Samsung's Galaxy S4 distracts attention away from Android

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 92
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,511member
    macrulez wrote: »

    Another personal attack on a forum member completely lacking in substance.

    Keeping it as classy as you can, eh?

    Let's see if you can manage to make this less about me and bring it back on topic:

    What features in Android do you like so much as to cause your disappointment that they weren't featured in Samsung's event?

    Here's you, staying on topic:

    "Desperate Dilger"

    "his headlines are so stilted that . . ."

    "I forgot this was DoubleStandardLand"

    "carry on [you iSheep]"

    Your stated purpose here is to lift us out of our blind fandom, to help us see, by contemptuous mockery, "what others have achieved." This is the same stated purpose that other professional trolls have used here to explain why they would be spending their working lives here working full-time to correct our vision.

    Your real job is to annoy, distract and dispirit. That is a more important topic than the garbage quibble you raise about Dilger's reasoning. By far. So no, I won't bite at your troll bait.
  • Reply 62 of 92
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member


    deleted

  • Reply 63 of 92
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

    …a laughable, and quite soon after equalized and ridiculed, observation.


     


    You mean.

  • Reply 64 of 92
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    macrulez wrote: »
    All you have is random anger.

    Seriously?! You jump on every article that Dilger writes to personally attack him. And despite your obsession with him you still can't get his name right.
  • Reply 65 of 92
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member


    deleted

  • Reply 66 of 92
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    macrulez wrote: »

    I agree that Digler's an easy target, but please note that my posts also have at least one specific explanation of why the content he posts is self-evidently silly.

    Meanwhile, your reply here just perpetuates the common pattern here, angry personal attacks with nothing rebutting any specific content posted.

    If you take my replying to what you write as personal as I can't help that. If you think I've made any ad hominen about you as a person as opposed to your specific comments then feel free to report me.

    As for any content related rebuttals of this article I didn't read any. It was your reply to Flaneur that first caught my attention. I have, in the past, read your counter-arguments to Dilger and I can't say they have been objective or without personal attacks. Your continued warping of his name is passive-aggresive but it's still an attack.

    Note that I've long defending that any salient argument one may have is weakened by the willful distortion of a name. For example, like using Samesung or Samscum. If you et al. can't see that then so be it but you're hurting your own argument and credibility when you do.
  • Reply 67 of 92
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

    …Digler's an easy target, but please note…


     


    No. You have either manually set up your autocorrect to change his name or you're typing it out every time for the pleasure.


     


    Either way, stooping to mocking the person's name instantly invalidates anything you have to say on whatever subject you're pretending to bring up.

  • Reply 68 of 92
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,511member
    macrulez wrote: »

    I agree that Digler's an easy target, but please note that my posts also have at least one specific explanation of why the content he posts is self-evidently silly.

    Meanwhile, your reply here just perpetuates the common pattern here, angry personal attacks with nothing rebutting any specific content posted.

    Like I said, your stated purpose here is to enlighten us misguided fools. So your undisguised contempt flows from that. Today it's Dilger, who is one of the best, you are attacking personally (e.g., "Desperate").

    Don't be shocked that it comes back at you. Your job here, as you envision it, is a personal attack against all of us from the get go. Including one quibble or even a salient point doesn't help. Your approach is wrong. Arguing your "specific content" just legitimizes your illegitimate purpose here.

    If you want to advocate for Samsung, take the contempt out of your posture by saying you are working on their behalf, not by attacking Dilger, or Gruber, or any of us here, for that matter.
  • Reply 69 of 92
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,913member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    No. You have either manually set up your autocorrect to change his name or you're typing it out every time for the pleasure.


     


    Either way, stooping to mocking the person's name instantly invalidates anything you have to say on whatever subject you're pretending to bring up.



    ...as do various misspellings of Samsung. Yet on they go anyway.

  • Reply 70 of 92
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ClaudiusMaximus View Post



    Do you even know what having more megapixels does? I sold cameras for about 5 years and have been an amateur photographer for about 10.



    The more megapixels you have, the larger the photo you can print. for the average person who takes a pic and uploads it to Instagram or Facebook, the most you'd need is 4mp.



    Now if you were looking to do high res printing, then by all means please tout all you want about the fact that it's 13mp.


    More megapixels is quite useful when you want to crop a smaller section from a larger scene, you still have sufficient resolution to work with. 

  • Reply 71 of 92
    it's bigger so it must be better, backed up by tons of advertising, and no one cares if it's an android or whatever. Apple better respond with a similar sized product or lose more market share and people jumping off their ecosystem. or maybe some people's thumbs are just larger and they can use a phone this large, who knew.
  • Reply 72 of 92
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by mrmantle View Post

    Apple better respond…


     


    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA 






    …or lose more market share…



     


    *stifled laughter*






    …or maybe some people's thumbs are just larger and they can use a phone this large, who knew.



     


    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA 

  • Reply 73 of 92
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,913member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    More megapixels is quite useful when you want to crop a smaller section from a larger scene, you still have sufficient resolution to work with. 



    Heck, taking a customer's 72ppi image at 3inx2in and manipulating it for a 4 foot tall display is almost a daily occurrence anymore. I even have commercial clients who should know better send me webpage logos for use on a vehicle wrap. I find it a waste of breath trying to explain the image issues to many of them.

  • Reply 74 of 92
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    ...as do various misspellings of Samsung. Yet on they go anyway.

    Sure, and I rally against those. I can't say I recall TS doing it in the past year.

    I will say that doing it against a person is worse than an organization. Calling you GatorGoon is worse than saying Crapple, from a personal attack standpoint but neither helps one's position in a counter-argument.

    If one is going to alter a name I at least hope they tried to be original.


    PS: Your momma's so fat her binaries support multiple instruction sets.
  • Reply 75 of 92
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post



    A 5MP CCD can print upto a meter / 3 feet wide, and you wouldn't notice anything. Anything more than 5MP can be used for murals


    I assume you are not in the large format printing business. Even at screen resolution (72 dpi) you would need a 6Mp camera for a 3'x3' print. We like to have at least 150 dpi for large prints. More the better though, up to 300 dpi, then it becomes overkill.

  • Reply 76 of 92
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,913member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    I assume you are not in the large format printing business. Even at screen resolution (72 dpi) you would need a 6Mp camera for a 3'x3' print. We like to have at least 150 dpi for large prints. More the better though, up to 300 dpi, then it becomes overkill.



    Ever have a customer take out a loop to look at one of your prints? image


     


    I've been doing large-format since 1990 and back in the day it wasn't that unusual.

  • Reply 77 of 92
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post



    Ever have a customer take out a loop to look at one of your prints? image


     


    I've been doing large-format since 1990 and back in the day it wasn't that unusual.



    1990 was a frustrating time for large format. The color calibration sucked. The rips were always producing weird anomalies and they were slow as hell.

  • Reply 78 of 92
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,913member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    1990 was a frustrating time for large format. The color calibration sucked. The rips were always producing weird anomalies and they were slow as hell.



    Onyx and Fiery had a heck of a racket going. I almost miss the old days of "wonder if you can print on this?"

  • Reply 79 of 92
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    1990 was a frustrating time for large format. The color calibration sucked. The rips were always producing weird anomalies and they were slow as hell.



    Onyx and Fiery had a heck of a racket going.



    I used to get so annoyed with that crappy Postscript that I would occasionally make a 200 line screen 3M Match Print and then take a picture of it with a 8x10 camera, have it photographically enlarged. That was the only way I could get the flesh tones right. I was doing stuff for big time medical companies and it was embarrassing to have to deliver such garbage that the early large format printers were producing. Sorry for hijacking the thread, but back on topic the 13 Mp camera is a plus as long as it has good shadow detail, the lens is sharp enough and the digital zoom, auto focus, etc. are worthy of the high Mp resolution.

  • Reply 80 of 92
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post




    Another personal attack on a forum member completely lacking in substance.


     


    Keeping it as classy as you can, eh?


     


    Let's see if you can manage to make this less about me and bring it back on topic:


     


    What features in Android do you like so much as to cause your disappointment that they weren't featured in Samsung's event?



     


    The green trashcan with arms.

Sign In or Register to comment.