January 11

Much like I've made my own keyboard shortcuts in Word, I'd like to do the same with PPT 2003, but I can't find that option. Is there an option? Or perhaps there's a list -- like Cntl-[ makes things larger, I just know that but I don't know from where. My specific trouble is that I'd like to center and middle align photos but going into DRAW and then ALIGN and then MIDDLE is way too time consuming. There is an underlined M in MIDDLE, but I can't seem to activate that, either. Or maybe I can drag out those aligning buttons to a new taskbar? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok -- I've found out how to use the underlined shortcut keys, but is there a way to make it with only one key instead of Alt+RAM? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a real estate appraiser. In my business I use a computer and purchase specialzed soft ware from Appraisers Choice, ACI. My questions is there software writing recognition for a tablet that as I have the appraisal from in tablet and complete the form in the field using cursive writing to have the writing converted to typed text. [email deleted] Thanks, Fred Javer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.222.23 (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the email address. --Phil Holmes (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does your tablet run Windows? Here is "Handwriting 101" from Microsoft, and here are detailed technical instructions for setting up handwriting text input on Windows; you can "train" the system with your handwriting, but I suspect that if your letters are very curly or otherwise different from what the system expects, that your computer will have a hard time converting it to text. Microsoft's website actually claims that cursive is easier to recognize than print. Nimur (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The option to turn the menu bar on is within the menu bar, or would be, if it was already on (somebody didn't think that through very well). So, is there another way to turn it back on ? StuRat (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any such option. Do you use some extension, such as [1][2][3][4][5]?—Emil J. 18:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only way I know to turn it off is with Full Screen, in which case direct the focus to the page (not the location field) and type F11. --Tardis (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you right click on the menu bar, you see a set of checkboxes, one of which allows you to turn off the menu bar. It is indeed not obvious how to turn it back on again afterward -- but in fact there is a narrow zone at the top where you can rightclick and get back those checkboxes. (At least, all this holds for my version, 3.6.13.) Looie496 (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. That narrow zone is part of the navigation bar. So if both navigation bar and menu bar is disabled I don't see how to reenable. Taemyr (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pressing alt+v brings up the menu bar with the 'vis' menu open on my Norwegian version. It's probably not v in english, but alt+some letter should work, any letter that brings up the bar allows you to fix the problem. Taemyr (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alt+v does bring up the 'view' menu in English where you can turn on and off toolbars Nil Einne (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that fixed. Thanks guys ! StuRat (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I want to build one. There is a basic idea I am simulating with WINDOWS.

First, I want to reduce an operating system to most the most basic components, while formulating 'OpenSource' educational materials for alternatively-schooled children of all ages. Basically learning and teaching my kid about computers. The system design is intended for a universal, primarily economic and 'third-world' centred application.

Can Wiki point me to similar projects. My existing plan is to explore Ubuntu for starters. Any better ideas? 18:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at Damn Small Linux. StuRat (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are attempting to recreate Linux. Unlike Windows, Linux is very modular. Learn about compiling the kernel. Then, you can compile it with just the minimum functionality that you want. -- kainaw™ 18:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Ubuntu is just a friendly version of Debian, which is just a distribution of Linux. -- kainaw™ 18:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The classical teaching OS for teaching OS design is Minix, explicitly build for that purpose, and handy to use with Operating Systems: Design and Implementation by Andrew S. Tanenbaum. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to take a look at Linux From Scratch --Nat682 (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pick your computer carefully before you try to design a "simple" operating system. A modern "Personal Computer" (like the one you are probably reading this webpage on) is extraordinarily complex. These complex systems are the result of many many many years of design and engineering; not every part of a modern personal computer is straightforward, and much of it will require extremely detailed understanding of specific, sophisticated, and often proprietary computer architecture designs. For example, booting an Intel i7 core CPU is not as simple as powering it up and starting to run code. Here are the technical design documents for Intel i7. They are many tens of thousands of pages and are not intended for the casual hobbyist. For this reason, millions of lines of free and open-source software, such as the Linux Kernel (hosted at http://kernel.org) have already been written to manage the complexity of this and similar CPUs (as well as the standard peripheral hardware, like main memory, video output, and nonvolatile storage). If you want to design an operating system from scratch, it's advisable to start with a smaller, simpler controller: how about a simple 8-bit PIC controller from microchip.com? These are cheap, easy, and fun; small microcontrollers don't have the same power or capabilities as a full-blown Intel or AMD system, but it is much easier to design low-level operating system software for a PIC than a PC. You can write a simple round robin scheduler operating system in PIC assembler or in C code, and have yourself a straightforward operating system that you can start adding features to as you decide they are necessary. Nimur (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The external links at the end of the Stack machine article appears to describe home-brewed OS and a home-brew hardware computer. I'm skating on very thin ice here but perhaps Forth (programming language) may do the low-level things you want. 92.24.190.219 (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ReactOS surely must be of interest.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could try emulating both the hardware and OS for something like the ZX80. 92.15.24.16 (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Windows 7 I need a way to limit the amount of internet bandwidth specific programs can use, independent of the programs themselves (ie not setting limits in each programs settings which would be tedious and in some cases impossible). Does Windows 7 contain some feature for doing this? 82.44.55.25 (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of, but there are third party apps. netlimiter pro? Might also check sysinternals. ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I searched the archive but I did not find something that matches my question appropriately. Trying to figure out the difference between free content and open content I would figure that cc-by-nc-sa qualifies as an open, yet not free license. Is that correct? Would Wikipedia (well lets restrict to text only for simplicity, as I am not that much into the discussion about images) qualify as free content or "only" as open content? (I would guess it could be characterized as free?) Also, if my above example of cc-by-nc-sa does not fit, can you give a simple example of open but not free content with a short explanation? Frankly said, I did not understand why the given example Open Directory Project is not free.

Also, how is the relation between free content and the right to fork: If e.g. a website publishes under cc-by-sa, implying a right to fork, does it still make the content "unfree" if the website itself e.g. blocks part of its content for modification by certain groups of users (yes, I am implicitely also referring to Wikipedia here)? -- 92.206.140.12 (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Different people use the terms "free" or "open" to refer to divergent things. The easiest way to be sure you're in the clear is to read the license: our terms of use are linked from every page on Wikipedia. Our content is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License and the Creative Commons License, "Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0)", requiring attribution to the original authors and re-sharing under a similar license. Whether this means our content is "open" or "free" is a moot, semantic argument that requires a definition of "free" or "open."

Regarding Open Directory Project, their ODP license is different from the GFDL. The GNU project does not call it a "free documentation license" - in their estimation, it is not free because "your right to redistribute any given version is not permanent and that it requires the user to keep checking back at that site, which is too restrictive of the user's freedom." Though I am generally in accordance with the ideology of the Free Software Foundation, I will point out that neither FSF nor Richard Stallman are the authoritative definition-provider for the words "free" or "open." If you need advice on whether ODP license is legally compatible with GFDL, you should consult an attorney.

Finally, you should note the important distinction between "our content is freely licensed" (which is a valid reading of Wikipedia's content license), and "you may do whatever you like with Wikipedia's servers" (which is not ever offered by any terms of use on Wikipedia). So, Wikimedia Foundation or its agents reserve the right to block access to the servers (not the content). Nimur (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the license entitles you to modify and redistribute the information all you want. But no one, not even the WMF, is under any obligation to pay attention to the modified version. Everyone retains for themselves the right to ignore. Paul (Stansifer) 18:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that goes into the direction I thought of, too. Thanks for both of your replies. -- 92.206.240.60 (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]