Print

Yes, I have been diagnosed with extreme mental retardation and my IQ is 64. And, quite frankly, I find your attitudes toward the mentally disabled to be discriminatory and worthy of sanction from the Human Rights commission.

More relevantly, I did state my opinion that reading a book off an LCD is a terrible way to read a book. That's still not telling you your preference was wrong, because again, you had not presented it as a preference. You presented it as an inference with an unsound factual basis. And yeah, I get that you meant thickness, but that has no relevance to my thought process when writing my original reply. Furthermore, from the way that you phrased it, I assumed your experience with reading books on an LCD screen was rather limited. If you had simply said, "I enjoy reading books off an LCD more than I do reading a hardcopy", then I would not have stated my opinion, since then it would be clear that it was a preference based on your own experience. As it is, I thought you had not read a book on an LCD before and your inference was solely based on the two factors you had listed. Given that, I thought it pertinent to state my own opinion based on my own experience reading off of screens and knowing that, due to the length, there is a substantial difference between reading a book off of a screen and reading any other text off a screen.

Anyway, it's pointless to argue with stubborn little children. So, I'm just going to say "you win"! Yay for Irock.

More relevantly, I did state my opinion that reading a book off an LCD is a terrible way to read a book. That's still not telling you your preference was wrong, because again, you had not presented it as a preference. You presented it as an inference with an unsound factual basis. And yeah, I get that you meant thickness, but that has no relevance to my thought process when writing my original reply. Furthermore, from the way that you phrased it, I assumed your experience with reading books on an LCD screen was rather limited. If you had simply said, "I enjoy reading books off an LCD more than I do reading a hardcopy", then I would not have stated my opinion, since then it would be clear that it was a preference based on your own experience. As it is, I thought you had not read a book on an LCD before and your inference was solely based on the two factors you had listed. Given that, I thought it pertinent to state my own opinion based on my own experience reading off of screens and knowing that, due to the length, there is a substantial difference between reading a book off of a screen and reading any other text off a screen.

I phrased it in a way that shouts "I don't like reading on paper and I prefer reading on LCD screens" It's not my fault you perceived it a different way than intended. You should call your own fault on this.

Why the fuck would I have a preference based on nothing?

Have fun carrying a man purse around.

I'll tape it to my chest.

Have fun carrying a man purse around.

It's not a purse, it's a satchel! Indiana Jones had one!

Firerain, before I met you, I was a one-man wolfpack. Then I met you and I said, "Could it be?" After that, I saw that my wolfpack had grown to 2. I was a wolfpack by myself, and then you were a wolf... you were in my wolfpack, too.

Wuddabout NW

Also as far as games are concerned (SJR on the last page), that's what Dual Boot is for.  OH LAWDY YOU HAVE TO RUN WINDOWS ON YOUR MAC AND SPEND 30 SECONDS BOOTING INTO IT TO PLAY A GAME.  not a big deal, people need to get over it.

I agree with everything you said, and I would actually buy a Macbook Pro if I had the money and would do exactly that.
There's no denying they make an awesome product (iMac, Macbook/Pro/Air), but come on, I was trolling... :\

* awkward pause....*


In related news, the Mircorsoft Courier looks very snazzy.

but come on, I was trolling... :\

* awkward pause....*

Look at all this garbage you caused, you dumb garbage man.

but come on, I was trolling... :\

* awkward pause....*

Look at all this garbage you caused, you dumb garbage man.

Guilty. 

Just for the record, reading books of LCD screens is a terrible way to read and I have absolutely no idea how you could prefer it.

I could have a painting/art application that takes full advantage of the multi-touch.

I don't see a professional using that and no standard user either unless they just wanted to waste their time with scribbles.

Wacom Tablet.

I think he was saying that no professional artist would buy an iPad if they wanted a tablet. Unless the artist was extremely pretentious, of course.

The secondary point was: Irock saying that this is a useful feature to him (or any other standard user) is an absolute joke because it would serve as nothing more than a novelty.

The secondary point was: Irock saying that this is a useful feature to him (or any other standard user) is an absolute joke because it would serve as nothing more than a novelty.

Nah. I'd use it for web browsing, Youtube, video, cooking, social networking, notes, music stuff, games, maps and business review/locating apps when I start driving, and a load of other stuff. I get a lot of use out of my iPod Touch, and I'd probably get way more out of the iPad since more screen real estate opens a lot of doors.

The secondary point was: Irock saying that this is a useful feature to him (or any other standard user) is an absolute joke because it would serve as nothing more than a novelty.

Nah. I'd use it for web browsing, Youtube, video, cooking, social networking, notes, music stuff, games, maps and business review/locating apps when I start driving, and a load of other stuff. I get a lot of use out of my iPod Touch, and I'd probably get way more out of the iPad since more screen real estate opens a lot of doors.

Why not just continue using your iPod Touch instead of buying a bigger iPod Touch?

The secondary point was: Irock saying that this is a useful feature to him (or any other standard user) is an absolute joke because it would serve as nothing more than a novelty.

Nah. I'd use it for web browsing, Youtube, video, cooking, social networking, notes, music stuff, games, maps and business review/locating apps when I start driving, and a load of other stuff. I get a lot of use out of my iPod Touch, and I'd probably get way more out of the iPad since more screen real estate opens a lot of doors.

Why not just continue using your iPod Touch instead of buying a bigger iPod Touch?

Because a 3.5 in 320×480 display isn't really practical for everything I use it for. As I said, more screen real estate opens a lot of doors.

http://www.disinfo.com/2010/01/dear-apple-we-wanted-this-not-an-expensive-and-bulky-iphone/

The thing is really big; I don't see how it's more practical than a Touch, which fits in one's pocket.
Having to type on a thing that big would be impractical...

I think you got it confused... Having to type on that thing would be easy to use. Having to type on the iTouch is impractical, but people do it anyway.

I think you got it confused... Having to type on that thing would be easy to use. Having to type on the iTouch is impractical, but people do it anyway.

The touch is hardly impractical, it's very easy and ergonomic in fact.
Dude, look at the thing, it's mammoth; not to mention that landscape would be far to large for any normal human thumbs to stretch across and portrait can't be that much better on something that big.
The back is also rounded or something, meaning if you were to set it on a flat surface to type, it'd wobble.

EDIT: I also meant that it's far more easy to walk-and-type on something the size of a touch, rather than something the size of the ipad. ;3

The secondary point was: Irock saying that this is a useful feature to him (or any other standard user) is an absolute joke because it would serve as nothing more than a novelty.

Nah. I'd use it for web browsing, Youtube, video, cooking, social networking, notes, music stuff, games, maps and business review/locating apps when I start driving, and a load of other stuff. I get a lot of use out of my iPod Touch, and I'd probably get way more out of the iPad since more screen real estate opens a lot of doors.

Why not just continue using your iPod Touch instead of buying a bigger iPod Touch?

Because a 3.5 in 320×480 display isn't really practical for everything I use it for. As I said, more screen real estate opens a lot of doors.

Like what?

The secondary point was: Irock saying that this is a useful feature to him (or any other standard user) is an absolute joke because it would serve as nothing more than a novelty.

Nah. I'd use it for web browsing, Youtube, video, cooking, social networking, notes, music stuff, games, maps and business review/locating apps when I start driving, and a load of other stuff. I get a lot of use out of my iPod Touch, and I'd probably get way more out of the iPad since more screen real estate opens a lot of doors.

Why not just continue using your iPod Touch instead of buying a bigger iPod Touch?

Because a 3.5 in 320×480 display isn't really practical for everything I use it for. As I said, more screen real estate opens a lot of doors.

Like what?

On an iPod Touch you wouldn't be able to have much of a sheet music application, but on the iPad you could easily display pages of sheet music.

Adobe could create a version of Photoshop that isn't totally lacking in features like the one for the iPhone and iPod Touch. The reason it's so limited is because they can't really display everything.

iWork on the iPad couldn't have worked on a tiny screen.

Just about every application would be more useful if it were designed for the iPad's display. More contend could be displayed, and you'd have more to work with.

Productivity would be increased with a higher resolution. This is generally common knowledge, and the reason why most people prefer a 9 inch display over a 3 inch display, and a 23 inch display over a 19 inch display.

I think you got it confused... Having to type on that thing would be easy to use. Having to type on the iTouch is impractical, but people do it anyway.

The touch is hardly impractical, it's very easy and ergonomic in fact.
Dude, look at the thing, it's mammoth; not to mention that landscape would be far to large for any normal human thumbs to stretch across and portrait can't be that much better on something that big.
The back is also rounded or something, meaning if you were to set it on a flat surface to type, it'd wobble.

EDIT: I also meant that it's far more easy to walk-and-type on something the size of a touch, rather than something the size of the ipad. ;3

I never said that either was impractical. I said that typing is. Your specific example was that typing is more impractical on something larger than something smaller. Which makes no sense at all, since obviously there's more room to type and more space to place keys. You didn't say walk and type. Walking and typing is hard on the iTouch anyways unless you text or write so god damn much on the thing that you just happen to know where to push the keys in the correct order to form functioning sentences and not walking in to things or not having to look up every few letters.

So, still, you were confused in how you wrote that.

Woah man, take it down a notch; nobody is crucifying you.

I had meant an all around typing practicality, and I thought it was just assumed that in the first sentence I meant typing on the ipod touch because it was in reply to your comment about typing on it.
My point about thumb typing is simple logic: a keyboard that you operate with your thumbs would be more difficult to use the larger the keyboard is; the ipad is 9.56 inches in landscape-width, no human thumb could stretch half-way across that screen.

I do not see how I was confused when I wrote it. In fact I am pretty sure I said that it is a mammoth device and to type with it in either landscape or portrait would be difficult because no human thumb could comfortably operate it for a long while, and that if you were to lie it on a flat surface to type, it would be irritating because of its rounded back.

The secondary point was: Irock saying that this is a useful feature to him (or any other standard user) is an absolute joke because it would serve as nothing more than a novelty.

Nah. I'd use it for web browsing, Youtube, video, cooking, social networking, notes, music stuff, games, maps and business review/locating apps when I start driving, and a load of other stuff. I get a lot of use out of my iPod Touch, and I'd probably get way more out of the iPad since more screen real estate opens a lot of doors.

Why not just continue using your iPod Touch instead of buying a bigger iPod Touch?

Because a 3.5 in 320×480 display isn't really practical for everything I use it for. As I said, more screen real estate opens a lot of doors.

Like what?

On an iPod Touch you wouldn't be able to have much of a sheet music application, but on the iPad you could easily display pages of sheet music.

Adobe could create a version of Photoshop that isn't totally lacking in features like the one for the iPhone and iPod Touch. The reason it's so limited is because they can't really display everything.

iWork on the iPad couldn't have worked on a tiny screen.

Just about every application would be more useful if it were designed for the iPad's display. More contend could be displayed, and you'd have more to work with.

Productivity would be increased with a higher resolution. This is generally common knowledge, and the reason why most people prefer a 9 inch display over a 3 inch display, and a 23 inch display over a 19 inch display.

The screen looks far too small to display sheet music to me.

Also, if you want something to do work on, get a netbook.

Yes, reading sheet music on a screen that small would be rather tedious I presume.
A 8.5x11in sheet of paper is just under 14in diagonally, as opposed to the ipad's 9.7 diagonal display. The sheet of music sitting next to me at the moment takes up just below 12in from the upper-left hand corner of staff to the bottom-right hand corner of the last bar and 7in across. The iPad is 7.47in across the entire surface.
Obviously that's a major drawback unless they make very few staffs per page displayed, which could be another major drawback.
I don't know about the glare, but if it's significant, you couldn't sight read from it.

In somewhat related news, the last time I played in a quartet the stupid ass first guitar didn't even wait for me to get settled before he started the cue, I couldn't even put my glasses on in time. Talk about a shitty and unprofessional leader. 
Here's to hoping I'm not stuck in any last minute quartets this year, I'd rather not be in any group than thrown in one with that guy again, especially on such sort notice (I only rehearsed with them three times, including the day-of).

What's the worst ensemble/orchestra you've ever played in?

I read sheet music from flash card sized paper. I'm poor. @:-]