Here's what's interesting about the CD-Text, and why it really goes to my original point: It showed up in 1996, about 13 years after my first CD player! I'm pretty sure those doing the inventing could've cobbled together a text for CD a little earlier.
There was a part of the CD standard, there from the beginning, that supports the display of album and song information: CD-Graphics. The space is available for graphics on all CDs whether or not they are used, they just have to be included.
With a player with the ability to display the graphics on a TV, a running slide show would appear on a standard TV while the disc is being played. I had a Philips CD-i player that was able to display the graphics, and I know the Sega Genesis CD could also display the graphics.
I have a few CDs with graphics, including:
Laura Branigan: Laura Branigan
The Firesign Theater: Eat Or Be Eaten (this was originally going to be a game disc, but as far as I know only the album version was released). The slide show made it much easier to understand the disc.
Fleetwood Mac: Behind The Mask
GRP Digital Sampler - On The Cutting Edge: This disc makes excellent use of the graphics, providing information on the artist, the performers, and the song for each track.
Information Society: Information Society
The only place I've seen CD-Graphics have any impact is with karaoke. A number of players used for karaoke are capable of displaying the graphics and discs are available too.
I agree that a track information standard should have been included with all CDs from the beginning. It could have been done simply, say as a string of characters that fed directly to the display on the player. Even if the players of the time could not display the information, they should have been included in anticipation of the future.
I'd like to see a sequel to "Shadow Of Destiny," a game for the PS2, but a sequel in the form of same basic premise (a character trying to prevent his/her death after being killed) but a new story.
One of the best things about the game was the story, which pulled you in and made you want to play the game to the end. If a sequel is done, it needs to have that too. It also have very good graphics for the time (a review mentioned that the graphics during the game plan were about as good as those during the cut scenes).
The reason Li-Ion batteries are dangerous is the sheer energy density. Rearranging that energy with a different battery structure isn't going to negate the fact that, simplistically, you somewhere have two conductors across which is the entire potential of the battery. (Unless you divide the battery into segments and give each segment a unique load. However, that would require a fundamental re-thinking of how electronic devices are powered.)
I don't think its just the energy density of lithum-ion (Li-Ion) batteries that makes them dangerous. What makes them more dangerous is that it is natural for the batteries to go out of control. Much of the technology involved with Li-Ion batteries is to prevent the battery from going out of control, basically to make them go against their nature.
A few years ago Popular Mechanics had an article on this issue, and Wired Magazine recently had an article on this issue. One of the points the articles made was that we are basically at the end of the line as far as conventional battery technology (electric power being generated from the difference between two materials) goes.
The Popular Mechanics article did mention what was mentioned above (many small batteries each taking a part of the total load, with each battery controlled by a microchip) as a way of increasing battery life, and it also mentioned fuel cells as a possiblity.
I think one of the things that has made the whole battery problem more acute is the recent increase number of devices that use a rechargeable but not-replaceable battery. One of the biggest complaints about the iPod is the relatively short battery life. This issue could be nullified by an easily-user-replacable battery: the battery wears out, quickly replace it with a new one, the music continues.
that the 14% is coming from a huge group of volunteers and only a small number of dedicated, paid developers while that 80% is from the largest software monopoly in the world. Not to mention that Internet Explorer is shipped with practically every OEM machine in the United States.
Considering these circumstances, it is amazing to see how well Firefox is doing considering the odds.
This is why comparing the number of IE users to the number of Firefox users does not provide a valid propularity comparison. Windows users have IE on their system regardless of their wishes.
But individuals who use Firefox have made a conscious effort to use it. I doubt many people have Firefox on their system unless they intend to use it. Also, unlike IE, as far as I know you can safely uninstall Firefox from your system.
I have IE on my system for one main reason: I'm afraid if I delete or remove IE it I will damage or destroy Windows. As far as actually using IE on my system, I almost never use it. In fact, in the past year I cannot remember ever actually using IE. If I'm surfing the web and I encounter a website only allows IE, I simply go elsewhere.
Eventually more and more customers and clients will send you documents encoded in MS format. You will need to not only read them but edit them and send them back. So far no one has ever been able to create a document in MS WOrd that is 100% platform interchangable. Even MS word on mac is in 100% compatible with ms word on PC, though it's pretty close, the page layouts shift subtly with tables and figures changing positions and dimensions.
Thus the only way you can work with other people's word documents is to own word. anything else as the parent points out is a waste of valuable time. the cost of word is negligible compared to your time
Not only must you own MS Word, but you must own the same version of MS Word.
Concerning documents differenting between systems, I've experienced the same problem. I've had to deal with Word documents where what we received electronically must look exactly the same as the document the originator had (single difference between the two electronic documents, no matter how small, was not acceptable). Too often, there were differences between the two.
Due to this, we ended up having to have the originator FAX us the document for review and correction. This was the only way we had available to ensure we had was identical to what the originator sent. When the document was reviewed and approved, the originator had to send a hard copy of the document to us for processing since we could not be sure that an electronic version would print correctly.
My understanding of the problem (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that the only way to ensure that a Word document will be identical on two different computer systems is if all of the components are identical, especially the printers. If there is a single difference between the two systems (included different versions of Word), then it could cause a difference in the document.
Some of the problem might stem from the WYSIWIG concept, and trying to get what prints on paper to match precisely what appears on the screen. What might help the problem is if something like TeX is used, where the final printing is separated from the presentation on screen. You place instructions in the document to indicate precisely where the text should appear on paper. This would allow the program to format the text on paper consistently, regardless of the computer system and printer used.
But don't start whine about those that need and use more.
You don't do real work for a living, do you?
HTML e-mails are abused a lot. If the format is more important then the content, then you don't do real work.
This is one of my strongest reasons for choosing plain text e-mail over HTML e-mail: With plain text, I concentrate on the content of my message, not the way it looks.
When I do send out an HTML e-mail, I tend to keep it simple for this reason. I choose one common font and stay with it for the entire message. Again, it is so that I concentrate on what the message says instead and pay scant attention to its appearance.
Another poster mentioned XML as an option for e-mail. I think this would be a better option for e-mail than using HTML because it could be designed from the beginning to deal with issues of security, file size, and formatting. I don't thing retrofitting HTML for e-mail would meet these requirements as well as a format specifically designed for e-mail.
The metric system is legal for trade (and anything else) in the US and has been since 1866. If you want to use it, use it.
I think this is the wisest statement concerning the whole issue. It seems like much of the argument breaks down to using only metric measures or using only U.S. standard measures. This "all or nothing" attitude is what creates much of the resistance to metrification.
I see no reason that both measurement systems cannot continue to be used side by side. The key is that when working on a project or within an industry that everyone agrees to use the same type of measure and ensure that it is communicated clearly. It seems that was the issue with NASA.
As said above, the key is that people agree in advance which system to use. Although converting from one unit to another is easier in the metric system, the advantage of metric breaks down when converting measurements (say inches to centimeters or liters to gallons) between the two systems. This results in equally cumbersome results, especially when precision is an issue.
For myself, I use mostly U.S. standard measures in my day-to-day life because I rarely encounter anything which requires me to use metric. Its not because I can't use metric or have rejected it, I simply haven't come across a need for it. That may be the reason that many people haven't felt the need to actively use metric measures, U.S. standard is familiar and comfortable to use.
There is one more Star Wars "movie" to watch: Episode II.5 - Clone Wars. It is a series that ran on Cartoon Network, and was originally in the form of 5-minute episodes (and was later expanded into longer episodes) and have been collected onto two DVDs.
The series takes place after Episode II and the ending leads directly into Episode III (for example: it explains why General Grevious was coughing in the early part of Episode III).
It was directed by the same individual who did Samarai Jack and I enjoyed it more than Episode II.
the last time he came up with something original, it was "Howard the Duck."
Actually, Howard The Duck wasn't original, but based on a Marvel comic book of the same name. I'm not an expert on the character, but my understanding is that the movie went far afield from the original source.
Not to mention Indiana Jones is a much more physically demanding role, assuming the movie isn't just about Dr. Jones becoming a crotchety, washed up academic.
No its about an older Jones who has risen to be dean of the school of archeology at his university. He now has become an M like character and sends his grad student Shortround on missions. Think Bruce Wayne in Batman Beyond.
This could be a good model for the next movie. Although much older, Bruce Wayne was an important part of Batman Beyond and his reason for giving up the Batman role was logically given. Also, his character and past provided story possibilities (see the episode Meltdown) for the series. Although no longer in the field, his assistance was invaluable to Terry McGuiness (the new Batman), and he is still an interesting character.
As a solution to the problem, another poster suggested setting your computer to ZULU time. Expanding on that, I think the best way to handle the issue is to use ZULU time for the time, and Julian dating (counting the number of days from the beginning of the year) for the date, for the master clock in the computer. That way, instead of having to tinker with the clock and calendar during the year, all you have to do is tell the system how many days are in the year (365 or 366).
Guess what: sane operating systems (i.e., every one of them except Windows) do exactly this!
My understanding was that the Mac did a variation of this, counting the number of days from the beginning of a certain year (I think the year was 1950) and that is why a Y2K-type problem wouldn't affect the original Macs until 2048. I wasn't aware other OSes didn't have this problem.
At this point, due to the problem of Y2K there is no reason that any OS should have this problem in the future. Y2K should have been a wakeup call to deal with this problem once and for all. That an issue with dates and time exists at all now is not an encouraging sign.
One major supporter that is left off your list -- K-12 Schools and Parents. Part of the time shift is to decrease the days that kids stand at the bus stop in the dark (considered dangerous) in the mornings.
I was trying to avoid the more controversial items on the list. Parents of school-age children do appear on the list, as opponents of Daylight Saving Time (DST). In think the reason that they would oppose it is that DST would cause the sun to rise later in the morning, causing children to have to wait for the bus in the dark in the morning.
Since I'm taking a step into controversy, the list on the back of the book also included the following:
I'd like to see apple come out with a simple phone: huge battery, huge antennae, a quality speaker/mic, and one of their great interfaces. Then I'd buy it. I give them credit for coming up with a nice all-in-one... but I have no need for it.
What is mentioned above is what I've been looking for too. Simply put, a cell phone that is simply a cell phone, with one additional feature: putting the mic in a place where I'm not talking into the air.
I have no need for a fancy address book, just a simple way of storing numbers on the phone (ala a memory button and hitting one or two digits). A phone where you open the phone to answer or make a call and close it to hang up.
So many cell phones have so many features that it makes the act of making a phone call far more complicated than it needs to be. Also, things like a fancy color screen cut the battery life, for me a simple one or two line numeric display would be enough.
I would not be surprised if many people are looking for a simpler cell phone.
The problem with not adjusting the clock is that there are forces that are working to move the clock both forward and backward. In the book "Spring Forward - The Annual Madness of Daylight Saving Time" by Michael Downing, he covers the issue. The back cover of the book lists those who support and oppose Daylight Saving Time (DST).
Some of those in support of DST:
Golfers
Major League Baseball
Barbecue industry
Some of those opposed to DST:
Farmers
Hollywood movie studios
Television and radio broadcasters
Although it is said that setting the clock back (causing the sun to set one hour later by the clock) saves energy, the savings is offset by the fact that more energy is consumed by people having longer to do things that consume energy, such as driving.
As a solution to the problem, another poster suggested setting your computer to ZULU time. Expanding on that, I think the best way to handle the issue is to use ZULU time for the time, and Julian dating (counting the number of days from the beginning of the year) for the date, for the master clock in the computer. That way, instead of having to tinker with the clock and calendar during the year, all you have to do is tell the system how many days are in the year (365 or 366).
This would get rid of both the confusion with the differing number of days in the month and concerning Daylight Saving Time. The local date/time would simply be referenced from the master date/time in cases (such as autodating letters) when you need your local time/date. But all of the computers interal workings are referenced from the real date/time stored in the master clock, which is not adjusted. The local date/time could be easily adjusted via a separate setting (ala "local time/date is ZULU + 10 hours"). That could easily be set and updated as needed.
A problem I see with a fix that is created to this is that it is likely to be a short-term fix for this specific problem. If the law changes and DST is changed once again will we face the same problem? It is much like the problem with Y2K, I wonder if we will have the same problem with Y2.1K?
I think the only way the U.S. will convert to metric successfully is via introduction through new devices. For example, a step in the process could have been to use only metric measures when referring to the new HDTVs (screen size, depth, width, and so on).
Other industries can go with dual measures, meaning both measures are available with U.S. standard measure taking the lead in the beginning (measure is even in U.S. measure and not so even in metric measure). Through phase in as older devices are replaced, the metric begins to take the lead. I think this would offer the most painless way to shift to metric.
One problem facing metric itself is the human body. Most U.S. measures were originated from the human body itself, and what a human is confortable with. Another writer mentioned that another barrier is that U.S. standard measures are what he/she thinks in. That is another barrier to adoption of metric as a standard.
The final place I see metric having trouble with adoption is the field of sports. Changing a field to a size that metrically even (from 100 yars to 100 meters) would basically cause records to have to be started over since new athletes would be competing against a new standard.
For me, there is no reason why both measures cannot be used side by side. Yes, conversion is a pain but with the invention of calculators and computers, the conversions are less of a problem than they have been. The main problem seems to be when you try and use both systems in the same industry/area at the same time.
To American defense, why we still use Imperial system to measure time??? It is plain old stupid. 60 sec for a minute, 60 min in a hour, 24 hours per day, 12 months? That is nuts. Why not use: 100 sec an hour, 10 hour a day, 100 hours a month and so on?
Actually, the using a base of the numbers 12 and 60 offers one significant advantage over using a base of 10: even division. With 12, you can evenly divide it into 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12. With 60, add 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, and 60 to the previous list. A measure with a base of 10 can only be evenly divided into 2, 5, and 10.
As an example, if the day was divided into 100 hours, an 8-hour workday would suddenly become a 33.3(decimal continues infinitely) hour workday. I think metric would have had a much better chance of success in the U.S. if it had used a base of 12 instead of 10.
I think one thing that could be done to make the U.S. system easier to use is if they dispensed with mixed measures, meaning use only inches or only feet when measuring, not both measures together (example: 71 inches, not 5 feet 11 inches).
They haven't changed the Qwerty keyboard configuration either and that has been inefficient since the typewriter. We don't change it, because that is the choice society made and now we have a universal standard it serves as counter productive to change.
Originally, the Qwerty configuration did make typewriters more efficient. The reason for the arrangement of the keys was to avoid key jams by placing the often-used keys far from each other. For example: There are 10 keys between the "S" and "T" keys. It also had the effect of slowing down the typist.
The need for the Querty arrangement ended when single-element typewriters (like the IBM Selectric) appeared. Their single element made keyjams a thing of the past.
It is likely that inertia is the reason that people have stayed with the Querty keyboard. As with the metric system, it has proven difficult to get people to make the change. For myself, I've tried to use an ergonomic keyboard, but I found it extremely awkward to use and returned to the straight, non-ergonomic keyboard. For me it was easier, and therefore more efficient.
There was a science fiction/comedy book named "Cyberbooks" by Ben Bova (per Amazon.com it was released in 1989). It was set about 20 years in the fuure and it dealt with attempt to introduction of an ebook reader to the public (the device is shown on the cover and it looks a bit like a Palm handheld, the first Palm handheld was released in 1996), and the forces that work against it. I thought it was a good read, and found much humor in the book publishing business.
A place I could see e-books taking over because of the obvious benefit is in the disposable catagory (such as newspapers and magazines). One of the disadvantages of newspapers is that they have to be disposed of after you are finished with them. That is a great deal of paper to get rid of. This is a place where an e-newspaper would be a great benefit. I could read it and then simply delete it when I'm finished, without having to lug a bunch of paper to the recycling bin.
I own approximately $300 worth of content I purchased for my Rocket eBook which is locked down to the particular serial number of my physical device. Nuvomedia and Gemstar are long gone, the servers are shut down, there's no customer service available, the battery life on my device is now down to a couple of hours... and when the device fails I'll be the proud possessor of expensive content which is completely inaccessible to me.
I hope you have better luck with your Sony.
This is why I wanted to be sure that the device supports formats other than just the Sony e-book format, otherwise I would not have bought it. If my device dies, I will still have access to my own content, other than that I bought from the Sony Connect Store.
The problem of locked content has been a recurring problem with e-books (and is also a problem with compressed digital audio). What is needed is a universal format that can be moved from one device to another in the case the original device dies. One possibility is an encrypted card that can unlock content and be moved from one device to another. The content would be locked to a specific card, not to a specific device.
I've had this experience myself. Years ago I used to use a DOS program called "Quickcheck." It was a checkbook program that was easy to learn and then use. Since then, all of the newer programs seem to be far too overcomplicated to manage a basic checking account. Due to this, I've returned to using a spreadsheet. Its not fancy, but it does the job well.
Due to the complexity of modern word processors, I've retreated to a very basic word processor (one or two steps above Wordpad) that is easy to use and doesn't get in the way of my writing. As mentioned by the previous writer, it allows me to get black ink on paper.
Another writer mentioned the problems with styles. I strongly agree that there are often problem with using styles. Although the idea of styles is a good one, the way they are implemented makes them more work than they are worth most of the time, especially for short documents.
One of the strongest reasons that I went with a very basic word processor is so I don't have to deal with styles. In my experience they have basically been a pain to work with. They only time they might offer an advantage to me is for very long documents that need consistent formatting. If I must have them, then I use something like OpenOffice.org, but it is rare that I need that big of a program.
True. The old monochrome Palm screens were not bad for reading, even with the backlight. Also, without the need for the backlight they had very good battery life.
Unfortunately, the new Palms basically require the backlight to be on to be visible. This is a significant hit on the battery life.
I, too, have one of the new Sony e-book readers (QReader) and I can say the screen is simply outstanding for book reading. The screen is as easy on the eyes as reading on regular paper. It is a vast improvement over the PDAs I've used in the past for e-book reading.
Due to the backlight, I've found that using a PDA for e-book reading becomes hard on the eyes after several minutes, plus the size of the screen is a disadvantage when reading e-books. Besides the screen quality of the QReader, another advantage is that the screen is larger than a standard-paperback-book page, allowing you to put a large amount of text on a single screen.
Although the $350 price tag seems a bit high, it is the same price range as some PDAs, and some Compressed Digital Audio players like the iPod. Two of the less-noticed features of the Sony QReader is that it can also display pictures and play MP3 and AAC files (I think by AAC files it means AAC files without the Apple DRM attached). I think that, like with the iPod, more players will appear and the price will drop in time.
The battery life on the device is terrific. I've been using mine every day for about two months and I've only had to charge it (meaning the battery was near empty) one time. Often, the charge the device receives when connected to the computer gives you a day or two of use. I've found that the battery life is so long that I don't worry about leaving the device on by mistake since it will turn it will automatically turn itself off after an hour.
I agree that the desktop software and the QReader could use improvement (such as the an automatic method of syncing between the computer and the reader, and the ability to use playlists when playing MP3 files) but it is functional and fairly easy to use, it just requires you to manually move the files from the computer to the reader. But this is the first version of both the reader and the software and I'm sure that it will be improved in future versions.
One of the best features of the reader, and the reason that I bought one, is that I can put my own content (such as my address book) on the reader: I'm not limited to what I purchase from the Sony Connect Store. In addition to the Sony e-book format it supports the following formats: PDF, text, and RTF. One of the problems I've had with e-book readers in the past is that the displayed formatting tends to be unpredictable (such as a blank line between the paragraphs in the source document disappearing when displayed on the reader). With the Sony QReader, the standard formatting of my documents (such as bold, underline, line spacing, indents) is predictablity rendered on my reader.
Returning to my original point, I've been very pleased with the QReader. It was good buy for me. Thanks for reading.
Somebody mod this A.C. up. I run an old Radeon 9200 Pro myself because it was cheap when I got it. I have a ${several thousand} home theatre in the next room with an XBox connected to it so I have no desire to run games on my PC. Why should I spend $300 (or even $200) on a new video card to run my desktop?
For me, my experience with playing video games on my computer is the reason I've purchased a console for my gaming. Often I've found that my system might meet the requirements to play a game, the experience has been lacking, and must be addressed by upgrading my system.
A console may not be as powerful as a full computer but I can count on any game for that system running well without have having to continually upgrade my system for certain games. A game for a PS2 will run well on all PS2 consoles regardless of when the game was released or when the PS2 console was released.
By RTF I'm referring to the document interchange format created by Microsoft to deal with problems in translating documents from one format to another, This includes taking a document from one version of MS Word to another.
I don't know which version of MS Word the format correspondes to, but it allows for most of the features that I need for my writing and has retained compatibility for basic formatting. Over the years it has become the closest thing to a universal word processing format, although the OpenDocument format has a great deal of potential to take its place.
I've looked at the coding used for RTF and it shares some similarities with HTML but it is more appropriate for word processing since it doesn't have the formatting limitations of HTML (which have been addressed by the introduction of Cascading Style Sheets). As I said previously, I can take an RTF document and open it in a text editor to see exactly what is in the document. This can avoid unpleasant surprises.
As far as what RTF adds as far as advantages, I can mention a few (although some may be obvious):
File size - Although not a small as a text file, an RTF file is much smaller than an MS Word file.
Choice of word processors - I typically use two word processors, a lightweight one called Jarte for my regular writing, and StarOffice 8 when I need to do very complex formatting. I have a choice of many different word processors, and from what I've seen each handles the formatting well. I don't have to be tied down to a single program. As a sidebar, the above relates to MP3 for digital music. There may be better compressed formats for audio music, but only MP3 can be used on all compressed audio players.
Convertability - If I decide to move to a different word processor, I can easily convert my documents with all of the formatting accurately retained. But I can also just continue to use RTF as the format, even if I decide to switch programs. Also, due to its nature RTF can provide a good format as a backup for your documents since it should be able to be accurately opened years from now, something that cannot be said for many other formats.
I agree that document formats need to be open. One of the best reasons is so that you can actually see what is in the file. The problem I have with closed formats is that I can't be sure exactly what is in the file.
It will also allow you to have a choice about which program you want to use. One of the reasons that MS Word has been able to dominate the word processing market is that you are able to save documents in MS Word format without having to actually use MS Word itself (many programs tout their ability to read and write MS Word files). How dominant would the MS Word format have become if the only way to read and write the files is with MS Word itself?
I use RTF for my word processing. Due to this, I have a choice of over 10 word processors (many free) to do my word processing. I don't have to be locked into a single program, and I can decide on how powerful a program I will use. Sometimes I just want a small, fast, and easy to use program.
Slashdot Mirror
yagu wrote as part of a post:
There was a part of the CD standard, there from the beginning, that supports the display of album and song information: CD-Graphics. The space is available for graphics on all CDs whether or not they are used, they just have to be included.
With a player with the ability to display the graphics on a TV, a running slide show would appear on a standard TV while the disc is being played. I had a Philips CD-i player that was able to display the graphics, and I know the Sega Genesis CD could also display the graphics.
I have a few CDs with graphics, including:
The only place I've seen CD-Graphics have any impact is with karaoke. A number of players used for karaoke are capable of displaying the graphics and discs are available too.
I agree that a track information standard should have been included with all CDs from the beginning. It could have been done simply, say as a string of characters that fed directly to the display on the player. Even if the players of the time could not display the information, they should have been included in anticipation of the future.
I'd like to see a sequel to "Shadow Of Destiny," a game for the PS2, but a sequel in the form of same basic premise (a character trying to prevent his/her death after being killed) but a new story.
One of the best things about the game was the story, which pulled you in and made you want to play the game to the end. If a sequel is done, it needs to have that too. It also have very good graphics for the time (a review mentioned that the graphics during the game plan were about as good as those during the cut scenes).
Short Circuit wrote as part of a post:
I don't think its just the energy density of lithum-ion (Li-Ion) batteries that makes them dangerous. What makes them more dangerous is that it is natural for the batteries to go out of control. Much of the technology involved with Li-Ion batteries is to prevent the battery from going out of control, basically to make them go against their nature.
A few years ago Popular Mechanics had an article on this issue, and Wired Magazine recently had an article on this issue. One of the points the articles made was that we are basically at the end of the line as far as conventional battery technology (electric power being generated from the difference between two materials) goes.
The Popular Mechanics article did mention what was mentioned above (many small batteries each taking a part of the total load, with each battery controlled by a microchip) as a way of increasing battery life, and it also mentioned fuel cells as a possiblity.
I think one of the things that has made the whole battery problem more acute is the recent increase number of devices that use a rechargeable but not-replaceable battery. One of the biggest complaints about the iPod is the relatively short battery life. This issue could be nullified by an easily-user-replacable battery: the battery wears out, quickly replace it with a new one, the music continues.
Bananatree3 wrote:
This is why comparing the number of IE users to the number of Firefox users does not provide a valid propularity comparison. Windows users have IE on their system regardless of their wishes.
But individuals who use Firefox have made a conscious effort to use it. I doubt many people have Firefox on their system unless they intend to use it. Also, unlike IE, as far as I know you can safely uninstall Firefox from your system.
I have IE on my system for one main reason: I'm afraid if I delete or remove IE it I will damage or destroy Windows. As far as actually using IE on my system, I almost never use it. In fact, in the past year I cannot remember ever actually using IE. If I'm surfing the web and I encounter a website only allows IE, I simply go elsewhere.
goombah99 wrote:
Not only must you own MS Word, but you must own the same version of MS Word.
Concerning documents differenting between systems, I've experienced the same problem. I've had to deal with Word documents where what we received electronically must look exactly the same as the document the originator had (single difference between the two electronic documents, no matter how small, was not acceptable). Too often, there were differences between the two.
Due to this, we ended up having to have the originator FAX us the document for review and correction. This was the only way we had available to ensure we had was identical to what the originator sent. When the document was reviewed and approved, the originator had to send a hard copy of the document to us for processing since we could not be sure that an electronic version would print correctly.
My understanding of the problem (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that the only way to ensure that a Word document will be identical on two different computer systems is if all of the components are identical, especially the printers. If there is a single difference between the two systems (included different versions of Word), then it could cause a difference in the document.
Some of the problem might stem from the WYSIWIG concept, and trying to get what prints on paper to match precisely what appears on the screen. What might help the problem is if something like TeX is used, where the final printing is separated from the presentation on screen. You place instructions in the document to indicate precisely where the text should appear on paper. This would allow the program to format the text on paper consistently, regardless of the computer system and printer used.
smallfeet wrote and included with a post:
This is one of my strongest reasons for choosing plain text e-mail over HTML e-mail: With plain text, I concentrate on the content of my message, not the way it looks.
When I do send out an HTML e-mail, I tend to keep it simple for this reason. I choose one common font and stay with it for the entire message. Again, it is so that I concentrate on what the message says instead and pay scant attention to its appearance.
Another poster mentioned XML as an option for e-mail. I think this would be a better option for e-mail than using HTML because it could be designed from the beginning to deal with issues of security, file size, and formatting. I don't thing retrofitting HTML for e-mail would meet these requirements as well as a format specifically designed for e-mail.
John Hasler wrote:
I think this is the wisest statement concerning the whole issue. It seems like much of the argument breaks down to using only metric measures or using only U.S. standard measures. This "all or nothing" attitude is what creates much of the resistance to metrification.
I see no reason that both measurement systems cannot continue to be used side by side. The key is that when working on a project or within an industry that everyone agrees to use the same type of measure and ensure that it is communicated clearly. It seems that was the issue with NASA.
As said above, the key is that people agree in advance which system to use. Although converting from one unit to another is easier in the metric system, the advantage of metric breaks down when converting measurements (say inches to centimeters or liters to gallons) between the two systems. This results in equally cumbersome results, especially when precision is an issue.
For myself, I use mostly U.S. standard measures in my day-to-day life because I rarely encounter anything which requires me to use metric. Its not because I can't use metric or have rejected it, I simply haven't come across a need for it. That may be the reason that many people haven't felt the need to actively use metric measures, U.S. standard is familiar and comfortable to use.
There is one more Star Wars "movie" to watch: Episode II.5 - Clone Wars. It is a series that ran on Cartoon Network, and was originally in the form of 5-minute episodes (and was later expanded into longer episodes) and have been collected onto two DVDs.
The series takes place after Episode II and the ending leads directly into Episode III (for example: it explains why General Grevious was coughing in the early part of Episode III).
It was directed by the same individual who did Samarai Jack and I enjoyed it more than Episode II.
larry bagina wrote:
Actually, Howard The Duck wasn't original, but based on a Marvel comic book of the same name. I'm not an expert on the character, but my understanding is that the movie went far afield from the original source.
j-pimp wrote:
This could be a good model for the next movie. Although much older, Bruce Wayne was an important part of Batman Beyond and his reason for giving up the Batman role was logically given. Also, his character and past provided story possibilities (see the episode Meltdown) for the series. Although no longer in the field, his assistance was invaluable to Terry McGuiness (the new Batman), and he is still an interesting character.
mrchaotica wrote and included with a post:
My understanding was that the Mac did a variation of this, counting the number of days from the beginning of a certain year (I think the year was 1950) and that is why a Y2K-type problem wouldn't affect the original Macs until 2048. I wasn't aware other OSes didn't have this problem.
At this point, due to the problem of Y2K there is no reason that any OS should have this problem in the future. Y2K should have been a wakeup call to deal with this problem once and for all. That an issue with dates and time exists at all now is not an encouraging sign.
Atryn wrote and included with a post:
I was trying to avoid the more controversial items on the list. Parents of school-age children do appear on the list, as opponents of Daylight Saving Time (DST). In think the reason that they would oppose it is that DST would cause the sun to rise later in the morning, causing children to have to wait for the bus in the dark in the morning.
Since I'm taking a step into controversy, the list on the back of the book also included the following:
Supporter of DST:
Opponent of DST:
smittydc wrote:
What is mentioned above is what I've been looking for too. Simply put, a cell phone that is simply a cell phone, with one additional feature: putting the mic in a place where I'm not talking into the air.
I have no need for a fancy address book, just a simple way of storing numbers on the phone (ala a memory button and hitting one or two digits). A phone where you open the phone to answer or make a call and close it to hang up.
So many cell phones have so many features that it makes the act of making a phone call far more complicated than it needs to be. Also, things like a fancy color screen cut the battery life, for me a simple one or two line numeric display would be enough.
I would not be surprised if many people are looking for a simpler cell phone.
The problem with not adjusting the clock is that there are forces that are working to move the clock both forward and backward. In the book "Spring Forward - The Annual Madness of Daylight Saving Time" by Michael Downing, he covers the issue. The back cover of the book lists those who support and oppose Daylight Saving Time (DST).
Some of those in support of DST:
Some of those opposed to DST:
Although it is said that setting the clock back (causing the sun to set one hour later by the clock) saves energy, the savings is offset by the fact that more energy is consumed by people having longer to do things that consume energy, such as driving.
As a solution to the problem, another poster suggested setting your computer to ZULU time. Expanding on that, I think the best way to handle the issue is to use ZULU time for the time, and Julian dating (counting the number of days from the beginning of the year) for the date, for the master clock in the computer. That way, instead of having to tinker with the clock and calendar during the year, all you have to do is tell the system how many days are in the year (365 or 366).
This would get rid of both the confusion with the differing number of days in the month and concerning Daylight Saving Time. The local date/time would simply be referenced from the master date/time in cases (such as autodating letters) when you need your local time/date. But all of the computers interal workings are referenced from the real date/time stored in the master clock, which is not adjusted. The local date/time could be easily adjusted via a separate setting (ala "local time/date is ZULU + 10 hours"). That could easily be set and updated as needed.
A problem I see with a fix that is created to this is that it is likely to be a short-term fix for this specific problem. If the law changes and DST is changed once again will we face the same problem? It is much like the problem with Y2K, I wonder if we will have the same problem with Y2.1K?
I think the only way the U.S. will convert to metric successfully is via introduction through new devices. For example, a step in the process could have been to use only metric measures when referring to the new HDTVs (screen size, depth, width, and so on).
Other industries can go with dual measures, meaning both measures are available with U.S. standard measure taking the lead in the beginning (measure is even in U.S. measure and not so even in metric measure). Through phase in as older devices are replaced, the metric begins to take the lead. I think this would offer the most painless way to shift to metric.
One problem facing metric itself is the human body. Most U.S. measures were originated from the human body itself, and what a human is confortable with. Another writer mentioned that another barrier is that U.S. standard measures are what he/she thinks in. That is another barrier to adoption of metric as a standard.
The final place I see metric having trouble with adoption is the field of sports. Changing a field to a size that metrically even (from 100 yars to 100 meters) would basically cause records to have to be started over since new athletes would be competing against a new standard.
For me, there is no reason why both measures cannot be used side by side. Yes, conversion is a pain but with the invention of calculators and computers, the conversions are less of a problem than they have been. The main problem seems to be when you try and use both systems in the same industry/area at the same time.
Lukasz (Qr) wrote:
Actually, the using a base of the numbers 12 and 60 offers one significant advantage over using a base of 10: even division. With 12, you can evenly divide it into 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12. With 60, add 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, and 60 to the previous list. A measure with a base of 10 can only be evenly divided into 2, 5, and 10.
As an example, if the day was divided into 100 hours, an 8-hour workday would suddenly become a 33.3(decimal continues infinitely) hour workday. I think metric would have had a much better chance of success in the U.S. if it had used a base of 12 instead of 10.
I think one thing that could be done to make the U.S. system easier to use is if they dispensed with mixed measures, meaning use only inches or only feet when measuring, not both measures together (example: 71 inches, not 5 feet 11 inches).
Don_dumb wrote as part of a post:
Originally, the Qwerty configuration did make typewriters more efficient. The reason for the arrangement of the keys was to avoid key jams by placing the often-used keys far from each other. For example: There are 10 keys between the "S" and "T" keys. It also had the effect of slowing down the typist.
The need for the Querty arrangement ended when single-element typewriters (like the IBM Selectric) appeared. Their single element made keyjams a thing of the past.
It is likely that inertia is the reason that people have stayed with the Querty keyboard. As with the metric system, it has proven difficult to get people to make the change. For myself, I've tried to use an ergonomic keyboard, but I found it extremely awkward to use and returned to the straight, non-ergonomic keyboard. For me it was easier, and therefore more efficient.
There was a science fiction/comedy book named "Cyberbooks" by Ben Bova (per Amazon.com it was released in 1989). It was set about 20 years in the fuure and it dealt with attempt to introduction of an ebook reader to the public (the device is shown on the cover and it looks a bit like a Palm handheld, the first Palm handheld was released in 1996), and the forces that work against it. I thought it was a good read, and found much humor in the book publishing business.
A place I could see e-books taking over because of the obvious benefit is in the disposable catagory (such as newspapers and magazines). One of the disadvantages of newspapers is that they have to be disposed of after you are finished with them. That is a great deal of paper to get rid of. This is a place where an e-newspaper would be a great benefit. I could read it and then simply delete it when I'm finished, without having to lug a bunch of paper to the recycling bin.
dpbsmith wrote as part of a post:
This is why I wanted to be sure that the device supports formats other than just the Sony e-book format, otherwise I would not have bought it. If my device dies, I will still have access to my own content, other than that I bought from the Sony Connect Store.
The problem of locked content has been a recurring problem with e-books (and is also a problem with compressed digital audio). What is needed is a universal format that can be moved from one device to another in the case the original device dies. One possibility is an encrypted card that can unlock content and be moved from one device to another. The content would be locked to a specific card, not to a specific device.
I've had this experience myself. Years ago I used to use a DOS program called "Quickcheck." It was a checkbook program that was easy to learn and then use. Since then, all of the newer programs seem to be far too overcomplicated to manage a basic checking account. Due to this, I've returned to using a spreadsheet. Its not fancy, but it does the job well.
Due to the complexity of modern word processors, I've retreated to a very basic word processor (one or two steps above Wordpad) that is easy to use and doesn't get in the way of my writing. As mentioned by the previous writer, it allows me to get black ink on paper.
Another writer mentioned the problems with styles. I strongly agree that there are often problem with using styles. Although the idea of styles is a good one, the way they are implemented makes them more work than they are worth most of the time, especially for short documents.
One of the strongest reasons that I went with a very basic word processor is so I don't have to deal with styles. In my experience they have basically been a pain to work with. They only time they might offer an advantage to me is for very long documents that need consistent formatting. If I must have them, then I use something like OpenOffice.org, but it is rare that I need that big of a program.
True. The old monochrome Palm screens were not bad for reading, even with the backlight. Also, without the need for the backlight they had very good battery life.
Unfortunately, the new Palms basically require the backlight to be on to be visible. This is a significant hit on the battery life.
I, too, have one of the new Sony e-book readers (QReader) and I can say the screen is simply outstanding for book reading. The screen is as easy on the eyes as reading on regular paper. It is a vast improvement over the PDAs I've used in the past for e-book reading.
Due to the backlight, I've found that using a PDA for e-book reading becomes hard on the eyes after several minutes, plus the size of the screen is a disadvantage when reading e-books. Besides the screen quality of the QReader, another advantage is that the screen is larger than a standard-paperback-book page, allowing you to put a large amount of text on a single screen.
Although the $350 price tag seems a bit high, it is the same price range as some PDAs, and some Compressed Digital Audio players like the iPod. Two of the less-noticed features of the Sony QReader is that it can also display pictures and play MP3 and AAC files (I think by AAC files it means AAC files without the Apple DRM attached). I think that, like with the iPod, more players will appear and the price will drop in time.
The battery life on the device is terrific. I've been using mine every day for about two months and I've only had to charge it (meaning the battery was near empty) one time. Often, the charge the device receives when connected to the computer gives you a day or two of use. I've found that the battery life is so long that I don't worry about leaving the device on by mistake since it will turn it will automatically turn itself off after an hour.
I agree that the desktop software and the QReader could use improvement (such as the an automatic method of syncing between the computer and the reader, and the ability to use playlists when playing MP3 files) but it is functional and fairly easy to use, it just requires you to manually move the files from the computer to the reader. But this is the first version of both the reader and the software and I'm sure that it will be improved in future versions.
One of the best features of the reader, and the reason that I bought one, is that I can put my own content (such as my address book) on the reader: I'm not limited to what I purchase from the Sony Connect Store. In addition to the Sony e-book format it supports the following formats: PDF, text, and RTF. One of the problems I've had with e-book readers in the past is that the displayed formatting tends to be unpredictable (such as a blank line between the paragraphs in the source document disappearing when displayed on the reader). With the Sony QReader, the standard formatting of my documents (such as bold, underline, line spacing, indents) is predictablity rendered on my reader.
Returning to my original point, I've been very pleased with the QReader. It was good buy for me. Thanks for reading.
Blkdeath wrote as part of a post:
For me, my experience with playing video games on my computer is the reason I've purchased a console for my gaming. Often I've found that my system might meet the requirements to play a game, the experience has been lacking, and must be addressed by upgrading my system.
A console may not be as powerful as a full computer but I can count on any game for that system running well without have having to continually upgrade my system for certain games. A game for a PS2 will run well on all PS2 consoles regardless of when the game was released or when the PS2 console was released.
By RTF I'm referring to the document interchange format created by Microsoft to deal with problems in translating documents from one format to another, This includes taking a document from one version of MS Word to another.
I don't know which version of MS Word the format correspondes to, but it allows for most of the features that I need for my writing and has retained compatibility for basic formatting. Over the years it has become the closest thing to a universal word processing format, although the OpenDocument format has a great deal of potential to take its place.
I've looked at the coding used for RTF and it shares some similarities with HTML but it is more appropriate for word processing since it doesn't have the formatting limitations of HTML (which have been addressed by the introduction of Cascading Style Sheets). As I said previously, I can take an RTF document and open it in a text editor to see exactly what is in the document. This can avoid unpleasant surprises.
As far as what RTF adds as far as advantages, I can mention a few (although some may be obvious):
As a sidebar, the above relates to MP3 for digital music. There may be better compressed formats for audio music, but only MP3 can be used on all compressed audio players.
Sorry to go on a bit, thanks for reading.
I agree that document formats need to be open. One of the best reasons is so that you can actually see what is in the file. The problem I have with closed formats is that I can't be sure exactly what is in the file.
It will also allow you to have a choice about which program you want to use. One of the reasons that MS Word has been able to dominate the word processing market is that you are able to save documents in MS Word format without having to actually use MS Word itself (many programs tout their ability to read and write MS Word files). How dominant would the MS Word format have become if the only way to read and write the files is with MS Word itself?
I use RTF for my word processing. Due to this, I have a choice of over 10 word processors (many free) to do my word processing. I don't have to be locked into a single program, and I can decide on how powerful a program I will use. Sometimes I just want a small, fast, and easy to use program.