A matte screen does not actually reflect any less light than a glossy screen. It just reflects it more randomly.
The scattering of light tends to decrease perceived saturation. This is why the sky does not look as blue on hazy days as it does when the air is clear and humidity is low.
A clear, flat piece of glass will transmit light more exactly (maintaining saturation), but it will also reflect incident light more exactly. This will cause sharper reflections, which might be more distracting. But someone who is very serious about color will be controlling the lighting for reflections anyway--no matter how matte or glossy their screen is. Again--because the two actually reflect the same amount of light, just differently.
It always cracks me up when people talk about "color accuracy" in the context of a laptop near a window. The first thing you do for color accuracy is control your ambient lighting. The second thing is to profile your monitor regularly. No one is doing professional prepress in a Starbucks on the corner.:-)
I have an iMac at work with a glossy screen, and a MacBook Pro with a glossy screen. The iMac I can arrange to avoid bothersome reflections pretty easily. I can often arrange my MacBook Pro to avoid reflections at home, but not always when I'm travelling with it.
I typically have these screens at about 25% of max brightness. This is usually about the right level to match the ambient light indoors--which is the key to avoiding eye strain when you're staring at a monitor all day.
But when I'm in a brighter situation, and the reflections are more of a problem, my first step is to simply turn up up the backlight. The backlights on the new MacBook Pros are incredibly bright, and can often simply drown out reflections.
If your environment is drier, and you get less snow during the winter, your glacier will shrink even if the amount of ablation remains constant. No need to posit increased sublimation.
Sublimation is what happens when ice is exposed at below freezing temperatures to dry air. But most of the ice in mountain glaciers is covered with snow, especially when the ambient temperature is significantly below freezing (i.e. during winter). Winter is a period of growth for a mountain glacier--even a mountain glacier that is in retreat over a longer time scale.
During the summer, the snow cover might melt off, directly exposing ice. Of course, if it's warm enough to melt the snow cover, it's warm enough to melt the ice too.
Sublimation does happen on high mountains but mostly to steep or vertical ice faces, which do not develop a protective cover of snow during the winter.
You're criticizing one set of photos, probably because that's all you know about, from this story.
If you were plugged into the climbing community you would know that very many mountain glaciers and permanent snowfields are in retreat worldwide. It's well known among mtn guides that many high-mountain routes in South America, for instance, have had to change over the past few decades as the size of glaciers and snowfields have decreased. This particular story has happened to make it into the mainstream press but it's far from the only one that climbers have been talking about.
You are right that this data does not prove one or another theory as to why it is happening. But my question is--why are you so eager to attack its validity? You spent the 2nd half of your post doing so. You're right that pictures around Everest don't prove a global phenomenon, but they don't disprove it either.
If you really want to know about the global situation you can find out pretty easily by contacting guide services working in the high mountains of the world. They spend more time there than anyone else.
I have a copy of Climbing Magazine from the mid-1990s that has a guide to climbing in the Cordillera Blanca of Peru. Many of the routes in that guide are now unclimbable because the ice and snow on the routes have melted, leaving weak, shattered rock that is unsafe for climbing.
It's a real phenomenon, and not just in the Himalaya. How much is due to temperature changes vs. precipitation changes vs. melting accelerants is an open question, and probably the factors are a bit different for different ranges. But for whatever reason, most mountain glaciers around the world seem to be losing mass.
After September 30 the tech media cycle will be on to the next OMG issue. By then Apple will know if this is a really problem with lots of customers, or just a media feeding frenzy.
I think right now they truly believe that their data show that this is mostly a PR problem. If their return and complaint numbers don't go up in the next two months, they'll continue to hold that opinion. If returns and complaints do go up, they'll have to come up with a better solution.
I don't know what the article meant either. I have an old Fingerworks iGesture and it supports multi-finger pinches in and out for file commands like save, open, find, print, etc. Apple bought Fingerworks and used their multitouch tech to develop the i-devices.
Two months is plenty of time for people to decide to:
- Take the free case and keep their iPhone 4 - Return their iPhone 4 for a full refund, no restocking fees etc. - Hear about this problem and decide not to buy an iPhone 4 (if they don't have one already)
People who are upset about this product can simply get a different phone. People who are upset about this product and don't own the iPhone 4, and have intention of getting one, can simply get a life. Within 2 months we'll be on to the next flamewar.
A company might put the antenna on the outside of the phone if they thought they had a technical solution to compensate for the change in inductance.
If you touch the iPhone 4 antenna anywhere on the right side, it does not cause a signal drop. The problem is specific to a point on the lower left. To me that implies that there is more going on with the issue than simply touching a metal antenna.
Remember when all cell phones had external, extendable antennas? At that time, maybe only an ignorant fool would have put a small antenna inside the bottom of the phone. But technology advances, and now almost every phone is built that way. Maybe what we're seeing is the very public troubleshooting of a new approach to antenna technology.
Actually the longer the half-life, the fewer places there are to store nuclear waste safely. We live on a dynamic planet with lots of powerful geologic processes that operate over long time spans.
Most nuclear waste today is not stored safely at all, geologically speaking. It's stored at the power plant where it was created. It's still there because it has been so hard to find anyplace else that is sufficiently safe for everyone to be ok storing it there.
This is essentially a hydroelectric station, so power generation is limited by hydraulic head and flow rate. Tides in most parts of the world tend to have not much of either.
I don't care that Apple is censoring their own forums. I've used Apple products for years and never once visited the Apple site forums. It's not like there is a lack of places to learn about and/or discuss Apple products on the Web. I like Macintouch.com for instance.
To be honest I always assume that the forums on corporate sites are heavily moderated by the corporation. Just like I assume that if I ask a saleman what he thinks of his product, I'll get a sales pitch. I think anyone acting shocked over this is either putting us on or very naive.
Surprise: people and businesses exhibit self-interest. Caveat emptor. I'm long over getting offended at every little demonstration of this.
"Information wants to be free" often means...
on
The End of Free
·
· Score: 1
"People want free information." Copyrighted materials may have strings attached, but there will always be people who work to cut those strings. You can see information becoming free by the terabyte on BitTorrent.
"Information wants to be free" is a rallying cry, but it's also cautionary. Content that is sold is content that can be redistributed for free, and digital technology can make the process lossless.
I mean, seriously, you have a closed, proprietary system, with strangely named files/folders.
Who has ever cared about files and folders? Think about those words..."files." "Folders." It's a tortured and dated metaphor to try to help people understand computers by way of real-world analogs. What is a "folder" on a computer? What is being "folded?" What is being "filed?"
iTunes works well *because* it abandons that metaphor. Instead of files and folders, you can look at all your music, all at once, in one big long list. You can reorganize it with one click by artist, album, genre, rating, number of plays, etc. You can filter or search within the list easily.
When you go to a library you can look for a book by author, by subject, by genre, by keyword, etc. iTunes is a music library.
The irony of "files" and "folders" on computers is that the original domain of files and folders--businesses--now use databases to store and organize their information. Where are the files and folders in Salesforce.com? Where are the files and folders in Quickbooks? Who cares? What matters is how easy it is to store, find, and use information. A database approach is far better for that than a rigid files and folders scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Product Satisfaction is 'Abysmal'
If the copyright has expired, the source code is not private any more, it's public domain.
Agreed. I think the only place I mentioned heat is my sig. :-)
A matte screen does not actually reflect any less light than a glossy screen. It just reflects it more randomly.
The scattering of light tends to decrease perceived saturation. This is why the sky does not look as blue on hazy days as it does when the air is clear and humidity is low.
A clear, flat piece of glass will transmit light more exactly (maintaining saturation), but it will also reflect incident light more exactly. This will cause sharper reflections, which might be more distracting. But someone who is very serious about color will be controlling the lighting for reflections anyway--no matter how matte or glossy their screen is. Again--because the two actually reflect the same amount of light, just differently.
It always cracks me up when people talk about "color accuracy" in the context of a laptop near a window. The first thing you do for color accuracy is control your ambient lighting. The second thing is to profile your monitor regularly. No one is doing professional prepress in a Starbucks on the corner. :-)
I have an iMac at work with a glossy screen, and a MacBook Pro with a glossy screen. The iMac I can arrange to avoid bothersome reflections pretty easily. I can often arrange my MacBook Pro to avoid reflections at home, but not always when I'm travelling with it.
I typically have these screens at about 25% of max brightness. This is usually about the right level to match the ambient light indoors--which is the key to avoiding eye strain when you're staring at a monitor all day.
But when I'm in a brighter situation, and the reflections are more of a problem, my first step is to simply turn up up the backlight. The backlights on the new MacBook Pros are incredibly bright, and can often simply drown out reflections.
If your environment is drier, and you get less snow during the winter, your glacier will shrink even if the amount of ablation remains constant. No need to posit increased sublimation.
Sublimation is what happens when ice is exposed at below freezing temperatures to dry air. But most of the ice in mountain glaciers is covered with snow, especially when the ambient temperature is significantly below freezing (i.e. during winter). Winter is a period of growth for a mountain glacier--even a mountain glacier that is in retreat over a longer time scale.
During the summer, the snow cover might melt off, directly exposing ice. Of course, if it's warm enough to melt the snow cover, it's warm enough to melt the ice too.
Sublimation does happen on high mountains but mostly to steep or vertical ice faces, which do not develop a protective cover of snow during the winter.
You're criticizing one set of photos, probably because that's all you know about, from this story.
If you were plugged into the climbing community you would know that very many mountain glaciers and permanent snowfields are in retreat worldwide. It's well known among mtn guides that many high-mountain routes in South America, for instance, have had to change over the past few decades as the size of glaciers and snowfields have decreased. This particular story has happened to make it into the mainstream press but it's far from the only one that climbers have been talking about.
You are right that this data does not prove one or another theory as to why it is happening. But my question is--why are you so eager to attack its validity? You spent the 2nd half of your post doing so. You're right that pictures around Everest don't prove a global phenomenon, but they don't disprove it either.
If you really want to know about the global situation you can find out pretty easily by contacting guide services working in the high mountains of the world. They spend more time there than anyone else.
See for instance: http://www.americanalpineclub.org/pt/climbatology, which is a study similar to the one Breashears just did. Or http://www.tipping-points.com/?p=44, which is an article that ran in Climbing Magazine in 2002.
I have a copy of Climbing Magazine from the mid-1990s that has a guide to climbing in the Cordillera Blanca of Peru. Many of the routes in that guide are now unclimbable because the ice and snow on the routes have melted, leaving weak, shattered rock that is unsafe for climbing.
It's a real phenomenon, and not just in the Himalaya. How much is due to temperature changes vs. precipitation changes vs. melting accelerants is an open question, and probably the factors are a bit different for different ranges. But for whatever reason, most mountain glaciers around the world seem to be losing mass.
After September 30 the tech media cycle will be on to the next OMG issue. By then Apple will know if this is a really problem with lots of customers, or just a media feeding frenzy.
I think right now they truly believe that their data show that this is mostly a PR problem. If their return and complaint numbers don't go up in the next two months, they'll continue to hold that opinion. If returns and complaints do go up, they'll have to come up with a better solution.
Wait no longer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZUaZYFVv6I
The interesting thing to me is that WiFi signal actually gets stronger as the penny sits there.
The point of the external antenna design is to make room inside the case for a larger battery.
http://mattgemmell.com/2010/05/09/ipad-multi-touch
I don't know what the article meant either. I have an old Fingerworks iGesture and it supports multi-finger pinches in and out for file commands like save, open, find, print, etc. Apple bought Fingerworks and used their multitouch tech to develop the i-devices.
There's a link at the top to turn off the refresh.
Two months is plenty of time for people to decide to:
- Take the free case and keep their iPhone 4
- Return their iPhone 4 for a full refund, no restocking fees etc.
- Hear about this problem and decide not to buy an iPhone 4 (if they don't have one already)
People who are upset about this product can simply get a different phone. People who are upset about this product and don't own the iPhone 4, and have intention of getting one, can simply get a life. Within 2 months we'll be on to the next flamewar.
Going off my memory, which was that U.S. forces pulled up just inside the Iraqi border. Obviously my memory was wrong. Sorry.
Interesting: The WiFi signal indicator actually gets more bars as the penny sits there.
A company might put the antenna on the outside of the phone if they thought they had a technical solution to compensate for the change in inductance.
If you touch the iPhone 4 antenna anywhere on the right side, it does not cause a signal drop. The problem is specific to a point on the lower left. To me that implies that there is more going on with the issue than simply touching a metal antenna.
Remember when all cell phones had external, extendable antennas? At that time, maybe only an ignorant fool would have put a small antenna inside the bottom of the phone. But technology advances, and now almost every phone is built that way. Maybe what we're seeing is the very public troubleshooting of a new approach to antenna technology.
The U.S. did not invade Iraq in the early 90s.
Actually the longer the half-life, the fewer places there are to store nuclear waste safely. We live on a dynamic planet with lots of powerful geologic processes that operate over long time spans.
Most nuclear waste today is not stored safely at all, geologically speaking. It's stored at the power plant where it was created. It's still there because it has been so hard to find anyplace else that is sufficiently safe for everyone to be ok storing it there.
I assume you mean Ian Stewart, and there are better sources for your scientific education than Discworld books.
This is essentially a hydroelectric station, so power generation is limited by hydraulic head and flow rate. Tides in most parts of the world tend to have not much of either.
I don't care that Apple is censoring their own forums. I've used Apple products for years and never once visited the Apple site forums. It's not like there is a lack of places to learn about and/or discuss Apple products on the Web. I like Macintouch.com for instance.
To be honest I always assume that the forums on corporate sites are heavily moderated by the corporation. Just like I assume that if I ask a saleman what he thinks of his product, I'll get a sales pitch. I think anyone acting shocked over this is either putting us on or very naive.
Surprise: people and businesses exhibit self-interest. Caveat emptor. I'm long over getting offended at every little demonstration of this.
"People want free information." Copyrighted materials may have strings attached, but there will always be people who work to cut those strings. You can see information becoming free by the terabyte on BitTorrent.
"Information wants to be free" is a rallying cry, but it's also cautionary. Content that is sold is content that can be redistributed for free, and digital technology can make the process lossless.
I mean, seriously, you have a closed, proprietary system, with strangely named files/folders.
Who has ever cared about files and folders? Think about those words..."files." "Folders." It's a tortured and dated metaphor to try to help people understand computers by way of real-world analogs. What is a "folder" on a computer? What is being "folded?" What is being "filed?"
iTunes works well *because* it abandons that metaphor. Instead of files and folders, you can look at all your music, all at once, in one big long list. You can reorganize it with one click by artist, album, genre, rating, number of plays, etc. You can filter or search within the list easily.
When you go to a library you can look for a book by author, by subject, by genre, by keyword, etc. iTunes is a music library.
The irony of "files" and "folders" on computers is that the original domain of files and folders--businesses--now use databases to store and organize their information. Where are the files and folders in Salesforce.com? Where are the files and folders in Quickbooks? Who cares? What matters is how easy it is to store, find, and use information. A database approach is far better for that than a rigid files and folders scheme.