On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 07:26:28PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> Which takes me back to the start of this. If you want a computer
> then buy a computer. Don't buy a Ferrari and expect to be able to
> run Diablo 3 on it.
But DO expect an iPhone to run Diablo 3. It runs all sorts of other
games
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 08:18:06PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> On 6/26/2012 2:41 AM, Derek Martin wrote:
> >Easy. Neither the permanence of affixment of its parts, nor the
> >inability to upgrade them relate at all to whether or not a device is
> >a general purpose computer. That is purely a fu
On 6/27/2012 7:24 AM, Jerry Feldman wrote:
IMHO, tablets are computers. However, when you look at mobile phones,
Smartphones are primarily tablet devices with communications features in
contrast many cell phones have chips and software in them, but they are
phones with computers. Cars have had co
On 06/26/2012 08:18 PM, Richard Pieri wrote:
> On 6/26/2012 2:41 AM, Derek Martin wrote:
>> Easy. Neither the permanence of affixment of its parts, nor the
>> inability to upgrade them relate at all to whether or not a device is
>> a general purpose computer. That is purely a function of its
>> h
On 6/26/2012 2:41 AM, Derek Martin wrote:
Easy. Neither the permanence of affixment of its parts, nor the
inability to upgrade them relate at all to whether or not a device is
a general purpose computer. That is purely a function of its
hardware's capability to execute instructions to achieve a
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 07:29:04PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> Except for Apple's first-party applications which know how to tell
> Quartz and Quartz Extreme to override this scaling and use the
> native pixel density. Now factor the glued-in battery pack which is
> good for 300 charge cycles be
On 6/22/2012 5:32 PM, Robert Krawitz wrote:
smaller font, but the next size down (5x8) is too jagged. A 10x16 font
(9x15 is the closest equivalent) would almost surely probably be
perfectly readable on a 17" 3840x2400 display.
That's because it's a larger type face. But you see (hah-hah) the
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Richard Pieri wrote:
> I think a better question is, "why on earth would you want a rMBP?" Unlike
> the previous MBP incarnations this one is disposable. The RAM is soldered
> down to the board, the SSD is proprietary, and the battery packs are firmly
> cemented t
On 6/22/2012 3:14 PM, Drew Van Zandt wrote:
Why on earth would I want to scale it?
What's the smallest point size font you can read on a 15" 1440x900
display? 10 point? 9 point? 8 point? Now reduce the point size by
half. Because that's what happens when you go from a 110ppi screen to a
Why on earth would I want to scale it?
*
Drew Van Zandt
Artisan's Asylum Craft Lead, Electronics & Robotics
Cam # US2010035593 (M:Liam Hopkins R: Bastian Rotgeld)
Domain Coordinator, MA-003-D. Masquerade aVST
*
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Richard Pieri wrote:
>
> A 1" by 1" image at a do
On 6/22/2012 2:24 PM, Matthew Gillen wrote:
Apple especially has tried to make it "illegal" in various ways to
unlock their devices. But they've failed every time. Likewise with
Amazon's kindle, B&N's nook, etc.
Apple vs. every Mac clone maker has resulted in a win for Apple.
And while Apple
On 6/22/2012 2:52 PM, Drew Van Zandt wrote:
I'm confused... does the retina display HARDWARE scale the images up? I
have zero interest in MacOS; I'd be using Ubuntu. (Assuming the HW is
supported at some point.)
A 1" by 1" image at a dot pitch appropriate for a 15" 1440x900 display
is going
I'm confused... does the retina display HARDWARE scale the images up? I
have zero interest in MacOS; I'd be using Ubuntu. (Assuming the HW is
supported at some point.)
*
Drew Van Zandt
Artisan's Asylum Craft Lead, Electronics & Robotics
Cam # US2010035593 (M:Liam Hopkins R: Bastian Rotgeld)
Doma
I belive they can do this ... IF they make the hardware.Otherwise, they can
only request the option to do this and what hardware vendor, other than
Microsoft, would tie their BIOS to one software vendor??Why would you buy that
piece of hardware?IOW, would you buy a car if it would only accept
On 06/22/2012 01:43 PM, Richard Pieri wrote:
> On 6/22/2012 11:19 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> I agree it stinks, but if you refuse to use products like this, you're
>> confining yourself to a fringe, and you can rest assured there won't be
>> enough people in your group to sway the product offe
On 6/22/2012 1:45 PM, Drew Van Zandt wrote:
I want a retina display Macbook running Linux, though. Screen size (in
pixels) is my #1 laptop decision-making spec.
Problem is, the retina Macbooks aren't really 2880x1800 in practical
use. A 1" by 1" image on a standard 15" (1440x900) screen woul
I want a retina display Macbook running Linux, though. Screen size (in
pixels) is my #1 laptop decision-making spec.
*
Drew Van Zandt
Artisan's Asylum Craft Lead, Electronics & Robotics
Cam # US2010035593 (M:Liam Hopkins R: Bastian Rotgeld)
Domain Coordinator, MA-003-D. Masquerade aVST
*
On F
On 6/22/2012 11:19 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
I agree it stinks, but if you refuse to use products like this, you're
confining yourself to a fringe, and you can rest assured there won't be
enough people in your group to sway the product offerings of MS & Apple &
etc.
No, actually, I don't thi
> From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org [mailto:discuss-
> bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org] On Behalf Of Mark Woodward
>
> I was thinking, if Microsoft gets its way, it will use what's left of
> its monopoly power to restrict access to the PC boot infrastructure. In
> principal I have
On Jun 22, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Mark Woodward wrote:
> In principal I have no problem with a secure boot system, as long as I have
> control over what *I* allow to boot.
My understanding is Microsoft's x86 spec for machines certified to run their
newer OS versions _requires_ (not optional) manu
On 06/22/2012 10:12 AM, Mark Woodward wrote:
> I was thinking, if Microsoft gets its way, it will use what's left of
> its monopoly power to restrict access to the PC boot infrastructure. In
> principal I have no problem with a secure boot system, as long as I have
> control over what *I* allow to
I was thinking, if Microsoft gets its way, it will use what's left of
its monopoly power to restrict access to the PC boot infrastructure. In
principal I have no problem with a secure boot system, as long as I have
control over what *I* allow to boot. The problem is when *I* have to ask
or pay
22 matches
Mail list logo
