I agree with your assessment of the situation and I sincerely hope you are correct.
As a US Citizen, however, it concerns me that President Elect Obama received around 97% of the African American vote. I find it difficult to believe that 97% of African Americans agree on critical policies. In other words, it appears that many people voted based on race, not on policy.
While Mr. Obama's election may indeed help improve things as you have said, I feel that it is a sad state of affairs when the candidate's race was the deciding factor for a large number of voters. I fully realize that there are many people who voted against Mr. Obama for the exact same reason, but the difference here is that about 97% of African American voters voted for Obama. The split of non-African American voters for each candidate is about what one would expect based on policies.
Yes, Mr. Obama's election is indications of movement forward on many fronts, but it is only a small step, not a radical shift. We (the USA) have a long way to go.
I find it particularly interesting that the CAPTCHA for this post is "harmony".
(Please forgive the length of this post, but this discussion brings up several interesting points that should avoid any religious biases.)
Their use of the phrase "We Muslims" should make sense, actually.
It is common (at least in my experience from hearing from clergy from numerous religions) for clergy to speak on behalf of the entire religion or belief system, so if this request came from an Imman, it should not surprise anyone that he (are there ever female Immans?) would say "We Muslims" or simply "Muslims", though the use of "We" there implies a clear separation between the speaker and the audience, implying that the audience in this case are not Muslims. (1) Christian clergy will often make statements regarding the beliefs of "Christians" in a very general sense, again speaking for the religion.
It is also far too common for extremists of any sort to arrogate to themselves the position of speaking for the entire group, either in simple terms such as the phrase "We Muslims", or in slightly more arrogant terms such as "True Christians..." (implying, of course, that anyone who disagrees with them is not a "true" Christian.) (2)
Unfortunately, there is not quite enough information (especially given the post to which this a response) to determine the exact nature of those making the initial request.
If setting the words of their holy texts to music is truly considered offensive to the majority interpretation of their texts(3), then I applaud the game publisher for being respectful of people's beliefs. If this, however, is only a minority or extremist position, then I feel sorry for the publisher for having given in to the pressure of extremists.
Notes: (1) I do not speak any Semitic language, but I find it interesting that Chinese (at least Mandarin) has two pronouns that can be translated as "we", "wo3 men", which is a general form such as used in English, and "zan2 men", which specifically includes the listener. American Sign Language has a stronger distinction between a speficically inclusive first person plural pronoun and a specifically exclusive first person plural pronoun. (Actually, the specificity is a side-effect of the nature of signed languages in general. Signed languages have some very fascinating characteristics that I suspect some folks on Slashdot would find interesting.) Also, ASL's second person plural pronouns can do that, clearly specifying a subset of the listeners and optionally including non-present parties.
Any Arabic speakers care to comment on first person plural pronouns in Arabic?
(2) I consider the "True Christian" comment more arrogant because it is claiming that other people who claim to be believers but do not agree with the speaker are deceived and are not really Christians. The "We Muslims" phrase, at least on the surface, grants acceptance to anyone who claims to be a Muslim.
(3) I am aware of at least one "sect" of Christianity (some consider it a cult) that objects to the use of musical instruments in worship (yes, there are Old Testament examples, but their claim is based on the fact that there are no New Testament examples), but I am not aware of any other religion that objects to any setting of their texts to music, a capella or accompanied. If my memory serves, the Psalms were specifically set to music (including various musical terms such as "maskil" and "selah" being used) to aid in memorization of the texts. I find it curious that any religion would object to setting their texts to music when it is fairly widely known that setting something to music makes it easier to memorize.
The objective behind using an analogy is to explain something not understood by your audience by comparing it to something understood by your audience.
I am truly surprised, with your 4-digit ID, that you would believe that anything but a very small percentage of Slashdot readers would know enough about sex to be able to understand a sex analogy. (I can't use the "You must be new here" because of your 4-digit ID, but you get the point.)
A sex analogy would be lost on the majority of Slashdot readers.
Unfortunately, I am sorry to inform you that you are at least partly mistaken. The 15 inch MacBook Pro (as seeon on Apple's web site today) does not have a regular FireWire (400) port, only 2 USB 2.0 and 1 FireWire 800 (along with a few others, but no FireWire 400).
I find it amusing that the captcha for this post is "reworked", since Apple have reworked their machines yet again.
Text chat and plain text emails were doable back in the early 1990's. I did it on the 70cm band back then. It works just fine.
And, these days, they have much better equipment so you can obtain higher speeds.
Granted, it's not going to be what you'd want to download the lates Linux distro, but it's more than adequate for email and text chat.
HOWEVER, you have to interface with the "wire" some time. Unless you're going to use HF (low bandwidth for reasons of physics), you're going to have limited range. Any amateur radio operator in Australia will still end up interfacing with Australian routers unless they set up a link to New Zealand or some other country. NZ's just the logical choice due to proximity.
I am an amateur radio operator, but I'm not in Australia or NZ.
Where the heck do you live? I live in South Carolina and I can buy those in the larger cities, including the one in which I work. (I don't _like_ them, but I can buy them any time.)
When will this be released in Japan? I'll be flying through Tokyo in November and the Narita Airport has a huge number of stores. I'm sure one of them will be carrying this thing.
I am speaking from my understanding as a licensed chiropractor. (I don't practice any more except for pro bono cases. I much prefer my computer-related work now.)
The _theory_ behind a professional licensing board is that members of a profession that requires extensive and specialized education are the only ones qualified to make informed judgements regarding the practice of that profession. These judgements include, but are not limited to, appropriate standards of practice including what would be considered "unprofessional conduct".
This is intended to protect the public from unqualified and/or unscrupulous practitioners. Usually, this works well. However, it is possible for the boards to become "good ol' boys' clubs" in which they are more concerned for each other than the public. Fortunately, this is usually rare. Many licensing boards include a "member of the public" (that is, someone who is _not_ licensed in the professon) in order to help prevent such abuses.
Since the licensing board controls who is licensed and, thus, who is allowed to practice the profession, unless otherwise allowed by law the highest sanction that they can impose is to bar the offender from ever practicing that profession again. Lighter sanctions (again, unless also allowed monetary damanges by law) include temporary suspension of a license for various periods of time or other license-related sanctions. I have heard of chiropractors having their licenses revoked and being required to re-apply as if a new graduate, including needing to take all of the exams again. I have also heard of chiropractors being required to take and pass classes to demonstrate an understanding of the areas that resulted in the disciplinary actions. (Fortunately, I have never been subject to disciplinary action by any licensing board.)
So, the theory is that the licensing board can revoke a license in order to protect the public from someone who is deemed unfit to practice the profession. For lawyers, for historical reasons, that licensing board is usually called the "bar" or the "bar association".
And I would _hope_ they would do thorough background checks on school teachers.
I don't know about law, but in various health care professions (I keep my chiropractic license for pro bono patients) and licensed engineers (I know a few), one of the first questions they ask on any application for a license is something along the lines of
"Has your license to practice ever been suspended or revoked in this or any other jurisdiction, or has any [insert profession] board taken disciplinary action against you? If yes, please provide a detailed explaination."
That usually means that if you were booted in one jurisdiction, your chances of being licensed in another jurisdiction are sufficiently close to zero to be indistinguishable from zero for all practical purposes.
Oh, and if you are found out to have LIED on that question, your license is automatically revoked (at least in SC) and you're fined heavily. For some professions, that's even a felony and includes jail time.
I live in South Carolina, which is culturally similar to Kentucky in many unfortunate ways.
In South Carolina, which only a few years ago instituted a lottery, it is illegal for a merchant to allow someone to pay for lottery tickets with a credit card. I think the idea is that there is a risk in not being able to collect payment for the tickets, though the reason put forth to the public is that they don't want people going into debt to gamble.
Most places that sell lottery tickets have ATMs that will obediently dispense money withdrawn from your credit card, usually at a HIGHER interest rate than a purchase. The difference, however, is that once you withdraw the money from the ATM, it's cash. There's no longer a problem with the Lottery Commission receiving their payment.
I've been to Vegas a few times due to SANS conferences, and I've noticed that none of the casinos accept credit cards directly. They all have plenty of ATMs. I strongly suspect it is for the exact same reasons as described in the previous paragraph.
I suspect that many states have similar bans on using credit cards to pay for gambling, and I also suspect that it is for essentially the same reason as stated above. They may _say_ it's to protect people from going into debt, but the practical, bottom-line reason is that it guarantees that the [insert purveyor of gambling services] is paid.
Can anyone who has been to Kentucky and bet on the horse races tell us if they accept credit cards for wagers?
You are correct in that I neglected to mention that. I am sorry that my omission has lead to this misunderstanding.
It is strictly a technical issue. I want to be able to read my students' assignments. The OS X.docx converter converts to.rtf and does not preserve equations or formatting.
I will support.docx as soon as I can read the file format properly. I have contacted my university IT department and we have an arrangement with Microsoft to provide Office 2007/2008 to faculty. I will be picking up my copy of Office 2008 shortly and I will inform my students that the "ban" on Office 2007/2008 documents has been lifted because the reason it was imposed has been addressed.
I realize I should have _asked_, but on the secured site where we can download the software that our arrangement with Microsoft makes available to us there is only Windows software, no OS X versions of anything. It appeared that they were only providing Windows-compatible software. Fortunately, in this case, I was mistaken.
I will make sure that I provide that information to my students. Thank you!
I would gladly accept Office 2007/2008 format documents if I could read them. The converter for OS X provided by Microsoft does not preserve the document formatting and it does not convert equations correctly. Since I teach graduate level computer science courses, both of those considerations are very important.
Fortunately, Office 2007 and 2008 both provide an easy to use "Save As" option that allows the students to save the document in an earlier format.
If Microsoft can make their converter work correctly, or I can obtain a copy of Office 2008 LEGALLY, then I will start to accept those formats as well.
Re:Good news cause PDF's should be shunned
on
PDF Exploits On the Rise
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I'll look into it, but the last time I tried the one for OS X it didn't work. It caused major problems with the formatting of the document, amongst other things. (And I have Office 2004 installed on my machine.)
Re:Good news cause PDF's should be shunned
on
PDF Exploits On the Rise
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
As a university professor, I actively encourage my students to use PDF files if possible. OS X and Linux come with PDF output, and I'm sure there's a way to do it in Windows without paying Adobe.
I also specifically PROHIBIT MS Office 2007/2008.docx,.pptx,.xlsx,.xlwx, etc. formats. I'm not paying for an "upgrade" that completely changes the UI and introduces a new format without providing any real benefit to me.
Yes, I accept OpenOffice.org documents (as well as.dvi,.ps, and the formats from iWork)
I agree that for most slashdot readers, moving the files to any player would not be a problem. However, I believe you are missing a couple of things here.
1. Many newer audio players come with microSD slots. These players offer good functionality and a reasonable interface at a good price. Making the transfer as simple as putting the card into the slot would simplify things greatly for those who still come asking for help to put their music into their audio players.
2. What is to prevent "them" (as in "us" vs "them") from adding DRM later, once the slotMusic (TM, R, Don't you even THINK of using this without paying the RIAA huge royalties) format becomes a de facto standard? Remember, CDs were once DRM-free, but then they added various measures to interfere with fair use.
I hate to be cynical, but I sincerely doubt that the RIAA have suddenly "seen the light" and have repented of their greedy ways. I think this is just a way to shift the common format to something that is EASIER for them to control.
I suspect it could follow something like this:
a. introduce slotMusic (TM, R, Don't even THINK of using this without paying the RIAA huge royalties) without DRM.
b. Watch sales of microSD-enabled devices rise, especially since many of them are made by companies that also make the microSD cards (SanDisk makes a nice little player, for examle).
c. Introduce players that handle an RIAA-blessed DRM standard. Don't release any DRM-ed music yet, just introduce the players with the capabilities. Wait until these players become the "standard" - as older players break/die. A good way to help push this would be to include improved video playback with some cool features like "bookmarking", so you can mark your faviourite places in a movie. Don't include the bookmarking in the non-DRM compliant players. (In other words, just like a "porkbarrel" ammendment to a bill in Congress, attach the crap to something good so people will accept the crap because they get something good with it.)
d. Slowly introduce DRM on higher-bitrate and/or higher-popularity recordings. They need to be sure that they are careful with what they select to be sure to include a large audience. They will most likely blow this one and only hit the "newest" crap they want to push. If they were smart, they'd work out a deal with Apple Music and make this the preferred way to distribute the Beatles' music digitally, for example.
e. Start to phase out the non-DRM on the "latest and greatest" stuff. With sufficient market penetration of the players mentioned in (c), this could work. Just as an example, when was the last time you saw a movie released on VHS?
I'm sorry, but this looks far too much like the proveribal "trojan horse" in that it appears to be a gift, but it hides a dangerous future.
I agree with what you have said, but I feel that I can offer an idea as to why the apparent hypocracy of Hannity, et al., is not quite hypocracy. The difference is not so much the target of the invasion of privacy, but WHO is invading the privacy.
Hannity, I strongly suspect, actually TRUSTS the government not to abuse its power. This is similar to revealing your personal health information to your doctor, or leaving your wallet and passport with a friend and not being worried about her copying your credit card numbers and going on a shopping spree. If you trust your friend or your doctor, then there is no real cause to worry. If you don't trust your friend or your doctor, then I hope you would not reveal the information.
The difference is that the information is not being disclosed willingly, and it was not disclosed to someone that Hannity (I suspect) believes is trustworthy. I do not share Mr. Hannity's faith in the government.
I find it amusing that the CAPTCHA for this post is "docile".
I normally don't comment so many times in a single topic.
I agree with your final point.
If Sir Tim's approach is used, then we face at least two problems: who is allowed to have a group and who is the gatekeeper into the group?
Who decides that the Pastafarians are allowed a group while those who follow the Invisible Pink Unicorn are denied the recognition (and image of legitimacy) that having a recognized group in this system would afford. (Please note, I had to pick two groups. I have no ill feelings toward those who follow the Invisible Pink Unicorn.) Who ensures that the name of the group is "honest" (such as various organizations with the word "truth" in their names rarely are interested in unbiased "truth")
And, once a group is established, who controls access to membership so that one can post ratings in the name of the group? What prevents infiltration by "enemies" in order to promote an apostate viewpoint?
Sir Tim has a wonderful, but impossible, dream.
I find it amusing that the CAPTCHA for this post is "stooge".
An interesting concept, but I fear it will not work.
It would be subject to being flooded with notes for either (or both) viewpoints. I can just imagine an "army" from a particular "religion" flooding a supportive site with "insightful" ratings or equally flooding an opposing site with "BS" ratings.
Without some form of centralized control, this system will be abused and will be useless.
With centralized control, the ratings will be managed and vetted by an individual or group of individuals who will, effectively, decide what truth is. If you know a society in which this would be done inpartially and fairly, please let me know so I can obtain a visa, learn the local language, and move there.
I wish your idea would work, but I fear that there are too many people who would abuse this for their own personal ends for it to work properly.
Actually, there are at least two different schools of thought on the purpose of a dictonary. One, which you describe, is the "descriptive" approach, in which the dictionary describes common usage. Examples include the "American Heritage Dictionary" and the various "Webster" branded dictionaries.
The other, however, is the "prescriptive" approach, in which the dictionary is intended to describe proper usage. At least until recently the Oxford English Dictionary fell into this category. While not an English dictionary, the Xinhua Cidian (the "official" dictionary from China's Xinhua news agency) falls into this category as well. The Merck's Manual of Medical Terminology also falls into this category.
Both are updated frequently due to changes in the language. The descriptive dictionaries follow popular changes, while the prescriptive dictionaries document new additions to the language (such as the term "HTDV").
Each type serves its purpose. Descriptive dictonaries provide insight into the common vernacular.
Prescriptive dictonaries provide a common (and usually stable) reference in situations where such things are needed, like technical fields such as medicine and computer science.
The 8.9 inch and 10 inch models have 1024x600. It's only the 8 inch and 7 inch that have 800x480.
The 8.9 inch model's specs are identical to the 10 inch except the physical size and the weight. Both have the same size HD, same screen layout (1024x600), 3 USB 2.0 ports, etc.
I'll be in China in early November. I plan to pick up one of the 8.9 inch ones. I will report back when I return.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with your assessment of the situation and I sincerely hope you are correct.
As a US Citizen, however, it concerns me that President Elect Obama received around 97% of the African American vote. I find it difficult to believe that 97% of African Americans agree on critical policies. In other words, it appears that many people voted based on race, not on policy.
While Mr. Obama's election may indeed help improve things as you have said, I feel that it is a sad state of affairs when the candidate's race was the deciding factor for a large number of voters. I fully realize that there are many people who voted against Mr. Obama for the exact same reason, but the difference here is that about 97% of African American voters voted for Obama. The split of non-African American voters for each candidate is about what one would expect based on policies.
Yes, Mr. Obama's election is indications of movement forward on many fronts, but it is only a small step, not a radical shift. We (the USA) have a long way to go.
I find it particularly interesting that the CAPTCHA for this post is "harmony".
(Please forgive the length of this post, but this discussion brings up several interesting points that should avoid any religious biases.)
Their use of the phrase "We Muslims" should make sense, actually.
It is common (at least in my experience from hearing from clergy from numerous religions) for clergy to speak on behalf of the entire religion or belief system, so if this request came from an Imman, it should not surprise anyone that he (are there ever female Immans?) would say "We Muslims" or simply "Muslims", though the use of "We" there implies a clear separation between the speaker and the audience, implying that the audience in this case are not Muslims. (1) Christian clergy will often make statements regarding the beliefs of "Christians" in a very general sense, again speaking for the religion.
It is also far too common for extremists of any sort to arrogate to themselves the position of speaking for the entire group, either in simple terms such as the phrase "We Muslims", or in slightly more arrogant terms such as "True Christians..." (implying, of course, that anyone who disagrees with them is not a "true" Christian.) (2)
Unfortunately, there is not quite enough information (especially given the post to which this a response) to determine the exact nature of those making the initial request.
If setting the words of their holy texts to music is truly considered offensive to the majority interpretation of their texts(3), then I applaud the game publisher for being respectful of people's beliefs. If this, however, is only a minority or extremist position, then I feel sorry for the publisher for having given in to the pressure of extremists.
Notes:
(1) I do not speak any Semitic language, but I find it interesting that Chinese (at least Mandarin) has two pronouns that can be translated as "we", "wo3 men", which is a general form such as used in English, and "zan2 men", which specifically includes the listener. American Sign Language has a stronger distinction between a speficically inclusive first person plural pronoun and a specifically exclusive first person plural pronoun. (Actually, the specificity is a side-effect of the nature of signed languages in general. Signed languages have some very fascinating characteristics that I suspect some folks on Slashdot would find interesting.) Also, ASL's second person plural pronouns can do that, clearly specifying a subset of the listeners and optionally including non-present parties.
Any Arabic speakers care to comment on first person plural pronouns in Arabic?
(2) I consider the "True Christian" comment more arrogant because it is claiming that other people who claim to be believers but do not agree with the speaker are deceived and are not really Christians. The "We Muslims" phrase, at least on the surface, grants acceptance to anyone who claims to be a Muslim.
(3) I am aware of at least one "sect" of Christianity (some consider it a cult) that objects to the use of musical instruments in worship (yes, there are Old Testament examples, but their claim is based on the fact that there are no New Testament examples), but I am not aware of any other religion that objects to any setting of their texts to music, a capella or accompanied. If my memory serves, the Psalms were specifically set to music (including various musical terms such as "maskil" and "selah" being used) to aid in memorization of the texts. I find it curious that any religion would object to setting their texts to music when it is fairly widely known that setting something to music makes it easier to memorize.
The objective behind using an analogy is to explain something not understood by your audience by comparing it to something understood by your audience.
I am truly surprised, with your 4-digit ID, that you would believe that anything but a very small percentage of Slashdot readers would know enough about sex to be able to understand a sex analogy. (I can't use the "You must be new here" because of your 4-digit ID, but you get the point.)
A sex analogy would be lost on the majority of Slashdot readers.
I knew that the cake was a lie, but no BBQ either?
Unfortunately, I am sorry to inform you that you are at least partly mistaken. The 15 inch MacBook Pro (as seeon on Apple's web site today) does not have a regular FireWire (400) port, only 2 USB 2.0 and 1 FireWire 800 (along with a few others, but no FireWire 400).
I find it amusing that the captcha for this post is "reworked", since Apple have reworked their machines yet again.
Text chat and plain text emails were doable back in the early 1990's. I did it on the 70cm band back then. It works just fine.
And, these days, they have much better equipment so you can obtain higher speeds.
Granted, it's not going to be what you'd want to download the lates Linux distro, but it's more than adequate for email and text chat.
HOWEVER, you have to interface with the "wire" some time. Unless you're going to use HF (low bandwidth for reasons of physics), you're going to have limited range. Any amateur radio operator in Australia will still end up interfacing with Australian routers unless they set up a link to New Zealand or some other country. NZ's just the logical choice due to proximity.
I am an amateur radio operator, but I'm not in Australia or NZ.
You're off by one letter
1,$s/V/M/
Grab your French dictionaries for that one, folks, and laugh.
Windows Merde!
Where the heck do you live? I live in South Carolina and I can buy those in the larger cities, including the one in which I work. (I don't _like_ them, but I can buy them any time.)
And, you didn't say which flavor.
When will this be released in Japan? I'll be flying through Tokyo in November and the Narita Airport has a huge number of stores. I'm sure one of them will be carrying this thing.
I am speaking from my understanding as a licensed chiropractor. (I don't practice any more except for pro bono cases. I much prefer my computer-related work now.)
The _theory_ behind a professional licensing board is that members of a profession that requires extensive and specialized education are the only ones qualified to make informed judgements regarding the practice of that profession. These judgements include, but are not limited to, appropriate standards of practice including what would be considered "unprofessional conduct".
This is intended to protect the public from unqualified and/or unscrupulous practitioners. Usually, this works well. However, it is possible for the boards to become "good ol' boys' clubs" in which they are more concerned for each other than the public. Fortunately, this is usually rare. Many licensing boards include a "member of the public" (that is, someone who is _not_ licensed in the professon) in order to help prevent such abuses.
Since the licensing board controls who is licensed and, thus, who is allowed to practice the profession, unless otherwise allowed by law the highest sanction that they can impose is to bar the offender from ever practicing that profession again. Lighter sanctions (again, unless also allowed monetary damanges by law) include temporary suspension of a license for various periods of time or other license-related sanctions. I have heard of chiropractors having their licenses revoked and being required to re-apply as if a new graduate, including needing to take all of the exams again. I have also heard of chiropractors being required to take and pass classes to demonstrate an understanding of the areas that resulted in the disciplinary actions. (Fortunately, I have never been subject to disciplinary action by any licensing board.)
So, the theory is that the licensing board can revoke a license in order to protect the public from someone who is deemed unfit to practice the profession. For lawyers, for historical reasons, that licensing board is usually called the "bar" or the "bar association".
And I would _hope_ they would do thorough background checks on school teachers.
I don't know about law, but in various health care professions (I keep my chiropractic license for pro bono patients) and licensed engineers (I know a few), one of the first questions they ask on any application for a license is something along the lines of
"Has your license to practice ever been suspended or revoked in this or any other jurisdiction, or has any [insert profession] board taken disciplinary action against you? If yes, please provide a detailed explaination."
That usually means that if you were booted in one jurisdiction, your chances of being licensed in another jurisdiction are sufficiently close to zero to be indistinguishable from zero for all practical purposes.
Oh, and if you are found out to have LIED on that question, your license is automatically revoked (at least in SC) and you're fined heavily. For some professions, that's even a felony and includes jail time.
I live in South Carolina, which is culturally similar to Kentucky in many unfortunate ways.
In South Carolina, which only a few years ago instituted a lottery, it is illegal for a merchant to allow someone to pay for lottery tickets with a credit card. I think the idea is that there is a risk in not being able to collect payment for the tickets, though the reason put forth to the public is that they don't want people going into debt to gamble.
Most places that sell lottery tickets have ATMs that will obediently dispense money withdrawn from your credit card, usually at a HIGHER interest rate than a purchase. The difference, however, is that once you withdraw the money from the ATM, it's cash. There's no longer a problem with the Lottery Commission receiving their payment.
I've been to Vegas a few times due to SANS conferences, and I've noticed that none of the casinos accept credit cards directly. They all have plenty of ATMs. I strongly suspect it is for the exact same reasons as described in the previous paragraph.
I suspect that many states have similar bans on using credit cards to pay for gambling, and I also suspect that it is for essentially the same reason as stated above. They may _say_ it's to protect people from going into debt, but the practical, bottom-line reason is that it guarantees that the [insert purveyor of gambling services] is paid.
Can anyone who has been to Kentucky and bet on the horse races tell us if they accept credit cards for wagers?
They're just having flashbacks to the 80's and the video cassette format wars.
Beta = better.
You are correct in that I neglected to mention that. I am sorry that my omission has lead to this misunderstanding.
It is strictly a technical issue. I want to be able to read my students' assignments. The OS X .docx converter converts to .rtf and does not preserve equations or formatting.
I will support .docx as soon as I can read the file format properly. I have contacted my university IT department and we have an arrangement with Microsoft to provide Office 2007/2008 to faculty. I will be picking up my copy of Office 2008 shortly and I will inform my students that the "ban" on Office 2007/2008 documents has been lifted because the reason it was imposed has been addressed.
I realize I should have _asked_, but on the secured site where we can download the software that our arrangement with Microsoft makes available to us there is only Windows software, no OS X versions of anything. It appeared that they were only providing Windows-compatible software. Fortunately, in this case, I was mistaken.
I will make sure that I provide that information to my students. Thank you!
I would gladly accept Office 2007/2008 format documents if I could read them. The converter for OS X provided by Microsoft does not preserve the document formatting and it does not convert equations correctly. Since I teach graduate level computer science courses, both of those considerations are very important.
Fortunately, Office 2007 and 2008 both provide an easy to use "Save As" option that allows the students to save the document in an earlier format.
If Microsoft can make their converter work correctly, or I can obtain a copy of Office 2008 LEGALLY, then I will start to accept those formats as well.
I'll look into it, but the last time I tried the one for OS X it didn't work. It caused major problems with the formatting of the document, amongst other things. (And I have Office 2004 installed on my machine.)
As a university professor, I actively encourage my students to use PDF files if possible. OS X and Linux come with PDF output, and I'm sure there's a way to do it in Windows without paying Adobe.
I also specifically PROHIBIT MS Office 2007/2008 .docx, .pptx, .xlsx, .xlwx, etc. formats. I'm not paying for an "upgrade" that completely changes the UI and introduces a new format without providing any real benefit to me.
Yes, I accept OpenOffice.org documents (as well as .dvi, .ps, and the formats from iWork)
Dr. Hellno,
I agree that for most slashdot readers, moving the files to any player would not be a problem. However, I believe you are missing a couple of things here.
1. Many newer audio players come with microSD slots. These players offer good functionality and a reasonable interface at a good price. Making the transfer as simple as putting the card into the slot would simplify things greatly for those who still come asking for help to put their music into their audio players.
2. What is to prevent "them" (as in "us" vs "them") from adding DRM later, once the slotMusic (TM, R, Don't you even THINK of using this without paying the RIAA huge royalties) format becomes a de facto standard? Remember, CDs were once DRM-free, but then they added various measures to interfere with fair use.
I hate to be cynical, but I sincerely doubt that the RIAA have suddenly "seen the light" and have repented of their greedy ways. I think this is just a way to shift the common format to something that is EASIER for them to control.
I suspect it could follow something like this:
a. introduce slotMusic (TM, R, Don't even THINK of using this without paying the RIAA huge royalties) without DRM.
b. Watch sales of microSD-enabled devices rise, especially since many of them are made by companies that also make the microSD cards (SanDisk makes a nice little player, for examle).
c. Introduce players that handle an RIAA-blessed DRM standard. Don't release any DRM-ed music yet, just introduce the players with the capabilities. Wait until these players become the "standard" - as older players break/die. A good way to help push this would be to include improved video playback with some cool features like "bookmarking", so you can mark your faviourite places in a movie. Don't include the bookmarking in the non-DRM compliant players. (In other words, just like a "porkbarrel" ammendment to a bill in Congress, attach the crap to something good so people will accept the crap because they get something good with it.)
d. Slowly introduce DRM on higher-bitrate and/or higher-popularity recordings. They need to be sure that they are careful with what they select to be sure to include a large audience. They will most likely blow this one and only hit the "newest" crap they want to push. If they were smart, they'd work out a deal with Apple Music and make this the preferred way to distribute the Beatles' music digitally, for example.
e. Start to phase out the non-DRM on the "latest and greatest" stuff. With sufficient market penetration of the players mentioned in (c), this could work. Just as an example, when was the last time you saw a movie released on VHS?
I'm sorry, but this looks far too much like the proveribal "trojan horse" in that it appears to be a gift, but it hides a dangerous future.
Rantingkitten (cute moniker, btw),
I agree with what you have said, but I feel that I can offer an idea as to why the apparent hypocracy of Hannity, et al., is not quite hypocracy. The difference is not so much the target of the invasion of privacy, but WHO is invading the privacy.
Hannity, I strongly suspect, actually TRUSTS the government not to abuse its power. This is similar to revealing your personal health information to your doctor, or leaving your wallet and passport with a friend and not being worried about her copying your credit card numbers and going on a shopping spree. If you trust your friend or your doctor, then there is no real cause to worry. If you don't trust your friend or your doctor, then I hope you would not reveal the information.
The difference is that the information is not being disclosed willingly, and it was not disclosed to someone that Hannity (I suspect) believes is trustworthy. I do not share Mr. Hannity's faith in the government.
I find it amusing that the CAPTCHA for this post is "docile".
I normally don't comment so many times in a single topic.
I agree with your final point.
If Sir Tim's approach is used, then we face at least two problems: who is allowed to have a group and who is the gatekeeper into the group?
Who decides that the Pastafarians are allowed a group while those who follow the Invisible Pink Unicorn are denied the recognition (and image of legitimacy) that having a recognized group in this system would afford. (Please note, I had to pick two groups. I have no ill feelings toward those who follow the Invisible Pink Unicorn.) Who ensures that the name of the group is "honest" (such as various organizations with the word "truth" in their names rarely are interested in unbiased "truth")
And, once a group is established, who controls access to membership so that one can post ratings in the name of the group? What prevents infiltration by "enemies" in order to promote an apostate viewpoint?
Sir Tim has a wonderful, but impossible, dream.
I find it amusing that the CAPTCHA for this post is "stooge".
An interesting concept, but I fear it will not work.
It would be subject to being flooded with notes for either (or both) viewpoints. I can just imagine an "army" from a particular "religion" flooding a supportive site with "insightful" ratings or equally flooding an opposing site with "BS" ratings.
Without some form of centralized control, this system will be abused and will be useless.
With centralized control, the ratings will be managed and vetted by an individual or group of individuals who will, effectively, decide what truth is. If you know a society in which this would be done inpartially and fairly, please let me know so I can obtain a visa, learn the local language, and move there.
I wish your idea would work, but I fear that there are too many people who would abuse this for their own personal ends for it to work properly.
Actually, there are at least two different schools of thought on the purpose of a dictonary. One, which you describe, is the "descriptive" approach, in which the dictionary describes common usage. Examples include the "American Heritage Dictionary" and the various "Webster" branded dictionaries.
The other, however, is the "prescriptive" approach, in which the dictionary is intended to describe proper usage. At least until recently the Oxford English Dictionary fell into this category. While not an English dictionary, the Xinhua Cidian (the "official" dictionary from China's Xinhua news agency) falls into this category as well. The Merck's Manual of Medical Terminology also falls into this category.
Both are updated frequently due to changes in the language. The descriptive dictionaries follow popular changes, while the prescriptive dictionaries document new additions to the language (such as the term "HTDV").
Each type serves its purpose. Descriptive dictonaries provide insight into the common vernacular.
Prescriptive dictonaries provide a common (and usually stable) reference in situations where such things are needed, like technical fields such as medicine and computer science.
It was three elections ago - the DMCA was Clinton's doing, not Bush's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA
I find it somewhat amusing that the captcha in a thread about vote hacking is "certify".
The 8.9 inch and 10 inch models have 1024x600. It's only the 8 inch and 7 inch that have 800x480.
The 8.9 inch model's specs are identical to the 10 inch except the physical size and the weight. Both have the same size HD, same screen layout (1024x600), 3 USB 2.0 ports, etc.
I'll be in China in early November. I plan to pick up one of the 8.9 inch ones. I will report back when I return.
I'm going to China in November, and I've already asked my friends there to try to find these. I will report back if I manage to get my hands on one.
I think the 0890 (8.9 inch) would make a great little security testing device.