Don't be a fucking cock. A person like you who is willing to bend over and take it from the incompetent profs is not necessarily a person who makes a good programmer. Hate to break it to you, but if your CS degree improves your chances at getting employed, it's because it indicates your ability, not to program, but to take it in the ass. Hope you enjoy a life of assraping by the very liberal arts students you despise.
You missed the point. He's talking about making a selection (such as a text selection of a paragraph or two) and then printing only that selection. Not selecting a printer to print to. Unix has done that for 30 years.
Regardless of the mode of discussion, people more intelligent that you have already explained why proprietary formats are a bad thing. You should go inform yourself before digging yourself in deeper.
You're still missing the point and there's no "emotion based challenge."
It's not whether a home user can open the file easily today. That's irrelevant. It's whether it CAN be opened at all if the company providing the free viewer stops providing that free viewer. In 25 years, will you be able to find a viewer to open word97 docs? It's doubtful.
OpenDocument, however, is an open format. It's plain text. Anyone can read the text by unzipping the file and opening the text up with any text editor. Because of this, it doesn't matter what happens to Sun (the company developing StarOffice/OpenOffice).
As long as ASCII or Unicode is still around, you could still open an OpenDocument file and read the text, even if it's 500 years in the future and Microsoft is only a footnote in some dusty old history book.
And what happens when the free viewers no longer exist, eh? Can you unzip a doc and still read the text? Yeah, I think someone doesn't understand open formats.
Show me one working, paid graphic arts professional who is using the Gimp versus Photoshop in their daily life and I'll eat every word I'm typing. That user does not exist.
What the paparazzi does is technically legal too, but we still consider them to be privacy invading cockbags. Congratulations, ZDnet. You're acquiring a reputation as the paparazzi cockbags of the Internet.
Hey, I took your advice (and stole your content, don't tell!)
-------------start----------------------
From: "John C. Dvorak" To: "Ben Ford" Date: 19 Jul 2005, 04:18:34 PM Subject: Re:
no
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Ford" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 3:43 PM
> Mr. Dvorak, > > I just read your article, "Creative Commons Humbug", and would like to > reprint it on my blog as a tutorial on how to wax indignant about a subject > without performing even the most basic research about it beforehand. > > May I? >
Yeah, but has it loaded it accurately? Are all the tables in your word processor docs properly formatted? Do the bar charts in your spreadsheet look the same? How about your PowerPoint slides?
Yes.
And when you save your changes, do people who open your files in Office complain that they're all messed up?
No.
If you just want to work on your own, there are plenty of decent Office alternatives. But if you want to share files with the huge Office user base, you have to use Office yourself, period.
Sorry, that's absolutely not right. I've run nothing but OpenOffice for about 2-3 years now and have yet to have any of the problems you describe. However, those kinds of things happen to my colleagues running Word quite often.
2005 is 1/2 over and security vulnerabilities have no seasonal fluctuation. Therefore we can assume that we've seen 1/2 of the vulnerabilities for 2005. To compensate, double the number we have for 2005. After that, we have these numbers: 2005: 26 2004: 49 2003: 29
Hence, 2005 is *still* the lowest number and it shows no sharp increase "for the third straight year."
Did anybody actually READ the article? Did anyone notice that the number of vulnerabilities DROPPED every year? How the fuck is that "increasing sharply for the third straight year"?? Or did every dumbass who looked at the chart forget to read the damn legend?
Here's the scenario: The user plugs in a printer. There is no step two. If there was no printer before, the printer is now the default. There is no need to tell the machine about it this, no GUI popping up, no config programs to run.
This sounds like a Mac. I just bought my mom a Mac and was very surprised and impressed when we plugged in the printer. Plugging it in was literally the only step.
Installation Woes: If Best Buy forgot to charge him for the installation, they should've just eaten the cost. Never do you call someone back into the store to pay for a service you've already done. if they get out the door, that's your fault. It sounds like there was a mixup with the stereo anyway, so good customer service says you try to help the guy out. Fault: Best Buy
Charging for prior consideration isn't allowed by US contract law. Unless there was something more to the story that we weren't told, what they were doing wouldn't stand up in court anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be a fucking cock. A person like you who is willing to bend over and take it from the incompetent profs is not necessarily a person who makes a good programmer. Hate to break it to you, but if your CS degree improves your chances at getting employed, it's because it indicates your ability, not to program, but to take it in the ass. Hope you enjoy a life of assraping by the very liberal arts students you despise.
If you heard a whooshing sound, that was the joke as it passed over your head.
You missed the point. He's talking about making a selection (such as a text selection of a paragraph or two) and then printing only that selection. Not selecting a printer to print to. Unix has done that for 30 years.
just don't uncomment the ads that appear between every article on the homepage:
<p><!--#perl sub="sub { use Slash; print Slash::getAd(6, 0); }" -->
Better than seeing her period, I suppose.
I wasn't aware we were arguing.
Regardless of the mode of discussion, people more intelligent that you have already explained why proprietary formats are a bad thing. You should go inform yourself before digging yourself in deeper.
Have a nice day.
You're still missing the point and there's no "emotion based challenge."
It's not whether a home user can open the file easily today. That's irrelevant. It's whether it CAN be opened at all if the company providing the free viewer stops providing that free viewer. In 25 years, will you be able to find a viewer to open word97 docs? It's doubtful.
OpenDocument, however, is an open format. It's plain text. Anyone can read the text by unzipping the file and opening the text up with any text editor. Because of this, it doesn't matter what happens to Sun (the company developing StarOffice/OpenOffice).
As long as ASCII or Unicode is still around, you could still open an OpenDocument file and read the text, even if it's 500 years in the future and Microsoft is only a footnote in some dusty old history book.
And what happens when the free viewers no longer exist, eh? Can you unzip a doc and still read the text? Yeah, I think someone doesn't understand open formats.
mplayer, bud.
LinuxJournal Article
fxguide.com Article
I hope they taste good.
Same thing here. I'm finishing up an internship at Cisco and it's a joke.
What the paparazzi does is technically legal too, but we still consider them to be privacy invading cockbags. Congratulations, ZDnet. You're acquiring a reputation as the paparazzi cockbags of the Internet.
Microsoft HTML is not the HTML spoken by the rest of the world.
You could have saved the time you wasted posting by realizing that Microsoft HTML is not the HTML spoken by the rest of the world.
Hey, I took your advice (and stole your content, don't tell!)
-------------start----------------------
From: "John C. Dvorak"
To: "Ben Ford"
Date: 19 Jul 2005, 04:18:34 PM
Subject: Re:
no
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Ford"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 3:43 PM
> Mr. Dvorak,
>
> I just read your article, "Creative Commons Humbug", and would like to
> reprint it on my blog as a tutorial on how to wax indignant about a
subject
> without performing even the most basic research about it beforehand.
>
> May I?
>
Yes.
No.
Sorry, that's absolutely not right. I've run nothing but OpenOffice for about 2-3 years now and have yet to have any of the problems you describe. However, those kinds of things happen to my colleagues running Word quite often.
More like it's your misunderstanding of math.
2005 is 1/2 over and security vulnerabilities have no seasonal fluctuation. Therefore we can assume that we've seen 1/2 of the vulnerabilities for 2005. To compensate, double the number we have for 2005. After that, we have these numbers:
2005: 26
2004: 49
2003: 29
Hence, 2005 is *still* the lowest number and it shows no sharp increase "for the third straight year."
Did anybody actually READ the article? Did anyone notice that the number of vulnerabilities DROPPED every year? How the fuck is that "increasing sharply for the third straight year"?? Or did every dumbass who looked at the chart forget to read the damn legend?
You thought wrong then.
And apostrophes never indicate plurality.
Here's the scenario:
The user plugs in a printer. There is no step two. If there was no printer before, the printer is now the default. There is no need to tell the machine about it this, no GUI popping up, no config programs to run.
This sounds like a Mac. I just bought my mom a Mac and was very surprised and impressed when we plugged in the printer. Plugging it in was literally the only step.
If they can do it, we can too.
You know, if you friend's story was a little more readable, I might actually finish reading it!
I can run (most) 1980s programs easily on MacOS and Windows because those companies care about backwards compatibility-- why doens't Linux?
Because we don't have to.
We don't have to maintain backwards compatibility because we don't have to shell out an assload of cash every few months to upgrade our software.
I may have a fix for the phone home issues. If you have a document that phones home, please post a link to it here.
Charging for prior consideration isn't allowed by US contract law. Unless there was something more to the story that we weren't told, what they were doing wouldn't stand up in court anyways.
I upgraded gnome from pre-1.0 all the way to 2.6 along with the rest of the system. What's the problem?