Well, you can get 56x readers now. By my reckoning that should be 84Mb/s. However, my reckoning is wrong, because I just realised I put the decimal point in the wrong place, like an idiot. Duh.
Well, props to all the people who told me about Shift-Alt-Apple-F. I'll find that useful. Just a couple of responses to some of this guy's other (good) points:
1. At my office we have a little colour inkjet which we use for printing out mockups of pages. Unsurprisingly, it's not PS, and why the hell should it have to be?? You can improve the quality of an image's preview by turning down its dpi in Photoshop (how intuitive). But because you can't shrink images below 10%, you can't just automatically set everying to 10 dpi and forget about it. Which sucks.
2. As for crashing while rendering previews - I was working with a GIF that was about 3k x 4k pixels. I'd saved it as a GIF because hell, the thing was only black and white anyway, so GIF made for a much smaller file than TIFF. Maybe the bug's just in the GIF parser. Or maybe it was something else entirely. *shrug* I dunno. It happened.
3. I want to work with pages that are different sizes. Our print house knows that the front page is printed on thicker stock, and it's larger because it includes the spine. But they still want me only to send them one PDF, and my boss still wants to have just one file per issue in the archive. The fact that the software doesn't support this (meaning I have to do it manually in Acrobat) ain't, so far as I'm concerned, a plus point.
4. Speaking of Acrobat, you seem to be implying that I'm not using it. Can you make PDFs from Quark 5 without using Acrobat? I'd love to know how. It's Quark's insistence on creating an intermediary.PS file to send to Distiller that makes the whole process so slow and ungainly. Is there a better way? Apart from the obvious.
5. Embedding images is extremely helpful when you're working in a networked environment and idiots keep moving your cheese. At any rate, I absolutely don't want the newest version of an image in my document: I want the version I imported! Sure, there are lots of reasons why you might not want to embed things - but again, I don't think that's an argument in favour of not giving me the option.
To me it seems there is a lot out of order in the company you work at.
*lol* You don't know the half of it. But on a day to day basis I generally find Quark's failings much harder to accept and work around than those of my boss.
Quark may be really, really good, but at close to $1000 bucks, I have looking around for an alternative.
Thing is, it's not even "really, really good." It's OK; it does the job. But it has many excruciating foibles, certainly up as far as version 5 for the Mac, which I still have to use at work. Its undo facility is embarrassingly underpowered (it's particularly great that you can't undo "replace all"). It insists on showing graphics onscreen only as low resolution previews, and won't even print them at high resolution. It doesn't let you shrink images below 10%, nor is there any equivalent to InDesign's "fit image proportionally to box" command. It crashes while trying to render previews of graphics that are too large. It won't let you make different pages different sizes. Creating a PDF is maddeningly slow and often requires gigabytes of disk space to eventually create a 100Mb file. Its native file format doesn't support embedding fonts or even images, so OPI hell is never far away. I could go on.
I guess if I have a point, it's that Quark is crammed with brain-damaged misfeatures that a decent, active open-source coding community would have fixed long ago. It's no surprise to me that InDesign is already making big inroads into its market share, and if a credible free alternative were to emerge as well, Quark would have no choice but to ramp up the quality of their product and/or drop the price. Sounds to me like a win for the end user.
Until you can, you have no better basis or argument than creationists that you ridicule do.
Read this. It's a lot more compelling than anything you've said today.
The evolutionist argument is effectively "no, of course we can't prove that this is what happened millions of years before any of us was born; but look, here's a vast corpus of evidence that supports that theory."
The creationist rebuttal is generally along the lines of "aha, so you can't prove it! So it's equally likely that the world was sneezed, fully-formed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure."
Yeah, because the spineless people were the ones who stood up and said "this is wrong, and we will do anything we can to stop it." Not the ones who said "actually, let's, uh... let's not put this to the vote."
That's actually quite cunning. It would be easier for them to label all cans / bottles the same, but by doing it this way they presumably make it legally shady to resell these multi-pack things.
If you were to write it in red, might it be transparent to the laser? If so then of course you could just write on the disc as normal. Just a thought, and not one I have enough faith in to actually try out for myself!
It is arguable, though, that the vast majority of what got them to monpoly status was from consumer demand.
To some extent, they were just lucky that the architecture they were already developing for was the one that won. If Commodore and/or Apple had been smarter, more responsive and more far-sighted we might all have been using Amigas or Macs now and MS would be a division of IBM or something. But Commodore pissed their technological advantage away, and Apple... well, I don't know what they were playing at. So between about 1992 and 1998 the PC had no credible opposition in the desktop market. MS were smart enough to capitalise on this good fortune, developing Windows 95 to vastly diminish the usability gap between theirs and competitors' platforms and then starting to cement its success in the various ways we all know about. But they were lucky to get that clear run that enabled them do that.
Of course, developing for an open platform in the first place - one that couldn't be accidentally fumbled or killed by an idiot parent company - was a smart move. I'm not suggesting that it was sheer luck; in retrospect it looks like the obvious strategy. But in 1988 the price differential and technological gulf between a PC and an Amiga made it a lot less obvious which side the smart money would be on.
Hey, this guy actually did some research! Good on him!
It is true that the second section of of Article 17 declares that "intellectual property shall be protected." However, as you imply, that's all it says: there's no inherent provision for DMCA-style übercopyright. Meanwhile, the first section of that same Article states that
Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions.
While it admittedly doesn't explicitly say that you have the right to hack your XBox and publish your findings, I'd strongly suspect a European court would go for this interpretation rather than the one that would allow a company to disenfranchise the individual. The European Commission wants to keep that power for itself.
Actually, the EU seems to be heading in the opposite direction - while the US passes laws that make it easier for companies to get rich off individuals, the EU keeps issuing "statutory instruments" that make it progressively harder for businesses to enforce anything at all. And even if you are convicted of some sort of made up IP crime, you can always take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights, which pretty much always finds for the individual, because the EU Convention on Human Rights is a very broad and generous document.
When did the U.S. provide Iraq or any other country with Chemical weapons?
During the eighties. This report, for example, notes that:
"the administrations of President Reagan and the first President Bush both authorized providing Iraq with intelligence and logistical support, and okayed the sale of dual use items -- those with military and civilian applications -- that included chemicals and germs, even anthrax and bubonic plague."
I think fans and foes of the network will all agree that it definitely holds bias.
True to a point, but for the past few years that seems mainly to have manifested itself in conscious efforts to ask the government difficult questions, and raise issues in ways that the government might not want. I think that's potentially more valuable than being completely neutral.
All of you slashdotters are talking about how great linux is, that is because/.ers don't want to pay for anything.
I bet if you did a poll of Slashdotters you'd find that, as a community, we spend way over the average on our computers. I don't think that can be the only reason.
When "forte" is pronounced "for-tay," it is Italian for "loud." When "forte" is pronounced "fort" it is French for "strength."
Actually, in both languages "forte" is an adjective meaning both "strong" and "loud." The French for "strength" would be "la fortitude" or "la force." You're right about the pronunciation differing between languages; but when it comes to the English pronunciation, all Fowler's has to say is that "pronunciation has been unstable throughout the 20th Century, with some people pronouncing 'forte' as one syllable."
Of course, usage may be different in the USA: I'm speaking from a British perspective. But in neither of our countries can you legitimately claim that we're talking about "two completely different words, from two different languages." The word "forte" is exactly the same in each language, being in both cases a direct descendant of the Latin "fortis."
Things are getting a bit less black and white in the more recent books. Unfortunately, to get to the good stuff you do have to start out by getting through two and a half kids' books. But I reckon it's worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you can get 56x readers now. By my reckoning that should be 84Mb/s. However, my reckoning is wrong, because I just realised I put the decimal point in the wrong place, like an idiot. Duh.
Indeed, they are the elite subset of weather balloons.
Well, props to all the people who told me about Shift-Alt-Apple-F. I'll find that useful. Just a couple of responses to some of this guy's other (good) points:
.PS file to send to Distiller that makes the whole process so slow and ungainly. Is there a better way? Apart from the obvious.
1. At my office we have a little colour inkjet which we use for printing out mockups of pages. Unsurprisingly, it's not PS, and why the hell should it have to be?? You can improve the quality of an image's preview by turning down its dpi in Photoshop (how intuitive). But because you can't shrink images below 10%, you can't just automatically set everying to 10 dpi and forget about it. Which sucks.
2. As for crashing while rendering previews - I was working with a GIF that was about 3k x 4k pixels. I'd saved it as a GIF because hell, the thing was only black and white anyway, so GIF made for a much smaller file than TIFF. Maybe the bug's just in the GIF parser. Or maybe it was something else entirely. *shrug* I dunno. It happened.
3. I want to work with pages that are different sizes. Our print house knows that the front page is printed on thicker stock, and it's larger because it includes the spine. But they still want me only to send them one PDF, and my boss still wants to have just one file per issue in the archive. The fact that the software doesn't support this (meaning I have to do it manually in Acrobat) ain't, so far as I'm concerned, a plus point.
4. Speaking of Acrobat, you seem to be implying that I'm not using it. Can you make PDFs from Quark 5 without using Acrobat? I'd love to know how. It's Quark's insistence on creating an intermediary
5. Embedding images is extremely helpful when you're working in a networked environment and idiots keep moving your cheese. At any rate, I absolutely don't want the newest version of an image in my document: I want the version I imported! Sure, there are lots of reasons why you might not want to embed things - but again, I don't think that's an argument in favour of not giving me the option.
To me it seems there is a lot out of order in the company you work at.
*lol* You don't know the half of it. But on a day to day basis I generally find Quark's failings much harder to accept and work around than those of my boss.
Quark may be really, really good, but at close to $1000 bucks, I have looking around for an alternative.
Thing is, it's not even "really, really good." It's OK; it does the job. But it has many excruciating foibles, certainly up as far as version 5 for the Mac, which I still have to use at work. Its undo facility is embarrassingly underpowered (it's particularly great that you can't undo "replace all"). It insists on showing graphics onscreen only as low resolution previews, and won't even print them at high resolution. It doesn't let you shrink images below 10%, nor is there any equivalent to InDesign's "fit image proportionally to box" command. It crashes while trying to render previews of graphics that are too large. It won't let you make different pages different sizes. Creating a PDF is maddeningly slow and often requires gigabytes of disk space to eventually create a 100Mb file. Its native file format doesn't support embedding fonts or even images, so OPI hell is never far away. I could go on.
I guess if I have a point, it's that Quark is crammed with brain-damaged misfeatures that a decent, active open-source coding community would have fixed long ago. It's no surprise to me that InDesign is already making big inroads into its market share, and if a credible free alternative were to emerge as well, Quark would have no choice but to ramp up the quality of their product and/or drop the price. Sounds to me like a win for the end user.
Until you can, you have no better basis or argument than creationists that you ridicule do.
Read this. It's a lot more compelling than anything you've said today.
The evolutionist argument is effectively "no, of course we can't prove that this is what happened millions of years before any of us was born; but look, here's a vast corpus of evidence that supports that theory."
The creationist rebuttal is generally along the lines of "aha, so you can't prove it! So it's equally likely that the world was sneezed, fully-formed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure."
Yeah, because the spineless people were the ones who stood up and said "this is wrong, and we will do anything we can to stop it." Not the ones who said "actually, let's, uh... let's not put this to the vote."
That's actually quite cunning. It would be easier for them to label all cans / bottles the same, but by doing it this way they presumably make it legally shady to resell these multi-pack things.
If you were to write it in red, might it be transparent to the laser? If so then of course you could just write on the disc as normal. Just a thought, and not one I have enough faith in to actually try out for myself!
It is arguable, though, that the vast majority of what got them to monpoly status was from consumer demand.
To some extent, they were just lucky that the architecture they were already developing for was the one that won. If Commodore and/or Apple had been smarter, more responsive and more far-sighted we might all have been using Amigas or Macs now and MS would be a division of IBM or something. But Commodore pissed their technological advantage away, and Apple... well, I don't know what they were playing at. So between about 1992 and 1998 the PC had no credible opposition in the desktop market. MS were smart enough to capitalise on this good fortune, developing Windows 95 to vastly diminish the usability gap between theirs and competitors' platforms and then starting to cement its success in the various ways we all know about. But they were lucky to get that clear run that enabled them do that.
Of course, developing for an open platform in the first place - one that couldn't be accidentally fumbled or killed by an idiot parent company - was a smart move. I'm not suggesting that it was sheer luck; in retrospect it looks like the obvious strategy. But in 1988 the price differential and technological gulf between a PC and an Amiga made it a lot less obvious which side the smart money would be on.
It is true that the second section of of Article 17 declares that "intellectual property shall be protected." However, as you imply, that's all it says: there's no inherent provision for DMCA-style übercopyright. Meanwhile, the first section of that same Article states that
While it admittedly doesn't explicitly say that you have the right to hack your XBox and publish your findings, I'd strongly suspect a European court would go for this interpretation rather than the one that would allow a company to disenfranchise the individual. The European Commission wants to keep that power for itself.
Plus, I think there's some kind of psychoactive chemical in it, judging by some of the strange stuff that comes out of Cupertino...
Wienerschnitzel.
Actually, the EU seems to be heading in the opposite direction - while the US passes laws that make it easier for companies to get rich off individuals, the EU keeps issuing "statutory instruments" that make it progressively harder for businesses to enforce anything at all. And even if you are convicted of some sort of made up IP crime, you can always take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights, which pretty much always finds for the individual, because the EU Convention on Human Rights is a very broad and generous document.
It's a hilarious corruption of "first post."
NASA's budget is roughly $15 billion. It costs $12 to research and dev a new plane, and $10 to build one.
Well, that's fine then - they can do the R&D once, build 1,499,999,998 space planes and still have $8 left to spend on scratchcards!
During the eighties. This report, for example, notes that:
I think fans and foes of the network will all agree that it definitely holds bias.
True to a point, but for the past few years that seems mainly to have manifested itself in conscious efforts to ask the government difficult questions, and raise issues in ways that the government might not want. I think that's potentially more valuable than being completely neutral.
All of you slashdotters are talking about how great linux is, that is because /.ers don't want to pay for anything.
I bet if you did a poll of Slashdotters you'd find that, as a community, we spend way over the average on our computers. I don't think that can be the only reason.
According to that page, Windows 1.0 was announced in 1983. I can easily imagine it didn't actually emerge for another two years.
When "forte" is pronounced "for-tay," it is Italian for "loud."
When "forte" is pronounced "fort" it is French for "strength."
Actually, in both languages "forte" is an adjective meaning both "strong" and "loud." The French for "strength" would be "la fortitude" or "la force." You're right about the pronunciation differing between languages; but when it comes to the English pronunciation, all Fowler's has to say is that "pronunciation has been unstable throughout the 20th Century, with some people pronouncing 'forte' as one syllable."
Of course, usage may be different in the USA: I'm speaking from a British perspective. But in neither of our countries can you legitimately claim that we're talking about "two completely different words, from two different languages." The word "forte" is exactly the same in each language, being in both cases a direct descendant of the Latin "fortis."
Interestingly enough, that construction is quite valid in French.
+1, Evil
Things are getting a bit less black and white in the more recent books. Unfortunately, to get to the good stuff you do have to start out by getting through two and a half kids' books. But I reckon it's worth it.
So that's $1000 to watch the whole series.
It's $1,000 to own the whole series. If you just want to watch them once, go to the video shop. Or wait until they're repeated.
The headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix may be found at number 12 Grimwald Place, London.
O/T, I know but... did they change this for the American market? In my (British) copy it's spelt Grimmauld.