And for a geek that wants said functionality, it would be a very poor user experience.
Different criteria for 'good' yields different products, who'd have thought?
Some people value style and simplicity over capability, others prefer capability knowing that you cannot fully utilize capability and flexibility without some added understanding.
iPhoto for one. I use it for review of DSLR images since I can quickly zoom to 100% on a 15MP JPG file to make sure focus was correct in specific locations.
How are you getting it to your iDevice? the only thing I could think of is by means of those eye-fi cards unless you are going really high-end like the wft-e6 with the canon 1dx, the eye-fi option would really limit your photo taking ability because of the lack of storage on the idevice and on the card.
If you are using wireless ftp or the like nothing is stopping an android device from having the same functionality, zooming to 100% is not exactly hard.
Darksky is pretty useless to most android and ios users anyway, it only covers the US, although it does look neat
In regards to serious photo editing and manipulation, this is what a laptop or desktop is for, if you are going to process raw images and white balance/gamma/etc why not do it on a medium that can do it better? Android has many of the same silly little photo apps but I've never seen the point in any of them. I've never been at an event that was active enough that I couldn't bring the laptop and thought I would do raw processing right there while the event is still happening as opposed to taking more photos. When has this cropped up?
I'm fairly sure the astronomy ones you listed are clones of google sky map, which is only available on android and is pretty kick-ass.
The cable that it comes with plugs into any USB port. It also ships with a USB charger (although one that can delivery much higher recharge rates than standard USB ports).
There is convenience in being able to find cables even in places you weren't expecting to need it, more than a couple times I've asked friends if they've had micro-usb cables so I could charge my phone and found one. Doing the same results in far less success with the iphone, likely even less so with the iphone5 considering they are using a new connector.
Why do you need one when the phone lasts for at least a day even on LTE? I have an external battery for the iPhone (smaller than a standard phone battery BTW) but I stopped bringing it along on even international plane flights because the battery lasted longer than the whole flight for what I was doing.
Some people may need more than a few hours (the time of a flight) of battery with continual usage. But more so in a couple years when the battery dies of old age and sheer number of cycles it's went through it will be very easy to just throw a new one in. Older droids make great embedded systems for other uses.
If someone took something you liked and had to carry all the time and told you they could make it 20% thinner with zero loss in functionality, why would you not want to take advantage of that? Why would it not be desirable from a purely practical standpoint?
Serviceability, tightly packed components and ones packed in odd ways are harder to service. While anyone who tries to service an iphone themselves is usually a masochist anyway, room allows for a cleaner internal design that is easier to disassemble/fix.
For audio streaming over the Internet, it's even more important to gracefully deal with packet loss and packets arriving out of order.
what makes you think it doesn't do that? when packets are lost the audio degrades gracefully. These scenarios were tested also but people seem less interested in them.
And with today's bandwidth and storage capacities, where 2 TB drives, GbE and 300 Mbps WiFi are standard,
So.. do you download _all_ of your audio in flac? even podcasts for later playback? if not, then there is another use for this codec, better quality at smaller file size.
Likewise with games with large portions of audio content, they _could_ ship flac versions of all audio.. and bloat the game an extra few gigabytes for no reason.. or they could encode it with a tiny amount of loss.
Too much collateral damage if anyone else is nearby, any laser powerful enough to burn out the ccd's is also powerful enough to take out someone's retinas if there is an accidental reflection. I'd consider the range on a decent laser to be too much to safely say that no people could be blinded,
The point is to be able to use lower bitrates and get the same quality. This is especially useful for things like audio streaming over the internet, where less bandwidth used equals more space for listeners.
It is quite decent at high bitrates, however that kind of defeats the point mostly, the point is to be able to get music of similar quality to your 256k aac in less than that, say 192 or less.
With lossy after a point the bitrate stops mattering after it is good enough, otherwise we'd all just encode lossless.
Actually, the central clock is 21.47mhz, the bus frequency can be that divided by 6,8 or 12 depending on what you are doing.
You can access the raw clock on a couple of pins that go to the cartridge, the superfx coprocessor in cart divided it by two to get operating freq, sfx2 was a 21mhz risc processor in a cart.
The fixed pipeline api still has it's uses. If you are just starting out in 3d and only need it for minimal things being able to just go glBegin(GL_TRIANGLES) and then start drawing stuff is neat. For a lot of people the fixed function pipeline is all they need, if you don't care about performance (i.e. your bottleneck is elsewhere) you don't even have to bother with vertex arrays etc either.
The only thing you know for sure is that your own mind exists, for all you know even all of us others could simply be your own mind entertaining itself.
Absolutely nothing is known for certain except that really, and science works within this because it never claims anything as complete, absolute truth.
That said, ideas that aren't falsifiable aren't worth entertaining because you could believe false things all your life and never know either way. Best to just not bother with it, which is why people bother with science and not unfalsifiable things.
And again, who here was claiming to be a 'physicalist'? Even you admit that there is no evidence nor can there be to believe in the supernatural because of the way it is defined, it is for this same reason it cannot be outright denied because the whole thing just isn't testable. The sensible thing to do is just ignore the topic and continue with proper science since it actually achievves things unlike pondering unfalsifiable claims.
Well, the prooblem is the only evidence you can have is by physical observation.
Contemplating non-falsifiable things is pointless, which is why everyone dismisses things about god/souls/etc. Because you can never show anything either way with it because of the nature of the claims.
This is why when someone comes along saying "but it could be SOULS" they get laughed at... because it cannot possibly introduce anything interesting to the discussion because like another poster said you may as well say "but we could be all part of the matrix" or some such and have just as much 'evidence' ever.. which is none the claim is not falsifiable.
It's just like people using 'supernatural' claims etc. It is pointless because there is no and can be no way to falsify it. Replace the claim about souls with 'magic' or some such and it would be pretty much the same argument. When people run around saying things are magic etc most people agree they are nutters, but when it's souls or some other thing they don't? I don't get it.
Nobody here ever said they were a physicalist or whatever, only that your claims don't fit with science, and that if you are claiming unfalsifiable things you can claim anything you damn well want without reason to.
There is no evidence of 'souls' just as there is no evidence of 'god'.... becauese it is an untestable, unfalsifiable conjecture.
Science prefers conjectures that can be shown to be wrong, not because they are right, since they are likely wrong in some small element, but because if they are wrong they can be shown to be and a new conjecture used.
Any conjecture involving 'souls' or 'god' cannot be falsified, and is pretty much non-scientific and useless from an epistemology point of view.
Science doesn't 'prove' anything right ever, it is constantly evolving and there is always the possibility existing conjectures are flawed, but the point is if they are they can be shown to be.
So, sorry, your reasoning process does not meet scientific standards.
Coming from a person who uses untestable things such as "souls" that is rich.
Science prefers conjectures that are the most falsifiable without yet being shown false, anything to do with 'souls' is untestable and pretty much non-scientific.
it is a fact of nature that there is a mental component to gender.
While in the general cases males and females have different brain structures, the fact that males can have ones asociated with females and likewise means it is not _always_ the case, if it is not always the case why should it be "men are x properties" "women are y properties" when it is shown to be false?.
While true for the majority of the population that being male/female predisposes to certain behaviours, the outliers that we are talking about break them. When rules are broken in reality you tend to reject the rule. When newtons theory of universal gravitation was shown to be false under certain circumstances, they did not keep sticking to it like the associations of behaviour to sex have been, they went with a more detailed conjecture (general relativity) that more adequately described the phenomena.
Quite simply, it is worng to blanketly say "men have x property mentally" when in fact, some of them don't.
Semantically there is very much a difference between someone saying "I am a man" and saying " I exhibit behaviours typically associated culturally with males". The latter people I have no issue with, the former is just a plain lie if they are biologically female.
As for brain structure, if someone can be biologically female and have the brain structure associated with males, that does not stop them from being female, it just breaks the rule of "men have x feature non-related to sexual organs, women have y feature non-related to sexual organs" Which put plainly means you shouldn't adhere to those rules as they are broken.
Every individual is different, you have to take into consideration these differences and not make blanket statements in general unless specifically saying it is in the general case. Gender identity only makes sense if you attribute behaviours/aspects not related to sexual reproduction to that gender, which obviously doesn't work otherwise we wouldn't have these outlier cases. The outlier cases break it.
Do we still insist on the simplistic models of newtons theory of universall gravitation being right, or do we take into consideration more detail as with the general theory of relativity because there are edge cases that break newtons theory.
The fact that these cases break what people consider 'male' and 'female' behaviour/brain structure/'insert feature x here' simply means people shouldn't look at it like that.
But sex is all that matters, I don't understand ttthis business about "gender identity" etc, men and women have different likes/dislikes preferences etc. While what you are physically can increase the likelihood of certain behaviours it is far from certain, therefore 'gender identity' means nothing when there are no defined ways men and women should act.
It's all a social construct, and has no basis in reality, whether you are male, female or genetically odd is a thing of biology, what behaviours that individual has is entirely up to the individual so it makes little sense to say they 'self identify' as one thing or the other.
Trans-gender people are odd, on the one hand they hate social stereotypes of the sexes, on the other they enforce it by their choice of wording.
It's about the large enterprise customers, they bought into itanium and want continued support for it. Asking a gigantic company (the clients who bought itanium) to change architectures or use a mix of them in a short period is a quick way to lose the customer.
But then since you have to root some Android systems to update them, in the end I'd say it's six of one and half-dozen of the other.
To the app developer it doesn't matter too much, pick a minimum api level (os version) and write for that, it and all newer ones will run it. They are app deveopers, not firmware developers.
The point is the barriers are VERY slight to a technical person, and then the benefits are greater.
But by working with this system, you are encouraging the behaviour. If someone treats you badly it doesn't matter if you can work around the damage, if you want the behaviour to stop you just shouldn't deal with it.
To some people freedom (to develop, etc) matters more than a little profit, to others the profit matters more. Where you sit is up to you.
Slashdot Mirror
And for a geek that wants said functionality, it would be a very poor user experience.
Different criteria for 'good' yields different products, who'd have thought?
Some people value style and simplicity over capability, others prefer capability knowing that you cannot fully utilize capability and flexibility without some added understanding.
Just seems overly convoluted simply to get a higher resolution preview, android, idevice or laptop for that matter.
iPhoto for one. I use it for review of DSLR images since I can quickly zoom to 100% on a 15MP JPG file to make sure focus was correct in specific locations.
How are you getting it to your iDevice? the only thing I could think of is by means of those eye-fi cards unless you are going really high-end like the wft-e6 with the canon 1dx, the eye-fi option would really limit your photo taking ability because of the lack of storage on the idevice and on the card.
If you are using wireless ftp or the like nothing is stopping an android device from having the same functionality, zooming to 100% is not exactly hard.
Darksky is pretty useless to most android and ios users anyway, it only covers the US, although it does look neat
In regards to serious photo editing and manipulation, this is what a laptop or desktop is for, if you are going to process raw images and white balance/gamma/etc why not do it on a medium that can do it better? Android has many of the same silly little photo apps but I've never seen the point in any of them. I've never been at an event that was active enough that I couldn't bring the laptop and thought I would do raw processing right there while the event is still happening as opposed to taking more photos. When has this cropped up?
I'm fairly sure the astronomy ones you listed are clones of google sky map, which is only available on android and is pretty kick-ass.
The iOS marketplace is still ahead of the Android marketplace, more in quality than quantity at this point
I'll take the bait, what app do you have on iphone that there is no equivalent functionality within the android market?
my bad on formatting, should have looked at it, lol.
Out of curiosity, why not simply take one of the smaller less expensive dslr's with you everywhere?
While you can control the EV, ISO etc doing so on a smart phone uses about the same time pulling a dslr out of a bag would.
The cable that it comes with plugs into any USB port. It also ships with a USB charger (although one that can delivery much higher recharge rates than standard USB ports).
There is convenience in being able to find cables even in places you weren't expecting to need it, more than a couple times I've asked friends if they've had micro-usb cables so I could charge my phone and found one. Doing the same results in far less success with the iphone, likely even less so with the iphone5 considering they are using a new connector.
Why do you need one when the phone lasts for at least a day even on LTE? I have an external battery for the iPhone (smaller than a standard phone battery BTW) but I stopped bringing it along on even international plane flights because the battery lasted longer than the whole flight for what I was doing.
Some people may need more than a few hours (the time of a flight) of battery with continual usage. But more so in a couple years when the battery dies of old age and sheer number of cycles it's went through it will be very easy to just throw a new one in. Older droids make great embedded systems for other uses.
If someone took something you liked and had to carry all the time and told you they could make it 20% thinner with zero loss in functionality, why would you not want to take advantage of that? Why would it not be desirable from a purely practical standpoint?
Serviceability, tightly packed components and ones packed in odd ways are harder to service. While anyone who tries to service an iphone themselves is usually a masochist anyway, room allows for a cleaner internal design that is easier to disassemble/fix.
link to mod? rf output is a pain.
For audio streaming over the Internet, it's even more important to gracefully deal with packet loss and packets arriving out of order.
what makes you think it doesn't do that? when packets are lost the audio degrades gracefully. These scenarios were tested also but people seem less interested in them.
And with today's bandwidth and storage capacities, where 2 TB drives, GbE and 300 Mbps WiFi are standard,
So.. do you download _all_ of your audio in flac? even podcasts for later playback? if not, then there is another use for this codec, better quality at smaller file size.
Likewise with games with large portions of audio content, they _could_ ship flac versions of all audio.. and bloat the game an extra few gigabytes for no reason.. or they could encode it with a tiny amount of loss.
FLAC is not a solution to all problems.
Too much collateral damage if anyone else is nearby, any laser powerful enough to burn out the ccd's is also powerful enough to take out someone's retinas if there is an accidental reflection. I'd consider the range on a decent laser to be too much to safely say that no people could be blinded,
The point is to be able to use lower bitrates and get the same quality. This is especially useful for things like audio streaming over the internet, where less bandwidth used equals more space for listeners.
It is quite decent at high bitrates, however that kind of defeats the point mostly, the point is to be able to get music of similar quality to your 256k aac in less than that, say 192 or less.
With lossy after a point the bitrate stops mattering after it is good enough, otherwise we'd all just encode lossless.
So...Bitcoin is insecure. Period.
So is the money in your wallet, someone could easily come along and knock you out and steal it.
The same with banks, with enough effort a bank heist could still happen (whether it would be worth it is another story)
All you can ever do is raise the difficulty, you can never make stealing impossible.
Actually, the central clock is 21.47mhz, the bus frequency can be that divided by 6,8 or 12 depending on what you are doing.
You can access the raw clock on a couple of pins that go to the cartridge, the superfx coprocessor in cart divided it by two to get operating freq, sfx2 was a 21mhz risc processor in a cart.
The fixed pipeline api still has it's uses. If you are just starting out in 3d and only need it for minimal things being able to just go glBegin(GL_TRIANGLES) and then start drawing stuff is neat. For a lot of people the fixed function pipeline is all they need, if you don't care about performance (i.e. your bottleneck is elsewhere) you don't even have to bother with vertex arrays etc either.
The only thing you know for sure is that your own mind exists, for all you know even all of us others could simply be your own mind entertaining itself.
Absolutely nothing is known for certain except that really, and science works within this because it never claims anything as complete, absolute truth.
That said, ideas that aren't falsifiable aren't worth entertaining because you could believe false things all your life and never know either way. Best to just not bother with it, which is why people bother with science and not unfalsifiable things.
And again, who here was claiming to be a 'physicalist'? Even you admit that there is no evidence nor can there be to believe in the supernatural because of the way it is defined, it is for this same reason it cannot be outright denied because the whole thing just isn't testable. The sensible thing to do is just ignore the topic and continue with proper science since it actually achievves things unlike pondering unfalsifiable claims.
Well, the prooblem is the only evidence you can have is by physical observation.
Contemplating non-falsifiable things is pointless, which is why everyone dismisses things about god/souls/etc. Because you can never show anything either way with it because of the nature of the claims.
This is why when someone comes along saying "but it could be SOULS" they get laughed at... because it cannot possibly introduce anything interesting to the discussion because like another poster said you may as well say "but we could be all part of the matrix" or some such and have just as much 'evidence' ever.. which is none the claim is not falsifiable.
It's just like people using 'supernatural' claims etc. It is pointless because there is no and can be no way to falsify it. Replace the claim about souls with 'magic' or some such and it would be pretty much the same argument. When people run around saying things are magic etc most people agree they are nutters, but when it's souls or some other thing they don't? I don't get it.
Nobody here ever said they were a physicalist or whatever, only that your claims don't fit with science, and that if you are claiming unfalsifiable things you can claim anything you damn well want without reason to.
There is no evidence of 'souls' just as there is no evidence of 'god' .... becauese it is an untestable, unfalsifiable conjecture.
Science prefers conjectures that can be shown to be wrong, not because they are right, since they are likely wrong in some small element, but because if they are wrong they can be shown to be and a new conjecture used.
Any conjecture involving 'souls' or 'god' cannot be falsified, and is pretty much non-scientific and useless from an epistemology point of view.
Science doesn't 'prove' anything right ever, it is constantly evolving and there is always the possibility existing conjectures are flawed, but the point is if they are they can be shown to be.
So, sorry, your reasoning process does not meet scientific standards.
Coming from a person who uses untestable things such as "souls" that is rich.
Science prefers conjectures that are the most falsifiable without yet being shown false, anything to do with 'souls' is untestable and pretty much non-scientific.
it is a fact of nature that there is a mental component to gender.
While in the general cases males and females have different brain structures, the fact that males can have ones asociated with females and likewise means it is not _always_ the case, if it is not always the case why should it be "men are x properties" "women are y properties" when it is shown to be false?.
While true for the majority of the population that being male/female predisposes to certain behaviours, the outliers that we are talking about break them. When rules are broken in reality you tend to reject the rule. When newtons theory of universal gravitation was shown to be false under certain circumstances, they did not keep sticking to it like the associations of behaviour to sex have been, they went with a more detailed conjecture (general relativity) that more adequately described the phenomena.
Quite simply, it is worng to blanketly say "men have x property mentally" when in fact, some of them don't.
Semantically there is very much a difference between someone saying "I am a man" and saying " I exhibit behaviours typically associated culturally with males". The latter people I have no issue with, the former is just a plain lie if they are biologically female.
As for brain structure, if someone can be biologically female and have the brain structure associated with males, that does not stop them from being female, it just breaks the rule of "men have x feature non-related to sexual organs, women have y feature non-related to sexual organs" Which put plainly means you shouldn't adhere to those rules as they are broken.
Every individual is different, you have to take into consideration these differences and not make blanket statements in general unless specifically saying it is in the general case. Gender identity only makes sense if you attribute behaviours/aspects not related to sexual reproduction to that gender, which obviously doesn't work otherwise we wouldn't have these outlier cases. The outlier cases break it.
Do we still insist on the simplistic models of newtons theory of universall gravitation being right, or do we take into consideration more detail as with the general theory of relativity because there are edge cases that break newtons theory.
The fact that these cases break what people consider 'male' and 'female' behaviour/brain structure/'insert feature x here' simply means people shouldn't look at it like that.
But sex is all that matters, I don't understand ttthis business about "gender identity" etc, men and women have different likes/dislikes preferences etc. While what you are physically can increase the likelihood of certain behaviours it is far from certain, therefore 'gender identity' means nothing when there are no defined ways men and women should act.
It's all a social construct, and has no basis in reality, whether you are male, female or genetically odd is a thing of biology, what behaviours that individual has is entirely up to the individual so it makes little sense to say they 'self identify' as one thing or the other.
Trans-gender people are odd, on the one hand they hate social stereotypes of the sexes, on the other they enforce it by their choice of wording.
It's about the large enterprise customers, they bought into itanium and want continued support for it. Asking a gigantic company (the clients who bought itanium) to change architectures or use a mix of them in a short period is a quick way to lose the customer.
But then since you have to root some Android systems to update them, in the end I'd say it's six of one and half-dozen of the other.
To the app developer it doesn't matter too much, pick a minimum api level (os version) and write for that, it and all newer ones will run it. They are app deveopers, not firmware developers.
The point is the barriers are VERY slight to a technical person, and then the benefits are greater.
But by working with this system, you are encouraging the behaviour. If someone treats you badly it doesn't matter if you can work around the damage, if you want the behaviour to stop you just shouldn't deal with it.
To some people freedom (to develop, etc) matters more than a little profit, to others the profit matters more. Where you sit is up to you.