I dare you to try Scribus 1.3. Anyway, if you are expected to use FrameMaker at work, how can you complain about any other program? You can't be doing all that "enterprise-class" stuff alone, and you know what will happen if you announce to your colleagues that you're using TeX or Scribus for document preparation. If you're not doing this at work, then please.
Bush didn't lie about what? If you're claiming that there exists a politician in the national arena who doesn't lie, then power to you. Very hard to prove, but I encourage you to try. If you're claiming he didn't lie about Iraq, fine. But to suggest someone get modded up because he thinks Bush didn't lie about something? I was under the impression that most Bush supporters know that he lied, but just don't care, like O.J. supporters. I could be wrong... but then, I'm never wrong:)
She's not a "leftwing" anything. Remember Tipper Gore. Remember Bill Clinton "acting like a Republican"? Those southern Democrats are not "leftwing" just becuase they're Democrats.
No, the IT department doesn't consist of idiots. It probably represents the best talent available for the salary offered. Nobody wants to pay programmers what they're worth nowadays, and obviously security breaches won't change this.
Because if Linus is using a Mac, then the PPC stuff gets into mainline (like it did recently with kernel 2.6) and isn't ignored. Compiling kernels on a Mac isn't as lame as it used to be. And this is a blessing. Now you know.
I used quotes around "encryption" to refer to the variation Adobe created for PDFs. Anyone who reads the PDF spec can decrypt such a PDF trivially. Unfortunately, many authors don't understand that the "encrypted" PDFs they publish are not as secure as, say, a conventionally encrypted file. Adobe's encryption is mostly access controls, and don't actually scramble data.
The problem with copyrighting a data structure is that, well, you can't. Of course, the source code Adobe writes that nobody can see is copyrighted, as well as the description given in the spec. The spec gives the impression that you can't implement (IMPLEMENT, not COPY, but IMPLEMENT) their data structures without permission, and that this right is effected under copyright. It isn't, but I'm sure Adobe has them patented nonetheless.
Dude, I wasn't saying that Adobe's spec SHOULD be open, I just said it wasn't. Chill out about telling me to write my own spec. I don't need to. I use PDFs, among other things.
PDF is an entirely open format. There's zero need for Adobe to release any of their Acrobat code.
PDF is not open (unless you just mean the spec is freely avaiable). In the spec, Adobe stresses that it retains copyright of the data structures it describes (and probably patents as well). Moreover, if you don't implement "encryption" controls as described by Adobe, then you don't have permission to implement the PDF spec. And there's more, of course.
Since planes very rarely fall out of the sky, maybe it would be better to check the ID of every person who gets on a freeway onramp, since accidents on freeways are much, much more likely.
The next step is not too far off. There are already billions of ways to convert even a short message into one that looks almost identical-- swapping tabs for spaces, adding blank lines, replacing newlines with carriage returns, and of course, rephrasing messages. A large document, or a document with embedded info, like PDF or JPEG, would be even more fun to experiemnt with, since you can insert data and get the exact same rendering of the file.
Umm, well, with a Grammy win, one might expect albums sales to skyrocket. She might even get the album in stores without the middle man bullcrap. She could easily get $100,000/year for the next few years if she could get the bandwidth for her website, which would put her in the top 1% for earnings in her genre.
For people like myself whose eyes strain very, very easily (tried 10 LCD monitors before finding one that's comfortable), there's no need to read a study to find out which is better. On screen, serif fonts are painful compared to sans-serif fonts. I have no opinion about serif vs sans on paper because it's rare that I see a sans font used on paper. Actually, I don't think I've ever seen a sans font used in a widely-distributed published work. But reading on paper is so much more comfortable compared to reading a computer screen, it doesn't really matter.
Actually, for data that is encrypted on disk, long passwords are necessary because in that case r00t doesn't have free reign (unless the password is in memory).
Maybe verdana does suck, but reading serif fonts on a computer screen causes a lot more eye strain than reading sans serif fonts. Of course, serif fonts like Georgia look good on paper, but on a computer screen, I think sans-serif fonts are much better.
One thing that nobody seems to realize is that the fact that Windows is small and that other functionality is in separate products may, from a security point of view, be a good thing.
Actually, Linux is small, and the rest of a Linux operating system is provided by other small utilities. The problem is that what you mention, that Linux is seen as all the tools that people might run on it, while Windows Server is just kernel+gui+webserver. The MS guys know this-- they're just not saying. The OS people scream this, but nobody listens to them.
Indeed. The same thing happens with QIF. The spec is open, and after reading the first page you find out that most banks produce files that don't adhere to the spec. Solution: adjust the parser-- it's a simple fix with QIF. The problem is probably that they all use the same software to create the slightly defective QIF, and MS is aware of this (more likely is that they use MS software to produce the QIFs).
I graduated with a BA in physics (note that often a BA looks better for grad school admissions than a BS, as it implies a broader background)
Actually my real-life experience speaks the opposite. In technical fields, all those core-curriculum classes are ignored by a grad school admissions committee. Completely ignored. I mean, like, if you got all Fs in non-major classes, got all As in your major classes, you would would be a better candidate than someone who got mostly Bs in his major and good grades overall. Nobody in a technical field is gonna be impressed that you took psych 101 and Athro 100-- they're useless in every sense you can imagine. They might be impressed if you studied music extensively, but it probably won't be much help in admissions. If you're going to grad school in science or math, then you need to take as many advanced courses in the field as you can, and try your best to get an A in every one-- it not only "looks good" but it will make success in grad school a million times more likely. In PhD programs in science and math, stuff like "I took a well-rounded course load and did a lot of volunteer work" sounds like "I was third-grade class president". Nobody really cares.
Slashdot Mirror
I dare you to try Scribus 1.3. Anyway, if you are expected to use FrameMaker at work, how can you complain about any other program? You can't be doing all that "enterprise-class" stuff alone, and you know what will happen if you announce to your colleagues that you're using TeX or Scribus for document preparation. If you're not doing this at work, then please.
Bush didn't lie about what? If you're claiming that there exists a politician in the national arena who doesn't lie, then power to you. Very hard to prove, but I encourage you to try. If you're claiming he didn't lie about Iraq, fine. But to suggest someone get modded up because he thinks Bush didn't lie about something? I was under the impression that most Bush supporters know that he lied, but just don't care, like O.J. supporters. I could be wrong... but then, I'm never wrong :)
She's not a "leftwing" anything. Remember Tipper Gore. Remember Bill Clinton "acting like a Republican"? Those southern Democrats are not "leftwing" just becuase they're Democrats.
No, the IT department doesn't consist of idiots. It probably represents the best talent available for the salary offered. Nobody wants to pay programmers what they're worth nowadays, and obviously security breaches won't change this.
How clever. A troll-calling troll.
That's why he got the Mac dualie.
Because if Linus is using a Mac, then the PPC stuff gets into mainline (like it did recently with kernel 2.6) and isn't ignored. Compiling kernels on a Mac isn't as lame as it used to be. And this is a blessing. Now you know.
I used quotes around "encryption" to refer to the variation Adobe created for PDFs. Anyone who reads the PDF spec can decrypt such a PDF trivially. Unfortunately, many authors don't understand that the "encrypted" PDFs they publish are not as secure as, say, a conventionally encrypted file. Adobe's encryption is mostly access controls, and don't actually scramble data.
The problem with copyrighting a data structure is that, well, you can't. Of course, the source code Adobe writes that nobody can see is copyrighted, as well as the description given in the spec. The spec gives the impression that you can't implement (IMPLEMENT, not COPY, but IMPLEMENT) their data structures without permission, and that this right is effected under copyright. It isn't, but I'm sure Adobe has them patented nonetheless.
Dude, I wasn't saying that Adobe's spec SHOULD be open, I just said it wasn't. Chill out about telling me to write my own spec. I don't need to. I use PDFs, among other things.
PDF is an entirely open format. There's zero need for Adobe to release any of their Acrobat code.
PDF is not open (unless you just mean the spec is freely avaiable). In the spec, Adobe stresses that it retains copyright of the data structures it describes (and probably patents as well). Moreover, if you don't implement "encryption" controls as described by Adobe, then you don't have permission to implement the PDF spec. And there's more, of course.
Since planes very rarely fall out of the sky, maybe it would be better to check the ID of every person who gets on a freeway onramp, since accidents on freeways are much, much more likely.
I have to agree about Imlib2. It makes writing an image viewer/processor ridiculously easy.
The next step is not too far off. There are already billions of ways to convert even a short message into one that looks almost identical-- swapping tabs for spaces, adding blank lines, replacing newlines with carriage returns, and of course, rephrasing messages. A large document, or a document with embedded info, like PDF or JPEG, would be even more fun to experiemnt with, since you can insert data and get the exact same rendering of the file.
Isn't the GPL already commercial-friendly? Or do they mean the Lesser GPL?
Wow, you're an asshole. I wonder if you have the balls to have the same attitude with you're boss when he/she's wrong. Yeah, I thought not. Grow up.
Umm, well, with a Grammy win, one might expect albums sales to skyrocket. She might even get the album in stores without the middle man bullcrap. She could easily get $100,000/year for the next few years if she could get the bandwidth for her website, which would put her in the top 1% for earnings in her genre.
Can you quote the section in the GPL which states this? I can't find it.
For people like myself whose eyes strain very, very easily (tried 10 LCD monitors before finding one that's comfortable), there's no need to read a study to find out which is better. On screen, serif fonts are painful compared to sans-serif fonts. I have no opinion about serif vs sans on paper because it's rare that I see a sans font used on paper. Actually, I don't think I've ever seen a sans font used in a widely-distributed published work. But reading on paper is so much more comfortable compared to reading a computer screen, it doesn't really matter.
Actually, for data that is encrypted on disk, long passwords are necessary because in that case r00t doesn't have free reign (unless the password is in memory).
Maybe verdana does suck, but reading serif fonts on a computer screen causes a lot more eye strain than reading sans serif fonts. Of course, serif fonts like Georgia look good on paper, but on a computer screen, I think sans-serif fonts are much better.
One thing that nobody seems to realize is that the fact that Windows is small and that other functionality is in separate products may, from a security point of view, be a good thing.
Actually, Linux is small, and the rest of a Linux operating system is provided by other small utilities. The problem is that what you mention, that Linux is seen as all the tools that people might run on it, while Windows Server is just kernel+gui+webserver. The MS guys know this-- they're just not saying. The OS people scream this, but nobody listens to them.
Are you kidding? Off the top of my head: KDE has made one for years, IBM has Kylix, Borland has C++Builder, and loads of others.
Notice that they're all businesses, not residential. Try to do a search on yourself and see what happens.
Indeed. The same thing happens with QIF. The spec is open, and after reading the first page you find out that most banks produce files that don't adhere to the spec. Solution: adjust the parser-- it's a simple fix with QIF. The problem is probably that they all use the same software to create the slightly defective QIF, and MS is aware of this (more likely is that they use MS software to produce the QIFs).
I graduated with a BA in physics (note that often a BA looks better for grad school admissions than a BS, as it implies a broader background)
Actually my real-life experience speaks the opposite. In technical fields, all those core-curriculum classes are ignored by a grad school admissions committee. Completely ignored. I mean, like, if you got all Fs in non-major classes, got all As in your major classes, you would would be a better candidate than someone who got mostly Bs in his major and good grades overall. Nobody in a technical field is gonna be impressed that you took psych 101 and Athro 100-- they're useless in every sense you can imagine. They might be impressed if you studied music extensively, but it probably won't be much help in admissions. If you're going to grad school in science or math, then you need to take as many advanced courses in the field as you can, and try your best to get an A in every one-- it not only "looks good" but it will make success in grad school a million times more likely. In PhD programs in science and math, stuff like "I took a well-rounded course load and did a lot of volunteer work" sounds like "I was third-grade class president". Nobody really cares.
Actually, I asked, and I even said "please". Is that a crime?