TrendLabs 'Threat Trends 2010' - a very interesting report!

[Dustin]

Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> wrote in
news:93l3koFgq1U1@mid.individual.net:

>> I'm running a 16:9 flatpanel 20" from Acer.. and the pdf comes up
>> alright at 100% resolution. Don't assume because your configuration
>> doesn't allow something that everyone elses is the same.
>
> The problem isn't that it - the text on the text pages - isn't
> readable at 100%.

For you, apparently no. I have no problems reading the text, as I
previously stated.

> Your 16:9 is in the ballpark of 2:1, which is the aspect ratio of
> the .pdf 'double pages'.

Yes, it is. Which allows me to read it.

> That is not the (older) 'traditional' aspect ratio, and the .pdf
> should not be designed for one type of aspect ratio which is very
> different from the aspect ratios of the past.

I'm familiar with aspect ratios and how they've changed somewhat the
last few years. Ripping thousands of DVD's tends to educate you on the
concept of film. I don't need wikipedia to educate me on this subject.

> Here is a discussion of the aspect ratio dominance from 2003 to 2011
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute...d#Aspect_ratio

See above.

> In 2008 the computer industry started to move over from 16:10 to
> 16:9.

Do you know why, Mike?

> 16:9 aspect ratio panels are more cost effective to manufacture
> locally than the previous 16:10 panels

That's one reason, but the primary reason is actually the movie
industries doing. They wanted people to be able to see the widescreen
in all it's glory, not slightly distorted.

> In 2011 Non-widescreen displays with 4:3 aspect ratios still were
> being manufactured, but in small quantities.

4:3 is standard full screen. 16:9 is your standard widescreen
configuration.

> On a 5:4 aspect ratio monitor, the 100% display is easily readable,
> but most of the R side of the double page is off the screen.

Thats a personal configuration issue. Mine doesn't use the same
configuration and thus the text is readable for me.

> If the display is configured for the entire width, the zoom is
> reduced to about 60% which is harder to read the text because of the
> poor contrast and small size. 100% is much easier to read.

I didn't need paragraph upon paragraph to confirm what I told you
yesterday, Mike. While I appreciate your lengthly explanations, please
don't assume everyone requires them.


--
Why drink the water from my hand?
Contagious as you think I am
Just tilt my sun towards your domain
Your cup runneth over again

[~BD~]

Dustin wrote:

> Just furthers my observation. You're intentionally deceptive. I've
> stated you aren't a good guy for sometime, and in your efforts to
> attack me, you provide more proof to support my statements.

Dustin

When will you come to realise that I am *not* attacking you?

PF has already reported today that *he* has the skill needed to raid my
(or *your*!) bank account! <ir638q$nth$1@speranza.aioe.org>

Your role is to prove PF's is innocent of any crime .... if you can!

[Mike Easter]

Dustin wrote:
> Mike Easter

>> Your 16:9 is in the ballpark of 2:1, which is the aspect ratio of
>> the .pdf 'double pages'.
>
> Yes, it is. Which allows me to read it.
>
>> That is not the (older) 'traditional' aspect ratio, and the .pdf
>> should not be designed for one type of aspect ratio which is very
>> different from the aspect ratios of the past.
>
> I'm familiar with aspect ratios and how they've changed somewhat the
> last few years.

> Thats a personal configuration issue. Mine doesn't use the same
> configuration and thus the text is readable for me.

My original argument is that the .pdf is poorly published.

Likely that is due to the person responsible for the publication using a
wide screen monitor and losing 'sight' of the concept that a great many
of the people who are going to be reading the .pdf - who the publisher
should have considered - have a different aspect ratio than the 'editor'
and those people will find the publication sadly lacking. As I did.

You might compare it to a webpage being designed to be viewed by a
single browser such as IE and not 'working' for viewability if the
browser is something else.

--
Mike Easter

[Bullwinkle.]

You said someone stole money from your account before.

Apparently it does not take much to 'do' you.


"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in message
news:ir6hbr$o9$1@dont-email.me...
PF has already reported today that *he* has the skill needed to raid my
(or *your*!) bank account! <ir638q$nth$1@speranza.aioe.org>

[Dustin]

~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in news:ir6hbr$o9$1@dont-email.me:

> Dustin wrote:
>
>> Just furthers my observation. You're intentionally deceptive. I've
>> stated you aren't a good guy for sometime, and in your efforts to
>> attack me, you provide more proof to support my statements.
>
> Dustin
>
> When will you come to realise that I am *not* attacking you?

When you stop doing it.

> PF has already reported today that *he* has the skill needed to raid
> my (or *your*!) bank account! <ir638q$nth$1@speranza.aioe.org>

I don't worry about such things. Fraud protection n such.


--
Why drink the water from my hand?
Contagious as you think I am
Just tilt my sun towards your domain
Your cup runneth over again

[Dustin]

Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> wrote in
news:93nvvcFs0sU1@mid.individual.net:

> My original argument is that the .pdf is poorly published.

That's simply your opinion.

> Likely that is due to the person responsible for the publication
> using a wide screen monitor and losing 'sight' of the concept that a
> great many of the people who are going to be reading the .pdf - who
> the publisher should have considered - have a different aspect ratio
> than the 'editor'

In all fairness, and for a realistic point of view, Many of the systems I
service these days are all running widescreen flatpanels. While I still
occasionally run into non widescreen, it's becoming a rarity.

> You might compare it to a webpage being designed to be viewed by a
> single browser such as IE and not 'working' for viewability if the
> browser is something else.

Unfortunatly, I still know of some websites which do that very thing.


--
Why drink the water from my hand?
Contagious as you think I am
Just tilt my sun towards your domain
Your cup runneth over again

[~BD~]

Dustin wrote:
> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in news:ir6hbr$o9$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> Dustin wrote:
>>
>>> Just furthers my observation. You're intentionally deceptive. I've
>>> stated you aren't a good guy for sometime, and in your efforts to
>>> attack me, you provide more proof to support my statements.
>>
>> Dustin
>>
>> When will you come to realise that I am *not* attacking you?
>
> When you stop doing it.

I'm *not* doing it! ;-)

>> PF has already reported today that *he* has the skill needed to raid
>> my (or *your*!) bank account!<ir638q$nth$1@speranza.aioe.org>
>
> I don't worry about such things. Fraud protection n such.

I don't worry about it either!

Maybe that's also 'cause I have little left to be stolen nowadays. <shrug>

[Mike Easter]

Mike Easter wrote:

> Here is a discussion of the aspect ratio dominance from 2003 to 2011

And another thing...

.... what restarted me on this aspect ratio business was an ad in my
local Fry's for a 20" wide screen monitor for $99.

Personally, I wouldn't want that shape for my screen real estate. Using
a computer desktop is not the same as watching a wide screen movie.

There has been a lot written lately about the changes in the Ubuntu
desktop, which all came about because of screens which were smaller and
also 'disproportionately' wide, so as a result the vertical real estate
becomes so 'valuable' (because there isn't enough of it) that everyone
is supposed to get used to moving everything around to accommodate these
monitors and desktops which don't have enough vertical dimension.

Back to the 20" widescreen. Not only is it the wrong shape for using a
computer instead of watching a widescreen movie, but also there is
significantly less screen real estate than older aspect ratios.

Here's a snip from a article on the subject:

// A 20-inch screen with a 4:3 aspect ratio has a display area of 192
square inches. In contrast, a 20-inch screen with a 16:9 aspect ratio
has a display area of only about 171 square inches, or almost 11 per
cent less space available for information. But this isn't why the TV
format displays are deficient. //

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...#ixzz1MwM1R5Wh
Time to ditch awful HD 1080p widescreens
Rant We need better monitor displays



--
Mike Easter