Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2012 April 10

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 10

LaTeX chapters and sections

Hello! I have a \documentclass{report} with several chapters and several sections within each chapter. If I use \ref{sec:mySection}, I get chapterNumber.sectionNumber, but in some cases I just want the section number that the label corresponds to, not the chapter number with the section number. How can I get some command to return just the section number of the label? Thank you!--el Aprel (^facta-_facienda) 05:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Partial answer: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}} -- This will change the section numbering from e.g. '3.1' to 1, and return a simple number with \ref. However, there's a problem of ambiguity here. Of course, there's an inherent problem of ambiguity with what you're asking for: If you refer to "section 3" and there are three section 3s (e.g. 1.3, 2.3, 3.3), how is the reader supposed to know to what you are referring?! So, some general advice someone once gave me: "Think twice before you go mucking about changing the behavior of well-used LaTeX classes, because there is usually a good reason why they work the way they do." :) SemanticMantis (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

To do what you want (label sections as 'chapter.section', but have the ability to have \ref{section:key} return \thesection without \thechapter), I think you'll have to \renewcommand{\ref} with some self-made options that let you control the behavior. If you don't get an exact answer here within a few days, these people [1] can probably tell you how to do it. SemanticMantis (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't get WP using Perl's get command...

It works with other web pages, but not Wikipedia. I've posted the problem and an example script on WikiProject Perl's talk page. Please reply there. The Transhumanist 06:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Places in Battle Ready (Tom Clancy Novel)

I just want to ask where in Mindanao is the place called Carabao,Mindanao in Tom Clancy's Novel Battle Ready. It is mentioned in Chapter 7 and is described as a small port city that served as the capital of the autonomous region I tried looking for it in the map but I haven't come across a place named Carabao in Mindanao. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.192.138 (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The carabao is a water buffalo native to that area. I believe the port city with that name to be entirely fictional. The closest I find to a location named that is the Philippine Carabao Center [2], which sells carabao milk, as part of Central Mindanao University. StuRat (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I was wrong to refer to the book as a novel since it is actually a non-fiction work of Tom Clancy & Gen Tony Zinni. In relation to this, I suppose the name of the place is not fictional as the names of other places in the book such as Mogadishu,Somalia and Aceh,Indonesia can be located on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.192.138 (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Could it be one of those "names were changed to protect the innocent" things ? Perhaps giving the real name of the city would have put some of it's residents in danger ? StuRat (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

wordperfect mail merge

Resolved

i have been sent a document created in wp.mm - how do i open and read it please? Kittybrewster ☎ 16:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Microsoft Word or OpenOffice/LibreOffice might be able to open it. Otherwise, you'll need WordPerfect. I see that Corel offers a trial version [3], which might be enough to get the file opened so you can copy it into your favorite editor. RudolfRed (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. success with OO. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Price of Windows 7

The difference in price between laptop A with or without Windows 7 is about $50. However, if I buy a boxed version of Windows 7, I'll end paying about 10x that. Why is the price difference so big? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MangoNr1 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I certainly see why there would be some difference, due to bulk discounts, large companies being able to negotiate better prices, etc., but 10X does seem a bit much. I wonder, if you buy a laptop without an O/S, do they first put an O/S on it to test it out, then remove it ? If so, this would certainly eat up much of the savings. StuRat (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think companies also get paid for installing the trial versions of antivirus and other programs that many new computers come with. If you don't have Windows preinstalled, then the company can't collect that other money either. RudolfRed (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec)It's a good question - one that comes up a lot, and that we can't definitively answer, because Microsoft keeps its OEM pricing very very close to its chest. Some of the contributory factors are:

• When you're buying that Windows 7 install set in the shop, you're buying the retail version. Microsoft also sells an OEM version (which comes in plain packaging with no manuals) which is intended for small system builders - the idea is that the small system builder provides the support, rather than Microsoft (but who calls microsoft support?) It's about half the price of retail.
• For larger builders they offer steep discounting, and for very large builders like Dell they reportedly over even steeper discounting.
• When a system builder ships a Windows system, these days they bundle a bunch of other preinstalled software, some of it trialware - security, dvd authoring, skype, sometimes games or accounting software. The system builder gets a payment for these, either a flat fee for installing, or a revenue share if the customer buys the full version.
• Many systems ship with Windows 7 Home Basic; if the customer upgrades that to Home Premium then the system builder gets a share of the revenue. I think the same is true if the customer pays to activate the Microsoft Office Ready thing (which can be a significant spend).
• There's a support cost associated with a system building selling a no-windows machine (no-os, Freedos, or Linux). Despite them being really clear that it doesn't come with windows, a nontrivial proportion of people still complain to them that it doesn't come with windows, and yell, and raise chargebacks, and demand restocking.
• When a system builder advertises a machine with Windows, they can participate in one of Microsoft's Windows ad-sharing schemes - so when an ad says "Dell Recommends Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate Edition", Microsoft have paid for a proportion of that ad buy.
• Lastly, the weirdest one. A few years ago, I think as a result of a court case, it was disclosed that one large builder paid Microsoft a flat fee for Windows for each machine they shipped (presumably they'd negotiated a small flat fee) - they paid that even if Windows didn't ship on that machine. If that's true now, and generally, that means the builder makes no saving at all from shipping a "clean" machine, and because they lose all that bundling stuff above, it actually costs them more to sell you a clean machine that one with Windows.

-- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That last point is crazy. I believe you (given similar practices by microsoft.), but does anyone have a ref? SemanticMantis (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a ref at hand either, but of the legends I've heard, (1) it's almost true, and (2) it's at least 20 years old. The "almost" part was that it was Microsoft that demanded the license fee for EVERY machine shipped, whether or not it had MS-DOS (?) on it or not -- purely the "I-can-get-away-with-this-until-they-force-me-to-quit" model to make it VERY cost-ineffective for the custom assemblers of the day to offer a machine with the user's choice of OS pre-installed.

'twill take some legwork to chase down a real ref, though. Memory fades with time . . .

--71.220.29.34 (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As I remember it, they were trying to claim that purchasers of machines with no operating system must be planning to install a pirated version of Windows. Which, to be fair, may have been the case some significant fraction of the time, but hardly seems like justification to make Linux users pay tribute to Redmond. I welcome factual corrections as my memory may not be perfect and I can't be sure I got the straight story even initially. --Trovatore (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I would expect such a practice, if allowed to continue, would have resulted in different manufactures of Windows computers and non-Windows computers. This is similar to how, in the US, credit card companies managed to force gas stations to charge the same price, cash or credit, despite the increased costs to the station for using credit cards. This resulted in some cash-only gas stations, until all stations were eventually allowed to charge cash customers less. StuRat (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It was the 'CPU License', more - [4], [5], [6] and [7]. Nanonic (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)