Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft's OOXML Formulas Could Be Dangerous

Posted by kdawson on from the who-approved-this-stuff dept.

hill101 writes "According to Rob Weir's blog, Microsoft's 325-page OOXML specification for spreadsheet formulas is deeply flawed. From basic trigonometric functions that forget to specify units, to statistical functions, to critical financial functions — the specification does not contain correct formulas that could possibly be implemented in an interoperable way. Quoting Mr. Weir: 'It has incorrect formulas that, if implemented according to the standard, may cause loss of life, property, and capital... Shame on all those who praised and continue to praise the OOXML formula specification without actually reading it.'"

6 of 360 comments (clear)

  1. Amuritans! You get the leaders you desserve! by Adolf+Hitroll · · Score: -1, Offtopic
    A Republican senator has apologised for "a very serious sin in my past" after his phone number was linked to an alleged Washington prostitution ring.

    David Vitter's voting record would make it very worthwhile to find out just what that sin WAS, and if his constituents will also forgive him:

    1. Voted NO on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's AMWR. (Nov 2005)
    2. Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
    3. Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
    4. Voted NO on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
    5. Voted YES on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
    6. Voted YES on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
    7. Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for
        alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
    8. Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
    9. Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
    10. Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
    11. Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
    12. Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother's life. (Oct 2003)
    13. Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
    14. Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
    15. Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
    16. Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
    17. Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
    18. Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
    19. Discontinue affirmative action programs. (Nov 2002)
    20. Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
    21. Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
    22. Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
    23. Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
    24. Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
    25. Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
    26. Rated 7% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
    --
    Smile, don't click...
    1. Re:Amuritans! You get the leaders you desserve! by 5of0 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What the crap? Killing machine? Are you referring to the couple of elk that would be inconvenienced by drilling AMWR? Cause last I checked, people were pretty upset about gas prices...and I'm sorry, but inconveniencing (and, yes, perhaps even killing) a few animals that I consider meat (note the part about them being animals...you know, the things we eat?) doesn't bother me too much when the result is oil from our own soil, and reducing our dependency on oil from the Middle East.

      And the ACLU hates him? Good, cause I hate the ACLU. Stopping some crazy, expensive governmental plans for oil reduction that is doomed to failure? Sounds good to me.

      Somehow, berating a REPUBLICAN senator for voting very...umm...REPUBLICAN seems kind of idiotic. Kind of like criticizing /. for having a bias towards tech/geeky news. It's stupid.

      Oh, and GP: in case you hadn't made the connection, the sin he was talking about was...prostitution. Not voting to kill elk. Just wanted to make that clear.

      Oh, and by the way, I'm a grammar nazi - and it's hypocrite. And yes, I do think less of you and your comment because you can't spell right, or at least put forth the effort use a spell checker (Google Toolbar? FF2.0?).

      --
      You all have Oo.o and Firefox, so get World Wind.
  2. Confused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    The subject of this rant is an appology by the Senator. If he didn't appologize you'd be complaining about the *lack* of apology.

    Maybe it's the fact that he's a republican? Funny, I thought liberals were in favor of legalized prostitution.

    Really confused???

  3. Re:So? by tsa · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    I never use spel checkers. Its just not worth the trouble. I made two errors in the last sentence I wrote on purpose, as an example to show that you have to proofread no matter what.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  4. Re:Impartial reviews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    not to be a spelling nazi, but the words you're after is cheques. im sure it was an honest mistake

  5. Re:Impartial reviews by miro+f · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    not to be a spelling nazi, but the words you're after is cheques. im sure it was an honest mistake

    - Not
    - the word ... is
    - I'm
    - mistake.

    You had this coming; glass houses etc. :P


    "The word you is after"?

    How's that glass house treating you?
    --
    being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...