Mentions of fully-formed PLATO games like Moria and a half dozen others also was the first thing to jump to mind when the parent description suggested that Adventer was the "origin" of many things. Sorry, no. Adventure was cool and it was an important and influential piece of art, but it did not precede DnD paper and pencil, nor did it precede a number of much more dungeon-crawl 'rpg's, nor was it the first adventure game. oops.
The SF Chronicle has degraded from a real newspaper to a poorly edited regurgitation in many cases. This seems to be a case where the author of the piece didn't actually check their facts.
I believe the "third" quote is just an error: "There are about 21 million acres of trees spread across Californiaâ(TM)s 18 national forests, and the latest figures show 7.7 million of them â" more than one-third â" are dead. "
This quote is linked-cited to their other paper site, sfchronicle, and that article does not give those same numbers.
That also does not make the "third are dead" claim.
As a non-professional forest person in California, the claim that a third of forested acres are "dead" or that a third of all trees are dead is demonstrably absurd.
I think someone slipped a digit somewhere and sfgate's editing is no longer good enough to trust anyone checked it. If anyone happens to see any original source making this claim, please let me know.
[losing 30 minutes of work because of slashdot software annoyance, do not edit in text fields:( ]
Here's my thought: print in RGB separations using black and white printer on good paper, so you have a much more robust representation of the color value than done in colored inks overlapping one another, yet still have a version that is human comprehensible. This means 3 'pages' per photo, with grayscale pixels.
A more digital (binary) version would be to use a 6x6 on/off pixel square for each image pixel (6 times 6 is 36, leaving 32 bits per pixel and 4 'extra' values). The image is printed on paper in these pixel blocks that represent the R, G, or B value for that pixel, with a 1 pixel 'gutter' around each one. The picture should still be comprehensible by humans, although less so than the analog version. With a printer that can do 800x800DPI printing, I think that gets one down to 11x17" (american 'tabloid' size) paper that a 1600x1200 photo would fit onto.
Laser printed neutral paper, kept out of sunlight, kept dry, should be scannable for a very, very long time. Putting either of those back together would be 'relatively' simple.
If you're looking for 'easy', as other say 'museum quality' oversize photo printing seems like the obviously best choice.
One option that can work for some situations is to export / save the file from.doc into.rtf (rich text format) and then use one of the free or pay RTF->HTML converters. I find using other software than Word to convert MSDOC -> RTF produces better results.
Using that process has made preserving italics, bold, and special characters much easier for me and almost seems fully automatable.
I've been using this method recently with some very simple search and replace and able to get good results.
I just happened to be shopping for color laser printers today. After going to some stores to play with them, check the web, we made up a test PDF and loaded drivers on our laptop for all the printers in the running and went to the store and printed our own test pages.
We had mostly settled on the low-end Minolta 2300DL because it does a better job with photos than the other sub-1K devices. We were also considering the Oki c5150n that has shinier and noisier color output, but surprisingly better text printing. I then ran across this story tonight. How irritating.
I whipped out my Photon black-light LED and a magnifying glass and there they were. Little yellow dots everywhere on the Minolta output. They are visible with the naked eye in white/unprinted areas because the dots are a slightly different reflectivity than the rest of the paper. A magnifier and black light and it stands out.
The Oki c5150n printer did not appear to print the spray of yellow dots, for whatever that is worth.
We are likely to use the printer with our letter head on it in nearly all cases, so that would make 99% of the documents more directly trackable, but it sure is a big put-off to have to add this into the equation of what to buy. More a principle than it is a practical concern.
But how much is this going to cost me, for this extra feature? The toner for these things is NOT cheap.
So is there a list of what printers and manufacturers do this? Anyone else have any hardware they can check output from?
Slashdot Mirror
Mentions of fully-formed PLATO games like Moria and a half dozen others also was the first thing to jump to mind when the parent description suggested that Adventer was the "origin" of many things. Sorry, no. Adventure was cool and it was an important and influential piece of art, but it did not precede DnD paper and pencil, nor did it precede a number of much more dungeon-crawl 'rpg's, nor was it the first adventure game. oops.
The SF Chronicle has degraded from a real newspaper to a poorly edited regurgitation in many cases. This seems to be a case where the author of the piece didn't actually check their facts.
I believe the "third" quote is just an error:
"There are about 21 million acres of trees spread across Californiaâ(TM)s 18 national forests, and the latest figures show 7.7 million of them â" more than one-third â" are dead. "
This quote is linked-cited to their other paper site, sfchronicle, and that article does not give those same numbers.
The sfchronicle article links to this http://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/DROUGHT_book-web-1-11-16.pdf
The New York Times version of the article does NOT make the same "third are dead" claim and it links to a USDA release:
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2016/11/0246.xml&contentidonly=true
That also does not make the "third are dead" claim.
As a non-professional forest person in California, the claim that a third of forested acres are "dead" or that a third of all trees are dead is demonstrably absurd.
I think someone slipped a digit somewhere and sfgate's editing is no longer good enough to trust anyone checked it. If anyone happens to see any original source making this claim, please let me know.
[losing 30 minutes of work because of slashdot software annoyance, do not edit in text fields :( ]
Here's my thought: print in RGB separations using black and white printer on good paper, so you have a much more robust representation of the color value than done in colored inks overlapping one another, yet still have a version that is human comprehensible. This means 3 'pages' per photo, with grayscale pixels.
A more digital (binary) version would be to use a 6x6 on/off pixel square for each image pixel (6 times 6 is 36, leaving 32 bits per pixel and 4 'extra' values). The image is printed on paper in these pixel blocks that represent the R, G, or B value for that pixel, with a 1 pixel 'gutter' around each one. The picture should still be comprehensible by humans, although less so than the analog version. With a printer that can do 800x800DPI printing, I think that gets one down to 11x17" (american 'tabloid' size) paper that a 1600x1200 photo would fit onto.
Laser printed neutral paper, kept out of sunlight, kept dry, should be scannable for a very, very long time. Putting either of those back together would be 'relatively' simple.
If you're looking for 'easy', as other say 'museum quality' oversize photo printing seems like the obviously best choice.
One option that can work for some situations is to export / save the file from .doc into .rtf (rich text format) and then use one of the free or pay RTF->HTML converters. I find using other software than Word to convert MSDOC -> RTF produces better results.
Using that process has made preserving italics, bold, and special characters much easier for me and almost seems fully automatable.
I've been using this method recently with some very simple search and replace and able to get good results.
I just happened to be shopping for color laser printers today. After going to some stores to play with them, check the web, we made up a test PDF and loaded drivers on our laptop for all the printers in the running and went to the store and printed our own test pages.
We had mostly settled on the low-end Minolta 2300DL because it does a better job with photos than the other sub-1K devices. We were also considering the Oki c5150n that has shinier and noisier color output, but surprisingly better text printing. I then ran across this story tonight. How irritating.
I whipped out my Photon black-light LED and a magnifying glass and there they were. Little yellow dots everywhere on the Minolta output. They are visible with the naked eye in white/unprinted areas because the dots are a slightly different reflectivity than the rest of the paper. A magnifier and black light and it stands out.
The Oki c5150n printer did not appear to print the spray of yellow dots, for whatever that is worth.
We are likely to use the printer with our letter head on it in nearly all cases, so that would make 99% of the documents more directly trackable, but it sure is a big put-off to have to add this into the equation of what to buy. More a principle than it is a practical concern.
But how much is this going to cost me, for this extra feature? The toner for these things is NOT cheap.
So is there a list of what printers and manufacturers do this? Anyone else have any hardware they can check output from?