User talk:Doug Pardee
Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149
Thank you for following along behind me (telegraph key). I _know_ I can't spell. and there's no spell checker here. THanks. Rick Boatright 04:08 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)
quoting autotab article
I apologize for reworking your Autotab comments without asking but I thought it was a useful addition to the "debate" about spreadsheet origin which obviously in hindsight you agree with.
Anyway, I didn't know where you were to ask!
The Wikipedia criteria for "no original research" etc condemns much fading knowledge to the dustbin of history. Original testimony of victims of the Holocaust might not be considered valid it seems. The advantage of Wikipedia could be lost if this is taken to extreme for esoteric products and interfaces.
Much information about the history of software is, as yet, unwritten and its creators more likely to be dead or in retirement than writing books about their software and its origins.
I added a section to "buffer overflow" having spent nearly 20 years producing software to prevent 100% at least one significant consequence of it, only to have it ruthlessly deleted because the editor refused to accept the fact he hadn't thought of the method employed (I think).
I similarly had a section of article removed about the true legal history of the "Warp" tradename (because the "editor" was on a pension from IBM who took the name from me!). The IBM version remains with no citation to back it up because it pre-dated my version!
Wikipedia may simply end up like all histories, written by the victors! It seems Wiki editors believe things if they have been published but not if they havn't. They must presumably therefore believe everything they read? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kdakin (talk • contribs) 14:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
Effects of post-capture manipulation on DoF
Doug, on 23 October 2006, you added material on the effects of post-capture processing on DoF to the Depth of field, under Limitations. Do you have a source for this? No question that these affect final-image sharpness; the issue is whether such processing, as well as some of the other limitations mentioned there, actually change DoF. It's certainly possible for sharpening to increase acutance, but can it really increase DoF? Every published treatment of DoF of which I'm aware limits itself to optical blurring. We have some conflicting statements among those in this article and the Circle of confusion article. Example: in the latter, what happens when an image is displayed on a low-resolution device such as a computer monitor? Does the DoF decrease to zero because nothing is acceptably sharp, or increase because everything is more uniformly blurred so that it's harder to tell the sharp from the unsharp? With the definition of DoF in both articles, it would seem to me the we need to go with the former. In any event, I'm trying to make the two statements consistent between the two articles as well as within each article. Absent a conclusive resolution, I'm leaning towards confining DoF to optical blurring and just mentioning the effects of some of the other things on sharpness, without drawing any conclusion about their effects on DoF. I've posed similar questions on the talk pages for both articles at Edits of 18–20 April 2010 and Resolution of recording and display media. JeffConrad (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)