Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Fails a little on logic (Score 1) 1

While the 'problem' itself may be universal with the model, I would expect that the higher percentage of people 'affected' by the issue as intimated by the researchers may also be people who have intentionally confirmed the possibility and enabled a workaround. Were these researchers allegations true as stated, Apple would have seen more than the 0.55% of 'calls' and AT&T would have seen more than the 1.7% of returns than the two companies have so far reported. Many people have reported confirming the issue, but almost as many have said, "It's not a problem for me."

Comment Re:I work for an LCD manufacturer (Score 1) 646

While you make some good points, you overlook some obvious errors.

There are only 3 ways to solve the problem
1) Use only in a dark room
2) Use a higher brightness backlight
3) Get rid of the reflected light
(or 4, get a transflective display like the pixel-qi, but at the cost of poor color graphics reproduction)

Solution 1 does not apply to the original poster.
Solution 2 works fine for desktop screens and TVs where you have electrical power available. A high luminosity screen on a laptop will drain your batteries like crazy and will need a fan to cool the display.

Now to solution 3. There are actually 2 kinds of reflection: Specular and diffuse.
To reduce the diffuse reflection you use an AR (Anti Reflection) treatment. That is commonly applied to eyeglasses and binoculars.
To reduce the specular reflection you use an AG (Anti Glare) treatment

Solution 2 in particular is in serious error since at least one company uses ONLY glossy screens on battery-powered devices and gets up to 10 hours and even more of HD quality video and graphics per charge. Interestingly, they also work remarkably well even in full, direct sunlight outdoors, though admittedly any LCD that isn't backed by a reflective surface is necessarily less clear than with one. The interesting thing here, however, is that the Glossy LCD works better in direct sunlight than a diffused or matte display. Which brings up your 'solution 3.'

At least some displays are given the treatments you describe, though no coating can be 100% and still let the glass perform as it's meant. While they do reduce the intensity of glare and reflection, they cannot completely eliminate it without adversely affecting the image quality, no matter if you're talking camera lenses, eyeglasses or computer displays. Most anti-glare treatments work by diffusing the ambient light to the point that only a tiny fraction of the original glare reaches the viewer's eyes. However, they also tend to catch far more of the ambient light, giving the display a lower contrast ratio under normal lighting conditions. One of the tricks used on CRTs to reduce glare was to add a black screen to help separate the pixels; Sony called it Trinitron and once the patent expired nearly everyone was using the same technology--but your resolution was now limited to the size of the screening.
LCDs don't have that advantage--not fully, anyway. In most displays, the gap between pixels is microscopic, which makes the image look more realistic than CRTs but also sacrifices some of that contrast. By putting any kind of diffuser over the LCD, you degrade that contrast even more. You're forced to use an even brighter backlight as a result. All you have to do is compare the first LCD computer displays to today's models to see a significant difference. But when you put a glossy display next to a matte one even now, the difference can be quite noticeable. Some people harp about the reflections off the glass, totally ignoring the fact that under normal circumstances, the reflections aren't even noticeable in use.

Comment In a word: Yes. (Score 1) 646

On the average I've found the colors to be brighter and more accurate on a high-gloss screen as compared to the diffused screens of most other displays. Black really becomes black as the display doesn't catch and reflect the ambient glow, which turns it to a dark grey while contrast and sharpness are enhanced as well.

Yes, I realize there are issues as well. If you have a bright light or bright reflections behind you, or you happen to wear a brightly-colored shirt (including white) those reflections will make dark images harder to see. But by using subdued lighting throughout the workspace and eliminating any direct reflections, the glossy display is a much better one to use.

In my own case, I sit right beside an east-facing window and all I need to do is simply angle the display enough away that I don't get any direct reflection out of the window or off of my clothing.

Comment Too slow. Touch typing is faster because... (Score 1) 262

... you don't 'think' the letters as you type, you 'think' the words. Every time you 'think' the letters, your typing speed slows down significantly, but by 'thinking' the words, you can type at 120wpm or faster. In my own case, when copying text, my typing speed is approximately 70wpm, and I am not a trained clerk/typist, but merely an amateur author trying to get his stories published. What's really interesting is that I know of clerk/typists from the time of the IBM Selectric and even older, manual typewriters who could push 140 and even higher word counts. They all told me the same thing: "Don't try to spell the words, just think the word and let your fingers spell it."

Comment Logical excuse... (Score 1) 587

... but impossible to enforce.

Fine, you ban the criminal from using Social Networking. Great idea! How do you enforce it? How do you prevent the predator from contacting his prey? Only one way... take away his computer, no matter what kind it is. Take away his smart phone. Take away his cell phone (it has texting, after all.) Take away everything that could possibly include an ability to access the internet in any form or manner.

Hmmm... doesn't that count as "cruel and unusual punishment?" Too many laws, not enough enforcement. How about fixing the legal system first--it obviously needs help.

Comment Re:Another non-story (Score 2, Insightful) 314

No, drinkypoo, it's not that Apple hid the story, but rather that Apple chose not to talk about it because it wasn't a story. I can't name one company in the world that wants to acknowledge a problem; not Apple, not Ford and not anyone else. They usually don't discuss such matters unless and until they become a publicly visible problem, and 15 units out of 175 MILLION units do not make a publicly visible problem unless somebody goes out of their way to make it one, which seems to be a big purview of anti-Apple zealots.

Comment Re:Mentioning "Fire" gets the attention of Appleca (Score 1) 314

NOW--- the problem as many have said, is that there is so much energy in such a small space. Lithium Polymer batteries explode, and those power adapters have ~70W of output which is more than enough to char a cable. Apple handles -each case- well (very well), I don't fault them for something like this because it's an energy density issue.

Look again. Those power adaptors don't run at 70 watts. 7w, maybe--that's hot enough to burn you, just touch one of the old C7 Christmas bulbs if you don't believe me. The power adaptor is made to recharge the battery. The battery can provide a higher wattage to the computer and thus power it properly. Using the adaptor to power the computer is misuse of the adaptor. Modern electronics, especially modern batteries, don't work they way they used to. That's why today's batteries tend to fail too quickly. Charge and Deplete is the way they're meant to be used, not Charge while Using. Think of them more like deep-cycle marine batteries rather than your car battery. You might understand them better.

Comment Re:Don't expect to see this in mainstream news (Score 3, Insightful) 314

The fact that your iPod may catch fire and burn down your house is not something to keep quiet about, no matter to what extent the problem goes.

Even when the odds are 1 in 11 million + units? You have a greater chance of winning a lottery than you do of getting burned by your iPod. For that matter, at least one of those cases was due to the user sitting down with the thing in their pants pocket. I can't tell you how many Nintendo Gameboys I had to repair with broken screens because the kids sat on them or stuffed them in their front pants pocket. You try sitting down with something about the size of your hand in your pocket; it's going to flex, and flexing is likely to bend the battery or some other component.

I mean, really! Out of over 175 Million units sold, only 15 had an overheating problem? That's more reliable than even the Model T!

Comment Re:I may be wrong, Im not an astrologer (Score 2, Interesting) 333

Mercury has a magnetic field, which quite surprised planetary scientists when it was first discovered by MAriner 10, as the prevailing theory at the time was that Mercury's small size would have led to its core solidifying by now and stopping the dynamo that generated the field.

There's obviously a lot we don't know about planetary magentic fields, and I wouldn't want to judge the entire theory just by something I read on Slashdot, but I find it hard to understand how oceanic currents could account for Earth's magnetic field but not for Mercury's.

One piece of logic disrupts the idea that Mercury would have a solid core... It's proximity to the sun gives it a surface temperature hot enough to melt some metals. Granted, the opposite side of Mercury is also the coldest place in the Solar System (due to the planet's lack of atmosphere and equal lack of rotation.) This could, conceivably imply a solid core. However, just like boiling water, if you heat one side and leave the other side cold, you create a thermodynamic flow which could generate a magnetic field even without an orbiting moon to create the tidal current in that core.

Comment Re:I may be wrong, Im not an astrologer (Score 0) 333

Perhaps he is only playing Devil's Advocate (har har irony), but the point he makes is ridiculous: That the postulation of a creator is exactly as valid as a scientific theory constructed from what we currently understand about the Earth. On one hand, we have a scientist hypothesising that the Earth's magnetic field is created by electrical currents in the oceans (or more traditionally, by the spinning of the Earth's Iron core), and on the other hand, we have a creator who is necessarily more complex than the entire Universe and all it's systems just popping into existence and thinking to himself "Gee, it sure would be nice to have worshipers, maybe I'll make a planet of those." The former builds upon our prior knowledge, the latter defies probability.

But does it defy possibility? While I don't propose that he is correct, who is to say that there isn't some being vastly more intelligent and powerful than us who could do exactly that?

Then again, I knew a Baptist minister who clearly said, "God is no fool. He wouldn't have put all his eggs in one basket." Well, Earth is a single basket. Just because we haven't heard from our brothers and sisters on other worlds, doesn't mean they can't exist.

Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.