Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:19:16 12/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 02, 2002 at 11:48:26, Bob Durrett wrote: >On December 01, 2002 at 23:02:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: > ><snip> > >>Only "children" pay more attention to the pictures than to the words written, >>so most of us wouldn't consider that a big deal. <snip> > >But Bob! I LIKE pictures. Does this mean that I have already slipped into my >"second childhood"? MUST I read all those words in my National Geographic >magazines? No. But it means that with a _technical article_ about a product that is yet to be released, a photo is meaningless. The text of the article is the "meat" and describes the important features and performance. The photos are "window dressing". > >Besides, there are many highly respectable professionals who devote their entire >lives to the creation and editing of pictures. The use of software is very >common and definitely is a "big deal." No argument. But we are talking about a long, technical discussion about a new processor. What technical content is there in a top view of the CPU, other than to say "see, it exists, here is a picture." There are no specifications or anything other than the part number that will provide the clock rate... and the article already has that in the first paragraph... > >Also, someone who examines a picture to determine how the picture was put >together, and to discern the picture's information content, should be respected. > Would you get rid of all "photo" analysts in the intelligence services? > >Stand corrected? : ) No, because we are talking in two different worlds. Do you ever read the "spy photo" deals in a magazine like Popular Mechanics, where they show _next_ year's brand-X car? You read the article to find out about the drivetrain, etc, you look at the photo to get a rough idea of appearance if appearance is important to you. Otherwise you know that the photo is of a prototype anyway and that the final product will look different. But the known _details_ are important. That happens in electronics as well. You send me a chip, say "you can have it for 24 hours" but it must be fed-exed to person X by tomorrow at 3pm. You start testing and when you go to snap a digital photo of the chip, your camera is dead. Do you spend the rest of the day working on getting a pretty-well useless photo, or do you drop the photo issue and test like crazy to learn as much as you can for your review? I know what I would do there. I might even resort to a doctored photo although I would certainly say "this photo is composed to show how the product will look when it is delivered, a real photo was unavailable at press time." or something similar. Again, the photo was not the news. The details about the chip was the important thing. > >Bob D.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.