pzkpfw

Why does it follow that "everything" is "infinite"?

Deleted: on second read I see Studiot beat me to the point I thought I was making.

You may be misinterpreting "natural selection". That "selection" (choice) is "natural". It's not directed by conscious choice, it's directed by the environment and survival.

HDMI being digital is much less prone to degradation than an analogue signal would be, but there is still a limit to how long a cable can be before a repeater is needed. 50 foot seems to be a common figure bandied around. ( VGA uses 3 wires for the Red, Green and Blue components of the picture (and others for synchronising: saying when to start a new screen or line). Each carries a voltage that swings between 0v and 0.7v (that's what makes it analogue) to define the intensity of Red, Green or Blue at any moment. That voltage can be affected by noise at any time, and long or crappy cables will have an effect on that voltage that directly affects the picture. The encoding (and electrical characteristics) of a picture in a digital format like HDMI is a bit more complicated, but suffice to say that the colours are essentially sent as binary; numbers made up of lots of 1's and 0's. The difference between a 1 and 0 is enough that a bit of noise or attenuation might have no noticeable effect. (Not entirely accurate in this context, but for illustration ... if the receiver gets "0.1" and "0.9" it knows the sender really meant "0" and "1".). That's why cheaper cables are generally fine for HDMI, super special wires generally won't make the colours on the screen any better or the sound any clearer. Eventually though, with long enough cable the signals will eventually degrade to the point where the content does get lost. The way it's noticed will be different. A bit like with old fashioned analogue T.V. using an aerial, noise could result in snow on screen as the picture is directly affected. As it gets worse eventually the whole picture might be lost as even the sync signals are smashed. With a modern satellite decoder (so images are digital and encoded), a bit of noise won't be seen at all. But if any noise gets worse, entire blocks will vanish from the screen as chunks of the encoded picture can't be deciphered. Eventually too the whole picture can be lost. ) I don't know if Display Port is "the new top standard", but it's certainly very common in computing. Video cards I've bought recently have had a mix of DVI, HDMI and Display Port. The laptop I'm typing this post on is on a docking station that has two Display Ports (and these go through adapters to DVI inputs on my external monitors). The laptop itself has VGA and Display Port (business focus). In consumer stuff like T.V.'s as far as I know HDMI still rules; a consumer focused laptop would often have HDMI, not Display Port. Edit: one more comment on cheap cables: where I've seen the difference is in the mechanical factors. i.e. very cheap cables where the case at one end breaks apart. So while I'm all for cheap HDMI cables, I'd steer clear of the $1 ones ...

Yep. Just don't let "them" sucker you into buying $100 cables!

Pretty much nothing for the use you'll make of it. It allows communication between certain kinds of devices; it won't apply to your monitor. e.g. https://www.cnet.com/forums/discussions/what-is-the-difference-hdmi-cable-vs-hdmi-cable-w-ethernet-539988/

Definitely HDMI (or DVI, or display port) in preference over VGA. VGA is analogue, the others are digital. No guarantee you'd notice the difference, but still ...

Groovy. HDMI will be giving you a better picture than VGA, for example, and an HDMI cable can carry audio so can be useful if connecting to a T.V. to show movies; but otherwise doesn't "mean much" for you. Main thing was that having HDMI told me your laptop was newish and should be able to handle multiple displays.

Use the mouse, drag the window by its title bar to the other monitor. With luck, the application (this is an individual thing, not Windows) will remember where it was when closed, and will re-open in same place.

Try moving them. They might be remembering where they last opened.

Down below that will the checkbox to, um, check.

If it's not your main monitor, then applications won't open there *. You could try the "[ ] Make this my main display" checkbox. Otherwise just move the applications there. Some will remember where they were last used. ( * Win 10 allows the task bar to show on all monitors, but I don't think it cares which monitor they were on when clicked. )

That would make it seem the actual resolution being displayed is SD not full HD. Do the first part of my post (i.e. right-click desktop, "Screen Resolution".). e.g. this is what I get (clicked on monitor 2 in example); (in my case, 1 is my laptop and 2 & 3 are both 24" externals. All are full HD, but as you can see, their resolution is selectable. Post a pic of what you have.)

If you are mirroring (same display both monitors) you can get issues with different resolutions. If you are extending (different display on each) then you should be able to achieve full resolution on both. Right-click your desktop and go to "Screen Resolution". What do you see? --------------------- ( Come to think of it, (without other details) it may just be your background image that are seeing with border; if it's standard def and not set to stretch then it simply won't fill a full HD screen.) To mess with that, right-click the desktop and go to "Personalize". Can you see your mouse in the black-border-area? That'll confirm what type of issue it is. )

As I read this, I have an old 12" colour CRT sitting in front of me, on my desk at work (waiting for me to take it home). It's a Taxan Vision EX. (Apparently the Sinclair QL used a re-badged version of it). Bought it off an auction website; from a person who coincidentally turned out to work for the same company as me, different floor in the same building. Admittedly, I got it for running old computers (it has a composite input, and a TTL RGB input). On the same auction site I currently have a bid on a BBC Master 128. At home I have a TRS-80 Model I whose monitor vanished long ago.

Generally in web forums that's not the "done thing". It's a form of revisionism, and is annoying to other people who participated.

Electrolytic capacitors are a component known to sometimes fail. The "fancier" motherboards will advertise "solid caps".

Reminds of the thing a few years back; a ball with another ball inside. It could count how often the inner ball went around, and I had friends who spent ages and ages getting very excited by how high they could get that count. I just couldn't see the point. There was an exercise component, but not much.

We'd need a "green" way to power the equipment. Burning diesel to do it would be counter-productive in terms of climate change.

Do you mean this? http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html (I don't see "frozen" or "photons" there.)

Surely you meant "c = Speed of light"? (Yes, it's being squared in "2MG/c²".)

How does that not contradict your own claims about clocks and life span?

Neither is anyone else. The clock doesn't affect time; time dilation affects the clock (and anything else travelling with that clock).

You have it backwards. A fundamental fact of the Universe is that light speed will always be measured to be the same (in a vacuum etc). It follows from this that time (and distance), compared between relatively moving observers, can't be the same. Clocks are just something used to measure time. They do something consistently repeatedly, and this is used to measure. It doesn't matter what the clock is, clocks will all experience the same dilation (when compared between relatively moving observers). A spaceship could have several clocks, one with a wind-up spring, another with a quartz crystal resonating, one atomic clock, a burning candle, and a drop of water into a container ... all would be equally affected by relative motion. Those clocks with their different mechanical and chemical workings are not all coincidentally affected the same way by some mundane classical physics; the relative motion doesn't cause some weird physical effect on the clocks, it's a consequence of the constant speed of light, on time itself. So, your objection "Your body is not a machine wired to a clock, it is organic." is irrelevant. The spaceship pilot is him or herself another one of the clocks on the spaceship! The biological and chemical processes in the pilot are just another thing that is affected by the passage of time. A generation ship (i.e. a colonisation spaceship) could be sent out with a new-born baby on board. When that baby teethes, when they experience puberty, when they experience menopause, when they die, could all be used a milestones of time. They'd "agree" with the on-board clocks (and calendars) of the spaceship, and be just as "time dilated" from the point of view of a relatively moving observer. Relativity, from the constant speed of light, shows that time dilation will occur. There is no specification in relativity of what type of clock is "being dilated", as it's not a mundane physical, chemical or biological effect on the clock.

Speed just doesn't work that way, as was figured out from the consequence of light speed being the same for all observers. The correct way to add speeds is: v3 = ( v1 + v2 ) / ( 1 + ( ( v1 x v2 ) / ( c x c ) ) ) e.g. A sees B moving at v1, B sees C moving at v2, A sees C moving at v3. This may not match your idea of "common sense", but that's because you live in a World where speeds are low. Where v1 and v2 are small compared to c, we get: v3 = ( v1 + v2 ) / ( 1 + ( ( small x small ) / ( c x c ) ) ) v3 = ( v1 + v2 ) / ( 1 + ( very small / very big ) ) v3 = ( v1 + v2 ) / ( 1 + (almost zero ) ) v3 = ( v1 + v2 ) / ( pretty much just 1 ) v3 = pretty much just ( v1 + v2 ) ... i.e. v1 + v2, as you'd expect from "common sense". Someone in a car moving at 100 km/h throws a ball forward at 100 km/h and everyone thinks that ball is moving at pretty much 200 km/h. (It's actually 199.999999 km/h or so, but nobody notices.) On the other hand, where v1 and v2 are closer to c, we get this: v3 = ( v1 + v2 ) / ( 1 + ( ( almost c x almost c ) / ( c x c ) ) ) v3 = ( v1 + v2 ) / ( 1 + ( almost c squared / c squared ) ) v3 = ( v1 + v2 ) / ( 1 + ( almost one ) ) v3 = ( v1 + v2 ) / ( almost 2 ) v3 = pretty much half of ( v1 + v2 ) So say a spaceship going almost c away from Earth has it's own shuttle leave it at almost c. Does earth see the shuttle going nearly twice c? No. Only nearly c. (The spaceship would consider the distance between Earth and the shuttle to be increasing at almost twice c, because from the spaceship point of view Earth is going one way at almost c and the shuttle is going the other way at almost c: but nobody here will see anybody else actually moving faster than c.)