Fortunately, they were kind enough to run some reprints for the author. It was based on his master's thesis, and he needed a good copy of the paper to circulate with his resume.
I remember that one because my first published paper was in that issue too, and their idea of publishing it was to whack off the last third without telling me.
]]>Yep. Have you ever seen one of those fonts where the digits 5 and 6 look similar? As in, very similar indeed? Only a few weeks ago at my work someone hit a wrong button, as we all do occasionally. This should have been no big deal, as the unit in question is double-checked by someone else in the room, then by quality control, then by the shift lead. They all missed it. At shift change the three people in those jobs for the next shift also checked it. They missed it. Only after running for twenty hours did someone notice that the machine's output looked a little funny. It was, as they say, a mess.
]]>If I ever buy you a drink, we could clear the pub ranting about such things. My organisation is being moved in exactly the same direction - NOW, a decade after that whole approach was clearly discredited in its area, which has a strong Linux usage and where Macintoshes are the growth area. The rot seems to be an inevitable consequence of power-hungry bureaucrats/bean-counters getting unconstrained political control. Just as has been going on for years in that nest of vipers[*], Whitehall.
And, with regard to fonts, we USED to design ones intended for character-critical display (i.e. data, programs etc., not English prose) so that every character was clearly distinct. But that requirement got forgotten/ignored/suppressed/whatever round about the time of the 'killer micros'. God alone knows why. I have a 'cycle computer' where 2 and 7 are possible to tell apart only by looking down from the top of the display (i.e. not when looking straight at it). When looking for a font for coding presentations, I tried to find a good one; the 2-3 tolerable ones I found (out of hundreds looked at) were not available in my environment.
[*] A substitute for much ruder and more explicit words, because this is not my soapbox.
]]>(Indexing, I can do. Substantive editing, kinda-sorta. But I am a terrible proof-reader, and I'm also a lousy copy-editor -- I just don't have the kind of detail-retentive memory both roles require.)
]]>Once presented a 'proofed and edited' report re: consumer outlook for a marketing campaign. The intended phrase was 'demographic shift' ... not what appeared in the report/on-screen. (AAARGHHH!!!)
On the bright side ... These individuals will probably long remember how one of their campaigns tanked because of a lot of 'demographic shit'. (This typo was corrected in the final report sent to the client post-presentation, i.e., the report version passed along to their Sr Mngt.)
]]>Fortunately, I am a good proof-reader...
]]>'Tis a far, far faster wafer that I go to than any ever known before...' (Tale of Two Beams?)
From: "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that ..." Tale of Two Cities
]]>I was looking at Greg Egan's books yesterday because "Diaspora" was the first super difficult singularity book where I didn't understand half of what was going on and didn't care because it was so well written. I will have to check out Egan's version of human kudzu.
]]>Because I shave my own head.
]]>