Slashdot Mirror
Word 2007 to Feature Built-in Blogging
Vitaly Friedman writes "Microsoft has revealed a surprising new feature for Word 2007: built-in blog publishing. The big surprise is this: the HTML that is generated is actually not that bad. 'Joe Friend, a lead program manager (Microsoft's term for a person who creates the specifications for software that programmers implement) has posted an entry on his blog regarding an interesting new feature being implemented for Word 2007: direct publishing of blogs to the web from within the program.'"
Clippy: I see you're writing something that's critical of a repressive regime. Would you like me to:
( ) Censor your writings prior to ftp upload?
( ) Inform government agents?
( ) Prepare a firing squad?
(*) Do nothing (but fuck up the html)
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
So when can we expect a direct interface in slashdot for MS word users?
Beings aspergers AND pulling chicks... I enjoy the challenge!
You know... if Microsoft integrated a spell checker that shows squiggly lines in Internet Explorer, the main reason I've seen for wanting to use word to blog goes away.
Gotta love Safari for that, I guess...?
Obviously they would claim the HTML produced is "not bad". What do you expect them to say? "Our program is terrible, don't bother using it."
In the last several iterations of Office, I've seen nothing different in Word (besides some stuff being moved around). I'm not particularly interested in a program that will help me blog (or even myself blogging at all), but it's cool that they're actually thinking of things.
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
Yet another feature nobody wants, elongates load-time, eats up cycles, and probably makes Office more prone to crashing...
Sigh
You know, when people are saying that the quality of the generated data is "actually not that bad", with a surprised and delighted tilt in their voices, you know your customers aren't exactly expecting greatness anymore.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Yeah, but what happens when the autocorrect starts making changes like:
becoming
-Chris
--an unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys--
This "feature" is "surprising": Saving HTML to an HTTP server?
Yeah. Real "innovative". Oh, wait, this is a satirical post. Right?...
Blogs viewable with only IE7 with Windows Vista Cray Edition installed. :)
Oh, and the ability to upload Word macros directly onto the internets! Wow, that should be infallible!! Right, right?
I wonder how many people that start out blogging using MS Word 07 will register for the first publisher on the list: MSN spaces. Seems Blogger is also listed, so it's not all doom & gloom..
Nuh-uh!
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
You know what, since nobody else seems to want to do it, I'll go out on a limb here and defend M$ this time. I'm impressed they claimed that the HTML isn't bad. I think it's good of them to man up. Because in saying that the new stuff isn't bad, they're admitting the old HTML code in word was.....and they're taking steps to fix the problem. If you actually looked at the source from the article (which was generated using word), it looked clean and readable. Nothing like the HTML we used to see from Word. On /. everytime Word is mentioned you get the same old responces, "I haven't touched a new verison of word since 97", "they haven't added any new features that are worthwhile", and "I don't even use the program, it's M$ they suck". Fair enough. But can you really complain about them not adding new features, then bitch when they obviously start thinking and try to? Do you think the people who post here are Word's targeted consumers? The majority of people don't really understand that much about computers, nor do they want to. They like to check email, surf the web, chat online, write in their blog, and upload their pictures for everyone to see. So the fact that the new Word might have a blog publishing feature is a big deal for most people who use the lastest versions of Word.
The main effect of this will be that we see even more blogs that use Comic Sans. Oh boy, I can hardly wait!
This guy's the limit!
Regardless of how good it is, there's a fair bit of competition in online blogging systems - many webhosts such as 50megs.com have had built-in html-helpers for years. Besides, when I think of Word, I think of letters & CVs & other formal stuff - certainly not blogging!
As a side note, when the submitter says the HMTL is "not bad", could they clarify that a bit? Is it W3C compliant? (in which case IE6 may have trouble rendering it!)
Don't you just hate it when people reply to your signature?
Apple did this with iWeb (as part of their iLife suite) and it is a neat thing; just type and upload. The HTML is isn't awesome, either, but it has potentional.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
I hereby appeal directly to Microsoft: Please DON'T add blogging to Word.
Compared to the number of Word users, the number of bloggers is miniscule. Adding this feature will make Word bigger, slower, more vulnerable and more complicated.
Word still has not evolved as a word processor since the day it was first released. Sure, lots of stuff has been added, like Word Art, bad spelling checking, clippy, etc., but it is still just a basic editor without real word processor features like true rulers, proper hyphenation, what-you-see-is what-you-get (well, preview mode sort of does this, but not properly), tables, calculations etc., etc.
I'd like to see Microsoft make Word a real word processor, using open document format standards so that we can archive Word documents and be able to read them in 10 years time.
Of course, MS can do no right with the Slashdot crowd. I think that this is a reasonably cool feature for people who can't write HTML or FTP. Why the anger? If you don't want to use the feature, don't use it? somehow, I'm imagining lots of OSS drones complaining about how stupid this feature is, while working feverishly to get it into OpenOffice and Star Office.
Go ahead, mod me down.
Will Word 2008 support it ?
Now we want to combine that with a world full of peoples personal opinions and daily lives.
:)
Then have it uploaded on the internet?
Internet pollution it definatly makes you feel like those damned hippies with their W3C compliancy will start protesting soon
1) More fonts. 2) More clip art. 3) Themes. Then it can tap into all that teeny blogging energy. "It looks like you are whining about your life. Would you like me to set your "Now Listening To:" music tag to something appropriate?"
Okay, someone has to say it.
I checked out the source of the article (just like the guy says to) and it is, in fact, pretty damn bad. The tag is used a lot (rather a big no-no now) and, furthermore, all of the tags are in uppercase. I realize that the latter problem is easy to rectify, but nobody should be using uppercase tags anymore.
Microsoft Frontpage
Need I say more?
The beauty of e-mails generated by Word, the strict adherence to HTML standards demonstrated by Frontpage and IE....
And of course the literary values beloved by blogger everywhere...
Three Squirrels
1 - read the posts above yours. i don't see any anger. there are many people talking about how it's a relatively useless feature, but that's about it.
2 - it's true, it isn't a feature anyone should crap their pants over. not every blogging service will be able to work with it anyway.
3 - i would imagine that the setup won't be exactly simple, and a pretty large percentage of the users would be people who don't quite know what 'blogging' is anyway and sign up through the program (if it is available) for a blog account with one of the MSN services.
4 - putting 'go ahead, mod me down' in your post is a cheap way of trying to make yourself look like a martyr or something as soon as you get modded down for a legitimate reason. WEAK
-- lol pwned
An easter egg in the program reportedly allows a waterskier to navagate around a course and ends with a tricky jump over a shark contained in a small netted area.
Face it MS. Word was pretty much done around 97 or 95 version.
How bout triming it down and making it not suck for once?
(Still uses notepad for most text creation.)
It's silly duplication of effort. Why not make frontpage better for this sort of thing - isn't that what it's there for? Certainly I think this is a feature that would be better elsewhere than in a word processor.
I am trolling
I must say that no doubt will the Fortune 500 companies CIOs think this blogging feature is worth their multi-billion dollar software assurance fees to Microsoft.
Blogging is the very feature which proves why Office is the enterprise word processor of choice.
The first time that someone accidently blogs sensitive company/military information without realising it is going to be hilarious.
Frontpage is a separate product, I'm pretty sure. They're aiming at *everybody* that uses Word. Not too many people use Frontpage, I don't think... Besides, most people don't even know what Frontpage is. It's too intimidating for a regular person. Word really isn't.
But will they conform strictly to an existing blog API or do what they did with LDAP and mutate it into something not quite compatible?
http://www.billstclair.com/blogmax/
That's Jobs's, you fucking retard.
The correct way is Jobs'.
But what to expect from a retard calling everyone a retard.
Right on! This could be the thing that gets Grandmas blogging. I don't think it is a must have by any stretch, but it is a good move. Even if it isn't a reason to buy, MS could make it work with some MSN blogging thing that links readers and authors to Microsft's relevant advertising network. Nice extra income stream, even on pirated software (assuming they don't send the software police after you). Smart move if you ask me.
I'll admit to be grammatically and spellingly challenged - and I blame those little red squiggles for half of that problem. However, I must admit that the little green squiggles have accomplished much more (grammatically speaking) than the ineffective public school system that shaped my language skills. /. reader I also have <strong>strong</strong> views on WW3 standards compliance and the HTML generated by MS Word and MS office in general make sewage smell sweet. Typically I create the text in Word and then copy in as raw text into an HTML editor to hand code the formatting.
Despite my mistrust of any near-monopoly, I do use MS Word as the editor of choice when attempting to communicate in the written form.
But as you might expect from a
I am interested in how this turns out. But given their starting point they can only get better.
"...Word 2007: direct publishing of blogs to the web from within the program" sums up what's wrong with Word (and Office, and Microsoft) better than anything else I could say.
Around 1980 or so I read a journal article describing a very primitive word processing system at a (much fancier than I could afford) university. I was fascinated by the idea (I'd be using a typewriter for several more years at that point) and spent a long time trying to create my own in DEC BASIC, despite the school having no printers except a couple of 9 pin DECWriters and an uppercase-only line printer that I wasn't important enough to use.)
Does anyone care about word processing any more? Is it all over, and all that matters is jamming in more and more features, whether or not they make sense or even work?
Actually, it can go either way. It depends on which style you're following...
Fucking retards... : p
This guy's the limit!
M-x doctor
I am the psychotherapist. Please, describe your problems. Each time
you are finished talking, type RET twice.
I am concerned that Word 2007 will include direct publishing of blogs to the web from within the program.
Why do you say that?
Because Word's HTML output at any time in the past has always been terrible, embedding hundreds of unnecessary manual font changes, eschewing cascading style sheets, and generally producing HTML that makes a typical web developer want to vomit.
Is it because word's html output at any time in the past has always
been terrible embedding hundreds of unnecessary manual font changes
eschewing cascading style sheets and generally producing html that
makes a typical web developer want to vomit that you came to me?
Yes, I am afraid that eventually MS's Word will include more features
than Emacs.
Does it bother you that eventually ms's word will include more features
than emacs?
Well, actually not. Thanks doctor.
Don't mention.
No, "s's" is only correct when you have the pluralization morpheme "s" as well as the genitive particle "'s".
You are a troll.
You guys are trolls.
A troll's post is a beautiful thing to see.
The nigger trolls's crapflood will destroy you.
See?
Now, this post is going to get modded down because it mentions the GNAA, even though the technical information within is perfectly accurate and the paradigm is helpful. And it is necessary to point this out, because while people can pick up spoken language without any assistance, orthography is an intellectually learned skill.
Microsoft could do plenty of right with the Slashdot crowd if they wanted to, but they don't want to. This is not some defenseless little start-up you are defending either. Microsoft does nothing out of the goodness of its heart--it's all for their shareholders. There's nothing wrong with that either, but let's not pretend they are anything that they aren't. We will get to see more and more of how they really are as time goes on: Why Your Future Depends on Open Source -- Part 2.
Also, telling your audience that you think they are a bunch of hypocrites and daring to be modded down does nothing for your argument.
Word and Office are relatively expensive and a lot of people don't have those programs for that reason, and I don't think this is incentive to buy them. The largest share of users of Office and Word appear to be businesses, government and education, and I don't think their users are served well by this feature.
There are already a lot of programs that allow you to edit locally and update to LiveJournal, WordPress and many other services and common softare. I just don't see the point in a feature like this other than to get attention from sites like this.
I want this feature implemented in the next Power Point version. I can't wait to share my pony slides with my friends!!! OMG!!!!!
I'm impressed, kind of. But I bet you can count on this thing working only or best) with MS products and services. That is, can I just configure the thing to FTP (or SFTP) to any web directory? Can I us any other product to edit it's strange code? Must I upload to some crazy (but free!) MSN account? C'mon. Nothing's free with these guys. It either is a strategic part of their plan to dominate the world or they don't bother with it.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If Congress passes their anti blogging and forum posting bill, does this mean Word 2007 would be baned from state libraries and schools?
Maybe this is the news OpenOffice has been waiting for!
Most blogging systems have some kind of web service now that allows integration with many editors. On my own site I manage updates and deletes through emacs (on Windows, no less). I'm curious to see if Word will support Blogger, which is owned by Google.
Just filling out the web form for this comment fills like writing in cuneiform...
If you don't like blogs, don't read 'em.
I understand why you wouldn't want to read the "Why I like the color pink" blog, or the "I just took a dump" blog.
But you're bashing on an entire medium. Hell, even television has a lot of good content hidden among the chaff. When you discount blogging out of hand, you're lumping sites like Daring Fireball, The Technology Liberation Front and IP Democracy in with the navel-gazers.
Sure, there are a lot of useless blogs. There are also a lot of useless magazines and books. Personally I prefer a world where there are more mediums of expression, not fewer. Slashdot is an excellent example of this. It could easily be considered a group blog, filled with useless opinions, but it is obviously more than that. Get all your information and all of your opininions from Big Media if you want. I like having more options.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
"A new Word 2007 macro virus named W2007M.Melissa has been detected at multiple DOE sites and is known to be spreading widely."
After playing with the Beta 1 Refresh, I think the gentlemen in Building 9 should have scrapped Vista's Glass in favor of the Office 2007 user interface. And other ISVs might seriously consider moving to the new Ribbon interface - in particular Adobe. Photoshop and similar products could certainly benefit from the new paradigm.
The words white, chocolate and raspberry have no place on a bag of coffee.
I think that this is a reasonably cool feature for people who can't write HTML or FTP.
Not being able to write HTML never stopped anyone before.
Unfortunately.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Actually, it can go either way. It depends on which style you're following...
You mean, like, the correct style or the wrong style?
You know... if Microsoft integrated a spell checker that shows squiggly lines in Internet Explorer, the main reason I've seen for wanting to use word to blog goes away.
s /Spelling-Matters.html - great article on the whole topic, that covers integrated spell checkers. Would be a great improvement in browsers.
Right on the money. The archaic limitations of the basic controls is bizarre. Hack jobs using DHTML and server side spell checking are usually ugly, unintuitive, and inefficient.
http://www.yafla.com/dennisforbes/Spelling-Matter
I'll believe it when I see it. Microsofts HTML printer filter, all of the office components, and even their "web development" products (Frontpage, frontpage express, etc.) all generate the worst HTML known to man. I don't mean to come across as cynical (really, at least not this time
I have a related question: will the next Office still produce bloated documents, such that a few rows in a spreadsheet or a couple pages in a Word document will approach a megabyte in size after a few edit sessions, without even turning tracking on, or is it designed more intelligently this time around?
Instead of changing the interface (which will alienate many customers and eliminate "training cost" reasons for not switching to OpenOffice, StarOffice, koffice, or other) why haven't they been focusing on fixing major defects clients have been complaining about, specifically the file size, storing edit history even when tracking is turned off, along with other personal information? If this claim about the HTML output is true it's a huge step in the right direction, but still: priorities, priorities, priorities.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Care to explain why Chicago Style (as well as Strunk & White and others) say to do otherwise? I would think that those are far more authoritative than some AC slashdotter who happens to know a few big words.
This guy's the limit!
makes it random automatic blogging? Not that I should really be concerned, nothing is secret now, unless you are an important member of society.
Microsoft wants to compete with Yahoo, MySpace, et. al. as a user-generated content portal. Everyone and his donkey uses Word. If you're already using Word, even though it will support Blogger and other blog sites, I would be surprised if it weren't just a bit easier to use with Windows Live Spaces.
I think of this as somewhat analogous to the iPod/iTunes connection. Everyone has an iPod (yes, yes, I know not *everyone* has an iPod, and that a certain percentage of people just love Ogg Vorbis, but think Middle America here), so iTunes is a natural choice for music downloads. Everyone has Word, so blogging on Windows Live Spaces with the handy new "Blog it now!" feature is a natural choice.
Will it work? I doubt it. There are just too many already available tools that make blogging easy. Plus, Microsoft's brand has been so damaged that I'm not sure even Ma and Pa Kettle are going to jump over to Windows Live Spaces in droves.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Where is your god now?
Strunk & White were kikes, read the language log for more on that. Executive summary: Strunk & White were kikes and their manual of style was an element of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Sure, the quality of HTML produced by previous versions of Word has been awful. Most (all?) WYSIWYG HTML editors went through that phase, but Word certainly took a damn sight longer to grow out of it than most.
However, MS tools generating decent HTML isn't new. VS.NET and ASP.NET generate acceptable HTML, and it all works cross-browser too. (Some of the controls degrade gracefully in non-IE browsers, but the basic functionality is still there - treeview controls still work, just less dynamically, for example).
It's nice to see the Office group finally taking a leaf out of the dev tool group's book.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Ok so if you have Word 2007: Would you like to create a new blog using MSN? Would you like to view your blog using Internet Explorer? Would you like us to plublish your blog, Fuck up the HTML and then skew your angle by replacing a few political hot buttons?
It's not -1 Flamebait! It's +5 Funny. You just didn't get the joke...
"You mean, like, the correct style or the wrong style?"
No, gheyl0rd. There is no hard and fast rule where a proper noun ends in s.
The employee churn at whatever level a "joe friend" employee resides must be absolutely horrible.
Any Microsofties care to elaborate? Details? Bueller?
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I would think that those are far more authoritative than some AC slashdotter
You like to submit to authority don't you. You'll make a perfect 1984 citizen.
Autoponies!
It seems you're writing an article for your blog. Would you like me to:
Turn everything pink?
Stick cutesy pictures everywhere?
Change the i dots to little smily faces?
OMG that would be totally teh best thing like evah!!!
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
Does this imply that MS will make their WebDAV capabilities less broken now?
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
They say "not bad" because they know the only people who care about how "good" HTML is, usually are web dev nerds/geeks who read a site from right-click>view source.
They've had plenty of learning experience with standards zealots while updating IE7 (see the comments in the IE Blog and you'll see what I mean) and know that plenty of the web devs who are aware of what webs tandards is feel superior and try to doctrinate their knowledge to everyone by calling bullshit on everything that is slightly off what W3C might think on the issue (even if it's not necessarily a written down standard in all cases).
This can be easily seen on channels like #html and #css on Efnet, where if you come and ask for a help with a site that lacks DOCTYPE or uses a table for anything resembling a layout, you're likely to be banned, following long discussion about how stupid the user was and how "he doesn't get it".
In that light, MS not going long way to bragging about their improved HTML output was a correct choice as not to get too harsh reviews from the standards zealots.
But of course, this is Slashdot, so no matter what MS says or does, it can be made fun of.
You heard it here first.
The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
For the first call I receive stating "I can't update my blog with Word, so that means the Internet isn't working!" and then explaining, to these valued "less technical" people, that Microsoft Word really is not part of the Internet.
First of all, it is judgement, not judgment.
Second, I am surprised that you would bother to trust Grammar Check at all. Not even counting the fact that MS Word's Grammar Check has been throughly disrupted, here on Slashdot (analysis here), but the fact of the matter is that grammar is what makes your voice yours.
Sometimes different pieces call for different grammars, giving different tones. Sometimes, the violation of specific rules of grammar are what give your writing character or emphasis. It is okay sometimes to use the passive voice, sometimes it is perfectly fine to start sentences with "But" or "And", or end them with prepositions. Real writers do it all the time.
Most of the rules of grammar were formed by antiquated stylists attempting to shoehorn English into Latin rules. Thankfully, English as spoken works just fine without their help.
I see you've never used Mac OS X. It's not bloatware. It's the lack of bloatware. I get spellcheck in an AIM client, an IRC client, an e-mail client, a text editor, a browser... but it's not five different spell checkers, each one adding bloat. It's just one spell checker, that works where I want it... except in Firefox, my default browser du jour.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
When forced to use MS Word, I still only use a small fraction of the "features". I much prefer tools that don't try to be everything to everyone. Why not build PPT and XLS into word, and a web browser and an email client, ...., that way I never have to leave Word!
Ugh!
Most comments made so far are completely irrelevant.
If you read the blog post it is fairly clear that this means that Word will send what you wrote to a blog through a blog API like Atom.
The means that the HTML that needs to be generated is fairly straightforward as it only needs to mark-up the text on a post and entire page - i.e. all it needs to do is paragraphs, lists, blockquote, headings, <em> and <strong>. It probably will be OK on the details given the the post.
Secondly it means it will not be doing FTP transfers.
Thirdly it means that this can only be used by someone who already has a blog with an API that allows posting with a blogging tool.
It is a perfectly logical step given the MS principle of making a few complex tools rather than lots of simple ones.
It is not a direct threat to Blogger, Moveable Type etc., as people will still need to host their blog somewhere. Of course MS might use the opportunity to point some people towards MSN Spaces - but the far stronger use of IE to point people towards MSN Search as not got them very far, has it?
Actually, KDE's spellchecker integration works very well, runs as a low-priority process so it never interferes with my work, and is extremely easy to switch off (on a per-application or global basis). In fact, since it is so well integrated with KDE, I find that the apps that employ it (all KDE apps) load very fast -- faster than Firefox, and definitely faster than OOo. And it works -- it has saved me from typos several times on websites and in e-mails.
Wow, people will say just about anything to justify why their preferred OS lacks a feature.
This has gone beyond a joke now, Word had all that 95% of it's users needed around '95 / '98. Why do I need such bloat in my word processor when I can already use a perfectly capable browser to type 5 lines of text?
Here's an idea, how about modularising the application such that when I buy it I get the very basic functionality, but having paid for it I get the oppertunity to download and install all the extra features I need? This allows the software company to carry on developing bloat, yet the users only carry as much as they need (or indeed as much as their low spec machines are capable of running).
The software company could perhaps even charge less for the basic version, and then charge individually per feature the user wants to download. I would be more enclined to buy software that was cheaper and only did what I wanted it to do rather than a massive number of features that I am never going to use.
This also means less buggy application (I only have the bugs for the features I'm using), less time in downloading updates as I only have to update the module itself, and only the modules that I have installed.
Hell, you could even charge 3rd parties that wish to develop and sell features themselves by implementing some sort of 'Official Feature' scheme.
-= This is a self-referential sig =-
Now blogs will become dependent on the HTML Word07 "embraces and extends". NonIE blog readers, beware.
--
make install -not war
Too bad their new "design" makes me vomit. Why, oh why did they have to fuck up the brushed metal look? And why on the earth do they always choose this puke inducing shade of blue for their default theme?
In the US it is in fact spelled "judgment". See Wiktionary. Note there is also a page http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/judgement which has a note at the bottom mentioning US spellings.
The fact that MS can get away with cramming new features into a bloated and frustrating-to-use application suite amply demonstrates what happens in a competition vacuum.
Blogger For Word.
Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
I guess there is a little Nazi inside of all of us. I call mine Hermann.
S.
When it comes out in 2003...
How to enable garbage collection on a system without protected memory: #define malloc() ((void *) rand())
Well, had the AC up there indicated that Jobs's was correct, I would then have referred him to the AP Style Guide, which says that you should not include the s at the end. The whole point of this exercise is to show that there is no 'correct' way--there are merely preferences depending on which style manual you are using.
This guy's the limit!
Not to be a total spaz, but this line from the story description is inaccurate: Microsoft's term for a person who creates the specifications for software that programmers implement. Typically, a Lead PM is the person who manages the people who create the specifications for software that programmers implement.
No, but I used to work for Microsoft.
No, it isn't.
Jobs' would be applicable if you were referring to the entire Jobs family.
It is still Jobs's because you are referring to a single Jobs. The apostrophe rules apply to singular plural affects. Even if the word ends in s, if it denotes something in the singular form you still follow the apostrophe with an s.
Everyone makes typos in long texts. And what about those of us who need to write in foreign languages?
Also, if you've written over 1200 comments on slashdot and you're so stupid you haven't yet realized carriage returns are automatically converted to ugly <br>s by slashcode, maybe you shouldn't be using a computer in the first place anyway?
"Go ahead, mod me down."
Done.
How the hell do you write FTP?
"I'm imagining lots of OSS drones complaining about how stupid this feature is, while working feverishly to get it into OpenOffice and Star Office."
Usually it's different drones. One set goes, "Blogs suck; screw 'em." Another set goes, "Hey, blog with the same editor you use for everything else. I need to put it in Open Office so that my grandmother can use it instead of Word." Sun goes, "Did anyone write this for us? Great, OpenOffice is working. Let's copy it into Star Office."
crap that's stuffed into Word these days I think 'blog' is also great word to describe each feature 'pinched off' into Word's porcelain blue bowl...
blog
b.log
bill.log
Bill Log
of course, they may just be 'floating' the idea...
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
Shut the fuck up, fudgnudger.
::yawn::
I don't know who Vitaly Friedman is, but his submission (quoted in italics) is verbatim from the intro to the article about this on ArsTechnica posted yesterday.
you're lumping sites like Daring Fireball [daringfireball.net], The Technology Liberation Front [techliberation.com] and IP Democracy [ipdemocracy.com] in with the navel-gazers.
.blog TLD and require them all to stay in there so that they could be easily filtered and purged from Google's indexes.
I certainly would. I think the parent was correct. ALL blogs are utter crap and they should be eliminated from the web. Perhaps we could get ICAAN to create a
My brain must have farted, as I wrote the tags correctly when in true HTML :)
Real men open a telnet session on a VT220 and manually issue an HTTP POST request.
How to enable garbage collection on a system without protected memory: #define malloc() ((void *) rand())
I hate Microsoft's products intensely. Microsoft's mantra has always been "stuff in more features", and this creates bloated, buggy, half-assed, monstrous, sweaty, sticky megaprograms that are impossible to use. It's sort of like taking a big, fat pizza, and then spread a thick layer of peanut butter on top of it, à la Elvis, then brutally force-feed it to ill-advised customers. So, as a consequence, I HATE MICROSOFT'S PRODUCTS! Not because it's fashionable to hate Microsoft, but because MS products are a symbol of everything that's very wrong with Windows software today. Everything has become overweight and unhealthy. The only MSware that's accepable is Excel, IMHO.
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
Do you mean like this: http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/
I coincidentally only installed it today, but it appears to have been around since July 2004.
One bad implementation doesn't prove impossibility. Cross platform can be done. QT and wxWidgets are examples.
You don't get it. A checker built into the text widget and shared throughout the OS means there's ONE spellchecker, not one each in every app. In other words, it REDUCES bloat. It's factoring out a common element into a single point of implementation.
Imagine if every app implemented its own textbox? Consider how much ridiculous bloat that would mean. Not so long ago under primitive X before KDE/Gnome, this was pretty much the case. It wasn't unusual to have five different GUI toolkits up on one screen of work. Both ugly and wasteful!
Things that every app wants to do should be shared and done once, correctly.
Haha I love how "blog publishing" has been in Microsoft Word forever. It's called "Save as HTML." At least I'm comforted knowing my fellow slashdot readers are not gasping at this...
AMEN! Lots of ordinary people, doing ordinary things, none of which are interesting. DemocracyPlayer's video content is the same collection of non-interesting noise.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
One of the selling points of Flock (which, incidentally, I first heard of through Slashdot) is that it has built-in blogging within your Web browser, which lets you write everything while you're reading another site. No need to log in or anything, you just configure it for your site and it runs.
As for spell checking, etc. – one of my all-time favorite things about Konqueror is that it's got more features than just about any other browser I can think of due to the heavily integrated nature of KDE. For example, the spell-checking example – every <textarea> in Konqueror has spell checking automatically enabled. And I think you can even run KOffice embedded into Konqueror – there's probably some way or other – although I'm not entirely sure on that one because I'm not that obsessive.
Oh, and horribly off-topic, but the best thing about it? The built-in terminal emulator lets you run a Web browser, eg. Lynx, within itself – you have two Web browsers in one! Now that's what I call a useful program.
Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
By the time Office 2007 is released blogging will be so last year.
I say they bring back Clippy!! Now that is one useful feature.
I like-a do-the cha-cha.
Is this really true? From what I can gather, Microsoft's brand isn't damaged much at all. Maybe it appears that way because of the skewed view we get here on /. but opinions aren't the same everywhere else.
No doubt, Slashdot isn't at all representative of society at large. However, it does seem Microsoft as a brand has been taking it in the shorts lately.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
>carriage returns are automatically converted to ugly
s by slashcode,
So what?
Yet another reason for the mindless keypunchers to use Word for everything that involves a screen, keyboard and typing.
MS Outlook screwed up and degraded mail for all of us within less that 10 years, MS Doc screwed up document exchange and now Word will fuck up Blogging and online Web-CMS based editing for good.
Just great.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
> somehow, I'm imagining lots of OSS drones complaining about how stupid this feature is, while working feverishly to get it into OpenOffice and Star Office.
Silly person, this feature will go into Kontact! Not Openoffice.org.
Blogging has no need in a page-based editor.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
to hell with blogs, i hope they are raped by jesus himself!
wow! does this mean we'll get to see yet more M$ employees praising the company in their blogs?!
I don't feel like it...
I'm a white male, mid 20's. Average height, weight, appearance. I'm sexually attracted to women, and i do not find men sexually attractive. What is wierd is that when i see attractive women, i dont think "Wow, i'd like to jam it in her ass right now right here", i most often think "Man, shes hot, i wish i could be like her".
In my dreams i'm usually female, and all through out growing up i felt like i was supposed to be a girl. I dont dress up like a woman and i dont fantasize about hyperfeminine crap like transgender perverts do.
I dont act girly and i enjoy masculine activities. Infact i spend a lot of time writing software and designing circuitry. I also enjoy working on cars.
So my question is what the hell am I? I'm obviously not gay, and not a transvestite.
I have decided that i want a sexchange. Current medical technology yeilds a very poor result. A vagina can be made from the penis, but it will likely have hair inside of it, and there is a good chance of damaging the sensitive nervs, which would make sex unpleasurable. Breasts can only get but so big, nipples would not function. There would be no reproductive capability, and bone structure cannot be modified. The body chemistry cannot be changed, hormonal problems would be likely, and interacting with society would be awkward, as things like gait and voice would still be masculine. There is no way to change neural wiring in the brain to accomidate. The end result would be a sterile woman who looks like a man. Obviously this is not an option here.
/b/ for your time and support.
It will be most likely at the pace things are going, several hundred years before medical technology progresses to the point where sex reassignment surgery would yeild satisfactory results. It is unfortunate that i will not live long enough to benefit from more advanced technology, so i will have to create it myself.
My plan is to build an AI system which can revise and improve on its self. It would be a cognitive AI system, a truely intelligent machine. Each time it improves on it's self, by modifying it's source code, it would increase in it's intellectual capacity in an exponential manner. It would quickly surpass the level of intelligence in human beings. Being that it would be superintelligent, it could run a profitable business, to generate income, which it would use to buy materials needed to improve upon its self.
Obviously i would steer it to focus it's time on developing technology in the following fields:stocks/investment, biotechnology, nanotechnology, chemistry, medicine, electronics. Being that it gains intelligence in an exponential manner, it should be able to develop the required technologies needed to proform an exceptional sex change. Not only would i transition over to being female, i would actually be a real woman, with full reproductive capability. Any sort of mental defects would be resolved, and i would have a completely healthy new body, void of any detromental conditions. This means i could live on for ever, looking great and the only way of death would be if somebody killed me or if got into an accident of some sort.
So my question to the guests of Slashdot, is your thoughts on this process. Also i would be interested in hearing any ideas you have for creating such AI and approprate hardware to run it on. Please refrain from ethical discussions, as i think it is 100% ethical to produce a machine which could solve all of humanitys health and technology problems.
thank you
Development here at CAIRSCI is going well. It's time to build the first prototype. We are going to build a custom computer with a NUMA sytle architecture. We have settled on a CPU architecture. The first prototype is based on the BlackFin processor ( a 32bit RISC with 80kb integrated ram, 16bit memory interface and clocked at 400MHz) and will have 96 CPUs. Each cpu board will have 4mb ram. The system will have a total of 76,800MMACs and a total of 384MB of sdram. We can get the CPUs for about $8 a piece and the parts to drive it ( ram, resonator, caps, resistors, voltage regulator, etc ) cost about $20 not including the PCB. So the cost to build the system, sans pcb, chasis and interconnect wires ( the flex cables going from one cpu board to the neighbor boards ) and of course assembly time is about $2,688.
Heres the problem, the PCB. The cpu is a 176pin LQFP, and the lead pitch is 0.5mm. Ive laid out the tracks on the computer, and print the pattern out on a laser printer ( peel and stick method ) but the problem is the dip process. The etchant always eats under the tape, ive wasted a lot of etchant. It's heated up to 160 and agitated through out the process... There has to be some way to do this, any tips? I know i can get them made at like pcb123 for great expense, but CAIRSCI is a cash deprived org at the moment. In the pic i wanted to see if i could hand solder to something with that lead pitch, i can! Thats a qfp64. But thats not practical and would be an RF nightmare.
Nope, it's real. The specs are spot on. The chip really is that cheap. The parts to get it up and running some code are also way cheap. 28$ per board isnt a bad estimate. Interfacing one CPU to another is literally just directly wiring one GPIO lead to another. The chip was chosen because it was the fastest one in the family that wasnt BGA. Soldering down a QFP isnt that hard after youve done it a few times. Going the BGA route would require reflow soldering and ive never done that and dont care to atm.
The problem ive got is trying to make some pcb's cheaply. Thats my biggest expense. The lead pitch is too fine for the methods i'm using to etch the traces. I'm just trying to figure out how other people are doing it.
CAIRSCI is an org dedicated to cognative AI research. We have a simulation running right now under linux. It spawns off 96 threads, each of which represents a cpu board. Most of the modules are related to memory response and recording. We are mainly focused on AI in the use of machine vision applications. There is a communications protocol in place, and modules inputs and outputs are arranged in feedback loops and this is where the recgonition is derrived. Frames are captured from a firewire camera and fed into a tree of modules which break down the information, some modules break down information into clusters, others patternmatch that data against their local store and provide a response, which is fed down the chain. It's similar to a neural net simulation, though it doesnt work like a neural net, and our goal isnt to simulate animal brain structures. In tests you can hold various cardboard shapes infront of the camera and 90% of the time the system can recgonise and report what shape it is regardless of the rotation, angle or position of the shape. The background isnt a color flood fill either.
Most machine vision software these days is centered around specific algorithms such as edge detect and convolution and is highly subject to environmental factors. We are aiming for less accurate but more general purpose visual recgonition applications.
CAIRSCI stands for Cognatative Artifical Intelligence Research SCIence. It's goal is to do AI research, with a focus on ethics and cognition.
- A steady stream of revenue from subscriptions to MS Live
- Increased advertising revenue to MS advertising/search
I blogged about Word 2007 here.[16:29] timecop on #guliverkli
[16:29] timecop using irc.mzima.net Welcome to the fjear nation.
[16:29] timecop End of
P2P Anonymous Distributed Web Search: http://www.yacy.net/