No, forking LO from OO.o was primarily a matter of getting development to move forward again at a better than glacial pace: The OO.o license requires submitted code to become Sun's (and now Oracle's) property. This kept many from donating their code, depositing it at Go-OO, instead. These changes are now moving into LO, which is starting to show faster improvement than OO.o.
If you think that is stupid, then... well,... you're entitled to your opinion.:)
Track changes, as in who made what alterations to the document (additions, removals, etc.) shown visually? Writer has had that feature for a few years at least.
As to footnotes, I've never had an issue with those in OOo, but MS Word destroyed entire documents (as in start from scratch because it no longer loads) when editing foot notes, and repeatedly replaced inserted images with big red X's, and other "fun" things to drive me to the brink. OOo has not been flawless, but it's treated me a lot better over the years than MS Word, and has never lost me data which is a lot more than can be said for MS Word. And yes, I have documents that are several hundred, and some even close to a thousand pages long. Well, YMMV.
As to the article, well, it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. Bleah.
Any system is vulnerable when it automatically opens or executes email attachments, automatically executes arbitrary commands delivered on a removable volume, and hides file name extensions to fool users into executing things that looked like something harmless.
Any software vendor who thinks about adding such features should receive a savage thrashing. If they actually enable such features by default, they should be shot with prejudice.
I'm taking bets on the next practice or belief system to be labeled and taught as a science. The reading of entrails, tea leaves, palms, or smoke columns? How about tech support by Tarot? (that one does have a certain ring to it, doesn't it?) Any others?
It only matters whether their own people believe the video.
If some do not, what are the chances that news of their blunder spreads? And if this really blows up in their face, what are the chances that the government won't push the blame onto someone else?
The bottom line is that this kind of stuff can be effective propaganda: How would the Chinese people feel about going to war if this video were presented as proof of a foreign invader or spy being shot down by valiant Chinese defenders? Manufacture a few more like that, and before long the people will feel sufficiently threatened to accept fewer rights and more police control, and approve of the invasion of evil nations.
Hands up, who can tell us where else in the world this kind of thing has worked like a charm? Hint, it wasn't a communist nation. Extra credit for multiple examples in different time periods.:)
Re: Penalty... You know they violated the Do Not Call list when you get a spam call.
But when and how are you going to find out that they tracked you anyway? And who is going to check their databases, verify that you actually didn't want to be tracked at the time they received that HTTP header, and then holds them accountable?
Penalty or no penalty, it'll work as well as the spam crawlers honoring the/robots.txt file... anyone remember that one?
At least they're not pulling a Sony on us, selling the things as open and then revoking the ability, after they scammed us out of our money. But it looks like I will not be buying from Motorola again from now on.
I wonder what company wants to go on my (permanent) blacklist next...
I'm not in the least surprised that this fine example of human rational superiority lives in Florida. I read Fark, after all, and have seen no shortage of this kind of mind-boggling idiocy. More to the point, I think the this guy's anxiety is more likely caused by the fact that trailer parks attract tornadoes.
We censor profanity on tv and in songs all the time.
Yes, but do we change one word to another? No, we bleep the word. The censorship becomes obvious.
If offensive words were blanked out as "i---n" and "n----r" and this was explained in a foreword as intended to reduce the immediate negative impact of the words "injun" and "nigger", and invited thought and discussion of the word's weight and meaning, back then and today, then I'd actually think that could be valuable teaching tool. At the very least, the original words would still be there in the text, obscured, but accessible.
But quietly changing the words to other ones, that changes their meaning, their intent, and therefore the work itself. It's surreptitious revisionism, cowardly and subversive, and I find that sort of thing repulsive.
"We've never done this" doesn't preclude a response like, "Fine, but we're doing it now, watch this!" when it comes to answering our self-serving nature. And we are self-serving, and quite effective at it (sadly, even when it comes to bashing in skulls or turning cities into fireballs), so short of changing our nature there will be no gain from knowing that "we've never done this," only the sense of a challenge ahead.
It is not awareness of our past that condemns us to brutality against those who are different from us, but our failure to find and unite against an enemy even more different that our skin color, and all the rest we like to decry about each other.
So long as we know of what heinous deeds we are capable, we have at least knowledge of the abyss from which to steer clear when we don't let emotions cloud our reasoning. Remove that knowledge (utterly as proposed), and we'll blindly go over the cliff, knowing no better than the children in Lord of the Flies, and will be condemned to do it all over again, only this time with some seriously bad-ass weapons at our disposal.
I think reason, not ignorance, is a better guide when it comes to our future. This is why I prefer our leaders to be smart and educated, rather than swaggering, shoot-from-the-hip cowboys.
Having a CS101 class in reality be a "introduction to computers" is perfectly fine in my book, as you don't want to start off with Day1: Introduction to Pointers.
"Introduction to Computers" is just fine to get things started, but don't call it computer science!
I'm sure that was an incredible learning experience, and certainly far more comprehensive and better focused than anything I've had in my high school days back in 1980-82, but I would say that it was a hardware engineering curriculum, not computer science.
An IDE is a programmer's, not a scientist's tool. Try not to confuse computer programming with computer science. The two intersect, but are not the same.
Control structures and branch logic are certainly computer science concepts, but their occurrence in specific languages are merely an implementation detail. Proficiency with a language, ability to debug, or using an IDE makes you a computer scientists no more than proficiency with a word processor or HTML makes you a programmer.
A computer science curriculum is woefully deficient if it focused on the use of tools (a language, an IDE, or HTML), just like a mathematics curriculum wouldn't be teaching mathematics if it focused on the use of calculators and software like Mathematica. Proficiency with tools does not constitute an exercise in science.
Actually, "ich bin ein Berliner" is not wrong. The creative re-interpretation of JFK's words rests solely on the fact that "Berliner" is also the name for those jelly-filled doughnuts. If he had given the speech in München (Munich) and had said, "Ich bin ein Münchner", nobody would have thought to make anything more of it.
Donations could work if micro-payments were fast, easy, and efficient: I get my news from all over the web, so it doesn't make sense for me to donate significant sums (say $10 or $25). But donating 10 cents with a quick click would not feel like a waste or a burden to me; I'd donate 10 cents on impulse all the time if I knew that it would actually end up in the intended recipient's pockets.
It's tough to be appropriately rewarding in such a sea of uncertainty and flux.
This is great! If this madness continues, companies will spend 90% of their revenue filing or defending dozens of lawsuits, get nothing done anymore, and will clamor at the doors of congress to save them from the patent madness they once thought to be such a great idea.
You can only be truly free when you have nothing to lose, nothing! The moment that you form attachments, you can be controlled through them. The more attachments you have, the less free you are. Freedom comes in degrees.
What's regrettable is the large number of people who actually find freedom offensive. They like to tell others what they can and cannot do, what's right, what's wrong. It ends up with laws that forbid things and people who like to enforce these laws. Thus, freedom goes on a steep decline.
After a while, the system becomes a self-perpetuating entity and those who are part of it serve that system and the status quo, not the other way around. Add fear into the mix, and people will go to great lengths to ensure the survival of the system, because they've become an intricate part of it. To wit, the various abuses of power we've seen recently, but the years following Sept. 11, 2001 have not been unique. Go back to the early 1950s, to Senator Joseph McCarthy and the atrocities committed due to his fear mongering about communist sympathizers and communist infiltrations. Go back further, to the concentration camps that the United States maintained during WWII for our citizens with Japanese heritage.
But we're all human and will have fairly predictable responses to base emotions, especially fear.
And so, especially when threatened, we must guard with all possible diligence the institutional guarantees of our rights and freedoms, and yes our responsibilities, too. The greatest failing in our leadership seems the short-sightedness of the laws they pass: Rarely, it seems, are these laws examined thoroughly for the ways in which they can (and will) be abused. Fearing to appear weak, I suppose, they pass anti-terrorism related laws and regulations in a hurry. We've seen the result of it only too often; and yes, triggering a fear-response in us that caused us to attack our own freedoms (and continue to do so) was the true "success" of the 9-11 attack: We are perpetuating the effect of it willingly, alas.
The only solution is for us to take a deep breath and stop the madness of distrusting everyone. We cannot expect the paranoid to make the first move, but we can be vocal in our displeasure over laws and regulations that are ineffective, abusive, unjust, and cause more harm than good.
Go out (literally out, not merely on the 'net) and speak out.
If the device has a label on it that says "U.S. Government Property. Return to blah blah..." then yes, you'd likely be liable for damaging or losing it, and would certainly have to hand it over when they come to retrieve it.
On the other hand, if I found and threw away or disassembled into uselessness some unlabeled thing on my car, I'd be damned if I accepted their claim that I damaged something that wasn't mine. How was I supposed to know? It's my flippin' car, I have the right to turn every gram of it into a fine powder if I felt so inclined.
Slashdot Mirror
No, forking LO from OO.o was primarily a matter of getting development to move forward again at a better than glacial pace: The OO.o license requires submitted code to become Sun's (and now Oracle's) property. This kept many from donating their code, depositing it at Go-OO, instead. These changes are now moving into LO, which is starting to show faster improvement than OO.o.
If you think that is stupid, then ... well, ... you're entitled to your opinion. :)
Track changes, as in who made what alterations to the document (additions, removals, etc.) shown visually? Writer has had that feature for a few years at least.
As to footnotes, I've never had an issue with those in OOo, but MS Word destroyed entire documents (as in start from scratch because it no longer loads) when editing foot notes, and repeatedly replaced inserted images with big red X's, and other "fun" things to drive me to the brink. OOo has not been flawless, but it's treated me a lot better over the years than MS Word, and has never lost me data which is a lot more than can be said for MS Word. And yes, I have documents that are several hundred, and some even close to a thousand pages long. Well, YMMV.
As to the article, well, it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. Bleah.
Ah, the secret Microsoft strategy is revealed! :)
Get the MPAA to do the dirty work, Bing wins.
Any system is vulnerable when it automatically opens or executes email attachments, automatically executes arbitrary commands delivered on a removable volume, and hides file name extensions to fool users into executing things that looked like something harmless.
Any software vendor who thinks about adding such features should receive a savage thrashing. If they actually enable such features by default, they should be shot with prejudice.
I'm taking bets on the next practice or belief system to be labeled and taught as a science. The reading of entrails, tea leaves, palms, or smoke columns? How about tech support by Tarot? (that one does have a certain ring to it, doesn't it?) Any others?
It only matters whether their own people believe the video.
If some do not, what are the chances that news of their blunder spreads? And if this really blows up in their face, what are the chances that the government won't push the blame onto someone else?
The bottom line is that this kind of stuff can be effective propaganda: How would the Chinese people feel about going to war if this video were presented as proof of a foreign invader or spy being shot down by valiant Chinese defenders? Manufacture a few more like that, and before long the people will feel sufficiently threatened to accept fewer rights and more police control, and approve of the invasion of evil nations.
Hands up, who can tell us where else in the world this kind of thing has worked like a charm? Hint, it wasn't a communist nation. Extra credit for multiple examples in different time periods. :)
You erudite bastard, I salute you!
Reply to the student: That's because you still *are* a monkey, or less.
And to that teacher: Do your job or GTFO.
It's probably good that I'm not in charge of setting these people straight, I'd have a horde of monkeys trying to lynch me.
Re: Penalty ... You know they violated the Do Not Call list when you get a spam call.
But when and how are you going to find out that they tracked you anyway? And who is going to check their databases, verify that you actually didn't want to be tracked at the time they received that HTTP header, and then holds them accountable?
Penalty or no penalty, it'll work as well as the spam crawlers honoring the /robots.txt file ... anyone remember that one?
At least they're not pulling a Sony on us, selling the things as open and then revoking the ability, after they scammed us out of our money. But it looks like I will not be buying from Motorola again from now on.
I wonder what company wants to go on my (permanent) blacklist next...
I'm not in the least surprised that this fine example of human rational superiority lives in Florida. I read Fark, after all, and have seen no shortage of this kind of mind-boggling idiocy. More to the point, I think the this guy's anxiety is more likely caused by the fact that trailer parks attract tornadoes.
Yes, but do we change one word to another? No, we bleep the word. The censorship becomes obvious.
If offensive words were blanked out as "i---n" and "n----r" and this was explained in a foreword as intended to reduce the immediate negative impact of the words "injun" and "nigger", and invited thought and discussion of the word's weight and meaning, back then and today, then I'd actually think that could be valuable teaching tool. At the very least, the original words would still be there in the text, obscured, but accessible.
But quietly changing the words to other ones, that changes their meaning, their intent, and therefore the work itself. It's surreptitious revisionism, cowardly and subversive, and I find that sort of thing repulsive.
Whether Twain intended that or not, I should be surprised if he were not pleased with the effect that his words can have.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Those who erase history have already welcomed that doom.
"We've never done this" doesn't preclude a response like, "Fine, but we're doing it now, watch this!" when it comes to answering our self-serving nature. And we are self-serving, and quite effective at it (sadly, even when it comes to bashing in skulls or turning cities into fireballs), so short of changing our nature there will be no gain from knowing that "we've never done this," only the sense of a challenge ahead.
It is not awareness of our past that condemns us to brutality against those who are different from us, but our failure to find and unite against an enemy even more different that our skin color, and all the rest we like to decry about each other.
So long as we know of what heinous deeds we are capable, we have at least knowledge of the abyss from which to steer clear when we don't let emotions cloud our reasoning. Remove that knowledge (utterly as proposed), and we'll blindly go over the cliff, knowing no better than the children in Lord of the Flies, and will be condemned to do it all over again, only this time with some seriously bad-ass weapons at our disposal.
I think reason, not ignorance, is a better guide when it comes to our future. This is why I prefer our leaders to be smart and educated, rather than swaggering, shoot-from-the-hip cowboys.
"Introduction to Computers" is just fine to get things started, but don't call it computer science!
I'm sure that was an incredible learning experience, and certainly far more comprehensive and better focused than anything I've had in my high school days back in 1980-82, but I would say that it was a hardware engineering curriculum, not computer science.
I like that distinction. Just imagine if Astronomy were called "Telescope Science".
An IDE is a programmer's, not a scientist's tool. Try not to confuse computer programming with computer science. The two intersect, but are not the same.
Control structures and branch logic are certainly computer science concepts, but their occurrence in specific languages are merely an implementation detail. Proficiency with a language, ability to debug, or using an IDE makes you a computer scientists no more than proficiency with a word processor or HTML makes you a programmer.
A computer science curriculum is woefully deficient if it focused on the use of tools (a language, an IDE, or HTML), just like a mathematics curriculum wouldn't be teaching mathematics if it focused on the use of calculators and software like Mathematica. Proficiency with tools does not constitute an exercise in science.
So first, there was Dolly (clone of Doly) ;-)
Now it's Dollly, DoIVy, DoVy, and DoVIy?
(Won't look quite right if your font distinguishes between l [lower case L] and I [uppercase i]).
Actually, "ich bin ein Berliner" is not wrong. The creative re-interpretation of JFK's words rests solely on the fact that "Berliner" is also the name for those jelly-filled doughnuts. If he had given the speech in München (Munich) and had said, "Ich bin ein Münchner", nobody would have thought to make anything more of it.
Donations could work if micro-payments were fast, easy, and efficient: I get my news from all over the web, so it doesn't make sense for me to donate significant sums (say $10 or $25). But donating 10 cents with a quick click would not feel like a waste or a burden to me; I'd donate 10 cents on impulse all the time if I knew that it would actually end up in the intended recipient's pockets.
It's tough to be appropriately rewarding in such a sea of uncertainty and flux.
This is great! If this madness continues, companies will spend 90% of their revenue filing or defending dozens of lawsuits, get nothing done anymore, and will clamor at the doors of congress to save them from the patent madness they once thought to be such a great idea.
Or maybe we're all doomed.
You can only be truly free when you have nothing to lose, nothing! The moment that you form attachments, you can be controlled through them. The more attachments you have, the less free you are. Freedom comes in degrees.
What's regrettable is the large number of people who actually find freedom offensive. They like to tell others what they can and cannot do, what's right, what's wrong. It ends up with laws that forbid things and people who like to enforce these laws. Thus, freedom goes on a steep decline.
After a while, the system becomes a self-perpetuating entity and those who are part of it serve that system and the status quo, not the other way around. Add fear into the mix, and people will go to great lengths to ensure the survival of the system, because they've become an intricate part of it. To wit, the various abuses of power we've seen recently, but the years following Sept. 11, 2001 have not been unique. Go back to the early 1950s, to Senator Joseph McCarthy and the atrocities committed due to his fear mongering about communist sympathizers and communist infiltrations. Go back further, to the concentration camps that the United States maintained during WWII for our citizens with Japanese heritage.
But we're all human and will have fairly predictable responses to base emotions, especially fear.
And so, especially when threatened, we must guard with all possible diligence the institutional guarantees of our rights and freedoms, and yes our responsibilities, too. The greatest failing in our leadership seems the short-sightedness of the laws they pass: Rarely, it seems, are these laws examined thoroughly for the ways in which they can (and will) be abused. Fearing to appear weak, I suppose, they pass anti-terrorism related laws and regulations in a hurry. We've seen the result of it only too often; and yes, triggering a fear-response in us that caused us to attack our own freedoms (and continue to do so) was the true "success" of the 9-11 attack: We are perpetuating the effect of it willingly, alas.
The only solution is for us to take a deep breath and stop the madness of distrusting everyone. We cannot expect the paranoid to make the first move, but we can be vocal in our displeasure over laws and regulations that are ineffective, abusive, unjust, and cause more harm than good.
Go out (literally out, not merely on the 'net) and speak out.
If the device has a label on it that says "U.S. Government Property. Return to blah blah..." then yes, you'd likely be liable for damaging or losing it, and would certainly have to hand it over when they come to retrieve it.
On the other hand, if I found and threw away or disassembled into uselessness some unlabeled thing on my car, I'd be damned if I accepted their claim that I damaged something that wasn't mine. How was I supposed to know? It's my flippin' car, I have the right to turn every gram of it into a fine powder if I felt so inclined.
A lot of people will suddenly scramble to make a "Last Post".