You've just bought into the widescreen hype, or are trying to sell it to others, or are trying to defend your purchase after realising that you never thought of this, or are justifying the fewer dollars you spent. A widescreen is good for.. watching movies, and widescreens are currently, seemingly, cheaper than their alternatives as a result of the deliberately, confusingly similar pixel sizes. Nobody can do that kind of simple arithmetic in their head, and therefore the wider numbers snow them into thinking just like you: "there's more space on the sides."
Meanwhile, regardless of where *your* eyes find it "easier to look at" (and I suspect top-to-bottom script users would often disagree with your assessment of what's easier to read) the fact that you have *more* screen real estate to begin with means you can have more *on screen* at once without fucking around in Expose, or compiz' window selector, or fiddling around in virtual screens. In a dual-monitor setup, that real estate value is doubled.
It's not like you're suddenly going to read English top-to-bottom. You're not going to be doing anything but reading side-to-side in the window you're currently focused on. And there is no "extra space on the side." There's "less space on the top and bottom." You're only pretending there's extra space on the side because you're ignoring the hit to the top and bottom and my monitor is more functional than yours is.
Additionally, there's a reason why newspapers have *columns* instead of one giant bunch of text all across the page from left to right. It's because the eye *loses track* of the line it's on without a nearby jaggie to focus on and help the reader keep his place. So, more screen top-to-bottom ideally *would* in fact be better for reading.
Except your comparisons are.. uh.. wrong? Of the people who care about this sort of thing, who would actually buy a 1280x1024 screen?! That's practically the bottom end of the market.
Try 1600 x 1200 versus 1680 x 1050. 1,920,000 versus 1,764,000. That's an increase of 9%.
Meanwhile, go up one more size, and you end up comparing 1920 x 1440 versus 1920 x 1200, which is an increase to 2,764,800 from 2,304,000 or worse, 1920 x 1080 (2,073,600) which is, respectively, an increase of 20% or 33%.
So I find *your* argument quite misleading. The reality is the difference increases geometrically as similar sizes are compared, and a squarer aspect ratio wins. It's just the way it is.
.. widescreen of "equivalent" sizes to non-widescreen was actually more expensive. I could never figure out why people were willing to pay for *less* overall viewing area. It's really not a question of whether vertical or horizontal space is more important. Just multiply the height byt he width. Non-widescreen is bigger. Fewer pixels == cheaper to manufacture.
There's like.. one or two good monitors left that are non-widescreen high-res, sold at my favourite manufacturer.
You are being pedantic. If you had made an effort to actually comprehend the point in the OP's posting, you would have simply added the "heaviest usable" in there somewhere and moved on. As it is now, all it looks like you're doing is rationalising why you weren't completely wrong. However, technically the OP you responded to was describing *why* Xenon was used *in propulsion* and therefore by proposing Radon as *an alternative to that* you were by your own abstract form of reasoning as presented in your clarification--still fucking wrong.
What the fuck is up with the voting procedures in the EU?! People vote No, and the vote gets recorded as a Yes? There aren't even enough people to make that switch difficult to detect! How does that kind of crap even happen? Are all the vote counters in all those EU countries just plain corrupt or what?!
Alright.. by "window manager" running "on top of it" you know damn well I meant all the infrastructure of menus, config dialogs, panels, and panes. None of that extra cruft is necessary. And compiz isn't a window manager. It's more than that. Calling it a window manager is like calling Linux an interrupt scheduler.
Apple zealots may be trying, may be annoying, may be pushy, but people.. Apple zealots got *nothing* on old-school Amiga fans. Apple zealots are tame school children stamping their feet in impotent fury compared to the raging, near-psychotic madness that defined the true Amigoid. During its heyday, the Amiga inspired people to dizzying heights of advocacy that I have *never* seen matched. And the weird part was that they were mostly right, so when they frothed at the mouth, they knew what they were talking about. These Apple fanboys these days.. the ones people seem to be complaining about are just parrots. But when you had a worldwide population of millions, all aligned up in the same direction, and augmented with people like Matthew Dillon (of DragonFlyBSD) and Dave Haynie leading them, you have a near-religious movement that I have never again seen since Commodore bankrupted itself.
So *bah* I say.. Give these Apple people a break. The alternatives were quite a bit worse!
I never understood why anyone would want to build their desktop around something as nasty and bloated as a GUI that does nothing but Get In Your Way. I for example like to use PWM version 1. It's the extreme in light-weight window managers while still having enough functionality to force tabbed windows, have lots of desktops, and other than that? No menus, no clutter.
Most people I bet don't know that compiz is configurable enough that you don't need a window manager running on top of it. It can act basically as its own window manager. It can accept all the keys and all the functionality of a window manager and you don't even really need a window *decorator* except perhaps to do things like resize your windows.
All KDE and Gnome apps can run essentially standalone, so all you need is good ol' ultra-lightweight xterm.
I bet I can type "mplayer" faster than you can find it in your menus.
Well.. I guess I do understand why some people want menus. But the option to eliminate KDE and Gnome almost altogether for those of us who remember how to spell kontact? Nirvana..
Mod parent up! Cthulhu's lat/lon as reported very precisely in Lovecraft's short story, "The Call of Cthulhu," is within a few hundred miles or so of Bloop! And therefore there might be something to it after all!
Wrong! Number 8 is missing the biggest verified squid by an entire species, and just about an order of magnitude in size! The largest verified, caught specimen is actually a *mesonychoteuthis* hamiltoni. NOT architeuthis.
.. everyone decides that something that shouold be private, isn't, and some poor individual, company, or country gets screwed by the same technologies that we have all grown to know and love.
It's not a lack of understanding on the part of these banks. They hire people like us all the time and are in many cases more versed with security and the realities of the Internet than 99% of us. It's a concern that, without adequate controls or cooperation from online presences and technologies, one day real damage will be done and there'll be nothing that can stop it.
They're not worried about injustices. Those are just their legal departments trying to build precedent for future legal actions. They're worried about real, actual damage when private, secret, or sensitive data is released through the same channels and nobody cooperates in removing it or halting its spread.
You idealistic types can gnash your teeth about the curtailing of your online freedoms, but what you're failing to grasp is the simple fact that Your Opinion Is Not Perfect. Your idea of what deserves to be free isn't the same as your neighbour's idea, and when pictures stolen from your webcam of you and your wife engaging in something that you think should be legal but isn't, are circulated to every major visitor-supported voyeur pornsite, you'll be sitting there thinking that maybe, just maybe, being forced to trust anonymous individuals on the Internet who are well beyond the reach of any punishment you can effect, isn't the utopia you thought it would be.
I don't care how you power a spaceship, if you're launching it from the surface of the Earth you need to get to the top of a pretty steep gravity well. Adding your tons and tons and tons of mass to each launch means energy requirements, and fuel costs, will go way up.
Dude. Did you even read the article? The design is one of the most efficient ways to achieve escape velocity there is. And we've already got the nukes, all we have to do is re-purpose them. It's so simple, and yet we sit here on our hands, busily destroying the planet.. for what reason? It's time to man up and just go.
For interplanetary travel, maybe. But you seriously think that it's a good idea to use powerful and frequent thermonuclear explosions for lifting a spaceship off of Earth?
Yes. Yes, I do, because it would free the entire race from this prison of a planet in a single launch.
That's only because everyone's been brainwashed by decades of anti-nuke propaganda into thinking that any radiation anywhere is by default a bad idea. There are far, far worse things they put up with all the time (cadmium groundwater contamination, raw sewage discharge by the capital of BC ) that should be the focus of their ire. A single Orion launch could open the entire human race up to colonizing the entire solar system. We'd no longer have a single point of failure in the event that Earth was taken out by a rogue meteor--we'd survive as a species. We're foolish for not thinking about expanding to other planets and beyond, if possible.
All we're doing right now is sitting on our asses waiting for a technological miracle, when we could be busy terraforming Mars..
Slashdot Mirror
Donate to them and you get a tax write-off. :-)
A guy with a wingsuit strapped jet boots to his feet and flew with them first--without a huge clunky stupid-looking glider thing.
here go check it out.
Where are they telling him that what he's doing is seriously wrong?
What an amusing troll--especially that last line there. And yet somehow people are modding you up.
You've just bought into the widescreen hype, or are trying to sell it to others, or are trying to defend your purchase after realising that you never thought of this, or are justifying the fewer dollars you spent. A widescreen is good for.. watching movies, and widescreens are currently, seemingly, cheaper than their alternatives as a result of the deliberately, confusingly similar pixel sizes. Nobody can do that kind of simple arithmetic in their head, and therefore the wider numbers snow them into thinking just like you: "there's more space on the sides."
Meanwhile, regardless of where *your* eyes find it "easier to look at" (and I suspect top-to-bottom script users would often disagree with your assessment of what's easier to read) the fact that you have *more* screen real estate to begin with means you can have more *on screen* at once without fucking around in Expose, or compiz' window selector, or fiddling around in virtual screens. In a dual-monitor setup, that real estate value is doubled.
It's not like you're suddenly going to read English top-to-bottom. You're not going to be doing anything but reading side-to-side in the window you're currently focused on. And there is no "extra space on the side." There's "less space on the top and bottom." You're only pretending there's extra space on the side because you're ignoring the hit to the top and bottom and my monitor is more functional than yours is.
Additionally, there's a reason why newspapers have *columns* instead of one giant bunch of text all across the page from left to right. It's because the eye *loses track* of the line it's on without a nearby jaggie to focus on and help the reader keep his place. So, more screen top-to-bottom ideally *would* in fact be better for reading.
Except your comparisons are.. uh.. wrong? Of the people who care about this sort of thing, who would actually buy a 1280x1024 screen?! That's practically the bottom end of the market.
Try 1600 x 1200 versus 1680 x 1050. 1,920,000 versus 1,764,000. That's an increase of 9%.
Meanwhile, go up one more size, and you end up comparing 1920 x 1440 versus 1920 x 1200, which is an increase to 2,764,800 from 2,304,000 or worse, 1920 x 1080 (2,073,600) which is, respectively, an increase of 20% or 33%.
So I find *your* argument quite misleading. The reality is the difference increases geometrically as similar sizes are compared, and a squarer aspect ratio wins. It's just the way it is.
.. widescreen of "equivalent" sizes to non-widescreen was actually more expensive. I could never figure out why people were willing to pay for *less* overall viewing area. It's really not a question of whether vertical or horizontal space is more important. Just multiply the height byt he width. Non-widescreen is bigger. Fewer pixels == cheaper to manufacture.
There's like.. one or two good monitors left that are non-widescreen high-res, sold at my favourite manufacturer.
Fucking awesome. I had NO idea. :-)
That was one of the most inspiring stories I've ever read about. Support our troops!!
You are being pedantic. If you had made an effort to actually comprehend the point in the OP's posting, you would have simply added the "heaviest usable" in there somewhere and moved on. As it is now, all it looks like you're doing is rationalising why you weren't completely wrong. However, technically the OP you responded to was describing *why* Xenon was used *in propulsion* and therefore by proposing Radon as *an alternative to that* you were by your own abstract form of reasoning as presented in your clarification--still fucking wrong.
Which company?
Lie detectors aren't science. They never have been, and at this rate they never will.
Come on people.. sheesh.
What the fuck is up with the voting procedures in the EU?! People vote No, and the vote gets recorded as a Yes? There aren't even enough people to make that switch difficult to detect! How does that kind of crap even happen? Are all the vote counters in all those EU countries just plain corrupt or what?!
Jesus..
I actually still have my A3000 powered up right now, sitting on my desk, running NetBSD.
:)
Who needs recovery?
And why do you think I know that Amiga zealots were fanatics on a scale that Apple fanboys will never come close to?
Alright.. by "window manager" running "on top of it" you know damn well I meant all the infrastructure of menus, config dialogs, panels, and panes. None of that extra cruft is necessary. And compiz isn't a window manager. It's more than that. Calling it a window manager is like calling Linux an interrupt scheduler.
Apple zealots may be trying, may be annoying, may be pushy, but people.. Apple zealots got *nothing* on old-school Amiga fans. Apple zealots are tame school children stamping their feet in impotent fury compared to the raging, near-psychotic madness that defined the true Amigoid. During its heyday, the Amiga inspired people to dizzying heights of advocacy that I have *never* seen matched. And the weird part was that they were mostly right, so when they frothed at the mouth, they knew what they were talking about. These Apple fanboys these days.. the ones people seem to be complaining about are just parrots. But when you had a worldwide population of millions, all aligned up in the same direction, and augmented with people like Matthew Dillon (of DragonFlyBSD) and Dave Haynie leading them, you have a near-religious movement that I have never again seen since Commodore bankrupted itself.
So *bah* I say.. Give these Apple people a break. The alternatives were quite a bit worse!
I never understood why anyone would want to build their desktop around something as nasty and bloated as a GUI that does nothing but Get In Your Way. I for example like to use PWM version 1. It's the extreme in light-weight window managers while still having enough functionality to force tabbed windows, have lots of desktops, and other than that? No menus, no clutter.
Most people I bet don't know that compiz is configurable enough that you don't need a window manager running on top of it. It can act basically as its own window manager. It can accept all the keys and all the functionality of a window manager and you don't even really need a window *decorator* except perhaps to do things like resize your windows.
All KDE and Gnome apps can run essentially standalone, so all you need is good ol' ultra-lightweight xterm.
I bet I can type "mplayer" faster than you can find it in your menus.
Well.. I guess I do understand why some people want menus. But the option to eliminate KDE and Gnome almost altogether for those of us who remember how to spell kontact? Nirvana..
Even better, if the solution to raising up however many hundreds of thousands of tonnes into space can be done without "shoddy engineering."
Mod parent up! Cthulhu's lat/lon as reported very precisely in Lovecraft's short story, "The Call of Cthulhu," is within a few hundred miles or so of Bloop! And therefore there might be something to it after all!
So there.
Wrong! Number 8 is missing the biggest verified squid by an entire species, and just about an order of magnitude in size! The largest verified, caught specimen is actually a *mesonychoteuthis* hamiltoni. NOT architeuthis.
Straw men..
.. everyone decides that something that shouold be private, isn't, and some poor individual, company, or country gets screwed by the same technologies that we have all grown to know and love.
It's not a lack of understanding on the part of these banks. They hire people like us all the time and are in many cases more versed with security and the realities of the Internet than 99% of us. It's a concern that, without adequate controls or cooperation from online presences and technologies, one day real damage will be done and there'll be nothing that can stop it.
They're not worried about injustices. Those are just their legal departments trying to build precedent for future legal actions. They're worried about real, actual damage when private, secret, or sensitive data is released through the same channels and nobody cooperates in removing it or halting its spread.
You idealistic types can gnash your teeth about the curtailing of your online freedoms, but what you're failing to grasp is the simple fact that Your Opinion Is Not Perfect. Your idea of what deserves to be free isn't the same as your neighbour's idea, and when pictures stolen from your webcam of you and your wife engaging in something that you think should be legal but isn't, are circulated to every major visitor-supported voyeur pornsite, you'll be sitting there thinking that maybe, just maybe, being forced to trust anonymous individuals on the Internet who are well beyond the reach of any punishment you can effect, isn't the utopia you thought it would be.
"No" radioactive release? What kind of fantasy realm do you live in? The needs of the many, dude!
I don't care how you power a spaceship, if you're launching it from the surface of the Earth you need to get to the top of a pretty steep gravity well. Adding your tons and tons and tons of mass to each launch means energy requirements, and fuel costs, will go way up.
Dude. Did you even read the article? The design is one of the most efficient ways to achieve escape velocity there is. And we've already got the nukes, all we have to do is re-purpose them. It's so simple, and yet we sit here on our hands, busily destroying the planet.. for what reason? It's time to man up and just go.
For interplanetary travel, maybe. But you seriously think that it's a good idea to use powerful and frequent thermonuclear explosions for lifting a spaceship off of Earth?
Yes. Yes, I do, because it would free the entire race from this prison of a planet in a single launch.
That's only because everyone's been brainwashed by decades of anti-nuke propaganda into thinking that any radiation anywhere is by default a bad idea. There are far, far worse things they put up with all the time (cadmium groundwater contamination, raw sewage discharge by the capital of BC ) that should be the focus of their ire. A single Orion launch could open the entire human race up to colonizing the entire solar system. We'd no longer have a single point of failure in the event that Earth was taken out by a rogue meteor--we'd survive as a species. We're foolish for not thinking about expanding to other planets and beyond, if possible.
All we're doing right now is sitting on our asses waiting for a technological miracle, when we could be busy terraforming Mars..
What a waste.
I know!