Amazon's new Kindle Fire is a huge disappointment. I'm not going to prognosticate; as far as I know, there are millions of clueless souls out there who will shell out their hard-earned cash for a product that is almost totally useless. Any other tablet out there can do anything that the Fire can do, and even the cheapest, most limited hardware out there can do a whole lot more than the Fire. Without a front camera, GPS, bluetooth, card slot and Android Market, what's the point? Really? Somebody please tell me!
I could understand a full-color Kindle that otherwise only does what any other Kindle can do. But something that runs Android should be able to do at least a majority of the things that other Android devices can do. This one can't. It's a one-trick pony that can't even do its one trick particularly well, certainly no better than any other device. With its LCD screen, it doesn't even have the advantage of outdoor readability as does a regular Kindle. Even at $199 there are cheaper tablets that can do absolutely anything the Fire can do, and a whole lot more besides.
Bottom Line: Attempting to confine a huge market into a small proprietary space is rarely successful.
The Real Dope: This is yet another attempt to take an open market and turn it into a closed, proprietary one. The hardware of the Fire is so amazingly limited that it is unlikely to have any long-term effect on any market. It's not worth hacking for full-fledged Android because the result will be so limited by absent hardware. Somebody at Amazon has lost their mind.
29 September 2011
13 September 2011
Seein' ain't believin'
Okay, so there's this article on Gizmodo about a supposed "optical illusion"...
Here's proof that it is not an illusion and is in fact just a matter of physics:
The original image (click to embiggen):
My version of the image (click to embiggen):
Note that the colors are identical, they are just arranged differently. Especially note that the center squares at the bottom are not only the same color, they actually still appear to be about the same color even though they are "surrounded" by different colors.
The truth is that it's not really an "illusion", it's just a matter of reaching the threshold of granularity beyond which individual colors are no longer perceptible and they are "mixed" or "averaged" instead. The exact same principle is at work in your computer monitor and your inkjet printer and nearly every other representation of color in the universe.
Lest you respond with "that only applies to things that are smaller than the resolution of your rods and cones", I must remind you that different wavelengths of light are bent to different degrees by prisms and lenses, and the very first thing that meets light as it hits your eyeball is in fact a lens. As an eyeglass wearer, I can tell you that my eyeglass lenses do that to a degree that is not only perceptible on a much larger scale, it is at times frustrating and aggravating. So yes, the different colors are actually mixed by the lens of your eyeball before it ever gets to your retina, and it is in fact a matter of physics and not only a matter of subjective perception or "how your brain works".
It is interesting to me that the shrunken versions above (before you click on them) exaggerate the effect even further, by making the colors in the spirals appear different than the colors in the original version. (Compare the spiral with the boxes to the right in my version to see what I mean.) That's because the optical properties become more pronounced and the compression algorithm that resizes the images does the same thing digitally that your eyes are doing physically. After all, you can't say "the computer is fooled"; it's just following a set of rules analogous to a lens: Pixels get averaged with their neighbors.
Bottom Line: Don't believe everything you read - especially on the Internet!
The Real Dope: Be cautious of "plausible" explanations. Often people are deliberately leading you astray, but even more often they are just clueless know-it-alls trying to bluff their way into respectability.
Here's proof that it is not an illusion and is in fact just a matter of physics:
The original image (click to embiggen):
My version of the image (click to embiggen):
Note that the colors are identical, they are just arranged differently. Especially note that the center squares at the bottom are not only the same color, they actually still appear to be about the same color even though they are "surrounded" by different colors.
The truth is that it's not really an "illusion", it's just a matter of reaching the threshold of granularity beyond which individual colors are no longer perceptible and they are "mixed" or "averaged" instead. The exact same principle is at work in your computer monitor and your inkjet printer and nearly every other representation of color in the universe.
Lest you respond with "that only applies to things that are smaller than the resolution of your rods and cones", I must remind you that different wavelengths of light are bent to different degrees by prisms and lenses, and the very first thing that meets light as it hits your eyeball is in fact a lens. As an eyeglass wearer, I can tell you that my eyeglass lenses do that to a degree that is not only perceptible on a much larger scale, it is at times frustrating and aggravating. So yes, the different colors are actually mixed by the lens of your eyeball before it ever gets to your retina, and it is in fact a matter of physics and not only a matter of subjective perception or "how your brain works".
It is interesting to me that the shrunken versions above (before you click on them) exaggerate the effect even further, by making the colors in the spirals appear different than the colors in the original version. (Compare the spiral with the boxes to the right in my version to see what I mean.) That's because the optical properties become more pronounced and the compression algorithm that resizes the images does the same thing digitally that your eyes are doing physically. After all, you can't say "the computer is fooled"; it's just following a set of rules analogous to a lens: Pixels get averaged with their neighbors.
Bottom Line: Don't believe everything you read - especially on the Internet!
The Real Dope: Be cautious of "plausible" explanations. Often people are deliberately leading you astray, but even more often they are just clueless know-it-alls trying to bluff their way into respectability.
12 September 2011
Lucas' Let-Down
All the hate being spewed at George Lucas for updating the original "Star Wars Trilogy" is both tiresome and puzzling. Tiresome because everybody and their dog loves to chime in, puzzling because some of it is from people who should know better.
For anybody who's not familiar with the subject, when they decided to remaster and re-release the Trilogy a number of years ago, Lucas seized the opportunity that new technology afforded to update and insert a few scenes. Some of the special effects were redone and a few critters were digitally inserted, and one scene in particular was re-edited to have Greedo shoot and miss Han Solo before being decimated. (See Han shot first and changes in Star Wars re-releases).
So the gist of the chorus goes something like this: "How dare George Lucas ruin my life by altering the subject of my favorite childhood memories!" A common refrain is "George Lucas stole my childhood!"
My response is: "Really?" George Lucas "stole your childhood"?
First, in order for that to be anything close to true, you would have had to not experience childhood. Not only is that obviously not the case, anybody who has this attitude is clearly still smack in the middle of their childhood, regardless of the fact that they may be middle aged....
Second, how pathetic do you have to be to be so immersed in a fantasy world that changes to a film blow your world apart?
Third, few ever get the chance to revise and re-release films in order to more closely match their own vision and imagination. The bottom line is that the Star Wars Universe belongs to George Lucas and no one else. Fanfic notwithstanding, it is George Lucas' imagination that spawned the idea and the original stories, and he has every right to do whatever he wishes with them. I for one am happy for him that he got a chance that few (if any) others have. After all, when classic films are remade, frequently they are no better than the original and all too often they are not as good. But the remakes are often very successful and sometimes even applauded. So what's wrong with an individual getting a rare chance for a "do-over" to overcome limitations of the original project and express his personal views more clearly?
And lastly, shame on those who are themselves artists or creative types and should understand that sometimes their work suffers because of limitations of many different kinds, including fiscal, technological, temporal, and sometimes even the political climate of the day. Haven't you ever wished that you had a chance to change something that you did in the past? Or are sour grapes keeping you from admitting that sometimes hindsight is better than foresight, and second chances shouldn't be wasted?
Bottom Line: If ever there were truth to the expression "Get a Life!", it's regarding this issue.
The Real Dope: Unless it is specifically designated as Nonfiction or Documentary, it's all about escape and fantasy, not realism. If you get lost in the contradictions, errors or craftmanship of a piece of art, you're not only missing the point entirely, you're really doing harm to your own experience of life.
For anybody who's not familiar with the subject, when they decided to remaster and re-release the Trilogy a number of years ago, Lucas seized the opportunity that new technology afforded to update and insert a few scenes. Some of the special effects were redone and a few critters were digitally inserted, and one scene in particular was re-edited to have Greedo shoot and miss Han Solo before being decimated. (See Han shot first and changes in Star Wars re-releases).
So the gist of the chorus goes something like this: "How dare George Lucas ruin my life by altering the subject of my favorite childhood memories!" A common refrain is "George Lucas stole my childhood!"
My response is: "Really?" George Lucas "stole your childhood"?
First, in order for that to be anything close to true, you would have had to not experience childhood. Not only is that obviously not the case, anybody who has this attitude is clearly still smack in the middle of their childhood, regardless of the fact that they may be middle aged....
Second, how pathetic do you have to be to be so immersed in a fantasy world that changes to a film blow your world apart?
Third, few ever get the chance to revise and re-release films in order to more closely match their own vision and imagination. The bottom line is that the Star Wars Universe belongs to George Lucas and no one else. Fanfic notwithstanding, it is George Lucas' imagination that spawned the idea and the original stories, and he has every right to do whatever he wishes with them. I for one am happy for him that he got a chance that few (if any) others have. After all, when classic films are remade, frequently they are no better than the original and all too often they are not as good. But the remakes are often very successful and sometimes even applauded. So what's wrong with an individual getting a rare chance for a "do-over" to overcome limitations of the original project and express his personal views more clearly?
And lastly, shame on those who are themselves artists or creative types and should understand that sometimes their work suffers because of limitations of many different kinds, including fiscal, technological, temporal, and sometimes even the political climate of the day. Haven't you ever wished that you had a chance to change something that you did in the past? Or are sour grapes keeping you from admitting that sometimes hindsight is better than foresight, and second chances shouldn't be wasted?
Bottom Line: If ever there were truth to the expression "Get a Life!", it's regarding this issue.
The Real Dope: Unless it is specifically designated as Nonfiction or Documentary, it's all about escape and fantasy, not realism. If you get lost in the contradictions, errors or craftmanship of a piece of art, you're not only missing the point entirely, you're really doing harm to your own experience of life.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
