Slashdot Mirror


Israeli Ministry of Commerce Picks OO.org Over MS

CaptainT writes "According to this article in The Register Microsoft office was replaced by Open Office in the Israeli employment agency. MS scorns the defection... This follows current Israeli antitrust legislation and the recent release by IBM and Sun of Hebrew support in OpenOffice.org. Is the Israeli Defence Force going to follow?"

611 comments

  1. IMO by mOoZik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In my opinion, Open Office still has many issues which need to be fixed in future releases to compete with MS Office. I don't know whether that was taken into consideration in this move, but certainly a step in the right direction for open source.

    1. Re:IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perhaps you would care to list some issues, or are you just trolling?

    2. Re:IMO by Ty · · Score: 2, Funny

      On slashdot, one must simply make statements conforming to an already-formed general consensus (ie: open office has issues) to be modded +insightful.

    3. Re:IMO by rebeka+thomas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Certainly. You can look at it from anywhere between two extremes. "Open Office still does not compete with MS Office feature for feature" and "Open Office is not as bloated as MS Office".

      Not everyone needs all of the features MS Office "Offers". It's just another product with a wide range of features available to users, and it would be insane to suggest every user needed all features.

      More than likely the Israeli decision went to OOo because it contained the right features, or enough of the right ones.

      --
      RST
    4. Re:IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought he got the 'insightful' just for being an early post that isn't an obvious troll. Isn't that what it's for?

    5. Re:IMO by October_30th · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, one thing that completely stopped OO adaptation in our lab was that the math symbols always came out garbled when importing or exporting Word files.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    6. Re:IMO by jkrise · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Okay, some issues:

      1. Speed: There's no point in being 100% compatible with MS Office, if it's 200% slower.
      2. Bloated: Same as MS Office.
      3. No option to install a dumbed-down version.
      4. For word-processing, AbiWord is 10 times faster, and has all useful features.
      5. For spreadsheets, Gnumeric is 15 times faster, and has all and more features.

      enuff said?

      -

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    7. Re:IMO by jkrise · · Score: 1

      I think the parent's point was that OOo was designed to compare and compete with MS Office and is hence bloated by design and default.It's not ANOTHER Office product by that yardstick.

      Secondly, Open Office on Linux is not even half as good or useful as OOo on Windows. When considering a shift from MS Office, Israel could've evaluated better open-source word-processors and spreadsheets than OOo - I think that was the point he was making.

      -

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    8. Re:IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That's because math symbols suck in Word....OO has much more functionality for them that isn't available in the Word format...

    9. Re:IMO by October_30th · · Score: 2, Informative
      That's completely beside the point.

      It doesn't matter if OO has more functionality if we cannot import our old Word documents.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    10. Re:IMO by buffer-overflowed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow, you sure can read a lot from a little.

      Personally, I think the parent was just doing a from the cuff posting at best, and karma whoring at worst.

      And as to your OO point. Huh? OO is just as good on Linux as it is on Windows. I'll boot into Windows to check. Ayup, performs about the same.

      Still nowhere close to MS Office, but who uses all those features? All I need is RTF + Spellcheck for documents, and basic spreadsheet functionality. Then again, I'm not a "power-office-user".

      --
      The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
    11. Re:IMO by croddy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I'm fairly sure the decision was based on Microsoft's failure to support Hebrew in MS Office for MacOS, despite supporting other right-to-left languages. this was mentioned in another /. story noting that Israel had suspended all contracts with Microsoft.

      I guess MS can't get away with cutting too many corners anymore ...

    12. Re:IMO by croddy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It doesn't matter if WordPerfect has more functionality if we cannot import our old WordStar documents.

    13. Re:IMO by October_30th · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Are you trying to say that the ability to import and export documents in different formats is irrelevant and everybody should just use OO instead? "Just forget all those five-year old documents. Who needs to see them anymore"? Your clients/collaborators are using Word and the OO export doesn't work? "It's not OOs fault - it's theirs for not using OO instead of the closed but de facto standard word processor. Refuse to collaborate with them until they 'get it'."

      What dreamland are you living in?

      Functionality is useless if you can't view your old files.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    14. Re:IMO by zulux · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Refuse to collaborate with them until they 'get it'."

      What dreamland are you living in?


      The real world.

      All of our suppliers *must* use OO. No excuses. If they want our business, then they play by our rules.

      Now we do have a few MS Office copies around for our customers - we play 'nice' with them.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    15. Re:IMO by croddy · · Score: 2, Informative
      nobody said you had to delete MS Word.

      of course, if really need a quality mathematics typesetting solution, neither MS Office nor OO.org are going to help you much.

    16. Re:IMO by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      Functionality is useless if you can't view your old files.

      Looking forward, the functionality of future software is useless if you won't be able to view your current files. At some point you have to switch to something so that you will have in the future the ability to view what you have now. It seems that governments are beginning to realize that switching now will save a lot of pain in the future.

    17. Re:IMO by gilgongo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > 1. Speed: There's no point in being 100%
      > compatible with MS Office, if it's 200% slower.

      Don't forget - you are a "power user" and speed is therefore important. If you sat down at 80% of the workstations installed in most government departments or boring old corporates around the world you'd see that most places are still happily using things like PIII600's with 128Mb RAM and users don't complain at all. Oh, and don't forget the laptops of similar age.

      If we assume these machines will be upgraded in the next 18 months though, they'll have more than enough speed to run OO for the next four or even five years.

      > 2. Bloated: Same as MS Office.

      OK, but what's wrong with that, exactly?

      > 3. No option to install a dumbed-down version.

      Isn't this the same as point 2?

      For the other two points see my answer to point 1.

      Remember - don't judge people by your own standards. Most people in the corporate or public sector workplace don't give a toss about speed, let alone sofware elegance, if they can write that report/spreadhseet/email and print it out.

      And why should they care?

      --
      "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
    18. Re:IMO by rf0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I agree that OO does have some problems its got 99% of the funtionality most people need i.e. spell checking, basic formatting. Of course if you are going to start trying to link to DB sources it might fall over. However with it starting to get some exposure it might help to get some extra development money to fix all those little bugs

      Rus

    19. Re:IMO by Mjlner · · Score: 1
      "I'm fairly sure the decision was based on Microsoft's failure to support Hebrew in MS Office for MacOS"


      Nnnnnnnno...

      Definitely not. Not wanting to question the merits of the Mac, but I want to point out that it is only a marginal product and too insignificant to have any impact on the choice of Office product on any other platform than the Mac.

      --
      Lemon curry???
    20. Re:IMO by dipipanone · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      All of our suppliers *must* use OO. No excuses. If they want our business, then they play by our rules.

      Here's a clue, dude. That Dominos delivery boy who brings the pizza to your mom's basement?

      He's lying to you.

    21. Re:IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Nevertheless, it seriously questions Microsoft's commitment to customisation and localisation. At least with a good contractor behind them they know they have a good chance of getting what they want if and when they want it.

      I'm quite an advanced Office suite user, and in using Open Office I have never found any feature that was lacking, particularly on the word processor side. I have styles, layouts.... you name it. I hear about all these features that MS Office supposedly has that make a difference - what the hell are they?

    22. Re:IMO by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      When you say "issues", do you mean bugs or features that are missing?

      And what sort of things?

    23. Re:IMO by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "More than likely the Israeli decision went to OOo because it contained the right features, or enough of the right ones."

      I should hope so. OO risks getting a black eye if they're missing that one big important feature. Let's say, for example, they don't synch well with PocketPC. (Disclaimer: I have NFI if OO syncs with PocketPC or not. Though I invite clarification on it, I am talking hypothetically here.) Let's then say that PocketPCs suddenly become real popular with the Gov't. Ouch. Is the Open Source Community going to rush to their aide, or is the Gov't going to find themselves buying copies of OfficeXP so they can get their work done?

      This can turn really good for the community if they're quick to respond to demands big customers like this have. But it can just as easily turn ugly if things don't happen so well. Money motivates companies to satisfy demand like this. I'm not sure how well tested the community's good will to satisfy is.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    24. Re:IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scripting in Excel is the major thing lacking, which can be a good thing. ;-)

    25. Re:IMO by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

      such as a variety of books available,

      Pivot Reports, scripting?

    26. Re:IMO by Zachary+Kessin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is one specific feature that the goverment here wants, the ability to have top flight hebrew support. If you don't have that (and MS office does not from what I am told) then everything else is gravy. The ability to support the official language of the state of Israel is a key factor in what the goverment of the state of israel uses for computers.

      --
      Erlang Developer and podcaster
    27. Re:IMO by varag · · Score: 1

      You've got that the wrong way round: MS Office still has many issues which need to be fixed in future releases to compete with OpenOffice.org. It's definitely not a step in the right direction for MS.

    28. Re:IMO by JCMay · · Score: 1

      I can list one.

      OpenOffice.org 1.1 crashes when exiting about 1/3 of the time. I have a OO.o Writer document open. I close the last window (exiting the program). The feedback manager starts telling me that OO.o crashed and asking if I want to send a bug report. I've sent maybe ten so far.

      This harmless, but annoying, bug is the biggest drawback I can find to OO.o 1.1.

    29. Re:IMO by Blob+Pet · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that Israel's Ministry of Commerce is going to stick with Windows, so AbiWord and Gnumeric are not viable in that situation.

      --
      "...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
    30. Re:IMO by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? That's half the reason the community exists, to provide solutions to pains. If what you're asking is: How interested are the OOo guys to add features for Commercial End Users, about as likely as Linus adding NUMA to Linux.

    31. Re:IMO by t0ny · · Score: 1
      In other words, you are forcing one poor shlub who works with your supplier to convert documents for your company.

      Changing the world, one computer at one supplier at a time, huh?

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    32. Re:IMO by camiel · · Score: 1

      There is also a M$-Winblows version of Abiword.

    33. Re:IMO by Dan-DAFC · · Score: 1

      OpenOffice (the OpenOffice Impress part) can display PowerPoint presentations. I don't know how good it is with complex files because I rarely need to open PowerPoint files, but it's worked when I've used it.

      --
      Suck figs.
    34. Re:IMO by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 4, Insightful


      As a Mac Partisan, I will concede that the Mac market is small, particularly abroad. However, as the parent poster mentioned: a previous story on /. reposted a Reg story that described how, since MSFT failed to implement Hebrew support in Office products for the Mac, that

      The Israel Ministry of Commerce has suspended all governmental contracts with Microsoft, and indicated that the ban will last throughout 2004. The de facto suspension means no upgrades for the duration, at a time when Microsoft is looking to roll out its Office 2003 upgrade; and the Ministry is said to be examining OpenOffice as an alternative.

      Emphasis mine: that's all contracts, regardless if they're for Mac based MSFT product, or Windows based MSFT product.

      I will agree that the lack of support for Hebrew in a marginal product is more than likely a spurious complaint; I think it's probable that Israel was going to ban MSFT anyways, and jumped on the Office v Mac lack of Hebrew support as a convenient excuse. But there it is.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    35. Re:IMO by wagemonkey · · Score: 1
      In my opinion, Open Office still has many issues which need to be fixed in future releases to compete with MS Office. I don't know whether that was taken into consideration in this move, but certainly a step in the right direction for open source.
      I rather doubt that the Israeli Ministry of commerce did take your opinion into account when making a decision. Unless there's something you're not telling us of course....
    36. Re:IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >All of our suppliers *must* use OO. No excuses. If they want our business, then they play by our rules.

      And i'll bet they're queuing up 10 deep to get a piece of your "business" - you sad sack of shit!

      A business is judged by how well it treats its suppliers as well as its customers.

    37. Re:IMO by tie_guy_matt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The biggest issue I have with OO.org is that it is too much like MS Office for my taste :) Give me latex any day (especially when you are writing scientific papers.) When I use OO.org I find that almost all of the features and some of the annoyances from MS office are reproduced. Maybe it is just me. If you like MS office I don't see why you wouldn't like OO.org.

    38. Re:IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How archaic and unnecessary. The suppliers hate it very much, I'm sure, and you have affected your business as a result.

      "Real world." Ha.

    39. Re:IMO by bonch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your entire post was a justification for the horrible resource issues of the software. People are just supposed to ignore it because they happen to use older computers in some instances? What do you think happens when they try to use OpenOffice on those old machines?

      Get real.

    40. Re:IMO by Drakon · · Score: 2, Interesting


      I will agree that the lack of support for Hebrew in a marginal product is more than likely a spurious complaint;


      spurious? As the story you linked to states, Not supporting hebrew on the Mac version of Office is tantemount to abusing their monopoly in Office to prevent users from switching to Mac operating systems.
    41. Re:IMO by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      Apparently the market isn't so small as to, say, attract Sun and IBM to it.

      The fact is that it's a legitimate market, which Microsoft was ignoring. If you are a big customer for someone, you have the right to ask for special things, especially if you are willing to pay for them. Microsoft has continually snubbed these kinds of requests, and basically said "you're going to do it our way".

      Well, in this case, there was another vendor willing to take on what Microsoft refused to do, and they won the contract. They won future contracts too, on account of the fact that they, *gasp*, worked to solve the customer's problems, not just force the customer to do it their way.

    42. Re:IMO by SiaFhir · · Score: 1
      There's a few bugs I find very annoying in Writer, and as a result considering going with Star Office instead. One is that bullets never seem to stay put. If I save my file, close, and re-open, some bullets are gone.

      The other more serious bug is that lines of text often get outdented past the left margin. I hoped this was just a display problem, but as it turns out it also appears when printed. The only way to fix it is to rewrite the entire document. Cutting and Pasting seems to also copy the problem.

      Other than those two things, OO is okay. The other modules all work properly (as far as I can see) But it's those two problems that really "bug" me. And yes I made sure I had the latest version (Ximian Red Carpet lets me know when a new version is available).

    43. Re:IMO by johnnyb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I should hope so. OO risks getting a black eye if they're missing that one big important feature."

      No they aren't. If it's missing, they will tell Sun "Fix this", and they will. No big deal. That's why you have a vendor. People have been working with Microsoft so long that they forget that the vendor's job is to SERVE THE CUSTOMER'S NEEDS.

    44. Re:IMO by kaybi · · Score: 1

      Isn't NUMA already in the Kernel?

      I seem to remeber a large lawsuit over NUMA and other code having been added to Linux... with articles appearing in slashdot nearly every day... Must be my imagination.

    45. Re:IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldnt think so - living in Israel I can tell you the Mac market here is extremely small, due to high prices and lousy support by Apple's local rep company.

      I'm pretty certain there are few, if any, Macs in the government offices.

    46. Re:IMO by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

      Excellent - now go post them on the OpenOffice.org bug list. They are gonna be read then by people geniunely interested in fixing them.

      --
      OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
    47. Re:IMO by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The only one that I've noticed it lacking is an automatic way to include MSBasic code & viruses. I've needed to include such code in a MSOffice product, at a rough guess, once. Possibly twice if you go back enough decades. (I would like it, however, if they included Python & Ruby scripting...preferably using the copies of python & ruby that are in my path. And if you have MSBasic in you path, I guess they should allow that too. But I think it's a terrible language [useful libraries, though, I admit].)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    48. Re:IMO by HiThere · · Score: 1

      But, FWIW, the Mac performance is decidedly inferior. It works, and that's about all you can say. You need to bring it up via an X Window process, and if you don't already have X Window running, it's *SLOOOOOOOOOOW*. My wife prefers editing in her graphics program to using it. This may be enough that I'll need to move her over to Linux before it's really ready for her. (She needs for it to have either NoteEdit or Rosegarden in good condition...and currently they won't play if arts is running. UGH!)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    49. Re:IMO by BadDreamer · · Score: 1

      Let's say the gov't needs to let 100 users sync with their PocketPC's. They can either go buy Office XP for them, or they can offer the $50k that would cost to someone to implement PocketPC synchronization and maintain it for 5 years.

      After this time, they probably will not have to pay anymore, because others will be using PocketPC support and it's maintained anyway, or PocketPC is dead in favor of whatever comes next.

      Just because it's Free, open source and has a community doesn't mean you can't buy the features you want for it - and cheaper than buying a "from scratch" off the shelf solution to boot.

    50. Re:IMO by rssrss · · Score: 1

      The ability to support the official language of the state of Israel is a key factor in what the goverment of the state of israel uses for computers.

      Let alone the language that the users speak, read and write. I doubt that a majority of Israelis (and I have been there and done business with them) speak, read or write English fluently. OTOH, many of them came from arabic speaking countries or slavic countries. Many of them can hack a few words of English, but the only language that they all have in common is Hebrew.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
    51. Re:IMO by zulux · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, we expected a lot of push-back from our suppliers, but they have migrated rather easily. A few of the smaller ones have ditched MS Office for their own work - they love the price and it "heads down keep working" productutivity.

      We just got tired of all the difering versions of MS Office documents and coulden't stomach another round of MS "Upgrades" - we took some of our money we saved and had a vendor appreciation party. Lots of free booze and a great meal makes everybody happy.

      The only thing we can't find a replacement for is Outlook - the scheduling bits of it are quite good. (The Email portion sucks, and we don't allow anbody to use Outlook for their email for securty reasons)

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    52. Re:IMO by zison · · Score: 1
      still happily using things like PIII600's with 128Mb RAM and users don't complain at all. Oh, and don't forget the laptops of similar age

      Still? Still? I'm still using a 486SX at home, you insensitive clod!

      z

    53. Re:IMO by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Um, yes. I was trying to politely slam the grandparent poster that the FOSS community does indeed sometimes align itself with corporate interests.

      +1 sarcastic to you, though. :-)

    54. Re:IMO by sharkdba · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you sat down at 80% of the workstations installed in most government departments or boring old corporates around the world you'd see that most places are still happily using things like PIII600's with 128Mb RAM and users don't complain at all. Oh, and don't forget the laptops of similar age.

      They don't have to complain, since what you mentioned is way enough for the average user. After all most of their work is editing various text documents, and running one application.

      --
      The purpose of life is to find the purpose of life.
    55. Re:IMO by t0ny · · Score: 1
      Actually, we expected a lot of push-back from our suppliers, but they have migrated rather easily

      Its like I said, they just had the person who deals with your company install it on his desktop; if they are a large company, I cant see them doing anything as grandious as a migration just for your sake (nor would it be required).

      As for a small shop, Im sure that they have both a low enough budget and a small enough user base to have a 'migration' actually doable. After all, if you only have three computers, the thousand dollars or so you save probably means more since its unlikely they are doing millions of dollars of business, and the fact that they only have to install it on three computers makes the project easy.

      The kind of places I work at really wouldnt see any kind of benefit, especially since retraining hundreds of people for new software, having to migrate all their computers, etc, would be more trouble than its worth (especially the retraining part). When they generate millions of dollars per year, its more important to just keep people working than it is to hastle about a non-issue like having the users working on open/closed source software.

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    56. Re:IMO by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      It may just be your particular install....I've yet to have mine crash....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    57. Re:IMO by Blob+Pet · · Score: 1

      then i stand corrected

      --
      "...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
    58. Re:IMO by cduffy · · Score: 1

      I would like it, however, if they included Python & Ruby scripting...preferably using the copies of python & ruby that are in my path

      FYI, I've seen that mentioned as a possible upcoming feature; see the the "product concept" document for OpenOfice 2.

    59. Re:IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, it's a pretty offensive move by Microsoft, which smacks of laziness and a lack of respect for Hebrew-speakers, when the Windows version *does* support Hebrew, and the Mac version supports Arabic.

    60. Re:IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real mathematicians use TeX. Or, if they're lazy, LyX

    61. Re:IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When they generate millions of dollars per year, its more important to just keep people working than it is to hastle about a non-issue like having the users working on open/closed source software.


      Until a disgruntled employee calls the BSA and your company is audited. If that happens, the cost of retraining may not look so bad after all. And yes, most businesses are guilty of 'piracy', even if they don't use the software that is illegally, unknowingly installed.

    62. Re:IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'm glad you raised that point October 30th - because several times my wife has asked me to convert Word 97 documents into Open Office and re-save them as Word 2000 documents from Open Office. Let me re-iterate that

      Word 97 -> Open Office -> Word 2000

      Why? Because Word crashes on her when she converts from Word 97 to Word 2000 with some documents that were created (and only edited) in Word 97. If you really want to, I can send you one of them if you like!!

      Thanks for mentioning compatibility - becuase I know which suite is OPEN and which is CLOSED. You decide for yourself.

    63. Re:IMO by Cromac · · Score: 1
      There is a free PPT viwer:

      http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyID=7C404E8E-5513-46C4-AA4F-058A84A37DF1&displa ylang=EN

      Still from Microsoft, and so Windows only, but doesn't require you to have Office installed.

    64. Re:IMO by gilgongo · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying people SHOULD ignore the resource issues, or trying to justify anything. I'm just saying that for 80% of people it really doesn't matter that Word takes 5 seconds to start up, or 15 seconds to open a big spreadsheet - if OO takes longer, I'm betting they STILL won't care.

      Why do I think this? Because I've worked in companies with 10,000 desktops or more, I know the spec of those machines, and the only time I hear about speed issues is when the user's got bored of waiting because the app's crashed.

      --
      "And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
    65. Re:IMO by shellbeach · · Score: 1

      Secondly, Open Office on Linux is not even half as good or useful as OOo on Windows

      What on earth are you talking about?? Or were you just trying to troll?

      Care to substantiate that statement?

    66. Re:IMO by iriles · · Score: 1

      From what I've seen OO has quite a few linking to data source type features. I haven't actually used them so I can't verify that they work but judging from my cursory glances they seemed fairly robust. You can also use XSL transformations to create OO documents from an XML datasource.

      One feature that I use all the time that MSOffice doesn't support is "export as PDF". It's great especially for invoices and other documents that I don't really want other people to modify anyway.

      I've been using OO for about three months and so far it fills my needs quite well. In some cases I like the word processor better than Word. Excel is harder to match in terms of ease of use and feature set.

    67. Re:IMO by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Regarding PIII 600 w/128 MB RAM
      They don't have to complain, since what you mentioned is way enough for the average user. After all most of their work is editing various text documents, and running one application.

      Funny: My main server dev system is an Athlon 800 W/512 MB RAM, and when I am traveling, I get along quite happily with my Compaq Armada E700, a PII 450 w/128 MB Ram. Runs RedHat 9, OOo, PostgreSQL 7.3, Apache, etc. beautifully, and I have absolutely no complaints.

      Why is it that some computer elitists are so concerned with speed that a few seconds is worth the price of MS Office? Understand that most people don't care as long as their system performes *well enough* to get their work done.

      I am not saying, BTW, that OOo's resource inefficiency is not somethig that should be worked on, but at least the file formats are open, and there are other lighter-weight Word editors (i.e. Abiword) that can be used in more frugal environments.

      Regardless, this is a good step for Free/Open Source Software.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    68. Re:IMO by NiTRiX · · Score: 1

      When you die, I hope you feel your valuable life was spent doing something productive and memorable. Quick, fight the power before it's too late! I hope you don't dictate your religion the same way you dictate your business, though you sound like some Reverends I've heard.

      --


      on the sixth day God created man.
      on the seventh day, man returned the favor.
  2. Who do you root for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm a staunch anti-occupation, anti-IDF individual because of Israel's brutal regime in the West Bank. But then I'm also an OOo supporter.

    I'm torn.

    1. Re:Who do you root for? by jdifool · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Hi,

      Exactly the same feeling about this story. But Microsoft is not the US right ? Two different issues here, and I'm not going to debate the former one. Finkelstein already did the job.

      However, this is a good step for free software, indeed. And I sincerely think that OO is able to cope with the requirements of the employment agency. I won't say what OO would be able to cope with in my opinion, I don't want flamewars over MS.

      Jeez, is this auto-censorship ?
      I need a cigarette...

      Regards,
      jdif

      --
      Let's overcome our weakness.
    2. Re:Who do you root for? by nil5 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      well, i'm staunch anti-(anti-peace) and the day that EITHER side lays down arms will be a step forward. You must realize that siding one way or the other solves nothing.

      Too bad world leaders ignore a 2-millenia old teaching in favor of killing, greed and jealousy.

    3. Re:Who do you root for? by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
      Jeez, is this auto-censorship ?

      No. This is.

    4. Re:Who do you root for? by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Too bad world leaders ignore a 2-millenia old teaching in favor of killing, greed and jealousy.

      Indeed, the "2-millenia old teaching" I assume you're referring to (i.e. the collection of oral traditions collectively known as "The Bible", which was actually a continuous work from the 2nd millenium BC to the 5th century AD) does favor killing, greed and jealousy. Oh, and sexism and racial hatred too !

      I just can't get where Christians got their "loving God" stuff from, but it's certainly not from the Old Testament. The Bible is a long compendium of slaughters, most of them being comitted ad majorem Dei gloriam. Ever read the Books of Kings ?

      The Arabs did not invent anything. Waging Djihad and stoning blasphemers and adulteres comes directly from good old Moses. The difference between the East and the West right now simply comes from the fact that the West managed to break the bounds of Religion. The East didn't.

      Thomas Miconi

    5. Re:Who do you root for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree!

    6. Re:Who do you root for? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Why was the parent modded down?

      This was a valid post about a controversial issue. Not a troll.

    7. Re:Who do you root for? by jdifool · · Score: 1
      Hi

      I still don't understand why you labeled the site as auto-censorship. I would consider it as anti-auto-censorship.

      Nonetheless, it was interesting, ie truly scary.

      Regards,
      jdif

      --
      Let's overcome our weakness.
    8. Re:Who do you root for? by Cynicx · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't really be necessary to say this, but there is a distinct difference between voicing criticism of the actions of Israel (a secular state) and voicing anti-jewish comments. The parent post was in fact the former ...

    9. Re:Who do you root for? by hatchetman82 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      to answer your question with another, why do americans feel they have any right to live in the US ?
      were they there before 1492 ?
      and the australians ?

    10. Re:Who do you root for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would hesitate to generalize the Arab/Islamic world as "the East"; there are lots of Hindus, Buddhists, and others who would probably be considered fairly enlightened by anyone's standards.

    11. Re:Who do you root for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The difference between the East and the West right now simply comes from the fact that the West managed to break the bounds of Religion. The East didn't.

      OK, dragging this thread back to being a legitimate slashdot topic...

      The Islamic world was historically in the vanguard of science, knowledge, and all forms of culture. But at some point the West experienced the Enlightenment, and the Islamic world did not.

      By acknowledging the primacy of the individual, and the primacy of science over religion (Hello, Galileo!) the Enlightenment allowed the West to become the economic, technological, and political force it still is today.

    12. Re:Who do you root for? by MoneyT · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Might it have something to do with the land that they were given was at the time brittish territory? Or the fact that their ancestors had lived in that area for as long as the palestinians? Originaly they had a very small section of land, given to them by the brittish government. Then 6 other nations decided they didn't like that and invaded. Israel beat them back and in the process captured territories (a convention of warfare, any land captured is yours) and now the paletinians are pissed because they have less land. Lesson to the palestinians, if you want to keep your land, don't go starting wars you can't win.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    13. Re: Who do you root for? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 0, Offtopic


      > Riddle me this, folks... why is it that Pro-Palestinians and anti-Israel people always yell "Stop the 'Occupation,' Get out of the West Bank! Leave Gaza!" when it is obvious that what they really mean is "No Jews are allowed here! We want ALL the land! We need 27 arab states and nothing for you!"???

      Funny, when I say it it means "The Geneva Convention's ban on colonizing occupied territory must be observed by our friends, too."

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    14. Re:Who do you root for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Hebrews in Palestine were treated fairly."

      I guess that's true if you forget about the whole-sale slaughter of Jews in 1929, 1936, and 1948 in areas that were under 'Palestinian' control. The defacto head of arabs in Israel during World War II was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who was such a fantastic guy, he hung out with the Nazi's in germany and promised to 'finish the job'. Go spread your propaganda somewhere else my friend.

      Slashdotters: Before jumping to conclusions please consider doing a little homework (you can google '1929 hebron slaughter' for starters). The real problem with the Israeli-Palestinian confict is that while Israeli-Jews accept (and actually welcome) Muslims among them, the Palestinians in general HATE the Jews. ie. There ARE Israeli-Muslims but there could not be a Palestinian-Jew because the Muslims would kill them. Take a look at how well Jews are treated in Jordan (where its illegal to be a Jewish citizen), Syria , Saudi Arabia etc.

    15. Re:Who do you root for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Jewish people were sent into exile 2000 years ago, and yet they survived the Inquisition, pogroms, WWII, Stalin, etc. and always aspired to return to their land.

      Now Israel faces a new enemy - extremist Islam.
      There is no such thing as Palestinians. They weren't here 50 years ago! They are the true occupants. Hebron and Bethlehem and Jerusalem were build by the Jews. How can they be arab land?

    16. Re:Who do you root for? by uselessbadge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Although my initial reaction is to look at this thread, then look at the 'Slashdot' at the top of the page and question its relevance, I have to say that it could be the Middle East is relevant to all of us in the light of current affairs. I won't comment on it very much except to say that when the spittle starts to fly, all I'd really like to see is some information so I can go away, read up and maybe draw my own conclusions on such matters. In effect, I'd like to thank the last poster for suggesting a good google search, and if anyone else wants to argue these points, however passionate you are about it, please remember the rest of us and provide some resources for information. That way, inquiring minds who might be interested won't simply come across posts full of rants which can often, we must all concede be highly, HIGHLY subjective when it's something we feel strongly about or have arrived at our own conclusions about.. In a nutshell, thanks for the links to historical info etc, and if everyone on every side of the arguments could provide links to resources, or searches etc, awareness will be raised and we can draw our own conclusions in the manner of thinking individuals who have freedom of thought, movement and expression and the right to draw whatever conclusions, and hold whatever opinions we like.

    17. Re:Who do you root for? by TheDredd · · Score: 1

      The difference between the East and the West right now simply comes from the fact that the West managed to break the bounds of Religion

      Meaning the west has to find new excuses to kill people

    18. Re:Who do you root for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference between the East and the West right now simply comes from the fact that the West managed to break the bounds of Religion. The East didn't.

      You mean, like, the pope blessing the US's weapons before they go unloading some of their ammunition on iraqis before the bullet's best-before date expires, and everyone swearing by the holy bible, etc... I hate all this affectation. Let's be done with this stuff, or take it seriously - but no more of this oh-it's-sunday-already pseudo-belief.

    19. Re:Who do you root for? by isorox · · Score: 1

      The Bible is a long compendium of slaughters, most of them being comitted ad majorem Dei gloriam.

      Really, I might get a copy then. Perhaps they should make a film? Start now and it'll be ready for holiday season 2005!

    20. Re:Who do you root for? by Shimbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Jewish people were sent into exile 2000 years ago, and yet they survived the Inquisition, pogroms, WWII, Stalin, etc. and always aspired to return to their land.

      It's really dangerous to assume its reasonable to pick the time when your chosen nation was at its largest extent and assume you get to put the clock back.

      One could just as reasonably say that they were once part of the Babylon empire, and therefore should be part of modern Iraq. Or under the Romans, so should be part of Italy.

      These mythic religious fantasies are really damaging - witness the crusades.

      There aren't any good, simple solutions to these problem. Several people have reasonable claims to the territory, and they need to work towards a reasonable solution.

    21. Re:Who do you root for? by chthon · · Score: 1

      The Islamic world was historically in the vanguard of science, knowledge, and all forms of culture. But at some point the West experienced the Enlightenment, and the Islamic world did not.

      This came about because in their first conquests they encountered the remains of the Greek culture, which were spread over the Middle East in the wake of the conquests of Alexander the Great.

      I think the Arabs at that time were a relatively open minded people, being spared the conquests of Alexander and the Romans. They embraced what remained of the Greek culture and philosophy and indeed built a grandiose culture with place for arts and sciences.

      It is only since the twelfth century that Islamic fundamentalism crept in and created the pathways for abominations like Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

      Jurgen

    22. Re:Who do you root for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stalin breathed air. Are you holding your breath so not to appear to support his causes?

    23. Re:Who do you root for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The defacto head of arabs in Israel during World War II was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who was such a fantastic guy, he hung out with the Nazi's in germany and promised to 'finish the job'.

      And that lovely fellow, the Grand Mufti, had a young nephew who later changed his name to... Yasser Arafat.

    24. Re:Who do you root for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      modded Funny ? I don't agree with that. It is serious, and closer then you might imagine.

      Aside from the politics between Israel en Palestines, which seems so complicated a question that I will not pass judgement over it, Israel armed forces are killing people.
      Not just palestines but, to bring the matter closer to home, brits and americans as well.

      http://www.palsolidarity.org/activists/ISMattack ed .php

      These were young western people, that were protesting non-violently. They did not deserve death, especially not such gruesome ones.

      I'd like to state that this is an israeli question, and not something concerning Jews, indicated by the fact that there are rabbis too that feel strongly about the matter.

      http://rhr.israel.net/overview.shtml

      I may not care about politics, but taking human life this way is wrong. This ofcourse goes for both sides, but when non-violent protesters get KIA there's something very very wrong imo.

    25. Re:Who do you root for? by Compact+Dick · · Score: 1

      I still don't understand why you labeled the site as auto-censorship.
      Auto as in Ford ;-)
    26. Re:Who do you root for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes...do witness them. Do you know why the crusades were started? Read a book.

      Initially, they had to kick the muslims back off of THEIR land.

    27. Re:Who do you root for? by jacksonyee · · Score: 1
      I just can't get where Christians got their "loving God" stuff from, but it's certainly not from the Old Testament. The Bible is a long compendium of slaughters, most of them being comitted ad majorem Dei gloriam. Ever read the Books of Kings?

      I'm not trying to be a troll, but the loving aspect of God is stated quite clearly in Moses' Writings. Jesus himself quoted the Old Testament when he said what the two greatest commandments are. Many people also forget that besides being loving, God is also just, so if you go against him or his ways, you will be crushed - no exceptions.

      There definitely have been a lot of slaughters in the Bible, but that is true of every civilization or belief. No matter how great the foundational beliefs are, someone always manages to turn it into their own excuse. If you really want examples of dumb acts in the name of Christianity, take a look at the Children's Crusade or the Spanish Inquisition - not bright points of our history at all.

      You can believe what you want - that's perfectly fine. Just don't miss out on the whole picture because you're concentrating on one point.

    28. Re:Who do you root for? by smallpaul · · Score: 1

      Numbers 14:18: The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation

      Nice!

    29. Re:Who do you root for? by chthonicdaemon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh well, I am bored. So here goes:

      The parent poster was referring to the fact that ownership of anything is a pretty interesting idea. Land even more so -- stable ownership of land is a gift of society, so there is no real guarantee of ownership when you leave (or get thrown off) some land you saw as 'yours' if there is no larger society there to acknowledge your ownership.

      So the Muslims were expanding into other territories. These terretories did not start of populated, nor did they remain in the same hands for very long in historical terms. So who does the land 'belong' to?

      Should the United states be abandoned and left to the remaining native Americans? Should Africa be swept clean of Europeans and left to native Africans? If so, which native Africans. The first tribe to occupy the land, or the second who took it by force or the third who paid them for it?

      Not quite so easy.

      --
      Languages aren't inherently fast -- implementations are efficient
    30. Re:Who do you root for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meaning the west has to find new excuses to kill people

      Nah. Obviously we still can use religion as an excuse, we just don't have to and can come up with completely new ones!

    31. Re:Who do you root for? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Bullsh*t. Israel has been on the defensive for the entire period of it's existence. They have always acted in reaction to what the Arabs were doing whether it was invasion, planned invasion, border sniping, harboring of combatants or the tolerance of brigandry.

      If the PLO genuinely wanted to co-exist with Israel, Arafat would be knocking some heads around. Until that happens, NO ONE has any business taking the Palestinians seriously.

      At this point, the Palestinians are a Barbarian Rabble that deserves to have order imposed on them externally. That will remain the case until they can impose order on themselves.

      When a car bomb goes off in Haifa, there should be half a dozen Hamas heads on pikes hanging in Arafat's courtyard.

      If the Palestinians won't do their own dirty work, NO ONE should complain when Israel tries to do it for them.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    32. Re:Who do you root for? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Put yourself in the line of fire and you are bound to get shot eventually.

      There is nothing remarkable in that.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    33. Re:Who do you root for? by AnonymousNoMore · · Score: 1

      No. The West has evolved beyond the need for any excuses to kill people. We just do it for the money.

    34. Re:Who do you root for? by spyfrog · · Score: 1

      The problem with this kind of argument is that we eventually end up with the fact that everyone should stay on a rather little part of Africa, since humans has moved and continues to move.
      We are a slowly migrating creature.

    35. Re:Who do you root for? by monkeyfinger · · Score: 1
      ad majorem Dei gloriam

      (for the greater glory of god)

    36. Re:Who do you root for? by Darby · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How hard do you have to twist to come up with such intellectually dishonest ideas such as these?

      Isreal was the homeland of the Hebrews. This is a historical fact acknowledged by all of the relevant parties and supported by objective archealogical evidence.


      Much less hard than you, obviously.
      If you read the bible, you will see the bit where god told the jews that that was meant to be their land and that they should take it.
      Which they did.
      Butchering every man, woman, and child who was already living there.
      It actually brags about this bit.

      Pull your head out of your ass and realise that the Israelis are scumbags and the Palestinians are as well.
      Playing favorites oin this battle is the worst sort of intellectual dishonesty.

    37. Re:Who do you root for? by Jagasian · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The land that you call Israel was the homeland of The the Canaanites and Phoenicians. The Torah, Bible, and archealogical evidence support this. The Torah and Bible state that the Hebrews ethnically cleansed the land of the Canaanites. You know, like Hitler tried to do to the Jews.

      So maybe you should drop the Nazi crap and stop the hate.

    38. Re:Who do you root for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Please sight facts

      Claiming that Isreal is "entitled" the land because Jews lived there over 2000 years ago gets nobody anywhere.

    39. Re:Who do you root for? by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      Might it have something to do with the land that they were given was at the time brittish territory?

      Britain has never at any time had any territorial claim to any part of Palestine. The British occupied Palestine under a League of Nations mandate.

      The whole problem in the area was created by colonialism, the idea that the British could invade the region, expell the Turks and then set about calmly parcelling out territory to people...

      There is actually a pretty good peace proposal on the table, the Geneva Roadmap. A majority of the Palestinian and Israeli populations support the plan. Of course Sharon's government is bitterly opposed and will fight it to the end.

      Sooner or later the US will impose a similar settlement on Israel for the simple reason that it is tired of the endless lies and prevarications on both sides. Israel has repeatedly undertaken to stop building settlements, and broken that commitment every time.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    40. Re:Who do you root for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I would argue that until the UN stops it's policy of egging the situation on, nothing is going to happen.

      For those who don't know, the UN has a separete refugee agency to deal with Palistinians. This agency, unlike the normal refugee agency, isn't charged with solving the problem, but with maintaining refugee camps. The goals of the agency are designed to keep the situation from getting better, and to encourage terrorism to take root. This way Arab Despots, and Western Politicians can play the Israelis and Palistinians as a political chess game. The wonderful thing is that as long as this goes on, everyone (except the people involved) benefits!

    41. Re:Who do you root for? by TKinias · · Score: 1

      scripsit Shimbo:

      It's really dangerous to assume its reasonable to pick the time when your chosen nation was at its largest extent and assume you get to put the clock back.

      Aw, c'mon. It's fun! Especially if you're Greek. Just give all the land Alexander held back to the Greeks and we wouldn't have all these problems. We'd solve the Palestinian and Kashmir issues in one stroke!

      ;)

      --
      In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
    42. Re:Who do you root for? by kronstat · · Score: 1

      "If the palestinians give up there homes, what will stop israel from invading Lebanan or Jordan? "

      Syria invaded Lebanon and currently occupies most of it. Israel will have to get in line I guess.

    43. Re:Who do you root for? by the+morgawr · · Score: 1
      *sigh*

      Please know the facts before you post. Yes, the killing of innocents needs to stop, but quoting crap off of the TV and posting it on slashdot does not help.

      Rather then repeate what's already been posted: here is an acurate history lesson. Read the entire thread, you might learn something.

      Now let's deal with your specific points:

      Britain has never at any time had any territorial claim to any part of Palestine.

      I would call getting the land as part of the treaty that ended World War I legitimate.

      The whole problem in the area was created by colonialism, the idea that the British could invade the region, expell the Turks and then set about calmly parcelling out territory to people...

      I don't know about you, but I like the idea of self determination. The original British policy on Palestine was to give each group of people democratic control over the land in which they were a majority. That doesn't sound too imperialistic to me.

      A majority of the Palestinian and Israeli populations support the plan

      Geneva would be a fine peace setlement if both sides agreed on it's implementation. Unfortunately they do not. Support for the ultimate resolution, does not equate support for a particular series of steps to get there.

      Sharon's government is bitterly opposed and will fight it to the end.

      This problem did not start when Sharon took power, to claim otherwise (as the BBC and others have done) is to distort history. Terrorism existed before Sharon was elected, and (surprise) it exists now.

      US will impose a similar settlement on Israel for the simple reason that it is tired of the endless lies and prevarications on both sides

      I hate to tell you, but you can't "impose" peace without putting troops in there to physically separate the sides. That's not going to happen.

      broken that commitment every time.

      You must have meant the Palistinian Authority.

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    44. Re:Who do you root for? by the+morgawr · · Score: 1

      actually there were a majority of Jews in the area as early as 1880 (we can't know who was there earlier as there are no accurate counts).

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    45. Re:Who do you root for? by the+morgawr · · Score: 1
      I've thought about this for a little while. Honestly I don't know of any good websites, but there are a lot of good books.

      Alan Dershowitz's The Case for Israel deals with the most common arguments brought up on. The purpose of the book is to sight the relevent facts from credible sources to counter the (bogus) claims that many people (and slashdot trolls) make.

      It's a pretty good introduction to the situation and he sites good sources so you can keep reading. He pushes his opinion on the situation a little harder then I like, but all in all it's a decent book.

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    46. Re: Who do you root for? by the+morgawr · · Score: 1

      Exept that what you mean has nothing to do with the situation at hand.

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    47. Re:Who do you root for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hello, Palestinians have killed non-Israelis that happened to be in the area too.

    48. Re:Who do you root for? by superyooser · · Score: 0, Troll
      Yeah, what right do Jews have to Jew-dea and Gaza?

      ( Koran search for Judah, Judea, or Gaza. Your boolean query produced no results. Hmmm)

    49. Re:Who do you root for? by mishehu · · Score: 1

      I'd say Mod this entire section -5 for off topic.
      What does the West Bank, IDF actions, and "occupation" have to do with Open Office?

      The Elders of Zion used TCP.

    50. Re:Who do you root for? by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      >Britain has never at any time had any territorial claim to any part of Palestine.
      I would call getting the land as part of the treaty that ended World War I legitimate.

      You miss the point, Britain never made a teritorial claim at any time. Palestine was held as a mandate territory, it was never a part of the British Empire. As for the idea that there is a right of conquest, if you accept that concept you would legitimize the objectives of Hamas.

      I hate to tell you, but you can't "impose" peace without putting troops in there to physically separate the sides. That's not going to happen.

      Israel cannot survive without the economic and military subsidies from the US. The US has the leverage to force Israel to stop confiscating Palestinian owned land and using it to buoild settlements.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    51. Re:Who do you root for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Put yourself in the line of fire and you are bound to get shot eventually.

      There is nothing remarkable in that."

      Although late into the life of this particular thead, I feel compelled to reply, only hoping you will read it.
      No, unfortunately today it's nothing short of remarkable. One can only hope that someday mankind will rise to a level where the loss of human life will be accounted for as remarkable.
      From your comment I think I can derive you are somewhat put off by mine, and are therefore sympathising with the current israeli way of treating human-rights. As I read back my post I see how it can be interpreted as pro-palestinian, but it isn't. I tried to emphasize this as I stated that I do not care about the internal politics, I only mourn the loss of life in the conflict.
      I am aware that after the six-day war Israel offered the conquered lands back to the arab states in exchange for a peace, and that the arab nations declined the offer,resulting in the unstable situation today. I do not blame Israel, nor do I blame Palestinia, both sides have their reasons (although imo both sides are misguided).
      I only see the suffering of the people, on both sides. I emphasised the palestinian side, perhaps because atm israel armed forced seem to have the upper hand, but frankly, to me, a life taken on either side is a waste.
      Please do not take my previous comment the wrong way.

    52. Re:Who do you root for? by AJPME · · Score: 1
      To help ensure the human rights of the Palestinians join us:

      Americans for a Just Peace in the Middle East

      Please take time to view clips from our Documentary, Beyond the Mirage: The Face of the Occupation

    53. Re:Who do you root for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am aware of that, if you are inclined to do so, please read the reply to jeridiah I wrote, is is valid for this thread as well. thanks

    54. Re:Who do you root for? by popo · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      The issue of who was there first is irrelevant for dozens of reasons. (Not the least of which being that it isn't answerable).

      The fact is that ALL of our current "Peaceful" land ownership around the world is drenched in blood.

      THERE *IS* NO PEACEFULLY ACQUIRED LAND - ANYWHERE.

      The one question that can be answered is: on whose terms did the fighting take place?

      But this question is bad for Americans (who slaughtered Indians), Scandinavians (who slaughtered the laps), The French (who pretty much slaughtered everybody), The Japanese (who pretty much slaughtered everybody around them), The Russians (ditto), The Australians (aborigines), The Chinese (Tibet, et al) ...and curiously: Isn't bad for the Israeli's who were freely given their land, and occupied land in a purely defensive war (started by their enemies).

      So in order to single out the Israeli's for taking land that wasn't theirs... you'd have to say they weren't selfish enough!

      --
      ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    55. Re:Who do you root for? by the+morgawr · · Score: 1
      if you accept that concept you would legitimize the objectives of Hamas.

      If I don't accept that claim then there is no such thing as sovernty and we can all go back to living in africa.

      Hamas is dedicated to killing the Jews. If they only attacked military targets, and didn't use innocent palistinians for cover (that is conduct a real war instead of terrorism), I'd be fine with what they were doing.

      US has the leverage to force Israel

      Setting aside the failure to realise the Israel is a democracy with a very complex voter demographic, how are the settlements the cause of this problem? Terrorism against the Jewish inhabitants of the region existed long before there was even a Jewish state. It existed after there was a Jewish state but before there were occupied territories. So now that Jordan abandoned the West Bank and Egypt abandoned Gaza, Surprise!!! We still have Terrorism!

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    56. Re:Who do you root for? by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      >if you accept that concept you would legitimize the objectives of Hamas.
      If I don't accept that claim then there is no such thing as sovernty and we can all go back to living in africa.

      Invasion and occupation of Palestine by the British did not vest them with any sovereign rights. Britain expressly repudiated any territorial claim and any claim to sovereignty. That is why it was a mandate territory, it was never a province of Britain.

      If you claim brute force is the basis of a claim to sovereignty you legitimate terrorism.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    57. Re:Who do you root for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, how did this fucktard get modded insightful?

      Collection of oral traditions collectively known as "The Bible"

      If by oral traditions, you mean, written and copied carefully, then yes.

      sexism and racial hatred too
      Too bad Paul didn't tell men to love their wives and vice versa, or say that everyone is equal under God... oh wait, he did Too bad Moses was so racist that he married a Cushite.

      Even a second grader would know this post-modern pseudo intellectual is full of crap

    58. Re:Who do you root for? by the+morgawr · · Score: 1
      nvasion and occupation of Palestine by the British did not vest them with any sovereign rights.

      If we accept this claim then we all go back to where we came from. While we may not like it, ignoring history gets us no where. However following your reasoning, we should kick the palistinans out. After all the British took the land from the Ottomans who took if from the Romans, who took it from and forced out...the JEWS.

      Hopefully, most people will agree that going back to 100A.D. is a pretty stupid way to solve this fight. The solution is to encourage self determination, human rights, and democracy. (A healthy dose of reality to the UN would probably help too).

      If you claim brute force is the basis of a claim to sovereignty you legitimate terrorism.

      Terrorism is the purposeful targeting of civilians. You can have a war without terrorism. If the Palestinians want to fight a legitimate war against Israel, or anyonelse for that matter, I'm not going to run out there and try to stop them.

      I don't like war and there is almost no good reason to start one. People practicing self government will be able to work out a better, more agreeable solution. However, I'm not going to equate a war with terrorism.

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    59. Re:Who do you root for? by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Check your history again :)

      Might it have something to do with the land that they were given was at the time brittish territory?

      Under the condition that the "non-Jewish" people would not be subject to civil or religious prejudice. When the Arab citizens of Israel (who make up about 20% of the *official citizenry* today, and that percentage is growing) are generally forbidden from buying land in most of the country despite the Israeli supreme court's rulings on the subject?

      Souce: Balfour Delaration

      Then 6 other nations decided they didn't like that and invaded.

      The 1947 UN-defined lines had Jerusalem as a neutral area surrounded by Palestinian lands. The Israeli War of Independence, however, fought to line today known as the "Green Line" (Israel, minus the Occupied Territories). This was NOT instigated by 6 other countries.

      Then a series of wars ensued culminating in the 6-day war. Note that during this history, we have seen several things:

      Suez was given back to Egypt, with peace treaty brokered by Carter.
      Several PM's have attempted to negotiate with Syria to return Golan.
      Peace treaty with Jordan.

      Only Israel's northern border is still volitile, and if they can solve their territorial dispute with Syria, there is no reason to assume that the Israel/Syria/Lebannon border won't become quiet, and normal relations can't occur.

      Look-- my problems are these:
      1) Lies regarding history
      2) The idea that this conflict will never end virutally ensures its continuation.
      3) The idea that these radical views of manifest destiny are representative of the views of the Jewish or even Israeli population. Maybe some time ago, but those days are done.

      However, the real hope is this-- Israel has one thing that other Middle Eastern countries don't have-- a very strong, independent judicial system which has been making strident moves towards ensuring that Israeli war criminals can be brought to justice (THe ISC has expressed willingness to extradite to the ICC despite the lack of ratification). And there is a growing awareness of the real problems that the occupation is causing Israel among groups like the Israeli National Security COuncil.

      The other thing is this-- Israel is slowly moving towards a more inclusive, pluralistic, secular state where the rights of non-Jews are beign respected. The civil rights stuggle that Arab Israeli citizens are involved in today could have great implications on the direction that Israel takes.

      There are many good people in the Israeli government (just as there are many bad people there too). Just don't believe all the propaganda that a few people who claim to speak for all Jews and Israelis tell you. Just a clue-- they don't seak for everyone because these communities are rather diverse.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    60. Re:Who do you root for? by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      One of the real issues here is that this is a VERY heated issue for many people. Consider:

      1) The White European Christians have persecuted Jews for so many centuries it is not funny. It was not the Muslims that kicked the Jews out of Spain, remember ;-)

      2) There is an arguement to be made that the Balfour declaration itself may have even been an anti-semitic act designed to rid England of the Jews. It is not that absurd when you realize that Hitler's first choice was deporting Jews to Madagascar (which he would have done, had Britain not refused access to the Strait of Gibralter).

      3) There is a very small, vocal minority which is extremely good at paralyzing Jewish opposition to the attrocities in the Territories, securing international support, and discrediting anyone who tries to stand in the way. These people represent niether the Jewish nor Israeli communities as a whole but rather a small radical settlement population.

      But also remember that things are changing-- the Israeli citizens who are Arabs represent a large and growing minority, prompting a wide discussion on the future of the state of Israel among many parties with solutions ranging from illegal (deny civil rights, revoke citizenship, etc.) to progressive (movement towards a secular state). In the end, I think it is likely that Gaza, West Bank, and Israel will be part of a unified and secular state of Israel and Palestine. But that may be about 30 years away.

      What does this have to do with OOo and open source?

      You see-- Israel's hope for survival is that it can be a melting pot of different voices (including Arabs who make up a growing percentage of their population). Open Source does the same. We are not tied to politics, because we ALL have different political views. So we can always come together without regard for these issues and support everyone, and who knows, maybe Syrians, Iranians, and Israelis will find themselves working on the same projects!

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    61. Re:Who do you root for? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Humans die constantly for various reasons. That is simply a fact of physical existence.

      These people assumed the risks inherent in their actions when they started interfering in someone else's warzone. If anything, your clueless and sheltered whining only belittles their efforts.

      Israel doesn't have the "upper hand". They are expected to "play by the rules" in an inherently unfair fight when most of the planet already has sided against them regardless of what they do.

      They are expected to act as a civilized nation while the palestinians are specifically excused from this constraint.

      If Arafat were a serious about peaceful coexistence, these suburban children would be getting in the way of his troops rather than Sharons.

      "Rooting for the underdog" independent of the situation is morally bankrupt.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    62. Re:Who do you root for? by OuiPapa · · Score: 1
      In N. America (and perhaps elsewhere) the standard texts on the Left are: Noam Chomsky's The Fateful Triangle; Norman Finkelstein's Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict.

      As for the Right, another reader mentioned Alan Dershowitz' The Case for Israel .

      Ordinarily, I'd recommend books rather than online material. For a comprehensive introduction, it's best to avoid the low S/N of the Web. But I can't help but point out Finkelstein's dissection of Dershowitz' book. He also tackles it in this speech, around the 33rd minute.

  3. Outrageous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Us Americans don't send them billions of dollars in aid every year just so they can go squander it on anti-American, pro-terrorist software. How can they claim to be our "allies" in the war against terror when they start using software based on principles of theft that Osama himself would agree to? This must stop. If Israel decides to go down the path of "Old Europe" and Red China we need to make sure that they don't do it with American tax dollars, which should only be used for building illegal settlements and killing Arabs.

    1. Re:Outrageous by Strioa · · Score: 1
      How is that insightful? Anti-American? Old-Europe? Red China?

      This guy stumbled in from the 50's!!

      I mean this patriotic revival really is getting old fast.

      To those (numerous) Americans who haven't lost their mind, I have this message of sorrow:

      Sucks to be you right now.

      With my best wishes from the north

      Strioa

    2. Re:Outrageous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only want to mention that MS Office, while it doesn't support Hebrew, is supposed to support Arabic just fine.

      Now which is anti-American, pro-terrorist software?

    3. Re:Outrageous by jd · · Score: 1

      Methinks the original poster was using extremely subtle satire. I don't think they so much believe what they wrote, as they believe Microsoft and certain other factions in the US would easily believe what they wrote.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:Outrageous by jd · · Score: 0, Redundant
      Calm ye liver! The writer was using satire.


      Microsoft has accused Open Source of Communism, Anti-Americanism, Anachronism, and all sorts of other -isms. I wouldn't be surprised if, somewhere in Redmond, there was a memo that declared Open Source to be a supercalifragilisticexpialidociousism, an antidisesetablishmentariamism and a floccinoccinihilipilificationism to boot.


      It's painfully obvious, though, that there are people who actually believe everything they're told about Linux, by Microsoft. The original poster, to me, is clearly showing how painfully stupid the Microsoft propoganda is -and- how utterly gullible, naive and pathetic their believers have become.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    5. Re:Outrageous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  4. Windows Office 97 not good enough for MS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The best line is where Microsoft criticizes OpenOffice as having "the features of Office 97 at best". What, Office 97 wasn't good enough? Now they admit it!

    1. Re:Windows Office 97 not good enough for MS? by Neophytus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What about Appleworks? Version 5, heck even version 6, has more than enough 'features' to write letters, reports, all that normal word processing stuff but doesn't feel bloated beyond beleif.

    2. Re:Windows Office 97 not good enough for MS? by cmallinson · · Score: 4, Informative
      Having "the features of Office 97 at best" is also how I would describe office 2003.

      Do others think that MS Office has added many new core features since then (and I'm not talking about getting clipart from the web)? My mother has been using MS Word exclusively for 8 hours a day since version 3.0. She knows and uses all of the shortcuts (she does not even use a mouse), and all of the features. I recently upgraded her from 97 to 2002. She has read the manuals, and can't find anything new that she would use.

    3. Re:Windows Office 97 not good enough for MS? by dago · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'm not an MS-fan, but you're at little bit too MS-bashing.

      Since office 97 :

      Outlook : spam filter, IM integration, better OST folders

      and a whole oneote application ?

      and the integration of visio ?

      there are also all the sharepoint-related feature (I don't use them, sO I can't tell)

      Just because you or your mother are/is not using a feature doesn't imply this feature doesn't exist or is worthless for everyone else.

      --
      #include "coucou.h"
    4. Re:Windows Office 97 not good enough for MS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you on crack? There are a shit load of features that make 2003 a lot different than 97. Yeah you can do all the same things and a lot of it looks the same but you will be missing out on virtually of the nice database and web integration. Publish a column in a table in Word from Access 97? Ain't gonna happen. There are also massive changes to the macro system and scripting is a breeze.
      If she can't find anything that she would use then she probably doesn't realize the use of the features as is common when people say things like XP is just Windows 2000 with a new service pack.
      Do something for years and you will think its the only and best way when in reality there are much faster methods that take entirely different approaches.

    5. Re:Windows Office 97 not good enough for MS? by jesterzog · · Score: 4, Funny

      I recently upgraded her from 97 to 2002. She has read the manuals, and can't find anything new that she would use.

      Well it has that new revolutionary file format. Surely that has to count for something!

    6. Re:Windows Office 97 not good enough for MS? by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      I use 2000 and 97 and 2000 feels a little more stable.

      However, I would consider myself quite a "power" user of Office. Have done things like numbering/cross-referencing/VBA/charts.

      And I don't think there's much since 97 that is worth worrying about. The features that there are are things that I'd put in "no big deal".

      I've tried OOo and think it's pretty good.

    7. Re:Windows Office 97 not good enough for MS? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      I recently upgraded Office 97 (or was it 98?) to Office 2000. The only differences I noted:
      - Different icons, wahey!
      - Outlook now takes over a minute to start, where it used to take a few seconds. Okay, I have very large mail folders, people tell me I should 'archive' them. Why should I? I want them to be accessible at all times, besides the old version of Outlook managed these folders just fine.
      - When I quit Outlook, it doesn't really. There's a process called 'Outlook' that remains running (and taking over 20MB of memory to boot).

      Other than that, I noticed no differences. So why are people paying to upgrade, exactly?

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    8. Re:Windows Office 97 not good enough for MS? by Psx29 · · Score: 1

      Well word 2000(and up) added some nice Japanese text features. Aside from that I can't really think of anything though

    9. Re:Windows Office 97 not good enough for MS? by WWWWolf · · Score: 1

      I don't know. I just use word processors. At some point, the word processors included mouse support. And then they got WYSIWYG instead of being text-based. Then they introduced styles rather than relying only on arbitrary formatting. And, umm... I don't know if they have evolved in any significant way since then.

      All I know is that I can produce text just as easily whether I sit in front of MiniOffice2 on C64 or OpenOffice.org 1.1 on Linux. Though my PC has a slightly more comfortable keyboard.

      All I've noted is that new word processors start slower (yes, slower than turboloading an entire memory image from a C64 floppy!) and tend to have zillions of useless distracting user interface elements everywhere on screen. I have to admit that this garbage on OO.o looks far less intrusive than recent Offices, though. Just an opinion.

      Maybe I'm just dumb.

    10. Re:Windows Office 97 not good enough for MS? by 4of12 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since office 97 :

      Outlook

      The point of the parent post was that Word has long had most of the functionality that most people use.

      Outlook is a different application than Word, even though it might be bundled together with Word in some overall purchase of Office.

      As much as I hate MS, in Outlook they did design a lot of convenient, easy-to-use features which make it quite useful and something people might want to buy. Despite the occassional problem with viri, people basically like using Outlook and appreciate what it does for them.

      It would be nice if people could pay less and just get the nice new applications like Outlook and Visio that they want instead of rustproofing add-ons like Word and Windows itself with new features they don't use.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    11. Re:Windows Office 97 not good enough for MS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I've noted is that new word processors start slower (yes, slower than turboloading an entire memory image from a C64 floppy!) and tend to have zillions of useless distracting user interface elements everywhere on screen. I have to admit that this garbage on OO.o looks far less intrusive than recent Offices, though. Just an opinion.

      Maybe I'm just dumb.


      No, you are just a guy who needs a text editor, not a word processor.

    12. Re:Windows Office 97 not good enough for MS? by AbbyNormal · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think for the average doc writer/author/reader, anything above Office 97 is overkill. Office 2003 is great for some businesses though, as it does provide decent integration with their WSS and Sharepoint 2003 server for collaboration/document management. The problem is Microsoft, really hasn't done anything to encourage the average user to upgrade. Their marketing seems overly focused on the businesses.
      When small business realize they really don't all of those collaboration features and instead get Open Office, Micrsoft is going to sink fast.

      As my collaboration is just my wife and I at home, Open Office suites my needs better.

      --
      Sig it.
    13. Re:Windows Office 97 not good enough for MS? by Patik · · Score: 1
      Outlook : spam filter, IM integration, better OST folders
      $400 for that? I consider IM integration to be a flaw, not a feature -- first, I've already got my own IM client, and second, I don't want to use MSN.
    14. Re:Windows Office 97 not good enough for MS? by dago · · Score: 1

      Well, the first paragraph of the 'parent' is :
      " Having "the features of Office 97 at best" is also how I would describe office 2003."

      Agreed, the second is about word and collaborative features (sharepoint) applies to it.

      For the other word-specific features enhancement, there's also a new 'page view' to read document the reviewing feature has been dramatically improve by 2000 (IIRC) and is especially useful when working with other ppl, and web/html edition has also been improved, but that I cannot be 100% sure.

      Oh, yeah, also new XML features, smart tags, ... are new.

      --
      #include "coucou.h"
    15. Re:Windows Office 97 not good enough for MS? by muckdog · · Score: 1

      Yeah but are those minimal feature worth the $300+ upgrade cost?

    16. Re:Windows Office 97 not good enough for MS? by dago · · Score: 1

      I was just listing feature enhancement, to point the fact that if you want to criticize this 400$ price, you have to be honest and cite the new features.

      At least take conclusion from real facts.

      --
      #include "coucou.h"
    17. Re:Windows Office 97 not good enough for MS? by jelle · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't want Office 2003 either... According to the television it causes your co-workers to dump water on your head.

      No thanks.

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    18. Re:Windows Office 97 not good enough for MS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > and the integration of visio ?

      Visio was fairly well integrated with Office before it became a MS product. And it's not exactly like you get it free with Word, it still costs several hundred bucks.

      Sharepoint and OST folders are really only features aimed at Microsoft shops, not individuals.

    19. Re:Windows Office 97 not good enough for MS? by monkeyfinger · · Score: 1

      My god someone is actually on topic. After wading through all the religious stuff I'd forgotten where we started. Thanks for reminding me.

    20. Re:Windows Office 97 not good enough for MS? by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

      Have you ever had to use a MS Office XML export? I was working on some database system - which one of my old companies lovely ex-journo designers provided content for in Excel.
      Having had much experience with XML importing - I was shocked at just how unreadable, and unusable XML can be made.
      Office XML features - for the record arent worth sh1t. If you need this - you are better off using (ughh) vbasic - and reading the cells/items and exporting them yourself.

      --
      OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
    21. Re:Windows Office 97 not good enough for MS? by jd · · Score: 0, Troll

      Nonono. The person commenting clearly dropped a few words. It should be: "the features of Office 97, debugged and at their best"

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    22. Re:Windows Office 97 not good enough for MS? by wfrp01 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, after I found out I could insert text in my word document that *sparkles*, I figured that my word processor was feature-complete. What more could you need?

      --

      --Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
    23. Re:Windows Office 97 not good enough for MS? by kbrannen · · Score: 1

      I happily use MSWord out of Office 97 (when I have to :-) at home, and Office 2000 at work. The only feature I've ever found in the 2000 version that is useful is the "outline" mode. But while useful, I can easily live without it.

      I really don't see any reason to upgrade from Office 97, and I think a lot of others feel the same. OpenOffice is getting better with every release. I may buy the new v7.0 of OO just to help spur on development.

    24. Re:Windows Office 97 not good enough for MS? by dago · · Score: 1

      The point was that you cannot dismiss office 2003 against 2003 for the lack of new features.

      That those features are overpriced, proprietary-locking, useless, crap, whatever is something different, but they do exists, pretending that 'just the colors are different, there's no new feature' is pure ms-bashing without looking at the facts.

      --
      #include "coucou.h"
  5. A small step forward... by jkrise · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Some of the best thinkers and code writers come from Israel. Given this fact, it is no wonder they resent outside monopoly control over software, albeit from the friendly US of A.

    OTOH, Israel should be latching on to stuff like AbiWord, Gnumeric etc. rather than OOo. The latter neither provides full feature compatibility with MS Office, nor has any specific advantages to be adopted as a standard.

    -

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    1. Re:A small step forward... by Micah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Huh? OOo has quite a number of features that AbiWord lacks. And some of them will be important to large users.

      AbiWord is fine for simpler documents though.

      I *do* agree that Gnumeric is great, and it's prettier than OOo Calc.

    2. Re:A small step forward... by Marcus+Green · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Where might the Isrealis download a tried and tested version of Gnumeric for Windows, or have they standardised on Linux as an operating system?

    3. Re:A small step forward... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, anything is prettier than OOo.

    4. Re:A small step forward... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of the best thinkers and code writers come from Israel

      And some don't! Deep stuff, huh.

      (What is it with Jews always patting themselves on the back anyway?!)

    5. Re:A small step forward... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AbiWord is proprietary, closed source. Open Office is the exact opposite. So no matter how good Abiword may be in comparison, it's still shit. Got it, you fucking closed source apologist? :p

    6. Re:A small step forward... by Curtman · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you talking about? Here is the source, and here is the license.

    7. Re:A small step forward... by sigxcpu · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The real issue is compatability with Hebrew.
      SUN IBM and the Israeli Gov' spent real mony getting it into OO.
      There is no alternative because no other office supports Hebrew.

      --
      As of Postgres v6.2, time travel is no longer supported.
    8. Re:A small step forward... by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      The latter neither provides full feature compatibility with MS Office, nor has any specific advantages to be adopted as a standard

      LOL! You are telling a government to use someone else's standard. Governments, unlike companies and individuals get to make standards for others to follow. In the US, the courts have kept WordPerfect going by mandating all filings and such be done in WP format. The market has little or no say.

      --
      -- $G
    9. Re:A small step forward... by HawkingMattress · · Score: 1

      ...And some of them will be important to large users

      We large users don't need your features, having to wear XXXX-large shirts is enough of a distinction from normal people.

      --
      Stop fat clerks gethoization !

    10. Re:A small step forward... by op00to · · Score: 1

      Neither does AbiWord.

    11. Re:A small step forward... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike the other commenter, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. If all you needed was hebrew support, I'll refer you to Abiword, Gnumeric and maybe KOffice.
      KOffice has the problem it isn't MS compatible (every time I've tried to open my hebrew MS documents, it crashed and died).

    12. Re:A small step forward... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, it seems to me that KWord has recently had general stability problems. It crashes so often that I won't even use it for short notes, even though it starts a lot faster than OpenOffice.org.

      The particular version I have installed at the moment is KWord 1.2.94 (Using KDE 3.1.4). I'd file a bug report if I could figure what is going on.

      I seem to remember using a more stable version in the past, but I generally use the version installed with the OS. This is the one that is on Debian testing. ... and it may not really be the one with the stability problems, as I do frequent upgrades.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  6. In other news... by burtonator · · Score: 5, Funny

    Palestinians also announced migration to both Open Office and KOffice.

    When asked for comment Mr Arafat said "the Israeli and Palestinian people can't agree on much but one thing we see eye to eye on is that Microsoft is an evil behemoth and needs to be stopped."

    Many are optimistic that the new Open Source philsophy in the Middle East could one day help bridge the gap between two peoples and lead to peace.

    1. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a conflict that has thousands and thousands of years of history behind it.

      Well, Christians have been around only 2 thousand years, and Muslims about 1400 years.

    2. Re:In other news... by October_30th · · Score: 0, Troll
      Religion makes people irrational, its the nature of religion.

      Now that you mention it, it's quite absurd that we have a war on drugs for exactly the same reasons.

      "Drugs make certain people irrational and prone to violence and crime. People have been using drugs throughout the history." Now, replace the word drug with religion and it still holds true. If so, why the hell can't we crack down on religion just as we deal with drugs?

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    3. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about Buddhism? Does Buddhism make people irrational?

    4. Re:In other news... by jkrise · · Score: 1

      Great post. However, more than MS Office, I suspect a different initiative from Microsoft will foster global unity - and that is Palladium / TCPA / MSNGSCB / DRM engine / whatever other name or form it acquires. MS Office is too small to perform this miracle.

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    5. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    6. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Israeli Defence Force: Using Open Solutions for Open Warfare

    7. Re:In other news... by turgid · · Score: 1

      Is it the symptom or the cause? Why do we as a species rush to believe in the supernatural with no solid evidence? Come on Darwinists, explain the evolutionary advantage to faith!

    8. Re:In other news... by VendettaMF · · Score: 1

      Why do we as a species rush to believe in the supernatural with no solid evidence? Come on Darwinists, explain the evolutionary advantage to faith!

      It allows those with no other survival traits to survive by threatening the physically stronger (but lacking in smarts) with a mix of divine retribution and/or miserable afterlives.

      Essentially its the scrawny kid from the one-kid familly threatening the bullies with his never seen "big brother who's in military school now, but will be back in the summer".

      A slightly less cynical view is that its a means by which the smart and socially inclined can inflict social cooperation on a crowd otherwise to focused on their next meal/lay to otherwise accept a rule of law.

      Either way, its fairly self evident that it will always go severely downhill if those preaching it begin to believe it.

      In other words, organised religion is fine and a good thing, and essential for the survival of primitive societies (and the integration of primitives in less primitive societies) as long as those leading it know that its a means to an end, and not a great truth in and of itself.

      Note that where I use the term "primitive" I am referring to those who cannot put their immediate desires on hold for long term benefit, as opposed to the usual definition of "habitually wears less clothes than I do".

      --
      kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
    9. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with religions (all of them) is that they tend to encourage the notion that it doesn't matter how shit life is, often saying life is a test, because when you die if you have made your peace with $deity you will go to the perfect place of happyness.

      This just gives people excuses to act like selfish greedy assholes and do whatever they want because it will all "be ok in the end" as long as they claim to be doing everything "for $deity"

      To steal a quote (forget where from) "We should be making heaven on earth here, now, not when we're dead".

    10. Re:In other news... by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      You act as if evolution and creationism are mutualy exclusive

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    11. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mu

    12. Re:In other news... by krilli · · Score: 1

      People are irrational.

      Religion often fails to prevent that, sadly. It can, though.

      (But other things can, too.)

      --
      Jag pratar lite svenska.
    13. Re:In other news... by turgid · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I think that belief is more fundamental than that. I think it is a natural consequence of and essential requirement of living in this universe, from a philosophical point of view.

    14. Re:In other news... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      In other words, organised religion is fine and a good thing, and essential for the survival of primitive societies (and the integration of primitives in less primitive societies) as long as those leading it know that its a means to an end, and not a great truth in and of itself.

      What?? Are you seriously suggesting that the Pope doesn't believe in Catholocism, and that the Archbishop of Cantebury doesn't believe in Anglican Christianity, and that the religions would go downhill quickly if they did?

    15. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt religion is causing their problems. It appears to be government policies that happens to exploit their religious culture. The majority of their people do not want war, but its the 33% that continue to support the government. Sound like our country?

    16. Re:In other news... by VendettaMF · · Score: 1

      I'm suggesting that they _shouldn't_ believe it, not that they don't.

      Between the ongoing "contraception=evil" on one side and "homosexuality=evil" on the other (Just to pick two of the clearest examples) it's quite clear that they (and many of their immediate subordinates) are full believers of their respective creeds, have lost sight of their real job as controllers of the selfish/dumb hordes and things have been going downhill very fast for a long time.

      This, combined with the education of the selfish/dumb just enough to allow them reject religion but not enough to contribute voluntarilly to society, is _one_ of the major sources of global societies troubles.

      "Religion is the opiate of the masses" may have been intended as a criticism of religion, whereas its actually just a statement of the purpose of religion.

      Sorry to have picked on the christian side of things like this. I'm just answering the specific question asked. Similiar examples hold true for most if not all other creeds where founders died and folks who actually believed the claims stepped in.

      Finally, in case anyones wondering, I am strong/militant agnostic, meaning I hold a dogma of "I don't know, and neither do you."

      --
      kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
    17. Re:In other news... by VendettaMF · · Score: 1

      *blinks*
      Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds awfully like "We don't have the information or ability to understand whats actually going on around us, so we'll just make stuff up and claim divine authority."

      Please tell me I'm misinterpreting?

      --
      kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
    18. Re:In other news... by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      I believe that supernatural explanations are complementary to scientific ones, not contradictory.

      For example, did the man die because of massive head trauma caused by by a foreign object being implanted in the frontal lobe of his brain, or did he die because I killed him? One gives details and mechanism, the other gives purpose. Neither would be incorrect (well, actually, since I didn't kill anyone, they are both incorrect.)

    19. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many are optimistic that the new Open Source philsophy in the Middle East could one day help bridge the gap between two peoples and lead to peace.

      How sad this one got a +5 Funny intead of a +5 Insightful...

    20. Re:In other news... by turgid · · Score: 1

      Nope. That's way to high level. I'm talking about everyday things like "I think therefore I am." I believe that I think, therefore I believe that I am.

    21. Re:In other news... by VendettaMF · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, belief required in the actuality of existence as opposed to belief in the purpose of existence...

      At that level you'll get no disagreement from me nor, I suspect, from quantum or string theorists...

      --
      kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
    22. Re:In other news... by turgid · · Score: 1
      At that level you'll get no disagreement from me nor, I suspect, from quantum or string theorists...

      Good. That's what I was hoping.

      Now do I believe in you? :-)

    23. Re:In other news... by DrCode · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Funny, but...

      Why do people fight over who 'owns' the land? I'd say it's because they see each other as fundamentally different.

      Finding something in common is the first step to getting along.

    24. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Come on Darwinists, explain the evolutionary advantage to faith!"

      Faith allows the development of a system of laws whereby breaking these laws means you will always get caught (after you're dead). It helps supplement a police force that cannot catch all criminals.

    25. Re:In other news... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Come on Darwinists, explain the evolutionary advantage to faith!

      There are two major evolutionary explanations for the existence of religosity and superstition.

      One: A distinctive trait of homo sapiens is, uh, sapience. Thinking. The ability to predict the results of actions and plan accordingly. Other animals can do this to some extent, but not nearly as well. Humans have a slowed maturation rate so the offspring have time to study inherited knowledge, etc. Knowledge is important to survival- else, we'd just be slow, wimpy apes.

      Because knowledge (the ability to predict outcomes) is valuable, humans have evolved to seek it. "Curiosity" is a name for a related trait. People feel distressed when there is something they cannot understand, and seek out explanations. If the question is within their ability to solve, then they've gained knowledge (something on the level of how to keep a fire burning). But if it's too difficult, then humans will feel a degree of satisfaction from deciding on any answer, even if it's false. (Why does thunder strike? Because the sky-father is angry!)

      It is the drive to increase knowledge which, when stifled, creates supernatural beliefs. "How can I survive death?" is one primary question which no human has yet answered- yet many of them derive pleasure from believing that the solution is known.

      Two: Humans are a social creature, which responds to dire threats by cooperative action. But unlike herd animals, they also increase resource-collection efficiency by distributed action. Yet they always regroup to get back with the clan. The social-bonding traits that encourage this behavior eventually lead into religiosity- distinctive, repetive actions which have no real goal except to perpetuate the performance of those actions.

      Religions grow because those societies possessing them are advantaged over others. At the cost of creating a less productive "priest" class, the group gains increased cohesion and wastes fewer resources on outsiders. And, all those humans would might squander time pondering difficult questions instead of working hard will have the answers given to them by a single authority- so insteada of everyone wallowing in philosophy, a dedicated servant performs that job for everyone.

      (This has been alluded to by other responses, so I won't go on at length)

    26. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Palestinians also announced migration to both Open Office and KOffice.


      To help administrate their burgeoning rubble industry?
  7. YAY by Worminater · · Score: 0, Troll

    hm... I wander what the percentage of articles on the front page that are dedicated to "they adopted somehting opensource!" there are.

    1. Re:YAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dyslexics of the world, untie!

    2. Re:YAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The janitors must've had modded you. I'm surprised someone hasn't killed Michael yet.

  8. apt-get rollout of OO.org likely by Debian+Troll's+Best · · Score: 1, Troll
    This story really reminds me of some work that I'd done a few years ago with a Hebrew Studies department at a fairly major U.S. university. Basically the department needed to maintain a mid-sized lab (around 80 machines) of systems running in a full Hebrew OS and application environment. The local system administrators didn't want anything to do with it (they weren't used to dealing with any regionalization issues at all), so that's when I got called in. The nightmare was basically how to manage software rollouts (and the occasional rollback!), but all within the context of a 100% Hebrew language environment. The answer was obvious: apt-get!

    The first thing I had to do was code up a linker/wrapper between the apt-get and dselect text interface libraries to the Hebrew libraries present on Debian. This took a few weeks, but with by judicious use of the LISP hooks I'd placed in my own private source tree for apt-get a year or two previously, it was no real problem. The next thing to do was to convert the apt-get and dselect command syntax to reading right to left as is done in Hebrew, rather than the normal Western left to right. One of the jokers in my software team suggested setting up a mirror in front of the screen...and then adding it to the apt.sources file (gettit...a mirror!!), but we were able to get the department to extend our contract by a month (they were pretty tight for cash), and within the 30 days we'd re-written all the low-level display routines in dselect so that they outputted text in the correct orientation.

    Needless to say, the system is still operational even now, and they don't have any problems at all managing their software rollouts on Debian. It wouls not surprise me at all if the Israeli Governemt tried to adopt another similar, final solution. As they say, apt-get shalom!

    1. Re:apt-get rollout of OO.org likely by jkrise · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hmmmm.. nice read... so, in Israel, you install the Service Pack first, then Windows?;-)

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    2. Re:apt-get rollout of OO.org likely by BobGibson · · Score: 1
      Needless to say, the system is still operational even now, and they don't have any problems at all managing their software rollouts on Debian. It woul(d) not surprise me at all if the Israeli Governemt tried to adopt another similar, final solution.

      Hmm. . . you might have wanted to consider phrasing this last bit differently, given who you were doing it for.
    3. Re:apt-get rollout of OO.org likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The first thing I had to do was code up a linker/wrapper between the apt-get and dselect text interface libraries to the Hebrew libraries present on Debian. This took a few weeks, but with by judicious use of the LISP hooks I'd placed in my own private source tree for apt-get a year or two previously, it was no real problem. The next thing to do was to convert the apt-get and dselect command syntax to reading right to left as is done in Hebrew, rather than the normal Western left to right. One of the jokers in my software team suggested setting up a mirror in front of the screen...and then adding it to the apt.sources file (gettit...a mirror!!), but we were able to get the department to extend our contract by a month (they were pretty tight for cash), and within the 30 days we'd re-written all the low-level display routines in dselect so that they outputted text in the correct orientation."

      Man that was so easy. God forbid you use a distro like Suse where it wouldn't take two weeks. Forgive me for insulting the cult of Debian. Once again the Debian zealousness comes forth over common sense.

    4. Re:apt-get rollout of OO.org likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      God forbid you use a distro like Suse where it wouldn't take two weeks.

      SuSE is German. This was a solution for a Hebrew Studies department. Think about that for a moment.

    5. Re:apt-get rollout of OO.org likely by An+Anonymous+Hero · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      by Debian Troll's Best (678194)
      Moderation +4
      80% Informative
      20% Insightful
      Yet again, I want some of what the mods are smoking!!
    6. Re:apt-get rollout of OO.org likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      World War II happened a long time ago. Although the Holocaust shouldn't be forgotten contemporary Germans should not bare the burden of the past. Although not as grand in scale the U.S. committed a holocaust against American Indians, but since they are the good guys that's ok.
      The Israelis use German machine guns. That's ok though right?
      Moron

    7. Re:apt-get rollout of OO.org likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, now the fucking Nazi apologists have joined the discussion. Please wipe your jackboots on the way in.

    8. Re:apt-get rollout of OO.org likely by batlock · · Score: 1
      It wouls not surprise me at all if the Israeli Governemt tried to adopt another similar, final solution.
      Do you think it's wise to use the words Israeli Government and final solution in the same sentence?
      --

      Batlock...

    9. Re:apt-get rollout of OO.org likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parent is an obvious troll. Man, you moderators will fall for any cock and bull story that somebody posts.

    10. Re:apt-get rollout of OO.org likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, you should not mix "German" and "Nazi" - these two terms are completely unrelated.

    11. Re:apt-get rollout of OO.org likely by po8 · · Score: 1

      Top 10 hints that parent was a troll:

      10. Posted by "Debian Troll's Best".
      9. "regionalization" vs. "internationalization".
      8. "Hebrew libraries present on Debian".
      7. "LISP hooks in apt-get".
      6. "right to left as in Hebrew" (Hebrew is boustrephodonic).
      5. "apt.sources file".
      4. "they were pretty tight for cash".
      3. "low-level display routines in dselect".
      2. (Can't find #2. Did I miss anything?)
      And the #1 hint that parent was a troll...
      1. "Israeli Government...final solution".
    12. Re:apt-get rollout of OO.org likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so, in Israel, you install the Service Pack first, then Windows?;-)

      many of them come from Soviet Russia, after all ...

    13. Re:apt-get rollout of OO.org likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hey, you should not mix "German" and "Nazi" - these two terms are completely unrelated.

      Actually in real life they're almost completely interchangeable. Fucking Nazi apologist.

    14. Re:apt-get rollout of OO.org likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually in real life they're almost completely interchangeable. Fucking Nazi apologist.

      Drugs are not real life, my friend! You really should stop using them, before you end up like Friedman.

      You have probably forgot, that at the time of WW2, there were many Germans living around the world - in America, in Russia, in Africa, you name it. I'm a German, my father was a German, and he was put into concentration camp as he was just 2-years-old, because he was German, nothing else. Does that make him a Nazi? Did your parents or grandparents suffer that much as he did? I doubt it.

      even assuming you are a jew, and your (grand) parents survived (or not) Holocaust, there was plenty made for them or they memory from the end of WW2 till today. Yet they still complain about Holocaust and why everyone hates jews. But nobody ever remembers the sufferings of my parents, and those millions of dead who did not survive "Communist Holocaust". Because they were Goy, worthless shit for every jew, or should I rather say for every Nazi?

    15. Re:apt-get rollout of OO.org likely by PhilHibbs · · Score: 2, Funny
      (Hebrew is boustrephodonic)
      You mean boustrophedonic, surely! I'm stubborn as an ox when it comes to spelling. Boustropedantic, you could say.
    16. Re:apt-get rollout of OO.org likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NOT all victims of the Nazi concentration camps were jews. Hitler and friends attacked many groups - among them trade unionists, gypsies, communists and roman catholics, plus a few I have no doubt missed out. But if you talk to the jews, you'll find they like to pretend they were the only ones.

    17. Re:apt-get rollout of OO.org likely by po8 · · Score: 1

      Right you are. My apologies.

    18. Re:apt-get rollout of OO.org likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My grandfather died in a German concentration camp.

      He fell out of his guard tower.

    19. Re:apt-get rollout of OO.org likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They came for the homosexuals too.

  9. Re:Why should MS support Heeb-rew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mod parent -1, Racist

    The word "Heeb" is a slur.

  10. People are stupid by rebeka+thomas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm reminded of when a large australian company changed to an OSS desktop solution, and MS decried this as "a blow for choice in the market". No explanation of how this could be possible, but everything is sound bites, a mere snippet of text that cannot possibly convey any real meaning of a situation.

    "The ... agency has selected an immature and unproven software package" could well be applied to anyone looking towards Longhorn.

    Few will make that leap of judgment to understand the hypocrisy.

    --
    RST
    1. Re:People are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are making irrational leaps of logic there since Longhorn is Pre-Alpha and so is never even considered yet. But it is still based on the DEC platform that the NT kernel was based on. I'd called 20 years of development a bit more mature than you give it credit for. I say this having my msdn licensed copy of Longhorn. It has a long way to go but thats what I would expect considering the changes. As for MS, they will spew all the garbage they can when they lose business, any corporation would. The hypocrisy is really found by all those people that think Windows and Office are crappy products when in reality they work for the vast majority of the people that use them. When they do not it is almost always shitty hardware which will cause problems for any OS.

    2. Re:People are stupid by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I have in the past used many dual-boot systems, and the MSWindows install has always (well, except once, and that was my fault) been less stable than the Linux install.

      This had nothing to do with why I switched to using only Linux. Were it not for the license issues, I'd still have MSWind installed, as many games work much better, or even only, under MSWindows. (Wine, WineX, CrossoverOffice, and Win4Lin just aren't substitues when games are considered.) But the licenses make it unacceptable to me. (For that matter, license issues have recently caused me to switch away from Red Hat. Debian may well not be any better, and administration is more difficult. But license issues are determinant.)

      So I didn't decide based on stability. To me MSWind is a game station, and that doesn't really NEED stability...or not too much. But I still found MSWind to be much less stable. Now I will grant you that I switched years ago, and it's possible that recent versions are, in fact, more stable. But the help desk where I work doesn't appear to think so.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:People are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'MS decried this as "a blow for choice in the market".'

      So, wait - is it a blow against the ability to chose or a blow against monopoly control?

      The scary part is they might have ment that as struck a blow for choice and have been quite honest, and just counted on the way people read it to cover them up.

    4. Re:People are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You left out the part where the MS rep says it's functionally equivalent to Office97. You're taking the quote out of context. So you're either stupid or trying to deceive.

  11. Re:Why should MS support Heeb-rew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    u pussy

  12. MS is helping me deploy OO.org by Kris_J · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Because Office XP was so awful, we've stuck with Office 2000. We've just started receiving .doc files that Office 2000 can't open, but the latest release of Open Office can. Now, if anyone receives one of these latest Office files from outside, I just install OO. Everyone gets to keep their preferred version of MS Office while being exposed to Open Office in small doses.

    1. Re:MS is helping me deploy OO.org by hdparm · · Score: 4, Funny

      Next time, while you're at it, try to make a mistake and put (at least) Knoppix CD in - patients now need increased OSS doses.

    2. Re:MS is helping me deploy OO.org by xSauronx · · Score: 1
      yeah

      because forcing people to use an OS theyve never seen, nor barely hear of, is the right way to go about it.

      if i did that at an office, id be the office asshole and nobody would ever have an interest in linux after that.

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    3. Re:MS is helping me deploy OO.org by fermion · · Score: 1
      I know what you mean. I stuck with a version of office from the late '90s because there was no reason to buy anything new. For about the past year I have been transitioning to OO.org.

      A few months ago I downloaded a file that contained a form i was supposed to fill in. My version of word would not display the fields properly. The form was protected so I could not do anything. On a whim I opened it in OO.org. It worked perfectly. All text and fields in tact. All protection gone. I was able to fill in the form, save it back to word, and send it back.

      Know I pretty much use OO.org for everything. I occasionally have to go back to Excel as calc does not seem have the full charting capability. But other than that everything works great.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    4. Re:MS is helping me deploy OO.org by hdparm · · Score: 1

      Your signature is definitelly inapropriate.

  13. Iraqi defence minister by Pingular · · Score: 5, Funny

    "There is absolutley NO Open Source in Baghdad!"

    --

    When anger rises, think of the consequences.
    Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
    1. Re:Iraqi defence minister by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, retro. Talk about a late joke. How's that hangover buddy?

  14. I don't like the sound of this. by trentfoley · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I'm not sure which is worse:

    BackOrifice or OpenOrifice

  15. Re:Am I alone... by adamruck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    when the little pebbles start to hit microsofts bank accounts then ill agree, untill then microsoft will do the same old thing. You have to understand, to most people windows is what a computer is, they have no intrest in changing.

    --
    Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
  16. This is pocket money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Israel population: 6 million
    United States population: 290 million

    As long as the United States don't disown allegiance to Microsoft, Microsoft is safe.

    1. Re:This is pocket money by CrystalChronicles · · Score: 1

      or you could see it as another domino falling against that evil monopoly. Next there will be another domino and another.... China Japan and Korea are all moving away from Windows to their own OS based on unix. Since MSOffice is only available on Windows and Mac thats quite a sizeale portion of the worlds population moving away from microsoft.

    2. Re:This is pocket money by muyuubyou · · Score: 4, Informative
      Israel population: 6 million
      United States population: 290 million


      European Union: 380+ million
      India: 1.05 billion
      China: 1.27 billion (American billion = 10^9)

    3. Re:This is pocket money by unapersson · · Score: 1

      Yes, the problem though from Microsoft's perspective is a lot of the countries that are switching are where their future growth was meant to come from. It's not necessarily enough for them to keep what they've got.

    4. Re:This is pocket money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In India, monkeys share the streets with humans.

      India is great!

    5. Re:This is pocket money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      In USA, monkeys are running the country.

      USA is great!

    6. Re:This is pocket money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Re:This is pocket money by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      One of the main issues Israel had was that MS did not support right to left languages like Hebrew. Doesn't the right to left language issue also affect Arabic speaking people. Just counting populations of Arabic nations, doesn't that equate to some 200 million people? Now if you count those who speak the language worldwide, one estimate is 1 billion people. I don't think that's a small amount of people not to support.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    8. Re:This is pocket money by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

      That's more like:

      United States Population: 283 Million

      --
      Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
  17. Some "behind the scenes" by Sun · · Score: 5, Informative

    The specific office moving to OO do not maintain their own computers. They are on contract from IBM, and IBM preferred OO to Word.

    The contract is global, and the ministry does not pay more (or less) because of it. MS received quite some scorn over that, as their initial press release was claiming this is going to cost 50$/station. When the correction came in that OO was used rather than star office, their corrected response was seeked. They declined to comment.

    Another twist is that the Mac angle was not raised, not even once. I believe The Register put it in because they were the first to flag that.

  18. Re:Well, they use Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parent is strangly funny and insightful in a sick sort of way.

  19. 50 years from now: openoffice pays compensation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    to the palestine people, or what's left of them.

  20. Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1 Insightful

  21. I wonder how well they did? by tal_mud · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Doing Bi-directional text well has lots of pitfalls. E.g. the software has to recognize when you start typing in a number and switch directions (The number five hundred thirty one still appears as 531 in hebrew, not 135).

    Mixing left-to-right with right-to-left is even worse. E.g. when you are on the boundary between the two texts and hit the backspace key, which piece of text gets erased?

    Lots of other subtle problems to getting it perfect. I hope they did a good job.

    1. Re:I wonder how well they did? by pesc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      E.g. the software has to recognize when you start typing in a number and switch directions (The number five hundred thirty one still appears as 531 in hebrew, not 135).

      Excuse me for displaying my ignorance, but surely there must be hebrew right-to-left mechanical typewriters? I assume that you could type digits on those. I doubt they could switch direction, so the typist would enter the number as 135 so that it would appear as 531, right?

      So, for a hebrew touch-typist, would a word processor that changes directions always be a good thing? Should it be configurable?

      --

      )9TSS
    2. Re:I wonder how well they did? by Fafner · · Score: 1

      Ehhh, we latin-1 impaired people are the ones who got the numbers wrong. I mean; we adobted numbers from the arabs but didn't bother to reverse the orientation so that it would fit into out left-to-right writing orders.

      Surely it must feel natural for some to enter five hundrede thirthy one as 1 3 5?

    3. Re:I wonder how well they did? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they probably didn't think of this. Get in touch with them now!!!

    4. Re:I wonder how well they did? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't know how native hebrew writers type in their numbers - but if they grew up typing them 'upside down' i don't think they have much of a problem with it. they might even find it awkward and funny to type the 5 in 531 at first.
      i have this faint idea that maybe *we* are writing numbers the 'wrong' way. we're just used to it. but after all the order in numbers is from right to left. when you list them they grow from right to left. your calculator is right to left too. ever noticed? after all they're called arabic numbers for a reason.

      greetings

      andreas

    5. Re:I wonder how well they did? by tal_mud · · Score: 1

      Both in English and Hebrew when you utter 531 out loud, you first say the hundreds, then the tens and finally the ones. So when I think of the number (five hundred and thrity one) and want to type it in, it is more natural to type the 5 first. Are there any languages where the one's digit is uttered first? I know that there are several places in the bible where it is done that way (E.g. When the matriarch Sarah passes away her age is stated as "seven and twenty and one hundred years") but even there it is unusual.

    6. Re:I wonder how well they did? by ahillen · · Score: 1

      I don't know of any language where the ones are generally said first, but at least in German (and also Dutch, I believe) we say the ones before the tens. So 531 becomes "fuenfhundert-einunddreissig" (fivehundred-oneandthirty). So for numbers between 13 and 99, we do indeed completely reverse the numbers.
      But that is not nearly as strange as the French. For e.g. 97, they say "quatre-vingt dix sept" (four twenty ten seven). You have to do the math yourself. ;) (OK, I know it's an extreme example...)

    7. Re:I wonder how well they did? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it depends on your point of view. When you do multi-digit addition and subtraction you have to start with the units. But when you are comparing roughly, you start with the biggest place values.

      Microprocessors typically used to use 8-bit bytes rather than the long words of earlier computers, meaning it was often necessary to split large numbers - addresses, for instance - over two or even four bytes.

      One convention [as adopted on the 8080, its successor the Z-80, and my first favourite: the wonderful 6502] was to store two-byte numbers as thus: units first, 256es second [then 65536es, then 16777216es, and so forth if need be]. Now, the two-byte number stored in address $1234 actually occupies $1234 and $1235. But the units are in $1234. So you don't need to know how many bytes a number occupies to determine whether it is odd or even. And 255 times out of 256, you can increment or decrement a number without worrying about how long it is {and since those processors used relative addressing in branch instructions, the coding was easy enough - just check the carry flag and skip right over the next inc/dec instruction if it isn't needed}.

      Except one company {that sounds like they should make wireless equipment for use in vehicles} fouled it up and decided the units should go last; and not only that, but the address should refer to the first location occupied, and not the location of the units byte. So the two-byte number stored in address $1234 has its units in $1235 and its 256es in $1234. Meaning you need to know how big a number is before you do any arithmetic on it.

      Of course, it could be argued that a good programmer should know how big their numbers are anyway .....

    8. Re:I wonder how well they did? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of "four and twenty blackbirds baked in a pie" ?

      In German, it's units-first.

      Not to mention Intel processors!

    9. Re:I wonder how well they did? by ortholattice · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In English we don't say "dollars hundred" but we write "$100". Yet in our word processors we don't type "1-0-0-$" (the way we say it), with the word processor momentarily switching into right-to-left mode when the "$" is struck (although there may be some obscure autocorrect setting for this that believe me, if I ever encountered it, I would immediately turn it off). Perhaps it's because I learned touch typing on a real typewriter, but when I type I want the letters to come out in the order I type them, period. Mentally, when I think verbally "ten dollars", my fingers "feel" the character sequence "$-1-0". It just happens. As soon as some wizard starts second-guessing me and changing the order of things, it interrupts my flow and I become less efficient, going into hunt-and-peck mode with the arrow keys to go back to try to undo what the wizard did, and when the wizard insists on redoing what I just undid, spending the time to find the setting for that wizard so I can kill the damn thing.

    10. Re:I wonder how well they did? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right about typing machines per-se, but it's been ages (I'd easely say over 10 years) since I saw someone use a typing machine. Everyone here in Israel use PC's and Microsoft Office (and think that Microsoft invented everything).
      Microsoft Windows mostly does "the right thing" when you type a number, but there are many border cases, as others noted (e.g. when you want to type a phone number "053 123456" you should start with the "123456" then type the space then "053", many people don't get that).
      At least it's getting more and more standard these days (at the beginning there was no standard and Netscape browsers didn't display Hebrew chacaters from right to left so there was "visual hebrew"). But even Unicode apparently got things wrong about deciding directions. (something about TR#9, it's an ongoing discussion on linux-il@linux.org.il).
      Anyway, I'm using solely Debian unstable on my home machine and can read almost any Microsoft Office document e-mailed to me with OpenOffice 1.1, including Hebrew.

    11. Re:I wonder how well they did? by Sun · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This scenario has to do with misunderstanding the Arabs. This time, it's the europeans.

      As you may know, the digits we use are called "Arab digits", because the Arabs invented the decimal system. Around the middle ages the european found out these numbers. However, they did not stop to fully gasp how to use them.

      In Arabic, 123 would be read as "three and twenty and one hundred". This means that it is written from right to left, just like the rest of the language. Europeans, eager to read things from left to right, interpret that as "one hundred and twenty three", leaving the digits in the same order, but reversing the reading order.

      Unlike what many would like to think, Hebrew is not an ancient language. Biblical Hebrew is, of course. However, while biblical Hebrew does use the decimal system more or less, it counts like the arabs (starting from the units, and advancing upwards). The writing notation resembles the roman one, and was not decimal.

      The modern Hebrew was mostly drafted by Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, who's native language was ..... Polish. As such, a lot of European influence made it into the modern Hebrew. One such influence are the numbers, that are now written left to right.

      Oh yes, the typewriters simply let you write numbers units first. This was a small problem. Proper billingual text, however, is today very popular. This text requires a better engine for layout.

    12. Re:I wonder how well they did? by lildogie · · Score: 1

      > when you are on the boundary between the two texts and hit the backspace key,

      You get ^H, of course.

      Unless you `stty erase backwards` ;-)

    13. Re:I wonder how well they did? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      FWIW, OpenOffice.org 1.1 has moved into the testing tree.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    14. Re:I wonder how well they did? by alexo · · Score: 1

      I'd like to correct some of the parent's mistakes

      > In Arabic, 123 would be read as "three and twenty and one hundred". This means that it is written from right to left, just like the rest of the language.

      According to what I remember from my Arabic lessons in school, only the units and the tens are reversed. Thus "1945" would be read as "thousand, nine-hundred, five and forty".

      I'll verify it with one a native Arabic speaker at work tomorrow (one of the peculiarities of living and working in Canada).

      > while biblical Hebrew does use the decimal system more or less, it counts like the arabs (starting from the units, and advancing upwards).

      Actually, both upwards and downwards systems were used.

      > The writing notation resembles the roman one, and was not decimal.

      Two systems were in use: either spelling out the numbers and a numerological system, where each letter has a numberical value (1-9, 10-90, 100-400) and the order does not matter (unless the number is larger than a thousand). However, the numerological system is a later one.

    15. Re:I wonder how well they did? by nathanm · · Score: 1
      In Arabic, 123 would be read as "three and twenty and one hundred". This means that it is written from right to left, just like the rest of the language. Europeans, eager to read things from left to right, interpret that as "one hundred and twenty three", leaving the digits in the same order, but reversing the reading order.
      The other poster who responded to corrected this. In Arabic numbers are written and read left-to-right (with one minor exception, they read the ones before the tens), unlike the rest of their script.

      Unlike what many would like to think, Hebrew is not an ancient language. Biblical Hebrew is, of course. However, while biblical Hebrew does use the decimal system more or less, it counts like the arabs (starting from the units, and advancing upwards). The writing notation resembles the roman one, and was not decimal.
      The only difference between Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew is the addition of many new words for things that didn't exist in Biblical times, i.e. telephones, airplanes, computers, etc. Also, in daily spoken usage, substitute and foreign words and slang are probably pretty common, like most modern languages. Even in English, nobody speaks proper written English; they use contractions, slang, etc.
  22. Re:In yet other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is one of the funniest posts I've seen in a while.

  23. Give me an idea! by jkrise · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why don't you label the OOo CD as Office XP Service Pack CD and charge $10 for it? You could rake in a bit in your locality!

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    1. Re:Give me an idea! by arcanumas · · Score: 1

      Shhhhh!!. The ARE Office XP Service Pakcs. Made by SUN ;-)

      --
      Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
  24. Legal guidelines? by morganjharvey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the announcement:
    According to the guidelines set by our legal department, we cannot release the full product, so we have built a set of diff source files and associated documentation.

    I'm kinda confused by this one... Why couldn't they release the full source code? Is there anything stopping somebody from distributing the source after applying the diffs?

    -mo

    1. Re:Legal guidelines? by udif · · Score: 1
      From the announcement:
      According to the guidelines set by our legal department, we cannot release the full product, so we have built a set of diff source files and associated documentation.

      I'm kinda confused by this one... Why couldn't they release the full source code? Is there anything stopping somebody from distributing the source after applying the diffs?

      Please note that you are referring to the original release of the Bi-Directional patches, way back from 12-May-2002. Currently, the Bi-Di support is part of the basic Open Office download.

      Even more, I'm not even 100% sure that these patches by IBM were really the base for the current Bi-Di support.
      If you go to www.openoffice.org.il you will see that Sun does the work on Bi-Di (as well as a local company called Tk Open Systems - www.tkos.co.il).

      Unfortunately, both web pages are in Hebrew so you will only see the word "Sun" in Hebrew (look for the bold 3 word hebrew link pointing to il.sun.com .
  25. Atheism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    is a religion too. The attitude of "If you believe in a supreme being you are stupid and I am a genious." Science can answer all problems to include the meaning of life. Atheism is the religion of pride and arrogance.

    1. Re:Atheism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what would the, "i dont concern myself with that, i wont know the answer until i die"

      basically, "I DONT GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT A MYTHICAL CREATURE"

    2. Re:Atheism by October_30th · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If you believe in a supreme being you are stupid and I am a genious.

      Well, that's pretty much it, except I would use the word "rational" instead of (sic) "genious".

      science can answer all problems to include the meaning of life

      Wrong. I'm a scientist and science tells me only about the nature - nothing more, nothing less.

      I choose to believe that there is no meaning of life, there is no fundamental right or wrong, love is only a biochemical reaction in the brain and that consciousness does not survive beyond death. Nothing I see or hear tells me anything else, so it would be irrational to think otherwise.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    3. Re:Atheism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "love is only a biochemical reaction in the brain and that consciousness does not survive beyond death."

      You must stay home and jack off a lot.

    4. Re:Atheism by anagama · · Score: 0, Offtopic


      Athiesm is a religion in the same way that freedom is slavery.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    5. Re:Atheism by p2sam · · Score: 1

      being a scientist, what evidence have you considered that supports/denies the following:

      1. life has no meaning
      2. there does not exist fundamental right/wrong
      3. consciousness does not survive beyond death

      If there is no evidence (or can be no evidence) that can either strengthen or weaken the above claims, would a scientific mind simply conclude that more research (or more grants, if you're a professional) needs to be done?

    6. Re:Atheism by October_30th · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You didn't read my post properly.

      To me science tells about how nature works. Natural science limits itself to questions which can be falsified, ie. proven wrong. Beyond those, my personal beliefs are not limited to or by the natural science.

      For instance, those three points are not falsifiable by the natural science and are therefore out of science's jurisdiction. Therefore I cannot "know" them and that's why in my original post I used to the word "believe".

      But yes, I also believe that religions are inherently dangerous, should not have any place in the infrastructure (government, military, schools,...) of a modern society and should be weeded out by time.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    7. Re:Atheism by p2sam · · Score: 1

      ahh, excellent. Then I agree with you completely then.

    8. Re:Atheism by thoughtcrime · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Agnostism. Basically, "I don't know either way".

      Militant agnostics are funny. "I DON'T KNOW AND YOU DON'T EITHER!"

      --

      ____ _______
      Duty now for the future!
    9. Re:Atheism by mattjb0010 · · Score: 1

      You call that a flame war? ;)

    10. Re:Atheism by sydb · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      love is only a biochemical reaction
      Love is clearly not "only a biochemical reaction"; it may be founded in such, or manifest itself as such, but love, like all emotion, is also a quality of consciousness.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    11. Re:Atheism by gad_zuki! · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      I choose to believe that there is no meaning of life, there is no fundamental right or wrong, love is only a biochemical reaction in the brain and that consciousness does not survive beyond death. Nothing I see or hear tells me anything else, so it would be irrational to think otherwise.


      You're so close to be a materialist, except the question "meaning of life" might be loaded but its clear that spreading ones genes before one dies is pretty much it.

      As for fundamental right and wrong, humans are well equiped (through the invisible hand of evolution) to understand when they've been cheated or victimized. This behavior is seen in most social mammals. No biggie.

      Emotions are chemicals? Yep, does that make them any less 'real' or significant?

      Death is certainly the end, as all attempts to prove otherwise have failed miserably.
    12. Re: Atheism by Black+Parrot · · Score: 0, Offtopic


      > Atheism is the religion of pride and arrogance.

      No, atheism merely means someone disbelieves one more god than you do.

      Based on a crude estimate of how many gods have been claimed to exist, you're about 99.9999% atheistic yourself.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    13. Re:Atheism by nathanh · · Score: 1
      Love is clearly not "only a biochemical reaction"; it may be founded in such, or manifest itself as such, but love, like all emotion, is also a quality of consciousness.

      Some people believe that consciousness is only a biochemical reaction.

      Word from the wise; "clearly not" is a giveaway that an opinion is about to follow.

    14. Re:Atheism by MoneyT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure it is. Religion is a series of strongly held beliefs based on faith (i.e. no or little scientific proof) usualy (but not always) centered arround a belief in a higher authority.

      Atheism is the belief that said higher authority does not exist. Atheism in and of itself however is a leap of faith, because there is no evidence that a higher authority doesn't exist.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    15. Re:Atheism by sydb · · Score: 1

      Word from the wise; "clearly not" is a giveaway that an opinion is about to follow.

      Word from the wise; all statements are opinion.

      Some people believe that consciousness is only a biochemical reaction.

      You're leading into word games now. You need to define "biochemical reaction" before any discussion can proceed without the risk that you assign it an arbitrary meainng at some later stage.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    16. Re:Atheism by etrnl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Atheism is a misnomer; it really should be called 'anti-theism'. Linguistical the 'a' does not denote a negative. Consider 'moral', 'immoral', and 'amoral'. 'Amoral' is not acting against morality, but with lack of concern towards morality. 'Immoral' is acting against morality.

      'Anti-theism' ('imtheism' doesn't sound right...) would be stating that god does not exist. 'Atheism' should be the lack of concern as to whether or not a god exists. Note that this is different from 'agnosticism' which simply states that knowing whether or not god exists is impossible (at least at this time).

      One of my personal pet peeves.

      --etrnl--

    17. Re:Atheism by invalid_user · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I belief the burden of proof is upon those who propose the existence of some unmeasurable things. You might as well take the leap of faith to NOT believe it when I tell you that I talk to angels.

    18. Re:Atheism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Understanding Occam's fucking Razor is the one and only thing that distinguishes atheists from religious fucknuts.

    19. Re:Atheism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You call that a flame war? ;)

      Yeah, I got comfy, some popcorn... Useless!! I want my money back!

    20. Re:Atheism by abulafia · · Score: 1
      Atheism in and of itself however is a leap of faith, because there is no evidence that a higher authority doesn't exist.

      In nearly every other human endeavor, the triumph over demands to prove negatives has been overcome. For instance, few people would accept the assertion that there is a giant, invisible, intangible monkey on my head which tells me the secrets of life, even though they can't prove there isn't one. Why is it that you (and many others) wish to demand one here?

      --
      I forget what 8 was for.
    21. Re:Atheism by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      YES!!!! Someone who understands this distinction!!!!

      Thank you. There are so few pro-science people willing to admit that science cannot answer all questions. I appreciate your honesty.

    22. Re:Atheism by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      The proof for these people is life itself. Even scienttists agree that the chances of the environment, and the position from the sun and the lighting hitting the right pile of goo at the right time in the right place and all the other factors that would go into a sudden creation of life is highly improbable.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    23. Re:Atheism by bytesmythe · · Score: 1

      Atheism is not a misnomer. Linguistically, the 'a' means "without". An amoral person acts without morals, not simply lacking concern for them. Similarly, an "atheist" is without gods. The lack of concern about gods is sometimes refered to as "apatheism", but this seems to be a recently coined word so you aren't likely to run across it in a dictionary.

      --
      bytesmythe
      Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
      -- Scott Meyer
    24. Re:Atheism by Kris+Thalamus · · Score: 0

      Well, outside of a very limited context, it becomes increasingly less feasible to prove a negative statement unless there is some kind of internal contradiction.

      I can say with a high degree of certainty that there are no pterodactyls in my refrigerator, but it is more difficult to prove that there are no pterodactyls in the Milky Way galaxy. Because of our limited field of perception, it can be difficult to effectively disprove some of the more ridiculously unfounded assumptions. Science deals with this by placing the burden of proof on the party making claims.

      If there is no evidence (or can be no evidence) that can either strengthen or weaken the above claims, would a scientific mind simply conclude that more research (or more grants, if you're a professional) needs to be done?

      While we may not have sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion for these three hypotheses I'll try to explain why they are tenable.

      1. life has no meaning

      Only tools and symbols have meaning. The entity that the English word "life" refers to is neither a tool nor is it a symbol and as such it has no meaning. I would further argue that symbols are a particular type of tool and words are a type of symbol.

      2. there does not exist fundamental right/wrong

      I don't know what fundamental right or wrong you, or the previous poster, are discussing. You'll find that there are varying opinions about what is right and what is wrong. Some claim that extraterrestrial codes regarding what is right or wrong exist, but to support those claims, one would first need to prove that the prescriptions were truly extraterrestrial in origin. This proof hasn't yet been convincingly presented, so we are left with human institutions to tell us what is right and wrong (unless we are discussing logic or mathematics).

      3. consciousness does not survive beyond death

      The process of death involves undergoing specific physiological changes. For instance the hydrocarbon chains that make up the eye decompose. If you'd like to see what that looks like, you should first find a fresh eye, remove it's blood supply, then watch it rot. If you'd like to get the first person perspective, you can perform a simple experiment. Take a clean scalpel or melonballer, and remove both your eyes.

      If you would like to hear what a corpse hears, simply sever your auditory nerves.

      When we measure the neural activity of a cadaver, we find that it is inactive, so to feel what a dead person feels you should excise your somatosensory cortex. Better yet, remove your whole Cerebral cortex.

      We can anaesthetize or experimentally ablate your visual association cortex and induce prosopagnosia. Patients with prosopagnosia may pass standard visual tests, but lose the ability to recognize faces.

      Damaging, anaesthetizing or excising the left temporal lobe can cause pure word deafness. Patients with this condition may be able to hear, read, speak and write, but no longer understand spoken language.

      A skilled surgeon can slice away your brain, section by section, gradually removing each and every one of your perceptions and abilities until there are none left. Where does the soul hide then? What happened to the soul of a lobotomized subject? When a woman loses 30% of her brain tissue in a motorcycle accident did thirty percent of her essence go to Elysium? If a soldier has a severe, but non-fatal, stroke in battle, what part of his consciousness goes to Valhalla and what part of him does not? What does LSD do to the soul?

      I never found the soul to be a satisfying explanatory fiction in the first place. If it was invented to explain why we are animated, it doesn't do it very well. It answers the question: "why do we do what we do?" by positing that there is a little man inside us that act as a puppet master. The Greeks argued for ceturies over whether the little man lived in the head or the heart. Descartes postulated that our behavior was controlled by th

    25. Re:Atheism by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Atheism is not a misnomer.

      You're using the "constructivist language" definition of "atheism"- based on building up the word from individual parts. Unfortunately, popular usage has ignored that simple logic, and the common definition of atheism (as repeated in many dictionaries) is equal to what you call anti-theism. Other dictionaries give 2 definitions for atheism, permitting it to mean either explicit denial or merely refusal to affirm.

      The most popularly used meanings have theism, agnosticism, and atheism meaning belief, uncertainty, and disbelief respectively. The equivalent words, based on meanings of component parts, would be theism, atheism/nontheism, and antitheism.

      Another excellent example of a word whose usage is at odds with it's constructive meaning is "homophobia". Logically, that means "fear of the same", an antonym for xenophobia.

    26. Re:Atheism by Kris+Thalamus · · Score: 0

      Psychotropic drugs would not work if consciousness was not chemically based.

    27. Re:Atheism by anantherous+coward · · Score: 1

      First, you say there is no fundamental right or wrong..."

      But then you say, I also believe that religions are inherently dangerous, should not have any place in the infrastructure (government, military, schools,...) of a modern society and should be weeded out by time.

      How can you have a should -- a behavior imperitive -- a moral imperitive -- when you say that there is no fundamental right or wrong?

      Since, we are talking about Isreal -- was the holocaust fundamentally right or wrong?

      Since religions are inherently dangerous, would you support the use of force to weed them out? If not, why not?

      If so, how is that any different than the crusades that you condemn?

    28. Re:Atheism by Darby · · Score: 1

      Militant agnostics are funny. "I DON'T KNOW AND YOU DON'T EITHER!"

      This isn't militant anything. It's the simplest statement of the only completely honest attitude possible regarding the whole issue.

      Nobody knows that there is a god.
      Some people have chosen to *believe* (or been brainwashed into *believing* ) that it is true.
      Were they honest, they would say I believe this is true, but know?!? There is no way to know.

      Similarly, for the other side. If someone doesn't believe in god, then that is just the natural state.
      If they tell you they know there isn't one, then they are dishonest.

      If a person tells you have to believe either way, or that you're wrong for believing the way you do, then they are militant and a fuckwad.

    29. Re: Atheism by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Linguistical the 'a' does not denote a negative.

      Sure it does. It's the Greek reflex of the Proto-Indo-European syllabic 'n', which appears in Latin as in and in English as un. The negative ('non', 'not', 'without') is precisely what it denotes:

      • a-the-ist "without-god(s)-person"
      • a-gnostic "without-knowledge"
      • a-bio-genesis "non-biological-origins"
      • a-historical "non-historical"
      • a-symmetric "not-symmetric"
      • a-mne-sia "without-memory-syndrome"
      • a-pha-sia "without-speech-syndrome"
      • a-pathy "without-suffering"
      • a-tomic "not-cuttable"


      The raw meaning of 'atheism' is precisely the same as 'godlessness', though of course both have come to have different conventional meanings in modern English. (As per your peeve that I did not quote.) Such are the habits of language.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    30. Re:Atheism by anantherous+coward · · Score: 1

      If a person tells you have to believe either way, or that you're wrong for believing the way you do, then they are militant and a fuckwad.

      If someone disagrees with what you say here, does that make you

      militant and a fuckwad?

      Is that a bad thing?

    31. Re:Atheism by anantherous+coward · · Score: 1

      If a person tells you have to believe either way, or that you're wrong for believing the way you do, then they are militant and a fuckwad.

      If someone disagrees with what you say here, does that make you militant and a fuckwad?

      Is that a bad thing?

    32. Re:Atheism by Darby · · Score: 1

      Atheism is a misnomer; it really should be called 'anti-theism'. Linguistical the 'a' does not denote a negative. Consider 'moral', 'immoral', and 'amoral'. 'Amoral' is not acting against morality, but with lack of concern towards morality. 'Immoral' is acting against morality.

      Interesting my ass.
      Dead wrong, actually.

      Linguistically, the 'a' does donote a negative. As a prefix it indicates the state of being without whatever the root is.
      It also has nothing to do with concern or a lack thereof.
      Amoral means without morals.
      Atheism means without a belief in a god.

      'Anti-theism' ('imtheism' doesn't sound right...) would be stating that god does not exist. 'Atheism' should be the lack of concern as to whether or not a god exists.

      Anti-theism wouldn't be stating god does or does not exist. Anti-theism is being against beliefs in deities.
      Atheism, again, has nothing to do with concerns. It is quite simply the lack of a belief in a god or gods.

      I, personally am both Atheist and anti-theist.

      I don't believe there is a god. I have yet to see a scrap of evidence, so I see no reason to accept it.
      This makes me an atheist.

      I think that religion by its very nature is a nearly universally bad thing. It holds society back and leads to horrible suffering and hatred.
      I think that if we can do away with religion completely then the world will be a better place.
      This makes me an anti-theist.

      I personally don't care enough about it to go around to people's houses trying to get them to ditch their beliefs or anything like that though.

      This makes me not a zealot, and somebody who isn't a (complete) ass to hang out with regardless of your religious beliefs.

      Everybody is born an atheist.
      It is only if they, at some point after their birth, decide to start believing in a god that they can become a theist.

      One of my personal pet peeves.

      Mine is people who have no idea what they're talking about who nonetheless talk about it.

    33. Re:Atheism by sydb · · Score: 1

      What's your logic? What does "chemically based" mean?

      let me see.

      Drugs are chemicals.
      Drugs alter consciousness

      Therefore...
      Consciousness must be a chemical?
      Consciousness must be a property of chemicals?
      Consciousness is an energy emitted by chemicals?

      Why not just:
      Consciousness interacts with the chemicals of the brain.

      Or even:
      There are things about chemicals and animals which we don't understand properly and may never.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    34. Re:Atheism by bytesmythe · · Score: 1

      I fully agree that there is a difference in meaning with regards to popular usage. I was just pointing out the problem with the great-grand-parent post that tries to use a constructivist approach to say that "amoral" and "atheist" indicate a lack of caring about a thing (here morals and gods, respectively), when the prefix 'a' actually indicates a simple lack of that thing.

      --
      bytesmythe
      Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
      -- Scott Meyer
  26. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  27. Re:Am I alone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    apparently thats wrong
    or ford wouldnt switch 10,000 desktops
    xyz wouldnt switch 200 desktops.

    people are jumping ship.
    it willl reach the critical point soon enough

    hell, even using windows, and going with OO hurts microsoft.

    people have no interest in computers. they switch when they get used to things at work.

    individuals dont make the choice, industry does.

  28. It does make perfectly good fiscal sense by ShatteredDream · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Israel's economy has been hit hard by Palestinian terrorists. The jihadis have forced the Israeli socialist system to reform itself. They're beginning to privatize their state-owned businesses which is a very positive step for Israel. Becoming a capitalist country will only help Israel gain more security as the efficiency of the marketplace kicks in and the government's resources are freed up to bolster their national defense.

    Switching to OO is a good move because it'll give the Israeli more government to build up their security apparatus. Many slashdotters will disagree that that is a good thing because many of them think the Palestinians are being oppressed by the Israelis. The simple truth is that blowing up a starbucks as an isolated, intentional target is not a military counter attack. It is mass murder, and the Israelis are right for retaliating.

    Then again, it's not like one goes to slashdot for insightful political commentary. For God's sake it's run by editors who largely consider the Clinton administration and Gore to be civil libertarians compared to Bush. Now watch the reactionaries mod me down so far down that my laptop's character set switches to Chinese....

    1. Re:It does make perfectly good fiscal sense by rsax · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Many slashdotters will disagree that that is a good thing because many of them think the Palestinians are being oppressed by the Israelis. The simple truth is that blowing up a starbucks as an isolated, intentional target is not a military counter attack. It is mass murder, and the Israelis are right for retaliating.

      Yea, adopting a simple black and white mentality sure makes this an easy issue to deal with. The way you worded the above paragraph gives the impression that you think acts of agression seem to originate solely from the Palestinian side and the Israeli government (and extremists, yes there are Israeli terrorists as well you know) is left high and dry trying to defend its citizens. Blowing up a Starbucks is definetly not a counter attack but why don't you point your finger at Israel as well? Are you telling me that they haven't inticed violence at all or overreacted in any way by killing innocent Palestinians?

      My point isn't that the Palestinians are being treated unfairly (eventhough I feel they are). It is that people like you need to adopt a more balanced view regarding this situation. Both sides are equally guilty for committing atrocious crimes and that the blame should be shared equally.

    2. Re:It does make perfectly good fiscal sense by lateralus · · Score: 1

      Considering the fact that you are concerned about the Israelis treating the Palestinians unfairly and go so far as to state that both sides are equally guilty. What are your opinions concerning what the Jordanians are doing (and did) to the Palestinians? Do you think that suicide bombings would be understandable in Jordan as well?

      --
      If you outlaw the law, only criminals will have laws
    3. Re:It does make perfectly good fiscal sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Israel's economy has been hit hard by Palestinian terrorists. The jihadis have forced the Israeli socialist system to reform itself. They're beginning to privatize their state-owned businesses which is a very positive step for Israel. Becoming a capitalist country will only help Israel gain more security as the efficiency of the marketplace kicks in and the government's resources are freed up to bolster their national defense.
      Wow that's ultra-liberal credo or I'll just go outside and surf naked in the snow !
    4. Re:It does make perfectly good fiscal sense by TheRagingTowel · · Score: 1

      You'll be really surprised what a person that blows up 29 people next to you on Passover, and almost kills you and your whole familiy can do to your opinion about "fairness". I say this from experience.

      --
      4Z5TX
  29. OO and the IDF by arty3 · · Score: 1

    For the sake of OO and any other OS project out there lets try not to associate them with the IDF in any way. I think it's just better that way.

    1. Re:OO and the IDF by p2sam · · Score: 1

      I thought one was supposed to be welcome to use Open Source software to build baby mulchers. (which coincidentally isn't far from what the IDF and the terrorists are doing)

    2. Re:OO and the IDF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just flip to your copy of the open source definition.

      (I'm no fan of the israeli military leadership either, but I think they will be spending more time covering up atrocities than typing them up in OO Writer. (also, let's not confuse the forcibly drafted IDF soldiers with their buffoon leadership))

      6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor.

      The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

      Your software must be equally usable in an abortion clinic, or by an anti-abortion organization. These political arguments belong on the floor of congress, not in software licenses. Sone people find this lack of discrimination extremely offensive!

  30. Give them 'cat' by Begemot · · Score: 1

    From my experience, clerks of Israeli governmnet agencies use MSOffice mostly to exchange supposed-to-be-funny powerpoint presentations.

  31. Re:Great so the REAL terrorists pick OO.org by myom · · Score: 2

    And you must be American, filled with myths about the Europeans being this way or the other.

    I have some news for you. Europe has a huge population, violently pro-US (UK et al), neutral, slightly anti-US (France). Same thing with the feelings towards the Israeli/Palestine conflict, with a tendency to be critical of brutality, which can be found on both sides, but sanctioned among the Israeli and frowned upon by the Joe Palestinian.

    Since you don't read newspapers, even Bush and Blair condemn Israel's violence and humiliation tactics. What does your comment make you? Both uneducated AND unaware of your favourite president's view on the issue.

  32. As an Israeli by Circuit+Breaker · · Score: 3, Informative

    I must say it warms my heart - but I'm a bit pessimistic, you see ... Israel has got some of the best politicians money can buy; And, judging from the enthusiastic appearance of two of our ministers in Microsoft's latest "microsoft in the government expo" in Italy, I think Microsoft Israel is well aware of the commodity status of Israeli politicians.

    1. Re: As an Israeli by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny


      > I'm a bit pessimistic, you see ... Israel has got some of the best politicians money can buy

      Too bad US law doesn't allow us to shop overseas; we're spending a mighty lot of money to buy third rate ones...

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re: As an Israeli by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no, you misunderstood. The politicians he's refering to are American.

    3. Re: As an Israeli by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > No, no, no, you misunderstood. The politicians he's refering to are American.

      LoL.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re:As an Israeli by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it has also some of the worst war mongers ever(thinking of sharon of course, but not the only one), even money can't buy you those... they come only with religious fanatics

    5. Re:As an Israeli by guybarr · · Score: 1


      Israel has got some of the best politicians money can buy

      On sale for sure, but good ?

      I must have been blind and deaf since ... well, forever.

      --
      Working for necessity's mother.
    6. Re: As an Israeli by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Too bad US Law doesn't allow us to just outsource the government function. Corporations could do it cheaper. They are ultimately in control anyway.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    7. Re:As an Israeli by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1
      I know I'm screwing this up, but...

      What makes me sad is not so much that people can be bought but that usually the price is so low.

      Unknown....
    8. Re:As an Israeli by alexo · · Score: 1


      > it has also some of the worst war mongers ever(thinking of sharon of course, but not the only one), even money can't buy you those... they come only with religious fanatics

      Dubya is an Israeli? Live and learn...

  33. Re:Religious zealots pick open source software by LinuxGeek · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you know the origin of the Zealots, then your comment isn't quite as dumb. The Zealots ( led by Barabbas) were fighting Roman tyranny, and Israel is currently fighting the Microsoft monopoly.

    --

    Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
  34. OpenOffice.org Imitating MS? by kavachameleon · · Score: 1

    I have to say, my experience with OpenOffice.org has not been stellar. While I use it on occasion, it's always struck me as so horribly slow. It seems to me that we *dont* want to be imitating all the feature bloat and general crap that seems to hang on to MS Office like cheap wallpaper. Honestly, who really needs all the features in Word anyway? Reminds me of a caller on The Screensavers I saw once. He told Leo and Pat that he needed Word, and they (insightfully) asked: Do you need Word, or do you need a word processor? I think that's a question more people need to ask themselves.

    1. Re:OpenOffice.org Imitating MS? by hdparm · · Score: 5, Informative

      OpenOffice.org is not slow - takes time to start but later on works OK. It's not bloatware either. Insert image of tens of KB in size into oowriter and save the result in MS Word format. Check the document size - it'll be around the size of the image itself. Now do the same using MS Office 2000. How many MB is that .doc big now?

    2. Re:OpenOffice.org Imitating MS? by kavachameleon · · Score: 2, Informative

      I meant in terms of plain features, but just so you know, I did your .DOC test with MS Word, and a 30 KB image saved into a 45 KB document. Mind you, that's still a little big, but nowhere near the MB you mention.

    3. Re:OpenOffice.org Imitating MS? by duck_prime · · Score: 1
      ...OpenOffice.org has not been stellar. While I use it on occasion, it's always struck me as so horribly slow. It seems to me that we *dont* want to be imitating all the feature bloat and general crap that seems to hang on to MS Office like cheap wallpaper. Honestly, who really needs all the features in Word anyway?
      Joel Spolsky has a neat-o article about this. The basic point:

      Each of those 'bloat' features has someone who insists on having it. Start trimming them away and you start losing customers to apps which do have the feature.
    4. Re:OpenOffice.org Imitating MS? by LinuxHam · · Score: 1

      Its interesting that you mention that. A couple years ago, I was involved in a school system trying to deploy 802.11 Linux-based tablets to students, and they wanted to use an OSS office suite.

      We entered into talks with a vendor to ask them to modify the functionality such that minimal functionality would be present when the tablets were out of range of the school, but full functionality would return when the student entered school property. I wonder how much of the user-requested bloat could/should be implemented as plugins that are turned on by default.

      Nothing came of the work as the customer ran out of money, but I still think it would be pretty cool to see fluff activate/deactivate based on availability of the network.

      --
      Intelligent Life on Earth
    5. Re:OpenOffice.org Imitating MS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bloat is a bad thing, i dont want my 133MHZ ram run like 80MHZ ram because of unessesary features.

      that word sizes is huge I've noticed myself too, just a few images and text in a .doc file and it seems it saves everything as an uncompressed bitmap.

      No, i dont use any word program at all, only notepad, I'm after a word program I can just unpack and run, that

      - copies no files to any folders outside its own,
      - makes no changes to your system registry,
      - and modifies no .ini files.

      essentially keeping its settings in its own dir, eudora, opera and trillian are programs I dont need to re-install after an winXP reinstall, just start them up and all contacts, history and settings are there. Eudora ask me to set it at default program, but thats it.

      win2k and XP is lovely after win9x bargabe, but messing with the registry can create undesired results. Go Linux, please make it a viable option and rid us of microsofts incompetence.

      I'd lake games to be $2 more expensive so they can support other platforms, if game developers _really_ where on the gamers/community side they would do this (valve are you listening?).

      Then I'd want openGL accellerated desktop with my future radeon 9800pro 256 MB. (I wonder how quake3 -in-a-window would work on Micros~1 DX longhorn GUI).

  35. from such small acorns by Space+cowboy · · Score: 1

    ... mighty oaks do grow.

    It's a big step forward for OS when large agencies (goverments , companies, even departments) collectively switch - it focuses the attention. Microsoft's attitude speaks volumes here as well - lets hope they continue their PR nightmare :-)

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:from such small acorns by BigRedFish · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Microsoft's attitude speaks volumes here as well

      Glad someone else saw that, too. Earth to Redmond: In addition to being obnoxious, the "tight fisted" comment can be read as an anti-Semitic slur.

      So MS has painted themselves into a corner, and now they're kernel-panicking. They can't support Linux or BSD for business reasons, the Mac is a *nix box now too so it's out of the picture for them, and they've already pre-announced that their next Windows version can potentially, via DRM and copyrighted file formats, usurp the document owners' rights to their data. Why would one of world's most security-conscious states go for a deal that locks them into the world's least security-conscious software company?

      "Buy it or we'll call you names" isn't going to cut it as a response. And for some reason, I don't think you need "advanced enterprise features" to crank out form letters that read: "Dear [applicant]: Thank you for your interest in..." even if it they do read from right to left.

      Gotta give MS the Darl McBride Brass Balls Award though. It takes a lot of nerve for a company that can't even suffer the possibility of a hypothetical competitor cutting into its revenues in the future, to call someone else "tight-fisted" for not reaching into his pocket for cold cash right now, just to buy the privilege of paying again and again any time MS decides to "increase shareholder value."

      And then there's the delicious irony of IBM and free software being the spoilers. [theatrical-trailer-voice] Twenty years ago, he stole their operating systems, (clip) and plunged the world into reboots (clip), incompatibilities (clip), and perpetual upgrades (pause). Now, they're back - with a vengeance! (30-sec. action clip sequence to dark screen. Cue titles) Desktop Wars II: IBM returns. Now playing in Israel and the West Bank. In theaters worldwide next Summer. This feature has not yet been understood by the Software Association of America.[/theatrical-trailer-voice]

    2. Re:from such small acorns by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      Earth to Redmond: In addition to being obnoxious, the "tight fisted" comment can be read as an anti-Semitic slur.

      As far as I could see, that was entirely a Register invention. What Microsoft is quoted as saying is "The employment agency has selected an immature and unproven software package and its functionality is at the best close to Office 97."

      There may be an anti-OO slur there, but nothing anti-Semitic.

    3. Re:from such small acorns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would one of world's most security-conscious states go for a deal that locks them into the world's least security-conscious software company?

      Well said!

    4. Re:from such small acorns by BigRedFish · · Score: 1

      As far as I could see, ["tight-fisted"] was entirely a Register invention

      Insert sigh of relief here. As much as I love to MS-bash (and oh, how I do!), I'd rather not have it go there.

      I have to believe whoever wrote that line in knew what they were doing. It was a very tacky move on someone's part. Whomever's invention it may be, if not Redmond's, then I took the bait. Thanks for setting me straight, and I'll read the Register much more carefully in the future.

  36. Re:Am I alone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whether or not it ends up to be true, thinking "microsoft is soon to be fucked" is so satisfying a thought, no?

    That sort of depends on if you get turned on by the thought of corporations having sexual intercourse. /LarsWestergren

  37. Nice sentence by tmk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The employment agency has selected an immature and unproven software package and its functionality is at the best close to Office 97", said Microsoft representatives. What exactly does this mean for Office97? It had no feature like PDF-Export or XML-Support - but was far more immature than OO?

    1. Re:Nice sentence by samjam · · Score: 1

      What does it mean for office XP?
      When agencies would rather use something comparable to Office 97?

      Sam

    2. Re:Nice sentence by AveryT · · Score: 1

      Can anyone even name a feature that has been added since Office 97 that anyone actually cares about? As far as I can see in Office 2003 most of the so-called "improvements" since 97 are just new superficial and annoying ways to do the same thing. Does anyone really need more than Office 97 functionality?

  38. Is this the country where Office XP costs $2? by melted · · Score: 1

    I've heard piracy is pretty darn rampant there. You can buy ANY software product on the street for 2-3 bucks. Sure enough no one wants to pay $250 for a version of Office they can't reliably "replicate" to all machines in the department (and to home PCs of employees as well). There's a lot more to Office than just word processing and spreadsheets. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on which side in this battle is yours) there's not enough education about all the stuff MS Office can do. MS has to realize that customers don't give a flying fuck about the features if they don't know they're in there.

    1. Re:Is this the country where Office XP costs $2? by Circuit+Breaker · · Score: 1

      Most home users copy, and even that is starting to change lately, with awareness promoted by the BSA, mostly.

      Most businesses buy. And when you buy, it costs here the same as it does in the US (even though salaries are lower).

      MS Office support for hebrew is bearable (not perfect, but it gets the job done). Compatibility of office versions with respect to Hebrew is horrible - numbers and punctuation are reordered, randomly it seems, when you save in one version and open in another.

    2. Re:Is this the country where Office XP costs $2? by dido · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True, but with the BSA breathing down your neck, that's not such an attractive option. And besides, if you bothered to read the article, it says that one of the Israeli government's main concerns had to do with editing documents in Hebrew text, which is difficult to do with MS Office and is not something particularly high on Microsoft's priorities. They couldn't give a rat's ass about all of the other "features" that new versions of Word and Office had. The key feature they were interested in is not there. If they can't easily write documents written in their own national language, then what good is it? The version of OpenOffice they'll be using has this type of support.

      As I recall, the same thing could have happened around 1996-7 with Iceland, had a viable alternative existed at the time. Microsoft was slow to add Icelandic to Windows and Office 95, despite repeated requests from the Icelandic government. The language eventually made it into Windows 98. Sadly, no viable alternatives to a Windows desktop existed at the time. (Before anyone shouts, I hope everyone remembers what Linux looked like at the time, and whether anyone would let barely computer-literate government workers use it in the state it was back in 1996.).

      Internationalization and localization is really something that Free Software does very quickly and effectively, and something that Microsoft is particularly weak at by comparison. Perhaps the use of Linux and Free Software will begin to grow more rapidly in places where i18n and l10n matter a lot.

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    3. Re:Is this the country where Office XP costs $2? by elgaard · · Score: 1

      >Most home users copy, and even that is starting to change lately, with awareness promoted by the BSA, mostly.

      Yes, besides the copying being illegal, why would you go through the trouble of obtaining an illegal copy, CD-codes, getting around product activation and phone-home scemes, worrying about BSA

      when you can just download a full office suite from openoffice.org?

    4. Re:Is this the country where Office XP costs $2? by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      The key feature they were interested in is not there.

      And that is the key feature motivating such a decision, a realization that, in the long-term, you're in a much better position to get the feature you want if you have complete access to the source code.

      You want right-left and left-right language processing? Maybe you want to write up-down, right-left and follow a square spiral around the page? If you have the motivation and expertise you can change the code to do what you want. The Israeli government could lay down a fraction of what they pay for their MS licensesa and get several programmers to make OOo to exactly what they need. (Meanwhile, the rest of us using the same code base will probably benefit from general improvements to the code.)

      You don't have to pay MS for any color as long as it's black.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
  39. Love is a biochemical reaction by October_30th · · Score: 1
    How does the realization that love is a result of a biochemical reaction makes it any less real of an emotion?

    This is what most people do not get. The fact that you can eventually explain a human experience in the terms of natural science does not devaluate the experience itself.

    --
    The owls are not what they seem
    1. Re:Love is a biochemical reaction by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Sure it does. A perfect example of this is the idea of magic. People enjoy magic shows because they don't know how the tricks are happening. Even if they know they are illusions, they can't see the illusion, so for all intents and purposes it is magic. Once you know the secret however, it just becomes another boring performance.

      Meticulous documentation of how something works can and often does devalue the experience.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    2. Re:Love is a biochemical reaction by nathanh · · Score: 1
      Love is clearly not "only a biochemical reaction"; it may be founded in such, or manifest itself as such, but love, like all emotion, is also a quality of consciousness.

      Actually, I prefer magic tricks when I know how they're done. Because then I watch for the illusion and I'm even more impressed when the practioneer's skill still fools my eyes.

    3. Re:Love is a biochemical reaction by dipipanone · · Score: 1

      Actually, I prefer magic tricks when I know how they're done. Because then I watch for the illusion and I'm even more impressed when the practioneer's skill still fools my eyes.

      And look at the phenomenal success of geek magicians, Penn and Teller. Part of their whole raison d'etre is that they explain to you *how* the trick was done. Does that diminish their entertainment value? Quite the opposite, in my view.

    4. Re:Love is a biochemical reaction by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      Indeed, and the reason why I enjoy Penn and Teller is because of the service they render (humor, personality) rather then for the tricks that they do.

      A bit like the open-source vs closed-source business environment, ne? One makes money on service, the other relies on secrecy.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  40. israeli antitrust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now there's an interesting concept...

  41. Yeah, it baffle's me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I've got the mod points, but I just can't bother with that sort.

    I'll moderate some high account-numbered guy with a detailed post over anyone that actually wants to be a 'troll'. Not that kids these days know the difference between an online troll and the mythical, under-the-bridge thing. I don't think any of them have been on an actual, real, aquatic fishing trip...

  42. I can see the press release from OO.org now by commodoresloat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Open Office, the Official Office Productivity Suite of the Zionist Occupiers!! Giving you the office productivity tools that you need to slaughter and displace Palestinians in a manner that is both efficient and user-friendly!

  43. OO vs MS Office 2003 by BrookHarty · · Score: 4, Interesting

    OpenOfice works great with all my files, in fact if it had exchange/templates it would be on par with MS Office 2003. Exchange in 2003 is faster, and has much more features. Syncing email is smooth as silk now over dialup/dsl. Visio has a great selection of icons, thats almost worth the price for the whole suite.

    The other day, I recieved a PowerPoint that MSOffice couldnt open, OpenOffice opened it, exported back to .ppt and MS Office had no problem opening that. Very impressive.

    But thats for work, at home I save money and use OpenOffice/Mozilla.

    1. Re:OO vs MS Office 2003 by burbilog · · Score: 1
      OpenOfice works great with all my files, in fact if it had exchange/templates it would be on par with MS Office 2003.

      OpenOffice looks awful with cyrillic fonts (sometimes text lays over text and totally unreadable) and sometimes crashes when I try to open some documents. Unfortunately it's not ready for our market yet.

    2. Re:OO vs MS Office 2003 by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Is that OpenOffice.org or the fonts? (Also, which version. There was a big difference in many features between 1.0.1 and 1.1.) But I can remember a time a couple of decades ago when the Mac had that problem with English...and it turned out to be fonts that weren't properly specifying their width.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:OO vs MS Office 2003 by burbilog · · Score: 1

      Both 1.0.1 and 1.1. It happens under stock Windows XP (Russian version). Also, openoffice sometimes displays everything in wrong encoding (i.e. non cyrillic, with lots of accent characters) and there is no way to change that.

  44. Hebrew Support by Solokron · · Score: 1

    New support? The document is dated 2002.

    --
    30% off web hosting. Coupon code "SLASHDOT".
    1. Re:Hebrew Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whats new about it is not the bidi support, that got lot better in the last version, but the Hebrew menus, buttons and dialogs that got translated and RTL by IBM Israel and the Ministry of Finance and some other volunteers from openoffice.org.il.

  45. Re:WHo cares? by anagama · · Score: 1


    Yours is as good as any ...

    * German town selects GNU/Linux - I hear no outcry.

    * China builds Red Flag Linux - Where are the protests?

    * Massachusets decides to look into open source - I don't hear any Witches screaming.

    Why is it that when I saw the headline, I cringed? I knew that it would bring out the comments from people like you. As much as people try to mask their racism with comments about how awful the Israeli government is, it is comments like yours that are most revealing about the latent racism that exists. I may dissagree with repression (whether Israeli or my own government's (US)), but that isn't your point. I'm a "Filthy Kyke scum" as you so elegantly stated.

    Here's to hoping you're a Microsoft Troll.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  46. During the install of OO.org by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 5, Funny
    During the install of OO.org at the Israeli government office, the beast Clippy pops up

    It looks like you're trying to migrate away from Microsoft Office. What would you like me to do?

    Hit the big red switch and give you a few minutes to reconsider?
    Remind you that Bill 0wnz j00?
    Send an MS FUD press release to The Register.
    Commit harikari?

    That last one is one I have been waiting a long time for Clippy to offer to do.

    --
    Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    1. Re:During the install of OO.org by fuzzybunny · · Score: 1


      Meanwhile, in other news,

      IAF launches attacks on software company headquarters

      Today the Israeli Air Force launched a series of massive helicopter and F-16 air to ground missile strikes on Microsoft Corporation's Israel office.

      Operation "tamut ya holera Microsoft!" (die, Microsoft scum) caused massive property damage and loss of live to the software giant's local sales & marketing division.

      Major Schlomo Eisenberg described the action as "regrettable, but necessary", as singed bits of blue cardboard box floated to the ground around him.

      An inside source at the Israeli ministry of defence was quoted as saying, "I guess that damn paperclip just sent the general over the edge."

      --
      Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
  47. OpenOffice can't do page numbers easily. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    You need to perform voodoo and raise the dead to be able to add page numbers to your documents in OpenOffice. In MS Office it's just one click away.

    1. Re:OpenOffice can't do page numbers easily. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you don't. The only thing that is different is the way that page numbers are done and its position on the menu.

    2. Re:OpenOffice can't do page numbers easily. by octothorpe · · Score: 3, Informative

      Huh?

      Insert->Field->Page Number

      This is hard?

    3. Re:OpenOffice can't do page numbers easily. by jaavaaguru · · Score: 3, Informative

      At least OpenOffice doesn't sometimes forget how to count when deciding what page numbers to use.

      I've seen word randomly skip a number before.

    4. Re:OpenOffice can't do page numbers easily. by darkonc · · Score: 1
      I still have some problems with page numbering: For example: doing a resume which has a header (including page numbers) but only starting at page 2. At the moment, it would appear that the only way I can see to do that is to split into two separate documents (ugh!).

      Suggested solutions gratefully accepted.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    5. Re:OpenOffice can't do page numbers easily. by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "You need to perform voodoo and raise the dead to be able to add page numbers to your documents in OpenOffice. In MS Office it's just one click away."

      One click away from "page 18 of 3", if I remember MS-Office correctly...

    6. Re:OpenOffice can't do page numbers easily. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Suggested solutions gratefully accepted.

      Redo your resume in plain ASCII. If the potential employers pay that much attention to poofy resume fonts then you don't want to work there anyway. At least, that was my attitude during the high times of the dot-coms. You want my fscking resume? I'll e-mail it to you in ASCII. I can't be bothered with Word. I haven't been out of work lately so I don't know if this environment has changed. :-)

    7. Re:OpenOffice can't do page numbers easily. by bfields · · Score: 1
      Redo your resume in plain ASCII. If the potential employers pay that much attention to poofy resume fonts then you don't want to work there anyway.

      Actually I think more people should have plain text resumes. Of course it's probably best to honor a preference if a potential employer expresses one, but ascii is a good default, because a lot of people have to go through extra steps to deal with attachments, while noone is ever going to have trouble reading plain text included in the body of an email message.

      My solution: Bruce's resume-o-matic

      --Bruce Fields

    8. Re:OpenOffice can't do page numbers easily. by realdpk · · Score: 1

      I've had this *exact* problem. I couldn't find a solution either, but I do believe there must be one.

      The hack I put together to make it work... keep it as the same document, but print the first page with page numbers turned off, and then print the last pages with page numbers turned on.

    9. Re:OpenOffice can't do page numbers easily. by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

      Fine - go to openoffice.org and request a solution- let the coders know that it needs improving - add a bug. Better still code it if you can.
      It aint going to help moaning about how bad it is on slashdot - not unless your only aim is to rubbish it because you are unwilling to switch from MS Office.

      --
      OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
    10. Re:OpenOffice can't do page numbers easily. by alpharoid · · Score: 3, Informative
      From the OpenOffice help file:
      You want to create a text document without a page number on the title page, with lowercase or uppercase roman numerals on the pages of the table of contents (you do not know how many yet), and then you want to start the page numbering with arabic numerals.

      Different Page Styles are the OpenOffice.org Writer equivalent of "section changes" in other text programs.
      Section "Page Styles and Page Numbers" in the OpenOffice 1.0 help-file.

      I had the same problem you had, and I hacked my way through -- putting a white rectangle graphic over the page number in the first page. It was only later that I read the help files. =)
    11. Re:OpenOffice can't do page numbers easily. by realdpk · · Score: 1

      Heh, I don't even have office. I think I may have used it a couple of times.

      I looked around, and a LOT of people have requested this improvement already. I learned from USENET days that nobody likes "me too" posts. :-)

    12. Re:OpenOffice can't do page numbers easily. by darkonc · · Score: 1
      I used to do my resume using Nroff.. Easy enough to convert that to plain text, and easy enough to print looking REAL pretty. Unfortunately, I've had enough people ask for it in word format, that I bowed and converted.

      I thought of writing an ooffice macro to only display text if not on the first page (a more general solution), but this is a relatively recent development, and I haven't done it yet.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    13. Re:OpenOffice can't do page numbers easily. by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      I know this isn't the solution you're looking for, but...

      Your resume should never be more than one page. The reason for this is that it will be photocopied and/or faxed. The staple you use to bind your pages together will be an annoyance to the person processing it, so it will be removed, and the pages will be seperated and lost.

      Your resume should just highlight your qualifications and goals, with only a couple of references listed (company name, city, and phone number only). Think bullet points, and keep everything brief and to the point, because not only should it be one page only, but it should be in a 10-12pt font.

      The first person at the company to look at your resume has probably already looked at 100+ other resumes. His eyes are bleary. He doesn't want to have to read a lot to find what he's looking for, he certainly doesn't want to have to squint to read it, and his thumb has a blister from the staple-remover. You want to make this guy happy, because he is the one who decides which resumes are going to be forwarded on to the person who does the interviews.

      Certainly, you should have a detailed work history, but it should be a seperate document, and there should be a note at the bottom of your resume saying that it is available upon request. A page of references (3 personal, 3 educational, and at least 3 professional) is probably a good idea as well. But, again, that should be a seperate document, available upon request.

      This advice was given to me years ago by a guy who had worked in HR for many years, and it has served me well. His final tip, forget the special colored paper. The person making the final hiring decision will never see it, but they might notice that the third generation copy they have looks especially crappy. Use plain white paper and avoid this situation.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    14. Re:OpenOffice can't do page numbers easily. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "This is hard?"

      As from the comments above and my own experience, the answer is still a very resounding "YES".

      Please, test doing the Insert->Field->Page Number with a fully formatted +100 page document with inserted tables and graphics. Then, return to Slashdot and post your experiences.

      Yes, I had to convert an even smaller document (about 90 pp) to OpenOffice because Word crashed on me.

      I use OO everyday on both WinXX and Linux. But, OO's pageing is NOT easy/intuitive.

    15. Re:OpenOffice can't do page numbers easily. by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "Your resume should never be more than one page."

      If you've been working for 10 or more years...how in the world would you squeeze your resume into one page? With the needs for diversity and multiple talents...I just can't put everying on one sheet and have it make sense. Mine is more like a CV than a resume. I want to give skills, and a brief synopsis of what I've done with those skills on previous jobs. I'm mostly into contracting or working as a contract employee....maybe that's the difference?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    16. Re:OpenOffice can't do page numbers easily. by STrinity · · Score: 1

      I still have some problems with page numbering: For example: doing a resume which has a header (including page numbers) but only starting at page 2. At the moment, it would appear that the only way I can see to do that is to split into two separate documents (ugh!).

      Easy. Make sure the cursor's on the first page (or whatever page you want to remove headers from), then go Format->Stylist (or just hit F11), click the button for page settings, and double-click the appropriate format (I'd recommend Default because First Page uses really small margins).

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    17. Re:OpenOffice can't do page numbers easily. by STrinity · · Score: 1

      As from the comments above and my own experience, the answer is still a very resounding "YES".

      Please, test doing the Insert->Field->Page Number with a fully formatted +100 page document with inserted tables and graphics. Then, return to Slashdot and post your experiences.


      I've done it before and it's not a problem. You are creating a header or footer box to place the number in, right?

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    18. Re:OpenOffice can't do page numbers easily. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Redo your resume in plain ASCII. If the potential employers pay that much attention to poofy resume fonts then you don't want to work there anyway."

      If the potential employers can only handle plain ASCII and depend on old technology like FAX then you don't want to work there anyway.

    19. Re:OpenOffice can't do page numbers easily. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I beleive LaTeX has page numbers by default. :-)

    20. Re:OpenOffice can't do page numbers easily. by morgajel · · Score: 1

      I can vouch for this- I had a paper due for a writing class that did this: the professor marked me down and said it looks like I spliced to papers together. when I noticed it and complained, we sat down and printed out a copy that was auto- numbered.

      sure enough, it was missing page 12 or 13.

      --
      Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
    21. Re:OpenOffice can't do page numbers easily. by nathanh · · Score: 1
      I still have some problems with page numbering: For example: doing a resume which has a header (including page numbers) but only starting at page 2. At the moment, it would appear that the only way I can see to do that is to split into two separate documents (ugh!). Suggested solutions gratefully accepted.

      Easy. Go to the first page of the document. From the menu choose Format -> Stylist. Across the top of the Stylist Dialog are 5 icons. The 4th icon is the Page Style icon. Click that. Double click First Page from the list. The header/footer settings for the first page are now independent from the rest of the document.

      Click for click I've determined it's as fast as doing the equivalent thing in MSOffice, but I think the Styles concept is much more consistent and logical than the weirdly hidden checkbox in MSOffice (hidden way down in File -> Page Setup of all places).

    22. Re:OpenOffice can't do page numbers easily. by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      Put skills on your resume, but the synopsis should go on your work history. That's the way I did it, and I've been working for more than 10 years. Note that my work history doc is quite long. It's just the resume itself that needs to be short. Think of it as a teaser.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    23. Re:OpenOffice can't do page numbers easily. by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Depends on what field you work in. If you work in academics or one of the humanities, you're laughed at if your resume isn't at least several pages long.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  48. what an effective TROLL!! by SethJohnson · · Score: 0, Offtopic


    WHEW! I haven't seen so many retards bite. This debian troll is awesome! The kook mods and the kooks responding have no idea that this post is complete fiction. Very clever fiction. He's making jokes all along with the 'final solution' reference and people are all, "Are you sure you want to say that in the same sentence?!?" It was intentional...

    And he makes these mods look like idiots by tying in ridiculous methods like 'LISP hooks'... ha-hah! The point of this is obviously to also make fun of all the people who brag about how apt-get is the answer for everything. That's a translation for all you fools.
    Good job, Debian Troll!
    1. Re:what an effective TROLL!! by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      If it was a troll it's actually quite a poor troll, since nobody got it.

      Personally I and most other people have no idea whether dselect uses lisp or not. I know emacs does, so it's not an unreasonable idea. The rest seems vaguely plausible if a bit contorted (changing the application rather than hacking a hebrew console driver seems a long way to go about it).

      What's wrong with lisp hooks anyway?

  49. Hmmmm....... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 0, Troll

    I bet Arafat would just love it if Israel Open Source'd the construction specs for its A-Bombs under a GNU license ....

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  50. Used to be true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Due to pressure from the US over the years people got arrested and the BSA started nagging. All companies buy software (just like the states) but most home users copy.
    Obviously the goverment buys everything.

  51. Know Fault first hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is a nasty one when it strikes 45kb MS Word doc with 1 picture turned to a 2.5 meg file. Now this is nasty if you don't pick it up before making critical changes because Word 97 can crash Word 2000 will lock up from it never had Word XP due to miss alloced memory space. Basicly edit picture microsoft users stuffed up by converting it to BMP format exploding the master file I was using that was compressed ie PCX or PNG or JPG depending on how much it blows out ie JPG with the 2.5meg.

    Now the reason I moved to Openoffice this never happens.

    The fault happens without changing the image from time to time just closing the edit screen to go back to the doc.

  52. Well, no by iamacat · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Religion generally means that some facts/rules of human behaviour and so on are absolute and not to be questioned. For example, you won't find many christians that think God approves casual sex and use of abortion as birth control.

    An atheist doesn't necessarily think that christians are stupid, he/she just doesn't share their beliefs. As for meaning of life, atheists follow their gut feeling, advice of other humans or desire to make people happy to decide how to live. It may lead him/her in the same direction as religious people or it might not. Anyhow I haven't met anyone who uses science to make significant moral decisions. Or who is actively proud of being an atheist rather than just not feeling necessity of religion in their world view.

    I think you have just as many stereotypes about atheists as we have about christians. You should hang around more. You might find people who qualify for the best accomodations in your favourite afterlife. At least if they came to your chirch.

  53. Re:Am I alone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess this means they don't welcome their new masters.
    From the article, I gather Microsoft volunteered
    the arrogant choice of Hebrew support on Windows for PC,
    but not Windows for Mac.
    Heck, there were people who offered to pay the development
    costs.
    Microsoft didn't think it was a sweet enough deal.
    Fine.
    Let's just remember they did it to themselves.
    Customer service? What's that?

  54. I hate being the bearer of bad news... by MikShapi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm as much an Open Source lover as the next FreeBSD religious geek, but the way I see the train going right now, here's where it'll get:

    DMCA is already in action. TCPA and DRM are coming on us in the next couple of years, we already know Microsoft's Paladium will be present in longhorn. Fritz chips are already being sold, and sooner than we might like, DRM-enforcement will migrate from our motherboard into our CPU. Microsoft, Disney, the RIAA and MPAA etc. have been lobbying Intel and AMD over this for a while now.

    This actually gets on-topic when the DMCA is used to trash competition, as in cases of 3rd-party-made garage-door remotes, printer cartridges and .. yes. Office suites that attempt to open MS Office formats.

    Once Microsoft uses the DRM-enforcing Fritz chip (which, according to the DMCA legislation, must be present in your computer) to encode their .doc/.xls/.ppt/whatever files, it becomes _illegal_ [in the US] for OpenOffice to attempt to open them under the DMCA. Unless this can somehow be steered away, OO is going to be beheaded swiftly and cruelly, and nobody will use anything besides MS Office, because nothing else will open MS Office formats.

    Many questions are asked about how this will affect non-US countries without silly DMCA legislation, and the legal answer is "It won't". The economic one however says "If there is no US market for products like OO, quite a few them may simply cease to exist". Add to that the unwillingness of many OS developers to contribute their time to an open source project that is used in other countries but makes them criminals in the US where they live, and where they cannot use their own project where they work.
    OO may simply not bother breaking the DRM on Office files for non-US clients. And that would indeed hurt Israeli clients.

    This conclusion makes me question the wisdom of moving an entire government agency to OO. It actually hurt me to say that.

    Cheers.

    --
    -
    1. Re:I hate being the bearer of bad news... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If opening a document makes you a criminal, then I say the sooner the better, then the general populace might understand that having corporations like MS run your government isn't a good thing.

      It's just as likely people will ditch MSOffice than OO. In fact more so - who will want to work with a package that can't save files you can open anywhere else (even on a non-fritz PC which will be the vast majority for many years to come - there are *zero* fritz chips in circulation at the moment). No company is going to use Word if they deal with Europe, asia, in fact anywhere else but the US, because their documents would be unreadable.

      OTOH I can't see MS committing that kind of suicide. They're not *that* stupid.

    2. Re:I hate being the bearer of bad news... by ThePeeWeeMan · · Score: 1

      You know, maybe you can tell me where it says Palladium will be in Longhorn, or whether that's just TinFoils-R-Us cranking in overdrive again.

      I sure haven't seen any mention anywhere.

      Oh btw, DRM != Palladium.

    3. Re:I hate being the bearer of bad news... by MikShapi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here's a free tip. Never attack anyone personally. If you have a valid point, state it. Name calling is something that people revert to when they feel the point they're trying to make can't stand its ground on its own, and needs an intimidating muscle-showoff to help others get convinced. It screams at the reader that you yourself aren't buying into whatever it is you're saying. Here on /. it won't cut you any slack.

      Now all you had to do was ask. Microsoft announced and revealed Palladium, and quite plainly As MS Employee states [Palladium] "is to be included in a future version of Windows, possibly in Windows XP successor Longhorn, scheduled for release in 2005".
      Taking an educated guess based on the fact that their interest does lie there, that they announced it, that they're well underway developing it and that the DMCA was legislated, I'd dare say it will show up in Windows sooner or later. Sooner if they have anything to do with it.

      If you do not yet realize the extent of the problem this poses, I strongly suggest you spend 10 minutes reading up .

      Cheers mate.

      --
      -
    4. Re:I hate being the bearer of bad news... by SlashDotAgent · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, that's the exact reason why we should already switch to OO and save our documents in an open format.

      OO has the ability to open and save .DOC files not to continue using them, but rather to ease the transition of your own files from that format, and the gradual transition of other people to OO.

    5. Re:I hate being the bearer of bad news... by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      Right, except you would have to invoke the DMCA upon yourself since you would be the copyright holder trying to access your own IP.

    6. Re:I hate being the bearer of bad news... by johnos · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Good points, but the game is changing fast. Five years ago, markets outside North America (except for Europe) were considered irrelevant in the industry. Not anymore. Check out this interesting story . Or let me summarize the important points:
      • The Thai Government's cheap Linux computer program is a smashing success.
      • A local (Linux only) PC vendor has just passed HP to become the largest vendor in the country.
      • Gartner says that only 40% of new computers sold in Thailand this year had Windows installed.
      All this bad news after MS dropped the price of Windows+Office to US$37. If that's still too much, you can buy a Windows CD on many streetcorners for US$4. Clearly, many people are choosing Linux. Why do they want Linux instead of Windows? Because of a brilliant localization effort by the country's Linux community. The Linux Thai language support is far better, apparently, than Microsoft's. This leads to the interesting proposition that localization can be done better and cheaper by local volonteers. Product managers sitting in Redmond don't have the incentive or resources to compete with hundreds of grassroots efforts.

      Thailand is not an exception, its just a few years ahead of other countries. Remember in Jurassic Park when the glass of water started shaking ominously? Thailand and Israel are the first two ripples.
    7. Re:I hate being the bearer of bad news... by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      > Once Microsoft uses the DRM-enforcing Fritz chip (which, according to the DMCA legislation, must be present in your computer)

      Where in the DMCA does it say _anything_ about any chip being required to be in your computer?????

      Oh, that's right, it doesn't - you're talking out your ass...

      You should be happy to know that you no longer need to question your wisdom, but you should question your knowledge.

  55. Re:Great so the REAL terrorists pick OO.org by L-s-L69 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "Europe has a huge population, violently pro-US (UK et al)" --Excuse ME!! the UK is NOT violently pro US, our elected leader is GWB's lap dog but most of the population are against the current US administration and their constant war mongering. We tend to like the American people but currently the majority are against thier (un)elected leader.

  56. Hmrph by jabbadabbadoo · · Score: 0

    This decision is not economical. It's political. I'm pretty sure Bill won't vote for George next time.

  57. A blow for choice in the market by heironymouscoward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The statement can be read both ways.

    The day will come when people buy software for reasons other than utility: fashion, conspicuous consumption, political affiliation... but today it's simply a matter of price and functionality.

    Microsoft can say what they like, but very few people will try OOo and then MSOffice and then choose to pay for MSOffice with their own money simply because of a sound bite.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
    1. Re:A blow for choice in the market by Saeger · · Score: 1
      very few people will try OOo and then MSOffice and then choose to pay for MSOffice

      Unless that person is also invested in MSFT directly or indirectly.

      MSFT being in the DOW30 means a lot of people have a selfish incentive to perpetuate THEIR monopoly.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
  58. Palladium is dying by Tune · · Score: 1

    How about MS adopting to OO.org? None of the new legislations/techniques prevents them from supporting an open standard. And eventually they will, if people keep resisting DRM and governments and large enterprises are forced to support these open standards, mainly by their own anti-trust laws.

    Microsoft has shown on several occasions it's able to retreat from a failing assault; even when strong lobby groups tell them to do otherwise.

    If Palladium isn't dead yet, I'm sure it will reincarnate in a much lighter form.

    1. Re:Palladium is dying by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      "if people keep resisting DRM"

      People are not resisting DRM. According to SONY and the RIAA, DRM is something that people really want, because it will help them enjoy their music experience to the fullest.

      You have to understand something, the voices of SONY and the RIAA are the only voices that the government is listening to. So, as far as the government is concerned, DRM is something you and I want.

    2. Re:Palladium is dying by Tune · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >You have to understand something, the voices of SONY and the RIAA are the only voices that the government is listening to.

      I believe the confusion is in the word "governments", which you use to refer to the Bush administration, but which I intended to use to refer to government agencies like Israel's Commerce department, the German government, China, Peru, etc. that are scared away by American lobbyist backed monopolies like Microsoft. I'm not sure about Sony, but the RIAA definitely does not have a very creditable reputation in lobbying these governments.

      Just my $.02

      --
      Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable -- John F. Kennedy

  59. Yes -- it's obvious they're both to blame.... by skyhawker · · Score: 1

    You make some excellent points. Those of us who are fortunate enough to not live in the middle east can look around a bit and safely conclude that both sides must be at fault. For evidence of Israeli complicity, look at what those wacky Jewish extremists do around the rest of the world -- suicide bombings and airplane hijackings, kidnapping and murder in the U.S. of A., the U.K, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Kashmir, Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan -- you name the place, those Jewish extremists are there, killing and maiming innocent people as often as they can. And as anybody knows by listening to its clerics, Islam is a religion of peace -- and if they say so, it must be true. AFAIK, the Jews make no such claims. Hell -- look at their suicidal behavior against the Nazis during WWII. Any group that would kill 6,000,000 of their own to inflict a few casualties on their enemies must be zealots of the highest order.

    --

    The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank.
    -- Scotty.
    1. Re:Yes -- it's obvious they're both to blame.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.nowarforisrael.com/UN%20Resolutions.htm
      http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ussliberty.htm l
      http://www.chretiens-et-juifs.org/article.php?v oir %5B%5D=647&voir%5B%5D=4856

      just search for information. of course, evaluate information. compare it.

    2. Re:Yes -- it's obvious they're both to blame.... by tubs · · Score: 1

      You do know that from 1938 - 1948 the Isrealies sent letter bombs, set off mines, threw Petrol Bombs, blew up hotels, blew up ships and assasinated government ministers.

      And then made some of perpetrators Prime Ministers.

      But thats okay, because 6,000,000 Jewish people died at the hands of evil buggers.

      --

      try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die

    3. Re:Yes -- it's obvious they're both to blame.... by Goth+Biker+Babe · · Score: 1

      Can I suggest the poster reads up on how the British were treated when they were UN peace keepers in Israel/Palestine during the formation of Israel post WW2.

      In 1946 flood of European Jews go to P, Jewish Haganah formed to protect Jews in Palestine from Arabs, 1946-1948 Arabs in P attack and kill Jews & try to stop immigration, GB pressured by Arabs to limit it, Jewish Irgun formed in 1946 (goal is to retaliate against Arabs), GB cracks down on Irgun so it blows up King David hotel in July of 1946 (91 British soldiers killed)

      At least one of the current ministers in the Isaeli Parliament was involved in that. For the moment I've forgotten his name.

      There was also a small war going on London between the Jews and the Arabs during the early 70s as a result of the Israeli ocupation of the Golan Heights and the war with Egypt. They are all as bad as one another.

    4. Re:Yes -- it's obvious they're both to blame.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, comparing Israeli underground resistance against the British to contemporary Palestinian terror strikes, does little to serve the truth. *Never* did the underground movements, (Even the most extreme of all, the Lehi) target civilians. All targets were military, and as a policy, only property was targetted, aside from a few isolated incidents. The Hotel bombing is often misreported. The British were informed by the perpetrators that a bomb was planted in the hotel, but this was ignored by the British, leading to said tragedy.

    5. Re:Yes -- it's obvious they're both to blame.... by Goth+Biker+Babe · · Score: 1

      And the collateral damage of innocent civilians including women and children is perfectly valid if it ensures you may get a single terrorist? One man's terrorists are another man's freedom fighters. If a people have no hope what have they got to lose?

  60. Hebrew Mozilla by tomer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The next thing the Israeli govement thinking about is to adopt Mozilla instead of Internet Explorer for use with internal web applications and messaging. In the Hebrew press we got few messages about it in the past week, but I can't approve yet how much seriously they are.

    The problem is that the Hebrew localization project for Mozilla still missing few features, because of [mostly] UI bugs in the browser.

    Most of the major bugs in Mozilla for Hebrew users can be found in this list (Tsahi is the person who did most of the l10n progress). Any help would be welcome!

    Hopefully, one day, we will get our whole goverment to use Linux on each desktop...

    1. Re:Hebrew Mozilla by tomer · · Score: 1

      Screenshots of Hebrew Mozilla in action. The English letters in the menus are because of bug, which until get fixed, can't allow the use of Hebrew letters for accesskeys.

  61. Re:Showing Microsoft the O-face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    haha. gotta love office space

  62. Re:Why should MS support Heeb-rew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    u zhid

  63. Re: DAB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good luck having a business dumbass. If people choose to PAY for something over anythign that is FREE then it's their decision. Besides, its better to no get ripped off of 'free' software.

    Free software, no business... then that's why we have hard-to-use software so it secures us 'geeks' of a job.

  64. Excuse me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is Microsoft really "accusing the Israelis of being tight-fisted"? If the NAACP adopted OpenOffice, would they be too lazy and shiftless to learn all of the wonderful features of MSOffice?

    ObClippy: "It looks like you're trying to be hateful and bigoted. Would you like a list of degrading stereotypes to choose from?"

    1. Re:Excuse me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If the NAACP adopted OpenOffice, would they be too lazy and shiftless to learn all of the wonderful features of MSOffice?

      Nah, they probably would use the word "niggardly" .....
  65. Re:The israelis made the right step by RapaNui · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Hear fuckin' hear.
    Mod parent up.

    Fuck karma.

  66. Native languages by Ringlord · · Score: 1

    Here in Norway Office XP was just released with support for 'nynorsk' which is a quite widely used official dialect of regular norwegian. There was quite a lot of pressure on MS from the departement of education to provide this.

    OpenOffice has had support for nynorsk since 1.0.2 I believe.

  67. Israel? by NeoGeo64 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    They have computers in Israel? Wow, thats news to me.

    1. Re:Israel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They have computers in Israel? Wow, thats news to me."

      you must not get out much then...... they are probably the world leaders in network security measures...

  68. Re:Am I alone... by pjrc · · Score: 1
    or ford wouldnt switch 10,000 desktops

    In mid-September, a rumor was reported that Ford was "considering" a switch for servers. Somehow that turned into a rumor of a massive desktop migration.

    A few weeks later, Ford announced they were NOT going to switch desktops to linux (google cache, original article off-line now). Ford specifically mentioned just signing a 3 year contract with Microsoft. Perhaps the rumor was used as legerage to get a better deal from MS, or perhaps it was just the case of wishful thinking and sloppy reporting.

    Here's slashdot's coverage with more links. Notice the update, posted several hours later (probably long after most slashdot readers had long since stopped seeing it)... with the link to a newsforge story, aptly titled Ford move to Linux not true (yet). It was all a rumor that got blown out of proportion.

  69. unless... by danro · · Score: 5, Funny

    Many are optimistic that the new Open Source philsophy in the Middle East could one day help bridge the gap between two peoples and lead to peace.

    Unless palestinian coders are using emacs, and israeli coders are using vi, that is.
    In that case there will never be peace...

    --

    "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
    1. Re:unless... by Mark+Gordon · · Score: 1

      Actually, vim has rather good Hebrew support. One of the authors of the O'Reilly tarsier book lives in Israel, IIRC.

    2. Re:unless... by Anonymous+Bullard · · Score: 1
      Many are optimistic that the new Open Source philsophy in the Middle East could one day help bridge the gap between two peoples and lead to peace.

      Unless palestinian coders are using emacs, and israeli coders are using vi, that is. In that case there will never be peace...

      Indeed, why don't they gedit already!
      --

      Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?

  70. Absolutely! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lake love, not war. Some of those Israeli chicks are hot. :D

  71. Help is available! (was Re:Who do you root for?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our friendly suicide bombers will help you solve your problem of being torn between OO support and opposition to IDF.

    Our office at Jenin accepts orders for the free service of being torn by explosion of our field-proven (hundreds of torn, maimed and mutilated Israeli civilians!), efficient and highly-trained suicide bombers.

  72. In the other news... by SharpFang · · Score: 3, Funny

    United States stopped military/financial support for Israel. They will continue providing moral support though.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  73. Re:Great so the REAL terrorists pick OO.org by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 1
    If Isreal uses Open Office more power to them.
    It has little impact on the big picture however and puts no "taint" on open source as all are free to use it or not as they wish.

    Europe is noted for it's centuries old habit of anti-semitism.
    I am an anti-zionist. I am not an anti semite which is what most EUasins are. I wish the Jews no ill will. I do wish my government would do more to stop the violence and have called my Congress person and Senators but they are going to do nothing. I want Isreal to treat the Palestinians as humans and stop this fratricidal confilict they have with their brothers and sister in Palestine.
    Most of the people in the EU use the Isreali occupation of lands that are not theirs and oppression of the Palestinians as a convient cover for their Jew hating.
    Germany is the only country were this is not so.

    As far as you representation of how people in the UK feel about Bush and the war in Iraq. The Guardian did a survey "Protests begin but majority backs Bush visit as support for war surges." It appears you are wrong according to the quite liberal UK Guardian

    More inforamtion on Zionism and "greater Isreal" Alfred Lilienthal

    --
    If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
    Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
  74. O97 Debugged! by hughk · · Score: 4, Insightful
    My version of the comment would be "the features of Office 97 debugged".

    Actually Office 2K debugged most of the features of Office 97. By the same token, Office 2k3 should debug all of them and some of the new features introduced with Office 2K.

    I agree with your mother. I updated much earlier but that was because O97 wasn't stable with larger documents or embedded objects. However, I now stick with O2K on my remaining Windows system.

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
  75. that's actually good news by TheUberBob · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't worry about it at all, we wont let the rest of the world march full steam ahead with their own tech. And making it illegal to do conversions in the US would lead to even more spending in other industrialized nations. Brazil is an excellent example of this. Tech IP, pharma IP, and military research are some of the U.S. main subsidies, and we want the rest of the world to continue to buy the results/export capital to the US (Otherwise we stagnate). If U.S. companies are too obnoxious in pricing (_or_ dont have political or economic lock in through global DRM initiatives), countries will fund their own development--because it's cheaper in the mid and long term than running microsoft. This could easily lead to more open source software being produced outside the US (and probably already is, if all the 'we're going open source' statements are backed with action).

    --

    All your preview button are belong to Hello Kitty.
    1. Re:that's actually good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget, UberBob that some of us aren't americans. There's also UberHeinrich, UberShimoto, UberMoshe and UberAhmed too. Some of us frankly are more concerned with their own economy than with yours. It's not the self-centered thinking of your government. That I can understand. It's the way you americans utterly ignore in your mentality the existance of anyone else on this planet, and the fact that that anyone might have his own interests and agenda.

    2. Re:that's actually good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod it up

  76. MS & Mac by meadowsp · · Score: 1

    I think you're a bit off in saying that the Mac is out of the picture for MS.

    Microsoft's Mac software

  77. Re:Israeli's ripping off tourists in US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and of course no american does any such things. right?

  78. Automatic PDF Conversion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    OpenOffice can run as a "web service" that can be queried. It has a great API called UNO that I suggest you check out.

    This allows you to write all sorts of cool apps that can use the backend of OpenOffice as part of a web services architecture. I use it to convert all documents sent and received via email into pdf so that viruses are not propagated internally or externally and so that everyone can read the document. If there is some reason why someone *MUST* see the original attachment that was sent, it can be retrieved from a webpage.

  79. Re:Israeli's ripping off tourists in US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah, Hitler had a good thing going there.

  80. Not standard... by haeger · · Score: 1
    instead of the closed but de facto standard word processor.

    Ahh, but it's not a standard is it? It's a trade secret.

    --
    You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
  81. MS is not a monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By definition, a monopoly means owning, doing everything in a particular field. They don't support Hebrew..... doesn't that make them not a monopoly? "But, your honor, we left the Hebrew market WIDE OPEN" ;)

  82. Virus? by t_allardyce · · Score: 3, Funny

    OpenOffice is totally missing VB macro virus support. Microsoft really have been the pioneers in bringing the virus to places its never been before.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  83. OO.o good, MSO = bad by 1eyedhive · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been using OO.o for a few months now and have yet to find any big issues with it when compared to O2k.
    Tables are easy to use, page numbering may take a bit to find, but until O2k it was a bitch to find there, too.
    I like the integrated PDF export, something that if you want to do in MSO, you gotta get acrobat for a few hundred $'s... haven't had a problem yet.
    I just sold my friend on OO.o a few months back and he's used it more than I, just made up somthing in calc and exported it to Excel 2k/XP without a hitch (his machine is Windows 2000).
    I've also lightly used Linux as a desktop OS (i don't largly due to lack of good 3D support for my geforce4), and find the cross platform compatibility an outright godsend. I used MSO 98 for that mac and found i had to save as an office 97 doc and then open it, converting up automagically to o2k, breaking the reverse compatibility until i resaved as o97. with OO.o, the headache isn't there (though OO.o doesn't do mac classic and an OSX port is still on the way, i rarely use macs anyhow.)
    MSO stinks, OO.o is better, any flaws in compatibility is due to the stupidity of the closed source format used by M$. at least with the oo.o files you can open them with your favorite zip utility and see what makes them tick. (Oo.o files are just zip archives containing xml files with the actual formatting and content therein, unlike .docs which are some bastardized... thing.)

    --
    Logistical Chaos Officer http://www.slagg.org - LAN Gaming in Sarasota FL,USA
    1. Re:OO.o good, MSO = bad by Gta-Klue · · Score: 1

      I've also lightly used Linux as a desktop OS (i don't largly due to lack of good 3D support for my geforce4)

      I have a Geforce 4 as well. Go to nvidia's site and download thier linux driver install. It works like a charm. I'm using it on a Knoppix install with 3D support and it r0xz!

      --
      This is PURE EAU DE TROLLETTE
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  84. Will forever politics be involved? by SlashDotAgent · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What does the regime of Israel has to do with adoption of OSS in it's goverment and army?

    That would be like someone will say they don't want to use Microsoft Windows (or Red Hat Linux for that matter), because they are US companies, and it has a certain regime in Iraq or somewhere else. (Actually, what you saying to even less logical, since you don't have to support someone to support their move to OO, if you support OO).

    If you have a problem with an article about the IDF being posted of \. because of what they do, you have a serious problem, and it's no surprise the comment is posted anonymously. But what's the actual problem with a government moving to OO?, being one of many governments planning to do similar steps, which is what the story is about.

  85. Old formats by GerardM · · Score: 1

    It is with documents the same as with old media/tapes: when you buy into a new technology, you convert all of your media to the new format.

    The advantages are:
    * you have confirmation that you could still read your old data.
    * you have the data in a format for which you have the equipment.
    This has been best practice in mainframe land for ages.

    When you move your data to a new application (including a new version of the same application) it is best practice to convert all data to the new format.

    The advantages are:
    * you have confirmation that you can read all your data.
    * you have converted all documents while you were really aware of the pitfalls of the current conversion.
    * you do not compound the complexity by converting from several data formats.

    The disadvatage is:
    * it takes discipline and effort.

    NB as to "de facto standard", it is your customer, your supplier who decides what standards are acceptable. When you live in Brasil, Open Office may be the standard and you DO NOT argue with your government. You expect your application to read/write the appropriate formats acceptable to your government.

  86. Huh! by K8Fan · · Score: 2, Insightful
    First out of the door is the Israeli employment agency, which will replace 550 out of 700 users with OpenOffice. The contract represents a hardware win for IBM. Some 150 staff will stay on Microsoft Office.

    150 staff to remain on MS Office? Can you say "manager"?

    --
    "How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
  87. Office XP Service Pack by SlashDotAgent · · Score: 1

    And people won't even be surprised that it looks and works quite differently, just like after installing real M$ SPs... :)

  88. Proper RTL support by SlashDotAgent · · Score: 1

    But the most important thing with OO is that if something with RTL support is wrong (though it's pretty good, as far as I've seen), IBM (who are responsible for the office suite there) can prepare the patch themselves (as they did before), and update it quickly (whether they fixed something, or just a new and better version came out), which is totally unlike waiting for a new bloated version of M$'s office to deal with those issues.

  89. science and faith peacefully coexisting by ChristTrekker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Except you forget (or are unaware) that many thinkers of that era (including Galileo and Newton, among others) studied the world around them in a scientific manner because they believe God was rational and would create things in a logical way. The advancement of science was because of their religious faith. The bible says to "love the Lord your God with all your mind" as well as heart, soul, and strength. God has never asked for mindless unthinking devotion.

    1. Re:science and faith peacefully coexisting by jedidiah · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      This is a reflection of those men and not Xianity. Such men have always triggered a considerable amount of resistance and resentment from the religous establishment. Xianity has always had a dark side that would allow it to be mired in theocracy. There are even xian factions now in the US that would gladly institute their own version of a Taliban regime if they had the power to do so.

      Any book requires the proper cultural context in order for it's "original intent" to be understood. A mindless fundie would read that passage and gloss over that whole _mind_ bit. That even assuming that they ever see a proper translation of the relevant passage.

      This is how Muslims and Xians can be so different from any variety of Jew.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:science and faith peacefully coexisting by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1
      This is a reflection of those men and not Xianity.

      Funny, I say the same thing about the men who started and continued the Inquisition, and many other travesties of history. These people are not "Christianity", they are a mar on the name that many many more have carried and expressed far more faithfully.

      Such men have always triggered a considerable amount of resistance and resentment from the religous establishment.

      Sometimes "establishments" can rot at the core. "Establishments" are still just people. Don't confuse "establishments" with true Christianity.

      Xianity has always had a dark side that would allow it to be mired in theocracy.

      As I said, there is no dark side to Christianity. There is a dark side to mankind, which Christianity recognizes: sin. The core message of Christianity is God's love for the world, expressed in Christ's sacrifice on our behalf. There is no dark side to love. It is the dark side of man to pervert any authority given to it for one's own gain. Large monolithic power-weilding establishments are best avoided for this very reason. Most of the Founders of this country knew this, having seen the abuse of power in Europe, and created a limited government for this very reason.

      There are even xian factions now in the US that would gladly institute their own version of a Taliban regime if they had the power to do so.

      I'm sure there are religious organizations that would love to weild authority for their own gain, just as there are secular organizations that would. But I wouldn't consider these religious organizations "Christianity" any more than I would consider many current government institutions "constiutional". Don't confuse the message with the people that pervert it. Just because our government sucks doesn't mean I think we should throw out the Constitution. Just because many people have hurt others "in the name of Christ" doesn't mean we throw out Christ's teaching.

      I'd recommend a book, if you have the time. It addresses the dark things that Christendom has done, but shows that they are far outweighed by the good. It includes citations. There are far more "unsung heroes" than there are "infamous miscreants" if anyone bothers to look.

    3. Re:science and faith peacefully coexisting by monkeyfinger · · Score: 2, Insightful
      As I said, there is no dark side to Christianity. There is a dark side to mankind, which Christianity recognizes: sin.

      I disagree, if you read the bible god has a pretty dark side.

      He was racist.

      He was sexist.

      He was homophobic.

      He condoned slavery and beating of slaves (even to death).

      He killed nearly every single human on the face of the earth. (the flood)

      There's so much more I could point out, but I doubt it will make any difference.

    4. Re:science and faith peacefully coexisting by ashayh · · Score: 1

      While one may argue against most of the parents' points, how can anyone look themselves in the eye and say christinity is not sexist ? When did we see the last FEMALE pope ? Will we ever see one ? Now someone will say "OK so the church or bible was wrong about certain things like their stand on women, on Galileo, on glorifying crusades (like someone mentioned Jews killing natives to occupy ancient Israel ) .. and therefore we need REFORM and the church needs to change" Maybe then it is wrong about many things that future generations will want to reform. Like the idea of god itself ..

    5. Re:science and faith peacefully coexisting by monkeyfinger · · Score: 1
      Maybe then it is wrong about many things that future generations will want to reform. Like the idea of god itself ..

      Are you talking about how god is perceived or the question of whether it actually exists?

    6. Re:science and faith peacefully coexisting by monkeyfinger · · Score: 1
      If anyone does disagree with what I posted please could they let me know and we can discuss it.

      I'm wasn't trolling and I don't have a problem with christians. My post was simply a reaction to the common idea that the christian god is all goodness, love and happiness. If you read the old testament you will see a very different picture.

      Westerners tend to divide things into good and evil, but Christianity isn't a western religion and the christian god is very complex and dualistic.

    7. Re:science and faith peacefully coexisting by ashayh · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about how god is perceived or the question of whether it actually exists? As I am an atheist, I would like the existence of god itself being debated a lot more than it is now...pick up pace. Like how the debate on slavery or of Earth being the center of the earth took many years. This will happen .. once religion gets past gay rights and abortion and cloning...

    8. Re:science and faith peacefully coexisting by monkeyfinger · · Score: 1

      I was raised by christian fundementalists (lucky me). It made me fairly cynical about the whole thing. My parents seemed to have this weird denial thing where they would ignore all the nasty bits in the bible.

  90. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  91. not surprising by t0ny · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    wow, people in Isreal chosing something free. Thats a surprise.

    --

    Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

  92. You never used a right to left language then by mericet · · Score: 1
    I learned to type on typewriters too, the problem isn't with numbers, it's easy writing least significant digit first, it's with mixed text (which most typewriters could never handle due to lack of 'font support' anyway), where you would have to type the last letter first. I agree, most word processors do a pretty lousy job, and I would love to have the option of manual control, but there is simply no flow to interrupt if you have to write whole sentences backwords.

    Oh, and it's almost never a wizard you can kill anyway.

  93. Jews realized in 1882 that they were not wanted. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    I did what was suggested in the parent comment. It was very interesting. I learned something. This is the first sentence of one of the Google links to '1929 hebron slaughter': "Under Ottoman Rule 1882 - 1917 -- From the beginning Jewish settlement met with opposition from the local Arabs." The article is by a Jewish organization in Israel.

    So the Jews realized in 1882 that they were not wanted, but decided to settle in Palestine anyway.

    Later, the article says that the Jews decided to engage in violence to promote their ability to stay in Palestine. There are only about 14 million Jews in the entire world. There are 330 million Arabs, I understand, and 1.1 billion Muslims.

    Here's a question: Why do Jews think they can get into gun battles with Arabs and "win"?

    Another of the Google links you took me to said this (I'm not inventing this; see for yourself; it's at the end.): "Not all the Arab missiles, bombs and daggers constitute the main danger to our existence, but our suicidal Jewish genetics. This is the cause of all the destruction that ever befell us." This is from another Jewish organization in Israel.

    These are quotes from links you suggested I see.

  94. MS-Office not compatible with MS-Office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Even MS-Office is not fully compatible with earlier versions. Formatting and layout can and often do get screwed, data gets lost especially metadata, and symbols and formulae get munged.

    It's the file format, stupid.

    What on earth does MS-Word give you that other word processors can't or don't -- aside from the file format?

  95. Sooo what...... by BenLutgens · · Score: 0, Troll

    Like 8 people will be using it then?

    --
    "If you love someone, set them free. If they come home, set them on fire." - George Carlin
  96. Setting up Hebrew in Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  97. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  98. pedantry re sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    for great justice ; do mv sig done

    for great justice ; do mv sig ; done

  99. Re:what's the point? by edxwelch · · Score: 1

    "OOo was designed to compare and compete with MS Office and is hence bloated by design and default"
    I tried out the wordprocessor from OOo reciently and found that it is trying to copy MSWord 97 feature for feature. I wouldn't use "bloated" to describe either of these products. However, just blindly copying what MS does is not a good idea in my opinion. For instance, I think auto-spell check, auto-format, auto complete, etc. should be switched of by default, or at the minimum be easy
    to switch off (e.g. one easy to find setting "crap off"). Other features that MSWord does nicely are missing, for instance MSWord gives you a default filename based on the first few words in the document when you save a new file.

  100. MOD DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if this isnt flamebait, what is?

  101. Re:Atheism (OT) by ckaminski · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The sun is shining. Exactly how is that an opinion, considering right now, in the Eastern Time Zone, out my window, it is indeed shining?

    o·pin·ion (n.)
    A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: "The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion" (Elizabeth Drew).

    FACT:
    Your opinion that "all statements are opinion" is verifiably false, unless you're talking about SCO legal briefs, in which case you are 100% correct. :-D HAND.

  102. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  103. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  104. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have been looking at OO to replace Office 2000 at my workplace and I just gotta wonder what the hell you have been smoking...

    1. Speed: There's no point in being 100% compatible with MS Office, if it's 200% slower

    In my tests, there were in most cases no speed penalty. It seems to take longer to load ONLY when MS's utility to load most of the components for Office at boot (located in the Startup folder)is loaded. We have to disable this because it causes other applications we use to crash and uses far too many resources (which may be part of the reason for crashes). When this is disabled, load times are virtually identical.

    When up and running, I see no speed difference on the 733/128M test machine I have been using.

    2. Bloated: Same as MS Office.

    Huh? the download file for OO 1.1 is 73Mbytes. The service pack SR1a for Office 2000 is 50 Mbytes.

    3. No option to install a dumbed-down version.

    The only reason I install limited versions of Office 2000 is because of the insane disk requirements for the entire package and the fact that we don't use Outlook for security reasons or Clippy for sanity reasons. As mentioned above, when the entire download is only 73 Mbytes, I don't feel so limited with OO. I can download and install OO in less time than Office takes to install from CD.

    Now, all that being said, we still have some issues with OO. Our existing product manuals are all written in Word. They don't all translate cleanly; mostly formatting issues in the headers and footers. However, I gotta mention that these were similar to the issues we had when we moved from Office 97 to Office 2000.

    Have you actually installed and run Office and OO on the same machine and compared them head-to-head? The first 3 items in your list would seem to indicate that you have not.

  105. Affecting Microsoft in the wallet... by autophile · · Score: 1
    From the article: This affects Apple in the Hebrew...

    Sorry.

    --
    Towards the Singularity.
  106. Stereotype? by Dausha · · Score: 1

    Microsoft reacted scornfully to the decision, the Hebrew-only Daily Mail reports, accusing the Israelis of being tight-fisted.

    I find it interesting that Microsoft called the Israeli (read: Jewish) government fiscally 'tight-fisted.' Does this not fit into the Jewish stereotype?

    --
    What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
    1. Re:Stereotype? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You spotted something that fit a sterotype! You win!! You win the big prize!!!

    2. Re:Stereotype? by sdcharle · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I saw that and I thought: when did Microsoft hire Professor Griff to do their PR?

  107. A real coup would be for Arafat Friends to switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A real coup would be for Arafat Friends to switch, then we can see the two battle it out, tit for tat. Oh, wait, they already do that.

  108. Re:Great so the REAL terrorists pick OO.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    brutality, which can be found on both sides, but sanctioned among the Israeli and frowned upon by the Joe Palestinian.

    Ahhhhh, that must be why they have sooo much trouble recruiting suicide bombers!

  109. Re:The israelis made the right step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    just why you assume he is european?
    i would say except americans themselves, and a few american fanatics, no one else likes them all around the world!

    "um pais infeliz
    o mais hipocrita da terra
    malucos suicidas
    imbecis que adoram guerra"
    Gabriel o Pensador

  110. Re:Jews realized in 1882 that they were not wanted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    So the Jews realized in 1882 that they were not wanted, but decided to settle in Palestine anyway.

    Look, the zionists (not all) jews realised that jews were not
    wanted anywhere at all.

    So we decided to take our fate in our own hands.

    This is the meaning of zionizm: jews, in the long run, cannot rely on
    anyone but themselves. And if anyone tries to kill us, we'll kill
    him back, with interest.

    Are you saying that if my people are not wanted somewhere we should
    just lay down and surrender, or fight back ?

    Here's a question: Why do Jews think they can get into gun battles with Arabs and "win"?

    Because we have no other choice. We cannot entrust our existence
    to anyone else, so we make sure: Israel is here to stay.
    or
    our enemies go down with us.

  111. why why why? by hoz · · Score: 1

    why does this thread turn political? I don't see when another country's government turn off the M$ machine, do /.'ers start the political commentary. Why Israel? Its best to keep this forum A-Political.

  112. What about the free cups? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, come on. Sure, they might not listen to us, but we get free coffee cups every time they show up to sell more Office licenses. And they are the nice steel cups.

  113. dumb claims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Err, you've got that the wrong way around. That was certainly one of the contributing factors to my ditching Linux recently. Documents that came to me in Word format at 50k quickly ballooned to 2800k after a few duplications. I checked them under MS Word, and discovered that they had grown to 280k, corresponding to five duplications of the original document.

    Now beyond the obvious technical solution of switching to a database and just storing the relevant information (unfortunately not an option because I only control my own step in the document life chain), switching to Microsoft products over OOo was the most acceptable option.

    This wasn't my only reason for ditching Linux, and I will probably switch back at some time. I'm not completely comfortable with the Microsoft environment. Better support for documents that I deal with in Microsoft formats is on my list of requirements, though.

  114. MSO - OO by zpok · · Score: 1

    I think MSOffice is way better than OO. It's more consistent, has well thought out features and looks good.

    In a perfect world, Israel would ditch Windows and keep MSOffice.

    Glad to have brought a bit of controversy. And congrats for this very good news to the OS community. :-)

    --
    I think, therefore I am...I think.
  115. Re:what's the point? by krewemaynard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "MSWord gives you a default filename based on the first few words in the document when you save a new file."

    you call that a feature? i always give it a different filename, usually b/c the auto-names suck--the first line of what i write genereally isn't the most intuitive or memerable thing about my file.

    --
    I saw it on Slashdot, it must be true!
  116. Re:what's the point? by edxwelch · · Score: 1

    It does for me. Especially when I create a document just to make notes. Anyways you don't have to use the suggested default if you don't want to

  117. Re:Am I alone... by 10am-bedtime · · Score: 1

    these "to most people" kind of arguments are lame. they use quantitative reasoning (which is fine in limited context), but based on the wrong quantities. reality is: "most people" are either not yet born, have no connection to the internet, or have no computers, period.

    thus, if you want to use quantitive reasoning based on "most people", your argument needs to take into account trends in the future to be self-consistent and complete, in this case touching upon the mechanisms of change (education, disenfranchisement, catharsis, inspiration) as well as simply underscoring the tired old mechnaisms of equilibrium (inertia basically).

    you can gain self-consistency and completeness another way of course: drop the "most people" basis. your argument then would be along the lines of: "from the people i've seen (i.e. bounded by my experience, i.e. anecdotally)...", which would be enjoyable for raving critics to read about in its own respect, w/o their having to filter out the "most people" pseudo-authoritative b.s.

    best wishes on your evolution of style whether you choose to pander to critics or not.

  118. Customizabel Features by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

    umm - this at least one point of an open source community product. The ability to request those options - or code them yourself(as options). If its not customizable in that way - then someone can MAKE it so. Not so with Office - even if you have the skills - only MS can make those kinda changes.

    --
    OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
  119. Yes but... by lpret · · Score: 1

    Can you copy and paste from one to the other? I know that's a pretty hard thing to do with linux...

    <ducks>

    --
    This is my digital signature. 10011011001
  120. Way to reduce HR costs! by k12linux · · Score: 2, Funny
    From Article: First out of the door is the Israeli employment agency, which will replace 550 out of 700 users with OpenOffice.

    Man, that's amazing. I can think of a a few employees where I work that I'd like to replace with OO as well. I'm sure a couple could even be replaced with a very small shell script.

  121. Re:Atheism (OT) by sydb · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the sun is not shining.

    Perhaps you are actually a disembodied brain hooked up to virtual reality hardware.

    Perhaps you are dreaming. Perhaps your eyes deceive you.

    In the presence of the possibility that a statement is false, the statement must be an opinion - excepting this one, which is verifiably true.

    --
    Yours Sincerely, Michael.
  122. IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody who thinks that OpenOffice.org lacks features hasn't looked at it carefully enough. For example, the only features that MS Word has that Openoffice.org lacks is a grammar checker and (in the version released last month), the half-baked security options.

  123. Re:Great so the REAL terrorists pick OO.org by L-s-L69 · · Score: 1

    "Europe is noted for it's centuries old habit of anti-semitism."

    Its WHAT...One country (Germany) at one period of history (1930ish-1945) was anti sematic.

    The guardian pool was after the war. Before the war started 2 million people, the largest march ever seen in th UK marched against the war. After it had begun feeling was less strong as most people supported our troups, not the goverment that had sent them.

    And to the f**CKER who modded me offtopic..screw you!!

  124. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  125. I'm not part of this in any way, but... by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 0, Troll


    You said, "Look, the zionists (not all) jews realised that jews were not wanted anywhere at all."

    This is not true. There are more Jews in New York than Israel. Although their relationships are not perfect there, they are wanted.

    I'm an American. I'm not Jewish. I'm not Arab. I don't live near New York. I'm not saying I know any answers. I know that many Jews are very well educated, and many are brilliant. But I've observed that, when considering violence, Jewish IQ drops to a very low value.

    By getting Americans into a fight with Arabs, the Jews have assured that, eventually, the truth will become known to American taxpayers, and Jews will become unwelcome in America. The Jews have been making themselves unwelcome for 3200 years. When will it stop?

    The truth I am speaking of: The U.S. government gives $5.5 billion each year, about $1000 for every Jewish man, woman, and child in Israel, to Israelis for the purpose of killing Arabs. According to recent interviews on TV of the King of Jordan and the Iranian ambassador, U.S. government support for violence against Arabs is 90% of the reason for the terrorism against the United States. Most Americans don't know this. When average Americans discover that they are paying for Jewish violence, they will revolt.

    In return for American hospitality, Jews have helped corrupt the U.S. government. Put yourself in the place of a non-Jewish American. Would you want such a powerful and powerfully destructive small group in your country? Those who call themselves "Zionists" are helping history repeat itself.

    1. Re:I'm not part of this in any way, but... by the+morgawr · · Score: 0

      Cut the anti-semetic dibble. It's disgraceful and shows you ignorent you are.

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    2. Re:I'm not part of this in any way, but... by hatchetman82 · · Score: 1

      i dont like writing long rants, so i'll be short.
      first of all, regarding your 1st statement, i only wish it were true.
      anti-semitism in europe has reached an alarming peak, and many jews (especially in france) are simply fleeing from there.
      and second, regarding the american aid to israel :
      this aid comes in the form of money israel can only spend on _american_ military products, so actually most of this money is used to keep a part of the american economy alive, and not to be used by Israel as it wants.

    3. Re:I'm not part of this in any way, but... by popo · · Score: 1



      This is absolutely absurd!!! You blame the victims of persecution for the persecution itself!

      That's like saying "Who wants black people in your neighborhood when it just promotes KKK violence"

      When will the violence stop? When racism and intolerance stop.

      Antisemitism is real and has killed millions and millions of people. It is not a response to some intolerable action on the part of jewish people. (What action could possibly justify the repeated murder of thousands of people year over year for a thousand years?)

      Today the new effort to single out Israel for ""atrocities"" is the latest face of that same very real antisemitism.

      Europe and the Middle East have a long history of intolerance and racial killing. It ain't a pretty history but its true.

      And those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it.

      --
      ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
  126. Is the Israeli Defense Force going to follow?! by J0eKewl · · Score: 1

    The IDF has been using Linux in various projects for many years already. I know that they have sponsered contributions some Linux projects which included contributions to the kernel. They don't tend to leave their name on things that they did... it is usually considered classified as to what exactly they weere working on... even though the code get released.

  127. Re:Atheism (OT) by papik · · Score: 1

    Cogito ergo sum.

  128. Re:The israelis made the right step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't think so they are too coward to dare.

  129. OO a good substitute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've used Open Office and think that it is a good substitute. They've copied MS down to the letter. They have even copied all the features I hate about MS. I just wonder in what version they are going to have Clippy come and give me some advice.

  130. Fundamental Contradiction by duck_prime · · Score: 1
    ... Israel has got some of the best politicians money can buy
    Too bad US law doesn't allow us to shop overseas; we're spending a mighty lot of money to buy third rate ones...
    It's so hard to please some people. First we hear complaints of how we're outsourcing our government corruption to low-cost Israeli politicos, then we get complaints that our local product just isn't cutting it.

    Of course, if we were really serious about getting some sleazy politics from low-cost areas, we'd start getting complaints that we're oppressing those poor pols by letting them steal only a million a day.
  131. Re:Jews realized in 1882 that they were not wanted by Zeriel · · Score: 1

    The Jews who settled in Palestine under the Ottomans bought their land with cash and improved it with their own labor. Read the history.

    Secondly, the violence between Jews and Arabs in Israel/Palestine falls into three categories, in chronological order:
    1. Jewish patrols defending bought-and-paid-for land from bandits
    2. Israel defending the borders it was given by the current occupying power from wars of aggression by adjacent states given their borders by the same occupying power.
    3. Israeli soldiers and police trying to find some effective way of dealing with suicide attacks.

    QUOTE: "Here's a question: Why do Jews think they can get into gun battles with Arabs and "win"?"

    Answer: Because every time the Arabs start a war with the Jews, the Jews somehow manage to win, with (now) or without (1948 etc) external support.

    As for your entire thesis, "jews knew they weren't wanted"...suppose you bought a vacant lot in my town. Then you built a house and farm, and you were very profitable. And then everyone in the town attacked you with pitchforks because they didn't want you there, AFTER you paid for the land and worked on it. Would you leave because you "weren't wanted" or would you call the police/defend yourself?

    --
    "America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
  132. Israel ihas been a nuclear power for 20 years by MarkWatson · · Score: 1

    .. with 1500 mile accurate range missile delivery systems.

    Who is afraid of whom?

    -Mark

  133. The "aid" is used to buy U.S.-made weapons,... by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    "this aid comes in the form of money israel can only spend on _american_ military products, so actually most of this money is used to keep a part of the american economy alive, and not to be used by Israel as it wants."

    The "aid" is used to buy U.S.-made weapons, which are solely used to kill Israel's Arab neighbors.

    $5 billion per year does not "keep a part of the american economy alive". It helps make the owners of U.S. arms manufacturers rich.

    1. Re:The "aid" is used to buy U.S.-made weapons,... by the+morgawr · · Score: 1

      FYI, Israel's arab neighbors recieve more aid then Israel.

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
    2. Re:The "aid" is used to buy U.S.-made weapons,... by hatchetman82 · · Score: 1

      i was merely saying the aid wasnt as philantropic as some people made it out to be

  134. When I speak against Jewish self-destructiveness.. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    When I speak against Jewish self-destructiveness, I am anti-Jewish? Jews should be allowed to destroy themselves without comment from anyone who is non-Jewish? Particularly when they are corrupting the U.S. government for their self-destructive purposes? It would be irresponsible not to comment.

    Both Jews and Arabs are Semitic, so being anti-Semitic would not be anti-Jewish.

  135. it is the leaders on both sides who are awful by MarkWatson · · Score: 1
    I have an Israeli friend maintains that the Israeli and Palestinian people (like people everywhere) are good and decent - it is the leadership on both sides that is attrocious. I totally believe him.

    Try a Google search on "Israel Peace Now" - lots of Israelis want to get out of the West Bank.

    In the US, the pro-Israel lobby is incredibly strong. The first president Bush was (perhaps) not re-elected because he publically criticized the settlements on the West Bank. His son is not making the same mistake.

    The fact that the Palestinian leadership (if you can call it that) is bad seems self evient.

    Just my opinion: don't blaim the people, blaim the leadership.

    -Mark

    1. Re:it is the leaders on both sides who are awful by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I watch on the news...and for the life of me, I don't know how they know which one to blow up?!?

      I can't tell the Palestinian people from the Jews just by looking at them on tv. Most of the people over there, at least in that area, seem to look about the same. With the exceptions of those that wear the tablecloths for hats...or the ones with the beards, black hats and some kind of long dark curls of hair down for side burns....they all seem to be about the same. So, why don't they just stop killing each other, divide the land, and go on with things? They seem to have more in common that differences....I mean, when you look at a person...unless they are decked out in some kind of weird religious garb...how can you know what God they worship? And even if you could...why kill someone over that?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:it is the leaders on both sides who are awful by Darby · · Score: 1

      ... the Israeli and Palestinian people (like people everywhere) are good and decent - it is the leadership on both sides that is attrocious....

      True enough.

      Just my opinion: don't blaim the people, blaim the leadership.

      The people, perhaps through inaction, always choose their leaders.

  136. Come on now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow this should be modded -10, redundant, overrated.

  137. Suppose a white person bought a vacant lot... by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    From the parent post: As for your entire thesis, "jews knew they weren't wanted"...suppose you bought a vacant lot in my town.

    Suppose a white person bought a vacant lot in Harlem, in the center of the black community in New York. Suppose many blacks warned him that he was not wanted there. Yes, it would be unfair, but the white person would be the target of violence.

    Here's good advice to anyone with an anger problem: Stay out of harm's way. On any particular day, there are many people crazier than you.

    Please notice that I said in my original post that Jews are wanted in New York. I think everyone, or almost everyone, agrees that they make fine contributions to U.S. society. (And stupid contributions, too, as do every sub-culture.)

    1. Re:Suppose a white person bought a vacant lot... by the+morgawr · · Score: 1
      That's a really, really bad analogy.

      In the 1800s the area that is currently modern Israel was almost unpopulated. The Jews moved in bought land from absentee landlords (most of whom lived in Syria BTW). They then built up the infrastructure and by 1880 (when the first record of the population was made) were in the majority.

      Unlike the white person in your example, Jews are not allowed to live an arab countries (like Jordan) from which they were expelled in the early 1900s. Arabs are allowed to live in Israel, and are granted full legal rights. In fact the life expectancy amoung Arab-Israelis is higher then the life expectancy in every other country in the region and most of the western world.

      How you can blame the Jews for what is going on is beyond me. The true blame lies with the Arab leaders (like the Grand Mufti and his decendant Arafat) who have repeatedly used their control over society to foment hatred against the Jews and Israel. Jews are targets of violence because the Palistinians have been deprived of the rights to speech and expression. If they knew the truth instead of what they are told to believe, there would be no problem.

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
  138. Do you call that "winning"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Answer: Because every time the Arabs start a war with the Jews, the Jews somehow manage to win,"

    The Jews have made a life of constant violence and fear of violence for themselves in Israel. Do you call that "winning"?

  139. Re:Great so the REAL terrorists pick OO.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [Since you don't read newspapers, even Bush and Blair condemn Israel's violence and humiliation tactics.]

    Yes, they condemn the violence so much that unlike what they did to the Palestinians, the money keeps flowing to Israel.

    It's all words. Israel knows it can do almost whatever it likes and get away with it because they're Israel and have bought the US Congress.

    What's truly funny (read pathetic) is that Israel owes its existence to the UN but does its best at every turn to ignore and flaunt its defiance at every measure passed against it because it knows the US will always veto any resolution against Israel.

  140. Re:When I speak against Jewish self-destructivenes by the+morgawr · · Score: 1
    Both Jews and Arabs are Semitic

    According to dictionary.com: an anti-Semite is "One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews."

    When I speak against Jewish self-destructiveness, I am anti-Jewish?

    When you make the same argument as Hitler with the same bogus evidence? When you blatetly ignore modern history? When you distort the facts to the disadvantage of Jews everywhere? When you unfairly single them out for critisism? Pardon me for assuming that you are just being anti-semitic.

    --
    The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
  141. ``tight-fisted'' origin? by andrewagill · · Score: 1

    I'm noticing that the Register article doesn't quote the Microsoft source that it claims characterizes the Israeli government as ``tight-fisted.''

    A little more searching and I can't find web sites for the Daily Mail or the Israeli Ministry of Commerce (if they're not on the internet, they must not exist <G>), and I can't find a MS press release.

    Can anyone help?

  142. Re:When I speak against Jewish self-destructivenes by tai_Dasher · · Score: 1

    A)Guy meant that you are discriminating based on the fact that people are "Jewish". The is racism.

    B)"Anti-Semiticism" is widely considered as "racism against Jews". It may not be a correct term, but that is what it came to mean.

    C)If anything, U.S. taxpayer's dollars are financing _ISRAELI_ violence towards Arabs.

    D)I would argue that the money goes to protect Israelis rather then kill Arabs. The fact of the matter is, that the IDF believes defending Israelis involves killing Arabs. Particulary people involved in terrorism, but they are never given a fair trial, so it's hard to say. This killing of Arabs you speak of is a means to an end. Not the best means I could think of, but then again, I don't run the government or the IDF.

    --
    "
  143. Re:When I speak against Jewish self-destructivenes by tai_Dasher · · Score: 1

    Also, Israeli soldiers (well, Israeli soldiers obeying legitimate orders, ie. most of them) never just "kill Arabs". When they kill innocent men, women and children, it's when they are shooting at people believed to be terrorists.

    --
    "
  144. Re:When I speak against Jewish self-destructivenes by the+morgawr · · Score: 1

    BTW, unlike, Hamas et. al., Israel does not purposefuly target innocent Arab civilians.

    --
    The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
  145. Fixed the slow startup time by HalliS · · Score: 1

    A friend here in school, who agreed to try OO out for a few weeks, before I helped him install a bootlegged MSOffice, told me today that the only thing he didn't like about it was the slow startup time.

    So I googled and found this on OOoforum.org:
    Go into tools / options / internet / and select "none" under proxy. It will help Ooo fire up quicker.

    ... andi it did, startup is quicker by far. Is this a bug?

    --


    My other UID is 1337
  146. you won't be needing any mistrial of defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or even a model rocket cam, to be able to detect the direction of the wwwinds of change, which are bullowing at gale force/farce.

    even us morons can cypher the savings/advantages of the gnu/linux stuff. it just wwworks A LOT better, &, (this is the part that terrifies the fraudulent softwar gangsters) there's no payper liesense to pay down.

  147. Re:Atheism (OT) by anantherous+coward · · Score: 1

    "Proving a negative" idea you speak of pertains to the breadth or scope of an assertion. For simple existence statements, the breadth of the assertion is small. For example, suppose someone says that there is green penguin. All they need to do is to show one example, and the assertion is demonstrated.

    But other assertions -- such as, All planets have gravity -- can not be demonstrated this way. These types of assertions have an expansive scope. They cannot be proved with certainty, but they can be falsified. Find a single planet with no gravity, then the assertion is falsified -- and in fact you have proved a negative.

    An interesting pattern holds in all of this -- the negation of an assertion regarding phenomena has a scope that is inverse to the original assertion.

    Now, when you deal with theistic claims, you are dealing with assertions that have an expansive scope. Because of this, empirical evidence is is only determinative if some certain implication of theism can be shown to be false, thus falsifying it. But empirical evidence can never verify absolutely verify theism any more than it can similarly expansive claim.

    That is why the proving a negative complaint is not relevant to the most common forms of theism, and why you example is somewhat beside the point.

  148. Color me dumb... by Strioa · · Score: 1
    Oh well... color me dumb...

    "Old Europe" should have been a dead giveaway..

    If anyone wanted to make an earnest comment along these lines, please take my previous post as a reply.

    Trying to develop a sense of sarcasm

    Strioa

  149. Re:Atheism (OT) by abulafia · · Score: 1
    I don't think we're disagreeing.

    Of course the presence/absence of a diety or three is non-provable.

    What I was getting at was that it is exactly as non-provable as my invisible intangible monkey, and I wonder why people will accept on faith one, but not the other (culture and history, of course, which is why my monkey now tells me to write a big, thick book about him...)

    --
    I forget what 8 was for.
  150. HUGE endorsement from MS for OO! by slagish666 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "The employment agency has selected an immature and unproven software package and its functionality is at the best close to Office 97," said Microsoft representatives.

    Wow, since Office XP is pretty similar to Office 2000, which really wasn't much of an improvement over Office 97, plus the fact that I don't think I've ever used a feature in Office XP that wasn't in Office 97, I'd say MS just landed a ringing endorsement of Open Office!

    --
    "Consider the lillies of the goddamn field."
  151. MS Office vs OO by israelireader · · Score: 2, Informative

    First, let me say to everyone who decided to give this discussion a political bent, "Go Fuck Off!"

    Second, Microsoft Office supports Hebrew brilliantly well. Much of the development for left-to-right language support for Microsoft apps is done in Haifa.

    I've followed OO Hebrew support for a number of years and it never could compete with Microsoft Office. Two years ago, after the IDF signed a $125 million deal with Microsoft, the Israeli Ministry of Finance finally got fed up. The government in general, with MOF backing, decided to take some of our many, many post bubble unemployed developers and pay them to improve Hebrew support for OO. Now it's ready. So this announcement is nothing to be surprised about. It's been in the works for a long time.

    Congratulations to the Open Source Community.

    PS Hebrew Mozilla on Windows is really great too.

  152. ESR needs to update "Holy Wars" entry... by aphor · · Score: 1

    That sounds like a slap in the face! What has Israel got against Microsoft? Have they supported past enemies of Ariel Sharon?

    Someone tell Steve Jobs to make a computing device targeted at asians and middle-eastern average joes. Head the Wintel beast off at the pass. Pick up the market share on both sides of the 3rd world war.

    What if ARMAGEDDON was the virtual battlefield for control of the home computer market? Mighty Microsoft and Intel and HP vs. Adroit Apple and Big Blue IBM? Where do the media companies fall? Sun with AMD cleaning up the low-cost server market?

    --
    --- Nothing clever here: move along now...
  153. Slightly off topic but by focitrixilous+P · · Score: 1

    What is the correct way to say the name of the suite provided by openoffice.org? OOo? OO.o? The Open Source version of the suite formerly known as StarOffice? Help me out here, someone. Anyone!

    --
    SAILING MISHAP
    1. Re:Slightly off topic but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ooorg, pronounced "urgh".

  154. Re:Great so the REAL terrorists pick OO.org by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 1
    Dood relax it's only ./ karma.

    Your personal anti-semitism got you all wound up because Isreal is using 0.0.? Well the French were rather helpful in putting people in boxcars during that time period too as I recall. The truth is Europe is anti-semite and always has been. The progroms and ghettos are historical facts.

    It doesn't matter when the survey was taken to you? Well I does to me. It's not some stale fact. It the reality now. You apperently prefer a terror exporting Saddam and mass graves over the disorder of a non-socialist/bathist country that is putting it's self back together after 30 years of a violent and muderous dictatorship.

    --
    If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
    Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
  155. Re:The israelis made the right step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Translating...

    "an unhappy country
    the most hypocritical of Earth
    crazy suicides
    stupid who like war

    Gabriel the thinker"

  156. No matter who is right, it looks bad. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2


    Each side believes that it is right. However, when Israelis shoot at Arabs on the ground with U.S.-made helicopter gunships, and everyone in the U.S., Europe, and Arab lands see that on TV, it plays badly, very badly. No matter who is right, it looks bad.

  157. No amount of talking changes the craziness. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    I'm definitely not blaming the Jews for Arab craziness. I'm not blaming whites for Black craziness. I'm not blaming Jews or Blacks for Caucasian craziness. But the craziness is there, nevertheless, and it cannot be ignored. No amount of talking about who is right changes the fact that the craziness exists. Stay clear of craziness; don't get involved with it, particularly when there are 14 million of you and 1.1 billion Muslims.

  158. Not true. Israel has received far more aid... by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Not true. Israel has received far more aid from the U.S. government than any other country.

  159. I was quoting a Jewish, Israeli web page. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    Also: I wasn't there in 1882, obviously. I was only taking the first sentence of a description from an Israeli, Jewish web page: "Under Ottoman Rule 1882 - 1917 -- From the beginning Jewish settlement met with opposition from the local Arabs."

    It doesn't matter who is "right". Jews weren't wanted, and Jews didn't care enough that they weren't wanted. They didn't take enough care with their relationships with the people who already lived there. And now Jewish public relations are falling fast, as the perception grows that Jews are violent people. I did not say that they are violent people, only that the perception that they are violent is growing.

    Anyhow, don't be upset with me. I don't have any control over any of this.

    1. Re:I was quoting a Jewish, Israeli web page. by the+morgawr · · Score: 1
      Well, some people in one neighborhood in Boston don't want Blacks to be able to live there...And a while back some people didn't want Blacks to be allowed to share the same schools as their white children; I guess we should just let them have their way. Confronting hatred doesn't acomplish anything after all....

      The site you are reading distorts the facts. We don't know who was there before 1882 for certain. We do know that visitors to the region claimed it was basically deserted in the early 1800s and we know that by 1882 the Jews were in the majority. We also know that these Jews created jobs and increased the amount of arable land, raising the standard of living for everyone.

      To leave because they were not wanted by arab leaders would have been foolish and stupid. They had a legitimate claim to the land, submiting to hatred, would have done no one any good.

      However no amount of argueing will ever change history. We are where we are today and the important thing is to move forward. Ultimately, sensible people will adopt the principles of self determination, freedom, and democracy.

      My complaint with the US policy is that it treats the targeting of innocent civilians with and the accidental killing of innocent bystanders as morally equal. It does not encourage human rights, or democratic principles. It doesn't even encourage fair treatment of either side by the UN (The UN has spent more time condeming Israel then every other topic combined. It also discriminates agaist Palistinians in regaurd to refugee support). Instead it encourages the situation to foment, and causes the radicalization of both sides. Clinton was right, as long as terrorists and radicals are in control there can be no peace. At least is seems that Bush is trying to take his advice...

      --
      The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
  160. CORRUPTING THE U.S. GOVERNMENT??? by popo · · Score: 1


    You *DO* realize that Hitler made the same comment in the Third Reich when he spoke of the "outsiders" that had led the government astray?

    You also realize that the typical pre-genocidal condition for jews throughout history has been a country which blames its political, social and economic ills on them.

    So go ahead, blame the jews.

    After all, its not the wasps like Ken Lay, Dick Cheney, and the Bushes... its some jews somewhere that we can't see!!!

    Oh please!

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
  161. Re:Not true. Israel has received far more aid... by the+morgawr · · Score: 1

    Aid from the US yes, but maybe you should remember that there are other countries in the world. If you total up all of the aid Israel recieves vs the aid Arab countries recieve you will see that the money that Israel gets is dwarfed.

    --
    The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
  162. Re:Not true. Israel has received far more aid... by popo · · Score: 1


    Want to know what happens to Palestinian aid money?

    Would you believe that Yasser Arafat is listed in the TOP 5 of Forbes Magazines "Wealthiest Kings Queens and Despots".

    And no ... he wasn't born rich.
    And no ... he wasn't a business man.

    Read fer yerself:
    http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/0317/1 34.html

    and while yer at it:
    http://www.forbes.com/global/2003/0317/014.ht ml

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
  163. Re:Suppose a white person... False "Knowledge" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "In the 1800s the area that is currently modern Israel was almost unpopulated."

    Except, this is not true. The problem is that your ideas are based on biased sources -- right? Find some other sources.

    Try the National Geographic issue about the "Holy Land" of a year or so ago. Or read "Blood Brothers", an account by a Palestianian Christian of what happened to his village (you might say this is biased in the other direction, but he's not lying about anything; and it would be a useful corrective and another perspective.)

    It's that "land without a people for a people without a land" idea ... nice if it had been the case. But who was living in Jerusalem? Plenty of Palestinian Muslims, Christians, and Jews -- who got along basically pretty well with each other until the Zionists came along, and *violently* -- began their program.

    One can understand the cause of the Zionist violence, given what they'd just been through in Europe; but that wasn't the Arabs' fault...

    Historically, treatment of Jews in Muslim lands had been FAR FAR better than their treatment in Christian lands. Islam normally took a sort of condescending benevolence towards Judaism....

    The hostility of Arabs towards Jews began with Zionism and its violence. The Zionists were throwing non-Jews out of their villages in Palestine and murdering people; and you are suprised that this was and is resented?

    Arabs are not granted "full legal rights" in Israel. In Jerusalem the state has a policy that the population of Jews must remain a certain percentage... so that Arabs are denied building permits. Yes, building permits are ethnically based in Israel. This is just one example of their daily humiliation and second-class status.

    But how can it be otherwise, if the country is to "remain a Jewish state"? This is a religio-ethnic definition, and is inherently discriminatory.

    "If you knew the truth instead of what you are told to believe, there would be no problem".

    Investigate a little more deeply, my friend. But you will not be very comfortable with what you find, I'm afraid, and will probably prefer to retreat to believing what you find comfortable. You'll certainly find plenty of texts willing to tell you what you want to hear.

    For Google searches, try "The Catastrophe" - I think that's what the Palestinians refer to the coming of the Zionists as. It certainly was for them. Or that "Blood Brothers" book is available on Amazon; its author, a priest, advocates reconciliation.

  164. Who said Isralies didn't have good taste... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I prefer abiword, gnumeric, gnucash, etc... and I like to piece meal the "best tool for the job", but who can argue with using highly functional code that is both open and free?

  165. The MS rep was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...and its functionality is at the best close to Office 97," said Microsoft representatives. "

    Sum's up open office pretty well.

    1. Re:The MS rep was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What improvements does '97 have, over XP?

      Most of the stuff I found in XP is annoyances. Transparent "assistant" with no handy "x" to close is the most visible I think.

  166. Chemical Consciousness by Kris+Thalamus · · Score: 0

    I was originally going to post: "How would psychotropic drugs work if consciousness were not chemically based?", but I didn't expect a response this far down an off topic thread.

    What does "chemically based" mean?

    You're familiar with the periodic table of elements, right? Anything that's made up of those elements on the table is "chemically based". Or, to put it in simpler terms, anything that has mass is made of chemicals.

    Now I concur that some explanatory fictions involving human perception and behavior have been around long before Mendeleev wrote the periodic table. And because of a terribly potent mixture of willful ignorance, wishful optimism, and lack of education, some of these fictions still exist.

    There are things about chemicals and animals which we don't understand properly and may never.

    Yes, there are limits to our knowledge, but that is no reason to give up the process of discovery. We shouldn't assume that, because we are fallible, that all explanations are equally invalid.

    Open up any neuroscience textbook and you'll find that we know a great deal about how the brain works. You will learn that consciousness can be shut on and off like a light switch with the correct application of chemical or electrical stimulation. You may even come up with a more nuanced definition of the term "consciousness".

    What you won't find in the book are chapters on ghosts, homeopathy, chakras, or chi. Why is that? It's not because neuroscientists have a personal grudge against venerable cultures. It's because those concepts add nothing to a functional analysis of the brain and its behavior. They don't help the surgeon, the pharmacist or the medical researcher.

    Drugs are [made of] chemicals.

    [Some]Drugs alter consciousness

    Therefore...
    Consciousness must be a chemical?
    Consciousness must be a property of chemicals?
    Consciousness is an energy emitted by chemicals?


    Consciousness is more of a subjective interpretation of a particular set of biochemical events. Consciousness is certainly not a single chemical. I wouldn't call it a chemical property. It's more of a side effect. Anyway, the term "chemical property" is more closely associated with inorganic chemistry than biochemistry. There is no reason to believe that consciousness is a type of energy either.

    Why not just:
    Consciousness interacts with the chemicals of the brain.


    I don't support that statement because it implies that consciousness has a non-chemical or non-brain existence. Consciousness has never been verifiably found to exist outside the brain, and I've found no evidence to suggest that it's even possible.

    You may still want evidence for the chemical conception of the brain. I suggest you look in any neuroscience journal. Consult with a brain surgeon. Look in the thousands of neurology, anatomy, or physiology texts that have been published. What you'll unearth are literally millions of experiments that demonstrate that virtually every emotion, every perception, or every motive, can be altered or controlled through the correct application of electrodes, drugs, and transcranial magnetic stimulation. ... or just read this post

    1. Re:Chemical Consciousness by sydb · · Score: 1

      Let me put it this way. I appreciate all the evidence we have which some people interpret as pointing to a chemical basis for consciousness. You don't need to repeat it to me! Honestly, I have a reasonable understanding of science; I can appreciate that an intelligent entity can be completely physical in nature. I can imagine a being which reports emotional changes based on chemicals and where no immaterial "mind" is involved.

      I acknowledge all that and the rest. But what the chemical-consciousness advocates fail to address - the unacknowledged thorn in their side; the nagging doubt which scuppers their plan - is: what perceives? What is this thing that knows the colour red? If it is a chemical side-effect, where does it reside? How can a chemical side-effect actually experience qualia.

      You know about qualia, I suppose; it's all those things you can't describe without resort to analogy, like colours and smells and joy and depression and love and guilt and hardness and softness and the effects of psychotropic drugs.

      None of these things can be experienced by a chemical side-effect. Because they are not within the realm of mathematical science, and all the tools we have for describing the world scientifically are mathematical.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
  167. Open Office sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't even plot 2 scater plots on the same graph that have different x values.

  168. Why not stay with what works? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    It's not what you say, and nothing in my previous post led to what you said.

    It's interesting that you are attacking me for repeating quotes from a Jewish web site. Maybe the real issue is that Jews don't want non-Jews to comment about anything having to do with Jewish affairs. It there something it is necessary to hide?

    Few people in the U.S. understand anything about Jewish history, or have any problem with Jews. Except the "Christian" extremists. They want all Jews to be killed or converted. Jewish leaders know that, and take the Christian money anyway. At least that what they say when they are interviewed on TV. I have no other information about this than watching the interviews.

    Other than the Christian extremists, the other groups in the U.S. that want Israeli violence have no interest in or concern with religion. These other groups are: 1) Secret departments of the U.S. government, like the CIA operations department. They get more money and promotions when there is more trouble. 2) U.S. Weapons manufacturers. They want the profits, and don't care who kills who. 3) Those who have special interests in oil profits. They sell oil to the U.S. military. They also want violence as a way of arranging oil holdings that would otherwise be illegal or too expensive. 4) Those who like any violence, because they have problems with anger.

    So, except for the large number of "Christian" extremists, there is absolutely no involvement of religion or ethnic issues.

    My understanding of the U.S. culture is that most Americans are happy with the contribution of Jews to the American society. I've said this twice before in previous comments in this thread.

    I think it is reasonable to suppose that, when most Americans learn about their government's support for Jewish violence, there will be a decrease in that support for Jews. But, I don't control this, obviously, or have all the facts.

    If you agree with this view, then you may think that it was a public relations mistake for Jews to take money from the U.S. government. A famous Jewish leader, I forget who now, said that U.S. government money was like pouring gasoline on a fire. I'm only repeating the view of many Jews. If they hadn't said it first, it would have taken longer to develop my own understandings.

    So, Jewish integration into U.S. society is an example of what works. Jewish integration into middle east society is an example of what doesn't work. Aren't there lessons to be learned from this? Why not stay with what works?

  169. Re:Suppose a white person... False "Knowledge" by the+morgawr · · Score: 1
    I did not say the land had no people, people lived there, but it was practiacally devoid of civilization.

    My source is Mark Twain. In an essay published in 1867 after a visit to Palistine he said that "There is not a solitary village throught its whole extent...one may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings." I'll trust a well know American author, essayists, and journalist over some random website. Another good source is the historian Benny Morris

    Muslims, Christians, and Jews -- who got along basically pretty well with each other until the Zionists came along

    The "zionists" weren't part of the mix when the Palistinians sided with the Ottomans in World War I, when they tried to drive the Jews out durring the 30s, or when they sided with the Germans in World War II. The Arab leaders in the region have never accepted the Jewish presence and have repeatedly tried to anihilate them.

    the Zionist violence, given what they'd just been through in Europe; but that wasn't the Arabs' fault..

    Your talking about the terroist groups Etzel and Lechi? The Israeli army forcibly disarmed them as it's first official action. I've seen no such action from the PLO

    Historically, treatment of Jews in Muslim lands had been FAR FAR better than their treatment in Christian lands. Islam normally took a sort of condescending benevolence towards Judaism....

    The hostility of Arabs towards Jews began with Zionism and its violence. The Zionists were throwing non-Jews out of their villages in Palestine and murdering people; and you are suprised that this was and is resented?

    Historically Jews were treated as second class citizens in both cultures. The fact that Jews were "less" second class in 1880 means nothing. In Arab countries, Jews had no legal recorse against violence, and were regularly sujected to pograms. Even today, Jews are not allowed to live in most Arab nations. When Israel became a state, millions of Jews, who had lived in arab countries for generations were driven out, and forced to leave everything they own behind. Were the decendants of those Jews targeting innocent arabs in those countries today, I would condem it.

    Arabs are not granted "full legal rights" in Israel All persons in Israel are accorded full, and equal protection of the law. And Arab CITIZENS are granted equal rights. You would be correct to claim that the process for becoming a citizen heavily favors Jews. However even if Israel was the most racially segregated state in the world, that would not justify the targeting of innocent civilians for murder.

    Investigate a little more deeply, my friend.

    I would be currious to know how you plan to actually SOLVE the problem in the region. Standing around playing the blame game only lets more innocents die. I have a very solid understanding of the history and geo-political situation of the region.

    The crux of the problem is that the Palistinian people are used as political pawns by Arab leaders who care nothing about them. That is why I am a staunch advocate for creating a Palistinian democracy that respects human rights, and has an independant judiciary. Unfortunately, useless propoganda from these same people gets quoted by others who have no knowledge of the situation, and then gets propogated as truth. Siding with Arafat and the other Jew-haters, only hurts the Palistinian people in the long run. Listen to the truth, and realize that what we need to be talking about is a process to move forward and get us where we want to go, not who did what when, and how to get revenge.

    --
    The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
  170. U.S. policy causes radicalization of both sides. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    You said, "... U.S. policy ... encourages the situation to foment, and causes the radicalization of both sides."

    Exactly right. This is a VERY BIG ISSUE. It is extremely dangerous for those, who want stability in the world for the Jewish cultures, to allow themselves to be influenced by U.S. policy. See my other comment about this: #7565331.

    "U.S. policy" regarding the Jews is largely composed of ignorance and greed. It should not be considered friendly guidance, and it cannot be perverted or converted into friendly guidance.

    You said, saying the opposite of what you believe, "Confronting hatred doesn't acomplish anything after all...." The situation of the Blacks in Boston may be a situation of "confronting hatred". If it can be done successfully, fine.

    What's happening in Israel is not "confronting hatred". Whenever people see Israelis on TV firing on Palestinians in the street from U.S.-made helicopter gunships, that is not "confronting hatred". That is breeding hatred. It is breeding hatred even if a panel of a hundred judicial experts would decide that the helicopters were being used in defense.

  171. Re:U.S. policy causes radicalization of both sides by the+morgawr · · Score: 1
    What's happening in Israel is not "confronting hatred". Whenever people see Israelis on TV firing on Palestinians in the street from U.S.-made helicopter gunships, that is not "confronting hatred". That is breeding hatred. It is breeding hatred even if a panel of a hundred judicial experts would decide that the helicopters were being used in defense.

    SHOCK!!!!! Big media only tells you what it wants you to think!! Yeh, I've been critical of them too. Of course the BBC, showing only Israelis doing bad things breeds hatred. But you can't abdicate all responsibility. As a citizen of a democracy you are responsible for reaching your own conclusions.

    The terrorists target innocent Israeli civilians then run and hide behind innocent Palistinian civilians, knowing that when the Israeli's come in after them, they can manage to get a few innocents killed and show up on the news. Unfortunately you can't force fair news coverage. You can try to educate people about the facts, and try to carry on an intelligent disscussion and reach a realistic solution however.

    My opinion is that the first step to true peace is ending the UN discrimination against both sides. The second step is forcibly disarming terrorists groups, and setting up a free, democratic society in the Palistinian territories along with all the infrastructure that entials. Step 3, reach an agreeable peace deal will work itself out.

    Why don't we do this you ask? Aside from the fact that it would only benefit the innocent civilians on both sides, it's going to take time, and cost of lot of money and political capital, that people just don't want to spend. The U.S. approach is the closest to this (the Europeans are so far in left field I don't think they are comming back), but by equating the IDF with terrorists, and treating Arafat as a democratically elected leader of a free society, the ultimate resolution of this road map is going to be another despotic regime, and state sponsor of terror.

    --
    The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
  172. Exactly! by iriles · · Score: 1

    And if Sun doesn't want to add the feature... then switch vendors. That's the beauty of open source, zero vendor lock-in and you get the exact feature set you want. It's such a no brainer, especially for governments and other large organizations.

    After just a few major countries switch over (China, Brazil, Isreal, etc...) then the amount of money spent on developing the Open Source projects will dwarf what any single organization can match, even microsoft. That's when we'll start seeing the network effect in affect, and the beggining of the end of proprietary software for all but the most specialized applications.

    I could just be a dreaming but it seems feasible.

  173. MS's Hebrew is the definition of good bidi by hendrix69 · · Score: 1

    It's simply not true that MS Office's (and the OS ingeneral) Hebrew support is anything less than perfect. MS pratically wrote the book on bi-di localization and Hebrew and Arabic support. The entire OS supports these languages in every application, and Office has additional word processing support (spelling, graphics, forms, what have you). As a Hebrew Windows user I can tell you that I've been waiting for quite a log time for some company to actually be able to compete with MS's level of Hebrew support. The recent version of OO has got the bidi issue right for the first time, and that's a nice long-awaited change, but let's no confuse ourselve - they're way behind MS on localization. This is the kind of issue that huge companies with fat contracts can deal with much better than even the most highly motivated open source developers which just happen not to know Hebrew.

    --
    The power of Christ compiles you!
  174. Re:Great so the REAL terrorists pick OO.org by myom · · Score: 1

    You think suicide bombers are Joe Palestinians?

  175. Re:Great so the REAL terrorists pick OO.org by myom · · Score: 1

    I bet you did not know this when you wrote your comment:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/25/is ra el.loan.guarantees/index.html

  176. Israeli Ministry of Commerce Picks OO.org Over MS by muk99 · · Score: 1

    A few hundreds of the workstations at the employment agency, are already equipped with MS Office. The rest of the work stations are used mainly to process employment and unemployed data, and need only an office suite to occationally write a memo or do some basic calculations or tables using a spreadsheet. For that purpose, OO is more than enough once it has full Hebrew support, and can import at least basic Word or Excell documents. In addition, that network is serviced by IBM, so the match and the matchmaker are obvious.. Therefore, it is not a real breakthrough albeit a significant first step. However, the Israely finance ministry has allocated a few hundred K $ to support Hebrew interface for open source software. Israel is currently under heavy financial strain, and budget cuts, and that may promote a faster shift towards much cheaper open source software, in the near future.

  177. W00 H000! by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

    @ This is good news. Even if OO has a few issues, it can do all the important things just as well as MSO and for an infintesimal price (free). And most importantly it can be customized by the user if they get the SDK. @ In your interface, bill.

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
  178. anti-Semitic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah. that will teach anti-Semitic microsoft. If they don't pander to Israel, they must be anti-Semitic, right?

    (Sarcasm, people...)

  179. Bible wielding maniac... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those arguments have been put forward by many bible wielding maniacs before you. Your arguments are based on your view of the bible as being the only true source of information. (Guess what? Full text search of Moby Dick for "Gaza" returned zero results! Hmmm.)

    If the Koran does not make statements about claiming land from other people then I am all for it.

    Can I claim Gaza if I write a book saying that I have a "right" to that area?

    Also, there are many orthodox Jews that are on the Palestinians side.

    In order for you to get back on track with your life I suggest you talk to this guy.