Re:I agree, but think you disproved your own metap
on
PS3 To Run At 120 FPS?
·
· Score: 1
60Hz maximum frame rate of the eye is a myth.
May well be, but my point was that a CRT not display frames and that is the cause of flickering, 60 frames on a fast LCD at 60 Hz would look much better.
Re:I agree, but think you disproved your own metap
on
PS3 To Run At 120 FPS?
·
· Score: 1
You see a diference because a CRT does not display full frames, I how no idea if humans can see more then 60 images in a second, but you can't test it with a CRT due to the technology.
Re:I agree, but think you disproved your own metap
on
PS3 To Run At 120 FPS?
·
· Score: 1
Either you are trolling or you have no idea how a CRT works.
I certainly undertand that a site will break if display conditions are dramaticly changed, there are however ways to minimize that. Now this could mean that the designer has to do more then slice up his Photoshoped site template and piece it back together in HTML+CSS (or a damned table design). It could even mean that the design has to be simplified. But that is the thing about web design--it's not graphics design, it's not page design, it stand on its own and has requires a different approach.
It's not that difficult to make a site usable when CSS is turned off. Try to arrange your HTML in a sensible way and do positioning in CSS as you envisioned it, put a 'skip to content' link as the very first thing in your page--you can hide it via CSS if it's not needed in the final version, test in Lynx. If your design is to wide for a PDA make an alternative stylesheet for small screens (this is where simplification comes in), same for when you just havo to restrict the width to 800 pixels (so the fellow with a resolution of 1600x1200 and bad eyesight can crank the font size up and have more then two words on one line).
Yes I certaily would resize my window to improve readability. I would probably turn off CSS if it ment that I get full width layout, but an alternative full width stylesheet would be a good compromise. I'm in the other tiny(?) percentage: people who might go away because of non full with layout, links that open in new windows, flash and "pixel perfect" (and other non-markupish) layouts that break if your setup is outside the box the designer is thinking in.
Far too many people buy laptops to have a "stylish" computer on their desks, this thing seems to aimed at that demographic. Few think about ackward keyboards or monitors too close to your hands...
That's what he said, I was trying to point out that there are desires on both ends of copyright so you have to look elsewhere for reasons why it's a good thing.
I don't rationalize anything, unlike grandparent who rationalizes restricting the genreal public for the gain of copyright holders. But seeing how you don't even name the "invalid debate technique" you claim I'm using I doubt you'll really care.
It's not necessary for anyone to base their living on copyright, they just desire to live of work they did 30 years ago (or that their ancestors did!) instead of working like everyone else does.
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
Also, since copyright is primarily used for giving "intellectual property" actual financial value, the length of a work's protection under copyright law should be linked to how much "value" it generates, but I digress...
I don't like subjective laws, but if there has to be a link it should be inverse: the public has shown more interest, the copyright holder has made more money, the public should have it sooner.
OTOH if you do so in a commercial district during lunch hour and make certain not to obstruct the normal flow of business and traffic there should be no penalties.
Weilding a bullhorn and unclothed in a commercial district during lunch hour?
Slashdot Mirror
You see a diference because a CRT does not display full frames, I how no idea if humans can see more then 60 images in a second, but you can't test it with a CRT due to the technology.
Either you are trolling or you have no idea how a CRT works.
I certainly undertand that a site will break if display conditions are dramaticly changed, there are however ways to minimize that. Now this could mean that the designer has to do more then slice up his Photoshoped site template and piece it back together in HTML+CSS (or a damned table design). It could even mean that the design has to be simplified. But that is the thing about web design--it's not graphics design, it's not page design, it stand on its own and has requires a different approach.
It's not that difficult to make a site usable when CSS is turned off. Try to arrange your HTML in a sensible way and do positioning in CSS as you envisioned it, put a 'skip to content' link as the very first thing in your page--you can hide it via CSS if it's not needed in the final version, test in Lynx.
If your design is to wide for a PDA make an alternative stylesheet for small screens (this is where simplification comes in), same for when you just havo to restrict the width to 800 pixels (so the fellow with a resolution of 1600x1200 and bad eyesight can crank the font size up and have more then two words on one line).
A mole!
Yes I certaily would resize my window to improve readability. I would probably turn off CSS if it ment that I get full width layout, but an alternative full width stylesheet would be a good compromise. I'm in the other tiny(?) percentage: people who might go away because of non full with layout, links that open in new windows, flash and "pixel perfect" (and other non-markupish) layouts that break if your setup is outside the box the designer is thinking in.
Far too many people buy laptops to have a "stylish" computer on their desks, this thing seems to aimed at that demographic. Few think about ackward keyboards or monitors too close to your hands...
That's what he said, I was trying to point out that there are desires on both ends of copyright so you have to look elsewhere for reasons why it's a good thing.
Why don't you go and read the GFDL?
I don't rationalize anything, unlike grandparent who rationalizes restricting the genreal public for the gain of copyright holders. But seeing how you don't even name the "invalid debate technique" you claim I'm using I doubt you'll really care.
It's not necessary for anyone to base their living on copyright, they just desire to live of work they did 30 years ago (or that their ancestors did!) instead of working like everyone else does.
Of course it's not Homer then, it's Omar!
Yes.
A kernel with source code for everyone.
The CVS version is very usable.
And Emacs is the "thermonuclear word processor".
Maybe you are just unbalanced? :-D
All parts in a car (like any other thing in the real world) will fail under extreme circumstances.
Needs torrent.