Wrong. It creates an incentive for creating software that seemingly requires support, but doesn't require that support in reality. In other words, it creates an incentive to build software that is better than it looks.
So, it's based upon the deception of customers. Still doesn't sound appealing. As a customer, I'd rather know exactly what I'm getting, rather than being tricked into something. If the software doesn't need that much support, why should I have to pay for it?
Which is why OS companies make money of support:
They give software for free with no guarantees.
That seems like a pretty shitty way to conduct business. It gives an incentive for creating crappy software that requires extra support. Shouldn't the ideal be to make great software that doesn't require much support?
I have a great digital watch. The band is integral with the body of the watch so I can wear it in bed and it won't catch on anything. It has up and down timers, world clock and multiple alarms. It cost 30 bucks on line.
"Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-eight million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea." - Douglas Adams.
There's that, and there's also the whole "the world is flat" and "disease is caused by imbalances in the four humours of the body" ideas. The article's examples seem pretty trivial in comparison.
Sure. You've got the camera up against your eye and the shot lined up, and just need to change the white balance. It's as simple as prying a fat finger between your face and the camera to hold down one of all of those buttons that are all next to each other and feel the same with next to no tactile feedback, and then turning the wheel and praying you pressed the right button, because if you didn't, then you're going to have to undo what you just changed and try again.
While if you want to change white balance on a film camera, you need to rewind the current roll of film, hope that you have another roll with the correct color balance in your bag, then load that roll of film. Or fiddle about screwing and unscrewing filters onto the lens for finer adjustments. Yeah, much more convenient than simply pressing a button and turning a knob!
dangitman, I gave a source to a PDF that has Arri testing cine film that does 90-100 L/mm.
The PDF you linked to says no such thing.
In any case, the comment I was replying to was that a "good emulsion" on 135 format can achieve the equivalent of 25-35 Megapixels on a digital sensor. Even though I know you don't have data for that, it's hardly necessary. Anybody with good eyesight can see that the best film emulsions simply don't compare to modern professional digital sensors. The numbers confirm it, and just looking at the fucking images confirms it. Film is blurry and noisy compared to digital.
Opening the back is handy for cleaning the sensor which from time to time gets a bit grungy during lens changes and such.
That doesn't make a lot of sense, as the sensor faces the front, not the back. Most modern sensors have self-cleaning features, anyway.
As for the film-rewind widget, who knows. Perhaps they've retasked it in some useful fashion.
Well, they have in most modern DSLRs. Due to the fact that it's no longer necessary, they use the space for other function dials, or reduce the size of the camera. I still don't see what it has to do with a "rewind" function.
Not when your camera is storing those shots as JPG. You've just introduced loss before you've even made your first copy.
Same problem exists with color film. It has a fixed color temperature, and if the light doesn't match your emulsion, you're pretty limited in what you can do to fix it. With RAW digital files, however, you really get a better and more versatile "negative" than a film negative. And remember, with film, there's always quality losses involved in scanning or printing or projecting.
Also a combination film rewind/back opener dial on the top.
Uhh, why would you need a film rerwind knob or back-opening mechanism on a digital camera?
Anyway, I use Nikon DSLRs, and the only significant difference UI-wise is that I change the aperture with a wheel under my thumb. It's actually superior than having the aperture control on the lens, because you don't have to take your hand off the focus ring to use it. Similarly, changing shutter speed is much quicker with the finger/thumb wheels than with the larger, stiffer rotary control on older cameras (particularly something like a K1000, which is difficult to turn without using a thumb and finger together to grasp it).
I'm much more likely to sympathize and give money. Especially if that person looks similar to me.
I'm not disagreeing with you overall, but this seems a little odd to me. As a healthy person in a wealthy country, I'm probably less likely to give to people who look like me. I'm much more likely to give money to people who have had limbs blown off by land mines, or who are disfigured and disabled because of disease or genetics. Why would I give to other healthy, well-off people?
It's interesting that people complain how Africa is a third world country and how we should help them, but interestingly everyone sets artificial restrictions on them and restricts them from the other world.
It's not that interesting, because you are talking about two different sets of people. The people upset about poverty in Africa are not the same people who run financial institutions that block Africa from global participation.
"You should feel privaleged to develop for our platform."
They pretty much are. Not very many platforms can deliver such a large quantity of instant sales to a developer for so little effort. It's a frickin' gold mine.
The name of this museum is quite curious. Why is the sea intrepid, and why is it only an air and space museum? Given that it's located in an aircraft carrier, it should also be a sea museum, one would think.
If it were real, Apple could not only force Gizmodo to take down any mention of it, they could even get them arrested for possession of stolen property.
Silicon Valley police are investigating the matter of the stolen phone. If this were an intentional leak, do you think that would happen? Apple would be on the hook for filing a false police report.
So, why didn't he turn it in to the police, or give it to the bartender at the bar where it was lost? Calling Apple's tech support line seems like a strange way to go about it - if he actually did that. We have no reason to trust this person to tell the truth, given his actions.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. It creates an incentive for creating software that seemingly requires support, but doesn't require that support in reality. In other words, it creates an incentive to build software that is better than it looks.
So, it's based upon the deception of customers. Still doesn't sound appealing. As a customer, I'd rather know exactly what I'm getting, rather than being tricked into something. If the software doesn't need that much support, why should I have to pay for it?
The software is free, the developer's time is not.
But developers spent time developing the software. So, if their time is not free, then how did the software come to be free in the first place?
Which is why OS companies make money of support: They give software for free with no guarantees.
That seems like a pretty shitty way to conduct business. It gives an incentive for creating crappy software that requires extra support. Shouldn't the ideal be to make great software that doesn't require much support?
I have a great digital watch. The band is integral with the body of the watch so I can wear it in bed and it won't catch on anything. It has up and down timers, world clock and multiple alarms. It cost 30 bucks on line.
Congratulations.
There's that, and there's also the whole "the world is flat" and "disease is caused by imbalances in the four humours of the body" ideas. The article's examples seem pretty trivial in comparison.
Sure. You've got the camera up against your eye and the shot lined up, and just need to change the white balance. It's as simple as prying a fat finger between your face and the camera to hold down one of all of those buttons that are all next to each other and feel the same with next to no tactile feedback, and then turning the wheel and praying you pressed the right button, because if you didn't, then you're going to have to undo what you just changed and try again.
While if you want to change white balance on a film camera, you need to rewind the current roll of film, hope that you have another roll with the correct color balance in your bag, then load that roll of film. Or fiddle about screwing and unscrewing filters onto the lens for finer adjustments. Yeah, much more convenient than simply pressing a button and turning a knob!
dangitman, I gave a source to a PDF that has Arri testing cine film that does 90-100 L/mm.
The PDF you linked to says no such thing.
In any case, the comment I was replying to was that a "good emulsion" on 135 format can achieve the equivalent of 25-35 Megapixels on a digital sensor. Even though I know you don't have data for that, it's hardly necessary. Anybody with good eyesight can see that the best film emulsions simply don't compare to modern professional digital sensors. The numbers confirm it, and just looking at the fucking images confirms it. Film is blurry and noisy compared to digital.
Opening the back is handy for cleaning the sensor which from time to time gets a bit grungy during lens changes and such.
That doesn't make a lot of sense, as the sensor faces the front, not the back. Most modern sensors have self-cleaning features, anyway.
As for the film-rewind widget, who knows. Perhaps they've retasked it in some useful fashion.
Well, they have in most modern DSLRs. Due to the fact that it's no longer necessary, they use the space for other function dials, or reduce the size of the camera. I still don't see what it has to do with a "rewind" function.
Don't worry fellas. I got this. I saved my Powerbook 5300c from years back. When they come, I'll be ready.
Yes, but I'll bet you didn't buy AppleCare, did you? Earth is foiled again!
It's strange to think that back in the 1990's, we used to think 1.44 Megabytes of storage was extremely generous.
No, nobody thought that in the 1990s, unless they were idiots. Any savvy user recognized that it was a serious constraint.
But floppies, CD-R, and DVD-R have the advantage of being so cheap they're disposable,
I take it that you haven't checked the price of floppies lately. They are not cheap.
A good emulsion will resolve 25-30 MP on 135.
Utter bollocks. Can I see your data to back this up please? Tests I've seen with good color emulsions have managed about 8MP, tops.
Not when your camera is storing those shots as JPG. You've just introduced loss before you've even made your first copy.
Same problem exists with color film. It has a fixed color temperature, and if the light doesn't match your emulsion, you're pretty limited in what you can do to fix it. With RAW digital files, however, you really get a better and more versatile "negative" than a film negative. And remember, with film, there's always quality losses involved in scanning or printing or projecting.
Who shoots JPEG these days, anyway?
Also a combination film rewind/back opener dial on the top.
Uhh, why would you need a film rerwind knob or back-opening mechanism on a digital camera?
Anyway, I use Nikon DSLRs, and the only significant difference UI-wise is that I change the aperture with a wheel under my thumb. It's actually superior than having the aperture control on the lens, because you don't have to take your hand off the focus ring to use it. Similarly, changing shutter speed is much quicker with the finger/thumb wheels than with the larger, stiffer rotary control on older cameras (particularly something like a K1000, which is difficult to turn without using a thumb and finger together to grasp it).
I'm much more likely to sympathize and give money. Especially if that person looks similar to me.
I'm not disagreeing with you overall, but this seems a little odd to me. As a healthy person in a wealthy country, I'm probably less likely to give to people who look like me. I'm much more likely to give money to people who have had limbs blown off by land mines, or who are disfigured and disabled because of disease or genetics. Why would I give to other healthy, well-off people?
Are you proud of being a selfish prick?
It's interesting that people complain how Africa is a third world country and how we should help them, but interestingly everyone sets artificial restrictions on them and restricts them from the other world.
It's not that interesting, because you are talking about two different sets of people. The people upset about poverty in Africa are not the same people who run financial institutions that block Africa from global participation.
That's amazing! I've got the same combination on my luggage.
depends, is Facebook on this part of the Internet you're referring to?
We can only hope!
"You should feel privaleged to develop for our platform."
They pretty much are. Not very many platforms can deliver such a large quantity of instant sales to a developer for so little effort. It's a frickin' gold mine.
The name of this museum is quite curious. Why is the sea intrepid, and why is it only an air and space museum? Given that it's located in an aircraft carrier, it should also be a sea museum, one would think.
My company is just finishing a migration to Vista,
Now that's the funniest thing I've read all week.
If it were real, Apple could not only force Gizmodo to take down any mention of it, they could even get them arrested for possession of stolen property.
Silicon Valley police are investigating the matter of the stolen phone. If this were an intentional leak, do you think that would happen? Apple would be on the hook for filing a false police report.
P.S: By "a few sources" you actually mean just one source - Gizmodo, whose interest it is in to present a one-sided story to cover their asses.
So, why didn't he turn it in to the police, or give it to the bartender at the bar where it was lost? Calling Apple's tech support line seems like a strange way to go about it - if he actually did that. We have no reason to trust this person to tell the truth, given his actions.