I did my taxes today on my Mac. Filled my 1040 in Preview. Worked great. Saved and everything. Until I entered my bank info. It seems that the 1040 uses some text spacing feature that Preview doesn't support.
So . . . I fired up Acrobat and re-did the whole thing. (Acrobat couldn't save the PDF once it was edited in Preview. Once I figure out the labyrinthine Apple bug reporting system I'll report both of these problems.)
Right or wrong, people only check their documents with Acrobat. It is the de facto reference implementation.
Citrix runs on top of windows. And your computer, regardless of who owns it, is going to come with some OS that can run the Citrix client. Citrix doesn't make such an operating system.
So, by this analysis, Citrix is poised to increase the number of OS licenses Microsoft sells. How is this Citrix "winning" over Microsoft?
Well, I hope your comments aren't directed at me. I'm 100% for parents controlling the media their children consume. I convinced my step-mother not to allow her child to play GTA III.
I do, however, absolutely believe that I am better equipped to choose what media I consume than any politician. GTA III is one of my all-time favorite games.
It seems very strange to suppose that intentionally creating an association between visual and taste stimuli would magically not work, just because a video game is involved.
I mean, people have been learning things on television screens for decades. And projection screens for decades before that. What on Earth is surprising, or even interesting, about showing that putting a game controller in a person's hand doesn't thwart this method of learning?
ATSC allows six programs in a 6MHz channel. That's not a lie, it's a specification.
There isn't a mode of operation that exactly compares to DVD. And comparing ATSC to DVD instead of NTSC seems decidedly unfair to me. Having said that, a broadcaster could choose to run TWO 480p30 (480x704 @ 29.97) MPEG-2 streams at 9.69MB/s which would be virtually indistinguishable from a DVD running 480x720 @ 29.97 at the maximum bitrate of 9.8MB/s. (As a practical matter only an insignificant portion, if any, DVDs run at the full maximum bitrate.)
This could be substantially better looking in practice than any realistic NTSC scenario. So I really understated my case: ATSC allows us run twice as much video AND have higher quality.
To speak to your specific example, four programs would have 4.8MB/s available to them. This compares very favorably to typical cable configurations (and even more favorably to typical satellite configurations).
So the potential is all there. The reality, however, is that quality MPEG encoders are expensive. The ATSC transition has created a whole new tier of encoder hardware; local broadcasters. As that market matures (and the current generation of crap encoders are replaced by attrition) you'll see improved quality.
Unless you think that 64-QAMs running 3.75MB/s video look bad. In which case, like me, you won't be satisfied by anything less than Blu-ray.
If you think in terms of spectrum being a limited public resource it is very much worth it. We (the Feds) were paid a pretty penny for the existing NTSC spectrum. The new channels can carry more information (six virtual channels) or more quality. (Video quality. I make no claims about the actual content!)
I'm currently working on all-digital transition on cable. I have gained an appreciation for the value of spectrum.
Also, even if these were OS bugs, I can't accept over a man-month on average to close a bug. An odd bug taking that long from time to time, maybe. But any system where that's the average is so fragile that it's not worth saving.
[I]f they just slap a patch out does it break something else. To me it makes sense that they get 464 bugs a month from their os's.
This is a new low. Didn't read the article, maybe. Didn't read the summary, not acceptable. But I can't fathom not even reading the subject of the summary, which was; "Bugs In Microsoft Technical Documentation Rising" (my emphasis).
You are likely a Wikipedia fanboy who will defend Wikipedia to the death.
You don't know, so your post is pointless speculation. And, in fact, I don't think I have said anything in Wikipedia's defense.
I am a fan of Wikipedia, but I haven't been any kind of "boy" in many years. Wikipedia has serious faults, and I'm not blind to them. But I have found it amazingly useful in both my personal and professional lives. So, yeah, I really like it!
But regardless of how I feel about Wikipedia I think that they're eating Britannica's lunch. I've offered a substantial explanation of why I think this is the case (breadth, depth, timeliness, cost).
I continue to suspect that Britannica is trying to implement part of Wikipedia's (open) secret sauce because they are getting spanked in the market place. You've still said nothing to dissuade me from this viewpoint. As I said before, I need no convincing that I might be wrong, but you've offered no reason for me to reconsider.
Saying that my conclusion isn't necessarily correct does me no good. I always assume this to be the case about my conclusions.
Have you anything further to offer? Have you any cogent argument against my theory? Have you any alternate explanation?
You said that "Wikipedia showed that user contributions in an encyclopedia are possible, so...", so they're doing it. So Britannica saw what Wikipedia was doing, saw it was a good idea, and did the same thing (without, in my opinion, understanding it). This, sir, is the very definition of mimicry.
So you may accuse me of any logical or rhetorical errors you'd like, but you still haven't contributed anything more to the discussion than "nuh-uh."
I'm having trouble making sense of your question. It parses for me as "Why do you think they want to be like Wikipedia? Other than that they're trying to be like Wikipedia?" Could you re-phrase for me?
Britannica hasn't accepted user submissions in their two hundred and forty year history, until now.
Wikipedia has made old-media encyclopedias obsolete. The current Britannica is 2007, and lists for $1395.00. I guess it lists the President of the United States as George Bush. I wonder if it has an article about the CERN LHC at all. Even if it does it can't have any info about it's brief successful operation or that it's currently broken.
It's 32 volumes, so it might have 10% of the breadth of Wikipedia. Of course I can access Wikipedia on my phone. I guess I could get Britannica online on my phone . . . for sixty bucks a year.
I would hope that there's a more consistent level of accuracy in Britannica, but I wouldn't make a life-or-death decision based on either one. In fact, before I took anything in Britannica to heart, I'd make sure that Wikipedia didn't have a correction.
I think that the handwriting is on the wall. I can't see how Britannica is going to regain the lead by weakly mimicking the clear leader.
I do blame self-destructive behavior on lack of the American public to show recognition that all people's private commitments to each other as a devoted couple when made public should be shown the same amount of respect as any other.
Are you over ten years old? Have you not yet learned that life isn't fair? That people don't do what they "should"? We seem to be in agreement that people should be treated equally and with dignity. But none of us can control how we are treated. I think we can only control how we react. You seem to think that reactions are pre-destined, but that you can, somehow, control other people's actions through your will. This seems strangely twisted to me. The fact is, I don't excuse the bigot for his bigotry, or the victim of the bigotry for self-destructive behavior.
That being said, Obama and everyone who does not support gay marriage is a bigot.
Well, that's a mouthful. You really don't think it's possible that someone has a different understanding of marriage than you do? It's not possible that someone, without any malice toward anyone, could sincerely believe that marriage is inseparably related to procreation? Surely there are many who would use this position to shield anti-gay feelings. But there can't be one who is sincere?
I mean, I don't believe that. I'm an atheist. I don't care if you marry a goat. But can't you see how intolerant you're being?
In fact, I technically meet your definition of bigot. I don't support state sanctioned marriage of any kind. Clearly that's fair to all. You don't really think me a bigot, do you?
You blame self-destructive behavior on a lack of Federal recognition of their relationships. I think that this demeans them. I don't think I can state this any more clearly.
If this isn't what you are saying then I'd be delighted if you'd clarify.
You seem to really pick-and-choose. I actually don't have any cousins, but let's use that example. You're okay with the government telling them that it's "unnatural", that it's bad for them psychologically, and that it will harm their potential children. Weren't these precisely the arguments behind the anti-miscegenation laws? You say that, "[T]o deny anyone the benefit [of marriage] is abhorrent.", but then you say, "I am ambivalent on polygamy." So it's "abhorrent" unless there are three of them, in which case, meh? Bizarre.
Slashdot Mirror
I did my taxes today on my Mac. Filled my 1040 in Preview. Worked great. Saved and everything. Until I entered my bank info. It seems that the 1040 uses some text spacing feature that Preview doesn't support.
So . . . I fired up Acrobat and re-did the whole thing. (Acrobat couldn't save the PDF once it was edited in Preview. Once I figure out the labyrinthine Apple bug reporting system I'll report both of these problems.)
Right or wrong, people only check their documents with Acrobat. It is the de facto reference implementation.
-Peter
Nice. I looked up University of Maryland on Google maps and couldn't figure out what the parent was talking about.
-Peter
Citrix runs on top of windows. And your computer, regardless of who owns it, is going to come with some OS that can run the Citrix client. Citrix doesn't make such an operating system.
So, by this analysis, Citrix is poised to increase the number of OS licenses Microsoft sells. How is this Citrix "winning" over Microsoft?
-Peter
So we're in 100% agreement? That's boring.
I guess I'll fire up the Xbox 360 and play some Stabber-Man 7.
-Peter
Well, I hope your comments aren't directed at me. I'm 100% for parents controlling the media their children consume. I convinced my step-mother not to allow her child to play GTA III.
I do, however, absolutely believe that I am better equipped to choose what media I consume than any politician. GTA III is one of my all-time favorite games.
-Peter
Grandma is part of the family too . . .
-Peter
Spectrum. It's a valuable public resource. NTSC is pretty wasteful.
-Peter
It seems very strange to suppose that intentionally creating an association between visual and taste stimuli would magically not work, just because a video game is involved.
I mean, people have been learning things on television screens for decades. And projection screens for decades before that. What on Earth is surprising, or even interesting, about showing that putting a game controller in a person's hand doesn't thwart this method of learning?
-Peter
ATSC allows six programs in a 6MHz channel. That's not a lie, it's a specification.
There isn't a mode of operation that exactly compares to DVD. And comparing ATSC to DVD instead of NTSC seems decidedly unfair to me. Having said that, a broadcaster could choose to run TWO 480p30 (480x704 @ 29.97) MPEG-2 streams at 9.69MB/s which would be virtually indistinguishable from a DVD running 480x720 @ 29.97 at the maximum bitrate of 9.8MB/s. (As a practical matter only an insignificant portion, if any, DVDs run at the full maximum bitrate.)
This could be substantially better looking in practice than any realistic NTSC scenario. So I really understated my case: ATSC allows us run twice as much video AND have higher quality.
To speak to your specific example, four programs would have 4.8MB/s available to them. This compares very favorably to typical cable configurations (and even more favorably to typical satellite configurations).
So the potential is all there. The reality, however, is that quality MPEG encoders are expensive. The ATSC transition has created a whole new tier of encoder hardware; local broadcasters. As that market matures (and the current generation of crap encoders are replaced by attrition) you'll see improved quality.
Unless you think that 64-QAMs running 3.75MB/s video look bad. In which case, like me, you won't be satisfied by anything less than Blu-ray.
-Peter
If you think in terms of spectrum being a limited public resource it is very much worth it. We (the Feds) were paid a pretty penny for the existing NTSC spectrum. The new channels can carry more information (six virtual channels) or more quality. (Video quality. I make no claims about the actual content!)
I'm currently working on all-digital transition on cable. I have gained an appreciation for the value of spectrum.
-Peter
Okay, you keep linking that video. I have to ask. Why, oh why, do you wiggle your ass like that when you juggle?
-Peter
Also, even if these were OS bugs, I can't accept over a man-month on average to close a bug. An odd bug taking that long from time to time, maybe. But any system where that's the average is so fragile that it's not worth saving.
-Peter
This is a new low. Didn't read the article, maybe. Didn't read the summary, not acceptable. But I can't fathom not even reading the subject of the summary, which was; "Bugs In Microsoft Technical Documentation Rising" (my emphasis).
Boggle.
-Peter
That's 464 bugs in a month. Eight hundred people can't close 464 bugs?
-Peter
Black holes aren't a natural phenomenon. Must we lose another technologically advanced culture?
-Peter
Two can play this game.
You don't know, so your post is pointless speculation. And, in fact, I don't think I have said anything in Wikipedia's defense.
I am a fan of Wikipedia, but I haven't been any kind of "boy" in many years. Wikipedia has serious faults, and I'm not blind to them. But I have found it amazingly useful in both my personal and professional lives. So, yeah, I really like it!
But regardless of how I feel about Wikipedia I think that they're eating Britannica's lunch. I've offered a substantial explanation of why I think this is the case (breadth, depth, timeliness, cost).
I continue to suspect that Britannica is trying to implement part of Wikipedia's (open) secret sauce because they are getting spanked in the market place. You've still said nothing to dissuade me from this viewpoint. As I said before, I need no convincing that I might be wrong, but you've offered no reason for me to reconsider.
-Peter
Saying that my conclusion isn't necessarily correct does me no good. I always assume this to be the case about my conclusions.
Have you anything further to offer? Have you any cogent argument against my theory? Have you any alternate explanation?
You said that "Wikipedia showed that user contributions in an encyclopedia are possible, so...", so they're doing it. So Britannica saw what Wikipedia was doing, saw it was a good idea, and did the same thing (without, in my opinion, understanding it). This, sir, is the very definition of mimicry.
So you may accuse me of any logical or rhetorical errors you'd like, but you still haven't contributed anything more to the discussion than "nuh-uh."
-Peter
I'm having trouble making sense of your question. It parses for me as "Why do you think they want to be like Wikipedia? Other than that they're trying to be like Wikipedia?" Could you re-phrase for me?
Britannica hasn't accepted user submissions in their two hundred and forty year history, until now.
Wikipedia has made old-media encyclopedias obsolete. The current Britannica is 2007, and lists for $1395.00. I guess it lists the President of the United States as George Bush. I wonder if it has an article about the CERN LHC at all. Even if it does it can't have any info about it's brief successful operation or that it's currently broken.
It's 32 volumes, so it might have 10% of the breadth of Wikipedia. Of course I can access Wikipedia on my phone. I guess I could get Britannica online on my phone . . . for sixty bucks a year.
I would hope that there's a more consistent level of accuracy in Britannica, but I wouldn't make a life-or-death decision based on either one. In fact, before I took anything in Britannica to heart, I'd make sure that Wikipedia didn't have a correction.
I think that the handwriting is on the wall. I can't see how Britannica is going to regain the lead by weakly mimicking the clear leader.
-Peter
I was very careful in my word choice. But maybe I should have said, "Top men."
-Peter
-1, Didn't Read the Article
The changes won't appear on the site until they have been reviewed by someone paid by Britannica.
They must really be on the ropes. They're into full-on me-tooism, but obviously don't get what makes Wikipedia awesome at all.
-Peter
Sure. But, given finite resources, should there not be some rational priorities set?
-Peter
Your excitement over yourself is downright infectious!
You'd be more fun as a playmate if you, you know, occasionally gave a direct reply to a direct question.
-Peter
Are you over ten years old? Have you not yet learned that life isn't fair? That people don't do what they "should"? We seem to be in agreement that people should be treated equally and with dignity. But none of us can control how we are treated. I think we can only control how we react. You seem to think that reactions are pre-destined, but that you can, somehow, control other people's actions through your will. This seems strangely twisted to me. The fact is, I don't excuse the bigot for his bigotry, or the victim of the bigotry for self-destructive behavior.
Well, that's a mouthful. You really don't think it's possible that someone has a different understanding of marriage than you do? It's not possible that someone, without any malice toward anyone, could sincerely believe that marriage is inseparably related to procreation? Surely there are many who would use this position to shield anti-gay feelings. But there can't be one who is sincere?
I mean, I don't believe that. I'm an atheist. I don't care if you marry a goat. But can't you see how intolerant you're being?
In fact, I technically meet your definition of bigot. I don't support state sanctioned marriage of any kind. Clearly that's fair to all. You don't really think me a bigot, do you?
-Peter
I ignored a lot of things in my post. Female genital mutilation in sub-Saharan Africa is a really big problem. But it wasn't the topic of my post.
Nor was the fairness of marriage laws throughout the US.
-Peter
I didn't realize that I was being obtuse.
You blame self-destructive behavior on a lack of Federal recognition of their relationships. I think that this demeans them. I don't think I can state this any more clearly.
If this isn't what you are saying then I'd be delighted if you'd clarify.
You seem to really pick-and-choose. I actually don't have any cousins, but let's use that example. You're okay with the government telling them that it's "unnatural", that it's bad for them psychologically, and that it will harm their potential children. Weren't these precisely the arguments behind the anti-miscegenation laws? You say that, "[T]o deny anyone the benefit [of marriage] is abhorrent.", but then you say, "I am ambivalent on polygamy." So it's "abhorrent" unless there are three of them, in which case, meh? Bizarre.
-Peter