I would wager that a large majority of Office documents are portrait. So an ideal screen for working with documents would be portrait A4 (or letter). With a wide screen, you see less of the document at once, especially if you use "adjust to width" zoom option.
Also, yes, a lot of people who don't work with a computer - whether it be for a living or for fun - usually do one of three things: Office, Internet Explorer, or watch movies.
Two out of these three are easier on a non-wide-screen monitor.
I realize that shiny sells, but I still don't understand why I can't buy a 4:3 laptop these days. Everyone I talk to says he'd prefer one to the current wide-screen offering. Do people really only use computers for watching movies?
I just bought a new HP ProBook with 1366x768 resolution, but at least it has a matte screen.
With fewer people working where will the money for socialism come from? I do not know about you but I do not have any faith that the wealthy will pay for socialism. If that was the case then it would already be like that. So people lose jobs and starve out. More robots will be made and more people will lose jobs. The poor will become less and less. The middle class will be less and less. More robots and less people. I am just not optimistic about socialism in this scenario. There would be nothing in it for the wealthy. So few will inherit the Earth. Robots will make more robots and you will not need humans for anything other than procreation.
People without jobs and without money will go on the streets, protest, and fight, simply because they wouldn't have anything else to do. Yes, you could have your robot army kill them. But, at some point, the wealthy robot-owners will figure, just like in ancient Rome, that it's more effective/cheaper to just give bread and games to the masses instead of fighting them, while still keeping power over them.
At least, that's just one possible scenario. Maybe we'll all be killed.
There nothing so complicated around the idea of a central configuration for the OS. However, do you thing that naming the groups something like Windows\Network\Internet\ConnectionTesting instead of HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\NlaSvc\Parameters\Internet would kill them? There is no way to find something in the registry, unless somebody tells you exactly where to look. Not to mentions that there's a lot of configuration keys that have no default value in the registry, good luck finding those.
Ubuntu != Linux. Many people forget that, or think that all distros are the same.
For example, ArchLinux and Gentoo have very good documentation in form of Wikis. I've never used Gentoo, but on Arch pretty much everything non-trivial is documented.
When I started using linux, I used to argue with my friends how simple and friendly it is. They didn't really believe, so I started using the opposite tactic. Whenever I'm asked "but isn't Linux so difficult to use", I reply "It is, I'm just that smart".
It is possible to disable NCSI by a registry setting if you don’t want Microsoft to be able to check your internet connection.
* HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\NlaSvc\Parameters\Internet * Under the Internet key, double-click EnableActiveProbing, and then in Value data, type: 0.The default for this value is 1. Setting the value to 0 prevents NCSI from connecting to a site on the Internet during checks for connectivity.
Oh, the user-friendlyness of Windows. Everything is so simple on Windows, while I imagine that on Linux (if it had such a feature), you would need to edit a text file with comments in it. Horrible.
Spending money on a new monitor increases performance, and the increase is often (or sometimes, or never, I'm not arguing this here) worth the extra cost.
The parent was trying to say that using MS Office also increases performance when compared to OO.org and others, and this increase is also usually worth the cost. However, proprietary software usually uses proprietary formats, which lower performance when cooperating with other departments/companies/public. So there is a point to/. economics, and spending extra for proprietary software is not always the same as buying a new monitor.
I don't know, I still don't think this would help anything. It would create a black market of patents ready for registration. And what about people with a large number of patents (~10 or more), would they have to produce all of the possible products themselves?
What you're proposing would help against patent trolls, but I'm afraid it would hurt actual inventors as well. Obvious patents are a bigger issue here that being enforced by non-inventors, which is also easier to solve.
But what if you don't have the means of production?
Let's say some poor electrical engineer produces a small solar cell with much better efficiency than currently available. But he doesn't have enough money to build a factory and hire people to operate the company. Should he be ashamed of himself for being poor, not allowed to licence his invention?
Do you really suggest that only the wealthy should be allowed to patent things?
Slashdot Mirror
An AC three posts down from your answered it quite well:
Gotta keep the boys at Lockheed Martin in pork
I don't think there was much in the way of "campaign contributions" from Russians or Japanese.
But Al Gore already got his Nobel prize. Jimmy Wales didn't.
1. Sony is covering its losses. Besides it being difficult to measure, would you admit to your shareholders that you lost that much of their money?
2. I'm not really into Pokemon.
Don't we all know that 4.0 is the crashing-and-burning version, and that we should wait at least until 4.2?
I would wager that a large majority of Office documents are portrait. So an ideal screen for working with documents would be portrait A4 (or letter). With a wide screen, you see less of the document at once, especially if you use "adjust to width" zoom option.
Also, yes, a lot of people who don't work with a computer - whether it be for a living or for fun - usually do one of three things: Office, Internet Explorer, or watch movies.
Two out of these three are easier on a non-wide-screen monitor.
I realize that shiny sells, but I still don't understand why I can't buy a 4:3 laptop these days. Everyone I talk to says he'd prefer one to the current wide-screen offering. Do people really only use computers for watching movies?
I just bought a new HP ProBook with 1366x768 resolution, but at least it has a matte screen.
Besides, they made that flight to see an eclipse. It's not like those things happen every year...
You're right, solar eclipses occur far too often. We should only allow private jet flights whenever a new version of Debian is released.
That shouldn't be a problem, just make sure you don't cross the data streams.
Ideally, it would be like in "I, Robot" (the book, not the movie). But I really don't think it would go this way.
With fewer people working where will the money for socialism come from? I do not know about you but I do not have any faith that the wealthy will pay for socialism. If that was the case then it would already be like that. So people lose jobs and starve out. More robots will be made and more people will lose jobs. The poor will become less and less. The middle class will be less and less. More robots and less people. I am just not optimistic about socialism in this scenario. There would be nothing in it for the wealthy. So few will inherit the Earth. Robots will make more robots and you will not need humans for anything other than procreation.
People without jobs and without money will go on the streets, protest, and fight, simply because they wouldn't have anything else to do. Yes, you could have your robot army kill them. But, at some point, the wealthy robot-owners will figure, just like in ancient Rome, that it's more effective/cheaper to just give bread and games to the masses instead of fighting them, while still keeping power over them.
At least, that's just one possible scenario. Maybe we'll all be killed.
If this becomes cost effective, insurance will strong arm people into replacement surgery instead of giving them a helping hand.
You mean that they will still give you a helping hand, only literally instead of figuratively?
There nothing so complicated around the idea of a central configuration for the OS. However, do you thing that naming the groups something like
Windows\Network\Internet\ConnectionTesting
instead of
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\NlaSvc\Parameters\Internet
would kill them? There is no way to find something in the registry, unless somebody tells you exactly where to look. Not to mentions that there's a lot of configuration keys that have no default value in the registry, good luck finding those.
On KDE, you can bring if the system monitor with Ctrl-Esc. I don't know what the shortcut is for Gnome, but I suspect there is one.
Ubuntu != Linux. Many people forget that, or think that all distros are the same.
For example, ArchLinux and Gentoo have very good documentation in form of Wikis. I've never used Gentoo, but on Arch pretty much everything non-trivial is documented.
Yes, you are a superman.
When I started using linux, I used to argue with my friends how simple and friendly it is. They didn't really believe, so I started using the opposite tactic. Whenever I'm asked "but isn't Linux so difficult to use", I reply "It is, I'm just that smart".
It is possible to disable NCSI by a registry setting if you don’t want Microsoft to be able to check your internet connection.
* HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\NlaSvc\Parameters\Internet
* Under the Internet key, double-click EnableActiveProbing, and then in Value data, type: 0.The default for this value is 1. Setting the value to 0 prevents NCSI from connecting to a site on the Internet during checks for connectivity.
Oh, the user-friendlyness of Windows. Everything is so simple on Windows, while I imagine that on Linux (if it had such a feature), you would need to edit a text file with comments in it. Horrible.
Spending money on a new monitor increases performance, and the increase is often (or sometimes, or never, I'm not arguing this here) worth the extra cost.
The parent was trying to say that using MS Office also increases performance when compared to OO.org and others, and this increase is also usually worth the cost. However, proprietary software usually uses proprietary formats, which lower performance when cooperating with other departments/companies/public. So there is a point to /. economics, and spending extra for proprietary software is not always the same as buying a new monitor.
Pilots talk about cheese, the flight attendants ass for 1:59, strange voice yells "alluhu ackbar", tape ends.
So I guess we'll never know what happened!
It was a trap!
Loss leaders usually generate more money in other areas. Market domination is a means to achieve the goal of making money.
You missed the first and the best one:
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2007-10-16/
Software (or anything else) that you create on a computer with two monitors can still be used by people with only one.
Meh, I still think that Swordfish guy has you covered.
I don't know, I still don't think this would help anything. It would create a black market of patents ready for registration. And what about people with a large number of patents (~10 or more), would they have to produce all of the possible products themselves?
What you're proposing would help against patent trolls, but I'm afraid it would hurt actual inventors as well. Obvious patents are a bigger issue here that being enforced by non-inventors, which is also easier to solve.
But what if you don't have the means of production?
Let's say some poor electrical engineer produces a small solar cell with much better efficiency than currently available. But he doesn't have enough money to build a factory and hire people to operate the company. Should he be ashamed of himself for being poor, not allowed to licence his invention?
Do you really suggest that only the wealthy should be allowed to patent things?