20/20 vision is defined by the ability to resolve 1 arc minute. For example, the "E" on an eye doctor's chart on the 20/20 vision line is 5 arc minutes tall, as reading it takes the ability to break it down into five vertical glyphs and distingish between them. That page is based on the premise of a person being able to resolve 0,3 arc minutes.
Also, see above. The human eye has a lot more limitations than just a simple single angular resolution figure can express. I even forgot to list one: time. Not only does motion greatly limit one's resolution ability, but even on a stationary image, the person has to be able to focus and take time in order to get even "normal" levels of visual acuity.
The maximum physically possible resolution for the human eye to see is 2190 dpi. But that's not an average eye, but rather a flawless eye limited only by the size of the pupil; and viewed from as close as an adult can focus, 4 inches.
If we downgrade from a perfect eye to an average eye, the resolution drops down to 876 dpi... but still at 4 inches.
At a more practical 12 inches, this drops to around 300 dpi. Which is why magazines are printed at 300 dpi - it's good enough for most practical circumstances.
Also note some additional limitations:
* These sort of resolution figures are based on the ability to distingish bright white lines from bright black lines without them blurring together into gray. The smaller the contrast and the dimmer the light, the less the eye can resolve.
* The human eye also loses a great deal of ability to make out resolution when objects are moving.
* Obviously the further away one is from the center of the field of view, the lower the resolution - with a rather fast dropoff.
Yes, 808 dpi is complete and total overkill, unless you've got superb eyes and are in the habit of holding your phone as close to them as you can focus while looking at high contrast stationary images.
The old one wasn't Comic-Sans-y enough.
They still need to add bad kerning, however.
and then edited
My guess is that they've got some onkey* event handler checking to see if you typed something in the blank, instead of using oninput which also fires for pasting.
a Clinton/Bush matchup pretty much goes Clinton's way since her husband's baggage is easier to tote around than Jeb's brother's baggage. And that's the analysis for a close race!
And you're wrong because Clinton's baggage is not her husband's. Bill's popular, Hill isn't. Jeb has some baggage from his brother, but they're looking at the candidates in totality.
Jeb is a moderate former governor of Florida. Clinton is a scandal-beset senator and former Secretary of State. Jeb is neither loved nor hated, he just "is". Clinton is widely seen as dishonest, scheming, and lacking empathy.
Both have associated baggage from family members, but those family members aren't the people standing. Bill Clinton remains wildly popular in most of the US, if his "baggage" were the issue, Hillary Clinton wouldn't be unpopular.
Look, I know Obama is a centrist technocrat, but jesus, the last eight years haven't been that bad for liberalism in the US. For fuck's sake, you people literally got the best possible candidate and president a liberal could hope for in the climate of 2008 and all you've done is bitch bitch bitch, instead of trying to seize any of that momentum to build for better things.
What. The. Everloving. Fuck?
We've bitched because we're still stuck here with the torture, war on whistleblowers, and other Bush-era bullshit that he was supposed to end. Gitmo's still open. We withdrew from Iraq, but only in terms that we were going to anyway. We started a whole bunch of new wars, in Syria and Libya to name but two. Bush gave Saddam Hussein a show travel. Obama extra-judicially ordered the execution of Bin Laden. Obama extra-judicially ordered many other executions too, including drone strikes that have killed unknown numbers of bystanders. It's tempting to say we continued Bush's presidency with Obama, but it's worse than that in reality, we continued Cheney's vice presidency too.
Does any of that sound liberal to you? Seriously?
And what do we have to show for it? Obamacare? That, if you remember, is the policy we keep pointing out to Republicans is:
1. A minor shakeup of what we had already.
2. THEIR FUCKING PLAN FOR HEALTHCARE. The thing THEY were going to implement.
But our government still murders and tortures people. And we hound them across the world for whistleblowing. The social problems America seems to suffer from seem to be worse than ever. We have no fucking improvements in infrastructure because given a golden opportunity to, Obama decided to run down the center and ask for too little, knowing he wouldn't even get that.
Is Clinton going to invade Iran? She will if a Bush-level Republican would do the same, I guarantee it. She'll fuck up on infrastructure spending, spend absurd amounts of time trying to balance the budget for no good reason whatsoever, she'll ignore social issues just like Obama because, hey, she doesn't need to, right? And she'll do what she can to impress the political establishment by obsessing over the security state and ensuring those damned whistleblowers get what's coming to them.
Maybe ultimately you have a different definition of liberalism to mine, but as I've said before, Obama's purpose as president appears to have been to tell us that elections don't matter, that no matter how liberal someone appears before being elected, we'll still end up being fucked over. The country will continue to drift right.
It's been a terrible eight years for liberalism. Utterly and completely terrible. We still had HOPE in 2008. We don't even have that any more.
I was very excited by 10 until I installed it on my tablet and found that it was something other than an updated Windows. I definitely think the GP should hold off using it if they're happy with Windows 7, which was a high quality operating system.
1. It's bug ridden.
2. Can't comment on performance vs Windows 7, but on my tablet it's awful compared to Windows 8.1. UI latency is terrible.
3. Still insists on tying use of apps to Microsoft accounts.
4. Sizable amount of default UI seems to be constantly pushing you to buy or download things.
10 is "big" and has some nice features, but I really wouldn't push anyone to upgrade unless they've test driven it first and like it.
Just think, you can finally be a huge dick to people on the road without worrying whether they've got a gun and a temper!
Oh wait, they might still have a gun and a temper, and now they don't need to have either hand on the wheel while they're trying to fuck you up.
Bender should do well. After all, how many people want to "go on a bender"?
It would be difficult NOT to image Windows 10 not achieving at LEAST a 5% market-share when ALL of the installed copies of Windows 7 and 8 out there harass users to upgrade to 10 for free.
But... and it's a big but... not all the installed copies of Windows 7 and 8 harass users to upgrade to 10 for free. Or even offer the option.
To be harassed, you:
1. Need to have a PC that's allowed to upgrade automatically. That eliminates virtually all corporate versions of Windows, which is disproportionately high amongst Windows users.
2. Need to have a PC where the user clicked on the little Windows notification icon, and went through the steps needed to "reserve" a copy of Windows 10. That's not everyone. That's probably not even the majority of the Windows users not covered by (1) above given most users have no idea what that little icon is. For them (people like my wife) the only Windows 10ism they'll ever see is something in a notification bar they usually never look at.
3. Need to have a PC that's "ready" to install. My tablet notified me after two weeks. A week or so later, my main gaming PC notified me that it was ready. They're clearly still pushing it out.
(1) and (3) are dealbreakers beyond the user's control. You could possibly argue that (2) is where the user has made some choices that relate to their interest in Windows 10.
5%, in that context, isn't bad. It's not great either, but it's certainly respectable.
I've seen RealDolls, and that word clearly doesn't mean what you think it means. Either that, or you've never actually met a woman.
Same reason the advertising industry relies heavily on attractive females: it overrides some higher function of the male brain.
"Same reason the advertising industry relies heavily on attractive females: it overrides all higher functions of the male brain in the vast majority of cases."
It took a couple of weeks before my low end tablet received the notification, my regular gaming rig PC only got notifications last week. I don't think they're delaying it for machines with limited resources.
...because in my experience 80-90% of the women on the paid site were working, self-sufficient adults...
So... that's like, what, eight or nine women?
Or are you counting law enforcement trolls, male impostors, and corporate shills, too? That'd probably get you up to 40% or so of these site's supposedly "female" accounts, the rest being bots pretending to be women, which don't count as "working, self-sufficient adults."
I'm truly glad you met someone you found worthwhile, but in the vast majority of situations, these sites are not good hunting grounds for an actual reasonable partner.
The old standbys are still by far the best, assuming one can pull their head out of their phone or laptop or ipad long enough to actually look around them and actually speak to people. Laundromats, grocery stores, libraries, classes of various types, museums, music stores (what few are left.) You know, places where reasonable, normal people tend to go and can be engaged in the creaky old technique of face-to-face, physically-present conversation. Where you can smell each other, sense each others body language, see how the other person moves, how they do at/with eye contact, make physical contact, engage in courting and other courteous behaviors...
I truly think the current crop of young people have gone and shot themselves in the foot with their overwhelmingly present "everything is online all the time" mentality. Not that you can't find someone online, of course you can, but the real world is still a much better place to try. If, of course, you have at least basic social skills and at least a few desirable characteristics. If not, then things haven't changed one whit -- you're screwed, and not in the "OMG I scored" way. Online won't help such a situation either.
Yeah that link was posted to Slashdot a few days ago. It's mostly inaccurate concerning Mac OS X - the Dock, for example, was a NEXTSTEP (capitals deliberate) feature from the mid-eighties, for instance. The nearest vaguely Windows 95ish thing you can say about the OS X dock vs older OpenStep docks was that it moved to the bottom of the screen. And the comments about buttons to close/minimize etc originating in Windows 95 are completely ludicrous. It's like he never used a GUI before Windows 95. (I think Mac OS X did copy Alt-Tab though, so there's that, if he'd bothered to mention it...)
Windows 95 was a significant step forward for PC users, but it didn't really do much that wasn't out there on other platforms already. The Start button was mostly a new concept, but Amigans, GEM users, and Mac users didn't really see anything we hadn't seen before.
The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.