Killing a pig or a cow to eat is very different from killing a pig or cow for pleasure -- and very different from mutilating them while they're alive for our amusement.
Indeed. Worse than that, we have reason to believe that the very approach suggested in the article is insufficient. Someone is about to waste lot's of money.
I think the OP was taking issue with the flexibility, not the OLED. If the screen is to be flexible, this only becomes useful if everything else it's attached to is also flexible
The selling point, according to the two-sentence summary, is that making the display flexible makes it "unbreakable". TFA doesn't offer any more detail, but the presumption is that the display won't shatter.
I disagree. The pen is not only essential for many applications to which a tablet is uniquely suited, but superior to touch input in many more common applications. People immediately recognized this, and it's clear that they really want to use a pen, as evidenced by the countless third-party styluses that flooded the market shortly after the iPad hit the market.
Eliminating the stylus, and ridiculing its use, was a huge mistake on Apple's part. That will come back to bite them in the next few years as the market matures and consumers begin to demand that tables offer support for a proper stylus.
The argument was that Apple "missed the boat on what smartphone buyers really want" supported by Apple's share of the smartphone market. This was countered? first by suggesting that market share was irrelevant, which he then undercuts with his sales numbers comment. See, the only reason to cite high sales numbers comment is to imply that they hold a large portion of the market; that's why you'd make that argument against the parents claim.
They never had more than 20% of the smartphone marketshare. Marketshare is largely irrelevant for Apple ... Otherwise they wouldn't have sold so many of them.
I've seen all sorts of techno-hate on Slashdot. I've seen Microsoft hate and Apple hate, I've seen hate for countless programming languages. I've seen hate for just about every personality to make the front page. I've hated and even been hated in return!
But now I've see it all.
I've finally seen someone with what appears to be a pathological hatred for wrist watches.
Now we just need a wrist watch fanboy with a persecution complex.
Look at it this way: The news is only three months old, there isn't a dup on the front page (yet), and it's from a sleazy tabloid rather than a blog about someones blog about a sleazy tabloid article they saw on reddit.
No, no he did not. I have absolutely no idea how that absurd myth still persists.
Something as simple as copying some music on to an iPod or iPhone is an absolute nightmare. Their gesture suite can only be described as disgraceful. Even the home button is a mess; embarrassingly overloaded with functions which change depending on how and when you press it. It's as unintuitive as it gets.
Sure, the iPhone it seemed simple when it barely did anything. You know, when it didn't have apps, copy/paste, multitasking, MMS, and other features common to other smartphones, and even many of the cheapest feature phones of the time.
Here's a usability challenge for you: Copy a zip file from your computer to your iPhone and then email it to someone. Now try doing the same thing on a BlackBerry, Android, or, well, any other smartphone.
That 11 1/2 hours is not in any way contiguous -- what could you accomplish in that time, in 114 seconds a day? How could that possibly offer any advantage, let alone one worth $35/hour?
Even if you could come up with some fantastic task that could justify the value placed on that tiny bit of time, who the hell can't manage to find 114 seconds of extra time per day? Go to bed 114 seconds later than normal, no weird untested toothbrush or dentist appointment required.
What if you shaved 19 seconds off the beginning and end of every meal? But I'm thinking too narrowly here. Just think how much time you could save by eliminating all those unnecessary trips to the toilet with a catheter!
You suggest that "fair number of people" would benefit. I'd love to know who these folks are, why their day is packed down to the second, and (most importantly) and why they're not all cathed.
Remember VB6? (Oh, the horror!) VB6 apps were slower and bigger than the equivalent written in VC++.
Do you know why it was so popular?
Because the "horrible" performance was good enough for most applications. A good developer using VB6 cut his development time significantly (hours vs days, days vs. weeks). A beginner could actually get something to work in a reasonable amount of time. That's powerful.
The web as a platform has its own set of advantages that, for many applications, more than offset the speed issue. Your application is near effortlessly cross-platform and painless to deploy. I'd even argue development time as a significant advantage over c++.
Your talk about frame rates makes me think your focused on games. Well, it's good enough there as well -- even on mobile -- if you don't mind your game looking about Wii quality, that is. For most people, and most games, this is perfectly acceptable.
So, yes, "almost there" really is "good enough". No one is "chasing frame rates" that were "common in the late 90's" -- that doesn't even make sense. The web can easily handle "common in the late 90's" without breaking a sweat. You seem to think that if it's not good enough to run a modern AAA title at 60fps it's worthless as a platform. That's ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
You think that's bad? I saw a guy once who thought that the length of a function should be determined by the size of the screen!
Overrated
Is this the future of porn?
Why?
Killing a pig or a cow to eat is very different from killing a pig or cow for pleasure -- and very different from mutilating them while they're alive for our amusement.
So it's okay to torture cockroaches? What about other bugs?
Is it okay to torture fish? Lizards? Mice? Dogs?
What about people?
Where do you draw the line? On what basis did you make that determination?
It didn't deliver human intelligence,
Yes.
but it certainly has made computers a lot more intelligent.
No. Not even a little bit.
Dennett is a populist hack. He is to philosophy what Deepak Chopra is to physics.
Enlightened? It's science fiction.
It's not even good science fiction.
You have no idea how dramatically wrong you are.
Indeed. Worse than that, we have reason to believe that the very approach suggested in the article is insufficient. Someone is about to waste lot's of money.
I've never shattered a screen either, but that doesn't mean that it's an uncommon problem.
I think the OP was taking issue with the flexibility, not the OLED. If the screen is to be flexible, this only becomes useful if everything else it's attached to is also flexible
The selling point, according to the two-sentence summary, is that making the display flexible makes it "unbreakable". TFA doesn't offer any more detail, but the presumption is that the display won't shatter.
I disagree. The pen is not only essential for many applications to which a tablet is uniquely suited, but superior to touch input in many more common applications. People immediately recognized this, and it's clear that they really want to use a pen, as evidenced by the countless third-party styluses that flooded the market shortly after the iPad hit the market.
Eliminating the stylus, and ridiculing its use, was a huge mistake on Apple's part. That will come back to bite them in the next few years as the market matures and consumers begin to demand that tables offer support for a proper stylus.
Not quite what I meant.
The argument was that Apple "missed the boat on what smartphone buyers really want" supported by Apple's share of the smartphone market. This was countered? first by suggesting that market share was irrelevant, which he then undercuts with his sales numbers comment. See, the only reason to cite high sales numbers comment is to imply that they hold a large portion of the market; that's why you'd make that argument against the parents claim.
They never had more than 20% of the smartphone marketshare. Marketshare is largely irrelevant for Apple
...
Otherwise they wouldn't have sold so many of them.
What?
I've seen all sorts of techno-hate on Slashdot. I've seen Microsoft hate and Apple hate, I've seen hate for countless programming languages. I've seen hate for just about every personality to make the front page. I've hated and even been hated in return!
But now I've see it all.
I've finally seen someone with what appears to be a pathological hatred for wrist watches.
Now we just need a wrist watch fanboy with a persecution complex.
is this what passes for news on /. now ?
Look at it this way: The news is only three months old, there isn't a dup on the front page (yet), and it's from a sleazy tabloid rather than a blog about someones blog about a sleazy tabloid article they saw on reddit.
I'd say it's a step forward!
No, no he did not. I have absolutely no idea how that absurd myth still persists.
Something as simple as copying some music on to an iPod or iPhone is an absolute nightmare. Their gesture suite can only be described as disgraceful. Even the home button is a mess; embarrassingly overloaded with functions which change depending on how and when you press it. It's as unintuitive as it gets.
Sure, the iPhone it seemed simple when it barely did anything. You know, when it didn't have apps, copy/paste, multitasking, MMS, and other features common to other smartphones, and even many of the cheapest feature phones of the time.
Here's a usability challenge for you: Copy a zip file from your computer to your iPhone and then email it to someone. Now try doing the same thing on a BlackBerry, Android, or, well, any other smartphone.
Usable my ass. It borders on useless.
I think he's one of those people who still think "software engineering" is related in some way to other actual engineering disciplines.
no-one would ever work that hard for a real dick.
I don't know about that. I've met Apple fanboys...
You're an idiot.
and probably worth it to a fair number of people.
That is absolutely insane.
That 11 1/2 hours is not in any way contiguous -- what could you accomplish in that time, in 114 seconds a day? How could that possibly offer any advantage, let alone one worth $35/hour?
Even if you could come up with some fantastic task that could justify the value placed on that tiny bit of time, who the hell can't manage to find 114 seconds of extra time per day? Go to bed 114 seconds later than normal, no weird untested toothbrush or dentist appointment required.
What if you shaved 19 seconds off the beginning and end of every meal? But I'm thinking too narrowly here. Just think how much time you could save by eliminating all those unnecessary trips to the toilet with a catheter!
You suggest that "fair number of people" would benefit. I'd love to know who these folks are, why their day is packed down to the second, and (most importantly) and why they're not all cathed.
Six second from the recommended 120 seconds--and how many of us do that?--is a lot of time saved
I can't tell you how thankful I am that my schedule has never been so tight that saving 114-seconds on personal care could feel significant.
How do you find the time to post on slashdot?
Meh, who cares?
Remember VB6? (Oh, the horror!) VB6 apps were slower and bigger than the equivalent written in VC++.
Do you know why it was so popular?
Because the "horrible" performance was good enough for most applications. A good developer using VB6 cut his development time significantly (hours vs days, days vs. weeks). A beginner could actually get something to work in a reasonable amount of time. That's powerful.
The web as a platform has its own set of advantages that, for many applications, more than offset the speed issue. Your application is near effortlessly cross-platform and painless to deploy. I'd even argue development time as a significant advantage over c++.
Your talk about frame rates makes me think your focused on games. Well, it's good enough there as well -- even on mobile -- if you don't mind your game looking about Wii quality, that is. For most people, and most games, this is perfectly acceptable.
So, yes, "almost there" really is "good enough". No one is "chasing frame rates" that were "common in the late 90's" -- that doesn't even make sense. The web can easily handle "common in the late 90's" without breaking a sweat. You seem to think that if it's not good enough to run a modern AAA title at 60fps it's worthless as a platform. That's ridiculous.