Slashdot Mirror

And yet in that story it doesn't mention what the actual university systems are getting or the total number of students that are full time, part time, in state, out state, or international. That is the information that is hard to come by. Also when these thing are reported usually slashing funding includes some part of not getting an increase. So if one could find the actual numbers for something like the University of Illinois system where $209 million was slashed from their budget you would likely find that 2015 spending isn't $209 million less than the 2014 spending, but instead is some amount less. I don't know what that amount would be something seeing something like the state would be providing $180 million to $190 million less over the 2014 amount wouldn't surprise me.

My point also wasn't to argue that states' spending on public college and university systems hasn't gone down as it has. My point was to point a reasonable question to ask which is how much is being spent on a per student basis by the state and then look to your non dodgy private colleges and see what they are charging and see if you can figure out why the private institution can get by without a massive per student subsidy. By non dodgy I don't mean the ones that advertise on cable TV or ones that are nationally accredited but real reputable ones. In Minnesota schools like St. Thomas, St. Olaf, Gustavus Adolphus are all good private schools that are well respected. They are more expensive the universities in the MNSCU system but are pretty damn close (or they were when I was in school) to the University of Minnesota Twin Cities but they weren't $10,000/year more. Also that $10,000/year number that I used was very generous as all I had was the total from the state and the total number of students. As the state wasn't subsidizing out of state, exception for states with reciprocity, or international students, and that figure also assumes that even a person taking one class a semester is also being subsidized that $10,000. So taking that into account the full time in state student total subsidy would likely be higher and probably much higher. I do question the use of money by state schools on sports stadiums the pay for coaches, the huge administrative overhead, and the waste on equipment. For example when I was at Mankato they had a computer lab open for all the students to use, so far so good. It had 300 machines in it of which 100 were replaced each year, again so far so good. Problem is that instead of buying the middle of the road machines, or buying low end ones they bought the top of the line machines with really good video cards, max ram, the biggest available hard drives, huge screens, top of the line Intel consumer processors. These weren't machines for doing simulations, games, or AI but machines used by the general student body for web browsing (static pages mostly), e-mail, and MS Word for papers. That is the kind of waste that needs to be curtailed and looked closer at.

You mean apart from swallowing the fee themselves, like most other companies do?

That would be the "take an 18% loss" option.

Or simply not offering a subscription in-app?

Their claim is that this is what they were trying to do in the update that was rejected. That would be the "or leave" option.

You'd have trouble finding your own ass,

I'm shitting as I write this; I'd say I found my own ass just fine, thanks.

but that's beside the point.

Having read you entire post twice and discarded the invalid, incorrect, or irrelevant portions, I'm left with nothing and have to ask: what was the point?

What Microsoft got in trouble was that they got in trouble before and consented " not to tie other Microsoft products to the sale of Windows " to get out of it.

Yes, that's bundling which is illegal under...

You wouldn't find that statute if you were a lawyer either.

Are you ready to stand corrected? The Sherman Antitrust Act, as well as the Clayton Antitrust Act. I wasn't sure either applied in this case, so I gave them another read-through. The Sherman Act is short so you can probably manage to read it all, but look specifically at section 2. Since it's quite packed with legalese (now, I did say IANAL, but I did not say I don't have any formal education in the field; I do and I can read and understand this crap just fine, I simply don't work with it every day in order to be able to recall it on-demand), you might have some difficulty in following it, so here are a couple easier references for the Sherman Act.

The Clayton Act clarifies the Sherman Act, specifically stating:

(f) Knowingly inducing or receiving discriminatory price

It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, knowingly to induce or receive a discrimination in price which is prohibited by this section.

and

Sec. 14. Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor

It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce .

Here's an easier to follow reference for the Clayton Act, as well.

And, before I drive my point home, the Black’s Law Dictionary definition of “induce", found on page 915 of the referenced edition (4th):

To bring on or about, to affect, cause, to influence to an act or course of conduct, lead by persuasion or reasoning, incite by motives,

Where does this come from and why can't it ever be debunked once and for all?

I would call it a Meta Rule. A rule that is not what copyright says; but was proposed once as a guideline, and took on a life of its own through the power of word of mouth -- with various institutions codifying it. With various degrees of strictness --- if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time and use 31 seconds of a media recording; I suppose you might get expelled from some school, because you're over the limit.

Examples:

Halldavidson: This copyright chart form was designed to inform teachers what tehy may do under the law

Music: Up to 10% of a copyrighted musical composition may be reproduced, performed and displayed as part of a multimedia program produced by an educator or student for educational purposes. ---- Authorities site a maximum length of 30 seconds. See notes by congressman below.

Temple University: College of Liberal Arts: Fair Use Policy:
Educators May use their projects for teaching, for a period of up to two years after the first instructional use with a class. ....
Music, Lyrics, and Music Video Up to 10% but no more than 30 seconds from any single musical work Any alterations shall not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work. .... Motion Media Up to 10% or 3 minutes, whichever is less

WILEY: Permission requirements .... . A single quotation or several shorter quotes from a full-length book, more than 300 words in toto. ..... A single quotation of more than 50 words from a newspaper, magazine, or journal. .... Material which includes all or part of a poem or song lyric (even as little as one line), or the title of a song. ...

The Law of Fair use and the Illusion of Fair use Guidelines

Pikes Peak Community College: Copyright Portion Limits; Rules of the road: Music, lyrics, music video - Up to 10%, but no more than 30 seconds Arlington Independent School District: Copyright: Portion Limitations
CCSJ: Copyright Fair Use: 'Allowable portion for fair use'
Public Schools of North Carolina: Copyright in an Electronic environment:

Up to 10% of a body of sound recording, but no more than 30 seconds

St. Olaf College: Copyright guidelines

Music, lyrics, music video: up to 10% but in no event more than 30 seconds of an individual work

MolStead Library; North Idaho College The amount of work to be copied is based on the “portion limit” set for that “medium.” [....] In general, you should never use more than 30 seconds or 10 percent of a piece of recorded music. Ball State University, guidelines for educational media:

4.2.3: Music, Lyrics and Music Video : Up to 10%, but in no event more than 30 seconds, of the music and lyrics from an individual work. No alteration(s) of the music and/or lyrics are allowed.

I went to a rigorous math/sci/engineering school and as a math major managed to study abroad and knock off some requirements at the Budapest Semesters in Mathematics. It is mostly for mathematicians, but some courses like combinatorics might be of interest for a CS major. And one course, Conjecture and Proof, is one of the best I ever took.

Apple is not interested in paying royalties to Microsoft for WMA

Is that what the plaintiffs are asking as a remedy?

I think perhaps it's more about why there are no 3rd party iTunes stores?

Apple may have a better product than Microsoft but I'd be interested to know how the Sheman Antitrust Act applies differently to Apple than it did in The US vs Microsoft antitrust case when Microsoft excluded Netscape from its desktop. The question in law is how is Apple controlling the hardware and the content different from say Standard Oil controlling the product and the distribution system (i.e. the railroad). My guess is that this is not a trivial suit. A lot of people with ipods resent having itunes as their only option. I think that's what this suit is about. And no matter how you feel about Apple's right to exercise such control, the law on the matter may be entirely different.

Isn't it be possible to get some sort of declaratory judgement from a court? Say you're RedHat (or any other Linux distributor), who happens to sell Linux and related services - in light of MS's statements, wouldn't you be entitled to know which patents are involved? MS's statements have a direct impact on your business.

And if MS refused to tell you then couldn't you get a declaration from a court that your product doesn't infringe? IIRC, this is similar to what RedHat is pursuing in its case against SCO (which is on hold while SCO v IBM drags on).

Maybe a small Linux distributor with no assets and not much to lose could pursue a case like this against MS.

First, any party bringing a lawsuit under the American legal system must have standing to sue, meaning that they must have a material interest in the outcome of the suit. Since Microsoft has not specifically threatened anybody, at the moment, it would be hard to establish standing. A really good lawyer might be able to argue that a Linux vendor is harmed by the implication that Microsoft will sue that vendors customers for patent infringement, but with any actual patent suits in process, it would be a hard sell.

Second, the American legal system refuses to issue advisory judgements, and requires that a case be 'ripe' before it can be adjudicated. Since the court would be ruling on a hypothetical ("if Microsoft were to sue for patent infringement, would we be found to be infringing?") the court would (and should) simply refuse to hear the case.

Here is a good reference for standing, advisory opinions and ripeness. A little google-foo should easily turn up others.

The only bright spot in this, from a potential plaintif's point of view, is that, as a convicted monopolist, there might be a way to accuse Microsoft of restrain-of-trade, or some other violation of the Sherman Act. Unfortunately, I think that prosecution of anti-trust cases must be brought by the federal government, and that is not very likely with the current administration. Private actions can be brought for violations of the Clayton Act but I don't quite see how it could aply in this case, and only consumers injured by their dealings with the violator have standing to sue, which puts most direct competitors out of the running.

Disclaimer: IANALBIHTBL (IANAL But I Have Taken Business Law)

Isn't it be possible to get some sort of declaratory judgement from a court? Say you're RedHat (or any other Linux distributor), who happens to sell Linux and related services - in light of MS's statements, wouldn't you be entitled to know which patents are involved? MS's statements have a direct impact on your business.

And if MS refused to tell you then couldn't you get a declaration from a court that your product doesn't infringe? IIRC, this is similar to what RedHat is pursuing in its case against SCO (which is on hold while SCO v IBM drags on).

Maybe a small Linux distributor with no assets and not much to lose could pursue a case like this against MS.

First, any party bringing a lawsuit under the American legal system must have standing to sue, meaning that they must have a material interest in the outcome of the suit. Since Microsoft has not specifically threatened anybody, at the moment, it would be hard to establish standing. A really good lawyer might be able to argue that a Linux vendor is harmed by the implication that Microsoft will sue that vendors customers for patent infringement, but with any actual patent suits in process, it would be a hard sell.

Second, the American legal system refuses to issue advisory judgements, and requires that a case be 'ripe' before it can be adjudicated. Since the court would be ruling on a hypothetical ("if Microsoft were to sue for patent infringement, would we be found to be infringing?") the court would (and should) simply refuse to hear the case.

Here is a good reference for standing, advisory opinions and ripeness. A little google-foo should easily turn up others.

The only bright spot in this, from a potential plaintif's point of view, is that, as a convicted monopolist, there might be a way to accuse Microsoft of restrain-of-trade, or some other violation of the Sherman Act. Unfortunately, I think that prosecution of anti-trust cases must be brought by the federal government, and that is not very likely with the current administration. Private actions can be brought for violations of the Clayton Act but I don't quite see how it could aply in this case, and only consumers injured by their dealings with the violator have standing to sue, which puts most direct competitors out of the running.

Disclaimer: IANALBIHTBL (IANAL But I Have Taken Business Law)

You use the word "criminal" and "criminality" over and over, yet neither Bill Gates nor Microsoft has ever been accused of a "crime" let alone convicted of one. Did you ever take civics? Learn the difference between civil law and criminal law before you start spouting about "criminality". If you can't bash Microsoft without resorting to distortions (like "Microsoft is a convicted criminal organization1!!", then why should we lend any weight at all to your rants?

Because Microsoft were found guilty of (felony) violations of the Sherman act?

However, there are no independent, objective metrics. A company cannot know whether or not it is a monopoly until a court tells it.

Well, the Clayton Act should have rung some bells at the microsoft legal department when they were "cutting Netscape's air supply":

Sec. 13a. Discrimination in rebates, discounts, or advertising service charges; underselling in particular localities; penalties It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to be a party to, or assist in, any transaction of sale, or contract to sell, which discriminates to his knowledge against competitors of the purchaser, in that, any discount, rebate, allowance, or advertising service charge is granted to the purchaser over and above any discount, rebate, allowance, or advertising service charge available at the time of such transaction to said competitors in respect of a sale of goods of like grade, quality, and quantity; to sell, or contract to sell, goods in any part of the United States at prices lower than those exacted by said person elsewhere in the United States for the purpose of destroying competition, or eliminating a competitor in such part of the United States; or, to sell, or contract to sell, goods at unreasonably low prices for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

The law is clear enough for microsoft's legal team to have noticed that they were well over the boundries of the law. If the law is vague, I urge you to explain where it is and why microsoft didn't use your explanation in its case against the US. It would be very informative. Microsoft were/are using monopolistic practices. The thing is, abusing a monopoly and crossing the line of legality is worth it, as it turns out. Also:

How many popular, mainstream software products can you think of that *haven't* improved themselves via the "bundling" of features found in other software ? How many other OSes can you name that *don't* come with "media players, etc" ? If a competitor improves its product via the integration (or "bundling", if you prefer) of certain functionaly (eg: a media player) then how can a company in a "monopoly" position similarly improve their product without being ruled abusive ?

Microsoft could have provided this functionality as a seperate CD/DVD/download. Or they could permit the uninstalling of these features as linux in particular does. The software 'bundled' with linux is easily interchangeable and in no way promotes a lock-in strategy of any sort.

How many popular, mainstream software products can you think of that *haven't* improved themselves via the "bundling" of features found in other software ? How many other OSes can you name that *don't* come with "media players, etc" ? If a competitor improves its product via the integration (or "bundling", if you prefer) of certain functionaly (eg: a media player) then how can a company in a "monopoly" position similarly improve their product without being ruled abusive ?

This can still be done by providing these applications as add-on components. And if that is too 'mispleasing', an uninstall option would be enough to get the law off microsoft's back.

So why did (and does) the same logic not apply to CPU schedulers, network stacks, memory management, hardware drivers, widget sets, text editors, calculators, disk repair tools, compression tools, backup utilities, shells, GUIs, etc, etc. All these features have, at some time in the past, been provided by "competitors" to DOS and Windows (many still are). All have since been "bundled" into Windows. No-one seems to get too hung up on the fact Windows "bundles" notepad, a disk defragmenter and a TCP/IP stack.

All these fe

Here is a pretty good site on US anti-trust law.

Title 15, chapter 2, sec 13a of the US Code (Part of the The Clayton Antitrust Act) says it's illegal to:

to sell, or contract to sell, goods at unreasonably low prices for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor.

"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court." - The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890

I built M$ applications through the 90s, including all Visual Studio languages and both client/server as well as web applications using IIS and DCOM. I always told my clients the truth. When they asked me what tools and technologies I honestly believed were best for their business, what came out of my mouth was often in direct conflict with my career path.

This is not to say that I couldn't and still don't recommend M$ for some uses. But, for the large organizations I worked for, I could not honestly say it was the best thing for them. Large organizations need to really pay attention to open standards, as the cost of ignoring them can be very high in the long run. They also need to avoid vendor lock, as it can do a lot to decrease their competitiveness if their business model depends on IT.

Thus, there are many of us who develop using non-M$ solutions today that know the company very well from first-hand experience in the M$ world. You stereotype people that don't believe in M$'s strategies as people who know nothing about M$ and consider any business model that doesn't give everything away for "free". That simply isn't true. Some of us just prefer ethics and peaceful sleep over selling out; and care about our clients.

I talk to and am good friends with people who develop in the M$ world today. I can't tell you how many of them agree with me. They don't say it publicly, but share privately how much they completely agree. It's not easy to change your career path, though, when your resume is built on M$ technology. They know I understand that, and don't hold it against them, as I was once in their shoes. So, they are honest with me and agree that working for M$ makes you feel like a bit of a sellout of your basic principles.

I'm an American and speak from that perspective...

Okay, I'm a Canadian, and I'll speak from that perspective ...

would say that if VoIP were to ever be adopted as a full replacement for POTS then yes wire-tap laws should be updated to encompass that to maintain law enforcement's ability to conduct investigation. I would not extend such a update to include internal or privately held VoIP systems, but if it used like any other public utility it should be regulated in some manner

I personally think the internet has brought about signficant enhancements to free speech in the last decade, and I would respectfully submit that to the extent possible the internet should not be regulated. What do you think couldn't be accomplished with keyloggers and search warrants issued by judges? The only issue, is an issue of convenience for law enforcement, and the only convenience I believe in, is a judge issued search warrant. Frankly, I've had enough stupid US imposed law. We've had many such laws over the years.

I don't launder money or smoke up, but these are prime issues of stupidity, right up there with the war on drugs.

More to the point I'm all for , where justified.

Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

No -- it's St. Olaf College. Essentially, outgoing network traffic is allowed, but if it is not going over, say, port 80 with HTTP, it is sent at such a rate as to timeout most connections, including online gaming services such as Battle.net.

If you think that Microsoft, Disney, or most other large corporations have not violated the sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, you should probably read it. The word 'monopoly' has been bandied around specifically to confuse the issue. Section 2:

Section 2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

"Attempt to monopolize" etc. Section 1 discusses restraint of trade - which this could most certainly be percieved as a step towards, dependin g on how Microsoft and Disney deal with the DRM issues - and with their track record, it's not looking good.

Creating a barrier to entry is what the industry is trying to accomplish with mandatory DRM. If you have to pay a $50 license for DRM, and it's illegal to distribute something (software, os, hardware, or all three) without it, then the Free Software world - and, perhaps, open source - is essentially relegated to irrelevance here in the US. And in any country that would hope to do business with US and the IMF/Wold Bank. Bleah.

This assumes two things. First, that anti-trust laws are *proper*. And second, that 'competition' includes piggy-backing on MS hardware/bandwidth/etc for free in order to turn a profit. Let's take them one at a time, shall we?

Anti-trust seems like a good deal on the surface. Consumers get protection from overbearing companies, entreprenuers get a chance at improving an existing produce or service, and government gets to expand and exert more and more control over the actions and properties of citizens (companies are owned by citizens - a fact that people tend to forget.)

Now, the 3rd 'benefit' I listed is obviously not a benefit at all. The very fact that government grows and becomes more regulatory/coercive should alarm anyone with common sense. Then there's that little side issue of Constitutionality. Sure, the feds have the power, written into the Constitution, to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States" (Art. 1 Sec. 8 Clause 3). But Jefferson said that all future interpretations of the Constitution should be limited to the language and usage and definitions in use at the time of the framing. Which means that to regulate commerce between the states is exactly that - to prevent the sovereign States from enacting trade legislation that would disrupt the economic cohesion of the nation. It does *not* mean that the Federal government has the power to interfere with the operations of companies. Therefore, anti-trust is unConstitutional. Not to mention free-market principles, and the fact that the 10th Amendment limits the powers of the Federal government to only those specifically listed, and reserves all other powers to the States and the people.

Having cleanly decapitated the Sherman Act of 1890, there is no logical necessity to remark on the free ride you're claiming 'competitors' have been granted by the settlement between Microsoft and the Federal government. However, it will be an entertaining exercise, so here goes:

First we must address the term 'competitor'. You label free-riders as competitors. A sports analogy will serve to disabuse you of that notion. On the football field, a runner is sprinting across the yard markers. He is pursued by a member of the opposing team who wishes to bring his gainful exertion to an end. If he wishes to be competitive, he must rely on the strength of his own muscles and of his own will - he cannot draw ability or aptitude from his intended target. Regardless of his wishes, desires, hopes, or whims, he can only be *competitive* if he has worked hard enough to gain for himself the resources necessary to achieve his goal. If he begged for his opponent to slow down, he would simply be a supplicant.

Giving a company a free lunch at Microsoft's expense is not only unConstitutional, it is the very 'anti-competitiveness' anti-trust reactionaries shriek about.

My research is in atomic physics, and the data analysis routines we currently use are written in MathCad worksheets. While MathCad is great at (and easily readable for) simple integrals or sigma-summations, it gets very slow and incredibly difficult to read.

So difficult, in fact, that this past summer, one of our team members started hard-coding some of our more commonly used custom MathCad routines in C++ and compiling them into .dll files. This offered significant improvements in performance, between thirty and seventy percent increases in speed. Despite that, due to the vast amounts of data we need to analyze, it just isn't enough.

The real reason we had switched to MathCad in the first place was because some of our old C++ programs had become antiquated and we were shifting from UNIX-based to Windows-based machines; the ease of programming in MathCad won out over the performance gains of hard-coding. Now, that decision is beginning to haunt our research group, and I will be working on a new data analysis program, written from scratch, in C++.

The point is, for some applications, speed is essential. Case in point: with our old applications, a typical fit of data would require around 10 seconds on a 486. With our MathCad versions, it takes anywhere from 20 minutes to two hours, depending on the machines (currently Pentium 4 boxes)!

Although I'm sure the method you described result in much better roads for seasonal use, they may be overkill for a 1000 mile road that would only be traveled once or twice a year. This would be a similar to the ITASE, an Antarctic traverse that ended up at the South Pole. A photo of the vehicles they used can be found here here and here. My understanding is that this will be more of a path that is known to be safe, than a road.

As a side note, I'm an Engineer working on IceCube (the project that is justifying this "road") and one of our largest cost is fuel needed to make water. "Paving" an "ice road" 1,000 miles long to the pole would be prohibitively expensive as fuel cost about $20 a gallon by the time it gets to the pole.

Although I'm sure the method you described result in much better roads for seasonal use, they may be overkill for a 1000 mile road that would only be traveled once or twice a year. This would be a similar to the ITASE, an Antarctic traverse that ended up at the South Pole. A photo of the vehicles they used can be found here here and here. My understanding is that this will be more of a path that is known to be safe, than a road.

As a side note, I'm an Engineer working on IceCube (the project that is justifying this "road") and one of our largest cost is fuel needed to make water. "Paving" an "ice road" 1,000 miles long to the pole would be prohibitively expensive as fuel cost about $20 a gallon by the time it gets to the pole.

Although I'm sure the method you described result in much better roads for seasonal use, they may be overkill for a 1000 mile road that would only be traveled once or twice a year. This would be a similar to the ITASE, an Antarctic traverse that ended up at the South Pole. A photo of the vehicles they used can be found here here and here. My understanding is that this will be more of a path that is known to be safe, than a road.

As a side note, I'm an Engineer working on IceCube (the project that is justifying this "road") and one of our largest cost is fuel needed to make water. "Paving" an "ice road" 1,000 miles long to the pole would be prohibitively expensive as fuel cost about $20 a gallon by the time it gets to the pole.

there haven't been many advances in algebra

Right now, there's an active field of research in discrete algebra focusing on mathematical constructs called "cwatsets." Cwatsets are not a Welsh obscenity but rather a slight generalization of group theory that has applications in statistics.

calculus

Calculus, especially in the 3xx and 4xx levels where it is called "real analysis", is still an active field of research.

that would make it into most undergraduate classes.

I agree that 1xx-level and 2xx-level material don't change much from year to year, except perhaps in CS where the school changes the language for Introduction to Programming every other year to match market demands. Perhaps I just go to a good school, where many of the mathematical topics covered in most colleges' graduate programs are covered in the senior year.

There is a phenomenon called "Covert Oral Behavior" which is similar to this. Basically, when you think words, (but do not speak them) the nerve signals which would normally move your mouth and vocal chords are not completely dampened. They are suppressed, but not completely eliminated. See the work of this research group, based on the research of F. J. McGuigan

I'm currently a college senior, finishing up a triple major in music, philosophy, and CS, and I've written ALL of my college papers in LaTeX. (even music history papers, complete with typeset musical examples.) It is far superior to DocBook, which is, although nice for what it does, a little crocky and has nasty syntax. (You can also write a legal DocBook document which is not legal SGML or XML.) LaTeX gives you far more control.

LaTeX is easily extensible and the math commands are unparalleled. In addition, you can make PDF files directly with pdflatex, a standard part of the tetex deistibution (which comes with RedHat).

For example pdflatex output, see here; for example docbook output, see here.

best,
wb

I'm currently a college senior, finishing up a triple major in music, philosophy, and CS, and I've written ALL of my college papers in LaTeX. (even music history papers, complete with typeset musical examples.) It is far superior to DocBook, which is, although nice for what it does, a little crocky and has nasty syntax. (You can also write a legal DocBook document which is not legal SGML or XML.) LaTeX gives you far more control.

LaTeX is easily extensible and the math commands are unparalleled. In addition, you can make PDF files directly with pdflatex, a standard part of the tetex deistibution (which comes with RedHat).

For example pdflatex output, see here; for example docbook output, see here.

best,
wb

So, not really focused on Evangalista, but sorta, heh, I was wondering if it's possible to join the Slashdot team in the rc5 contest...and how. Ignore my other link.... Moss Website