There is some artistic interest in B&W over color,
I know you were trying to give at least some credit to B&W TVs, but but you can still do B&W on a color display. So that isn't an advantage that they held.
Two items: 1) The fact that it is not commonly done does not mean it is not the correct solution. 2) I don't know how France does it, but not only do they recycle their own waste, but other countries send their waste to them for recycling. And the US has purchased and used recycled materials for use in plants. So the system to do this is in place.
all the while drawing their salary against the loan.
A few people have mentioned this as though it was something strange or unfair. The point of a business loan is to pay for wages, salaries, equipment, patents, rent, lunches, electricity,... Why should executives not get paid during this time? If the company goes bankrupt and runs out of money, those executives keep their salaries. Just like everyone else. It's not like they can give it back.
If you have an issue with executive pay that is fine - but your statement implies that all business loans are bad because executives get paid too.
Reading the summary again, I get it now. This is what he meant by "changing virtual desktop switches both monitors" I thought he meant apps were maximizing across monitors.
Of all the replies and moderations I got on this thread -- only the Anonymous Coward made a non-insulting intelligent reply. You sir, should sign-up for Slashdot. We need more like you.
I don't know - I'm gonna download it and find out.
After going through other threads I see that the original submitter didn't just want the ability to move windows across desktops, they wanted multiple virtual desktops per monitor. I had never heard of that, so I didn't realize that was what they wanted.
As some friendly advice, next time someone mentions you may not have understood something perhaps you should try to actually understand it before making more incorrect statements.
I would suggest that you do the same. You said that "Windows does not have workspaces hence the functionality is not possible in windows" which is a factually incorrect statement.
Just for reference, I know what I'm talking about: my home machine runs OS X, Windows XP, Ubuntu Linux, and Debian. I don't run dual-monitors on the Linux installs, I just mirror them. Only on Slashdot does that make someone who does not know what they are talking about. I asked a question. This is a wonderful example of why people avoid Linux -- this is the same kind of response people get attending LUGs.
Okay, I like that idea. That sounds cool. If that is what the original submitter wanted, that isn't what they stated in the description. But it would do what they asked for and more.
I've never used the Microsoft virtual desktop Powertoy with multiple monitors. Now I want to see how it handles that.
According to the multiple desktop monitor FAQ, Windows '98 supported multiple monitors, but I don't recall exactly how it worked. For Windows XP, this is how it works out of the box. (I know OS X does this as well). I just select the "Extend my Windows desktop" check box. Once I do that, I get the 2 abilities the submitter asked for.
1) I can maximize a window and it maximizes onto whatever screen the window is on. 2) I can drag a window onto my other monitor.
Now, if you want "virtual desktops" than you can download the Microsoft Virtual Desktop Manager powertoy. It's not a 3rd-party thing.
The original poster asks for the ability to maximize a window and have it fit on one screen, rather than span both screens. But he also wants to be able to drag a window across from one screen to another.
I have this on my Windows XP machine right now. Also, as someone else pointed out, Microsoft offers virtual workspaces as well, it is just a powertoy.
P.S. Yet another Slashdotter who opens-up their reply with an insult.
He want to combine multiple screens and multiple desktops in a way that is not common.
That's not true. He wants:
I need something in the middle — a separate workspace for each screen, so that I can have independent virtual desktops on each screen, but still have the ability to move applications between monitors
That is the default on Windows XP. I have my screen setup that way right now. Firefox is on my right monitor, and... I click "restore" then drag it to another screen, then... I clicked maximize, and it is full-screen on the left monitor.
The problem is, DRM executed properly is impossible. The computer could never if what I intend to do is fair use or not.
I capture a copyrighted movie from TV - legal or not? - for my mom: probably illegal. - for my computer upstairs, to watch it in bed: legal. - to take in to my history class at school: legal. - to edit down to a 15-second clip for a documentary: legal. - to run a steganographic cryptanalysis for a research paper: ???? wow, THAT's a tough one. Is the analysis a derived work? *DRM software explodes*
I know I'll get modded down for Linux bashing, but... this capability has been around on the Windows world since Windows NT. I think you could do it on '98 with some fiddling. It surprises me that this is not something Linux can do out-of-the-box. Is this a driver issue, or some limitation in the X architecture?
Thank you for making that point. But I would go a step further: Even in the US, the association of Republican=conservative and Democrat=liberal is a complete farce.
We're willing to spend practically infinite amounts of money propping up banks that ought to have failed,
Your exaggeration weakens your comparison.
It was not infinite amounts of money. Especially since I just learned that the banks paid most of it back already. That really put a damper on my skepticism.
we're unwilling to think strategically about the survival of the human race?
How is terrestrial science and stopping global warming not thinking strategically about survival? Are you saying that the benefits of going to the moon/mars outweigh the benefits of stopping global warming? FYI: If the human race is to survive, we need to do it on Earth for a long time yet. At the moment, the possibility of living anywhere else is somewhere between science fiction and science speculation.
The iPad is the future - computing as we know it is coming to an end. We, the geeks, the hackers, the programmers - are the minority.
We all thought DRM was going to come-in through TPM modules in the BIOS. We thought AMD and Intel would begrudgingly add support under pressure of the RIAA. We thought Windows would add support and that Linux would be the last bastion of free computing left. But it isn't going to happen that way. It's coming from a totally different angle.
What will happen is that various specialized devices, that are 100% DRM encumbered from the start, will slowly replace the PC until it becomes an expensive specialized device for programmers.
First the iPhone comes out. Then the iPad. The all the iPhone and iPad clones - until these devices become ubiquitous. That covers internet, document editing, email, and limited gaming. That's maybe 50% of what the average Joe uses a computer for. Major gaming and social networking can be done on XBOX/Playstation/Wii - also 100% DRM devices. Then those devices will handle your movies, your TV watching, and your DVD/Blu-ray/DRM'd streaming video. Now we are at... 75%? Eventually, 90% of what computers do will be done more easily on some specialized DRM'd device. The idea of the infinitely configurable totally hackable PC will die away. Most consumers won't know the difference.
So how do we break this? Maybe come-up with some super-cool thing you can do on a computer that nobody thought of yet... something that can't be done on these devices? Maybe Android is the answer? I dunno. But I see the tidal wave coming...
Some quick points that were made in related threads: - QM: Some parts of the universe are random. - Uncertainty principle: Some parts can just be ignored until observed. - Light cone: Some parts do not impact other parts, so it can be broken up into pieces.
There's no limit to the range of the fundamental forces.
But there is a limit to the speed at which they propagate. Therefore, you know that some things cannot effect other things until at least a specific amount of time has passed.
So for a particle P at time T, another particle P0 at time T0 could be far enough away in space-time that it could not possible affect particle P at time T. It's called the light cone.
but if you could account for all the variables with enough precision; angle of the coin, angle of the thumb, force of the flip, distance to the floor, etc, you could likely predict each and every toss.
Unfortunately, you can't.:-( That's called the hidden variable theory. It has been proven that there can be no set of information that could be used to compute quantum randomness.
Einstein refused to believe that, and proposed the EPR thought experiment as a way to disprove it. Unfortunately for him, he died before John Bell resolved the EPR paradox, finally disproving hidden variables.
I know what you are saying: if you want to create a system that simulates the state of a bunch of particles, you must have at least enough memory to store those particles, which means the simulation device cannot be built from a subset of those particles. It seems sensible, but it is not necessarily true...
Sometimes you can implement an algorithm is a very tight memory space if you throw out intermediate values and recalculate them when needed. This is extremely inefficient, and memoization is the usual fix - which trades memory for performance.
So to calculate all the particles in the universe at time T, you don't necessarily need all the particles at time T-1. You could just start back from the beginning and recalculate as needed.
You also have some other conveniences: Quantum theory shows the universe is random below a certain size, so you might be able to approximate the universe without actually losing anything. The speed of light limits the size of the light cone so you know that particles beyond a certain space-time distance from each other will not have any effect on each other. And even if it did, you know the uncertainly principle means that certain values don't actually matter until they are observed: so they need not be calculated. And Planck's constant tells you that below a certain energy level, random background effects become more important that the effect of neighboring particles. So if a particle is far enough away, it's contribution to another particle can be ignored. Lastly, the universe has a certain amount of redundancy that could be eliminated through compression algorithms.
I've often thought that some of our observations about the limitations of the universe are actually indications that we ARE being simulated. What if things at the quantum level are random because there is a limitation to the floating-point accuracy of the computer that simulates us? Or maybe it is because we are trying to look at events shorter than the "frame rate" (AKA - the delta t between each calculated moment) in the universe. Perhaps the speed of light is finite as a convenience to limit the big-O?
I think the problem here is that you are applying the standards of cars to the standards of spacecraft and it doesn't apply.
NASA didn't purposely crash space shuttles to see if astronauts would survive: the assumption was they died. Unlike cars, there are no other space shuttles flying around, and the drivers aren't amateurs. Plus, cars cost a lot less than space ships.:-) If we had to crash test space ships, we would never complete any.
Well-written and well-directed fool the viewer into thinking the events are plausible. The less the viewer must suspend their disbelief, the more enjoyable the movie, play, book, etc. For example: A director could use a real car in a scene. Or they could make the car out of two giant pieces of cardboard with painted-on wheels. Or they could use a real car, but spray paint it with the word "CAR" on the side and replace the steering wheel with a wagon wheel. But generally they don't do that - they use a car that is appropriate to the scene. They should do the same thing for ovens, sandwiches, furniture, and computers. It is a bit odd to see a modern, relatively intelligent scene, where the login screen has dancing lightning beams and lasers firing, and a voice that yells "Access Denied" - no computer actually does that.
Slashdot Mirror
There is some artistic interest in B&W over color,
I know you were trying to give at least some credit to B&W TVs, but but you can still do B&W on a color display. So that isn't an advantage that they held.
aren't really suitable for learning to tinker with code.
There are no technological reasons that they aren't suitable for learning. The TI-85 calculator was plenty good enough.
Two items:
1) The fact that it is not commonly done does not mean it is not the correct solution.
2) I don't know how France does it, but not only do they recycle their own waste, but other countries send their waste to them for recycling. And the US has purchased and used recycled materials for use in plants. So the system to do this is in place.
all the while drawing their salary against the loan.
A few people have mentioned this as though it was something strange or unfair. The point of a business loan is to pay for wages, salaries, equipment, patents, rent, lunches, electricity, ... Why should executives not get paid during this time? If the company goes bankrupt and runs out of money, those executives keep their salaries. Just like everyone else. It's not like they can give it back.
If you have an issue with executive pay that is fine - but your statement implies that all business loans are bad because executives get paid too.
Reading the summary again, I get it now. This is what he meant by "changing virtual desktop switches both monitors" I thought he meant apps were maximizing across monitors.
Of all the replies and moderations I got on this thread -- only the Anonymous Coward made a non-insulting intelligent reply. You sir, should sign-up for Slashdot. We need more like you.
I don't know - I'm gonna download it and find out.
After going through other threads I see that the original submitter didn't just want the ability to move windows across desktops, they wanted multiple virtual desktops per monitor. I had never heard of that, so I didn't realize that was what they wanted.
As some friendly advice, next time someone mentions you may not have understood something perhaps you should try to actually understand it before making more incorrect statements.
I would suggest that you do the same. You said that "Windows does not have workspaces hence the functionality is not possible in windows" which is a factually incorrect statement.
Just for reference, I know what I'm talking about: my home machine runs OS X, Windows XP, Ubuntu Linux, and Debian. I don't run dual-monitors on the Linux installs, I just mirror them. Only on Slashdot does that make someone who does not know what they are talking about. I asked a question. This is a wonderful example of why people avoid Linux -- this is the same kind of response people get attending LUGs.
Okay, I like that idea. That sounds cool. If that is what the original submitter wanted, that isn't what they stated in the description. But it would do what they asked for and more.
I've never used the Microsoft virtual desktop Powertoy with multiple monitors. Now I want to see how it handles that.
The OP is asking for 2 features.
1) Maximize a window and it maximizes onto whatever screen the window is on.
2) Drag a window onto the other monitor.
Windows XP does this out of the box. If you want virtual desktops, no need for 3rd-party tools, just download the Powertoy from Microsoft.
According to the multiple desktop monitor FAQ, Windows '98 supported multiple monitors, but I don't recall exactly how it worked. For Windows XP, this is how it works out of the box. (I know OS X does this as well). I just select the "Extend my Windows desktop" check box. Once I do that, I get the 2 abilities the submitter asked for.
1) I can maximize a window and it maximizes onto whatever screen the window is on.
2) I can drag a window onto my other monitor.
Now, if you want "virtual desktops" than you can download the Microsoft Virtual Desktop Manager powertoy. It's not a 3rd-party thing.
The original poster asks for the ability to maximize a window and have it fit on one screen, rather than span both screens. But he also wants to be able to drag a window across from one screen to another.
I have this on my Windows XP machine right now. Also, as someone else pointed out, Microsoft offers virtual workspaces as well, it is just a powertoy.
P.S. Yet another Slashdotter who opens-up their reply with an insult.
He want to combine multiple screens and multiple desktops in a way that is not common.
That's not true. He wants:
I need something in the middle — a separate workspace for each screen, so that I can have independent virtual desktops on each screen, but still have the ability to move applications between monitors
That is the default on Windows XP. I have my screen setup that way right now. Firefox is on my right monitor, and... I click "restore" then drag it to another screen, then... I clicked maximize, and it is full-screen on the left monitor.
DRM executed properly is a good idea.
The problem is, DRM executed properly is impossible. The computer could never if what I intend to do is fair use or not.
I capture a copyrighted movie from TV - legal or not?
- for my mom: probably illegal.
- for my computer upstairs, to watch it in bed: legal.
- to take in to my history class at school: legal.
- to edit down to a 15-second clip for a documentary: legal.
- to run a steganographic cryptanalysis for a research paper: ???? wow, THAT's a tough one. Is the analysis a derived work? *DRM software explodes*
Where do you think we got the 'how long you can survive without food/water' stats?
Haiti.
I wonder if Iraq + Afghanistan + threats against Iran have increased demand for military aircraft throughout the world.
I know I'll get modded down for Linux bashing, but... this capability has been around on the Windows world since Windows NT. I think you could do it on '98 with some fiddling. It surprises me that this is not something Linux can do out-of-the-box. Is this a driver issue, or some limitation in the X architecture?
Thank you for making that point. But I would go a step further: Even in the US, the association of Republican=conservative and Democrat=liberal is a complete farce.
We're willing to spend practically infinite amounts of money propping up banks that ought to have failed,
Your exaggeration weakens your comparison.
It was not infinite amounts of money. Especially since I just learned that the banks paid most of it back already. That really put a damper on my skepticism.
we're unwilling to think strategically about the survival of the human race?
How is terrestrial science and stopping global warming not thinking strategically about survival? Are you saying that the benefits of going to the moon/mars outweigh the benefits of stopping global warming? FYI: If the human race is to survive, we need to do it on Earth for a long time yet. At the moment, the possibility of living anywhere else is somewhere between science fiction and science speculation.
The iPad is the future - computing as we know it is coming to an end. We, the geeks, the hackers, the programmers - are the minority.
We all thought DRM was going to come-in through TPM modules in the BIOS. We thought AMD and Intel would begrudgingly add support under pressure of the RIAA. We thought Windows would add support and that Linux would be the last bastion of free computing left. But it isn't going to happen that way. It's coming from a totally different angle.
What will happen is that various specialized devices, that are 100% DRM encumbered from the start, will slowly replace the PC until it becomes an expensive specialized device for programmers.
First the iPhone comes out. Then the iPad. The all the iPhone and iPad clones - until these devices become ubiquitous. That covers internet, document editing, email, and limited gaming. That's maybe 50% of what the average Joe uses a computer for. Major gaming and social networking can be done on XBOX/Playstation/Wii - also 100% DRM devices. Then those devices will handle your movies, your TV watching, and your DVD/Blu-ray/DRM'd streaming video. Now we are at... 75%? Eventually, 90% of what computers do will be done more easily on some specialized DRM'd device. The idea of the infinitely configurable totally hackable PC will die away. Most consumers won't know the difference.
So how do we break this? Maybe come-up with some super-cool thing you can do on a computer that nobody thought of yet... something that can't be done on these devices? Maybe Android is the answer? I dunno. But I see the tidal wave coming...
Some quick points that were made in related threads:
- QM: Some parts of the universe are random.
- Uncertainty principle: Some parts can just be ignored until observed.
- Light cone: Some parts do not impact other parts, so it can be broken up into pieces.
There's no limit to the range of the fundamental forces.
But there is a limit to the speed at which they propagate. Therefore, you know that some things cannot effect other things until at least a specific amount of time has passed.
So for a particle P at time T, another particle P0 at time T0 could be far enough away in space-time that it could not possible affect particle P at time T. It's called the light cone.
but if you could account for all the variables with enough precision; angle of the coin, angle of the thumb, force of the flip, distance to the floor, etc, you could likely predict each and every toss.
Unfortunately, you can't. :-( That's called the hidden variable theory. It has been proven that there can be no set of information that could be used to compute quantum randomness.
Einstein refused to believe that, and proposed the EPR thought experiment as a way to disprove it. Unfortunately for him, he died before John Bell resolved the EPR paradox, finally disproving hidden variables.
I know what you are saying: if you want to create a system that simulates the state of a bunch of particles, you must have at least enough memory to store those particles, which means the simulation device cannot be built from a subset of those particles. It seems sensible, but it is not necessarily true...
Sometimes you can implement an algorithm is a very tight memory space if you throw out intermediate values and recalculate them when needed. This is extremely inefficient, and memoization is the usual fix - which trades memory for performance.
So to calculate all the particles in the universe at time T, you don't necessarily need all the particles at time T-1. You could just start back from the beginning and recalculate as needed.
You also have some other conveniences: Quantum theory shows the universe is random below a certain size, so you might be able to approximate the universe without actually losing anything. The speed of light limits the size of the light cone so you know that particles beyond a certain space-time distance from each other will not have any effect on each other. And even if it did, you know the uncertainly principle means that certain values don't actually matter until they are observed: so they need not be calculated. And Planck's constant tells you that below a certain energy level, random background effects become more important that the effect of neighboring particles. So if a particle is far enough away, it's contribution to another particle can be ignored. Lastly, the universe has a certain amount of redundancy that could be eliminated through compression algorithms.
I've often thought that some of our observations about the limitations of the universe are actually indications that we ARE being simulated. What if things at the quantum level are random because there is a limitation to the floating-point accuracy of the computer that simulates us? Or maybe it is because we are trying to look at events shorter than the "frame rate" (AKA - the delta t between each calculated moment) in the universe. Perhaps the speed of light is finite as a convenience to limit the big-O?
I think the problem here is that you are applying the standards of cars to the standards of spacecraft and it doesn't apply.
NASA didn't purposely crash space shuttles to see if astronauts would survive: the assumption was they died. Unlike cars, there are no other space shuttles flying around, and the drivers aren't amateurs. Plus, cars cost a lot less than space ships. :-) If we had to crash test space ships, we would never complete any.
Well-written and well-directed fool the viewer into thinking the events are plausible. The less the viewer must suspend their disbelief, the more enjoyable the movie, play, book, etc. For example: A director could use a real car in a scene. Or they could make the car out of two giant pieces of cardboard with painted-on wheels. Or they could use a real car, but spray paint it with the word "CAR" on the side and replace the steering wheel with a wagon wheel. But generally they don't do that - they use a car that is appropriate to the scene. They should do the same thing for ovens, sandwiches, furniture, and computers. It is a bit odd to see a modern, relatively intelligent scene, where the login screen has dancing lightning beams and lasers firing, and a voice that yells "Access Denied" - no computer actually does that.