What I mean though is that they should be the same device. It should be a TV/monitor. They should be marketed as open to both types of usage.
Well, they increasingly are. Many TVs not only have HDMI and analog inputs, but also a VGA or DVI input. Likewise, many computer monitors have HDMI inputs and even analog inputs. My mother uses her TV as a computer monitor - a wireless keyboard/mouse on the coffee table, and a Mac Mini in the AV cupboard under the TV. When she wants to check her email or transfer photos from her camera, she just "changes the channel" from the TV to the computer input.
The main differentiation between the two types of monitor the the size, and the distance they are intended to be viewed from. Most current computer displays can do dual-duty as a TV display, and vice-versa.
As to why Obama's doing it, well, two reasons. First, it satisfies a niche constituency, who like to see abortion-related topics pressed to the forefront at every opportunity.
What the hell? How is this an "abortion-related topic"?
Because often you'll want to use your computer while somebody else (or yourself) is using the TV screen. That, and computer monitors work for a single viewer, while TV sets work for group viewings.
Re:Not right in soooo many ways
on
Why TV Lost
·
· Score: 1
It predicted tribalism
I'm pretty sure that tribalism existed for a long time before either McLuhan or TV did.
In the larger context, "Economically viable" here means "its cheap enough that *everyone* can switch to it".
That's something you just made up. That has never been the definition of "economically viable". Many people in the world can't afford to buy food. Does that mean food isn't economically viable? Of course not. And it's not likely that the world can sustain everyone having a car, even if it's electric. Look at some Asian countries. There's isn't enough physical space for every person to own a car.
The only definition that really matters is "can you sell it without making a loss or going out of business?"
"Kicked off into space"? I thought they usually used rockets for space launches. Is this some new, eco-friendly launch technology based on that big boot that Australians use to punish children?
Given the topic on which he was writing, and his opinion on it, then why should we cut him any slack, when he is advocating the opposite? If he wants to write in passages English, condemning others' use of English, then shouldn't he hold himself to better standards?
What's the difference? If the material interested them rather than boring them, then they'd care. If they cared, they wouldn't be lazy.
That's pretty nonsensical. Things that are fascinating to one person are boring to another. If you're trying to teach classical music, and the students are only interested in monster trucks, then how do you make it interesting?
Even for students who are interested in a particular area of study, there are always boring and difficult parts. There's no way around that. Students just have to deal with it. Education is the goal, not entertainment. How are they going to cope with the real world if they expect everything to be delivered in an interesting, entertaining, or fun way? There are plenty of important things to know that aren't interesting or fun.
Finally, there are plenty of lazy people who are still lazy, even about things they are interested in.
Your argument doesn't make a lot of sense. Many people can't afford an iPhone, but the iPhone is perfectly economically viable. Most people can't afford a New York apartment. but people buy them, use them, and profit from them.
I think you've got a strange notion of "economically viable." Nobody ever said anything about everybody owning an electric car. it seems that your measure for something being viable is if that if you, personally can afford it. Surely, there are things that you buy that other people can't afford?
As for the Honda, it's an early adopter issue. Once the "beta" phase is over and the infrastructure grows, it will be available on more normal terms and prices. One could say the same thing about luxury cars. You don't really get anything in the end, except for increased status and maybe comfort, but people still buy them, and the business plans involved in selling them are certainly economically viable.
Yes, but it's coded in PHP. Witness the drama as straight tables go head-to-head with the polyamorous CSS shapeshifters, and a love-triangle forms when sexy interloper Ajax is suddenly introduced to the show.
Yeah, you'd better imagine them, because porn will remain the same old crap, no matter how good the technology is. It's funny how this idea comes up over and over again - "amazing new porn technology" and yet it still features the same old bad acting, fake situations and poor camerawork. I mean, the technology for good porn has been around since Shakespeare, but it rarely gets implemented.
This story has three icons attached to it, but not one of them is the "Bill Gates with Borg eye" one. C'mon, this was the perfect oppportunity to use that icon, and you blew it, slashdot!
At the end of the day, the government, as a voice for the people, has to make the best decisions it can given what it knows at that time.
So, the government doesn't have to make the best decisions it can, until after dinner time? At the beginning of, and during the day, it can make all the crappy decisions it likes?
You do realize that most government business is conducted during the daytime, right?
An economically viable method for providing electric vehicles has not revealed itself yet,
I don't see how that's true. What's not economically viable about the Honda electric car that's powered by a hydrogen fuel cell? Or even a plug-in-to-charge electric car? Aren't companies like Tesla making money selling electric cars?
Electric vehicles are coming to market, which indicates that companies do believe they are economically viable. Hell, in Britain they've been using electric vehicles for over 50 years (milk floats).
Not really. Someone could design a supremely energy efficient (per joule) car that runs on the blood of newborn infants that have a particular rare blood disease, and that blood costs thousands of dollars per liter, aside from the moral implications.
Someone else could design a relatively inefficient (per joule) car that runs on an abundant fuel source that costs nothing, say air.
Now, the car that runs on the blood of infants is the superior vehicle by your metric. But I think most people would disagree with that. By using your measurement, you are ignoring all kinds of things about how the fuel is obtained. You seem to think it's "not fair" that diesel has a higher energy density than gasoline. But why? Isn't that an advantage of diesel?
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't aimed at slashdotters and gamers aware enough to get their own exercise...
Is this some alternate-reality slashdot you're referring to?
At the standard Moore's Law rate, if applied to storage, you'll be able to carry all that around in your pocket in 15 years.
And I thought my joke alluding to goatse was gross. This is just sick.
Unfortunately, full-length movies are NOT a standard measure of storage space. Least of all on slashdot...
No, but distended rectums are.
What I mean though is that they should be the same device. It should be a TV/monitor. They should be marketed as open to both types of usage.
Well, they increasingly are. Many TVs not only have HDMI and analog inputs, but also a VGA or DVI input. Likewise, many computer monitors have HDMI inputs and even analog inputs. My mother uses her TV as a computer monitor - a wireless keyboard/mouse on the coffee table, and a Mac Mini in the AV cupboard under the TV. When she wants to check her email or transfer photos from her camera, she just "changes the channel" from the TV to the computer input.
The main differentiation between the two types of monitor the the size, and the distance they are intended to be viewed from. Most current computer displays can do dual-duty as a TV display, and vice-versa.
As to why Obama's doing it, well, two reasons. First, it satisfies a niche constituency, who like to see abortion-related topics pressed to the forefront at every opportunity.
What the hell? How is this an "abortion-related topic"?
Because often you'll want to use your computer while somebody else (or yourself) is using the TV screen. That, and computer monitors work for a single viewer, while TV sets work for group viewings.
It predicted tribalism
I'm pretty sure that tribalism existed for a long time before either McLuhan or TV did.
In the larger context, "Economically viable" here means "its cheap enough that *everyone* can switch to it".
That's something you just made up. That has never been the definition of "economically viable". Many people in the world can't afford to buy food. Does that mean food isn't economically viable? Of course not. And it's not likely that the world can sustain everyone having a car, even if it's electric. Look at some Asian countries. There's isn't enough physical space for every person to own a car.
The only definition that really matters is "can you sell it without making a loss or going out of business?"
"Kicked off into space"? I thought they usually used rockets for space launches. Is this some new, eco-friendly launch technology based on that big boot that Australians use to punish children?
Given the topic on which he was writing, and his opinion on it, then why should we cut him any slack, when he is advocating the opposite? If he wants to write in passages English, condemning others' use of English, then shouldn't he hold himself to better standards?
What's the difference? If the material interested them rather than boring them, then they'd care. If they cared, they wouldn't be lazy.
That's pretty nonsensical. Things that are fascinating to one person are boring to another. If you're trying to teach classical music, and the students are only interested in monster trucks, then how do you make it interesting?
Even for students who are interested in a particular area of study, there are always boring and difficult parts. There's no way around that. Students just have to deal with it. Education is the goal, not entertainment. How are they going to cope with the real world if they expect everything to be delivered in an interesting, entertaining, or fun way? There are plenty of important things to know that aren't interesting or fun.
Finally, there are plenty of lazy people who are still lazy, even about things they are interested in.
Your argument doesn't make a lot of sense. Many people can't afford an iPhone, but the iPhone is perfectly economically viable. Most people can't afford a New York apartment. but people buy them, use them, and profit from them.
I think you've got a strange notion of "economically viable." Nobody ever said anything about everybody owning an electric car. it seems that your measure for something being viable is if that if you, personally can afford it. Surely, there are things that you buy that other people can't afford?
As for the Honda, it's an early adopter issue. Once the "beta" phase is over and the infrastructure grows, it will be available on more normal terms and prices. One could say the same thing about luxury cars. You don't really get anything in the end, except for increased status and maybe comfort, but people still buy them, and the business plans involved in selling them are certainly economically viable.
Yes, but it's coded in PHP. Witness the drama as straight tables go head-to-head with the polyamorous CSS shapeshifters, and a love-triangle forms when sexy interloper Ajax is suddenly introduced to the show.
Yeah, you'd better imagine them, because porn will remain the same old crap, no matter how good the technology is. It's funny how this idea comes up over and over again - "amazing new porn technology" and yet it still features the same old bad acting, fake situations and poor camerawork. I mean, the technology for good porn has been around since Shakespeare, but it rarely gets implemented.
This story has three icons attached to it, but not one of them is the "Bill Gates with Borg eye" one. C'mon, this was the perfect oppportunity to use that icon, and you blew it, slashdot!
At the end of the day, the government, as a voice for the people, has to make the best decisions it can given what it knows at that time.
So, the government doesn't have to make the best decisions it can, until after dinner time? At the beginning of, and during the day, it can make all the crappy decisions it likes?
You do realize that most government business is conducted during the daytime, right?
What happens when the US Gov comes knocking on Google's door for some data on you, me, whoever.
Why would they bother "knocking on the door," when they can simply use that handy little search input field on Google's website?
Nah, I'm thinking "The Dick Cheney Death Star" or perhaps a bit more obliquely "The Harry Reid Memorial Space Station".
Colbert wins, but they decide to stick with the theme and dignity...
What!?? Stephen Colbert is dignity personified. And it would be highly undignified for NASA to snub the actual winner of the voting.
Shouldn't it be Tek Jansen?
That's because you aren't 70 years old with blue hair, a hip-hop artist, a professional athlete, or a trophy wife.
But I AM a 70-year old trophy wife, hip-hop artist and athlete, you insensitive clod!
An economically viable method for providing electric vehicles has not revealed itself yet,
I don't see how that's true. What's not economically viable about the Honda electric car that's powered by a hydrogen fuel cell? Or even a plug-in-to-charge electric car? Aren't companies like Tesla making money selling electric cars?
Electric vehicles are coming to market, which indicates that companies do believe they are economically viable. Hell, in Britain they've been using electric vehicles for over 50 years (milk floats).
Not really. Someone could design a supremely energy efficient (per joule) car that runs on the blood of newborn infants that have a particular rare blood disease, and that blood costs thousands of dollars per liter, aside from the moral implications.
Someone else could design a relatively inefficient (per joule) car that runs on an abundant fuel source that costs nothing, say air.
Now, the car that runs on the blood of infants is the superior vehicle by your metric. But I think most people would disagree with that. By using your measurement, you are ignoring all kinds of things about how the fuel is obtained. You seem to think it's "not fair" that diesel has a higher energy density than gasoline. But why? Isn't that an advantage of diesel?
Before you get all proud about the 40MPG rating, please note that a US Gallon differs from an Imperial Gallon.
Then, shouldn't we alter the length of a mile to account for the discrepancy?
Clearly, it means that the "gold tablets" that God gave to Joseph Smith were actually the world's first eBook readers. And God owns shares in Amazon.