Ms. Van Sickle,
In response to "Part I - General Questions," under "I. Information Requested," pertaining to "Terminology - Access," in addition to the very reasonable points listed there, I define a format's "accessibility" to include openness -- namely, the format must be based on open standards, and be guaranteed to stay that way in the future. This means that those standards are completely documented and specified, and available to anyone, and will remain so. The Microsoft OOXML standard does not meet this criteria. In fact, Microsoft has failed to keep its public promises regarding control of the standard (please see http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071206131310362 for more information on this from people involved in the ISO standardization process).
Essentially, once the format is approved as an ISO standard, Microsoft wants to keep the standard under its own control; they will be able to accomplish this because, rather than turning the standard over to ISO, the standards body they plan to turn over maintenance of the OOXML standard to, ECMA, has an OOXML group chaired by not one, but two Microsoft employees (http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/TC45.htm). Once the standard is in the hands of ECMA, Microsoft will then be free to add or change features at their whim, leaving any who attempt to implement their standard unable to take advantage of the now *undocumented* features. Therefore, they will fail to be in full compliance with the standard.
This will have the effect of locking businesses and government departments into the use of their software, just as if they were to continue to use MS' current, proprietary ".DOC" format. It will also have the effect that, in order for taxpayers to access documents whose creation they've paid for, they must also pay a private company an additional sum in order to access that information. That is plainly wrong.
As a lifelong New York State resident, I am deeply opposed to this standard, for the simple reason that it encroaches on fundamental liberty. There is no justification for creating a de facto requirement that individuals or organizations will, now or in the future, purchase software from a *private company* in order to access public documents. Please consider following the good example of the Dutch government in adopting a completely open standard, such as the Open Document Format (see http://www.odfalliance.org/ for more information), and keep private companies from hi-jacking my public documents.
See this collection of videos. Feel the fear that arises when you come to the inevitable conclusion that the descendants of this soulless automaton will be used for one thing, and one thing only: to crush the fucking proletariat. Sure, there'll be a lot of talk about "casualty reduction" and so on, but does anyone really believe that? Really?
I know I don't. ###
I, for one, can't wait to live in a future where mechanized killbots with facial-recognition software patrol the world's working-class neighborhoods to keep us "safe".
Slashdot Mirror
Ms. Van Sickle, In response to "Part I - General Questions," under "I. Information Requested," pertaining to "Terminology - Access," in addition to the very reasonable points listed there, I define a format's "accessibility" to include openness -- namely, the format must be based on open standards, and be guaranteed to stay that way in the future. This means that those standards are completely documented and specified, and available to anyone, and will remain so. The Microsoft OOXML standard does not meet this criteria. In fact, Microsoft has failed to keep its public promises regarding control of the standard (please see http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071206131310362 for more information on this from people involved in the ISO standardization process). Essentially, once the format is approved as an ISO standard, Microsoft wants to keep the standard under its own control; they will be able to accomplish this because, rather than turning the standard over to ISO, the standards body they plan to turn over maintenance of the OOXML standard to, ECMA, has an OOXML group chaired by not one, but two Microsoft employees (http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/TC45.htm). Once the standard is in the hands of ECMA, Microsoft will then be free to add or change features at their whim, leaving any who attempt to implement their standard unable to take advantage of the now *undocumented* features. Therefore, they will fail to be in full compliance with the standard. This will have the effect of locking businesses and government departments into the use of their software, just as if they were to continue to use MS' current, proprietary ".DOC" format. It will also have the effect that, in order for taxpayers to access documents whose creation they've paid for, they must also pay a private company an additional sum in order to access that information. That is plainly wrong. As a lifelong New York State resident, I am deeply opposed to this standard, for the simple reason that it encroaches on fundamental liberty. There is no justification for creating a de facto requirement that individuals or organizations will, now or in the future, purchase software from a *private company* in order to access public documents. Please consider following the good example of the Dutch government in adopting a completely open standard, such as the Open Document Format (see http://www.odfalliance.org/ for more information), and keep private companies from hi-jacking my public documents.
Upon seeing this video, I sent the following email to some non-technical friends of mine:
###
Subject: These Assholes are going to Kill us All.
Gentlemen,
http://www.rec.ri.cmu.edu/projects/crusher/videos/index.htm
See this collection of videos. Feel the fear that arises when you come
to the inevitable conclusion that the descendants of this soulless
automaton will be used for one thing, and one thing only: to crush the
fucking proletariat. Sure, there'll be a lot of talk about "casualty
reduction" and so on, but does anyone really believe that? Really?
I know I don't.
###
I, for one, can't wait to live in a future where mechanized killbots with facial-recognition software patrol the world's working-class neighborhoods to keep us "safe".
Thanks, Dudes!