All but two that have come through here got sent back to the factory. So no, no one's put any serious time in with them (except for Mr. Special) but first impressions was send 'em back.
I can see where they might be brighter (arguably better) under "ideal" conditions. It's unfortunate that a typical well-lit office does not meet this criteria.
All that said, if it was a touch screen I'd take the trade off.
BTW, thank you. Your answer was exactly what I was hoping for.
Why? I'm not trolling, honest question. Why are so many manufacturers going to glossy LCDs? Cheaper to build, what? 'Cause every end user I support hates the things. Except one, and he always likes to be different anyway.
What benefit, real or imagined, do hardware makers think/believe/want us to believe, is to be had from glossy screens?
I've been wondering how hard the film industry has been/will be hit with the same, and what affect this will have on genre pictures. You can fit a Burger King add into Iron Man and play it off as a quirky character moment, but you can't really shill for, well, anything in something like The Hobbit.
On the one hand, I want to embrace embedded adds as better than commercial breaks. But only within reason, and I wonder if that will be yet another factor pulling entertainment back towards the main stream.
I hate SPAM as much as anyone else. And I would love to see some actual laws in place to cover malware of various types. But how does one define SPAM, in a hard-core, definitive way? Sure, we all know it when we see it, and this guy is clearly beyond the pale. But any law sufficient to nail him could and would also be used on other, less clear-cut cases.
File it under defending the nazi's right to be assholes, but it really doesn't matter how much you don't want his spam. I'm not sure what direct, negative effect you are referring to, unless its the totally-not-worth-my-caring cost of transmitting or storing email. He's got a right to it, and taking his right away lessens that right for everyone.
With as many chips as our constitutional rights have endured lately, I'm inclined to defend the 1st amendment even more staunchly than usual.
Its been said, but worth repeating: you keep bringing up guns, knives, and cyanide as dangerous substances. They are dangerous to every living creature on the planet. The peanuts? That's just your kid, dude. I'm sure the 100% removal of peanuts would solve her problem. But her problems aren't everyone else's.
I ask again, is there nothing else AT ALL that would keep her from dieing? Since we're discussing total bans and such, this is a serious question: are there any other options that would allow everyone else to march on as they are but keep your kid from dieing? Epi pins have come up and are obviously a last resort, "oh, shit!" sort of option. What about a gas mask or a plastic suit or something?
Considering the sweeping changes in the behavior of others you are pushing for (while its just a discussion here, I'm sure its got more vigor in your local school board meetings) I think it would be disingeniousness of you at best not to at least discuss other options. Perhaps we won't be able to make the school 100% safe for your kid, but maybe it shouldn't be a 100% peanut free for all for mine. Is there an acceptable compromise? Is there some solution that would make things, say, 75% safe for her (just pulling a number here) but maybe let kids eat peanut butter for lunch at, say, one end of the cafeteria? Don't dismiss this as people wanting treats on occasion -- in my case, a total ban on peanut butter would have amounted to a total ban on lunch. Every. Single. Day.
So, I won't eat anything but peanut butter, and if I do and have class with your kid later I'll kill her. Are there any solutions other than a 100% ban on peanut butter, even if they deliver only increased but not total safety for your kid?
I was talking about when I was a child. At this point in my life, ya, I've grown a bit. I'm not the guy a few posts up spitting snickers at kids.
That said, I don't have kids but if I did I'd be willing to take this one to the mats. It still hasn't been pointed out in any real way why the PERSON WITH THE PROBLEM is not the one required to modify their behavior. Returning to my previous example, we aren't talking about snacks on the plane, we're talking about the school-required brown bag lunch on a field trip -- this was the time I came up for me as a kid. So you've got me, the kid who won't eat anything but peanut butter (seriously. nothing. fruit, pizza, you name it I spread it on) and the kid who has the alergy. For both of us to eat, the school has to put one of us aside and assign someone to watch over us. Which kid should be pushed to the side? Or, when the school decides it doesn't have the resources to watch over one special kid, which one should get screwed? I didn't do anything, I just wanted to eat a sandwich! In this example, I was told I couldn't even bring it, because it would be on the bus with allergy kid.
My read on this (and this is actually what happened) is gimpy allergy kid doesn't take the field trip. Just like (in another example on here) latex allergy kid should be kept out of the labs, not the latex. It would be great if someone could think of a solution so no one gets screwed, but failing that the person with the problem should be the one to adapt, not the rest of the world.
As a society, how shall we deal with short people? Should we lower all the shelves, or just make ladders conveniently available when needed?
I was going to post something about how mad it made me as a kid when I was told I couldn't take peanut butter sandwiches to school, the ONLY thing my mother could put in a sack that I would eat. Seriously, I know I'm being picky, but how is someone else's allergy my problem? I've rewritten this twice to make it less offensive, but isn't there something (no matter how inconvenient, the problem is on your end after all) that you or your daughter could to to shield her from the peanut particles? It isn't like anyone is force feeding her peanuts -- is there anything short of a hazmat suit, or just staying at home, that would keep her from dieing without infringing on anyone else?
I wonder what kind of tanks an Antipiratgruppen uses in the field. If properly supported by infantry and dive bombers, this blitzkrieg thing might just work...
Slashdot Mirror
Back during the Space Race, yes, they had full mock-ups, right down to the last screw. Many (probably not all) were themselves space-worthy.
Nowadays, I kinda doubt it. My hunch would be computer simulation including hardware, but its hard to cite "my gut" as a credible source.
All but two that have come through here got sent back to the factory. So no, no one's put any serious time in with them (except for Mr. Special) but first impressions was send 'em back.
I can see where they might be brighter (arguably better) under "ideal" conditions. It's unfortunate that a typical well-lit office does not meet this criteria.
All that said, if it was a touch screen I'd take the trade off.
BTW, thank you. Your answer was exactly what I was hoping for.
OK, I figured it was something stupid.
Why?
I'm not trolling, honest question. Why are so many manufacturers going to glossy LCDs? Cheaper to build, what? 'Cause every end user I support hates the things. Except one, and he always likes to be different anyway.
What benefit, real or imagined, do hardware makers think/believe/want us to believe, is to be had from glossy screens?
Kids, this is where road rage comes from.
I've been wondering how hard the film industry has been/will be hit with the same, and what affect this will have on genre pictures. You can fit a Burger King add into Iron Man and play it off as a quirky character moment, but you can't really shill for, well, anything in something like The Hobbit.
On the one hand, I want to embrace embedded adds as better than commercial breaks. But only within reason, and I wonder if that will be yet another factor pulling entertainment back towards the main stream.
Actually, it is.
I hate SPAM as much as anyone else. And I would love to see some actual laws in place to cover malware of various types. But how does one define SPAM, in a hard-core, definitive way? Sure, we all know it when we see it, and this guy is clearly beyond the pale. But any law sufficient to nail him could and would also be used on other, less clear-cut cases.
File it under defending the nazi's right to be assholes, but it really doesn't matter how much you don't want his spam. I'm not sure what direct, negative effect you are referring to, unless its the totally-not-worth-my-caring cost of transmitting or storing email. He's got a right to it, and taking his right away lessens that right for everyone.
With as many chips as our constitutional rights have endured lately, I'm inclined to defend the 1st amendment even more staunchly than usual.
Are either of y'all Nate?
Its been said, but worth repeating: you keep bringing up guns, knives, and cyanide as dangerous substances. They are dangerous to every living creature on the planet. The peanuts? That's just your kid, dude. I'm sure the 100% removal of peanuts would solve her problem. But her problems aren't everyone else's.
I ask again, is there nothing else AT ALL that would keep her from dieing? Since we're discussing total bans and such, this is a serious question: are there any other options that would allow everyone else to march on as they are but keep your kid from dieing? Epi pins have come up and are obviously a last resort, "oh, shit!" sort of option. What about a gas mask or a plastic suit or something?
Considering the sweeping changes in the behavior of others you are pushing for (while its just a discussion here, I'm sure its got more vigor in your local school board meetings) I think it would be disingeniousness of you at best not to at least discuss other options. Perhaps we won't be able to make the school 100% safe for your kid, but maybe it shouldn't be a 100% peanut free for all for mine. Is there an acceptable compromise? Is there some solution that would make things, say, 75% safe for her (just pulling a number here) but maybe let kids eat peanut butter for lunch at, say, one end of the cafeteria? Don't dismiss this as people wanting treats on occasion -- in my case, a total ban on peanut butter would have amounted to a total ban on lunch. Every. Single. Day.
So, I won't eat anything but peanut butter, and if I do and have class with your kid later I'll kill her. Are there any solutions other than a 100% ban on peanut butter, even if they deliver only increased but not total safety for your kid?
I was talking about when I was a child. At this point in my life, ya, I've grown a bit. I'm not the guy a few posts up spitting snickers at kids.
That said, I don't have kids but if I did I'd be willing to take this one to the mats. It still hasn't been pointed out in any real way why the PERSON WITH THE PROBLEM is not the one required to modify their behavior. Returning to my previous example, we aren't talking about snacks on the plane, we're talking about the school-required brown bag lunch on a field trip -- this was the time I came up for me as a kid. So you've got me, the kid who won't eat anything but peanut butter (seriously. nothing. fruit, pizza, you name it I spread it on) and the kid who has the alergy. For both of us to eat, the school has to put one of us aside and assign someone to watch over us. Which kid should be pushed to the side? Or, when the school decides it doesn't have the resources to watch over one special kid, which one should get screwed? I didn't do anything, I just wanted to eat a sandwich! In this example, I was told I couldn't even bring it, because it would be on the bus with allergy kid.
My read on this (and this is actually what happened) is gimpy allergy kid doesn't take the field trip. Just like (in another example on here) latex allergy kid should be kept out of the labs, not the latex. It would be great if someone could think of a solution so no one gets screwed, but failing that the person with the problem should be the one to adapt, not the rest of the world.
As a society, how shall we deal with short people? Should we lower all the shelves, or just make ladders conveniently available when needed?
I was going to post something about how mad it made me as a kid when I was told I couldn't take peanut butter sandwiches to school, the ONLY thing my mother could put in a sack that I would eat. Seriously, I know I'm being picky, but how is someone else's allergy my problem? I've rewritten this twice to make it less offensive, but isn't there something (no matter how inconvenient, the problem is on your end after all) that you or your daughter could to to shield her from the peanut particles? It isn't like anyone is force feeding her peanuts -- is there anything short of a hazmat suit, or just staying at home, that would keep her from dieing without infringing on anyone else?
I wonder what kind of tanks an Antipiratgruppen uses in the field. If properly supported by infantry and dive bombers, this blitzkrieg thing might just work...
So, ya, where can I find a link to this baby? Everything on Kazaa is a fake, so how about an FTP?
You can. I do.
If you haven't go to www.tronkillerapp.com RIGHT NOW. And remember, all the cool kids have Level 6 Access...