No, information carrying capcity, (also referred to as "bandwidth" confusingly), is proportional to the analog frequency range, (which was the original "bandwidth" concept). Check the wikipedia article. There are physics-related reasons for this, but I'm not that much of a physicist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth
That's not how it works. There is the same amount of bandwidth in the 0-500 MHz range, as there is in the 3.5-4.0 GHz range. That's why they call it "bandwidth."
"At the moment, the quality of the official product is frequently substandard compared to the blackmarket product."
This is the most important thing that the industry fat cats don't want to recognize. They have to understand that, whether they like it or not, they are competing with free mp3 downloads. They need to make it just as convenient, if not more so, to download and listen to the music legally if they ever want to take market share back from "freeloading college kids."
I have no doubt that you did run that test, and that you could see no real differences... but you have to ask yourself whether or not that particular test corresponds to a real-world usage pattern.
When I was writing my thesis for university, (about 250 pages, with approximately 40 images, tables and charts), there were huge differences in responsiveness and render speed between OO.o and MS Word. Maybe you should run the test with a document that has many different images embedded, as well as charts, etc...
I must say, though, that the OO.o Draw program is by far the best OSS vector drawing program I've ever seen. It's a shame it's so damn slow. It's so powerful, however, that I often put up with its sluggishness because no alternative touches it.
Seriously, as flawed as MS Office is, OpenOffice.org, in my not-so-humble opinion, is worse in many ways. There are plenty of excellent Open source projects out there... but OO.o is not one of them. My main problem with it is that it's so damn slow. Now, if you only edit 1-10 page documents, you might be able to get away with using OO.o, but if you're trying to write a book or a thesis using OO.o, the program quickly becomes excruciatingly slow and painful to deal with, (especially if there are dozens of charts and images in the document). MS Office, on a modern machine, does not suffer from the same problem. The program slows down, of course, but not nearly to the extent that OO.o does. It's almost as if MS Office slows down O(n), while OO.o slows down O(n^2), with the size of the document you are working with.
Another big problem with OO.o, ironically, is that it tries too hard to be just like MS Office in a lot of ways. If you're gonna write an OSS office suite, why not try to incorporate the best features from MS Office, WordPerfect, and all of the other past productivity suites, rather than try to clone MS Office, which you supposedly despise? In truth, there are many differences between OO.o and MS Office, but not enough. Sometimes those differences are actually detrimental to OO.o, rather than helpful.
Additionally, the monolithic nature of OO.o is disturbing. Gnumeric and AbiWord are nice examples of a lean, OSS spreadsheet and word processor. When Mozilla was split up into separate parts and became Firefox and Thunderbird instead of a monolithic monster, it suddenly became an attractive and viable alternative to IE. The same thing must happen to OO.o before MS will have to consider it a threat. When that happens, though, OO.o will become an even bigger success than FireFox, because many people don't get FireFox because IE comes with their Windows machine. MS Office, however, often does not come shipped with a new Walmart Special box. So, a viable Office Suite has the potential to not only decrease MS Office market share, but to BEAT them.
Personally, what I would like to see, is an office suite that somehow integrates well with LaTeX, which I use for all of my publications.
OK, three, two one, FLAME!
Not to mention the fact that there HAS been plenty of first-hand evidence of evolution, just from the past couple of centuries. Look up "peppered moth," "Heikegani crab," or "drug-resistant bacteria," on Google.
Slashdot Mirror
No, information carrying capcity, (also referred to as "bandwidth" confusingly), is proportional to the analog frequency range, (which was the original "bandwidth" concept). Check the wikipedia article. There are physics-related reasons for this, but I'm not that much of a physicist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth
That's not how it works. There is the same amount of bandwidth in the 0-500 MHz range, as there is in the 3.5-4.0 GHz range. That's why they call it "bandwidth."
That makes no sense. The escape velocity at the event horizon has to be greater than the speed of light, which is not the case for earth gravity.
"At the moment, the quality of the official product is frequently substandard compared to the blackmarket product." This is the most important thing that the industry fat cats don't want to recognize. They have to understand that, whether they like it or not, they are competing with free mp3 downloads. They need to make it just as convenient, if not more so, to download and listen to the music legally if they ever want to take market share back from "freeloading college kids."
I think you mean descendants...
I have no doubt that you did run that test, and that you could see no real differences... but you have to ask yourself whether or not that particular test corresponds to a real-world usage pattern. When I was writing my thesis for university, (about 250 pages, with approximately 40 images, tables and charts), there were huge differences in responsiveness and render speed between OO.o and MS Word. Maybe you should run the test with a document that has many different images embedded, as well as charts, etc...
I must say, though, that the OO.o Draw program is by far the best OSS vector drawing program I've ever seen. It's a shame it's so damn slow. It's so powerful, however, that I often put up with its sluggishness because no alternative touches it.
Seriously, as flawed as MS Office is, OpenOffice.org, in my not-so-humble opinion, is worse in many ways. There are plenty of excellent Open source projects out there... but OO.o is not one of them. My main problem with it is that it's so damn slow. Now, if you only edit 1-10 page documents, you might be able to get away with using OO.o, but if you're trying to write a book or a thesis using OO.o, the program quickly becomes excruciatingly slow and painful to deal with, (especially if there are dozens of charts and images in the document). MS Office, on a modern machine, does not suffer from the same problem. The program slows down, of course, but not nearly to the extent that OO.o does. It's almost as if MS Office slows down O(n), while OO.o slows down O(n^2), with the size of the document you are working with. Another big problem with OO.o, ironically, is that it tries too hard to be just like MS Office in a lot of ways. If you're gonna write an OSS office suite, why not try to incorporate the best features from MS Office, WordPerfect, and all of the other past productivity suites, rather than try to clone MS Office, which you supposedly despise? In truth, there are many differences between OO.o and MS Office, but not enough. Sometimes those differences are actually detrimental to OO.o, rather than helpful. Additionally, the monolithic nature of OO.o is disturbing. Gnumeric and AbiWord are nice examples of a lean, OSS spreadsheet and word processor. When Mozilla was split up into separate parts and became Firefox and Thunderbird instead of a monolithic monster, it suddenly became an attractive and viable alternative to IE. The same thing must happen to OO.o before MS will have to consider it a threat. When that happens, though, OO.o will become an even bigger success than FireFox, because many people don't get FireFox because IE comes with their Windows machine. MS Office, however, often does not come shipped with a new Walmart Special box. So, a viable Office Suite has the potential to not only decrease MS Office market share, but to BEAT them. Personally, what I would like to see, is an office suite that somehow integrates well with LaTeX, which I use for all of my publications. OK, three, two one, FLAME!
Not to mention the fact that there HAS been plenty of first-hand evidence of evolution, just from the past couple of centuries. Look up "peppered moth," "Heikegani crab," or "drug-resistant bacteria," on Google.
Maybe it's just me, but imposing a fine on top of 65 years in prison is like slapping someone who just fell out of a hundred-story building.