Did the car not notify her in some way that the key was no longer in the car? I know my Ford does this, it beeps and displays something on the dash if I get out of the car with the key and leave the car running. I'm pretty sure my BMW had a similar feature but I don't have it anymore so I can't verify that.
As a customer of Verizon I can personally tell you that they don't care about you hosting a personal web site. They block port 80, but that's no big deal. I used to host a site with my pictures on it and they never said a thing. But then I wasn't running flickr and dealing in TB's of usage each month.
Verizon has never claimed unlimited, and we now know what it takes to be flagged, and that's 50TB or more for multiple months. So host your family photo albums, your git servers, your own personal cloud storage, whatever, Verizon isn't going to care. But don't try hosting hundreds of TB of media for a large number of people to leech off you.
They're not pushing people to their partners. If you have high bandwidth demands they want you on a business plan, which this guy had, then he switched to a consumer plan to save money, and violated their ToS.
Verizon isn't going to stop people who are hosting a personal site (although they block port 80). They aren't going after people hosting a few friends on a game server. But their ToS do permit them to cancel your service if you are hosting a server, and they use this for people abusing the service, like this guy. Their ToS also prevents you from hosting your own ISP on their consumer line or anything like that.
And look at what this guy did, 50TB for multiple months, then he hit 77TB, and that's when they finally called him on it. If their "unlimited" plan (not that they market it as such) goes up into the 10's of TB, is that really a problem?
Looking back I realize I did a lot more science experiments in high school then I realized. In fact I remember a number of physics experiments I performed involving the reduction in friction created by centripetal forces when near frozen fluids were applied to the surfaces involved.
Is it science every time a redneck says "Hold my beer and watch this."? Not necessarily. And this story could very well be the same kind of thing. The way I've seen this story presented it's meant to get people to think she made a mistake in science class, like mixing the wrong things, and got arrested for that. Then when you read the details it appears to be something quite different.
I don't know if race played into this or not, perhaps it's just another stupid example of zero tolerance.
Was this really a science experiment? She was mixing household chemicals in a plastic bottle on school property. It had nothing to do with her science class. It's more likely she got this stuff out of the janitor's closet or something like that. It sounds more like a kid being stupid rather than one experimenting.
Not that I agree with the penalty in any way. Detention or suspension would be ok here since no real harm came from it. It doesn't merit police involvement, or comparison to an accidental shooting.
I wish they'd be honest about those resolutions. It is annoying that 3840 is being advertised as 4k. Clearly it's not. Sure it's double 1080p, but 1080p ain't 2k, so 3840 shouldn't be called 4k.
It's also annoying that they put 1080p and 2k in the graph, then just labeled this new display 4k. Dammit, so close, they acknowledged 2k as a valid format, but ignored real 4k.
You're half right. More vertical space is great, but the ratio doesn't matter. For the work you are talking about what matters is the height.
There's a funky Dell out now that has an even wider aspect ratio, it's around 2.33:1 I believe. Now I'd like that, if it had more pixels. It's 2560x1080. That's a detriment. But imagine if that was more along the lines 3350x1440. Would you still complain that was too wide? You could have three documents, web pages, whatever up, side by side, and still have a lot of vertical space.
Overall resolution and pixel density are what's important. Far more so than ratio. Hell, if height is the only thing that matters to you then get the biggest monitor you can afford and turn it on its side.
Frankly I want both, height and width. But if the cost for a wee bit more height is substantial, well as long as I have enough vertical resolution I'm not going to get too caught up on the ratio. 1440 is great for me. Would I like 1600? Sure. Would I rather spend that $300+ on something else? You bet.
I bought a Gateway open-box 21" monitor back in the late 90's for about $1k. I think it could do 1600x1200, but it wasn't real solid at that. That was one heavy beast to move around. I got rid of it some time ago, don't remember how. I got a Dell 19" Trinitron from one employer in 2000. That was sweet, although it had those two strange horizontal lines, but other than that the image was solid. Eventually its color started to go though. I also bought a 17" NEC monitor in '95 or '96 for just under $700 on sale at Best Buy. Checked Computer Shopper and saw that was about $300 off list. Ah, those were the days.
Of course those CRTs didn't have the viewable size they were listed at. So that 21" was probably under 20". My LCDs are all within a fraction of an inch of what they claim. And of course they way a fraction of what those old CRTs did.
A 4K 50" display 4' or 5' away would give you a pretty damn immersive experience. Wouldn't that be nice?
I'm sitting with my eyes about 3' from my 27" 2560x1440 display with about 108ppi. I can make out some pixels as it is in the text. I'm not wearing my glasses, so that helps some. If this was a 4K 27" display, that would be 163ppi. That's a 50% increase right there.
Wasn't that long ago that running 1280x1024 on a 17" LCD was pretty damn nice, and that was 94ppi. So for a decade we've barely improved when it comes to density. Hell, a 24" 16:10 display that so many people love so much has the same density as a 17" LCD.
Of course my very first PC games ran in CGA, and I thought VGA was a huge step up. But at no time have I ever thought to myself "Nope, more wouldn't be better". Not when it comes to graphics, RAM, harddrive size, etc. Give me more and I'll use it.
I heard at one time that 16:10 came out of the video editing industry. Basically they were working on 16:9 video, so they had displays with extra space at the bottom for controls. These displays then were adapted to the higher end computer market. However once 16:9 displays were being manufactured in large quantities for consumer TVs, I imagine that drove the price down for manufacturing 16:9 computer monitors. I'm fairly certain the decision to use 1920x1080 in the TV industry had nothing to do with computer displays.
But what does the ratio really matter? Isn't it about the pixels? I used a Samsung 24" 1920x1200 for a long time, and I loved it. But I'd seen higher pixel counts, and I wanted it. So when I had the spare cash last year the decision for me was 1 30" display or spend a slight bit more and go for 2 27" displays. I don't care about the ratio, I got plenty of height now. That's what matters.
Why? Why does 16:10 make a difference at that resolution? I mentioned the 2560x1600 displays, but you know what, they cost hundreds more and they have lower pixel density. The premium for 160 pixels is 30% or more, hell with Dell on Amazon right now it's 50% more.
What exactly are people doing that requires 16:10? I've used 'em, I like 'em, but I'll take 2560x1440 over 1920x1200 any day of the week. Likewise I'll take 3840x2160 over 2560x1600.
If the premium for 16:10 was in the neighborhood of 10-15% for the same pixel density, then yes, it's worthwhile. Otherwise, what's the big deal?
That's really the important thing. We've been stuck in a rut with display sizes for a long, long time. It's time to move pixel density forward. The 27" displays that have been on the scene for the past 2 years or so are great, but so far the price hasn't dropped a great deal (disregarding the generic Korean Dell/Apple rejects).
Once 4K TV production ramps up that should lead to more higher density monitors at reasonable prices. Sadly I have to admit that it really seems like Apple was the company that pushed forward into higher density displays for smaller devices. Fortunately other companies picked up on that pretty quickly. Once people get used to those kind of displays on their tablets and phones, they're going to want something similar on their desktops and laptops.
1920x1200 have been around long before the Dell U2410, so it's silly they ignored this. But would you really reject a 2560x1440 display because it's 16:9? How about a 4k display? That's just silly.
People need to get over this 16:9 vs. 16:10 garbage. What matters is the number of pixels. Once you get past 1200 lines or thereabouts, it's all gravy. I'm happily using two 16:9 displays, a pair of Dell U2711, and I'm well pleased with that. The extra cost to get an additional 160 lines from a 16:10 30" screen just isn't worth it.