Multiple monitors

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:01:26 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>Wrap around displays don't work because you have to *move* to take
>in their content (that's what I have currently).

Maybe this will help:
<http://gaggio.blogspirit.com/archive/2006/10/18/hyper-reality-head-dome-projector.html>
<http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200610/25/eng20061025_314993.html>
<http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15420310/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/t/headgear-shows-images--degree-view/>



-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:59:56 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

>Yes, and people who crack locks get arrested.

It depends on the circumstances.  If you get arrested with lock
picking tools while committing a different crime, there might be
additional charges added.  However, lock picking as a sport is
becoming quite popular in the USA:
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/28/locksport-competitive-loc_n_661773.html>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locksport>
<http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/lockbusters.html>
<http://www.lockpicking101.com>

Access to tools used to be a problem.  Not any more.  For example:
<https://www.ifixit.com/Store/Tools/iFixit-Lock-Pick-Set/IF145-135>
<https://www.ifixit.com/Info/Lock_Pick_Sales_Policy>
Incidentally, I bought the above set when it was on sale.  The quality
sucks, but is good enough for easy locks.  I made my own set out of
hack saw blades and spring steel, which work much better.  You can
also buy practice locks on eBay:
<http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=practice+locks>



-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:35:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:59:56 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
>
>>Yes, and people who crack locks get arrested.
>
>It depends on the circumstances.  If you get arrested with lock
>picking tools while committing a different crime, there might be
>additional charges added.  However, lock picking as a sport is
>becoming quite popular in the USA:
><http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/28/locksport-competitive-loc_n_661773.html>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locksport>
><http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/lockbusters.html>
><http://www.lockpicking101.com>

Oh, good grief!

>Access to tools used to be a problem.  Not any more.  For example:
><https://www.ifixit.com/Store/Tools/iFixit-Lock-Pick-Set/IF145-135>
><https://www.ifixit.com/Info/Lock_Pick_Sales_Policy>
>Incidentally, I bought the above set when it was on sale.  The quality
>sucks, but is good enough for easy locks.  I made my own set out of
>hack saw blades and spring steel, which work much better.  You can
>also buy practice locks on eBay:
><http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=practice+locks>

So what?

Hi Jeff,

On 8/27/2014 4:35 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:59:56 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
>
>> Yes, and people who crack locks get arrested.
>
> It depends on the circumstances.  If you get arrested with lock
> picking tools while committing a different crime, there might be
> additional charges added.  However, lock picking as a sport is
> becoming quite popular in the USA:
> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/28/locksport-competitive-loc_n_661773.html>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locksport>
> <http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/lockbusters.html>
> <http://www.lockpicking101.com>
>
> Access to tools used to be a problem.  Not any more.  For example:
> <https://www.ifixit.com/Store/Tools/iFixit-Lock-Pick-Set/IF145-135>
> <https://www.ifixit.com/Info/Lock_Pick_Sales_Policy>
> Incidentally, I bought the above set when it was on sale.  The quality
> sucks, but is good enough for easy locks.  I made my own set out of
> hack saw blades and spring steel, which work much better.  You can
> also buy practice locks on eBay:
> <http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=practice+locks>

Street cleaner bristles and a spring steel (e.g., from a "feeler gauge")
and a few minutes with a grinding tool...

In some jurisdictions, mere *possession* of tools (without "cause")
is regarded as /prima facie/ evidence of intent to commit a crime.

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:02:49 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 20:38:15 -0700, josephkk
><joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>Seriously consider super-resolution monitors e.g. 2560 by 1440 pixels and
>>higher.  I am experimenting with one and i like it.
>
>The cheapest 2560x1440 I could find on the Best Buy web pile is:
><http://www.bestbuy.com/site/dell-ultrasharp-27-widescreen-flat-panel-ips-led-hd-monitor/6814961.p>
>The cost per megapixel is:
>   $616 / 3.69 mpix = $167/mpix
>
>In a previous rant, I worked out the costs for other monitors at:
>
>LG 29UM65-P 29" 2560x1080
><http://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-29-ips-led-hd-219-ultrawide-monitor/3831023.p>
>   $380 / 2.76 mpix = $141/mpix 
>
>An ordinary commodity 21.5" 1920x1080 monitor 
><http://www.bestbuy.com/site/samsung-21-5-led-hd-monitor-red/8682086.p>
>would be:
>   $130 / 2.07 mpix = $62.90/mpix
>
>A larger 27" 1920x1080 model:
><http://www.bestbuy.com/site/samsung-27-led-hd-monitor-black/3924024.p>
>   $243 / 2.07 mpix = $117/mpix
>
>Looks like the super-resolution monitor is the most expensive if
>you're counting pixels.  Of course, there's a benefit to having all
>your pixels on one screen.  I just don't like paying for it.

Mine cost me about $400.  A bit better price point.

?-)
 

Hi Mel,

On 8/27/2014 3:41 PM, Mel Wilson wrote:
>> Ah, I read "classical organ" as "big, stately pipe organ"... lots of
>> polished brass, wood and ivory.  "Classy" vs. "techy".
>
> And you're not wrong.  On the outside, they generally are.  The thing is
> that the old pneumatic/mechanical organs were the monster high-tech of
> the 18th century.  And organ builders since then have never, ultimately,
> turned down new contrivances.  Wished they had, sometimes, when it came
> time to emulate some of those contrivances in firmware.

So, is the outside just (effectively) a veneer (facade)?  I.e.,
are there still bellows and air moving through pipes?  Or, just
a set of speakers hidden amongst everything??

(When I was a kid, a nearby church had a large selection of various
sized bells in the bell tower.  They could be rung individually to
"play music".  Many years later, this capability was replaced by
a loudspeaker and tape player!  :< )

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 01:03:05 -0700, Don Y wrote:

> Hi Mel,
> 
> On 8/27/2014 3:41 PM, Mel Wilson wrote:
>>> Ah, I read "classical organ" as "big, stately pipe organ"... lots of
>>> polished brass, wood and ivory.  "Classy" vs. "techy".
>>
>> And you're not wrong.  On the outside, they generally are.  The thing
>> is that the old pneumatic/mechanical organs were the monster high-tech
>> of the 18th century.  And organ builders since then have never,
>> ultimately,
>> turned down new contrivances.  Wished they had, sometimes, when it came
>> time to emulate some of those contrivances in firmware.
> 
> So, is the outside just (effectively) a veneer (facade)?  I.e., are
> there still bellows and air moving through pipes?  Or, just a set of
> speakers hidden amongst everything??
> 
> (When I was a kid, a nearby church had a large selection of various
> sized bells in the bell tower.  They could be rung individually to "play
> music".  Many years later, this capability was replaced by a loudspeaker
> and tape player!  :< )

Can be either way.  In many installations the console is fundamentally an 
industrial controller that operates valves throughout the wind/pipes 
system.  In others (probably somewhat fewer) it's completely electronic 
simulation.  Synthesis is more cost-effective, but well-set-up pipes are 
the gold standard for sound.  Badly set-up pipes are complete misery.  
Some organs combine natural pipes with electronic simulation for exotic 
ranks that nobody can afford: 32 foot or even 64 foot deep bass ranks are 
very expensive to build, even if you can find room for them in the 
building, or the municipality.  My old client produced a very nice CD 
with a concert organist playing an all-electronic organ of theirs.  We 
had a scheme for mapping organ controls onto the MIDI standard messages 
that that organist used to integrate synthsized 
harpsichord, harp, and various chimes into the organ performance for a 
killer rendition of Handel's Aria con Variazione.

	Mel.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 01:03:05 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>Hi Mel,
>
>On 8/27/2014 3:41 PM, Mel Wilson wrote:
>>> Ah, I read "classical organ" as "big, stately pipe organ"... lots of
>>> polished brass, wood and ivory.  "Classy" vs. "techy".
>>
>> And you're not wrong.  On the outside, they generally are.  The thing is
>> that the old pneumatic/mechanical organs were the monster high-tech of
>> the 18th century.  And organ builders since then have never, ultimately,
>> turned down new contrivances.  Wished they had, sometimes, when it came
>> time to emulate some of those contrivances in firmware.
>
>So, is the outside just (effectively) a veneer (facade)?  I.e.,
>are there still bellows and air moving through pipes?  Or, just
>a set of speakers hidden amongst everything??
>
>(When I was a kid, a nearby church had a large selection of various
>sized bells in the bell tower.  They could be rung individually to
>"play music".  Many years later, this capability was replaced by
>a loudspeaker and tape player!  :< )


Still pipes.  That's fundamental - you could certainly build something
that sounded more-or-less like a pipe organ with speakers, but it
would be as distinct as a recording (or generation) of any other
musical instrument.

Modern(?) pipe organs typically use electrically powered* blowers for
the "wind", and as mentioned all the valves and stuff tend to be
electric.


*Sadly, calcants have largely gone the way of buggy whip makers...

Charles Allen <ca137tmp@earthlink.net> Wrote in message:
[...]
> Virtual desktops (workspaces, whatever) solve almost all of these
> issues (for me, anyway).  

same here, arranged on two rows and three columns, so that any of
 them is at most three keystrokes away.

[...]
> Yes, there are occasionally times when I need to move a window from
> one desktop to another.  Nothing's perfect.

Ctrl+Alt+Shift+arrow will move the currently focused window around
 (debian+gnome, I'd be surprise if you can't with other desktop
 environment).

Al

In comp.arch.embedded Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
> But the top of that has got to be ~24 inches off your worksurface?
> I'm fidgetty about the ~18" that I'm thinking of adopting... I don't
> like looking up.  (My seat is already about as high as my leg length
> will tolerate, comfortably)
> 
> How far from your nose to the display?  Up/down and left/center/right?

Nose to display centre: 48cm
Nose to corners: 64-72cm
Top of display to desk: 56cm

Though I might pull back a little from that sometimes depending on chair
position (eg 64cm to centre).

I have put something under it so it angles slightly downwards towards me,
which helps a bit with the viewing angles (and reflection) as it doesn't
have an adjustable stand.

> The problem I see with "more dots" is putting them somewhere that you
> can (comfortably) *see* them!

There's a certain amount of eye movement necessary to see the corners, but
they're still useful - eg you can park your email, datasheet, compile job,
whatever up there and have it in your peripheral vision.  Compile finished?
You don't need to read every character of it to know that.  If you do want
to look in close detail, just move your eyes.  Any multi-monitor setup
experiences the same issue, only here you don't have a bezel in the way.

Theo