0. Historically, a byte was the number of bits (typically 6,7,8, or 9) used to encode a character of text in a computer[1][2] and it is for this reason the basic addressable element in many computer architectures. The size of a byte is typically hardware dependent, but the modern de facto standard is 8 bits, as this is a convenient power of 2. Other factors behind this particular size may be the IBM System/360 architecture, introduced in the 1960s, and the 8-bit microprocessors, introduced in the 1970s. No formal definition exists however, and other sizes have been used in various computers historically.
How is this the fastest train in the world? The TGV did run at 574,8 km/h in 2007... Granted it's french, but still, it runs.
Too late! I just befriended a "Grigory Perelman" on facebook. Once we're pals, he'll give me the details to collect it myself. Ha!
The sad thing is that the open-source community hates flash (with *very* good reason), but hasn't brought forth any legitimate alternatives.
HTML5+CSS3 is all we should ever need in the next few years. Other than that, if you need more, Flash and/or JavaApplets are fine. But only if you specifically need to.
Of course, it will never be used because f****ng M$ decided no to include it in its 40%+ market share browser, so that noone can decently propose this for a large website. But it is another story, right?
Seriously, is somebody taking seriously the 1 to 10 ratio of the story?
I mean, maybe raw execution of pure code is going 10 times slower in PHP than C++ (ouch, I didn't know that) but even then, it's far from representing the same ratio when talking about a number of servers. You have to take into account all other parameters (disk access, network, IO, etc... Those aren't 10 times as slow in PHP one would guess).
I would be astonished if this ratio is close to be the truth. Does anyone have any insight/information on this?