Honestly, I believe they won't introduce that kind of incompatibility.
They may introduce new extensions to the format, but I really doubt that anything will take the place of an existing framework. At worst, there will be a new doctype, and older doctypes will remain as a subset of a much greater superset of possible future doctypes.
There's a HUGE difference between an MS standard and a government (read ISO) standard. Government standards, although they aren't immortal, tend to last a long long time. Things like backwards compatibility, even at the expense of efficency, are prevalent through government standards.
I guess I could see someone creating an Office Suite in the future that did not support the oldest OpenDocument schema, but again, I find it unlikely---> As long as computer hardware continues to grow ever greater and greater there really isn't a reason to implement older schema as subsets of new ones.
Think of the same relationship between IPv4 and IPv6. Every IPv4 address fits into the IPv6 address space. Every Open Document 1.0 format should fit somewhere into the barrage of formats that is Open Document v99.0 Think of standardization the way we have standardized, say, ASCII, and now, Unicode.
Of course, all this depends on the standards body. But the nice thing about well defined markup languages is there they generally have fantastic backwards compatibility--> new tags don't replace existing ones.
Obviously, nothing is future proof. OpenDocument may have to be scrapped and rewritten at some point in the future. But given the elegant design that has gone into it so far, I'm guessing OpenDocument has the potential to last *a lot* longer than DOC did.
Even beyond that, by having the OASIS OpenDocument format being a published, (and soon) ISO-approved format means that:
A)It'll be supported for a *long, long* time, and B)100 years from now writing a parser to extract all that old data will be trivial.
It's not that the data is easier to understand (though it is). It's that everyone has equal access to the instructions to build such a parser.
Also, I suspect that if it does become an ISO standard, OASIS OpenDocument will remain as a subset of any future document standard. There's really no reason *not* to. Given that the implementation is readily avaliable, very little work will be required.
You *really* don't know what you are talking about.
Repeat after me, "XML is not a document format" "XML is not a document format"
XML is a general purpose markup language you can use to define document formats.
Grandparent is correct. MS Office 12 will NOT save in the soon to be ISO approved, OASIS OpenDocument format. Period.
Office Open XML != OpenDocument XML
Just because they both have XML in the name doesn't mean that they are the same thing. There might be a possibility to use a custom XML schema in MS Office 12 that *might* be able to read and write OASIS ODP format XML. You'll probably have to write your own schema, though-- no way MS is going to ship it out of box, not will all their current bellyaching.
I'm also guessing that there will be limitations in it to prevent it from accurately creating OASIS ODP XML. It'll be broken for some reason-- have you _ever_ known MS to implement anything platform-neutral correctly?
They'll be restricted to cross-platform embedded Java VOIP apps in their wordprocessors, instead of using Windows-only ActiveX VOP apps in their wordprocessors.
Oh Noes!
Strangely, though, my VOIP java-app doesn't work properly. No matter what printer I print my document out on, and no matter how hard I ink out the 'Send' button, I don't hear any voice from my letter. Maybe the ActiveX version would work?
Wikipedia defines XML: "The Extensible Markup Language (XML) is a W3C-recommended general-purpose markup language for creating special-purpose markup languages. It is a simplified subset of SGML, capable of describing many different kinds of data. Its primary purpose is to facilitate the sharing of data across different systems, particularly systems connected via the Internet. Languages based on XML (for example, RDF, RSS, MathML, XHTML, SVG, and cXML) are defined in a formal way, allowing programs to modify and validate documents in these languages without prior knowledge of their form.
One uses XML to 'define' a document format. The problem is that one could easily define a format (schema), permit royalty free-licensing, but 'patent' the schema/format.
Remember GIF?
MS XML formats have this problem. One, there are a couple licensing requirements. Two, the royalty-free license does *not* grant the licensee rights to use any MS patents that the document format may utilize. Even if one interprets some as the text as granting a right to the patents for certain implementations of MS XML, there's no reason to believe you have a perpetual right to those patents.
MS has some control over who can implement these formats, and for instruments of public policy, that is simply not acceptable.
MS is free to implement OASIS formats, because everyone is free to implement them. Governments are having to upgrade anyways--> DOC is being phased out. It's either switch to OASIS (ISO-approved), with multi-vendor support, and shipping software that supports it; or switch to MS Office Open XML, which hasn't been released yet, which *no* software on the market currently supports, which is not vendor neutral in implementation, and is not any kind of 'official' standard.
People use DOC over all the other formats because it has marketshare. MS Office Open XML has 0 marketshare right now. It has to compete on its merits alone, and a such, is failing.
By the way, what will happen when the Federal government sends documents to Massachusetts in word format? Would the state send them back? My guess?
Massachusetts will open it in OpenOffice.org (or IBM's upcoming thin-client ODP solution), and file a complaint with the federal government "We've received XXX.doc, please be aware that it is against the policy of the State of Massachusetts to work with documents not in the ODP ISO-standard format. Your document has been converted to an ODP format document-- the State of Massachusetts cannot be held liable for any errors in conversion to this format. Any such material errors must be corrected by the document submitter. Attached is the ODP version of your document, please review it for any errors in the automatic conversion process. Please view http://xxx.xxx.ma.us/ODP for more information regarding this policy."
Actually, I think they'll do that with anyone submitting word documents. The real kicker---
What will the Federal Government do when the State of Massachusetts only submits ISO-standard ODP (OASIS) documents back to the feds?
My guess? Use OpenOffice.org as a conversion filter. Then, various fed employees (IT people) will start wondering _why_ they should be paying for MS Office when they *already* use a similar office suite as a _conversion_ filter.
In the long run, moves like this will force the Federal government to consider an 'integrated, intelligent' IT policy similar to the one that Massachusetts implements. Especially if Massachusetts is successful in their migration. The interdepartmental integration benefits are amazing.
You know all that rhetoric we here coming from the current administration about 'information sharing' among various departments? Universal OASIS ODP XML will help in that process.
My guess? Sun & IBM are preparing to storm the office market through a 3-way split.
1. OpenOffice.org for the masses. Free, full featured, supported. Perfect for home users and small companies. Also perfect for companies with large linux staffs 2. StarOffice. Full featured, Sun support. Perfect for OEMs, home users that want someone to blame, small companies, and large companies looking for a traditional office solution. Almost a drop-in MS office replacement, and a drop-in replacement for 80% of users. 3. IBM's Workplace. A new type of enterprise document creation/management. Blows MS Office out of the water in terms of features, yet you can easily exchange documents with anyone using the above two platforms.
Neat, eh?
A free platform for the masses. A supported platform for those desiring corporate support. A ground-breaking enterprise solution, straight from Big Blue, who *loves* to eat up government contracts.
And they all interoperate with each other, and they all interoperate with most of the alternatives (KOffice, Abiword, and whoever decides to resurrect Wordperfect). None of these entities alone can challenge MS. However, Big Blue easily has the capability to challenge MS, and easily dominates MS in terms of server-client solutions (That's what IBM's Workplace is). Sun's 'StarOffice' isn't enterprise ready-->But it doesn't matter, StarOffice readily interoperates with Workplace. And the rest of us can get a similar system for free.
Quite frankly, unless MS decides to *immediately* support OASIS document formats, we're going to have a genuine war in the Office area. I suspect government contracts will play a huge role in this war, and I suspect that IBM plus ISO-standard compliant formats will blindside the MS enterprise salesforce.
I do not believe that Nokia will ever start shipping Windows phones.
The absolute ugly-broken-ass nature of Windows mobile/PocketPC doesn't compare to the creamy goodness of symbian OS, whether it be series 60 or series 90.
Symbian looks and acts the way Palm OS *should* have been working by now. Lets hope they have enough market share to keep going.
Nokia phones always have an elegant/sophisticated interface. I've never seen a Windows mobile phone that came close.
My cousin uses an MPx220, my father used to use an iPaq 6600 series pocketPC phone, and both sucked. Royally.
I've never played with a Palm Phone, but I can't imagine they were worse. I do find that the new Symbian series 90 is an absolute pleasure to work with.
Best PDA phone on the market? Nokia 7710. Best reception. Nice features Decent software library. Best screen Best camera. Happy Nokia Goodness;P
Like most other MS products, they suck. My iPaq 4315 was underfeatured and overpriced compared to similar Palm models.
Either way, though, this marks the end of Palm. I've never seen a company thats managed to 'cooperate' and 'codevelop' with MS without getting really messed up.
Re:Konqueror succeeds at ACID2 and gets Adblock!
on
KDE 3.5 Beta 1 Announced
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Everything you want to do can be achieved by hand editing the user profiles, and then putting a 'load profile' button in your main toolbar.
Define separate homes for browsing and file managing.
I believe you can specify target windows for file manager tabs. You'd need to edit your default file manager profile
Any of the KDE window settings can be defined in the view profile, and it will be specific to the profile.
The only problem is you can't get multiple bars for the user profiles on your toolbar, just a 'load profile' button
No, the default format is not OpenDocument XML, nor does it support OpenDocument XML.
Yes, the Office XML format is avaliable in a royalty-free license.
No, the Office XML format isn't open source compatible, because of the license restrictions and because it is pattented.
Yes, they followed XML standards in producing their format, but that doesn't mean its not filled with tons of binary crap. OpenDocument XML is infinitely superior, in that you can simply gunzip it and poke around the directory structure for all the items you embedded into your document.
XML is pretty flexible. Just because it is 'XML Compliant' doesn't mean that it is easy to understand, use, or implement.
I guess you can cut&paste the binary 'bottles' out of a MS Office XML file.
Yeah, I have a feeling there new business model is:
A) Make money off embedded devices B) Provide 'premium' support to large corporations who are willing to switch to Opera for their default browser. Customize the browser based upon the corporations needs.
They pay nearly ALL of that to the labels for the license.
Apple doesn't mind, because it locks people into the iPod. iTunes is a vehicle to sell iPods.
RIAA and Co. don't mind, because its pure profit. No recurring production costs. It's simply another revenue stream for something they've already produced. There are fewer production costs associated with giving rights to Apple than producing CDs, and $1 per song is more than the going rate for, say, a singles disc, or a standard album.
Plus, people tend to spend more money in a small payment or micro payment scheme than 15-20$ a pop.
There are independant movie theaters already like that.
In Chicagoland, I know of two: The brew & view downtown, and Hollywood Blvd. in Woodridge.
Since I live in the suburbs, I go to Hollwood Blvd. (www.atriptothemovies.com) I won't go to other theaters anymore; it's just better in *every* way.
Standard ticket price is $7.00. Everytime you purchase a full price ticket during the week, you get a free admission ticket as well.
Reasonable prices on food, too. Not dirt cheap, but significantly cheaper than, say, an AMC theater.
Fantastic service, and good drink specials. I particularly like the Pitcher of Long Island ice tea:-)
I won't go to any other theaters anymore. These places are cheaper, have a better clientel, are 21+ after 8 pm (for non-kiddie movies, Charlie and the Chocolate factory, or Shrek were all ages all the time), serve good food, excellent drinks, with responsive service.
There's a local theater that I go to all the time, and I'm a big home theater proponet.
Why do I go?
Because they serve drinks & food, and the ticket price is reasonable.
Why get dinner then a movie when you can have dinner *and* a movie?:)
The atmosphere there is great, the service is extraordinarily fast, and they are constantly offering discounts on admission. (Read, average cost per ticket of ~$4.00, given how often they give you free tickets or discount admission).
www.atriptothemovies.com
I have a feeling that even if AMC tanked, these guys would still be around.
Sorry, I'm not very particular in my terminology. I believe, however, you might be able to call it articles of incorporation, since an LLC is sometimes refered to as a Limited Liability Company, and others as Limited Liability Corporation.
1. Form the LLC anyways. Use the name, MethLabs LLC
File a cybersquatting request. Even if you loose, its not a bad way to go. If you can show you started the project, you'll be in *really* good shape, I think. As far as I know, if you have a business name, you are virtually guaranteed the domain name. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Emphasize that its a *security* site. ICANN generally frowns on people trying to subvert security software.
2. Trademark the term "Peerguardian". This costs about ~$400. You may have to take a collection for this. Then, you can pretty reliably prevent him from using that term on methlabs.org.
A trademark will help you achieve number 1, above, and virtually guarantees number 3, below.
3. Sue in small claims court. Make sure to sue in *his* state, but not necessarily his jurisdiction. Even if you don't get the domain back, claim the maximum (usually $3000) in damage. The loss of your projects domain name is easily worth much, much more, but $3000 should be fairly easy to start up again with (pays Domain fees hosting fees LLC fees, etc. ..), and its a fun way to stick it to him.
Small claims court usually only takes a day of work, and the filing fees are pretty small, too. Even if he doesn't pay, you can enter a judgement against him, have the pleasure of actually employing a creditor FOR you (not against;-) ) and use this as additional proof (even though small claims doesn't set a precedent) for your cybersquatting claim.
Plus, small claims judges are big on practical issues. They don't like to see people get screwed, and generally side with the abused party.
Form an LLC (couple hundred dollars). Give all assets that you want to protect to the LLC. Distribute ownership of the LLC among ALL memebers, and require license changes/ownership changes/policy changes/domain changes, etc, either unanimous consent or a 2/3 (maybe 3/4) vote.
Fundamentally, the purpose of a business 'shell', in any small organization, is to put your assets in one place so that no one can legally mismanage them.
If, for example, methlabs.org had been the property of methlabs, LLC, and the administrator tried to boot you off, you could send an e-mail to your registrar from the 'director' of the LLC, indicating that the administrator was not acting in the interest of the LLC. You send them the *signed* (can be signed electronically, using the US gov't standard, which is a bit silly \ \ ) LLC articles of incorporation, showing either that the administrator member had no right to do that, OR that he wasn't a member of the LLC.
Then they hand you the 'keys' to the castle, so to speak.
I'm not sure I agree with it, but the theory is that there is big money in global warming research, both for and against.
If you want to cash-out with the oil companies, you have to be saying that there ISN'T any global warming, and you have to spend a lot of time/money criticizing the environmentalists. If there wasn't anybody making noises about global warming, than you, as an anti-global warming researching wouldn't get millions in grants.
If you are an environmentalist, you have to be saying that there IS global warming, and you have to spend a lot of time/money criticizing the people I just described above. If there wasn't anybody disputing your facts, than you, as a global warming research, wouldn't get millions in grants.
Both sides have an incentive to say that both sides should get more funding. As both sides get more funding, they make *yet more noise*.
There hasn't been a single article from either side saying 'cut off funding for the other'. All the scientists agree that 'more research, more funding, more computer models, etc. ..' are needed.
Never forget, big science research ITSELF is fairly big research. The largest computing clusters in the world have been built for the purpose of analyzing global warming. Literally fleets of ships, along with mounds and mounds of atmospheric measuring equipment, and dozens of satellites have been constructed for the purpose of studying warming. Not to say that they don't find a bunch of intresting conclusions/data. But don't expect ANYONE tied up in the debate to ever say, "We're done researching, time to act, no more money for science, lets just spend it on lobbying, etc. .."
Want to fund your ancient petrifyied tree research project? Link it to global warming, say that you are looking to see past temperature data. Shop it out to both sides, the IPCC people, the sierra club, and the oil companies, and make sure you release *very* high quality, but moderately ambiguous data.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, I believe they won't introduce that kind of incompatibility.
They may introduce new extensions to the format, but I really doubt that anything will take the place of an existing framework. At worst, there will be a new doctype, and older doctypes will remain as a subset of a much greater superset of possible future doctypes.
There's a HUGE difference between an MS standard and a government (read ISO) standard. Government standards, although they aren't immortal, tend to last a long long time. Things like backwards compatibility, even at the expense of efficency, are prevalent through government standards.
I guess I could see someone creating an Office Suite in the future that did not support the oldest OpenDocument schema, but again, I find it unlikely---> As long as computer hardware continues to grow ever greater and greater there really isn't a reason to implement older schema as subsets of new ones.
Think of the same relationship between IPv4 and IPv6. Every IPv4 address fits into the IPv6 address space. Every Open Document 1.0 format should fit somewhere into the barrage of formats that is Open Document v99.0 Think of standardization the way we have standardized, say, ASCII, and now, Unicode.
Of course, all this depends on the standards body. But the nice thing about well defined markup languages is there they generally have fantastic backwards compatibility--> new tags don't replace existing ones.
Obviously, nothing is future proof. OpenDocument may have to be scrapped and rewritten at some point in the future. But given the elegant design that has gone into it so far, I'm guessing OpenDocument has the potential to last *a lot* longer than DOC did.
No. Their IT policy *requires* that all documents be kept in an Open format.
That's the meat of the new policy. The documents *must* be kept in an Open format. Right now, that means OASIS OpenDocument. Period.
Even beyond that, by having the OASIS OpenDocument format being a published, (and soon) ISO-approved format means that:
A)It'll be supported for a *long, long* time, and
B)100 years from now writing a parser to extract all that old data will be trivial.
It's not that the data is easier to understand (though it is). It's that everyone has equal access to the instructions to build such a parser.
Also, I suspect that if it does become an ISO standard, OASIS OpenDocument will remain as a subset of any future document standard. There's really no reason *not* to. Given that the implementation is readily avaliable, very little work will be required.
Don't mod parent up. Mod grand parent up.
You *really* don't know what you are talking about.
Repeat after me, "XML is not a document format" "XML is not a document format"
XML is a general purpose markup language you can use to define document formats.
Grandparent is correct. MS Office 12 will NOT save in the soon to be ISO approved, OASIS OpenDocument format. Period.
Office Open XML != OpenDocument XML
Just because they both have XML in the name doesn't mean that they are the same thing. There might be a possibility to use a custom XML schema in MS Office 12 that *might* be able to read and write OASIS ODP format XML. You'll probably have to write your own schema, though-- no way MS is going to ship it out of box, not will all their current bellyaching.
I'm also guessing that there will be limitations in it to prevent it from accurately creating OASIS ODP XML. It'll be broken for some reason-- have you _ever_ known MS to implement anything platform-neutral correctly?
Seriously!
They'll be restricted to cross-platform embedded Java VOIP apps in their wordprocessors, instead of using Windows-only ActiveX VOP apps in their wordprocessors.
Oh Noes!
Strangely, though, my VOIP java-app doesn't work properly. No matter what printer I print my document out on, and no matter how hard I ink out the 'Send' button, I don't hear any voice from my letter. Maybe the ActiveX version would work?
*shrug*
8*)
XML != open.
o n.html
Wikipedia defines XML: "The Extensible Markup Language (XML) is a W3C-recommended general-purpose markup language for creating special-purpose markup languages. It is a simplified subset of SGML, capable of describing many different kinds of data. Its primary purpose is to facilitate the sharing of data across different systems, particularly systems connected via the Internet. Languages based on XML (for example, RDF, RSS, MathML, XHTML, SVG, and cXML) are defined in a formal way, allowing programs to modify and validate documents in these languages without prior knowledge of their form.
One uses XML to 'define' a document format. The problem is that one could easily define a format (schema), permit royalty free-licensing, but 'patent' the schema/format.
Remember GIF?
MS XML formats have this problem. One, there are a couple licensing requirements. Two, the royalty-free license does *not* grant the licensee rights to use any MS patents that the document format may utilize. Even if one interprets some as the text as granting a right to the patents for certain implementations of MS XML, there's no reason to believe you have a perpetual right to those patents.
MS has some control over who can implement these formats, and for instruments of public policy, that is simply not acceptable.
MS is free to implement OASIS formats, because everyone is free to implement them. Governments are having to upgrade anyways--> DOC is being phased out. It's either switch to OASIS (ISO-approved), with multi-vendor support, and shipping software that supports it; or switch to MS Office Open XML, which hasn't been released yet, which *no* software on the market currently supports, which is not vendor neutral in implementation, and is not any kind of 'official' standard.
People use DOC over all the other formats because it has marketshare. MS Office Open XML has 0 marketshare right now. It has to compete on its merits alone, and a such, is failing.
Read here for more information:
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/why-opendocument-w
By the way, what will happen when the Federal government sends documents to Massachusetts in word format? Would the state send them back?
My guess?
Massachusetts will open it in OpenOffice.org (or IBM's upcoming thin-client ODP solution), and file a complaint with the federal government "We've received XXX.doc, please be aware that it is against the policy of the State of Massachusetts to work with documents not in the ODP ISO-standard format. Your document has been converted to an ODP format document-- the State of Massachusetts cannot be held liable for any errors in conversion to this format. Any such material errors must be corrected by the document submitter. Attached is the ODP version of your document, please review it for any errors in the automatic conversion process. Please view http://xxx.xxx.ma.us/ODP for more information regarding this policy."
Actually, I think they'll do that with anyone submitting word documents. The real kicker---
What will the Federal Government do when the State of Massachusetts only submits ISO-standard ODP (OASIS) documents back to the feds?
My guess? Use OpenOffice.org as a conversion filter. Then, various fed employees (IT people) will start wondering _why_ they should be paying for MS Office when they *already* use a similar office suite as a _conversion_ filter.
In the long run, moves like this will force the Federal government to consider an 'integrated, intelligent' IT policy similar to the one that Massachusetts implements. Especially if Massachusetts is successful in their migration. The interdepartmental integration benefits are amazing.
You know all that rhetoric we here coming from the current administration about 'information sharing' among various departments? Universal OASIS ODP XML will help in that process.
My guess? Sun & IBM are preparing to storm the office market through a 3-way split.
1. OpenOffice.org for the masses. Free, full featured, supported. Perfect for home users and small companies. Also perfect for companies with large linux staffs
2. StarOffice. Full featured, Sun support. Perfect for OEMs, home users that want someone to blame, small companies, and large companies looking for a traditional office solution. Almost a drop-in MS office replacement, and a drop-in replacement for 80% of users.
3. IBM's Workplace. A new type of enterprise document creation/management. Blows MS Office out of the water in terms of features, yet you can easily exchange documents with anyone using the above two platforms.
Neat, eh?
A free platform for the masses. A supported platform for those desiring corporate support. A ground-breaking enterprise solution, straight from Big Blue, who *loves* to eat up government contracts.
And they all interoperate with each other, and they all interoperate with most of the alternatives (KOffice, Abiword, and whoever decides to resurrect Wordperfect).
None of these entities alone can challenge MS. However, Big Blue easily has the capability to challenge MS, and easily dominates MS in terms of server-client solutions (That's what IBM's Workplace is). Sun's 'StarOffice' isn't enterprise ready-->But it doesn't matter, StarOffice readily interoperates with Workplace. And the rest of us can get a similar system for free.
Quite frankly, unless MS decides to *immediately* support OASIS document formats, we're going to have a genuine war in the Office area. I suspect government contracts will play a huge role in this war, and I suspect that IBM plus ISO-standard compliant formats will blindside the MS enterprise salesforce.
I do not believe that Nokia will ever start shipping Windows phones.
The absolute ugly-broken-ass nature of Windows mobile/PocketPC doesn't compare to the creamy goodness of symbian OS, whether it be series 60 or series 90.
Symbian looks and acts the way Palm OS *should* have been working by now. Lets hope they have enough market share to keep going.
Nokia phones always have an elegant/sophisticated interface. I've never seen a Windows mobile phone that came close.
Windows mobile is *NOT* stable.
;P
My cousin uses an MPx220, my father used to use an iPaq 6600 series pocketPC phone, and both sucked. Royally.
I've never played with a Palm Phone, but I can't imagine they were worse. I do find that the new Symbian series 90 is an absolute pleasure to work with.
Best PDA phone on the market? Nokia 7710.
Best reception.
Nice features
Decent software library.
Best screen
Best camera.
Happy Nokia Goodness
I started out on Pocket PC. And guess what?
Like most other MS products, they suck. My iPaq 4315 was underfeatured and overpriced compared to similar Palm models.
Either way, though, this marks the end of Palm. I've never seen a company thats managed to 'cooperate' and 'codevelop' with MS without getting really messed up.
Everything you want to do can be achieved by hand editing the user profiles, and then putting a 'load profile' button in your main toolbar.
Define separate homes for browsing and file managing.
I believe you can specify target windows for file manager tabs. You'd need to edit your default file manager profile
Any of the KDE window settings can be defined in the view profile, and it will be specific to the profile.
The only problem is you can't get multiple bars for the user profiles on your toolbar, just a 'load profile' button
Yes, the default format is an XML format.
No, the default format is not OpenDocument XML, nor does it support OpenDocument XML.
Yes, the Office XML format is avaliable in a royalty-free license.
No, the Office XML format isn't open source compatible, because of the license restrictions and because it is pattented.
Yes, they followed XML standards in producing their format, but that doesn't mean its not filled with tons of binary crap. OpenDocument XML is infinitely superior, in that you can simply gunzip it and poke around the directory structure for all the items you embedded into your document.
XML is pretty flexible. Just because it is 'XML Compliant' doesn't mean that it is easy to understand, use, or implement.
I guess you can cut&paste the binary 'bottles' out of a MS Office XML file.
ReWind is a BSD licensed Wine.
So, I guess some coder could put a little bit of polish on ReWind, strip out all the indentifiable bits, and call it a Windows XP API emulator.
Yeah, I have a feeling there new business model is:
A) Make money off embedded devices
B) Provide 'premium' support to large corporations who are willing to switch to Opera for their default browser. Customize the browser based upon the corporations needs.
Apple makes *loads* of profit per song.
Something like 94%.
They pay nearly ALL of that to the labels for the license.
Apple doesn't mind, because it locks people into the iPod. iTunes is a vehicle to sell iPods.
RIAA and Co. don't mind, because its pure profit. No recurring production costs. It's simply another revenue stream for something they've already produced. There are fewer production costs associated with giving rights to Apple than producing CDs, and $1 per song is more than the going rate for, say, a singles disc, or a standard album.
Plus, people tend to spend more money in a small payment or micro payment scheme than 15-20$ a pop.
There are independant movie theaters already like that.
:-)
;-)
In Chicagoland, I know of two: The brew & view downtown, and Hollywood Blvd. in Woodridge.
Since I live in the suburbs, I go to Hollwood Blvd. (www.atriptothemovies.com) I won't go to other theaters anymore; it's just better in *every* way.
Standard ticket price is $7.00. Everytime you purchase a full price ticket during the week, you get a free admission ticket as well.
Reasonable prices on food, too. Not dirt cheap, but significantly cheaper than, say, an AMC theater.
Fantastic service, and good drink specials. I particularly like the Pitcher of Long Island ice tea
I won't go to any other theaters anymore. These places are cheaper, have a better clientel, are 21+ after 8 pm (for non-kiddie movies, Charlie and the Chocolate factory, or Shrek were all ages all the time), serve good food, excellent drinks, with responsive service.
Heaven in front of a screen
There's a local theater that I go to all the time, and I'm a big home theater proponet.
:)
Why do I go?
Because they serve drinks & food, and the ticket price is reasonable.
Why get dinner then a movie when you can have dinner *and* a movie?
The atmosphere there is great, the service is extraordinarily fast, and they are constantly offering discounts on admission. (Read, average cost per ticket of ~$4.00, given how often they give you free tickets or discount admission).
www.atriptothemovies.com
I have a feeling that even if AMC tanked, these guys would still be around.
At legalzoom.com, you can incorporate a Nevada LLC (with registered agent) for ~205, IIRC
I've done this many times.
You'll have to find/pay a registered agent unless you can find an address/phone number in state. This is usually under a hundred dollars per year.
Sorry, I'm not very particular in my terminology. I believe, however, you might be able to call it articles of incorporation, since an LLC is sometimes refered to as a Limited Liability Company, and others as Limited Liability Corporation.
p ia2005.pdf
For example, this state revenue document, in Illinois, refers to Limited Liability Corporation on page 13: http://www.revenue.state.il.us/LegalInformation/u
IIRC, depending on the state, you can define what happens to the LLC when a member dies in the articles of organization.
In the past year I've formed 5 LLCs, IIRC. They are significantly easier to run than an S corporation.
Yes, but those are more expensive :)
Also, 2 more points ;-)
.), and its a fun way to stick it to him.
;-) ) and use this as additional proof (even though small claims doesn't set a precedent) for your cybersquatting claim.
1. Form the LLC anyways. Use the name, MethLabs LLC
File a cybersquatting request. Even if you loose, its not a bad way to go. If you can show you started the project, you'll be in *really* good shape, I think. As far as I know, if you have a business name, you are virtually guaranteed the domain name. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Emphasize that its a *security* site. ICANN generally frowns on people trying to subvert security software.
2. Trademark the term "Peerguardian". This costs about ~$400. You may have to take a collection for this. Then, you can pretty reliably prevent him from using that term on methlabs.org.
A trademark will help you achieve number 1, above, and virtually guarantees number 3, below.
3. Sue in small claims court. Make sure to sue in *his* state, but not necessarily his jurisdiction. Even if you don't get the domain back, claim the maximum (usually $3000) in damage. The loss of your projects domain name is easily worth much, much more, but $3000 should be fairly easy to start up again with (pays Domain fees hosting fees LLC fees, etc. .
Small claims court usually only takes a day of work, and the filing fees are pretty small, too. Even if he doesn't pay, you can enter a judgement against him, have the pleasure of actually employing a creditor FOR you (not against
Plus, small claims judges are big on practical issues. They don't like to see people get screwed, and generally side with the abused party.
Form an LLC (couple hundred dollars).
Give all assets that you want to protect to the LLC.
Distribute ownership of the LLC among ALL memebers, and require license changes/ownership changes/policy changes/domain changes, etc, either unanimous consent or a 2/3 (maybe 3/4) vote.
Fundamentally, the purpose of a business 'shell', in any small organization, is to put your assets in one place so that no one can legally mismanage them.
If, for example, methlabs.org had been the property of methlabs, LLC, and the administrator tried to boot you off, you could send an e-mail to your registrar from the 'director' of the LLC, indicating that the administrator was not acting in the interest of the LLC. You send them the *signed* (can be signed electronically, using the US gov't standard, which is a bit silly \ \ ) LLC articles of incorporation, showing either that the administrator member had no right to do that, OR that he wasn't a member of the LLC.
Then they hand you the 'keys' to the castle, so to speak.
Lots of typos, sorry.
A couple correctons:
big science research ITSELF is fairly big research
means
big science research ITSELF is fairly big business
you, as a global warming research
means
you, as a global warming researcher
I'm sure there are more, but it is more or less (probably less) readable for english speakers.
I'm not sure I agree with it, but the theory is that there is big money in global warming research, both for and against.
.' are needed.
."
If you want to cash-out with the oil companies, you have to be saying that there ISN'T any global warming, and you have to spend a lot of time/money criticizing the environmentalists. If there wasn't anybody making noises about global warming, than you, as an anti-global warming researching wouldn't get millions in grants.
If you are an environmentalist, you have to be saying that there IS global warming, and you have to spend a lot of time/money criticizing the people I just described above. If there wasn't anybody disputing your facts, than you, as a global warming research, wouldn't get millions in grants.
Both sides have an incentive to say that both sides should get more funding. As both sides get more funding, they make *yet more noise*.
There hasn't been a single article from either side saying 'cut off funding for the other'. All the scientists agree that 'more research, more funding, more computer models, etc. .
Never forget, big science research ITSELF is fairly big research. The largest computing clusters in the world have been built for the purpose of analyzing global warming. Literally fleets of ships, along with mounds and mounds of atmospheric measuring equipment, and dozens of satellites have been constructed for the purpose of studying warming. Not to say that they don't find a bunch of intresting conclusions/data. But don't expect ANYONE tied up in the debate to ever say, "We're done researching, time to act, no more money for science, lets just spend it on lobbying, etc. .
Want to fund your ancient petrifyied tree research project? Link it to global warming, say that you are looking to see past temperature data. Shop it out to both sides, the IPCC people, the sierra club, and the oil companies, and make sure you release *very* high quality, but moderately ambiguous data.
Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
This:. html
http://www.gnu.org/software/sourceinstall/article
makes source installs on an RPM system somewhat easier.
You can almost always get back to a pre-source install state by uninstalling (using the GUI), and then refreshing the RPMs.