The server could pre-calculate both horizontal and vertical phone orientations so each is ready when you flip it.
It's not as easy to come up with production/work applications off the top of my head, because I don't generally do those in the browser.
They are gradually moving to browser, but it's difficult because browser GUI's are a PITA.
But you didn't explain why the server side is better capable of handling varied screen sizes from small phone to large phone to tablet to desktop site.
I thought I did. The client would be far simpler because it doesn't need auto-flow logic: it's just a dumb coordinate plotter. And one gets consistent results regardless of client. All 800x300 clients will look identical regardless of "browser" make or version, for example. The designer can do WYSIWYG testing and doesn't have to worry about client auto-flow differences. Auto-flow is one of the greatest evils of web browsers in my opinion from a developer and tester effort standpoint.
It might be a more stable platform than the current web stack where different browser brands under different OS settings render things in different places and different ways. Back in the day they were positioned mostly by absolute coordinates, reducing positioning surprises. Auto-flow has mostly failed.
It pretty much took numerical simulations using supercomputers to be able to predict the gravitational wave signal from colliding black holes.
That's an interesting conjecture. Were pre-super-computer simulations off by orders of magnitudes, and/or had an error range orders of magnitudes? I'm not a physics expert.
There may be some upsides to their DNA that we don't yet know about. Diseases and extreme problems are better understood because that's what medical experts are expected to focus on. But there could also be some nice traits we picked up from them such that they counter the negative traits enough to survive in our genome.
And the down-sides of them may only show up in some people. That is, they depend on combinations of other genes to manifest themselves.
Okay, there was some uncertainty over the what phenomena could cause gravity waves, but that still creates mostly the same in issue on the generation side.
Colliding black holes is about as big as you can get. There's nothing known that's more massive, except "collective" objects like galaxies and dust clouds.
Those things are either too diffuse to generate GW's, above noise, or would create them as such a low frequency to be beyond the frequency range of current detectors.
I understand that, but I've never seen an article about past attempts with statements similar to, "most existing theories on gravity say we shouldn't expect to detect gravity waves with [current gizmo] because it's not sensitive enough, but part of the purpose of [current gizmo] is to verify this expectation."
They have been trying to detect GW's for roughly half a century, making instruments gradually ever sensitive when nothing found. Was their magnitude so uncertain that they had no idea how sensitive the detector had to be to detect them?
If it's nearly a guaranteed result, as you implied, then why the huge uncertainty over the sensitivity needed? Or did the early trials merely hope the models were wrong when trying to detect results beyond what the tech of the day could handle relative to the (faint) magnitude the models suggested?
For example, why build a detector that is only sensitive to waves of 100 units or larger if the models say the actual waves should only be 2 units of size? You wouldn't build the 100 unit-size detector unless you had a decent reason to believe the models could be wrong. But I've never seen that assumption stated in the write-ups over the years they've been building all these detectors.
Slashdot Mirror
Star: *Bwuuuurp* Damn! Excuse me! I swallowed a bit too much interstellar gas.
Please test it on goatse
All large companies seem to grow into dicks eventually.
Groovy
The server could pre-calculate both horizontal and vertical phone orientations so each is ready when you flip it.
They are gradually moving to browser, but it's difficult because browser GUI's are a PITA.
I thought I did. The client would be far simpler because it doesn't need auto-flow logic: it's just a dumb coordinate plotter. And one gets consistent results regardless of client. All 800x300 clients will look identical regardless of "browser" make or version, for example. The designer can do WYSIWYG testing and doesn't have to worry about client auto-flow differences. Auto-flow is one of the greatest evils of web browsers in my opinion from a developer and tester effort standpoint.
And reinvent bankruptcy, hopefully, for MS. That company is gone.
And an unemployed person 1000 years ago is better off than a person being tortured and beaten. I'm not sure that tells us anything useful.
He summoned a spooky fist at a distance.
How often do you resize your window?
Further, I'm thinking of a standard for production/work applications, not eye-candy brochures and read-only sites.
For every one that works well, there's probably 10 that are screwy.
A fixed size is not what I asked for. I said, let the server compute the resizing, NOT the client. Big difference.
It might be a more stable platform than the current web stack where different browser brands under different OS settings render things in different places and different ways. Back in the day they were positioned mostly by absolute coordinates, reducing positioning surprises. Auto-flow has mostly failed.
I wonder if there was a "eureka!" moment where a researcher looked at preliminary data and thought, "Holy shit, we've really got something!"
Maybe enough customers bailed that it freed up bandwidth. It's like a MMOG of chicken.
That's an interesting conjecture. Were pre-super-computer simulations off by orders of magnitudes, and/or had an error range orders of magnitudes? I'm not a physics expert.
only if calculating the Planck Constant
I don't have that problem because I run Winbrow instead.
Don't worry, you'll feel better after bashing a mammoth in the head with a large club. That always cheers me up.
There may be some upsides to their DNA that we don't yet know about. Diseases and extreme problems are better understood because that's what medical experts are expected to focus on. But there could also be some nice traits we picked up from them such that they counter the negative traits enough to survive in our genome.
And the down-sides of them may only show up in some people. That is, they depend on combinations of other genes to manifest themselves.
This one?
Someone got it loaded pretty quick. Interesting. Thanks.
Okay, there was some uncertainty over the what phenomena could cause gravity waves, but that still creates mostly the same in issue on the generation side.
Colliding black holes is about as big as you can get. There's nothing known that's more massive, except "collective" objects like galaxies and dust clouds.
Those things are either too diffuse to generate GW's, above noise, or would create them as such a low frequency to be beyond the frequency range of current detectors.
I understand that, but I've never seen an article about past attempts with statements similar to, "most existing theories on gravity say we shouldn't expect to detect gravity waves with [current gizmo] because it's not sensitive enough, but part of the purpose of [current gizmo] is to verify this expectation."
Does anyone have a link to an actual plot of the signal, where one could (hopefully) see the wave pattern, or any pattern?
Due to gridlock, he hasn't actually changed much beyond ACA.
They have been trying to detect GW's for roughly half a century, making instruments gradually ever sensitive when nothing found. Was their magnitude so uncertain that they had no idea how sensitive the detector had to be to detect them?
If it's nearly a guaranteed result, as you implied, then why the huge uncertainty over the sensitivity needed? Or did the early trials merely hope the models were wrong when trying to detect results beyond what the tech of the day could handle relative to the (faint) magnitude the models suggested?
For example, why build a detector that is only sensitive to waves of 100 units or larger if the models say the actual waves should only be 2 units of size? You wouldn't build the 100 unit-size detector unless you had a decent reason to believe the models could be wrong. But I've never seen that assumption stated in the write-ups over the years they've been building all these detectors.
Blockhead