[Archive! - page 12
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
There's about 50 grand on a regular monitor.
And on a large-format 150=50*3. You can open several sheets of code as well.
Andrei.
Agree that the portrait orientation is more convenient. But if you unfold a monitor with TN matrix, you have to become a ghost - to look at it from the right angle. Uh-huh. And you also have to learn how to corporate shouting - no, I'm not evil - that's not my thing...
Benk have released monitors with a vertical aliment matrix (VA) - they're always cheap...
My former workplace (I've been officially unemployed for a few days now) equips workstations with two 24d widescreen monitors. At first, all this event caused confusion (it seemed that it would be better to put one 27-28 inch), but then quickly got used to and appreciated this innovation.
Actually, in my opinion, widescreen monitors are only comfortable if bigger in screen height than 17-19d conventional monitors, so laptop widescreens annoy me myself. Widescreen large monitors, on the other hand, are another matter!
And, yes, as has been said, it's a matter of habit. But I don't know anyone who wants to trade in their widescreen 24d monitor for a regular 24d one.
Guys, my question is this: -. How A high-tech country like Japan, which also has negative experience of the effects of radiation (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) allowed a nuclear power plant to be built in an area prone to strong earthquakes. To me this is just a paradox. I admit that it may be the Russian chance, but what were the Japanese hoping for? Is there a Japanese chance?
They have the whole country in the 'exposed zone'.
They have the whole country in a 'prone zone'.
Guys, I am interested in the following question: - How such a high-tech country as Japan, which also has a negative experience of the consequences of radiation (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) allowed the construction of a nuclear power plant in an area prone to strong earthquakes. This is just a paradox to me. I admit it for Russia - the Russian chance, but what have the Japanese been counting on? Is there a Japanese chance as well?
That is a question for the IAEA; one of their functions is "to develop, establish and adapt health and safety standards".
That is a matter for the IAEA, one of their functions is "to develop, establish and adapt health and safety standards".
But the decision to build must have been made by the Japanese. Some countries, even those not prone to earthquakes and without the negative experience of the Japanese, refuse to build nuclear power plants.
That is why it is not clear to me how it could have happened in Japan.
But the decision to build must have been made by the Japanese. Some countries, even countries that are not prone to earthquakes and do not have the negative experience of the Japanese, refuse to build nuclear power plants.
That is why it is not clear to me how this could have happened in Japan.
Production requires energy. Money eclipses reason.
Production requires energy. Money eclipses reason.
And there seems to be no other source of energy (in appropriate quantities) for the Japanese.
The problem may have been that the plants were not designed for an earthquake of this magnitude.
Production requires energy. Money eclipses reason.