Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:and still no "normal view" (Score 1) 211

LibreOffice refers to this as "web layout", and its right there in the view menu.

No. LibreOffice's "web layout" is the same as Word's "web layout", which is different from Word's draft/normal view. And (at least IMO) it's even worse than page layout.

Page layout displays the page to too great of fidelity, because the top and bottom margins break up the flow of text. Web layout goes too far in the other direction, completely reflowing the text to the width of the window.

Comment Re:and still no "normal view" (Score 1) 211

Displaying page boundaries, headers & footers, etc is of exactly zero benefit while one is composing the text of the document.

I beg to differ, sir!

It is not exactly zero benefit. It is actively distracting, and hence of negative benefit.

Incidentally, there's an 11-year-old bug report with 281 votes (there are only two bug reports with more votes) if you want to add your voice. I rarely use word processors (Latex here, as much as I hate it there's not really anything better for what I need), but if I did, I'd use Word almost on account of the lack of a normal view alone.

Comment Re:Fuck this wide bullshit (Score 1) 217

Films are shot with widescreen in mind because that's what everyone watches.

I disagree. Nearly all* films were widescreen before 16:9 monitors and TVs were really offered, and even now most are significantly wider than 16:9.

That's not quite what you said, but IMO them main reason widescreen became popular in the first place is because of what I said before: it's just better. There's much less reason to make them taller than there is wider. A taller screen means you can see more sky or ceiling. A wider screen means you can see more people around the room. I guess with a taller aspect ratio you could have people closer to the camera without them getting cut off.

* [citation needed] really, but it's an informal observation. I did look at the IMDB top 100 list, and looked at the top 10 movies created between 1985 and 1995 inclusive (a range I selected from after TVs were common but stopping well before 16:9 were even commonly sold, IIRC). Three of the movies were shot in 1.85:1, and the other seven were shot in 2.35:1.

Comment Re:Achievement Unlocked (Score 1) 287

Configure all of your devices to proxy HTTP and HTTPS traffic through that intercepting proxy.

If your device does not complain about your self-signed certificate enabled HTTPS proxy, then there is something seriously rotten security-wise

If you can load your self-made CA cert onto the device and explicitly tell it to trust any cert issued by that CA, then everything is fine. Obviously if you don't do that, a MITM attack should cause scary warnings. :-)

Comment Re:For work 4:3 far superior (Score 1) 217

And now you've lost your extra height. :-) Anyway, I find myself using the full height of the console a ton. This may be me just not being as good at doing stuff in emacs as I should be*, but things like compiler error messages (especially in C++, it's common for a single error to take several lines even before wrapping) or the result of a recursive grep are way harder to scan over if you can only see a few lines at once.

* OTOH, this doesn't really make a difference. I'd still rather have compiler messages displayed side-by-side regardless of what it's displayed in.

Comment Re:Fuck this wide bullshit (Score 1) 217

Actually I think 22" in portrait mode is pretty good if you want a single-width thing with lots of height, though I'm not sure what you mean by "document production" (I code).

Again, I guess this just boils down to preference. But personally, I think that the benefits of 4:3 are overrated. It would be nice if there were more options there though.

Comment Re:For work 4:3 far superior (Score 1) 217

I agree code wrapping is annoying, but that's when you simply overlap windows (or use tabs) and get more vertical view for each window.

I guess this comes down to preference. You say "simply overlap windows"; I say "simply scroll". I'd rather have an editor and console open side-by-side than I would a few extra lines of text.

Comment Re:For work 4:3 far superior (Score 1) 217

You can still make things narrower (or overlap) to fit side by side, you can't fix height cropping.

If you make things too narrow, they crop or wrap annoyingly. Things like code especially suffer, as if you get narrower than 80 characters it becomes almost unreadable.

Personally, my viewpoint on "you can't fix height cropping" is that in some ways the fact that text scrolls naturally vertically almost makes it better to crop that way. If I had to choose vertical cropping (within reason, e.g. the difference between 4:3 and 16:9) or horizontal cropping, I'd choose vertical in an instant and never regret it.

Comment Re:Why do we still count the diagonal? (Score 1) 217

So you take a measurement that you claim is dumb because it means something different on different monitors, and suggest a replacement that.... is equally dumb and means something equally different on different monitors?

You suggest height probably because you consider height the most important monitor measure (along with many /.'ers). But this isn't the only viewpoint, by far.

Comment Re:Fuck this wide bullshit (Score 2) 217

I'm willing to accept many ways, but not every way.

For entertainment, wider is significantly better except for splitscreen multiplayer. There's almost always much more important things happening along the horizon line roughly

For work, I'd take a 16:9 display in which I could comfortably put two programs side-by-side over a 4:3 display in which I could not, and I'd do it without hesitation.

Comment Re:not for quadriplegics or other victims ?! (Score 1) 522

I would guess it's the controlled nature of a transplant.

From TFA:
But Canaveroâ(TM)s proposal is different: By cutting spinal cords with an ultra-sharp knife, and then mechanically connecting the spinal cord from one personâ(TM)s head with another personâ(TM)s body, a more complete (and immediate) connection could be accomplished. As he notes in his paper:

âoeIt is this âoeclean cutâ [which is] the key to spinal cord fusion, in that it allows proximally severed axons to be âfusedâ(TM) with their distal counterparts. This fusion exploits so-called fusogens/sealantsâ¦.[which] are able to immediately reconstitute (fuse/repair) cell membranes damaged by mechanical injury, independent of any known endogenous sealing mechanism.â

What I don't know is why they couldn't do the same thing for spinal cord injury patients, just cutting out the injured part.

Comment Re:Well I'll be... (Score 1) 248

I'm not sure why this was modded troll.

If you want to argue that boot viruses are likely to ever be much of a problem, that's fine. If you want to argue that secure boot is the wrong solution, that's also fine. Both would be an interesting discussion.

But saying "it's not currently a problem so MS shouldn't do anything about it"? That's dumb, and what I was trying to call out.

Slashdot Top Deals

The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness. -- John Muir

Working...