That would be lovely. I for one would welcome a login roadblock from my security overlord which read to the effect of, "We periodically test the strength of our user's passwords by running automated checks. These methods are similar to what an attacker might do if they gained access to our password database. We value our customers and want to ensure that we provide you the highest level of safety. Your password was flagged as being too weak, and you must change it before continuing to log in. Please verify that your session is secure (blue icon in the address bar and https: before the URL), then change your password by entering your old password and new password in the form below:"
Bonus points if there's an 800 number to speak to a live person at the bank.
They'd piss a lot of people off, but sheesh (god forbid grandpa has to change from the 4-digit PIN he's been using ever since it was his locker combination in middle school). At least they have the confidence that if things ever go pear-shaped and someone makes off with their entire password database, it won't be easily cracked. And it gives *me* the confidence that they probably know what they're doing and have their password database properly salted and protected on their end.
It's not an unintended impact. It's not an impact at all, unless the readers are bleeding morons. It was then, not now. Then was different from now. Anyone who can't understand this shouldn't read.
Fuck, the book is supposed to TEACH you what the word meant back then, whether deliberately or by osmosis from understanding the context of how the characters used it and how they reacted to its use. It's history. Learn from history, don't censor it.
You obviously have never been poor and have never had to live off minimum wage.
Never have, but could if I needed to. It would be tight, but I know I could cut back where necessary. If I was earning minimum wage, I'd be saving less, to be sure. But I wouldn't be spending much less; I don't spend much anyway.
Most of what they are talking about in this article are the cheapest forms of entertainment that are available.
Parks and playgrounds and libraries and over-the-air TV are the cheapest forms of entertainment. My tax dollars are helping to make these forms of entertainment available, so it seems a little ungrateful to ignore them.
Poor people don't buy fancy new HD TVs from Best Buy, they generally buy the coolest thing they can find at a Pawn shop or a Garage Sale, or some other second had place that may or may not be legitimate. It is quite possible to get nice stuff this way without spending even moderate sums of money on it.
Pawn shops, while usually cheaper than buying new, generally are selling exactly the sort of fancy crap that you don't really need - or might need to buy once, and then use for a fairly long time (TV or computer). I generally stay away from them unless I know what I'm buying and I'm looking for a deal.
But really, as infrequently as it occurs, I usually just splurge on those purchases and buy it from a retail store, since I have the money to do that.
I know you probably think you are too good for it, but try walking into a Salvation Army some time and look around and see what the prices are, or maybe a Goodwill somewhere.
No, believe it or not I've been in them. Many times. Pretty much anything (except for electronics) I can buy used secondhand, I typically buy used secondhand.
People have not changed that much. Many folks wasted their money at the bar, or on gambling or onions for their belts.
Some people might have wasted their money, but many saved it. Now most waste it, and some save it.
The reality is a TV cost as much as a car and their cars all sucked. So they had to keep buying them over and over.
Yes, that was the point. They tongue-in-cheek could have afforded a TV, except that they needed a new (used) car and they were saving their money for that. Now almost nobody saves their money for a new car.
Since at the time consumer credit was in its infancy they were forced to save money for another car to get to work.
And now they're free to waste their money and take out a loan for that car that will take them years to repay, mostly because they're used to wasting their money. And as soon as they've paid off that car, and no longer have the car payment coming out of their monthly expenses, they think they can afford making payments on a new car. It's ridiculous.
The point is that you could survive perfectly well, if you'd quit blowing your money on shit you don't need. And you don't need fancy, expensive entertainment.
As long as they're making the minimum payments, they won't be hit with those lethally high rates. Banks aren't stupid; you can milk a cow over and over but only skin it once.
If you ever spent a life with no entertainment, just working in order to get your next paycheck to "pay off those 18% interest credit cards", you might just realize that a really quick way of getting rid of that debt would be killing yourself. Debt gone.
Well, that's just great - saddle them with immense debt under the promise that it'll make them happy. Then entertain them enough so that they won't kill themselves.
Entertainment is the single most important thing we do. That's why we live. You're suggesting people just work to feed themselves to sleep to work the next day. Why the fuck would they do that?
Ever heard the phrase "the satisfaction of a job well done"? Or hell... here's one that will really blow your mind: "Hard work is its own reward".
Fact is, advertisers have been spending billions for decades trying to convince you that you need to be entertained 24/7. Because they know if you're suitably convinced of that, you'll pay a pretty price for it.
And 50 years ago, just about anyone who really wanted a TV could buy one - saving up for it exactly the same way they saved up for the used car. Except they didn't really want the TV that badly, and they needed the car. So they saved up for the used car instead. Because 50 years ago, they did save their money. They weren't pissing away their money on unnecessary stuff that might only cost a small fraction of their income, but adds up.
Yeah, look at the alternative to spending all that money on entertainment: they could waste it paying off those 18% interest credit cards, instead of just paying last month's interest.
From that, it's pretty obvious that at viewing distances closer than 2' you're going to get the full benefit of 1080p for anything larger than 15". From a viewing distance of 1 1/2' you'll get the full benefit of 1440p for anything over 16".
Yes, but they're called subpixels and they're not counted individually, either with respect to dithering or when you're determining whether it's a "retina" display. The pixel density of the screen is computed from groups of red/green/blue subpixels, not the density of the subpixels themselves (which needs to be 3x as high).
Can you see a single pixel? Well, yeah, probably. Even if your eye can't resolve it, it will change the overall brightness of the smallest area your eye can resolve. So, you'll "see" it.
However, can you tell if it moves over by 1 pixel? Or could you tell the difference between a straight line 1 pixel thin, vs. a line that was actually a 2-pixel tall checkerboard pattern with the same average brightness? Etc.
Turn a single pixel on or off and you can probably see that, but that doesn't mean it's significant in the overall scheme of things. Especially with anti-aliasing in addition.
The fallacy is that her time is too valuable to learn GIMP, but her budget is too cheap to buy Photoshop. Pick one or the other, not both.
If her time is really so valuable that she can't afford to spend a few hours learning GIMP, then I don't believe she really can't afford Photoshop. People's time is valuable IFF they are rich.
So IE8, by default, unless it's explicitly told to do it correctly, will render HTML according to its old, quirky, WRONG way of doing it. Is that what you're telling me?
Then again - maybe not. I think it has to have a certain position style, too. Not sure. I at least know that in IE an absolutely-positioned div with specified heights and widths will be a minimum height if you don't set the overflow property. Firefox and Opera don't need an overflow property if there is an explicit height specified.
You have to specify overflow="hidden" to force IE to make divs with heights smaller than 1 line of text. Luckily, that particular fix doesn't break compatibility with other browsers, either.
The short answer is: Nobody should be abandoning "alt" - it's required for compatibility and accessibility.
"title", if it is provided, is just a snippet of extra text that relates to the image. It should not be redundant to the image itself. Browsers which can display the image should also have some way to display its title (usually when the mouse is hovered over it). In fact, "title" is not specific to the img tag. Many HTML elements can have a title attribute.
"alt" is the alternate text, to be shown by browsers which can't display the image (search engine robots, braille displays, screen reading software). It should be redundant to the image itself. Browser which can display images can simply display the image and ignore the alt text.
Note that IE7 and previous versions of IE incorrectly displayed the "alt" text as a tooltip. That is incorrect. The "title" should be a tooltip, "alt" should not.
More reliable, how? Why does that mean the outlet has to be larger? As far as I know, the GFCI outlets used here are able to perform their intended function acceptably.
Thanks, that makes more sense. If Verizon notified the Does that their information would be handed over and they were allowed to contest it until the 12th, Verizon had no business sending their information before the time to contest had passed.
Is there any physical reason why they need to be so big? It sounds like they're over-engineered without much thought to ever actually fitting them into a wall. Some engineer sent the plan off to an architect and said "here, make this work".
Slashdot Mirror
That would be lovely. I for one would welcome a login roadblock from my security overlord which read to the effect of, "We periodically test the strength of our user's passwords by running automated checks. These methods are similar to what an attacker might do if they gained access to our password database. We value our customers and want to ensure that we provide you the highest level of safety. Your password was flagged as being too weak, and you must change it before continuing to log in. Please verify that your session is secure (blue icon in the address bar and https: before the URL), then change your password by entering your old password and new password in the form below:"
Bonus points if there's an 800 number to speak to a live person at the bank.
They'd piss a lot of people off, but sheesh (god forbid grandpa has to change from the 4-digit PIN he's been using ever since it was his locker combination in middle school). At least they have the confidence that if things ever go pear-shaped and someone makes off with their entire password database, it won't be easily cracked. And it gives *me* the confidence that they probably know what they're doing and have their password database properly salted and protected on their end.
Actually, NaN IS a number... a number that claims it's not a number!
< typeof NaN
> "number"
Also, is anyone else suddenly aware of how dumb the word "number" is? "number".
It's not an unintended impact. It's not an impact at all, unless the readers are bleeding morons. It was then, not now. Then was different from now. Anyone who can't understand this shouldn't read.
Fuck, the book is supposed to TEACH you what the word meant back then, whether deliberately or by osmosis from understanding the context of how the characters used it and how they reacted to its use. It's history. Learn from history, don't censor it.
Leap seconds. And yes, it can run Linux.
For a handful of sites... but it doesn't have a decrypter plugin for recaptcha.
You obviously have never been poor and have never had to live off minimum wage.
Never have, but could if I needed to. It would be tight, but I know I could cut back where necessary. If I was earning minimum wage, I'd be saving less, to be sure. But I wouldn't be spending much less; I don't spend much anyway.
Most of what they are talking about in this article are the cheapest forms of entertainment that are available.
Parks and playgrounds and libraries and over-the-air TV are the cheapest forms of entertainment. My tax dollars are helping to make these forms of entertainment available, so it seems a little ungrateful to ignore them.
Poor people don't buy fancy new HD TVs from Best Buy, they generally buy the coolest thing they can find at a Pawn shop or a Garage Sale, or some other second had place that may or may not be legitimate. It is quite possible to get nice stuff this way without spending even moderate sums of money on it.
Pawn shops, while usually cheaper than buying new, generally are selling exactly the sort of fancy crap that you don't really need - or might need to buy once, and then use for a fairly long time (TV or computer). I generally stay away from them unless I know what I'm buying and I'm looking for a deal.
But really, as infrequently as it occurs, I usually just splurge on those purchases and buy it from a retail store, since I have the money to do that.
I know you probably think you are too good for it, but try walking into a Salvation Army some time and look around and see what the prices are, or maybe a Goodwill somewhere.
No, believe it or not I've been in them. Many times. Pretty much anything (except for electronics) I can buy used secondhand, I typically buy used secondhand.
They just could not get easy loans.
Who said anything about loans?
People have not changed that much. Many folks wasted their money at the bar, or on gambling or onions for their belts.
Some people might have wasted their money, but many saved it. Now most waste it, and some save it.
The reality is a TV cost as much as a car and their cars all sucked. So they had to keep buying them over and over.
Yes, that was the point. They tongue-in-cheek could have afforded a TV, except that they needed a new (used) car and they were saving their money for that. Now almost nobody saves their money for a new car.
Since at the time consumer credit was in its infancy they were forced to save money for another car to get to work.
And now they're free to waste their money and take out a loan for that car that will take them years to repay, mostly because they're used to wasting their money. And as soon as they've paid off that car, and no longer have the car payment coming out of their monthly expenses, they think they can afford making payments on a new car. It's ridiculous.
The point is that you could survive perfectly well, if you'd quit blowing your money on shit you don't need. And you don't need fancy, expensive entertainment.
As long as they're making the minimum payments, they won't be hit with those lethally high rates. Banks aren't stupid; you can milk a cow over and over but only skin it once.
If you ever spent a life with no entertainment, just working in order to get your next paycheck to "pay off those 18% interest credit cards", you might just realize that a really quick way of getting rid of that debt would be killing yourself. Debt gone.
Well, that's just great - saddle them with immense debt under the promise that it'll make them happy. Then entertain them enough so that they won't kill themselves.
Entertainment is the single most important thing we do. That's why we live. You're suggesting people just work to feed themselves to sleep to work the next day. Why the fuck would they do that?
Ever heard the phrase "the satisfaction of a job well done"? Or hell... here's one that will really blow your mind: "Hard work is its own reward".
Fact is, advertisers have been spending billions for decades trying to convince you that you need to be entertained 24/7. Because they know if you're suitably convinced of that, you'll pay a pretty price for it.
And 50 years ago, just about anyone who really wanted a TV could buy one - saving up for it exactly the same way they saved up for the used car. Except they didn't really want the TV that badly, and they needed the car. So they saved up for the used car instead. Because 50 years ago, they did save their money. They weren't pissing away their money on unnecessary stuff that might only cost a small fraction of their income, but adds up.
Yeah, look at the alternative to spending all that money on entertainment: they could waste it paying off those 18% interest credit cards, instead of just paying last month's interest.
Just change the numbers - it's a simple linear transformation, and the lines should intersect at 0 (or close to it).
Here, here's one reduced by a factor of 5.
http://ompldr.org/vZTBwaQ/resolution_chart.png
And here's another reduced by a factor of 10.
http://ompldr.org/vZTBwNw/resolution_chart.png
From that, it's pretty obvious that at viewing distances closer than 2' you're going to get the full benefit of 1080p for anything larger than 15". From a viewing distance of 1 1/2' you'll get the full benefit of 1440p for anything over 16".
Yes, but they're called subpixels and they're not counted individually, either with respect to dithering or when you're determining whether it's a "retina" display. The pixel density of the screen is computed from groups of red/green/blue subpixels, not the density of the subpixels themselves (which needs to be 3x as high).
So no, it doesn't skew the math.
Depends on what you mean by "make out pixels".
Can you see a single pixel? Well, yeah, probably. Even if your eye can't resolve it, it will change the overall brightness of the smallest area your eye can resolve. So, you'll "see" it.
However, can you tell if it moves over by 1 pixel? Or could you tell the difference between a straight line 1 pixel thin, vs. a line that was actually a 2-pixel tall checkerboard pattern with the same average brightness? Etc.
Turn a single pixel on or off and you can probably see that, but that doesn't mean it's significant in the overall scheme of things. Especially with anti-aliasing in addition.
The fallacy is that her time is too valuable to learn GIMP, but her budget is too cheap to buy Photoshop. Pick one or the other, not both.
If her time is really so valuable that she can't afford to spend a few hours learning GIMP, then I don't believe she really can't afford Photoshop. People's time is valuable IFF they are rich.
So IE8, by default, unless it's explicitly told to do it correctly, will render HTML according to its old, quirky, WRONG way of doing it. Is that what you're telling me?
Then again - maybe not. I think it has to have a certain position style, too. Not sure. I at least know that in IE an absolutely-positioned div with specified heights and widths will be a minimum height if you don't set the overflow property. Firefox and Opera don't need an overflow property if there is an explicit height specified.
When you employ good practices with HTML and CSS, making a page look and display properly in IE8+ is trivial.
The following is perfectly good HTML and CSS. Why don't you test it and tell me which browsers it looks and displays properly in.
<html>
<body>
<div style="color:red;font-weight:bold;height:0px;overflow:hidden;">Broken!</div>
<div style="width:80px;border-right:solid 80px white;overflow:hidden;">Works</div>
</body>
</html>
You have to specify overflow="hidden" to force IE to make divs with heights smaller than 1 line of text. Luckily, that particular fix doesn't break compatibility with other browsers, either.
The short answer is: Nobody should be abandoning "alt" - it's required for compatibility and accessibility.
"title", if it is provided, is just a snippet of extra text that relates to the image. It should not be redundant to the image itself. Browsers which can display the image should also have some way to display its title (usually when the mouse is hovered over it). In fact, "title" is not specific to the img tag. Many HTML elements can have a title attribute.
"alt" is the alternate text, to be shown by browsers which can't display the image (search engine robots, braille displays, screen reading software). It should be redundant to the image itself. Browser which can display images can simply display the image and ignore the alt text.
Note that IE7 and previous versions of IE incorrectly displayed the "alt" text as a tooltip. That is incorrect. The "title" should be a tooltip, "alt" should not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt_attribute
Sounds like it's time for someone to risk taking more direct action... maybe something like this: An artist disguised as a state employee takes a direct approach to correcting guide signs on the California freeway system...
More reliable, how? Why does that mean the outlet has to be larger? As far as I know, the GFCI outlets used here are able to perform their intended function acceptably.
Thanks, that makes more sense. If Verizon notified the Does that their information would be handed over and they were allowed to contest it until the 12th, Verizon had no business sending their information before the time to contest had passed.
Is there any physical reason why they need to be so big? It sounds like they're over-engineered without much thought to ever actually fitting them into a wall. Some engineer sent the plan off to an architect and said "here, make this work".