Everyone I know who brings work home brings it home on their company laptop. Indeed, most of us bring our work laptops home every night, just in case. I've always been clear about the line between work and home (no, I don't work at attbi; that's a personal email address). At one employeer (a large Aerospace company formerly based in Seattle, now Chicago) they had a very strict policy forbidding doing company work on personal (employee-owned) computers.
I'm absolutely certain that Open Office meets "the needs of a fraction of the people outside" my sphere. To presume otherwise is just short-sighted of you, and I again suggest you try Open Office before you continue to say otherwise. Or look up "a fraction," because I don't think it means what you think it means.
And how, exactly, does your work/employeer use of MS Office force you to use MS Office at home?
I contend that Open Office all by itself is a nicer solution than either Office with Wine on Linux or Office under Windows under Win4Lin on Linux. Try it (for your home use, given the work constraints you previously mentioned).
You just proved their point. Up against the AOL lawers there's no way they can win in court, unless they happen to get a really geeky judge.
What would be great is if 15 or 20 other software projects also called themselves "Firebird" after Mozilla successfully destroys IBPhoenix's trademark. If that happens, somebody should resurrect every dead browser project out there and name them all "Firebird."
My company uses Excel *a lot* and we have some pretty complicated formulas which we *depend on* to get what we do done. Open Office isn't an alternative.
Oh? So how did you use Office XP on your Linux desktops before the release of Crossover Office 2.0?
What's that? Your desktops all run Windows? Riiiiight. So you care about Crossover Office how, exactly?
If job hunters care when you put it on your resume, the project is a success. If they don't, it isn't.
Put "Key developer on Samba" and you'll probably get the job. Put "Key developer on [insert one of the countless projects that never released anything]" and you won't.
What are you saying? Do you mean there's a choice?
I can buy proprietary Crossover Office, which let's me buy proprietary Office XP and run it on my otherwise open computer (Oh, and I still have to register/authenticate/indoctrinate/whatever Office XP or it won't work).
*BSD use GNU programs like gcc, but nobody calls them "GNU/BSD." This point has been argued to death. Debian call it "GNU/Linux" to make a political point, and it pointedly aligns them with the FSF. If they don't agree with all of the FSF's philosophy, then they should break with them and change their name from "GNU/Linux" to something else.
This is really silly. What if I change the code (I'm "free" to change the code, right?) in a way that makes the "invariant" sections of the documentation wrong? I see this as a way for authors to say "Don't change this code, even though you can." In that case, why is the author using the GPL?
Debian takes a broader view that everything in the distro should be "Free".
Then they should use the BSD license. It all depends on your definition of "free," and in the case of the FSF, they mean "free" as in the copyright holder is free to restrict your use in some areas. With the GPL, the copyright holder is free to prevent you from distributing the binary without the source; even though you managed to find the source, they assume those you give it to can't get the source unless you give it to them. You may consider the GPL free, but it comes with this restriction, so it's not really as free as BSD. Since the FSF has embraced a less-than-fully-free position on software, why should it surprise you that they are not fully free with sounds or documentation?
As I said, it's all in your definition of "free." If Debian wants to call it "GNU/Linux" then they should accept the FSF's definition of free. Otherwise, they should write their own license and drop the "GNU" from the name.
3) If you really mean those "Protecting" and "practice good stewardship" lines, then why promote "salvage logging" when it's been shown to cause more harm than good?
Why on Earth do you think this Administration cares about "the voice of the people"? The voice of the people called for Al Gore (admittedly by a small margin). It's only the voice of the powerful that matters to Dubya, and the powerful don't send form letters.
The CEOs all send individual letters, not form letters. Members of environmental groups generally send form letters, because they're busy with other things (like a job, family, etc.). If the Forest Service only counts each letter once (paper or otherwise) -- no matter how many people send a copy -- then guess which side has sent "more" comments?
The only thing about this that surprises me is that it hasn't happened sooner, and that all Federal departments aren't doing it -- but I'll bet they soon will!
No, you haven't been paying attention. Visit the U.S. Forest Service's web page. Even their About Us page doesn't state their Mission Statement, if they have one. Under this Administration, their goal -- as is the goal of every Federal Department -- is to maximize profits for contributors to the Republican Party. The Forest Service cares not about savingtrees, but cutting them.
Flamebait? Maybe, but it's true.
Re:Reindeer DNA
on
Ancient DNA
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
"I before E except after C"
"What a weird rule." -- Albert Einstein
Gene sequencing/splicing
on
Ancient DNA
·
· Score: 1
I thought the way the Human Genome project worked was by breaking our DNA into lots of small bits and sequencing them in parallel, then putting those sequences together in a computer. How is the "broken" nature of this old DNA different from our intentional "breaking" of DNA for other sequencing projects? After it's sequenced, can the "broken" parts be re-connected in a computer? Once we know the sequence, can't we then make new copies in the lab? Sure, using that new DNA will be tough, but I thought someone was already working on cloning a Mammoth using Elephant eggs. Why would these other animals be any different, if we could find a suitible host "mother"?
The one thing Jurassic Park never explained was how they made the dinosaur eggs. Putting the DNA in the egg would be simple compaired with that.
I have a Pocket PC, and Windows Terminal Services Client for Pocket PC won't work on it. Wrong processor. Wrong OS. OK, so mine is a bit old, but I've learned the hard way that when Microsoft says "Windows" they mean "XP" (for now), and when they say "Pocket PC" they mean "Pocket PC 2002" (again, for now). As far as they're concerned, older versions of their products don't exist. All you Win2K users are history, and all you XP users will soon be history, too. Get used to it. Meanwhile, I'm buying all the XBox games that interest me while the XBox is current, because sure as the Pope's Polish your existing XBox games will play on XBox 2, but XBox 2 games won't play on an XBox.
Example (while I'm on a rant): Mine came with Pocket Streets, a really cool app. But none of the freely downloadable maps will work with it. I needed to upgrade. OK, fine. So I bought Streets & Trips, not because I wanted it, but because Microsoft told me it was the only way to get the newer Pocket Streets that reads the new maps. After I bought it I learned (MS sure didn't tell me, either on their web site or on the box) that the new Pocket Streets only works with Pocket PC 2002.
In short, Terminal Services Client will not work with the majority of PDAs in use today.
That's what they're talking about -- using the PDA as a client to access your desktop PC. What's new here is that the desktop isn't runing terminal services, and thus the PDA's terminal services client isn't used. Indeed, the clien'ts not limited to Pocket PC's, but also runs on Palm and J2ME.
What I don't understand is how this doesn't violate the Windows XP licence (which IIRC states that you can't run any non-Microsoft remote desktop. There was a big stink about the effect this would have on VNC). Also, why not use VNC? How is this different, in terms of bandwidth and response time?
Seriously, what about porn? Couldn't you start one of those sites that's basically all ads for porn sites, and use the profit from that to pay for your "real" site? You'ld think that they can't possibly make money, since there's so many of them, but on the other hand there's so damn many of them they must be making money or they'd all fold, right? (sorta like spam, in a way -- spam must make money, otherwise why would there be so many spammers?)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm absolutely certain that Open Office meets "the needs of a fraction of the people outside" my sphere. To presume otherwise is just short-sighted of you, and I again suggest you try Open Office before you continue to say otherwise. Or look up "a fraction," because I don't think it means what you think it means.
I contend that Open Office all by itself is a nicer solution than either Office with Wine on Linux or Office under Windows under Win4Lin on Linux. Try it (for your home use, given the work constraints you previously mentioned).
Oh My God! Windows comes with an FTP client! I'd better sell my Microsoft stock before they sue ME!
They have a trademark. It's "Firebird." They haven't registered it, but it's still a legal, defensible trademark.
What would be great is if 15 or 20 other software projects also called themselves "Firebird" after Mozilla successfully destroys IBPhoenix's trademark. If that happens, somebody should resurrect every dead browser project out there and name them all "Firebird."
A buddy of mine who drove a Formula used to say "Trans-Ams are like hemmoroids; sooner or later every asshole gets one."
What's that? Your desktops all run Windows? Riiiiight. So you care about Crossover Office how, exactly?
Put "Key developer on Samba" and you'll probably get the job.
Put "Key developer on [insert one of the countless projects that never released anything]" and you won't.
I can buy proprietary Crossover Office, which let's me buy proprietary Office XP and run it on my otherwise open computer (Oh, and I still have to register/authenticate/indoctrinate/whatever Office XP or it won't work).
OR
I can run Open Office.
Tough choice.
*BSD use GNU programs like gcc, but nobody calls them "GNU/BSD." This point has been argued to death. Debian call it "GNU/Linux" to make a political point, and it pointedly aligns them with the FSF. If they don't agree with all of the FSF's philosophy, then they should break with them and change their name from "GNU/Linux" to something else.
This is really silly. What if I change the code (I'm "free" to change the code, right?) in a way that makes the "invariant" sections of the documentation wrong? I see this as a way for authors to say "Don't change this code, even though you can." In that case, why is the author using the GPL?
As I said, it's all in your definition of "free." If Debian wants to call it "GNU/Linux" then they should accept the FSF's definition of free. Otherwise, they should write their own license and drop the "GNU" from the name.
1) Your mission statement should be on your home page, or at least linked there, not buried under your "jobs" page.
2) If you really mean that "Listening to people" line, then why this proposed change? And why attempt to "put a torch to citizens' rights to challenge federal agencies' land-use decisions"?
3) If you really mean those "Protecting" and "practice good stewardship" lines, then why promote "salvage logging" when it's been shown to cause more harm than good?
Why on Earth do you think this Administration cares about "the voice of the people"? The voice of the people called for Al Gore (admittedly by a small margin). It's only the voice of the powerful that matters to Dubya, and the powerful don't send form letters.
The only thing about this that surprises me is that it hasn't happened sooner, and that all Federal departments aren't doing it -- but I'll bet they soon will!
Flamebait? Maybe, but it's true.
The one thing Jurassic Park never explained was how they made the dinosaur eggs. Putting the DNA in the egg would be simple compaired with that.
Exactly!
If/when I do buy a new PDA, it won't run Windows CE, that's for sure. I'll probably get a Sharp Zaurus.
Example (while I'm on a rant): Mine came with Pocket Streets, a really cool app. But none of the freely downloadable maps will work with it. I needed to upgrade. OK, fine. So I bought Streets & Trips, not because I wanted it, but because Microsoft told me it was the only way to get the newer Pocket Streets that reads the new maps. After I bought it I learned (MS sure didn't tell me, either on their web site or on the box) that the new Pocket Streets only works with Pocket PC 2002.
In short, Terminal Services Client will not work with the majority of PDAs in use today.
What I don't understand is how this doesn't violate the Windows XP licence (which IIRC states that you can't run any non-Microsoft remote desktop. There was a big stink about the effect this would have on VNC). Also, why not use VNC? How is this different, in terms of bandwidth and response time?
Seriously, what about porn? Couldn't you start one of those sites that's basically all ads for porn sites, and use the profit from that to pay for your "real" site? You'ld think that they can't possibly make money, since there's so many of them, but on the other hand there's so damn many of them they must be making money or they'd all fold, right? (sorta like spam, in a way -- spam must make money, otherwise why would there be so many spammers?)
I wonder the same thing, and I'm not kidding.