Rah rah! Notebooks aren't low power devices in this context nor was OS X specifically written for notebooks, but if you want to believe that your iBook has superior battery life because it runs OS X then who's to argue with you? Meanwhile, suggesting that OS X is optimized for cellphones in the same way as Symbian or Blackberry is absurd.
OS X is "a far far more mature operating system" than what? OS X for iPhone hasn't even reached 1.0
"How is that not a true statement, in the context you chose to omit?"
Because it is a superlative value judgement, of course. In who's judgement is he "by far the most influential"? A fanboy's, of course.
"What's wrong with that statement?"
It is equating criticism of a device with predictions of its failure. You can't stand that people criticise the iPhone.
"Don't know where to go with this one."
Easy. The iPhone hasn't shipped so we don't know if WiFi works without a contract. Apple could certainly implement just such a lockout, yet you can't imagine how that's possible. You imagination is very selective.
"You WILL NOT need a contract to use WiFi on iPhone, for the reasons I said:"
You don't know that and you can't possibly know that. You're the one claiming that your posts are always about facts yet this is an example where you are arguing your assumptions as fact. Apple could easily and trivially lock out WiFi. I doubt they do but that's not the point.
"Actually, if you'd still say that IS a fanboy statement, what's the term for blog posts and news articles proclaiming (incorrectly, or at the VERY LEAST without knowing definitively themselves) that WiFi usage will require a contract on iPhone?"
I don't say that it's a fanboy statement, I say that it's a statement that supports the argument that you are one. It is clearly not fact yet you claim that it is.
"That's true of ANY GSM phone, and that is a statement from a technical standpoint: an unlocked* GSM handset should absolutely have its basic functionality - voice, data, voicemail, etc. - work on any network."
"Should" is not the same as "does" and, once again, this is a case where you present opinion as fact. What you say *should* be true but that doesn't make it true. Both Apple and the carriers could erect barriers. T-mobile is documented to have begun doing exactly this and the iPhone hasn't shipped yet.
"True statement. In the US, it does."
It does not. WiFi is more an option in Europe than in the US. Jobs and Apple are feeding us a real line here and you are parroting their marketing BS. Provide ANY data substantiating this opinion.
"True statement. (I'm guessing you actually believe WiFi would really be locked to a contract?)"
Dave, you're just going to have to realize that believing WiFi is unlocked is not the same as knowing it is. We don't know. There aren't any in the field that are attempting to use it without contract.
If you want to hold yourself up as a paragon of factual virtue, you need to be more rigorous on your facts.
"iPhone, from a technical perspective, WILL work on any GSM carrier IF Apple chooses to sell it unlocked in Europe. In the US, it is already well known that it will start out being locked to AT&T/Cingular only, and it remains to be seen whether US iPhones can easily be unlocked. These are two different discussions."
You are making no technical argument here at all. Apple could choose to make the device any way it sees fit. GSM is not simply one standard. Yes, Apple could choose to make the device unlocked and universal. That doesn't mean they have.
"You're cherry picking comments and pretending that they're contradictory, when you're either purposely misreading them or misconstruing them out of the context in which I made the comments to make me look bad."
Yes, I'm cherry-picking your comments but I'm not misrepresenting them. You argue contradictory points depending on what suits you and make up "facts" based on what might be. We don't know what features, if any, will be locked without contract, we don't know if the device will be locked at all, don't know if Apple will sell unlocked versions in the US, didn't know until recently about the SIM slot, etc. You seem remarkably willing to fill in those gaps in a matter that casts the iPhone in its most favorable light. That's the hallmark of a fanboy.
"It defies any sort of logic to say that WiFi is locked to a
As proven by your link, the Fuji sensor uses a bayer pattern. I'm sorry you have no idea what I'm talking about. Perhaps you should learn what a Bayer pattern is. Fuji turns the Bayer pattern filter 45 degrees.
What does an ISP making or losing money have to do with it? Do you feel they owe you something because they are profitable?
There's a vast difference between full speed for one packet and full saturation 24/7, and your attempt to color the argument in your favor doesn't fly. You aren't getting throttled back on each and every packet you use. If you were, you really would be getting a slower service.
Consumer services do not promise sustained rates equal to peak rates. That's what business services do. You ARE getting what you pay for, you just refuse to admit it.
I have no need to bitch about digitaldog. He didn't make any baseless claims nor did namedrop to defend his position. Furthermore, those issues don't need to be explained to me. I already know that wider gamut displays have their downsides. Of course, all of this is irrelevant because Apple never said squat about wider gamut.
Yes, you are in good company with others who made the same baseless assumptions. The interesting question is why that assumption was made.
That's utter nonsense. Every engineer that involves himself with the patent process learns how to read patents. You are obviously not one of those people.
Programming texts often contain actual source code or pseudocode. They also employ other mechanisms. Patents are the same. I've personally included the entire source to embedded firmware in a patent before. Doing so is considered bad form because it is not to the benefit of the patent owner and it discloses irrelevant details that could aid competitors. Patents do not require disclosure of a working implementation, only a description of how to create one. Textbooks teach more.
Your distaste for the process does not make an argument for it constituting no disclosure whatsoever. You said yourself that an effort has to be made by the reader. As not only a professional programmer but an author or co-author of over 40 patents, I'm familiar with the requirements.
It's too bad my use of the term "software textbook" was so confusing to you. I'd didn't realize the juveniles of today had such a hard time with basic english. Somehow I think most understood me.
Well, war IS a good thing depending on your perspective and I think you just argued that yourself.
If you wish to argue that no meaningful conclusions can be made regarding the Wright brothers case that suits me just fine. It's a far cry better than claiming that meaningful advances in aviation are the result of burdensome patents that came from their work.
Yes it has. All we have is Jobs's word that the iPhone browser is better than all others. His claim that it's the first to be based on KHTML isn't even true. Cell phone web browsers suck. How much less the iPhone sucks is yet to be determined.
Incidently, all those "killer apps" you listed exist on every other smartphone and have for years. A killer app is one that makes a compelling case for one solution over another. Nevertheless, at least you support my argument that it isn't one thing that makes the iPhone a revolution. Of course, I don't believe it is a revolution at all.
If the iPhone does have a "killer app" it will be in usability since all other platforms suck terribly. Trouble is, the iPhone doesn't appear to make a good one-handed device. I doubt it's the revolution there it promises to be.
"I don't claim to be an expert, but I think you need a little bit more to convince me that I'm wrong other than "That is wrong." The evidence shows you to the contrary."
No, it doesn't nor have you made any attempt to address my comment that light sources vary.
"There are absolutely, 100% not "3 colors". "
In any tristimulous system, like our eyes, our cameras, and everything we are talking about here, there are only 3 colors. That's where the name comes from after all. If you want to degenerate this into an argument over your deliberate misunderstanding of my post then you can do it alone.
"but it is a 3x3 filter while the Bayer filter is 2x2. So you are neither limited to "4 pixels" nor "only 3 colors"."
Sure, you can use 3x3 if you want to use an even stronger antialiasing filter. Otherwise, each 2x2 cell will still have 2 sensors of 1 "color filter". The Bayer design made these all green because the eye is most sensitive to green. That's the reason they gave, after all.
"It absolutely does because the values of the pixels are interpolated to get R, G, & B at each pixel location."
Each pixel location responds only to the light that illuminates its sensor. Light illuminating other sensors may influence its value due to the demosaicing algorithm but that's not the same as saying that the sensor is taking advantage of "more green light". Twice as much green data isn't what is in dispute here, it's obtaining it because there is more green light.
"I'd love to see your math that shows to the contrary."
No need since you can't seem to keep yourself from being confused. There is clearly twice as much green data in a bayer sensor. How that equates to a "bias toward green" depends on what you mean by that. Regardless, it is absolutely not a consequence of having more green light.
"Believing to the contrary is beyond absurd. Advocating such is foolish."
At least we know that you aren't a fool in that respect.
"Fluorescent is definitely more blueish than incandescent and if you put them next to each other, fluorescent has a "blueish tint.""
No, they have a greenish tint. Of course, all this is an meaningless generalization. I still await your explanation of precisely how a bayer sensor ends up with a "bias toward green" because there is more green light available, particularly considering that you've now acknowledged that it isn't the case.
Bayer himself says that more green sensors were chosen because of the eye's greater sensitivity to green details. That's all there is to it. Your original post is riddled with flaws.
Since when was it ever stated that only 5500K mattered? Cameras have to respond to a variety of light sources and, as I stated before, no such generalization regarding green can possibly be made.
Thanks for the gratuitous and meaningless scolding on "hot" and "cold". You act as though I made them up or used them improperly.
No, it does not. The "signal" in this case is the well in the sensor. The filter does not effect the underlying sensor at all, only what that sensor is "sensing".
"That DEFINITELY alters the signal in both intensity and frequency."
I can't help it that you don't understand the problem.
"That depends on your assumption of noise. If your noise has equal power across the visible spectrum, then which colors you filter by won't change the noise. However, if you have a noise spike at green then you will probably get less noise by going with cyan & magenta."
Boy, such nonsense. The noise isn't coming from the light, it comes from the A-D conversion. You can't filter out noise that doesn't exist (yet).
I reviewed your recent posting history. Aside from two article submissions, both regarding Apple, I noticed the following:
Some examples of your recent fanboy comments:
"...considering Steve Jobs is by far the most influential person in music, media, and computing..."
"...I have another idea: how about people stop predicting the doom of the iPhone before it's even out yet?"
"There is no reason I can think of that you'd have to have a "contract" to use WiFi on iPhone."
"Obviously, future generations of iPhone will have added functionality."
and some unsubstantiated claims (considering the iPhone isn't even available yet):
"the only feature loss would be "visual voicemail", but "normal" voicemail functionality and all other phone features, as applicable, should absolutely work."
"That's ridiculous. WiFi isn't "locked" to anything."
"The inclusion of WiFi also obviates the need for 3G coverage for many people."
"Large numbers of people in major metro areas will still purchase iPhone, and WiFi will also mitigate the need for 3G for a lot of people."
"Since you need a two-year AT&T contract anyway, this is a moot point. But if you let the contract expire or pay a termination fee, WiFi won't just stop working."
Followed by your openly contradictory remark here:
"I'm talking about AT&T's 3G coverage, which is the only thing that matters in the US, since that's the only network on which you can use an iPhone in the US."
"And yes, iPhone will work on any GSM carrier; that's the whole purpose of standards like GSM, and iPhone is a GSM phone."
See, the problem, Dave, is that you are a fanboy. It isn't that you can't argue facts when they are on your side, it's that you make them up when you need some that aren't there. Curious that you would argue both sides of the carrier issue when it suits you. It's more about winning an iPhone argument than getting the correct information out, isn't it?
"wanting correct information disseminated about something you're interested in" has nothing to do with being a fanboy. If that's the extent of it, then those involved aren't fanboys.
The article fails to live up to it's title and is basically incorrect. The only "psychology" offered is that fanboys aren't insecure yet they are. Fanboys seek validation for their choices. They see themselves as part of a "team". It's not about correctness, it's about the side they are on "winning". Being on the side of the underdog has nothing to do with it.
We all make choices and investments of our time and money and often do so without being critical of the choices we make, yet we hate being shown to be wrong and are loath to admit it. Some take it to such an extreme that they are willing to argue the side of an obvious losing cause and to make up outrageous lies to advance their position. Those are fanboys. They aren't any different from the rest of us, they've just lost any trace of objectivity and have become delusional. There's no reason Microsoft shouldn't have them just like Apple does and they certainly do.
I have been accused of being a hater and a fanboy on the same subject at the same time. When in the company of fanboys, objectivity is the enemy. It's not about being right, it's about winning.
I think you have that exactly backwards. The iPhone is limited by it's thickness and weight. Any manufacturer can add a bigger battery if they're willing to sacrifice in those areas. With the iPhone, removing a keyboard that consumes no power and replacing it with a double-sized screen leads to more power consumption, not less. Apple has had to contend with a device that uses more power for its size than its competitors. It is also using an OS not specifically written for low power devices. That doesn't mean that the device will be a failure but it sure indicates the unlikeliness of your claim. It's far from clear that battery life is the secret feature; everything suggests the opposite.
I'll also note that, in true/. fashion, the author claims in the title that the iPhone gets a better battery. Not true, of course, as the iPhone gets better battery *life* *ratings*. I'm curious what the new weight *rating* is especially with glass replacing plastic for the screen.
You're fabricating a double standard where it doesn't exist. Even if "many people" make that complaint, not one of them would agree that the same amount would be enough for this device.
"In other words, sunlight is more green than red and blue."
That is wrong. Sunlight varies dramatically and no such generalization can be made but "daylight" is quite well balanced; it is not biased toward green.
"The Bayer filter has twice as many green pixels as red or blue, which reflects the sunlight power spectral density more than having one cyan, one magenta, one yellow, and one intensity would."
No, the Bayer filter has twice as many green pixels because (a) there are 4 pixels and only 3 colors so one color is going to get twice as many as the other, and (b) the eye is far more sensitive to green resolution than to blue and red. Adding more pixels does not in any way take advantage of this extra green light you claim exists (but doesn't). Curiously, bayer sensor cameras are typically most sensitive to green by virtue of their dyes and infrared filter effects. If this were done intentionally rather than being an unfortunate consequence, it could only be justified in response to a *shortage* of green, not an overabundance.
"...fluorescents have a blueish tint (that's where their frequencies have their peak power)."
No, flourescents are very green. They are also colder ("bluer") than incandescents but they do not have a "blueish tint".
Changing the filter, or removing it entirely, does not change the amount of signal one bit. The amount of signal and the amount of noise are characteristics of the underlying pixel. Altering the filter only effects sensitivity.
Filters can contribute to noise in a final image by creating and imbalance in white balance or by limiting the amount of light to a level below optimal. Otherwise, they aren't involved. This claim that the CMY to RGB conversion increases noise is nonsense.
Except that rods and cones are entirely different mechanisms and the kodak design uses identical underlying pixels. They are, in reality, not analogous at all.
It's plainly obvious that color resolution is sacrificed. Dynamic range, if anything, is reduced due to the mismatch in sensitivity between the pixels. Color can be removed from luminosity, but luminosity cannot be seperated from color. In short, I'd suggest you not pursue this as a career.
...or to paraphrase, respecting the desires of the people who have done the work is "idealism" while subjugating those individuals for the interests of the uninvolved is pragmatism. Quite a perspective you have there.
Linus and Theo concern themselves with what it takes to do their jobs and accomplish their goals. That's pragmatism. RMS concerns himself with imposing his terms on as many programmers and projects as he can. That's idealism.
"Theo, on the other hand, is willing to brow beat vendors until they give up specs so he can give people freedom. That kind of idealism is actually damaging."
He's not doing it to give others freedom, he's doing it to get software written. It may be damaging but it's not idealism.
Idealism is brow-beating people into changing project names that you have no part of in order to increase the visibility of your cause. Since when is Linux vs GNU/Linux anything other than about idealism and the struggle to remain relevant? Where's the pragmatism there?
Slashdot Mirror
Rah rah! Notebooks aren't low power devices in this context nor was OS X specifically written for notebooks, but if you want to believe that your iBook has superior battery life because it runs OS X then who's to argue with you? Meanwhile, suggesting that OS X is optimized for cellphones in the same way as Symbian or Blackberry is absurd.
OS X is "a far far more mature operating system" than what? OS X for iPhone hasn't even reached 1.0
"How is that not a true statement, in the context you chose to omit?"
Because it is a superlative value judgement, of course. In who's judgement is he "by far the most influential"? A fanboy's, of course.
"What's wrong with that statement?"
It is equating criticism of a device with predictions of its failure. You can't stand that people criticise the iPhone.
"Don't know where to go with this one."
Easy. The iPhone hasn't shipped so we don't know if WiFi works without a contract. Apple could certainly implement just such a lockout, yet you can't imagine how that's possible. You imagination is very selective.
"You WILL NOT need a contract to use WiFi on iPhone, for the reasons I said:"
You don't know that and you can't possibly know that. You're the one claiming that your posts are always about facts yet this is an example where you are arguing your assumptions as fact. Apple could easily and trivially lock out WiFi. I doubt they do but that's not the point.
"Actually, if you'd still say that IS a fanboy statement, what's the term for blog posts and news articles proclaiming (incorrectly, or at the VERY LEAST without knowing definitively themselves) that WiFi usage will require a contract on iPhone?"
I don't say that it's a fanboy statement, I say that it's a statement that supports the argument that you are one. It is clearly not fact yet you claim that it is.
"That's true of ANY GSM phone, and that is a statement from a technical standpoint: an unlocked* GSM handset should absolutely have its basic functionality - voice, data, voicemail, etc. - work on any network."
"Should" is not the same as "does" and, once again, this is a case where you present opinion as fact. What you say *should* be true but that doesn't make it true. Both Apple and the carriers could erect barriers. T-mobile is documented to have begun doing exactly this and the iPhone hasn't shipped yet.
"True statement. In the US, it does."
It does not. WiFi is more an option in Europe than in the US. Jobs and Apple are feeding us a real line here and you are parroting their marketing BS. Provide ANY data substantiating this opinion.
"True statement. (I'm guessing you actually believe WiFi would really be locked to a contract?)"
Dave, you're just going to have to realize that believing WiFi is unlocked is not the same as knowing it is. We don't know. There aren't any in the field that are attempting to use it without contract.
If you want to hold yourself up as a paragon of factual virtue, you need to be more rigorous on your facts.
"iPhone, from a technical perspective, WILL work on any GSM carrier IF Apple chooses to sell it unlocked in Europe. In the US, it is already well known that it will start out being locked to AT&T/Cingular only, and it remains to be seen whether US iPhones can easily be unlocked. These are two different discussions."
You are making no technical argument here at all. Apple could choose to make the device any way it sees fit. GSM is not simply one standard. Yes, Apple could choose to make the device unlocked and universal. That doesn't mean they have.
"You're cherry picking comments and pretending that they're contradictory, when you're either purposely misreading them or misconstruing them out of the context in which I made the comments to make me look bad."
Yes, I'm cherry-picking your comments but I'm not misrepresenting them. You argue contradictory points depending on what suits you and make up "facts" based on what might be. We don't know what features, if any, will be locked without contract, we don't know if the device will be locked at all, don't know if Apple will sell unlocked versions in the US, didn't know until recently about the SIM slot, etc. You seem remarkably willing to fill in those gaps in a matter that casts the iPhone in its most favorable light. That's the hallmark of a fanboy.
"It defies any sort of logic to say that WiFi is locked to a
As proven by your link, the Fuji sensor uses a bayer pattern. I'm sorry you have no idea what I'm talking about. Perhaps you should learn what a Bayer pattern is. Fuji turns the Bayer pattern filter 45 degrees.
What does an ISP making or losing money have to do with it? Do you feel they owe you something because they are profitable?
There's a vast difference between full speed for one packet and full saturation 24/7, and your attempt to color the argument in your favor doesn't fly. You aren't getting throttled back on each and every packet you use. If you were, you really would be getting a slower service.
Consumer services do not promise sustained rates equal to peak rates. That's what business services do. You ARE getting what you pay for, you just refuse to admit it.
I have no need to bitch about digitaldog. He didn't make any baseless claims nor did namedrop to defend his position. Furthermore, those issues don't need to be explained to me. I already know that wider gamut displays have their downsides. Of course, all of this is irrelevant because Apple never said squat about wider gamut.
Yes, you are in good company with others who made the same baseless assumptions. The interesting question is why that assumption was made.
That's utter nonsense. Every engineer that involves himself with the patent process learns how to read patents. You are obviously not one of those people.
Programming texts often contain actual source code or pseudocode. They also employ other mechanisms. Patents are the same. I've personally included the entire source to embedded firmware in a patent before. Doing so is considered bad form because it is not to the benefit of the patent owner and it discloses irrelevant details that could aid competitors. Patents do not require disclosure of a working implementation, only a description of how to create one. Textbooks teach more.
Your distaste for the process does not make an argument for it constituting no disclosure whatsoever. You said yourself that an effort has to be made by the reader. As not only a professional programmer but an author or co-author of over 40 patents, I'm familiar with the requirements.
It's too bad my use of the term "software textbook" was so confusing to you. I'd didn't realize the juveniles of today had such a hard time with basic english. Somehow I think most understood me.
Well, war IS a good thing depending on your perspective and I think you just argued that yourself.
If you wish to argue that no meaningful conclusions can be made regarding the Wright brothers case that suits me just fine. It's a far cry better than claiming that meaningful advances in aviation are the result of burdensome patents that came from their work.
Yes it has. All we have is Jobs's word that the iPhone browser is better than all others. His claim that it's the first to be based on KHTML isn't even true. Cell phone web browsers suck. How much less the iPhone sucks is yet to be determined.
Incidently, all those "killer apps" you listed exist on every other smartphone and have for years. A killer app is one that makes a compelling case for one solution over another. Nevertheless, at least you support my argument that it isn't one thing that makes the iPhone a revolution. Of course, I don't believe it is a revolution at all.
If the iPhone does have a "killer app" it will be in usability since all other platforms suck terribly. Trouble is, the iPhone doesn't appear to make a good one-handed device. I doubt it's the revolution there it promises to be.
"I don't claim to be an expert, but I think you need a little bit more to convince me that I'm wrong other than "That is wrong." The evidence shows you to the contrary."
No, it doesn't nor have you made any attempt to address my comment that light sources vary.
"There are absolutely, 100% not "3 colors". "
In any tristimulous system, like our eyes, our cameras, and everything we are talking about here, there are only 3 colors. That's where the name comes from after all. If you want to degenerate this into an argument over your deliberate misunderstanding of my post then you can do it alone.
"but it is a 3x3 filter while the Bayer filter is 2x2. So you are neither limited to "4 pixels" nor "only 3 colors"."
Sure, you can use 3x3 if you want to use an even stronger antialiasing filter. Otherwise, each 2x2 cell will still have 2 sensors of 1 "color filter". The Bayer design made these all green because the eye is most sensitive to green. That's the reason they gave, after all.
"It absolutely does because the values of the pixels are interpolated to get R, G, & B at each pixel location."
Each pixel location responds only to the light that illuminates its sensor. Light illuminating other sensors may influence its value due to the demosaicing algorithm but that's not the same as saying that the sensor is taking advantage of "more green light". Twice as much green data isn't what is in dispute here, it's obtaining it because there is more green light.
"I'd love to see your math that shows to the contrary."
No need since you can't seem to keep yourself from being confused. There is clearly twice as much green data in a bayer sensor. How that equates to a "bias toward green" depends on what you mean by that. Regardless, it is absolutely not a consequence of having more green light.
"Believing to the contrary is beyond absurd. Advocating such is foolish."
At least we know that you aren't a fool in that respect.
"Fluorescent is definitely more blueish than incandescent and if you put them next to each other, fluorescent has a "blueish tint.""
No, they have a greenish tint. Of course, all this is an meaningless generalization. I still await your explanation of precisely how a bayer sensor ends up with a "bias toward green" because there is more green light available, particularly considering that you've now acknowledged that it isn't the case.
Bayer himself says that more green sensors were chosen because of the eye's greater sensitivity to green details. That's all there is to it. Your original post is riddled with flaws.
Since when was it ever stated that only 5500K mattered? Cameras have to respond to a variety of light sources and, as I stated before, no such generalization regarding green can possibly be made.
Thanks for the gratuitous and meaningless scolding on "hot" and "cold". You act as though I made them up or used them improperly.
"A filter does not alter the signal?"
No, it does not. The "signal" in this case is the well in the sensor. The filter does not effect the underlying sensor at all, only what that sensor is "sensing".
"That DEFINITELY alters the signal in both intensity and frequency."
I can't help it that you don't understand the problem.
"That depends on your assumption of noise. If your noise has equal power across the visible spectrum, then which colors you filter by won't change the noise. However, if you have a noise spike at green then you will probably get less noise by going with cyan & magenta."
Boy, such nonsense. The noise isn't coming from the light, it comes from the A-D conversion. You can't filter out noise that doesn't exist (yet).
I can't help it if you misunderstand me.
You can detect luminosity without detecting color, but you cannot detect color without detecting luminosity, that is unless you have a spectrometer.
"From the human perception angle, your ability to perceive brightness is separate from your ability to perceive color (due to rods and cones.)"
Both rods and cones detect luminosity. Luminosity is inherently measured regardless of the sensor.
I reviewed your recent posting history. Aside from two article submissions, both regarding Apple, I noticed the following:
Some examples of your recent fanboy comments:
"...considering Steve Jobs is by far the most influential person in music, media, and computing..."
"...I have another idea: how about people stop predicting the doom of the iPhone before it's even out yet?"
"There is no reason I can think of that you'd have to have a "contract" to use WiFi on iPhone."
"Obviously, future generations of iPhone will have added functionality."
and some unsubstantiated claims (considering the iPhone isn't even available yet):
"the only feature loss would be "visual voicemail", but "normal" voicemail functionality and all other phone features, as applicable, should absolutely work."
"That's ridiculous. WiFi isn't "locked" to anything."
"The inclusion of WiFi also obviates the need for 3G coverage for many people."
"Large numbers of people in major metro areas will still purchase iPhone, and WiFi will also mitigate the need for 3G for a lot of people."
"Since you need a two-year AT&T contract anyway, this is a moot point. But if you let the contract expire or pay a termination fee, WiFi won't just stop working."
Followed by your openly contradictory remark here:
"I'm talking about AT&T's 3G coverage, which is the only thing that matters in the US, since that's the only network on which you can use an iPhone in the US."
"And yes, iPhone will work on any GSM carrier; that's the whole purpose of standards like GSM, and iPhone is a GSM phone."
See, the problem, Dave, is that you are a fanboy. It isn't that you can't argue facts when they are on your side, it's that you make them up when you need some that aren't there. Curious that you would argue both sides of the carrier issue when it suits you. It's more about winning an iPhone argument than getting the correct information out, isn't it?
"wanting correct information disseminated about something you're interested in" has nothing to do with being a fanboy. If that's the extent of it, then those involved aren't fanboys.
The article fails to live up to it's title and is basically incorrect. The only "psychology" offered is that fanboys aren't insecure yet they are. Fanboys seek validation for their choices. They see themselves as part of a "team". It's not about correctness, it's about the side they are on "winning". Being on the side of the underdog has nothing to do with it.
We all make choices and investments of our time and money and often do so without being critical of the choices we make, yet we hate being shown to be wrong and are loath to admit it. Some take it to such an extreme that they are willing to argue the side of an obvious losing cause and to make up outrageous lies to advance their position. Those are fanboys. They aren't any different from the rest of us, they've just lost any trace of objectivity and have become delusional. There's no reason Microsoft shouldn't have them just like Apple does and they certainly do.
I have been accused of being a hater and a fanboy on the same subject at the same time. When in the company of fanboys, objectivity is the enemy. It's not about being right, it's about winning.
I think you have that exactly backwards. The iPhone is limited by it's thickness and weight. Any manufacturer can add a bigger battery if they're willing to sacrifice in those areas. With the iPhone, removing a keyboard that consumes no power and replacing it with a double-sized screen leads to more power consumption, not less. Apple has had to contend with a device that uses more power for its size than its competitors. It is also using an OS not specifically written for low power devices. That doesn't mean that the device will be a failure but it sure indicates the unlikeliness of your claim. It's far from clear that battery life is the secret feature; everything suggests the opposite.
/. fashion, the author claims in the title that the iPhone gets a better battery. Not true, of course, as the iPhone gets better battery *life* *ratings*. I'm curious what the new weight *rating* is especially with glass replacing plastic for the screen.
I'll also note that, in true
Actually, it appears Apple has responded precisely to that criticism.
Dvorak is not a journalist BTW. Your mistake, not his.
You're fabricating a double standard where it doesn't exist. Even if "many people" make that complaint, not one of them would agree that the same amount would be enough for this device.
Fuji's design uses a conventional bayer pattern. You are incorrect.
"In other words, sunlight is more green than red and blue."
That is wrong. Sunlight varies dramatically and no such generalization can be made but "daylight" is quite well balanced; it is not biased toward green.
"The Bayer filter has twice as many green pixels as red or blue, which reflects the sunlight power spectral density more than having one cyan, one magenta, one yellow, and one intensity would."
No, the Bayer filter has twice as many green pixels because (a) there are 4 pixels and only 3 colors so one color is going to get twice as many as the other, and (b) the eye is far more sensitive to green resolution than to blue and red. Adding more pixels does not in any way take advantage of this extra green light you claim exists (but doesn't). Curiously, bayer sensor cameras are typically most sensitive to green by virtue of their dyes and infrared filter effects. If this were done intentionally rather than being an unfortunate consequence, it could only be justified in response to a *shortage* of green, not an overabundance.
"...fluorescents have a blueish tint (that's where their frequencies have their peak power)."
No, flourescents are very green. They are also colder ("bluer") than incandescents but they do not have a "blueish tint".
Changing the filter, or removing it entirely, does not change the amount of signal one bit. The amount of signal and the amount of noise are characteristics of the underlying pixel. Altering the filter only effects sensitivity.
Filters can contribute to noise in a final image by creating and imbalance in white balance or by limiting the amount of light to a level below optimal. Otherwise, they aren't involved. This claim that the CMY to RGB conversion increases noise is nonsense.
Except that rods and cones are entirely different mechanisms and the kodak design uses identical underlying pixels. They are, in reality, not analogous at all.
It's plainly obvious that color resolution is sacrificed. Dynamic range, if anything, is reduced due to the mismatch in sensitivity between the pixels. Color can be removed from luminosity, but luminosity cannot be seperated from color. In short, I'd suggest you not pursue this as a career.
"Microsoft doesn't follow their own UI guidelines on their own platform..."
neither does Apple.
...or to paraphrase, respecting the desires of the people who have done the work is "idealism" while subjugating those individuals for the interests of the uninvolved is pragmatism. Quite a perspective you have there.
Linus and Theo concern themselves with what it takes to do their jobs and accomplish their goals. That's pragmatism. RMS concerns himself with imposing his terms on as many programmers and projects as he can. That's idealism.
"Theo, on the other hand, is willing to brow beat vendors until they give up specs so he can give people freedom. That kind of idealism is actually damaging."
He's not doing it to give others freedom, he's doing it to get software written. It may be damaging but it's not idealism.
Idealism is brow-beating people into changing project names that you have no part of in order to increase the visibility of your cause. Since when is Linux vs GNU/Linux anything other than about idealism and the struggle to remain relevant? Where's the pragmatism there?