Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
An asymmetry?
8 views
Skip to first unread message
dorayme
Dec 29, 2011, 7:46:54 AM12/29/11
to
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/an_asymmetry.html>
Notice how the top and bottom triangles do not *quite* meet,
whereas the left and right ones do. No matter how the colours are
paired, or what value for the border. At least on my Mac Safari
and Firefox. Caused by screen pixel hardware limitations? Browser
coding? A straightforward CSS explanation? A bent CSS
explanation? An illusion of mine?
You can see an effect of this in
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/tiling1.html>
where the white triangles seem to be connected together but the
black ones are little diamond islands. Or so it seems to me.
Also, it seems to me, when staring, not focussing too much, at
the latter, an eerie 3-D effect, the black diamonds floating in
the foreground. God, I hope there are no eye surgeons out there,
retired or not, who will diagnose me with some terrible thing! <g>
--
dorayme
Notice how the top and bottom triangles do not *quite* meet,
whereas the left and right ones do. No matter how the colours are
paired, or what value for the border. At least on my Mac Safari
and Firefox. Caused by screen pixel hardware limitations? Browser
coding? A straightforward CSS explanation? A bent CSS
explanation? An illusion of mine?
You can see an effect of this in
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/tiling1.html>
where the white triangles seem to be connected together but the
black ones are little diamond islands. Or so it seems to me.
Also, it seems to me, when staring, not focussing too much, at
the latter, an eerie 3-D effect, the black diamonds floating in
the foreground. God, I hope there are no eye surgeons out there,
retired or not, who will diagnose me with some terrible thing! <g>
--
dorayme
Molly Mockford
Dec 29, 2011, 11:49:53 AM12/29/11
to
At 23:46:54 on Thu, 29 Dec 2011, dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote
in <dorayme-79ED6E...@news.albasani.net>:
><http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/an_asymmetry.html>
>
>Notice how the top and bottom triangles do not *quite* meet,
>whereas the left and right ones do.
I don't think they can ever *both* meet - there is always going to be
one pixel right at the junction point, and it must be either black or
white, it can't be both (or even tea and no tea). With Firefox 8.0 on a
PC, I see it as black: the two black triangles meet, and the two white
ones are separated by a pixel of black.
>You can see an effect of this in
>
><http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/tiling1.html>
>
>where the white triangles seem to be connected together but the
>black ones are little diamond islands. Or so it seems to me.
To me, the black ones are all connected, and the white ones are
discrete.
>Also, it seems to me, when staring, not focussing too much, at
>the latter, an eerie 3-D effect, the black diamonds floating in
>the foreground.
Sorry, I can't replicate that - even though I was always good at those
3-D posters where you had to allow your eyes to focus twice as far away
as the poster before you could see the image.
--
Molly Mockford
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton Diamond Ph.D.)
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)
in <dorayme-79ED6E...@news.albasani.net>:
><http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/an_asymmetry.html>
>
>Notice how the top and bottom triangles do not *quite* meet,
>whereas the left and right ones do.
one pixel right at the junction point, and it must be either black or
white, it can't be both (or even tea and no tea). With Firefox 8.0 on a
PC, I see it as black: the two black triangles meet, and the two white
ones are separated by a pixel of black.
>You can see an effect of this in
>
><http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/tiling1.html>
>
>where the white triangles seem to be connected together but the
>black ones are little diamond islands. Or so it seems to me.
discrete.
>Also, it seems to me, when staring, not focussing too much, at
>the latter, an eerie 3-D effect, the black diamonds floating in
>the foreground.
3-D posters where you had to allow your eyes to focus twice as far away
as the poster before you could see the image.
--
Molly Mockford
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton Diamond Ph.D.)
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)
Molly Mockford
Dec 29, 2011, 11:58:23 AM12/29/11
to
At 16:49:53 on Thu, 29 Dec 2011, Molly Mockford
<nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote in
<q9QAKmFxoJ$OF...@molly.mockford>:
>With Firefox 8.0 on a PC, I see it as black: the two black triangles
>meet, and the two white ones are separated by a pixel of black.
And since it reminded me that an update was due, I updated to 9.0.1, and
still see it as in 8.0.
<nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote in
<q9QAKmFxoJ$OF...@molly.mockford>:
>With Firefox 8.0 on a PC, I see it as black: the two black triangles
>meet, and the two white ones are separated by a pixel of black.
still see it as in 8.0.
dorayme
Dec 29, 2011, 9:00:24 PM12/29/11
to
In article <q9QAKmFxoJ$OF...@molly.mockford>,
>
> >You can see an effect of this in
> >
> ><http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/tiling1.html>
> >
> >where the white triangles seem to be connected together but the
> >black ones are little diamond islands. Or so it seems to me.
>
> To me, the black ones are all connected, and the white ones are
> discrete.
>
Easy perhaps more objective test:
1. Zoom up the central bit in FF (not Zoom Text Only)
and take a look. Yours seems to be different to what I am seeing
on my screens.
More objective testing:
1. Zoom up the central bit in FF (not Zoom Text Only)
2. Take screenshot of it.
3. Open shot in Photoshop or FGireworks or similar and use a wand
selection tool.
For me all the white is selected. Wanding the black gets just an
isolated one diamond.
--
dorayme
Molly Mockford <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
> At 23:46:54 on Thu, 29 Dec 2011, dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote
> in <dorayme-79ED6E...@news.albasani.net>:
>
> ><http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/an_asymmetry.html>
> >
> >Notice how the top and bottom triangles do not *quite* meet,
> >whereas the left and right ones do.
>
> I don't think they can ever *both* meet - there is always going to be
> one pixel right at the junction point, and it must be either black or
> white, it can't be both (or even tea and no tea). With Firefox 8.0 on a
> PC, I see it as black: the two black triangles meet, and the two white
> ones are separated by a pixel of black.
Why must there be a pixel "right at the junction point"?
> At 23:46:54 on Thu, 29 Dec 2011, dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote
> in <dorayme-79ED6E...@news.albasani.net>:
>
> ><http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/an_asymmetry.html>
> >
> >Notice how the top and bottom triangles do not *quite* meet,
> >whereas the left and right ones do.
>
> I don't think they can ever *both* meet - there is always going to be
> one pixel right at the junction point, and it must be either black or
> white, it can't be both (or even tea and no tea). With Firefox 8.0 on a
> PC, I see it as black: the two black triangles meet, and the two white
> ones are separated by a pixel of black.
>
> >You can see an effect of this in
> >
> ><http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/tiling1.html>
> >
> >where the white triangles seem to be connected together but the
> >black ones are little diamond islands. Or so it seems to me.
>
> To me, the black ones are all connected, and the white ones are
> discrete.
>
1. Zoom up the central bit in FF (not Zoom Text Only)
and take a look. Yours seems to be different to what I am seeing
on my screens.
More objective testing:
1. Zoom up the central bit in FF (not Zoom Text Only)
2. Take screenshot of it.
3. Open shot in Photoshop or FGireworks or similar and use a wand
selection tool.
For me all the white is selected. Wanding the black gets just an
isolated one diamond.
--
dorayme
Kevin Nathan
Dec 30, 2011, 12:18:04 AM12/30/11
to
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:00:24 +1100
dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>More objective testing:
>
>1. Zoom up the central bit in FF (not Zoom Text Only)
>
>2. Take screenshot of it.
>
>3. Open shot in Photoshop or FGireworks or similar and use a wand
>selection tool.
>
>For me all the white is selected. Wanding the black gets just an
>isolated one diamond.
>
Here is what they look like on my system:
dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>More objective testing:
>
>1. Zoom up the central bit in FF (not Zoom Text Only)
>
>2. Take screenshot of it.
>
>3. Open shot in Photoshop or FGireworks or similar and use a wand
>selection tool.
>
>For me all the white is selected. Wanding the black gets just an
>isolated one diamond.
>
http://thebarattheendoftheuniverse.com/basement/css-triangle-magnify.html
--
Kevin Nathan (Arizona, USA)
Linux Potpourri -- http://www.project54.com/linux/
Open standards. Open source. Open minds.
The command line is the front line.
Linux 2.6.37.6-0.9-desktop
22:16pm up 19 days 9:25, 14 users, load average: 0.30, 0.27, 0.20
tlvp
Dec 30, 2011, 12:50:41 AM12/30/11
to
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:00:24 +1100, dorayme wrote:
> ...
embarassing one way -- but there *need* not be -- and that can be
embarassing another way. And either situation might at times occur.
If you think that there are pixels through which two lines of 45 degree
pitch are passing, one SW-to-NE, the other NW-to-SE, meeting at one such
"junction point", and dividing the viewport into four triangular quadrants
colored, say, Emerald, White, Nutmeg, and Silver (East, West, North, and
South quadrants, respectively), how do you color those lines themselves?
Several systematic choices present themselves, each however, with some
sort of defect.
For example, you might decide that the East and West quadrants deserve to
have their boundary lines colored Emerald and White, respectively. Ah, but
what color then do you give the pixel where they meet?
Or you might decide that the North and South quadrants deserve to have
"their" boundary lines colored Nutmeg and Silver, respectively. But the
same question arises for the pixel where those boundary lines meet.
You might decide for a more even-handed allocation of colors to those
boundary lines, say color the boundary at the clockwise edge of each
quadrant with the same color as that quadrant ... but that center pixel is
still a problem. (Counterclockwise edge instead? -- same problem.)
So you decide perhaps the pixels through which two lines of 45 degree
pitch are passing, one SW-to-NE, the other NW-to-SE, should *not* be
meeting at one "junction point" but rather, taking a different tack, you
offset the problem by one pixel all around: instead of a one-pixel center,
think of a four-pixel center, the four pixels forming a tight 2px-by-2px
"square" with pixels I'll dub messieurs ne, se, sw, and nw, respectively,
going around in CW order. And those 45 degree lines?
With pixel ne as bottom vertex, and 45 degree lines emanating NW and NE out
of it, paint Nutmeg-colored the triangle between (& including) those lines,
for a Northern quadrant balancing on monsieur ne; paint an Emerald-colored
triangle for the Eastern quadrant "emanating" from monsieur se; a Silver
quadrant descending out of apex sw; and all the rest (the Western quadrant
with vertex nw) White. Perfectly equitable distribution of colors ... no
embarassing "center point where the boundary lines cross" .. because now
there *is* no such point, as the dividing lines between the quadrants take
a little jag just at the ... umm ... no, not "point", but ... 4-pixel
"center square" at which they "cross".
Seems to me different browsers may implement any one (or perhaps even more,
under varying circumstances) of the solutions suggested above, and what
dorayme and others are seeing, as artifacts in the patterns created (as in
the citations immediately below), are the inevitable consequences of those
browser implementation decisions.
>>>You can see an effect of this in
>>>
>>><http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/tiling1.html>
>>>
>>>where the white triangles seem to be connected together but the
>>>black ones are little diamond islands. Or so it seems to me.
>>
>> To me, the black ones are all connected, and the white ones are
>> discrete.
>>
>
> Easy perhaps more objective test:
>
> 1. Zoom up the central bit in FF (not Zoom Text Only)
>
> and take a look. Yours seems to be different to what I am seeing
> on my screens.
>
> More objective testing:
>
> 1. Zoom up the central bit in FF (not Zoom Text Only)
>
> 2. Take screenshot of it.
>
> 3. Open shot in Photoshop or FGireworks or similar and use a wand
> selection tool.
>
> For me all the white is selected. Wanding the black gets just an
> isolated one diamond.
I hope my geometric discussion, from the perspective of a combinatorial
geometer, has been of some use. I find these wispily coded css/html pages
as fascinating in their elegantly economical expressive power as I find
similarly short but powerful PostScript files (of which several recent
comp.lang.postscript threads give beautiful examples -- cf. the Sierpinski
and snowflake threads of late)! Typos? did I make some typos? Probably;
and I apologize in advance for whatever confusion they cause.
Cheers, and thanks for all that elegant beauty, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
> ...
> Why must there be a pixel "right at the junction point"?
There's no such "must". There *can* be a pixel there -- and that's
embarassing one way -- but there *need* not be -- and that can be
embarassing another way. And either situation might at times occur.
If you think that there are pixels through which two lines of 45 degree
pitch are passing, one SW-to-NE, the other NW-to-SE, meeting at one such
"junction point", and dividing the viewport into four triangular quadrants
colored, say, Emerald, White, Nutmeg, and Silver (East, West, North, and
South quadrants, respectively), how do you color those lines themselves?
Several systematic choices present themselves, each however, with some
sort of defect.
For example, you might decide that the East and West quadrants deserve to
have their boundary lines colored Emerald and White, respectively. Ah, but
what color then do you give the pixel where they meet?
Or you might decide that the North and South quadrants deserve to have
"their" boundary lines colored Nutmeg and Silver, respectively. But the
same question arises for the pixel where those boundary lines meet.
You might decide for a more even-handed allocation of colors to those
boundary lines, say color the boundary at the clockwise edge of each
quadrant with the same color as that quadrant ... but that center pixel is
still a problem. (Counterclockwise edge instead? -- same problem.)
So you decide perhaps the pixels through which two lines of 45 degree
pitch are passing, one SW-to-NE, the other NW-to-SE, should *not* be
meeting at one "junction point" but rather, taking a different tack, you
offset the problem by one pixel all around: instead of a one-pixel center,
think of a four-pixel center, the four pixels forming a tight 2px-by-2px
"square" with pixels I'll dub messieurs ne, se, sw, and nw, respectively,
going around in CW order. And those 45 degree lines?
With pixel ne as bottom vertex, and 45 degree lines emanating NW and NE out
of it, paint Nutmeg-colored the triangle between (& including) those lines,
for a Northern quadrant balancing on monsieur ne; paint an Emerald-colored
triangle for the Eastern quadrant "emanating" from monsieur se; a Silver
quadrant descending out of apex sw; and all the rest (the Western quadrant
with vertex nw) White. Perfectly equitable distribution of colors ... no
embarassing "center point where the boundary lines cross" .. because now
there *is* no such point, as the dividing lines between the quadrants take
a little jag just at the ... umm ... no, not "point", but ... 4-pixel
"center square" at which they "cross".
Seems to me different browsers may implement any one (or perhaps even more,
under varying circumstances) of the solutions suggested above, and what
dorayme and others are seeing, as artifacts in the patterns created (as in
the citations immediately below), are the inevitable consequences of those
browser implementation decisions.
>>>You can see an effect of this in
>>>
>>><http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/tiling1.html>
>>>
>>>where the white triangles seem to be connected together but the
>>>black ones are little diamond islands. Or so it seems to me.
>>
>> To me, the black ones are all connected, and the white ones are
>> discrete.
>>
>
> Easy perhaps more objective test:
>
> 1. Zoom up the central bit in FF (not Zoom Text Only)
>
> and take a look. Yours seems to be different to what I am seeing
> on my screens.
>
> More objective testing:
>
> 1. Zoom up the central bit in FF (not Zoom Text Only)
>
> 2. Take screenshot of it.
>
> 3. Open shot in Photoshop or FGireworks or similar and use a wand
> selection tool.
>
> For me all the white is selected. Wanding the black gets just an
> isolated one diamond.
geometer, has been of some use. I find these wispily coded css/html pages
as fascinating in their elegantly economical expressive power as I find
similarly short but powerful PostScript files (of which several recent
comp.lang.postscript threads give beautiful examples -- cf. the Sierpinski
and snowflake threads of late)! Typos? did I make some typos? Probably;
and I apologize in advance for whatever confusion they cause.
Cheers, and thanks for all that elegant beauty, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Ben C
Dec 30, 2011, 3:30:55 AM12/30/11
to
On 2011-12-29, dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
><http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/an_asymmetry.html>
>
> Notice how the top and bottom triangles do not *quite* meet,
> whereas the left and right ones do. No matter how the colours are
> paired, or what value for the border. At least on my Mac Safari
> and Firefox. Caused by screen pixel hardware limitations? Browser
> coding? A straightforward CSS explanation? A bent CSS
> explanation? An illusion of mine?
What version of Firefox? In 3.6.6 the pixel right in the middle is grey,
><http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/an_asymmetry.html>
>
> Notice how the top and bottom triangles do not *quite* meet,
> whereas the left and right ones do. No matter how the colours are
> paired, or what value for the border. At least on my Mac Safari
> and Firefox. Caused by screen pixel hardware limitations? Browser
> coding? A straightforward CSS explanation? A bent CSS
> explanation? An illusion of mine?
with the value #808080. If you zoom in to a screenshot, or using a
screen magnifier, can you see grey edges to the black solid lines, and a
grey pixel right in the middle?
This is called anti-aliasing and to be basically correct the shade of
grey should be proportional to the area of the pixel that's black. In
this case half of that centre pixel is black and half white so #808080
is right on the money.
What Firefox is most probably doing is rendering the whole thing at
about 16x the size you see and then shrinking it down averaging out
colours. Although there are faster ways to achieve the same result for
shapes only involving straight lines this is pretty much the only way to
get good anti-aliasing for curved shapes, and since most browsers now
support border-radius, they use a library that does that sort of thing.
But IIRC older versions of Firefox didn't do antialiasing. In that case
#808080 has to be either rounded down to white or up to black, resulting
in asymmetry either way.
dorayme
Dec 30, 2011, 3:56:56 AM12/30/11
to
In article <20111229221...@efreet.linux>,
IE8 on WinXP in VirtualBox the gap between the black points is
prominent:
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/asymmetryIE8.png>
--
dorayme
Kevin Nathan <kna...@project54.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:00:24 +1100
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >More objective testing:
> >
> >1. Zoom up the central bit in FF (not Zoom Text Only)
> >
> >2. Take screenshot of it.
> >
> >3. Open shot in Photoshop or FGireworks or similar and use a wand
> >selection tool.
> >
> >For me all the white is selected. Wanding the black gets just an
> >isolated one diamond.
> >
>
> Here is what they look like on my system:
>
> http://thebarattheendoftheuniverse.com/basement/css-triangle-magnify.html
OK. On my Mac, in all the browsers I have looked at, including
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:00:24 +1100
> dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >More objective testing:
> >
> >1. Zoom up the central bit in FF (not Zoom Text Only)
> >
> >2. Take screenshot of it.
> >
> >3. Open shot in Photoshop or FGireworks or similar and use a wand
> >selection tool.
> >
> >For me all the white is selected. Wanding the black gets just an
> >isolated one diamond.
> >
>
> Here is what they look like on my system:
>
> http://thebarattheendoftheuniverse.com/basement/css-triangle-magnify.html
IE8 on WinXP in VirtualBox the gap between the black points is
prominent:
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/asymmetryIE8.png>
--
dorayme
Molly Mockford
Dec 30, 2011, 5:42:05 AM12/30/11
to
At 00:50:41 on Fri, 30 Dec 2011, tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote
in <3q1k51759h9u$.1w1rbmbg...@40tude.net>:
>On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:00:24 +1100, dorayme wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Why must there be a pixel "right at the junction point"?
Because if two black triangles are to meet without an intervening white
pixel, the two white triangles cannot meet without an intervening black
pixel.
>There's no such "must". There *can* be a pixel there -- and that's
>embarassing one way -- but there *need* not be -- and that can be
>embarassing another way. And either situation might at times occur.
>
>If you think that there are pixels through which two lines of 45
>degree pitch are passing, one SW-to-NE, the other NW-to-SE, meeting at
>one such "junction point", and dividing the viewport into four
>triangular quadrants colored, say, Emerald, White, Nutmeg, and Silver
>(East, West, North, and South quadrants, respectively), how do you
>color those lines themselves?
"You" don't. Your browser gives its best guess; and the result of this
is going to vary depending on the browser, the screen resolution etc.
>Seems to me different browsers may implement any one (or perhaps even
>more, under varying circumstances) of the solutions suggested above,
>and what dorayme and others are seeing, as artifacts in the patterns
>created (as in the citations immediately below), are the inevitable
>consequences of those browser implementation decisions.
Yes, exactly. Which is why I was not particularly surprised to see a
different result in Firefox on my PC, at my particular resolution,
compared to her Firefox on a Mac, at her particular resolution.
in <3q1k51759h9u$.1w1rbmbg...@40tude.net>:
>On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:00:24 +1100, dorayme wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Why must there be a pixel "right at the junction point"?
pixel, the two white triangles cannot meet without an intervening black
pixel.
>There's no such "must". There *can* be a pixel there -- and that's
>embarassing one way -- but there *need* not be -- and that can be
>embarassing another way. And either situation might at times occur.
>
>If you think that there are pixels through which two lines of 45
>degree pitch are passing, one SW-to-NE, the other NW-to-SE, meeting at
>one such "junction point", and dividing the viewport into four
>triangular quadrants colored, say, Emerald, White, Nutmeg, and Silver
>(East, West, North, and South quadrants, respectively), how do you
>color those lines themselves?
is going to vary depending on the browser, the screen resolution etc.
>Seems to me different browsers may implement any one (or perhaps even
>more, under varying circumstances) of the solutions suggested above,
>and what dorayme and others are seeing, as artifacts in the patterns
>created (as in the citations immediately below), are the inevitable
>consequences of those browser implementation decisions.
different result in Firefox on my PC, at my particular resolution,
compared to her Firefox on a Mac, at her particular resolution.
dorayme
Dec 30, 2011, 7:15:24 AM12/30/11
to
In article <xtjG++H9VZ$OF...@molly.mockford>,
what surprises me, it is about appearances. Thanks all for your
thoughts. Perhaps I was expecting to get the look I can make
happen in Illustrator or Photoshop or Fireworks, yes, on the same
screen.
--
dorayme
Molly Mockford <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
> At 00:50:41 on Fri, 30 Dec 2011, tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote
> in <3q1k51759h9u$.1w1rbmbg...@40tude.net>:
>
> >On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:00:24 +1100, dorayme wrote:
> >
> >> ...
> >> Why must there be a pixel "right at the junction point"?
>
> Because if two black triangles are to meet without an intervening white
> pixel, the two white triangles cannot meet without an intervening black
> pixel.
OK I will sleep on all this for now and see if I can better say
> At 00:50:41 on Fri, 30 Dec 2011, tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote
> in <3q1k51759h9u$.1w1rbmbg...@40tude.net>:
>
> >On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:00:24 +1100, dorayme wrote:
> >
> >> ...
> >> Why must there be a pixel "right at the junction point"?
>
> Because if two black triangles are to meet without an intervening white
> pixel, the two white triangles cannot meet without an intervening black
> pixel.
what surprises me, it is about appearances. Thanks all for your
thoughts. Perhaps I was expecting to get the look I can make
happen in Illustrator or Photoshop or Fireworks, yes, on the same
screen.
--
dorayme
Jonathan N. Little
Dec 30, 2011, 12:32:00 PM12/30/11
to
dorayme wrote:
> OK. On my Mac, in all the browsers I have looked at, including
> IE8 on WinXP in VirtualBox the gap between the black points is
> prominent:
>
> <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/asymmetryIE8.png>
>
Must be a Mac feature ;-)
> OK. On my Mac, in all the browsers I have looked at, including
> IE8 on WinXP in VirtualBox the gap between the black points is
> prominent:
>
> <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/asymmetryIE8.png>
>
<http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/asymmetry.png>
<http://www.littleworksstudio.com/temp/usenet/asymmetry-ubuntu.png>
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
tlvp
Dec 30, 2011, 2:52:47 PM12/30/11
to
we think pixel we mistakenly think "point", rather than tiny square of
light -- so, I propose, get out your old checker board and some red and
black checkers, and play along with me:
in the center of the board, place two red and to black checkers in a 2 by 2
square as follows:
RB
BR
Note that the center of that 2 by 2 square is *just* a point, not at the
center of any checkerboard square.
Now starting at the northeastern B as western apex, start placing more
black pieces in a triangular pattern to the east; next, starting at the
southwestern B as eastern apex, start placing more black pieces in a
triangular pattern to the west; then fill in the two remaining regions with
red pieces, and notice: all four triangles "meet" at a point that is *not*
one of the checkerboard's own little squares, but very much between 'em;
*and* the two triangles of same color (whether red or black) have their
apex points offset one from the other by just the least possible jog (or
zig and zag).
What Molly describes, on the other hand, has its center at the center of an
actual checkerboard square, hence has completely different behavior, just
as she says, for only one checker can be placed on that square, and
whatever color it had forces the triangles of the other color to be at
least one square apart at their apex points.
HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp
dorayme
Dec 30, 2011, 5:10:49 PM12/30/11
to
In article <uddsxukpovs0.1a...@40tude.net>,
pixelled canvas and there will be no-man's pixels where various
odd shapes meet by necessity (whether they are noticeable or
not). Fine.
Rather, I was surprised at the crude appearance in various
browsers, especially Mac ones on my machine. I have since looked
more closely at what Windows browsers do on Windows OS
(admittedly on my Mac and in VirtualBox) and note that FF on Win
does what I expect. Whereas IE8 is wilder than wild. I will be
replying to Jonathan Little soon, he made a remark about Mac
features that needs redressing and I think I will have a good
breakfast first. <g>
--
dorayme
tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:15:24 +1100, dorayme wrote:
>
> > In article <xtjG++H9VZ$OF...@molly.mockford>,
> > Molly Mockford <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>>On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:00:24 +1100, dorayme wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Why must there be a pixel "right at the junction point"?
> >>
> >> Because if two black triangles are to meet without an intervening white
> >> pixel, the two white triangles cannot meet without an intervening black
> >> pixel.
> >
> > OK I will sleep on all this for now and see if I can better say
> > what surprises me, it is about appearances. Thanks all for your
> > thoughts. Perhaps I was expecting to get the look I can make
> > happen in Illustrator or Photoshop or Fireworks, yes, on the same
> > screen.
>
> The trouble is that when we think "point" we think "dimensionless" but when
> we think pixel we mistakenly think "point", rather than tiny square of
> light -- so, I propose, get out your old checker board and some red and
> black checkers, and play along with me
It's OK, tlvp, there is the visual logic about putting pics on a
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:15:24 +1100, dorayme wrote:
>
> > In article <xtjG++H9VZ$OF...@molly.mockford>,
> > Molly Mockford <nospam...@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>>On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:00:24 +1100, dorayme wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Why must there be a pixel "right at the junction point"?
> >>
> >> Because if two black triangles are to meet without an intervening white
> >> pixel, the two white triangles cannot meet without an intervening black
> >> pixel.
> >
> > OK I will sleep on all this for now and see if I can better say
> > what surprises me, it is about appearances. Thanks all for your
> > thoughts. Perhaps I was expecting to get the look I can make
> > happen in Illustrator or Photoshop or Fireworks, yes, on the same
> > screen.
>
> The trouble is that when we think "point" we think "dimensionless" but when
> we think pixel we mistakenly think "point", rather than tiny square of
> light -- so, I propose, get out your old checker board and some red and
> black checkers, and play along with me
pixelled canvas and there will be no-man's pixels where various
odd shapes meet by necessity (whether they are noticeable or
not). Fine.
Rather, I was surprised at the crude appearance in various
browsers, especially Mac ones on my machine. I have since looked
more closely at what Windows browsers do on Windows OS
(admittedly on my Mac and in VirtualBox) and note that FF on Win
does what I expect. Whereas IE8 is wilder than wild. I will be
replying to Jonathan Little soon, he made a remark about Mac
features that needs redressing and I think I will have a good
breakfast first. <g>
--
dorayme
Jonathan N. Little
Dec 30, 2011, 5:18:54 PM12/30/11
to
dorayme wrote:
> I will be
> replying to Jonathan Little soon, he made a remark about Mac
> features that needs redressing and I think I will have a good
> breakfast first.<g>
I just couldn't resist! ;-)
> I will be
> replying to Jonathan Little soon, he made a remark about Mac
> features that needs redressing and I think I will have a good
> breakfast first.<g>
dorayme
Dec 30, 2011, 7:26:36 PM12/30/11
to
In article <jdldch$cmq$1...@dont-email.me>,
examine this remark of yours very closely indeed!
"Must be a Mac feature ;-)"
IE8 on WinXP (*Note*: MS Win, Jonathan, MS Win) is the worst of
the lot regarding the gap. I confess, though, that Win FF is
excellent and better than my Mac or Safari on rendering:
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/WinIE_cf_WinFF.png>
Here the Mac Safari and Mac Firefox:
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/macSafariAndFF.png>
I screenshat when near max zoom. It seems FF has yet another way
of rendering, sneakily sidingly slidingly (getting the triangles
out of alignment).
Someone please give that Win FF a cigar!
--
dorayme
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
> > I will be
> > replying to Jonathan Little soon, he made a remark about Mac
> > features that needs redressing and I think I will have a good
> > breakfast first.<g>
>
> I just couldn't resist! ;-)
OK now! Powered with freshly ground espresso coffee, let me
> dorayme wrote:
> > I will be
> > replying to Jonathan Little soon, he made a remark about Mac
> > features that needs redressing and I think I will have a good
> > breakfast first.<g>
>
> I just couldn't resist! ;-)
examine this remark of yours very closely indeed!
"Must be a Mac feature ;-)"
the lot regarding the gap. I confess, though, that Win FF is
excellent and better than my Mac or Safari on rendering:
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/WinIE_cf_WinFF.png>
Here the Mac Safari and Mac Firefox:
<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/macSafariAndFF.png>
I screenshat when near max zoom. It seems FF has yet another way
of rendering, sneakily sidingly slidingly (getting the triangles
out of alignment).
Someone please give that Win FF a cigar!
--
dorayme
Jonathan N. Little
Dec 30, 2011, 10:42:18 PM12/30/11
to
dorayme wrote:
> IE8 on WinXP (*Note*: MS Win, Jonathan, MS Win) is the worst of
> the lot regarding the gap. I confess, though, that Win FF is
> excellent and better than my Mac or Safari on rendering:
Hey we all know MSIE sucks dead gophers through rusty tailpipes! The
> IE8 on WinXP (*Note*: MS Win, Jonathan, MS Win) is the worst of
> the lot regarding the gap. I confess, though, that Win FF is
> excellent and better than my Mac or Safari on rendering:
only version the comes close to being decent is IE9 and of course you
are not going to find out with WinXP...BTW IE6 on WinXP looks the same
as IE8.
dorayme
Dec 30, 2011, 11:20:24 PM12/30/11
to
In article <jdm0au$8i7$1...@dont-email.me>,
--
dorayme
> dorayme wrote:
>
> > IE8 on WinXP (*Note*: MS Win, Jonathan, MS Win) is the worst of
> > the lot regarding the gap. I confess, though, that Win FF is
> > excellent and better than my Mac or Safari on rendering:
>
> Hey we all know MSIE sucks dead gophers through rusty tailpipes! The
> only version the comes close to being decent is IE9 and of course you
> are not going to find out with WinXP...BTW IE6 on WinXP looks the same
> as IE8.
About IE6, I am *so* surprised! <g>
>
> > IE8 on WinXP (*Note*: MS Win, Jonathan, MS Win) is the worst of
> > the lot regarding the gap. I confess, though, that Win FF is
> > excellent and better than my Mac or Safari on rendering:
>
> Hey we all know MSIE sucks dead gophers through rusty tailpipes! The
> only version the comes close to being decent is IE9 and of course you
> are not going to find out with WinXP...BTW IE6 on WinXP looks the same
> as IE8.
--
dorayme
Swifty
Dec 31, 2011, 3:07:27 AM12/31/11
to
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 23:46:54 +1100, dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:
>where the white triangles seem to be connected together but the
>black ones are little diamond islands. Or so it seems to me.
I took a screen capture if about 2cm square (from Opera) and then
viewed it magnified 8 times.
The pixels where the black triangles meet vertically are white, but
where they meet horizontally, they are black. So there is a basic
asymmetry.
Incidentally, there is a similar optical illusion effect in the UK
flag, as the diagonal lines often don't seem to line up.
--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk
wrote:
>where the white triangles seem to be connected together but the
>black ones are little diamond islands. Or so it seems to me.
viewed it magnified 8 times.
The pixels where the black triangles meet vertically are white, but
where they meet horizontally, they are black. So there is a basic
asymmetry.
Incidentally, there is a similar optical illusion effect in the UK
flag, as the diagonal lines often don't seem to line up.
--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk
dorayme
Dec 31, 2011, 8:44:33 PM12/31/11
to
In article <3egtf75nhj1g5fp8t...@4ax.com>,
http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/an_asymmetry.html
in Mac Opera 11, as in Win FF (late but maybe not latest
version), the result is nice and what I would expect at normal
zoom, (at unzoomed!). It is as good as it gets.
In FF, different versions and some different platforms, it looks
clearly wrong, the two white triangles slide past each other at
the tip, as do the black triangles. Neither pair look to line up
vertically and horizontally respectively.
Zooming changes an important parameter, they make up the bits of
the figure out of bigger groups of native pixels. I am mainly
interested in the native show, as on an LCD screen whose software
res matches the native. For example, on one of my screens there
are 1920 by 1200 pixels.
One can get close to them with a magnifying glass. In the white,
for example, in Opera, which gives a satisfying appearance, there
are just two white adjacent pixels forming an isthmus when you
look very very close. On zooming it can grow to three. And there
are complications to do with those zooms that let the lines look
nice and smooth, and those that cannot quite avoid the jaggies on
this particular screen.
Of course, all is easier and better the higher the res, the
smaller the pixels.
--
dorayme
Swifty <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 23:46:54 +1100, dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >where the white triangles seem to be connected together but the
> >black ones are little diamond islands. Or so it seems to me.
>
> I took a screen capture if about 2cm square (from Opera) and then
> viewed it magnified 8 times.
>
> The pixels where the black triangles meet vertically are white, but
> where they meet horizontally, they are black. So there is a basic
> asymmetry.
>
> Incidentally, there is a similar optical illusion effect in the UK
> flag, as the diagonal lines often don't seem to line up.
In
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 23:46:54 +1100, dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >where the white triangles seem to be connected together but the
> >black ones are little diamond islands. Or so it seems to me.
>
> I took a screen capture if about 2cm square (from Opera) and then
> viewed it magnified 8 times.
>
> The pixels where the black triangles meet vertically are white, but
> where they meet horizontally, they are black. So there is a basic
> asymmetry.
>
> Incidentally, there is a similar optical illusion effect in the UK
> flag, as the diagonal lines often don't seem to line up.
http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/an_asymmetry.html
in Mac Opera 11, as in Win FF (late but maybe not latest
version), the result is nice and what I would expect at normal
zoom, (at unzoomed!). It is as good as it gets.
In FF, different versions and some different platforms, it looks
clearly wrong, the two white triangles slide past each other at
the tip, as do the black triangles. Neither pair look to line up
vertically and horizontally respectively.
Zooming changes an important parameter, they make up the bits of
the figure out of bigger groups of native pixels. I am mainly
interested in the native show, as on an LCD screen whose software
res matches the native. For example, on one of my screens there
are 1920 by 1200 pixels.
One can get close to them with a magnifying glass. In the white,
for example, in Opera, which gives a satisfying appearance, there
are just two white adjacent pixels forming an isthmus when you
look very very close. On zooming it can grow to three. And there
are complications to do with those zooms that let the lines look
nice and smooth, and those that cannot quite avoid the jaggies on
this particular screen.
Of course, all is easier and better the higher the res, the
smaller the pixels.
--
dorayme
dorayme
Dec 31, 2011, 9:14:41 PM12/31/11
to
In article <slrnjfqtlv....@bowser.marioworld>,
>
> What version of Firefox?
Sorry, meant to reply earlier but lost post, now recovered. It
was Mac FF 8, I have now upped to 9 but same thing.
> In 3.6.6 the pixel right in the middle is grey,
> with the value #808080. If you zoom in to a screenshot, or using a
> screen magnifier, can you see grey edges to the black solid lines, and a
> grey pixel right in the middle?
>
No, not on my FF. How my two black triangles meet is rather wrong
(imo) in FF, their respective end pixels meet like the way QR1
meets QN2. This way of meeting does isolated the quadrants,
screenshot, open in good image editor, set wand selection to have
tolerance of just 1 and you cannot select more than *one
triangle, all are isolated and cutoff, the tolerance unable to
leap in one bound such coy corner meeting. These triangles! they
are so sexy and secretive!
Better like in Opera where the point of the tip of the top black
triangle is Q3 and K4, a gap of Q2 and K2 and then the tip of the
bottom triangle Q1 and K1. (Yes, the tip is blunt on close
inspection, but bluntness as with frankness has its advantages).
At the fine res of a 26 monitor boasting 4 disk brakes, twin
carbs, mags, extractors, 4 topcoats of delux paint ... I mean
1920 by 1200 native pixels, this is better. It may be more
Victorian in the way they meet, but it is square and true and...
well..., if things had continued that way the Empire would not
have been so damned lost.
> This is called anti-aliasing and to be basically correct the shade of
> grey should be proportional to the area of the pixel that's black. In
> this case half of that centre pixel is black and half white so #808080
> is right on the money.
>
> What Firefox is most probably doing is rendering the whole thing at
> about 16x the size you see and then shrinking it down averaging out
> colours. Although there are faster ways to achieve the same result for
> shapes only involving straight lines this is pretty much the only way to
> get good anti-aliasing for curved shapes, and since most browsers now
> support border-radius, they use a library that does that sort of thing.
>
> But IIRC older versions of Firefox didn't do antialiasing. In that case
> #808080 has to be either rounded down to white or up to black, resulting
> in asymmetry either way.
I cannot see any anti-aliasing on my FF on this figure.
--
dorayme
Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> On 2011-12-29, dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> ><http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/an_asymmetry.html>
> >
> > Notice how the top and bottom triangles do not *quite* meet...
> On 2011-12-29, dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> ><http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/an_asymmetry.html>
> >
>
> What version of Firefox?
Sorry, meant to reply earlier but lost post, now recovered. It
was Mac FF 8, I have now upped to 9 but same thing.
> In 3.6.6 the pixel right in the middle is grey,
> with the value #808080. If you zoom in to a screenshot, or using a
> screen magnifier, can you see grey edges to the black solid lines, and a
> grey pixel right in the middle?
>
(imo) in FF, their respective end pixels meet like the way QR1
meets QN2. This way of meeting does isolated the quadrants,
screenshot, open in good image editor, set wand selection to have
tolerance of just 1 and you cannot select more than *one
triangle, all are isolated and cutoff, the tolerance unable to
leap in one bound such coy corner meeting. These triangles! they
are so sexy and secretive!
Better like in Opera where the point of the tip of the top black
triangle is Q3 and K4, a gap of Q2 and K2 and then the tip of the
bottom triangle Q1 and K1. (Yes, the tip is blunt on close
inspection, but bluntness as with frankness has its advantages).
At the fine res of a 26 monitor boasting 4 disk brakes, twin
carbs, mags, extractors, 4 topcoats of delux paint ... I mean
1920 by 1200 native pixels, this is better. It may be more
Victorian in the way they meet, but it is square and true and...
well..., if things had continued that way the Empire would not
have been so damned lost.
> This is called anti-aliasing and to be basically correct the shade of
> grey should be proportional to the area of the pixel that's black. In
> this case half of that centre pixel is black and half white so #808080
> is right on the money.
>
> What Firefox is most probably doing is rendering the whole thing at
> about 16x the size you see and then shrinking it down averaging out
> colours. Although there are faster ways to achieve the same result for
> shapes only involving straight lines this is pretty much the only way to
> get good anti-aliasing for curved shapes, and since most browsers now
> support border-radius, they use a library that does that sort of thing.
>
> But IIRC older versions of Firefox didn't do antialiasing. In that case
> #808080 has to be either rounded down to white or up to black, resulting
> in asymmetry either way.
--
dorayme
Dr J R Stockton
Jan 1, 2012, 2:54:06 PM1/1/12
to
In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets message <3egtf75nhj1g5fp8t
cur1mp3r...@4ax.com>, Sat, 31 Dec 2011 08:07:27, Swifty
<steve....@gmail.com> posted:
>On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 23:46:54 +1100, dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>where the white triangles seem to be connected together but the
>>black ones are little diamond islands. Or so it seems to me.
>
>I took a screen capture if about 2cm square (from Opera) and then
>viewed it magnified 8 times.
>
It should be tested with a size not 4em (or whatever it was) but with
odd and even sizes in px units - and considering whether CSS px match
actual screen pixels.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike 6.05 WinXP.
Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQ-type topics, acronyms, and links.
Command-prompt MiniTrue is useful for viewing/searching/altering files. Free,
DOS/Win/UNIX now 2.0.6; see <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pc-links.htm>.
cur1mp3r...@4ax.com>, Sat, 31 Dec 2011 08:07:27, Swifty
<steve....@gmail.com> posted:
>On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 23:46:54 +1100, dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>where the white triangles seem to be connected together but the
>>black ones are little diamond islands. Or so it seems to me.
>
>I took a screen capture if about 2cm square (from Opera) and then
>viewed it magnified 8 times.
>
odd and even sizes in px units - and considering whether CSS px match
actual screen pixels.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike 6.05 WinXP.
Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQ-type topics, acronyms, and links.
Command-prompt MiniTrue is useful for viewing/searching/altering files. Free,
DOS/Win/UNIX now 2.0.6; see <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pc-links.htm>.
dorayme
Jan 1, 2012, 7:59:35 PM1/1/12
to
In article
<KrZdjYIe...@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>,
could be the introduction to a Phd and, in that thesis, all the
values for every relevant thing could be researched.
--
dorayme
<KrZdjYIe...@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>,
Dr J R Stockton <repl...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets message <3egtf75nhj1g5fp8t
> cur1mp3r...@4ax.com>, Sat, 31 Dec 2011 08:07:27, Swifty
> <steve....@gmail.com> posted:
>
> >On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 23:46:54 +1100, dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>where the white triangles seem to be connected together but the
> >>black ones are little diamond islands. Or so it seems to me.
> >
> >I took a screen capture if about 2cm square (from Opera) and then
> >viewed it magnified 8 times.
> >
>
> It should be tested with a size not 4em (or whatever it was) but with
> odd and even sizes in px units - and considering whether CSS px match
> actual screen pixels.
Depends what it is one wants to test. This triangle business
> In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets message <3egtf75nhj1g5fp8t
> cur1mp3r...@4ax.com>, Sat, 31 Dec 2011 08:07:27, Swifty
> <steve....@gmail.com> posted:
>
> >On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 23:46:54 +1100, dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>where the white triangles seem to be connected together but the
> >>black ones are little diamond islands. Or so it seems to me.
> >
> >I took a screen capture if about 2cm square (from Opera) and then
> >viewed it magnified 8 times.
> >
>
> It should be tested with a size not 4em (or whatever it was) but with
> odd and even sizes in px units - and considering whether CSS px match
> actual screen pixels.
could be the introduction to a Phd and, in that thesis, all the
values for every relevant thing could be researched.
--
dorayme
Ben C
Jan 3, 2012, 3:52:21 AM1/3/12
to
On 2012-01-01, dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article <slrnjfqtlv....@bowser.marioworld>,
> Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-12-29, dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> ><http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/an_asymmetry.html>
>> >
>> > Notice how the top and bottom triangles do not *quite* meet...
>>
>> What version of Firefox?
>
> Sorry, meant to reply earlier but lost post, now recovered. It
> was Mac FF 8, I have now upped to 9 but same thing.
I'm now a bit confused about Firefox version numbers. I'm using a fairly
> In article <slrnjfqtlv....@bowser.marioworld>,
> Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-12-29, dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> ><http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/an_asymmetry.html>
>> >
>> > Notice how the top and bottom triangles do not *quite* meet...
>>
>> What version of Firefox?
>
> Sorry, meant to reply earlier but lost post, now recovered. It
> was Mac FF 8, I have now upped to 9 but same thing.
recent version of SUSE (11.3 I think) and the Firefox that came with it
is 3.6.6. It used to be a big thing when they did a major release, yet
they seem to have got to 8 or 9 without my even noticing!
Seems they may have been going a bit too fast, since my version appears
to render triangles better.
[...]
>> But IIRC older versions of Firefox didn't do antialiasing. In that case
>> #808080 has to be either rounded down to white or up to black, resulting
>> in asymmetry either way.
>
> I cannot see any anti-aliasing on my FF on this figure.
That's too bad. If you try giving the box some -moz-border-radius you
>> #808080 has to be either rounded down to white or up to black, resulting
>> in asymmetry either way.
>
> I cannot see any anti-aliasing on my FF on this figure.
may find it makes it turn on anti-aliasing. Certainly it is not possible
to draw a smooth curve at these kinds of resolutions without it.
Jonathan N. Little
Jan 3, 2012, 9:49:09 AM1/3/12
to
Ben C wrote:
> I'm now a bit confused about Firefox version numbers. I'm using a fairly
> recent version of SUSE (11.3 I think) and the Firefox that came with it
> is 3.6.6. It used to be a big thing when they did a major release, yet
> they seem to have got to 8 or 9 without my even noticing!
>
> Seems they may have been going a bit too fast, since my version appears
> to render triangles better.
Since it is a major change from 3.6.x to 4+ you have to change the
> I'm now a bit confused about Firefox version numbers. I'm using a fairly
> recent version of SUSE (11.3 I think) and the Firefox that came with it
> is 3.6.6. It used to be a big thing when they did a major release, yet
> they seem to have got to 8 or 9 without my even noticing!
>
> Seems they may have been going a bit too fast, since my version appears
> to render triangles better.
repository channel. Not sure how you do it with SUSE, but with
Ubuntu|Debian there is a PPA. A quick Google yielded
<http://en.opensuse.org/Firefox>
Ben C
Jan 4, 2012, 3:43:03 AM1/4/12
to
On 2012-01-03, Jonathan N. Little <lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>
>> I'm now a bit confused about Firefox version numbers. I'm using a fairly
>> recent version of SUSE (11.3 I think) and the Firefox that came with it
>> is 3.6.6. It used to be a big thing when they did a major release, yet
>> they seem to have got to 8 or 9 without my even noticing!
>>
>> Seems they may have been going a bit too fast, since my version appears
>> to render triangles better.
>
> Since it is a major change from 3.6.x to 4+ you have to change the
> repository channel. Not sure how you do it with SUSE, but with
> Ubuntu|Debian there is a PPA. A quick Google yielded
>
><http://en.opensuse.org/Firefox>
Thanks. What surprises me though is just how many major releases they
> Ben C wrote:
>
>> I'm now a bit confused about Firefox version numbers. I'm using a fairly
>> recent version of SUSE (11.3 I think) and the Firefox that came with it
>> is 3.6.6. It used to be a big thing when they did a major release, yet
>> they seem to have got to 8 or 9 without my even noticing!
>>
>> Seems they may have been going a bit too fast, since my version appears
>> to render triangles better.
>
> Since it is a major change from 3.6.x to 4+ you have to change the
> repository channel. Not sure how you do it with SUSE, but with
> Ubuntu|Debian there is a PPA. A quick Google yielded
>
><http://en.opensuse.org/Firefox>
seem to have done in a short space of time.
Gus Richter
Jan 4, 2012, 4:51:19 AM1/4/12
to
the end of 2012 we should be at version 18. Size does matter. ;-)
--
Gus
tlvp
Jan 4, 2012, 5:11:28 PM1/4/12
to
What a shock! No menu bar at all. Just a title bar, address bar, and tabs!
Fortunately the muscle memory of [Alt]-V to bring up a View menu still
brought up a View menu, and it was then possible to elicit menu bar and
status bar, but -- boy! -- I sure hope they don't hide the steering wheel
on the next car I buy, that's for sure :-) .
Cheers, and don't let the same bugs bite *you*, -- tlvp
Jonathan N. Little
Jan 4, 2012, 6:07:20 PM1/4/12
to
tlvp wrote:
> One of our Win 7 systems here just got its FF updated from 3.6.* to 9.0.1.
> What a shock! No menu bar at all. Just a title bar, address bar, and tabs!
>
It is now all in the "megabutton" Firefox, but if you pine for the old
> One of our Win 7 systems here just got its FF updated from 3.6.* to 9.0.1.
> What a shock! No menu bar at all. Just a title bar, address bar, and tabs!
>
days you can right-click in the menubar area and set the checkbox for
"Menu Bar"
> Fortunately the muscle memory of [Alt]-V to bring up a View menu still
> brought up a View menu, and it was then possible to elicit menu bar and
> status bar, but -- boy! -- I sure hope they don't hide the steering wheel
> on the next car I buy, that's for sure :-) .
>
> Cheers, and don't let the same bugs bite *you*, -- tlvp
--
Dr J R Stockton
Jan 4, 2012, 2:24:32 PM1/4/12
to
In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets message <slrnjg5ge5.9bq.sp
ams...@bowser.marioworld>, Tue, 3 Jan 2012 02:52:21, Ben C
<spam...@spam.eggs> posted:
>I'm now a bit confused about Firefox version numbers. I'm using a fairly
>recent version of SUSE (11.3 I think) and the Firefox that came with it
>is 3.6.6. It used to be a big thing when they did a major release, yet
>they seem to have got to 8 or 9 without my even noticing!
Firefox standard ""major"" releases now occur every six weeks,
regardless, by policy. So users not yet at half of their "three score
years and ten" can hope to see at least Version 289.0. Following
figures seem to be more traditional; my Firefox is now 9.0.1.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05.
Website <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc. : <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see in 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.
ams...@bowser.marioworld>, Tue, 3 Jan 2012 02:52:21, Ben C
<spam...@spam.eggs> posted:
>I'm now a bit confused about Firefox version numbers. I'm using a fairly
>recent version of SUSE (11.3 I think) and the Firefox that came with it
>is 3.6.6. It used to be a big thing when they did a major release, yet
>they seem to have got to 8 or 9 without my even noticing!
regardless, by policy. So users not yet at half of their "three score
years and ten" can hope to see at least Version 289.0. Following
figures seem to be more traditional; my Firefox is now 9.0.1.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05.
Website <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc. : <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see in 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.
tlvp
Jan 4, 2012, 8:57:44 PM1/4/12
to
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 18:07:20 -0500, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> It is now all in the "megabutton" Firefox
You mean the high left Firefox cuff-link? that's a "megabutton"?
> It is now all in the "megabutton" Firefox
You have to [Ctrl]-[Shift]-[Alt]-right-click it to see what it offers? --
'Tain't just MS dishing out Koolaid these days, it seems to me :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
Swifty
Jan 5, 2012, 4:07:17 AM1/5/12
to
On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 20:57:44 -0500, tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net>
wrote:
>You have to [Ctrl]-[Shift]-[Alt]-right-click it to see what it offers?
You should get yourself a mouse. That's what everyone else is using,
apparently. So the keyboard access routes are often neglected, more's
the shame.
I now run without the menu most of the time. Some of the more obscure
actions didn't find their way into the stuff under the "megabutton",
so then I resort to the menu. I've mostly forgotten what I used it
for.
Perhaps it will make a comeback after a suitable period of absence...
"Look, we have a new bar that gives you rapid access to all of your
actions!"
wrote:
>You have to [Ctrl]-[Shift]-[Alt]-right-click it to see what it offers?
apparently. So the keyboard access routes are often neglected, more's
the shame.
I now run without the menu most of the time. Some of the more obscure
actions didn't find their way into the stuff under the "megabutton",
so then I resort to the menu. I've mostly forgotten what I used it
for.
Perhaps it will make a comeback after a suitable period of absence...
"Look, we have a new bar that gives you rapid access to all of your
actions!"
Jonathan N. Little
Jan 5, 2012, 9:45:38 AM1/5/12
to
Swifty wrote:
> Perhaps it will make a comeback after a suitable period of absence...
> "Look, we have a new bar that gives you rapid access to all of your
> actions!"
Don't bank on it. I have noticed a general trend with UIs in apps and
> Perhaps it will make a comeback after a suitable period of absence...
> "Look, we have a new bar that gives you rapid access to all of your
> actions!"
ALL OS's GUIs of slimming(dumbing)-down access to options and
information and replacing glossy graphics. The consequences in an effort
to market the computer from the geeks to the "common" man has
transformed it from a tools to a consumer toy. :-(
tlvp
Jan 5, 2012, 7:17:29 PM1/5/12
to
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 09:07:17 +0000, Swifty wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 20:57:44 -0500, tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>>You have to [Ctrl]-[Shift]-[Alt]-right-click it to see what it offers?
>
> You should get yourself a mouse. That's what everyone else is using,
I have a mouse. I use it. I click File | Print Preview | ... etc. ... .
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 20:57:44 -0500, tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>>You have to [Ctrl]-[Shift]-[Alt]-right-click it to see what it offers?
>
> You should get yourself a mouse. That's what everyone else is using,
But absent the Menu bar, there's no "File" to click on.
Absent the Menu bar there's no indication that there *is* any way to print.
Thank heaven the FF 9 developers forgot to remove the FF 3 KB shortcuts :-)
or I'd never have found out how to restore the Menu bar.
> I now run without the menu most of the time.
text size, to search for text strings, or to do any of the other things
that I've always done by mousing to the right Menu head, mousing down to
the right option, and going on from there to my intended action?
> ... Some of the more obscure
> actions didn't find their way into the stuff under the "megabutton",
> so then I resort to the menu. I've mostly forgotten what I used it
> for.
I find no "stuff under" -- or alongside -- "the "megabutton"" and if you've
> so then I resort to the menu. I've mostly forgotten what I used it
> for.
not restored the Menu bar, how do you get to "resort to the menu"?
> Perhaps it will make a comeback after a suitable period of absence...
> "Look, we have a new bar that gives you rapid access to all of your
> actions!"
I'm happy again :-) . May you be, too! Cheers, -- tlvp
Swifty
Jan 6, 2012, 2:41:04 AM1/6/12
to
On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 09:45:38 -0500, "Jonathan N. Little"
<lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The consequences in an effort
>to market the computer from the geeks to the "common" man has
>transformed it from a tools to a consumer toy. :-(
As in:
<lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The consequences in an effort
>to market the computer from the geeks to the "common" man has
>transformed it from a tools to a consumer toy. :-(
User Friendly = Expert Unfriendly
Swifty
Jan 6, 2012, 2:45:26 AM1/6/12
to
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 19:17:29 -0500, tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net>
wrote:
>I find no "stuff under" -- or alongside -- "the "megabutton"" and if you've
>not restored the Menu bar, how do you get to "resort to the menu"?
Megabutton -> Options -> Menu Bar
to get back:
View -> Toolbars -> Menu Bar
wrote:
>I find no "stuff under" -- or alongside -- "the "megabutton"" and if you've
>not restored the Menu bar, how do you get to "resort to the menu"?
to get back:
View -> Toolbars -> Menu Bar
Jonathan N. Little
Jan 6, 2012, 10:19:13 AM1/6/12
to
Swifty wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 09:45:38 -0500, "Jonathan N. Little"
> <lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The consequences in an effort
>> to market the computer from the geeks to the "common" man has
>> transformed it from a tools to a consumer toy. :-(
>
> As in:
>
> User Friendly = Expert Unfriendly
>
Yes, or cumbersome, convoluted, piece of garbage. New to Windows setting
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 09:45:38 -0500, "Jonathan N. Little"
> <lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The consequences in an effort
>> to market the computer from the geeks to the "common" man has
>> transformed it from a tools to a consumer toy. :-(
>
> As in:
>
> User Friendly = Expert Unfriendly
>
that you have direct access to now is buried behind multiple levels of
"security"* dialogs or gone altogether and only accessible by editing
the registry directly.
*I say so-called "security" because in any of the system altering
actions merely requires you to click "Okay"!
Swifty
Jan 6, 2012, 11:08:20 AM1/6/12
to
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 10:19:13 -0500, "Jonathan N. Little"
<lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I say so-called "security" because in any of the system altering
>actions merely requires you to click "Okay"!
I hit something like that yesterday. My keyboard got into a weird
<lws...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I say so-called "security" because in any of the system altering
>actions merely requires you to click "Okay"!
state (like caps lock, but applying to the numeric keys as well) and
whilst I was tinkering with various pressing of alt/cntrl/alt
gr/shift/etc I hit some magic "screw up your video settings" combo
which:
1. Swapped my primary/secondary displays (so start bar moved)
2. Rotated BOTH displays by 90 degrees, but in opposite directions
3. Reduced the resolution on both displays
An hour later, I had it all back, but also had a crick in my neck
(from trying to read the screen that was rotated 90 degrees, as the
other was upside down) and a stiff wrist from driving the mouse whilst
it was rotated by 90 degrees to match the screen.
I know about keyboard shortcuts which rotate or invert the display,
but they are disabled on my system.
tlvp
Jan 6, 2012, 4:47:02 PM1/6/12
to
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:08:20 +0000, Swifty wrote:
> I know about keyboard shortcuts which rotate or invert the display,
> but they are disabled on my system.
Are you sure you really have the permissions needed to disable those :-) ?
> I know about keyboard shortcuts which rotate or invert the display,
> but they are disabled on my system.
tlvp
Jan 6, 2012, 4:57:05 PM1/6/12
to
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 07:45:26 +0000, Swifty wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 19:17:29 -0500, tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>>I find no "stuff under" -- or alongside -- "the "megabutton"" and if you've
>>not restored the Menu bar, how do you get to "resort to the menu"?
>
> Megabutton -> Options -> Menu Bar
>
> to get back:
>
> View -> Toolbars -> Menu Bar
My point exactly -- six actions the need for which will be angering untold
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 19:17:29 -0500, tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>>I find no "stuff under" -- or alongside -- "the "megabutton"" and if you've
>>not restored the Menu bar, how do you get to "resort to the menu"?
>
> Megabutton -> Options -> Menu Bar
>
> to get back:
>
> View -> Toolbars -> Menu Bar
millions of FF users, who'd much rather the developers had just left well
enough (i.e., Menu bar in plain sight) alone :-) . (Sigh!)
Cheers, and thanks for having recorded those steps for posterity,
dorayme
Jan 6, 2012, 5:15:49 PM1/6/12
to
In article <vh6eg71sq16mpl8j9...@4ax.com>,
A chance discovery by me the other day, you Win people probably
know all about it, but you never know, I would hate for me on
Macs to know and you not to, it would simply be shameful.
I was running XP on VirtualBox and trying to get rid of some
idiotic stuff that come down the line without my express
permission, Yahoo bars, search engines on browsers I did not
want, etc. and it was frustratingly failing when I followed
buttons to "uninstall" or "remove". Anyway, I went into Help and
found there are 'restore points' that are set or which you can
set and you can restore your Win machine back to that point. (I
think I went back too far and don't think I can get to closer to
now, but at least it is leaner and meaner like I like now.
Reminds me of what the Mac people talk about Time Machine in Mac
OS (which I don't use, I just back up in more traditional ways
regularly).
--
dorayme
A chance discovery by me the other day, you Win people probably
know all about it, but you never know, I would hate for me on
Macs to know and you not to, it would simply be shameful.
I was running XP on VirtualBox and trying to get rid of some
idiotic stuff that come down the line without my express
permission, Yahoo bars, search engines on browsers I did not
want, etc. and it was frustratingly failing when I followed
buttons to "uninstall" or "remove". Anyway, I went into Help and
found there are 'restore points' that are set or which you can
set and you can restore your Win machine back to that point. (I
think I went back too far and don't think I can get to closer to
now, but at least it is leaner and meaner like I like now.
Reminds me of what the Mac people talk about Time Machine in Mac
OS (which I don't use, I just back up in more traditional ways
regularly).
--
dorayme
tlvp
Jan 6, 2012, 6:01:29 PM1/6/12
to
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:15:49 +1100, dorayme wrote:
> I went into Help and
> found there are 'restore points' that are set or which you can
> set and you can restore your Win machine back to that point.
A-yup! First sensible improvement to Windows since the Pen Computing
> I went into Help and
> found there are 'restore points' that are set or which you can
> set and you can restore your Win machine back to that point.
add-ons for Win 3.1 :-) .
But with VirtualBox, I guess, life is even better: just trash it all, and
start over clean.
dorayme
Jan 6, 2012, 6:18:25 PM1/6/12
to
In article <13laugvah3qn1.1o38howovjj6c$.d...@40tude.net>,
--
dorayme
tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:15:49 +1100, dorayme wrote:
>
> > I went into Help and
> > found there are 'restore points' that are set or which you can
> > set and you can restore your Win machine back to that point.
>
> A-yup! First sensible improvement to Windows since the Pen Computing
> add-ons for Win 3.1 :-) .
>
> But with VirtualBox, I guess, life is even better: just trash it all, and
> start over clean.
What makes you guess that?
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:15:49 +1100, dorayme wrote:
>
> > I went into Help and
> > found there are 'restore points' that are set or which you can
> > set and you can restore your Win machine back to that point.
>
> A-yup! First sensible improvement to Windows since the Pen Computing
> add-ons for Win 3.1 :-) .
>
> But with VirtualBox, I guess, life is even better: just trash it all, and
> start over clean.
--
dorayme
tlvp
Jan 6, 2012, 10:45:14 PM1/6/12
to
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:18:25 +1100, dorayme wrote:
> In article <13laugvah3qn1.1o38howovjj6c$.d...@40tude.net>,
> tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:15:49 +1100, dorayme wrote:
>>
>>> I ... found there are 'restore points' ...
> In article <13laugvah3qn1.1o38howovjj6c$.d...@40tude.net>,
> tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:15:49 +1100, dorayme wrote:
>>
>>
>> A-yup! First sensible improvement to Windows since ...
>>
>> But with VirtualBox, I guess, life is even better: just trash it all, and
>> start over clean.
>
> What makes you guess that?
Lack of real-life experience with Virtual Box :-) . Just read about it.
>> But with VirtualBox, I guess, life is even better: just trash it all, and
>> start over clean.
>
> What makes you guess that?
What else could let me "guess that"? Way wrong, am I? Cheers, -- tlvp
Adrienne Boswell
Jan 7, 2012, 1:52:40 AM1/7/12
to
Swifty <steve....@gmail.com> wrote
> I hit some magic "screw up your video settings" combo
> which:
>
My son did that when he was two years old. The cat walked across my
keyboard last night and messed up my browser menu. How is that little
children and cats can find these magical key combinations? And are there
other "hidden" ones out there that are actually beneficial?
--
Adrienne Boswell
Arbpen Web Site Design Services - http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info/
The Good Plate - Fresh Gourmet Recipes - http://the-good-plate.com/
Please respond to the group so others can share
> I hit some magic "screw up your video settings" combo
> which:
>
keyboard last night and messed up my browser menu. How is that little
children and cats can find these magical key combinations? And are there
other "hidden" ones out there that are actually beneficial?
--
Adrienne Boswell
Arbpen Web Site Design Services - http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info/
The Good Plate - Fresh Gourmet Recipes - http://the-good-plate.com/
Please respond to the group so others can share
dorayme
Jan 7, 2012, 3:24:42 PM1/7/12
to
In article <1wdu2cko4e3ah$.ofygxyw0auxv$.d...@40tude.net>,
You instal the OSs in the normal way; with XP, for example, it
involves inserting disks and using installers and providing
personal details and long strings of characters (the key). Then
you need to install various anti virus software, get updates, and
download any extra software that you need like browsers other
than what comes on the XP disks.
--
dorayme
tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:18:25 +1100, dorayme wrote:
>
> > In article <13laugvah3qn1.1o38howovjj6c$.d...@40tude.net>,
> > tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:15:49 +1100, dorayme wrote:
> >>
> >>> I ... found there are 'restore points' ...
> >>
> >> A-yup! First sensible improvement to Windows since ...
> >>
> >> But with VirtualBox, I guess, life is even better: just trash it all, and
> >> start over clean.
> >
> > What makes you guess that?
>
> Lack of real-life experience with Virtual Box :-) . Just read about it.
> What else could let me "guess that"? Way wrong, am I?
VB is a program that provides an environment to run various OSs.
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 10:18:25 +1100, dorayme wrote:
>
> > In article <13laugvah3qn1.1o38howovjj6c$.d...@40tude.net>,
> > tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:15:49 +1100, dorayme wrote:
> >>
> >>> I ... found there are 'restore points' ...
> >>
> >> A-yup! First sensible improvement to Windows since ...
> >>
> >> But with VirtualBox, I guess, life is even better: just trash it all, and
> >> start over clean.
> >
> > What makes you guess that?
>
> Lack of real-life experience with Virtual Box :-) . Just read about it.
> What else could let me "guess that"? Way wrong, am I?
You instal the OSs in the normal way; with XP, for example, it
involves inserting disks and using installers and providing
personal details and long strings of characters (the key). Then
you need to install various anti virus software, get updates, and
download any extra software that you need like browsers other
than what comes on the XP disks.
--
dorayme
tlvp
Jan 7, 2012, 5:19:21 PM1/7/12
to
be able just to restore that snapshot if all went wrong later? That's what
my reading about VB suggested, leading me to think: "Hey, nifty!"
But if that's wrong, I'm glad I found out before installing Virtual Box.
Ed Mullen
Jan 7, 2012, 8:23:47 PM1/7/12
to
Adrienne Boswell wrote:
> Swifty<steve....@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> I hit some magic "screw up your video settings" combo
>> which:
>>
>
> My son did that when he was two years old. The cat walked across my
> keyboard last night and messed up my browser menu. How is that little
> children and cats can find these magical key combinations? And are there
> other "hidden" ones out there that are actually beneficial?
>
It's called "Life."
> Swifty<steve....@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> I hit some magic "screw up your video settings" combo
>> which:
>>
>
> My son did that when he was two years old. The cat walked across my
> keyboard last night and messed up my browser menu. How is that little
> children and cats can find these magical key combinations? And are there
> other "hidden" ones out there that are actually beneficial?
>
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
Just for today, I will not sit in my living room all day in my
underwear. Instead, I will move my computer into the bedroom.
Kevin Nathan
Jan 7, 2012, 8:24:56 PM1/7/12
to
On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 17:19:21 -0500
tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote:
>And you can't "take a snapshot of it" right after doing all that, so
>as to be able just to restore that snapshot if all went wrong later?
>That's what my reading about VB suggested, leading me to think: "Hey,
>nifty!"
>
>But if that's wrong, I'm glad I found out before installing Virtual
>Box.
>
>Cheers, -- tlvp
Yes, VirtualBox has snapshots!
tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net> wrote:
>And you can't "take a snapshot of it" right after doing all that, so
>as to be able just to restore that snapshot if all went wrong later?
>That's what my reading about VB suggested, leading me to think: "Hey,
>nifty!"
>
>But if that's wrong, I'm glad I found out before installing Virtual
>Box.
>
>Cheers, -- tlvp
http://thebarattheendoftheuniverse.com/basement/vboxsnapshots.html
--
Kevin Nathan (Arizona, USA)
Linux Potpourri -- http://www.project54.com/linux/
Open standards. Open source. Open minds.
The command line is the front line.
Linux 2.6.37.6-0.9-desktop
18:24pm up 21:20, 13 users, load average: 0.18, 0.12, 0.13
Swifty
Jan 8, 2012, 12:39:53 AM1/8/12
to
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 16:47:02 -0500, tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net>
wrote:
>Are you sure you really have the permissions needed to disable those :-) ?
I'm not sure of anything, but I'm pretty certain that the video driver
is ultimately what implements the various rotations and resolutions.
The driver settings window is giving me the impression that I have
control over those, and that the keyboard shortcuts are disabled.
I just checked, hoping to find the ability to save different profiles
so that I could restore a previous working state, if this happened
again, but that feature doesn't exist.
wrote:
>Are you sure you really have the permissions needed to disable those :-) ?
is ultimately what implements the various rotations and resolutions.
The driver settings window is giving me the impression that I have
control over those, and that the keyboard shortcuts are disabled.
I just checked, hoping to find the ability to save different profiles
so that I could restore a previous working state, if this happened
again, but that feature doesn't exist.
Swifty
Jan 8, 2012, 12:49:40 AM1/8/12
to
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 09:15:49 +1100, dorayme <dor...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:
>found there are 'restore points'
I'm a great fan of restore points, indeed I increase the reserved
storage to the maximum - 12% of my drive. This gives me the longest
possible history; at the moment I could wind back to the 11th of
October 2011.
I normally save this for emergencies only, because I'd be winding back
all of the other stuff as well.
There's also a nagging doubt: do you really want to be going into a
window with such powerful properties when one of your displays is
upside down, and the other is rotated 90 degrees... almost flying
blind?
There are times when I wonder if I would have been better off if I'd
taken up bomb disposal rather than programming. It would at least
enable me to keep a proper perspective on the seriousness of the
problems I encounter on this PC. :-)
wrote:
>found there are 'restore points'
storage to the maximum - 12% of my drive. This gives me the longest
possible history; at the moment I could wind back to the 11th of
October 2011.
I normally save this for emergencies only, because I'd be winding back
all of the other stuff as well.
There's also a nagging doubt: do you really want to be going into a
window with such powerful properties when one of your displays is
upside down, and the other is rotated 90 degrees... almost flying
blind?
There are times when I wonder if I would have been better off if I'd
taken up bomb disposal rather than programming. It would at least
enable me to keep a proper perspective on the seriousness of the
problems I encounter on this PC. :-)
Swifty
Jan 8, 2012, 12:58:10 AM1/8/12
to
On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 06:52:40 +0000 (UTC), Adrienne Boswell
<arb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>How is that little
>children and cats can find these magical key combinations?
They are simply a good supply of random change, the driver of
<arb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>How is that little
>children and cats can find these magical key combinations?
evolution.
We never had children, and we haven't tamed our feral cat to the point
where it will venture into the house, so I'm spared those.
However, the dog will nearly always nudge your elbow just as the
thought "I'd better be really careful with this" comes into mind (e.g.
as you start out entering "rm -rf /*ancient")
Kevin Nathan
Jan 8, 2012, 1:43:48 AM1/8/12
to
On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 05:58:10 +0000
Swifty <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
>However, the dog will nearly always nudge your elbow just as the
>thought "I'd better be really careful with this" comes into mind (e.g.
>as you start out entering "rm -rf /*ancient")
>
Which is why I put the options *last* on the command... :-)
Swifty <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
>However, the dog will nearly always nudge your elbow just as the
>thought "I'd better be really careful with this" comes into mind (e.g.
>as you start out entering "rm -rf /*ancient")
>
--
Kevin Nathan (Arizona, USA)
Linux Potpourri -- http://www.project54.com/linux/
Open standards. Open source. Open minds.
The command line is the front line.
Linux 2.6.37.6-0.9-desktop
tlvp
Jan 8, 2012, 1:59:20 AM1/8/12
to
On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 05:58:10 +0000, Swifty wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 06:52:40 +0000 (UTC), Adrienne Boswell
> <arb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>How is that little
>>children and cats can find these magical key combinations?
>
> They are simply a good supply of random change, the driver of
> evolution.
>
> We never had children, and we haven't tamed our feral cat to the point
> where it will venture into the house, so I'm spared those.
>
> However, the dog will nearly always nudge your elbow just as the
> thought "I'd better be really careful with this" comes into mind (e.g.
> as you start out entering "rm -rf /*ancient")
I think it must have been a dog-owning masochist of a UI programmer who set
> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 06:52:40 +0000 (UTC), Adrienne Boswell
> <arb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>How is that little
>>children and cats can find these magical key combinations?
>
> They are simply a good supply of random change, the driver of
> evolution.
>
> We never had children, and we haven't tamed our feral cat to the point
> where it will venture into the house, so I'm spared those.
>
> However, the dog will nearly always nudge your elbow just as the
> thought "I'd better be really careful with this" comes into mind (e.g.
> as you start out entering "rm -rf /*ancient")
up the UI on one of my mail service GUIs so that the [Delete] button is
right beneath the [Move to] ____Archive____ button, ready to be
mis-clicked upon by the slightest nudge by a canine -- or even feline --
paw or muzzle :-) . That came to me today, as I was moving several thousand
pieces of email, 100 at a time, out of a TEMPORARY folder and back to their
normal home.
dorayme
Jan 8, 2012, 3:42:29 AM1/8/12
to
In article <v2big7hevj8mujktg...@4ax.com>,
disposal squad, I think it was called UXB. I liked it.
--
dorayme
Swifty <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are times when I wonder if I would have been better off if I'd
> taken up bomb disposal rather than programming.
There was an English TV series I used to follow about a bomb
> There are times when I wonder if I would have been better off if I'd
> taken up bomb disposal rather than programming.
disposal squad, I think it was called UXB. I liked it.
--
dorayme
Swifty
Jan 8, 2012, 11:44:05 AM1/8/12
to
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 01:59:20 -0500, tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net>
wrote:
>I think it must have been a dog-owning masochist of a UI programmer who set
>up the UI on one of my mail service GUIs so that the [Delete] button is
>right beneath the
The people I work with are griping about the keyboards on the newer
Lenovo laptops - the "Delete" button has been made much larger, so
that should increase the accident rate...
The "Esc" button has had the same treatment; in our email application,
that closes the current email that you're composing. Loads of fun to
be had there.
I'm just glad that I stuck with a desktop; I'll probably be using the
same keyboard until the day I die.
wrote:
>I think it must have been a dog-owning masochist of a UI programmer who set
>up the UI on one of my mail service GUIs so that the [Delete] button is
>right beneath the
Lenovo laptops - the "Delete" button has been made much larger, so
that should increase the accident rate...
The "Esc" button has had the same treatment; in our email application,
that closes the current email that you're composing. Loads of fun to
be had there.
I'm just glad that I stuck with a desktop; I'll probably be using the
same keyboard until the day I die.
tlvp
Jan 8, 2012, 7:41:05 PM1/8/12
to
On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 16:44:05 +0000, Swifty wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 01:59:20 -0500, tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>>I think it must have been a dog-owning masochist of a UI programmer who set
>>up the UI on one of my mail service GUIs so that the [Delete] button is
>>right beneath the
>
> The people I work with are griping about the keyboards on the newer
> Lenovo laptops - the "Delete" button has been made much larger, so
> that should increase the accident rate...
Ah, on a keyboard I'd call it a "Delete" *key*; what I was referring to was
> On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 01:59:20 -0500, tlvp <mPiOsUcB...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>>I think it must have been a dog-owning masochist of a UI programmer who set
>>up the UI on one of my mail service GUIs so that the [Delete] button is
>>right beneath the
>
> The people I work with are griping about the keyboards on the newer
> Lenovo laptops - the "Delete" button has been made much larger, so
> that should increase the accident rate...
the graphic rectangle the GUI displays, maybe 100px by 30 px, with the logo
"Delete" centered within it -- a Delete "button" -- that one might click
with a mouse -- that's so close to a Move "button" that there's not even
room between the two for the Holy Ghost to wedge his way in :-) .
>
> The "Esc" button ...
Again, I'd call it a key, but what of it?
Cheers, and sorry for the confusion I engendered, -- tlvp
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Feb 10, 2012, 6:23:03 AM2/10/12
to
Kevin Nathan wrote:
> Swifty <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> However, the dog will nearly always nudge your elbow just as the
>> thought "I'd better be really careful with this" comes into mind (e.g.
>> as you start out entering "rm -rf /*ancient")
>
> Which is why I put the options *last* on the command... :-)
Speaking of animals, that's very *GNU*-ish of you, but unfortunately it does
> Swifty <steve....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> However, the dog will nearly always nudge your elbow just as the
>> thought "I'd better be really careful with this" comes into mind (e.g.
>> as you start out entering "rm -rf /*ancient")
>
> Which is why I put the options *last* on the command... :-)
not always work (as intended) ;-)
Regards,
PointedEars
--
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
0 new messages