topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • October 22, 2019, 04:42 PM
  • Proudly celebrating 13 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - anodyne [ switch to compact view ]

Pages: [1]
1
I was looking for a PDF editor to fix some irritating typos and inaccuracies in PDFs of boardgame rules before printing them (many specialty boardgame publishers provide additional copies of their rules in freely-downloadable PDFs).  I had tried PDFEDIT (GPL'd software) under Linux, but it was quite buggy and the user interface was horrible.

So I downloaded demo versions of a couple of programs that work under WinXP: Nitro PDF Professional 6 (demo is full version, limited to 14 days), and Foxit PDF Editor 2.2 (demo version puts an "evaluation mark" at the corner of each page).  The non-crippled version of each has a purchase price of $99.

Using the PDF I currently wanted to fix, I first tried Nitro.  I could not edit text successfully (perhaps because the font was an embedded subset, but that's pure speculation based on general ignorance of PDF technology), and gave up after about an hour fiddling with different things.  I then tried Foxit on the same PDF, and it worked like a charm.  I was able to change text and add text immediately. Later I added a transparent graphic, also very easily. It was easy to learn to use, and the user interface was intuitive. The program Help was very good, and the 140-page manual seems to cover things pretty well.

For reference, the PDF I used was marked as PDF 1.6, produced by QuarkXPress 7.5.

My impression is that the Foxit Editor is oriented towards modification of existing PDFs rather than creation of new ones (though it can do that).  Since that's what I want it for, it looks perfect for me.  The only issue (for the amount of use I will make of it) is the price, although it's only one-third of the cost of Adobe Acrobat.

Based on an extremely limited sample of PDFs :), I give a :Thmbsup: to Foxit PDF Editor 2.2, and I expect I will end up forking out that $99 (after I've tested compatibility with a few more PDFs).

2
Hi Brahman,
As others have said, an excellent review! In one of your answers you dropped the following tantalizing tid-bit:


Here I have some special advice: *Any* version *above* Abbyy 7 (i.e. 8,9,10) is almost equally good (they only made some improvements in the interface and added some minor features, and even though they say accuracy has improved, really it hasn't - it is *equally good* in Finereader 8,9, and 10) - but in Europe you can legally buy full versions of 8 or 9 at rock bottom prices at some reputable software vendors. I have seen v8 for US$25.- and v9 for US$35.-. These are full versions with CD incldg shipping (but not to US). You can buy them through a friend and (s)he can simply give you the serial number and you are ready to go. V9 started supporting some form of DjVu I believe.

Could you point me to any such place?  I've looked around, but the only stuff I've seen are links to v10 Pro, v9 Express, and the usual list of warez sites :-(.

Thanks!

3
It would be fascinating to do some sensitivity analysis on the data -- that is, to see how much differences in ratings affect the final predicted outcomes.
I suspect that changing around the scores of weak teams moderately wouldn't make much of a difference.
I could add a feature that increased the noise of weak teams.
Changing the forecast of results between weaker teams is not likely to change the predicted percentages for the top teams.  However, if the "best team to bet on" is e.g. 100-1 or 500-1, then changing the forecast for weaker teams could (obviously) change that statistic.

I think the predicted outcomes are in fact likely to be relatively sensitive to individual forecasts.  When I made my changes, I didn't have to change too many of the forecast results to end up with a noticeably different set of final percentages.

It would be interesting to use the so-called "Wisdom of Crowds" and average the individual forecasts for each pairing, and then use those averages to generate a set of percentages. You might have to allow fractional goals to do this of course ...

4
So has anyone made a complete set of ratings they feel good about and think are reasonable?  I ask because i'd like to place some bets using them.
My predictions are I think not bad; I revised them after my team (England) ended up doing rather better than I think they actually will, because of my bias when forecasting individual matchups.  The revisions IIRC involved forecasting rather better results for Spain & Argentina, and rather worse for England.

I would not wish to place too much credence on the forecasts for games between the weaker teams, especially when they have not met recently.  FIFA of course does this when they publish their rankings ... but IMO once you get below about the top 20, you're making it up ...

5
Living Room / Re: KVM switch woes -- any recommendations?
« on: May 08, 2010, 12:45 PM »
I have a TrendNet TK-400 4-port switch (PS/2) that I am quite happy with. The price was very reasonable. They also make USB version(s), but I have no experience of them.

6
WorldCup Predictor / Re: FIFA World Cup Predictor 2010
« on: February 03, 2010, 05:22 PM »
because of the nature of the simulation, it is certainly calculating the predicted finalists, semi-finalists, and winners as it simulates millions of games, the only question would be how to display this info.. are we talking about just reporting the most likely finalists, semi-finalists, winners, or listing probablities of each team for each of these categories, or trying to look at betting payoffs for these bets?
The betting payoff is probably least interesting to me. Perhaps 3 columns in the ongoing display: probability of winning (as per now), probability of reaching the final, probability of reaching the semi-final. The probabilities in the second column of course will add up to 200%, in the third to 400%. But it's just a thought ...

7
WorldCup Predictor / Re: FIFA World Cup Predictor 2010
« on: February 01, 2010, 04:54 PM »
Some more thoughts ... it would be quite interesting to see what the predictions are for the finalists & the semi-finalists as well as for the eventual winner. How easy would it be to add that?

8
WorldCup Predictor / Re: FIFA World Cup Predictor 2010
« on: February 01, 2010, 04:43 PM »
Have entered my first thoughts on the scores.  Spain ends up doing rather better than the odds-makers think & England worse, though I'm not surprised at the latter; I suspect the reason England is 6.5:1 is the odds are from British bookies who have received a lot of sentimental backing ...

9
I'd like to see it updated too.  I'm not an expert, but I'd be happy to try to dig up some representative scores between teams (seems like that's what you needed last time).  One issue: teams from different conferences (e.g. Brazil & Germany) don't play each other competitively very often (pretty much only in the finals of the World Cup).  So getting rankings across conferences could be tricky.

10
Image Manager Shootout / ACDSee Pro issue
« on: November 07, 2009, 06:16 PM »
When I installed the demo of ACDSee Pro, sometime in 2008, I believe it installed PFC.SYS as a lower filter for CD/DVD drive access, and it did not uninstall it when I uninstalled the program. This screwed up access to DL disks on a DL drive until I got rid of the registry entry.

It's a while ago, so I am willing to be corrected on this ... but I wanted to note this just in case someone else might run into the same problem.

Pages: [1]