7 ms·

This isn't similar at all. Jobs and co are using the viewing angle of a 3d graph to have the Apple share be closer and 'larger' than the farther and now 'smalle

This isn't similar at all. Jobs and co are using the viewing angle of a 3d graph to have the Apple share be closer and 'larger' than the farther and now 'smaller' Other section. What Windows is representing and outlining here has no basis in fact.

sneak 13y ago
> Jobs and co are using the viewing angle of a 3d graph to have the Apple share be closer and 'larger' than the farther and now 'smaller' Other section Actually, the tablet _is_ bigger in the diagonal measurement as they claim, which is the standard measurement of screen sizes. They're both subterfuge. Don't raise one above the other.
- arrrg 13y ago
  The diagonal is longer, the screen is not bigger. That is a flat out lie.
  - bastijn 13y ago
    Without rooting for one or the other. Bigger is not a measurement. Bigger is relative to the method of measurement/definition, and its comparison with a second one. If screen size is measured/defined by its diagonal, than the screen is bigger.
    - arrrg 13y ago
      What the fuck is wrong with you people? I mean, really. No, that is definitely not how it works. You can redefine screen size into some absurd bullshit, but that just means you are crazy, not that you are right. In some cases the screen diagonal is a good proxy for screen size and it’s reasonable to use it (for TVs, for example, they are practically always 16:9). However, when that proxy reaches the boundaries of its usefulness and you still use it, you are a fool.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - marshray 13y ago
        Here's an interesting summary of the US Federal Trade Commission "Picture Tube Rule" (from 1966) on display size measurements, including discussion of the merits of horizontal vs. diagonal measurements. http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/06/P9242414PictureTubeRuleConfirmationofRuleFRNotice.pdf http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/06/P9242414PictureTubeRuleConfirm... Suffice it to say, the discussion of how screen size is to be measured is as old as television itself. It does not imply one is crazy.
        arrrg 13y ago
        Sigh. This shit is frustrating. You don’t get it, do you? How can you be so blind? How can you have this weird view? This is batshit insane and completely mystifying. No one ever with a clear head could assume that display size = diagonal. That works if the aspect ratio is unchanging (nowadays 16:9 TV screens are competing with 16:9 TV screens) and there is no problem doing just that. It works less well with variant aspect ratios, though it still is a sort of reasonable proxy for screen size – but if you explicitly write that some screen is larger than another one while it very obviously isn’t – using the diagonal as a justification – you are just insane. Nothing else. Plus: You are confused about the actual content of the document you linked. (In general I also have no problem with the diagonal being used in advertising. It’s not ideal but I won’t get mad about it. I will get mad about it if someone defends outright lying in ads.
        marshray 13y ago
        > How can you be so blind? How can you have this weird view? This is batshit insane and completely mystifying. :-) > display size = diagonal [...] works if the aspect ratio is unchanging I get that. > It works less well with variant aspect ratios, I get that too. > if you explicitly write that some screen is larger than another one while it very obviously isn’t – using the diagonal as a justification – you are just insane. Nothing else. I'm imagining a movie where the cops bust through the door to a suspect's apartment to find the walls completely papered with newspaper and magazine clippings of ads for televisions and computer monitors ... all oriented diagonally. One detective deadpans to the other "Well, I think we've found our killer". > Plus: You are confused about the actual content of the document you linked. I only claimed that the document contained "an interesting summary of the US Federal Trade Commission 'Picture Tube Rule' (from 1966)" and "discussion of the merits of horizontal vs. diagonal measurements". I think those are defensible claims.
- kemiller 13y ago
  That's about equivalent to saying that I did something first because I did it at 7:00 AM Pacific Time and you did it at 9:00 AM Eastern Time. I mean, clock time _is_ how we measure time, right? And 7 is clearly less than 9. Diagonal measures are a useful shorthand for size when aspect is the same, but they are deceptive when comparing two screens with different aspects.
  - brudgers 13y ago
    Diagonals are GMT.

sneak 13y ago

> Jobs and co are using the viewing angle of a 3d graph to have the Apple share be closer and 'larger' than the farther and now 'smaller' Other section Actually, the tablet _is_ bigger in the diagonal measurement as they claim, which is the standard measurement of screen sizes. They're both subterfuge. Don't raise one above the other.

arrrg 13y ago
The diagonal is longer, the screen is not bigger. That is a flat out lie.
- bastijn 13y ago
  Without rooting for one or the other. Bigger is not a measurement. Bigger is relative to the method of measurement/definition, and its comparison with a second one. If screen size is measured/defined by its diagonal, than the screen is bigger.
  - arrrg 13y ago
    What the fuck is wrong with you people? I mean, really. No, that is definitely not how it works. You can redefine screen size into some absurd bullshit, but that just means you are crazy, not that you are right. In some cases the screen diagonal is a good proxy for screen size and it’s reasonable to use it (for TVs, for example, they are practically always 16:9). However, when that proxy reaches the boundaries of its usefulness and you still use it, you are a fool.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - marshray 13y ago
      Here's an interesting summary of the US Federal Trade Commission "Picture Tube Rule" (from 1966) on display size measurements, including discussion of the merits of horizontal vs. diagonal measurements. http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/06/P9242414PictureTubeRuleConfirmationofRuleFRNotice.pdf http://www.ftc.gov/os/2006/06/P9242414PictureTubeRuleConfirm... Suffice it to say, the discussion of how screen size is to be measured is as old as television itself. It does not imply one is crazy.
      - arrrg 13y ago
        Sigh. This shit is frustrating. You don’t get it, do you? How can you be so blind? How can you have this weird view? This is batshit insane and completely mystifying. No one ever with a clear head could assume that display size = diagonal. That works if the aspect ratio is unchanging (nowadays 16:9 TV screens are competing with 16:9 TV screens) and there is no problem doing just that. It works less well with variant aspect ratios, though it still is a sort of reasonable proxy for screen size – but if you explicitly write that some screen is larger than another one while it very obviously isn’t – using the diagonal as a justification – you are just insane. Nothing else. Plus: You are confused about the actual content of the document you linked. (In general I also have no problem with the diagonal being used in advertising. It’s not ideal but I won’t get mad about it. I will get mad about it if someone defends outright lying in ads.
        marshray 13y ago
        > How can you be so blind? How can you have this weird view? This is batshit insane and completely mystifying. :-) > display size = diagonal [...] works if the aspect ratio is unchanging I get that. > It works less well with variant aspect ratios, I get that too. > if you explicitly write that some screen is larger than another one while it very obviously isn’t – using the diagonal as a justification – you are just insane. Nothing else. I'm imagining a movie where the cops bust through the door to a suspect's apartment to find the walls completely papered with newspaper and magazine clippings of ads for televisions and computer monitors ... all oriented diagonally. One detective deadpans to the other "Well, I think we've found our killer". > Plus: You are confused about the actual content of the document you linked. I only claimed that the document contained "an interesting summary of the US Federal Trade Commission 'Picture Tube Rule' (from 1966)" and "discussion of the merits of horizontal vs. diagonal measurements". I think those are defensible claims.
kemiller 13y ago
That's about equivalent to saying that I did something first because I did it at 7:00 AM Pacific Time and you did it at 9:00 AM Eastern Time. I mean, clock time _is_ how we measure time, right? And 7 is clearly less than 9. Diagonal measures are a useful shorthand for size when aspect is the same, but they are deceptive when comparing two screens with different aspects.
- brudgers 13y ago
  Diagonals are GMT.