If it doesn't work, there's about 5 other groups working on different ways of getting ODF in Office, so one of them will get it right soon and then Mass can move to ODF.
Somebody else made the excellent analogy to a wheelchair ramp. You can't put up a government building and say "Five groups are working on a wheelchair ramp and one of them will get it right soon."
Anyway, that still begs the question of why this wasn't hammered out a year ago. We're talking about Sun, not a project by a couple of teenagers. They had money for lobbyists; they should have had money for developers.
I just don't buy accessibility argument for few reasons...
It doesn't matter whether or not you "buy" it -- it's a legal requirement.
This whole thing is just comical. Sun bought this sweetheart policy, various crews of open-source fanboys cheerlead for it, but heaven forbid anyone should have thought of this issue beforehand or lifted a finger to address it since. (Sneering at Groklaw idiots aside, I'm genuinely surprised that no one has solved this problem yet. Even if you don't buy into the wilder notions of The Magical Power Of Open Source, it seems like there are enough pieces out there to get something workable going.)
BTW, your faux-British persona would benefit from spelling "bollocks" correctly...
I remember walking into the lobby of Red Hat's headquarters two years ago when I showed up for my job interview, and in big letters, the first thing you see is "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
I'm accustomed to people throwing that line around all the time, usually acting like they just happened to be reading some Gandhi and stumbled across this line they thought might be of interest, usually misspelling the man's name, and usually invoking it in the sense of "People laugh at me so Lunix is gonna win!"
But what kind of company does that?!? Do they wear "Question Authority" pins, also?
I think the GP's point is that all these secondary 'misses' are just another way to keep the google brand (and google search and adwords) front in center in Internet culture.
Maybe, but Google stock isn't trading at a P/E of 56 because all their new ventures are supposed to be loss-leaders for AdWords...
Well, it depends what you mean by "matters". Does it hurt Google to keep churning out one unprofitable GWhatever-beta after another? Not really, as long as they have their choice of new hires and are paying them with overpriced stock.
But if you own that overpriced stock on the premise that Google is going to keep generating new businesses to complement the only thing they have that makes them money -- then it matters whether GWhatever turns a profit or not.
Re:What will make KDE the perfect desktop...
on
KDE 3.5.4 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually, on Gentoo you can install: 1) "kde", which gives you everything and seems to be what he's done, 2) the various KDE packages, like you're saying, or 3) individual applications, which seems to be what he wants.
Recently a non-techie friend asked me if his ipod could "talk" to my Zen Mirco:M so he could borrow some music for a few days...and after our discussion, she was flabbergasted that she had been locked into iTunes and how her rights and freedoms were restricted by its DRM.
Putting aside your friend's sex change in the middle of this conversation -- what "rights and freedoms" are involved in not being able to "borrow" copyrighted music?
Considering it was hilarious, I think it worked out perfectly.
Only if Colbert had previously vandalized the Wikipedia definition of "hilarious". Actually, for most of Comedy Central that would probably be a shrewd strategy.
You think that reporters should be punished for "damaging the reputation of government?"
Please note that I said no such thing; you invented words and stuck them in quotation marks.
My point has nothing to do with how reporters should be treated (which, of course, isn't the same as what the law currently is). It's that people whose industry is heavily dependent on receiving leaked information might have been more cautious about demanding that a leaker be tracked down by any means possible just to do some short-term damage to the Bush administration. They set a precedent that's going to create huge headaches for them in the long run.
Oddly enough, while your post is sort of the conventional wisdom on the Plame leak controversy, you actually have it backwards....Thus, the leak issue came up not because the media was obsessed with damaging the Bush administration, but because the government's prosecutor was determined to get to the bottom of the case (for whatever reason).
Your clarification about Judith Miller is correct; the above is simply absurd.
As always when reading this stuff, my first thought was that the media shouldn't have gotten so obsessed with damaging the Bush administration over the Plame "scandal" nonsense that they demanded that punishing leakers take priority over all else.
Then upon reading the story -- it's the same reporter!?! At least it doesn't look like she's headed back to jail this time.
I'd initially figured they'd skied three feet of fresh powder before driving down to the courtroom to file, but I think it's just some Groklaw dork making his hourly reference to SCO.
Hey, compared to this morning's Ask Slashdot: "What is this World coming to? Do you think they went to far?", it's solid journalism.
Sooo, Mr. Otter, been surfing any teen sex sites lately?
Heh, humiliation 1, me 0.
In all seriousness, though -- I posted that from my work computer on a strongly censored network. If that ad is based on my cache, there's something seriously wrong either with Google or somebody's keyword purchase.
Teen Sex Addict Treatment
Pine Creek - Teen Sexual Addiction Residential Treatment Program
www.pinecreekranch.org
Because the teenagers drooling over 64x SLI hardware are having so darn much sex that ordinary therapy isn't enough! They need to be packed off to a ranch so a team of experts can dial back their sex lives!
Either Google needs to add a few more PhD's or someone isn't spending his ad budget wisely...
I could explain it, but more importantly, have you actually read Ted Stevens' statement? It's not just the "tubes" reference, that's part of a much larger completely moronic rant.
I have, and it absolutely is. It was good for a laugh at the time, but like all tedious Internet comedy, it was run into the ground within minutes but will be dragged out for years.
Speaking of Internet comedy, could somebody with points please mod up the AC comment about the Seven Tube Model?
An interesting point I saw recently (in Forbes, I think) is that this issue is perfect for politicians to keep fighting out. There's an enormous pile of money from lobbyists on both sides, a handful of nerds and Google suckups are the only votes to lose on one side and there are none to lose on the other. So why not keep it going as long and as loudly as possible?
As long as I'm posting -- is this Ted Stevens "tubes" stuff not becoming as annoying as flying spaghetti and chair throwing references? It's not like more than a handful of those smarmy dweebs could actually explain to you how IP or Ethernet really does work.
It's not clear me to whether you do or don't realize this -- what you're complaining we have too much or too little of is precisely the opposite of the assertion made in the article. That "fashion trumps form" is exactly what it's calling for.
Anyway, someone else hit it on the nose: that "gonzo" stuff was clever for maybe a year or two, decades ago. Wanting more of it is like wishing more people would wear raccoon coats and do the Charleston. Actually, I'd much rather have that than a new Lester Bangs.
Incidentally, regarding "That is, unlike Microsoft Office's 'track changes,' files protected with 'Previous Versions' will not carry their documentary history with them":
You use the Remove Hidden Data add-in to get rid of all that Office stuff. Strongly recommended before submitting a resume...
By that logic, we should also ban Harvard Medical School from researching with cadavers...
Cadaver use, and anything else related to human or other mammalian research *is* tightly regulated. And yet nobody thinks IRB's are part of The War On Science (TM). I don't agree with the federal funding ban, but a bioethics debate and a factual issue like evolution versus creationism are completely different things and the fact that people treat them interchangeably makes it clear how little they're motivated by science.
The answer here is the same as the answer to most of these "Why don't the video card makers...?" questions: The reality is that the number of Linux users concerned with high-end 3D performance and objecting to binary drivers is simply to small to be worth worrying about. As others have noted, software drivers have enormous advantages -- there's simply no economic reason to forgo them to please a handful of politicized Linux users.
Slashdot Mirror
Somebody else made the excellent analogy to a wheelchair ramp. You can't put up a government building and say "Five groups are working on a wheelchair ramp and one of them will get it right soon."
Anyway, that still begs the question of why this wasn't hammered out a year ago. We're talking about Sun, not a project by a couple of teenagers. They had money for lobbyists; they should have had money for developers.
It doesn't matter whether or not you "buy" it -- it's a legal requirement.
This whole thing is just comical. Sun bought this sweetheart policy, various crews of open-source fanboys cheerlead for it, but heaven forbid anyone should have thought of this issue beforehand or lifted a finger to address it since. (Sneering at Groklaw idiots aside, I'm genuinely surprised that no one has solved this problem yet. Even if you don't buy into the wilder notions of The Magical Power Of Open Source, it seems like there are enough pieces out there to get something workable going.)
BTW, your faux-British persona would benefit from spelling "bollocks" correctly...
I think the OP's point is that Zhou is claiming (for what that's worth) that no one resisted the temptation.
I'm accustomed to people throwing that line around all the time, usually acting like they just happened to be reading some Gandhi and stumbled across this line they thought might be of interest, usually misspelling the man's name, and usually invoking it in the sense of "People laugh at me so Lunix is gonna win!"
But what kind of company does that?!? Do they wear "Question Authority" pins, also?
Maybe, but Google stock isn't trading at a P/E of 56 because all their new ventures are supposed to be loss-leaders for AdWords...
Whether or not one agrees with that, what does it have to do with my point?
But if you own that overpriced stock on the premise that Google is going to keep generating new businesses to complement the only thing they have that makes them money -- then it matters whether GWhatever turns a profit or not.
Actually, on Gentoo you can install: 1) "kde", which gives you everything and seems to be what he's done, 2) the various KDE packages, like you're saying, or 3) individual applications, which seems to be what he wants.
Putting aside your friend's sex change in the middle of this conversation -- what "rights and freedoms" are involved in not being able to "borrow" copyrighted music?
Only if Colbert had previously vandalized the Wikipedia definition of "hilarious". Actually, for most of Comedy Central that would probably be a shrewd strategy.
Please note that I said no such thing; you invented words and stuck them in quotation marks.
My point has nothing to do with how reporters should be treated (which, of course, isn't the same as what the law currently is). It's that people whose industry is heavily dependent on receiving leaked information might have been more cautious about demanding that a leaker be tracked down by any means possible just to do some short-term damage to the Bush administration. They set a precedent that's going to create huge headaches for them in the long run.
Your clarification about Judith Miller is correct; the above is simply absurd.
He said it already -- he knows the news is fiction because a fictional movie said so.
Then upon reading the story -- it's the same reporter!?! At least it doesn't look like she's headed back to jail this time.
Hey, compared to this morning's Ask Slashdot: "What is this World coming to? Do you think they went to far?", it's solid journalism.
Heh, humiliation 1, me 0.
In all seriousness, though -- I posted that from my work computer on a strongly censored network. If that ad is based on my cache, there's something seriously wrong either with Google or somebody's keyword purchase.
Either Google needs to add a few more PhD's or someone isn't spending his ad budget wisely...
I have, and it absolutely is. It was good for a laugh at the time, but like all tedious Internet comedy, it was run into the ground within minutes but will be dragged out for years.
Speaking of Internet comedy, could somebody with points please mod up the AC comment about the Seven Tube Model?
As long as I'm posting -- is this Ted Stevens "tubes" stuff not becoming as annoying as flying spaghetti and chair throwing references? It's not like more than a handful of those smarmy dweebs could actually explain to you how IP or Ethernet really does work.
Anyway, someone else hit it on the nose: that "gonzo" stuff was clever for maybe a year or two, decades ago. Wanting more of it is like wishing more people would wear raccoon coats and do the Charleston. Actually, I'd much rather have that than a new Lester Bangs.
You use the Remove Hidden Data add-in to get rid of all that Office stuff. Strongly recommended before submitting a resume...
Cadaver use, and anything else related to human or other mammalian research *is* tightly regulated. And yet nobody thinks IRB's are part of The War On Science (TM). I don't agree with the federal funding ban, but a bioethics debate and a factual issue like evolution versus creationism are completely different things and the fact that people treat them interchangeably makes it clear how little they're motivated by science.
The answer here is the same as the answer to most of these "Why don't the video card makers...?" questions: The reality is that the number of Linux users concerned with high-end 3D performance and objecting to binary drivers is simply to small to be worth worrying about. As others have noted, software drivers have enormous advantages -- there's simply no economic reason to forgo them to please a handful of politicized Linux users.
I'm not anti-Linux, I use Linux where it's appropriate, but in this case it's just going to make them even more dependent on you.
Obligatory: That's because they already saw it on Digg!