Apple doesn't know how to do sub-pixel hinting for reasons I can't comprehend.
Sub-pixel hinting is what you use when the eye can perceive individual pixels, not very necessary when the eye can't. Apple knows how to do it since OS X has it, and Apple even had an early analog form of it in the Apple ][.
As far as text sharpness goes, anything but the iPhone strains my eyes. I never could stand LCD anti-aliasing, and still can't run an LCD in anything but native resolution.
And Apple "Retina" displays are also IPS. Pentile basically means you can forget the resolution number they give. It's probably not going to look as clear as an iPad even though the resolution specs are higher.
Christian violence for purposes of spreading the religion or punishing unbelievers pretty much doesn't exist in the US. Of the couple hundred million Christians we have, maybe there's one modern example? I can't think of one. Otherwise what he have is the abortion clinic murders and bombings, which were in the minds of the perpetrators only meant to prevent the murder of innocent babies by slaying the murderers first. Even an atheist could have that motive.
True, this word has acquired a stigma in the language, one that denotes lack of intelligence where, as Dawkins notes, there really is none in the word. But you can't simply ask questions and answer rebuttals. They already have rebuttals fed to them, and holes in their understanding simply do not exist. The important part is this: Evolution would mess up their worldview, and therefore it simply cannot be true.
However, don't be too quick to judge everybody to be like this. I get classified with them when it comes to globalwarmingcoolingclimatechange, but I have no problem with the concept of man-made global warming. We've screwed so much up, so why not that too? I'd be surprised if we didn't. But I have questions, mainly related to AGW as a political and socioeconomic movement with non-scientific motives corrupting the scientific community. There's a LOT of money and power at stake with government and corporate rulers (yes, corporations and the rich who run them have aligned themselves to reap the benefits of government AGW policies, hello Solyndra). It has also attained a quasi-religious status, with any who question treated as blasphemers and heretics, the automatic claim that you must be a corporate stooge (I guess as opposed to a stooge of corporations benefitting from AGW policies) reminiscient of chants of "Devil Worshipper!" Government and corporate power and money with religion thrown in, the ultimate combination for bringing out my distrust.
Meanwhile, natural selection fought its way up from underdog status, despite persecution from religious governments, for over 100 years. It definitely succeeded on the merits, not on government and corporate dictates.
Because there's nothing in the Constitution or federal law or treaty that supersedes Texas' election laws. The Constitution, the supreme law in this matter, supports Texas' authority.
The "found" ballots seem to be overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate.
The only thing that saved that judge election in Wisconsin is that one county clerk holding back several thousand valid ballots (I don't believe her claim of accident). It gave the Democrats a false target of how many votes needed to be "found" to win, and they fell short.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 gave congressional approval for the invasion of Iraq. Nothing called a "declaration of war" is required, only congressional authorization in some form.
If if you want to go there, try Obama's attack on Libya. That received no congressional authorization, and continued over 60 days still with no congressional authorization. Congressmen of his own party were chastising Obama for violating the War Powers Act, even calling the attack an impeachable offense.
And, honestly, if someone who is legally clear is stupid enough to be stopped from voting by these billboards, then we really don't want his vote counting in the election because it will not be a clear and informed choice. Idiocracy is here.
As opposed to the guy who's administration started planning mass warrantless wiretapping before 911 even happened.
You think the guy who wanted a backdoor into all of our encryption would have been any better? He's a champion of the government micromanaging people and businesses under the auspices of environment. He belives in a government with broad powers over its people.
You mean, they had a fundraiser for Gore
And he attended. How nice. This would still be news had it been a Republican politician.
There you go again, parading around teabagger urban legend
The Tea Party wasn't around back then. It's not an urban legend, only Gore supporters give him the benefit of the doubt.
Now, tell us, again, why you hate Dan Rather.
I don't hate him, but he doesn't have any credibility as a journalist after trying to push forged documents as real in order to derail a political campaign.
Clinton failed to get Bin Laddin, but he tried.
Clinton had several chances to get Bin Laden after active planning for 9/11 started in 1998, after the successful embassy bombings that gave Clinton serious warnings of the terrorism directed against us. He took none of them. Bush did screw up, but his were only the final few in a long series of screw-ups that allowed 9/11 to happen.
Apple's dominated the tablet market for so long; why risk throwing away that dominance for a bit of temporary profit?
Because they still dominate. The full-sized iPad is still leading the market despite being twice as expensive, so there's no need for price parity with the competition. I'd expect the price to come down if one of the competition actually catches on in a big way, threatening the iPad's position.
Thin notebooks, thick notebooks, which cost more, other hardware specs being approximately equal? Thin commands a price premium in portables. So does light weight.
For the side bezels, I see pictures of people holding it portrait with fingers of one hand gripping the sides, and it's easier to hold this way with a thinner product. For landscape viewing, which is too big for a hand, you get the now side bezels thicker for gripping.
You want change, stop putting corporate puppet whores in house and senate.
You're right, we need to get rid of corporate whores Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi. What, all top Democrats you say? Yep, all top recipients of corporate cash too.
Yes, the list at the top has about the same number of Republicans. That's the point, the whoring is bipartisan, not just Republican as you believe.
Remember Obama saying 97% of small businesses wouldn't be hit by tax raises, which would of course hit the employees? That implies just the few rich get hit, right inline with his class warfare strategy. Remember the reply? Those 3% that would be hit account for 50% of small business employees.
CEO Obama wants to literally squeeze more money out of these small businesses, and hide the fact of how many employees would be affected.
Even if much of the government money went to innovative companies that are struggling to get their product to market (i.e. Solyndra), that's pretty much where government money should be going -- if
That wasn't the problem. As you note, the government is basically doing what Romney did at Bain, venture capital. Staples employs 90,000 employees today after Romney's successful VC investment. Bain under Romney and his successors also made some unsuccessful investments, attempts to revive hurting companies that ultimately failed, and others that had to have jobs shipped overseas to become profitable (in the Obama campaign example, that was under management of a major Obama campaign bundler).
In fact, supporters of Bush/Republicans shouldn't even complain about the program since it was initiated under Bush. It had various checks and balances in place for the beancounters to make sure the government wouldn't get ripped off, or make obviously bad investments. Hopefully these checks would also stop the corruption commonly found when government is giving money to businesses.
The problem with Solyndra is the crony capitalism and corruption involved. Under Bush, when Solyndra applied for the program, the beancounters said they didn't think it was a good investment and it stalled until the end of his term. But with some big Obama supporters behind Solyndra lobbying the new administration, and with the new administration wanting to publicize the green energy platform, they pushed the deal through over the objections of the beancounters. These beancounters actually predicted the month that Solyndra would run out of money, and the administration's answer was to hand out dollars. Insiders reported that Solyndra had been blowing money like a dotcom, buying luxurious trappings, buying expensive equipment that just sat there (later to be sold for pennies on the dollar). The administration didn't care.
That is not the way you run VC, or at least not how any competent businessman who remembers the dotcom bust would. I cannot see Romney running a program like this that way, since it is counter to his very nature. In fact, instead of complaining about the program, Romney should be pointing out the Obama administration's corruption in running it, green tax dollars going to Obama-friendly 1%ers instead of into actual green technology.
There you go. It is thinner and lighter, which does matter, and for which in the mobile space you always pay a premium. As far as the bezel, it doesn't look like it's meant to hold like an iPad. I'd have to get my hands on one to see if it's comfortable, but I'm betting Apple had dozens of people hold it to test comfort.
Nexus 7 16 GB is priced at $250, $80 less. For that price you'll get a device that has a smaller screen (although higher-resolution), yet still manages to be 30% bigger, and is missing the 5 MP rear camera. When it comes to portables, smaller size always demands a premium.
Gore was far from perfect. The encryption thing showed he was an autocrat who didn't want anybody to be able to have privacy from the government in the digital age. That is a scary attitude from the man who would be king.
We had the guy whose incompetence allowed the WTC attack to happen: Bill Clinton. 9/11 was the result of failed intelligence and foreign policy for years prior to it.
I agree Bush might be in the bottom five though, right next to Obama.
Criticism of the Constitution isn't taboo. Deciding you don't like it and then just doing whatever the hell you want, and having a court change it on the fly to support it, that's what's taboo.
I fully support amendments to the Constitution to fix some things that are wrong. Unfortunately, one of the things that is wrong was changed by amendment, the direct election of senators.
We would have gotten the guy who was the champion of the government having a backdoor into all of our private encryption, and led the Clinton administration's effort on it. We would have gotten the guy who actually had a fundraiser at the home of the demented, hateful Westboro Baptist clan. We would have gotten the guy who voted on the Gulf War resolution based on whether he would get more podium time in the debate about it.
Obama was by far the least-qualified person to be elected President in recent history, so Romney can't do much worse. At least he has executive experience, and extensive experience working with foreign governments (Olympics). Obama has surrounded himself with liberal syncophants, so anything Romney does can't be worse. But Romney does have a history of hiring moderates, so we'll probably get better.
Good example: Romney actually pushed his healthcare bill through with bipartisan support in the legislature. Obama had to have his party ram his through Congress without a vote in the end because it didn't have enough support, even in his own party.
That's not going to work. A third party will only get in if the two parties allow it, regardless of the rules. Perot was allowed in for 1992 because Bush though it would take votes from Clinton. Perot did so well that the CPD (Commission on Presidential Debates) changed the rules for 1996. They added a requirement that the candidate must be endorsed by a substantial number of news outlets, "substantial" to be decided by the CPD for each case. They decided that Perot's support wasn't "substantial" enough, so he was excluded from the debates.
So if you think making the 15% threshhold will help, it won't. If we are very lucky and the CPD's hand is forced to let a third party in, the rules will surely be changed for the next election, stopping the momentum.
Remember, the debates were run by the League of Women Voters, but in 1988 Bush and Dukakis got together and agreed to a rule set that would benefit both of them, and only them. They refused to debate unless these rules were met. The LWV then pulled out of the debates, not just wanting to be a host subservient to the parties, and the two parties created the CPD to run them. Thus, the debates are purely a Democrat/Republican vehicle, not real debates.
Slashdot Mirror
And we're on 5th generation. I didn't realize they were still selling the old one.
Sub-pixel hinting is what you use when the eye can perceive individual pixels, not very necessary when the eye can't. Apple knows how to do it since OS X has it, and Apple even had an early analog form of it in the Apple ][.
As far as text sharpness goes, anything but the iPhone strains my eyes. I never could stand LCD anti-aliasing, and still can't run an LCD in anything but native resolution.
I thought all current Apple Retina displays used IPS. The iPad does, the iPhone does, the iPod Touch does, and I'm pretty sure the MacBooks do.
And Apple "Retina" displays are also IPS. Pentile basically means you can forget the resolution number they give. It's probably not going to look as clear as an iPad even though the resolution specs are higher.
Not even Westboro uses violence.
Christian violence for purposes of spreading the religion or punishing unbelievers pretty much doesn't exist in the US. Of the couple hundred million Christians we have, maybe there's one modern example? I can't think of one. Otherwise what he have is the abortion clinic murders and bombings, which were in the minds of the perpetrators only meant to prevent the murder of innocent babies by slaying the murderers first. Even an atheist could have that motive.
Microsoft has had their OS in tablets for years and they never took off. The reason: They tried to be both a tablet and a PC.
The iPad showed tablets work great as tablets, not PCs, and vice-versa, and in one year probably sold more than all other tablets combined in history.
Now Ballmer wants to do the combined tablet/PC again. Honest, it'll work this time.
True, this word has acquired a stigma in the language, one that denotes lack of intelligence where, as Dawkins notes, there really is none in the word. But you can't simply ask questions and answer rebuttals. They already have rebuttals fed to them, and holes in their understanding simply do not exist. The important part is this: Evolution would mess up their worldview, and therefore it simply cannot be true.
However, don't be too quick to judge everybody to be like this. I get classified with them when it comes to globalwarmingcoolingclimatechange, but I have no problem with the concept of man-made global warming. We've screwed so much up, so why not that too? I'd be surprised if we didn't. But I have questions, mainly related to AGW as a political and socioeconomic movement with non-scientific motives corrupting the scientific community. There's a LOT of money and power at stake with government and corporate rulers (yes, corporations and the rich who run them have aligned themselves to reap the benefits of government AGW policies, hello Solyndra). It has also attained a quasi-religious status, with any who question treated as blasphemers and heretics, the automatic claim that you must be a corporate stooge (I guess as opposed to a stooge of corporations benefitting from AGW policies) reminiscient of chants of "Devil Worshipper!" Government and corporate power and money with religion thrown in, the ultimate combination for bringing out my distrust.
Meanwhile, natural selection fought its way up from underdog status, despite persecution from religious governments, for over 100 years. It definitely succeeded on the merits, not on government and corporate dictates.
Because there's nothing in the Constitution or federal law or treaty that supersedes Texas' election laws. The Constitution, the supreme law in this matter, supports Texas' authority.
The "found" ballots seem to be overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate.
The only thing that saved that judge election in Wisconsin is that one county clerk holding back several thousand valid ballots (I don't believe her claim of accident). It gave the Democrats a false target of how many votes needed to be "found" to win, and they fell short.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 gave congressional approval for the invasion of Iraq. Nothing called a "declaration of war" is required, only congressional authorization in some form.
If if you want to go there, try Obama's attack on Libya. That received no congressional authorization, and continued over 60 days still with no congressional authorization. Congressmen of his own party were chastising Obama for violating the War Powers Act, even calling the attack an impeachable offense.
The truth cannot be fraud.
And, honestly, if someone who is legally clear is stupid enough to be stopped from voting by these billboards, then we really don't want his vote counting in the election because it will not be a clear and informed choice. Idiocracy is here.
You think the guy who wanted a backdoor into all of our encryption would have been any better? He's a champion of the government micromanaging people and businesses under the auspices of environment. He belives in a government with broad powers over its people.
And he attended. How nice. This would still be news had it been a Republican politician.
The Tea Party wasn't around back then. It's not an urban legend, only Gore supporters give him the benefit of the doubt.
I don't hate him, but he doesn't have any credibility as a journalist after trying to push forged documents as real in order to derail a political campaign.
Clinton had several chances to get Bin Laden after active planning for 9/11 started in 1998, after the successful embassy bombings that gave Clinton serious warnings of the terrorism directed against us. He took none of them. Bush did screw up, but his were only the final few in a long series of screw-ups that allowed 9/11 to happen.
Because they still dominate. The full-sized iPad is still leading the market despite being twice as expensive, so there's no need for price parity with the competition. I'd expect the price to come down if one of the competition actually catches on in a big way, threatening the iPad's position.
Windows 7 = NT 6.1
Windows 8 = NT 6.2
More than a service pack, but much less than a complete change.
Thin notebooks, thick notebooks, which cost more, other hardware specs being approximately equal? Thin commands a price premium in portables. So does light weight.
For the side bezels, I see pictures of people holding it portrait with fingers of one hand gripping the sides, and it's easier to hold this way with a thinner product. For landscape viewing, which is too big for a hand, you get the now side bezels thicker for gripping.
You're right, we need to get rid of corporate whores Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi. What, all top Democrats you say? Yep, all top recipients of corporate cash too.
Yes, the list at the top has about the same number of Republicans. That's the point, the whoring is bipartisan, not just Republican as you believe.
Remember Obama saying 97% of small businesses wouldn't be hit by tax raises, which would of course hit the employees? That implies just the few rich get hit, right inline with his class warfare strategy. Remember the reply? Those 3% that would be hit account for 50% of small business employees.
CEO Obama wants to literally squeeze more money out of these small businesses, and hide the fact of how many employees would be affected.
That wasn't the problem. As you note, the government is basically doing what Romney did at Bain, venture capital. Staples employs 90,000 employees today after Romney's successful VC investment. Bain under Romney and his successors also made some unsuccessful investments, attempts to revive hurting companies that ultimately failed, and others that had to have jobs shipped overseas to become profitable (in the Obama campaign example, that was under management of a major Obama campaign bundler).
In fact, supporters of Bush/Republicans shouldn't even complain about the program since it was initiated under Bush. It had various checks and balances in place for the beancounters to make sure the government wouldn't get ripped off, or make obviously bad investments. Hopefully these checks would also stop the corruption commonly found when government is giving money to businesses.
The problem with Solyndra is the crony capitalism and corruption involved. Under Bush, when Solyndra applied for the program, the beancounters said they didn't think it was a good investment and it stalled until the end of his term. But with some big Obama supporters behind Solyndra lobbying the new administration, and with the new administration wanting to publicize the green energy platform, they pushed the deal through over the objections of the beancounters. These beancounters actually predicted the month that Solyndra would run out of money, and the administration's answer was to hand out dollars. Insiders reported that Solyndra had been blowing money like a dotcom, buying luxurious trappings, buying expensive equipment that just sat there (later to be sold for pennies on the dollar). The administration didn't care.
That is not the way you run VC, or at least not how any competent businessman who remembers the dotcom bust would. I cannot see Romney running a program like this that way, since it is counter to his very nature. In fact, instead of complaining about the program, Romney should be pointing out the Obama administration's corruption in running it, green tax dollars going to Obama-friendly 1%ers instead of into actual green technology.
There you go. It is thinner and lighter, which does matter, and for which in the mobile space you always pay a premium. As far as the bezel, it doesn't look like it's meant to hold like an iPad. I'd have to get my hands on one to see if it's comfortable, but I'm betting Apple had dozens of people hold it to test comfort.
Nexus 7 16 GB is priced at $250, $80 less. For that price you'll get a device that has a smaller screen (although higher-resolution), yet still manages to be 30% bigger, and is missing the 5 MP rear camera. When it comes to portables, smaller size always demands a premium.
Gore was far from perfect. The encryption thing showed he was an autocrat who didn't want anybody to be able to have privacy from the government in the digital age. That is a scary attitude from the man who would be king.
We had the guy whose incompetence allowed the WTC attack to happen: Bill Clinton. 9/11 was the result of failed intelligence and foreign policy for years prior to it.
I agree Bush might be in the bottom five though, right next to Obama.
Criticism of the Constitution isn't taboo. Deciding you don't like it and then just doing whatever the hell you want, and having a court change it on the fly to support it, that's what's taboo.
I fully support amendments to the Constitution to fix some things that are wrong. Unfortunately, one of the things that is wrong was changed by amendment, the direct election of senators.
We would have gotten the guy who was the champion of the government having a backdoor into all of our private encryption, and led the Clinton administration's effort on it. We would have gotten the guy who actually had a fundraiser at the home of the demented, hateful Westboro Baptist clan. We would have gotten the guy who voted on the Gulf War resolution based on whether he would get more podium time in the debate about it.
Obama was by far the least-qualified person to be elected President in recent history, so Romney can't do much worse. At least he has executive experience, and extensive experience working with foreign governments (Olympics). Obama has surrounded himself with liberal syncophants, so anything Romney does can't be worse. But Romney does have a history of hiring moderates, so we'll probably get better.
Good example: Romney actually pushed his healthcare bill through with bipartisan support in the legislature. Obama had to have his party ram his through Congress without a vote in the end because it didn't have enough support, even in his own party.
That's not going to work. A third party will only get in if the two parties allow it, regardless of the rules. Perot was allowed in for 1992 because Bush though it would take votes from Clinton. Perot did so well that the CPD (Commission on Presidential Debates) changed the rules for 1996. They added a requirement that the candidate must be endorsed by a substantial number of news outlets, "substantial" to be decided by the CPD for each case. They decided that Perot's support wasn't "substantial" enough, so he was excluded from the debates.
So if you think making the 15% threshhold will help, it won't. If we are very lucky and the CPD's hand is forced to let a third party in, the rules will surely be changed for the next election, stopping the momentum.
Remember, the debates were run by the League of Women Voters, but in 1988 Bush and Dukakis got together and agreed to a rule set that would benefit both of them, and only them. They refused to debate unless these rules were met. The LWV then pulled out of the debates, not just wanting to be a host subservient to the parties, and the two parties created the CPD to run them. Thus, the debates are purely a Democrat/Republican vehicle, not real debates.