Second, a pound might be a unit of force or of mass, depending who you ask, what you're talking about, and how pedantic you are, but it is never a unit of pressure.
I am pedantic, you insensitive clod, and a pound is unit of weight!
I was waiting for this comment. The correct usage here is a unit of mass (318.18 kilograms), not weight. Mass is constant, weight is dependent on gravity.
DSLR's are superior because, among other things, their sensors are larger, Over 1 sq cm. The lenses are built to provide images that cover that area. How does this adapter funnel that light into the little iPhone lens? Some fancy optics?
No "funnel" or "fancy optics" are necessary, assuming that the lens mount is fitted in such a way that it focuses correctly to the image plane through the iPhone's lens. You can use a regular SLR lens with a smaller sensor, but it's going to be an extremely long focal length (ie.: 50mm will become something like 250mm or so).
"SLR" is the abbreviation of "Single Lens Reflex"; it's defined by a camera having a reflex mirror (go figure, huh?); the ability to change lenses has nothing to do with this definition.
With that out of the way, I feel compelled to point out that this adds a very small amount of functionality for the bulk. As any photographer knows, no phone will be able to work with depth of field because the sensor is too small. All you're getting is the ability to change focal lengths instead of walking 10 feet.
I never said they were mutually exclusive. One can create art for the love of art and make money at it. But, there's a tipping point at which the art is sacrificed for money.
The "load" here is that you seem to believe that you have right to profit simply because you created, regardless of whether or not the work is actually marketable (or even any good).
The real damage caused by piracy aren't the works which were created and then failed to produce return on investment (this is all to easy to do without piracy), the real damage is done in works which are never created in the first place due to the perception that piracy would make them financially irrelevant.
Now, that's just some quality crap you're spewing there; if people want to create art, they will create art, period. The works that would be created just for the money are, perhaps, better left uncreated.
C'mon, that's not fair. I mean, do you really expect the general public to think critically and actually consider the implications? That's just nonsense!
I would argue that this is wasteful on the basis that the vast majority of iPhone apps are made redundant by a web browser, for which forms and other online software can be written more quickly and efficiently, and also be available to a far greater user base.
You first: explain to me why some Italian guy should be carting off his ship across a huge ocean in search of some new land that he'll never find. What a waste, huh?
I take it then that you have a solution for all the writers out there?
Nope. If you can't figure out a way to make money writing because technology has obsoleted your business model... tough.
Whoever said that money is the end-goal of an artist and is what ultimately gives the world good art? Artists create art because they enjoy doing so. I know, because I am one; I make little-to-no money doing so and, yet, I still do.
If a writer loves to write, he'll write whether it makes him money or not.
Bands don't make money on albums anymore, they make it on live performances and merchandise.
It's human-nature to be social with each other and share things that we like. If you're going to prevent from sharing something that I like because you have some arbitrarily-defined control over it, I'll go find something else that I like and share it instead.
What if you created a fire by rubbing two sticks together, after which I walk over with a third stick and dip it in the flame you created?
Copyright is necessitated by technology. Once technology finds a way around it, historically, copyright has been changed to accommodate technology, not combat it. Otherwise, all copyright ends up being is legislated regress of technology.
If someone doesn't see enough value in a non-tangible creation, no law is going to cause them to pay for it. Merely creating good art is not good enough any more. Technology giveth and technology taketh away: it giveth you the ability to produce more quickly and efficiently (you merely need to strike a match or flick and lighter instead of rubbing two sticks) and it taketh away your ability to control your creations exclusively.
Slashdot Mirror
So, basically, someone needs to make sure that both types of patches will co-exist.
Let the kids suck it up. I did. It builds character.
Now get off my lawn.
I am pedantic, you insensitive clod, and a pound is unit of weight!
I was waiting for this comment. The correct usage here is a unit of mass (318.18 kilograms), not weight. Mass is constant, weight is dependent on gravity.
It was a Big Bang Theory reference made in jest. How did Slashdot not get this?
Not reading the story. Disregard that, I... um... never mind.
I mean, really, who cares if whatever they'd use it for would be in beta for five years?
RIM over-complicates every step of working with their devices and has a system deliberately created with a central, single point of failure.
I don't think I need to describe to the Slashdot crowd why Apple should keep away.
How about we a kill a good majority of the dang things instead?
A University of Manitoba researcher appears to be close to a solution that involves releasing sterilized male mosquitoes into the population.
"become equivalent to" is what I meant to say.
No "funnel" or "fancy optics" are necessary, assuming that the lens mount is fitted in such a way that it focuses correctly to the image plane through the iPhone's lens. You can use a regular SLR lens with a smaller sensor, but it's going to be an extremely long focal length (ie.: 50mm will become something like 250mm or so).
"SLR" is the abbreviation of "Single Lens Reflex"; it's defined by a camera having a reflex mirror (go figure, huh?); the ability to change lenses has nothing to do with this definition.
With that out of the way, I feel compelled to point out that this adds a very small amount of functionality for the bulk. As any photographer knows, no phone will be able to work with depth of field because the sensor is too small. All you're getting is the ability to change focal lengths instead of walking 10 feet.
Nothing.
Sorry, please play again.
I never said they were mutually exclusive. One can create art for the love of art and make money at it. But, there's a tipping point at which the art is sacrificed for money.
The "load" here is that you seem to believe that you have right to profit simply because you created, regardless of whether or not the work is actually marketable (or even any good).
Now, that's just some quality crap you're spewing there; if people want to create art, they will create art, period. The works that would be created just for the money are, perhaps, better left uncreated.
Indeed. Despite that, she's no classic redefiner of music as we know it; she chose to be rich now instead of remembered later.
Well, I can't possibly foresee any way that this could ever be abused.
C'mon, that's not fair. I mean, do you really expect the general public to think critically and actually consider the implications? That's just nonsense!
I would argue that this is wasteful on the basis that the vast majority of iPhone apps are made redundant by a web browser, for which forms and other online software can be written more quickly and efficiently, and also be available to a far greater user base.
It's a greater shame that I've already commented on this story and cannot use my mod points to bump your comment up as insightful.
You first: explain to me why some Italian guy should be carting off his ship across a huge ocean in search of some new land that he'll never find. What a waste, huh?
My meme sense is tingling...
So, why don't you just develop proper spelling, grammar and syntactic skills, instead?
Nope. If you can't figure out a way to make money writing because technology has obsoleted your business model... tough.
Whoever said that money is the end-goal of an artist and is what ultimately gives the world good art? Artists create art because they enjoy doing so. I know, because I am one; I make little-to-no money doing so and, yet, I still do. If a writer loves to write, he'll write whether it makes him money or not.
Neither have you, obviously.
Bands don't make money on albums anymore, they make it on live performances and merchandise.
It's human-nature to be social with each other and share things that we like. If you're going to prevent from sharing something that I like because you have some arbitrarily-defined control over it, I'll go find something else that I like and share it instead.
What if you created a fire by rubbing two sticks together, after which I walk over with a third stick and dip it in the flame you created?
Copyright is necessitated by technology. Once technology finds a way around it, historically, copyright has been changed to accommodate technology, not combat it. Otherwise, all copyright ends up being is legislated regress of technology.
If someone doesn't see enough value in a non-tangible creation, no law is going to cause them to pay for it. Merely creating good art is not good enough any more. Technology giveth and technology taketh away: it giveth you the ability to produce more quickly and efficiently (you merely need to strike a match or flick and lighter instead of rubbing two sticks) and it taketh away your ability to control your creations exclusively.