That's a real shame. I guess I had better look around to see if I can get one. There's still nothing comparable to an encyclopedia for being able to browse interesting topics that are reliable.
After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the Presses
41–50 of 142 posts
Re: After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the Presses
#42How in the hell is this just now happening if ENCARTA was discontinued over three years ago? Seems like this should have taken place ten years ago or more.
There was still some demand for the printed books, and apparently it was enough to generate some profit. They really are beautiful-looking books. You couldn't decorate your study with Encarta.
On a related note, according to Wikipedia (!): "Microsoft had originally approached Encyclopædia Britannica, the gold standard of encyclopedias for over a century, in the 1980s, but it declined, believing its print media sales would be hurt; however, the Benton Foundation was forced to sell Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. at below book value in 1996 when the print sales could no longer compete with Encarta..."
Re: After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the Presses
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's ridiculous in this day and age for people to expect webpages to work without JS.
Oh, really... In an age, * where the Internet can be seen on ever increasing number of diverse devices * where every day people discover that every additional layer of software complexity adds security vulnerabilities * where the default installation of even many existing heavily used browsers, for both personal and business, have everything except html and stylesheets disabled, especially for new sites * where some/…
First of all, calm down.
I think people disabling JS for security should be willing to accept the downfalls.
"where the default installation of even many existing heavily used browsers, for both personal and business, have everything except html and stylesheets disabled, especially for new sites"
I don't know what you're talking about here. I've never seen a default install of any browser (on a desktop) except IE in Windows server have JS off by default
"where some/many people may wish to choose to use your site in its most bare form possible, including command line users"
I will grant command line users should be accommodated where they will be expected to be a large proportion of your users (linux install instructions, for example) otherwise, give me a break. Why should I take my time working for .01% of users using a command line.
Now, I don't think this means that people should be using JS when it's not necessary, like if your page is mostly text. But all of the use cases you cite are a small minority of the users of most sites.
Re: After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the Presses
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's ridiculous in this day and age for people to expect webpages to work without JS.
Oh, really... In an age, * where the Internet can be seen on ever increasing number of diverse devices * where every day people discover that every additional layer of software complexity adds security vulnerabilities * where the default installation of even many existing heavily used browsers, for both personal and business, have everything except html and stylesheets disabled, especially for new sites * where some/…
While I agree with your position on a non-JS fallback, I cannot even remember the last time I installed a browser on any machine (OS X, Windows, Linux) where Javascript was not turned on and enabled "out of the box". The smartphones I've used (iPhone and a galaxy S) also both have JS "out of the box", so the parents comment isn't far from the truth in my opinion.
Re: After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the Presses
#45It is easy to disparage the Encyclopedia Britannica from a modern perspective - out-of-step, overpriced, outmaneuvered by competitors - but there is a great sadness here at the demise of something that represented an effort by western scholars to "capture the world's knowledge." Imagine assembling a "A" team of scholars and scientists, getting them to make substantial, substantive contributions in each of their respe…
Is this being upvoted?
Pure entertainment value. Either that, or grellas is operating a voting ring...
Re: After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the Presses
#46It is easy to disparage the Encyclopedia Britannica from a modern perspective - out-of-step, overpriced, outmaneuvered by competitors - but there is a great sadness here at the demise of something that represented an effort by western scholars to "capture the world's knowledge." Imagine assembling a "A" team of scholars and scientists, getting them to make substantial, substantive contributions in each of their respe…
Haha, I vpvote you even it's for the wrong thread. Nice comment.
Re: After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the Presses
#47It's too bad Encyclopaedia Britannica won't collaborate with Wikipedia. The company could bring their authors, reviewers, content, and experience from a sinking ship to an information platform that is successful but could be even better.
Re: After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the Presses
#48I recall reading a story (couldn't find it just now) about how Bill Gates tried unsuccessfully to license the Britannica content to create his digital encyclopedia product. Instead, Microsoft cobbled together assets themselves and built Encarta (1993).
Microsoft proceeded to trounce the print Encyclopedia business by creating a better product that severely undercut the traditional players.
Here we are, 2012, finally Britannica is dead. That took longer than expected.
Re: After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the Presses
#49Back in the day, it was a great product. My family had an edition endorsed (in the first pages) by Queen Elizabeth II and Richard Nixon, and I can't calculate how many hours I spent leafing through the pages. I guess that's been replaced by Wikipedia's "Random article" link, but with EB you never got crap about Pokemon.
I agree - I have a lot of nostalgia over this, as we had a complete set of the 1921 edition - reading though that to see just how much the world had changed (and this would have been in the 80's) was fascinating.
Re: After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the Presses
#50It's weird, but I kinda wouldn't mind having a set of the last Encyclopaedia Britannica. The zenith of 244 years of tradition, an emblem of the transition of our knowledge to an online space, and still very functional in a quaint way...
I had a 1957 set for nearly 20 years until I gave it to a neighbor in 2004 when I was relocating. He still has it.
It has the Atlas and the dedicated bookcase.
For anything up until the 20th century (e.g. the ancient and medieval worlds), it was probably as good as or better than the current edition - something has to be cut to cover Steve Jobs, the Space Shuttle and the George's Bush.
I will probably find myself another set, but I don't care if it is particularly recent. I can always use Wikipedia if I want to study Pokemon.