Discussions

I can see this is useful, but a bit of a hack.

To the posters saying printing is obsolete. Printing is not becoming any less popular:

• http://www.gaoresearch.com/MFP/MFP%20inkjet%20market.gif
• http://images.rechargermag.com/img/content/2005articles/0511lyra01.gif

When tablets become commonplace with much higher resolutions, viewing angles are much better, contrast ratios too, then displays will dominate paper. Display dot pitch is extremely slow to improve, not much different from 10 years ago, and 6 or more times that of print. As of today printing has a lot of advantages over screen or e-book reading.

You are right; it should be per-monitor.

For the moment I would buy a monitor with higher dpi.

ManipUni said:

How did the Lib Dem's get LESS seats? ...

They even got more votes and less seats. In fact they seem to be the second most popular party in a lot of areas but yet still are no.3? Our system is so lame...

 

My local MP (Tory) has never been here, she does know where it is, she won't even live here after the election, and people elected her with a clear majority because the box next to her name said Tory... Explain to me how this is democratic? People are just too f-ing stupid to vote.

 

Also, C9 - I now need to log in like four times, refresh the thread about half a dozen and only then I get the reply box which might or might not time out... Install PHPBB, seriously...

That's because there is strict party discipline in the UK. Your party indicates what you are going to vote for in parliament. If they are not going into ministerial positions the party affiliation is pretty much the only thing that is important.

Current betting on betfair shows about 45% chance of outright Tory win, 55% hung parliament.

rhm said:

CSMR said:

*snip*

Just so our American friends can get an idea of how corrupt the Conservative / Rupert Murdoch connection is, here is the front page of the biggest selling UK newspaper (which happens to be owned by News Corp) on election day:

 

 

Using the Obama imagery for someone who is widely distrusted as a fake person, running against a government that is nowhere near as unpopular as Bush, especially when Cameron is a toff with connections to aristocracy and not at all a man of the people (no matter how much be pretends).. it's just sickening.

 

Oh, and since noone in the US has probably heard of David Cameron, you've heard of Tony Blair though (the previous King of fake), check this out from 2006. The voiceover is a satire, but the footage of Cameron is very real.

 

A tabloid newspaper aimed at uneducated readers is taking a blatantly biased stand. So what?

What's more remarkable is that a person like you intelligent enough to be posting on technical forums votes on the basis of the personality and family background of a candidate.

blowdart said:

rhm said:

*snip*

Which is different from Labours constant PFI con to keep costs off the books and to transfer ownership of schools, hospitals, railways, roads etc to the private sector?

 

There are private elements to increase efficiency, but the whole sceme is still the same (governement provides services without payment by individuals, funded by tax. (In the case of schools and hospitals.) The costs should still be on the books.

rhm said:

CSMR said:

*snip*

You hear a lot of scaremongering from people and organisations with vested interests, that's for sure.

 

As for your analysis of what the Conservatives would do - very much like the Republicants in the USA, whenever they talk about 'freedom', you have a mentally suffix it "[freedom] for corporations to own and control".

No, I'm talking about analysis by people both inside the financial markets and commenting on it. And not just that but actual movements of stocks. Markets fall on the threat of a hung parliament often even compared to government by either side. People with vested interests in making money don't sell out to lower stock prices just to scare people.

Actually moderate Democrats also believe in this sort of freedom. Compared to the UK, there is much more state control in the UK, about the same corporate power (the economy is stronger, so there is more corporate money, but there is also strong antitrust policy*) and much less individual freedom. I live between both countries and in the USA corporations don't control me, they compete for my custom. OTOH in the UK the government both takes more of my earnings involuntarily but also tries to regulate many more things.

(*not including healthcare; there competition policy is very weak)

rhm said:

blowdart said:

*snip*

Labour: ID card bill, DE bill. Oh yeh, and two disasterous and pointless wars that no politician will end up paying for.

 

Conservatives: Will finish off the selling up of Britain to the multinational megacorps by squeezing the BBC and abolishing Offcom so that News Corp can take over all media here. Cameron also has the nerve to ciritcise Brown for not regulating against a banking collapse that no government worldwide did anything about, while at the same time planning regulation cuts for his old school friends.

 

If Labour win it'll be depressing, if the Conservatives win it'll be a disaster. And the Lib Dems can't win. The best outcome is no overall majority, but not only is that very unlikely (despite how reporters like to go on about it), but it wouldn't necessarilly lead to power-sharing and electoral reform.

 

Added to that my vote is worth 0.1 of my fair share due to living in a safe Labour constituency according to voterpower.org.uk so I'm a bit bummed out about this election.

Certainly in economic terms, a hung parliament is a very bad result. Whenever you hear analysis of the financial markets, that's what you'll hear.

The debate in the UK is pretty inane compared to the US for example; the parties are full of all sorts of populist nonsense and don't state their agendas, and the press doesn't tell us either.

But the Tories will cut tax and spending compared to the others (i.e. more spending cuts, lower tax increases), it's in their blood, and that's key for a country that has been increasingly dominated by the state and burdened by state spending and tax. There'll be a bit less government control, a bit more freedom.

Also will draw back bureaucracy and the nanny state, and will be less tied up with the ridiculous bureaucratic cartel that is the EU.

TommyCarlier said:

wastingtimewithforums said:

*snip*

Because Microsoft doesn't own Paint.NET, despite the creator of Paint.NET (Rick Brewster) being a Microsoft employee. The reason why Rick doesn't want Paint.NET to be part of Windows is that he doesn't want its release schedule to be tied to that of Windows. Would you really want a new version of Paint.NET only when there's a new version of Windows? That's also the reason why Microsoft decided to move Movie Maker and Windows Mail out of Windows and into Windows Live. It allows for faster and more updates.

I don't see why that's a problem. It doesn't need to be part of windows, just an app that's included with windows. They can still update Paint.NET whenever they want.

I think Paint.NET is a great basic editing program which might be used by a huge number of casual photographers. Just 3-4MB too. Should be put in.