Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Wikipedia... (Score 1) 119

Why AC?
I have created some pages, and found them deleted likewise. No, not about family members or stuff, but as a starting point to collectively collect sparse information about some almost forgotten actors in not almost forgotten movies. Actors that have impressed me one way or another, despite minor roles. Why is it so wrong to start a wiki page on person XYZ who pops up in the credits of a movie as cinematographer or actor, and put in a few lines, as many as I can do, a link to the IMDB entry of the movie, and over. Maybe in a year, or a decade, or a generation, some family member or another fan finds that entry and can make it grow.
With deletion, we have this unique opportunity of information collection removed.

Comment Re:Only one issue? (Score 1) 119

No, the country can't be 'fixed' by changing one law. And Lessig doesn't say so.

But no amounts of laws can 'fix' a country that is governed by people who could only make it into government by buy-ing into politics of powerful sponsors. Sponsors who expect the elected ones to push for the policies of the 'generous' sponsors.
So make it two steps: First remove the decision of the sponsors on who can become a candidate. Second, get candidates that are determined by the (voter) population alone.

Comment Re:I'm sorry, what is his message again? (Score 1) 119

Someone asked 'why modded down'?. Whoever that AC was, let me point out that I agree with that mod by answering your question:
Firstly, all sources have to be laid open. Affiliations included.
Secondly, your post is not quite on topic, because Lessig has never said anything close to 'censoring'. Watch his talk at TED. He wants the result of elections to be a result of the votes alone, like written by the founding fathers. When the idea is, any candidate, irrespective of funding by 132 (watch said talk) individuals can make it, this is no censorship. On the contrary, if 132 (or 144k, watch the talk) decide on the candidate to run, that would be censorship, since the US has rather 144M voters.

I doubt that you consider funding by some party expecting 'returns' after the elections as 'democratic'. Therefore, some system must be put in place to limit, yes, limit, funding in a way that only altruistic campaign donations are possible. If you consider a reduction of corruption as 'censoring', that's your perspective.

Comment Re:EVER HEARD OF A (Score 1) 131

Would be nice, but isn't.
Peer-review is a crazy thing, I agree. Too often my own contributions were not understood, or deliberately brought down for offending the reviewers' personal opinions. Too often my own reviews were lousy, or I didn't understand the papers, or brought them down for not agreeing with my opinion.

And yet, the process as such has often resulted in my re-thinking my own papers, improving them, and often my reviews have resulted in papers of others being improved.
Try this in blog format, and 90%+ of a******s don't have a basic idea what the whole thing is about, and those who'd know don't come to view it. No, academic progress is not possible in selfie format, but in collaborative ways, with ever changing contributors.

Comment Re:With those figures ? (Score 2) 131

[why AC?]
If I had mod points, I'd mod you up, even as AC.
That's exactly the situation! You can as well see the standing of public U-s in the USA vs the private ones. 2 generations ago the public U-s were often great places of academic activities, and with a high standing (leave out Harvard and a few more). Recently, the funding for the public U-s has gone down, and businesses have bought in. As of 2015 ever more public U-s are on the decline while private ones rise. Naturally. Naturally? Naturally; in case one agrees with academia and tertiary education as just another business area.

Personally, I'm much too old to buy into this crap, though when I talk to younger colleagues, for them all this sickness seems just plain normal. The worst part, at least to me, is the consequence over the long run: when almost all third party funding is done from business-minded people with 'industrial applicability' within less than 3 years, we obtain some serious refinement of existing technologies in the best Confucian sense. But why did China drop off the scientific map centuries ago? Because their inventions, from porcelain to dynamite saw but small refinements, but no larger work, no application beyond a narrow field. In short, effective stagnation. So the Europeans could harvest everything and re-invent it.
Back to the topic in question: Who in our days is given the liberty and the funding to think the thoughts (often enough out of the box or ready applicability) that can lay a foundation over one or two generations into the future?

Comment Re:The wet blanket says .. last hint ;-) (Score 1) 254

How long did it take to rotate an image in Writer without copying to Draw, rotate it there, and copy it back!?
It was filed March 17th, 2002 (!!) against StarOffice. It was filed, again, February 17th, 2011, against documentfoundation.org.
It was - drumrollllls - solved on July 2015.
This points to a serious bug in governance.

Comment Re:The wet blanket says .. I missed (Score 1) 254

With pleasure: Nothing. I wrote that the bibliography in MS Word is 'so superior'.
The equation editor of MS Word has its pros and its cons. Should anyone so desire, I could make a detailed comparison, though I think they'd come out pretty close.
What could be improved definitively - and that's what I wrote - is the UI, the see-what-you-get. Because when you open a New Formula, you get a tiny little piece of window somewhere in your document, and then one starts writing, newlines, and so forth, and half is invisibly hidden behind the window. So I have to click forth and back all the time, since only then can I place the equation where it is supposed to be, and most of all, only then can I *see* it in completeness.
I can imagine much better than changing between the document and the white command line input down all the time. Going down, going up totally to reach the very limited menu, down the whole screen to write, click to see it in the document, click the formula again for modifications that gets me back all down to a command line ... .
Yes, I can imagine a window that actually re-sizes completely with the formula, an arrow (top left of the window) to place that window in a document, and me typing the equation in that window overlaying the document, as a floating window, not covering the display of the equation. What about marking a certain part of the equation (also not possible now), and using my mouse wheel to adjust the size, e.g.)? What about numbering the equations to the right if so desired; either incremental or taken from the heading of the insertion point? I know, the coders will tell me 'impossible', but then, how to surpass MS Office?

But now I have to stop, otherwise I'll feel like filing some twenty RFE, which will be turned down or left unattended.

Since I am at it: OpenOffice also regressed on SVG, EPS. But when I filed it there, someone acknowledged it within one day and had a patch for SVG out within another 2 days. then I had to migrate to OpenOffice, because I have hundreds of drawings in SVG and EPS for my lectures, and with OpenOffice at least half of those became usable again.

Comment Re:The wet blanket says .. I missed (Score 1) 254

[Reply to self]

One item I missed in my OP: the worst nightmare: Bibliography.

So overall, LibreOffice has improved very much with respect to convenience of UI, true.
But it has since inception never done any significant changes to the non-basics: Equation Editor (already mentioned) and Bibliography. The latter is almost non-existent, while that of MS Office is just great. And the import of professional image formats was a regression.

I know that there are overworked volunteers, and that's not what I argue about. The overall progress to me rather looks like 'bad' governance: An office suite that Dick,Tom and Harry can conveniently use to write a letter to their town-hall. This part is fully achieved. But years without getting any closer to a Writer that helps publishing larger works, like scientific papers. That's why I am not overly convinced.

Comment The wet blanket says .. (Score 5, Interesting) 254

No, I am not that convinced. Alas. Look at some basic bug reports, and how bugs reports are treated, and you'll find some abhorrent situations. Where it could shine, it didn't. Like surpassing MS Office.

First item: the silly image formats supported by MS Offce (only), to create a market for real formats, like SVG, EPS. LibreOffice simply dropped support, had a good number of bug reports some two years ago, and still pending.

It did much better than OpenOffice in colourful gadgets and widgets to please the eye of the casual user, yes, but did not focus on real technical improvements.

Equation editor. It is just okay, but not beyond. Still the same as OpenOffice. Does it import MS formulas? Does it offer a real WYSIWYG, or does one have to continuously click forth and back? The latter.

Did I write a number of bug reports to help out? Yes, I did. What I got was UNCO, or outright rejection, like 'try the most recent version, we think it has been solved'. How to try the most recent version if it isn't in the pools of my distro? And worse: When I tried, it hadn't.

All this makes me sad, because contrary to some other posters, I feel very confidently that LibreOffice is more consistent, better to handle, and overall the better alternative already today! And I can speak from some experience, since I was responsible for the layout of two books that you can buy on Amazon, and it did a great job. Also better than MS Office which tends to break any page layout with automatic page breaks of a floating text wherever it likes, depending on the version (2003, 2007), the underlying Windows version, and the mood of the day. Yes, with the same dictionary and same hyphenation. The author was at the end of her wits when MS Office had some 30+ pages with this, while in *Office all 511 pages were identical for author, and the two proof readers.

Comment Desktops - Wow!! (Score 1) 317

Just saw the first quicky intro on cnet. Fantastic! there are *desktops* to which you can switch! ... and when Gnome 2.0 did away with workspaces, last century, and I complained, the answer was - like the famous need of the numbers of computers or the RAM - that *nobody* ever needs workspaces.
And when I watch that clip, W10 looks like an enhanced version of enlightenment combined with a smartphone interface. But I'm too old to actually give a damn any more, people are just plain wxyz.
"It doesn't look like Windows" is what I have been told the last quarter century, trying to evangelize a proper OS, any proper OS, except that one.
And now Windows looks like a second-class copy of some desktops we had - or could have had - 10 years ago, and everyone yells: "Oh, wow! Windows 10!"

Once upon a time, a PC was supposed to be a servant, sitting on my table to do what I want it to. The way it is presented, is more like a sex object, you drive it with mouse and cursor, may even touch(!) it; and most of all it has taken the center of a desktop, the master guiding through one's daily work.
At least, this is how it looks to me.

Is your job running? You'd better go catch it!