Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: And the winner is... (Score 1) 563

by sonamchauhan (#48579727) Attached to: The Case For Flipping Your Monitor From Landscape to Portrait

... at least for gaming, the winner is 3 x 30" LCDs pivoted to portrait mode, according to MaximumPC magazine in 2011:
                  http://www.maximumpc.com/artic...

I don't have this setup but tried pivoting (smaller) monitors before (work apps, not games). I hit these issues:

1. Mainstream monitors (22"-24") are too narrow for some websites or applications

2. The 'Colour inversion' effect
This is worst with TN panels.You basically need the panel more or less perfectly vertical and have to look at it dead-on.
Even with TFT IPS panels, there's something a tiny bit 'off' that I can't put my finger on - its as if colour reproduction was designed to be optimal in landscape mode. Or something different about pixel spacing, or how sub-pixel colour elements stack up next to each other... Just guessing here.

3. For desktop use, you end up bobbing your head up and down.

Comment: The winner ... (Score 1) 1

by sonamchauhan (#48578377) Attached to: The case for the vertical monitor revolution

... at least for gaming, is 3 x 30" LCDs pivoted to portrait mode, according to MaximumPC magazine in 2011:

[ http://www.maximumpc.com/artic... ]

I don't have this setup myself. But I've tried pivoting smaller monitors before (for work apps, not gaming), and hit these issues:

1. Standard work issue monitors (22") are too narrow for some websites or applications
2. The 'colour inversion' effect with TN panels.
To avoid you need the panel more or less perfectly vertical and look at it dead-on.
3. Even with TFT IPS panels, there's something a tiny bit 'off'
I can't put my finger on - its as if colour reproduction was designed to be optimal in landscape mode. Or something with pixel spacing, or how the sub-pixel colours stack up, or something...
4. If the panel's close by (a must with smaller screen), you end up bobbing your gaze up and down.

Comment: Re:I don't care (Score 1) 488

by sonamchauhan (#48513625) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Non-Coders, Why Aren't You Contributing To Open Source?

Hi - Try this therapy named 'Insulin Potentiation Therapy' - in one study, it magnified the anti-tumour effect of chemo 10000 times.
See research paper linked to on the last page of this link:
  https://docs.google.com/file/d...

Its a sort of research paper I did on behalf of a family friend - start on the second page.

Comment: Re:uh, no? (Score 0) 340

by sonamchauhan (#48395555) Attached to: Alleged Satellite Photo Says Ukraine Shootdown of MH17

Its likely Russia-allied militia (not Russia) which brought MH17 down, because of two points:

1. As someone else wrote. "Pro russian/rusian forces used BUKs to shot down three other Ukrainian planes days before the MH17"...
2. Days previous, an entire air defense regiment, and its missiles, defected (the rebels apparently crowed about this on Twitter days prior to the attack).

But knowing about both points, Ukrainian ATC in Kiev cleared civilian aircraft to transit through the same airspace. This is either callous incompetence combined with greed (for airspace transit fees), or something worse. A fair enquiry should establish this.

Comment: Ãs Free Career Advice/Pet Theory (Score 1) 127

by sonamchauhan (#47684179) Attached to: Switching Game Engines Halfway Through Development

Principle 1. Create something you own

Spend time and energy making something that: (1) you own fully (2) is of value to others (3) you can exchange for value
This is because you can only ever give what you own. Examples: a mobile app, personal skills, bookshelf. Even raising poultry/vegetables in your backyard counts - you exchange these with yourself for money (a.k.a. 'saving cash').

Note, 'Writing code for cash' fails on point (1), but 'Honing C++ skills' ticks all three points. A life devoted tohelping others is the best deal of all - you exchange your life for treasure in heaven.

Principle 2. If you cannot work for yourself, search for a workplace like how long term investors search for stock.

Consider the most famous one of them all - Warren Buffet. He uses 'intrinsic value' to value stock. Companies with price to intrinsic value ratio (lets call it 'P/V' for this post) lower than 1 are more likely well-managed but undervalued -- and hungry to be valued higher -- so Warren 'buys' those companies.

My pet theory: unlike Warren, you want to 'buy into' workplaces that are consistently profitable and whose P/V ratio is as close to 1 as possible. This is because such companies are typically profitable, well run and will treat you fairly -- leaving you enough time and energy for Principle 1.

Let take a look at Netflix (NFLX) -- a well regarded company with a demanding work environment -- their ratio 1.85
  http://www.gurufocus.com/term/...
(To check others, replace 'NFLX' in the URL with another stock ticker - remember, its the median ratio we're looking for)

NFLX (1.8) , AMZN (4), and EA (2.5) for instance, have high 'stock price/intrinsic value' ratios. So, while these are very successful companies, these are more likely high-pressure work environments with little time to yourself outside of work. Even GOOG (1.6) and APPL (1.5) are getting a bit up there.

Going lower: SPLS (1.3), MSFT, WMT (Walmart), BA (Boeing) (all 1.2), and INTL (1.1).

Now the magic unity figure -- BRK.A (Warren's Berkshire Hathaway itself), BAC (Bank of America), PFE (Pfizer) - all around 1. Strangely, so is ODP (Office Depot - 0.97).

Further down seems to be the domain of banks -- FNF (Fidelity National -- 0.9), PRU (Prudential - 0.28), MS (Morgan Stanley - 0.26), JPM (JP Morgan - 0.27)

Mediocrity finds safety in standardization. -- Frederick Crane

Working...