MacBook back-up necessity
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Woody on 30 Jun 2010 16:27 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > > > I've never met a way of displaying the content of a book that's as > > > > > > > convenient to use as ink on paper. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I take it you find no such trouble? > > > > > > > > > > > > Not only no such trouble, apart from certain minor cases such as > > > > > > an appendix in a technical book of a couple of pages as a quick > > > > > > lookup I find them mostly preferable. > > > > > > > > > > !!!!! > > > > > > > > > > Well, my reading speed drops massively when faced with electronic > > > > > reading. I'm hugely faster on paper - not that I `have trouble' with > > > > > e-reading, it's just that paper's oh so much better and faster. > > > > > > > > Obviously the speed of reading either is dependant on how both are laid > > > > out. assuming they are the same there is probably not much in it. > > > > > > There's more to it than that. > > > > > > Particular drawbacks of e-reading (dedicated reader or PC screen or > > > whatever) compared to ink-and-paper: > > > > > > The screens always reflect light from the front surface, partially > > > obscuring the image below to a greater or lesser extent, depending on > > > screen tech, angle to the light, angle to the eye, and so on. > > > > Almost always, yes. In the dark they don't > > If it's dark, there is no light. if there is light, it's reflecting off > the screen. Have you never been troubled by the reflection of your own > face from a backlit screen in the dark? I have. Oh no, but then I am beautiful! Anyway, I don't get that on an ebook as it is not at the same angle as a screen. > >but otherwise agreed. > > > > > Proper printing is higher resolution. > > > > On the devices I have, true, however probably not for ever. > > I don't see why not. > > > > Proper ink on paper printing is higher contrast. > > > > Thats not true. > > <puzzled> But poor constrast is one of the big unsolved problems of > electronic displays. I clearly have a much better contrast from one of my screens upstairs than any book I have. Some books more than others. so I guess it isn't unsolved. Ok, the sony reader is definately low contrast but it doesn't cause any problems. > > > Proper ink on paper printing can be read at a wider range of angles - > > > and if you've seen me with a book, you'll understand why that's > > > important to me.[1] > > > > I have two screens where the screen can be read at close to 180 degrees. > > Possibly a higher angle than a piece of paper that isn't straight. > > The reflection problem and other issues means that /in practice/, > paper's better for angled readings. > > One example: > > Glancing angles of reflection tend to result in total internal > reflections from ambient light sources bouncing off the screen, and > *that* totally wipes out any view of the words behind. > > > > I don't see any way that you could lay out an electronic document the > > > same way as a book in the case of most e-book readers in particular > > > (display on computer screen is a different matter) except in the case of > > > some of them, because the screens are just too small. > > > > I don't get what you mean, if you mean that a bigger book has more scope > > for being laid out well than a smaller ebook, then yes, but then the > > converse is also true, so I can't really see a point there. > > The layout on a book is meant to be seen one page at a time. > Electronically supplied documents are, mostly, only practical to read in > scrolling down the page mode. > > Get my point? I get your point, but this depends on the book. On books (as in fiction style), they are displayed in one page at a time mode. > > > Not many of them can display a full page - in fact, it's only been > > > recently that my desktop Macs have been able to display a full A4 page > > > at decent resolution and size. I saw A4 Mac displays back in the 1990s, > > > but never had one myself - and they weren't high resolution, not by > > > modern standards. > > > > Agreed. When it comes to A4 books, ebooks are definately a second class > > thing, which is why my sony ebook was not as good as the iPad for a4 > > stuff (although I didn't have the iPad until very recently) > > When it comes to normal paperbacks too, if you ask me. Big books are > totally not possible to replace by electronic versions. For me very much so. > > > Proper ink on paper printing is easier for flipping back and forth by > > > one or two orders of magnitude - the difference in *that* respect is > > > staggeringly huge and is the main reason e-books are a total no-no for > > > me. > > > > I don't have a problem with it. > > Obviously not - which is good for you, because it means you can use this > very convenient method of carting words around and then using them. It is very convenient. It means I can access the information I want a lot easier than I could before. > > > > If the > > > > electronic book has a sensible indexing system rather than slavishly > > > > copying the book, I will find it faster. > > > > > > Hmm - what's a sensible indexing system for your needs, then? I seek > > > information. > > > > Well, instant search (not like PDF), > > Do tell. Indexed search. PDF does a linear non stemmed search and it is fairly useless, getting more useless the bigger the document. > > proper index (ie, not having to go > > to the back of the book), > > Eh? But the back of the book is where the index is if it's a proper > index. What do you mean? The index should be where you want it. In an electronic book, why would you have to go to the back of the book to find an index? The fact you have to go to the back of a book for it is a limitation of a paper publication, it shouldnt' be copied across to an electronic document > > proper TOC (ie, not having to go to the front > > of a book). > > Eh? Ditto - so what do you mean? Ditto above > [snip] > > > > When it comes to looking up information, I've often given up on the > > > electronic version in disgust and gone and grabbed the paper version. > > > Yeah, often. > > > > I am the opposite with that, which is where I really go for electronic. > > Recently when I was doing an OU course, I had the A4 docs and the PDFs. > > For looking up info, I would use the PDF, and bearing in mind how poor > > PDFs are for that sort of thing, > > PDFs are best for that sort of thing in my experience - when they are > created properly with internal structure. If it's just a paper document > slapped into a PDF without adaptation, of course it'll be rubbish. That is the problem with PDFs, they don't have an internal structure, they have a physical layout (PDFs take quite a lot of my day job some days). A PDF is stuck in the layout that it is made, regardless of the form that you are looking it in. Basically PDF is the most like a book, it has the disadvantages of a fixed layout, with the disadvantages of not being paper. > [snip] > > > > Well crafted pdfs generated by pdfTeX with help from hypertex (TeX code > > > to add internal and external hyperlinks to a TeX doc), indexing > > > machine-generated too - ah now, they are often a great pleasaure to work > > > with, because it's so easy to find the bit of the document you're after. > > > > Well, I have a lot of PDFs made with XSLT, which can be ok, although it > > has flaws. > > Surely XSLT is just a method of converting between XML variants? It is a way of converting XML to something else, it doesn't have to be XML. > - so > you'd do the conversion to pdf with something else - something meant to > convert XML to PDF. yes, XSL-FO (or a FOP). which is what i meant (XSL being the major part of my day job) > If you specify the document with sufficient subtlety and then use decent > software to turn it into a pdf, you should get results as good as anyone > could manage with anything. As good a result as anything, except it is still a pdf. > TeX's a good tool for that job. > > Or have I misunderstood XSLT? not majorly > [snip] > > > > > > Now that's weird... > > > > > > > > What is? That I don't have the time to clear the books up or that I buy > > > > more? > > > > > > 1) That you're so uninterested in the books that you'd not care if they > > > vanished. > > > > well, that is a separate point already covered. is there nothing you > > have that you feel the same way about? > > I don't know what you mean - feel like what about what? <shrug> Is there nothing you have that you wouldn't care if it dissapeared > > > > 2) That you keep them in your house. > > > > Its the only place I have to keep them > > But why not throw them away? That would require some time that I haven't got to give them. > > > > 3) That you keep adding to the heap. > > > > Well, most of the books I buy now are technical books for subjects I am > > interested on. I haven't bought any other sort of books for a while > > (although I have got some on eBook from essex library and various places > > on the net). > > Righto. > > > The technical books contain information on subjects that I am either > > interested in, or am going to need to be interested in soon, but I have > > so much to do that sometimes it just doesn't get round to it. > > Okay - so keeping them makes some sense. It makes sense to me, but it doesn't mean that they are particularly of interest to me, until I need that info. But I don't always, as I never get a chance to do all the things I would like to do. > > > Why not just chuck 'em in your recycling bin? I hate to see books > > > destroyed, I really do - but in your position? > > > > Our council doesn't pick up books. > > Huh? You mean they don't recycle *paper*? What???? We do, and lots of card. > > > ... or advertise 'em on freecycle. > > > > That would be a better option probably, but it is a long way down the > > list of things I need to do. I have a load of stuff to eBay which I > > haven't done yet, computers back to the Powerbook 160 (I threw a load of > > others - lc475 / sun sparc / pcs), cameras etc. > > ARGH!!!!! Shoulda let me at that 475 - I need a floppy drive ejector... You had dissapeared at the time. > > > Hint: about twice as many of the one than the other, but > > > huge huge huge huge heaps, so much so that I'm glad they're out of the > > > loft so as to reduce the risk of a ceiling collapse. Yeah, it was that > > > bad. (probably not too bad - I tend to be paranoid about that kind of > > > thing. Comes of having had so much to do with health and safety and > > > what happens when it's not applied...) > > > > I never had anything to do with health and safety (well, apart from > > fire/rescue and air traffic safety, at least one of which isn't that > > much of an issue for me) but I get paranoid about that twice. > > If you've ever worked for a firm as an employee or as a contractor, or > been a pupil in a school, or visited a hospital, or employed people, > or... if *ANY* of those things, you have had health and safety concerns > and obligations on you to meet certain H&S regulations so as to avoid > endangering yourself and others to an troublesome extent. I was refering to a level beyond the normal level that everyone has to deal with. > I get really annoyed when people say that they've got more immediate > concerns than health and safety, or that it's not important, or... Noone said that here. -- Woody www.alienrat.com
From: Woody on 30 Jun 2010 16:32 James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: > On 2010-06-30 20:57:18 +0100, jim(a)magrathea.plus.com (Jim) said: > > > James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: > > > >> DOCX (whatever that one is) > > > > As I understand it, it's Microsoft's attempt to have an open document > > format, rather than their proprietary .DOC format. > > > > Never had any actual encounters with any, mind. > > > > Jim > > Interesting. Typical MS though really, try to start open standards years late. They weren't trying open standards particularly, and if you read the standard (which I don't recommend, it isn't fun), there is still no way you could reconstruct the data into exactly the same way as it appears in word without knowing their algorithms. While it does let you export the data to something else, it is not a format that is very usuable or has a structure, unlike opendoc. It was just made to fend off an open document format, and thus an open playing field. -- Woody www.alienrat.com
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 30 Jun 2010 16:44 On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:27:51 +0100, usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote: >Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > >> My wife has an iPod touch. >> >> I don't like reading on it. > >Not suprising. I have read half a book on one, and it was not like >either the iPad or the ereader (or even one of the tablets) I like reading on my 2G and 3GS - not because it's great (it is just about sufficient) but because I always have it with me, which I can't say for my current hardback. So every moment reading from it is a moment not wasted staring at waiting room walls or playing "trying to catch someone's eye without moving" on the Tube. Cheers - Jaimie -- I was most impressed when I looked up into the London sky and saw a star through all the light pollution. A few of us checked some astronomy references to try and identify it, and we're reasonably confident that it was Sol. -- Peter Corlett, asr
From: John DoH on 30 Jun 2010 17:10 In article <1jkx3y2.a3xzo9p6ljz4N%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>, real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: Snip > > I'm baffled, I really am. > snip > > [snip] > snip > > Rowland. -- "Telling someone to kill themselves is not harmful: it's merely me expressing an opinion. You try to drive people to suicide - that's evil. My behaviour is perfectly okay; your behaviour is evil - plain and simple evil." Rowland McDonnell - 9th. Mar. 2009
From: Pd on 1 Jul 2010 04:17
Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > >> DOCX (whatever that one is) > > Typical MS though really, try to start open standards years late. > > They weren't trying open standards particularly, and if you read the > standard (which I don't recommend, it isn't fun), there is still no way > you could reconstruct the data into exactly the same way as it appears > in word without knowing their algorithms. So for everyone else, it's a one-way incomplete 'standard'. > While it does let you export the data to something else, it is not a > format that is very usuable or has a structure, unlike opendoc. > > It was just made to fend off an open document format, and thus an open > playing field. Which is in fact, a far more typical Microsoft tactic. -- Pd |