Apple should really be slapped for repeatedly misrepresenting their products.
Maybe, but that blog entry you went to didn't catch them in the act. He was using an orthographic means of measuring the iPod on am image that was using perspective. That basically means that the extreme extent of the curve on the left side of it would appear smaller, since it is farther away from the camera. I built a 3d model of the iPod from the photo he used and did an orthographic vs. perspective render, and gee golly gosh, the orthographic render (which is the only way a measurement like his would be accurate) was fatter than the perspective render. Busted.
You and that idiot that made that blog post were so interested in stringing up Apple that niether of you bothered to consider the impact the curved shape of that device would have on its appearance. It's amusing to me that this whole thread is about using advertisements to herd mindless sheep, then you go and follow what this guy said without actually trying to verify it on your own. Typical.
Do you really believe that looking at adds create value for the society????
If they're the reason the service you enjoy using is still in service, then the answer is yes. It doesn't matter how frivilous you make it sound, the fact is there is no free lunch.
Look at how many Playstation games have one stick for controlling the character and the other stick for controlling the camera, which just isn't an issue with a 2D game.
I'm not replying to dispute your point, but your comment here reminded me of something that's semi-on-topic, here. 2D scrolling games did have a camera, and that camera did cause problems. We never really percieved it as a camera because a.) it was 2D and the metaphor didn't really make sense until it we saw it in 3D and b.) the problems were far less prevalent in 2D than they were in 3D. Still, though, they were there, and we noticed them. Remember when Super Mario 2 came out and everybody oo'd and aa'd that you could go back to the left side of the screen? What about Super Mario World? The shoulder buttons shifted the screen to the left/right. In Super Mario 3, you had some stages that were auto-scrollers, which presented their own challenges. Zelda II, Double Dragon, R-Type, all these games had their own style when it came to how the screen scrolled.
Again, this isn't a dispute of your point, I just thought it was interesting that the 'camera' concept seemingly came from 3D but really it didn't. It's just a lot tougher with depth.
Just because I sometimes want a less-intrusive browsing experience does not make me a leech.
No, it's your choice of how you make your experience less-intrusive that makes you a leech. I'm all for people expressing themselves when advertising gets annoying, but at the end of the day, you're still getting content without holding up your end of the bargain. You fit the term, own up to it.
Use Chrome if you want speed, Firefox if you want extensions, IE if you just want to annoy the hell out of all us Firefox fanboys, Opera if you want a ready package of speed and features, etc...
Or you could just have them all available and use the best tool for the job.
The only reason this is on slashdot is that the IPHONE is involved, and so the story is automatically valid news and not a slashvertisement.
Slashvertisement? I dunno. I think Slashdot posts about Apple so that it can generate ad-revenue from all the people clicking 'reply' so they can bitch about Slashdot posting Apple stories. I doubt Apple paid Slashdot to run the story about Apple pre-rejecting Opera.
Funny, I've never seen that "increase resolution" button in photoshop before. Either the copy they got for comparison is degraded or we're looking at a different picture, possibly composed from multiple images, with the same pose. Either way the AP did a crappy job of making their point here.
I overlaid the two images and had a peek. I'm convinced that these are both grandchildren of one photo (i.e. NOT two different photos with different poses), but I'm not convinced that the first photo was turned into the second one. There is definitely a different source image for the second one. Besides the higher level of artifacts, the images are of different scales and even slightly different aspect ratios. It actually looks a little bit like two different people scanned the same photo. Very close, but dissimilar under scrutiny. Also, there do not appear to be any JPEG artifacts in common between the two images. (note: I didn't look very closely at this, I just went with the blatantly obivous 8x8 blocks.)
Development costs should play no part in how a price is set.
Wrong.
It would be like me charging $2500 to mow your lawn.
No, it wouldn't. Lawn mowing != unique software. If you don't want to pay $2,500, you pay the neighbor kid $20 to do it. Provide Edward Scissorhand's service and you can charge that much.
Thus, digital information should be monetized using a business model that doesn't depend on artificial scarcity.
It's not based on artificial scarcity. It's based on value and that is determined by what people are willing to pay. Maya, for example, should not be a $50 app. It solves a million dollar problem. I'm not sure why I even have to explain this.
The Wii is not more efficient, it simply does not do as much. If it was as capable of graphics and processing as the PS3 or XB360, it would consume a lot more power.
Considering that the amount of entertainment provided by the console isn't affected by its graphics processing capabilities, this statement is not relevent.
hey assholes: what do you think PAYS for all of the shiny fun websites you like? what do you think pays for slashdot? the hot air in your comments? your sense of self-regard?
How do you think pop-ups were killed? People holding hands and singing Kum Ba Yah?
a consumer is just someone who consumes goods or services. even a professional photographer who purchases a high-end camera is still a consumer--as opposed to the producer/manufacturer/retailer.
Uh huh. Except in this context we're talking about whether it's millions or thousands of units sold. The people purchasing this camera are pretty derned likely to want to do post work on the footage, they're not brand new grandparents taking home videos of their recently born grandchildren.
but for the average person to complain about 2540p as not good enough (especially in the context of playback resolution at a regular movie theater) is pretty banal.
I'd still go with serving coffee at the big company. You'll probably make better contacts at the bigger company, and you'll certainly have a more recognizable name on the resume.
On top of that: Anybody who brings me coffee, I'll recommend.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Apple should really be slapped for repeatedly misrepresenting their products.
Maybe, but that blog entry you went to didn't catch them in the act. He was using an orthographic means of measuring the iPod on am image that was using perspective. That basically means that the extreme extent of the curve on the left side of it would appear smaller, since it is farther away from the camera. I built a 3d model of the iPod from the photo he used and did an orthographic vs. perspective render, and gee golly gosh, the orthographic render (which is the only way a measurement like his would be accurate) was fatter than the perspective render. Busted.
You and that idiot that made that blog post were so interested in stringing up Apple that niether of you bothered to consider the impact the curved shape of that device would have on its appearance. It's amusing to me that this whole thread is about using advertisements to herd mindless sheep, then you go and follow what this guy said without actually trying to verify it on your own. Typical.
Just to help all those out that had an equal amount of trouble to parse that sentence...
Uh.. yeah.. I wish I was so smart that use of an apostrophe like that would render the sentence unreadable.
Do you really believe that looking at adds create value for the society????
If they're the reason the service you enjoy using is still in service, then the answer is yes. It doesn't matter how frivilous you make it sound, the fact is there is no free lunch.
Look at how many Playstation games have one stick for controlling the character and the other stick for controlling the camera, which just isn't an issue with a 2D game.
I'm not replying to dispute your point, but your comment here reminded me of something that's semi-on-topic, here. 2D scrolling games did have a camera, and that camera did cause problems. We never really percieved it as a camera because a.) it was 2D and the metaphor didn't really make sense until it we saw it in 3D and b.) the problems were far less prevalent in 2D than they were in 3D. Still, though, they were there, and we noticed them. Remember when Super Mario 2 came out and everybody oo'd and aa'd that you could go back to the left side of the screen? What about Super Mario World? The shoulder buttons shifted the screen to the left/right. In Super Mario 3, you had some stages that were auto-scrollers, which presented their own challenges. Zelda II, Double Dragon, R-Type, all these games had their own style when it came to how the screen scrolled.
Again, this isn't a dispute of your point, I just thought it was interesting that the 'camera' concept seemingly came from 3D but really it didn't. It's just a lot tougher with depth.
Just because I sometimes want a less-intrusive browsing experience does not make me a leech.
No, it's your choice of how you make your experience less-intrusive that makes you a leech. I'm all for people expressing themselves when advertising gets annoying, but at the end of the day, you're still getting content without holding up your end of the bargain. You fit the term, own up to it.
Use Chrome if you want speed, Firefox if you want extensions, IE if you just want to annoy the hell out of all us Firefox fanboys, Opera if you want a ready package of speed and features, etc...
Or you could just have them all available and use the best tool for the job.
I mean... she's a fine actress, but is she a qualified astronaut?
I think I speak for all tax-payers when I say we'd be willing to waive that requirement in this case.
Just wait until the judge decides to throw the book at Ballmer.
Oh yes, cos that cliche's less old than Ballmer's chair throwing. Why don't you work out a way to say "I can see my house from here!" in there, too?
I wonder if they allow chair-throwing in court these days.
Even SNL would have passed on that joke.
The only reason this is on slashdot is that the IPHONE is involved, and so the story is automatically valid news and not a slashvertisement.
Slashvertisement? I dunno. I think Slashdot posts about Apple so that it can generate ad-revenue from all the people clicking 'reply' so they can bitch about Slashdot posting Apple stories. I doubt Apple paid Slashdot to run the story about Apple pre-rejecting Opera.
I discard your evidence-based claims as an argument from authority.
Fine. Look at the sales numbers and admit you were wrong.
So this expands on the story of GTA? Wait there is a story? I never got past killing hookers and jacking cars I guess.
You only played for 15 seconds?
If you're calling what was done to this image "completely fictionalizing" it, you need to have your perspective adjusted.
No, I wasn't. Physical Lighting = Portrait. Completely fictionalizing it = Oil Painting. I've read your other posts and I think we agree, actually.
Funny, I've never seen that "increase resolution" button in photoshop before. Either the copy they got for comparison is degraded or we're looking at a different picture, possibly composed from multiple images, with the same pose. Either way the AP did a crappy job of making their point here.
I overlaid the two images and had a peek. I'm convinced that these are both grandchildren of one photo (i.e. NOT two different photos with different poses), but I'm not convinced that the first photo was turned into the second one. There is definitely a different source image for the second one. Besides the higher level of artifacts, the images are of different scales and even slightly different aspect ratios. It actually looks a little bit like two different people scanned the same photo. Very close, but dissimilar under scrutiny. Also, there do not appear to be any JPEG artifacts in common between the two images. (note: I didn't look very closely at this, I just went with the blatantly obivous 8x8 blocks.)
But portraits are inherently doctored! When you see a portrait - shopped or not - it has about as much credibility as an oil painting.
There's a large distinction between adjusting the physical lighting and completely fictionalizing the image.
The cost of a sense of humor to appreciate something like that is too high.
Thus development costs are arbitrary.
So is the value of the software.
Development costs should play no part in how a price is set.
Wrong.
It would be like me charging $2500 to mow your lawn.
No, it wouldn't. Lawn mowing != unique software. If you don't want to pay $2,500, you pay the neighbor kid $20 to do it. Provide Edward Scissorhand's service and you can charge that much.
Thus, digital information should be monetized using a business model that doesn't depend on artificial scarcity.
It's not based on artificial scarcity. It's based on value and that is determined by what people are willing to pay. Maya, for example, should not be a $50 app. It solves a million dollar problem. I'm not sure why I even have to explain this.
The Wii is not more efficient, it simply does not do as much. If it was as capable of graphics and processing as the PS3 or XB360, it would consume a lot more power.
Considering that the amount of entertainment provided by the console isn't affected by its graphics processing capabilities, this statement is not relevent.
hey assholes: what do you think PAYS for all of the shiny fun websites you like? what do you think pays for slashdot? the hot air in your comments? your sense of self-regard?
How do you think pop-ups were killed? People holding hands and singing Kum Ba Yah?
As little as we can trust digital visual media now, it'll be even less trustworthy.
What trust is it betraying? That one coast is seeing a different play than another?
Those witness stand chairs are bolted down right?
Why is that?
a consumer is just someone who consumes goods or services. even a professional photographer who purchases a high-end camera is still a consumer--as opposed to the producer/manufacturer/retailer.
Uh huh. Except in this context we're talking about whether it's millions or thousands of units sold. The people purchasing this camera are pretty derned likely to want to do post work on the footage, they're not brand new grandparents taking home videos of their recently born grandchildren.
but for the average person to complain about 2540p as not good enough (especially in the context of playback resolution at a regular movie theater) is pretty banal.
Only to somebody observing from the outside.
doesn't beat it for what? unless you're shooting a movie that's going to be displayed in an IMAX theater why would you need more than 8 Megapixel?
It's quite common for scenes to be zoomed in after they're cropped, especially with FX shots.
sure, there are people out there that need a 36 Megapixel camera, but for 99.9% of the consumer market it'd be a monumental waste of money
You should click the link and look at the NOT consumer camera.
I'd still go with serving coffee at the big company. You'll probably make better contacts at the bigger company, and you'll certainly have a more recognizable name on the resume.
On top of that: Anybody who brings me coffee, I'll recommend. ;)
I wasn't criticizing him for caring, nor have I given up. I was poking fun at his implication that I should worry about it 24/7.