I am … unhindered by talent

I’ve been warning people about the many problems with Microsoft Word (and all of Office, really) for years (I gave a talk entitled “Is Microsoft Word Inherently evil?” five years ago), with about as much success as Don Quixote. The problem, ultimately, isn’t that Microsoft is evil or their software sucks (although arguments could be made…), but that they continue to build their empire on closed document formats that they change quite arbitrarily from version to version, and without reliable support for converting between versions. This leaves everyone who lives in this bizarre world where Word is assumed to be some sort of “standard” scrambling to keep up with these changes. The scramble that M$ would obviously prefer is that we would all keep buying newer versions of Office on their whim. Those who can’t or (like me) won’t go down that road use cool things like OpenOffice, but the people that (mostly) donate their time to develop that sofware then have to reverse engineer (i.e., guess intelligently and test a lot) the format so that we can open everyone else’s Word/Excel/Office documents. Oh, joy.

Government and public entities who have some bizarre notion that their documents need to be readable into the foreseeable future have been growing increasingly concerned about this for several years now, and in several cases no longer allow documents of record to be stored in Word format for fear that they will be unreadable at some point in the future. Well, it would appear that some of the biggest guns in scientific publishing have also put their feet down in this mess, as the mega-journals Science and Nature are officially asking authors to not use Word 2007 formats for submissions. As reported by Rob Weir:

It appears that Science, the journal of the America Association for the Advancement of Science, itself the largest scientific society in the world, has updated its authoring guidelines to include advice for Office 2007 users. The news is not good.

“Because of changes Microsoft has made in its recent Word release that are incompatible with our internal workflow, which was built around previous versions of the software, Science cannot at present accept any files in the new .docx format produced through Microsoft Word 2007, either for initial submission or for revision. Users of this release of Word should convert these files to a format compatible with Word 2003 or Word for Macintosh 2004 (or, for initial submission, to a PDF file) before submitting to Science.”

That’s annoying and stupid, but not devastating. If I was silly enough to write serious technical work (complete with those crazy formulas and graphs that are at the core of most good science) in Word, I could always save in an older Word format or the much more sensible choice of PDF and submit that way. Presumably Science will get their workflow updated at some point, further enabling my Microsoft addiction.

Ah, but here’s the kicker:

“Users of Word 2007 should also be aware that equations created with the default equation editor included in Microsoft Word 2007 will be unacceptable in revision, even if the file is converted to a format compatible with earlier versions of Word; this is because conversion will render equations as graphics and prevent electronic printing of equations, and because the default equation editor packaged with Word 2007 — for reasons that, quite frankly, utterly baffle us — was not designed to be compatible with MathML. Regrettably, we will be forced to return any revised manuscript created with the Word 2007 default equation editor to authors for re-editing. To get around this, please use the Math Type equation editor or the equation editor included in previous versions of Microsoft Word.”

You gotta love it when serious academic journals use phrases like “for reasons that, quite frankly, utterly baffle us”. Sounds like Microsoft really stepped in something this time, as good equation editing and formatting is crucial to a major part of scientific research publishing, and damned important to much of the rest! No one’s ever argued that LaTeX was particularly easy to use (although practice and good tools like TeXShop do make it pretty straightforward), but it still dominates large parts of the scientific publishing universe because it supports open, standard formats, and generates gorgeous results. I can tell you that when I’m reviewing conference submissions, it’s almost always immediately obvious when a submission was written in Word instead of LaTeX, and the difference never makes Word look good…

Weir’s piece continues with quotes regarding a similar position being taken at Nature, and one of the comments on Weir’s post indicates Wiley is disallowing Word 2007 for all of their journals.

Oh, but wait! Microsoft does (sort of) support open formats! They’ve had lots of opportunities to incorporate support for existing standards like the Open Document Format and, uh…, didn’t. They instead invented their own open format, while totally failing to support the reading of or writing to the existing standards. But you can get a plug-in for Office that will allow you to convert between their open format and a slightly out-of-date version of the standard. If that’s the best that a giant like M$ can do, we’re all in serious trouble!

Now if we can get some entities with similar levels of clout to disallow PowerPoint the world would truly be a better place…

Big thanks to John Naughton for the initial pointer.

Related posts

• No related posts.

I recently ran across two unrelated but interesting posts about issues of bias on Wikipedia. It should hardly come as a shock that a huge community generated blob like Wikipedia has weirdnesses that reflect the properties of that community. That particular blob plays an important role in the world (I know look up stuff on Wikipedia all the time), so a better understanding those biases certainly has significant value.

TechCrunch reports on a piece on SomethingAwful.com about WikiGroaning. The idea is simple - compare the write-up on Wikipedia of things that are of arguably important in the “big sense” (say, Aristotle) to things that are well known now but arguably ephemeral in the long view (say, Oprah). Gee, now that’s probably not the balance an editorial board would have planned for, eh? This isn’t entirely surprising, but still disappointing. The pieces I’ve linked to have numerous pairs to compare, although the fact that they’ve brought those pairs to the attention of a wider audience may lead to at least some of the imbalances being addressed. Many of the pairs show a definite “nerd bias” (e.g., Lizard vs. Dragon), but others (like the aforementioned Aristotle vs. Oprah) are arguably a more general “current events and pop culture bias”.

And because none of us have any real work to do, some silly people created WikiGroaning.com, where one can type in pairs of words or phrases and they’ll compute the “nerd points” for each based on the contents and edit history of the appropriate entries on Wikipedia. I did a comparison of Jon Stewart and Edward Murrow and, big surprise, Stewart racks up way more nerd points than Murrow (113,720 vs. 14,380). Ditto when comparing Stewart to Walter Cronkite (14,462), and Stephen Colbert has even more nerd points than Stewart (141,964).

As is pointed out multiple times in the discussion of the TechCrunch piece, Wikipedia is still largely driven by the early adopters, and those are (not surprisingly) still nerds to a large degree. The real question will be whether the demographics of Wikipedia contributors will become more “mainstream” over time. If it does, some of the bias goes away of its own accord. If the bias, however, works to prevent that mainstreaming we could get a feedback loop that traps Wikipedia in this nerdly space. I don’t honestly consider that terribly likely ’cause the kids are growing up with it, but we’ll have to wait and see. The pop culture bias is perhaps more chronic, as most people in most times tend to dwell inordinately on the people and events of their day. At some level, though, I don’t really mind Jon Stewart having some huge entry as long as Edward R. Murrow has gotten his due.

The other (and arguably more important in the long run) issue is raised by John Naughton, who reports on serious gaps in the Wikipedia entry on “Spreadsheet”. Naughton is picking up on a post by Dan Bricklin (a key developer of VisiCalc - the first spreadsheet I had any contact with), who discusses his concerns at some length and raises important questions about how a community project builds “neutral” content in a way that incorporates the experience of heavily invested experts like Bricklin in the process. Important stuff and worth the read.

Related posts

• No related posts.

Here I thought I might have to actually interact with Sub-Evil Boy as he takes more responsibility in his world, but apparently I have more than just notes on the fridge to protect me from that onerous task. PayJr apparently provides me with a bizarrely complex web-based solution (complete with a chat tool!) that would only make sense in a world where we’ve completely given up any and all sensible old-school communication mechanisms.

Not to mention the bizarrely sexist name for the product. How many times are young women called “Junior”? Do we just take girls and their obvious love for scullery maid chores so for granted that we don’t need all this machinery to keep track of their work?

Hey, folks - there are real problems out there that need attention. Let’s pass on this sort of fluff.

Related posts

• No related posts.

Ron Paul was pretty cool on the Daily Show as career Republicans go. If nothing else he seems straightforward and believable. The devil’s in the details, however, and Paul’s the sole sponsor of a new bill that smells all wrong to me. H.R. 2415, the Affordable Gas Price Act (full text from Thomas) aims to reduce gas prices at pretty much any cost. That’s a problem for me, as I think we burn way too much fuel here in the U.S., and making it cheaper just ain’t gonna help.

Goals such as these just seem like a really bad idea to me:

Sec. 3. Termination of restrictions on oil and natural gas development on Federal lands.

Sec. 4. Limitation of suits under National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Sec. 6. Suspension of fuel taxes on highway motor fuels when weekly United States retail gasoline prices exceed benchmark.

This sort of silliness only makes any sense in a world where you refuse to acknowledge any of the evidence on climate change. Pretty much as bad as raising your hand at a debate as a creationist in my book. I wasn’t particularly expecting to vote for a Republican in ‘08, and that’s one more I can cross off my list.

Related posts

• No related posts.

Our fearless leader has apparently nominated someone (James Holsinger) to the post of Surgeon General who is sadly confused about basic issues of science, logic, and argument from evidence. Not good for the nation’s chief doctor, although hardly surprising from Our Friends at the White House. From ABC News:

“You have to wonder given the quality of some of the nominations that have gone forward recently, whether the selection group in the White House has gone on vacation,” Gergen [former adviser to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton] said. “There has been a growing criticism the administration favoring ideology over competence, and this nomination smacks of that.”

Greg Laden nicely takes apart the “naturalist fallacy” in Holsinger’s argument, and I definitely recommend heading over to read that. The short version is that Holsinger’s fallen into something like “the parts don’t fit, ergo homosexuality is unnatural and wrong“. What’s “natural” and what’s “right”, though, have little or nothing to do with each other. My eyeglasses are clearly unnatural, as was my life-saving appendectomy, but I’m hardly returning either of those. Similarly, it’s “natural” (at least we’re genetically predisposed) for men to be physically larger and stronger than women (on average), but that clearly doesn’t provide any justification for physical abuse and intimidation of women by men, or adults beating children just ’cause they’re bigger.

I’m off to write my Senators and express my unhappiness with yet another Shrub appointee…

Related posts

• You have to either laugh or cry (and I’ll help you do both) (0)
• Yet another quiz to help you decide how to vote (3)

I’ve spent a fair bit of this week sorting out UK visa stuff for our sabbatical, and the (on-line!) application contained these two gems:

Have you ever been concerned in the commission‚ preparation‚ organisation or support of acts of terrorism‚ either within or outside the United Kingdom or have you ever been a member of an organisation which has been involved in or advocated terrorism in furtherance of its aims?

Have you ever been concerned in the commission‚ preparation or organisation of genocide or crimes‚ including crimes against humanity and war crimes‚ committed in the course of armed conflict?

Let me think…

This is standard stuff (”Have you ever been arrested?” on a job app), and WeatherGirl had piles of it when she applied for permanent resident status here in the U.S. back in the late 80’s. Terrorism wasn’t the evil du jour back then, and there was more about commies, nazis, mental instability, and her (no doubt vast) experiences in the various sex trades and industries. Still, the thought’s the same (such as there is one). Presumably this gives them the ability to summarily boot your ass if they find out that you lied, because apparently having committed acts of genocide isn’t by itself sufficient!

Related posts

• No related posts.

Horizontal Grandeur, originally uploaded by Unhindered by Talent.

Last night WeatherGirl [Flickr] [blog] and I learned that four of our submissions (two each) were juried into a regional exhibition. The show "Horizontal Grandeur" is being hosted by the Stevens County History Museum will open with a fancy reception on Friday, 13 July, at 6:30pm. The theme was the prairie that is our home here, with the name taken from an essay by the same name by Bill Holm.

The top two are from WeatherGirl (who needs to post more of her excellent photos!): "The only trees were wavy lines" (a line from Holm’s essay) and Silo. The bottom two are mine: Fighting back (Tilting at windmills?) and Waiting.

WeatherGirl and I obviously stretched the prairie theme a fair bit in our submissions. It wasn’t obvious how the judges were going to respond, and I was pleasantly surprised that they accepted four of our six submissions. All four of these photos emphasize in different ways the huge changes wrought on the prairie by arrival of European Americans.

The settlement of this part of the world brought plows that replaced the seemingly endless (and treeless) oceans of prairie plants with the contemporary landscape: rows of corn and soybeans. That settlement was greatly accelerated by the building of the railroads, which brought settlers and carried their grain back east. Morris, like so many of the towns here, was built by the railroad companies (and named after a railroad engineer), providing a place to drop off and pick up both people and goods. Sadly, passenger traffic ended decades ago, but the freight trains still rumble through, carrying coal, grain (stored in the silos that steadily puncuate the landscape), heavy goods and (more recently) ethanol produced from local corn.

To grow all that grain requires good soil (which the settlers found in abundance once they learned how to break the prairie sod) and water. Rain isn’t an entirely reliable source here (we’re fairly dry), so wells were sunk and acquifers are pumped out onto the fields. If, as some predict, climate change leads to drier weather here (like the very hot and dry July/August last year), then more and more irrigation will be brought to bear. Acquifers, however, aren’t infinite…

The settlers also brought trees, for decoration and fruit and shade and wind breaks. Many of the early boulevard trees in the midwest were elms, which are now being decimated (such as the one on the top left) by dutch elm disease.

Going through pictures to consider for submission, it became clear to me that I really don’t have much in the way of prairie photographs. There are some nice patches of largely undisturbed (whatever that actually means) prairie around here, but I’ve never gone out and photographed any of them seriously. I’ve got lots of shots of native flowers from our gardens, but little to nothing from the "wild". I should try to fix that this summer.

Related posts

• Wonderful little film about Paul Rand (0)
• With joy shall ye draw water (0)

A sense of not belonging, originally uploaded by Unhindered by Talent.

This was, for me, one of the most amazing sights from our visit to Denali National Park last July - it says so much about the park and our relationship with the wilderness. The bears have been chewing and clawing the sign, threatening to destroy it altogether. The park staff responded by studding the edges with nails to discourage such behavior. And the battle to pretend we’re not really there continues…

Through our entire time in Denali I had very mixed feelings about being there. It was very clear that we were intruders in a space that clearly should belong to nature and not to us. I may have needed the bears, but it was abundantly clear that the bears didn’t need me. I had a wonderful time, but never felt like I belonged there.

This was reinforced by the Park policies that repeatedly and strenuously (and correctly and reasonably) worked to minimize our impact on the park and its animals. We were instructed to be as quiet as possible, for example, when the shuttle bus would stop for a view of wildlife, so that the animals would not grow accustomed to the sound of human voices. The drivers would even threaten to move on if we couldn’t keep it down during an animal stop.

The intent of such a rule is good, but somewhat lacking practically. Silence is hardly the natural response of a bus load of visitors, even well meaning ones, when sighting bears. We would all rush to one side of the bus, and soon the obvious fracas would ensue: “Move over - it’s my turn to look!”, “Could I borrow your binoculars now?”, “Hey! Over here! You’ll get a better picture!”. The drivers would whisper over their loud speakers for us to quiet down, but it would all get a bit silly after a while. It’s pretty hard to imagine that dozens of buses full of visitors every day all summer don’t ultimately make an undesirable difference.

So why do I need to see a grizzly bear in the wild? Am I so shallow that I cannot support and defend the wild places without having left my footprints there? I am no biologist, and am hardly in a position to study what I see in any serious way, especially with only two days in the park. My presence doesn’t add to our larger understanding of the wilderness and the importance of preserving such sites. So what purpose did I serve by being there beyond satisfying my own selfish desire to see these things first hand, consuming much in the way of resources to make it possible? Probably the best I can do is tell stories and share these photos. In all honesty, though, they reach but a few in the grand scheme, and hardly seem to justify my intrusion into that space.

It was a time and place where I could do little good but much harm.

Clearly each of the more than 6.6 billion people on the planet can’t travel down the park road in Denali without destroying it, nor can they visit any similarly isolated place closer to where they live without equally devastating effect. So why do I get the opportunity? Because I (and my family) have the money and time and inclination? Who decides who gets to visit and who doesn’t? Does it just come down to privilege? Do we throw caution to the wind and let anyone and everyone go whenever they want? Or do we restrict it to the artists and scientists that can help us understand what we have and leave the rest of us to watch it on TV or read about it in books?

My goal here is not to criticize others (including my family!) who visit places like Denali or much more desperately overburdened parks like Yosemite. There are those (including my sister) for whom such experiences border on the spiritual, and I would hardly deny them that. I, however, am not such a person, and I had (and still have) awkward feelings about my presence there. I don’t wish to seem churlish - there’s no question our time in Denali (and Alaska in general) was extraordinarily memorable and ranks as one of the great trips of my life. I am deeply grateful to my family for making the trip happen, and those that work in the parks so that we might visit.

I was, however, always acutely aware of being an outsider, of how utterly unnecessary I was in that space.

There have several very thoughtful comments on this image over on Flickr, so you might want to have a look.

Related posts

• No related posts.

Jess Larson, fine studio art professor here at UMM, has (as she puts it) “Dot-commed herself”, setting up shop at JessLarson.com.

It’s a nice, elegant site featuring photographs of her art. She used Shutterbug to build the site. I had no prior acquaintance with Shutterbug before this, but it seems like a quite straightforward tool. It seems especially well suited to the design of largely static image oriented sites (like Jess’s). No replacement for the mighty WordPress for managing dynamic content, but quite good for what it does.

I really like Jess’s work (and I’m only slightly biased), so go check it out! I’ll leave you with the following detail I took of one of her girdles during a special show of her girdles at the PRCA last year.

Related posts

• Wonderful little film about Paul Rand (0)
• With joy shall ye draw water (0)

Faves, faves, faves…, originally uploaded by Unhindered by Talent.

More really cool photos from the many fine people contributing on Flickr! I appear to have a thing for orange and animals at the moment?

1. June 2, 2. peacefest8, 3. this is home now, 4. Backstage, 5. Water Taxi, 6. The man on the world holding a crane, 7. Blessed are the Peacemakers, 8. In the garden, 9. I love Butterfinger Crisps, 10. Blue Moon 3, 11. Hanging gardens, lingering smoke, 12. Crane, 13. Manduca sexta, 14. lace graffiti, 15. Sad eyes, 16. Rhino, 17. Untitled, 18. Xining :: Cooking Up a Storm, 19. Waiting To Photograph A Train, 20. Reflecting, 21. Devil’s Den Falls, 22. more dead fish, 23. i, 24. Oyonnax revisited, 25. Welcome to the fun, 26. Untitled, 27. A supernova?, 28. Black Widow Spider (0749a), 29. ties, 30. sur les toits de lausanne, 31. More from inside., 32. Cloud Movements, 33. Night is falling, 34. the flight home, 35. Untitled, 36. ladder to heaven

Created with fd’s Flickr Toys.

Related posts

• Wonderful little film about Paul Rand (0)
• With joy shall ye draw water (0)