How's about issues where the free market wouldn't give a damn, but the government and intelligent people _really do know better_ and so should be able to overrule the free market? Natural monopolies and pollution controls are two massive issues that seem to fall into this category. Government regulation seems to only way to fix it.
We agree. A document can mean more than things printed on a piece of paper.
HOWEVER, as I was trying to hammer home in the post you just responded to, a word processor is NOT trying to allow the editing of any type of document. It's rather obviously trying to allow the editing of the kind of document that involves representing the marking of a canvas, typically a piece of paper. It's a very specialised meaning of the word document, in word-processor context.
Are you really going to argue that it makes sense for a 'Microsoft Word document' or a 'OO Writer' document to be able to mean a marked rock? I'll predict your answer: no. So, we're limiting what type of document we're referring to. I'm going to argue that that definition is 'stuff that can be printed onto a piece of paper or canvas', because that's generally the ultimate output of something created in a word processor.
A document can be many things; a document in the context of a word processor cannot.
Apparently you never heard from the thousands of people who Paypal has screwed over, an example of which was illustrated by this recent story. I never use Paypal anymore, and haven't for many years. I'm still alive.
OK, obviously I didn't specify clearly enough what I meant be 'document'. Obviously, one computer science meaning of document is 'any file', that is NOT the meaning I'm getting at here. I mean the type of document you get when you 'open a new document' in a word processor. Typically you get a representation of a canvas (usually paper), onto which you put stuff. In *that* context, embedding video, sound, etc. is silly. In the contect of any old computer 'document' (I personally call them files), obviously embedding may make a lot more sense.
I don't just think embedding of video/audio in documents isn't necessary, I think it's very stupid. A document should be able to be printed out!!! Clearly, these things cannot be printed out and held on paper; ergo they do not belong in documents. The same goes for anything else that cannot be printed out and held on paper.
If you want those things, put them in some other computer format, but don't warp the meaning of 'document' to mean 'anything you can hold and represent on a computer, mushed into one file', because that's just silly.
As I said, to protect signatures in the same way as they're protecting PINs right now, they'd take it OFF the card and put it ON to a centralised database. Neither would be available by looking at the card, so you'd have to find a letter with their sig on it or something. Harder, I'd say, than collecting their PIN.
So, I'm saying that assumin the criminal manages to obtain the PIN, or signature of the person, which is easier to forge? A PIN can be effortlessly forged with 100% accuracy, a sig can't. Whatsmore, I'd say it's harder to get hold of someone's sig.
I think the reason they went with PIN is because they know cashier plebs are lazy assholes, most of whom would even take a glance at the sig the customer gave and the sig in the database, whereas they dont HAVE to with PIN as the computer system can reliably check for them.
I will also point out there are several thousand pefectly working fusion reactors on the planet, and I'd be willing to bet there's an excellent chance one of them is aimed at you sleeping in your bed right now!
I never realised women had fusion reactions happening?
Because signatures can be forged, pin numbers can't.
I have to take issue here. I think PIN numbers can be forged perfectly, and signatures can be forged less perfectly.
What you REALLY mean is that PIN numbers aren't written on the card, signatures are. If they implemented a system of scanning everyone's signature, putting them on a database and having the signature show up on the cashier's register after they scanned the card, instead of having the signature written on the card itself, security also would have been increased.
Signature forgery is drawing something that looks like the source material. PIN forgery is entering a 4 digit number that equals the source material.
Which is easier to do, given that both source materials are available?
The Chinese are only proud of their country because they, too, have been indoctrinated. Please remember Tiananmen Square, and never ever forget that it was done under the SAME administration as there is now in China. Then, consider their freedom. Anyone can be proud of something if they don't care why they are, or what it does to them.
Indeed it is. I'd interpreted the description to mean that there was an external-to-the-document images dir and that all the embedded files would have to be sent seperately, but this format is fine.
Of course i'm not suggesting that the XML supports images, I'm suggesting it supports the *internal embedding* of images. Others are saying it does, and I haven't done much reading on it so I guess I'll just accept that; it's just that I thought I remembered reading something that said OOo doesn't internal embed images in the document file - it just links to another file in some/images directory. If so, that would definitely be _inferior_ to MS's format.
In all fairness, i think there *may* be a pretty serious lack of functionality in the OpenDocument format. OK, embedding of video, sound and 'voice-over-IP' (WTF? How can you embed that, MORONS? It's like saying you can embed TELEPHONE!) is silly and shouldn't be allowed in a 'document' as you can't print them. However, what's up with the format not even supporting embedding of images and charts? These are things pretty commonly included in documents and people don't want to waste time sending several files, they want them embedded in one file. This doesn't even seem very difficult to implement, just shove the binary stuff at the bottom like with e-mail MIME attachments. Can't someone fix this, because it allows MS to use the term 'less functional document format' quite legitimately, IMHO.
What makes it more humourous is that I believe he meant to say "HTML standards". If it didn't comply with HTTP standards, it might have a bit of trouble connecting to servers.:-)
Please try and find a way of referring to Republican voters as something other than 'the people'. A large majority of 'the people' DID NOT, and probably will not, vote for a Republican.
So? Over here in the UK, we *still* have Paypal alternatives, such as NOCHEX and PPPay. Are you seriously telling me there are no slightly smaller, less-evil alternatives to Paypal in the US?
I wonder if all of us Slashdot citizens would unite and write hate mail to Paypal
Right. Because the best way to improve a sector isn't to start a competing, better business - it's to whinge to the incumbent monopoly as loudly as possible.
Why did you use Paypal? Why didn't you find some other merchant service? Why didn't you tell the guy to do this? Seriously, you know what Paypal is like, yet you all chose to pay money to them willingly.
Ya know, most of the people in NO that didn't evacuate were the poorest of the poor... they didn't have cars to camp in. I'm more inclined to blame the government (who, let's face it, have been crap) for not providing more evacuation support for this group.
Slashdot Mirror
Mar's
Honest to God...
Is this a new Slashdotism, or are you trying to speak Klingon?!
How's about issues where the free market wouldn't give a damn, but the government and intelligent people _really do know better_ and so should be able to overrule the free market? Natural monopolies and pollution controls are two massive issues that seem to fall into this category. Government regulation seems to only way to fix it.
We agree. A document can mean more than things printed on a piece of paper.
HOWEVER, as I was trying to hammer home in the post you just responded to, a word processor is NOT trying to allow the editing of any type of document. It's rather obviously trying to allow the editing of the kind of document that involves representing the marking of a canvas, typically a piece of paper. It's a very specialised meaning of the word document, in word-processor context.
Are you really going to argue that it makes sense for a 'Microsoft Word document' or a 'OO Writer' document to be able to mean a marked rock? I'll predict your answer: no. So, we're limiting what type of document we're referring to. I'm going to argue that that definition is 'stuff that can be printed onto a piece of paper or canvas', because that's generally the ultimate output of something created in a word processor.
A document can be many things; a document in the context of a word processor cannot.
Apparently you never heard from the thousands of people who Paypal has screwed over, an example of which was illustrated by this recent story. I never use Paypal anymore, and haven't for many years. I'm still alive.
OK, obviously I didn't specify clearly enough what I meant be 'document'. Obviously, one computer science meaning of document is 'any file', that is NOT the meaning I'm getting at here. I mean the type of document you get when you 'open a new document' in a word processor. Typically you get a representation of a canvas (usually paper), onto which you put stuff. In *that* context, embedding video, sound, etc. is silly. In the contect of any old computer 'document' (I personally call them files), obviously embedding may make a lot more sense.
Well, that's unfortunate.
I don't just think embedding of video/audio in documents isn't necessary, I think it's very stupid. A document should be able to be printed out!!! Clearly, these things cannot be printed out and held on paper; ergo they do not belong in documents. The same goes for anything else that cannot be printed out and held on paper.
If you want those things, put them in some other computer format, but don't warp the meaning of 'document' to mean 'anything you can hold and represent on a computer, mushed into one file', because that's just silly.
Mind if I copy your sig? It's clever and funny :-)
As I said, to protect signatures in the same way as they're protecting PINs right now, they'd take it OFF the card and put it ON to a centralised database. Neither would be available by looking at the card, so you'd have to find a letter with their sig on it or something. Harder, I'd say, than collecting their PIN.
So, I'm saying that assumin the criminal manages to obtain the PIN, or signature of the person, which is easier to forge? A PIN can be effortlessly forged with 100% accuracy, a sig can't. Whatsmore, I'd say it's harder to get hold of someone's sig.
I think the reason they went with PIN is because they know cashier plebs are lazy assholes, most of whom would even take a glance at the sig the customer gave and the sig in the database, whereas they dont HAVE to with PIN as the computer system can reliably check for them.
I will also point out there are several thousand pefectly working fusion reactors on the planet, and I'd be willing to bet there's an excellent chance one of them is aimed at you sleeping in your bed right now!
I never realised women had fusion reactions happening?
Because signatures can be forged, pin numbers can't.
I have to take issue here. I think PIN numbers can be forged perfectly, and signatures can be forged less perfectly.
What you REALLY mean is that PIN numbers aren't written on the card, signatures are. If they implemented a system of scanning everyone's signature, putting them on a database and having the signature show up on the cashier's register after they scanned the card, instead of having the signature written on the card itself, security also would have been increased.
Signature forgery is drawing something that looks like the source material.
PIN forgery is entering a 4 digit number that equals the source material.
Which is easier to do, given that both source materials are available?
The Chinese are only proud of their country because they, too, have been indoctrinated. Please remember Tiananmen Square, and never ever forget that it was done under the SAME administration as there is now in China. Then, consider their freedom. Anyone can be proud of something if they don't care why they are, or what it does to them.
I think you mean Mar's.
This is vastly _superior_ to MS's format.
Indeed it is. I'd interpreted the description to mean that there was an external-to-the-document images dir and that all the embedded files would have to be sent seperately, but this format is fine.
Just like they're switching from Windows to opensource OSes.
The ability to embed an image/chart in the same file?
Of course i'm not suggesting that the XML supports images, I'm suggesting it supports the *internal embedding* of images. Others are saying it does, and I haven't done much reading on it so I guess I'll just accept that; it's just that I thought I remembered reading something that said OOo doesn't internal embed images in the document file - it just links to another file in some /images directory. If so, that would definitely be _inferior_ to MS's format.
In all fairness, i think there *may* be a pretty serious lack of functionality in the OpenDocument format. OK, embedding of video, sound and 'voice-over-IP' (WTF? How can you embed that, MORONS? It's like saying you can embed TELEPHONE!) is silly and shouldn't be allowed in a 'document' as you can't print them. However, what's up with the format not even supporting embedding of images and charts? These are things pretty commonly included in documents and people don't want to waste time sending several files, they want them embedded in one file. This doesn't even seem very difficult to implement, just shove the binary stuff at the bottom like with e-mail MIME attachments. Can't someone fix this, because it allows MS to use the term 'less functional document format' quite legitimately, IMHO.
What makes it more humourous is that I believe he meant to say "HTML standards". If it didn't comply with HTTP standards, it might have a bit of trouble connecting to servers. :-)
The majority of Americans did NOT vote for Bush. Turnout was incredibly low. Think before speaking.
:-)
As an aside, in 2000, not even the majority of VOTERS did.
Please try and find a way of referring to Republican voters as something other than 'the people'. A large majority of 'the people' DID NOT, and probably will not, vote for a Republican.
So? Over here in the UK, we *still* have Paypal alternatives, such as NOCHEX and PPPay. Are you seriously telling me there are no slightly smaller, less-evil alternatives to Paypal in the US?
3) i's before e's except after seize.
I wonder if all of us Slashdot citizens would unite and write hate mail to Paypal
Right. Because the best way to improve a sector isn't to start a competing, better business - it's to whinge to the incumbent monopoly as loudly as possible.
Why did you use Paypal? Why didn't you find some other merchant service? Why didn't you tell the guy to do this? Seriously, you know what Paypal is like, yet you all chose to pay money to them willingly.
Ya know, most of the people in NO that didn't evacuate were the poorest of the poor... they didn't have cars to camp in. I'm more inclined to blame the government (who, let's face it, have been crap) for not providing more evacuation support for this group.