Applications on B1 a web browser built on xulrunner a simple document viewer based upon evince TamTam, a music synthesis tool Memory, a musical memory game written in Csound that exploits the mesh network eToys (see above) PenguinTV RSS reader Abiword, a word processor a simple application to demonstrate the camera by putting its video onto the screen.
Applications (and ports) under development for B2 Any of these applications may not be available in time for B2, or necessarily preloaded onto the systems. a journal a wiki with WYSIWYG editing, using Crossmark as its markup language OpenDocument Viewer to read documents in OpenDocument format, a highly-compressed format that is a fully open international standard (ISO 26300) VIM, a text editor Helix, an open-source multimedia environment other video tools, such as a video wiki an image map tool OLPCities, a virtual world programming environment FACIL, a webpage editor developed to be used by children. (In English at http://wiki.laptop.org/go/EASE) Musical Editor, a music composition toolkit Drawing Workshop, a shared graphics space some other simple graphics software, perhaps based upon tuxpaint a Tetris-like game that exploits the mesh chat, serverless linux instant messenger http://cspace.in/ , VOIP, email a shell and debugger
That aspect of Word works fine, and has since around the Win95/SE days.
You must be in the 1% or so who uses styles. Most who came to Word later have no clue, and though as you said the features are there, they're almost deprecated. What's most infuriating is the way style definitions can be changed whimsically, as a side-effect of local formatting, if you go with default settings. Even the basic "Heading 1, 2...." styles are very rarely used in any rational way by people creating documents -- half the actual headings are just boosted "Normal", and many ordinary paragraphs are Headings with 12 pt Times formatting.
I learnt DTP using styles, in Ventura, and later by coding HTML, so the ideas are second nature to me. But I've picked up fat books about Word, even at intermediate level, that never even mention styles.
I used to do document processing with nroff/troff, so named paragraph styles and such just come naturally.
Word DOS 5, had named paragraph styles. They've become progessively less useful ever since as MS has made their definitions so "intuitive" that almost every user just directly formats every paragraph without realising they're using stles. A great idea was bastardised to become a mockery of itself. When I get files to layout (my job is DTP) I spend a couple of hours rationalising the styles and headings. If the Word 5 styles hadn't been fucked with, every Word user would have to spend 20 minutes to get familiar with the idea, then he'd be 25% more efficient (figures made up, but my estimate).
"Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a viral respiratory illness caused by a coronavirus, called SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV).... The main way that SARS seems to spread is by close person-to-person contact... In addition, it is possible that the SARS virus might spread more broadly through the air (airborne spread)."
You didn't "challenge" me. You said you didn't believe me. And now you've added "mistaken and ignorant". And this is about places I've actually lived. I currently live in Hong Kong. A territory with over 6 million people. The number of gun deaths per annum is a couple per year on average. I can't recall the last one, and being so rare they are front page news.
Why do you believe their is a strong correlation between violent crime and gun control laws
I have no idea why you put those words in my mouth. I never said that.
Anyway, I've argued with gun nuts, creationists and Scientologists enough in years gone by to know how pointless it is. So good night. Keep your powder dry.
One factor thought to have helped the spread of SARS in Hong Kong a few years ago was the drainage system in old blocks of flats. The bathroom floor drains connected to the sewage system, and if the floor was just wiped clean without much water then the U-tube dried out and noxious vapors and possibly viruses drifted up in aerosol form.
And what does New Guinea have to do with the subject either?
The post I was replying to seemd to imply the rest of the world had been rescued by GI Joe. I pointed out that the US wasn't the only country that fought. WTF that has to do with civilian crime 60 years later I have no idea.
America was hugely involved there,
Yeah. Left the Australian trops in the jungle to face the worst of it though. Another uncle fought in Vietnam after LBJ asked us to help there. And now our soldiers are in Iraq, and our citizens are killed in Indonesia. Thanks.
. Every neighborhood you bomb contains friends and relatives of other citizens, some of whom are probably in your army.
You use the traditional methods of using troops who have some resentment or disconnect against the populace. Eg, in Beijing, 1989, the troops who rolled into Tiananmen were mainly from rural areas, with no empathy for the well-off urban student demonstrators. In the US, you have obvious divisions on racial and geographic lines. Despots magnify that to their advantage.
Also, the guns aren't their simply to stop the army, they're there to change the army's mind.
Yes, they'll change their mind from shooting over their heads to between the eyes.
Violence begets violence. Think of the movements that WERE successful. Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, even Martin Luther King.
With what, exactly? If you already have enough resistance such that your military can't deal with it, then the odds are not good that those people that are resisting are just going to say, "Okay!" when you tell them to join your side
You created the despot bogeyman as a justification for your gun over your mantelpiece. A sufficiently evil despot to make that threat credible is not a pushover. You can't have it both ways.
Anyway, it's easy to find troops willing to do just about anything. One method is to take a group -- racial, religious, regional -- that feels oppressed by the majority and draw your troops from them. They already dislike the majority; and if given favourable treatment will be quite loyal to their patron, knowing that if he goes under so do they.
I've lived in several countries. In none was there common gun ownership, in none was there any gun violence. I;m sure oyu can spin that somehow. The only people who do such "research" are those wiht an axe to grind. I don't have the patience or desire to debunk it. There's no point, no one is going to change their laws regardless.
but it's not going to work on the scale of a country the size of the US
You're just making up one fantasy scenbario, "a despot who sends in police and army to arrest you arbitrarily", but then limit them. If they were limited in what they were prepard to do, they wouldn't be despotic.
The US military and civil police forces are just not big enough,
A despot would increase them till they were. The whole point of despots is that they put power first. North Korea's Kim has starved his population to keep his huge army powerful.
. The correlation between gun bans and violent crime is negligible.
Maybe in the US, where you've never really tried. Try visiting a civilised country.
Decriminalizing illicit drugs, reducing wealth disparity, and providing socialized healthcare (in particular mental health and addiction management) are all methods that have a huge potential for reducing crime.
Yeah, it does, because you don't occupy a residential area with tanks and Apaches unless you're interested in only killing everyone there, which is pointless if you're a despot seizing power. You occupy the area by sending police or troops door to door and methodically securing the area. When 6-7 people come busting into your house to arrest you or to take away your weapons, then that AR-15 or shotgun that you used only for plinking down at the local range will most assuredly come in handy
If I was a despot seizing power, and a neighbourhood was resisting my troops like that, I'd make an example of them. Some napalm perhaps. Or just roll some tanks over the houses. Then cut off water, roads and food distribution if they remained recalcitrant till they were begging to give up their guns. I might not win hearts and minds, but you'd give up or be dead.
I too seek out inanimate objects on which to focus blame for the deeds of evil people.
I can't tell what that means. Anyway, I must admit the actual point I was making was the fatuous rhetorical question at the end of the Slashdot summary wasn't the only "conclusion" one could draw from this case. I use quotes on conclusion because of course a single case proves nothing at all either way.
Handguns were banned in Philly for over a decade and handgun violence still rose.
Well, duh. That's like giving up drinking, except on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.
Besides, the right to arm oneself is a defense against tyranny.
Well, if it works for you. We just vote every three or four years. Maybe you could try democracy rather than code duello?
But I wonder, are you one of those countries we saved/freed in WWII?
The War we were fighting for two years before you decided to turn up? The war my uncle fought in the jungles on New Guinea? And WTF has that to do with the subject?
But I'm sure we owe you a lot. Our prime minister thinks we do, our troops are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan for you at this moment.
According to TFA, the killer shot the woman in the back of the head with a handgun.
Without that handgun the woman would probably be walking the streets of Philadelphia today. With results like that, is there really a good basis for argument against banning handguns?
Personally, I think there is an excellent case for banning handguns, but I'm not an American, and fortunately they're already banned where I live.
Do you or anybody know whether or not there is a minimum amount of time before we start saving money? In the 80s, we used to need to leave them on for 3 hours before we started saving money. Have things changed?
The "3 hours" was just an urban myth, due to the strange belief that they use a huge amount of energy to start. You are "saving" (compared to an incandescent) for every single minute. The real considerations are that the lifetime of a bulb (just about any type) is reduced by every on/off cycle. Even so, they're rated for thousands of cycles. Personally I leave the light on while I go to the kitchen to make a cup of coffee, but will turn it off if I go out for more than about 10 minutes.
Yes you did. That seems to be the cause of the consumer resistance, people think it sounds like a good idea and then buy the cheapest ones. They when they're imperfect they tell all their friends how crap they were. Good ones are a lot cheaper now than 10 years ago, but there are also a lot at the low end that barely work and die quickly. But they never will work in a dimmer.
The fact that it takes them a while to get up to full brightness...
There are dozens of brands. The very cheapest may have this delay, but none I've bought in the last couple of years. Others talk of "weird shapes". I've got some that are plain spheres (except for the connector, of course). Actually, they look like a glasss coil inside a plastic ball shell, but same effect. Mainly, it makes them easier to clean as the twisty shaped ones do collect dust.
I use bright white ones in the kitchen and bathroom, "sunshine" (slightly yellow) for living room and bedrooms.
Le'me see: because there is no scientific basis for polygraphs (because they are not admissible in court--having nothing to do with the science of polygraphs, but because of court standards for admission of evidence), if you agree to something this unscientific, then you cannot possibly claim to be a scientist.
By that logic because religion has no scientific basis, anyone who is religious cannot also be a scientist
Polygraphy claims to be a science. (Most) religions do not. Religion and faith mostly concern moral issues and untestable hypotheses (heaven, souls, karma...) that rarely come into conflict with the scientific method. Of course, there are some religious beliefs, like Creationism, that are certainly anti-scientific, but most mainstream religions are not.
Supposedly paid to ROMS, the Russian copyright agency. If the RIAA tried to collect from them and failed, they could claim fraud. Until then AllofMP3 deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt.
The design should be focusing on teaching children to use computers; as in the computers that everyone else uses. What will these kids do when they encounter a Windows machine for the first time?
Maybe you're too young to remember a world before Microsoft Windows (TM), but at my advanced age I can recall many people meeting Windows for the first time as an adult (actually, using a computer for the first time as an adult, as I did) and getting by in a few days. Typing is the main "computer skill" in general use that takes time to learn and that is platform independent. Clciking on an icon isn't as intuitive as you may think, but it doesn't take long to learn; and the OLPC does use a desktop and icons.
Do you imagine that using this interface will warp their minds and make them forever incapable of clicking on a start button? Is giving a child a bicycle going to prevent them from learning to drive? Does playing football prevent you from learning basketball?
Slashdot Mirror
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Software_components
Applications on B1
a web browser built on xulrunner
a simple document viewer based upon evince
TamTam, a music synthesis tool
Memory, a musical memory game written in Csound that exploits the mesh network
eToys (see above)
PenguinTV RSS reader
Abiword, a word processor
a simple application to demonstrate the camera by putting its video onto the screen.
Applications (and ports) under development for B2
Any of these applications may not be available in time for B2, or necessarily preloaded onto the systems.
a journal
a wiki with WYSIWYG editing, using Crossmark as its markup language
OpenDocument Viewer to read documents in OpenDocument format, a highly-compressed format that is a fully open international standard (ISO 26300)
VIM, a text editor
Helix, an open-source multimedia environment
other video tools, such as a video wiki
an image map tool
OLPCities, a virtual world programming environment
FACIL, a webpage editor developed to be used by children. (In English at http://wiki.laptop.org/go/EASE)
Musical Editor, a music composition toolkit
Drawing Workshop, a shared graphics space
some other simple graphics software, perhaps based upon tuxpaint
a Tetris-like game that exploits the mesh
chat, serverless linux instant messenger http://cspace.in/ , VOIP, email
a shell and debugger
You must be in the 1% or so who uses styles. Most who came to Word later have no clue, and though as you said the features are there, they're almost deprecated. What's most infuriating is the way style definitions can be changed whimsically, as a side-effect of local formatting, if you go with default settings. Even the basic "Heading 1, 2...." styles are very rarely used in any rational way by people creating documents -- half the actual headings are just boosted "Normal", and many ordinary paragraphs are Headings with 12 pt Times formatting.
I learnt DTP using styles, in Ventura, and later by coding HTML, so the ideas are second nature to me. But I've picked up fat books about Word, even at intermediate level, that never even mention styles.
Word DOS 5, had named paragraph styles. They've become progessively less useful ever since as MS has made their definitions so "intuitive" that almost every user just directly formats every paragraph without realising they're using stles. A great idea was bastardised to become a mockery of itself. When I get files to layout (my job is DTP) I spend a couple of hours rationalising the styles and headings. If the Word 5 styles hadn't been fucked with, every Word user would have to spend 20 minutes to get familiar with the idea, then he'd be 25% more efficient (figures made up, but my estimate).
This is the logical fallacy of argument by association
No, I was categorising your personality type.
And it's been fun, but no more.
I didn't use the word "odor". Otherwise, see http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/sars/factsheet.htm
"Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a viral respiratory illness caused by a coronavirus, called SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV).... The main way that SARS seems to spread is by close person-to-person contact... In addition, it is possible that the SARS virus might spread more broadly through the air (airborne spread)."
Why do you believe their is a strong correlation between violent crime and gun control laws
I have no idea why you put those words in my mouth. I never said that.
Anyway, I've argued with gun nuts, creationists and Scientologists enough in years gone by to know how pointless it is. So good night. Keep your powder dry.
Gee what a persuasive argumentP When you baldly call me a liar, I don't feel obligated to persuade.
One factor thought to have helped the spread of SARS in Hong Kong a few years ago was the drainage system in old blocks of flats. The bathroom floor drains connected to the sewage system, and if the floor was just wiped clean without much water then the U-tube dried out and noxious vapors and possibly viruses drifted up in aerosol form.
The post I was replying to seemd to imply the rest of the world had been rescued by GI Joe. I pointed out that the US wasn't the only country that fought. WTF that has to do with civilian crime 60 years later I have no idea.
America was hugely involved there,
Yeah. Left the Australian trops in the jungle to face the worst of it though. Another uncle fought in Vietnam after LBJ asked us to help there. And now our soldiers are in Iraq, and our citizens are killed in Indonesia. Thanks.
Well, fuck you then.
You use the traditional methods of using troops who have some resentment or disconnect against the populace. Eg, in Beijing, 1989, the troops who rolled into Tiananmen were mainly from rural areas, with no empathy for the well-off urban student demonstrators. In the US, you have obvious divisions on racial and geographic lines. Despots magnify that to their advantage. Also, the guns aren't their simply to stop the army, they're there to change the army's mind.
Yes, they'll change their mind from shooting over their heads to between the eyes.
Violence begets violence. Think of the movements that WERE successful. Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, even Martin Luther King.
You created the despot bogeyman as a justification for your gun over your mantelpiece. A sufficiently evil despot to make that threat credible is not a pushover. You can't have it both ways.
Anyway, it's easy to find troops willing to do just about anything. One method is to take a group -- racial, religious, regional -- that feels oppressed by the majority and draw your troops from them. They already dislike the majority; and if given favourable treatment will be quite loyal to their patron, knowing that if he goes under so do they.
I've lived in several countries. In none was there common gun ownership, in none was there any gun violence. I;m sure oyu can spin that somehow. The only people who do such "research" are those wiht an axe to grind. I don't have the patience or desire to debunk it. There's no point, no one is going to change their laws regardless.
You're just making up one fantasy scenbario, "a despot who sends in police and army to arrest you arbitrarily", but then limit them. If they were limited in what they were prepard to do, they wouldn't be despotic.
The US military and civil police forces are just not big enough,
A despot would increase them till they were. The whole point of despots is that they put power first. North Korea's Kim has starved his population to keep his huge army powerful.
Maybe in the US, where you've never really tried. Try visiting a civilised country.
Decriminalizing illicit drugs, reducing wealth disparity, and providing socialized healthcare (in particular mental health and addiction management) are all methods that have a huge potential for reducing crime.
However, I agree with that.
If I was a despot seizing power, and a neighbourhood was resisting my troops like that, I'd make an example of them. Some napalm perhaps. Or just roll some tanks over the houses. Then cut off water, roads and food distribution if they remained recalcitrant till they were begging to give up their guns. I might not win hearts and minds, but you'd give up or be dead.
I can't tell what that means. Anyway, I must admit the actual point I was making was the fatuous rhetorical question at the end of the Slashdot summary wasn't the only "conclusion" one could draw from this case. I use quotes on conclusion because of course a single case proves nothing at all either way.
No, thanks for asking.
Handguns were banned in Philly for over a decade and handgun violence still rose.
Well, duh. That's like giving up drinking, except on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.
Besides, the right to arm oneself is a defense against tyranny.
Well, if it works for you. We just vote every three or four years. Maybe you could try democracy rather than code duello?
But I wonder, are you one of those countries we saved/freed in WWII?
The War we were fighting for two years before you decided to turn up? The war my uncle fought in the jungles on New Guinea? And WTF has that to do with the subject?
But I'm sure we owe you a lot. Our prime minister thinks we do, our troops are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan for you at this moment.
Without that handgun the woman would probably be walking the streets of Philadelphia today. With results like that, is there really a good basis for argument against banning handguns?
Personally, I think there is an excellent case for banning handguns, but I'm not an American, and fortunately they're already banned where I live.
The "3 hours" was just an urban myth, due to the strange belief that they use a huge amount of energy to start. You are "saving" (compared to an incandescent) for every single minute. The real considerations are that the lifetime of a bulb (just about any type) is reduced by every on/off cycle. Even so, they're rated for thousands of cycles. Personally I leave the light on while I go to the kitchen to make a cup of coffee, but will turn it off if I go out for more than about 10 minutes.
Yes you did. That seems to be the cause of the consumer resistance, people think it sounds like a good idea and then buy the cheapest ones. They when they're imperfect they tell all their friends how crap they were. Good ones are a lot cheaper now than 10 years ago, but there are also a lot at the low end that barely work and die quickly. But they never will work in a dimmer.
There are dozens of brands. The very cheapest may have this delay, but none I've bought in the last couple of years. Others talk of "weird shapes". I've got some that are plain spheres (except for the connector, of course). Actually, they look like a glasss coil inside a plastic ball shell, but same effect. Mainly, it makes them easier to clean as the twisty shaped ones do collect dust. I use bright white ones in the kitchen and bathroom, "sunshine" (slightly yellow) for living room and bedrooms.
Polygraphy claims to be a science. (Most) religions do not. Religion and faith mostly concern moral issues and untestable hypotheses (heaven, souls, karma...) that rarely come into conflict with the scientific method. Of course, there are some religious beliefs, like Creationism, that are certainly anti-scientific, but most mainstream religions are not.
Supposedly paid to ROMS, the Russian copyright agency. If the RIAA tried to collect from them and failed, they could claim fraud. Until then AllofMP3 deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt.
Maybe you're too young to remember a world before Microsoft Windows (TM), but at my advanced age I can recall many people meeting Windows for the first time as an adult (actually, using a computer for the first time as an adult, as I did) and getting by in a few days. Typing is the main "computer skill" in general use that takes time to learn and that is platform independent. Clciking on an icon isn't as intuitive as you may think, but it doesn't take long to learn; and the OLPC does use a desktop and icons.
Do you imagine that using this interface will warp their minds and make them forever incapable of clicking on a start button? Is giving a child a bicycle going to prevent them from learning to drive? Does playing football prevent you from learning basketball?