I think you misunderstood him; he stated the following situation.
Driver A drives truck X. Driver B drives truck Y.
Just before the mandatory rest, they both stop and switch trucks.
Driver B drives truck X. Driver A drives truck Y.
Unless you cross-reference the logs from truck X and truck Y, there's no way of telling that driver B wasn't in the sleeper while driver A was driving and vice-versa.
I just took a several-hundred-mile trip, and for the first time* I used a GPS. The GPS unit was recording speeds and distances about 10% less than my speedometer/odometer.
Explains why I've never got a speeding ticket*, I guess.
That is what they explicitly mean, at least in many states (that, "and if faster traffic than me comes up behind, I should get to the right and let them pass to my left").
It doesn't matter if you're driving 65, 75, or 95, or what the speed limit is: if a faster-moving vehicle comes up behind you, in many (most?) states you are legally obligated to move to the right and allow it to pass if it's possible and safe to do so.
960 is also more vertical pixels than 900 (i.e. 1600x900). Granted, that's only 60 pixels, but I did miss them when I switched from 1280x960 to 1600x900.
There is no way on LCD displays to set a non-native resolution that isn't interpolated and blurry.
Yes there is. It's called "Centered".
It's usually in either the BIOS settings or the display adapter settings in Windows.
Add the Windows-specific problem with icons rearranging themselves and remembered window sizes, and there are plenty of good reasons for keeping the screen resolution.
Extend the Windows desktop. Each display can have its own resolution. PowerPoint displays the current slide on both displays.
Text is narrower than it is tall. As a result, it can be much better represented by pixels (or sub-pixels) that are also narrower than they are tall than it can be by pixels that are shorter than they are wide.
Yes, glare is a problem for a desktop PC because you have to position the display so that it doesn't get reflections.
In the same sense that viewing angle is a problem for a desktop PC because if you face the LCD display toward the wall, you can't see it.
The point is, at least with a TV or desktop computer you aren't MOVING it. You use laptops under arbitrary conditions so you're continually having to move it to avoid glare, whereas a TV or desktop computer you only really have to position it once, and after that you no longer have problems with glare.
What's even worse is when a 16:9 DVD is played on a DVD player that adds black bars to make it 4:3 and then sends it to... a 16:9 LCD display, where it's squashed and STILL has black bars. I mean... displaying a 16:9 picture on a 16:9 display? How can you possibly fuck that up?
Because unless you're using a computer as your DVD player, it probably only supports one output aspect ratio anyway (4:3), which means that it has to add black bands to the top/bottom for widescreen DVDs anyway, and then your TV has to either:
A) squish the 4:3 picture into the 16:9 display, like most of them do, or B) display the 4:3 picture in the middle of the 16:9 display and add black bands to the LEFT AND RIGHT SIDES TOO, or C) crop the top/bottom off the 4:3 picture and zoom it to fill the 16:9 display
All of which are wrong, for various reasons. I have yet to see a DVD player that can output at 16:9. Or maybe I just don't know anyone who spent the money to buy a good enough DVD player to do it. But any laptop does it easily if you install a decent DVD player.
Pff. The thing that REALLY makes me want to rip out my hair and gouge at my eyeballs with my fingernails is when the TV has a 16:9 display aspect but the output device still creates a 4:3 picture from your 16:9 widescreen DVD... so you STILL end up with black bands on your nice widescreen display... and on top of that, THE PICTURE IS SMASHED.
But otherwise, yeah, I'd agree with you... there's nothing wrong with black bands as long as the picture is displayed with the right damn aspect.
Overall, though, it's enough of a hassle to say the hell with DVD players; computers work better. Either VLC or SMPlayer can set a custom pixel aspect if need be so the aspect on the display will be correct no matter what.
Since they said "of information", I'm assuming they are talking about how much space it would take if the scanned text was run through OCR and stored without compression.
As of April 2011, the Library has collected about 235 terabytes of data (one terabyte = 1,024 gigabytes). The archives grow at a rate of about 5 terabytes a month.
Oh, I dunno, what's the difference between burning a white bedsheet and burning a piece of red, white and blue fabric that looks exactly like a US flag?
I wasn't aware that the OPFOR of AA were of any particular nationality; they had generic camouflaged uniforms which didn't bear any national flag insignia. At least, they did when I played it. Did you play the version where you're fighting Chinese soldiers?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you misunderstood him; he stated the following situation.
Driver A drives truck X. Driver B drives truck Y.
Just before the mandatory rest, they both stop and switch trucks.
Driver B drives truck X. Driver A drives truck Y.
Unless you cross-reference the logs from truck X and truck Y, there's no way of telling that driver B wasn't in the sleeper while driver A was driving and vice-versa.
Slight?
I just took a several-hundred-mile trip, and for the first time* I used a GPS. The GPS unit was recording speeds and distances about 10% less than my speedometer/odometer.
Explains why I've never got a speeding ticket*, I guess.
*in that vehicle
That is what they explicitly mean, at least in many states (that, "and if faster traffic than me comes up behind, I should get to the right and let them pass to my left").
It doesn't matter if you're driving 65, 75, or 95, or what the speed limit is: if a faster-moving vehicle comes up behind you, in many (most?) states you are legally obligated to move to the right and allow it to pass if it's possible and safe to do so.
960 is also more vertical pixels than 900 (i.e. 1600x900). Granted, that's only 60 pixels, but I did miss them when I switched from 1280x960 to 1600x900.
There is no way on LCD displays to set a non-native resolution that isn't interpolated and blurry.
Yes there is. It's called "Centered".
It's usually in either the BIOS settings or the display adapter settings in Windows.
Add the Windows-specific problem with icons rearranging themselves and remembered window sizes, and there are plenty of good reasons for keeping the screen resolution.
Extend the Windows desktop. Each display can have its own resolution. PowerPoint displays the current slide on both displays.
Thinkpad X40 here. 12", 4:3, full size keyboard.
And a max resolution of 1024x768 (yeah, I looked it up). Fuck no, I'll take 1600x900 over that any day of the week.
FWIW, having a full-sized keyboard is a feature that actually does appeal, and the 16:9 screen fits it better.
Text is narrower than it is tall. As a result, it can be much better represented by pixels (or sub-pixels) that are also narrower than they are tall than it can be by pixels that are shorter than they are wide.
That is a proverb, not a metaphor.
However, I agree with an earlier poster when he wrote it could be used to tax a person based on the number of miles driven.
Uhh, they already write down the odometer reading when you have your vehicle inspected.
That's not a metaphor.
The # of channels isn't about volume but about location. It's not how loud the jet is, it's how it seems to roar right over your head.
Are you really that stupid?
Your ideal speaker would be real life: almost everything around you is a source of sound, at least by reflecting it.
I don't have one, but I've unsuccessfully tried to find the option in other people's DVD players.
Yes, glare is a problem for a desktop PC because you have to position the display so that it doesn't get reflections.
In the same sense that viewing angle is a problem for a desktop PC because if you face the LCD display toward the wall, you can't see it.
The point is, at least with a TV or desktop computer you aren't MOVING it. You use laptops under arbitrary conditions so you're continually having to move it to avoid glare, whereas a TV or desktop computer you only really have to position it once, and after that you no longer have problems with glare.
What's even worse is when a 16:9 DVD is played on a DVD player that adds black bars to make it 4:3 and then sends it to... a 16:9 LCD display, where it's squashed and STILL has black bars. I mean... displaying a 16:9 picture on a 16:9 display? How can you possibly fuck that up?
Because unless you're using a computer as your DVD player, it probably only supports one output aspect ratio anyway (4:3), which means that it has to add black bands to the top/bottom for widescreen DVDs anyway, and then your TV has to either:
A) squish the 4:3 picture into the 16:9 display, like most of them do, or
B) display the 4:3 picture in the middle of the 16:9 display and add black bands to the LEFT AND RIGHT SIDES TOO, or
C) crop the top/bottom off the 4:3 picture and zoom it to fill the 16:9 display
All of which are wrong, for various reasons. I have yet to see a DVD player that can output at 16:9. Or maybe I just don't know anyone who spent the money to buy a good enough DVD player to do it. But any laptop does it easily if you install a decent DVD player.
Pff. The thing that REALLY makes me want to rip out my hair and gouge at my eyeballs with my fingernails is when the TV has a 16:9 display aspect but the output device still creates a 4:3 picture from your 16:9 widescreen DVD... so you STILL end up with black bands on your nice widescreen display... and on top of that, THE PICTURE IS SMASHED.
But otherwise, yeah, I'd agree with you... there's nothing wrong with black bands as long as the picture is displayed with the right damn aspect.
Overall, though, it's enough of a hassle to say the hell with DVD players; computers work better. Either VLC or SMPlayer can set a custom pixel aspect if need be so the aspect on the display will be correct no matter what.
More likely that's going to be caused by the stuff that makes it weatherproof.
Since they said "of information", I'm assuming they are talking about how much space it would take if the scanned text was run through OCR and stored without compression.
If it's a white bedsheet, it's kind of hard to tell who should be offended. Well, unless you're French.
http://www.loc.gov/webarchiving/faq.html#5
As of April 2011, the Library has collected about 235 terabytes of data (one terabyte = 1,024 gigabytes). The archives grow at a rate of about 5 terabytes a month.
The best part is they were off by a factor of 8, since Tbps means terabits per second. Not so well played after all...
Oh, I dunno, what's the difference between burning a white bedsheet and burning a piece of red, white and blue fabric that looks exactly like a US flag?
I wasn't aware that the OPFOR of AA were of any particular nationality; they had generic camouflaged uniforms which didn't bear any national flag insignia. At least, they did when I played it. Did you play the version where you're fighting Chinese soldiers?