And yet you again do nothing but reassert the same point. Just like that badly-sourced Wikipedia article.
Again, the fact is that humans form societies, and societies only function if individuals are willing to give up some of their hoarding behaviour. This is self-evident: if everyone only hoarded, there would be no cooperation possible. Since a look at history shows us that cooperation exists, it follows that humans are not just hoarders instinctively.
No, sorry. You don't get to assert a thing without showing a chain of reasoning. If people are hoarders instinctively, then there is no incentive to give up things to the collective, which is a major impediment to forming a society. On the face of it, your statement contradicts the fact that homo sapiens is, provably, a social animal.
So, care to try again, and this time with a little bit more than just simply reasserting the same opinion again?
Essentially, the FSF is more willing to let the market decide than Steve Jobs.
Think on it. In order for the market to decide, the participants need information. As soon as one of the parties is withholding information, it is no longer a free exchange, but one entity dictating terms. Therefore, the more information about the products and services is available, the freeer the market is. Now, does this open letter increase or decrease the amount of information available?
Apple still got all those years of development in Mach and BSD for free. They didn't have to pay those developers for all the work done before they were hired.
And not getting anything from Free Software? The fanbois keep ranting and raving how the Web experience is so much better on mobile Safari compared to other smartphones. Well, guess under what license Apple got WebKit? And as for trying to escape GCC, how about putting up some proof that Apple is trying to write a compiler on their own? And care to explain on what software Open Directory is built? And that's just a few examples, Look here for a complete list.
Really, I understand why you checked 'Post Anonymously'. If there had been a '-1, Stupid' moderation, your post would have been an infinite Karma sink.
Let me guess: you got hit by the 'dying disks' issue (I can't remember the Nokia Tech Note number anymore)?
Previous employer had a bunch of 3xx series Nokias (mostly 380s, IIRC), and almost all of them got hit by that particular issue. Not nice. Especially since Nokia kept refusing to admit that the disks in our firewalls were ones that got hit by the issue. Funny though, every revision of that Tech Note, they kept adding manufacturers and serial number ranges that soon covered almost all our firewalls.
The OASIS Open Document Technical Committee continues to expand the capabilities of ODF. The ODF 1.1 has been released and 1.2 is in draft form already. These represent significant ongoing work based on elements either flawed or missing in the 1.0 specification.
The PAS management guide (JTC1N5746) states a desire to avoid divergence of the JTC1 spec from any future versions. Therefore the management guide requests that the originator of the specification work closely with JTC1 on revising or amending a PAS submission. Given that ODF 1.1 was not submitted to JTC1, should we interpret this to mean that it is not mature enough and that they are waiting for 1.2? What should be inferred about the maturity of the 1.0 specification?
Here you go. Straight from the horse's mouth. And that's the first one I found with my very first Google search. If I could have done this a week ago within 5 seconds, you are not going to tell me that you didn't get this particular point from Microsoft. I knew your point sounded familiar when you brought it up.
And as for you admitting that you were wrong, you know what? I can't find it in this subthread. So how about you provide me with a quote? Because all I see is lots of shouting trying to sidetrack away the conversation from the fact that you said:
Actually, if you're bluffing, don't do it on a single pair: almost your exact wording was used by Jason Matusow, almost 3 years ago. You see, as opposed to you, I do read all sides of the debate. And don't tell me Microsoft isn't where you got it. Your posting history shows that you have a history of parroting the Microsoft party line.
Now, to return to the matter at hand: you are again making a lot of noise over a side issue to deflect attention away from your blatantly wrong statement:
There has been. End of discussion. The rest is full of sound and fury to disguise the fact that you made an authoritive statement on a subject you obviously haven't been following.
It's a standard tactic used by the lowest sleazeball PR flacks to attack your opponent for your own misbehaviour, but it is not going to work here. You were wrong, and you're trying to cover it up by attacking me. So fuck off, shill.
Your additional points are irrelevant and an attempt at goalpost shifting. The truth is, ODF 1.1 has been submitted to ISO, contrary to what you asserted. All else is smoke and mirrors.
Perhaps you should improve your reading skills instead of relying on what your handlers in Redmond tell you. Rob already points out in 2007 that submission to ISO follows the moment OASIS is done.
But of course this will not satisfy you. You're a Microsoft shill anyway, so you'll just find another excuse to smear ODF instead of actually finding out how the standardisation process works.
No you can't be forgiven about this. ODF 1.1 has been being discussed in the relevant working groups for far longer than that, which you should have known if you had taken care to read other sources than your Microsoft-approved ones.
Sheesh. Even Rob Weir's blog shows plenty of posts on ODF 1.1 and its way through the standards process. I realise your Masters in Redmond don't like you to read blogs written by the competition, but if you're not up to speed on the development of the standard, then the best thing is just to STFU.
If that corner is so dangerous that you can't see anyone approaching it, then you'd damn well slow down and be able to do an emergency stop if someone does come out of the cover.
In other words, yes, you can anticipate that drunk driver. Trust me, I'm a motorcycle rider, I have to be able to do this to survive. My shorter braking distance and superior acceleration won't save me, my situational awareness will have to.
In the Netherlands we have stretches of road, mostly urban ring roads, with the traffic lights set up in a 'green wave'; meaning you get a green at every light if you stick to the speed limit. Does it work? Spottily. In the provinces, where people are generally less rude and egotistical, they work somewhat. In the big cities, you get tailgaters if you try to make the next green by sticking to the limit, and people flooring it between lights only to hit the brakes for the next red.
Allow me one observation to disprove the 'risk homeostasis' hypothesis: motorcycles.
The season has started in the Northern Hemisphere, and once again I see the guys (yes, it's always men) riding supersports in jeans and low shoes. Now, if there is one activity that is obviously dangerous, it's riding a 100+ hp motorbike with insufficient protection. And yet these guys do it.
And worse, the guys riding around without protective gear are also the hotshots who think they can race across the motorway at 180km/h, weaving across multiple lanes without checking their blind spot, and filter through a jam at speeds over 60km/h.
On a motorcycle, the rule of thumb appears to be that the better the protective gear worn, the better the driver. Guys in full racing leathers may break the speed limit, but I seldom see them do hare-brained stupid stunts.
Oh dear. Let me put it this way, your confidence in the importance of the technical skills of driving marks you as a sub-35 male. Technical skill means nothing. What saves your arse in traffic is ability to anticipate, recognise and avoid dangerous situations.
And the complete inability to do basic risk assesment is precisely the reason why people think it is OK to drive without their full attention on traffic conditions. So teaching better skills to the idiots is not going to help much, now is it?
It's a social problem. No amount of gadgets is going to stop idiots from wanting to yammer away instead of paying attention; witness the mechanic in this discussion mentioning how many of those warning systems he disconnected.
The solution is brutally simple: three strikes, and you're out. Three tickets for driving while on the phone? Lose your license. Need your car for work? You should have thought of that and moved to the side of the road before dividing your attention between traffic and your important conversation.
Otherwise it is time for some good old vigilantism and just shoot them in the head. It's not as if they have any brains to splatter the inside of the car, so that keeps its resale value.
Well, that's just an argument to forbid membership in a political party to public officials. Which, frankly, is no great loss, IMO. Unless of course you just straight out admit that the BNP and its friends call for a tad more unequal treatment than other parties..
Slashdot Mirror
And yet you again do nothing but reassert the same point. Just like that badly-sourced Wikipedia article.
Again, the fact is that humans form societies, and societies only function if individuals are willing to give up some of their hoarding behaviour. This is self-evident: if everyone only hoarded, there would be no cooperation possible. Since a look at history shows us that cooperation exists, it follows that humans are not just hoarders instinctively.
Mart
No, sorry. You don't get to assert a thing without showing a chain of reasoning. If people are hoarders instinctively, then there is no incentive to give up things to the collective, which is a major impediment to forming a society. On the face of it, your statement contradicts the fact that homo sapiens is, provably, a social animal.
So, care to try again, and this time with a little bit more than just simply reasserting the same opinion again?
Mart
[citation needed]
Seriously. On the face of it the very fact that humans formed societies should at least raise the suspicion that this is not universally true.
Mart
Essentially, the FSF is more willing to let the market decide than Steve Jobs.
Think on it. In order for the market to decide, the participants need information. As soon as one of the parties is withholding information, it is no longer a free exchange, but one entity dictating terms. Therefore, the more information about the products and services is available, the freeer the market is. Now, does this open letter increase or decrease the amount of information available?
Mart
Apple still got all those years of development in Mach and BSD for free. They didn't have to pay those developers for all the work done before they were hired.
And not getting anything from Free Software? The fanbois keep ranting and raving how the Web experience is so much better on mobile Safari compared to other smartphones. Well, guess under what license Apple got WebKit? And as for trying to escape GCC, how about putting up some proof that Apple is trying to write a compiler on their own? And care to explain on what software Open Directory is built? And that's just a few examples, Look here for a complete list.
Really, I understand why you checked 'Post Anonymously'. If there had been a '-1, Stupid' moderation, your post would have been an infinite Karma sink.
Mart
Let me guess: you got hit by the 'dying disks' issue (I can't remember the Nokia Tech Note number anymore)?
Previous employer had a bunch of 3xx series Nokias (mostly 380s, IIRC), and almost all of them got hit by that particular issue. Not nice. Especially since Nokia kept refusing to admit that the disks in our firewalls were ones that got hit by the issue. Funny though, every revision of that Tech Note, they kept adding manufacturers and serial number ranges that soon covered almost all our firewalls.
Mart
Here you go. Straight from the horse's mouth. And that's the first one I found with my very first Google search. If I could have done this a week ago within 5 seconds, you are not going to tell me that you didn't get this particular point from Microsoft. I knew your point sounded familiar when you brought it up.
And as for you admitting that you were wrong, you know what? I can't find it in this subthread. So how about you provide me with a quote? Because all I see is lots of shouting trying to sidetrack away the conversation from the fact that you said:
which is Just Plain Wrong(tm)
Mart
Actually, if you're bluffing, don't do it on a single pair: almost your exact wording was used by Jason Matusow, almost 3 years ago. You see, as opposed to you, I do read all sides of the debate. And don't tell me Microsoft isn't where you got it. Your posting history shows that you have a history of parroting the Microsoft party line.
Now, to return to the matter at hand: you are again making a lot of noise over a side issue to deflect attention away from your blatantly wrong statement:
Now will you finally STFU, shill?
Mart
Oooh, so now you're reacting to a throw-away insult to deflect attention away from what you said:
Well, too bad, no matter how much you try to squawk about side issues to deflect attention, you were wrong.
Mart
Since I specifically quoted it, I think it is clear that you are once again trying to deflect attention by accusing me of what you are doing yourself.
You said
You were wrong.
Mart
Why do you insist on talking about irrelevant things? I adressed your statement:
There has been.
You keep insisting on various other things to deflect attention from the fact that you were dumbly parroting a Microsoft PR talking point.
Mart
There has been. End of discussion. The rest is full of sound and fury to disguise the fact that you made an authoritive statement on a subject you obviously haven't been following.
It's a standard tactic used by the lowest sleazeball PR flacks to attack your opponent for your own misbehaviour, but it is not going to work here. You were wrong, and you're trying to cover it up by attacking me. So fuck off, shill.
Mart
Your additional points are irrelevant and an attempt at goalpost shifting. The truth is, ODF 1.1 has been submitted to ISO, contrary to what you asserted. All else is smoke and mirrors.
Fuck off, shill.
Mart
For someone who complains about me shifting goalposts, you have a lot of gall.
Let's look at your original statement:
Well, ODF 1.1 has been submitted, and you are moving the goalposts by quibbling about the exact process and the duration.
Fuck off, shill.
Mart
Perhaps you should improve your reading skills instead of relying on what your handlers in Redmond tell you. Rob already points out in 2007 that submission to ISO follows the moment OASIS is done.
But of course this will not satisfy you. You're a Microsoft shill anyway, so you'll just find another excuse to smear ODF instead of actually finding out how the standardisation process works.
Mart
No you can't be forgiven about this. ODF 1.1 has been being discussed in the relevant working groups for far longer than that, which you should have known if you had taken care to read other sources than your Microsoft-approved ones.
Sheesh. Even Rob Weir's blog shows plenty of posts on ODF 1.1 and its way through the standards process. I realise your Masters in Redmond don't like you to read blogs written by the competition, but if you're not up to speed on the development of the standard, then the best thing is just to STFU.
Mart
Bullshit.
Mart
If that corner is so dangerous that you can't see anyone approaching it, then you'd damn well slow down and be able to do an emergency stop if someone does come out of the cover.
In other words, yes, you can anticipate that drunk driver. Trust me, I'm a motorcycle rider, I have to be able to do this to survive. My shorter braking distance and superior acceleration won't save me, my situational awareness will have to.
Mart
Why should they be? Once you've shown you're capable enough to be held to a higher standard, why shouldn't people hold you to that higher standard?
Mart
Here you go
Mart
Heh. If only.
In the Netherlands we have stretches of road, mostly urban ring roads, with the traffic lights set up in a 'green wave'; meaning you get a green at every light if you stick to the speed limit. Does it work? Spottily. In the provinces, where people are generally less rude and egotistical, they work somewhat. In the big cities, you get tailgaters if you try to make the next green by sticking to the limit, and people flooring it between lights only to hit the brakes for the next red.
Mart
Allow me one observation to disprove the 'risk homeostasis' hypothesis: motorcycles.
The season has started in the Northern Hemisphere, and once again I see the guys (yes, it's always men) riding supersports in jeans and low shoes. Now, if there is one activity that is obviously dangerous, it's riding a 100+ hp motorbike with insufficient protection. And yet these guys do it.
And worse, the guys riding around without protective gear are also the hotshots who think they can race across the motorway at 180km/h, weaving across multiple lanes without checking their blind spot, and filter through a jam at speeds over 60km/h.
On a motorcycle, the rule of thumb appears to be that the better the protective gear worn, the better the driver. Guys in full racing leathers may break the speed limit, but I seldom see them do hare-brained stupid stunts.
Mart
Oh dear. Let me put it this way, your confidence in the importance of the technical skills of driving marks you as a sub-35 male. Technical skill means nothing. What saves your arse in traffic is ability to anticipate, recognise and avoid dangerous situations.
And the complete inability to do basic risk assesment is precisely the reason why people think it is OK to drive without their full attention on traffic conditions. So teaching better skills to the idiots is not going to help much, now is it?
Mart
It's a social problem. No amount of gadgets is going to stop idiots from wanting to yammer away instead of paying attention; witness the mechanic in this discussion mentioning how many of those warning systems he disconnected.
The solution is brutally simple: three strikes, and you're out. Three tickets for driving while on the phone? Lose your license. Need your car for work? You should have thought of that and moved to the side of the road before dividing your attention between traffic and your important conversation.
Otherwise it is time for some good old vigilantism and just shoot them in the head. It's not as if they have any brains to splatter the inside of the car, so that keeps its resale value.
Mart
Well, that's just an argument to forbid membership in a political party to public officials. Which, frankly, is no great loss, IMO. Unless of course you just straight out admit that the BNP and its friends call for a tad more unequal treatment than other parties..
Mart