|
|
Posted by dorayme on 01/11/08 20:11
In article
<3424a0a0-b73d-4420-8bc9-f5d3d76b88a1@i3g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
>,
Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> On 10 Jan, 04:35, dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > With the "fancy" part being that the reader can resize it at will.
> >
> > I am sure you are meaning the browser window...
>
> I can resize my screen (in pixels) pretty easily. I can even change
> its physical size (same pixel count) most easily of all, by pressing a
> button on my KVM switch.
Lets take the first. (Perhaps sherm *was* meaning something along
these lines, I simply forget now. I did not think this at the
time?). The screen can be configured for a set number of pixels
to take up an inch. This figure can be changed. (I get not the
best and often quite lousy results on LCD screens compared with
CRT when I have tried any but the natural finest resolution.
But your second is the most interesting. It involves replacing
one object with another rather than what was intended to be the
operation talked about, a change in one object. One could say
that your second point involves switching more than a KVM. It
commits a logical fallacy, the Aristotelian name for which, when
translated, is something like, drawing a conclusion by switching
the subject. It is the lowest form of argument and the ancient
Greeks used to show their contempt by a nasal gesture when they
found themselves in the presence of such. I would do the same if
I had a nose.
I will conclude on a less logical and more moral note by saying
that switching to another screen to obtain an advantage is like
switching from a faithful old car to gain an advantage. In the
case of *my* car it would leave a sour cheatin' taste as if one
had dumped a spouse to gain some physical advantage.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|