GPU power becomes less of a problem at extremely high resolutions. Upscaling actaully looks decent if if the output resolution is an integer ratio of the input resolution, or several times greater. Back in the CRT days it was standard practice to adjust your video resolution to the highest value that gave acceptable 3D performance.
Why would the physical size of the display matter? Within +- 30% or so, as long as it has enough pixels to display a full page legibly, it should work fine for letter and A4 documents.
It'll address that resolution, sure, but it won't display it. I own one such Trinitron. The aperture grille pitch is about 1 pixel wide at 1600x1200. To meet the Nyquist sampling condition, the electron beams must be defocused to at least half that. The resolution of a 1600x1200 LCD is effectively greater than that of a 1600x1200 CRT. Furthermore, the LCD can use subpixel rendering.
You must work in my University's IT department. The idiots can't even figure out how to put home directories on the CIFS share, but they managed to 'disable' (by hiding) notepad and paint, and prohibit users from right clicking on the taskbar.
Protip: 'Install' means nothing. Unless you only allow users to run cryptographically signed binaries, they can use whatever the hell web browser they want. And frankly, which web browsers people use is none of your business.
It's even entirely reasonable (and neutral) for the ISP to have tiered service where QoS levels are charged at different amounts and you can opt to have certain protocols QoS'd at different levels.
That would be awesome. 10 GB/month of high priority transfer and unlimited bulk transfer would be much more useful than 250 GB of best-effort for everybody. Alas, nobody does it.
It's not neutral if the ISPs own brand VOIP gets high QoS for free whereas you have to pay extra for generic VOIP.
What if the ISP provides a non-IP video-on-demand service and gives it a dedicated channel, while lumping IP streaming video (Netflix) and torrents into best-effort and capping transfer at some restrictive value, say 250 GB/month? This is actaully happening right now.
Many places have exceptions for this, typically allowing it if the age gap is less than something like four years (and sometimes requiring that they're in a dating-type relationship). Those exceptions would, in principle, allow a 14 year-old to have sex with an 18 year-old, so we consider that a 14 year-old is able to give consent in this scenario. What if the older partner is 19 years old (or the age gap is 4 years and one day)? Why do we consider the 14 year-old able to give consent in one case, but not the other? What about if the younger one was 12, and the older one was 17? Is that different from the case where they're both 12? If you have a 12 year-old and a 17 year-old, and you allow that, why would you suddenly not allow it one year later when they're 13 and 18?
Given some distribution of ages at which people become capable of giving meaningful consent, we have legislated a particular age because it is often infeasible to determine if a person was capable of meaningful consent at the time of the act. The age of the other party has no bearing on a person's ability to give meaningful consent to an act.
We also decided that it is unfair to prosecute a person for (arguably) consensual acts with persons in their peer group. These exceptions are the result. It seems to me that given total knowledge, we should choose whether or not to prosecute based on whether each party could reasonably have determined whether the other party was capable of meaningful consent. This would depend on appearance, behavior, intoxication, and yes, the psychological maturity of the more mature party.
If the drive contains confidenial information on it that would be very costly if it got into the wrong hands, you're a retard for not encrypting it in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm typing this on a 12.1" 1280x800 laptop, and I can't see any pixels.
You need to get your eyes checked.
GPU power becomes less of a problem at extremely high resolutions. Upscaling actaully looks decent if if the output resolution is an integer ratio of the input resolution, or several times greater. Back in the CRT days it was standard practice to adjust your video resolution to the highest value that gave acceptable 3D performance.
Netcraft, obviously.
Do you read Slashdot with your peripheral vision? Thought not.
Why would the physical size of the display matter? Within +- 30% or so, as long as it has enough pixels to display a full page legibly, it should work fine for letter and A4 documents.
1920x1080 on 27'' is only 81 PPI. Eew.
A good portion of your screen is in peripheral vision anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AcuityHumanEye.svg
It'll address that resolution, sure, but it won't display it. I own one such Trinitron. The aperture grille pitch is about 1 pixel wide at 1600x1200. To meet the Nyquist sampling condition, the electron beams must be defocused to at least half that. The resolution of a 1600x1200 LCD is effectively greater than that of a 1600x1200 CRT. Furthermore, the LCD can use subpixel rendering.
Test it yourself: generate images consisting of alternating lines at 1 pixel spacing, and display them at 1:1 scaling on your CRT.
You must work in my University's IT department. The idiots can't even figure out how to put home directories on the CIFS share, but they managed to 'disable' (by hiding) notepad and paint, and prohibit users from right clicking on the taskbar.
Protip: 'Install' means nothing. Unless you only allow users to run cryptographically signed binaries, they can use whatever the hell web browser they want. And frankly, which web browsers people use is none of your business.
natural sugars and are healthy
Processed table sugar is unhealthy in any amount.
Damn. Stagnated indeed.
But they have a right to make money for their product.
No, they do not. They have at best, a right to try.
It's even entirely reasonable (and neutral) for the ISP to have tiered service where QoS levels are charged at different amounts and you can opt to have certain protocols QoS'd at different levels.
That would be awesome. 10 GB/month of high priority transfer and unlimited bulk transfer would be much more useful than 250 GB of best-effort for everybody. Alas, nobody does it.
It's not neutral if the ISPs own brand VOIP gets high QoS for free whereas you have to pay extra for generic VOIP.
What if the ISP provides a non-IP video-on-demand service and gives it a dedicated channel, while lumping IP streaming video (Netflix) and torrents into best-effort and capping transfer at some restrictive value, say 250 GB/month? This is actaully happening right now.
just good old fashioned stealing no matter how you slice it.
Please, regale us with your common sense folk wisdom.
Artificially increasing supply? The supply of information is, by default, practically unlimited. Anything else is an artificial restriction.
Change tab, in firefox and many terminal emulators.
Right control is necessary for one-handed ctrl-pgup and ctrl-pgdn.
And god help you if you don't have a super key.
giving legislators reasons to throw harsher laws on everyone else.
Only slaves fear masters.
Many places have exceptions for this, typically allowing it if the age gap is less than something like four years (and sometimes requiring that they're in a dating-type relationship). Those exceptions would, in principle, allow a 14 year-old to have sex with an 18 year-old, so we consider that a 14 year-old is able to give consent in this scenario. What if the older partner is 19 years old (or the age gap is 4 years and one day)? Why do we consider the 14 year-old able to give consent in one case, but not the other? What about if the younger one was 12, and the older one was 17? Is that different from the case where they're both 12? If you have a 12 year-old and a 17 year-old, and you allow that, why would you suddenly not allow it one year later when they're 13 and 18?
Given some distribution of ages at which people become capable of giving meaningful consent, we have legislated a particular age because it is often infeasible to determine if a person was capable of meaningful consent at the time of the act. The age of the other party has no bearing on a person's ability to give meaningful consent to an act.
We also decided that it is unfair to prosecute a person for (arguably) consensual acts with persons in their peer group. These exceptions are the result. It seems to me that given total knowledge, we should choose whether or not to prosecute based on whether each party could reasonably have determined whether the other party was capable of meaningful consent. This would depend on appearance, behavior, intoxication, and yes, the psychological maturity of the more mature party.
Not an unencrypted one, no. But there's little reason to actually *have* an unencrypted hard drive.
If the drive contains confidenial information on it that would be very costly if it got into the wrong hands, you're a retard for not encrypting it in the first place.
Yes. Creating Zynga was a bad thing.
The cost of which is nearly independent of how many people choose to pay an extra $75 for Windows.
The UI sucks, and the trackpads aren't part of the operating system.
>u
>u
>u
>u
>u
>u
>u
>u
>u
>u
Stop doing that.