Distance doesn't matter. It's all down to how many degrees of your vision that the screen takes up.
Yes it does. In order to have the same effect of the curvature, a screen at 10 feet has to have much more curvature at 10 feet that 2 feet, no matter how much of your FOV it occupies.
Curved monitors do make sense for the desktop PC, where you're sitting very close to the screen. They make no sense whatsoever in the living room, though. You're far too far away for the curve to make any noticeable difference
It's a scalable situation. If the TV occupies a similar viewing angle to your monitor, then curvature would have just the same impact. As I type this, my laptop's screen occupies about the same amount of my view as my further-away TV.
That doesn't mean I don't also think it's a bit of a pointless fad, though.
It's a percentage thing. The distance you are sitting from the screen and the amount of curvature are much smaller relatively. The relative distance of say a two inch curvature is much more at two feet than it is at 10 feet. At 10 feet that much curvature makes it flat for all practical purposes.
I'm surprised more criminals don't give their phones to someone else while they are breaking the law, to create an alibi. The cops will get the cell records and datarape the phone, generating evidence that can then be used in the criminal's own defence.
And here's one that always gets me into trouble on Slashdot. I am perfectly happy to have my gas purchases easily found. I even broadcast my position via APRS, which timestamps my location and broadcasts it to the world That's a s part of a hobby. I don't care about cell phone tracking, or video camera recording. While many here think that they need to be ghosts, I've figured that this stuff will stand a better chance of giving me a very good alibi if I need one. Some people who have been accused of crimes have already been exonerated. I've been trying to find the story of a New York man arrested for sexual assault, but his claim of leaving his work at the time proved he was indeed at work at the time. If I do, I will post it.
That may be rather difficult to do if you're detained and they're not willing to release you. I suppose that you could use your phone to make a call...
No, this is not about charging "anything they want". This is about charging the market equilibrium price to eliminate traffic congestion. Please try to stay on topic.
Of course it is. And it was a comparison, sorry if you can't see that. It is rather obvious that charging more than most people can/will pay will encompass people who are cheap/ don't care/ or would like to, but they cannot afford it. First two are fine - the third, not as much.
How about another idea? How about charging per lane. Right lane nothing. Passing lane a charge that will keep most people out of the passing lane. The same for each other lane of traffic until the inner lane uses a bidding process that goes to the highest bidder. If someone wants to pay a million bucks a day then they are the only one who can use that lane.
Ridiculous? Hell yeah. But in principle, you need to like it. Market price and all. And it will be exceptionally popular with everyone else.
Huh? I was in full tease mode. Kinda like when your crazy uncle Louie shows up at family gatherings and brags about not having an email address, and I tease him about all the women he must get by being such an independent stud. In this case, I just gave AC a little telling. Maybe he takes telling, maybe not. If I had to assign an emotion to it, it might be to feel badly because I ridiculed the guy who thinks that he is somehow more "secure" because of having a feature phone, or whatever it is he has. Then again, nahhh. Peace out, Bing.
Such a brave stance that---
Well, although many of us are indeed too dependent on our smartphones, they offer real utility beyond taking pictures of our food.
There is nothing about the cellular system that is secure. So use what you use as long as you are comfortable with it. AC has some weird ideas that he is somehow immune to the tracking and other possibilities that are just inherent in the system. If LE is interested, any time his phone connects to a couple towers, he's nailed. I'm not inclined to do anything illegal, but if I was, none of it would be on my cell or computer. I use the hell out of my smartphone for trip mapping and location services. The occasional tethering, and most of that is data lookup. I have no plans to get rid of mine, no matter what some AC thinks.
I'll keep my secrets in my head and stick to a $50 dumbphone with nothing in it and not even turned on for more than 1 hour a day. Seriously you people so attached to your goddamned smartphones are pathetic and I pity you.
Grandpa Gribble? they let you out of the home again?
If you are that shit shakingly paranoid about security, why on earth are you even using a device whose main feature is to track you? Without that tracking, the cellular system doesn't function. And they even keep logs.
That one hour you have it turned on, your phone is alerting your presence to teh authorities, and they be a comin ta get ya!
[ Paying a fee to use the passing lanes on highways is] actually a really good idea, if the fee is set just high enough to eliminate congestion in that lane...
If the tolls are not kept high, the toll lane will become just as congested as the regular lanes.
Correct, if the fee isn't set high enough to eliminate congestion, there will be congestion. So what's the issue?
How much you can afford is the issue. That's the point. This is alawys the problem with privately built roads. Let's take a utopian scene. Your local government has the shitz of maintaining the road past your house. So in the libertarian and Republican blessed universe, they sell it to the highest bidder. Your road now belongs to them, in no way do you have any say. So they decide to charge you anything they want to get to your house. You have no choice. So what's the issue?
Of course we want a "public Internet" but we also will raise holy hell if Company X gets to use the public facility for free and uses more than anyone else to the point where service degrades.
The rational solution to this mess is to require companies to provide X% of public service alongside their buildouts for private endeavors, thus creating a safe harbor which avoids an accounting nightmare, while allowing businesses to do business, and to have a publicly funded watchdog surveil that that bandwidth is publicly available from the outside.
But who pays who what? If the internet goes out to whoever pays the most baksheesh, and therefore gets the most bandwidth, what if the rest of us are left with precious little? I have a pretty good suspicion that the end game of this whole net neutrality fight will be that the big boys will win, and suddenly it becomes the digital equivalent of what cable TV is today. We already hear some people arguing that DSL speeds are adequate for people.
We aren't likely to get any public watchdog, and let's not forget that most people believe that bandwidth is infinite.
maybe we'll end up with people paying a fee to use the passing lanes on highways.
That's actually a really good idea, if the fee is set just high enough to eliminate congestion in that lane, but no higher, so that nobody is ever gouged and so that the managed lane isn't responsible for causing congestion in the anarchy lanes. Then if my son is sick and I have to get him to the doctor, I can pay the fee and bypass traffic. This would give me an option that I didn't have before. Options and competition are good things, right?
I don't think this is how that would work. If the tolls are not kept high, the toll lane will become just as congested as the regular lanes.
isn't the toll on the internet (or paid prioritization) what net neutrality is supposed to prevent?
That's right. You think that Republicans support Net neutrality? Certainly as late as 2015 they were calling it "Obamacare for the internet" https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0...
Bad form to reply to my own reply - but I made a mistake in attribution. I attributed a story by Ian Bogost to Walter Scheidel. So my direct comparison to toilet fixtures was not valid. But I do stand by my assertion that Scheidel is an idealistic far left winger who cherry picks his source to fit his worldview.
I understand what your point was, but it was refuting a strawman argument no one made. The article does not state the world is better off because wars reduced income inequality. It merely states the wars reduced income inequality.
A better question rather than bringung up the exhausted "strawman" pejorative, is do you concur with him? I personally have an argument to make that he has a worldview, and conveniently forgotten or amplified his references in order to support that worldview.
As in I find that it streche scredulity to a breaking point when he asserts how the Communist revolutions in Russia created equality for it's citizens. Could you make a good argument for the income leveling of the Great leap forward in China, which directly caused between 18 million and 55 million deaths by starvation? The dead were equal in a morbid manner, but I don't think Mao missed too many meals.
And I made a mistake - I attributed a story by Ian Bogost to Walter Scheidel. So my direct comparison was not valid. But I do stand by my assertion that Scheidel is an idealistic far left winger who cherry picks his source to fit his worldview.
Please read the article before your next post. The very first sentence makes it clear it is referring to income inequality, not equality in general.
If you read a little further, He notes that voting rights and government intervention in the private sector also were a result of this. Unles she was intentionally spouting a non sequitur that you happen to know about.
I read the story, and I call Bullshit as well.
He writes how "By contrast, Latin America, which sat out the 20th century’s largest conflicts in relative isolation, duly did not see inequality drop until the early 2000s".
Perhaps this source might differ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... If misery created income and voter equality, well South America should be leading the way and passed us a long time ago.
Apparently the bolshevik revolution in Russia, and the communists taking over in China was the best thing that ever happened to the world, culminating in equal prosperity for all of their citizens. DO I really need to debunk that, Is Old Joe Stalin the key to equality? The solution to the middle class's resurgence? There is more to debunk, but I find his prose annoying and in the end boring.
No,old Walt Scheidel cherry picks data with a skill a AGW denier would be proud of, and arranges his fruited narrative to fit his world view. And his world view is a combination of highly left wing idealism, and a get of my damn lawn mentality that leaves him yearning for old fashioned toilets. Speaking of, it might be a good idea to read his next story in line "Why nothing works any more" https://www.theatlantic.com/te...
Oddly enough, the two stories are quite related in a scatological sort of way. 8^)
As a Republican I 100% agree that this is bull. I think it likely the issue though is that republicans instinctively lean toward less regulation and if you are not technically literate, then these requirements could be phrased by someone in such a way as to seem burdensome.
While on a long drive today, I realized two things. The first is that this is an attempt to open up a new market. The second is maybe we'll end up with people paying a fee to use the passing lanes on highways. No more of this equal access to all lanes. Seems like just an logical corollary of the war on net neutrality.
The local paper's only response to our pointing this out was to try and sell us even more expensive advertising campaigns than the ones which hadn't worked.
Crikey's, I could have written that! My local paper kept trying to get me to take out daily's that were going to cost a couple grand a month. And every so often a half page. At one point I asked if the purpose for my being in business was to give them all my money. The lady just grinned. Today they are about 25 percent of the size they used to be. Good.
I also find this.. sad. As a woman if someone is talking to me and I'm not interested it's not harassment. It may be annoying but it's not sexual unless the person escalates it beyond expressing interest and won't take no for an answer.
I talk to all kinds of men. I have no idea if any of them want to 'screw me' nor do I care. I've had men compliment me on my clothing, my hair, etc. and I've taken it as a simple compliment and nothing more.
And most women don't really care. Before around 2000, I would chat it up with anyone, male or female. And solely for the interaction. But for some reason, we have decided to listen to those who are trying to scrub normal male-female interactions off the face of the earth. There are some who think that this might have some relationship with the falling marriage rate. I don't know that there is only one causative factor, but many men have chosen to pursue other things like career and recreational activities and their bank account.
If I were a woman, I would be pretty pissed at the third wave feminists for damaging my life.
Where some women believe you talking to her is harassment if she isn't interested.
Maybe you should take the hint. I find it annoying when someone talks to me when I'm clearly not interested, but maybe I'm unusual.
Actually, my reference was to the act of talking to the woman ever, at all. I saw a Q and A session where a group of women were asked if talking to a woman was sexual harassment if she wasn't interested - Most said yes. Because the simple act of talking to a woman is not saying you want to screw her, and women have been taught that any male who isn't gay wants to screw her. Sad when they look at the world obsessed with the thought that everyone wants to screw them. And you needn't worry, unless I have been properly introduced, I will not speak to a woman at all. Even then, it is to say "hello" and no more. I wonder if ignoring women is a form of sexual harassment?
They will undoubtedly also be placed on the same network as, or on a network with access to, administrative computers to make for easier ransomware propagation...
You can deduct a *lot* from tracking a user these days. Especially with all the data smartphone apps offer up to their suppliers. You basically have a more complete and trustworthy personal profile of a person than the person could probably even willingly give themselves.
But here's the rub. While these things go after compatibility and look for similarities, there is something to be said for differences as well. I'm coming up on my 40th anniversary, yet my wife and I are almost ridiculously different. We are roughly the same IQ, but she is very people oriented and sociable. Has a ton of friends. One of te most friendly people you'll meet, with a slightly dirty sense of humor.
Me, First of all, I'm kind of irritating, and hyper analytical. I have just a few close friends, and until I analyze a person, am very reticent with them. I'm an outside person, she only is when on vacation. I'm a bit of a thrill seeker, she isn't. We are seriously opposite But we actually use these differences rather than insist that the other be like we are.
She wants us to try one of these dating services because she says we'd be the last two people they would hook up together.
People are the problem, not the match-making system.
And people are having some issues with meeting other people. Long hours at work, limited opportunities in bars, which was never a good idea except for quickies anyhow, and the modern environment Where some women believe you talking to her is harassment if she isn't interested.
So a system where the first step - the expressed interest of the woman - is pretty handy for both sexes,
Slashdot Mirror
Distance doesn't matter. It's all down to how many degrees of your vision that the screen takes up.
Yes it does. In order to have the same effect of the curvature, a screen at 10 feet has to have much more curvature at 10 feet that 2 feet, no matter how much of your FOV it occupies.
Curved monitors do make sense for the desktop PC, where you're sitting very close to the screen. They make no sense whatsoever in the living room, though. You're far too far away for the curve to make any noticeable difference
It's a scalable situation. If the TV occupies a similar viewing angle to your monitor, then curvature would have just the same impact. As I type this, my laptop's screen occupies about the same amount of my view as my further-away TV.
That doesn't mean I don't also think it's a bit of a pointless fad, though.
It's a percentage thing. The distance you are sitting from the screen and the amount of curvature are much smaller relatively. The relative distance of say a two inch curvature is much more at two feet than it is at 10 feet. At 10 feet that much curvature makes it flat for all practical purposes.
I'm surprised more criminals don't give their phones to someone else while they are breaking the law, to create an alibi. The cops will get the cell records and datarape the phone, generating evidence that can then be used in the criminal's own defence.
And here's one that always gets me into trouble on Slashdot. I am perfectly happy to have my gas purchases easily found. I even broadcast my position via APRS, which timestamps my location and broadcasts it to the world That's a s part of a hobby. I don't care about cell phone tracking, or video camera recording. While many here think that they need to be ghosts, I've figured that this stuff will stand a better chance of giving me a very good alibi if I need one. Some people who have been accused of crimes have already been exonerated. I've been trying to find the story of a New York man arrested for sexual assault, but his claim of leaving his work at the time proved he was indeed at work at the time. If I do, I will post it.
That may be rather difficult to do if you're detained and they're not willing to release you. I suppose that you could use your phone to make a call...
I love dry humor. Let's hope this gets modded up.
No, this is not about charging "anything they want". This is about charging the market equilibrium price to eliminate traffic congestion. Please try to stay on topic.
Of course it is. And it was a comparison, sorry if you can't see that. It is rather obvious that charging more than most people can/will pay will encompass people who are cheap/ don't care/ or would like to, but they cannot afford it. First two are fine - the third, not as much.
How about another idea? How about charging per lane. Right lane nothing. Passing lane a charge that will keep most people out of the passing lane. The same for each other lane of traffic until the inner lane uses a bidding process that goes to the highest bidder. If someone wants to pay a million bucks a day then they are the only one who can use that lane.
Ridiculous? Hell yeah. But in principle, you need to like it. Market price and all. And it will be exceptionally popular with everyone else.
Why did what he said make you so angry?
Huh? I was in full tease mode. Kinda like when your crazy uncle Louie shows up at family gatherings and brags about not having an email address, and I tease him about all the women he must get by being such an independent stud. In this case, I just gave AC a little telling. Maybe he takes telling, maybe not. If I had to assign an emotion to it, it might be to feel badly because I ridiculed the guy who thinks that he is somehow more "secure" because of having a feature phone, or whatever it is he has. Then again, nahhh. Peace out, Bing.
Such a brave stance that--- Well, although many of us are indeed too dependent on our smartphones, they offer real utility beyond taking pictures of our food.
There is nothing about the cellular system that is secure. So use what you use as long as you are comfortable with it. AC has some weird ideas that he is somehow immune to the tracking and other possibilities that are just inherent in the system. If LE is interested, any time his phone connects to a couple towers, he's nailed. I'm not inclined to do anything illegal, but if I was, none of it would be on my cell or computer. I use the hell out of my smartphone for trip mapping and location services. The occasional tethering, and most of that is data lookup. I have no plans to get rid of mine, no matter what some AC thinks.
I'll keep my secrets in my head and stick to a $50 dumbphone with nothing in it and not even turned on for more than 1 hour a day. Seriously you people so attached to your goddamned smartphones are pathetic and I pity you.
Grandpa Gribble? they let you out of the home again?
If you are that shit shakingly paranoid about security, why on earth are you even using a device whose main feature is to track you? Without that tracking, the cellular system doesn't function. And they even keep logs.
That one hour you have it turned on, your phone is alerting your presence to teh authorities, and they be a comin ta get ya!
Correct, if the fee isn't set high enough to eliminate congestion, there will be congestion. So what's the issue?
How much you can afford is the issue. That's the point. This is alawys the problem with privately built roads. Let's take a utopian scene. Your local government has the shitz of maintaining the road past your house. So in the libertarian and Republican blessed universe, they sell it to the highest bidder. Your road now belongs to them, in no way do you have any say. So they decide to charge you anything they want to get to your house. You have no choice. So what's the issue?
Of course we want a "public Internet" but we also will raise holy hell if Company X gets to use the public facility for free and uses more than anyone else to the point where service degrades.
The rational solution to this mess is to require companies to provide X% of public service alongside their buildouts for private endeavors, thus creating a safe harbor which avoids an accounting nightmare, while allowing businesses to do business, and to have a publicly funded watchdog surveil that that bandwidth is publicly available from the outside.
But who pays who what? If the internet goes out to whoever pays the most baksheesh, and therefore gets the most bandwidth, what if the rest of us are left with precious little? I have a pretty good suspicion that the end game of this whole net neutrality fight will be that the big boys will win, and suddenly it becomes the digital equivalent of what cable TV is today. We already hear some people arguing that DSL speeds are adequate for people.
We aren't likely to get any public watchdog, and let's not forget that most people believe that bandwidth is infinite.
That's actually a really good idea, if the fee is set just high enough to eliminate congestion in that lane, but no higher, so that nobody is ever gouged and so that the managed lane isn't responsible for causing congestion in the anarchy lanes. Then if my son is sick and I have to get him to the doctor, I can pay the fee and bypass traffic. This would give me an option that I didn't have before. Options and competition are good things, right?
I don't think this is how that would work. If the tolls are not kept high, the toll lane will become just as congested as the regular lanes.
isn't the toll on the internet (or paid prioritization) what net neutrality is supposed to prevent?
That's right. You think that Republicans support Net neutrality? Certainly as late as 2015 they were calling it "Obamacare for the internet" https://www.nytimes.com/2015/0...
Charge a fee on that and let the toll road they build be free. Seriously. And this is a very red state.
Sounds about right.
Bad form to reply to my own reply - but I made a mistake in attribution. I attributed a story by Ian Bogost to Walter Scheidel. So my direct comparison to toilet fixtures was not valid. But I do stand by my assertion that Scheidel is an idealistic far left winger who cherry picks his source to fit his worldview.
I understand what your point was, but it was refuting a strawman argument no one made. The article does not state the world is better off because wars reduced income inequality. It merely states the wars reduced income inequality.
A better question rather than bringung up the exhausted "strawman" pejorative, is do you concur with him? I personally have an argument to make that he has a worldview, and conveniently forgotten or amplified his references in order to support that worldview.
As in I find that it streche scredulity to a breaking point when he asserts how the Communist revolutions in Russia created equality for it's citizens. Could you make a good argument for the income leveling of the Great leap forward in China, which directly caused between 18 million and 55 million deaths by starvation? The dead were equal in a morbid manner, but I don't think Mao missed too many meals.
And I made a mistake - I attributed a story by Ian Bogost to Walter Scheidel. So my direct comparison was not valid. But I do stand by my assertion that Scheidel is an idealistic far left winger who cherry picks his source to fit his worldview.
Please read the article before your next post. The very first sentence makes it clear it is referring to income inequality, not equality in general.
If you read a little further, He notes that voting rights and government intervention in the private sector also were a result of this. Unles she was intentionally spouting a non sequitur that you happen to know about.
I read the story, and I call Bullshit as well.
He writes how "By contrast, Latin America, which sat out the 20th century’s largest conflicts in relative isolation, duly did not see inequality drop until the early 2000s". Perhaps this source might differ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... If misery created income and voter equality, well South America should be leading the way and passed us a long time ago.
Apparently the bolshevik revolution in Russia, and the communists taking over in China was the best thing that ever happened to the world, culminating in equal prosperity for all of their citizens. DO I really need to debunk that, Is Old Joe Stalin the key to equality? The solution to the middle class's resurgence? There is more to debunk, but I find his prose annoying and in the end boring.
No,old Walt Scheidel cherry picks data with a skill a AGW denier would be proud of, and arranges his fruited narrative to fit his world view. And his world view is a combination of highly left wing idealism, and a get of my damn lawn mentality that leaves him yearning for old fashioned toilets. Speaking of, it might be a good idea to read his next story in line "Why nothing works any more" https://www.theatlantic.com/te... Oddly enough, the two stories are quite related in a scatological sort of way. 8^)
As a Republican I 100% agree that this is bull. I think it likely the issue though is that republicans instinctively lean toward less regulation and if you are not technically literate, then these requirements could be phrased by someone in such a way as to seem burdensome.
While on a long drive today, I realized two things. The first is that this is an attempt to open up a new market. The second is maybe we'll end up with people paying a fee to use the passing lanes on highways. No more of this equal access to all lanes. Seems like just an logical corollary of the war on net neutrality.
The local paper's only response to our pointing this out was to try and sell us even more expensive advertising campaigns than the ones which hadn't worked.
Crikey's, I could have written that! My local paper kept trying to get me to take out daily's that were going to cost a couple grand a month. And every so often a half page. At one point I asked if the purpose for my being in business was to give them all my money. The lady just grinned. Today they are about 25 percent of the size they used to be. Good.
I also find this .. sad. As a woman if someone is talking to me and I'm not interested it's not harassment. It may be annoying but it's not sexual unless the person escalates it beyond expressing interest and won't take no for an answer.
I talk to all kinds of men. I have no idea if any of them want to 'screw me' nor do I care. I've had men compliment me on my clothing, my hair, etc. and I've taken it as a simple compliment and nothing more.
And most women don't really care. Before around 2000, I would chat it up with anyone, male or female. And solely for the interaction. But for some reason, we have decided to listen to those who are trying to scrub normal male-female interactions off the face of the earth. There are some who think that this might have some relationship with the falling marriage rate. I don't know that there is only one causative factor, but many men have chosen to pursue other things like career and recreational activities and their bank account.
If I were a woman, I would be pretty pissed at the third wave feminists for damaging my life.
She wants to try a dating service because she wants some strange.
She thinks I'm pretty strange.
Where some women believe you talking to her is harassment if she isn't interested.
Maybe you should take the hint. I find it annoying when someone talks to me when I'm clearly not interested, but maybe I'm unusual.
Actually, my reference was to the act of talking to the woman ever, at all. I saw a Q and A session where a group of women were asked if talking to a woman was sexual harassment if she wasn't interested - Most said yes. Because the simple act of talking to a woman is not saying you want to screw her, and women have been taught that any male who isn't gay wants to screw her. Sad when they look at the world obsessed with the thought that everyone wants to screw them. And you needn't worry, unless I have been properly introduced, I will not speak to a woman at all. Even then, it is to say "hello" and no more. I wonder if ignoring women is a form of sexual harassment?
They will undoubtedly also be placed on the same network as, or on a network with access to, administrative computers to make for easier ransomware propagation...
Some times it seems we are incapable of learning.
You can deduct a *lot* from tracking a user these days. Especially with all the data smartphone apps offer up to their suppliers. You basically have a more complete and trustworthy personal profile of a person than the person could probably even willingly give themselves.
But here's the rub. While these things go after compatibility and look for similarities, there is something to be said for differences as well. I'm coming up on my 40th anniversary, yet my wife and I are almost ridiculously different. We are roughly the same IQ, but she is very people oriented and sociable. Has a ton of friends. One of te most friendly people you'll meet, with a slightly dirty sense of humor.
Me, First of all, I'm kind of irritating, and hyper analytical. I have just a few close friends, and until I analyze a person, am very reticent with them. I'm an outside person, she only is when on vacation. I'm a bit of a thrill seeker, she isn't. We are seriously opposite But we actually use these differences rather than insist that the other be like we are.
She wants us to try one of these dating services because she says we'd be the last two people they would hook up together.
People are the problem, not the match-making system.
And people are having some issues with meeting other people. Long hours at work, limited opportunities in bars, which was never a good idea except for quickies anyhow, and the modern environment Where some women believe you talking to her is harassment if she isn't interested.
So a system where the first step - the expressed interest of the woman - is pretty handy for both sexes,
No, I rather die alone with meaningful or meaningless death than submit myself to the system.
Well, you're halfway there.