With the default installation of LaTeX, that is difficult. With XeLaTeX, it's no harder than with Word or OpenOffice, and you have the advantage that it will look the same. You type a UTF-8 file, use OpenType fonts, and get a PDF that people who can't process XeLaTeX can still read.
I'm sure that will be useful for many of us (even though the installation failed for me).
I suppose the regular disclaimers like "make sure you have all the dependencies installed" apply. It's a pity GNU/Linux distributions are still like that...
In Word, modify your formatting toolbar. Get rid of almost everything from it, except for lists and the first dropdown (and the button before it). Click the button before it. Now you have a setup like mine (when I'm forced to use a word processor--I much prefer TeX). Use the styles. When you think "this would be better in red", just create a new style and format it as red.
I've been doing this since Word 6.0, when I first used a GUI wordprocessor. Stylesheets aren't by any means a new thing: They're just one of the many features of them that most people don't seem to know about.
To be fair, there's a Unicode version of TeX called Omega or some such. I'd doubtless have found it very useful if I'd ever managed to get it to work at all.
Take a look at XeTeX. It installed without a hitch on my computer (ppc debian) once I altered the Debian control stuff to compile against the TeXLive TeX packages rather than teTeX. Or if you run on a more normal platform (x86 ubuntu/debian/SuSE, MacOS X, maybe Windows) there's precompiled packages for you. It will use any OpenType (or TTF, or on OSX those Apple fonts) font you've got installed on your computer with complete (low-level) access to the special features, or higher-level access to most stuff via the fontspec LaTeX package. I quite happily no longer bother pissfarting around with stupid font packages. The only disadvantage I've found from XeTeX is that because it uses xdvipdfmx to convert to PDF you can't get special features from pdfTeX, and that it has the potential to make your input files platform-specific.
As for Omega, it's a dead end; AFAIK what it's given us will at some point be intergrated along with the scripting language lua and pdfTeX into something called LuaTeX. I might be mistaken on that front.
Proportionality doesn't help with getting Independents elected. It helps with getting minor parties elected. The STV helps with both, to a greater or lesser extent, but is not proportional.
So one might assume that having more parties would give a larger chance that one of them would meet his views.
Oh indeed it might. But from what I've seen of minor parties elected in proportional and STV systems, they tend to be either exactly the same as mainstream two-party system types, or they're relatively extreme.[*] They're probably not the sort of party the original poster wants to vote for.
[*]: Not, obviously, that I wish to imply they'd be so extreme reasonable people wouldn't want to vote for them. Just in comparison to how I interpret the OP's tastes.
The "America electoral system" was designed over 200 years ago there have been great advances in communication since then. Maybe you might want to look at a system implemented by modern country this century.
My suggestion (which is based on systems implemented in the 20th and 21st centuries) was to go to a system that uses modern advances in communication and political theory to reimplent the system intended based on current knowledge. My suggestion has the advantage that it's possible (albeit very hard) now to get elected in the system and that the changes are comparatively minor, so they're more likely to be accepted. They can also allow some of the benefits of the current American system, such as the relatively weak power parties have over their members, to continue.
Umm... It writes on the paper by exposing it to a certain wavelength of light. I would think it would be pretty trivial to design a laserpen that emits that wavelength. It'd be a bit funny to use, but so much more convenient than a mouse, touchpad, touchscreen or graphics tablet.
Or, stand as an Independent. The best time to do this is at a special election when an incumbent is leaving before a regular election. The second-best time to do this is at a regular election when the incumbent is retiring/leaving. Keep your eyes out for when this will happen, make sure people know you want to be elected and why, and get yourself elected. (You might need to stand a few times expecting to lose to get your profile out there; don't try to be elected, just try to get a few mentions in a local news column no-one will ever read. Also, start with your State's government first: It's a more affordable way of getting known and getting power.)
Once you're in you'll have a much better chance of staying in. Then, work on having the voting systems changed to ones that favor independents more: Australia's instant run-off preferential helps a bit. Proper proportional voting doesn't help, but the single-transferable vote is okay. Changing the way party donations work helps too. Increase the number of people in congress till districts are at a size you can plausibly get around. Eventually, you'll get the electoral system America was meant to have again.
Actually what I heard is that the Queen herself decided it was no longer appropriate to grant knighthoods to Australians, told the then PM, and that was the end of the AK/AD. A pity; I think if someone's that important to our society, the least we can do is give them a title. As it's decided by the PM and not the Queen, I hardly see how it's an issue of republicanism...
But this happened before I knew what politics were, so I'm probably at least a little wrong...
Just outlawing bulbs is short-sighted and will cause problems.
Well derr. This is Howard's Liberal Party of Australia (like Bush's US Republicans) we're talking about. E-ve-ry-thing they do is short-sighted and will cause problems. This is not meant to fix anything, this is meant to help them avoid losing the federal election later this year.
Environmentalists: isn't that solution a LOT better than setting up millions of pages of regulations for how big a house you can have, how fuel-efficient your car can be, who needs to get a prescription for a light bulb, etc?
From what I've seen of this, it should be pointed out that it's being introduced by the federal Liberal government and has not been pushed for my environmentalists. The Liberal Party (who are right-wing, similar to the US Republicans) have had a very bad record on environmental matters, but it is becoming increasingly likely that the election later this year will be fought partially on these grounds. So they're trying very hard to make themselves look less bad on that front; this is simply one aspect.
Otoh, what you're proposing is essentially a carbon-trading scheme. Environmentalists everywhere are arguing we should have one. Unfortunately, because our federal government is full of people who don't believe in climate change, let alone want to do anything practical, and because our state governments are full of people who don't want to be there, and because everyone's in the pocket of the coal mining unions, this ain't gonna happen any time soon.
G'die mite. Wawts wrawng weeth as Ozzies? Cahn't we speak English jast as good as thaose Bladdy Whingen' Pawms? Or ah you discreeminiten' agenst as becawse we cam frawm the Seauth Pacific nawt the Nawth Atlantic?
(I have no idea if that sounds like how an American would hear in Australian accent, but that's what it's meant to be.)
John Howard's birthday is in July. I know that, because it's either one or two days before mine. I forget which. In any case, he's not turning eighty for over a decade.
which sucks because so many Aussies hate America, but our ruler loves those yanks and wants us to be just like them
Very few Aussies hate America. A lot of us don't agree with (even "hate") the current direction of the US Administration; and also think the alliance is more like a master and a lapdog rather than two independent countries (with a very big difference in power).
I point this out not for your (renegadesx) benefit, but for the benefit of other people who happen to see your upmodded but highly wrong post.
I'm typing this on a first revision iMac G5. I've had absolutely no problem with the slot-loading drive. In fact, when I was replacing my Dell laptop a MacBook was high on my list precisely because of the difficulty me and others have had with the standard laptop trays. (It's quite a performance trying to get my Dell's tray to open, and usually involves three or four careful attempts at pressing the eject button just enough, but not too much.)
And no, I'm in absolutely no way an Apple fanboi; my iMac hasn't had Mac OS X installed on it since (it must've been) mid/late-2005, after I discovered that it and I did not get on.
You realise that the reason the difference is so much is precisely because the documents are so short? You increase the size of the documents, the proportion of overhead to compressed data decreases and the difference between a 10 MB document using and and one using and also decreases.
Just for the record, I've had a Mac, and I've gone back. I used it for about six or seven months, but its UI was incompatible with my workflow. (I use a GNU/Linux-based system on an iMac G5 nowadays.)
Cash register in a market stall in some third world country? (I'm sorry, I didn't make that clear, I was talking about people who didn't have cash registers.) It's also worth noting that in markets prices are not as likely to be the same from day to day (or even customer to customer) as they are in a computer shop.
Yes, the process will involve some remembering and some calculation, but the point is completely valid: We perform much better in concrete, real-life situations than in abstractions.
I don't understand. What's wrong with Haskell's syntax from a Human Interface perspective? I really can't think how it's substantially different from Python, once you account for differences of language philosophy. Do you just want brackets around parameters to a function call? (Or do you refer to the different styles Haskell allows, like the so-called point-free style for function definitions that make it completely unobvious how many arguments are being used?)
(I realise about Lisp; I was just showing that the issue had been considered from both extremes. Like Perl's, it's useful but not exactly easy for a noob to follow... There's stuff in between. Or ones that have a C-like syntax like JavaScript, but it clearly hasn't considered syntax aside from the "let's make it like Java" angle.)
However you give your brain complex math problems, and it can spend seconds, minutes, or even hours to solve it, sometimes requiring extra scratch memory to solve.
You give an x86 computer PPC binaries and ask it to run them and they'll be slow. Your complex maths problems aren't in your brain's natural format. But anyone (experienced with driving a particular car) can tell you just how hard they'll need break to stop, or how fast they can go round that corner safely. And they can do this whilst telling their kids in the back to shut up! These are pretty complex maths problems. Even simpler ones can be done in no time at all: Uneducated people who run market stalls can calculate change from $50 of sixteen figs very quickly, yet you ask them what 50-(cost-of-fig * 15) is, and they'll take a lot longer.
The brain is massively parallel; it's just that attention is more limited, and it takes attention to process abstract problems. And, of course, your brain has been optimised for particular tasks. We can still learn a lot from it when solving different problems
(Also, the computations your brain can do is a separate issue from its memory. Your short-term memory is only very limited---sevenish items, but of almost arbitrary size ("123632445634579861" is hard to store in STM, but "123 632 244 563 579 861" is much easier), whereas your long-term memory is much slower less useful when you're performing computations.)
Surely functional programming languages are where the idea of syntax design as UI problem came from! Lisp on the one hand has a very simple yet incredibly powerful syntax; whereas Haskell has an incredibly beautiful syntax with more sugar than you can dream of. Neither have the same kind of hard-and-fast distinction betwee built-ins and user-defined structures of others either; I can just as easily define an infix function or a macro that doesn't expand its third argument in Haskell or Lisp (respectively) as I can define a regular all-expanding prefix function.
What Haskell needs is to change the name of the IO monad to "warm fuzzy thing" or somesuch and to give it a syntax a bit more like regular procedural languages. And also to improve its efficiency.
Also, more on topic, is Haskell, or any other lazy pure functional language, actually capable of automatically parallelising code, or is that just some theoretical idea that will need a lot of research & work before it's possible? I didn't think Haskell used multiple processors...
Some guy from Western Australia reckons he's developed technology to get (a lot of) water out of (even desert) air using only (very few) windmills. If he's not pedalling twenty-first century snake oil, then the size of WA is almost twice the combined size of Texas and California, and it's largely an outback state. So if Westralians are happy to cope with eastern-style bushfire seasons, maybe it's only implausible, not impossible.
Oil will just be replaced by at-least-as-dirty technologies like liquified coal. Running oat of oil is only a bad thing unless we can actually replace it with something useful before we get that bad...
I'm using Windows XP Professional at work (I've used GNU/Linux at home since before Windows 2000 was released, so I find new versions of Windows a little confusing).
I needed to change the permissions of a file and had exactly the same problem as the PP. Eventually I had to ask the resident Windows guru how to do it. Even he took a while to work out what was wrong and how to fix it; in the end I think he stumbled across the answer and probably couldn't tell me what to do if I asked him again.
Because the vast majority of file managers need one. HTTP servers need one. Browser plug-ins need one. Programs like ffmpeg need one. etc.
None of them need them; it's just that the majority have been written to use them. They can use some other mechanism such as autodetermining the format or, when that fails, a command-line argument. TeX needs extensions and so I use them with it.
But as for cases like HTTP servers where efficiency is a significant concern... , I wasn't arguing that we should abolish extensions entirely. Just that there's times when it's neater & easier to avoid them: If the PP was using undifferentiated.audio, there's probably no reason to use an extension in the first place. (With so many filemanagers nowadays opening most files to make a preview of them, I think it's pretty obvious most people find convenience more important than efficiency there.)
(For my part, I haven't found any file where my filemanager inaccurately guesses the type; only when it doesn't try (mp3s) or it insufficiently distinguishes (Office documents). In fact, if I have "movie.ogg" and "audio.ogg", then it doesn't attempt to distinguish them, but if I have "movie" and "audio", it does somehow manage to work out that one's Ogg Theora and the others Ogg Vorbis, so it works a bit both ways. And I have no files MPlayer's refused to play without extensions that it does play with them---lucky me I guess.)
Slashdot Mirror
With the default installation of LaTeX, that is difficult. With XeLaTeX, it's no harder than with Word or OpenOffice, and you have the advantage that it will look the same. You type a UTF-8 file, use OpenType fonts, and get a PDF that people who can't process XeLaTeX can still read.
I'm sure that will be useful for many of us (even though the installation failed for me).
I suppose the regular disclaimers like "make sure you have all the dependencies installed" apply. It's a pity GNU/Linux distributions are still like that...
In Word, modify your formatting toolbar. Get rid of almost everything from it, except for lists and the first dropdown (and the button before it). Click the button before it. Now you have a setup like mine (when I'm forced to use a word processor--I much prefer TeX). Use the styles. When you think "this would be better in red", just create a new style and format it as red.
I've been doing this since Word 6.0, when I first used a GUI wordprocessor. Stylesheets aren't by any means a new thing: They're just one of the many features of them that most people don't seem to know about.
To be fair, there's a Unicode version of TeX called Omega or some such. I'd doubtless have found it very useful if I'd ever managed to get it to work at all.
Take a look at XeTeX. It installed without a hitch on my computer (ppc debian) once I altered the Debian control stuff to compile against the TeXLive TeX packages rather than teTeX. Or if you run on a more normal platform (x86 ubuntu/debian/SuSE, MacOS X, maybe Windows) there's precompiled packages for you. It will use any OpenType (or TTF, or on OSX those Apple fonts) font you've got installed on your computer with complete (low-level) access to the special features, or higher-level access to most stuff via the fontspec LaTeX package. I quite happily no longer bother pissfarting around with stupid font packages. The only disadvantage I've found from XeTeX is that because it uses xdvipdfmx to convert to PDF you can't get special features from pdfTeX, and that it has the potential to make your input files platform-specific.
As for Omega, it's a dead end; AFAIK what it's given us will at some point be intergrated along with the scripting language lua and pdfTeX into something called LuaTeX. I might be mistaken on that front.
what does proportionality "Not" help with?
Proportionality doesn't help with getting Independents elected. It helps with getting minor parties elected. The STV helps with both, to a greater or lesser extent, but is not proportional.
So one might assume that having more parties would give a larger chance that one of them would meet his views.
Oh indeed it might. But from what I've seen of minor parties elected in proportional and STV systems, they tend to be either exactly the same as mainstream two-party system types, or they're relatively extreme.[*] They're probably not the sort of party the original poster wants to vote for.
[*]: Not, obviously, that I wish to imply they'd be so extreme reasonable people wouldn't want to vote for them. Just in comparison to how I interpret the OP's tastes.
The "America electoral system" was designed over 200 years ago there have been great advances in communication since then. Maybe you might want to look at a system implemented by modern country this century.
My suggestion (which is based on systems implemented in the 20th and 21st centuries) was to go to a system that uses modern advances in communication and political theory to reimplent the system intended based on current knowledge. My suggestion has the advantage that it's possible (albeit very hard) now to get elected in the system and that the changes are comparatively minor, so they're more likely to be accepted. They can also allow some of the benefits of the current American system, such as the relatively weak power parties have over their members, to continue.
Umm... It writes on the paper by exposing it to a certain wavelength of light. I would think it would be pretty trivial to design a laserpen that emits that wavelength. It'd be a bit funny to use, but so much more convenient than a mouse, touchpad, touchscreen or graphics tablet.
Or, stand as an Independent. The best time to do this is at a special election when an incumbent is leaving before a regular election. The second-best time to do this is at a regular election when the incumbent is retiring/leaving. Keep your eyes out for when this will happen, make sure people know you want to be elected and why, and get yourself elected. (You might need to stand a few times expecting to lose to get your profile out there; don't try to be elected, just try to get a few mentions in a local news column no-one will ever read. Also, start with your State's government first: It's a more affordable way of getting known and getting power.)
Once you're in you'll have a much better chance of staying in. Then, work on having the voting systems changed to ones that favor independents more: Australia's instant run-off preferential helps a bit. Proper proportional voting doesn't help, but the single-transferable vote is okay. Changing the way party donations work helps too. Increase the number of people in congress till districts are at a size you can plausibly get around. Eventually, you'll get the electoral system America was meant to have again.
Actually what I heard is that the Queen herself decided it was no longer appropriate to grant knighthoods to Australians, told the then PM, and that was the end of the AK/AD. A pity; I think if someone's that important to our society, the least we can do is give them a title. As it's decided by the PM and not the Queen, I hardly see how it's an issue of republicanism...
But this happened before I knew what politics were, so I'm probably at least a little wrong...
Just outlawing bulbs is short-sighted and will cause problems.
Well derr. This is Howard's Liberal Party of Australia (like Bush's US Republicans) we're talking about. E-ve-ry-thing they do is short-sighted and will cause problems. This is not meant to fix anything, this is meant to help them avoid losing the federal election later this year.
Environmentalists: isn't that solution a LOT better than setting up millions of pages of regulations for how big a house you can have, how fuel-efficient your car can be, who needs to get a prescription for a light bulb, etc?
From what I've seen of this, it should be pointed out that it's being introduced by the federal Liberal government and has not been pushed for my environmentalists. The Liberal Party (who are right-wing, similar to the US Republicans) have had a very bad record on environmental matters, but it is becoming increasingly likely that the election later this year will be fought partially on these grounds. So they're trying very hard to make themselves look less bad on that front; this is simply one aspect.
Otoh, what you're proposing is essentially a carbon-trading scheme. Environmentalists everywhere are arguing we should have one. Unfortunately, because our federal government is full of people who don't believe in climate change, let alone want to do anything practical, and because our state governments are full of people who don't want to be there, and because everyone's in the pocket of the coal mining unions, this ain't gonna happen any time soon.
Iow, yes, you're right.
G'die mite. Wawts wrawng weeth as Ozzies? Cahn't we speak English jast as good as thaose Bladdy Whingen' Pawms? Or ah you discreeminiten' agenst as becawse we cam frawm the Seauth Pacific nawt the Nawth Atlantic?
(I have no idea if that sounds like how an American would hear in Australian accent, but that's what it's meant to be.)
his 80'th birthday (next week I think)
John Howard's birthday is in July. I know that, because it's either one or two days before mine. I forget which. In any case, he's not turning eighty for over a decade.
which sucks because so many Aussies hate America, but our ruler loves those yanks and wants us to be just like them
Very few Aussies hate America. A lot of us don't agree with (even "hate") the current direction of the US Administration; and also think the alliance is more like a master and a lapdog rather than two independent countries (with a very big difference in power).
I point this out not for your (renegadesx) benefit, but for the benefit of other people who happen to see your upmodded but highly wrong post.
I'm typing this on a first revision iMac G5. I've had absolutely no problem with the slot-loading drive. In fact, when I was replacing my Dell laptop a MacBook was high on my list precisely because of the difficulty me and others have had with the standard laptop trays. (It's quite a performance trying to get my Dell's tray to open, and usually involves three or four careful attempts at pressing the eject button just enough, but not too much.)
And no, I'm in absolutely no way an Apple fanboi; my iMac hasn't had Mac OS X installed on it since (it must've been) mid/late-2005, after I discovered that it and I did not get on.
KDE scares me, and I use Sawfish with customised Lisp scripts! (But god I love the way I've done it. It's almost perfect for me...)
OTOH, I'm really surprised that you say Kubuntu is disregarded by the Ubuntu group. Isn't the guy who started it all using Kubuntu nowadays?
Erm, Gnome gives you the choice not to use it. That's what I've done.
Re:Reply button missing (Score:5, Informative)
There's a Reply link in the floating thingy. [sic]
Mod modding +1 funny.
You realise that the reason the difference is so much is precisely because the documents are so short? You increase the size of the documents, the proportion of overhead to compressed data decreases and the difference between a 10 MB document using and and one using and also decreases.
Just for the record, I've had a Mac, and I've gone back. I used it for about six or seven months, but its UI was incompatible with my workflow. (I use a GNU/Linux-based system on an iMac G5 nowadays.)
Cash register in a market stall in some third world country? (I'm sorry, I didn't make that clear, I was talking about people who didn't have cash registers.) It's also worth noting that in markets prices are not as likely to be the same from day to day (or even customer to customer) as they are in a computer shop.
Yes, the process will involve some remembering and some calculation, but the point is completely valid: We perform much better in concrete, real-life situations than in abstractions.
I don't understand. What's wrong with Haskell's syntax from a Human Interface perspective? I really can't think how it's substantially different from Python, once you account for differences of language philosophy. Do you just want brackets around parameters to a function call? (Or do you refer to the different styles Haskell allows, like the so-called point-free style for function definitions that make it completely unobvious how many arguments are being used?)
(I realise about Lisp; I was just showing that the issue had been considered from both extremes. Like Perl's, it's useful but not exactly easy for a noob to follow... There's stuff in between. Or ones that have a C-like syntax like JavaScript, but it clearly hasn't considered syntax aside from the "let's make it like Java" angle.)
However you give your brain complex math problems, and it can spend seconds, minutes, or even hours to solve it, sometimes requiring extra scratch memory to solve.
You give an x86 computer PPC binaries and ask it to run them and they'll be slow. Your complex maths problems aren't in your brain's natural format. But anyone (experienced with driving a particular car) can tell you just how hard they'll need break to stop, or how fast they can go round that corner safely. And they can do this whilst telling their kids in the back to shut up! These are pretty complex maths problems. Even simpler ones can be done in no time at all: Uneducated people who run market stalls can calculate change from $50 of sixteen figs very quickly, yet you ask them what 50-(cost-of-fig * 15) is, and they'll take a lot longer.
The brain is massively parallel; it's just that attention is more limited, and it takes attention to process abstract problems. And, of course, your brain has been optimised for particular tasks. We can still learn a lot from it when solving different problems
(Also, the computations your brain can do is a separate issue from its memory. Your short-term memory is only very limited---sevenish items, but of almost arbitrary size ("123632445634579861" is hard to store in STM, but "123 632 244 563 579 861" is much easier), whereas your long-term memory is much slower less useful when you're performing computations.)
Surely functional programming languages are where the idea of syntax design as UI problem came from! Lisp on the one hand has a very simple yet incredibly powerful syntax; whereas Haskell has an incredibly beautiful syntax with more sugar than you can dream of. Neither have the same kind of hard-and-fast distinction betwee built-ins and user-defined structures of others either; I can just as easily define an infix function or a macro that doesn't expand its third argument in Haskell or Lisp (respectively) as I can define a regular all-expanding prefix function.
What Haskell needs is to change the name of the IO monad to "warm fuzzy thing" or somesuch and to give it a syntax a bit more like regular procedural languages. And also to improve its efficiency.
Also, more on topic, is Haskell, or any other lazy pure functional language, actually capable of automatically parallelising code, or is that just some theoretical idea that will need a lot of research & work before it's possible? I didn't think Haskell used multiple processors...
Some guy from Western Australia reckons he's developed technology to get (a lot of) water out of (even desert) air using only (very few) windmills. If he's not pedalling twenty-first century snake oil, then the size of WA is almost twice the combined size of Texas and California, and it's largely an outback state. So if Westralians are happy to cope with eastern-style bushfire seasons, maybe it's only implausible, not impossible.
Oil will just be replaced by at-least-as-dirty technologies like liquified coal. Running oat of oil is only a bad thing unless we can actually replace it with something useful before we get that bad...
I'm using Windows XP Professional at work (I've used GNU/Linux at home since before Windows 2000 was released, so I find new versions of Windows a little confusing).
I needed to change the permissions of a file and had exactly the same problem as the PP. Eventually I had to ask the resident Windows guru how to do it. Even he took a while to work out what was wrong and how to fix it; in the end I think he stumbled across the answer and probably couldn't tell me what to do if I asked him again.
Because the vast majority of file managers need one. HTTP servers need one. Browser plug-ins need one. Programs like ffmpeg need one. etc.
... , I wasn't arguing that we should abolish extensions entirely. Just that there's times when it's neater & easier to avoid them: If the PP was using undifferentiated .audio, there's probably no reason to use an extension in the first place. (With so many filemanagers nowadays opening most files to make a preview of them, I think it's pretty obvious most people find convenience more important than efficiency there.)
None of them need them; it's just that the majority have been written to use them. They can use some other mechanism such as autodetermining the format or, when that fails, a command-line argument. TeX needs extensions and so I use them with it.
But as for cases like HTTP servers where efficiency is a significant concern
(For my part, I haven't found any file where my filemanager inaccurately guesses the type; only when it doesn't try (mp3s) or it insufficiently distinguishes (Office documents). In fact, if I have "movie.ogg" and "audio.ogg", then it doesn't attempt to distinguish them, but if I have "movie" and "audio", it does somehow manage to work out that one's Ogg Theora and the others Ogg Vorbis, so it works a bit both ways. And I have no files MPlayer's refused to play without extensions that it does play with them---lucky me I guess.)