Very nice! Can you, as someone with "digging in" knowledge, recommend a good program for letting me a) edit or b)copy text from a locked PDF? Most of the time, I don't actually care about the pretty fonts and layout - I just want to print small text on few pages with little ink (Yes, I know I can tell the printer to do multiple pages on 1 sheet). I have done a lot of searching, but none of the programs I have found seem to actually work. Thanks!
Definitely culture. When I first got the chance to taste sashimi (raw fish), I had to fight 28 years of American culture in my mind telling me that I wanted to vomit. The fish did not taste bad and did not feel bad at all. After almost losing it several times, though, I decided to call it a success for a first try, rather than create an embarrassing situation. I have eaten sashimi on different occassions since then, though I still have to fight my culture sometimes.
I also remember eating rabbit as a child (my father raised them). I remember it being saltier and more greasy than chicken. I remember liking it. I also remember the time we took a bunny in as a pet. I remember not being comfortable eating rabbit after that.;>
Here is an interesting twist on this 'mind over matter' issue. People can be convinced that they do not like a certain food.
/. would not let me post a reply properly or even preview, so I am trying this as a test. I'm sorry if it works (sort of)!:)
: This is news? (Score:4, Insightful) :by Brooklynoid (656617) Alter Relationship on Wednesday April 06, @11:29AM (#12155329) :I'm not sure why this would be a surprise to anyone; the communications gap between IT professionals and the :general population has been around as long as computers have. This gap is present in any technical industry, as :well; how many of the great unwashed understand everything they hear from their doctor or their auto :mechanic? The difference is that we've been conditioned to expect to pay doctors and auto mechanics for their :skill and for explaining things in lay terms where necessary. Folks seem to expect computers to be "easy" and :support for them to be free, for some reason.
Hi!:)
I said it 15 years ago and I will continue to say it: It is only a matter of waiting for the young ones to grow up totally immersed in this computer environment. Then we will not hear these complaints all the time saying, *whiner voice* "computers are too hard to learn." They are not too hard to learn. They are simply different to learn. Already, I know of numerous children even as young as 4 years old, who can run circles around most of the adults I know. Maybe when they grow up, they will whine about how hard the holodecks are to learn. Maybe they will have a valid point, because holodecks perhaps would not be a practical daily life skill. Maybe people just like to whine.:>
I agree with your assessment. There is another important difference here, that should also not be a surprise. Pardon my cut/paste for effect.:)
"The communications gap between... professionals and the general population has been around... long.... This gap is present in any technical industry...."
A big difference between computer professionals and other professionals, i.e., doctors, physicists, and lawyers, is that computers (and the inevitable new terms and ideas that come with them) are now IN and AMONG the general population.
In contrast:
1} Doctors talk doctor-speak to each other all the time, but do not expect patients to learn most of the lingo. Why? Because theirs is a SPECIALIZATION skill. Only a small percentage of the population will have a practical use for knowing the jargon.
2) Physicists also talk physicist-speak amongst themselves, but they do not expect the layman to learn most of that lingo for the same reason. Why should the expectation exist? The layman will not use this knowledge in his everyday life. Physics thug: "At the velocity of C, before I propel this metallic slug into your body's atomic mass, tell me what is Newton's 42nd Law of Thermodynamics!?"
3) Lawyer-speak is a bit different than the other two examples, in that famous cases in the news have exposed the layman to many technical terms. Who doesn't know about class-action lawsuits, due process, pre-emptive strikes, copyright infringement, or "Court is now in session. Honorable Judge Wapner presiding," these days? And yet, not knowing these terms will not hamper productivity in daily life for most people, nor for those around them. (Although you might get a few odd stares.)
So, now we have geeks and geek-speak, which is used liberally and with abandon, not only in the office, on 1200 baud BBS's *shudder*, Usenet, IM's, [insert any of a million common computer-related communication methods here including but not limited to/.], but over mobile phones, in grocery store, at bus stops, and even at family dinner. It even amuses us to notice in mid-sentence that some innocent passerby is staring at us as if we were s
Cool! I wondered if anyone would actually read my hard-written post. Thanks for not taking it as a flame.
Yeah, that was basically my main point (I feel that there must always be a neutral center point of agreement reached before one party or the other can be persuaded), although I think the concept of a round earth orbiting the sun probably has a lot of mathematical proof (as opposed to only theories) behind it.
Anyone who takes a dogmatic (by definition, based upon unproved information) stance is a turn-off to me. Anyone who is not willing to at least CONSIDER evidence for a possibly conflicting viewpoint from theirs is narrow-minded, by definition. After all, evidence is evidence. It may be true or faked, useful or useless. Truthful, useful evidence can also be misleading if its context (other evidence) is ignored. But you will never know unless it has been examined. Also, it makes people feel good and respect you more if you respect their beliefs.
Evidence is not proof, however. And theory is not proof. This is where my personal peeve comes in. I do not argue for Evolution or Creation with this line of reasoning, but rather for moderation and let's-look-at-this-completely-and-objectively-ness .:> Many people will take mere evidence (or partial evidence) and treat it as proof. These are the ones who can become dogmatic.
Case in point is the idea of a literal Genesis interpretation. I agree with you that there are extreme viewpoints in that regard. Any person who claims that the earth was created by God in 6 literal days has not not placed a high value on the other evidence available to them in their same Bible text. That is a statement of fact. Of course, some (such as myself) may argue whether one SHOULD (I say yes) place a high value on the other informations present.
For example, allow me to share with you my arguments against a literal 6 day period. In the Genesis account, Adam was told that he would die in the day that he ate of the fruit, but the account goes on to relate that he lived afterwards for quite some time, even having multiple children before he died. How is one to weigh this evidence? Well, even today, you can hear people say things like, "In my day, we didn't have these modern luxuries." Everyone understands that this is not referring to 'day' in the 24 hour sense, but in the 'time period' sense. Everyone also understands exactly what I meant by "even today," in that previous sentence.:> Reasoning can clearly show how much weight to apply. A reasonable person MUST concede that it at least MAY be POSSIBLE that this idea reconciles the two uses of 'day.' Maybe other evidence will weigh in to confirm or refute it, but let us at least agree that this one point is not a wildman's crazy dream. Once people start calling people crazy, people start to go crazy and logic tends to disappear.:) The next step is to apply this same reasoning to the 6 days of creation. Does this provide proof of a non-literal time-frame? No. Does it provide proof of Creation? No. Does it strip dogma so that a useful exchange of ideas and contemplation of available evidence can take place? I certainly hope so. As I stated earlier, I tend to argue for the middle ground first, moderation. Of course, I usually get shot at from both sides. hehe
I don't think that process in principle is so different than the process used in modern courts to determine whether there is a 'preponderence of evidence' in a particular case.
And now, I must get my full concentration back to work. *ahem*
1)
Um, how is teaching that "The Theory of Evolution" is a *GASP* THEORY and not a fact, insane?!? Sometimes I wonder if people actually listen to their own thoughts before speaking. Usually, I don't wonder for very long, as it becomes apparent quickly enough upon observation.
I am not a fundalmentalist, fanatic, etc. However, I do believe in Creation rather than Evolution -- not just because somebody told me so, but because of my own research over the past 20 years into both schools of thought. Obviously, your in-depth research has led you to a different conclusion. You DID do your own research, right? I don't suggest that you didn't, of course. It's just that I really, really hate having to endure listening to someone spouting someone else's passion as if it were their own, though they never bothered to delve into and make certain for themselves, whether the original speaker's words had any foundation (and whether they believed in Creation or Evolution).
Here is a story of balance: When I was in high school, I had a friend whose mother was a Biology teacher. She was very intelligent; I enjoyed our conversations. One day, in the middle of a conversation, she said, "I just don't see how you could believe in Creation. I thought you were more intelligent than that." Let me tell you, this was a slap in the face! If my world revolved only around me and my viewpoint, I could have said the same thing to her. Am I the only one who thinks this is rude (and arrogant)? There are many highly intelligent people in the world who believe one way or the other. Obviously, level of intelligence is not an indicator of whether one thinks in terms of Creation or Evolution. Equally obvious to me, is that thinking towards the one or the other is no indication as to whether someone is intelligent or not. People on one side seem often to think the other side is, at kindest, misdirected, at worst, evil spawn.:>
In reality, the ratio of idiots to geniuses in each camp is probably about the same. I have seen plenty of "lemmings" in both groups, unfortunately. Really, there is room for everyone to respect each other's right to religious freedom without the hate-mongering.
Also unfortunate, is that natural selection does not seem to be weeding out the lemmings, but rather seems to be multiplying them. I guess we will just have to wait for some Higher Up to clean up! *grin*
2)
The teacher's job is not to fill the children's minds with their whole version of truth. The teacher's job is to teach children how to learn. Along the way, they do learn some basic "pre-digested" knowledge. It is a system of efficiency (however well it may or may not work). It is a starting point. However, when I was in school, some of the best teachers were the ones who encouraged a good debate to stir the thinking juices. So, yes, I would prefer teachers to mention some of man's accomplishments, whether they were ultimately proved to be true or false. Nobody points to... [hmm. I was going to make some comment about the Wright brothers, but found this cool link, showing a long arial history before them, which evinces my point anyway. hehe. Research is a good thing. http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/aviation/ideafligh t.htm ] *ahem* Also, not too many people are petitioning to have Nazi history removed from the books, though most people agree that their thinking was seriously flawed.
http://slashdot.org/articles/05/02/11/228249.shtml ?tid=109&tid=1
"If you seal your nose up with industrial-strength super glue, then duct-tape a military gas-mask to your head (with several layers of foil and lead thrown in just for good measure), you can't help but make out the hints(!?) of rot at SCO.":>
Woah! That really was a shock to me, as I was enjoying my cup of slashdot! Now that you mention it, I do remember being 16 years old and turning down a job offer at the evil bully's high-rise office (the alternative job allowed me to work more closely with a particular red-head, anyway. hehe). But, hey, people can change and so too companies can change.
Oh, well -- onward to the present: Go IBM, defender of the Free [source code]!
Yeah, Baby! Ha, ha, ha! How about some ACTION?!
on
Too Much Gaming, Anyone?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Hmm. I don't know what these people are talking about. hehe
The background:
Despite the Red Alert reference, my fondest memories of this type were when I was in high school. My brother and I decide to "spend the weekend on Arrakis." From Friday afternoon until almost-school-time Monday morning, non-stop, we took turns completing levels in Dune II. He napped (on the floor by the PC) while I played. When I finished a level, I woke him. "Tag, it's your turn."
The cool part (or disturbing, depending on view):
Literally, for the next 3 days, EVERYTHING I looked at had a Dune map superimposed over it. Trikes and Quads were crawling over everything. I heard the spice credits ticking constantly: slow rate, fast, increasing value, decreasing. The credits ticking was the most memorable. It may be many more years before I forget that beautiful sound! *wistful sigh*
Speaking of *emotes*, playing on MUDs, such as NannyMUD (telnet://mud.lysator.liu.se:2000 *ahem*), can cause a LOT of this verb-translated-to-RL effect. Role-playing games have been noted for this effect for many years. I have been known to shamelessly use "Argh," and "Boggle," verbally to express myself.
--Kenneth
Slashdot Mirror
Hi! :)
Very nice! Can you, as someone with "digging in" knowledge, recommend a good program for letting me a) edit or b)copy text from a locked PDF? Most of the time, I don't actually care about the pretty fonts and layout - I just want to print small text on few pages with little ink (Yes, I know I can tell the printer to do multiple pages on 1 sheet). I have done a lot of searching, but none of the programs I have found seem to actually work. Thanks!
--Kejope
Buy the iBook off of eBay?? Isn't it cheaper just to to go down to your local school auction? :)
R ENZY?SITE=PAPIT&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=home.htm
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/COMPUTER_F
Definitely culture. When I first got the chance to taste sashimi (raw fish), I had to fight 28 years of American culture in my mind telling me that I wanted to vomit. The fish did not taste bad and did not feel bad at all. After almost losing it several times, though, I decided to call it a success for a first try, rather than create an embarrassing situation. I have eaten sashimi on different occassions since then, though I still have to fight my culture sometimes.
;>
e nt_3302779.htm
I also remember eating rabbit as a child (my father raised them). I remember it being saltier and more greasy than chicken. I remember liking it. I also remember the time we took a bunny in as a pet. I remember not being comfortable eating rabbit after that.
Here is an interesting twist on this 'mind over matter' issue. People can be convinced that they do not like a certain food.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-08/03/cont
Hmm. I was not trolling. I just saw a blank page and thought I was first post. Sorry. What a boring news topic to be modded troll on. :(
First post! What a boring news topic to win first post on. :(
SCO is dying. What is the point of trying to gasp for air? Just die already!
/. would not let me post a reply properly or even preview, so I am trying this as a test. I'm sorry if it works (sort of)! :)
:by Brooklynoid (656617) Alter Relationship on Wednesday April 06, @11:29AM (#12155329)
:I'm not sure why this would be a surprise to anyone; the communications gap between IT professionals and the
:general population has been around as long as computers have. This gap is present in any technical industry, as
:well; how many of the great unwashed understand everything they hear from their doctor or their auto
:mechanic? The difference is that we've been conditioned to expect to pay doctors and auto mechanics for their
:skill and for explaining things in lay terms where necessary. Folks seem to expect computers to be "easy" and
:support for them to be free, for some reason.
:)
:>
:)
... professionals and the general population has been around ... long .... This gap is present in any technical industry...."
/.], but over mobile phones, in grocery store, at bus stops, and even at family dinner. It even amuses us to notice in mid-sentence that some innocent passerby is staring at us as if we were s
: This is news? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hi!
I said it 15 years ago and I will continue to say it: It is only a matter of waiting for the young ones to grow up totally immersed in this computer environment. Then we will not hear these complaints all the time saying, *whiner voice* "computers are too hard to learn." They are not too hard to learn. They are simply different to learn. Already, I know of numerous children even as young as 4 years old, who can run circles around most of the adults I know. Maybe when they grow up, they will whine about how hard the holodecks are to learn. Maybe they will have a valid point, because holodecks perhaps would not be a practical daily life skill. Maybe people just like to whine.
I agree with your assessment. There is another important difference here, that should also not be a surprise. Pardon my cut/paste for effect.
"The communications gap between
A big difference between computer professionals and other professionals, i.e., doctors, physicists, and lawyers, is that computers (and the inevitable new terms and ideas that come with them) are now IN and AMONG the general population.
In contrast:
1} Doctors talk doctor-speak to each other all the time, but do not expect patients to learn most of the lingo. Why? Because theirs is a SPECIALIZATION skill. Only a small percentage of the population will have a practical use for knowing the jargon.
2) Physicists also talk physicist-speak amongst themselves, but they do not expect the layman to learn most of that lingo for the same reason. Why should the expectation exist? The layman will not use this knowledge in his everyday life. Physics thug: "At the velocity of C, before I propel this metallic slug into your body's atomic mass, tell me what is Newton's 42nd Law of Thermodynamics!?"
3) Lawyer-speak is a bit different than the other two examples, in that famous cases in the news have exposed the layman to many technical terms. Who doesn't know about class-action lawsuits, due process, pre-emptive strikes, copyright infringement, or "Court is now in session. Honorable Judge Wapner presiding," these days? And yet, not knowing these terms will not hamper productivity in daily life for most people, nor for those around them. (Although you might get a few odd stares.)
So, now we have geeks and geek-speak, which is used liberally and with abandon, not only in the office, on 1200 baud BBS's *shudder*, Usenet, IM's, [insert any of a million common computer-related communication methods here including but not limited to
Hi! :)
s . :> Many people will take mere evidence (or partial evidence) and treat it as proof. These are the ones who can become dogmatic.
:> Reasoning can clearly show how much weight to apply. A reasonable person MUST concede that it at least MAY be POSSIBLE that this idea reconciles the two uses of 'day.' Maybe other evidence will weigh in to confirm or refute it, but let us at least agree that this one point is not a wildman's crazy dream. Once people start calling people crazy, people start to go crazy and logic tends to disappear. :) The next step is to apply this same reasoning to the 6 days of creation. Does this provide proof of a non-literal time-frame? No. Does it provide proof of Creation? No. Does it strip dogma so that a useful exchange of ideas and contemplation of available evidence can take place? I certainly hope so. As I stated earlier, I tend to argue for the middle ground first, moderation. Of course, I usually get shot at from both sides. hehe
Cool! I wondered if anyone would actually read my hard-written post. Thanks for not taking it as a flame.
Yeah, that was basically my main point (I feel that there must always be a neutral center point of agreement reached before one party or the other can be persuaded), although I think the concept of a round earth orbiting the sun probably has a lot of mathematical proof (as opposed to only theories) behind it.
Anyone who takes a dogmatic (by definition, based upon unproved information) stance is a turn-off to me. Anyone who is not willing to at least CONSIDER evidence for a possibly conflicting viewpoint from theirs is narrow-minded, by definition. After all, evidence is evidence. It may be true or faked, useful or useless. Truthful, useful evidence can also be misleading if its context (other evidence) is ignored. But you will never know unless it has been examined. Also, it makes people feel good and respect you more if you respect their beliefs.
Evidence is not proof, however. And theory is not proof. This is where my personal peeve comes in. I do not argue for Evolution or Creation with this line of reasoning, but rather for moderation and let's-look-at-this-completely-and-objectively-nes
Case in point is the idea of a literal Genesis interpretation. I agree with you that there are extreme viewpoints in that regard. Any person who claims that the earth was created by God in 6 literal days has not not placed a high value on the other evidence available to them in their same Bible text. That is a statement of fact. Of course, some (such as myself) may argue whether one SHOULD (I say yes) place a high value on the other informations present.
For example, allow me to share with you my arguments against a literal 6 day period. In the Genesis account, Adam was told that he would die in the day that he ate of the fruit, but the account goes on to relate that he lived afterwards for quite some time, even having multiple children before he died. How is one to weigh this evidence? Well, even today, you can hear people say things like, "In my day, we didn't have these modern luxuries." Everyone understands that this is not referring to 'day' in the 24 hour sense, but in the 'time period' sense. Everyone also understands exactly what I meant by "even today," in that previous sentence.
I don't think that process in principle is so different than the process used in modern courts to determine whether there is a 'preponderence of evidence' in a particular case.
And now, I must get my full concentration back to work. *ahem*
--Kenneth
Hi! :)
:>
... [hmm. I was going to make some comment about the Wright brothers, but found this cool link, showing a long arial history before them, which evinces my point anyway. hehe. Research is a good thing. http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/travel/aviation/ideafligh t.htm ] *ahem* Also, not too many people are petitioning to have Nazi history removed from the books, though most people agree that their thinking was seriously flawed.
1)
Um, how is teaching that "The Theory of Evolution" is a *GASP* THEORY and not a fact, insane?!? Sometimes I wonder if people actually listen to their own thoughts before speaking. Usually, I don't wonder for very long, as it becomes apparent quickly enough upon observation.
I am not a fundalmentalist, fanatic, etc. However, I do believe in Creation rather than Evolution -- not just because somebody told me so, but because of my own research over the past 20 years into both schools of thought. Obviously, your in-depth research has led you to a different conclusion. You DID do your own research, right? I don't suggest that you didn't, of course. It's just that I really, really hate having to endure listening to someone spouting someone else's passion as if it were their own, though they never bothered to delve into and make certain for themselves, whether the original speaker's words had any foundation (and whether they believed in Creation or Evolution).
Here is a story of balance: When I was in high school, I had a friend whose mother was a Biology teacher. She was very intelligent; I enjoyed our conversations. One day, in the middle of a conversation, she said, "I just don't see how you could believe in Creation. I thought you were more intelligent than that." Let me tell you, this was a slap in the face! If my world revolved only around me and my viewpoint, I could have said the same thing to her. Am I the only one who thinks this is rude (and arrogant)? There are many highly intelligent people in the world who believe one way or the other. Obviously, level of intelligence is not an indicator of whether one thinks in terms of Creation or Evolution. Equally obvious to me, is that thinking towards the one or the other is no indication as to whether someone is intelligent or not. People on one side seem often to think the other side is, at kindest, misdirected, at worst, evil spawn.
In reality, the ratio of idiots to geniuses in each camp is probably about the same. I have seen plenty of "lemmings" in both groups, unfortunately. Really, there is room for everyone to respect each other's right to religious freedom without the hate-mongering.
Also unfortunate, is that natural selection does not seem to be weeding out the lemmings, but rather seems to be multiplying them. I guess we will just have to wait for some Higher Up to clean up! *grin*
2)
The teacher's job is not to fill the children's minds with their whole version of truth. The teacher's job is to teach children how to learn. Along the way, they do learn some basic "pre-digested" knowledge. It is a system of efficiency (however well it may or may not work). It is a starting point. However, when I was in school, some of the best teachers were the ones who encouraged a good debate to stir the thinking juices. So, yes, I would prefer teachers to mention some of man's accomplishments, whether they were ultimately proved to be true or false. Nobody points to
--Kejope
To paraprase a recent /. . . .
l ?tid=109&tid=1 :>
http://slashdot.org/articles/05/02/11/228249.shtm
"If you seal your nose up with industrial-strength super glue, then duct-tape a military gas-mask to your head (with several layers of foil and lead thrown in just for good measure), you can't help but make out the hints(!?) of rot at SCO."
Woah! That really was a shock to me, as I was enjoying my cup of slashdot! Now that you mention it, I do remember being 16 years old and turning down a job offer at the evil bully's high-rise office (the alternative job allowed me to work more closely with a particular red-head, anyway. hehe).
But, hey, people can change and so too companies can change.
Oh, well -- onward to the present: Go IBM, defender of the Free [source code]!
Hmm. I don't know what these people are talking about. hehe The background: Despite the Red Alert reference, my fondest memories of this type were when I was in high school. My brother and I decide to "spend the weekend on Arrakis." From Friday afternoon until almost-school-time Monday morning, non-stop, we took turns completing levels in Dune II. He napped (on the floor by the PC) while I played. When I finished a level, I woke him. "Tag, it's your turn." The cool part (or disturbing, depending on view): Literally, for the next 3 days, EVERYTHING I looked at had a Dune map superimposed over it. Trikes and Quads were crawling over everything. I heard the spice credits ticking constantly: slow rate, fast, increasing value, decreasing. The credits ticking was the most memorable. It may be many more years before I forget that beautiful sound! *wistful sigh* Speaking of *emotes*, playing on MUDs, such as NannyMUD (telnet://mud.lysator.liu.se:2000 *ahem*), can cause a LOT of this verb-translated-to-RL effect. Role-playing games have been noted for this effect for many years. I have been known to shamelessly use "Argh," and "Boggle," verbally to express myself. --Kenneth