The problem is that if we don't get involved people will complain about how we're standing by while people are slaughtered. Of course if we DO get involved people (many of them the SAME people) will flip out if a single civilian dies by the hands of our soldiers and start screaming about how our soldiers are murderers. It's a no-win situation, but on the whole the balance clearly favors letting them kill each other.
I for one would like to see us completely avoid getting involved except for working (both politically and if needed militarily) to keep the issue contained to Syria.
"Government slaughter of civilians should be everyone's problem."
So we get involved.
If we ship weapons over to the rebels then atrocities will be committed with them at some point and we will be painted as the bad guys (probably by you). If we send troops over we'll get another Vietnam where we spend billions (trillions?) and end up with lots of dead Americans, lots of mistakes that get made by our troops that get international attention and we end up being painted as the bad guys (probably by you). If we just yell at them and impose sanctions it won't actually do anything and we'll be painted as the bad guys (probably by you).
Getting involved is a no-win situation, partially because it's a fucking mess and partially because ANY mistakes that are made will be treated as if they were intentional murders of civilians, regardless of the truth of the situation. There is no way for us to win, the closest we can get is to not get involved.
And that probably cost a LOT of money. Foresight, a strong hand and a willingness to lose/spend money in the short-term are requirements for long-term success that most executives can't/don't/won't display.
The major problem with that is that you may avoid problems and expenses now, but you're setting yourself up for greater problems and more expenses later. What happens when IE 6 gets exploited and it's not GOING to be fixed? Now you have a critical flaw that can't be patched and you need to either accept the risk of exploit or do a crash upgrade, which will be MUCH more expensive and problem-riddled than a properly run upgrade. Leaving you high and dry. Preventative maintenance is much cheaper than repair in most cases.
And it's not just the program itself that's rusting, the compatibility issues are keeping the whole computer and even network rusting. That web app that requires IE6 isn't just vulnerable itself, it's making the entire computer vulnerable.
True, but I'll bet that the number of times where that's the case are nowhere near the number of times the company is holding on to the old system for dear life to keep the balance sheets looking good for this quarter.
"Aren't they also losing money by working with inefficient, outdated systems?"
Yes. But that's long-term, in the long-term it's someone else's problem. In the short-term they need to cut costs to make the stock look good.
I remember seeing a setup someone made with 21 monitors to play Falcon 4.0 (IIRC). They had 180 degrees of monitors horizontally, one below the desk and several above in the middle area.
Agreed. And the reason this is being pushed now is probably BECAUSE 3D is bombing. The content companies need to push something new to get people to upgrade their TVs, 3D didn't work so now they're going for 4K. Whatever, when I bought my TV I chose the 720 model because it was going to be used for Xbox and DVDs, I doubt I'll be getting a 4K for a decade or so.
I would bet most people wouldn't notice the difference unless they were coming from a crappy monitor to begin with. Technically it's superior and they would benefit, but the RoI would be poor.
But what if I'm reading ONE website instead of three? It's true that if the screen is tall enough the ratio doesn't matter, but getting that height costs more horizontal desk space that I shouldn't have to give up and in a world where both ratios were widely produced getting the height from a 16:9 display would cost more. Also if I'm gaming the higher resolution can just as easily be a detriment, requiring more or higher-end video cards to get the other quality options up.
Resolution and pixel density are very important, but for the purposes of our discussion they're similar anyway, most consumer-grade monitors are in the 100 ppi range and will probably stay there for the foreseeable future, and the overall resolution of a 16:10 display is usually higher than a 16:9 display.
Height isn't the only thing that matters, but given similar resolution and ppi height starts moving up the list. I'd love for more monitors to have the pivot option to switch to portrait mode when I'm surfing then swap it to landscape for gaming and movie watching, but that's usually a significant premium as well.
Ratio does matter, more vertical space reduces scrolling in documents and web pages, gives more space for content creation that isn't widescreen formatted itself (like making square or portrait oriented art) and is beneficial for some games (most non-first person games). The only real benefit that I can think of for 16:9 over 16:10 is no letterboxing, I'd gladly trade that for the benefits of 16:10 (or even 4:3, I can watch movies on my TV if the letterboxing is going to be that big of a deal).
True enough, but you're talking about a niche. There's niche uses for tons of technology that has no place on the average consumers desk (Like hex-core procs with hyper-threading, $1k video cards and motherboards with 10 SATA ports).
It really is. I see people talking about how anything lower than 400 ppi is unacceptable on their phones and I just shake my head. I'm sure there are people who can legitimately tell the difference, but the vast majority of people aren't going to be able to. Meanwhile upgrading to 2560x1440 (or better x1600) may make my games a little prettier, but it's also going to require a third video card and won't do anything for the internet or the DVDs (or even Blu-rays) that I watch. When I get around to upgrading I'll probably end up getting 1920x1200 and leaving it at that for a good long while.
Slashdot Mirror
They'd just serve you ads for psychics and the like.
The problem is that if we don't get involved people will complain about how we're standing by while people are slaughtered. Of course if we DO get involved people (many of them the SAME people) will flip out if a single civilian dies by the hands of our soldiers and start screaming about how our soldiers are murderers. It's a no-win situation, but on the whole the balance clearly favors letting them kill each other.
I for one would like to see us completely avoid getting involved except for working (both politically and if needed militarily) to keep the issue contained to Syria.
According to The Wiki depending on the model S-300 missiles have up to 120 mile range. I don't think glide bombs go that far.
"Government slaughter of civilians should be everyone's problem." So we get involved.
If we ship weapons over to the rebels then atrocities will be committed with them at some point and we will be painted as the bad guys (probably by you).
If we send troops over we'll get another Vietnam where we spend billions (trillions?) and end up with lots of dead Americans, lots of mistakes that get made by our troops that get international attention and we end up being painted as the bad guys (probably by you).
If we just yell at them and impose sanctions it won't actually do anything and we'll be painted as the bad guys (probably by you).
Getting involved is a no-win situation, partially because it's a fucking mess and partially because ANY mistakes that are made will be treated as if they were intentional murders of civilians, regardless of the truth of the situation. There is no way for us to win, the closest we can get is to not get involved.
Now add dry rot, termites and mold into the kitchen/bathroom.
And that probably cost a LOT of money. Foresight, a strong hand and a willingness to lose/spend money in the short-term are requirements for long-term success that most executives can't/don't/won't display.
Or simply be lined up against the wall. That works too.
The major problem with that is that you may avoid problems and expenses now, but you're setting yourself up for greater problems and more expenses later. What happens when IE 6 gets exploited and it's not GOING to be fixed? Now you have a critical flaw that can't be patched and you need to either accept the risk of exploit or do a crash upgrade, which will be MUCH more expensive and problem-riddled than a properly run upgrade. Leaving you high and dry. Preventative maintenance is much cheaper than repair in most cases.
And it's not just the program itself that's rusting, the compatibility issues are keeping the whole computer and even network rusting. That web app that requires IE6 isn't just vulnerable itself, it's making the entire computer vulnerable.
True, but I'll bet that the number of times where that's the case are nowhere near the number of times the company is holding on to the old system for dear life to keep the balance sheets looking good for this quarter.
At this point they've probably spent more money on the failed attempts than it would have cost to do it right the first time haven't they?
"Aren't they also losing money by working with inefficient, outdated systems?" Yes. But that's long-term, in the long-term it's someone else's problem. In the short-term they need to cut costs to make the stock look good.
My LG Optimus V is still running 2.2
Implying Slashdot doesn't forward the IP of every AC post directly to the NSA.
"If you don't have anything to hide..."
"What if it was YOUR child that was threatened..."
"It couldn't happen here.."
"Terrorism!!!!!!..."
Take your pick.
Unfortunately BOTH sides are forgetting the parts that are inconvenient in favor of feel-good legislation that usually won't do jack shit.
Most modern OSes have methods of compensating for high resolutions IIRC.
Because most people can't tell and/or don't care. There's not much money in catering to the resolution queens.
I remember seeing a setup someone made with 21 monitors to play Falcon 4.0 (IIRC). They had 180 degrees of monitors horizontally, one below the desk and several above in the middle area.
Agreed. And the reason this is being pushed now is probably BECAUSE 3D is bombing. The content companies need to push something new to get people to upgrade their TVs, 3D didn't work so now they're going for 4K. Whatever, when I bought my TV I chose the 720 model because it was going to be used for Xbox and DVDs, I doubt I'll be getting a 4K for a decade or so.
I would bet most people wouldn't notice the difference unless they were coming from a crappy monitor to begin with. Technically it's superior and they would benefit, but the RoI would be poor.
But what if I'm reading ONE website instead of three? It's true that if the screen is tall enough the ratio doesn't matter, but getting that height costs more horizontal desk space that I shouldn't have to give up and in a world where both ratios were widely produced getting the height from a 16:9 display would cost more. Also if I'm gaming the higher resolution can just as easily be a detriment, requiring more or higher-end video cards to get the other quality options up.
Resolution and pixel density are very important, but for the purposes of our discussion they're similar anyway, most consumer-grade monitors are in the 100 ppi range and will probably stay there for the foreseeable future, and the overall resolution of a 16:10 display is usually higher than a 16:9 display.
Height isn't the only thing that matters, but given similar resolution and ppi height starts moving up the list. I'd love for more monitors to have the pivot option to switch to portrait mode when I'm surfing then swap it to landscape for gaming and movie watching, but that's usually a significant premium as well.
Ratio does matter, more vertical space reduces scrolling in documents and web pages, gives more space for content creation that isn't widescreen formatted itself (like making square or portrait oriented art) and is beneficial for some games (most non-first person games). The only real benefit that I can think of for 16:9 over 16:10 is no letterboxing, I'd gladly trade that for the benefits of 16:10 (or even 4:3, I can watch movies on my TV if the letterboxing is going to be that big of a deal).
True enough, but you're talking about a niche. There's niche uses for tons of technology that has no place on the average consumers desk (Like hex-core procs with hyper-threading, $1k video cards and motherboards with 10 SATA ports).
It really is. I see people talking about how anything lower than 400 ppi is unacceptable on their phones and I just shake my head. I'm sure there are people who can legitimately tell the difference, but the vast majority of people aren't going to be able to. Meanwhile upgrading to 2560x1440 (or better x1600) may make my games a little prettier, but it's also going to require a third video card and won't do anything for the internet or the DVDs (or even Blu-rays) that I watch. When I get around to upgrading I'll probably end up getting 1920x1200 and leaving it at that for a good long while.