If corporations are using complex macros and any real "programming" inside of an Office document, then they're doing it wrong.
If they are using non-connected proprietary apps that will crash just because Microsoft Office is also running at the same time, they're doing it wrong.
If they are NOT using complex macros and any real "programming" inside of an Office document, they don't need MS Office and can use any free alternative.
If your employer supports Microsoft's Home Use Program, Office 2013 Pro is a $10 download.
Wow, so you think that "normal users" only work for companies that "support Microsoft's Home Use Program"?
Let me introduce you to the real world:
- More than half of all people don't have an "employer" (self-employed, unemployed, retired, students, etc.)
- Most people that have an employer don't use a computer (most jobs are still non-office jobs, so even if 100% of office jobs use MS Office: No office, no MS Office)
- Most people in office-jobs don't have any homework where "Home Use" would make sense.
- Even when a company depends on homework from employees, it may not need the latest/greatest version and just standardize on Office 2003 which is good enough and not pay for "Microsoft's Home Use Program".
- And even when the "Microsoft's Home Use Program" would make perfect sense, there is no guarantee that the company agrees. In fact I would guess that even in the perfect use case, where everything is exactly as Microsoft-marketing thinks it is, most companies rather not join the program.
We are talking about a tiny minority here, not "normal people".
no one ever said that Karl Marx lacked a conscience
Marx let three of his children starve (while he himself enjoyed a luxurious lifestyle) and drove two more into suicide. In his letters to Engels he expresses hatred for pretty much every ethnic group he has ever known and was described be everybody who knew him as posessing a deep hatred for all humans.
I guess it is not an accident that the left has chosen him as their moral guide.
Slashdot, previously a bastion of political correctness, leftism and anti-white attitude but it is changing. About 5 years (the pre-Obama days) ago, Slashdot (including and especially the posters) was pretty much solidly towing the "progressive" party line.
At that time, the GPs post would have been modded as flamebait.
But now, very politically incorrect posts get modded up.
The whole system seems to be on the ropes and is crumbling. Nobody believes in it anymore, it's like the Soviet-Union in the mid-80s. Let's wait and see what comes afterwards.
Hmmm, then why was the brutally colonized Korea (the Southern part, anyway) able to do it? Why were Germany and Japan, which were almost literally bombed back to the stone age able to do it?
But even more importantly:
Why do black nations which were free forever or for a long time (Libera, Haiti, Ethiopia (no, the 6 years of Italian occupation don't count) or were barely touched by colonialism (most landlocked areas barely had any real contact with Europeans, Chad, Mali, etc.) actually do MUCH WORSE than those nations which were much more intensively colonized (South Africa, Botswana, Cote d'Ivoire, Kenya)?
How do you explain that?
And how is it that now the average African has less income, less food and less freedom than at the end of colonialism?
Exactly.
But that is not enough for them, it seems that the two-party monopoly that ensures endless wars, endless immigration, endless tax-increases, endless debts would be enough, but on top of all that, the last honest US-election was probably somewhere in the late-20th century. Obama won 2012 through massive ballot stuffing, he used voter intimidation in 2008, Bush used voting machine manipulation in 2004 and won by voting machine manipulation in 2000. Clinton was using the old trick of votes from dead voters. The last honest election was probably in the 80s or even 70s if not earlier.
In theory you are correct, but there are diminishing returns the more you have of anything. Frivolous lawsuits are caused by lawyers who have otherwise nothing to do, in other words, there are just too many of them.
One reason for that is also overcomplicated and numerous laws, which were created mostly by - lawyers.
If the "hockey-stick" curve were real, we should have the warmest year every year.
The "eight warmest" year pretty much proves that while it is probably a little warmer than usual, we have reached a plateau and not some alarmist temperature explosion scenario.
Wait, just if I get that right: You are afraid that your politicians (which you didn't vote for) lose their power, actually even so afraid that you want to leave.
Wow, so many contradictions at once, I'm overwhelmed.
I mean, if you are so afraid of your politians losing power, why don't you vote for them? Doesn't make much sense to me.
Also you don't like Britain, yet you say you would stay even if it would mean poverty and hardship if it weren't for political troubles.
According to the majority of economic scientists the reason for the high price of oil is speculation.
The majority of "economic scientists" also told the world proudly that a "new economy" has arrived and that conservative economic laws just don't apply. No, I'm not talking about the 1990's, I'm talking about the 1920's.
With the amount of oil being pumped, OPEC and others refusing to increase production; the US refusing to use thier own resources
The US refusing to use their own ressources? All US-oilfields are pumping at maximum capacity ever since they peaked in 1970/71.
OPEC is also pumping whatever they can. Recently Kuwait had to admit that their biggest oilfield (which holds more than half their oil) is beyound peak and declining. Of course you probably think they are just mean and want to "refuse to increase production", but sooner or later that just had to happen. Over 60% of Saudi-Arabia's oil production comes from just one oilfield ("Ghawar") and they started pumping in 1951 which means they are already pumping for 57 years. When that single field peaks and declines, there is nothing nowhere which can make up that loss. That field alone produces over 6% of the global oil supply. Just a comparison: The oil crisis of 1973 which caused the prices to skyrock from 2-3 dollars/barrel to over 20 was caused by a reduction of just 3% in oil production.
the cost should be in the $70-$80 range.
Just 5 years ago, it was assumed that about 23 to 25 dollars is the "fair" price of oil. How fast times change, heh?
Currently the amount of processed fuel is at a 15 year high
I wonder what is so difficult to understand about a peak. OF COURSE we are at an (not just 15-year but) all time high in almost parameters about oil. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. It just won't be possible to get much higher and those parameters will start to decline, either in a couple of years or they already have.
Of course the human species will carry on, future historians will probably think of the 20th century as some crazy period full of socialist (in the late 20th/early 21st-century USA usually called "liberal") experiments.
Not just historians and there's no need to wait till the future. You can offer examples to the contrary but I'm unaware of any "socialist experiment" that can be deemed a success. With utter uniformity socialism's been either a failure or a disastrous failure.
Did you even understand what I wrote?
To ask somebody who calls the various socialist experiments a "crazy period" for socialist success stories is rather... strange.
You state that as fact, but as far as I know the concept of "carrying capacity" is not defined or even studied. Whilst it makes intuitive sense that there must be some limit, it also makes sense that this limit would itself be fluid - changing with the march of technology and changes in living standards. I've never seen anybody calculate a carrying capacity for 21st century Earth, especially not scientifically. People who use the term invariably assume it must be lower than our current population - how much lower is usually pulled out of thin air.
Carrying capacity has been studied by a lot of people and while it is true that you cannot exactly calculate it's value, you can estimate it.
Actually you don't need to be a rocket scientist to do that, shortages and price hick
p>
Ah ha, I knew it. As soon as I read the term "carrying capacity" I was waiting for the ass-pulled number. Why 3 billion? Why not 2, or 4? Or 100 million?
Earth had 1 billion during the industrial revolution and about 2 billion at the beginning of the green revolution. Many estimate the carrying capacity to be about 1 billion because that's what it was before the industrial revolution and coal-burning really took off. I'm just a bit more optimistic because I figure that efficiency (modern houses need a LOT less heating than those 200 years ago, tracktors running on plant oil may also be more efficient than horses) and technology can sqeeze a lot more out of the Earth. But yes, it's of course only an estimate, but I'm actually on the optimistic side within the group of people who seriously thought about it.
His comment was perfectly sound; even taking just England, it still would only make 26th, at 388.7/km. Whatever the daily mail tells you, the country is not populated beyond manageable standards.
No, that comment was not sound, but nonsense. Wether a country is overpopulated or not doesn't depend which place it scores in the ranking, it depends wether it can support it's inhabitants. Greenland would be overpopulated with 10 people/km, some highly productive farmlands may support over 500/km.
Now, with that clarified, I repeat: England cannot support it's population and without tangible exports, it can also not trade in other goods for food. (Japan can do that, England could do that 100 years ago when it was a manufacturing powerhouse like Japan is today, but those times are long gone)
The problem is with the management.
The management is horrible, but even the best management can't change the laws of nature. The mistakes are already made a long time ago.
To ease your imagined problem, I'll be leaving as soon as possible
If it's imaginary and England is such a great place, why are you leaving? A lot of Britons are leaving, I wonder why. Even the Scots want to leave the UK...
so you idiots can enjoy your BNP government.
I'm not English, I'm not even near any Anglophone country (thank god). Anyway, I don't think any government will be able to save England from serious ressource shortages, even if immigration is stopped immediately. England could have made it with wise politics in the last 30 years or so. Of course not only about immigration but also not letting the railway-system decay and prepare maybe just a little bit. But instead your politicians decided to squander it all as fast as they could.
Better hurry, who knows how long other countries will take in pompous hypocrites like you. I mean if diversity isn't great, why aren't you staying? Why are you fleeing from a "imagined problem"? Doesn't you get headaches from that much doublethink?
The UK includes Scotland which is pretty poor from a farming-POV. England (which is not the same as the UK, FYI) is very densely populated and isn't prime farming country either (though better than Scotland).
Also, England has a horrible trade deficit in almost everything. Essentially England exports just printed paper (pound-notes, stocks, etc) and gets indebted more and more. Even without Peak Oil, England could not function like that forever.
You can try to insult me if you like ("lacks self confidence", oh my), I don't really care. People like you might be able to silence all opposition, but you won't be able to change the laws of nature.
England will become a very unfriendly place in a couple of years, (and if you look at the crime statistics that's not merely a forecast, it's a continued process that began 2 decades ago) no amount of lies and politically correct nonsense can change that.
As far as i was aware no one really knows why easter island was abandoned?
It wasn't abandoned. It just lost most of it's carrying capacity (and hence population).
no it's nonsense to claim something which has been the status quo for decades (england importing most of it's food) is suddenly going to become a major problem for no reason.
England destroying it's industry (outsourcing) and using up it's coal (they even have import most of their coal now) plus higher and rising oil prices are very good reasons.
The idea that oil is going to dry up in 5 years is just nonsense.
Please read it again:
"Global warming has nothing to do with the end of cheap oil"
Of course we won't run out of oil (I alread said so, didn't you get that?) but it will be expensive. With one barrel hitting 110 dollars it's already debatable wether we still have cheap oil or not.
all of these problems would have occurred 2 decades ago if they were a real problem.
Maybe the Polynesian who chopped down the last tree on easter island had exactly the same thoughts? Who knows?
First of all, many of these problems DID already occur, the easter island die-off occoured before the island was descouvered by Europeans, probably somewhen around 1500 AD.
Second, many problems occured (like Haiti's complete lack of forest despite being a tropical half-island) but are merely covered up. (The do-gooders are sending food aid to Haiti to make sure the population continues to breed like crazy)
Third, problems occur when they occur. To say they never occur because they didn't occur 2 decades ago is just plain nonsense.
we aren't running out of oil anytime soon
True, but the oil will be harder to get, more expensive to extract and there will be less of it.
inspsite of what the rabid global warming nutters want you to think.
Global warming has nothing to do with the end of cheap oil.
most of the price rises are due to artificial restrictions on supply.
It's true that the oil industry has shown a general lack of interest in building new refineries in the last years. (and that was a problem during Katrina because refinery capacity was not enough)
However the reason for that is that the oil industry knows very well that oil and gas will peak (or already has peaked) and it doesn't make any sense to build a refinery which needs 10 years to pay itself when there won't be any fuel for it after 5 years. (Not because we are "running out of oil" but because the old, refineries can manage the slowly declining supply)
What few people realize, is that the earth can support more people than what is commonly called the "carrying capacity" - temporarily.
Of course when you look at some examples:
Easter islands, where the polynesians peaked at about 10000 inhabitants before falling to about 2000 because they chopped down all trees. (no more boats -> no more fishing, no more houses -> starvation, disease)
Haiti, where the population has stripped their half of the island almost literally bare (almost the complete population survives on food-aid, now you can imagine what happens when the food-aid stops.)
China, where groundwater continues to fall and many areas are already dry.
Great Britain, which is extremely densely populated, has to import about half of it's food and is stupid enough to let half a million immigrants in every year.
It becomes clear that the world just can't go on like that forever. It probably can't even go on like that for more than a couple of years. The green revolution has been made possible by oil and gas and both are getting much more expensive each and every year now.
And no, it's not a "global problem" like the one-worlders want us to believe. Some countries will be able to manage well (like Iceland which with almost zero immigration and geothermal energy plants is well prepared), some will be average (like France which can keep the lights up with nuclear power, but has a huge 3rd-world immigration problem on the other hand or Japan which is overpopulated but may solve that problem with low birthrates and not mass-famine), some will turn into hell-holes (like England which has an even bigger trade deficit than the USA per capita and cannot feed it's population even now while oil and gas is still cheap and there is still some coming from the North Sea oilfields. On top of that immigration has transformed a once cohesive population into a society that with a huge potential for civil strife or even civil war, London is already one of the most crime-ridden cities in the world.) or continue to be hell-holes (like most of the 3rd world)
I would be very surprised if there will be more than 3 billion people living in 2050.
Of course the human species will carry on, future historians will probably think of the 20th century as some crazy period full of socialist (in the late 20th/early 21st-century USA usually called "liberal") experiments.
It would be irresponsible for Microsoft NOT to investigate allegations of piracy at this level as was likely the initial cause of the emails in question. Sure they could turn it over to the BSA, however for all we know this could have been a report to a person who was ill-informed of the proper procedure for relaying reports of piracy and took it upon themselves to investigate.
You obviously didn't read the article because the Microsoft saleswoman wasn't even interested in licensing information (and why should she? She gets a bonus for sales, not for proving legitimate software).
I agree with you, however there are still 2 ways of running Win32-software:
The Microsoft-way is running everything on Windows, using all Microsoft-formats and protocols and using lock-in techniques like Active Directory.
The (IMO saner) way is to run Windows where you really need it (on many, possibly most desktops) but use Unix/Linux on the server and even more importantly use open standards and formats whereever possible. (For example use Mozilla/html/LAMP instead of client/server/Win32 or IE/html/ASP)
Not only will you be less dependent on Microsoft, you also won't need to upgrade so often because Mozilla and OpenOffice run on much more versions of Windows than their Microsoft-counterparts. (For example OO and Mozilla runs from Win98 on and AFAIK the newest MSO will require Win2K or even XP and IE7 will require XP, too)
If I get the correct impression about the new interface, it will surely backfire badly.
Nobody really wants a "new interface", people want to use what they are accustomed to use. (That is one of Microsoft's big selling points)
Many people still use Word97 and are perfectly happy with it and see absolutely no reason to upgrade. If Microsoft wants to introduce a new file format (Office XML) and a new interface at the same time, I see a huge opportunity for OpenOffice to pick up the ball.
It will be friendly to new users (perhaps much more friendly than to power users)
The thing that so-called "usability experts" don't seem to grasp is that you are a "new user" just for a few months, but an "experienced" (or whatever you want to call it) user for the rest of your life.
And especially when it comes to Word and Excel, I don't see many "new users" - most have used computers for many years.
Actually I think Microsoft's biggest problem is that they believe too much their own marketing. Recently they seem to market almost exclusively to the "new user" group, but today, in the 21st century, that group is neglectibly small, as the market is already pretty saturated and the only "new users" are adolescents. (At least in the developed world)
Lately Microsoft seems on a big suicidal rampage (WebTV, Passport, Xbox, Windows Mobile, Vista, XBox360, now this - nothing seems to work out as planned at Microsoft)
(Almost) nobody uses MS Office because of it's features, (almost) everybody uses it because - well - everybody uses it and the file format is the standard.
So the standard is the most important thing here.
This plugin eases the migration path to ODF a lot because:
No interface changes, so even the dumb employees will be able to use it without retraining.
You still have 100% Word compatibility, which is one worry less when you still have a huge amount of Word documents.
You can still use the old infrastructure, for example it is possible to start with a.doc template but save the finished work as ODF.
This makes it possible to just install the plugin, set ODF as the default file format and continue without much interruption. After 1-2 years, when almost all files in current use are already ODF and you only need some odd.doc file from the archive now and then, you can migrate to OpenOffice, which much less hassle. (And why shouldn't you? As I said above, the format is the main reason why MS Office is in use, without the format, there is absolutely no more reason to periodically spend money on MS Office)
Great work, I hope the plugin will be available for the public, this would be a big boost for the ODF file format.
Slashdot Mirror
If corporations are using complex macros and any real "programming" inside of an Office document, then they're doing it wrong.
If they are using non-connected proprietary apps that will crash just because Microsoft Office is also running at the same time, they're doing it wrong.
If they are NOT using complex macros and any real "programming" inside of an Office document, they don't need MS Office and can use any free alternative.
Wow, so you think that "normal users" only work for companies that "support Microsoft's Home Use Program"?
Let me introduce you to the real world:
We are talking about a tiny minority here, not "normal people".
Marx let three of his children starve (while he himself enjoyed a luxurious lifestyle) and drove two more into suicide. In his letters to Engels he expresses hatred for pretty much every ethnic group he has ever known and was described be everybody who knew him as posessing a deep hatred for all humans.
I guess it is not an accident that the left has chosen him as their moral guide.
No, it's only racist if you say something good about white people.
At that time, the GPs post would have been modded as flamebait.
But now, very politically incorrect posts get modded up.
The whole system seems to be on the ropes and is crumbling. Nobody believes in it anymore, it's like the Soviet-Union in the mid-80s. Let's wait and see what comes afterwards.
By that logic, black countries with natural borders (like Madagascar, Jamaica, etc.) should be doing great.
Hmmm, then why was the brutally colonized Korea (the Southern part, anyway) able to do it? Why were Germany and Japan, which were almost literally bombed back to the stone age able to do it?
But even more importantly:
Why do black nations which were free forever or for a long time (Libera, Haiti, Ethiopia (no, the 6 years of Italian occupation don't count) or were barely touched by colonialism (most landlocked areas barely had any real contact with Europeans, Chad, Mali, etc.) actually do MUCH WORSE than those nations which were much more intensively colonized (South Africa, Botswana, Cote d'Ivoire, Kenya)?
How do you explain that?
And how is it that now the average African has less income, less food and less freedom than at the end of colonialism?
Hmm, built roads, railroads, brought medicine, electricity, spend huge sums of the White taxpayer's money for aid...
Does that mean I get some aid-money from Africa? Will they bring me some advanced technology?
Exactly. But that is not enough for them, it seems that the two-party monopoly that ensures endless wars, endless immigration, endless tax-increases, endless debts would be enough, but on top of all that, the last honest US-election was probably somewhere in the late-20th century. Obama won 2012 through massive ballot stuffing, he used voter intimidation in 2008, Bush used voting machine manipulation in 2004 and won by voting machine manipulation in 2000. Clinton was using the old trick of votes from dead voters. The last honest election was probably in the 80s or even 70s if not earlier.
Well, historically, there is a lot of evilness to go around.
One reason for that is also overcomplicated and numerous laws, which were created mostly by - lawyers.
If the "hockey-stick" curve were real, we should have the warmest year every year. The "eight warmest" year pretty much proves that while it is probably a little warmer than usual, we have reached a plateau and not some alarmist temperature explosion scenario.
Wow, so many contradictions at once, I'm overwhelmed.
I mean, if you are so afraid of your politians losing power, why don't you vote for them? Doesn't make much sense to me.
Also you don't like Britain, yet you say you would stay even if it would mean poverty and hardship if it weren't for political troubles.
The majority of "economic scientists" also told the world proudly that a "new economy" has arrived and that conservative economic laws just don't apply. No, I'm not talking about the 1990's, I'm talking about the 1920's.
With the amount of oil being pumped, OPEC and others refusing to increase production; the US refusing to use thier own resources
The US refusing to use their own ressources? All US-oilfields are pumping at maximum capacity ever since they peaked in 1970/71.
OPEC is also pumping whatever they can. Recently Kuwait had to admit that their biggest oilfield (which holds more than half their oil) is beyound peak and declining. Of course you probably think they are just mean and want to "refuse to increase production", but sooner or later that just had to happen. Over 60% of Saudi-Arabia's oil production comes from just one oilfield ("Ghawar") and they started pumping in 1951 which means they are already pumping for 57 years. When that single field peaks and declines, there is nothing nowhere which can make up that loss. That field alone produces over 6% of the global oil supply. Just a comparison: The oil crisis of 1973 which caused the prices to skyrock from 2-3 dollars/barrel to over 20 was caused by a reduction of just 3% in oil production.
the cost should be in the $70-$80 range.
Just 5 years ago, it was assumed that about 23 to 25 dollars is the "fair" price of oil. How fast times change, heh?
Currently the amount of processed fuel is at a 15 year high
I wonder what is so difficult to understand about a peak. OF COURSE we are at an (not just 15-year but) all time high in almost parameters about oil. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. It just won't be possible to get much higher and those parameters will start to decline, either in a couple of years or they already have.
Not just historians and there's no need to wait till the future. You can offer examples to the contrary but I'm unaware of any "socialist experiment" that can be deemed a success. With utter uniformity socialism's been either a failure or a disastrous failure.
Did you even understand what I wrote?
To ask somebody who calls the various socialist experiments a "crazy period" for socialist success stories is rather ... strange.
Carrying capacity has been studied by a lot of people and while it is true that you cannot exactly calculate it's value, you can estimate it.
Actually you don't need to be a rocket scientist to do that, shortages and price hick p> Ah ha, I knew it. As soon as I read the term "carrying capacity" I was waiting for the ass-pulled number. Why 3 billion? Why not 2, or 4? Or 100 million?
Earth had 1 billion during the industrial revolution and about 2 billion at the beginning of the green revolution. Many estimate the carrying capacity to be about 1 billion because that's what it was before the industrial revolution and coal-burning really took off. I'm just a bit more optimistic because I figure that efficiency (modern houses need a LOT less heating than those 200 years ago, tracktors running on plant oil may also be more efficient than horses) and technology can sqeeze a lot more out of the Earth. But yes, it's of course only an estimate, but I'm actually on the optimistic side within the group of people who seriously thought about it.
No, that comment was not sound, but nonsense. Wether a country is overpopulated or not doesn't depend which place it scores in the ranking, it depends wether it can support it's inhabitants. Greenland would be overpopulated with 10 people/km, some highly productive farmlands may support over 500/km.
Now, with that clarified, I repeat: England cannot support it's population and without tangible exports, it can also not trade in other goods for food. (Japan can do that, England could do that 100 years ago when it was a manufacturing powerhouse like Japan is today, but those times are long gone)
The problem is with the management.
The management is horrible, but even the best management can't change the laws of nature. The mistakes are already made a long time ago.
To ease your imagined problem, I'll be leaving as soon as possible
If it's imaginary and England is such a great place, why are you leaving? A lot of Britons are leaving, I wonder why. Even the Scots want to leave the UK...
so you idiots can enjoy your BNP government.
I'm not English, I'm not even near any Anglophone country (thank god). Anyway, I don't think any government will be able to save England from serious ressource shortages, even if immigration is stopped immediately. England could have made it with wise politics in the last 30 years or so. Of course not only about immigration but also not letting the railway-system decay and prepare maybe just a little bit. But instead your politicians decided to squander it all as fast as they could.
Better hurry, who knows how long other countries will take in pompous hypocrites like you. I mean if diversity isn't great, why aren't you staying? Why are you fleeing from a "imagined problem"? Doesn't you get headaches from that much doublethink?
Also, England has a horrible trade deficit in almost everything. Essentially England exports just printed paper (pound-notes, stocks, etc) and gets indebted more and more. Even without Peak Oil, England could not function like that forever.
You can try to insult me if you like ("lacks self confidence", oh my), I don't really care. People like you might be able to silence all opposition, but you won't be able to change the laws of nature.
England will become a very unfriendly place in a couple of years, (and if you look at the crime statistics that's not merely a forecast, it's a continued process that began 2 decades ago) no amount of lies and politically correct nonsense can change that.
It wasn't abandoned. It just lost most of it's carrying capacity (and hence population).
no it's nonsense to claim something which has been the status quo for decades (england importing most of it's food) is suddenly going to become a major problem for no reason.
England destroying it's industry (outsourcing) and using up it's coal (they even have import most of their coal now) plus higher and rising oil prices are very good reasons.
The idea that oil is going to dry up in 5 years is just nonsense.
Please read it again:
"Global warming has nothing to do with the end of cheap oil"
Of course we won't run out of oil (I alread said so, didn't you get that?) but it will be expensive. With one barrel hitting 110 dollars it's already debatable wether we still have cheap oil or not.
Maybe the Polynesian who chopped down the last tree on easter island had exactly the same thoughts? Who knows?
First of all, many of these problems DID already occur, the easter island die-off occoured before the island was descouvered by Europeans, probably somewhen around 1500 AD.
Second, many problems occured (like Haiti's complete lack of forest despite being a tropical half-island) but are merely covered up. (The do-gooders are sending food aid to Haiti to make sure the population continues to breed like crazy)
Third, problems occur when they occur. To say they never occur because they didn't occur 2 decades ago is just plain nonsense.
we aren't running out of oil anytime soon
True, but the oil will be harder to get, more expensive to extract and there will be less of it.
inspsite of what the rabid global warming nutters want you to think.
Global warming has nothing to do with the end of cheap oil.
most of the price rises are due to artificial restrictions on supply.
It's true that the oil industry has shown a general lack of interest in building new refineries in the last years. (and that was a problem during Katrina because refinery capacity was not enough)
However the reason for that is that the oil industry knows very well that oil and gas will peak (or already has peaked) and it doesn't make any sense to build a refinery which needs 10 years to pay itself when there won't be any fuel for it after 5 years. (Not because we are "running out of oil" but because the old, refineries can manage the slowly declining supply)
Of course when you look at some examples:
Easter islands, where the polynesians peaked at about 10000 inhabitants before falling to about 2000 because they chopped down all trees. (no more boats -> no more fishing, no more houses -> starvation, disease)
Haiti, where the population has stripped their half of the island almost literally bare (almost the complete population survives on food-aid, now you can imagine what happens when the food-aid stops.)
China, where groundwater continues to fall and many areas are already dry.
Great Britain, which is extremely densely populated, has to import about half of it's food and is stupid enough to let half a million immigrants in every year.
It becomes clear that the world just can't go on like that forever. It probably can't even go on like that for more than a couple of years. The green revolution has been made possible by oil and gas and both are getting much more expensive each and every year now.
And no, it's not a "global problem" like the one-worlders want us to believe. Some countries will be able to manage well (like Iceland which with almost zero immigration and geothermal energy plants is well prepared), some will be average (like France which can keep the lights up with nuclear power, but has a huge 3rd-world immigration problem on the other hand or Japan which is overpopulated but may solve that problem with low birthrates and not mass-famine), some will turn into hell-holes (like England which has an even bigger trade deficit than the USA per capita and cannot feed it's population even now while oil and gas is still cheap and there is still some coming from the North Sea oilfields. On top of that immigration has transformed a once cohesive population into a society that with a huge potential for civil strife or even civil war, London is already one of the most crime-ridden cities in the world.) or continue to be hell-holes (like most of the 3rd world)
I would be very surprised if there will be more than 3 billion people living in 2050.
Of course the human species will carry on, future historians will probably think of the 20th century as some crazy period full of socialist (in the late 20th/early 21st-century USA usually called "liberal") experiments.
You obviously didn't read the article because the Microsoft saleswoman wasn't even interested in licensing information (and why should she? She gets a bonus for sales, not for proving legitimate software).
The Microsoft-way is running everything on Windows, using all Microsoft-formats and protocols and using lock-in techniques like Active Directory.
The (IMO saner) way is to run Windows where you really need it (on many, possibly most desktops) but use Unix/Linux on the server and even more importantly use open standards and formats whereever possible. (For example use Mozilla/html/LAMP instead of client/server/Win32 or IE/html/ASP)
Not only will you be less dependent on Microsoft, you also won't need to upgrade so often because Mozilla and OpenOffice run on much more versions of Windows than their Microsoft-counterparts. (For example OO and Mozilla runs from Win98 on and AFAIK the newest MSO will require Win2K or even XP and IE7 will require XP, too)
Nobody really wants a "new interface", people want to use what they are accustomed to use. (That is one of Microsoft's big selling points)
Many people still use Word97 and are perfectly happy with it and see absolutely no reason to upgrade. If Microsoft wants to introduce a new file format (Office XML) and a new interface at the same time, I see a huge opportunity for OpenOffice to pick up the ball.
It will be friendly to new users (perhaps much more friendly than to power users)
The thing that so-called "usability experts" don't seem to grasp is that you are a "new user" just for a few months, but an "experienced" (or whatever you want to call it) user for the rest of your life.
And especially when it comes to Word and Excel, I don't see many "new users" - most have used computers for many years.
Actually I think Microsoft's biggest problem is that they believe too much their own marketing. Recently they seem to market almost exclusively to the "new user" group, but today, in the 21st century, that group is neglectibly small, as the market is already pretty saturated and the only "new users" are adolescents. (At least in the developed world)
Lately Microsoft seems on a big suicidal rampage (WebTV, Passport, Xbox, Windows Mobile, Vista, XBox360, now this - nothing seems to work out as planned at Microsoft)
(Almost) nobody uses MS Office because of it's features, (almost) everybody uses it because - well - everybody uses it and the file format is the standard.
So the standard is the most important thing here.
This plugin eases the migration path to ODF a lot because:
This makes it possible to just install the plugin, set ODF as the default file format and continue without much interruption. After 1-2 years, when almost all files in current use are already ODF and you only need some odd .doc file from the archive now and then, you can migrate to OpenOffice, which much less hassle. (And why shouldn't you? As I said above, the format is the main reason why MS Office is in use, without the format, there is absolutely no more reason to periodically spend money on MS Office)
Great work, I hope the plugin will be available for the public, this would be a big boost for the ODF file format.