<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/5/31 drago01 <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:drago01@gmail.com">drago01@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Pasha R <<a href="http://pashar.ml" target="_blank">pashar.ml</a>@<a href="http://gmail.com" target="_blank">gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Jason D. Clinton <<a href="mailto:me@jasonclinton.com">me@jasonclinton.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 05:29, Pasha R <<a href="http://pashar.ml" target="_blank">pashar.ml</a>@<a href="http://gmail.com" target="_blank">gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> Probably, inability to configure your screensaver is much more<br>
>>> noticeable than inability to stop copy operation. :)<br>
>><br>
>> Now *that* is intentional.<br>
><br>
> Care to explain the logic behind this? Because it is really beyond my<br>
> understanding.<br>
<br>
</div>Screensavers has lost there use years ago.<br>
With today's screens they don't really "save" anything but simply<br>
waste power for no reason whatever.<br>
<br>
I never understand why anyone would want anything but "power down the<br>
screen" in that case. What is the point of the fancy<br>
graphics when no one is looking at it anyway?<br></blockquote><div><br>
</div></div>i, for one, really liked those screensavers, i enjoyed locking screens just to look at them.<br>