I completely agree. I have been complaining about small laptop screens resolutions for years... Have talked to many hardware manufactures over the years only to have things fall on deaf ears. Hopefully Linus has enough clout that manufactures will actually listen.
I completely agree with you and you clarified it better than I could have.
I too, also like that distinct boundary. My g/f runs her own business, an association management company, and a tattoo studio. The tattoo studio isn't that bad, as there is the clear boundary between - but the other, it bleeds into every other aspect of our life. Even when on vacation, I don't feel we are really on vacation - there are always phone calls, email, operational issues, and continual emergencies that require her attention. The boundaries are extremely diffused.
It is not the choice that I would make myself - I appreciate my away time from work and the distinct boundary. When I go on vacation or rock-climbing, the last thing I want to be worrying about is what my company is doing or what bad decision the association happens to be making. When you work for yourself, you are never truly off work.
As you said, you play on your strengths - and recognizing those strengths is the important part. Both you and I are not work at home type of people. And personally, Thank GOODNESS we aren't.
I completely agree with you on the ribbon interface - what a unintuitive piece of garbage. I also am still using 2003, and dread when I have to use the ribbon interface at school. I just have this thing about my menus staying static, and not being dynamic depending on where I happen to be focused/clicked on. I honestly have yet to see a compelling feature added since Office 95 that would justify an upgrade. Office 2003 just happen to be what was available at the time.
I know the ribbon fanboys are going to slam me on this - so fanboys, "Get off my damn lawn!"
Honestly - not that I dislike the environment, but I don't think an EPEAT or Energy*Star certification has ever been a significant factor in making a purchasing decision for computers or other electronic equipment. The only area I could see is having a significant impact on would be corporate/government, who may be mandated to use energy efficient - in order to save on their energy costs.
Perhaps it is just my preference that I prefer knowing who I'm talking with. Perhaps your reading more into the comment than what was intended. Either way, continuing on about it isn't constructive to the topic at hand.
Regardless, I felt it was worth a response regarding what the topic was about. Sure it could have done without the AC comment, but hell, this is Slashdot, it wasn't the first time I offended someone, and probably won't be the last.. just as I'm sure as some point I will be offended also. It just the nature of the beast. So let's agree to you thinking I'm a bozo bit flipping elitist prick, and I'll continue to think your projecting well beyond what 6 words were worth.
Projecting a wee bit are we? I don't know how 'I normally don't agree with AC leads to being dismissive and written off as subhuman'... But I will acknowledge your point, AC's are people too.
If one was so dismissive towards ACs, then why the response in the first place - isn't that clearly non-dismissive?
I normally don't agree with AC, but I think this one hit the nail on the head.
Why is the command line interface still there? Simply because the GIU is lacking that particular feature. I'm also much faster on a keyboard than I am with a mouse/GIU. Sure, when GUIs are able to do what the command line can, then perhaps there may be a reason to phase it out - but until that happens, keep it there. Simply, if you don't want to use the command line interface, then don't. Pretty simple if you ask me. Just because you don't like it, don't call for it's assassination.
Well, if that's the case, then we need to eliminate statistics all together! You know the three kinds of lies.... 1) Lies. 2) Damn Lies, and 3) Statistics.
Even the scientific method isn't foolproof - the same thing can be done with cherry-picked data created from the scientific method. It is unfortunate, implementation of policy is based more on political motives that have a 4 year shelf-life. So with that short lifespan, who care about the unintended consequences [SARCASTIC EYEROLL:ON]
The other thing I would add, is there are people that can just look at a formula and understand what is happening... For the rest of us, we won't understand what the formula means, or how it works. But that doesn't mean we can't understand statistics - it just means we understand it from different perspectives. Is one better over the other? Probably not, but that would likely be argued by the math propeller-heads.
If it's an intro stats class (and you mentioned general ed level), your likely going to be teaching, means, modes, median, normal distributions, standard deviations, sample/population, z-scores/percentiles, correlations, t-tests and hypothesis testing (possibly ANOVAS depending on the course)... If the course is geared for the social sciences, normal distributions, deviations, correlation/regression, hypothesis testing and confidence intervals are likely to be a strong focus.
If your talking about more of a stats and research methods class, your going to likely be focusing on research design, hypothesis testing, correlation/regression, t-test, f-test, ANOVA, ACONVA, sensitivity/specificity, type I/II errors, etc.
But most importantly, when and where to use each the type of statistical formula/tool - This in my view is the important point.
And for those that aren't math/formula understanding type... Ensure they understand that most of the math is fairly basic (total up these numbers, count the number of elements, square these numbers and total them, take the square-root of the number and/or multiply/divide)... All too often non-math types get freaked out by the though of the math and the math isn't the difficult portion - getting to understand and knowing when to use each formula and what the resulting numbers mean is the important part.
Social sciences are very nonspecific in nature due to the numerous confounding variables that are hard to isolate. It is just the nature of the beast. Very rarely is direct causation; what social sciences work with are correlations (which would be weak by hard science standards). It is important to remember where your students are coming from and what their particular requirements are. For a gen ed stats course for the social sciences, they are likely going to need to begin to understand the statistics that would be presented in an social science article (ie: how strong is this correlation, is it statistically significant, how statistically significant, effect size, etc.) How the formulas work in the intricate details is likely better left for a math/stats major.
Cheers,
Xyst
PS: and I fall somewhere between the two types. I hate math, but I have a healthy respect for it. In my last stats class, the formulas were just beginning to make sense and if needed I could almost recreate them (the more basic ones) just from the concept of what was happening.
I can only speak for psychology (completing my master in it this year), but stats and research methods are some of the core classes. And yes, they do go into great depths of experimental design, the scientific method, etc. But the scientific method isn't the end all, be all. There are things that it can't explain. The love between a parent and a child and to what degree does it exist? Through the scientific method can it be measured? Can it even be shown to exist? How does one quantify a construct, let alone attempt to explore it through the scientific method with any sort of reliability or validity.
That is what makes the social sciences more of a soft science. It is virtually impossible to eliminate/isolate confounding variables.
[sarcasm:ON]And perhaps the IRB that don't allow us to electrocute subjects anymore......I'm sure the scientific method would would approve [sarcasm:OFF]
When I used to work IT about a decade ago, I was always asked how much monitoring we did. I always responded, "It's like a post card you send in the mail... Do we have the ability to read it? Yes...Do we have the time to read everything that goes through our network? Probably not..Can we monitor verbosely if something is red-flagged or HR/Management is concerned? Absolutely. So in other words, watch what you send and do and make sure what you send and do is beyond reproach and won't be misconstrued "
I remember an entire fraud investigation for one comment that was taken out of context - set the poor guy back to the point he became unhirable within government with any type of information access because he was a "sketchy character." That outcome I was offended with, considering everything investigated was clearly unfounded. It's been over a decade an a half since I worked with the fellow, but last I hear he started up his own consulting business.
It has been an interesting turn of events on how far reaching US law seems to be outside of their borders... I wonder if there could be an argument made for non-extradition due to the fact that the US also still has the death penalty in place.
Look at how it has occurred in New York already. Remember the fiasco of the current administration wanting to get some photos of Air Force One in New York. Remember at the panic that resulted.
Granted it was something that clearly was not though through by the administration, but look at the response - the psychological affect that has occurred. And this was how many years later? I'm sorry, the TSA isn't making people feel safer.
Unfortunately it has turned into a pissing match. I'm a Canadian citizen who is completing my masters degree in Chicago, and I run into this on the US side of the border. Ultimately it comes down to which border crossing/pre-screening you happen to go through. The 2nd to last time I entered Canada, I ended up "hanging out" (please note the sarcasm) with the US side for almost 3 hours getting questioned, my pockets gone through, getting questioned about the various different certifications I had, being accused that I was working in the US without authorization, my vehicle being completely unpacked and search, accused of using/transporting drugs, questioned about what text books I had (they were psychology related) [ok, this is Slashdot, go ahead, open fire], everything they could come up with. I was even asked why I didn't have an alcohol or cigarettes on me (WTF?!?!?!? - I rarely drink, and don't smoke). All this to leave the US to return to my home country? WTF is up with that?
Once they finally release me, on the Canadian side, I spend less than 20 minutes (had some paperwork to fill out, as I was re-importing my vehicle back into Canada). Who would have though I would have spend more time on US side when I was leaving the US
It goes both ways. When flying to the US, pre-clearence is a honorific experience in Winnipeg, Toronto, Calgary, yet Vancouver is pleasant. Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP) is my preferred point of entry when traveling to the US. Their officials there are friendly, well trained, and professional. Even when questioned further at MSP, due to the red flag due to the previously described exit situation, it was still a reasonable process to go through. The more than several times I've gone through MSP they have been extremely efficient and professional.
It goes both ways, and there are so many variables that make the experience a positive or negative one. I've experienced both in this care.
I hear your frustrations, I used to have to keep track of that crap, and it was just infuriating and frustrating. Software inventories were a complete mess, since within the file properties even Microsoft wouldn't be consistent (some times Microsoft, Microsoft (c), Microsoft Corp. (c), or Microsoft Corporation, blah, blah, blah. This was before the licensing services and ironically at the time with SMS software metering (licensing tracking that would only permit x number of software to run) didn't comply with their own licensing terms. This is going back a long while now.
How I long for the days where you just need to copy file to a directory to install a program - and delete the directory to remove it. No shared crap, no entries to registries, nothing that would screw something else up that you couldn't easily get rid of. Nothing worse that having an un-removable update that breaks your software that didn't show up in the testing lab.
Another vote for the get rid of windows ala carte side
This has been one of my complaints also. Why are there so many flavours? Nothing worse that having a home version and needing to make a policy change... they don't include the policy editor, and trying to find the registry entry is virtually impossible. ARRGH.
I just tell people now, purchase "Professional" or better, and if it has the word "home" in it, don't buy it unless you want a configuration nightmare.
Back in the Windows NT 3.51/4.0 days, it used to be "NT Workstation", and "NT Server" and I tell you it was nice. Very little confusion. Windows 2000 it switched from "Workstation" to "Professional" and there were 3 different Server versions - which did make sense, but that was the beginning of the end. For IT professionals, the three different versions wasn't that difficult to determine what your requirements were.
Apparently, the workstation to professional was a marketing decision. Professional to the "Home" and "Professional" again a marking term. They wanted to get away from the term workstation as they felt people would get confused with the "NeXT Workstation" or other various flavours of the term workstation; hence, enter "Professional" with windows 2000 (probably my favorite windows OS, I hated giving that one up and didn't till about 2 or 3 years ago), but marketing came at it again, and "Professional" scared off the home/non-business users... Enter flavour "Home" and it just continues to decent in the cesspool of more and more different names.
Amazing what happens when you let marking drive the design of an operating system. I wonder if they realize how much damage it does? Any piece of software that has the word "live" in it - I just naturally tend to shudder and shy away from, even if it is a non-Microsoft product (WTF?!?!?!?)
Reminds me of the old joke of the new MS operating system that was going to come out - a combination of the best of Window NT, Windows CE and Windows ME... Called "Windows CEMENT" - an OS that was hard as a rock, and dumb as a brick. Google it, I'm sure it's out there somewhere.
But, yeah, Microsoft, get rid of the multi-flavour OS. Make it something simple - go back to Workstation/Server, or Professional/Server... Or how about just "Windows [version]" and "Window [version] Server" and forget the rest of the 97million different flavours.
I think people are focusing on the overkill of 38 megapixel image on a camera phone. Sure, it's kind of cool from a technological perspective, but from a practical standpoint, considering the limitations of aperture, focal length, optic distortion, etc., constrained within the tiny framework of a phone is pretty pointless - even Zeiss optics have their limitations. Also, as mentioned previously, one can only allow so much light into a small and tiny lens (which is limited by the form factor of the size of the phone.)
The concept of taking a oversampled image to produce a superior lower mega pixel image is not new. It's called a loss-less digital zoom (which does sound like an oxy-moron) but as you mentioned was part of the story's approach. My old Sony DSC-V1 (2004) with a 5mp sensor has a similar feature - set your saved picture size down to below 5mp and you would get an extra bonus of loss-less digital zoom due to the oversampling. Interestingly enough, that camera would not permit you to digitally zoom beyond anything that would sacrifice quality.
Slashdot Mirror
[Obligatory Most Interesting Man in the World Reference]
On Rollerblading/VM for Beginners
Stay Thirsty My Friends....
And I suppose doubleDos is out of the question also???
I completely agree. I have been complaining about small laptop screens resolutions for years... Have talked to many hardware manufactures over the years only to have things fall on deaf ears. Hopefully Linus has enough clout that manufactures will actually listen.
After all, M$ is more worried about Windows 8/Metro.
So true. Never underestimate the ingeniousness of an idiot.
I completely agree with you and you clarified it better than I could have.
I too, also like that distinct boundary. My g/f runs her own business, an association management company, and a tattoo studio. The tattoo studio isn't that bad, as there is the clear boundary between - but the other, it bleeds into every other aspect of our life. Even when on vacation, I don't feel we are really on vacation - there are always phone calls, email, operational issues, and continual emergencies that require her attention. The boundaries are extremely diffused.
It is not the choice that I would make myself - I appreciate my away time from work and the distinct boundary. When I go on vacation or rock-climbing, the last thing I want to be worrying about is what my company is doing or what bad decision the association happens to be making. When you work for yourself, you are never truly off work.
As you said, you play on your strengths - and recognizing those strengths is the important part. Both you and I are not work at home type of people. And personally, Thank GOODNESS we aren't.
Cheers
I completely agree with you on the ribbon interface - what a unintuitive piece of garbage. I also am still using 2003, and dread when I have to use the ribbon interface at school. I just have this thing about my menus staying static, and not being dynamic depending on where I happen to be focused/clicked on. I honestly have yet to see a compelling feature added since Office 95 that would justify an upgrade. Office 2003 just happen to be what was available at the time.
I know the ribbon fanboys are going to slam me on this - so fanboys, "Get off my damn lawn!"
Honestly - not that I dislike the environment, but I don't think an EPEAT or Energy*Star certification has ever been a significant factor in making a purchasing decision for computers or other electronic equipment. The only area I could see is having a significant impact on would be corporate/government, who may be mandated to use energy efficient - in order to save on their energy costs.
Perhaps it is just my preference that I prefer knowing who I'm talking with. Perhaps your reading more into the comment than what was intended. Either way, continuing on about it isn't constructive to the topic at hand. Regardless, I felt it was worth a response regarding what the topic was about. Sure it could have done without the AC comment, but hell, this is Slashdot, it wasn't the first time I offended someone, and probably won't be the last.. just as I'm sure as some point I will be offended also. It just the nature of the beast. So let's agree to you thinking I'm a bozo bit flipping elitist prick, and I'll continue to think your projecting well beyond what 6 words were worth.
Projecting a wee bit are we? I don't know how 'I normally don't agree with AC leads to being dismissive and written off as subhuman'... But I will acknowledge your point, AC's are people too.
If one was so dismissive towards ACs, then why the response in the first place - isn't that clearly non-dismissive?
I normally don't agree with AC, but I think this one hit the nail on the head.
Why is the command line interface still there? Simply because the GIU is lacking that particular feature. I'm also much faster on a keyboard than I am with a mouse/GIU. Sure, when GUIs are able to do what the command line can, then perhaps there may be a reason to phase it out - but until that happens, keep it there. Simply, if you don't want to use the command line interface, then don't. Pretty simple if you ask me. Just because you don't like it, don't call for it's assassination.
Well, if that's the case, then we need to eliminate statistics all together! You know the three kinds of lies.... 1) Lies. 2) Damn Lies, and 3) Statistics.
Even the scientific method isn't foolproof - the same thing can be done with cherry-picked data created from the scientific method. It is unfortunate, implementation of policy is based more on political motives that have a 4 year shelf-life. So with that short lifespan, who care about the unintended consequences [SARCASTIC EYEROLL:ON]
I hear you... I hear you loud and clear
The other thing I would add, is there are people that can just look at a formula and understand what is happening... For the rest of us, we won't understand what the formula means, or how it works. But that doesn't mean we can't understand statistics - it just means we understand it from different perspectives. Is one better over the other? Probably not, but that would likely be argued by the math propeller-heads.
If it's an intro stats class (and you mentioned general ed level), your likely going to be teaching, means, modes, median, normal distributions, standard deviations, sample/population, z-scores/percentiles, correlations, t-tests and hypothesis testing (possibly ANOVAS depending on the course)... If the course is geared for the social sciences, normal distributions, deviations, correlation/regression, hypothesis testing and confidence intervals are likely to be a strong focus.
If your talking about more of a stats and research methods class, your going to likely be focusing on research design, hypothesis testing, correlation/regression, t-test, f-test, ANOVA, ACONVA, sensitivity/specificity, type I/II errors, etc.
But most importantly, when and where to use each the type of statistical formula/tool - This in my view is the important point.
And for those that aren't math/formula understanding type... Ensure they understand that most of the math is fairly basic (total up these numbers, count the number of elements, square these numbers and total them, take the square-root of the number and/or multiply/divide)... All too often non-math types get freaked out by the though of the math and the math isn't the difficult portion - getting to understand and knowing when to use each formula and what the resulting numbers mean is the important part.
Social sciences are very nonspecific in nature due to the numerous confounding variables that are hard to isolate. It is just the nature of the beast. Very rarely is direct causation; what social sciences work with are correlations (which would be weak by hard science standards). It is important to remember where your students are coming from and what their particular requirements are. For a gen ed stats course for the social sciences, they are likely going to need to begin to understand the statistics that would be presented in an social science article (ie: how strong is this correlation, is it statistically significant, how statistically significant, effect size, etc.) How the formulas work in the intricate details is likely better left for a math/stats major.
Cheers,
Xyst
PS: and I fall somewhere between the two types. I hate math, but I have a healthy respect for it. In my last stats class, the formulas were just beginning to make sense and if needed I could almost recreate them (the more basic ones) just from the concept of what was happening.
I can only speak for psychology (completing my master in it this year), but stats and research methods are some of the core classes. And yes, they do go into great depths of experimental design, the scientific method, etc. But the scientific method isn't the end all, be all. There are things that it can't explain. The love between a parent and a child and to what degree does it exist? Through the scientific method can it be measured? Can it even be shown to exist? How does one quantify a construct, let alone attempt to explore it through the scientific method with any sort of reliability or validity. That is what makes the social sciences more of a soft science. It is virtually impossible to eliminate/isolate confounding variables. [sarcasm:ON]And perhaps the IRB that don't allow us to electrocute subjects anymore......I'm sure the scientific method would would approve [sarcasm:OFF]
When I used to work IT about a decade ago, I was always asked how much monitoring we did. I always responded, "It's like a post card you send in the mail... Do we have the ability to read it? Yes...Do we have the time to read everything that goes through our network? Probably not..Can we monitor verbosely if something is red-flagged or HR/Management is concerned? Absolutely. So in other words, watch what you send and do and make sure what you send and do is beyond reproach and won't be misconstrued "
I remember an entire fraud investigation for one comment that was taken out of context - set the poor guy back to the point he became unhirable within government with any type of information access because he was a "sketchy character." That outcome I was offended with, considering everything investigated was clearly unfounded. It's been over a decade an a half since I worked with the fellow, but last I hear he started up his own consulting business.
It has been an interesting turn of events on how far reaching US law seems to be outside of their borders... I wonder if there could be an argument made for non-extradition due to the fact that the US also still has the death penalty in place.
Welcome to Team USA: World Police
And the irony, winning with Star Trek, yet taunting with a line similar to Darth Vader's line - "I have you now!"
I wish I had mod points for this comment, even if a AC
Look at how it has occurred in New York already. Remember the fiasco of the current administration wanting to get some photos of Air Force One in New York. Remember at the panic that resulted.
Granted it was something that clearly was not though through by the administration, but look at the response - the psychological affect that has occurred. And this was how many years later? I'm sorry, the TSA isn't making people feel safer.
Unfortunately it has turned into a pissing match. I'm a Canadian citizen who is completing my masters degree in Chicago, and I run into this on the US side of the border. Ultimately it comes down to which border crossing/pre-screening you happen to go through. The 2nd to last time I entered Canada, I ended up "hanging out" (please note the sarcasm) with the US side for almost 3 hours getting questioned, my pockets gone through, getting questioned about the various different certifications I had, being accused that I was working in the US without authorization, my vehicle being completely unpacked and search, accused of using/transporting drugs, questioned about what text books I had (they were psychology related) [ok, this is Slashdot, go ahead, open fire], everything they could come up with. I was even asked why I didn't have an alcohol or cigarettes on me (WTF?!?!?!? - I rarely drink, and don't smoke). All this to leave the US to return to my home country? WTF is up with that?
Once they finally release me, on the Canadian side, I spend less than 20 minutes (had some paperwork to fill out, as I was re-importing my vehicle back into Canada). Who would have though I would have spend more time on US side when I was leaving the US
It goes both ways. When flying to the US, pre-clearence is a honorific experience in Winnipeg, Toronto, Calgary, yet Vancouver is pleasant. Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP) is my preferred point of entry when traveling to the US. Their officials there are friendly, well trained, and professional. Even when questioned further at MSP, due to the red flag due to the previously described exit situation, it was still a reasonable process to go through. The more than several times I've gone through MSP they have been extremely efficient and professional.
It goes both ways, and there are so many variables that make the experience a positive or negative one. I've experienced both in this care.
I hear your frustrations, I used to have to keep track of that crap, and it was just infuriating and frustrating. Software inventories were a complete mess, since within the file properties even Microsoft wouldn't be consistent (some times Microsoft, Microsoft (c), Microsoft Corp. (c), or Microsoft Corporation, blah, blah, blah. This was before the licensing services and ironically at the time with SMS software metering (licensing tracking that would only permit x number of software to run) didn't comply with their own licensing terms. This is going back a long while now.
How I long for the days where you just need to copy file to a directory to install a program - and delete the directory to remove it. No shared crap, no entries to registries, nothing that would screw something else up that you couldn't easily get rid of. Nothing worse that having an un-removable update that breaks your software that didn't show up in the testing lab.
Another vote for the get rid of windows ala carte side
This has been one of my complaints also. Why are there so many flavours? Nothing worse that having a home version and needing to make a policy change... they don't include the policy editor, and trying to find the registry entry is virtually impossible. ARRGH.
I just tell people now, purchase "Professional" or better, and if it has the word "home" in it, don't buy it unless you want a configuration nightmare.
Back in the Windows NT 3.51/4.0 days, it used to be "NT Workstation", and "NT Server" and I tell you it was nice. Very little confusion. Windows 2000 it switched from "Workstation" to "Professional" and there were 3 different Server versions - which did make sense, but that was the beginning of the end. For IT professionals, the three different versions wasn't that difficult to determine what your requirements were.
Apparently, the workstation to professional was a marketing decision. Professional to the "Home" and "Professional" again a marking term. They wanted to get away from the term workstation as they felt people would get confused with the "NeXT Workstation" or other various flavours of the term workstation; hence, enter "Professional" with windows 2000 (probably my favorite windows OS, I hated giving that one up and didn't till about 2 or 3 years ago), but marketing came at it again, and "Professional" scared off the home/non-business users... Enter flavour "Home" and it just continues to decent in the cesspool of more and more different names.
Amazing what happens when you let marking drive the design of an operating system. I wonder if they realize how much damage it does? Any piece of software that has the word "live" in it - I just naturally tend to shudder and shy away from, even if it is a non-Microsoft product (WTF?!?!?!?)
Reminds me of the old joke of the new MS operating system that was going to come out - a combination of the best of Window NT, Windows CE and Windows ME... Called "Windows CEMENT" - an OS that was hard as a rock, and dumb as a brick. Google it, I'm sure it's out there somewhere.
But, yeah, Microsoft, get rid of the multi-flavour OS. Make it something simple - go back to Workstation/Server, or Professional/Server... Or how about just "Windows [version]" and "Window [version] Server" and forget the rest of the 97million different flavours.
I think people are focusing on the overkill of 38 megapixel image on a camera phone. Sure, it's kind of cool from a technological perspective, but from a practical standpoint, considering the limitations of aperture, focal length, optic distortion, etc., constrained within the tiny framework of a phone is pretty pointless - even Zeiss optics have their limitations. Also, as mentioned previously, one can only allow so much light into a small and tiny lens (which is limited by the form factor of the size of the phone.)
The concept of taking a oversampled image to produce a superior lower mega pixel image is not new. It's called a loss-less digital zoom (which does sound like an oxy-moron) but as you mentioned was part of the story's approach. My old Sony DSC-V1 (2004) with a 5mp sensor has a similar feature - set your saved picture size down to below 5mp and you would get an extra bonus of loss-less digital zoom due to the oversampling. Interestingly enough, that camera would not permit you to digitally zoom beyond anything that would sacrifice quality.
Check out The Last Saskatchewan Pirate by Capt. Tractor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G_L9tXEwmc