In the long run Office will survive because its a standard, nothing else can claim this.
Once upon a time, Lotus 1-2-3 was the standard spreadsheet and nothing else could claim that. Once upon a time, Wordperfect was the standard word processor and nothing else could claim that. Microsoft Office displaced them because Microsoft controlled the OS that everyone (for all practical purposes) ran them on and Microsoft was able to adapt to new versions of the OS faster because their programmers knew what was going to be in it before anyone else (and because MS programmers wrote the new OS to break something that their competitors used).
Considering that the word soccer originates in the country of origin for the sport (England), why is it wrong for Americans to use that name for the sport just because the English no longer use it? The word "soccer" derives from the term "Association Football" and was used originally in England to distinguish between Association Football and the various other forms of football that were still played there at the time. Since then, I believe that all other forms of football, except for Rugby, have died out in England and the English have adopted the word used by other countries that never developed any of their own versions of football and instead play the English sport. In the U.S., the word football was applied to a sport that was more popular here, so the term "soccer" continued to apply to the game played by the Association Football rules.
American Football, Association Football, Rugby, Australian Football (and probably several other variants) are all descended from the same original English sport.
Yes, but who are client/customers and who are vendors of whom Google is a client/customer? Does the law require Google to respond to each email from its vendors? If Google is YOUR client, rather than you being Google's client, it makes a significant difference as to who is responsible to respond to whose emails (at least as I understand the relevant law from what I have read...and if it doesn't, the law is flawed).
That's because those people are not Google's customers. Those people are selling their privacy to Google, not buying something from Google. I am sure that Google provides plenty of customer service to their customers.
So, what you are saying is that democratic governments can decide that companies need to pay every one in the country a certain amount of money as a cost of doing business there?
Or maybe, you are selling your personal information to Google in exchange for this service. In which case Google is YOUR customer rather than you being Google's customer.
I could equally claim that Google is your customer. Google is "buying" certain aspects of your personal information in exchange for certain services. With your definition, how do you define who is the customer and who is the seller? When the parties in an exchange on a more equal level, it is usually the customer who is dictating the "terms of service".
Probably because he started shooting at the police when they approached. and that they found explosives that were clearly in his possession. There are times to question the police designation of someone as the perpetrator of a crime after they have killed him. The facts currently available in this case indicate that this is not one of them. I will not discourage you from watching this case closely to make sure that as the facts become available they continue to support the story line as presented so far. However, the facts available support what the authorities are claiming (and I am unaware of any which contradict those claims), as long as the overwhelming majority of the facts support what the authorities are saying, we should give them the benefit of the doubt. If and when facts emerge which cast doubt on what the authorities are claiming is the time to begin doubting the authorities, especially if those facts suggest that there was going on that the authorities would prefer people not think about.
You are misreading that poll. 90% of Americans support reasonable background checks. A significant portion of that 90% think that we already have reasonable background checks.
Exactly right. Of course for a short period of time there was this idea that somehow, magically, vendors would be able to offer limitless scalability where if I needed 5 servers today and 500 servers next week I could get that in the cloud for less than the cost of maintaining 500 servers. It sounds good. That outside vendor can rent the space on those additional servers to someone else when I don't need them. The problem is that it turns out that the people who suddenly need a 100 fold increase in servers all tend to need it at the same time. So the outside vendor needs large numbers of servers and doesn't have anybody to rent them to when the people who need them don't need them.
The end result being that if you are a small company, there are significant chances that an outside vendor will be able to rent you server space cheaper than you can supply it for yourself, but once you get bigger than a certain size that no longer is true.
The thing is that the term "cloud computing" derived from the way that network architectures were drawn out for visualization purposes. You drew out a diagram that consisted of boxes of different descriptions representing devices on your company's network and how they connected to one another. Then you had a line that went out to the Internet, which was represented by a cloud because you had no idea what devices your communication passed through and you did not care. I have never really liked that metaphor for putting virtualized computer services on someone else's hardware, but I understand it. If I am hosting virtual machines on your hardware, I don't care how they communicate because if I run into a problem at that level it is your responsibility to fix it. On the other hand, if I am running virtual machines on my hardware and I run into a communication problem because of a hardware level problem I need to know how the various virtual machines connect to each other as well as how the actual hardware connects together if I am going to successfully troubleshoot the problem. That means, if it is running on my hardware it is not running on some vague "cloud" but on specific hardware which is connected in a specific manner. What makes the cloud metaphor useful is that nobody in my organization knows how those machines connect and we don't really care.
I do not know if this is true, but I could see it. I came across a story some time back that claimed to explain the origins of Kopi Luwak coffee. The story was that during colonial times the natives were not allowed to have any of the coffee beans for their own use. They wanted to drink coffee. When they discovered the undigested beans in civet feces, they collected them and made coffee from them. At some later point, Europeans saw the natives drinking this coffee and decided it must be something special, since the natives drank it (never considering that it was the only coffee the natives had access to).
All reports I have seen about blind taste tests suggest that the flavor is thin and inferior to other quality coffees.
I am not sure what you mean by "Reverse Robin Hood". I do know that attempts by Democrats to pass "Robin Hood Taxes" are ludicrous. The idea that you can imitate Robin Hood by taking money from anyone and giving it to the government is to not understand what Robin Hood did. Robin Hood robbed from the government (usually the tax collectors) and gave the money to the people. Many people want to take money from people and give it to the government and then compare that to Robin Hood because the people they are taking money from are richer than average. That is how Robin Hood became an outlaw. He was one of the rich that weren't part of the government, so the government took what he had and called him an outlaw when he objected.
You are not entirely wrong, but often times it is the right person in the right situation which leads to a great invention. People who have made great inventions are generally great people. In many cases, if someone lesser had been in that situation something less would have been invented (or nothing at all).
The proper form that the apology should have taken is this, "I am sorry that anyone was offended because someone added me to a Facebook Group that included tasteless comments, comments that may constitute illegal threats of violence, made by someone else. I do not condone such language."
Um, you do know that most cities have laws against firebombing, mob hits and protection rackets irrespective of whether or not the business is government regulated. I certainly do not find giving a company a monopoly on something as an acceptable reaction to that company firebombing its competitors. I would prefer the government prosecute those who do that sort of thing and shut down companies that operate that way.
As someone else mentioned, you did not mention any cities in Australia even though you referred to the spending Australian dollars on taxis (most taxis in third world countries near the U.S accept U.S.$, I would not be surprised to learn that taxis in S.E. Asian countries accept A$).. However, you implied that the taxi companies use the threat of violence to keep other companies from competing with them. That suggests that the city government is incapable of preventing them from actually carrying out such threats. If the city government is incapable of preventing the company that runs the only taxi service in the city from credibly threatening violence against any competitors, it is not actually governing the city. The other option is that the city government is in collusion with the taxi company which means they are doing the same thing I talked about in a different manner. So, you tell me, is your city government incapable of governing your city, or do they use the power of government to maintain the taxi monopoly?
Every city in the U.S. that I am aware of limits the number of taxis. Of course, I would say that the cities that you give as examples do not actually have governments (not that the U.S. is very far from ending up at the same place), They merely have mobs who extort protection money from the populace and call it taxes.
Most governments justify limiting taxi services by claiming it is to control safety, when in fact it is to control transportation (and to reward those taxi companies that support the correct government officials and initiatives).
No, they aren't (well at least not in the U.S.) because the main reason that there are not more taxis in most major U.S. cities is because the city governments strictly limit the number of taxes there are allowed to be in the city.
Oh yeah search is a GREAT way to find that program I use every six months that lets me put some of my pictures together to create a collage for those posters I make twice a year. I think it was called "Blue Pixie"./s
Except that it was called "Green Pyxel" and started with an executable named "grnpxlUI.exe".
Slashdot Mirror
In the long run Office will survive because its a standard, nothing else can claim this.
Once upon a time, Lotus 1-2-3 was the standard spreadsheet and nothing else could claim that. Once upon a time, Wordperfect was the standard word processor and nothing else could claim that. Microsoft Office displaced them because Microsoft controlled the OS that everyone (for all practical purposes) ran them on and Microsoft was able to adapt to new versions of the OS faster because their programmers knew what was going to be in it before anyone else (and because MS programmers wrote the new OS to break something that their competitors used).
Considering that the word soccer originates in the country of origin for the sport (England), why is it wrong for Americans to use that name for the sport just because the English no longer use it? The word "soccer" derives from the term "Association Football" and was used originally in England to distinguish between Association Football and the various other forms of football that were still played there at the time. Since then, I believe that all other forms of football, except for Rugby, have died out in England and the English have adopted the word used by other countries that never developed any of their own versions of football and instead play the English sport. In the U.S., the word football was applied to a sport that was more popular here, so the term "soccer" continued to apply to the game played by the Association Football rules.
American Football, Association Football, Rugby, Australian Football (and probably several other variants) are all descended from the same original English sport.
Yes, but who are client/customers and who are vendors of whom Google is a client/customer? Does the law require Google to respond to each email from its vendors? If Google is YOUR client, rather than you being Google's client, it makes a significant difference as to who is responsible to respond to whose emails (at least as I understand the relevant law from what I have read...and if it doesn't, the law is flawed).
The question is, which one of you is the customer? In most laws, only one party is considered to be the customer.
That's because those people are not Google's customers. Those people are selling their privacy to Google, not buying something from Google. I am sure that Google provides plenty of customer service to their customers.
So, what you are saying is that democratic governments can decide that companies need to pay every one in the country a certain amount of money as a cost of doing business there?
No, Google is buying your private information. You are not "paying with your privacy", you are selling it. Google is paying you with these services.
Or maybe, you are selling your personal information to Google in exchange for this service. In which case Google is YOUR customer rather than you being Google's customer.
I could equally claim that Google is your customer. Google is "buying" certain aspects of your personal information in exchange for certain services. With your definition, how do you define who is the customer and who is the seller? When the parties in an exchange on a more equal level, it is usually the customer who is dictating the "terms of service".
How do they know they killed the right guy?
Probably because he started shooting at the police when they approached. and that they found explosives that were clearly in his possession. There are times to question the police designation of someone as the perpetrator of a crime after they have killed him. The facts currently available in this case indicate that this is not one of them. I will not discourage you from watching this case closely to make sure that as the facts become available they continue to support the story line as presented so far. However, the facts available support what the authorities are claiming (and I am unaware of any which contradict those claims), as long as the overwhelming majority of the facts support what the authorities are saying, we should give them the benefit of the doubt. If and when facts emerge which cast doubt on what the authorities are claiming is the time to begin doubting the authorities, especially if those facts suggest that there was going on that the authorities would prefer people not think about.
You are misreading that poll. 90% of Americans support reasonable background checks. A significant portion of that 90% think that we already have reasonable background checks.
Exactly right. Of course for a short period of time there was this idea that somehow, magically, vendors would be able to offer limitless scalability where if I needed 5 servers today and 500 servers next week I could get that in the cloud for less than the cost of maintaining 500 servers. It sounds good. That outside vendor can rent the space on those additional servers to someone else when I don't need them. The problem is that it turns out that the people who suddenly need a 100 fold increase in servers all tend to need it at the same time. So the outside vendor needs large numbers of servers and doesn't have anybody to rent them to when the people who need them don't need them.
The end result being that if you are a small company, there are significant chances that an outside vendor will be able to rent you server space cheaper than you can supply it for yourself, but once you get bigger than a certain size that no longer is true.
The thing is that the term "cloud computing" derived from the way that network architectures were drawn out for visualization purposes. You drew out a diagram that consisted of boxes of different descriptions representing devices on your company's network and how they connected to one another. Then you had a line that went out to the Internet, which was represented by a cloud because you had no idea what devices your communication passed through and you did not care. I have never really liked that metaphor for putting virtualized computer services on someone else's hardware, but I understand it. If I am hosting virtual machines on your hardware, I don't care how they communicate because if I run into a problem at that level it is your responsibility to fix it. On the other hand, if I am running virtual machines on my hardware and I run into a communication problem because of a hardware level problem I need to know how the various virtual machines connect to each other as well as how the actual hardware connects together if I am going to successfully troubleshoot the problem. That means, if it is running on my hardware it is not running on some vague "cloud" but on specific hardware which is connected in a specific manner. What makes the cloud metaphor useful is that nobody in my organization knows how those machines connect and we don't really care.
I do not know if this is true, but I could see it. I came across a story some time back that claimed to explain the origins of Kopi Luwak coffee. The story was that during colonial times the natives were not allowed to have any of the coffee beans for their own use. They wanted to drink coffee. When they discovered the undigested beans in civet feces, they collected them and made coffee from them. At some later point, Europeans saw the natives drinking this coffee and decided it must be something special, since the natives drank it (never considering that it was the only coffee the natives had access to).
All reports I have seen about blind taste tests suggest that the flavor is thin and inferior to other quality coffees.
That was what I was coming to post. The fact that that study suggested that the best way to help a coral reef recover is to leave it alone.
I am not sure what you mean by "Reverse Robin Hood". I do know that attempts by Democrats to pass "Robin Hood Taxes" are ludicrous. The idea that you can imitate Robin Hood by taking money from anyone and giving it to the government is to not understand what Robin Hood did. Robin Hood robbed from the government (usually the tax collectors) and gave the money to the people. Many people want to take money from people and give it to the government and then compare that to Robin Hood because the people they are taking money from are richer than average. That is how Robin Hood became an outlaw. He was one of the rich that weren't part of the government, so the government took what he had and called him an outlaw when he objected.
You are not entirely wrong, but often times it is the right person in the right situation which leads to a great invention. People who have made great inventions are generally great people. In many cases, if someone lesser had been in that situation something less would have been invented (or nothing at all).
The proper form that the apology should have taken is this, "I am sorry that anyone was offended because someone added me to a Facebook Group that included tasteless comments, comments that may constitute illegal threats of violence, made by someone else. I do not condone such language."
Um, you do know that most cities have laws against firebombing, mob hits and protection rackets irrespective of whether or not the business is government regulated. I certainly do not find giving a company a monopoly on something as an acceptable reaction to that company firebombing its competitors. I would prefer the government prosecute those who do that sort of thing and shut down companies that operate that way.
As someone else mentioned, you did not mention any cities in Australia even though you referred to the spending Australian dollars on taxis (most taxis in third world countries near the U.S accept U.S.$, I would not be surprised to learn that taxis in S.E. Asian countries accept A$).. However, you implied that the taxi companies use the threat of violence to keep other companies from competing with them. That suggests that the city government is incapable of preventing them from actually carrying out such threats. If the city government is incapable of preventing the company that runs the only taxi service in the city from credibly threatening violence against any competitors, it is not actually governing the city. The other option is that the city government is in collusion with the taxi company which means they are doing the same thing I talked about in a different manner. So, you tell me, is your city government incapable of governing your city, or do they use the power of government to maintain the taxi monopoly?
Every city in the U.S. that I am aware of limits the number of taxis. Of course, I would say that the cities that you give as examples do not actually have governments (not that the U.S. is very far from ending up at the same place), They merely have mobs who extort protection money from the populace and call it taxes.
Most governments justify limiting taxi services by claiming it is to control safety, when in fact it is to control transportation (and to reward those taxi companies that support the correct government officials and initiatives).
No, they aren't (well at least not in the U.S.) because the main reason that there are not more taxis in most major U.S. cities is because the city governments strictly limit the number of taxes there are allowed to be in the city.
Oh yeah search is a GREAT way to find that program I use every six months that lets me put some of my pictures together to create a collage for those posters I make twice a year. I think it was called "Blue Pixie". /s
Except that it was called "Green Pyxel" and started with an executable named "grnpxlUI.exe".
Elect politicians who will dismantle the regulations which put in place and keep in place the effective monopolies granted to the service providers.