or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by melgross

As I say, too much is being made of this. I simply don't believe that Apple is doing this willy nilly. Apple takes their time. And sometimes that time seems glacial. But when it comes to something like this, where they are making such a massive push into health, I simply do not believe that they would have the watch be so inaccurate as to be useless. If it differs from the phone by a percent, or so, it's of no importance. And no one here can point to any knowledge that...
I've got watches with sapphire covers, and watches with "hardened mineral glass" covers. And over the years, it's always been the glass covers that have been gauged and broken. A couple of those sapphire covers are flush with the watch case, and are therefore not protected. Don't believe those who say how easily sapphire cracks.
Guys, while gps tells the device where your are at any time, a pedometer does not need it to measure the number of paces you take. Mechanical pedometers have been around for decades. Athletes have been using them for decades. You need to manually set your pace length if you want to see how far you've gone. These things do work. But, if you're off by an inch, and don't know it, an easy error to make, your distance will be off. The watch also does not need gps to know how...
Aperture sizes, and zoom. Zoom is an internal group shift, as you know, so, with all of this newfound room, that can now be done.It's difficult to know the extent of the impact an iPhone would have with a built in 3:1 optical zoom, but it will, at least, be significant.
Good. Companies working around privacy rules. Particularly when they really amount to fraud, such as this really is, by pretending to be the user the self, is really egreous. I've been disappointed that the system here didn't take this to trial as well.
You don't actually know that. I would expect that with all the work Apple has put into this, they likely have thought of this as a potential problem, assuming that it actually is.
As I said, it's an electrical insulator. I was, of course, talking about the anodized surface of the watch, which is aluminum oxide. That isn't a problem. We also use dissimilar metals in many pieces of equipment without a problem. I have lathes with cast iron bodies, and bronze or Steel roller or ball bearings. Brass is often used with steel and iron in direct contact. Aluminum and copper are used that way as well.Watches for a century have been using the pin and spring...
This is correct. In fact, an individual mirror incurs about a 1-3% loss if it's a rear surface mirror, and can be under 1% for the front surface mirrors used in optical pathways. Apple doesn't seem to be using a prism, so losses will be less there as well. Lenses can lose up to a third stop though. But that would be true, no matter what. We can tell, if we know the "T" stop, which is the true transmission number used by movie and Tv lenses.
As I said, and confirmed by others, ports face one way. There is a standard for that. You just have to remember which way it should be and plug it in that way.
Not true. The Lightning port is pretty sophisticated. Apple worked on the new usb c port so it has some of the advantages, hut not all.
New Posts  All Forums: