Aside from price, which makes accepting multiple monitors rather compelling(you can get physically big ones for relatively small amounts of money, because of TVs; but if you want resolution the cost goes up fast and things really start to misbehave if you go high enough that DP MST or the like is required to drive the thing), it mostly comes down to how good your windowing system is at tiling and how well applications that expect 'full screen' can handle playing with others.

A good window manager makes carving up a single large monitor into chunks suitably sized for your various programs easy and painless. If you are enduring a less obliging one, it can be a fairly ugly business, actually less pleasant than getting some help from multiple physical displays, which are more widely respected even by poorly behaved programs.

That said, the 'two side by side, giant bezel in the middle' configuration is not my favorite. A larger primary screen, with ancillary screens on one or both sides gives you plenty of room for assorted lesser windows; but also avoids annoying bezels in the center of your field of view.

You don't choose between workspaces and physical screens, you just have multiple physical screens so that each workspace can be even larger and more pleasant to use...

You do eventually run into diminishing returns; but being able to display more than one monitor worth of stuff simultaneously definitely has its uses, and is something that being able to switch between workspaces, be the transition ever so elegant, cannot replace.

Given that 8 was the "Just because it's called 'Windows' doesn't mean it needs a functional windowing system!" release, It's pretty hard to argue with them.

Maybe some of that works on touchscreen laptops; but 'metro' is a tragicomedy on any monitor configuration worth using.

Regulatory capture: it'll end up getting controlled by the very entities it's supposed to be controlling: robots, like the other Federal Commissions... :p

Let's flash back 20 years...

Ok... 20 years ago? I got an AOL CD in the mail about once a week, and it went straight into the trash. I was also signed up to Columbia house 11-cds-for-a-penny-deals and routinely got their unsolicited discs because i wasn't always great about sending in the go-away postcards.

The AOL disks went in the trash, the Columbia house discs, if they weren't explicitly ordered were returned to sender. And the stuff I actually ordered, naturally I kept.

If I'd had a maid, that's what she'd have been instructed to do with any CDs that arrived in the mail too. Assuming she wouldn't be able to tell unsolicited from solicited purchases, she'd have been instructed to set them aside.

Apparently if this had been your house, once a week the maid would have dutifully installed a new 30 day impossible to cancel AOL trial on your laptop for you, and once a month you would have found unbelievably crappy CDs on your rack coupled with collection notices from columbia house (or maybe your maid just paid those for you to)?

No... 20 years ago, the maid would definitely not have put anything that just showed up at the house away like you seem to think.

I guess a better example would be the nearly exclusively Catholic IRA fighting against a protestestant majority. Bombings, torture, murder, rape... yep all present. Sympathetic Catholics in other countries providing them support, aid, even joining them, etc... yep that happened too.

Didn't get as bad as Iraq/Afghanistan mind you, but that's not on the merits of Islam vs Catholicism, that simply because the UK was never a failed state the way Iraq and Afghanistan have been. The UK even at its "worst", still overall had very well functioning national and regional governments, military, and police forces. Its impoverished were still "first world poor" not "3rd world poor". Had a 3rd party, primarily interested its its own exploitative resource extraction concerns toppled the UK government and bombed out the nations infrastructure, creating widespread issues and a power vacuum; had it been reduced to 3rd world poverty levels -- is it really unreasonable to imagine things getting a whole lot uglier?

My point is its not "Islam". Its just "people". That we have a problem with Muslim terrorism right now, is simply some people who happen to be muslim have been oppressed and driven to terrorism to fight back. If Afghanistan had been predominantly westboro baptist... we'd have westboro baptist terrorist groups causing problems right now. Its really that simple.

You can interpret it that way. That's not the only way to interpret it.

You took a structure like:

"You aren't allowed to prepare, eat, or serve sticky or messy foods while sitting in the car. Some examples of prohibited foods include donuts, chocolate fondue, ."

And then claimed that it said you aren't allowed to ever eat donuts.

Its plainly wrong.

Except in reality for every player that plays regularly and shows up to practice daily, there are 10 players that drop in once in a while. Lets say the local league has 110 players in it. 10 guys that are obsessive about showing up, and 100 that drop in once a week or so to a game or practice.

Which pool is the "average" player? Is it the 100? or the 10? I'd say common sense is going to put the average a lot nearer the mean ability of the 100 than of the 10.

At any given match, 15 people will show up from the regular once a week pool. But at least 9 of the 10 obsessives will be there. And those 9 players will dominate the match.

Your argument speculates that 'hard core players' somehow outnumber 'casuals', and that the hard-core therefore ARE the average, and that's incorrect. The casuals out number the hard core players 10 to 1. But it doesn't matter, the hardcores are still there dominating every match.

Whether gun owners are responsible or not (my observation is that most are, and there's a few that scare me) is irrelevant to the "smart gun" debate.

Of the collection of gun owners that are not responsible one of the ways that irresponsibility manifests is leaving loaded guns lying around the house where kids find them and play with them. Quite a few kids are injured and killed this way.

"smart guns" could help with that group, and prevent those injuries and deaths, amongst other scenarios.

In addition, Tesla(whether or not you see this as an improvement is a distinct issue, it simply is so) sells cars much more like an enterprise IT hardware vendor sells hardware: at least within the warranty period, there is very much an ongoing interaction between the hardware and the vendor. System health information gets sent directly back, on site techs with specialized parts and firmware get sent out and so on. More traditional car companies are closer to buying a PC: the dealer will offer (often absurdly priced; but available) maintenance; and the vendor may become involved with certain warranty or recall cases; but they are otherwise largely out of the loop, with third parties handling the ongoing interaction with the hardware.

Something has to provide coordination and theatre-level intelligence for all deployed Highlander batteries, no?

I too have a massive library of oldies from GOG.com, a huge Steam library, and a large Steam wishlist just waiting for the right sale to pickup, I can outwait this trend since I literally have more content available than I can possibly consume pre-retirement.

But the clear straightforward text is: proxies are listed on the list of things you are specifically not allowed to use or run

No.

The clear straightforward text is: proxies are listed on the list of things you are specifically not allowed to use or run on your premises for the use of people off your premises

You could do the lawyer thing and claim to interpret it the way you say.

  That's not a lawyer thing, that's a basic reading comprehension thing.

I parsed the sentence and I showed you how I parsed it, so that if you disagreed with me you could point to the exact point you disagree with. If you feel there was an error in the parse, point at it.

And, last comment here: you have confirmed that you have not abandoned your incorrect (and actually quite ludicrous) version of heat transfer, which violates the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law on its very face.

That was all I needed. I am now done. Have a nice day. You can have the last word all you like; it won't make you any more correct.

And no, I don't have to ask myself that, because it doesn't happen.

I have already found the solution to a reasonable degree of precision. Your solution, as stated (approximately 241 degrees F for the central heat source) does not check out, even using your own equations.