But sarcasm is used to signify irony which is "the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite" so it's easy to assume that the opposite means what is saying is not the writer's truth, right?
The absurdity of a test strapping C4 to the back of an iPhone to illuminate the absurdity and illogic of the apple hater's "test" scenarios isn't ironic enough for you?
Wow, just wow. I'm not clear if that is just whistling over your head or you are being intentionally obtuse. Either way we'll have to agree to disagree.
The absurdity of a test strapping C4 to the back of an iPhone to illuminate the absurdity and illogic of the apple hater's "test" scenarios isn't ironic enough for you?
Wow, just wow. I'm not clear if that is just whistling over your head or you are being intentionally obtuse. Either way we'll have to agree to disagree.
I can't tell you how many times I've made a comment I feel that is obviously ironic that is taken seriously. When spoken inflection and delivery to denote tone is usually obvious, and in pre-Internet writing there is usually plenty of writing that will build a foundation for tone, but with a forum with simply, off-the-cuff replies amidst multiple conversations tone is often not easily conveyed. That's why I am all for irony punctuation.
The /s is a sarcasam tag. (not an untrue tag ;-)
Sarcasm doesn't nessassaraly mean that something isn't true. Often the reverse is true. In this case I created a ridiculous scenario that even a solid block of steel would have a tough time surviving (C4 burns so hot & it's blast wave expands so quickly (roughly ~20 times the speed of sound) that it can actually liquify & atomize (make into a vapor) solid steel) in order to highlight the absurdity of many of the "tests" that apple haters promote as proof that the iPhone is "fatally flawed"
Let's not get too carried away on the explosives stuff. The detonation pressure of C4 is up around 300 GPa, and so well above the yield strength of steel. It will put a nice dent in a solid steel block, but it will not noticeably melt or vaporize it. It would make a mess of an iPhone though.
I feel that if you are just wielding ironic metaphors then the /i tag could apply but with ironic sarcasm using /i/s (in lieu of /s) is likely redundant as much sarcasm IS ironic (and thus implied) And, in any case, the reader is certainly made aware -not- to read the post as literal (by the presence of the /s tag)
If someone like Chris misinterprets that to be a literal reference (willfully or no, and I seriously doubt that ANYONE could have thought that strapping high explosives to an iPhone was an actual test or that anything could have survived such a blast) when the post is marked as sarcasm, then I think the responsibility for that misinterpretation is on the reader.
Let's not get too carried away on the explosives stuff. The detonation pressure of C4 is up around 300 GPa, and so well above the yield strength of steel. It will put a nice dent in a solid steel block, but it will not noticeably melt or vaporize it. It would make a mess of an iPhone though.
Actually not true, it is commonly used as a shaped charge to literally cut through steel in demolition, where the steel is literally atomized (as in aerosol) in a spray away from the blast nexus.
Let's not get too carried away on the explosives stuff. The detonation pressure of C4 is up around 300 GPa, and so well above the yield strength of steel. It will put a nice dent in a solid steel block, but it will not noticeably melt or vaporize it. It would make a mess of an iPhone though.
Actually not true, it is commonly used as a shaped charge to literally cut through steel in demolition, where the steel is literally atomized (as in aerosol) in a spray away from the blast nexus.
You misunderstand how shaped charges work. It's not the explosive (e.g. the C4) that cuts through the steel in that application. The explosive is used to collapse a thin (typically) copper liner onto the charge mid-plane, that then forms a linear, high-speed, copper jet. It is the copper jet that cuts the steel by a purely hydrodynamic erosive process.
By the way - the term "blast" refers to the air shock that is driven by an explosive - not the shock in the explosive itself. It is not applicable to this discussion.
When I got my iPhone 6, I was worried about the raised glass screen. It looks great, but exposed. So after many generations of iPhones without a screen protector, I decided to cover the iPhone 6 with a ZAGG Invisibleshield. The latest model is even easier to apply and has a very smooth surface, but I think it contributes to my mistyping on the keyboard. I've been tempted to remove it, except I seem to be clumsier with this phone than the smaller previous models and have dropped it several times on concrete and other hard surfaces. Now, after reading this post, I may just keep the screen protector on indefinitely.
I dont have a screen protector and i have the same problem typing. I think is do to the size of the iphone 6. My hands just dont seem to adapt to the bigger screen and it is vexing.
Do any screen protectors offer oleophoic coating? Most folks who I know use screen protectors - they found their screens are oily and gross after time, and eventually removed the protectors.
I hope my 6 doesn't exhibit any of these flaws in the next few months. Damn thing is beautiful.
You misunderstand how shaped charges work. It's not the explosive (e.g. the C4) that cuts through the steel in that application. The explosive is used to collapse a thin (typically) copper liner onto the charge mid-plane, that then forms a linear, high-speed, copper jet. It is the copper jet that cuts the steel by a purely hydrodynamic erosive process.
By the way - the term "blast" refers to the air shock that is driven by an explosive - not the shock in the explosive itself. It is not applicable to this discussion.
I have no explosives or demolition expertise, (I run an (independent) motion picture post production facility) I am drawing my points from a documentary we did the color, FX and comp work for a few years back. A number of thinks amazed me (and hence I remembered then) That the energy (heat & compression) of the blast wave from the C4 charge literally liquified and atomized the steel and sprayed it outward from the blast. That is all I said, and what you took exception to.
You misunderstand how shaped charges work. It's not the explosive (e.g. the C4) that cuts through the steel in that application. The explosive is used to collapse a thin (typically) copper liner onto the charge mid-plane, that then forms a linear, high-speed, copper jet. It is the copper jet that cuts the steel by a purely hydrodynamic erosive process.
By the way - the term "blast" refers to the air shock that is driven by an explosive - not the shock in the explosive itself. It is not applicable to this discussion.
I have no explosives or demolition expertise, (I run an (independent) motion picture post production facility) I am drawing my points from a documentary we did the color, FX and comp work for a few years back. A number of thinks amazed me (and hence I remembered then) That the energy (heat & compression) of the blast wave from the C4 charge literally liquified and atomized the steel and sprayed it outward from the blast. That is all I said, and what you took exception to.
I wasn't taking exception to what you said - just pointing out that it was not technically correct. You are right that explosives produce quite remarkable, and unintuitive effects, but a result of that is that they are widely and greatly misunderstood. As I said - the explosive cannot itself (neither the direct detonation shock wave nor the associated air blast) have that kind of effect on materials such as steel. No chemical explosive can, even those substantially more powerful than C4. However, if one uses the explosive to drive a jet of dense material, such as copper, then the impact of that jet on a secondary target material can do substantial damage, as you saw.
But it was not the blast wave (or the shock wave) from the explosive that caused that effect; if you place a C4 charge on a steel block and detonate it, the result is a steel block with a dent a few mm deep where the charge was in contact with the metal. If the charge is stood off the block by as little as an inch or so (isolating it from the direct detonation shock), then the block will be relatively undamaged.
People never cease to amaze me. They are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on an iPhone 6 or iPhone 6 Plus and not willing to spend a few dollars more for screen protector and case and complain when the screen gets scratched. Then there are those who put a phablet sized phone in their back pocket and sit on it and don't expect it to bend. A lot of people seem to lack something called common sense
People never cease to amaze me. They are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on an iPhone 6 or iPhone 6 Plus and not willing to spend a few dollars more for screen protector and case and complain when the screen gets scratched. Then their are those who put a phablet sized phone in their back pocket and sit on it and don't expect it to bend. A lot of people seem to lack something called common sense
People never cease to amaze ME. They know they have highly scratch resistant glass on their device but still pay money to use a plastic screen protector that is so thin that both so thin and soft that it won't actually protect against scratches that would actually scratch the alkali-aluminosilicate sheet toughened glass it's purporting to be protecting. Nor will will that thin film protect against impacts. All it does it make both the display look worse and the interaction with the display worse, thus reducing the user experience.
People never cease to amaze ME. They know they have highly scratch resistant glass on their device but still pay money to use a plastic screen protector that is so thin that both so thin and soft that it won't actually protect against scratches that would actually scratch the alkali-aluminosilicate sheet toughened glass it's purporting to be protecting. Nor will will that thin film protect against impacts. All it does it make both the display look worse and the interaction with the display worse, thus reducing the user experience.
Bravo!!! Tell me more things that are the opposite of reality!!
Bravo!!! Tell me more things that are the opposite of reality!!
Show me proof that the thin plastic film for displays is more scratch resistant than ion-doped alkali-aluminosilicate sheet toughened glass.
Show me proof that moving the display further away from where you touch the device leads to an improved UX.
I've never felt the need for one but, to be fair, the screen protector is surely not intended to be more scratch resistant than the screen, but simply to isolate the screen from objects that might, otherwise, scratch it. No doubt the protector itself gets scratched in the process.
You misunderstand how shaped charges work. It's not the explosive (e.g. the C4) that cuts through the steel in that application. The explosive is used to collapse a thin (typically) copper liner onto the charge mid-plane, that then forms a linear, high-speed, copper jet. It is the copper jet that cuts the steel by a purely hydrodynamic erosive process.
By the way - the term "blast" refers to the air shock that is driven by an explosive - not the shock in the explosive itself. It is not applicable to this discussion.
IIRC an early use of an EFP was an assassination of a German national banker: punched right into his armored limo at the passenger line using a light beam interrupt to get the timing precisely right. Total overkill for overpressurizing a simply phone....
I've never felt the need for one but, to be fair, the screen protector is surely not intended to be more scratch resistant than the screen, but simply to isolate the screen from objects that might, otherwise, scratch it. No doubt the protector itself gets scratched in the process.
I don't like their feel but the tech behind the application of abrasion resistant films has a history going back a long ways before mobile device screen protectors: propeller and helicopter rotor blade leading edge protection has been developed over a long time using films more recently adapted for phone screen protection. And the application goes a long ways beyond a simple sacrificial, easily replaced, surface layer to real world added benefit..
Now are all "screen protectors" made from the toughest material? More than likely not. But then I've yet to see any helicopter blade leading edges coated with Gorilla glass or any other glass variant.....
Comments
But sarcasm is used to signify irony which is "the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite" so it's easy to assume that the opposite means what is saying is not the writer's truth, right?
The absurdity of a test strapping C4 to the back of an iPhone to illuminate the absurdity and illogic of the apple hater's "test" scenarios isn't ironic enough for you?
Wow, just wow. I'm not clear if that is just whistling over your head or you are being intentionally obtuse. Either way we'll have to agree to disagree.
I can't tell you how many times I've made a comment I feel that is obviously ironic that is taken seriously. When spoken inflection and delivery to denote tone is usually obvious, and in pre-Internet writing there is usually plenty of writing that will build a foundation for tone, but with a forum with simply, off-the-cuff replies amidst multiple conversations tone is often not easily conveyed. That's why I am all for irony punctuation.
Let's not get too carried away on the explosives stuff. The detonation pressure of C4 is up around 300 GPa, and so well above the yield strength of steel. It will put a nice dent in a solid steel block, but it will not noticeably melt or vaporize it. It would make a mess of an iPhone though.
I feel that if you are just wielding ironic metaphors then the /i tag could apply but with ironic sarcasm using /i/s (in lieu of /s) is likely redundant as much sarcasm IS ironic (and thus implied) And, in any case, the reader is certainly made aware -not- to read the post as literal (by the presence of the /s tag)
If someone like Chris misinterprets that to be a literal reference (willfully or no, and I seriously doubt that ANYONE could have thought that strapping high explosives to an iPhone was an actual test or that anything could have survived such a blast) when the post is marked as sarcasm, then I think the responsibility for that misinterpretation is on the reader.
Interesting, that my post becomes ironic, only, if I don't tag it as such.... Wow an ironic paradox ;-)
Let's not get too carried away on the explosives stuff. The detonation pressure of C4 is up around 300 GPa, and so well above the yield strength of steel. It will put a nice dent in a solid steel block, but it will not noticeably melt or vaporize it. It would make a mess of an iPhone though.
Actually not true, it is commonly used as a shaped charge to literally cut through steel in demolition, where the steel is literally atomized (as in aerosol) in a spray away from the blast nexus.
Let's not get too carried away on the explosives stuff. The detonation pressure of C4 is up around 300 GPa, and so well above the yield strength of steel. It will put a nice dent in a solid steel block, but it will not noticeably melt or vaporize it. It would make a mess of an iPhone though.
Actually not true, it is commonly used as a shaped charge to literally cut through steel in demolition, where the steel is literally atomized (as in aerosol) in a spray away from the blast nexus.
You misunderstand how shaped charges work. It's not the explosive (e.g. the C4) that cuts through the steel in that application. The explosive is used to collapse a thin (typically) copper liner onto the charge mid-plane, that then forms a linear, high-speed, copper jet. It is the copper jet that cuts the steel by a purely hydrodynamic erosive process.
By the way - the term "blast" refers to the air shock that is driven by an explosive - not the shock in the explosive itself. It is not applicable to this discussion.
I dont have a screen protector and i have the same problem typing. I think is do to the size of the iphone 6. My hands just dont seem to adapt to the bigger screen and it is vexing.
Yes there are.
You misunderstand how shaped charges work. It's not the explosive (e.g. the C4) that cuts through the steel in that application. The explosive is used to collapse a thin (typically) copper liner onto the charge mid-plane, that then forms a linear, high-speed, copper jet. It is the copper jet that cuts the steel by a purely hydrodynamic erosive process.
By the way - the term "blast" refers to the air shock that is driven by an explosive - not the shock in the explosive itself. It is not applicable to this discussion.
I have no explosives or demolition expertise, (I run an (independent) motion picture post production facility) I am drawing my points from a documentary we did the color, FX and comp work for a few years back. A number of thinks amazed me (and hence I remembered then) That the energy (heat & compression) of the blast wave from the C4 charge literally liquified and atomized the steel and sprayed it outward from the blast. That is all I said, and what you took exception to.
You misunderstand how shaped charges work. It's not the explosive (e.g. the C4) that cuts through the steel in that application. The explosive is used to collapse a thin (typically) copper liner onto the charge mid-plane, that then forms a linear, high-speed, copper jet. It is the copper jet that cuts the steel by a purely hydrodynamic erosive process.
By the way - the term "blast" refers to the air shock that is driven by an explosive - not the shock in the explosive itself. It is not applicable to this discussion.
I have no explosives or demolition expertise, (I run an (independent) motion picture post production facility) I am drawing my points from a documentary we did the color, FX and comp work for a few years back. A number of thinks amazed me (and hence I remembered then) That the energy (heat & compression) of the blast wave from the C4 charge literally liquified and atomized the steel and sprayed it outward from the blast. That is all I said, and what you took exception to.
I wasn't taking exception to what you said - just pointing out that it was not technically correct. You are right that explosives produce quite remarkable, and unintuitive effects, but a result of that is that they are widely and greatly misunderstood. As I said - the explosive cannot itself (neither the direct detonation shock wave nor the associated air blast) have that kind of effect on materials such as steel. No chemical explosive can, even those substantially more powerful than C4. However, if one uses the explosive to drive a jet of dense material, such as copper, then the impact of that jet on a secondary target material can do substantial damage, as you saw.
But it was not the blast wave (or the shock wave) from the explosive that caused that effect; if you place a C4 charge on a steel block and detonate it, the result is a steel block with a dent a few mm deep where the charge was in contact with the metal. If the charge is stood off the block by as little as an inch or so (isolating it from the direct detonation shock), then the block will be relatively undamaged.
The /s is a sarcasam tag. (not an untrue tag ;-)
Since it’s not untrue, this means you really did strap 4oz of C4 to an iPhone and detonate it?
It seemed like another rumor like BentGate and Hairgate and should by called as ScratchGate.
People never cease to amaze ME. They know they have highly scratch resistant glass on their device but still pay money to use a plastic screen protector that is so thin that both so thin and soft that it won't actually protect against scratches that would actually scratch the alkali-aluminosilicate sheet toughened glass it's purporting to be protecting. Nor will will that thin film protect against impacts. All it does it make both the display look worse and the interaction with the display worse, thus reducing the user experience.
Bravo!!! Tell me more things that are the opposite of reality!!
I've never felt the need for one but, to be fair, the screen protector is surely not intended to be more scratch resistant than the screen, but simply to isolate the screen from objects that might, otherwise, scratch it. No doubt the protector itself gets scratched in the process.
You misunderstand how shaped charges work. It's not the explosive (e.g. the C4) that cuts through the steel in that application. The explosive is used to collapse a thin (typically) copper liner onto the charge mid-plane, that then forms a linear, high-speed, copper jet. It is the copper jet that cuts the steel by a purely hydrodynamic erosive process.
By the way - the term "blast" refers to the air shock that is driven by an explosive - not the shock in the explosive itself. It is not applicable to this discussion.
IIRC an early use of an EFP was an assassination of a German national banker: punched right into his armored limo at the passenger line using a light beam interrupt to get the timing precisely right. Total overkill for overpressurizing a simply phone....
I've never felt the need for one but, to be fair, the screen protector is surely not intended to be more scratch resistant than the screen, but simply to isolate the screen from objects that might, otherwise, scratch it. No doubt the protector itself gets scratched in the process.
I don't like their feel but the tech behind the application of abrasion resistant films has a history going back a long ways before mobile device screen protectors: propeller and helicopter rotor blade leading edge protection has been developed over a long time using films more recently adapted for phone screen protection. And the application goes a long ways beyond a simple sacrificial, easily replaced, surface layer to real world added benefit..
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Wind/Energy/Products/Wind_Protection_Tapes/
Now are all "screen protectors" made from the toughest material? More than likely not. But then I've yet to see any helicopter blade leading edges coated with Gorilla glass or any other glass variant.....