From your post, I'd gather that you don't think college is particularly worthwhile;
Quite the contrary, my dear fellow. It just depends on which college and what major. I know of several graduates in absolutely stupid fields who can't find jobs. Why? Because their fields are worthless, that's why! And I'm not talking CS, EE, or any other really nice degree. The people I'm referring to go degrees in obscure literature, psychology, or history. These people went with those degrees not because of a booming job demand for them but because it was a field they thought was neat. That is my definition of a worthless degree; if someone is unwilling to pay you a good wage in the field you chose to specialize in, you're an idiot.
You want a good degree today? Biotech. It's hard to beat right now, and the level of competition for jobs is pretty good for someone looking straight out of college.
Personally, I don't think that's a good thing--a good college education is about thinking,
Ha! Now there's a debatable conclusion! My education at Georgia Tech consisted mainly of profs trying to beat all the creativity out of the students, making them into cookie-cutter programmers. Individual thought was the last thing they wanted. Might've made the profs look bad, you know.
even if a lot of it is academic and the whole thing is sheltered
Sheltered economically and pyschologically, I'd say
because most college students aren't paying their own way (although many are mortaging their lives against their educations).
Very true. That's why I refused to take any loans whatsoever and worked my way through school. I also enlisted in the Marines and enjoyed GI Bill benefits. Between the two, I got a good education, great discipline, an expanded view of the world, and no long-term loan debt. It was tough, but anything worth having is worth working hard for, is it not?
Higher education is important enough for our country that this should not happen. College should not just be for the independently wealthy.
Ah, the wonderful class warfare argument. Did you know that I worked my way through college on my own money? You see, my family made about $60,000 per year, which pretty much disqualified me from receiving any sort of grant or free assistance...because we were considered "rich." Oh, there are plenty of programs available for the blessed poor. You can get a completely free education at Yale or Harvard if you happen to be of the right ethnicity, sex, or economic bracket. In fact, the poorer you are, the better your chances. All you need to have is good grades and good SAT scores. I had both, but I'm a white male from a middle class family...oops, excuse me, a "rich" middle class family. If $60,000 a year between two working parents is considered rich, I'd hate to see what "poor" means. But those wonderful exemptions that kept me from getting any sort of financial assistance were put there by whining, bleeding heart class warfare hawks like you. Gee, how can I ever thank you? I hope you're glad you succeeded in keeping a "rich" kid from getting any help. I should thank you, though, because it taught me the value of hard work and its rewards. It also taught me that class warfare rhetoric is stupid, and is really a cloak for jealousy.
There is no guarantee of a good job, but there should be a reasonable expectation of one if a college education is to be considered valuable to our society.
"Reasonable expectation", yes. Guarantee, no. I can buy a stock tomorrow with a "reasonable expectation" it will appreciate in value. But I'm not guaranteed to make any profit on the stock, and it might actually lose value despite all evidence to the contrary. Regardless of what your professors might try to indoctrinate you with in college, life is risky. What's more, it's good that it's risky. Without risk there is no growth, just an ever-increasing move towards stagnant slothfullness. Risk, and its accompanying reward, is what drove the pilgrims to colonize the New World. It's what drove us to explore the moon. One day, it will be what drives us to expand into the cosmos. But if we're handed everything on a silver platter, "guaranteed" that we'll have success no matter how mediocre our efforts are, the desire to take risk and seek reward will wither. What a pitiful species of life we will become if that ever comes to pass.
Perhaps one way it would benefit me is if I were born into money, or had bags of money invested in stocks (as in, more money than a middle class worker makes in 20 years), or were part of the ol' boys club. If any of these were true, then it would take very little imagination to see how outsourcing would help me.
Ah, the old "I wasn't born to privilege, so I'm stuck!" argument. Too bad it's just a cop-out.
I encourage you to read "Dave's Way" by Dave Thomas, founder of the Wendy's fast food chain. Dave, an orphan with no money, worked his way into wealth and power. It was hard, and he had to make many hard choices, but he perservered and made something of himself. There's nothing standing between you and success except your own sense of limitations. Don't like where you are in life? Get out there and try to improve yourself. There are millions of people with billions of problems out there just waiting for someone to come up with an idea to solve them. Why not try to do some of that yourself and see if someone will pay you for it? You've nothing to lose by trying.
Of course, it is easier to sit around and blame others. That's recently become "the American way" to complain. But it's a cop-out. YOU decide whether you succeed or fail, not someone else. If you're handed a setback, it's up to YOU whether you sit down and cry about it or whether you get up, dust yourself off, and try, try again. The former is destined for mediocrity, the latter is destined for success. Which camp do YOU belong in?
Prices are determined depending on what the market is willing to pay. Costs have very little to do witht this sort of thing, besides a general floor where companies don't want to lower prices below.
You are assuming no competition, and that is rarely the case especially when viewed in the context of an international market.
Example: Indian widget assemblers are willing to work for 1/5th the wage of an American widget assembler. The Indian company employing Indian workers has an 80% lower manpower cost compared to the American widget producer. The Indian company can (a) use lower pricing to force the American company out of business, (b) keep pricing steady and enjoy a higher profit margin than the American company, allowing it greater business freedom in the future, or (c) some combination of the two. But no matter what, the American company loses out if it employs nothing but Americans due to higher labor costs.
This whole thing is based on the principle of supply and demand, which itself is based on the more fundamental principles of nature. The more you have of something, generally the less worth it represents. While programming expertise was relatively centralized in the U.S., we enjoyed a localized shortage of labor and thus higher wages. Recognizing the wealth to be had in technology jobs, India (and other countries) embarked on a crash program to increase the education and skill levels of their citizens. The result: there is no longer a shortage of technology workers worldwide, so wages begin to "equalize." Given that the standard of living in India is far below that of the U.S., a king's ransom in India is generally less than what a minimum-wage burger flipper makes in the U.S. Companies anywhere are silly to not seek the most cost-effective labor they can find, and if American companies were somehow prevented from doing so by some idiotic law, you can be foreign companies will take advantage of the situation. A temporary, short-term respite of American outsourcing would lead to a long-term destruction of those very same industries due to foreign competition. The only thing that can forestall that would be trade barriers, which are politically and economically stupid in the long run as well.
Look, we might as well face it: we (Americans) have no right to try and enforce some kind of monopoly position on technical work. If Indians want our jobs and are willing to work for less, that's their right. We, as Americans, must now figure out a way to cope with the new status quo. Why is everyone so afraid of change? Is hard work really that abhorrent that we Americans just can't cope without running to the goverment crying "save me! save me!" ?
but have no guarantees of good jobs when they graduate, Barrett remarks 'I don't have a solution to that one.'"
"Guarantees" of a good job? Give me a break! Nobody is guaranteed anything in life, nor should they be.
Look, I got laid off by the dot com crash three years ago and it took me nearly a year to find new work. Did I whine and moan about how I should've been "guaranteed" a good job? No! I made the choice to leave a larger, slower company to join a smaller, faster one with an eye towards more money and rapid advancement. When it came to a halt, I had no one to blame but myself. Nobody put a gun to my head and said "hey, leave this stable job for a riskier one!"
For that matter, these college grads who are complaining about poor job prospects should think for a moment (something college, of course, consistently discourages in graduates). Um, who put a gun to their heads and forced them to become Computer Science majors? Answer: NOBODY. It might have seemed a good choice four years ago when things were still kinda booming, but thems the breaks. Sometimes you do everything right and you still fail. That is not a lack of a guarantee, that is life. I know that's a radically uncomfortable concept for a twentysomething college grad, but they'd better get used to it.
As for outsourcing, I'm all for it if it makes financial sense for the company. We as consumers benefit from outsourcing in the form of lower prices. If price savings aren't carried over to consumers, we can still benefit from increased corporate profit margins by becoming stockholders in that company. Regardless, companies have no law preventing them from outsourcing, and any such law would very likely be unconstitutional in the first place.
Quit whining about outsourcing and start looking for ways you can benefit from it. It will require effort, intelligence, judgement skills, and hard work, so it's likely college grads will be totally out of their element. But it's better to get started early on understanding how life works instead of living in the fantasy world of college for an extended period of time. If you fail a course in life, rarely is there a makeup test.
The thing is, though, we're not just looking at random in the desert; we have access to pretty much all his records, and we haven't found anything that even suggests that he had or wanted to get WMDs.
But you still haven't answered the basic question: if we can't find them, where did they go? What we have here is a very simple solution set: either Iraq possessed WMD's at some point in the last 25 years or they didn't. Pictures of gassed Kurds and records from the Iran-Iraq war pretty much rule out the latter, so the former must be true. He had the weapons. And not all of them were used up in the Iran-Iraq war, and not all of them were destroyed in the Gulf War. The U.N. itself indicated Saddam retained significant quantities of liquid anthrax as well as the potential to produce more, hence the 12 resolutions demanding he either (a) turn over the weapons or (b) provide evidence they were destroyed. He chose to do neither and, despite all the prattling by liberals and appeasers throughout the world, that refusal alone was all that was needed to execute the "or else" clause of the U.N. resolution. Understand that it was not our burden to prove these weapons existed, it was Saddam's burden to prove they didn't exist. Go read the U.N. resolution. There is no equivocation. That's how it's written.
If you'll remember, Iraq was becomming increasinly more compliant with letting weapons inspectors in. Perhaps we could have answered that if we'd let them continue instead of taking over and bombing the place into oblivion.
If I felt the U.N.'s true aim was to find these weapons instead of prolonging the corruption-ridden Oil-For-Food program (of which France, Germany, Russia, and even Kofi Annan's own son have been implicated in receiving multimillion-dollar bribes) I might agree with you. However, I'll point out again that Saddam was requird to come clean on where all his weapons were within 90 days of the 1991 cease-fire agreement. The U.N. gave him twelve years instead, and showed no sign whatsoever towards actually enforcing the resolutions it passed. The U.K., France, and the rest of the Allies came up with really convenient excuses to not do anything when Hitler marched into the Rhineland. They did nothing when he took over Austria. They did nothing when he took over Czechoslovakia. Finally, when Germany had been sufficiently emboldened by the lassitude of the Allies, Hitler invaded Poland and kicked off the bloodiest war in the history of humanity. Saddam's defiance of the U.N., and the U.N.'s unwillingness to do anything about it, was getting worse, not better.
No. I jump to the conclusion that they don't exist anymore. And there is evidence to back me up.
Where is your evidence, then? Lack of proof is not proof of lack. I will remind you again of the language of U.N. resolution 1441. It contains no provisions requiring the U.N. to prove anything. It does, however, contain provisions requiring Saddam to prove his lack of said weapons. He refuse to do so. The consequence was invasion. There is no equivocation here. That's how it's written.
What, we would have just sat there and let him take over large swaths of earth?
The world sat by while Hitler started nibbling at Europe, but eventually they did do something...about five years too late. The consequences of waiting until Hitler had re-armed, rebuilt, and re-energized the nationalistic base of his supporters were catastrophic for the entire world. Had the Allies stepped in and stopped Hitler back when he first violated the Versailles treaty, much bloodshed might've been spared. But, having been spared, we wouldn't have the historical perspective we have today. I would hope the human race could learn from such an example, but it seems clear it cannot.
Either way, let's suppose we did intervene after Saddam had nukes, biological, and chemical weapons. At a st
Ok, you got me. I don't re-read Microsoft.com each week, so I was unaware that those specifications had been published FOUR DAYS AGO. And yet, that still doesn't damage my central point: that XML is not an open format.
I never once said it was open, you fool, I said it was available for everyone, with the end result being you can get your documents to open in anything that will read and parse the XML Office document.
So, all your prattling up to this point is finally shot down, and what do you say? "It's not open! Microsoft could take away my toys! Waaaaaah!" You move from one indefensible point to another one with amazing ease. Nothing satisfies you. Even if Microsoft makes some baby steps towards opening things up, it's not good enough for you, you won't give them credit for it at all. Instead you whine and moan about how it's not open. There are plenty of binary-only pieces of software for Linux that are anything but open, but do I hear you castigating these vendors? Nope, you single out Microsoft for your ire. Typical.
To go back to the more specific topic of Microsoft file formats: if they used XML, you could probably parse out their data. You'd know what each of the variables in the file was set to. You might even know what each variable was called, if the XML or DTD is verbose enough. But you still don't know what they do.
Ah, yes, but if you had the documentation from Microsoft explaining what each tag meant, your entire house of cards comes crashing down. And it just so happens that this format is documented and is freely available to third-party developers. This was done with the intention of allowing document management applications better insight into the content and formatting of Office documents, as well as integration into databases and anything else you might imagine.
So, we have the XML standard itself which is well known. We have the file consisting of tags and data. And we have the specs telling you what each tag means and how to interpret the data within. Forgive my bluntness, but this kind of blows your whole thread to smithereens.
No, you are either purposefully misunderstanding the definition of "parse" or you're just too ignorant to understand. My usage of "parse" means to read and understand the contents of the file. If you save a Microsoft Word document in XML format (remembering you need the Pro version in order to do that), you can open and understand that XML document with any application that understands the tags and structure of the file. Again, the specifications for Office documents saved in XML format are open to everyone. Microsoft's reason for doing this is to allow third-party document management applications to seamlessly integrate with Office documents. With the standard.DOC,.XLS, etc. files, you can't do that very well. Since any third party can get the XML format documentation from Microsoft, anyone can write an import filter for it. This includes OpenOffice, StarOffice, or whatever else. Oops! You're wrong!
That's another invalid assumption. XML does nothing (and can do nothing) to guarantee that the attached documentation is correct or complete, or if it even exists at all.
Your ignorance of this matter is so astounding I'm shocked you felt the need to comment on the thread. Get it through your head: the document is saved as a collection of tags and data, where the tags are formatted in accordance with the standard specs for XML. If you have such an XML document, and you have the specifications for what each tag means and how the data is arranged, you can correctly interpret the file. Oops! I did it again! You're wrong! My heart bleeds for you!
It would be valid XML, for example, for each tag to be documented with a page number in a trade-secret book accessible only to Microsoft employees.
Indeed it would be. What you're missing here is this "trade-secret book" is, in fact, available to anyone. Oops! Three strikes! You're wrong! Thanks for playing, but you don't win any prize.
Obviously, we haven't found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We haven't found any WMD programs. Right now, we're trying, and failing to find "WMD program related activities."
I'll point out that a bioweapons lab large capable of producing enough anthrax to annihilate a small city would be no larger than a truck trailer. We're still finding MiG's buried in the desert. Iraq is nearly 200,000 sq. miles in area. How hard would it be to hide something like that? If I told you there was a buried trailer somewhere in California with $1 million in it for you, and that's all you had to go on, how long would it take you to find it? Would you be so quick to say it doesn't exist?
Further, there is documented proof Hussein had WMD's at some point. The pictures of dead women and children in northern Iraq are irrefutable. Hussein had a lot of those weapons. Now we can't find them. Where did they go? If they were destroyed, why did Hussein refuse to provide proof of such? And they weren't beamed up by the starship Enterprise. The question you should be asking is "where did they go?" not "why did we invade in the first place?"
Again, Iraq had no WMDs, and showed no indication at all of wanting to attack us.
I point to my previous statement. Iraq did have the weapons as late as the early 90's. We know this from chemical residues found in bombed-out weapons bunkers. But there weren't enough bunkers found to account for all the stuff he had acquired during the Iran-Iraq war...and we know how much he had because we gave some of it to him. Again, where did it go? It didn't get used up in the war. It didn't get poured down the drain. Where did it go? You can't answer that question, so you just jump to the nearest, most naive conclusion: they never existed. Too bad there's ample proof to prove you wrong. The WMD's may not be in Iraq anymore, but they're somewhere.
As for Saddam's intentions to attack us, I would hope you wouldn't be so shallow as to assume Hussein could only affect the U.S. by engaging in direct warfare. If the 1990 invasion of Kuwait had been backed up by nuclear weapons, it would've been far more dangerous to kick Saddam out of Kuwait...perhaps so dangerous that we wouldn't have done it. Then he could've moved on to Saudi Arabia and other major oil-producing nations. After gaining control of 4/5th's of the world's oil supply, he could dictate whatever terms he desired to the rest of the world. The resemblance to Hitler nibbling away at Czechoslovakia peacefully before forcibly conquering Poland is uncanny. And Hussein was known to be an admirer of Hitler. I'm sure the lesson wasn't lost on him, which is why he bullied his neighbors when he could and attacked them when he thought he could get away with it. You seem to keep forgetting that, but I'll keep reminding you of it. But thanks to Bush's actions, we don't have to live through another WWII with another maniacal dictator causing millions of deaths. It may never have come to happen if we hadn't done anything, but now we know for sure it won't.
Problem is, Hussein was never going to be "strong, bold, and have the initiative." He was the dictator of a small, poverty-ridden, country in which there were (at least) three very opposed different populations.
I suppose it would be ridiculous for me to point out that, when Hitler came into power, Germany was a small, poverty-ridden country in which there were many different political factions (Democrats, Fascists, and Communists at the very least, as well as a religious party) vying for power.
The argument you're presenting is strikingly similar to the arguments I hear from clients about buying a UPS or tape backup system. If you buy the UPS, it may prevent a multimillion dollar computer outage at some point in the future. But if you prevent it, it never happens, and the beancounters will scream "but we spent $100,000 on this UPS and nothing happened!" If Saddam Hussein were destined to produce nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, then use them to blackmail the rest of the world on his terms, a pre-emptive invasion may have saved the world much hardship and bloodshed years from now. Instead, everyone's complaining he wasn't a threat. I'm just glad he got taken out before he was an imminent threat. We let Hitler germinate and it cost 100 million lives.
Ability to parse is not the same as ability to use. I'm able to parse French. I know all the letters. But I'm unable to use it. I could use it if I get a dictionary. However there is no dictionary for Microsoft XML available.
You misunderstand the use of the term "parse." If you were a developer thinking in developer terms, your ability to parse an XML file would mean you can read the file and logically understand the contents of it (tags, data, etc.). Since the tags are documented, you have no reason to be unable to understand the file. Unless, of course, you're just not trying very hard.
XML is not Microsoft format.
And I'll give you the DUH! Awards of the Century for that comment. The W3C may define how XML works, but the contents of the file can be anything you want. This is one of the great flexibility advantages of XML, that it can hold pretty much any kind of data.
MS documents are sometimes (e.g. format of.doc is not) accessible but they are not open - you can't contribute.
SOOO????? How does this prevent you from being able to open and use an XML-saved Word document on a FOSS platform? The answer: it doesn't. You're never satisfied, are you? People complained about Microsoft having closed document formats, so Microsoft opened them and made them interchangeable with other packages. Now you're complaining because you can't tell Microsoft what tags to put in their format. At what point does this diverge from being a way to get documents on more platforms and instead become a jihad to castigate Microsoft for anything and everything, at all times, no matter what? For crying out loud, give them some credit for doing something interchangeable!
Flat-out wrong. The ability to parse a file doesn't imply that you can understand it!
parse ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pärs) v. parsed, parsing, parses v. tr. 1. To break down into its component parts with an explanation of the form, function, and syntactical relationship of each part.
So, tell me, if parsing isn't understanding the file, exactly what is your definition of parsing?
By "spine", I assume you mean strictness or aggression. But actually, for optimal results, the Allies (US+UK+France) should've been more gentle earlier. Then WWII never would've happened. (I wouldn't expect you to understand what I mean without an uncommon knowledge of history)
That's a very good argument, and I respect it. Had WWI been ended differently, German animosity towards everyone else may not have existed, and Hitler might not have been able to tap that hatred and desperation to fuel the nationalism that led to WWII.
However, I could make the counter-argument that had the Allies had a more pre-emptive policy towards pre-WWI German aggression, WWI might not have happened. That would invalidate your position. This is supposition, of course, but history shows that strong nations who mean business are rarely challenged by intelligent opponents. It it better to be feared or to be loved? Given human nature, I'd rather be feared since you can rarely count on being universally loved.
Regardless of whether or not you wish to deem it an acceptable file format, it is a file format that would allow anyone to open anywhere on any platform using any software, assuming that said software could properly parse the XML file. And the ability to parse that data is assured, since the file format is documented by Microsoft -- documents open to anyone and everyone, free of charge.
By the time the USA took up arms against Hitler, he certainly wasn't imminent anymore- he was active. He'd already invaded 6 different US allies by the time they decided to join the fight against Germany.
One is taken to wondering just how different things might've been if we'd shown more spine earlier as opposed to picking up the pieces later. Hundreds of thousands of lives might've been saved if Hitler had just known the Allies meant business. Instead, we sat around and let him get away with one international violation after another, each one emboldening him to take the next step. Churchill once said "At one point, a memo would've stopped Hitler." We stopped Saddam, but now we're being castigated for it. I imagine the same naysayers would've been present had we put a stop to Nazism back when it was in a nascent stage.
Your argument that Hitler was "active" gives lie to the silliness of avoiding pre-emptive warfare. Which is smarter, fighting a war when your enemy is weak or waiting until he is strong, bold, and has the initiative? Naysayers cling to the idea that pre-emptive war is folly. It's pity they haven't learned from history, because if they had their way, we'd all be doomed to repeat it.
Not to long ago there was a push for Microsoft to adopt open file formats for their office suite. They naturally didn't follow through.
This is not true. Microsoft did adopt an open file format: XML. However, it is not available in any Office suite except the uber-expensive Professional version. Standard and Basic version do not get it. So, effectively, Microsoft gets to keep their file-format monopoly because the very people most likely to want an open format are the people who'll be least likely to be able to afford it.
It will get to where you want it to be, just be patient and give the developers the time to do what they want to do when they want to do it.
You know, the funny thing is that if this comment were being made about Microsoft, people would be screaming at you. But since it's being made about Linux, nobody says a word. Nope, no double standard here.
As for choice, you're absolutely right. Users have a choice between a proprietary, commercial OS that does what they want, when they want it, and how they want it, with all the software they need, and an open-source, free OS that is difficult to install, difficult to maintain, almost impossible to find support for (for the average user) and has none of the software they're used to.
And people wonder why Linux isn't catching on at the home user and desktop level any better than it is. And while you're busy giving Linux developers "time to do what they want to do when they want to do it," Microsoft is busy improving its offering, making its OS more stable, more secure, and more appealing. No, I don't care to wait, thank you.
Linux needs to decide whether or not it wants to remain a hobbyist OS or if it wants to play with the big boys. If it chooses the former then developers can play all they want, forget documentation, forget usability design, forget discipline. If it chooses the latter then people are going to have to buckle down and do work they don't really enjoy doing. As in society, somebody has to cook the fries, dig the ditches, and take out the trash. If Linux developers are unwilling to do what it takes to get to the next level of success, Linux neither deserves nor will it enjoy that success.
First of all, learning code is not a bad thing, unless it is forced. Before you judge us, why don't you try being one of us?
Perhaps because (a) I have a job to do that needs to get done and doesn't involve programming, and (b) I have a life outside of my work that doesn't give me time to learn C++, Perl, Python, or anything else for that matter. I think you'll find that about 90% of the computing world falls into a similar category as me.
Look, if you want to say "it's free, so you have no right to gripe" then you need to stop saying "but we're so much better than Microsoft." The two statements are mutually incompatible when you consider that average users value the features and ease of use that Windows gives them and don't need, like, or understand the "advantages" Linux gives them -- along with poor interfaces, shoddy documentation, and spotty support.
Microsoft may have lots of flaws, but to the average user, it's Linux that has the flaws that matter to them. Users can put up with bugs and crashes every now and then (and with XP/2003, crashes are exceedingly rare) but they won't put up with difficult, obtuse, cryptic interfaces.
Linux developers need to understand that they are not the average user. Things that are easy for them are difficult for other people, and vice versa. What is perfectly obvious to a C++ coder is pure arcana to a secretary or accountant. But instead of realizing this basic, unarguable fact, Linux developers just scream "Windows users are lusers!" and "Linux is the best there is!" and "If you're too stupid to learn C++, Perl, Python, Java, etc. then you shouldn't be using a computer in the first place." Don't attempt to deny it. It happens right here on Slashdot all too regularly. Even experts in Linux get tripped up by things as simple as setting up a networked printer. Something is wrong, but everybody's so busy screaming about how bad Microsoft is that nobody notices. Perhaps it's intentional, because it's easier to point out someone else's flaws than it is to acknowledge your own.
What's wrong with it? Well, at the most base level, nothing's wrong with it. However, if you decide to stop at mediocrity (and no matter how good your code is, if the user can't use it, you've produced at best a mediocre product), you have no right to whine and moan about how unfair it is that Microsoft sells so much software when OSS is "obviously" the better choice. When nobody ports major applications to Linux, you have your attitude to blame. When Microsoft gets its act together (and they're already well on the way) and continues improving Windows and copying every valuable feature present in Linux, you have your attitude to blame. When Linux becomes a footnote in OS history instead of a chapter unto itself, you have your attitude to blame. When Microsoft overcomes this momentary blip known as Linux because the damned Linux coders were just too smug, too superior, and too damned stubborn to accomodate anyone but themselves, you have your attitude to blame. FOSS will fail all because the people who claimed to be all about freedom and utility for everyone were, at their core, self-centered assholes who enjoy coding what's enjoyable but won't move a millimeter beyond that unless there's something in it for them. So much for the idea of software altruism, something I see trumpeted on Slashdot time and time again. Do as I say and not as I do? That seems to be the prevailing attitude among FOSS coders. It's probably because the vast majority of them have yet to grow up.
What I'm really saying is that the FOSS movement is full of hypocrites (which should be obvious to anyone who reads Slashdot, which is infested with FOSS proponents). You gripe about Windows being such a diseased OS, but you refuse to address the problems in Linux. You claim Microsoft does a disservice by ignoring its customers, but you at the same time blame the end user for their inability to understand your cryptic, obtuse, confusing GUI (if you even bother building one). There are endless examples of the pot calling the kettle black here, but the pot never figures out it has a similar albedo.
And the griping about Microsoft's pricing remains, as if Linux had some great advantage there. If WinXP costs $200, but the user uses it for two years, the monthly cost of owning that OS is $8.34. You spend more than that on lunch and breakfast each day. When faced with those economics, buyers really don't see the advantage in "free" software that has a poor interface, spotty (or arrogant) support, and little or no documentation (or, worse, incorrect documentation).
But Linux and FOSS proponents are just so sure they've got a superior product, and they're just so sure that everyone who uses Windows is a damned fool, a sellout to Microsoft, or worse. Could it be that the real idiots are the FOSS proponents who are too blind to see their own shortcomings? Or, worse, they see them but are too stubborn and self-centered to care?
If you don't like it, extend it, fix it, or hire someone to do so. Don't dump your personal application requirements on community members who are just trying to share what they have.
So what you're really saying is "hey, you didn't have to pay for it, so just sit there and shut up about how bad it is. We don't care about your problems with it and we're not going to fix it. If you think you know so much, why don't you go fix it?"
And people wonder why average users consider OSS proponents to be arrogant and egocentric?
Nothing pisses me off more than someone who demands the world for free, then bitches and whines because they can't have it without putting in an effort.
And some people, instead of putting in that effort, will choose to simply buy proprietary software right off the shelf that does what they want, how they want it, and without them needing to learn how to program in Perl, Python, C++, and learn the intricacies of vi. And Linux will remain within the reach of only those who have the technical wherewithall to use it or the stubborn patience to learn it (about 5% of the world) while everyone else goes and buys Windows. Linux users feel all smug, superior and happy while Microsoft laughs all the way to the bank.
But hey! Linux users can feel all smug, superior, and happy knowing that they "put in an effort." And that's what's really important at the end of the day, right?
To paraphrase you, nothing pisses me off more than someone so damned unbending and stubborn that they're willing to take a platform I believe in (Linux) and refuse to allow it to mature into something that could displace Microsoft. Instead, you'd prefer we return to the Bad Old Days when users had to conform to the software instead of the other way around, and everyone needed a Computer Science degree in order to work a PC. I'd prefer we move forward instead of backwards, embracing new users and accomodating them. You'd rather we just slap them around and chastise them for not picking up a C++ and learning how to program. Elitist, indeed. And ultimately self destructive.
It actually requires more delta-V to soft-land on the Moon than it does to aerobrake and land on Mars.
Very true. But Mars also requires a higher delta-V for escape velocity, and there's that pesky atmosphere creating drag, things you don't have to worry about on the moon. It's a double-edged sword
The experience gained on one isn't transferrable to the other.
Regarding Lunar mining versus Martian mining, you're right. However, setting up a lunar base would give us experience in doing something we've never done before, namely setting up a permanent, ground-based habitation on a hostile world. Given that it's much cheaper and quicker to send something to the moon rather than Mars, the moon is the better place to do beta testing.
The Mars Society is testing out mission concepts by mucking around in deserts, in Nevada and up above the Arctic circle. Going to the moon would not help. While it might be worthwhile in its own right, it is not a stepping stone and should not be represented as such.
I would submit that setting up test environments in the Nevada desert are nowhere near as demanding or unforgiving as something like the moon. History has shown many times that our ability to properly estimate challenges of this magnitude are weak at best. Better to actually build a base on the moon to test our abilities to do so rather than simulate it here and do it for the first time on a planet where help is, at best, nine months away.
Of course not. But the money should not be spent today on a glory shot. It should be spent on R&D towards developing the technology to make moon and/or mars colonization viable. Technology like:
1. Much much much much much cheaper and reliable launch technology. 2. Faster and better propulsion technology. 3. A more sane life-support technology than "more air tanks". 4. A sane plan for dealing with radiation. 5. Better knowledge and study of how to counter the effects of extended periods in micro/zero/low gravity. - and/or a realistic artificial gravity.
You're correct in all your assumptions, but you're missing the overall point here. Why would anyone want to develop technologies one through five? What possible motivation could an aerospace company have to spend all the money and time necessary to research something like item two, a faster propulsion technology? It wouldn't be useful for launching satellites, it would only be useful for interplanetary jaunts. Ergo, if no one is planning interplanetary jaunts, no one is going to research better engines for those jaunts. Classic chicken and egg syndrome.
However, if we establish a permanent presence on the moon, regardless of how humble it might be, there'll be a need for regular runs between Luna and mother Earth. The need to conduct this in better safety, with faster turnaround times and lower costs, would spur propulsion development. Necessity is the mother of invention.
History is replete with examples of such things. Better sail technology gave way to steam engines not because people wanted to build steam engines but because faster travel was economically better. The trend would continue if we'd just let it.
And if only you didn't so readily believe all the "things are going so bad in Iraq" messages the news loves to report, you wouldn't think we're in a "shit-mess" right now. The news thrives on discontent, conflict, scandal, and tragedy. What you don't hear are the success stories, the schools being built, the hospitals, the Iraqis that are celebrating being out from under Saddam's thumb. Regardless of what you think of the U.S., the President, or the war in general, these people are now free to guide their own destinies without fear of being snatched up, tortured, and executed. That is a Good Thing regardless of whether you're a Democrat, Republican, or (like me) a Libertarian.
Your intellectual honesty is to be commended. It's a rare trait that someone will actually admit to a mistake like this, but you have shown yourself to be made of sterner stuff. You have my respect.
Slashdot Mirror
From your post, I'd gather that you don't think college is particularly worthwhile;
Quite the contrary, my dear fellow. It just depends on which college and what major. I know of several graduates in absolutely stupid fields who can't find jobs. Why? Because their fields are worthless, that's why! And I'm not talking CS, EE, or any other really nice degree. The people I'm referring to go degrees in obscure literature, psychology, or history. These people went with those degrees not because of a booming job demand for them but because it was a field they thought was neat. That is my definition of a worthless degree; if someone is unwilling to pay you a good wage in the field you chose to specialize in, you're an idiot.
You want a good degree today? Biotech. It's hard to beat right now, and the level of competition for jobs is pretty good for someone looking straight out of college.
Personally, I don't think that's a good thing--a good college education is about thinking,
Ha! Now there's a debatable conclusion! My education at Georgia Tech consisted mainly of profs trying to beat all the creativity out of the students, making them into cookie-cutter programmers. Individual thought was the last thing they wanted. Might've made the profs look bad, you know.
even if a lot of it is academic and the whole thing is sheltered
Sheltered economically and pyschologically, I'd say
because most college students aren't paying their own way (although many are mortaging their lives against their educations).
Very true. That's why I refused to take any loans whatsoever and worked my way through school. I also enlisted in the Marines and enjoyed GI Bill benefits. Between the two, I got a good education, great discipline, an expanded view of the world, and no long-term loan debt. It was tough, but anything worth having is worth working hard for, is it not?
Higher education is important enough for our country that this should not happen. College should not just be for the independently wealthy.
Ah, the wonderful class warfare argument. Did you know that I worked my way through college on my own money? You see, my family made about $60,000 per year, which pretty much disqualified me from receiving any sort of grant or free assistance...because we were considered "rich." Oh, there are plenty of programs available for the blessed poor. You can get a completely free education at Yale or Harvard if you happen to be of the right ethnicity, sex, or economic bracket. In fact, the poorer you are, the better your chances. All you need to have is good grades and good SAT scores. I had both, but I'm a white male from a middle class family...oops, excuse me, a "rich" middle class family. If $60,000 a year between two working parents is considered rich, I'd hate to see what "poor" means. But those wonderful exemptions that kept me from getting any sort of financial assistance were put there by whining, bleeding heart class warfare hawks like you. Gee, how can I ever thank you? I hope you're glad you succeeded in keeping a "rich" kid from getting any help. I should thank you, though, because it taught me the value of hard work and its rewards. It also taught me that class warfare rhetoric is stupid, and is really a cloak for jealousy.
There is no guarantee of a good job, but there should be a reasonable expectation of one if a college education is to be considered valuable to our society.
"Reasonable expectation", yes. Guarantee, no. I can buy a stock tomorrow with a "reasonable expectation" it will appreciate in value. But I'm not guaranteed to make any profit on the stock, and it might actually lose value despite all evidence to the contrary. Regardless of what your professors might try to indoctrinate you with in college, life is risky. What's more, it's good that it's risky. Without risk there is no growth, just an ever-increasing move towards stagnant slothfullness. Risk, and its accompanying reward, is what drove the pilgrims to colonize the New World. It's what drove us to explore the moon. One day, it will be what drives us to expand into the cosmos. But if we're handed everything on a silver platter, "guaranteed" that we'll have success no matter how mediocre our efforts are, the desire to take risk and seek reward will wither. What a pitiful species of life we will become if that ever comes to pass.
Perhaps one way it would benefit me is if I were born into money, or had bags of money invested in stocks (as in, more money than a middle class worker makes in 20 years), or were part of the ol' boys club. If any of these were true, then it would take very little imagination to see how outsourcing would help me.
Ah, the old "I wasn't born to privilege, so I'm stuck!" argument. Too bad it's just a cop-out.
I encourage you to read "Dave's Way" by Dave Thomas, founder of the Wendy's fast food chain. Dave, an orphan with no money, worked his way into wealth and power. It was hard, and he had to make many hard choices, but he perservered and made something of himself. There's nothing standing between you and success except your own sense of limitations. Don't like where you are in life? Get out there and try to improve yourself. There are millions of people with billions of problems out there just waiting for someone to come up with an idea to solve them. Why not try to do some of that yourself and see if someone will pay you for it? You've nothing to lose by trying.
Of course, it is easier to sit around and blame others. That's recently become "the American way" to complain. But it's a cop-out. YOU decide whether you succeed or fail, not someone else. If you're handed a setback, it's up to YOU whether you sit down and cry about it or whether you get up, dust yourself off, and try, try again. The former is destined for mediocrity, the latter is destined for success. Which camp do YOU belong in?
Err...no..we don't.
Prices are determined depending on what the market is willing to pay. Costs have very little to do witht this sort of thing, besides a general floor where companies don't want to lower prices below.
You are assuming no competition, and that is rarely the case especially when viewed in the context of an international market.
Example: Indian widget assemblers are willing to work for 1/5th the wage of an American widget assembler. The Indian company employing Indian workers has an 80% lower manpower cost compared to the American widget producer. The Indian company can (a) use lower pricing to force the American company out of business, (b) keep pricing steady and enjoy a higher profit margin than the American company, allowing it greater business freedom in the future, or (c) some combination of the two. But no matter what, the American company loses out if it employs nothing but Americans due to higher labor costs.
This whole thing is based on the principle of supply and demand, which itself is based on the more fundamental principles of nature. The more you have of something, generally the less worth it represents. While programming expertise was relatively centralized in the U.S., we enjoyed a localized shortage of labor and thus higher wages. Recognizing the wealth to be had in technology jobs, India (and other countries) embarked on a crash program to increase the education and skill levels of their citizens. The result: there is no longer a shortage of technology workers worldwide, so wages begin to "equalize." Given that the standard of living in India is far below that of the U.S., a king's ransom in India is generally less than what a minimum-wage burger flipper makes in the U.S. Companies anywhere are silly to not seek the most cost-effective labor they can find, and if American companies were somehow prevented from doing so by some idiotic law, you can be foreign companies will take advantage of the situation. A temporary, short-term respite of American outsourcing would lead to a long-term destruction of those very same industries due to foreign competition. The only thing that can forestall that would be trade barriers, which are politically and economically stupid in the long run as well.
Look, we might as well face it: we (Americans) have no right to try and enforce some kind of monopoly position on technical work. If Indians want our jobs and are willing to work for less, that's their right. We, as Americans, must now figure out a way to cope with the new status quo. Why is everyone so afraid of change? Is hard work really that abhorrent that we Americans just can't cope without running to the goverment crying "save me! save me!" ?
but have no guarantees of good jobs when they graduate, Barrett remarks 'I don't have a solution to that one.'"
"Guarantees" of a good job? Give me a break! Nobody is guaranteed anything in life, nor should they be.
Look, I got laid off by the dot com crash three years ago and it took me nearly a year to find new work. Did I whine and moan about how I should've been "guaranteed" a good job? No! I made the choice to leave a larger, slower company to join a smaller, faster one with an eye towards more money and rapid advancement. When it came to a halt, I had no one to blame but myself. Nobody put a gun to my head and said "hey, leave this stable job for a riskier one!"
For that matter, these college grads who are complaining about poor job prospects should think for a moment (something college, of course, consistently discourages in graduates). Um, who put a gun to their heads and forced them to become Computer Science majors? Answer: NOBODY. It might have seemed a good choice four years ago when things were still kinda booming, but thems the breaks. Sometimes you do everything right and you still fail. That is not a lack of a guarantee, that is life. I know that's a radically uncomfortable concept for a twentysomething college grad, but they'd better get used to it.
As for outsourcing, I'm all for it if it makes financial sense for the company. We as consumers benefit from outsourcing in the form of lower prices. If price savings aren't carried over to consumers, we can still benefit from increased corporate profit margins by becoming stockholders in that company. Regardless, companies have no law preventing them from outsourcing, and any such law would very likely be unconstitutional in the first place.
Quit whining about outsourcing and start looking for ways you can benefit from it. It will require effort, intelligence, judgement skills, and hard work, so it's likely college grads will be totally out of their element. But it's better to get started early on understanding how life works instead of living in the fantasy world of college for an extended period of time. If you fail a course in life, rarely is there a makeup test.
The thing is, though, we're not just looking at random in the desert; we have access to pretty much all his records, and we haven't found anything that even suggests that he had or wanted to get WMDs.
But you still haven't answered the basic question: if we can't find them, where did they go? What we have here is a very simple solution set: either Iraq possessed WMD's at some point in the last 25 years or they didn't. Pictures of gassed Kurds and records from the Iran-Iraq war pretty much rule out the latter, so the former must be true. He had the weapons. And not all of them were used up in the Iran-Iraq war, and not all of them were destroyed in the Gulf War. The U.N. itself indicated Saddam retained significant quantities of liquid anthrax as well as the potential to produce more, hence the 12 resolutions demanding he either (a) turn over the weapons or (b) provide evidence they were destroyed. He chose to do neither and, despite all the prattling by liberals and appeasers throughout the world, that refusal alone was all that was needed to execute the "or else" clause of the U.N. resolution. Understand that it was not our burden to prove these weapons existed, it was Saddam's burden to prove they didn't exist. Go read the U.N. resolution. There is no equivocation. That's how it's written.
If you'll remember, Iraq was becomming increasinly more compliant with letting weapons inspectors in. Perhaps we could have answered that if we'd let them continue instead of taking over and bombing the place into oblivion.
If I felt the U.N.'s true aim was to find these weapons instead of prolonging the corruption-ridden Oil-For-Food program (of which France, Germany, Russia, and even Kofi Annan's own son have been implicated in receiving multimillion-dollar bribes) I might agree with you. However, I'll point out again that Saddam was requird to come clean on where all his weapons were within 90 days of the 1991 cease-fire agreement. The U.N. gave him twelve years instead, and showed no sign whatsoever towards actually enforcing the resolutions it passed. The U.K., France, and the rest of the Allies came up with really convenient excuses to not do anything when Hitler marched into the Rhineland. They did nothing when he took over Austria. They did nothing when he took over Czechoslovakia. Finally, when Germany had been sufficiently emboldened by the lassitude of the Allies, Hitler invaded Poland and kicked off the bloodiest war in the history of humanity. Saddam's defiance of the U.N., and the U.N.'s unwillingness to do anything about it, was getting worse, not better.
No. I jump to the conclusion that they don't exist anymore. And there is evidence to back me up.
Where is your evidence, then? Lack of proof is not proof of lack. I will remind you again of the language of U.N. resolution 1441. It contains no provisions requiring the U.N. to prove anything. It does, however, contain provisions requiring Saddam to prove his lack of said weapons. He refuse to do so. The consequence was invasion. There is no equivocation here. That's how it's written.
What, we would have just sat there and let him take over large swaths of earth?
The world sat by while Hitler started nibbling at Europe, but eventually they did do something...about five years too late. The consequences of waiting until Hitler had re-armed, rebuilt, and re-energized the nationalistic base of his supporters were catastrophic for the entire world. Had the Allies stepped in and stopped Hitler back when he first violated the Versailles treaty, much bloodshed might've been spared. But, having been spared, we wouldn't have the historical perspective we have today. I would hope the human race could learn from such an example, but it seems clear it cannot.
Either way, let's suppose we did intervene after Saddam had nukes, biological, and chemical weapons. At a st
Ok, you got me. I don't re-read Microsoft.com each week, so I was unaware that those specifications had been published FOUR DAYS AGO. And yet, that still doesn't damage my central point: that XML is not an open format.
I never once said it was open, you fool, I said it was available for everyone, with the end result being you can get your documents to open in anything that will read and parse the XML Office document.
So, all your prattling up to this point is finally shot down, and what do you say? "It's not open! Microsoft could take away my toys! Waaaaaah!" You move from one indefensible point to another one with amazing ease. Nothing satisfies you. Even if Microsoft makes some baby steps towards opening things up, it's not good enough for you, you won't give them credit for it at all. Instead you whine and moan about how it's not open. There are plenty of binary-only pieces of software for Linux that are anything but open, but do I hear you castigating these vendors? Nope, you single out Microsoft for your ire. Typical.
To go back to the more specific topic of Microsoft file formats: if they used XML, you could probably parse out their data. You'd know what each of the variables in the file was set to. You might even know what each variable was called, if the XML or DTD is verbose enough. But you still don't know what they do.
Ah, yes, but if you had the documentation from Microsoft explaining what each tag meant, your entire house of cards comes crashing down. And it just so happens that this format is documented and is freely available to third-party developers. This was done with the intention of allowing document management applications better insight into the content and formatting of Office documents, as well as integration into databases and anything else you might imagine.
So, we have the XML standard itself which is well known. We have the file consisting of tags and data. And we have the specs telling you what each tag means and how to interpret the data within. Forgive my bluntness, but this kind of blows your whole thread to smithereens.
No, you do.
.DOC, .XLS, etc. files, you can't do that very well. Since any third party can get the XML format documentation from Microsoft, anyone can write an import filter for it. This includes OpenOffice, StarOffice, or whatever else. Oops! You're wrong!
No, you are either purposefully misunderstanding the definition of "parse" or you're just too ignorant to understand. My usage of "parse" means to read and understand the contents of the file. If you save a Microsoft Word document in XML format (remembering you need the Pro version in order to do that), you can open and understand that XML document with any application that understands the tags and structure of the file. Again, the specifications for Office documents saved in XML format are open to everyone. Microsoft's reason for doing this is to allow third-party document management applications to seamlessly integrate with Office documents. With the standard
That's another invalid assumption. XML does nothing (and can do nothing) to guarantee that the attached documentation is correct or complete, or if it even exists at all.
Your ignorance of this matter is so astounding I'm shocked you felt the need to comment on the thread. Get it through your head: the document is saved as a collection of tags and data, where the tags are formatted in accordance with the standard specs for XML. If you have such an XML document, and you have the specifications for what each tag means and how the data is arranged, you can correctly interpret the file. Oops! I did it again! You're wrong! My heart bleeds for you!
It would be valid XML, for example, for each tag to be documented with a page number in a trade-secret book accessible only to Microsoft employees.
Indeed it would be. What you're missing here is this "trade-secret book" is, in fact, available to anyone. Oops! Three strikes! You're wrong! Thanks for playing, but you don't win any prize.
Obviously, we haven't found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We haven't found any WMD programs. Right now, we're trying, and failing to find "WMD program related activities."
I'll point out that a bioweapons lab large capable of producing enough anthrax to annihilate a small city would be no larger than a truck trailer. We're still finding MiG's buried in the desert. Iraq is nearly 200,000 sq. miles in area. How hard would it be to hide something like that? If I told you there was a buried trailer somewhere in California with $1 million in it for you, and that's all you had to go on, how long would it take you to find it? Would you be so quick to say it doesn't exist?
Further, there is documented proof Hussein had WMD's at some point. The pictures of dead women and children in northern Iraq are irrefutable. Hussein had a lot of those weapons. Now we can't find them. Where did they go? If they were destroyed, why did Hussein refuse to provide proof of such? And they weren't beamed up by the starship Enterprise. The question you should be asking is "where did they go?" not "why did we invade in the first place?"
Again, Iraq had no WMDs, and showed no indication at all of wanting to attack us.
I point to my previous statement. Iraq did have the weapons as late as the early 90's. We know this from chemical residues found in bombed-out weapons bunkers. But there weren't enough bunkers found to account for all the stuff he had acquired during the Iran-Iraq war...and we know how much he had because we gave some of it to him. Again, where did it go? It didn't get used up in the war. It didn't get poured down the drain. Where did it go? You can't answer that question, so you just jump to the nearest, most naive conclusion: they never existed. Too bad there's ample proof to prove you wrong. The WMD's may not be in Iraq anymore, but they're somewhere.
As for Saddam's intentions to attack us, I would hope you wouldn't be so shallow as to assume Hussein could only affect the U.S. by engaging in direct warfare. If the 1990 invasion of Kuwait had been backed up by nuclear weapons, it would've been far more dangerous to kick Saddam out of Kuwait...perhaps so dangerous that we wouldn't have done it. Then he could've moved on to Saudi Arabia and other major oil-producing nations. After gaining control of 4/5th's of the world's oil supply, he could dictate whatever terms he desired to the rest of the world. The resemblance to Hitler nibbling away at Czechoslovakia peacefully before forcibly conquering Poland is uncanny. And Hussein was known to be an admirer of Hitler. I'm sure the lesson wasn't lost on him, which is why he bullied his neighbors when he could and attacked them when he thought he could get away with it. You seem to keep forgetting that, but I'll keep reminding you of it. But thanks to Bush's actions, we don't have to live through another WWII with another maniacal dictator causing millions of deaths. It may never have come to happen if we hadn't done anything, but now we know for sure it won't.
Problem is, Hussein was never going to be "strong, bold, and have the initiative." He was the dictator of a small, poverty-ridden, country in which there were (at least) three very opposed different populations.
I suppose it would be ridiculous for me to point out that, when Hitler came into power, Germany was a small, poverty-ridden country in which there were many different political factions (Democrats, Fascists, and Communists at the very least, as well as a religious party) vying for power.
The argument you're presenting is strikingly similar to the arguments I hear from clients about buying a UPS or tape backup system. If you buy the UPS, it may prevent a multimillion dollar computer outage at some point in the future. But if you prevent it, it never happens, and the beancounters will scream "but we spent $100,000 on this UPS and nothing happened!" If Saddam Hussein were destined to produce nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, then use them to blackmail the rest of the world on his terms, a pre-emptive invasion may have saved the world much hardship and bloodshed years from now. Instead, everyone's complaining he wasn't a threat. I'm just glad he got taken out before he was an imminent threat. We let Hitler germinate and it cost 100 million lives.
Ability to parse is not the same as ability to use. I'm able to parse French. I know all the letters. But I'm unable to use it. I could use it if I get a dictionary. However there is no dictionary for Microsoft XML available.
.doc is not) accessible but they are not open - you can't contribute.
You misunderstand the use of the term "parse." If you were a developer thinking in developer terms, your ability to parse an XML file would mean you can read the file and logically understand the contents of it (tags, data, etc.). Since the tags are documented, you have no reason to be unable to understand the file. Unless, of course, you're just not trying very hard.
XML is not Microsoft format.
And I'll give you the DUH! Awards of the Century for that comment. The W3C may define how XML works, but the contents of the file can be anything you want. This is one of the great flexibility advantages of XML, that it can hold pretty much any kind of data.
MS documents are sometimes (e.g. format of
SOOO????? How does this prevent you from being able to open and use an XML-saved Word document on a FOSS platform? The answer: it doesn't. You're never satisfied, are you? People complained about Microsoft having closed document formats, so Microsoft opened them and made them interchangeable with other packages. Now you're complaining because you can't tell Microsoft what tags to put in their format. At what point does this diverge from being a way to get documents on more platforms and instead become a jihad to castigate Microsoft for anything and everything, at all times, no matter what? For crying out loud, give them some credit for doing something interchangeable!
Flat-out wrong. The ability to parse a file doesn't imply that you can understand it!
parse ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pärs)
v. parsed, parsing, parses
v. tr.
1. To break down into its component parts with an explanation of the form, function, and syntactical relationship of each part.
So, tell me, if parsing isn't understanding the file, exactly what is your definition of parsing?
Sorry, you're wrong.
By "spine", I assume you mean strictness or aggression. But actually, for optimal results, the Allies (US+UK+France) should've been more gentle earlier. Then WWII never would've happened. (I wouldn't expect you to understand what I mean without an uncommon knowledge of history)
That's a very good argument, and I respect it. Had WWI been ended differently, German animosity towards everyone else may not have existed, and Hitler might not have been able to tap that hatred and desperation to fuel the nationalism that led to WWII.
However, I could make the counter-argument that had the Allies had a more pre-emptive policy towards pre-WWI German aggression, WWI might not have happened. That would invalidate your position. This is supposition, of course, but history shows that strong nations who mean business are rarely challenged by intelligent opponents. It it better to be feared or to be loved? Given human nature, I'd rather be feared since you can rarely count on being universally loved.
XML hardly deserves to be called a file format.
Regardless of whether or not you wish to deem it an acceptable file format, it is a file format that would allow anyone to open anywhere on any platform using any software, assuming that said software could properly parse the XML file. And the ability to parse that data is assured, since the file format is documented by Microsoft -- documents open to anyone and everyone, free of charge.
By the time the USA took up arms against Hitler, he certainly wasn't imminent anymore- he was active. He'd already invaded 6 different US allies by the time they decided to join the fight against Germany.
One is taken to wondering just how different things might've been if we'd shown more spine earlier as opposed to picking up the pieces later. Hundreds of thousands of lives might've been saved if Hitler had just known the Allies meant business. Instead, we sat around and let him get away with one international violation after another, each one emboldening him to take the next step. Churchill once said "At one point, a memo would've stopped Hitler." We stopped Saddam, but now we're being castigated for it. I imagine the same naysayers would've been present had we put a stop to Nazism back when it was in a nascent stage.
Your argument that Hitler was "active" gives lie to the silliness of avoiding pre-emptive warfare. Which is smarter, fighting a war when your enemy is weak or waiting until he is strong, bold, and has the initiative? Naysayers cling to the idea that pre-emptive war is folly. It's pity they haven't learned from history, because if they had their way, we'd all be doomed to repeat it.
Not to long ago there was a push for Microsoft to adopt open file formats for their office suite. They naturally didn't follow through.
This is not true. Microsoft did adopt an open file format: XML. However, it is not available in any Office suite except the uber-expensive Professional version. Standard and Basic version do not get it. So, effectively, Microsoft gets to keep their file-format monopoly because the very people most likely to want an open format are the people who'll be least likely to be able to afford it.
It will get to where you want it to be, just be patient and give the developers the time to do what they want to do when they want to do it.
You know, the funny thing is that if this comment were being made about Microsoft, people would be screaming at you. But since it's being made about Linux, nobody says a word. Nope, no double standard here.
As for choice, you're absolutely right. Users have a choice between a proprietary, commercial OS that does what they want, when they want it, and how they want it, with all the software they need, and an open-source, free OS that is difficult to install, difficult to maintain, almost impossible to find support for (for the average user) and has none of the software they're used to.
And people wonder why Linux isn't catching on at the home user and desktop level any better than it is. And while you're busy giving Linux developers "time to do what they want to do when they want to do it," Microsoft is busy improving its offering, making its OS more stable, more secure, and more appealing. No, I don't care to wait, thank you.
Linux needs to decide whether or not it wants to remain a hobbyist OS or if it wants to play with the big boys. If it chooses the former then developers can play all they want, forget documentation, forget usability design, forget discipline. If it chooses the latter then people are going to have to buckle down and do work they don't really enjoy doing. As in society, somebody has to cook the fries, dig the ditches, and take out the trash. If Linux developers are unwilling to do what it takes to get to the next level of success, Linux neither deserves nor will it enjoy that success.
First of all, learning code is not a bad thing, unless it is forced. Before you judge us, why don't you try being one of us?
Perhaps because (a) I have a job to do that needs to get done and doesn't involve programming, and (b) I have a life outside of my work that doesn't give me time to learn C++, Perl, Python, or anything else for that matter. I think you'll find that about 90% of the computing world falls into a similar category as me.
Look, if you want to say "it's free, so you have no right to gripe" then you need to stop saying "but we're so much better than Microsoft." The two statements are mutually incompatible when you consider that average users value the features and ease of use that Windows gives them and don't need, like, or understand the "advantages" Linux gives them -- along with poor interfaces, shoddy documentation, and spotty support.
Microsoft may have lots of flaws, but to the average user, it's Linux that has the flaws that matter to them. Users can put up with bugs and crashes every now and then (and with XP/2003, crashes are exceedingly rare) but they won't put up with difficult, obtuse, cryptic interfaces.
Linux developers need to understand that they are not the average user. Things that are easy for them are difficult for other people, and vice versa. What is perfectly obvious to a C++ coder is pure arcana to a secretary or accountant. But instead of realizing this basic, unarguable fact, Linux developers just scream "Windows users are lusers!" and "Linux is the best there is!" and "If you're too stupid to learn C++, Perl, Python, Java, etc. then you shouldn't be using a computer in the first place." Don't attempt to deny it. It happens right here on Slashdot all too regularly. Even experts in Linux get tripped up by things as simple as setting up a networked printer. Something is wrong, but everybody's so busy screaming about how bad Microsoft is that nobody notices. Perhaps it's intentional, because it's easier to point out someone else's flaws than it is to acknowledge your own.
I say, "What's wrong with that?"
What's wrong with it? Well, at the most base level, nothing's wrong with it. However, if you decide to stop at mediocrity (and no matter how good your code is, if the user can't use it, you've produced at best a mediocre product), you have no right to whine and moan about how unfair it is that Microsoft sells so much software when OSS is "obviously" the better choice. When nobody ports major applications to Linux, you have your attitude to blame. When Microsoft gets its act together (and they're already well on the way) and continues improving Windows and copying every valuable feature present in Linux, you have your attitude to blame. When Linux becomes a footnote in OS history instead of a chapter unto itself, you have your attitude to blame. When Microsoft overcomes this momentary blip known as Linux because the damned Linux coders were just too smug, too superior, and too damned stubborn to accomodate anyone but themselves, you have your attitude to blame. FOSS will fail all because the people who claimed to be all about freedom and utility for everyone were, at their core, self-centered assholes who enjoy coding what's enjoyable but won't move a millimeter beyond that unless there's something in it for them. So much for the idea of software altruism, something I see trumpeted on Slashdot time and time again. Do as I say and not as I do? That seems to be the prevailing attitude among FOSS coders. It's probably because the vast majority of them have yet to grow up.
What I'm really saying is that the FOSS movement is full of hypocrites (which should be obvious to anyone who reads Slashdot, which is infested with FOSS proponents). You gripe about Windows being such a diseased OS, but you refuse to address the problems in Linux. You claim Microsoft does a disservice by ignoring its customers, but you at the same time blame the end user for their inability to understand your cryptic, obtuse, confusing GUI (if you even bother building one). There are endless examples of the pot calling the kettle black here, but the pot never figures out it has a similar albedo.
And the griping about Microsoft's pricing remains, as if Linux had some great advantage there. If WinXP costs $200, but the user uses it for two years, the monthly cost of owning that OS is $8.34. You spend more than that on lunch and breakfast each day. When faced with those economics, buyers really don't see the advantage in "free" software that has a poor interface, spotty (or arrogant) support, and little or no documentation (or, worse, incorrect documentation).
But Linux and FOSS proponents are just so sure they've got a superior product, and they're just so sure that everyone who uses Windows is a damned fool, a sellout to Microsoft, or worse. Could it be that the real idiots are the FOSS proponents who are too blind to see their own shortcomings? Or, worse, they see them but are too stubborn and self-centered to care?
If you don't like it, extend it, fix it, or hire someone to do so. Don't dump your personal application requirements on community members who are just trying to share what they have.
So what you're really saying is "hey, you didn't have to pay for it, so just sit there and shut up about how bad it is. We don't care about your problems with it and we're not going to fix it. If you think you know so much, why don't you go fix it?"
And people wonder why average users consider OSS proponents to be arrogant and egocentric?
Nothing pisses me off more than someone who demands the world for free, then bitches and whines because they can't have it without putting in an effort.
And some people, instead of putting in that effort, will choose to simply buy proprietary software right off the shelf that does what they want, how they want it, and without them needing to learn how to program in Perl, Python, C++, and learn the intricacies of vi. And Linux will remain within the reach of only those who have the technical wherewithall to use it or the stubborn patience to learn it (about 5% of the world) while everyone else goes and buys Windows. Linux users feel all smug, superior and happy while Microsoft laughs all the way to the bank.
But hey! Linux users can feel all smug, superior, and happy knowing that they "put in an effort." And that's what's really important at the end of the day, right?
To paraphrase you, nothing pisses me off more than someone so damned unbending and stubborn that they're willing to take a platform I believe in (Linux) and refuse to allow it to mature into something that could displace Microsoft. Instead, you'd prefer we return to the Bad Old Days when users had to conform to the software instead of the other way around, and everyone needed a Computer Science degree in order to work a PC. I'd prefer we move forward instead of backwards, embracing new users and accomodating them. You'd rather we just slap them around and chastise them for not picking up a C++ and learning how to program. Elitist, indeed. And ultimately self destructive.
It actually requires more delta-V to soft-land on the Moon than it does to aerobrake and land on Mars.
Very true. But Mars also requires a higher delta-V for escape velocity, and there's that pesky atmosphere creating drag, things you don't have to worry about on the moon. It's a double-edged sword
The experience gained on one isn't transferrable to the other.
Regarding Lunar mining versus Martian mining, you're right. However, setting up a lunar base would give us experience in doing something we've never done before, namely setting up a permanent, ground-based habitation on a hostile world. Given that it's much cheaper and quicker to send something to the moon rather than Mars, the moon is the better place to do beta testing.
The Mars Society is testing out mission concepts by mucking around in deserts, in Nevada and up above the Arctic circle. Going to the moon would not help. While it might be worthwhile in its own right, it is not a stepping stone and should not be represented as such.
I would submit that setting up test environments in the Nevada desert are nowhere near as demanding or unforgiving as something like the moon. History has shown many times that our ability to properly estimate challenges of this magnitude are weak at best. Better to actually build a base on the moon to test our abilities to do so rather than simulate it here and do it for the first time on a planet where help is, at best, nine months away.
Should we just throw up our hands and give up?
Of course not. But the money should not be spent today on a glory shot. It should be spent on R&D towards developing the technology to make moon and/or mars colonization viable. Technology like:
1. Much much much much much cheaper and reliable launch technology.
2. Faster and better propulsion technology.
3. A more sane life-support technology than "more air tanks".
4. A sane plan for dealing with radiation.
5. Better knowledge and study of how to counter the effects of extended periods in micro/zero/low gravity. - and/or a realistic artificial gravity.
You're correct in all your assumptions, but you're missing the overall point here. Why would anyone want to develop technologies one through five? What possible motivation could an aerospace company have to spend all the money and time necessary to research something like item two, a faster propulsion technology? It wouldn't be useful for launching satellites, it would only be useful for interplanetary jaunts. Ergo, if no one is planning interplanetary jaunts, no one is going to research better engines for those jaunts. Classic chicken and egg syndrome.
However, if we establish a permanent presence on the moon, regardless of how humble it might be, there'll be a need for regular runs between Luna and mother Earth. The need to conduct this in better safety, with faster turnaround times and lower costs, would spur propulsion development. Necessity is the mother of invention.
History is replete with examples of such things. Better sail technology gave way to steam engines not because people wanted to build steam engines but because faster travel was economically better. The trend would continue if we'd just let it.
And if only you didn't so readily believe all the "things are going so bad in Iraq" messages the news loves to report, you wouldn't think we're in a "shit-mess" right now. The news thrives on discontent, conflict, scandal, and tragedy. What you don't hear are the success stories, the schools being built, the hospitals, the Iraqis that are celebrating being out from under Saddam's thumb. Regardless of what you think of the U.S., the President, or the war in general, these people are now free to guide their own destinies without fear of being snatched up, tortured, and executed. That is a Good Thing regardless of whether you're a Democrat, Republican, or (like me) a Libertarian.
Your intellectual honesty is to be commended. It's a rare trait that someone will actually admit to a mistake like this, but you have shown yourself to be made of sterner stuff. You have my respect.