Well, unless I'm mistaken, TeX and LaTeX both correctly transformed fi and fl into their corresponding ligatures. It was also supposed to be very good at other aspects of typesetting and typography as well. It was automatic, so when you did a spell-check, the words would still have "fi" and "fl" in them.
Unfortunately, because it's relatively difficult (a much steeper learning curve than HTML, which is still something I wouldn't want to have to use every time I just needed to type out a simple paper), it's not widely used outside of the scientific and mathematical fields where its ability to express complicated mathematical formulas and special characters is invaluable.
Right, but I still think you misread the parent poster. I don't think he mentioned the appearance of the program, once. I don't think it was the Mac interface standards that he was having a problem with. It was the bad functionality that made it a bad "Windows knock-off". In this case, it is a "knock-off" because there was a primary Windows version first, and a secondhand Mac version next, which didn't work as well. Interface had nothing to do with it.
For those of you interesting in touch-screen voting, there was a very interesting show about it on the weekly PRI (public radio) program This American Life, which discussed the problems with the system, including the Diebold system and the non-auditability of the new touch-screen voting machines. The audio isn't up on their website for free yet, but it should be here soon. For those who can't wait, you can get audio from the show at audible.com.
If you don't yes listen to This American Life yet, you should start. It's probably the best weekly show in any medium -- radio or television.
I think you misunderstood the point of the parent poster. He wasn't complaining that the new version didn't integrate with the Mac look-and-feel. In fact, that's Microsoft's selling point -- that it features that nifty brushed-steel appearance.
View the software on its merits. It might still fail, but at least you'll have tried the correct approach.
I'm not sure what you mean by trying the "correct approach" here but if I'm judging a piece of software, I generally judge it by what it can do. Unless the parent poster is lying through his/her teeth, it sounds like the player can't do simple, normal things like, oh, play media files (funny -- isn't it called "Media Player"?) Considering that, this is a pretty shitty knockoff of the Media Player for Windows, which does in fact play media files.
iTunes is "great software" because it is great software. Every Windows user I've talked to who has downloaded the program loves it. The same, it seems, cannot be said for the Media Player. Consider that the Media Player for the Mac offers Microsoft no possible revenue source other than the slight possibility of undermining Apple's control over media playing under OS X (doubtful). My first reaction when hearing about this upgrade was, "Why are they even bothering to make an upgrade for their player?"
Are you kidding? It's the best part of the finale. It makes the whole victory seem more personal and intimate. The new version makes it a bigger thing.
Since these movies really were effectively Space Westerns, it makes more sense to have the "local townfolk" rejoice at the end. Besides, what's cuter than Ewoks using stormtrooper helmets as bongo drums?
Reminds me of an old joke:
Q: How do you kill a stormtrooper? A: Put him in a Star Wars movie.
You learn how to talk with people way earlier on. If by age 12 you're kid doesn't know how to socialize... well you might as well just tatoo "weirdo" on his forehead.
A lot of people with ADD or learning disabilities, myself included, often don't learn how to have positive useful interactions until they're much older.
I think this actually is a problem. There are a lot of things that would be useful to learn in school that aren't taught because they're considered taboo subjects. Things like ethics, morality, fairness, dealing with emotions, and social skills. They get some mention in kindergarten of course ("Play fair", "Share", "Don't hit someone if you're mad at them") but at that age kids really don't have the emotional maturity to understand and incorporate the information, or to understand why it's important.
I think that's why you see a huge boom in the self-help industry, with people desperately trying to figure out why they can't motivate themselves, or feel depressed or isolated, etc. It's only as grown ups that people are trying to become better individuals, where they have the opportunity to do so.
As you point out in your post, computers aren't hard to figure out. I think that the overall health of this country would be better if our schools focused as much time and attention instilling ethics, morality (yes, this *can* be done without religion!), responsibility, and civic awareness in our kids as they do trying to teach them computer skills. Since software and technology change so rapidly anyway, the key is just to give them enough exposure to computers so they're not nervous or afraid around them.
As someone working in a tech-related field, I find the #1 problem with people unfamiliar with computers is that they're afraid and nervous around them and so they don't use the same common sense they'd use in the real world. So, they won't trust a stranger knocking on their door but might give their credit card in an e-mail thinking that their bank sent it to them. As long as kids don't fear computers (10 minutes a day sounds about right, although you could probably get by with even less), it should be fine.
My concern is that if there is too much emphasis on computers, then other skills that are much more timeless are ignored. I also think that there's much less emphasis on critical thinking and personal analysis in high school, since the assumption is that all the smart/well-off kids are going to college anyway.
There's actually a nifty workaround to printer driver problems. It's worked very well for me (on my LaserJet 4L, which displays complete gibberish when printed through OS X).
Here are the steps:
1) You need a carbon version of Acrobat (say, version 5). In the application settings, set it to open using Classic mode.
2) Set up a special extension called, in this example, "PDF9". To do this, create a file with the PDF9 extension, then tell OS X that you want it to be opened using Acrobat 5 (the one set up for classic mode).
2) Create a folderactions script that loops through items added to a folder and prints them out. Here's the one I use:
property dialog_timeout : 30 -- set the amount of time before dialogs auto-answer. on adding folder items to this_folder after receiving added_items
set printed_paper_folder to "Macintosh HD:Users:jdoe:Public:Printed Documents:"
set error_paper_folder to "Macintosh HD:Users:jdoe:Public:Print Errors:"
try
tell application "Finder"
repeat with file_name in added_items
set the pdf_ext_text to ".pdf"
set the pdf9_ext_text to ".pdf9"
set current_name to name of file_name
if current_name ends with pdf_ext_text then
set the character_count to the number of characters of the pdf_ext_text
set the new_name to (characters 1 thru -(the character_count + 1) of the current_name) as string
set the new_file_name to new_name & pdf9_ext_text
set the name of file_name to new_file_name
set file_to_print to file_name
set file_to_print_name to name of file_name
if file_to_print_name ends with pdf9_ext_text then
print file_to_print
move file_to_print to alias (printed_paper_folder as string)
else
move file_to_print to alias (error_paper_folder as string)
end if
else if current_name ends with pdf9_ext_text then
move file_name to alias (printed_paper_folder as string)
exit repeat
else
move file_name to alias (error_paper_folder as string)
exit repeat
end if
end repeat
end tell
end try end adding folder items to
3) Create a folder in your user folder called "Documents to Print".
4) Set the script you created as the folder action to be enacted when you copy a file to the "Documents to Print" folder. Activate folder actions.
5) Now, whenever you need to print in OS X, simply choose "Save as PDF" and save it as a file in the "Documents to Print" folder. Folder actions will automatically detect that a file has been added, and will launch Acrobat to print it.
Since it's being printed within the Classic Environment, any printers that were supported under 9.2.2 should work fine.
If Krugman printed a false and defamatory statement that harmed the reputation of Luskin
Only Krugman didn't. This blogger guy did, and all he did was say that the guy was stalking someone, which Luskin was, although perhaps not in a felonius (sp?) manner. In any case, the link to Luskin's own article showed that he felt that he was stalking Krugman, although not in a way that warranted a felony charge.
I don't think that the content posted by this blogger could constitute defamation. After all, there are certain laws protecting negative statements about public figures. This blogger isn't criticizing Luskin's private behavior, or making suggestions about him. Rather, he's describing (accurately) Luskin's public behavior.
I definitely don't think this blogger had a "reckless disregard for the truth" when he used the term stalker.
The problem with blogs is that they are public texts, but their format and style is very personal and conversational. If I'm talking about what a jerk someone I know is, I really would hate to be dragged into court on a defamation charge. But I suppose if I posted a newspaper article stating those feelings, that might be different. And a blog, unfortunately, lies in a gray area in between.
I remember learning about this. Apparently, time-space was expanding too, so it was really just empty space and time being introduced in-between objects of matter -- they weren't really "moving". The perfect example is drawing dots on a balloon and then blowing into it. The dots get further away from each other. Although they are further apart from each other on the plane on the balloon's surface, they aren't really *moving* in any direction along the plane -- in terms of their position on the plane, they're completely static. Now, just picture this happening in a three-dimensional sense, and you've got it.
Hmmm...doesn't seem like it was drivel to me. Seems like it was a case of, "I don't agree with this guy's politics, or his methods of getting his point across. He's called himself a stalker before, and he's a stalker in this latest blog that he's written".
That sounds like free speech to me, the same kind that Luskin enjoys.
Most content on the web is uninteresting to anyone except the person who posted it and a small circle of their friends and family. If it actually ends up being interesting to more people, then it will attract the attention of other people who will read it. So, I honestly don't see how you're affected by uninteresting blogs unless you're actively seeking them out.
I myself have never spent time, energy, or mental anguish over a blog page I didn't like or find interesting. I just clicked the back button and forgot all about it.
If anything, Luskin's page poorandstupid.com is pretty offensive and doesn't jive with any of my politics. He seems willing to openly attack other people, particularly this one poor columnist. However, I wouldn't question his right to write what he's written, although if he keeps on stalking, there might be legal grounds for him to be given a restraining order or something of that nature.
Seems like he can dish it out but he can't take it.
Ramshaw's team made its initial discovery while developing contraceptive vaccines for sterilising mice and rabbits without killing them. The researchers modified the mousepox virus by adding a gene for a natural immunosuppressant called IL-4, expecting this would boost antibody production.
Instead, the modified mousepox virus was far more lethal, killing 60 per cent of vaccinated mice. The addition of IL-4 seems to switch off a key part of the immune system called the cell-mediated response.
Okay. For all of you going on and on about how useful this research for preventing bioterrorism, keep in mind that this is not at all the original intent of the researchers.
They were trying to make an contagious but non-lethal virus whose sole function was to serve as a contraceptive. Instead, they ended up creating a highly lethal, non contagious virus.
Granted, it is difficult to know exactly what the effect of mutating or altering viruses will be on the animals they're introduced into, but this is sort of my point.
If you try modifying a virus to make it non-lethal, and it turns out to be lethal for most of your test subjects, it is not a good idea to to say, "Wow! Let's see what happens when we try that in *another* virus!"
Since they don't know why the introduction of IL-4 made the viruses non-transferable, they probably don't know enough about this virus modification to assume that other strains won't be contagious when it's introduced.
I remember when the Republicans were making a big stink about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (NPR/PBS), and how it was sucking away tax dollars.
Of course, it only was about 200 odd million per year, which was around $1.50 per person.
I doubt that the infrastructure for the white house webservers costs them more than 10 million per year or so, so it costs me maybe a quarter for the whole thing?
The spidering might cost me $.07 per year or so, since I'm guessing a lion share of their costs circled around original development and their largest ongoing costs would be content management.
Compare that with the tax cut, which at 1.35 trillion comes out to...lessee...$5400 per person. Even over 10 years that's about a third of what I pay in taxes, and no tax cuts for me.
Before anyone points it out -- yes, I know that it's "their" money that is being given back rather than extra money being "spent" somewhere. But it's still something that gets written in the "subtract" column of the budget. That money would be very, very useful.
Why, it could even be used to pay for Bush's war! Now there's an idea. "No tax cut until America stops invading other countries and spending all of its money!" That'd teach GW some responsibility.
c) and that "fair share" means that everyone pays the same amount, regardless of their income for that year.
So, if I make minimum wage, which is under $11,000, then over half of it would go to paying taxes to support a war to keep gasoline costs low for cars and SUVs I don't own. On just 5,000 a year, I'm very likely to starve to death, as I don't even have enough to pay for rent in most cities.
A graduated tax rate ensures people put in their "fair share" because odds are that if you're making a lot of money, a lot of the reason for that lies in the infrastructure and expenditures by the US government (I know, I know -- a lot of people assume that it's poor people who get the most goods, services, and money from the US government. They'd be wrong.)
Someone "unfortunate" enough to be in the 39.6% (I believe that's the highest percentage) rate bracket has a lot more income after taxes than someone "fortunate" enough to be in the 15 percent bracket.
I'm not saying they don't deserve their income. But the amount they pay should accurately reflect their income. Because so much of our taxes (in most states) go towards sales tax, which is a "flat tax", many poor often actually pay a higher percentage of their salary in taxes than do the wealthy.
"Equal", "Identical", and "Fair" are three separate concepts.
Slashdot Mirror
I think thats how the more adult bit comes into play
The "adult bit"...is that used to mark files as pr0n?
Well, unless I'm mistaken, TeX and LaTeX both correctly transformed fi and fl into their corresponding ligatures. It was also supposed to be very good at other aspects of typesetting and typography as well. It was automatic, so when you did a spell-check, the words would still have "fi" and "fl" in them.
Unfortunately, because it's relatively difficult (a much steeper learning curve than HTML, which is still something I wouldn't want to have to use every time I just needed to type out a simple paper), it's not widely used outside of the scientific and mathematical fields where its ability to express complicated mathematical formulas and special characters is invaluable.
I would so buy these. Add cornnuts and I will buy the whole batch.
This will intefere with the Cat detection vans. The UK government will never go for it. They will loose to much cat license money.
No, cat detector vans use high-powered audio detection. Thankfully, radio frequencies will not interfere with their bleeding aerials.
Right, but I still think you misread the parent poster. I don't think he mentioned the appearance of the program, once. I don't think it was the Mac interface standards that he was having a problem with. It was the bad functionality that made it a bad "Windows knock-off". In this case, it is a "knock-off" because there was a primary Windows version first, and a secondhand Mac version next, which didn't work as well. Interface had nothing to do with it.
For those of you interesting in touch-screen voting, there was a very interesting show about it on the weekly PRI (public radio) program This American Life, which discussed the problems with the system, including the Diebold system and the non-auditability of the new touch-screen voting machines. The audio isn't up on their website for free yet, but it should be here soon. For those who can't wait, you can get audio from the show at audible.com.
If you don't yes listen to This American Life yet, you should start. It's probably the best weekly show in any medium -- radio or television.
I think you misunderstood the point of the parent poster. He wasn't complaining that the new version didn't integrate with the Mac look-and-feel. In fact, that's Microsoft's selling point -- that it features that nifty brushed-steel appearance.
View the software on its merits. It might still fail, but at least you'll have tried the correct approach.
I'm not sure what you mean by trying the "correct approach" here but if I'm judging a piece of software, I generally judge it by what it can do. Unless the parent poster is lying through his/her teeth, it sounds like the player can't do simple, normal things like, oh, play media files (funny -- isn't it called "Media Player"?) Considering that, this is a pretty shitty knockoff of the Media Player for Windows, which does in fact play media files.
iTunes is "great software" because it is great software. Every Windows user I've talked to who has downloaded the program loves it. The same, it seems, cannot be said for the Media Player. Consider that the Media Player for the Mac offers Microsoft no possible revenue source other than the slight possibility of undermining Apple's control over media playing under OS X (doubtful). My first reaction when hearing about this upgrade was, "Why are they even bothering to make an upgrade for their player?"
The moon is just itching for a theme park.
Are you kidding? It's the best part of the finale. It makes the whole victory seem more personal and intimate. The new version makes it a bigger thing.
Since these movies really were effectively Space Westerns, it makes more sense to have the "local townfolk" rejoice at the end. Besides, what's cuter than Ewoks using stormtrooper helmets as bongo drums?
Reminds me of an old joke:
Q: How do you kill a stormtrooper?
A: Put him in a Star Wars movie.
Yeah, too bad those computers will only be able to chug along at 700 GHz or so.
Of course, there was a time when 2.5 Mhz was fast. *Sigh* those were the days.
You learn how to talk with people way earlier on. If by age 12 you're kid doesn't know how to socialize... well you might as well just tatoo "weirdo" on his forehead.
A lot of people with ADD or learning disabilities, myself included, often don't learn how to have positive useful interactions until they're much older.
I think this actually is a problem. There are a lot of things that would be useful to learn in school that aren't taught because they're considered taboo subjects. Things like ethics, morality, fairness, dealing with emotions, and social skills. They get some mention in kindergarten of course ("Play fair", "Share", "Don't hit someone if you're mad at them") but at that age kids really don't have the emotional maturity to understand and incorporate the information, or to understand why it's important.
I think that's why you see a huge boom in the self-help industry, with people desperately trying to figure out why they can't motivate themselves, or feel depressed or isolated, etc. It's only as grown ups that people are trying to become better individuals, where they have the opportunity to do so.
As you point out in your post, computers aren't hard to figure out. I think that the overall health of this country would be better if our schools focused as much time and attention instilling ethics, morality (yes, this *can* be done without religion!), responsibility, and civic awareness in our kids as they do trying to teach them computer skills. Since software and technology change so rapidly anyway, the key is just to give them enough exposure to computers so they're not nervous or afraid around them.
As someone working in a tech-related field, I find the #1 problem with people unfamiliar with computers is that they're afraid and nervous around them and so they don't use the same common sense they'd use in the real world. So, they won't trust a stranger knocking on their door but might give their credit card in an e-mail thinking that their bank sent it to them. As long as kids don't fear computers (10 minutes a day sounds about right, although you could probably get by with even less), it should be fine.
My concern is that if there is too much emphasis on computers, then other skills that are much more timeless are ignored. I also think that there's much less emphasis on critical thinking and personal analysis in high school, since the assumption is that all the smart/well-off kids are going to college anyway.
Here are the steps:
1) You need a carbon version of Acrobat (say, version 5). In the application settings, set it to open using Classic mode.
2) Set up a special extension called, in this example, "PDF9". To do this, create a file with the PDF9 extension, then tell OS X that you want it to be opened using Acrobat 5 (the one set up for classic mode).
2) Create a folderactions script that loops through items added to a folder and prints them out. Here's the one I use:3) Create a folder in your user folder called "Documents to Print".
4) Set the script you created as the folder action to be enacted when you copy a file to the "Documents to Print" folder. Activate folder actions.
5) Now, whenever you need to print in OS X, simply choose "Save as PDF" and save it as a file in the "Documents to Print" folder. Folder actions will automatically detect that a file has been added, and will launch Acrobat to print it.
Since it's being printed within the Classic Environment, any printers that were supported under 9.2.2 should work fine.
If Krugman printed a false and defamatory statement that harmed the reputation of Luskin
Only Krugman didn't. This blogger guy did, and all he did was say that the guy was stalking someone, which Luskin was, although perhaps not in a felonius (sp?) manner. In any case, the link to Luskin's own article showed that he felt that he was stalking Krugman, although not in a way that warranted a felony charge.
I don't think that the content posted by this blogger could constitute defamation. After all, there are certain laws protecting negative statements about public figures. This blogger isn't criticizing Luskin's private behavior, or making suggestions about him. Rather, he's describing (accurately) Luskin's public behavior.
I definitely don't think this blogger had a "reckless disregard for the truth" when he used the term stalker.
The problem with blogs is that they are public texts, but their format and style is very personal and conversational. If I'm talking about what a jerk someone I know is, I really would hate to be dragged into court on a defamation charge. But I suppose if I posted a newspaper article stating those feelings, that might be different. And a blog, unfortunately, lies in a gray area in between.
I remember learning about this. Apparently, time-space was expanding too, so it was really just empty space and time being introduced in-between objects of matter -- they weren't really "moving". The perfect example is drawing dots on a balloon and then blowing into it. The dots get further away from each other. Although they are further apart from each other on the plane on the balloon's surface, they aren't really *moving* in any direction along the plane -- in terms of their position on the plane, they're completely static. Now, just picture this happening in a three-dimensional sense, and you've got it.
Hmmm...doesn't seem like it was drivel to me. Seems like it was a case of, "I don't agree with this guy's politics, or his methods of getting his point across. He's called himself a stalker before, and he's a stalker in this latest blog that he's written".
That sounds like free speech to me, the same kind that Luskin enjoys.
Most content on the web is uninteresting to anyone except the person who posted it and a small circle of their friends and family. If it actually ends up being interesting to more people, then it will attract the attention of other people who will read it. So, I honestly don't see how you're affected by uninteresting blogs unless you're actively seeking them out.
I myself have never spent time, energy, or mental anguish over a blog page I didn't like or find interesting. I just clicked the back button and forgot all about it.
If anything, Luskin's page poorandstupid.com is pretty offensive and doesn't jive with any of my politics. He seems willing to openly attack other people, particularly this one poor columnist. However, I wouldn't question his right to write what he's written, although if he keeps on stalking, there might be legal grounds for him to be given a restraining order or something of that nature.
Seems like he can dish it out but he can't take it.
From the article:
Ramshaw's team made its initial discovery while developing contraceptive vaccines for sterilising mice and rabbits without killing them. The researchers modified the mousepox virus by adding a gene for a natural immunosuppressant called IL-4, expecting this would boost antibody production.
Instead, the modified mousepox virus was far more lethal, killing 60 per cent of vaccinated mice. The addition of IL-4 seems to switch off a key part of the immune system called the cell-mediated response.
Okay. For all of you going on and on about how useful this research for preventing bioterrorism, keep in mind that this is not at all the original intent of the researchers.
They were trying to make an contagious but non-lethal virus whose sole function was to serve as a contraceptive. Instead, they ended up creating a highly lethal, non contagious virus.
Granted, it is difficult to know exactly what the effect of mutating or altering viruses will be on the animals they're introduced into, but this is sort of my point.
If you try modifying a virus to make it non-lethal, and it turns out to be lethal for most of your test subjects, it is not a good idea to to say, "Wow! Let's see what happens when we try that in *another* virus!"
Since they don't know why the introduction of IL-4 made the viruses non-transferable, they probably don't know enough about this virus modification to assume that other strains won't be contagious when it's introduced.
It's not easy to spot in the picture, but an experienced eye can easily pick out the bulge caused by a lead-lined jockstrap.
I always thought of a sneeze as my most violent respiratory function.
Well, obviously, you've never had a nose "flare" before. Very messy.
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
Man, tell me about it.
Hmmm...so what exactly is the difference between "internal combustion engines" and... "internal combustion engines"?
I think you must have meant something else for the second one.
Next time you see someone swerving around madly in traffic, it might be for some other reason.
Love,
The cellular phone industry.
Any comments/ suggestions would be wonderful.
All right... "You're crazy."
I remember when the Republicans were making a big stink about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (NPR/PBS), and how it was sucking away tax dollars.
Of course, it only was about 200 odd million per year, which was around $1.50 per person.
I doubt that the infrastructure for the white house webservers costs them more than 10 million per year or so, so it costs me maybe a quarter for the whole thing?
The spidering might cost me $.07 per year or so, since I'm guessing a lion share of their costs circled around original development and their largest ongoing costs would be content management.
Compare that with the tax cut, which at 1.35 trillion comes out to...lessee...$5400 per person. Even over 10 years that's about a third of what I pay in taxes, and no tax cuts for me.
Before anyone points it out -- yes, I know that it's "their" money that is being given back rather than extra money being "spent" somewhere. But it's still something that gets written in the "subtract" column of the budget. That money would be very, very useful.
Why, it could even be used to pay for Bush's war! Now there's an idea. "No tax cut until America stops invading other countries and spending all of its money!" That'd teach GW some responsibility.
c) and that "fair share" means that everyone pays the same amount, regardless of their income for that year.
So, if I make minimum wage, which is under $11,000, then over half of it would go to paying taxes to support a war to keep gasoline costs low for cars and SUVs I don't own. On just 5,000 a year, I'm very likely to starve to death, as I don't even have enough to pay for rent in most cities.
A graduated tax rate ensures people put in their "fair share" because odds are that if you're making a lot of money, a lot of the reason for that lies in the infrastructure and expenditures by the US government (I know, I know -- a lot of people assume that it's poor people who get the most goods, services, and money from the US government. They'd be wrong.)
Someone "unfortunate" enough to be in the 39.6% (I believe that's the highest percentage) rate bracket has a lot more income after taxes than someone "fortunate" enough to be in the 15 percent bracket.
I'm not saying they don't deserve their income. But the amount they pay should accurately reflect their income. Because so much of our taxes (in most states) go towards sales tax, which is a "flat tax", many poor often actually pay a higher percentage of their salary in taxes than do the wealthy.
"Equal", "Identical", and "Fair" are three separate concepts.
How can they be Iraq related if they didn't exsist to begin with?
:-)
A question that GW gets asked all the time.