'Stupid' is probably not the appropriate word. In reference to your original post I do wish Google could do something about so many links that only repeat the info from the same reference. I have often thought that the scenario that there are 84 bazillion articles claiming to confirm something, doesn't make it true, if they are all quoting the same source. I think they should be sorted and nested together like Google sometimes does with duplicated links.
That doesn't bother me as much as another problem with all the search engines. Let's say I give it a string of 4 words (word1, word2, word3, word4). The results will often have hits that do not include all 4 words. It really bugs me when I carefully craft a search string that SHOULD yield relevant hits - and then it provides me with responses that do not fit because they do not include all of my search words. Yahoo! and Bing have the same problem. It's extremely irritating.
Yep. You're obviously incapable of using Google. You're also obviously incapable of simply copying and pasting a search string. Of course, given the ridiculousness of 95% of what you post, that's not surprising.
I see you accepted my advice to make more liberal use of ad-homs. Well -done!
That doesn't bother me as much as another problem with all the search engines. Let's say I give it a string of 4 words (word1, word2, word3, word4). The results will often have hits that do not include all 4 words. It really bugs me when I carefully craft a search string that SHOULD yield relevant hits - and then it provides me with responses that do not fit because they do not include all of my search words. Yahoo! and Bing have the same problem. It's extremely irritating.
Are you using the advanced search form? There is a setting for "all of these words"
No one ever said any of those things. You're taking old Apple lines, spinning them into something they weren't, and making them third-person.
The last one never happened in any regard.
Maybe jragosta can use his fabulously superior Google skills to find instances of people arguing against adding those things listed-- Like how he was probably arguing 14 years ago in newsgroups that preemptive multitasking in Mac OS is nothing but a buzzword, or that people don't need automatic memory management in Mac OS because you can just click Get Info and change the number yourself.
Even using advanced search and 'all of these words', all of the search engines often give me hits that don't contain one or more of the search words.
I think it says "wordX" is only found in documents this page links to or some such verbiage. Otherwise it should highlight, in a unique color, the instances of the words found.
Maybe jragosta can use his fabulously superior Google skills to find instances of people arguing against adding those things listed-- Like how he was probably arguing 14 years ago in newsgroups that preemptive multitasking in Mac OS is nothing but a buzzword, or that people don't need automatic memory management in Mac OS because you can just click Get Info and change the number yourself.
Better yet, how about if you stop lying?
While I'm sure that you can find something that you can take out of context and distort to say anything you wish, but my position in the 90's was clear:
1. OS X cooperative multitasking worked fine.
2. Even though PMT was, in theory, better than CMT in many circumstances, the available implementations were not. For example, Mac OS was actually more fluid and less likely to crash than Windows 95.
3. Even in the few cases where PMT was better, the advantages of Mac OS in terms of usability were far more important than slight differences in responsiveness.
Everyone one of those statements was completely true. Mac haters then were no different than Mac haters now. They'd come up with some arbitrary check list of things that a 'real computer' needed and choose their computer based on specs. It was easy to say "the pentium is available at a higher clock speed than the 68040". It required intelligence (which so many Mac haters lacked - both then and now) to try to determine which computer was actually better for a given user.
So you're incapable of using Google, too. Amazing, but not surprising. (or maybe you're just lying).
I just repeated it. Use the search terms that I provided (without the quotes, of course). 84,900 hits.
First page - not a single one discusses the iPad (although there is one which says IGZO will be used on the iPhone 5). The rest are technical articles and/or discussions of Jusung Engineering's progress with IGZO.
Next page - more technical articles along with a few articles about Sharp. Nothing about Apple or the iPad.
Third page - more of the same.
Yahoo! and Bing give essentially the same results.
Just for kicks, here are the first 5 hits on Google.
So which is it? Are you a blatant liar or are you too stupid to use Google?
Had I known about those articles, I would have written in a caveat excluding engineering and science papers, because I, along with most other people, rarely give a flying fuck about engineering or science papers. That's not the level of information I was interested in.
Also, outright telling people they're stupid is technically an ad-hominem.
Had I known about those articles, I would have written in a caveat excluding engineering and science papers, because I, along with most other people, rarely give a flying fuck about engineering or science papers. That's not the level of information I was interested in.
Well, some people would like to educate themselves on a subject rather than remaining ignorant.
Besides, many of the articles I identified are press releases and news reports, as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Also, outright telling people they're stupid is technically an ad-hominem.
Actually, it's not.
"You're stupid because you're French" is an ad-hominem.
"You're stupid" is not - particularly when his post establishes that it's a factual statement.
Well, some people would like to educate themselves on a subject rather than remaining ignorant.
Besides, many of the articles I identified are press releases and news reports, as well.
It's not so simply about ignorance vs. knowledge, there's a huge gulf between a press release and a news report (which is often a warmed-over press release) and a science paper. Without being trained in the field, a science paper is not that much value as an educational tool, and it's pretty dense.
Quote:
Actually, it's not.
"You're stupid because you're French" is an ad-hominem.
"You're stupid" is not - particularly when his post establishes that it's a factual statement.
I disagree, but nevertheless, your hostility is a bit much.
"You're stupid because you're French" is an ad-hominem.
"You're stupid" is not - particularly when his post establishes that it's a factual statement.
ad hominem |ˈˌæd ˈhɑmənəm|
adverb & adjective
1 (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
? attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain: vicious ad hominem attacks.
2 relating to or associated with a particular person: [ as adv. ] : the office was created ad hominem for Fenton | [ as adj. ] : an ad hominem response.
You don't need to back up your reasoning for calling a person stupid to make it an ad hominen attack, you only need to call that person stupid. That is what you did. A way around this would have been to call what they wrote stupid but not the person who wrote it.
1 (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
? attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain: vicious ad hominem attacks.
2 relating to or associated with a particular person: [ as adv. ] : the office was created ad hominem for Fenton | [ as adj. ] : an ad hominem response.
You don't need to back up your reasoning for calling a person stupid to make it an ad hominen attack, you only need to call that person stupid. That is what you did. A way around this would have been to call what they wrote stupid but not the person who wrote it.
I would suggest that you take a course in logic. Particularly focus on the bolded section. I did not attack attack his motives or character rather than his position. Rather, I pointed out that his position was wrong and explained why. Calling him incompetent was a freebie
If someone is stupid, calling them stupid is not an ad-hominem attack. If someone proposes a position and you say that it's wrong because the person is stupid, it is.
I would suggest that you take a course in logic. Particularly focus on the bolded section. I did not attack attack his motives or character rather than his position. Rather, I pointed out that his position was wrong and explained why. Calling him incompetent was a freebie
If someone is stupid, calling them stupid is not an ad-hominem attack. If someone proposes a position and you say that it's wrong because the person is stupid, it is.
Jragosta, since you've decided for whatever reason to continue to push the issue, remember this thread, particularly posts #12, 17 and 19?
Even tho it took several explanations from at least two different members before you understand that you were confused and mistaken on what the article was about, no one questioned your intelligence or treated you with disrespect. I have no idea where your anger comes from, but there's never been any need for me to resort to name-calling or other personal attacks when a member makes a mistake or disagrees with me, and I see no need for others here to do so either, a position I've been consistent on.
It really fits in with Apple claiming that technology lead is not the most important aspect so if it cuts costs, increases profits and offers something unique 'I'll buy it'.
JeffDM is right, there's very little explanation of IGZO displays on the web. From bits and pieces here and there it appears the claim to fame isn't a better quality display but rather a 30% or more reduction in power requirements to light up those millions of tiny pixels.
There is enough technical info available, but most required a sub to the scientific publication.
This one is free, and isn't too technical, as the math is at a low college level. Other than that, it can be easily seen that IGZO has a better color response, which is very important.
So, thinner, brighter, less power, and better color.
Comments
'Stupid' is probably not the appropriate word. In reference to your original post I do wish Google could do something about so many links that only repeat the info from the same reference. I have often thought that the scenario that there are 84 bazillion articles claiming to confirm something, doesn't make it true, if they are all quoting the same source. I think they should be sorted and nested together like Google sometimes does with duplicated links.
That doesn't bother me as much as another problem with all the search engines. Let's say I give it a string of 4 words (word1, word2, word3, word4). The results will often have hits that do not include all 4 words. It really bugs me when I carefully craft a search string that SHOULD yield relevant hits - and then it provides me with responses that do not fit because they do not include all of my search words. Yahoo! and Bing have the same problem. It's extremely irritating.
Yep. You're obviously incapable of using Google. You're also obviously incapable of simply copying and pasting a search string. Of course, given the ridiculousness of 95% of what you post, that's not surprising.
I see you accepted my advice to make more liberal use of ad-homs. Well -done!
That doesn't bother me as much as another problem with all the search engines. Let's say I give it a string of 4 words (word1, word2, word3, word4). The results will often have hits that do not include all 4 words. It really bugs me when I carefully craft a search string that SHOULD yield relevant hits - and then it provides me with responses that do not fit because they do not include all of my search words. Yahoo! and Bing have the same problem. It's extremely irritating.
Are you using the advanced search form? There is a setting for "all of these words"
Are you using the advanced search form? There is a setting for "all of these words"
Even using advanced search and 'all of these words', all of the search engines often give me hits that don't contain one or more of the search words.
Apple Leads
Others Scramble
Year Later "Apple didn't lead, that was where the industry was going"
Apple will not make a video iPod. Nobody cares about watching video on an iPod.
Apple should not allow third parties to create native iPhone applications. Nobody cares about native iPhone applications.
Apple will not add copy and paste to the iPhone. Nobody cares about copy and paste.
Apple will not add multitasking to the iPhone. Nobody cares about multitasking.
Year Later "Apple was already planning to do those things anyway."
Apple will not make a video iPod. Nobody cares about watching video on an iPod.
Apple should not allow third parties to create native iPhone applications. Nobody cares about native iPhone applications.
Apple will not add copy and paste to the iPhone. Nobody cares about copy and paste.
Apple will not add multitasking to the iPhone. Nobody cares about multitasking.
No one ever said any of those things. You're taking old Apple lines, spinning them into something they weren't, and making them third-person.
The last one never happened in any regard.
No one ever said any of those things. You're taking old Apple lines, spinning them into something they weren't, and making them third-person.
The last one never happened in any regard.
His original comment before he decided to troll was "What about viewing angle, color uniformity, and color gamut?"
No one ever said any of those things. You're taking old Apple lines, spinning them into something they weren't, and making them third-person.
The last one never happened in any regard.
Maybe jragosta can use his fabulously superior Google skills to find instances of people arguing against adding those things listed-- Like how he was probably arguing 14 years ago in newsgroups that preemptive multitasking in Mac OS is nothing but a buzzword, or that people don't need automatic memory management in Mac OS because you can just click Get Info and change the number yourself.
Even using advanced search and 'all of these words', all of the search engines often give me hits that don't contain one or more of the search words.
I think it says "wordX" is only found in documents this page links to or some such verbiage. Otherwise it should highlight, in a unique color, the instances of the words found.
Maybe jragosta can use his fabulously superior Google skills to find instances of people arguing against adding those things listed-- Like how he was probably arguing 14 years ago in newsgroups that preemptive multitasking in Mac OS is nothing but a buzzword, or that people don't need automatic memory management in Mac OS because you can just click Get Info and change the number yourself.
Better yet, how about if you stop lying?
While I'm sure that you can find something that you can take out of context and distort to say anything you wish, but my position in the 90's was clear:
1. OS X cooperative multitasking worked fine.
2. Even though PMT was, in theory, better than CMT in many circumstances, the available implementations were not. For example, Mac OS was actually more fluid and less likely to crash than Windows 95.
3. Even in the few cases where PMT was better, the advantages of Mac OS in terms of usability were far more important than slight differences in responsiveness.
Everyone one of those statements was completely true. Mac haters then were no different than Mac haters now. They'd come up with some arbitrary check list of things that a 'real computer' needed and choose their computer based on specs. It was easy to say "the pentium is available at a higher clock speed than the 68040". It required intelligence (which so many Mac haters lacked - both then and now) to try to determine which computer was actually better for a given user.
So you're incapable of using Google, too. Amazing, but not surprising. (or maybe you're just lying).
I just repeated it. Use the search terms that I provided (without the quotes, of course). 84,900 hits.
First page - not a single one discusses the iPad (although there is one which says IGZO will be used on the iPhone 5). The rest are technical articles and/or discussions of Jusung Engineering's progress with IGZO.
Next page - more technical articles along with a few articles about Sharp. Nothing about Apple or the iPad.
Third page - more of the same.
Yahoo! and Bing give essentially the same results.
Just for kicks, here are the first 5 hits on Google.
1. http://www.eecs.umich.edu/omelab/dow...20Displays.pdf
2. http://iopscience.iop.org/1468-6996/...1_4_044305.pdf
(That's the one I already gave).
3. http://www.azonano.com/news.aspx?newsID=23852
4. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/lo...hDecision=-203
5. http://www.jseng.com/EN/pr/news_view...str=01&bcode=1
None of those are about Apple or the iPad.
So which is it? Are you a blatant liar or are you too stupid to use Google?
Had I known about those articles, I would have written in a caveat excluding engineering and science papers, because I, along with most other people, rarely give a flying fuck about engineering or science papers. That's not the level of information I was interested in.
Also, outright telling people they're stupid is technically an ad-hominem.
Had I known about those articles, I would have written in a caveat excluding engineering and science papers, because I, along with most other people, rarely give a flying fuck about engineering or science papers. That's not the level of information I was interested in.
Well, some people would like to educate themselves on a subject rather than remaining ignorant.
Besides, many of the articles I identified are press releases and news reports, as well.
Also, outright telling people they're stupid is technically an ad-hominem.
Actually, it's not.
"You're stupid because you're French" is an ad-hominem.
"You're stupid" is not - particularly when his post establishes that it's a factual statement.
Well, some people would like to educate themselves on a subject rather than remaining ignorant.
Besides, many of the articles I identified are press releases and news reports, as well.
It's not so simply about ignorance vs. knowledge, there's a huge gulf between a press release and a news report (which is often a warmed-over press release) and a science paper. Without being trained in the field, a science paper is not that much value as an educational tool, and it's pretty dense.
Actually, it's not.
"You're stupid because you're French" is an ad-hominem.
"You're stupid" is not - particularly when his post establishes that it's a factual statement.
I disagree, but nevertheless, your hostility is a bit much.
Actually, it's not.
"You're stupid because you're French" is an ad-hominem.
"You're stupid" is not - particularly when his post establishes that it's a factual statement.
You don't need to back up your reasoning for calling a person stupid to make it an ad hominen attack, you only need to call that person stupid. That is what you did. A way around this would have been to call what they wrote stupid but not the person who wrote it.
I would suggest that you take a course in logic. Particularly focus on the bolded section. I did not attack attack his motives or character rather than his position. Rather, I pointed out that his position was wrong and explained why. Calling him incompetent was a freebie
If someone is stupid, calling them stupid is not an ad-hominem attack. If someone proposes a position and you say that it's wrong because the person is stupid, it is.
I would suggest that you take a course in logic. Particularly focus on the bolded section. I did not attack attack his motives or character rather than his position. Rather, I pointed out that his position was wrong and explained why. Calling him incompetent was a freebie
If someone is stupid, calling them stupid is not an ad-hominem attack. If someone proposes a position and you say that it's wrong because the person is stupid, it is.
Jragosta, since you've decided for whatever reason to continue to push the issue, remember this thread, particularly posts #12, 17 and 19?
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...25#post2000325
Even tho it took several explanations from at least two different members before you understand that you were confused and mistaken on what the article was about, no one questioned your intelligence or treated you with disrespect. I have no idea where your anger comes from, but there's never been any need for me to resort to name-calling or other personal attacks when a member makes a mistake or disagrees with me, and I see no need for others here to do so either, a position I've been consistent on.
You surely know about glass houses and all. . .
It really fits in with Apple claiming that technology lead is not the most important aspect so if it cuts costs, increases profits and offers something unique 'I'll buy it'.
Where can I see these IGZO displays now? I'm really eager to check out how much better they are compared to AMOLED, OLED, and Retina displays.
IGZO based displays can be LCD or OLED (AMOLED). First we'll see LCD models, then, a year or two later, OLED panels.
JeffDM is right, there's very little explanation of IGZO displays on the web. From bits and pieces here and there it appears the claim to fame isn't a better quality display but rather a 30% or more reduction in power requirements to light up those millions of tiny pixels.
There is enough technical info available, but most required a sub to the scientific publication.
This one is free, and isn't too technical, as the math is at a low college level. Other than that, it can be easily seen that IGZO has a better color response, which is very important.
So, thinner, brighter, less power, and better color.
http://www.eecs.umich.edu/omelab/dow...20Displays.pdf