Leap seconds. And yes, it can run Linux.

For a handful of sites... but it doesn't have a decrypter plugin for recaptcha.

Never have, but could if I needed to. It would be tight, but I know I could cut back where necessary. If I was earning minimum wage, I'd be saving less, to be sure. But I wouldn't be spending much less; I don't spend much anyway.

Parks and playgrounds and libraries and over-the-air TV are the cheapest forms of entertainment. My tax dollars are helping to make these forms of entertainment available, so it seems a little ungrateful to ignore them.

Pawn shops, while usually cheaper than buying new, generally are selling exactly the sort of fancy crap that you don't really need - or might need to buy once, and then use for a fairly long time (TV or computer). I generally stay away from them unless I know what I'm buying and I'm looking for a deal.

But really, as infrequently as it occurs, I usually just splurge on those purchases and buy it from a retail store, since I have the money to do that.

No, believe it or not I've been in them. Many times. Pretty much anything (except for electronics) I can buy used secondhand, I typically buy used secondhand.

Who said anything about loans?

Some people might have wasted their money, but many saved it. Now most waste it, and some save it.

Yes, that was the point. They tongue-in-cheek could have afforded a TV, except that they needed a new (used) car and they were saving their money for that. Now almost nobody saves their money for a new car.

And now they're free to waste their money and take out a loan for that car that will take them years to repay, mostly because they're used to wasting their money. And as soon as they've paid off that car, and no longer have the car payment coming out of their monthly expenses, they think they can afford making payments on a new car. It's ridiculous.

The point is that you could survive perfectly well, if you'd quit blowing your money on shit you don't need. And you don't need fancy, expensive entertainment.

As long as they're making the minimum payments, they won't be hit with those lethally high rates. Banks aren't stupid; you can milk a cow over and over but only skin it once.

Well, that's just great - saddle them with immense debt under the promise that it'll make them happy. Then entertain them enough so that they won't kill themselves.

Ever heard the phrase "the satisfaction of a job well done"? Or hell... here's one that will really blow your mind: "Hard work is its own reward".

Fact is, advertisers have been spending billions for decades trying to convince you that you need to be entertained 24/7. Because they know if you're suitably convinced of that, you'll pay a pretty price for it.

And 50 years ago, just about anyone who really wanted a TV could buy one - saving up for it exactly the same way they saved up for the used car. Except they didn't really want the TV that badly, and they needed the car. So they saved up for the used car instead. Because 50 years ago, they did save their money. They weren't pissing away their money on unnecessary stuff that might only cost a small fraction of their income, but adds up.

Yeah, look at the alternative to spending all that money on entertainment: they could waste it paying off those 18% interest credit cards, instead of just paying last month's interest.

Just change the numbers - it's a simple linear transformation, and the lines should intersect at 0 (or close to it).

Here, here's one reduced by a factor of 5.
http://ompldr.org/vZTBwaQ/resolution_chart.png

And here's another reduced by a factor of 10.
http://ompldr.org/vZTBwNw/resolution_chart.png

From that, it's pretty obvious that at viewing distances closer than 2' you're going to get the full benefit of 1080p for anything larger than 15". From a viewing distance of 1 1/2' you'll get the full benefit of 1440p for anything over 16".

Yes, but they're called subpixels and they're not counted individually, either with respect to dithering or when you're determining whether it's a "retina" display. The pixel density of the screen is computed from groups of red/green/blue subpixels, not the density of the subpixels themselves (which needs to be 3x as high).

So no, it doesn't skew the math.

Depends on what you mean by "make out pixels".

Can you see a single pixel? Well, yeah, probably. Even if your eye can't resolve it, it will change the overall brightness of the smallest area your eye can resolve. So, you'll "see" it.

However, can you tell if it moves over by 1 pixel? Or could you tell the difference between a straight line 1 pixel thin, vs. a line that was actually a 2-pixel tall checkerboard pattern with the same average brightness? Etc.

Turn a single pixel on or off and you can probably see that, but that doesn't mean it's significant in the overall scheme of things. Especially with anti-aliasing in addition.

The fallacy is that her time is too valuable to learn GIMP, but her budget is too cheap to buy Photoshop. Pick one or the other, not both.

If her time is really so valuable that she can't afford to spend a few hours learning GIMP, then I don't believe she really can't afford Photoshop. People's time is valuable IFF they are rich.

So IE8, by default, unless it's explicitly told to do it correctly, will render HTML according to its old, quirky, WRONG way of doing it. Is that what you're telling me?

Then again - maybe not. I think it has to have a certain position style, too. Not sure. I at least know that in IE an absolutely-positioned div with specified heights and widths will be a minimum height if you don't set the overflow property. Firefox and Opera don't need an overflow property if there is an explicit height specified.