I feel your pain. I "upgraded" to 1920x1200 displays so I atleast wouldn't lose vertical space (I had no choice, the old displays broke and their replacements were more expensive than the wide-screens). I find myself wasting much of the extra 320 pixels at the side fo the display, although sometimes they do come in handy for putting two windows next to each other.
I love it when people tell me what I want. There's nothing wrong with screen real-estate being outside the ideal viewing angle. I can look at my keyboard when I need to, I can look at the bottom of the screen when I need to see the bloody clock or taskbar (which I could make much bigger if the space it occupied wasn't in such a valuable area of my screen).
Considering that much vertical space is wasted by taskbars, title bars, menu bars, button bars, link bars, I prefer those to be slightly "outside" my ideal viewing angle, which would be possible if the fucking screen was higher. As it is, I'm usually sitting too close to the screen so these "bars" are basically outside the ideal viewing angle. That wouldn't be necessary if the display simply was a few inches higher (24" at 1920x1200 just invites you to sit too close).
I find that with my wide-screen, I tend to keep windows only covering 2/3's of the width at most (pretty close to the size they would have been if it had been a 4:3 monitor). I also find myself placing windows next to each other, and only using one at the time for extended periods (ie, the other half of the screen is wasted). However, almost ALL windows are still occupying full vertical space.
I'm glad atleast 16:10 displays still exist, that way 1920x1200 atleast wasn't a downgrade from my old 1600x1200 display that way (which I unfortunately couldn't replace with a new one as they were getting prohibitively expensive compared to the newer crop of displays -- Iiyama even stopped making them AFAIK). Rotating vertically isn't an option either, as then the screen would go below the minimum WIDTH I would find acceptable. 4:3 was pretty ideal as far as I'm concerned, I don't think 10:16 could compete with it.
And there we have it. The reason why people use Java.
There's no #DEFINE that turns a readable program that everybody knows into a program that has you looking through.h files every 3 seconds. You cannot "redefine" things, so a program is ALWAYS recognizable. An int is an int. A long is a long. The preprocessor was not included exactly to avoid these kinds of things.
That and the Java coding standards that Sun created is why Java projects have a much shorter learning curve. You can be productive within a day on most Java projects, unlike some of the C projects I've seen, even the ones that are generally considered to be well structured.
The lack of a pre-processor is probably the biggest reason why Java became so popular. It made the language both easier to maintain and easier to get started with.
The second two you have under control yourself.
Don't want a class for everything? You can make one and use everything as static and program like in the C days.
Long names? Oh yes, I forgot, Java enforces a minimum name length of 20...
News...I could live without, in the highly unlikely event they manage to put everything behind paywalls. Games...I only need a few that cater to my wishes to keep me entertained. Video&Music...I already stopped listening to anything newly released for a decade and have been enjoying what I already have. Videos I don't really need to own as they have much lower replay value. Internet connections...Encryption will make sure I can do anything I want no matter what my ISP says (never mind there's like 15+ ISP choices here -- courtesy of our goverment which requires companies to lease its copper and fiber networks to competitors for reasonable prices). In the worst case scenario, BBS-style exchange networks over WiFi will form that can completely bypass the need for ISP's.
Why anyone would put up with anything Sony or Apple is beyond me. Yes, they may sometimes have some novell must-have toys, but I instead just wait until a "free" version is available from competitors.
Android, with its open platform and low barrier to entry, is still playing catch up now not even being a year old. It is however obvious that Apple will lose this battle within a year from now, simply because a single company with a single phone will not be able to compete against dozens of companies, with hundreds of phones types all doing their best to extend Android to best suit their customers. They won't go after just the gadget-geek market either, but all of the markets at once.
If you treat any of those products the way you bungle your main Oracle product, then I'm sure they'll soon be as despised as your 1970's Database that needs constant supervision and doesn't even know the difference between NULL and a known empty value.
Eventually I think having the programmers, architects and designers against you is gonna cost you -- I sure as hell will not use your Database product as more than a glorified storage system (and a picky one at that), I will not touch JHeadStart or Oracle Developer with a 10ft pole, and I will actively try and replace anything Oracle with a free solution. It will no doubt please you that Oracle has been above Microsoft on my "evil" list for quite a few years now.
It will be interesting to see what happens when they get exposed to their fellow students. Somehow I think that the effect will be a little worse than your average online-bullying.
700 MB? I don't even bother downloading anything anymore that isn't atleast 720p (and hence 4 GB+).
An Ad? My name on the movie? So I will need to strip them before they become useful to me. I won't be able to you say? Then I don't want their format at all.
I'm afraid I donot see a good future for the movie industry even if they did start offering cheap downloads now. Their main problem: they are too expensive, and by that I mean the salaries of everyone involved into making a movie. They've gotten used to ridiculous margins and now think they're entitled to them. I think the movie industry is probably the prime example of everything that is wrong with this world, where the rich get richer and the poor get exploited.
Those disgusting prefabbed square forms however work on any platform, can be bookmarked, saved, and they can even be mangled beyond recognition and still do their job (see Lynx and browsers on smartphones).
Unlike Flash "sites" which basically are longing for the days where you would just write a real application. Using Flash is the peek of completely missing the point of HTML in the first place. It's primarily pushed by the marketeer crowd who just want, dare I say, flashy looking, pixel-perfect (tiny) 800x600 sites that will be presented in a quick-quick fashion like powerpoint slides when a demonstration of a website or product is given. Dig a little bit deeper than the skindeep flashy layer and people quickly realize that Flash just makes things more difficult, not only by being different from everyone elses website (including other flash sites) but also because even the most basic functionality a browser offers is completely negated by it.
So many negative comments from what seems to be brainwashed corporate drones.
I completely agree with you. *I* control what I read and watch, and not only on the web. Any technology that makes this more difficult will not be used by me. Luckily, a blocker like exists for flash should not be too hard to build.
Slashdot Mirror
Just make the table big enough, than it won't be a factor :)
The human could build a better robot, and use that to defeat the other robot at repetitive tasks :)
I feel your pain. I "upgraded" to 1920x1200 displays so I atleast wouldn't lose vertical space (I had no choice, the old displays broke and their replacements were more expensive than the wide-screens). I find myself wasting much of the extra 320 pixels at the side fo the display, although sometimes they do come in handy for putting two windows next to each other.
I love it when people tell me what I want. There's nothing wrong with screen real-estate being outside the ideal viewing angle. I can look at my keyboard when I need to, I can look at the bottom of the screen when I need to see the bloody clock or taskbar (which I could make much bigger if the space it occupied wasn't in such a valuable area of my screen).
Considering that much vertical space is wasted by taskbars, title bars, menu bars, button bars, link bars, I prefer those to be slightly "outside" my ideal viewing angle, which would be possible if the fucking screen was higher. As it is, I'm usually sitting too close to the screen so these "bars" are basically outside the ideal viewing angle. That wouldn't be necessary if the display simply was a few inches higher (24" at 1920x1200 just invites you to sit too close).
I find that with my wide-screen, I tend to keep windows only covering 2/3's of the width at most (pretty close to the size they would have been if it had been a 4:3 monitor). I also find myself placing windows next to each other, and only using one at the time for extended periods (ie, the other half of the screen is wasted). However, almost ALL windows are still occupying full vertical space.
I'm glad atleast 16:10 displays still exist, that way 1920x1200 atleast wasn't a downgrade from my old 1600x1200 display that way (which I unfortunately couldn't replace with a new one as they were getting prohibitively expensive compared to the newer crop of displays -- Iiyama even stopped making them AFAIK). Rotating vertically isn't an option either, as then the screen would go below the minimum WIDTH I would find acceptable. 4:3 was pretty ideal as far as I'm concerned, I don't think 10:16 could compete with it.
I think you underestimate how accurate a human measurement with a stopwatch can be. The margin for error is definitely well below 0.7 seconds.
That's just to compensate for the 25% loss of sales from people who get a headache watching movies in 3d :)
Really? What's it called?
And there we have it. The reason why people use Java.
There's no #DEFINE that turns a readable program that everybody knows into a program that has you looking through .h files every 3 seconds. You cannot "redefine" things, so a program is ALWAYS recognizable. An int is an int. A long is a long. The preprocessor was not included exactly to avoid these kinds of things.
That and the Java coding standards that Sun created is why Java projects have a much shorter learning curve. You can be productive within a day on most Java projects, unlike some of the C projects I've seen, even the ones that are generally considered to be well structured.
The lack of a pre-processor is probably the biggest reason why Java became so popular. It made the language both easier to maintain and easier to get started with.
The second two you have under control yourself.
Don't want a class for everything? You can make one and use everything as static and program like in the C days.
Long names? Oh yes, I forgot, Java enforces a minimum name length of 20...
News...I could live without, in the highly unlikely event they manage to put everything behind paywalls.
Games...I only need a few that cater to my wishes to keep me entertained.
Video&Music...I already stopped listening to anything newly released for a decade and have been enjoying what I already have. Videos I don't really need to own as they have much lower replay value.
Internet connections...Encryption will make sure I can do anything I want no matter what my ISP says (never mind there's like 15+ ISP choices here -- courtesy of our goverment which requires companies to lease its copper and fiber networks to competitors for reasonable prices). In the worst case scenario, BBS-style exchange networks over WiFi will form that can completely bypass the need for ISP's.
Why anyone would put up with anything Sony or Apple is beyond me. Yes, they may sometimes have some novell must-have toys, but I instead just wait until a "free" version is available from competitors.
Android, with its open platform and low barrier to entry, is still playing catch up now not even being a year old. It is however obvious that Apple will lose this battle within a year from now, simply because a single company with a single phone will not be able to compete against dozens of companies, with hundreds of phones types all doing their best to extend Android to best suit their customers. They won't go after just the gadget-geek market either, but all of the markets at once.
It still has a web browser. It may not have one tomorrow.
Unfriending your own mom would go way too far. Better to get an injunction.
There we have it! Anecdotal proof that the android will never overtake iPhone.
The same as I thought. Tip, meet iceberg.
I wonder how many of those had a foreign driver's license.
If you treat any of those products the way you bungle your main Oracle product, then I'm sure they'll soon be as despised as your 1970's Database that needs constant supervision and doesn't even know the difference between NULL and a known empty value.
Eventually I think having the programmers, architects and designers against you is gonna cost you -- I sure as hell will not use your Database product as more than a glorified storage system (and a picky one at that), I will not touch JHeadStart or Oracle Developer with a 10ft pole, and I will actively try and replace anything Oracle with a free solution. It will no doubt please you that Oracle has been above Microsoft on my "evil" list for quite a few years now.
It will be interesting to see what happens when they get exposed to their fellow students. Somehow I think that the effect will be a little worse than your average online-bullying.
Agreed. Now if only the RIAA would realize that.
700 MB? I don't even bother downloading anything anymore that isn't atleast 720p (and hence 4 GB+).
An Ad? My name on the movie? So I will need to strip them before they become useful to me. I won't be able to you say? Then I don't want their format at all.
I'm afraid I donot see a good future for the movie industry even if they did start offering cheap downloads now. Their main problem: they are too expensive, and by that I mean the salaries of everyone involved into making a movie. They've gotten used to ridiculous margins and now think they're entitled to them. I think the movie industry is probably the prime example of everything that is wrong with this world, where the rich get richer and the poor get exploited.
Those disgusting prefabbed square forms however work on any platform, can be bookmarked, saved, and they can even be mangled beyond recognition and still do their job (see Lynx and browsers on smartphones).
Unlike Flash "sites" which basically are longing for the days where you would just write a real application. Using Flash is the peek of completely missing the point of HTML in the first place. It's primarily pushed by the marketeer crowd who just want, dare I say, flashy looking, pixel-perfect (tiny) 800x600 sites that will be presented in a quick-quick fashion like powerpoint slides when a demonstration of a website or product is given. Dig a little bit deeper than the skindeep flashy layer and people quickly realize that Flash just makes things more difficult, not only by being different from everyone elses website (including other flash sites) but also because even the most basic functionality a browser offers is completely negated by it.
So many negative comments from what seems to be brainwashed corporate drones.
I completely agree with you. *I* control what I read and watch, and not only on the web. Any technology that makes this more difficult will not be used by me. Luckily, a blocker like exists for flash should not be too hard to build.
There's no need. We can just use our own OS that will work as we want it to.
It was more like, they could, then they couldn't, and then they could again but this time with an ugly hack.
Not in programs I wrote... 1 kB/sec would meand 1024 bytes/sec. And I'm sure many authors did the same.
Innovative options, which will be used more often than the old buttons?