Sorry, that doesn't make the cut. Not because it's not exactly what I'm talking about, but because it's not readily avaliable.
Writely's going to putter out in about six months, after Word and OOo gobble up that feature. (Ok, maybe more than 6). But for now, it's almost the only game in town.
What do you mean by "real, realtime collaboration"?"
You open document A. Your editor / wife also opens document A. You both make edits to the document. You can both see what changes are made, either almost as the other person makes them or shortly thereafter.
What Word has is "handoff collaboration" in most setups. You work on document A, and then send it to your editor/wife. She makes edits, and then sends it back to you. I've always suspected that SharePoint can do something like Writely (Excel does, if you share a workbook), but I've never worked for a company that forked out the cash to setup Sharepoint properly.
What the hell does a kid under the age of like 13 need a cell phone for???
The same thing that any kid needs a cell phone for: to call their parents.
As soon as my (unborn, unconceived) kids care old enough to carry something and not lose it, they're getting a cell phone to call mommy and daddy. And by the time that happens, if you can afford to do so and don't, you should be considered a negligent parent.
The difference is that embracing pacifism not only won't get you a violence-free world, it's guaranteed to fail. If no one opposes the violent, the violent win. Period.
Ghandi, and India, would beg to differ. So would Martin Luther King. So would anyone with an anecdote about how a pacifist Christian managed to save lives.
Embracing pacifism WILL get you a violence-free world--but not until the current hot spots boil out. I know it's nice to think that Eisenhower was wrong and the Military-Industrial complex is a necessary thing--but neither the Cold War nor the Second World War would have even happened if we had intelligent and level-headed people neogiating the Treaty of Versais (sic - could be wrong war, definitly spelled wrong, too lazy to look it up).
We didn't; instead, we had a treaty written to punnish the losing side, which created a situation where Nazism could actually take power. Which had more than a little effect in helping Stalin succeed Lenin instead of being ostraciszed for the crazy shit he was. Which would probably have led to the whole of the 20th century being a bit more happy a time.
(Oh, and we wouldn't be at the moon yet, or have computers. Or nuclear power. And China would be ruled by Japan. And we'd be suffering from a lot of diseases that we've cured since then. Look, I said it would be violence-free, not better.)
I think it's quite simple: don't mix data and code.
Data and code are fundamentally linked. You can put an artificial barrier between them, but that doesn't do much if you lose functionality by doing so.
Let's say that I've got an Excel Sheet (I do) that needs to call a custom function that Excel doesn't ship with (I do, as well). While it would, in theory, be possible to move that code to a seperate macro in a "code" file somewhere, I'd still have to find a way to let anyone who opens my document get at that code file.
MS Office et al have scripting built right in because a good portion of what a good office does is make tools to simplify their work, and those tools are usually so simple that they only make sense to write down at the user level.
FWIW, the french are right. OOo is a security risk--just like a user is. Presume that they might introduce a horrible silicon-melting virus, and plan your security accordingly.
I could definitely see as being fully automated. It's not a complicated process.
Actually, it is.
The final two steps to "fully automated" are (1) food assembly and (2) loading the machine. The first one is plausible -- if you can manage to make a machine that can spot a soggy burger bun, lettuce that didn't drop right, a tomato that's gone bad, and a tub of grease that needs to be changed. The second one is impractical -- you'd need to have all of the ingredients custom-slotted, and likely custom-prepped, which would either double the size you'd need or require considerable off-site expense.
A fully automated restaurant really will require humanoid replacements. And those are a bit further off than you'd think.
Here we witness the micro through the macro, through all scales of physical dimension, in an interplay of force, energy and motion, with the final result happening both all at once and forever spread over time. Incredible.
No, not really."
If you find something as mundane as a mathematical model of how spots deveop on leopards to be "incredible", I think the wonder is all in you and not in the thing itself. Setting aside the wonder that is life itself, leopard spots are pretty boring -- roughly the equivalent to modeling how freckles develop on redheads.
Yeah, right. And the Americans that stopped being isolationists after Pearl Harbor were cowards, too. Whatever.
Psst... there was never an "isolationist" party. And Democrats have stared (and ended) as many wars as Republicans. Might be more, I'm too lazy to check.
Stephen Colbert, on the other hand, clearly loathes and detests the rising tide of right-wing opinion personalities (O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc.) This makes him very much the wrong person to attempt to effectively satirize them for the sake of comedy.
Despite being on The Daily Show, neither Colbert nor Stewart are, strictly speaking, comedians. They are not trying to get you to laugh. They are trying to get you to be entertained. The difference is subtle, but important.
What are they, if not commedians? How about "editorializers", or "commentators", or just plain ol' "entertainers."
You got me on Gorbachev. (Mao too). The rest of them -- well, let's suffice it to say that, like Kennedy, the best Christian politicians have seperated their private, religious lives from their public, essentually secular lives.
As for the US and our choice of president -- it's more a factor of the scareness of the position and the overwhelming majority of white Christians in this country than any real concious effort on our part. You might be able to find a few European heads of government who avow a non-Christian religion, such as Atheism or agnosticism, but if you managed to get them all to answer the question, you'd probably find that most of them are Christian.
(As for the Founding Fathers -- the closest any of them came to being "not devout Christians" was their high membership in the freemason societies, which were and are really just nondenominational Christian societies.)
They went to church almost every Sunday. They taught their children Christianity. And those that were "deists" were both a minority, and still Christians by modern standards.
Then again, I shouldn't expect nuiance to apply to someone who's handle is "Yahweh doesn't exist." Of course it doesn't; YHVH exists, though, even if only as a cultural contruction.
That doesn't change the simple fact that people vote with their wallets and videogames as they stand, however much elitist views may wish otherwise, are dramatically more popular with the average young person than books are right now.
It's not just the young people. It's the middlemen.
In the absolute best-case situation, your wife's novel will sell at $35 for about eighteen months. Most of that cost is going to be in distribution and manufacture. Some of it will go to the, perhaps, 10 people who edited it and laid it out, and the rest to her.
A typical video game in the same demographic will have the same development time in real years, a much higher cost, a much lower "re-sale" loss, far less manufacturing costs, and will employ at least an order of magnitutde more people.
And most of the time, one of those people is a storywriter, who finds a more consistent (and bigger) paycheck being a "developer" rather than a "writer."
for all I care you can do like the last Christian with great political power did - ban secular medicine altogether, go back to prayer and leeches and have another 1000 years of Dark Ages. just don't drag down the rest of the world with you.
Clinton caused the dark ages?
Or maybe you're talking about the last Pope.
Maybe George H. W. Bush (aka Bush Sr.?)
Regan?
Carter?
Kennedy? (not just a Christian, but a CATHOLIC -- first US Pres to be so)
Ike? FDR? (The Cold War was the dark ages?)
I hate to burst your bubble, but virtually every major political leader since, oh, Charlemange has been an avowed and rather devout Christian. Inclusive of our founding fathers.
Perhaps if people were not taxed to ridiculous extremes by the federal government...
We're not. Almost every other developed nation pays more in taxes than we do. Those that don't either have a far greater collusion between business and government that we would permit, or natural resources so abundant they don't need to tax at all.
[The Congress shall have Power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Not to mention the good ol' "commerce clause", nor the duties of the Congress to support the military.
It's always the female avatars going, "sup, wanna hunt?" and you immediately know their gender. Alternatively, "ekek ^^; brb my sis wants on the pc", you know it's female. There's really [no] question involved.
Nice to know you're so shallow.
The only women I personally know who play or have played MMORPGs are very much the "sup, wanna hunt" type. Those I met via the MMORPG who I know to be female are as good-or-better on average than the men.
Women can and do roleplay, be it tabletop or PC, on a level just as good as the men. They tend to be a bit weaker (in gross average) in some other departments of the game, but no more than a guy who's just a moron. (You know, the kind who presumes he knows how the game works, and anyone who disagrees is either a noob or a chick.)
Correlation does not imply cause. The fact that an interest or activity is male-dominated does not necessarily mean that it's a result of the differences between mens' and womens' natural traits.
You know, not to sound too sexist, but women not being all that involved in skateboarding might owe more to their actual physical differences than anything else. I believe the "girls bouncing on trampolines" effect is at least as much a problem as anything else.
After all, women can and do compete very well in snowboarding, which is not all that dissimiliar to skateboarding. The need for extra clothing might just be enough to make up for the GBOT effect.
OTOH, maybe it's just a chicken-and-egg problem. Don't know.
As far as your example of Gandhi. What the hell are you talking about?
Ghandi changed the world by working in public. Whatever it is that you want to do in private, especially if it's currently illegal, should be something that you would still do if everyone knew about it. It's the basic foundation of being able to call oneself "moral", and it's the only way you'll ever get said laws changed.
what exactly do you think "the right thing" is, anyway? Beyond "be honest and open for any criminal or civil charges", there isn't a lot that mere observation can do that isn't "the right thing." It's not a standard that requires saintlike moral authority--all that's needed is sufficient funding and independence to be as seperate from power as a general-jurisdiction judge.
If we had a perfect government with perfectly just and compassionate laws, then I would submit to total observation by the government.
What makes you think that just and compassionate laws are in any way necssary for fair application of total observation?
What makes you think that total observation won't lead to just and compassionate laws?
Ghandi and King both worked in the open against unjust laws, and they won--by being in the open. If you're too cowardly to do whatever it is that you do out in the open, then you shouldn't be doing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft OneNote has had this since its inception
Really? Well, then they've done a piss-poor job promoting it.
Not true. AbiWord CVS has had it for a while now. http://uwog.net/news/?p=29
Sorry, that doesn't make the cut. Not because it's not exactly what I'm talking about, but because it's not readily avaliable.
Writely's going to putter out in about six months, after Word and OOo gobble up that feature. (Ok, maybe more than 6). But for now, it's almost the only game in town.
What do you mean by "real, realtime collaboration"?"
You open document A. Your editor / wife also opens document A. You both make edits to the document. You can both see what changes are made, either almost as the other person makes them or shortly thereafter.
What Word has is "handoff collaboration" in most setups. You work on document A, and then send it to your editor/wife. She makes edits, and then sends it back to you. I've always suspected that SharePoint can do something like Writely (Excel does, if you share a workbook), but I've never worked for a company that forked out the cash to setup Sharepoint properly.
Google has actually created something that is less useful than other free alternatives.
Google bought something that has a feature no other word processor has -- real, real-time collaboration.
I look forward to using it, for just that purpose, to see if it's worth anything at all.
What the hell does a kid under the age of like 13 need a cell phone for???
The same thing that any kid needs a cell phone for: to call their parents.
As soon as my (unborn, unconceived) kids care old enough to carry something and not lose it, they're getting a cell phone to call mommy and daddy. And by the time that happens, if you can afford to do so and don't, you should be considered a negligent parent.
The difference is that embracing pacifism not only won't get you a violence-free world, it's guaranteed to fail. If no one opposes the violent, the violent win. Period.
Ghandi, and India, would beg to differ. So would Martin Luther King. So would anyone with an anecdote about how a pacifist Christian managed to save lives.
Embracing pacifism WILL get you a violence-free world--but not until the current hot spots boil out. I know it's nice to think that Eisenhower was wrong and the Military-Industrial complex is a necessary thing--but neither the Cold War nor the Second World War would have even happened if we had intelligent and level-headed people neogiating the Treaty of Versais (sic - could be wrong war, definitly spelled wrong, too lazy to look it up).
We didn't; instead, we had a treaty written to punnish the losing side, which created a situation where Nazism could actually take power. Which had more than a little effect in helping Stalin succeed Lenin instead of being ostraciszed for the crazy shit he was. Which would probably have led to the whole of the 20th century being a bit more happy a time.
(Oh, and we wouldn't be at the moon yet, or have computers. Or nuclear power. And China would be ruled by Japan. And we'd be suffering from a lot of diseases that we've cured since then. Look, I said it would be violence-free, not better.)
I think it's quite simple: don't mix data and code.
Data and code are fundamentally linked. You can put an artificial barrier between them, but that doesn't do much if you lose functionality by doing so.
Let's say that I've got an Excel Sheet (I do) that needs to call a custom function that Excel doesn't ship with (I do, as well). While it would, in theory, be possible to move that code to a seperate macro in a "code" file somewhere, I'd still have to find a way to let anyone who opens my document get at that code file.
MS Office et al have scripting built right in because a good portion of what a good office does is make tools to simplify their work, and those tools are usually so simple that they only make sense to write down at the user level.
FWIW, the french are right. OOo is a security risk--just like a user is. Presume that they might introduce a horrible silicon-melting virus, and plan your security accordingly.
I could definitely see as being fully automated. It's not a complicated process.
Actually, it is.
The final two steps to "fully automated" are (1) food assembly and (2) loading the machine. The first one is plausible -- if you can manage to make a machine that can spot a soggy burger bun, lettuce that didn't drop right, a tomato that's gone bad, and a tub of grease that needs to be changed. The second one is impractical -- you'd need to have all of the ingredients custom-slotted, and likely custom-prepped, which would either double the size you'd need or require considerable off-site expense.
A fully automated restaurant really will require humanoid replacements. And those are a bit further off than you'd think.
While my wife is a burnette, I do recognize the inheret wonder that is a redhead.
However, I think that redheads, like automobiles, are far more interesting as a whole than with a disscection of one small part of their totality.
Here we witness the micro through the macro, through all scales of physical dimension, in an interplay of force, energy and motion, with the final result happening both all at once and forever spread over time. Incredible.
No, not really."
If you find something as mundane as a mathematical model of how spots deveop on leopards to be "incredible", I think the wonder is all in you and not in the thing itself. Setting aside the wonder that is life itself, leopard spots are pretty boring -- roughly the equivalent to modeling how freckles develop on redheads.
Yeah, right. And the Americans that stopped being isolationists after Pearl Harbor were cowards, too. Whatever.
Psst... there was never an "isolationist" party. And Democrats have stared (and ended) as many wars as Republicans. Might be more, I'm too lazy to check.
Stephen Colbert, on the other hand, clearly loathes and detests the rising tide of right-wing opinion personalities (O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc.) This makes him very much the wrong person to attempt to effectively satirize them for the sake of comedy.
Despite being on The Daily Show, neither Colbert nor Stewart are, strictly speaking, comedians. They are not trying to get you to laugh. They are trying to get you to be entertained. The difference is subtle, but important.
What are they, if not commedians? How about "editorializers", or "commentators", or just plain ol' "entertainers."
*sigh*
You got me on Gorbachev. (Mao too). The rest of them -- well, let's suffice it to say that, like Kennedy, the best Christian politicians have seperated their private, religious lives from their public, essentually secular lives.
As for the US and our choice of president -- it's more a factor of the scareness of the position and the overwhelming majority of white Christians in this country than any real concious effort on our part. You might be able to find a few European heads of government who avow a non-Christian religion, such as Atheism or agnosticism, but if you managed to get them all to answer the question, you'd probably find that most of them are Christian.
(As for the Founding Fathers -- the closest any of them came to being "not devout Christians" was their high membership in the freemason societies, which were and are really just nondenominational Christian societies.)
They went to church almost every Sunday. They taught their children Christianity. And those that were "deists" were both a minority, and still Christians by modern standards.
Then again, I shouldn't expect nuiance to apply to someone who's handle is "Yahweh doesn't exist." Of course it doesn't; YHVH exists, though, even if only as a cultural contruction.
That doesn't change the simple fact that people vote with their wallets and videogames as they stand, however much elitist views may wish otherwise, are dramatically more popular with the average young person than books are right now.
It's not just the young people. It's the middlemen.
In the absolute best-case situation, your wife's novel will sell at $35 for about eighteen months. Most of that cost is going to be in distribution and manufacture. Some of it will go to the, perhaps, 10 people who edited it and laid it out, and the rest to her.
A typical video game in the same demographic will have the same development time in real years, a much higher cost, a much lower "re-sale" loss, far less manufacturing costs, and will employ at least an order of magnitutde more people.
And most of the time, one of those people is a storywriter, who finds a more consistent (and bigger) paycheck being a "developer" rather than a "writer."
He doesn't have the authority to declare ECS research to be murder. Murder's not a federal crime anyway, in almost all circumstances.
The President could just declare it to be genocide. If he did that, in fact, he'd have to step in and stop it. (400,000 is certianly enough.)
Or, the President could give a few national addresses about it. Maybe start every state of the union with "we're still killing the unborn."
And let's not forget that the Pres can't do a bit of what he has done without Congress--and with Congess, he really could declare ECS to be a crime.
for all I care you can do like the last Christian with great political power did - ban secular medicine altogether, go back to prayer and leeches and have another 1000 years of Dark Ages. just don't drag down the rest of the world with you.
Clinton caused the dark ages?
Or maybe you're talking about the last Pope.
Maybe George H. W. Bush (aka Bush Sr.?)
Regan?
Carter?
Kennedy? (not just a Christian, but a CATHOLIC -- first US Pres to be so)
Ike? FDR? (The Cold War was the dark ages?)
I hate to burst your bubble, but virtually every major political leader since, oh, Charlemange has been an avowed and rather devout Christian. Inclusive of our founding fathers.
Perhaps if people were not taxed to ridiculous extremes by the federal government...
We're not. Almost every other developed nation pays more in taxes than we do. Those that don't either have a far greater collusion between business and government that we would permit, or natural resources so abundant they don't need to tax at all.
Article I, Section 8, last paragraph:
[The Congress shall have Power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Not to mention the good ol' "commerce clause", nor the duties of the Congress to support the military.
No, really, call Microsoft. They will give you all of the legit, legal options. I've seen them sell media-less CD-keys for Windows for as low as $50.
It's always the female avatars going, "sup, wanna hunt?" and you immediately know their gender. Alternatively, "ekek ^^; brb my sis wants on the pc", you know it's female. There's really [no] question involved.
Nice to know you're so shallow.
The only women I personally know who play or have played MMORPGs are very much the "sup, wanna hunt" type. Those I met via the MMORPG who I know to be female are as good-or-better on average than the men.
Women can and do roleplay, be it tabletop or PC, on a level just as good as the men. They tend to be a bit weaker (in gross average) in some other departments of the game, but no more than a guy who's just a moron. (You know, the kind who presumes he knows how the game works, and anyone who disagrees is either a noob or a chick.)
Bet you I can prove to you that most jurisdictions allow marriage to sisters.
/.)
You mean step-sisters? Yeah, they do. I think you can even marry your adopted sibling, if you really push at it.
(Sheesh. What morons we have on
Correlation does not imply cause. The fact that an interest or activity is male-dominated does not necessarily mean that it's a result of the differences between mens' and womens' natural traits.
You know, not to sound too sexist, but women not being all that involved in skateboarding might owe more to their actual physical differences than anything else. I believe the "girls bouncing on trampolines" effect is at least as much a problem as anything else.
After all, women can and do compete very well in snowboarding, which is not all that dissimiliar to skateboarding. The need for extra clothing might just be enough to make up for the GBOT effect.
OTOH, maybe it's just a chicken-and-egg problem. Don't know.
As far as your example of Gandhi. What the hell are you talking about?
Ghandi changed the world by working in public. Whatever it is that you want to do in private, especially if it's currently illegal, should be something that you would still do if everyone knew about it. It's the basic foundation of being able to call oneself "moral", and it's the only way you'll ever get said laws changed.
what exactly do you think "the right thing" is, anyway? Beyond "be honest and open for any criminal or civil charges", there isn't a lot that mere observation can do that isn't "the right thing." It's not a standard that requires saintlike moral authority--all that's needed is sufficient funding and independence to be as seperate from power as a general-jurisdiction judge.
If we had a perfect government with perfectly just and compassionate laws, then I would submit to total observation by the government.
What makes you think that just and compassionate laws are in any way necssary for fair application of total observation?
What makes you think that total observation won't lead to just and compassionate laws?
Ghandi and King both worked in the open against unjust laws, and they won--by being in the open. If you're too cowardly to do whatever it is that you do out in the open, then you shouldn't be doing it.