If you need help with multivariate (non-)linear algebra, I can strongly recommend trying out books from chemistry and psychology (or more specifically, chemometrics and psychometrics) because these are basically somewhat "dumbed-down" descriptions of the most common algorithms to study large datasets.
I say "dumbed-down" in the nicest possible sense, in that they focus on solving practical problems in industry and laboratory, as opposed to rigorous statistical proofs as to why these algorithms work.
Well, it helped me, at least (many years ago). YMMV.
Frits.
I'm saying the first option, that I can't download a PDF form, and *fill it out*, and send the altered PDF back.
I know that there is a procedure using pdftk to generate an FDF file, but that's so user-unfriendly that I don't think a company would ask its clients to use it:-)
I've only ever been able to download a PDF form, print it out, fill it out on paper, and send it back via snail-mail.
So, please enlighten me why PDF is suddenly not an "output-only" format, and which programs can be used to fill one in?
I'm probably showing my ignorance here, but isn't it possible to validate the consistency of an XML document using XSLT software like xalan:
http://xml.apache.org/xalan-j/?
Then, you at least know whether the document is valid ODF. Step 2 would then be to make sure that all valid ODF documents are also rendered identically, which depends on either bugs in the word processor programs (to be squashed by the companies making them), or inconsistencies and/or ambiguities in the standards document (to be complained about at OASIS).
You can't edit PDF. So in a dialogue with your government (say, chamber of commerce form to fill in), it's much much easier if you can download the form from the organization, fill it in, cryptographically sign it, and e-mail it back (either encrypted with the organization's public key or in the clear).
It's not rocket science, but it seems it's difficult to understand for some organizations (I'm looking at you, Dutch KvK!).
Because I'm bored, I'll try to spell it out for you.
I think what you're missing is that this case is about *two* platforms; Microsoft Servers and Microsoft Clients. They communicate using proprietary *protocols* which are not APIs and are very often publicly disclosed (think NFS, TCP/IP, ODF etc.). I don't use Microsoft software a lot but I think this specific case is file serving protocols and printer services. If these protocols are public (I would say publicly downloadable; Microsoft seems to think $50000 or so is R.a.n.D enough) then any competing company can make
(A) A client program for any given platform (say, Linux) that makes it seem like a Microsoft Client to e.g. a Microsoft printer server, and
(B) A server program for any given platform (say, Mac OS X) that makes it seem like a Microsoft Server (say CIFS server) to a group of Microsoft Client machines.
And then, you have what is called "interoperability", which is seen by some people (no, not just anti-US Microsoft haters) as a Good Thing(TM), because it reduces monopoly and encourages competition and innovation.
Snap je 't nu?
You're exaggerating, it's more like 18000, and you can't install all of them at the same time (some conflict with each other).
I've never used k7fftwgel-dev but, since Fast Fourier Transform is very cpu-intensive, I bet it *IS* SO much better (AMD Athlon K7 has 3 FPU's, and does 3dnow! and SSE, IIRC).
Sometimes the libraries that make the programs that you use blindingly fast are a bit "under-the-hood" and not very visible or sexy, but I bet this one helps a lot for programs like gromacs (http://packages.debian.org/testing/science/gromac s-lam) (for e.g. chemical and medicine research).
Besides, I'd like you to think up understandable program names for all the 18605 packages, 'cause I can't. That's why we have synaptic:-)
I had an insight this week, prompted by another slashdot discussion (don't remember about what or by whom) where
the idea of the monkeysphere was explained: http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.h tml
Basically, I thought: if there are problems of the type "tragedy of the commons" such as, who's going to pay taxes to solve global problems that are not immediately felt in your own "monkeysphere", and we as average humans don't have the mental capacity to understand that such problems are also
OUR problems, then, well, we're not going to make it, independent of which specific "doomsday scenario" becomes imminent.
We're now with enough people on earth that our impact is felt, and if we don't manage to maintain some kind of dynamic equilibrium (on- as well as off-planet), then it's up to the next species to have a go:-). It's not even important which problem will do us in; probably the first one that rears its head.
If we as people elect the kind of leaders that say "it's those other people's fault, there in that other country, outside of your monkeysphere" instead of "you all have to pay more taxes and take these other measures so that we can tackle this important global problem we've identified and reached consensus on", then we get what we deserve.
I hear what you're saying (although I think it's a bit pessimistic -- just a bit), but I shudder to think of how we're going to solve global problems of the type of "tragedy of the commons". If you're right, we're never going to stop global warming, for example, because its solutions might run counter to "... complying with those mandates would have a negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price increases for consumers."
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/2 0010611-2.html).
This discussion is about open standards, not about open source software.
How many different types of wall sockets do you have in your house? 5 or 10?
<rant>
I think the confusion is worsened by OpenOffice (an open source program) != Office Open XML (an open "standard").
Guess which is more recent. </rant>
Yeah, but when you say "Class A liaison of the ISO" it's a bit disingenious, no?
ECMA's core business seems to be to quickly approve standards on a broad range computer hardware;
I'd trust them to give a good standard for CD-ROM thickness, something they've been doing since 1984 apparently
("Optical storage" TC31). However when on their website I see the separate category "Office Open XML Formats"
it seems a bit overly specific:-) and geared towards exactly 1 proposed standard:
This TC45 programme of work specifies:
1. To Produce a formal Standard for office productivity documents which is fully compatible with the Office Open XML Formats
2.15.3.51 suppressTopSpacingWP (Emulate WordPerfect 5.x Line Spacing)
This element specifies that applications shall emulate the behavior of a previously existing word processing application (WordPerfect 5.x)...
after which they say, to be honest, "don't use this".
Look on p. 1463 for a striking example to see what you get if you implement it wrong! (Really! p.1463 of the text, p. 1469 of the pdf. I dare you.)
IMHO, a *standard* would have defined something there like <modifylinespacing factor="0.93"> and leave the factor to the implementor, instead of actually *specifying* "This emulation typically results in line spacing which is reduced from its normal size".
Why does a new standard need 67 paragraphs of compatibility settings, anyway?
Give me a break (not a Word97LineBreak). I've read standards. I've implemented standards. This OOXML is not one.
On the other hand, the 737 pages http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.1/OS/OpenDocu ment-v1.1.odt is, well, boring, but readable.
That's not what I get from whois:
Domain Name: GROKLAW.NET
Created on: 03-Oct-03
Unfortunately, I don't remember when I started reading it. I think it was shortly after the lawsuit, when she was still working as a paralegal and before she described herself as a journalist instead. I do recall that she always tried to educate the groklaw readers on the finer points of american legal procedure, and that her "ranty" articles came much much later. I now know more about USA law than Dutch law:-). I hope she gets better soon, and that the SCO-IBM-Novell-Red Hat-Autozone lawsuits are resolved this year.
Why did the delivered "household trash" contain such high concentrations of extremely toxic substances and heavy metals?
Are we europeans not the only ones with such scandals in the food chain (transformer oil PCB's mixed in with animal fodder etc.; "well it's oil isn't it")?
I don't remember where I heard this argument, but I think it's a good one:
If building a self-sustained small ecology on a harsh and empty environment
(such as the moon) is so very difficult and expensive, maybe that teaches the lesson that
we really shouldn't turn our 1 inhabitable planet into a harsh and empty environment.
Go on, prove that a moon base is viable anyway, I dare you:-)
Either way, humanity benefits.
Slashdot Mirror
If you need help with multivariate (non-)linear algebra, I can strongly recommend trying out books from chemistry and psychology (or more specifically, chemometrics and psychometrics) because these are basically somewhat "dumbed-down" descriptions of the most common algorithms to study large datasets.
I say "dumbed-down" in the nicest possible sense, in that they focus on solving practical problems in industry and laboratory, as opposed to rigorous statistical proofs as to why these algorithms work.
Well, it helped me, at least (many years ago). YMMV. Frits.
FYI, it's always noon.
I'm saying the first option, that I can't download a PDF form, and *fill it out*, and send the altered PDF back. :-)
I know that there is a procedure using pdftk to generate an FDF file, but that's so user-unfriendly that I don't think a company would ask its clients to use it
I've only ever been able to download a PDF form, print it out, fill it out on paper, and send it back via snail-mail.
So, please enlighten me why PDF is suddenly not an "output-only" format, and which programs can be used to fill one in?
I'm probably showing my ignorance here, but isn't it possible to validate the consistency of an XML document using XSLT software like xalan: http://xml.apache.org/xalan-j/?
Then, you at least know whether the document is valid ODF. Step 2 would then be to make sure that all valid ODF documents are also rendered identically, which depends on either bugs in the word processor programs (to be squashed by the companies making them), or inconsistencies and/or ambiguities in the standards document (to be complained about at OASIS).
You can't edit PDF. So in a dialogue with your government (say, chamber of commerce form to fill in), it's much much easier if you can download the form from the organization, fill it in, cryptographically sign it, and e-mail it back (either encrypted with the organization's public key or in the clear).
It's not rocket science, but it seems it's difficult to understand for some organizations (I'm looking at you, Dutch KvK!).
Because I'm bored, I'll try to spell it out for you.
I think what you're missing is that this case is about *two* platforms; Microsoft Servers and Microsoft Clients. They communicate using proprietary *protocols* which are not APIs and are very often publicly disclosed (think NFS, TCP/IP, ODF etc.). I don't use Microsoft software a lot but I think this specific case is file serving protocols and printer services. If these protocols are public (I would say publicly downloadable; Microsoft seems to think $50000 or so is R.a.n.D enough) then any competing company can make
(A) A client program for any given platform (say, Linux) that makes it seem like a Microsoft Client to e.g. a Microsoft printer server, and
(B) A server program for any given platform (say, Mac OS X) that makes it seem like a Microsoft Server (say CIFS server) to a group of Microsoft Client machines.
And then, you have what is called "interoperability", which is seen by some people (no, not just anti-US Microsoft haters) as a Good Thing(TM), because it reduces monopoly and encourages competition and innovation.
Snap je 't nu?
Judging from his signature, it must have had at least *some* odd effect on him.
You're exaggerating, it's more like 18000, and you can't install all of them at the same time (some conflict with each other).c s-lam) (for e.g. chemical and medicine research).
:-)
I've never used k7fftwgel-dev but, since Fast Fourier Transform is very cpu-intensive, I bet it *IS* SO much better (AMD Athlon K7 has 3 FPU's, and does 3dnow! and SSE, IIRC).
Sometimes the libraries that make the programs that you use blindingly fast are a bit "under-the-hood" and not very visible or sexy, but I bet this one helps a lot for programs like gromacs (http://packages.debian.org/testing/science/groma
Besides, I'd like you to think up understandable program names for all the 18605 packages, 'cause I can't. That's why we have synaptic
FYI, the link doesn't work.
Debian package coming soon (hopefully...)
Soylent Brown is aliens!
I had an insight this week, prompted by another slashdot discussion (don't remember about what or by whom) where the idea of the monkeysphere was explained: http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.h tml
:-). It's not even important which problem will do us in; probably the first one that rears its head.
Basically, I thought: if there are problems of the type "tragedy of the commons" such as, who's going to pay taxes to solve global problems that are not immediately felt in your own "monkeysphere", and we as average humans don't have the mental capacity to understand that such problems are also OUR problems, then, well, we're not going to make it, independent of which specific "doomsday scenario" becomes imminent.
We're now with enough people on earth that our impact is felt, and if we don't manage to maintain some kind of dynamic equilibrium (on- as well as off-planet), then it's up to the next species to have a go
If we as people elect the kind of leaders that say "it's those other people's fault, there in that other country, outside of your monkeysphere" instead of "you all have to pay more taxes and take these other measures so that we can tackle this important global problem we've identified and reached consensus on", then we get what we deserve.
I hear what you're saying (although I think it's a bit pessimistic -- just a bit), but I shudder to think of how we're going to solve global problems of the type of "tragedy of the commons". If you're right, we're never going to stop global warming, for example, because its solutions might run counter to "... complying with those mandates would have a negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price increases for consumers." (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/2 0010611-2.html).
Ever heard of the Helms-Burton act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms_burton)?
I'm european and even I've heard of it.
OK, I'll bite. Why is GNU-licensed software analogous to communism?
Hoards? Are we collectable now? (hordes?)
Wow.. swap "standard" and "software"..
This discussion is about open standards, not about open source software.
How many different types of wall sockets do you have in your house? 5 or 10?
<rant>
I think the confusion is worsened by OpenOffice (an open source program) != Office Open XML (an open "standard"). Guess which is more recent.
</rant>
ECMA's core business seems to be to quickly approve standards on a broad range computer hardware; I'd trust them to give a good standard for CD-ROM thickness, something they've been doing since 1984 apparently ("Optical storage" TC31). However when on their website I see the separate category "Office Open XML Formats" it seems a bit overly specific
This TC45 programme of work specifies: TC45 is chaired by Microsoft, unsurprisingly.
Now contrast this to OASIS which is admittedly much younger (1993) but has as core business, to design and specify XML languages for interoperability (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/committees.
I'm a member of neither, in fact I'm not even affiliated with making standards, but I can tell you I'd trust a standard much more if it was made by multiple parties, of various backgrounds, working together to crystallize their consensus in a standards document, as opposed to one single vendor, telling the standards organization to make it exactly like their "specification" and approve it even if it's
- 6000 pages,
- specifies dates wrong intentionally (http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objectio
- and has external references to non-standards documents that aren't even publicly available for review (http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objectio
Look on p. 1463 for a striking example to see what you get if you implement it wrong! (Really! p.1463 of the text, p. 1469 of the pdf. I dare you.)
IMHO, a *standard* would have defined something there like <modifylinespacing factor="0.93"> and leave the factor to the implementor, instead of actually *specifying* "This emulation typically results in line spacing which is reduced from its normal size".
Why does a new standard need 67 paragraphs of compatibility settings, anyway?
Give me a break (not a Word97LineBreak). I've read standards. I've implemented standards. This OOXML is not one. On the other hand, the 737 pages http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.1/OS/OpenDoc
That's not what I get from whois: :-). I hope she gets better soon, and that the SCO-IBM-Novell-Red Hat-Autozone lawsuits are resolved this year.
Domain Name: GROKLAW.NET
Created on: 03-Oct-03
Unfortunately, I don't remember when I started reading it. I think it was shortly after the lawsuit, when she was still working as a paralegal and before she described herself as a journalist instead. I do recall that she always tried to educate the groklaw readers on the finer points of american legal procedure, and that her "ranty" articles came much much later. I now know more about USA law than Dutch law
Not for long, it isn't! http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg187251 24.500
Ever heard of the term "autocatalytic process"?
Why did the delivered "household trash" contain such high concentrations of extremely toxic substances and heavy metals?
Are we europeans not the only ones with such scandals in the food chain (transformer oil PCB's mixed in with animal fodder etc.; "well it's oil isn't it")?
All I can say is .. wow.. everyone who is annoyed at the tediousness of separating your garbage should read that article, and reconsider.
I don't remember where I heard this argument, but I think it's a good one: :-)
If building a self-sustained small ecology on a harsh and empty environment (such as the moon) is so very difficult and expensive, maybe that teaches the lesson that we really shouldn't turn our 1 inhabitable planet into a harsh and empty environment.
Go on, prove that a moon base is viable anyway, I dare you
Either way, humanity benefits.
Hey, it's supposed to be the *meek* who shall inherit the earth! You don't sound very meek to me.