Why worry about this now? The festival most likely won't be held at Myrtle Edwards park next year anyway. It has grown too big for that location. Hempfest 2013

I also tried converting from PDF to EPUB. Sometimes the PDF isn't in a good condition and I get a very poor EPUB. If that happens, I convert PDF -> RTF, clean up and spell check in MS Word, then RTF -> EPUB.

This has let me fix over-large graphics, incorrect page breaks, constant spelling problems from the OCR, and font problems.

~~

Why worry about printing carbon-copy type forms when you can just print the same page twice? I guess it depends if the multipart forms are cheaper than the plain paper and ink for the additional pages, but I wouldn't think so.

You still don't understand RP propagation. Having an antenna receive a signal does not diminish the strength of the signal behind it any more than a metal light pole diminishes it. Both will cause a slight disturbance in the transmitted signal, but the rest of the signal will still continue past it. You can't calculate how many devices are receiving an RF signal by measuring field strength at a fixed distance.

Think of throwing a pebble into a pond and watching the waves travel outward. If you put a stick in the water, it will disrupt the wave slightly, but the rest of the wave continues radiating outward. The small amount of energy that the stick receives is so miniscule compared to the total circular wave, it can be thought of as zero. (Well, if the stick is 10 feet away from the source it intersects a circle more than 60 feet in circumference. A one-inch stick would disrupt 1/750th of the circle. 20 feet away? 1/1500th of the total circumference.) Plus, RF propagates in three dimensions, not just two.

And your proof? You suggest putting enough barriers around the transmitting antenna to capture all the radiated energy to gain back more than you started with. First, you would never effectively capture it all, unless you built a Fariday Cage around the transmitter. Plus you ignore the power loss in converting the RF power back to electricity. You can't prove your point by suggesting if you are wrong we would have perpetual energy.

~~

Yeah, we know how well that worked...

http://threatpost.com/department-energy-compromised-sophisticated-attack-020413/77485
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/04/net-us-usa-cybersecurity-doe-idUSBRE9130ZL20130204
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57567581-83/hackers-hit-u.s-department-of-energy/

Microsoft opened the barn doors when they pushed to have the office format declared an Open Standard. They were very nervous that other file formats would be declared the new preferred open format by governments and organizations trying to get away from closed, undocumented, and proprietary formats. This has allowed other office suites to accurately read and write documents in Microsoft's formats. If Microsoft now tries to change their format again, without documenting all the changes, they risk having the Office 2010 format declared the only supported file format users are allowed to use by many companies. Microsoft's last couple of releases have done nothing but change the UI or licensing terms without adding anything substantive.

The horse has left the barn and Microsoft will have a devil of a time getting it back in.

Without that money spent on defense, you wouldn't have any sick, elderly, young, hungry, roads, or bridges to worry about.

You are confusing NASA and NOAA. NOAA is the agency responsible with tracking and reporting weather issues.

NASA took a look at the track the hurricane followed, then tried to list all the factors that would have to be present for a second hurricane to follow the exact same path.

This is like throwing a stick into a river and predicting all the factors that must be present for that stick to hit a boat's propeller twice. River flow, ocean flow, weather flow are all highly dynamic environments and NASA is trying to tie the likelihood of this happening again to the phase of the moon?

~-~-~

Sudo random data? {grin}

Why not "Sudo randomize my data"

~-~-~

Sure you hope smoking would be banned, because you don't smoke. Just as some people hope greasy hamburgers will be banned because they don't eat meat. And some people hope all alcohol will be banned because they don't drink liquor. And some people hope all cars will be banned because they ride a bike. And some people hope all soft drinks and coffee will be banned because they drink only water.

Each of these examples could be called "self harming bordering on criminal stupidity" but we allow them anyway. Remember the Eighteenth Amendment? See how well Prohibition worked? Each time something becomes unpopular someone wants to criminalize it. Or tax it heavily until they feel balance. Legislating morality is difficult, especially when everyone's mores differ so much.

Every one of those examples could be said to harm someone because either someone must pay extra taxes for medical care (obesity, high blood pressure, clogged arteries) or suffer environmental problems.

When did we become a nation of Majority Rules Absolutely? Each of those examples can be said to harm someone else in some small degree, but do we really need to prevent someone else from enjoying their own Pursuit of Happiness (whatever it might be) because it inconveniences us or upsets our particular sense of Rightness?

~-~-~

This was not a single wave. If you read the article it said the water level dropped for one or two minutes, then came rushing back to the height of six feet.

Never let the law get in the way of suing someone...

Anyone that modded that up because they thought it was true should be forced to take a civics class again!!!

If they modded it up because they thought it was funny and so obviously untrue should have a "eye roll" category.

__

What is the source of your information? Or is this a work of fiction too? {grin}