Yes, Asimov wrote quite a few inspiring books on science.
Another person is Carl Sagan. Contact (the book) alone was so dense yet quite readable - it was one of the most thought provoking books I'd read at the time.
Is it just me, or can someone explain intelligently (with backup) as to why this is an issue regarding our rights online? Sounds like a lot of FUD to me.
"When I dealing with a foreign company I'll choose one from Europe, thank you very much. You can do business with them... they understand that good business means everyone walks away from the table with something. Yes, like the folks who funded a slave driven diamond industry in Africa?
Or like the vulture funds in the US that work towards depriving basic necessities such as education in third world countries?
Or those that go around supporting the murder of union leaders in Colombia.
Somehow, I don't see them as being mutually exclusive. Why is there an assumption that a blog will be a short and disorganized post? What I like about blogs is the system it provides:
Ease of use in writing the article.
Easy way to get feedback in comments.
Easy way to see who is referring to your "article" (via trackbacks).
Access to multiple media outlets will give you a better sense of what's going on in the world --- even if, individually, those news sources do have some bias.
That I can always agree with.
However, the original post, at least to me, was loaded with the assumption of superiority regarding those news sources. His/her comment about most educated Chinese in the US supporting the occupation of Tibet (which was not backed up - I have no idea if this is true) reeked of superiority. Here it is again:
The Chinese in the USA know the truth (from CNN, Fox News, etc.) but reject it. They prefer Chinese nationalism.
Is it not arrogant to claim that CNN & Fox News speaks the truth about Tibet but that the Chinese news agencies don't? It's an automatic assumption here. CNN & Fox News reported it. So it must be true.
What makes the poster think that they didn't go to a number of sources and conclude logically that the Chinese are right in their invasion of Tibet?
Don't know about you. But that's arrogance in my book.
Let me tell you this. I regularly read Arab News - the first and main English language newspaper in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia openly has censorship of the media - it is not denied. And it is evident that censorship takes place: Some topics are just a no-no for them to publish (although the number of such topics is monotonically decreasing). Yet, despite this, they present a better picture of world politics than either CNN or Fox.
Why is it that when people speak of censorship, they think of governments only? Do they not know of corporate censorship? Editors killing stories at the behest of upper management. Why is one form of censorship assumed to be worse?
Arab News, with its government based censorship provided better political news than CNN & Fox. Why on Earth would I, or anyone, compare any news service to CNN when their output is crappier to one censored by a very repressive government?
I'm fine with people telling me that the Chinese news sources are biased and censored. Won't dispute it. Just don't pretend CNN presents things well.
I'm not Arab so I doubt I'd be a regular viewer of Arab television, but it would be informative to hear what 50 million or so people who don't consume a regular diet of CNN, FOX, et al are listening to on a daily basis.
Don't know about Fox, but CNN and BBC are quite accessible over there.
Yes, yes. I submit to your explanation. No doubt, CNN, Fox, VOA, RFA, RFE speak the unqualified truth. Woe to those who question such sources. After all, the US & Europe have a God given monopoly on the truth. And anyone who conflicts with those views must be evil.
Why has this discussion suddenly become one of MS Office vs TeX?
What happened to Open Office?
FWIW, the journals I publish to accept Word, PDF or TeX. Satisfies all crowds. If you don't want to do TeX, and don't want to pay for Word, use Open Office and export as PDF. No one is saying that they should require TeX and nothing else.
You failed to explain why the default thing to accept is a Word document and not an Open Office one. I don't know your field, but I am an academic, and have never met a faculty member who was simply so incompetent that he could use Word but not Open Office. If a journal demands something in Open Office and puts up relevant links on how to get it, very few will complain. So why should the default behavior be to accept something that costs the users money, and not accept something that won't?
Regarding generating PDF's, I'm not sure what you mean. We have the free Adobe Reader on our office computers. And Word does not have an option to save as PDF. For that, we have to pay Adobe.
Precisely. I have a VoIP line at home and get a number of calls (4-8 a day) from a company which I refuse to talk to (apparently a surveying company - they are exempt from the Do-Not-Call list).
My solution: Route all their calls back to them. They still try to call, but at least it solves my problem.
BTW, a very relevant link: Who Called Us. If you get repeated calls from a number you don't recognize, type it in there and very likely you'll find out about those trying to call you.
ts not exactly the same thing, but MS's map thing (whatever they call all their MSN/"Live" stuff these days), does have what they call "birds eye" view. It only works in IE, and its not ground level, but it still works fairly well. You can easily see landmarks and stuff to help you find places.
Care to back it up? Everything I've read implicates tech companies in Europe and/or US. If you have information to the contrary, I'd like to see it.
And besides, even if it does not include the "West", is it not as newsworthy? More people have died in this conflict than in any other since WW2. We make a big fuss about Darfur, but not the Congo. Is it because we care more for them? Sudanese lives are more valuable? Or because it conveniently furthers the ideology of some?
Use the CookieSafe extension. It'll let you easily:
1. Whitelist sites whose cookies you want to keep. 2. Blacklist cookies from some sites (doubleclick, anyone?). 3. Set most other cookies to be killed after you exit FF.
I know Firefox lets you do that anyway, but the difference is that Cookiesafe lets you do it easily.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, Asimov wrote quite a few inspiring books on science.
Another person is Carl Sagan. Contact (the book) alone was so dense yet quite readable - it was one of the most thought provoking books I'd read at the time.
Ha! So I'm not the only geek who's come across that document!
Square One!
"So do what Don Knuth did and leave them." ...And he started another journal which didn't do well...
Actually, I read it as an IBM Dev Eloping with Technology...
Is it just me, or can someone explain intelligently (with backup) as to why this is an issue regarding our rights online? Sounds like a lot of FUD to me.
Or like the vulture funds in the US that work towards depriving basic necessities such as education in third world countries?
Or those that go around supporting the murder of union leaders in Colombia.
Or those that decide that it's OK to make water unaffordable for the folks in Bolivia.
Or those that fund a terrorist group so that they can earn a larger profit?
Oh - I'm sorry. These guys just aren't guilty of being Chinese. Everything is fine in that case.
irc: is useful for getting help.
Access to multiple media outlets will give you a better sense of what's going on in the world --- even if, individually, those news sources do have some bias.
That I can always agree with.
However, the original post, at least to me, was loaded with the assumption of superiority regarding those news sources. His/her comment about most educated Chinese in the US supporting the occupation of Tibet (which was not backed up - I have no idea if this is true) reeked of superiority. Here it is again:
The Chinese in the USA know the truth (from CNN, Fox News, etc.) but reject it. They prefer Chinese nationalism.
Is it not arrogant to claim that CNN & Fox News speaks the truth about Tibet but that the Chinese news agencies don't? It's an automatic assumption here. CNN & Fox News reported it. So it must be true.
What makes the poster think that they didn't go to a number of sources and conclude logically that the Chinese are right in their invasion of Tibet?
Don't know about you. But that's arrogance in my book.
Let me tell you this. I regularly read Arab News - the first and main English language newspaper in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia openly has censorship of the media - it is not denied. And it is evident that censorship takes place: Some topics are just a no-no for them to publish (although the number of such topics is monotonically decreasing). Yet, despite this, they present a better picture of world politics than either CNN or Fox.
Why is it that when people speak of censorship, they think of governments only? Do they not know of corporate censorship? Editors killing stories at the behest of upper management. Why is one form of censorship assumed to be worse?
Arab News, with its government based censorship provided better political news than CNN & Fox. Why on Earth would I, or anyone, compare any news service to CNN when their output is crappier to one censored by a very repressive government?
I'm fine with people telling me that the Chinese news sources are biased and censored. Won't dispute it. Just don't pretend CNN presents things well.
I'm not Arab so I doubt I'd be a regular viewer of Arab television, but it would be informative to hear what 50 million or so people who don't consume a regular diet of CNN, FOX, et al are listening to on a daily basis.
Don't know about Fox, but CNN and BBC are quite accessible over there.
Yes, yes. I submit to your explanation. No doubt, CNN, Fox, VOA, RFA, RFE speak the unqualified truth. Woe to those who question such sources. After all, the US & Europe have a God given monopoly on the truth. And anyone who conflicts with those views must be evil.
Seriously, how arrogant can a person get?
Why has this discussion suddenly become one of MS Office vs TeX?
What happened to Open Office?
FWIW, the journals I publish to accept Word, PDF or TeX. Satisfies all crowds. If you don't want to do TeX, and don't want to pay for Word, use Open Office and export as PDF. No one is saying that they should require TeX and nothing else.
You failed to explain why the default thing to accept is a Word document and not an Open Office one. I don't know your field, but I am an academic, and have never met a faculty member who was simply so incompetent that he could use Word but not Open Office. If a journal demands something in Open Office and puts up relevant links on how to get it, very few will complain. So why should the default behavior be to accept something that costs the users money, and not accept something that won't?
Regarding generating PDF's, I'm not sure what you mean. We have the free Adobe Reader on our office computers. And Word does not have an option to save as PDF. For that, we have to pay Adobe.
Not entirely sure what you're asking for, but yes, it can use any RSS feed. See this tutorial/example.
I like it, but it can be a lot better. I simply can't understand why it feels so bloated.
Precisely. I have a VoIP line at home and get a number of calls (4-8 a day) from a company which I refuse to talk to (apparently a surveying company - they are exempt from the Do-Not-Call list).
My solution: Route all their calls back to them. They still try to call, but at least it solves my problem.
BTW, a very relevant link: Who Called Us. If you get repeated calls from a number you don't recognize, type it in there and very likely you'll find out about those trying to call you.
ts not exactly the same thing, but MS's map thing (whatever they call all their MSN/"Live" stuff these days), does have what they call "birds eye" view. It only works in IE, and its not ground level, but it still works fairly well. You can easily see landmarks and stuff to help you find places.
You lost me at IE...
Only China and Russia?
Care to back it up? Everything I've read implicates tech companies in Europe and/or US. If you have information to the contrary, I'd like to see it.
And besides, even if it does not include the "West", is it not as newsworthy? More people have died in this conflict than in any other since WW2. We make a big fuss about Darfur, but not the Congo. Is it because we care more for them? Sudanese lives are more valuable? Or because it conveniently furthers the ideology of some?
Ideally, someone should update the front matter to reflect this.
Denying Holocaust is downright stupid.
As is castigating a whole religious group based on questionable "news".
I wasn't aware that holocaust denial was a part of the Muslim religion
It isn't.
Use the CookieSafe extension. It'll let you easily:
1. Whitelist sites whose cookies you want to keep.
2. Blacklist cookies from some sites (doubleclick, anyone?).
3. Set most other cookies to be killed after you exit FF.
I know Firefox lets you do that anyway, but the difference is that Cookiesafe lets you do it easily.
Use the profile manager so that she can have her own profile, bookmarks, cookies, etc.
I used to have Firefox set to delete all cookies except whitelisted ones whenever I close Firefox.
I now use CookieSafe which makes life a bit easier.
And I don't let Google cookies stick around, so I think I'm safe.