There's a modded-0 (not mine, but not sure why the low mod) comment that recomends using PDFs to avoid that problem - which is a useful way to address the issue. I like to keep MSWord, plain text, rtf and PDF versions of my resume handy. Unfortunately, different employers want different types of files submitted.
Here's my completely subjective, indicitive-of-nothing compatibility test.
I have an old version of my resume I drafted in Word some time ago. It's not very complicated - just a few boxes of text and a table for the main content. It's been edited, exported to different formats, reimported and mucked up all over the place a few times over. The last version of it opens just fine in any version of Word, and looks good, but I can only imagine the leftover crud from several edits and imports/exports sitting around in the file.
So far, I've yet to come across another office suite that renders the documents the same way word does - although late builds of OO 1.x have come close. I downloaded the 1.91 preview version, on a FC3 system with the msfonts installed, did an almost-perfect import. One line that sits at the bottom of the document in word gets pushed to the next page in OO 1.91. Other than that, it's a faithful reproductoin of the special characters (bullets and a few accent marks) and hand-adjusted spacing in the table. The fonts all match and the lines break in the same place.
I think "opens Lou's resume pretty well" should be an advertised feature in any Word competitor.
"Sprint is merging with Nextel, not Verizon. This makes less sense and they are looking to essentialy keep two seperate networks running."
I don't know the details of the deal, but it still seems to make sense to me. Each company gets all of the other's existing, contracted customers, kills off one competitor, and gains a whole lot of infrastructure. Eventually they'll either shift to one network, or find a way to make having two useful.
It plays mp3-dvds as a walkman-type device (and happens to double as a USB dvd reader and cd writer).
Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the only lossless you'll get out of this is WAV, so no compression. But if you've got flacs on your hard drive, you could transcode them to high-bitrate mp3s, save a crapload of space, and probably never notice the difference in casual listening. And you'd still have the perfect copied on your HD until something better comes along.
That's a mischaracterizatoin of capitalism. A Capatalism is a free-market type. We'd like cheap labor, with unions and market forces addressing grievences. For instance, we're perfectly content with EA employees crying to the media and game purchasers boycotting EA in response.
I'm feeding into a troll here, but I take serious offense to being called sexist. I specifically said women who make an effort to learn about tech are likely to eb as technically savvy as their male counterparts. But overall, they seem to have less of an itnerest in doing so - although there are always exceptions. As I said, that's largely because they've been socialized to be less interested in tech, not because they're less inherently capable.
I know crap about cars. That doesn't make me inferior to mechanics, it makes me less itnerested in their field than they are. No one is arguing superiority/inferiority, or rightful place in society, or any of that nonsense. But look around any office and you'll usually find more men itnerested and capable with tech then women. Look aroudn a development house and you'll find far more male employees. Things might not always be this way, and you might be a very capable tech geek yourself. But for the moment, it's where society is, for better or for worse.
Two reasons. Both are over-generalizations with plenty of exceptions.
1) Younger people tend to be more technically savy, or at least more comfortable using technology for its basic purposes than older people. THere's no great mystery there. They grew up with the technology. I knew how to program my VCR when I was five. My mother still struggles with it. She didn't have any such device when she was at the oh-so-impressionalbe age of five, when you sap up knowledge and skills like a sponge.
2) Men tend to be more gizmo-happy then women. We like our toys. We like to know how things work. We like to MASTER our devices, and tweak and play aroudn with them. This is why there are more male mechanics. This is why there are more men in IT. We're not any more capable than women in the tech field, just generally more interested in it. It's probably because we've been socialized to have more of a leaning toward tech, but I wouldn't doubt there's some evolutionary biological component to it to.
That being said, there are plenty of technically competent, older women out there. I'd venture any reasonably intelligent woman of any age who makes an effort to understand tech could do so. But they're not the norm.
And for that matter, 48 is a reasonably young grandman. I'd wager your grandchild is still, just that, a child. The audience reading the article is, at the least, composed of people in their teens. Many are adults. Their grandmothers are 60 to 70 years old, or more. Mine's nearly 80. When she was my age, MP3 players didn't exist. Neither did CD players. Neither did computers. She grew up in an age that didn't give her an inclination to these sorts of things.
First (well, not really FIRST, but anyway) there was Netscape. It included the browser, mail program, html composer and whateevr other goodness in a big monolithic application. Each major function had its own UI, but they were all parts of the same program.
Then, the Netscape team opened up much of its code, and Mozilla was born (I could be wrong; Mozilla might always have eben a codename for Netscape source, even before the OSS release). Like Netscape, Mozilla was a web browser, mail program, html composer, and more. It developed slowly over time.
Eventually, the old Netscape line (4.7ish) was replaced by a rebranded and slightly enhanced Mozilla, with the Netscape name. Netscape 6.x was based on pre-1.0 versions of Mozilla. Netscape 7.x was based on post-1.0 versions. These days, AOL owns Netscape, and Netscape remains involved with Mozilla project development to some extent.
Somewhere aroudn the same time, the Mozilla project worked on forking off certain components of Mozilla into more modular components. Firefox (then called Phoenix) was created to be a standalone Web browser with a smaller memory footprint than the overall Mozilla suite had ever been. Thunderbird was the standalone mail application.
Over time, both firefox and thunderbird got features entirely independent to those versions -- ones that don't exist in the larger Mozilla suite.
At the moment, both the larger Mozilla suite and the Thunderbird/Firefox standalone applications are being actively developed. Eventually, according to most thinking, the larger Mozilla will be phased out and replaced by the standalones.
Mozilla, Firefox, and Thunderbird all use the Gecko rendering engine developed for Mozilla. Incidentally, so does compuserve's own browser (i think), and certain platform-sepcific browsers such as ephipheny and galeon.
The next version of Netscape, incidentally, will be a rebranded and enhanced version of Firefox, according to recent reports.
that's true. it bugs me as well. i also can't figure out why it insists on sitting in my tray despite the fact that it doesn't do active monitoring.
then again, i've been ok without active monitoring of any kind (which can be a resource hog, depending on the implimentation) so long as I'm reasonably responsible with what I install.
It's not that I believe people will act responsibly. It's that I think preventative policing is a bad idea, and punishes those who would limit their participation to benign activity.
Strictly enforce those murder/burglary/etc laws with a solid foundatoin. Don't make the drug illegal just because someone on the drug MIGHT be more likely to commit the other crimes.
And don't protect people from themselves. On of the consequences of making people responsible for their own well-being is accepting that sometimes they'll screw up. I'm more prepared to accept that reality than take the liberty away from everyone else.
First of all, there are resonably rational arguments for legalizing heroin - the most important being that use only directly affects the person who chose to take it. Indirect results affect everyone, but you can only reasonably regulate certain activity.
And in the larger argument - in a free society, you don't need a reason to make something legal. you need a reason to make it illegal. So logn as there are substantial non-infringign uses, the arugment to make it illegal is weakened. By doing so, you'd infringe on the rights of SOME people (even if they're in the minority) inperfectly benign, otherwise legitimate activities.
The betamax defense basically argues that just because a product CAN be used for infringing uses, it doesn't mean it WILL always be, or that the tool should be outlawed. The American court system, for instance, found betamax had substantial non-infringing uses, so the technology couldn't be banned.
The same holds true of Kazaa. It's certainly possible for me to distribute my resume, my own recorded music or artwork, live band recordings (provided the artist gives the OK), or other freely distributable materials through Kazaa. It just provides the peer-to-peer connection -- just like any other internet technology. E-mail lets me send files, copywritten and protected or otherwise, to other users. Newsgroups let me do the same thing. So does having a Web site. So do most IM clients. Kazaa makes it easier to distribute media en masse (or at least to find it) but its not inherently different than any other technology that lets you move bits from one place to another.
The only real difference is that the popular culture around P2P is dominated by illicit use. But the technology itself can't be blamed for that.
If anything, the *AA could argue Kazaa's business model and marketing strategy are dependent on that illicit use and promote it, but that wouldn't be an argument against the technology itself, just the business. And even so, that's a hard argument to make. I'm reasonably sure Shaman has "don't be a criminal" type warnings all over its software, site and promotional materials.
I think the point the poster above you is trying to make is that when it was broadcast over the air, it was available to anyone in range to watch or record. So he's saying there shouldn't be much difference between watching it live yourself, watching your own recording, or downloading a recording someone else made - it's allthe same content, which had been made available to you once by the rights holder.
It really isn't that simple. The biology of the individual has changed over time due to evolution/devolution, but so as the social structure of the overall group. In addition to developing big brains that let us solve problems like how to catch food and cook it, we've developed empathy, a desire for self-betterment, a curiosity about the nature ofthe universe, a desire for capital gains, and all sorts of other qualities that led us to create the field of medicine.
not only have we evolved to match our environment, we've evolved to the point where were maniupulate our enviornment to suit our needs. i'd say that's a most substantial and more impressive evolution than any other creature has demonstrated so far.
think about it this way - jackets might save the thin-skinned from dieing off in the cold the way your view of natural selection suggests they might have otherwise. that means people prone to frostbite and chills and compromised immune systems in cold weather are more likely to pass on their jeans. but because we've developed these nice big brains, we DID learn to create jackets, a marketplace to buy them in, and a delivery system to get them to the consumer. Those things are products of evolution as well.
Well, that, and there are a fair amount of us who have an honest, well-thought-out and principled opinion that government has no businesses poking into most areas of life. For every program government supports, it has to take cash from the governed - and many of us feel its abusive for the soveriegn power, the people with the guns and the jails, to play robbin hood like that. We don't want to pay toward programs we don't support, and don't want other people paying toward programs THEY don't support.
I, personally, worry about how effectively and economically government can run certain services. But even when it's the cheaper alternative, I'm concerned about the impact on liberty and property rights necessary to make the goverment successful in its endeavors. I think many, many goverment programs are well-intentioned and even do a great deal of good - welfare, arts support, etc - but I'd feel more comfortable if they were funded voluntarily through the generosity of a public that has cash to toss around because the goverment didn't just take 40 percent of its paycheck.
I acknowledge many, many people WOULDN'T fund those sorts of programs on their own, unfortunately. But if that's the case, how democratic is it to forcibly take those funds from them?
Slashdot Mirror
There's a modded-0 (not mine, but not sure why the low mod) comment that recomends using PDFs to avoid that problem - which is a useful way to address the issue. I like to keep MSWord, plain text, rtf and PDF versions of my resume handy. Unfortunately, different employers want different types of files submitted.
Here's my completely subjective, indicitive-of-nothing compatibility test.
I have an old version of my resume I drafted in Word some time ago. It's not very complicated - just a few boxes of text and a table for the main content. It's been edited, exported to different formats, reimported and mucked up all over the place a few times over. The last version of it opens just fine in any version of Word, and looks good, but I can only imagine the leftover crud from several edits and imports/exports sitting around in the file.
So far, I've yet to come across another office suite that renders the documents the same way word does - although late builds of OO 1.x have come close. I downloaded the 1.91 preview version, on a FC3 system with the msfonts installed, did an almost-perfect import. One line that sits at the bottom of the document in word gets pushed to the next page in OO 1.91. Other than that, it's a faithful reproductoin of the special characters (bullets and a few accent marks) and hand-adjusted spacing in the table. The fonts all match and the lines break in the same place.
I think "opens Lou's resume pretty well" should be an advertised feature in any Word competitor.
getting off-topic here, but ...
both phrases are common. "couldn't care less" makes some logical sense. "could care less" is a common bastardization of the same phrase.
It actually loaded faster for me off of the Penny Arcade site than it did off of slashdot.
I guess slashdot got pennyarcaded.
"Sprint is merging with Nextel, not Verizon. This makes less sense and they are looking to essentialy keep two seperate networks running."
I don't know the details of the deal, but it still seems to make sense to me. Each company gets all of the other's existing, contracted customers, kills off one competitor, and gains a whole lot of infrastructure. Eventually they'll either shift to one network, or find a way to make having two useful.
My kingdom for a mod point ...
"All you really need is food and shelter."
:)
Dude. I also need air and water, and you're a jackass for suggesting otherwise
actually, this is slashdot, and we call it pr0n.
This sucker is close. I got one on e-bay for $120, as a refurb.
% 2C 00.asp
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0%2C1759%2C821305
It plays mp3-dvds as a walkman-type device (and happens to double as a USB dvd reader and cd writer).
Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the only lossless you'll get out of this is WAV, so no compression. But if you've got flacs on your hard drive, you could transcode them to high-bitrate mp3s, save a crapload of space, and probably never notice the difference in casual listening. And you'd still have the perfect copied on your HD until something better comes along.
That's a mischaracterizatoin of capitalism. A Capatalism is a free-market type. We'd like cheap labor, with unions and market forces addressing grievences. For instance, we're perfectly content with EA employees crying to the media and game purchasers boycotting EA in response.
I'm feeding into a troll here, but I take serious offense to being called sexist. I specifically said women who make an effort to learn about tech are likely to eb as technically savvy as their male counterparts. But overall, they seem to have less of an itnerest in doing so - although there are always exceptions. As I said, that's largely because they've been socialized to be less interested in tech, not because they're less inherently capable.
I know crap about cars. That doesn't make me inferior to mechanics, it makes me less itnerested in their field than they are. No one is arguing superiority/inferiority, or rightful place in society, or any of that nonsense. But look around any office and you'll usually find more men itnerested and capable with tech then women. Look aroudn a development house and you'll find far more male employees. Things might not always be this way, and you might be a very capable tech geek yourself. But for the moment, it's where society is, for better or for worse.
Geez.
Two reasons. Both are over-generalizations with plenty of exceptions.
1) Younger people tend to be more technically savy, or at least more comfortable using technology for its basic purposes than older people. THere's no great mystery there. They grew up with the technology. I knew how to program my VCR when I was five. My mother still struggles with it. She didn't have any such device when she was at the oh-so-impressionalbe age of five, when you sap up knowledge and skills like a sponge.
2) Men tend to be more gizmo-happy then women. We like our toys. We like to know how things work. We like to MASTER our devices, and tweak and play aroudn with them. This is why there are more male mechanics. This is why there are more men in IT. We're not any more capable than women in the tech field, just generally more interested in it. It's probably because we've been socialized to have more of a leaning toward tech, but I wouldn't doubt there's some evolutionary biological component to it to.
That being said, there are plenty of technically competent, older women out there. I'd venture any reasonably intelligent woman of any age who makes an effort to understand tech could do so. But they're not the norm.
And for that matter, 48 is a reasonably young grandman. I'd wager your grandchild is still, just that, a child. The audience reading the article is, at the least, composed of people in their teens. Many are adults. Their grandmothers are 60 to 70 years old, or more. Mine's nearly 80. When she was my age, MP3 players didn't exist. Neither did CD players. Neither did computers. She grew up in an age that didn't give her an inclination to these sorts of things.
So stop being so sentitive.
Ok, let's break this down.
First (well, not really FIRST, but anyway) there was Netscape. It included the browser, mail program, html composer and whateevr other goodness in a big monolithic application. Each major function had its own UI, but they were all parts of the same program.
Then, the Netscape team opened up much of its code, and Mozilla was born (I could be wrong; Mozilla might always have eben a codename for Netscape source, even before the OSS release). Like Netscape, Mozilla was a web browser, mail program, html composer, and more. It developed slowly over time.
Eventually, the old Netscape line (4.7ish) was replaced by a rebranded and slightly enhanced Mozilla, with the Netscape name. Netscape 6.x was based on pre-1.0 versions of Mozilla. Netscape 7.x was based on post-1.0 versions. These days, AOL owns Netscape, and Netscape remains involved with Mozilla project development to some extent.
Somewhere aroudn the same time, the Mozilla project worked on forking off certain components of Mozilla into more modular components. Firefox (then called Phoenix) was created to be a standalone Web browser with a smaller memory footprint than the overall Mozilla suite had ever been. Thunderbird was the standalone mail application.
Over time, both firefox and thunderbird got features entirely independent to those versions -- ones that don't exist in the larger Mozilla suite.
At the moment, both the larger Mozilla suite and the Thunderbird/Firefox standalone applications are being actively developed. Eventually, according to most thinking, the larger Mozilla will be phased out and replaced by the standalones.
Mozilla, Firefox, and Thunderbird all use the Gecko rendering engine developed for Mozilla. Incidentally, so does compuserve's own browser (i think), and certain platform-sepcific browsers such as ephipheny and galeon.
The next version of Netscape, incidentally, will be a rebranded and enhanced version of Firefox, according to recent reports.
Hope that clears things up.
that's true. it bugs me as well. i also can't figure out why it insists on sitting in my tray despite the fact that it doesn't do active monitoring.
then again, i've been ok without active monitoring of any kind (which can be a resource hog, depending on the implimentation) so long as I'm reasonably responsible with what I install.
try clam a/v, or if you're on windows, clamwin a/v. the interface isn't great, but it does the job.
It's not that I believe people will act responsibly. It's that I think preventative policing is a bad idea, and punishes those who would limit their participation to benign activity.
Strictly enforce those murder/burglary/etc laws with a solid foundatoin. Don't make the drug illegal just because someone on the drug MIGHT be more likely to commit the other crimes.
And don't protect people from themselves. On of the consequences of making people responsible for their own well-being is accepting that sometimes they'll screw up. I'm more prepared to accept that reality than take the liberty away from everyone else.
In Soviet Russa ... old people are Korean spacecrafts! or something.
First of all, there are resonably rational arguments for legalizing heroin - the most important being that use only directly affects the person who chose to take it. Indirect results affect everyone, but you can only reasonably regulate certain activity.
And in the larger argument - in a free society, you don't need a reason to make something legal. you need a reason to make it illegal. So logn as there are substantial non-infringign uses, the arugment to make it illegal is weakened. By doing so, you'd infringe on the rights of SOME people (even if they're in the minority) inperfectly benign, otherwise legitimate activities.
The betamax defense basically argues that just because a product CAN be used for infringing uses, it doesn't mean it WILL always be, or that the tool should be outlawed. The American court system, for instance, found betamax had substantial non-infringing uses, so the technology couldn't be banned.
The same holds true of Kazaa. It's certainly possible for me to distribute my resume, my own recorded music or artwork, live band recordings (provided the artist gives the OK), or other freely distributable materials through Kazaa. It just provides the peer-to-peer connection -- just like any other internet technology. E-mail lets me send files, copywritten and protected or otherwise, to other users. Newsgroups let me do the same thing. So does having a Web site. So do most IM clients. Kazaa makes it easier to distribute media en masse (or at least to find it) but its not inherently different than any other technology that lets you move bits from one place to another.
The only real difference is that the popular culture around P2P is dominated by illicit use. But the technology itself can't be blamed for that.
If anything, the *AA could argue Kazaa's business model and marketing strategy are dependent on that illicit use and promote it, but that wouldn't be an argument against the technology itself, just the business. And even so, that's a hard argument to make. I'm reasonably sure Shaman has "don't be a criminal" type warnings all over its software, site and promotional materials.
I think the point the poster above you is trying to make is that when it was broadcast over the air, it was available to anyone in range to watch or record. So he's saying there shouldn't be much difference between watching it live yourself, watching your own recording, or downloading a recording someone else made - it's allthe same content, which had been made available to you once by the rights holder.
I reread that and noticed it afterward. Clearly, though, we're talking about organically grown genetically engineered jeans :)
"Hell, I feel more related-ness with chimpanzees in general, than with a number of particular "persons."
George? Is that you?
effect can be a verb to, and means "to cause." But the original parent poster is still wrong :)
It really isn't that simple. The biology of the individual has changed over time due to evolution/devolution, but so as the social structure of the overall group. In addition to developing big brains that let us solve problems like how to catch food and cook it, we've developed empathy, a desire for self-betterment, a curiosity about the nature ofthe universe, a desire for capital gains, and all sorts of other qualities that led us to create the field of medicine.
not only have we evolved to match our environment, we've evolved to the point where were maniupulate our enviornment to suit our needs. i'd say that's a most substantial and more impressive evolution than any other creature has demonstrated so far.
think about it this way - jackets might save the thin-skinned from dieing off in the cold the way your view of natural selection suggests they might have otherwise. that means people prone to frostbite and chills and compromised immune systems in cold weather are more likely to pass on their jeans. but because we've developed these nice big brains, we DID learn to create jackets, a marketplace to buy them in, and a delivery system to get them to the consumer. Those things are products of evolution as well.
Well, that, and there are a fair amount of us who have an honest, well-thought-out and principled opinion that government has no businesses poking into most areas of life. For every program government supports, it has to take cash from the governed - and many of us feel its abusive for the soveriegn power, the people with the guns and the jails, to play robbin hood like that. We don't want to pay toward programs we don't support, and don't want other people paying toward programs THEY don't support.
I, personally, worry about how effectively and economically government can run certain services. But even when it's the cheaper alternative, I'm concerned about the impact on liberty and property rights necessary to make the goverment successful in its endeavors. I think many, many goverment programs are well-intentioned and even do a great deal of good - welfare, arts support, etc - but I'd feel more comfortable if they were funded voluntarily through the generosity of a public that has cash to toss around because the goverment didn't just take 40 percent of its paycheck.
I acknowledge many, many people WOULDN'T fund those sorts of programs on their own, unfortunately. But if that's the case, how democratic is it to forcibly take those funds from them?