Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Virtual Desktops (Workspaces) (Score 1) 376

by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (#47925527) Attached to: What To Expect With Windows 9
It is a matter of taste; but the proliferation of 'widescreen' has really made multiple orientation setups more attractive. In particular, the ubiquitous 1920x1080 is cheap as dirt and nice and wide; but actually throws fewer vertical pixels than a nasty old 1280x1024 17' from about 2001. If you read or write a lot of text, or code with reasonably short lines, taking a cheapo 1920x1080 and rotating it gives you a 1080x1920: this is handy because it's still wider than 1024(so even old and horrible programs/layouts generally won't break, since anything that old and horrible probably expects 768 or 1024 pixel wide screens); but provides more vertical resolution than even substantially more expensive monitors in their native orientation.

I prefer my 'primary' monitor to be unrotated; but the amount of vertical resolution you can get for the money, without totally sacrificing width, from a rotated secondary monitor is pretty compelling.

Comment: Re:Natural immunity (Score 1) 59

In this case, you might want to go after the vets before the doctors...

It's not an accident that they were looking at agricultural workers (rather than, say, elementary school teachers, who would be seeing the worst of it from antibiotics-for-the-sniffles patients), nor is it an accident that there are 'livestock-associated' drug resistant strains.

Comment: Re:Virtual Desktops (Workspaces) (Score 2) 376

by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (#47923055) Attached to: What To Expect With Windows 9
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.

Comment: Re:Virtual Desktops (Workspaces) (Score 3, Interesting) 376

by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (#47922835) Attached to: What To Expect With Windows 9
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.

Comment: Re:You mean... (Score 1) 228

by Archangel Michael (#47917623) Attached to: AT&T Proposes Net Neutrality Compromise

QOS doesn't give any stream preferential treatment. QOS guarantees certain level of bandwidth at all times for certain streams. Typically, it is reserved for things like VOIP where buffering causes issues. I don't think Netflix is deserving of QOS, but rather it deserves better guaranteed base because it can adjust with larger buffers, taking care of intermittent studdering due to temporary spikes in bandwidth usage.

The problem here, is that total aggregate bandwidth is simply being manipulated at peering points due to greedy ISPs like Comcast and AT&T. The congestion at peering points is simply a means to an end, and Comcast (et al) are taking advantage of stupid consumers. I can assure you that both Netflix (and similar) and the ISPs know exactly where the problem lies, AND how to solve it. And seeing what Netfix has offered the ISPs in terms of peering, and the lack of acceptance by the ISPs, the problem lies with ISPs and only ISPs.

Netflix has capacity, the ISPs have Capacity, but they can't agree on peering, which is simply the bridging of the two capacities. And knowing that they both have Routers in the same COLO facility with capacity, but the fiber connection between the two routers is missing, due to ISPs unwillingness to play fairly, is criminal.

From what I've heard, Netflix is willing to buy Comcast the router, fiber and all the bits needed to add additional peering bandwidth, and Comcast has refused, instead is trying to bully Netflix. Netflix needs to put up advertising "don't blame us" with a simplified version of what is happening. 30 Seconds is all it will take.

Comment: Re: Car Dealers should ask why they're being bypas (Score 1) 145

by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (#47916055) Attached to: Court: Car Dealers Can't Stop Tesla From Selling In Massachusetts
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.

Comment: Re:So-to-speak legal (Score 1) 405

by Archangel Michael (#47913425) Attached to: Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor

"And if we tolerate a ramp being 1 degree off, how far do they push it in the name of saving money? "

Because, it used to be one set of regulations, and then they changed it, and will again. It isn't just the one regulation, it is ALL of them. And if you live in, or visit California you'll see "Proposition 65" plaques just about everywhere, because it is cheaper to put the sign up, than it is to not put the sign up and get caught with "cancer causing" whatevers. It is now meaningless signage that nobody pays any attention to.

Asynchronous inputs are at the root of our race problems. -- D. Winker and F. Prosser