There is more to this than it seems. When I first used WordStar I thought its commands would be difficult to learn, but after a short while I got so used to them that I rarely had to think about them (in many ways they made more sense than MS Word's command keys). It was the same with WordPerfect, and then MS Word (I often used the command codes instead the mouse for frequent actions because they were faster, easier, and more reliable).
Given time, any command system becomes familiar to the person using it. It becomes intuitive to that user because that is what he/she is used to.
For years any time I had a bill, statement, tax form or other document I thought "You know... there is a remote possibility I might just want that in a year or 9"... I'd do a quick Print to PDF and bang... I've got my own copy without any need to wonder 'how long should they keep it for me'.
Sure... the hard drive it's own could die, but because in this horrible thing called self reliance... I take steps to make sure that I will still have access to copies just in case without having to ask such questions or worry about hard drive death or house fires.
Personal responsibility... try it!
Although I expect immediate access to my on-line records for a period of time, I don't think its reasonable to expect immediate access indefinitely. I think the following should be a reasonable guide for on-line records (using current year as a basis):
2009: Immediate on-line access to all records.
All of 2008: Immediate on-line access to all records
2007: Electronic access to all records via an e-mail request.
2006 - 2002: Records readily available via hard copy. Requested by letter.
2001 and Before: Records not required to be available.
Well, line 10 is wrong. Day 366 should not change the year for leap years. Also, days is the number of days since 1980, and you're not dealing with that. What you have to do is walk forward through the years so that you land on the proper year and day.
Sorry for being unclear. I was using "days" as a variable to mean basically the julian date (resetting it to "0" on the first day of each year), not the total number of days since a specific year. In the same way, I was thinking of "years" as a separate variable indicating the current year.
To clarify, essentially leap years would start on day 0, non-leap years would start on day 1, each year would end on day 365, and on 1 Jan the calendar would show day 366 which would then prompt the system to change the year and then set the day to 1 or 0 (depending on whether the new year is a leap year or not).
The Zune was in effect sold with a predictable and correctable flaw
And if you look at the bug in the code (line 259) it's atrocious. Something a junior programmer would be embarrassed about.
When days is 366 it causes an infinite loop. And also note that simply changing line 263 to use 365 causes a different bug. So the whole approach is wrong. It ought to simply be
while (days > daysInYear(year))
{
days -= daysInYear(year);
year += 1;
}
I'm not a C programmer, but why not do the following (in basic, I'm sure it could be easily translated into C):
10 if days = 366 then years = years + 1
20 if years = 2100 then goto 70
30 if years = 2200 then goto 70
40 if years = 2300 then goto 70
50 if (years/4)*4 = int(years) then days = 0
60 goto 80
70 days = 1
80 end
I'm sure lines 20 through 40 could be compressed into a single line to accomodate the century years.
For me, Colin Baker was the best Doctor. His quirkiness and harsh attitude was a refreshing change from Davison's Doctor, and he brought forth the entertaining aspects of his previous personas. Sadly, his Doctor wasn't given adequate time to develop.
If I remember that question was asked a long time ago. If I remember correctly the producers answered by reminding people about the "Keepers of Traken" story. It was with the introduction of Nysaa's character. I think it was episode 18. The story had the "Master" returning and he had used up all of his 12 regeneration but found a way to extend his regenerations. So I think the good Dr. has a way.
The way the Master extended his life (his decayed appearance in the first series before his apparent regeneration was because [1] he was at the end of his last life or [2] a half-failed attempt at a 13th regeneration) was due to him taking over the body of another (much like he did in the Fox Dr. Who movie), so it wasn't a true regeneration although it does give him a way to extend his life indefinitely.
One thing that has cut the Doctor's life short is that he has been using up his regenerations much more rapidly than a typical timelord (since the First Doctor was 650 years old when he first appeared, he could have lived least 8,450 years). The story "Silver Nemesis" (the 25th anniversary story) indicated that there is far more to The Doctor than we know, so it is likely that this will give the writers a way to give him a new set of regenerations.
One thing I'm looking forward to is the future appearance of The Valyard.
Thinking about it, this does have some superficial similarities to the episode "Android and I," where a number of androids of a specific model commit suicide. I wonder if Section 9 will look into the issue with the Zune's too?
I agree with you there, that's the main reason I'm a Batman fan. I don't mind spiderman, but I just can't stand to watch superman- since there are many circumstances where they have to find ways to make him not super to make a story. It's always pointless.
When they rebooted Superman in 1986, one of the best things they did was to reduce his power level by a significant degree. He went from being powerful enough to move the Earth with hardly anyone who is a significant threat to him, to being one of the toughest heroes around but with many who could give him a good fight and even defeat him).
Perhaps if they removed the.org from the end of the product name, I (and I think many newcomers) might take it more seriously. That part belongs in a domain name, not in a product name. Actually, the name of the.NET framework bugs me too.
According to the OpenOffice.org page on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org/), the name "OpenOffice" was trademarked by another company. This prevented the makers of "OpenOffice.org" from using the name.
This brings to mind another series Video Girl Ai. Both the manga and the anime tell the same story to a specific point. Then at that point the stories go in two different directions, with the anime going to a quick conclusion, and the manga going on for several more volumes, including a sequel series.
When it comes to translating the manga or comic to the screen, I don't expect a clone of the original work, but something that remains true to the original work. This is one of the strengths of the recent Batman movies.
Right. And some harsh realities have to be realized by the AF or any DOD department.
1) The Internet does not belong to America. Period. It is a global network of good guys and bad guys, and the rest of the world won't, nor should they abide by our rules.
2) The Internet does not belong to the military. It has far more to do with domestic and international trade and information than it does to various arms of the DOD.
If the USAF wants a secure network, then they should create their own isolated network completely divorced from the civilian Internet. I'm sorry if that means generals can't look at porn sites from their office, but that's the way things go.
I agree, and to piggyback on this I think that the Air Force needs to go to non-commercial software (including an OS) of its own creation (that way they own and control it), rather than using the same software used in the civilian world. In the short run it might be more expensive to do this, but it is likely to be much more secure than using the same software that anyone can buy off the shelf, and security can be built into the software at its creation (and as a prime consideration in its design) rather than having to be added to software that was not designed for security from its outset.
This would also save money in the long run since:
It can be issued to users as needed without having to pay recurring licensing fees.
Software could be upgraded based on the needs of the Air Force and its users, rather than requirements forced on them by non-Air Force agencies.
Software could be designed so that it doesn't render obsolete many already-in-use-and-perfectly usable computer systems.
There is no need for a leap year (or a leap anything...)
The purpose of leap years has nothing to do with timezones; it's to synchronize the calendar. Our year is 365 and 1/4 days long. Without leap years the days of the year would drift in relation to annual events like the solstices and equinoxes, and the seasons. Over a long enough period, winter would fall in July and summer in February. Adding a day every four years resets the calendar.
[extended rules for leap years, like skipping leap years every century, except every four centuries, unless it's a millenium... correct for the fact that it isn't exactly 1/4 day extra].
I agree about the need for a leap year for the above reason. The current system ensures that the calendar will remain in sync with the solar year for centuries.
In a related topic to the above, I think what is needed is an adjustment to the calendar to simplify the number of days in each month. One simpler scheme:
Twelve months of 28 days and then
One month of 29 days (or 30 days during a leap year)
The above schemes would greatly simplify the calendar over our current scheme of: 31, 28/29, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31). It would also ensure that every month (except for the last one) has four of each day (Mondays, Tuesdays, and so on).
As far as the Daylight Saving Time (DST), I agree that it needs to be eliminated due to the confusion it creates and the difficulty it creates in adjusting many people's internal clocks. My own experience has been that while it is fairly easy for my internal clock to return to standard time, it takes me several weeks for my internal clock to fully adjust backward to DST.
As far as replacing local time with Universal Time, I think there would be a great deal of resistance to it, and I don't think that it's needed locally. Rather, I think it would be more workable to use both, local time that is based on the sun for local transactions, and Universal time for non-local communication and transactions. Using Universal Time when needed would eliminate much of the confusion across long distances.
Old versions will cease to be supported, and wont run on newer iterations of windows... Those stuck on IE6/7 are a captive market, there is nowhere else for them to go so microsoft can treat them however they please. If the only upgrade path is punishingly expensive then they simply have to pay those costs.
Running an old IE will become even more of a liability than it is now, no patches, and once people stop kludging sites to work with it then it will fail to render sites properly.
Although Internet Explorer (IE) is still the dominant browser, it's not the only one. Rather than staying with an old version of IE (or the current version), users do have the option of switching to the current version of Firefox. I doubt it would very expensive for users to switch over.
To me, a solution is to use a flexible format that can be easily reformatted to fit the display device or paper. This way, the same source document could be used generate a text that someone would find easily readable on a computer screen, PDA, ebook reader, or when printed on paper. One format that could meet the above requirement is HTML.
Right, you want the work to be reflow-able (HTML + CSS) or recompile-able (LaTeX) to work with different screens sizes and printing. If you are dealing with sufficiently complex material, you may have to use LaTeX, especially until we get to the point where you can get the same sort of printer control from HTML+CSS+SVG as you can from LaTeX generated ps/pdf.
So yeah, using "Open Source" to talk about a book, where all the components are visible, might be a little silly, but, if we're doing any transformations or format shifts to that output, we might still need sources.
True. An easily-reformatable source document would be needed to allow users themselves to create a version that is suited to their needs. This would avoid the situation of the users having to find a specific already-existing version that will work for them.
That's why I mentioned HTML as a source format: it can be easily and accurately converted to other formats, is openly documented, and the tools to edit it are commonly available to all users. By converting the source document into a word processing format (such as OpenDocument, MS Word, and RTF), the user, through the word processor, could do the work of page formatting and taking care of printer/display control.
I've heard quite a bit about LaTeX, and know that it is used in the academic world. I'm not sure how available or usable it is for the average user (if I'm wrong please correct me).
I think they are talking about textbooks that is not locked down by copyright and can be freely distributed. One of the concerns that has appeared through the posts is a concern about who will write the book, and the quality of the writing.
Some have said that a disadvantage of textbooks on line is the need to print them. To me, a solution is to use a flexible format that can be easily reformatted to fit the display device or paper. This way, the same source document could be used generate a text that someone would find easily readable on a computer screen, PDA, ebook reader, or when printed on paper. One format that could meet the above requirement is HTML.
Who is going to write these open source textbooks?
Only one person has to take the initiative. After that, the community will make any corrections or updates necessary. That's the beauty of open source.
Another additional possiblity: one of the assignments given to the students is to research and verify the information (with sources) in the open source text book, resulting in an improved text book.
From what I've understood, in "Star Trek - The Original Series" red shirts indicated people in ship's security, the ones most likely to place themselves in immediate danger as part of their normal job. Due to this, they are the ones most likely to be killed.
Although they didn't wear red shirts, in "Star Trek - The Next Generation" (ST-TNG) both Tasha Yar and Worf were in ship's security and the most likely to place themselves in immediate danger for the same reason (ship's security was one of the fields that wore yellow shirts in ST-TNG).
Unfortunately, it appears that you're not only right [B&R link], but really distressingly right [BR link]. Although (based on my rough interpretation on the rather odd box office numbers for BR and [falsely] assuming that the re-releases were free to the studio), it appears that Blade Runner was eventually profitable while Batman and Robin cost the studio almost $20M.
I think that this is an indication of how good a movie actually is (whether the movie is great, or falls into the catagory of "so bad it's good"):
How long is it still remembered and enjoyed?
With the advent of video, how many people are still interested in buying the movie.
Blade Runner has been out for more than 20 years, and it was only a modest success when it was released. To me, the true proof of its quality is shown by: (1) how much interest there still is in this movie, (2) how many people are willing to buy it now, and (3) how much influence the movie still has to this day.
Many people remember the great movies of the past, and I think this is a factor that can be used as proof that they are great is that they are still remembered and enjoyed now. Although people remember Citizen Kane, how many movies released in the same year are also remembered?
This is from memory way back in the eighties, but I seem to remember that Moore originally wanted to do this as a "parallel world" using the DC characters, but the company said no.
A good thing I think, considering DC (like Marvel) apparently spent the past decade making parallel world comic after parallel world comic, and Watchmen may have just gotten lost in the horde.
From the 60s to the mid-80s DC introduced a large number of multiple earths (at least four were in regular use). With the series "Crisis On Infinite Earths" in 1985 the number of earths was reduced to one.
In 2006 the multiverse returned at the end of "Infinite Crisis" with the introduction of 52 universes, including a number that resembled those that existed before "Crisis On Infinite Earth" (although this was not revealed until the last issue of "52" in 2007).
Returning to this thread's topic, one of the worlds is Earth-4, which contains the Charlton characters (Captain Atom, Blue Beetle, the Question, and so on) who were the basis of the Watchman characters. Due to the nature of the Multiverse it is possible that one of the Earths could be where the story of Watchman took place.
once Windows is no longer the defacto preloaded OS it's all over.
It's NOT! Why do people keep saying that?! It's only preloaded if you buy a Windows PC. If you buy a Mac, then Mac OS is preloaded. If people actually didn't WANT Windows, then everyone would be buying Apple Macs, but they're not. Deal with it.
I think the reason that people say that Windows is the defacto preloaded OS is that it has been made extremely difficult to purchase a PC (as in what started out as a IBM-type PC) without also having Windows preloaded. Based on what I've seen, it is extremely difficult to purchase a computer without any OS installed. The only readily available option I know of is to have a custom-built PC.
Sidenote: I'm not too familiar with the Apple Mac, but is it possible to buy one without the MacOs preinstalled?
I think that one of the main reasons that the current versions of Windows has become so dominant is that when you purchase a computer off the shelf, you automatically get Windows whether you want it or not. You can install another OS on it, but you've still purchased Windows.
This could change if it becomes the standard that the user first buys a computer and then buys the OS to run on it as a separate purchase. With that freedom some users might choose a non-MS OS, or even an earlier version of Windows.
Night Owl was actually based on the Blue Beetle, having been denied the actual rights to the character by DC. Note the goggles in both character's costumes and the similarity to their vehicles. However I can certainly see why you'd mistake him for Batman, there are a lot of similarities.
All of the main Watchman characters are based on the characters that DC got from Charlton Comics (for example, Dr. Manhattan was based on Captain Atom, and Silk Spectre was based on Nightshade) Originally, the creative team was going to use the Charlton characters for the story, but when DC saw the story, new characters based on the originals were created for the story.
Related to the post: I've not written a doctoral thesis, but I was wondering what makes MS Office better suited than OpenOffice.org/StarOffice for writing this type of document?
Templates. Microsoft Word has a wealth of excellent templates for writing a Thesis, OpenOffice has some, but they weren't as good when I tried them. Also, and this is entirely subjective, the formatting in OpenOffice leaves a lot to be desired in some areas (bullet lists for instance).
This may have changed in the last year, but once you starting writing a major document it's not easy to change, and I saw no reason to try.
For reference, I used the University of Waterloo (Canada) Thesis template.
I started off trying to use Tex, but that's a lot of work, and a thesis is so hard as it stands that you want the editing environment to be as easy as possible. Trust me on this.
Thanks for the clarification. Most of my documents are short one-offs with simple formatting. Due to this I've not had a great need to use document templates. For the same reason I've rarely had a use for styles either, and I've often found them more work than they are worth.
I see absolutely no reason to update from office 2003.
If Microsoft start down the 'future versions won't open your files' crap then I'll jump ship to OpenOffice. For now though I see no compelling reason to switch. I would imagine this is aimed firmly at corporate customers.
Yeah, I know, its not fashionable to actually like office 2003, but its a good product, I've always liked it. Besides, ever tried writing a doctoral thesis in OpenOffice? I have, it's not easy.
I agree with the above that attempting to force upgrades will cause this move to fail. Another factor that I think works against the subscription model for MS Office is that for many people (like in the above) their current version of an office suite (such MS Office, OpenOffice.org, StarOffice) are good enough. I'm a StarOffice 8 user at home and I have no compelling reason to move to another office suite, and when I do see a need to upgrade I will mostly likely move to OpenOffice.org.
Another factor that works against the subscription model for MS Office is another MS product: MS Works (the full cost of which is near the price of a 1-year subscription to MS Office).
Related to the post: I've not written a doctoral thesis, but I was wondering what makes MS Office better suited than OpenOffice.org/StarOffice for writing this type of document?
Two issues I've had with MS Word (my experience is with MS Word 2003) that immediately come to mind are the size of the saved file, and the mandated use of styles (whether you want to use them or not):
Once I saved an MS Word file that contained exactly one letter. The size of the saved file was 19kb.
One of the problems I've had with styles in MS Word is that altering a style in one document (such as changes to the "Normal" style) can cause unintended changes in the formatting of other unrelated documents.
Palm OS was brilliant at running PDA-style apps. However, that's not the direction portable computing was going, and Palm never did much to address the future. When every other platform was moving into media, Palm was proud of its third-party support calendars with more buttons.
And don't get me started about the Graffiti 2 debacle ("Easy to learn, even if you'll never get faster!"). Instead of working out a deal to keep using Jot and its trickier-but-faster strokes, they switched to that two-stroke abomination that instantly cut power users' data entry speed in half. Way to save a penny, Palm!
I strongly agree that Graffiti 2 (G2) was not an improvement over Graffiti 1 (G1). G2 was one of the biggest disappointments with my Palm T/X, so much so that I purchased TealScript specifically so I could program my T/X to use the G1 pen strokes (including the easier alternate ones). Regardless of the advantages in changing the input system, changing it is like changing the arrangement of the keys on a keyboard.
Slashdot Mirror
techprophet wrote:
There is more to this than it seems. When I first used WordStar I thought its commands would be difficult to learn, but after a short while I got so used to them that I rarely had to think about them (in many ways they made more sense than MS Word's command keys). It was the same with WordPerfect, and then MS Word (I often used the command codes instead the mouse for frequent actions because they were faster, easier, and more reliable).
Given time, any command system becomes familiar to the person using it. It becomes intuitive to that user because that is what he/she is used to.
DaHat wrote:
Although I expect immediate access to my on-line records for a period of time, I don't think its reasonable to expect immediate access indefinitely. I think the following should be a reasonable guide for on-line records (using current year as a basis):
Paradise Pete wrote:
Sorry for being unclear. I was using "days" as a variable to mean basically the julian date (resetting it to "0" on the first day of each year), not the total number of days since a specific year. In the same way, I was thinking of "years" as a separate variable indicating the current year.
To clarify, essentially leap years would start on day 0, non-leap years would start on day 1, each year would end on day 365, and on 1 Jan the calendar would show day 366 which would then prompt the system to change the year and then set the day to 1 or 0 (depending on whether the new year is a leap year or not).
Paradise Pete wrote:
I'm not a C programmer, but why not do the following (in basic, I'm sure it could be easily translated into C):
I'm sure lines 20 through 40 could be compressed into a single line to accomodate the century years.
For me, Colin Baker was the best Doctor. His quirkiness and harsh attitude was a refreshing change from Davison's Doctor, and he brought forth the entertaining aspects of his previous personas. Sadly, his Doctor wasn't given adequate time to develop.
larryau wrote:
The way the Master extended his life (his decayed appearance in the first series before his apparent regeneration was because [1] he was at the end of his last life or [2] a half-failed attempt at a 13th regeneration) was due to him taking over the body of another (much like he did in the Fox Dr. Who movie), so it wasn't a true regeneration although it does give him a way to extend his life indefinitely.
One thing that has cut the Doctor's life short is that he has been using up his regenerations much more rapidly than a typical timelord (since the First Doctor was 650 years old when he first appeared, he could have lived least 8,450 years). The story "Silver Nemesis" (the 25th anniversary story) indicated that there is far more to The Doctor than we know, so it is likely that this will give the writers a way to give him a new set of regenerations.
One thing I'm looking forward to is the future appearance of The Valyard.
Thinking about it, this does have some superficial similarities to the episode "Android and I," where a number of androids of a specific model commit suicide. I wonder if Section 9 will look into the issue with the Zune's too?
FredFredrickson wrote:
When they rebooted Superman in 1986, one of the best things they did was to reduce his power level by a significant degree. He went from being powerful enough to move the Earth with hardly anyone who is a significant threat to him, to being one of the toughest heroes around but with many who could give him a good fight and even defeat him).
Samah wrote:
According to the OpenOffice.org page on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org/), the name "OpenOffice" was trademarked by another company. This prevented the makers of "OpenOffice.org" from using the name.
When it comes to translating the manga or comic to the screen, I don't expect a clone of the original work, but something that remains true to the original work. This is one of the strengths of the recent Batman movies.
interstellar_donkey wrote:
I agree, and to piggyback on this I think that the Air Force needs to go to non-commercial software (including an OS) of its own creation (that way they own and control it), rather than using the same software used in the civilian world. In the short run it might be more expensive to do this, but it is likely to be much more secure than using the same software that anyone can buy off the shelf, and security can be built into the software at its creation (and as a prime consideration in its design) rather than having to be added to software that was not designed for security from its outset.
This would also save money in the long run since:
jjohnson wrote and included with a post:
I agree about the need for a leap year for the above reason. The current system ensures that the calendar will remain in sync with the solar year for centuries.
In a related topic to the above, I think what is needed is an adjustment to the calendar to simplify the number of days in each month. One simpler scheme:
The above schemes would greatly simplify the calendar over our current scheme of: 31, 28/29, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31, 31, 30, 31, 30, 31). It would also ensure that every month (except for the last one) has four of each day (Mondays, Tuesdays, and so on).
As far as the Daylight Saving Time (DST), I agree that it needs to be eliminated due to the confusion it creates and the difficulty it creates in adjusting many people's internal clocks. My own experience has been that while it is fairly easy for my internal clock to return to standard time, it takes me several weeks for my internal clock to fully adjust backward to DST.
As far as replacing local time with Universal Time, I think there would be a great deal of resistance to it, and I don't think that it's needed locally. Rather, I think it would be more workable to use both, local time that is based on the sun for local transactions, and Universal time for non-local communication and transactions. Using Universal Time when needed would eliminate much of the confusion across long distances.
Bert64 wrote:
Although Internet Explorer (IE) is still the dominant browser, it's not the only one. Rather than staying with an old version of IE (or the current version), users do have the option of switching to the current version of Firefox. I doubt it would very expensive for users to switch over.
foregather wrote and included in a post:
True. An easily-reformatable source document would be needed to allow users themselves to create a version that is suited to their needs. This would avoid the situation of the users having to find a specific already-existing version that will work for them.
That's why I mentioned HTML as a source format: it can be easily and accurately converted to other formats, is openly documented, and the tools to edit it are commonly available to all users. By converting the source document into a word processing format (such as OpenDocument, MS Word, and RTF), the user, through the word processor, could do the work of page formatting and taking care of printer/display control.
I've heard quite a bit about LaTeX, and know that it is used in the academic world. I'm not sure how available or usable it is for the average user (if I'm wrong please correct me).
Zordak wrote:
I think they are talking about textbooks that is not locked down by copyright and can be freely distributed. One of the concerns that has appeared through the posts is a concern about who will write the book, and the quality of the writing.
Some have said that a disadvantage of textbooks on line is the need to print them. To me, a solution is to use a flexible format that can be easily reformatted to fit the display device or paper. This way, the same source document could be used generate a text that someone would find easily readable on a computer screen, PDA, ebook reader, or when printed on paper. One format that could meet the above requirement is HTML.
Thelasko wrote and included with a post:
Another additional possiblity: one of the assignments given to the students is to research and verify the information (with sources) in the open source text book, resulting in an improved text book.
From what I've understood, in "Star Trek - The Original Series" red shirts indicated people in ship's security, the ones most likely to place themselves in immediate danger as part of their normal job. Due to this, they are the ones most likely to be killed.
Although they didn't wear red shirts, in "Star Trek - The Next Generation" (ST-TNG) both Tasha Yar and Worf were in ship's security and the most likely to place themselves in immediate danger for the same reason (ship's security was one of the fields that wore yellow shirts in ST-TNG).
gnick wrote:
I think that this is an indication of how good a movie actually is (whether the movie is great, or falls into the catagory of "so bad it's good"):
Blade Runner has been out for more than 20 years, and it was only a modest success when it was released. To me, the true proof of its quality is shown by: (1) how much interest there still is in this movie, (2) how many people are willing to buy it now, and (3) how much influence the movie still has to this day.
Many people remember the great movies of the past, and I think this is a factor that can be used as proof that they are great is that they are still remembered and enjoyed now. Although people remember Citizen Kane, how many movies released in the same year are also remembered?
nomadic wrote and included with a post:
From the 60s to the mid-80s DC introduced a large number of multiple earths (at least four were in regular use). With the series "Crisis On Infinite Earths" in 1985 the number of earths was reduced to one.
In 2006 the multiverse returned at the end of "Infinite Crisis" with the introduction of 52 universes, including a number that resembled those that existed before "Crisis On Infinite Earth" (although this was not revealed until the last issue of "52" in 2007).
Returning to this thread's topic, one of the worlds is Earth-4, which contains the Charlton characters (Captain Atom, Blue Beetle, the Question, and so on) who were the basis of the Watchman characters. Due to the nature of the Multiverse it is possible that one of the Earths could be where the story of Watchman took place.
nmg196 wrote and included with a post:
I think the reason that people say that Windows is the defacto preloaded OS is that it has been made extremely difficult to purchase a PC (as in what started out as a IBM-type PC) without also having Windows preloaded. Based on what I've seen, it is extremely difficult to purchase a computer without any OS installed. The only readily available option I know of is to have a custom-built PC.
Sidenote: I'm not too familiar with the Apple Mac, but is it possible to buy one without the MacOs preinstalled?
I think that one of the main reasons that the current versions of Windows has become so dominant is that when you purchase a computer off the shelf, you automatically get Windows whether you want it or not. You can install another OS on it, but you've still purchased Windows.
This could change if it becomes the standard that the user first buys a computer and then buys the OS to run on it as a separate purchase. With that freedom some users might choose a non-MS OS, or even an earlier version of Windows.
Tragedy4u wrote:
All of the main Watchman characters are based on the characters that DC got from Charlton Comics (for example, Dr. Manhattan was based on Captain Atom, and Silk Spectre was based on Nightshade) Originally, the creative team was going to use the Charlton characters for the story, but when DC saw the story, new characters based on the originals were created for the story.
thermian wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. Most of my documents are short one-offs with simple formatting. Due to this I've not had a great need to use document templates. For the same reason I've rarely had a use for styles either, and I've often found them more work than they are worth.
thermian wrote:
I agree with the above that attempting to force upgrades will cause this move to fail. Another factor that I think works against the subscription model for MS Office is that for many people (like in the above) their current version of an office suite (such MS Office, OpenOffice.org, StarOffice) are good enough. I'm a StarOffice 8 user at home and I have no compelling reason to move to another office suite, and when I do see a need to upgrade I will mostly likely move to OpenOffice.org.
Another factor that works against the subscription model for MS Office is another MS product: MS Works (the full cost of which is near the price of a 1-year subscription to MS Office).
Related to the post: I've not written a doctoral thesis, but I was wondering what makes MS Office better suited than OpenOffice.org/StarOffice for writing this type of document?
Two issues I've had with MS Word (my experience is with MS Word 2003) that immediately come to mind are the size of the saved file, and the mandated use of styles (whether you want to use them or not):
Just Some Guy wrote:
I strongly agree that Graffiti 2 (G2) was not an improvement over Graffiti 1 (G1). G2 was one of the biggest disappointments with my Palm T/X, so much so that I purchased TealScript specifically so I could program my T/X to use the G1 pen strokes (including the easier alternate ones). Regardless of the advantages in changing the input system, changing it is like changing the arrangement of the keys on a keyboard.