Two words: resolution independence, something most operating systems have supported for quite some time. (Even Windows 95 was reasonably res-independent.)
I like running high resolutions on smaller displays because everything looks sharper, not because I'd like more viewing area (and consequently, a minuscule UI, as you rightly pointed out.)
Unfortunately, I can't read Japanese. Thanks for linking the PDF, though. I might ask a friend to translate, as it looks really interesting.
and yes, red lasers are used during the manufacturing process, not used to create the master, but used when creating the CD from the master.
Per Wikipedia, a red laser is only used as a read laser in a feedback loop with the blue write laser while creating the master, confirming my initial statement. Where do you see any reference to its use during the replication process?
The final polycarbonate disc is pressed. The glass master, however, is etched with a laser. The summary's still incorrect, though, as the master's created using a UV or violet laser.
TFA could be referring to the fact that red lasers are used to check the master for consistency.
Again, I'm not a web developer, but does that mean there is something 'wrong' with the standards?
Although there's nothing "wrong" per se, the standards are excessively strict, and slight nonconformity will not cause rendering issues in any browser. For example, non-literal attribute values, while not technically standards compliant, is properly recognized by every HTML parser in existence. Arguably, such usage conforms to a "democratic standard," rendering the W3C's say irrelevant on this specific matter.
Furthermore, W3C's validation tool doesn't work very well. In Google's case, it's flagged bits of string literals (URLs in links, specifically) as invalid.
Well, some of Canon's cameras have eye controlled AF point selection (the EOS 3 springs to mind.) It's not too hard to embed a tiny CCD for capturing iris data. Capturing it precisely is another matter, since there isn't much room for a lens of sufficient focal length to capture a nice shot of the iris.
Then again, since this is only used for biometric data, precise capture isn't important (thumbprint scanners aren't too high-res either; fundamental points of the thumb/iris are all that're required to establish a good match.)
This summary is somewhat misleading, since the user actually has to click the banner to install the software. Contrary to what the summary implies, Snopes does not perform drive-by downloads on its users. By the logic of this summary, tons of online publishers "push adware," since those "Free Virus Scan" ads are pretty ubiquitous...
I'm personally not a fan of ultraportable laptops with the footprints of ordinary laptops. If a laptop is going to be minimalistic, its manufacturer ought to go all the way. A subnotebook will never replicate the functionality of a typical 14" computer, so it's pointless to give it the footprint of one. I'd much rather see a diminished footprint than a minuscule thickness. I would personally prefer an updated version of my Thinkpad S30 than this MacBook Air competitor.
I usually don't feed trolls, but I feel like wasting a few minutes of my time...
The nature of the computer graphics app forced him to use a proprietary format. Too many people confuse the ills of "proprietary" formats with the ills of "arcane" formats. Like it or not, PSD is the industry standard, and it's only logical that he (and 99.99999% of digital artists) use it.
Now, if he had saved in some odd SGI format circa 1990, I'd agree with you.
Well, replying with a nicer tone might help your karma:-)
Seriously, though, my 200 mhz Pentium isn't my primary machine by a long shot... It's a Sony ultralight PCG-505g laptop that I purchased for $30. Seedetails. I only use it for notetaking and occasional web browsing. My quad Xeon is the machine that sees far more usage.
Ironically, I'm 16 years old... has my cantankerousness already peaked?;-)
As for my original point, one user wrote rather succinctly, "If your dumb terminal has to be smarter and more capable than the high end systems of last year, then you're [sic] design is broken and not just a little bit." I think it's ridiculous that the specs to run Google Apps smoothly are far higher than the specs to run virtually any desktop office application smoothly (I haven't tried Office 2007). The fact that hardware is getting more powerful is not an open invitation to programmers to write less efficient code/implementations of applications simply because machines can run it.
P.S. The very fact that an ostensibly basic application won't even run on a 200 mhz Pentium that easily runs its local brethren (Office 2000 runs like a charm) is indicative of larger, inherent performance issues. Just because Windows Vista runs okay on my Xeon system* doesn't mean that it's ideally efficient.
*Yes, I actually installed Vista on a spare drive for approximately 15 minutes
I only have a machine with a 200 mhz Pentium because it's a Sony ultralight PCG-505G that I purchased for $30. I did mention that I have a quad Xeon system too, no?
But my real point was exactly what you state: web based interfaces will always be inherently slower than traditional ones.
A UI based in JavaScript or even pure HTML is horridly inefficient. Browsers' rendering engines are designed to quickly translate markup/scripting, not render screen elements most efficiently. The browser is another hoop code must jump through before its result is presented to the user. I can't even use the JS-based GMail on my 200 mhz Pentium because its fancy AJAX slows Firefox to a halt (Thunderbird runs just fine). GMail is even less responsive on my Xeon system compared to normal applications.
On an aside, I'm tired of sites relying more and more on AJAX and CSS to generate/render pages, as web-based applications must. Slashdot renders noticeably more slowly with its new CSS-based layout than its old primarily HTML-based layout.
For the same reason that it's perfectly legal for my private high school to "sell me the way" to solve second order differential equations, or for my violin teacher to "sell me the way" to play Bach...
Because this is the equivalent of Microsoft's changing one obscure icon in shell32.dll and then releasing it as a fullblown patch? I have no problem with noting major XP/Vista patches on the front page, but this is simply too trivial to be frontpage worthy news.
Slashdot Mirror
Two words: resolution independence, something most operating systems have supported for quite some time. (Even Windows 95 was reasonably res-independent.)
I like running high resolutions on smaller displays because everything looks sharper, not because I'd like more viewing area (and consequently, a minuscule UI, as you rightly pointed out.)
Unfortunately, I can't read Japanese. Thanks for linking the PDF, though. I might ask a friend to translate, as it looks really interesting.
and yes, red lasers are used during the manufacturing process, not used to create the master, but used when creating the CD from the master.
Per Wikipedia, a red laser is only used as a read laser in a feedback loop with the blue write laser while creating the master, confirming my initial statement. Where do you see any reference to its use during the replication process?
The final polycarbonate disc is pressed. The glass master, however, is etched with a laser. The summary's still incorrect, though, as the master's created using a UV or violet laser.
TFA could be referring to the fact that red lasers are used to check the master for consistency.
You're off by three orders of magnitude...
Again, I'm not a web developer, but does that mean there is something 'wrong' with the standards?
Although there's nothing "wrong" per se, the standards are excessively strict, and slight nonconformity will not cause rendering issues in any browser. For example, non-literal attribute values, while not technically standards compliant, is properly recognized by every HTML parser in existence. Arguably, such usage conforms to a "democratic standard," rendering the W3C's say irrelevant on this specific matter.
Furthermore, W3C's validation tool doesn't work very well. In Google's case, it's flagged bits of string literals (URLs in links, specifically) as invalid.
Depends on the size of the sensor. 35mm, yes. For a 6x17cm sensor, 261 MP isn't unreasonable.
Oh, something like this?
http://www.takeawayfestival.com/files/japanTruck2.jpg
Well, some of Canon's cameras have eye controlled AF point selection (the EOS 3 springs to mind.) It's not too hard to embed a tiny CCD for capturing iris data. Capturing it precisely is another matter, since there isn't much room for a lens of sufficient focal length to capture a nice shot of the iris.
Then again, since this is only used for biometric data, precise capture isn't important (thumbprint scanners aren't too high-res either; fundamental points of the thumb/iris are all that're required to establish a good match.)
Or just install AdBlock, a much easier solution.
This summary is somewhat misleading, since the user actually has to click the banner to install the software. Contrary to what the summary implies, Snopes does not perform drive-by downloads on its users. By the logic of this summary, tons of online publishers "push adware," since those "Free Virus Scan" ads are pretty ubiquitous...
???.com.?? would also be a subdomain, as com.?? is more than just a suffix. Just pointing that out.
I bought it on eBay for $350.
I'm personally not a fan of ultraportable laptops with the footprints of ordinary laptops. If a laptop is going to be minimalistic, its manufacturer ought to go all the way. A subnotebook will never replicate the functionality of a typical 14" computer, so it's pointless to give it the footprint of one. I'd much rather see a diminished footprint than a minuscule thickness. I would personally prefer an updated version of my Thinkpad S30 than this MacBook Air competitor.
I've never met a single person ever who prefers a nipple to a trackpad.
So *that's* why geeks have such a hard time getting laid...
I usually don't feed trolls, but I feel like wasting a few minutes of my time...
The nature of the computer graphics app forced him to use a proprietary format. Too many people confuse the ills of "proprietary" formats with the ills of "arcane" formats. Like it or not, PSD is the industry standard, and it's only logical that he (and 99.99999% of digital artists) use it.
Now, if he had saved in some odd SGI format circa 1990, I'd agree with you.
Well, replying with a nicer tone might help your karma :-)
;-)
Seriously, though, my 200 mhz Pentium isn't my primary machine by a long shot... It's a Sony ultralight PCG-505g laptop that I purchased for $30. See details. I only use it for notetaking and occasional web browsing. My quad Xeon is the machine that sees far more usage.
Ironically, I'm 16 years old... has my cantankerousness already peaked?
As for my original point, one user wrote rather succinctly, "If your dumb terminal has to be smarter and more capable than the high end systems of last year, then you're [sic] design is broken and not just a little bit." I think it's ridiculous that the specs to run Google Apps smoothly are far higher than the specs to run virtually any desktop office application smoothly (I haven't tried Office 2007). The fact that hardware is getting more powerful is not an open invitation to programmers to write less efficient code/implementations of applications simply because machines can run it.
P.S. The very fact that an ostensibly basic application won't even run on a 200 mhz Pentium that easily runs its local brethren (Office 2000 runs like a charm) is indicative of larger, inherent performance issues. Just because Windows Vista runs okay on my Xeon system* doesn't mean that it's ideally efficient. *Yes, I actually installed Vista on a spare drive for approximately 15 minutes
I only have a machine with a 200 mhz Pentium because it's a Sony ultralight PCG-505G that I purchased for $30. I did mention that I have a quad Xeon system too, no?
But my real point was exactly what you state: web based interfaces will always be inherently slower than traditional ones.
Yeah, but for someone with the username "Presto Vivace," wouldn't everything seem slow to you?
A UI based in JavaScript or even pure HTML is horridly inefficient. Browsers' rendering engines are designed to quickly translate markup/scripting, not render screen elements most efficiently. The browser is another hoop code must jump through before its result is presented to the user. I can't even use the JS-based GMail on my 200 mhz Pentium because its fancy AJAX slows Firefox to a halt (Thunderbird runs just fine). GMail is even less responsive on my Xeon system compared to normal applications.
On an aside, I'm tired of sites relying more and more on AJAX and CSS to generate/render pages, as web-based applications must. Slashdot renders noticeably more slowly with its new CSS-based layout than its old primarily HTML-based layout.
Or simply, "minitrue."
For the same reason that it's perfectly legal for my private high school to "sell me the way" to solve second order differential equations, or for my violin teacher to "sell me the way" to play Bach...
Why would it not be on the frontpage?
Because this is the equivalent of Microsoft's changing one obscure icon in shell32.dll and then releasing it as a fullblown patch? I have no problem with noting major XP/Vista patches on the front page, but this is simply too trivial to be frontpage worthy news.
Better question: Why is this labeled a front-page story? How is this sufficiently newsworthy to warrant a front-page posting!?
Uncensored Japanese pornography!