Once the StarOffice formats become the de-facto standard for communicating with the government lots of other businesses are going to realize that they too can get away with using StarOffice (or OpenOffice.org).
With there being no valid reason for Israeli businesses to buy Office software for Microsoft. Then things start getting interesting. The US is a major trading partner with Israel. With it being illegal in the US to boycot Israeli businesses. Any US business which cannot accept.SXW/.SXC/etc documents from Israel companies is likely to have the FTC banging down their doors.
If the Israeli govt. was offering a substantial payment to develop the Hebrew code, it stands to reason that they could instead hire enough local talent to handle the extra development, QA, support, etc. that you mention.
It's possibly easier, since they don't have currency markets complicating the budget. In the way that paying a foreign company could easily do.
Of course, the original code would probably also have to be reasonably clean/organized to make that feasible.
Which is more likely to be the case with OSS.
So even if MS were to open the source to them, it still might not be an option...
Or would be far more expensive that starting from scratch. Microsoft "opening" the code would only be to a few people too.
OpenOffice and Microsoft (hell, the whole "GUI Paradigm" ) all function with the same basic concepts. For most kind of work ( basic spreadsheets / memo's) retraining consists of saying, "The menu's are a little different, but everything's in there, have a bit of a look, knock yourself out."
Which is much the same situation with respect to moving to MS Office 2003. IIRC MS Office 97 is the most commonly used. Because for many users it is "feature complete".
How is this different from Macy's in New York, which has its own holding cell in their basement for shoplifters who have been detained and are awaiting the NYPD?
They presumably have specific authority, from the appropriate government, to be able to do this. Deliberatly detaining people is kidnapping.
They do the police's work and the police can worry about real crime, then.
When they are not too busy arresting people for impersonating police officers. Or dealing with RIAA people shot dead by members of the public who mistook them for terrorists...
A function which is easy to compute but whose inverse is very difficult to compute.
A "many to one" function will work well since it's inverse would have to be "one to many". If the fuction used is "one to one" then it's inverse would also be "one to one".
What's odd: The password returned by my tool of choice is not the same as the one actually stored - but when I enter this new password OR the original password into Word, the document is successfully unprotected. Some sort of odd math that makes more than one password work?
It's quite simple what is stored in the documenet is the result of a many to one function.
Several of the 9/11 hijackers have been proven to have used false identities. Since the people who's identities they used are still alive. This means that all of the named given out by US authorities must be considered suspect.
The big issue is not whether its a good idea to protect our borders, its whether or not they are being effectively protected at the possible expense of our civil liberties.
As well as if the methods used are effective at performing the task of protecting borders. In order to protect a border you need to protect all of it, not just ports.
Seems to me that if you have a machine which utilizes a database often used by law enforcement, then it's possible that it's only a matter of time before they start using it to stop people that aren't terrorists.
There is also the issue of how useful such a database would be for assisting criminals. There will always be crooks posing as cops. Who will have access to the data, in practice?
You're right, we must do something, because it's better than nothing, but if the terror level is at Orange even with all this security, then it's probably not very good security. Why as a taxpayer am I paying for all this expensive, ineffective security?
Is the primary aim to provide good security or to provide corporate welfare. Not every possible way of improving border security involves big business...
This pervasive "well, it's better than nothing!" mindset that I see so much of these days regarding our counter-terror efforts really spooks me.
Effective security is not an easy task. It is perfectly possibly that doing "something", without thinking matters through, will result in a lower level of security.
It sounds as though you're perfectly happy to disregard all those false positives as no big deal or, perhaps, an acceptable cost for some feeling of safety.
What makes things more complex for security issues is that the "bad guys" are likely to be activly trying to subvert whatever measures are in place.
You're missing the point. All the terrorists have to do is get a forged passport from one of those countries and they'll slip through. A security net with tons of holes doesn't do any good.
Well, of course the TCO is more for Linux (for staff costing that is like their campaign is saying). Windows is easier to setup and get running. However, you don't need to actually understand much of anything to get this stuff running (M$ typically breeding of stupidity),
Indeed the MS culture appears to be very much against the idea of "lesser mortals", even those managing and administering their systems, knowing how they actually work.
thus cheaper IT costs and fewer IT people. However, *nix requires the IT staff actually KNOW what they are doing (thus higher costs).
It's not unknown for Windows systems to require more, rather than less, support people. The actual cost of employing a large number of "cheap" people can be greater than employing a smaller number of "expensive" people. It costs X amount of money simply to employ someone, before paying them anything.
Now the question is this as upper management. Do I want to save money by hiring under-skilled IT professionals, or do I want to spend more on IT staff to have a more robust and properly configured computer environment?
What are the costs associated with it breaking? Both in terms of getting it fixed, hiring contractors can quickly obliterate any possible savings made by not employing sufficently skilled and competent people. But also in terms of the costs associated with it not working.
And what does a "Competent" windows admin cost? Probably more than an average Unix admin. Realize that MS isn't selling "competent admins" they are selling the industry average price MSCE. [and they flooded the market...get it]
It's quite possible for someone to get MSCE (or similar) status by memorising contrived examples.
Unix on the other hand has long history of what is necessary in a good admin, and few tools for "quick cheaters" like Windows...nor is it expected to be quick and easy
One difference is most of the difficult things with learning unix admin come at the start. Whereas with Windows it is possible to get quite a way in before there is a need to learn a lot of complex things fast.
TCO is a total cost number, meaning, overall microsoft is cheaper.
Except that what is being measured here is not the total cost. Several costs are excluded, most noticably licencing and administration of licencing. The latter includes the possibility your business being disrupted if the BSA comes calling...
Using the idea that Microsoft gets hit by viruses and Linux doesn't is really more a matter of Microsoft representing 95% of the desktop market and therefor 95% of the virus makers are coding to affect Microsoft.
This is a quite popular myth. But even in areas such as web servers where Microsoft software is in the minority it's still the most affected by malware. The real explanation is that Microsoft tends to produce "virus friendly " software.
Then, IBM stands for reliability and predictability, which is exactly what the industry wants today, after years of constant worm-attacks.
Quite likely what "the industry" has wanted all along...
Microsoft on the other hand stands for unreliability, unsecurity and arrogance.
As well as all sorts of dodgy dealing, broken promises and vapourware.
Microsoft became big offering products that were cheap and "good enough".
They can't try to play bythese rules any longer, because open source software will beat them...
Microsoft told the managers for YEARS how much money they can save in hardware costs by dumping Unix and going for Intel.
Which is something which rarely, if ever, turned out to be the case in practice.
Now all of the sudden Microsoft changes it's mind and proclaims that initial costs (like hardware and licensing costs) are irrelevant and starts to put forth dubious TCO-studies?
If some of the costs are ignored then what's being measured isn't a TCO in the first place. These are not dubious studies they are entirely bogus studies.
It certainly is frowned apon to say anything positive at all about Hitler, even though he obviously did some amazing things (some horrific too of course).
Or words which are frequently misunderstood, as positive, such as "great".
And yes, i find it amazing that the demonization of one man has such a large effect on fashial hair fashions. Did this kind of thing happen during other large conflicts? Were there any historical figures who were demonized as much as Hitler?
More or less any prominant historical figure who was defeated in war. Consider Shakesphere's treatment of Richard the Third...
I suspect a similar situation developed with Napoleon.
A more recent example would be Osama Bin-Laden or Saddam Hussein.
We are no more responsible for the current problems in the world then the UK or France are.
No mention of Spain?
The UK created the current Israel mess,
The partition plan came from the UN. Israel only came into existance after the UK withdrew from Palestine. The current mess couldn't have existed without the US pouring money and weapons into the tiny colonial state.
France attempted to reconquer an enslaved colonial empire (Indo-China) and failed miserably -- then they partitioned the country up with some plan that looked nice on a map but had no basis in reality -- which led to the Vietnam War.
So France made the US bomb Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia?
Of course, then they'll just start pirating the book as well. I wonder if Tolkien would have still written it if he didn't think he could make any money off it.
Maybe he wouldn't, but many authors are not motivated by the possibility of making money.
(In the liner notes of the authorized edition, he is quite vocal in asking for copyright extension.)
Those who came up with current copyright terms appear to have missed the little matter of "You can't take it with you when you go."
Because it's not free exchange of information, and once everyone just copies everything for each other for free, there won't be reason to make trilogies like Lord of the Rings because it won't even make enough money to cover initial expenses.
They could still be made, but it would require a business model which did not involve borrowing money. The movie company would need to raise the money before making the film from some source or other.
Actually, the studios are charging the theaters so much to show the crappy films they produce that the theaters have to charge 8.50 and 9 bucks just to break even.
Their profit is more likely to come out of selling expensive soft drinks and popcorn.
I don't understand why idiots even bother downloading cam-rips, the quality is so shit, you're not getting the real film: the angle is wrong, the color is usually gone,
Films are not released everywhere at the same time, most of the potential audience could easily be kept waiting for months to years...
the audio can be good when ripped from source when it's an inside job (ha nowadays an MPAA cop sits in the projection booth, the article claims),
The only way this could possibly work is for everyone with access to the projection area to be an "MPAA cop". You'd need one as "gatekeeper" to every projection box, with enough understanding of projection systems to notice if a film is through both a projector and a tele-cine machine. In some multplexes a single print can be threaded through more than one projector so as to show on several screens at once.
Slashdot Mirror
Once the StarOffice formats become the de-facto standard for communicating with the government lots of other businesses are going to realize that they too can get away with using StarOffice (or OpenOffice.org).
.SXW/.SXC/etc documents from Israel companies is likely to have the FTC banging down their doors.
With there being no valid reason for Israeli businesses to buy Office software for Microsoft. Then things start getting interesting. The US is a major trading partner with Israel. With it being illegal in the US to boycot Israeli businesses. Any US business which cannot accept
If the Israeli govt. was offering a substantial payment to develop the Hebrew code, it stands to reason that they could instead hire enough local talent to handle the extra development, QA, support, etc. that you mention.
It's possibly easier, since they don't have currency markets complicating the budget. In the way that paying a foreign company could easily do.
Of course, the original code would probably also have to be reasonably clean/organized to make that feasible.
Which is more likely to be the case with OSS.
So even if MS were to open the source to them, it still might not be an option...
Or would be far more expensive that starting from scratch. Microsoft "opening" the code would only be to a few people too.
OpenOffice and Microsoft (hell, the whole "GUI Paradigm" ) all function with the same basic concepts. For most kind of work ( basic spreadsheets / memo's) retraining consists of saying, "The menu's are a little different, but everything's in there, have a bit of a look, knock yourself out."
Which is much the same situation with respect to moving to MS Office 2003.
IIRC MS Office 97 is the most commonly used. Because for many users it is "feature complete".
How is this different from Macy's in New York, which has its own holding cell in their basement for shoplifters who have been detained and are awaiting the NYPD?
They presumably have specific authority, from the appropriate government, to be able to do this. Deliberatly detaining people is kidnapping.
They do the police's work and the police can worry about real crime, then.
When they are not too busy arresting people for impersonating police officers. Or dealing with RIAA people shot dead by members of the public who mistook them for terrorists...
A function which is easy to compute but whose inverse is very difficult to compute.
A "many to one" function will work well since it's inverse would have to be "one to many". If the fuction used is "one to one" then it's inverse would also be "one to one".
What's odd: The password returned by my tool of choice is not the same as the one actually stored - but when I enter this new password OR the original password into Word, the document is successfully unprotected. Some sort of odd math that makes more than one password work?
It's quite simple what is stored in the documenet is the result of a many to one function.
None of them used fake identities,
Several of the 9/11 hijackers have been proven to have used false identities. Since the people who's identities they used are still alive. This means that all of the named given out by US authorities must be considered suspect.
The big issue is not whether its a good idea to protect our borders, its whether or not they are being effectively protected at the possible expense of our civil liberties.
As well as if the methods used are effective at performing the task of protecting borders. In order to protect a border you need to protect all of it, not just ports.
Seems to me that if you have a machine which utilizes a database often used by law enforcement, then it's possible that it's only a matter of time before they start using it to stop people that aren't terrorists.
There is also the issue of how useful such a database would be for assisting criminals. There will always be crooks posing as cops. Who will have access to the data, in practice?
You're right, we must do something, because it's better than nothing, but if the terror level is at Orange even with all this security, then it's probably not very good security. Why as a taxpayer am I paying for all this expensive, ineffective security?
Is the primary aim to provide good security or to provide corporate welfare. Not every possible way of improving border security involves big business...
This pervasive "well, it's better than nothing!" mindset that I see so much of these days regarding our counter-terror efforts really spooks me.
Effective security is not an easy task. It is perfectly possibly that doing "something", without thinking matters through, will result in a lower level of security.
It sounds as though you're perfectly happy to disregard all those false positives as no big deal or, perhaps, an acceptable cost for some feeling of safety.
What makes things more complex for security issues is that the "bad guys" are likely to be activly trying to subvert whatever measures are in place.
You're missing the point. All the terrorists have to do is get a forged passport from one of those countries and they'll slip through. A security net with tons of holes doesn't do any good.
:)
Actually the number of exempt countries is 29
Well, of course the TCO is more for Linux (for staff costing that is like their campaign is saying). Windows is easier to setup and get running. However, you don't need to actually understand much of anything to get this stuff running (M$ typically breeding of stupidity),
Indeed the MS culture appears to be very much against the idea of "lesser mortals", even those managing and administering their systems, knowing how they actually work.
thus cheaper IT costs and fewer IT people. However, *nix requires the IT staff actually KNOW what they are doing (thus higher costs).
It's not unknown for Windows systems to require more, rather than less, support people. The actual cost of employing a large number of "cheap" people can be greater than employing a smaller number of "expensive" people. It costs X amount of money simply to employ someone, before paying them anything.
Now the question is this as upper management. Do I want to save money by hiring under-skilled IT professionals, or do I want to spend more on IT staff to have a more robust and properly configured computer environment?
What are the costs associated with it breaking? Both in terms of getting it fixed, hiring contractors can quickly obliterate any possible savings made by not employing sufficently skilled and competent people. But also in terms of the costs associated with it not working.
And what does a "Competent" windows admin cost? Probably more than an average Unix admin. Realize that MS isn't selling "competent admins" they are selling the industry average price MSCE. [and they flooded the market...get it]
It's quite possible for someone to get MSCE (or similar) status by memorising contrived examples.
Unix on the other hand has long history of what is necessary in a good admin, and few tools for "quick cheaters" like Windows...nor is it expected to be quick and easy
One difference is most of the difficult things with learning unix admin come at the start. Whereas with Windows it is possible to get quite a way in before there is a need to learn a lot of complex things fast.
TCO is a total cost number, meaning, overall microsoft is cheaper.
Except that what is being measured here is not the total cost. Several costs are excluded, most noticably licencing and administration of licencing. The latter includes the possibility your business being disrupted if the BSA comes calling...
Using the idea that Microsoft gets hit by viruses and Linux doesn't is really more a matter of Microsoft representing 95% of the desktop market and therefor 95% of the virus makers are coding to affect Microsoft.
This is a quite popular myth. But even in areas such as web servers where Microsoft software is in the minority it's still the most affected by malware. The real explanation is that Microsoft tends to produce "virus friendly " software.
You can use Mozilla for almost anything on the WWW. Treat IE as a specialized 'Windows Update Utility' and use it for nothing else.
How do you configure things so that IE cannot be used for anything other than Windows update?
It works. Just do things that way and you'll be fine.
Until the machine gets into the hands of someone who thinks he/she knows better.
The last time I checked windowsupdate.microsoft.com was free.
Not every Windows update gets on there. There are even some Windows patches which require telephoning Microsoft to get hold of.
Then, IBM stands for reliability and predictability, which is exactly what the industry wants today, after years of constant worm-attacks.
Quite likely what "the industry" has wanted all along...
Microsoft on the other hand stands for unreliability, unsecurity and arrogance.
As well as all sorts of dodgy dealing, broken promises and vapourware.
Microsoft became big offering products that were cheap and "good enough".
They can't try to play bythese rules any longer, because open source software will beat them...
Microsoft told the managers for YEARS how much money they can save in hardware costs by dumping Unix and going for Intel.
Which is something which rarely, if ever, turned out to be the case in practice.
Now all of the sudden Microsoft changes it's mind and proclaims that initial costs (like hardware and licensing costs) are irrelevant and starts to put forth dubious TCO-studies?
If some of the costs are ignored then what's being measured isn't a TCO in the first place. These are not dubious studies they are entirely bogus studies.
It certainly is frowned apon to say anything positive at all about Hitler, even though he obviously did some amazing things (some horrific too of course).
Or words which are frequently misunderstood, as positive, such as "great".
And yes, i find it amazing that the demonization of one man has such a large effect on fashial hair fashions. Did this kind of thing happen during other large conflicts? Were there any historical figures who were demonized as much as Hitler?
More or less any prominant historical figure who was defeated in war. Consider Shakesphere's treatment of Richard the Third...
I suspect a similar situation developed with Napoleon.
A more recent example would be Osama Bin-Laden or Saddam Hussein.
We are no more responsible for the current problems in the world then the UK or France are.
No mention of Spain?
The UK created the current Israel mess,
The partition plan came from the UN. Israel only came into existance after the UK withdrew from Palestine. The current mess couldn't have existed without the US pouring money and weapons into the tiny colonial state.
France attempted to reconquer an enslaved colonial empire (Indo-China) and failed miserably -- then they partitioned the country up with some plan that looked nice on a map but had no basis in reality -- which led to the Vietnam War.
So France made the US bomb Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia?
No one would make $300 million dollar films.
How much of this cost is the actual production and how much is for "names"?
Of course, then they'll just start pirating the book as well. I wonder if Tolkien would have still written it if he didn't think he could make any money off it.
Maybe he wouldn't, but many authors are not motivated by the possibility of making money.
(In the liner notes of the authorized edition, he is quite vocal in asking for copyright extension.)
Those who came up with current copyright terms appear to have missed the little matter of "You can't take it with you when you go."
Because it's not free exchange of information, and once everyone just copies everything for each other for free, there won't be reason to make trilogies like Lord of the Rings because it won't even make enough money to cover initial expenses.
They could still be made, but it would require a business model which did not involve borrowing money. The movie company would need to raise the money before making the film from some source or other.
Actually, the studios are charging the theaters so much to show the crappy films they produce that the theaters have to charge 8.50 and 9 bucks just to break even.
Their profit is more likely to come out of selling expensive soft drinks and popcorn.
I don't understand why idiots even bother downloading cam-rips, the quality is so shit, you're not getting the real film: the angle is wrong, the color is usually gone,
Films are not released everywhere at the same time, most of the potential audience could easily be kept waiting for months to years...
the audio can be good when ripped from source when it's an inside job (ha nowadays an MPAA cop sits in the projection booth, the article claims),
The only way this could possibly work is for everyone with access to the projection area to be an "MPAA cop". You'd need one as "gatekeeper" to every projection box, with enough understanding of projection systems to notice if a film is through both a projector and a tele-cine machine. In some multplexes a single print can be threaded through more than one projector so as to show on several screens at once.
I think you fail to grasp the simple fact that Nuclear Weapons have changed this equation.
They enable small countries to protect themselves againist the threat of invasion. e.g. North Korea
You might one day see another country assume the World leadership role that we currently have
The rest of the World dosn't consider the US to be any kind of leaders.
(I'd wish them all the luck in the world -- I'm sick of my country having to bail out the rest of the world all the time)
More self delusion, especially since the US is responsible for a large proportion of the World's troubles in the first place.
but you will never see the US "fall".
The US could quite easily go the same way as the USSR, collapse economically.
Before that would happen we'd drag the rest of you down with us.
The US isn't that important, in economic terms. Even the use of the US Doller as a trading currency for commodities like oil is not set in stone.