Yes, because plugging your laptop into the TV is just the same thing as having anybody in the room able to wireless send whatever they want to the TV from the tablet they're holding in their hands.
The Apple TV is a $99 wireless video receiver with excellent quality. The crappy analog ones they sell in Radio Shack that require a dongle on your device still cost $79-200.
It's the equivalent of an adapter to let you hook your iPad, iPhone or iTunes up to your TV. It's not glamorous, but it is nicely executed and adds a lot of capability.
They might still have most desktops (it's a smaller percentage of PCs though, because notebooks outsell desktops) but the monopoly isn't there anymore. It used to be you HAD to have a Windows machine because all the software you needed only ran on it. Now most people can be quite happy with whatever OS they like.
GPS costs a bit more than $2. But the big problem is that it's slow. You can get around that by putting in a cellular radio too, but that costs even more.
You CAN get your map if you want. Either buy a tablet with a 3G radio and a GPS, or buy one without and a GPS tracker with a bluetooth connection.
Your choice to not buy something (regardless of what it can do) simply because other people buy it is just as irrational as people who do buy it because other people do.
$80 for the radio, microphones bigger battery and all the licensing fees is actually not that far out. Yes, licensing fees - the technology is heavily patented. I believe Apple currently doesn't pay some of those fees because of negotiation problems, but they're surely saving for the future when they have to, retroactively.
No. Transparent failover to SMS and using phone numbers as IDs are what set it apart. The user has to do NOTHING to use it. ANY other IM program at least requires you to get your friends to sign up. The point is that there's no marketing necessary. If you've got an i-device you use it automatically, transparently. If you were colour blind your first indication would probably be that your phone bill was smaller.
iMessage hides it from you. You just text somebody, and if they have an iPhone the text gets sent using cheap data instead of expensive SMS. The only distinction is what colour background the text has. Apple instantly made a chunk of carrier text revenue disappear without any effort on the part of the user: no getting your friends to sign up, no downloading an app, no remembering who has Skype accounts and who doesn't.
Blackberry figured out the built-in, just-like-texting thing first, but BBM used silly PIN numbers and didn't fail over to regular texts.
Not superconducting magnets. Any magnet that is shaped like a very long wire. Technically to have linear falloff it has to be infinitely long, but if you're 20 km above one that's 1600 km long it's going to be closer to linear than cubic.
In the clip he processes the picture so he can see someone that's BEHIND an object. The only way you can do that is if you acquire the picture with a lens that's big enough to see behind the blocking object through parallax. I suppose it's possible, but for the offset he used it would be a massively impractical camera.
Everything else he does has nothing to do with light fields but is along the lines of CSI's "enhance." Which is fine if you've got really high resolution, but light field cameras produce lower resolution than regular ones.
You might be waiting a long time for a display like that. Unless you had a LOT of angles and very good isolation between them, you'd end up with a display that would make the headaches you get from regular fake 3D a pleasant memory.
True. What the average consumer really wants is a small, light camera that can maintain a decent shutter speed in a dark room. In other words, the opposite of what this one does.
What the average photographer wants is a camera that gives him the ability to use shallow depth of field to create great, eye-catching, artistic images. Also the opposite of what this camera does.
It doesn't look like Lytro has much chance of revolutionizing photography.
Funny about all the parts where the loving creator screws over his beloved creations then. My favourite is where he blatantly makes the Egyptians NOT let the Israelites go just so he can torture and kill them.
There is no biblical perspective. The bible is a rambling collection of stories. There are a huge number of differing and usually contradictory religious perspectives, most of which have little to do with actual holy books. Your own perspective sounds like a fusion between second century AD thinking about original sin and twentieth century evangelical bible thumping. Your drive to share definitely belongs to the latter.
Yes, really. The US studied the phenomenon in Korea and developed current bootcamp and other training strategies to overcome it. The brutality of basic training isn't really about getting you fit or teaching you to work as a unit, the goal is to tear you down, wear you out and abuse you, then build you back up. Research showed that after being through that process you'd be more likely to kill.
"* Huge full frame sensor allowing light field output at 6+MP with high dynamic range and low noise at high ISOs"
Or I can get a regular huge full frame SLR with higher resolution and much better low noise performance. And no, switching the sensor into regular or light field mode isn't going to be easy.
It's easy enough to do that with a few minutes in Photoshop and a couple of shots, without the $500 low resolution camera. Not that you'd want to very often. Such a thing would scare your brain.
Nokia is already using all those pixels for their own gimmicks... and getting a 5 MP image out.
If you used that sensor with a light field lens array you'd end up with a camera that had truly horrible low light performance. And low light performance is probably THE thing that makes the biggest difference for typical snapshots.
Slashdot Mirror
If it bothers you, stream it directly to the Apple TV.
Yes, because plugging your laptop into the TV is just the same thing as having anybody in the room able to wireless send whatever they want to the TV from the tablet they're holding in their hands.
The Apple TV is a $99 wireless video receiver with excellent quality. The crappy analog ones they sell in Radio Shack that require a dongle on your device still cost $79-200.
Yes. And they buy tablets for their USB ports. There just aren't very many of them.
It's the equivalent of an adapter to let you hook your iPad, iPhone or iTunes up to your TV. It's not glamorous, but it is nicely executed and adds a lot of capability.
They might still have most desktops (it's a smaller percentage of PCs though, because notebooks outsell desktops) but the monopoly isn't there anymore. It used to be you HAD to have a Windows machine because all the software you needed only ran on it. Now most people can be quite happy with whatever OS they like.
GPS costs a bit more than $2. But the big problem is that it's slow. You can get around that by putting in a cellular radio too, but that costs even more.
You CAN get your map if you want. Either buy a tablet with a 3G radio and a GPS, or buy one without and a GPS tracker with a bluetooth connection.
Your choice to not buy something (regardless of what it can do) simply because other people buy it is just as irrational as people who do buy it because other people do.
$80 for the radio, microphones bigger battery and all the licensing fees is actually not that far out. Yes, licensing fees - the technology is heavily patented. I believe Apple currently doesn't pay some of those fees because of negotiation problems, but they're surely saving for the future when they have to, retroactively.
Um, no, if you actually get a cheaper monthly bill, it might well be worth your while to buy a phone outright.
My choice was to get locked into a contract and get a discounted phone or buy my own phone and get a MORE EXPENSIVE monthly contract.
I read it as "we still want to trap you in contracts and lock your phone, but we'd prefer not to pay for it."
No. Transparent failover to SMS and using phone numbers as IDs are what set it apart. The user has to do NOTHING to use it. ANY other IM program at least requires you to get your friends to sign up. The point is that there's no marketing necessary. If you've got an i-device you use it automatically, transparently. If you were colour blind your first indication would probably be that your phone bill was smaller.
iMessage hides it from you. You just text somebody, and if they have an iPhone the text gets sent using cheap data instead of expensive SMS. The only distinction is what colour background the text has. Apple instantly made a chunk of carrier text revenue disappear without any effort on the part of the user: no getting your friends to sign up, no downloading an app, no remembering who has Skype accounts and who doesn't.
Blackberry figured out the built-in, just-like-texting thing first, but BBM used silly PIN numbers and didn't fail over to regular texts.
We keep a lot of superconductors at superconducting temperature all the time. There are three of them within fifty feet of my office, for example.
If all they need is a wire, they can use high temperature superconductors. We've even built at least one reasonably large scale example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Superconducting_cables
So no, nothing like a space elevator.
Not superconducting magnets. Any magnet that is shaped like a very long wire. Technically to have linear falloff it has to be infinitely long, but if you're 20 km above one that's 1600 km long it's going to be closer to linear than cubic.
In the clip he processes the picture so he can see someone that's BEHIND an object. The only way you can do that is if you acquire the picture with a lens that's big enough to see behind the blocking object through parallax. I suppose it's possible, but for the offset he used it would be a massively impractical camera.
Everything else he does has nothing to do with light fields but is along the lines of CSI's "enhance." Which is fine if you've got really high resolution, but light field cameras produce lower resolution than regular ones.
You might be waiting a long time for a display like that. Unless you had a LOT of angles and very good isolation between them, you'd end up with a display that would make the headaches you get from regular fake 3D a pleasant memory.
True. What the average consumer really wants is a small, light camera that can maintain a decent shutter speed in a dark room. In other words, the opposite of what this one does.
What the average photographer wants is a camera that gives him the ability to use shallow depth of field to create great, eye-catching, artistic images. Also the opposite of what this camera does.
It doesn't look like Lytro has much chance of revolutionizing photography.
Funny about all the parts where the loving creator screws over his beloved creations then. My favourite is where he blatantly makes the Egyptians NOT let the Israelites go just so he can torture and kill them.
There is no biblical perspective. The bible is a rambling collection of stories. There are a huge number of differing and usually contradictory religious perspectives, most of which have little to do with actual holy books. Your own perspective sounds like a fusion between second century AD thinking about original sin and twentieth century evangelical bible thumping. Your drive to share definitely belongs to the latter.
"bees have an unusual form of heredity which means that sisters are more closely related than they are to the next generation."
That's not unusual. You're more closely related, on average, to your siblings than to your children too.
Yes, really. The US studied the phenomenon in Korea and developed current bootcamp and other training strategies to overcome it. The brutality of basic training isn't really about getting you fit or teaching you to work as a unit, the goal is to tear you down, wear you out and abuse you, then build you back up. Research showed that after being through that process you'd be more likely to kill.
"* Huge full frame sensor allowing light field output at 6+MP with high dynamic range and low noise at high ISOs"
Or I can get a regular huge full frame SLR with higher resolution and much better low noise performance. And no, switching the sensor into regular or light field mode isn't going to be easy.
What he was doing was (a) impossible and (b) nothing like a light field camera.
Um, what exactly would it do?
It's easy enough to do that with a few minutes in Photoshop and a couple of shots, without the $500 low resolution camera. Not that you'd want to very often. Such a thing would scare your brain.
Nokia is already using all those pixels for their own gimmicks... and getting a 5 MP image out.
If you used that sensor with a light field lens array you'd end up with a camera that had truly horrible low light performance. And low light performance is probably THE thing that makes the biggest difference for typical snapshots.