I've no regret buying my MD-Player(s), except the fact that if you use them regualarly for running, their lifespan drops to about 12 months. For their time, they were the dog's bollocks.
Now I've got a cheap, generic USB drive / MP3 player, cheap to replace and with no moving parts, I'll never go back to MD.
In general though, as a layout language to produce documents that look just how I want, it's a fucking nightmare.
To produce documents that look just how you want, all mark up languages are a fucking nightmare. TeX has the advantage that the document will look like a professional typesetter would want it to look (and invariably a million times better than the equivalent XHTML/CSS).
If you really want true WYSIWYG, it's Quark Express or nothing.
... because as fishing trips go, there's one hell of an expedition being organised by SCO.
PS : Didn't SCO claim that they had print outs of all the copied code, that they could show anyone who signed an NDA? Why do they need to search any more of IBM's codebase.
Anyhow XML/XHTML has a somewhat different purpose/market. The purpose is not to create a perfect typeset document but a template that can be used for any given XML document that fits the genre
Exactly. So why are these people arguing over which is better at producing perfect typeset printed documents?
That's not necessarily true. If it was then iTunes store wouldn't sell a single track, but they do. People wouldn't come into stores looking for singles of songs they like, but they do.
Holy Non Sequitor Batman! Explain why "demand is a function of price" means "iTunes store wouldn't sell a single track".
If there is so much demand for being able to download movies/tv episodes, then why the hell don't the distribution companies take advantage of it and let poeple downlaod things legally at a fair price?
Quick economics lesson : Demand is a function of price. There is a lot of demand, because the illegal copies are FREE.
That would make no difference. Appearing in "nofollow" tags doesn't give your site a penalty to PageRank, it just fails to give the bonus that a normal link would.
Well, given the number of scammers that use.biz and.info websites to phish for bank account details (and how far from their designed roles.biz and.info have drifted), I don't think the alternatives are terribly ethically sound either,
it's entirely possible to have nicely laid out articles that aren't as fucking boring and painfully generic
Dark text on a plain light background is "painfully generic". Man, you must really struggle with books and newspapers.
Let me spell this out for you : Neilson's web page is about content. It's clear, its simple, and its clean. Furthermore, people who want to read a 60em column can, and people who want to read it as a 10em column can too. It'll print readably on practically any printer from a laser down to a fixed-width dot matrix.
It lets the reader decide how they want to read it : Now *that's* usability.
Proof that you can have nicely laid out articles, in very simple HTML, without making any assumptions about the browser. I like my browser pages long and relatively narrow (like A4 or Letter paper), and I'm fed up of pages that (for some perverse region) want to force me to take up the entire screen width...
Thurrot was not available for unsupervised use, only demonstrated by Microsoft for him
Sorry, but in my book that doesn't qualify him to write a "review", or anything like it. The word that should be used is "glorified adverts". People who write reviews must be allowed to experience what they're reviewing, and form critical opinions from that.
My lossless algorithm is an audio one - nothing to do with RLE
I know. But one could encode.wav files with RLE, or Huffmann coding. How much better would your codec be than that...
My point is, Stuffit's 28% improvement is achieved by replacing JPEG's somewhat inefficent Huffman compression with something else a whole lot better. But most compression algorithms are better than a fixed-table Huffman.
I'm just wondering how much better your algorithm is at compressing audio than a Huffman algorithm would be...
If this idea is what's suggested here, ie. instead of
Image -> DCT -> Truncate spectrum -> RLE encode
they use
Image -> DCT -> Truncate spectrum -> some more efficient encode
it wouldn't surprise me if the JPEG Group discussed alternate compression encodings during the standardisation meetings. In fact, I'd be extremely surprised if the matter was not raised. If it was, it's pretty clear that this patent is not novel in the slightest...
Slashdot Mirror
I've no regret buying my MD-Player(s), except the fact that if you use them regualarly for running, their lifespan drops to about 12 months. For their time, they were the dog's bollocks.
Now I've got a cheap, generic USB drive / MP3 player, cheap to replace and with no moving parts, I'll never go back to MD.
If you really want true WYSIWYG, it's Quark Express or nothing.
... because as fishing trips go, there's one hell of an expedition being organised by SCO.
PS : Didn't SCO claim that they had print outs of all the copied code, that they could show anyone who signed an NDA? Why do they need to search any more of IBM's codebase.
As the old saying goes ... those who do not understand TeX are doomed to continually re-invent it ... badly.
*Explain* why you believe this to be the case.
But still too subtle for some of the idiots here, sadly.
That would make no difference. Appearing in "nofollow" tags doesn't give your site a penalty to PageRank, it just fails to give the bonus that a normal link would.
Or, as Kingsley Amis once wrote, "Laziness has become the chief characteristic of journalism, displacing incompetence."
It would, after all, be their own fault, for failing to save properly for old age.
Well, given the number of scammers that use .biz and .info websites to phish for bank account details (and how far from their designed roles .biz and .info have drifted), I don't think the alternatives are terribly ethically sound either,
Let me spell this out for you : Neilson's web page is about content. It's clear, its simple, and its clean. Furthermore, people who want to read a 60em column can, and people who want to read it as a 10em column can too. It'll print readably on practically any printer from a laser down to a fixed-width dot matrix.
It lets the reader decide how they want to read it : Now *that's* usability.
Proof that you can have nicely laid out articles, in very simple HTML, without making any assumptions about the browser. I like my browser pages long and relatively narrow (like A4 or Letter paper), and I'm fed up of pages that (for some perverse region) want to force me to take up the entire screen width...
That's true ... but I'll bet any money it isn't a new compression scheme.
My point is, Stuffit's 28% improvement is achieved by replacing JPEG's somewhat inefficent Huffman compression with something else a whole lot better. But most compression algorithms are better than a fixed-table Huffman.
I'm just wondering how much better your algorithm is at compressing audio than a Huffman algorithm would be...
That's not what they claim. Their method involves undoing the Huffman encoding and applying a different encoding. Like I said.
If this idea is what's suggested here, ie. instead of
Image -> DCT -> Truncate spectrum -> RLE encode
they use
Image -> DCT -> Truncate spectrum -> some more efficient encode
it wouldn't surprise me if the JPEG Group discussed alternate compression encodings during the standardisation meetings. In fact, I'd be extremely surprised if the matter was not raised. If it was, it's pretty clear that this patent is not novel in the slightest...