Re:Just Faster??? I wish I was just Richer!!!
on
OpenOffice 3.2 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
In my vanilla install of OpenOffice 3.1, if I select several columns and then right click on one of the selected headers, "Insert Columns" (with an 's') is one of the options on the context menu.
This is the *first* thing I tried after I decided to see if you were missing something obvious.
"Shameless marketing" gives Lucas way to much credit; it assumes that he is in control of himself and cynically exploiting the Star Wars brand. I find it to be much more likely that he thought Jar Jar 'added' something to the 'vision' of the movie.
(And if he still cares about money, he is completely nuts)
The warm bodies using the $5,000 of software are going to run at least $1 million. And they are a proportional cost no matter what.
(Generally, this just means that the reduction in licensing costs better not come with any reduction in functionality, as the $5,000 is not perceived to be a 'high' cost)
The quote was short, there is a bit more: "seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States, of this State or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence or other unlawful means; "
That's actually entirely the point. The summary conveniently leaves off part of the definition: "thereof by force or violence or other unlawful means; ", which narrows the applicability quite a bit.
What it does is it gives the prosecutor another charge to file in the event of an attack.
Why wouldn't they call it censorship? Some terrible misunderstanding of what the word means?
And if you had a clear discussion with people (one where you worked to eliminate the ambiguity of language), I think most people would agree that convicts and felons are stripped of their rights, but that it is an acceptable component of their punishment, not a trampling (just as the destruction of child porn is an acceptable form of censorship).
I'm simply supporting the idea that some censorship is o.k. (the first post I replied to pretty much rejected all censorship), so that if the government finds a computer being used to distribute the material, they can seize it and destroy it (both are acts of censorship).
I guess it is possible to believe that the one inevitably leads to the other, but I don't.
Or I simply have a different view of what privacy is than you do.
(You are construing my comments as being in support of this particular system, but that is your problem, my comments are simply an argument against an absolutist view of censorship)
You are equating someone considered an adult walking around in public with someone considered a child being abused?
Really?
No, really?
Seriously?
It isn't about gaining security, it is about ensuring the liberty of everyone (surely child abuse violates the freedom of the child). We can disagree about what measures are acceptable, but it is a matter of balancing the rights of everyone involved, not a matter of slinging about platitudes.
That's a red herring. If people do not have a reasonable assurance of privacy, they don't live in a free society.
So it isn't about protecting the ideals, it is about balancing the inevitable compromises of those ideals. Certainly there will be a vigorous discussion about where that balance lies, but it is very much a discussion of the compromises that must be accepted, not a discussion about the evil of compromise itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Just throw Hypnotoad in the DVD player.
In my vanilla install of OpenOffice 3.1, if I select several columns and then right click on one of the selected headers, "Insert Columns" (with an 's') is one of the options on the context menu.
This is the *first* thing I tried after I decided to see if you were missing something obvious.
100 million North Americans would not have any meaningful impact on the population explosion.
That's redundant.
Zing!
The beetles would have attacked the speakers.
The thing notifies you and disables updates (those are the big things).
If Microsoft goes bust, the disabling of updates isn't going to be a real big deal.
Expect a corporation to look after its own interests.
Take it as a happy surprise when one looks after yours.
Don't rely on the corporation to look after your interests.
It isn't much of a puzzle.
Depending on where you are located, installing VLC may infringe on several patents.
"Shameless marketing" gives Lucas way to much credit; it assumes that he is in control of himself and cynically exploiting the Star Wars brand. I find it to be much more likely that he thought Jar Jar 'added' something to the 'vision' of the movie.
(And if he still cares about money, he is completely nuts)
The warm bodies using the $5,000 of software are going to run at least $1 million. And they are a proportional cost no matter what.
(Generally, this just means that the reduction in licensing costs better not come with any reduction in functionality, as the $5,000 is not perceived to be a 'high' cost)
Shouldn't the open-source ninjas be demanding an open-source version rather than better Windows support?
Sure. I'm not a huge fan of the thinking behind such laws, but it isn't the stark raving madness that people here are imagining.
I'm not sure it is rational, but the explanation I would go with is that a good chunk of humanity are happy authoritarians.
The quote was short, there is a bit more: "seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States, of this State or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence or other unlawful means; "
You can get a cool plaque made for anything. Well, a plague.
That's actually entirely the point. The summary conveniently leaves off part of the definition: "thereof by force or violence or other unlawful means; ", which narrows the applicability quite a bit.
What it does is it gives the prosecutor another charge to file in the event of an attack.
Nah, just turn it on and hope it likes you.
Why wouldn't they call it censorship? Some terrible misunderstanding of what the word means?
And if you had a clear discussion with people (one where you worked to eliminate the ambiguity of language), I think most people would agree that convicts and felons are stripped of their rights, but that it is an acceptable component of their punishment, not a trampling (just as the destruction of child porn is an acceptable form of censorship).
I'm not supporting total internet monitoring.
I'm simply supporting the idea that some censorship is o.k. (the first post I replied to pretty much rejected all censorship), so that if the government finds a computer being used to distribute the material, they can seize it and destroy it (both are acts of censorship).
I guess it is possible to believe that the one inevitably leads to the other, but I don't.
Or I simply have a different view of what privacy is than you do.
(You are construing my comments as being in support of this particular system, but that is your problem, my comments are simply an argument against an absolutist view of censorship)
Or just inertia. I know how stuff works, I have a bunch of apps that I am used to using. Etc.
I guess the ~$150 fee that I pay each time I buy a computer (so far, 1997 and 2006) is a consideration, but it I'm not chafing all that much at it.
It prevents further violation of their privacy.
Where did I say that, or anything resembling that?
You are equating someone considered an adult walking around in public with someone considered a child being abused?
Really?
No, really?
Seriously?
It isn't about gaining security, it is about ensuring the liberty of everyone (surely child abuse violates the freedom of the child). We can disagree about what measures are acceptable, but it is a matter of balancing the rights of everyone involved, not a matter of slinging about platitudes.
That's a red herring. If people do not have a reasonable assurance of privacy, they don't live in a free society.
So it isn't about protecting the ideals, it is about balancing the inevitable compromises of those ideals. Certainly there will be a vigorous discussion about where that balance lies, but it is very much a discussion of the compromises that must be accepted, not a discussion about the evil of compromise itself.