Your knowledge of history is rather mistaken. Windows existed and was pretty far along in both its development and market adoption before Internet Explorer even existed. At one point Microsoft tried to graft the two together and use IE as Windows' file browser, but A) it was just a hack, and B) they've since backed off on it. If IE had never existed we'd probably have a nicer world today (less malware, better standards-compliance on the web), but that world would still have Windows, and it'd still be the most-used OS.
That's right, kids: no computers were used in the making of "2001". Pretty remarkable.
It's ironic: in "2001" (the movie) Kubrick had to use analog methods to simulate digital technology. But by 2001 (the year), filmmakers were using digital technology to simulate analog objects.
no one actually addressed the OP's request for hardware?
Probably because there's so little available that fits the requirements. I've done some looking for the same reasons (I work for a nursing home, and have parents over 70), and the best I've found are "not as bad" solutions, not "good" ones. Monitors for older people have got to be a market that someone out there wants to tap into... HINT: It's a growth market.
"Move the monitor closer"? Do you not understand what presbyopia is? It means that the person can't focus close. It is a natural tendency that begins in most people over the age of 40. Enjoy your near-focus while you have it.
I've encountered people who think that the discovery of intelligent alien life would completely upset the apple cart of Christianity, "proving" that it was all a bunch of hogwash. But it wouldn't. There's nothing anywhere in Genesis that says that there are no other "people", and it's not as if this would be the first time that a New World was discovered. To be sure, there'd be some challenging theological questions to wrestle with, such as whether the Original Sin of Eve tainted their world, or some ancestor of theirs did it for them, but most adherents don't really care about that stuff: they just believe.
When I was faced with this problem in my first job out of college, I tried the "carrot" approach, pointing out that we'd get a user's manual with each legitimate WordPerfect or Lotus 123 license we purchased. Obviously that won't work today.
I realize it's fashionable to moan about the state of the US space program, but A) it's not as bad as you seem to be hallucinating, and B) there are several other countries with orbital launch capability, too.
It's easy to forget just how new most of our knowledge about the universe beyond Earth's atmosphere is. A mere fifty years ago, just throwing a dog or chimp into orbit was tricky business, and all we knew of other celestial bodies was seen through a glass darkly, from the murkey depths of our atmosphere. So... damn right there coulda been people on Mars in 1924. Just like in the 1960s we "knew" that it was utterly barren... but now aren't quite so sure. I can certainly see why some members of our society might find this rapid evolution of "what we know" unsettling, so they cling to a system of belief that promises not to change. But I think the roller coaster ride of Science is great.
Westerns, science fiction, romance, mystery, autobiography, war, superheroes, etc. are genres.
Comics are a medium - like films, prose, poetry, songs, or plays - one capable of telling stories in any genre. The problem is that the mediums of comix is so closely associated in our current culture with funny-animal stories for children and superhero stories for adolescents, that people don't realise what the medium is really capable of, especially its ability to be sophisticated enough to engage intelligent adults. But name any popular genre, and I can name a comic book series or graphic novel that tells a story in that genre.
Show me a 10-year-old who knows the meaning of "invulnerable", and I'll show you a kid who reads comics.
I learned to read before I started school, well enough that they put me in a 1st-grade class for reading when I was supposed to be in kindergarten. I was also a fan of comic books and comic strips. Not a coincidence. Reading comics engages both the linguistic left side of the brain and the spatial right side of the brain. What could be a better way of learning?
People have been designing "revolutionary" n-button mice (for n>3) since GUIs first hit the market in the 1980s. They were pretty much pointless* then, and they're useless still today.
For what it's worth, using NewSID (or some other technique to accomplish the same thing) was too much trouble to do the first time when push came to deadline and I had to crank out a few hundred WinXP workstations for the college labs. I didn't have any problems. Never gave it another thought.
As a practical matter, the US's old renewal requirement would be nearly impossible to bring back. No other country has such a thing, and the US is signatory to the Berne Convention, which doesn't allow it. The US would have to break out of Berne, which would mean that US works would no longer be subject to copyright overseas, and Hollywood would literally lay siege to the Capitol until Congress undid that. Unless you think you can bring the whole world along on this at the same time.
I'd be happy with "50 years or life of the creator, whichever is longer". (Yes, I know: this would also require pulling out of Berne.) The two most compelling arguments for long copyright terms are: 1) so that creators don't have to see their creations taken and see others profit from them, and 2) so that creators have a means of supporting their families, even if they die. Well, 50 years is plenty of time for one's children to grow up and support themselves. I don't get to profit from Dad's law practice after he dies; why should Asimov's descendants get to profit from his work? Giving the rights to a corporation shouldn't get around this whole "death" thing, so the same 50-year term would apply them. On the other hand, I've seen cases of aging creators deprived of the ability to support themselves from their early, more-inspired work, and extending the term another decade or two (in most cases) while long-lived creators are still around, is a small price to pay for humanitarian purposes.
Sequels authorized by the copyright holder of the original are often considered "canonical", regardless of whether the person who authorized it was the original creator or their heir. The reader, of course, is free to accept or reject Scarlett or And Another Thing... or Return to the Hundred Acre Wood or Peter Pan in Scarlet or The Royal Book of Oz (etc) as they see fit, but the imprimatur of the copyright holder does carry some weight in making the determination.,
The original US copyright law allowed for a 14-year renewal, so it didn't "demand" that they enter the public domain after 14 years. Personally, I think that's too short a time, but that's certainly debatable. The current situation, where copyrights outlive their creators by decades, serving only to provide income to their descendants or to corporations, clearly does not "promote the progress of science and useful arts" as copyright is supposed to do.
Once upon a time, before the Mickey-Mouse/Sonny-Bono nigh-perpetual copyright laws were passed, 56 years after a book was published anyone was permitted to write sequels to it. If not for that legislative retconning, I, Robot would be in the public domain (in the US) now, making it part of our cultural heritage and free for anyone to attempt a sequel, just like anyone can write a sequel to Hamlet or The Wizard of Oz or The Odyssey or Huckleberry Finn or Moby-Dick. Maybe these new books will suck. Maybe they won't. But the creator of the original work is no longer, and no one is going to force anyone to read these. So what's the problem?
The couple who were first upon the scene report that there was nothing of interest at the crater site. "Nope, me and Marija we looked real careful, but didn't find anything," explained local farmer Janis Kalnins, as his wife tried to calm their infant son, who clutched a piece of their truck's rear bumper in his hand.
As a digital media geek (creating, not just watching), I'm a former PowerMac user, and current iMac user. My next Mac will be a Mini. I love the display on my iMac, but Apple's switch to high-glare configurations means I'll need to get my next display from another vendor (Samsung has some nice displays at a good price). Combined with the horsepower and dual-display capabilities of the current Mini, and its low power requirements, I expect to be quite happy with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Your knowledge of history is rather mistaken. Windows existed and was pretty far along in both its development and market adoption before Internet Explorer even existed. At one point Microsoft tried to graft the two together and use IE as Windows' file browser, but A) it was just a hack, and B) they've since backed off on it. If IE had never existed we'd probably have a nicer world today (less malware, better standards-compliance on the web), but that world would still have Windows, and it'd still be the most-used OS.
That's right, kids: no computers were used in the making of "2001". Pretty remarkable.
It's ironic: in "2001" (the movie) Kubrick had to use analog methods to simulate digital technology. But by 2001 (the year), filmmakers were using digital technology to simulate analog objects.
The main reason older people need larger screens (but not higher resolution) is because they can't just "sit closer": it's too hard to focus.
Probably because there's so little available that fits the requirements. I've done some looking for the same reasons (I work for a nursing home, and have parents over 70), and the best I've found are "not as bad" solutions, not "good" ones. Monitors for older people have got to be a market that someone out there wants to tap into... HINT: It's a growth market.
"Move the monitor closer"? Do you not understand what presbyopia is? It means that the person can't focus close. It is a natural tendency that begins in most people over the age of 40. Enjoy your near-focus while you have it.
I've encountered people who think that the discovery of intelligent alien life would completely upset the apple cart of Christianity, "proving" that it was all a bunch of hogwash. But it wouldn't. There's nothing anywhere in Genesis that says that there are no other "people", and it's not as if this would be the first time that a New World was discovered. To be sure, there'd be some challenging theological questions to wrestle with, such as whether the Original Sin of Eve tainted their world, or some ancestor of theirs did it for them, but most adherents don't really care about that stuff: they just believe.
When I was faced with this problem in my first job out of college, I tried the "carrot" approach, pointing out that we'd get a user's manual with each legitimate WordPerfect or Lotus 123 license we purchased. Obviously that won't work today.
I realize it's fashionable to moan about the state of the US space program, but A) it's not as bad as you seem to be hallucinating, and B) there are several other countries with orbital launch capability, too.
It's easy to forget just how new most of our knowledge about the universe beyond Earth's atmosphere is. A mere fifty years ago, just throwing a dog or chimp into orbit was tricky business, and all we knew of other celestial bodies was seen through a glass darkly, from the murkey depths of our atmosphere. So... damn right there coulda been people on Mars in 1924. Just like in the 1960s we "knew" that it was utterly barren... but now aren't quite so sure. I can certainly see why some members of our society might find this rapid evolution of "what we know" unsettling, so they cling to a system of belief that promises not to change. But I think the roller coaster ride of Science is great.
Comics are not a genre.
Westerns, science fiction, romance, mystery, autobiography, war, superheroes, etc. are genres.
Comics are a medium - like films, prose, poetry, songs, or plays - one capable of telling stories in any genre. The problem is that the mediums of comix is so closely associated in our current culture with funny-animal stories for children and superhero stories for adolescents, that people don't realise what the medium is really capable of, especially its ability to be sophisticated enough to engage intelligent adults. But name any popular genre, and I can name a comic book series or graphic novel that tells a story in that genre.
Show me a 10-year-old who knows the meaning of "invulnerable", and I'll show you a kid who reads comics.
I learned to read before I started school, well enough that they put me in a 1st-grade class for reading when I was supposed to be in kindergarten. I was also a fan of comic books and comic strips. Not a coincidence. Reading comics engages both the linguistic left side of the brain and the spatial right side of the brain. What could be a better way of learning?
People have been designing "revolutionary" n-button mice (for n>3) since GUIs first hit the market in the 1980s. They were pretty much pointless* then, and they're useless still today.
*ironic pun intended
Bad news for you: Prior Art.
For what it's worth, using NewSID (or some other technique to accomplish the same thing) was too much trouble to do the first time when push came to deadline and I had to crank out a few hundred WinXP workstations for the college labs. I didn't have any problems. Never gave it another thought.
Will there be a ceremonial connection of a golden coupler when the cables meet in the middle?
What nervous nellie modded this "flamebait"?
As a practical matter, the US's old renewal requirement would be nearly impossible to bring back. No other country has such a thing, and the US is signatory to the Berne Convention, which doesn't allow it. The US would have to break out of Berne, which would mean that US works would no longer be subject to copyright overseas, and Hollywood would literally lay siege to the Capitol until Congress undid that. Unless you think you can bring the whole world along on this at the same time.
I'd be happy with "50 years or life of the creator, whichever is longer". (Yes, I know: this would also require pulling out of Berne.) The two most compelling arguments for long copyright terms are: 1) so that creators don't have to see their creations taken and see others profit from them, and 2) so that creators have a means of supporting their families, even if they die. Well, 50 years is plenty of time for one's children to grow up and support themselves. I don't get to profit from Dad's law practice after he dies; why should Asimov's descendants get to profit from his work? Giving the rights to a corporation shouldn't get around this whole "death" thing, so the same 50-year term would apply them. On the other hand, I've seen cases of aging creators deprived of the ability to support themselves from their early, more-inspired work, and extending the term another decade or two (in most cases) while long-lived creators are still around, is a small price to pay for humanitarian purposes.
Sequels authorized by the copyright holder of the original are often considered "canonical", regardless of whether the person who authorized it was the original creator or their heir. The reader, of course, is free to accept or reject Scarlett or And Another Thing... or Return to the Hundred Acre Wood or Peter Pan in Scarlet or The Royal Book of Oz (etc) as they see fit, but the imprimatur of the copyright holder does carry some weight in making the determination.,
The original US copyright law allowed for a 14-year renewal, so it didn't "demand" that they enter the public domain after 14 years. Personally, I think that's too short a time, but that's certainly debatable. The current situation, where copyrights outlive their creators by decades, serving only to provide income to their descendants or to corporations, clearly does not "promote the progress of science and useful arts" as copyright is supposed to do.
Once upon a time, before the Mickey-Mouse/Sonny-Bono nigh-perpetual copyright laws were passed, 56 years after a book was published anyone was permitted to write sequels to it. If not for that legislative retconning, I, Robot would be in the public domain (in the US) now, making it part of our cultural heritage and free for anyone to attempt a sequel, just like anyone can write a sequel to Hamlet or The Wizard of Oz or The Odyssey or Huckleberry Finn or Moby-Dick. Maybe these new books will suck. Maybe they won't. But the creator of the original work is no longer, and no one is going to force anyone to read these. So what's the problem?
I think we can wait another couple years.
The couple who were first upon the scene report that there was nothing of interest at the crater site. "Nope, me and Marija we looked real careful, but didn't find anything," explained local farmer Janis Kalnins, as his wife tried to calm their infant son, who clutched a piece of their truck's rear bumper in his hand.
As a digital media geek (creating, not just watching), I'm a former PowerMac user, and current iMac user. My next Mac will be a Mini. I love the display on my iMac, but Apple's switch to high-glare configurations means I'll need to get my next display from another vendor (Samsung has some nice displays at a good price). Combined with the horsepower and dual-display capabilities of the current Mini, and its low power requirements, I expect to be quite happy with it.
The external power supply is the 18W: that's where all the power for the system comes from.
[Citation needed]