I can guarantee that all late fees incurred will be paid by NAB. This is a MAJOR news story here in Australia - the bad publicity is huge. If they reneg on any fees, there'll be blood in the water while the reporters circle.
I incurred some fees from a third party once when my main bank set my account up incorrectly. A simple letter was enough to get them to refund all of the fees. If they didn't, the banking ombudsman has the power to force them.
They wouldn't make the lathe's chassis out of cardboard, why would they build their control systems on windows?
So many of us here at/. are software professionals that we find it hard to believe that other people don't see the software as being vitally important. If a company makes lathes, they would have specialists in making lathes, and the software is probably an afterthought at best. I wouldn't be surprised if it were outsourced, even.
After all, a machine making company's core competency isn't going to be software, is it?
This is now getting off of topic, as I don't believe that OOXML has anything to do with their submissions to the OSI.
While it is easy to want to discriminate against Microsoft for their (many) questionable practices, the only way that we can hold our ideals is to be the better party. Let us not hurl insults (especially personal) at the "other side", let us not "game the process".
If the license is good, then it should be accepted. If Microsoft's practices with the ISO are bad, then let us denounce them. If we stick to the facts, not the emotion, then we lead by example. The more we rant about how they did something bad to us, so we must do it to them, the more childish and unprofessional we look. This is a product of our openness - everybody can see every disagreement. If a metaphorical chair gets thrown across a mailing list, the press can (and will) report it, but is is much harder to see into similar behaviour inside a private company.
While I don't disagree with you in general, there are some sections of software programming that do not allow software to be released without extensive testing. Would you like the software that's controlling that Boeing 777 you're a passenger on to have a patch announced that fixes a "critical landing bug" while up in the air? I doubt it.
The problem is that not all software is held up to these standards. And why? As you wrote, time and money. It takes far longer and costs far more to develop software when you have lives depending on the quality of the program. You can't bug-fix someone back to life.
I am a software developer, and while there are no lives at risk if my code stuffs up, I can tell you that I take it personally if there is a problem in anything that I release. Why should my clients expect anything less?
Only if they go back to cooperative multitasking, drop memory protection, get rid of about 99.99999% of the third party applications on the market, start making their own hardware...have really expensive peripherals...
I have read through the posts, and many people have stated that it only simulates 3D through twin images, but hurts the eye due to it all being on a single focal plane. While I can understand this, what I don't get is how does the eye know what the focal plane is?
I mean, if I close one eye and look at the monitor, it is in focus. If I then hold my finger ~10cm from my eye, it will be out of focus unless I try to look at it, in which case the monitor will be out of focus. In what way does a SINGLE eye have to change to focus at these different lengths? And how does it "know" where to focus on without the input from the second eye? Would it possible to trick the eye into thinking that the light is coming from a particular distance, regardless of where it is really coming from? If so, then you'd be able have true 3D, wouldn't you?
If you look at MS' success, you'd think that releasing a product fast to the market is the way to go. Oh, it also appears that the 'patching of bugs later' bit is optional...
One common thread I see among the comments posted already is the notion that all you need for a backup is the ability to access your files if something goes wrong on one computer/disk.
I don't know how many times (at work) I've been told "Why do you have to use all of these tapes when you already have the hard disks mirrored?" This line of questioning usually lasts until someone accidently deletes a file. Or makes a change they didn't want to. Or a file gets corrupted
With backups, there is also the need for some form of change history of the stored files (not just CVS-style, but for all sorts of binary data too).
If you simply maintain a synchronized storage of your files/data, you have only covered one of the backup scenarios - breakdowns (or fires, theft etc...) but that is FAR from all you will ever need.
However, for the home user, maintaining a proper backup procedure is probably just a little ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
I can guarantee that all late fees incurred will be paid by NAB. This is a MAJOR news story here in Australia - the bad publicity is huge. If they reneg on any fees, there'll be blood in the water while the reporters circle.
I incurred some fees from a third party once when my main bank set my account up incorrectly. A simple letter was enough to get them to refund all of the fees. If they didn't, the banking ombudsman has the power to force them.
They wouldn't make the lathe's chassis out of cardboard, why would they build their control systems on windows?
So many of us here at /. are software professionals that we find it hard to believe that other people don't see the software as being vitally important. If a company makes lathes, they would have specialists in making lathes, and the software is probably an afterthought at best. I wouldn't be surprised if it were outsourced, even.
After all, a machine making company's core competency isn't going to be software, is it?
This is now getting off of topic, as I don't believe that OOXML has anything to do with their submissions to the OSI.
While it is easy to want to discriminate against Microsoft for their (many) questionable practices, the only way that we can hold our ideals is to be the better party. Let us not hurl insults (especially personal) at the "other side", let us not "game the process".
If the license is good, then it should be accepted. If Microsoft's practices with the ISO are bad, then let us denounce them. If we stick to the facts, not the emotion, then we lead by example. The more we rant about how they did something bad to us, so we must do it to them, the more childish and unprofessional we look. This is a product of our openness - everybody can see every disagreement. If a metaphorical chair gets thrown across a mailing list, the press can (and will) report it, but is is much harder to see into similar behaviour inside a private company.
So is this WINE an Emulator? I'm confused...
So are you trying to force me into not forcing you? ;)
The problem is that not all software is held up to these standards. And why? As you wrote, time and money. It takes far longer and costs far more to develop software when you have lives depending on the quality of the program. You can't bug-fix someone back to life.
I am a software developer, and while there are no lives at risk if my code stuffs up, I can tell you that I take it personally if there is a problem in anything that I release. Why should my clients expect anything less?
So, it would be an X-Box then?
I have read through the posts, and many people have stated that it only simulates 3D through twin images, but hurts the eye due to it all being on a single focal plane. While I can understand this, what I don't get is how does the eye know what the focal plane is?
I mean, if I close one eye and look at the monitor, it is in focus. If I then hold my finger ~10cm from my eye, it will be out of focus unless I try to look at it, in which case the monitor will be out of focus. In what way does a SINGLE eye have to change to focus at these different lengths? And how does it "know" where to focus on without the input from the second eye? Would it possible to trick the eye into thinking that the light is coming from a particular distance, regardless of where it is really coming from? If so, then you'd be able have true 3D, wouldn't you?
I suggest you all download it as fast as you can, it can't be long until a French company slaps the Brothers W. with a lawsuit.
I mean look: It starts with "A" and ends with "rix", it MUST infringe on the "Asterix" copyright, right?
If you look at MS' success, you'd think that releasing a product fast to the market is the way to go. Oh, it also appears that the 'patching of bugs later' bit is optional...
One common thread I see among the comments posted already is the notion that all you need for a backup is the ability to access your files if something goes wrong on one computer/disk.
I don't know how many times (at work) I've been told "Why do you have to use all of these tapes when you already have the hard disks mirrored?" This line of questioning usually lasts until someone accidently deletes a file. Or makes a change they didn't want to. Or a file gets corrupted
With backups, there is also the need for some form of change history of the stored files (not just CVS-style, but for all sorts of binary data too).
If you simply maintain a synchronized storage of your files/data, you have only covered one of the backup scenarios - breakdowns (or fires, theft etc...) but that is FAR from all you will ever need.
However, for the home user, maintaining a proper backup procedure is probably just a little ridiculous.
I'm afraid that you already have lost out to your own argument. You are now posting on /. about doing nothing.
Only the "silent majority" are truely doing nothing - a fact the govenments and corporations of the world are taking advantage of.
I have a most ingenious crack to this algorithm, but there is not enough space in this margin to write it down.
:)