The 4 Pro's OLL's

[JustMean]

http://www.4shared.com/file/98837861/6430d195/OLLs_4_columns.html

some of the have missings ( i dont know how many cuz i didn't count it. =))

 

[JustMean]

Notation's can be found here
http://www.blueknightcubing.com/notation.htm

Want Yu Nakajima's 3x3x3 Website (www.Cutex.info) in .PDF?

http://www.4shared.com/file/98657618/ed79462c/Cutex_info_3x3x3.html
(Japanese version)

 

[TheBB]

Edit: Out of respect for the frail, I have removed the vile original contents of this post. Rejoice!

 

[AvGalen]

Screw DOC, post in a sensible format.

I think what you meant to say was:
"Thanks for all your work. If it wouldn't be to much of a problem, could you please share this file in a format that I can open as well? I would love to have this file as a pdf/odf/rtf/png/jpg/xxxxx"

If you can't ask nicely I will just be "rude" and say: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...FamilyID=3657ce88-7cfa-457a-9aec-f4f827f20cac

 

[riffz]

I think that's exactly what he meant to say. Arnaud, you are a mind reader.

 

[brunson]

I can't seem to find the linux version of that, Arnaud. ;-)

Here's Richard Stallman's take on receiving word documents:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

But, then again, he's a kook.

Still, AvG is absolutely correct, no need to be rude.

 

[TheBB]

I don't think I was particularly rude. How about:

You should screw DOC, and post in a sensible format.

Maybe even

You should definitely screw DOC, and post in a more sensible format.

but I don't want to imply that DOC is a sensible format on any level either. So that's not going to work.

As for "thanks for all the work", by all means, but it doesn't make much sense if I can't use the product.

With this taken into consideration, I tried fixing my "intended" meaning:

I think what you meant to say was:
"DOC sucks. If it wouldn't be to much of a problem, consider sharing this file in a format that almost everyone can open as well. Most people would love to have this file as a PDF.

I can't seem to find the linux version of that, Arnaud. ;-)

Me neither.

 

[AvGalen]

I can't seem to find the linux version of that, Arnaud. ;-)

Here's Richard Stallman's take on receiving word documents:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

But, then again, he's a kook.

Still, AvG is absolutely correct, no need to be rude.

Aren't you supposed to code your own version on Linux if one doesn't exist already ;-) (Or much easier, just use Wine, or use Open Office or search for "open+doc+linux")

And I love Richard Stallman's idealistic view of the world. But his arguments are almost always flawed and not based on reality. I liked the first paragraph in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html but I seriously stopped reading after the second one because that already contained so much misinformation

Most computer users use Microsoft Word. That is unfortunate for them, since Word is proprietary software, denying its users the freedom to study, change, copy, and redistribute it.

Most users don't want to study or change Word (copying and redistributing it seems much more popular ).

And because Microsoft changes the Word file format with each release, its users are locked into a system that compels them to buy each upgrade whether they want a change or not.

The Office File format hasn't changed from 97-2000-xp-2003 and when it changed in 20007 it was to actually remedy this issue. There are free compatibility-packs for older versions so users don't even need to buy new versions to open files in new formats. Newer version can save in the old format just fine and there are free readers.

They may even find, several years from now, that the Word documents they are writing this year can no longer be read with the version of Word they use then.

So first he (falsely) claims that upgrading is necessary for reading different file-formats, then he claims that upgrading might mean that you cannot read old versions anymore. Microsoft is probably the company that gets blamed for providing legacy compatibility way longer than is wanted, resulting in bloated software.

Nevertheless, providing files in another format couldn't hurt. Now it is just a question of specifying which format that should be. I personally prefer rtf because it has been around for a long time, supports most of the basic features, is quite compact and light-weight, isn't binary and because it is supported on every system I tried it on

I don't think I was particularly rude

Seriously, think again!

but it doesn't make much sense if I can't use the product

You can use it. Seriously, try it. And it wasn't made just for you, now was it?
Maybe people that don't have internet should complain because he didn't send it to them by mail?

 

[TheBB]

Ok, I'll let this be my last response, because we're getting off topic now.

Seriously, think again!

Ok. Same conclusion. Should I try another time?

but it doesn't make much sense if I can't use the product

You can use it. Seriously, try it. And it wasn't made just for you, now was it?
Maybe people that don't have internet should complain because he didn't send it to them by mail?

I can't ... I don't have Office, or any other free reader. I do have OO.org, which has limited (and IMHO bad) DOC-support, but anyway, I never wanted to use the product. I know all the OLLs I need. I just meant to imply that there are people (such as myself), possibly quite a few of us, that can't read what the OP just wrote. The usefulness of this presumably excellent document is needlessly reduced by posting a DOC, and there are no advantages as far as I can see to outweigh it.

OP can post in whatever format he chooses, and I can have whatever opinion about that I want too, and I really don't think it's so preposterous.

If I came off as rude, I'd like to apologize, but I won't take back anything, and I'd post the same again if I could. I meant it as constructive criticism for the larger good, and not for my personal gain. As I said, I really don't have any use for more OLLs.

That Stallman document is getting quite old by the way, so you can hardly blame him for missing recent developments.

 

[AvGalen]

Ok, I'll let this be my last response, because we're getting off topic now.

Seriously, think again!

Ok. Same conclusion. Should I try another time?

but it doesn't make much sense if I can't use the product

You can use it. Seriously, try it. And it wasn't made just for you, now was it?
Maybe people that don't have internet should complain because he didn't send it to them by mail?

I can't ... I don't have Office, or any other free reader. I do have OO.org, which has limited (and IMHO bad) DOC-support, but anyway, I never wanted to use the product. I know all the OLLs I need. I just meant to imply that there are people (such as myself), possibly quite a few of us, that can't read what the OP just wrote. The usefulness of this presumably excellent document is needlessly reduced by posting a DOC, and there are no advantages as far as I can see to outweigh it.

OP can post in whatever format he chooses, and I can have whatever opinion about that I want too, and I really don't think it's so preposterous.

If I came off as rude, I'd like to apologize, but I won't take back anything, and I'd post the same again if I could. I meant it as constructive criticism for the larger good, and not for my personal gain. As I said, I really don't have any use for more OLLs.

That Stallman document is getting quite old by the way, so you can hardly blame him for missing recent developments.

If you still don't find it rude and would post in the same way next time I am asking you to leave this forum. (Never did that before)
When someone helps others by putting in work and sharing that with others and you respond with "Screw..." that is rude already. If you continue with a demand like "post in a sensible format" instead of a request you are being rude again.

I just tried opening this document with Open Office and it opened just fine. I have also supplied other means of opening this file. Seriously, if anyone can't open this file the problem lies with that person, not the topicstarter. (I still haven't even heard which format you would have preferred btw and which software I would need to have installed to open files in that format)

And that Stallman document isn't getting old. It mentions Office 2007 which is the most recent version. I never blamed him for missing recent developments. He seemed to be quite knowledgable but simply spreads a lot of misinformation and also has a lot of bad conclusions in there. Things like saving the document as plain text is just really stupid. I did just that for this document and the following is the result:
Bob BurtonSolve the cube.co.ukDan HarrisNakajima
(M' U M) U2 (M' U M)
(r UR'U') r' R U (RU'R')(y2) r R' U R r' U2 r R' U R r'
Rw U R' U' R'w R U R U' R'
etc

 

[brunson]

He did apologize for coming off as rude. Remember, Arnaud, only the lucky few may possess cubing skills *and* social skills. ;-)


@TheBB: Seriously, it was nice of you to apologize, and I'm only teasing.

 

[ThePizzaGuy92]

i like this. good post.

 

[shicklegroober]

Haha, arguments are quite amusing.
AND
Thank you very much, Nakajima's OLLs seem nice cause there are no cube rotations. I'm definitely going to learn some of those.