A better answer to "wasting" your vote is to build a web campaign to get out the vote and do a write in campaign, but you'd need to write-in candidates for a good chunk of Congress. Don't waste time trying to get a President in office. Most all of the useful power is in Congress. Oh sure you could get a President elected, but Congress controls the law making.
A president can only sign or veto, mostly. You veto enough stuff, and Congress will bail on you. Just like they did with Jimmy Carter. There's a guy who really wanted to change Washington, and failed, because they have the power to make or break a President.
So if you want change you can't just vote the bums out you have to have your own candidates to vote in, and you need to get people out to vote. This is best done in non-presidential years, since there is less voter turnout, so that an internet p2p campaign could flood the polls with p2p voters and totally demolish any other candidate. If you want a third party you need to work for it. You'd have to have people in every state. If a third party could capture 20 seats in the Senate, it'd be a viable voting block, that could stop any legislation from going forward.
So, in closing to way to create a third party is don't take out TV ads and campaign, and go around and do all that candidate stuff. Just get yourself a candidate to elect and then use the internet to build a voting swarm. Do this in an organized fashion, with enough people in enough states would totally demoralize those Washington insiders and make a formidable third-party.
I could go into many details on ways of effectively replacing the old tired guard with good quality replacements.
It's really simple. Anything new that Microsoft does is bound to be more transparent. Since they can't be any less, or equally, transparent. They have already achieved maximum non-transparency. Ergo, they can never be as non-transparent as they once were. So, once again, M$ has given us a "You are in a helicopter" statement - correct but useless.
If Prince doesn't pay Radiohead their due, then they can totally block him from profiting from it. In fact they can prevent him from profiting until he pays for the use of their copyrighted song. So they could totally DMCA his site, until he pays for the use of their copyrighted work. However they have no copyright in his performance and yes performances are copyrightable, and anyone not will to read and understand copyright law shouldn't be commenting on this.
Also, if the music event they were at allowed fans to record the performances, and the artists performed knowing this, then it is fair to say that the performances were released to the public domain. Because they gave permission to the public to "fix" the performances on their own media. In which case Prince and the fans havw no standing to file a DMCA and have no copyright interest, except to say the videos are not copyrightable as the performance is PD. This is unlikely though, and fans really should stop posting these illegal copies on the internet. It's disrespectful of the artists you are "fans" of.
I notice however, you mention your day job. I'm a programmer, but sadly haven't found the time to meaningfully contributing to FOSS code. I could if I were to totally ignore my family, I suppose. I could see making money by selling support of FOSS one creates, but they would have to write something people wanted to have support for.
It would be nice to work for a company that let's one work on FOSS, but those jobs are few and hard to find. OPf course, there's a lot of programmers making money on FOSS, but it's not something that's very practical to try to build a business on. It can be done, but it's much harder than making money on proprietary coding. My last major software program sold for about $39,000 as a contract piece plus markup.
I'd like to know more about your business model, installing Ubuntu for people. Sounds like a fun job.
I do however have a concern from the article. I'm not familiar with any firmware in Ubuntu distributions? Does Ubuntu distribute chips with CDs? Firmware is,always has been and is by definition software downloaded onto a chip and placed inside a device. Until the software is written into a device it is still software.
Burned CDs and DVDs contain software.
BIOS chips, programmed video PROMS, and other programmed PROMS contain firmware.
Bootable memory sticks also contain software, but it might also possibly be argued they contain firmware, but I tend to think of them as the new floppy disk.
Q: What do you get if you strip from Ubuntu the the proprietary and non-free software? A: Debian.
So, why go through all the trouble of re-inventing a Debian distribution, when one already exists? Doh!
Of course, I prefer Mint, which is one more step removed away from Debian. I'm totally into ease of use and maintenance these days. Yeah, I've gotten lazy.
Why is everyone so upset about this. It's better for them to be there than ont, and the only way to be there is to obey their laws. Yes, they may be Draconian, but life isn't fair. We all have to do what we can to try to make it better, and I think Google generally tries to do this.
I have to disagree slightly here due to what I call "weasel phrasing". While you're absolutely correct that directors and such have a legal duty to do what is in the best interest of the shareholders, it doesn't necessarily follow that grabbing all the cash you can get is in the best interests, nor is making as much money as is humanly or inhumanely possible.
In fact, I would say that being a good corporate citizen is in the best interests of the shareholders. Of course there is plenty of room for many opinions here, because the phrase "best interests" is open to as many interpretations as there are people. While some interpretation are clearly wrong and illegal, there is still a very wide range of perfectly valid opinions.
It is statements like yours that give companies the excuse to be as bad as they want, and I for one disagree with that stance.
I will now be prepared to see you blast all of my reasoning out of the water.:D
I'd be careful about using that word idiot, since you don't seem to grasp that a call to an api that is built into the OS that is loaded twhen the OS loads doesn't need to "detect" Office loading. Office uses calls that are buried in the OS that are faster than anything anyone else can write because that's the way it is written. If you followed any MS litigation by other software companies you'd know this is a fact, and some vague accusation. It has been proven in court over and over. It's historical fact.
The reason I am vague about your table pencil is because... wait for it...
I've never used it. Therefore can't speak to it, except to point you to some article on the net that talks about it. You already know about it, so why should I? You got a nice graphical tool that let's you draw tables, well yippy for you. I'm sure it saves you lot's of time, and yes it's useful. I've said this many times already, so let it go.
You can call it what you want it does the same type of function as a wizard does, ergo it is wizard-like. I would even go so far as to say it is a Table Wizard. So forgive me for not falling into Microspeach, but I have enough words in my vocabulary without having to deal with the plethora of Microsoft generated words and phrases.
My definition of wizard is: "a software procedure that assists a user in a graphical/interactive way of accomplishing a specific task rapidly and easily."
Don't give into to Microspeach, Microspeach leads to the Dark Side.
Aren't gamers the ones who are constantly upgrading their hardware to have the latest and fast machines? We are talking about game software meant for PCs here right? I'm not a gamer, for several reasons: 1) I'm a gamer addict, and my family is more important to me - so I abstain (mostly), 2) Game developers are more evil than Bill Gates and Monkey Boy combined (if that is even possible), 3) motion sickness, 4) other reasons I'm not telling.
All I see this doing is causing a market opportunity for: a) game pirates, b) new game software companies, c) hired assassins, d) all of the above, e) other.
And generally pissing off your client base. It's generally a bad idea to crap where you eat, but there seems to be an abnormal desire to do this among multimedia corporate heads.
So how much is that dogsh** in the window, anyway?
You left out the the Red Cross symbol is also the inverse of the Swiss Federation Flag purposely done when the Swiss Red Cross was formed, from which was born the International Red Cross, and they had that symbol more than 20 years before J&J even became a company, it is pretty obvious the Red Cross insignia clearly belongs to the Red Cross and not J&J. Now Red Cross made a deal with J&J back in 1895, letting J&J use their symbol. I don't know the details of that deal were, so clearly this should be a contract dispute. J&J was wrong to launch a lawsuit against the Red Cross over a symbol that they know full well belongs to the Red Cross. So, they made the Red Cross waste time and money that could have gone to helping people who need it. This is an organization that helps people everywhere, around the world. They've helped so many in the recent years in all kinds of disasters and the people who normally contribute are tapped out or burned out. So the Red Cross is looking to find ways to raise more money to help more people. So yeah, J&J are the bad guys here. You know there used some things called: communication, deal-making, negotiations, etc. But now all companies seem to know is sue, Sue, SUE!
Ritalin and amphetamines are stimulants. Ritalin is amphetamine-like but you are correct they work in different ways, but also in similar ways and both similar and different effects.
Obviously, you have comprehension issues or retention issues, because I didn't dismiss the things about Word, that are "missing".
OOo Automation, begins here: Set objServiceManager= WScript.CreateObject("com.sun.star.ServiceManager")
You didn't look very hard.
As far as Office not loading anything at boot, you need to get a process snoop tool. Ask your friendly programming wizard for one. I'll not argue this one with you, because you obviously are clueless to the inner workings of the Windows OS. Just because you don't see it in the Task manager doesn't mean it's not there.
Fuirthermore, "The Osa.exe file initializes the shared code that is used by the Office XP programs. When you use the Osa.exe file to initialize shared code, the Office XP programs start faster. If the Office programs, instead of Osa.exe, initialize the shared code, the programs take longer to start..." - Microsoft kb#290144
But those shared code libraries are not the only thing that Office uses to reduce load time. Office uses many undocumented calls built into to Windows to speed things up. But you will just dismiss this fact as another myth. Also, in Vista, Office is using a new tool, that OOo could probably benefit from, but I bet there are still undocumented features that Word uses that OOo won't be able to. MS has a long documented history of doing this. I remember, I was there.
As for table pencils.If you read the end of my post, that was my comment about the wizardlike thing and I gave you that. Yeah it's a spiffy GUI tool. But you can still make those complex tables in OOo. There just isn't a spiffy tool to do it with. So, OOo doesn't have a nice tool, but it still has the functionality. Something you seem unwilling to give credit for. And I was joking about the CAD, but you missed that one.
I've given you credit for your points, and then some, but you keep dismissing my points so thanks for proving me to not be the "dismisser", but that you yourself are the "dismisser".
Lastly, I wasn't aware this was a grammar test. I often write like this at 3AM (at the end of a 19 hour day of work). Be thankful it's typewritten and in one language.
This is the method of propulsion used by: the Sun the rest of the stars in the Universe, and is the primary propulsive of the Galaxies (from the net combined propulsion of the stars contained therein).
This of course is not taking into account the remaining velocity of the Universe's bodies from the Big Bang, but that is a residual velocity, as opposed to the current applied forces on those bodies.
Of course something being overlooked here, is at some point you can't put any more people in prison without causing a revolt or bankrupting the country. Putting people into prison for drugs is easy now, because the government has been running a brainwashing campaign for 100 years that drugs are bad and evil and they have "horror stories" of drug-crazed violent fiends doing unspeakable things. There isn't and couldn't be the same kind of rationale for file traders.
[rant follows] Although, my personal take is that uploading and sharing others' copyrighted works without permission is morally wrong and shouldn't be allowed. Whereas making a mix of an album or even making an occasional album for a friend or two is also wrong, but shouldn't be punished. We all do wrong things from time to time. Making something illegal doesn't make it wrong, but just because something is popular doesn't make it right. By publishing copyrighted works where billions can copy it, is just so wrong that anyone who doesn't understand this should be hit with a clue stick and subjected to a lecture from Captain Obvious. Sure, you can justify it anyway you like, but if it wasn't wrong you would need a justification for it. I understand the philosophy behind it all and the desire to rein in the free-for-all profit-greeding-mega-monster-corporations. I'm all for change in breaking up these unethical-morally-deficient corporations. But in the end, the fix has to come from the people, and the people need to get active and do something about it on a local level first. [/end-of-rant]
So, as I was saying. The govt, will probably try to do enough damage to the respectable places so that more and more the file traders' servers are stationed on more and more remote and fewer places. Then once they've choked it down enough. It'll be easy to cripple those servers. Which is why, I think it is really time to launch a rogue internet, running encrypted packets, and creating our own root servers and routing. I know there are already some underground ones, but now the technology is here. The only thing the governments of the world are going to accomplish with laws like this is to drive the general population underground, into hidden encrypted traffic. Separate servers, separate access points, and a world-wide-underground with it's own hardware infra-structure People will create small networks and hijack local access points for short hops over to other networks in places where coverage is lacking. Eventually you will build two worlds, and the mega-corporations will feel safe in their ignorant bliss of having "crushed" those pesky law-breakers.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think every proposed new law in Switzerland goes before the voters to approve or disapprove. Now that's the way government should be. Although, perhaps something more than simple majority should be required. Say maybe at least 60% and better than 2/3 for constitutional changes although perhaps some issues could be by simple majority, but I find that simple majority opens up the ability to enact too many laws. I think 60/40 is a reasonable ratio.
OOo checks grammar also, but you have to use one of those programmable object API extensions that it supposedly, according to you, doesn't have. Not sure about the Table drawing bit. Sounds a bit like CAD to me. OOo supports all kinds of table support. And no Word doesn't handle multiple indexes properly. Oh yes you can have multiple indexes, but there are severe limitations to it. Word can't handle my document, it can't handle multiple separately automatic updateable indexes. Sorry, you're wrong (as your own link proves) on this and it hasn't been there for "years" (2008 - 2007 LT 2 years), and you have to manually edit every index entry you make to set which index it goes to. Word doesn't really start fast, it loads pieces when the OS loads and loads more in the background when you launch it. So yeah OOo could do this too, if Microsoft opened up the protocols and such. So, Word may start "fast" but only by anti-competitive and improper Monopolistic behavior. I won't give you that one, because it's not a fair comparison and a cheat and a lie (on MS's part). OOo also has a programmable object model and automation API. So you pointed to two (I'm giving you the table one because I don't know for sure what you're talking about, although I'm betting OOo can do this too), but you didn't even try for one in OOo, but then you seem to be a bit prejudiced, and accusatory (pre-judging me without any knowledge of me whatsoever). Oh and I wouldn't exactly brag about Word's grammar checking, it's wrong more times than it is correct. The fact that I can catch this is not a good sign, since English grammar was always my poorest subject (mostly Bs). So for another such as OOo can open almost any document format and certainly more than Word. I can read Word documents in OOo but the reverse isn't true. Frame layout is another feature that Word can't do. Word doesn't allow the editing of lists except for the predetermined set given you. Headers and footers in Word are very limited compared to OOo. Master documents in Word are notorious for crashing Word and the sub-documents. This is not the case in OOo. These are just things off the top of my head and I'm no major Word and OOo geek. OOo is far better at many things than Word is, just because Word has a feature doesn't mean it works or is usable either. I didn't mention any of this before, and also I've not really used Word 2007, which I has some significant improvements which I used to compare against OOo, but still leaves much to be desired. Not that OOo is all that either. I've put in requests for things that were lacking. Like a nice search tool that allows true regex ability, and surprise they've actually implemented it, but then a number of other people wanted it too. Still there are things the OOo could do much better.
So, yea, you found a couple of things that OOo might not do and I'm questionable on the Table thing. I doubt there is anything that Word can do with tables that OOo can't. Unless you're talking about that wizardlike thing with Word for creating complex tables. Just because OOo didn't create a spiffy tool doesn't mean you can't do it.
Also, I use the Word Automation API, and it's a constant pain to maintain - however it means work for me, but an inconvenience to my clients.
But there are lots of other things that Word just can't do that Writer can, and by that I mean those little things in features that they both have, like working Master documents and seamless multiple indexing, and ability to alter formats in TOCs. Word has better bibliography support and there are some things that Word does better, but mostly it the other way around. And if you would give them both an equal playing field and an objective test you'd see this. Oh and in parting, OOo 3.0 is going to blow the doors off of Word in abilities and maturity. As far as I know Word can't read in PDFs, and Writer 3,0 will. Although I'm not sure how good it will be, it still sounds a bit too alpha to me. So maybe I shouldn't brag on that one just yet. It'll be a nice feature though. I doubt Word will ever support that. It is after all a competing format.
I've done some research on this, not much. From what I can tell there is some possibility that some phones might be able to be turned on remotely. Certainly not all phones are capable of this. Just because something is off doesn't mean it is off completely. In fact if you turn off everything in your house, you'll find that you're still consuming considerable electricity from most everything in the house. If you have a cell phone that has an alarm that can power up the phone at the preset time then your phone isn't really off. If you have a Nextel phone, it may have two way radio features. If you have a phone that does more than than just make calls and save phone numbers, has GPS locater in it, etc. then your phone may not shutdown completely off. However, it's easy to tell if your phone is on or off when off. Also, the phones that the FBI supposedly tapped were remotely programmable. Not all phones can do this either.
My phone for sure is off when it is off. It doesn't have enough memory to record a conversation for later retransmittal. It's not a phone and entertainment center. It doesn't have remote programmability. It doesn't have a GPS locater. It can't turn itself on. It just makes and receives phone calls. My phone can't be used by anyone when it is off.
I can believe some phones can be remotely monitored, but not all cell phones can. Of course every cell phone I've ever seen has directional mics, so unless the phones are pointed in the direction of a speaker then the FBI isn't hearing jack or Mario for that matter. It's more likely the FBI planted bugs in coins or something else to listen in, and I don't see how these malls can track every cellphone user.
There is historical proof that sound kills. During WWI there were numerous cases of persons being killed near the proximity of explosions with no external injuries (ie no shrapnel or entry exit wounds). These persons had various internal injuries, but not from being hit by anything. It was later determined that the sound of the explosions caused internal organ ruptures. I'm not sure why 160dB is considered lethal, 200 dB is generally considered enough to cause: the lungs to rupture, and/or air embolisms which causes death. So if you can survive ruptured lungs and embolisms, then no sound isn't lethal to you and congratulations on making the medical books.
By the way every 10 dB = a 10 fold increase in power and intensity.
atmospheric pressure is about 101,000Pa
Let Z = sound pressure of 160 dB 160dB = 20 log (Z Pa/0.00002) = 2000 Pa ~.05 atm not.001 atm and 194dB ~ 100,237 Pa ~ 1 atm and 220 dB ~ 19 atm and 250 dB ~ 620 atm which is more than six times the pressure at the bottom of the Marianas Trench. So if you can survive 600 atmospheres of pressure, then no sound can't kill you and you're also not human, or any form of life that originated on this planet. And that's no BS. It's simple logarithmic math. Or maybe not so simple. So I guess someone needs to do a little better math.
But just because the sound isn't some high number of atmospheres, it doesn't necessarily follow that it can't kill you.
There is truth that the frequency counts. But not strictly in the way that is being put forward here. It is more about whether the sound is periodic or non-periodic (the sound weapon is non-periodic, as is a bomb blast). Of course not all ears are created equal, and my statements of course oversimplified things, sound is a complex topic. But all the medical and scientific experts agree that sound of sufficient power will kill you. Because it is already known to have killed in the past.So unless you can explain away the historical evidence then there really is no argument. I have no doubt these weapons could be modified to kill.
Before anyone says "but ubuntu already does this", the problem is that currently you have no choice but to learn the CLI in order to accomplish anything but basic user tasks. This forces every office (or family) to have at least one go-to person that understands the OS thoroughly (or at least better than everyone else). That argument is old, tired,misleading and just wrong. Since you are talking about illiterate users. Even in any version of Windows, requires a Windows expert to do anything except "basuc user tasks". So what is it you are trying to prove? As far as another poster saying that Open Office is somehow inferior to Word. That's just rubbish, consider that the new beta out will even take Word documents with VBA in them now and run them. Not to mention that I have a document in OOo that has multiple sorted indexes. Something that Word can't do. So, I have a Place index and a Name index. THere are many things that OOo can do that Word cannot, but I have yet to see anyone show anything that Word can do that OOo cannot. So, for those saying OOo is inferior in some way, I say prove it with at least one specific example, instead of general "Word is better" FUD.
The sound weapon being sold may be non-lethal, but who is to say they won't RE the device and make lethal sound weapons. Sound can kill. If you stand next to a speaker when 160db of sound comes out of it, you'll be dead. NASA uses sound to test the tiles on the shuttle, anyone caught inside that tester would be killed instantly when the sound came on.
That Mars life had a demise? We have only explored a tiny fraction of the planet. You are making multiple unsupported ass-u-me-s here. Let me explain: 1) Life may still exist on Mars, we just haven't found any yet, but given the only places we've really successfully landed were deserts, this isn't surprising; 2) Any life found may possibly still be contamination from probes we've sent; 3) You offer no evidence that Mars is: (a) "once habitable" or (b) "no longer hospitable"; 4) You are assuming Mars is similar enough to Earth so that we can project environmental changes from one to the other.
Most of your assumptions are invalid, but let's just look at #4. Mars has considerably less atmosphere and of largely different composition. Earth is covered by water on over 2/3 of it's surface, we have not found sufficient evidence that Mars is capable of close to this. The core of Mars is much smaller than Earth's and as such has cooled significantly, but may still be churning out enough lava to cause more eruptions on the planet's volcanoes, but we have yet to record an eruption on Mars. It will be more than "many millennium" before Earth is cooled this significantly. While most anything is plausible, it is highly improbable, scientifically speaking, that Earth will ever have all of it's water extracted from the atmosphere and locked in ice in the polar regions or in subterranean locations. Or in plain speech, it's not going to happen here save we cause it with WWIII, or we get hit with and ELO.
THere is a point beyond which it cannot be argued that it is a human. That point is the point at which the fetus can survive without the mother and without artificial means. That point is generally about 7 months, although modern science has pushed that arguably back further, but most normal fetus can survive and continue to develop normally at a bout 7 months gestation.
So, it is indisputalbe that a normal fetus at 7 months is a living human, and should be afforded all the protections of such. Except in certain cases, such as the health and life of mother. At this point you sometimes need to choose between which life to save.
Any embryo, under a week old really shouldn't qualify, as ther eis currntly no way to grow and embryo to full term without implanting into a living host. So anything under 4 months really shouldn't qualify as human life since the only way to get an embryo that young to develop require a living being with a womb. No human embryo has ever been able to be sustained beyond 3 months in a laboratory.
1) You are assuming there is an OS market to create a competitive price against, when in fact the business choices are M$, M$ and, well, M$ (unless you count those bit players: Unix, Linux, and Apple).
2) You are assuming and intelligent rational buyer's market, when there is only currently a seller's market (ie in the words of my infinitely wise toddler "You get what you get and you don't throw a fit").
The MS Spin machine will, and has already begun to, spin a new myth around SP3 to dazzle and disarm, and the fiasco will be averted yet again. While in the meantime, it becomes another brick in the crypt of MS among the more educated masses. I'll not argue that Windows is dieing a slow death, but we disagree with perhaps the timespan.
Another/. article stating the obvious, incorrectly and flamboyantly. Although, it offers little new knowledge and is somewhat of a Captain Obvious venue, it is still an important thing to keep in the public eye.
While Open Source is a poor word combination, and the author obviously really means FOSS and not Open Source, due to the, as mentioned, ambiguity of the term Open Source.
So now the./ers will shred this article, nit-picking technicalities of shades of meaning, rather than argue the message and meaning attempted to be delivered by the author.
Of course, maybe I'm way off base and am reading more into the post than it deserves.
Only if you distribute. If you're an end user it's an End User license. I never said it was an EULA, I just said it is a license, but since you want to nitpick, it's both an EULA and a DLA. It all depends on how you use it, but it's still a license without which you can't: modify, incorporate into your own software, redistribute or any combination of the above.
Not sure how your irrelevant statement got to be modded informative, but there you are.
Slashdot Mirror
A better answer to "wasting" your vote is to build a web campaign to get out the vote and do a write in campaign, but you'd need to write-in candidates for a good chunk of Congress. Don't waste time trying to get a President in office. Most all of the useful power is in Congress. Oh sure you could get a President elected, but Congress controls the law making.
A president can only sign or veto, mostly. You veto enough stuff, and Congress will bail on you. Just like they did with Jimmy Carter. There's a guy who really wanted to change Washington, and failed, because they have the power to make or break a President.
So if you want change you can't just vote the bums out you have to have your own candidates to vote in, and you need to get people out to vote. This is best done in non-presidential years, since there is less voter turnout, so that an internet p2p campaign could flood the polls with p2p voters and totally demolish any other candidate. If you want a third party you need to work for it. You'd have to have people in every state. If a third party could capture 20 seats in the Senate, it'd be a viable voting block, that could stop any legislation from going forward.
So, in closing to way to create a third party is don't take out TV ads and campaign, and go around and do all that candidate stuff. Just get yourself a candidate to elect and then use the internet to build a voting swarm. Do this in an organized fashion, with enough people in enough states would totally demoralize those Washington insiders and make a formidable third-party.
I could go into many details on ways of effectively replacing the old tired guard with good quality replacements.
It's really simple. Anything new that Microsoft does is bound to be more transparent. Since they can't be any less, or equally, transparent. They have already achieved maximum non-transparency. Ergo, they can never be as non-transparent as they once were. So, once again, M$ has given us a "You are in a helicopter" statement - correct but useless.
If Prince doesn't pay Radiohead their due, then they can totally block him from profiting from it. In fact they can prevent him from profiting until he pays for the use of their copyrighted song. So they could totally DMCA his site, until he pays for the use of their copyrighted work. However they have no copyright in his performance and yes performances are copyrightable, and anyone not will to read and understand copyright law shouldn't be commenting on this.
Also, if the music event they were at allowed fans to record the performances, and the artists performed knowing this, then it is fair to say that the performances were released to the public domain. Because they gave permission to the public to "fix" the performances on their own media. In which case Prince and the fans havw no standing to file a DMCA and have no copyright interest, except to say the videos are not copyrightable as the performance is PD. This is unlikely though, and fans really should stop posting these illegal copies on the internet. It's disrespectful of the artists you are "fans" of.
I notice however, you mention your day job. I'm a programmer, but sadly haven't found the time to meaningfully contributing to FOSS code. I could if I were to totally ignore my family, I suppose. I could see making money by selling support of FOSS one creates, but they would have to write something people wanted to have support for.
It would be nice to work for a company that let's one work on FOSS, but those jobs are few and hard to find. OPf course, there's a lot of programmers making money on FOSS, but it's not something that's very practical to try to build a business on. It can be done, but it's much harder than making money on proprietary coding. My last major software program sold for about $39,000 as a contract piece plus markup.
I'd like to know more about your business model, installing Ubuntu for people. Sounds like a fun job.
I do however have a concern from the article. I'm not familiar with any firmware in Ubuntu distributions? Does Ubuntu distribute chips with CDs? Firmware is,always has been and is by definition software downloaded onto a chip and placed inside a device. Until the software is written into a device it is still software.
Burned CDs and DVDs contain software.
BIOS chips, programmed video PROMS, and other programmed PROMS contain firmware.
Bootable memory sticks also contain software, but it might also possibly be argued they contain firmware, but I tend to think of them as the new floppy disk.
Q: What do you get if you strip from Ubuntu the the proprietary and non-free software?
A: Debian.
So, why go through all the trouble of re-inventing a Debian distribution, when one already exists? Doh!
Of course, I prefer Mint, which is one more step removed away from Debian. I'm totally into ease of use and maintenance these days. Yeah, I've gotten lazy.
Why is everyone so upset about this. It's better for them to be there than ont, and the only way to be there is to obey their laws. Yes, they may be Draconian, but life isn't fair. We all have to do what we can to try to make it better, and I think Google generally tries to do this.
I have to disagree slightly here due to what I call "weasel phrasing". While you're absolutely correct that directors and such have a legal duty to do what is in the best interest of the shareholders, it doesn't necessarily follow that grabbing all the cash you can get is in the best interests, nor is making as much money as is humanly or inhumanely possible.
:D
In fact, I would say that being a good corporate citizen is in the best interests of the shareholders. Of course there is plenty of room for many opinions here, because the phrase "best interests" is open to as many interpretations as there are people. While some interpretation are clearly wrong and illegal, there is still a very wide range of perfectly valid opinions.
It is statements like yours that give companies the excuse to be as bad as they want, and I for one disagree with that stance.
I will now be prepared to see you blast all of my reasoning out of the water.
I'd be careful about using that word idiot, since you don't seem to grasp that a call to an api that is built into the OS that is loaded twhen the OS loads doesn't need to "detect" Office loading. Office uses calls that are buried in the OS that are faster than anything anyone else can write because that's the way it is written. If you followed any MS litigation by other software companies you'd know this is a fact, and some vague accusation. It has been proven in court over and over. It's historical fact.
... wait for it ...
The reason I am vague about your table pencil is because
I've never used it. Therefore can't speak to it, except to point you to some article on the net that talks about it. You already know about it, so why should I? You got a nice graphical tool that let's you draw tables, well yippy for you. I'm sure it saves you lot's of time, and yes it's useful. I've said this many times already, so let it go.
You can call it what you want it does the same type of function as a wizard does, ergo it is wizard-like. I would even go so far as to say it is a Table Wizard. So forgive me for not falling into Microspeach, but I have enough words in my vocabulary without having to deal with the plethora of Microsoft generated words and phrases.
My definition of wizard is: "a software procedure that assists a user in a graphical/interactive way of accomplishing a specific task rapidly and easily."
Don't give into to Microspeach,
Microspeach leads to the Dark Side.
Cast it into the Fire, Isuldur.
Aren't gamers the ones who are constantly upgrading their hardware to have the latest and fast machines? We are talking about game software meant for PCs here right? I'm not a gamer, for several reasons:
1) I'm a gamer addict, and my family is more important to me - so I abstain (mostly),
2) Game developers are more evil than Bill Gates and Monkey Boy combined (if that is even possible),
3) motion sickness,
4) other reasons I'm not telling.
All I see this doing is causing a market opportunity for:
a) game pirates,
b) new game software companies,
c) hired assassins,
d) all of the above,
e) other.
And generally pissing off your client base. It's generally a bad idea to crap where you eat, but there seems to be an abnormal desire to do this among multimedia corporate heads.
So how much is that dogsh** in the window, anyway?
You left out the the Red Cross symbol is also the inverse of the Swiss Federation Flag purposely done when the Swiss Red Cross was formed, from which was born the International Red Cross, and they had that symbol more than 20 years before J&J even became a company, it is pretty obvious the Red Cross insignia clearly belongs to the Red Cross and not J&J. Now Red Cross made a deal with J&J back in 1895, letting J&J use their symbol. I don't know the details of that deal were, so clearly this should be a contract dispute. J&J was wrong to launch a lawsuit against the Red Cross over a symbol that they know full well belongs to the Red Cross. So, they made the Red Cross waste time and money that could have gone to helping people who need it. This is an organization that helps people everywhere, around the world. They've helped so many in the recent years in all kinds of disasters and the people who normally contribute are tapped out or burned out. So the Red Cross is looking to find ways to raise more money to help more people. So yeah, J&J are the bad guys here. You know there used some things called: communication, deal-making, negotiations, etc. But now all companies seem to know is sue, Sue, SUE!
Ritalin and amphetamines are stimulants. Ritalin is amphetamine-like but you are correct they work in different ways, but also in similar ways and both similar and different effects.
Obviously, you have comprehension issues or retention issues, because I didn't dismiss the things about Word, that are "missing".
OOo Automation, begins here:
Set objServiceManager= WScript.CreateObject("com.sun.star.ServiceManager")
You didn't look very hard.
As far as Office not loading anything at boot, you need to get a process snoop tool. Ask your friendly programming wizard for one. I'll not argue this one with you, because you obviously are clueless to the inner workings of the Windows OS. Just because you don't see it in the Task manager doesn't mean it's not there.
Fuirthermore,
"The Osa.exe file initializes the shared code that is used by the Office XP programs. When you use the Osa.exe file to initialize shared code, the Office XP programs start faster. If the Office programs, instead of Osa.exe, initialize the shared code, the programs take longer to start..." - Microsoft kb#290144
But those shared code libraries are not the only thing that Office uses to reduce load time. Office uses many undocumented calls built into to Windows to speed things up. But you will just dismiss this fact as another myth. Also, in Vista, Office is using a new tool, that OOo could probably benefit from, but I bet there are still undocumented features that Word uses that OOo won't be able to. MS has a long documented history of doing this. I remember, I was there.
As for table pencils.If you read the end of my post, that was my comment about the wizardlike thing and I gave you that. Yeah it's a spiffy GUI tool. But you can still make those complex tables in OOo. There just isn't a spiffy tool to do it with. So, OOo doesn't have a nice tool, but it still has the functionality. Something you seem unwilling to give credit for. And I was joking about the CAD, but you missed that one.
I've given you credit for your points, and then some, but you keep dismissing my points so thanks for proving me to not be the "dismisser", but that you yourself are the "dismisser".
Lastly, I wasn't aware this was a grammar test. I often write like this at 3AM (at the end of a 19 hour day of work). Be thankful it's typewritten and in one language.
This is the method of propulsion used by: the Sun the rest of the stars in the Universe, and is the primary propulsive of the Galaxies (from the net combined propulsion of the stars contained therein).
This of course is not taking into account the remaining velocity of the Universe's bodies from the Big Bang, but that is a residual velocity, as opposed to the current applied forces on those bodies.
Of course something being overlooked here, is at some point you can't put any more people in prison without causing a revolt or bankrupting the country. Putting people into prison for drugs is easy now, because the government has been running a brainwashing campaign for 100 years that drugs are bad and evil and they have "horror stories" of drug-crazed violent fiends doing unspeakable things. There isn't and couldn't be the same kind of rationale for file traders.
[rant follows]
Although, my personal take is that uploading and sharing others' copyrighted works without permission is morally wrong and shouldn't be allowed. Whereas making a mix of an album or even making an occasional album for a friend or two is also wrong, but shouldn't be punished. We all do wrong things from time to time. Making something illegal doesn't make it wrong, but just because something is popular doesn't make it right. By publishing copyrighted works where billions can copy it, is just so wrong that anyone who doesn't understand this should be hit with a clue stick and subjected to a lecture from Captain Obvious. Sure, you can justify it anyway you like, but if it wasn't wrong you would need a justification for it. I understand the philosophy behind it all and the desire to rein in the free-for-all profit-greeding-mega-monster-corporations. I'm all for change in breaking up these unethical-morally-deficient corporations.
But in the end, the fix has to come from the people, and the people need to get active and do something about it on a local level first.
[/end-of-rant]
So, as I was saying. The govt, will probably try to do enough damage to the respectable places so that more and more the file traders' servers are stationed on more and more remote and fewer places. Then once they've choked it down enough. It'll be easy to cripple those servers. Which is why, I think it is really time to launch a rogue internet, running encrypted packets, and creating our own root servers and routing. I know there are already some underground ones, but now the technology is here. The only thing the governments of the world are going to accomplish with laws like this is to drive the general population underground, into hidden encrypted traffic. Separate servers, separate access points, and a world-wide-underground with it's own hardware infra-structure People will create small networks and hijack local access points for short hops over to other networks in places where coverage is lacking. Eventually you will build two worlds, and the mega-corporations will feel safe in their ignorant bliss of having "crushed" those pesky law-breakers.
Oh, you mean like the Swiss government?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think every proposed new law in Switzerland goes before the voters to approve or disapprove. Now that's the way government should be. Although, perhaps something more than simple majority should be required. Say maybe at least 60% and better than 2/3 for constitutional changes although perhaps some issues could be by simple majority, but I find that simple majority opens up the ability to enact too many laws. I think 60/40 is a reasonable ratio.
OOo checks grammar also, but you have to use one of those programmable object API extensions that it supposedly, according to you, doesn't have. Not sure about the Table drawing bit. Sounds a bit like CAD to me. OOo supports all kinds of table support. And no Word doesn't handle multiple indexes properly. Oh yes you can have multiple indexes, but there are severe limitations to it. Word can't handle my document, it can't handle multiple separately automatic updateable indexes. Sorry, you're wrong (as your own link proves) on this and it hasn't been there for "years" (2008 - 2007 LT 2 years), and you have to manually edit every index entry you make to set which index it goes to. Word doesn't really start fast, it loads pieces when the OS loads and loads more in the background when you launch it. So yeah OOo could do this too, if Microsoft opened up the protocols and such. So, Word may start "fast" but only by anti-competitive and improper Monopolistic behavior. I won't give you that one, because it's not a fair comparison and a cheat and a lie (on MS's part). OOo also has a programmable object model and automation API. So you pointed to two (I'm giving you the table one because I don't know for sure what you're talking about, although I'm betting OOo can do this too), but you didn't even try for one in OOo, but then you seem to be a bit prejudiced, and accusatory (pre-judging me without any knowledge of me whatsoever). Oh and I wouldn't exactly brag about Word's grammar checking, it's wrong more times than it is correct. The fact that I can catch this is not a good sign, since English grammar was always my poorest subject (mostly Bs). So for another such as OOo can open almost any document format and certainly more than Word. I can read Word documents in OOo but the reverse isn't true. Frame layout is another feature that Word can't do. Word doesn't allow the editing of lists except for the predetermined set given you. Headers and footers in Word are very limited compared to OOo. Master documents in Word are notorious for crashing Word and the sub-documents. This is not the case in OOo. These are just things off the top of my head and I'm no major Word and OOo geek. OOo is far better at many things than Word is, just because Word has a feature doesn't mean it works or is usable either. I didn't mention any of this before, and also I've not really used Word 2007, which I has some significant improvements which I used to compare against OOo, but still leaves much to be desired. Not that OOo is all that either. I've put in requests for things that were lacking. Like a nice search tool that allows true regex ability, and surprise they've actually implemented it, but then a number of other people wanted it too. Still there are things the OOo could do much better.
So, yea, you found a couple of things that OOo might not do and I'm questionable on the Table thing. I doubt there is anything that Word can do with tables that OOo can't. Unless you're talking about that wizardlike thing with Word for creating complex tables. Just because OOo didn't create a spiffy tool doesn't mean you can't do it.
Also, I use the Word Automation API, and it's a constant pain to maintain - however it means work for me, but an inconvenience to my clients.
But there are lots of other things that Word just can't do that Writer can, and by that I mean those little things in features that they both have, like working Master documents and seamless multiple indexing, and ability to alter formats in TOCs. Word has better bibliography support and there are some things that Word does better, but mostly it the other way around. And if you would give them both an equal playing field and an objective test you'd see this. Oh and in parting, OOo 3.0 is going to blow the doors off of Word in abilities and maturity. As far as I know Word can't read in PDFs, and Writer 3,0 will. Although I'm not sure how good it will be, it still sounds a bit too alpha to me. So maybe I shouldn't brag on that one just yet. It'll be a nice feature though. I doubt Word will ever support that. It is after all a competing format.
I've done some research on this, not much. From what I can tell there is some possibility that some phones might be able to be turned on remotely. Certainly not all phones are capable of this. Just because something is off doesn't mean it is off completely. In fact if you turn off everything in your house, you'll find that you're still consuming considerable electricity from most everything in the house. If you have a cell phone that has an alarm that can power up the phone at the preset time then your phone isn't really off. If you have a Nextel phone, it may have two way radio features. If you have a phone that does more than than just make calls and save phone numbers, has GPS locater in it, etc. then your phone may not shutdown completely off. However, it's easy to tell if your phone is on or off when off. Also, the phones that the FBI supposedly tapped were remotely programmable. Not all phones can do this either.
My phone for sure is off when it is off. It doesn't have enough memory to record a conversation for later retransmittal. It's not a phone and entertainment center. It doesn't have remote programmability. It doesn't have a GPS locater. It can't turn itself on. It just makes and receives phone calls. My phone can't be used by anyone when it is off.
I can believe some phones can be remotely monitored, but not all cell phones can. Of course every cell phone I've ever seen has directional mics, so unless the phones are pointed in the direction of a speaker then the FBI isn't hearing jack or Mario for that matter. It's more likely the FBI planted bugs in coins or something else to listen in, and I don't see how these malls can track every cellphone user.
There is historical proof that sound kills. During WWI there were numerous cases of persons being killed near the proximity of explosions with no external injuries (ie no shrapnel or entry exit wounds). These persons had various internal injuries, but not from being hit by anything. It was later determined that the sound of the explosions caused internal organ ruptures. I'm not sure why 160dB is considered lethal, 200 dB is generally considered enough to cause: the lungs to rupture, and/or air embolisms which causes death. So if you can survive ruptured lungs and embolisms, then no sound isn't lethal to you and congratulations on making the medical books.
.05 atm .001 atm
By the way every 10 dB = a 10 fold increase in power and intensity.
atmospheric pressure is about 101,000Pa
Let Z = sound pressure of 160 dB
160dB = 20 log (Z Pa/0.00002) = 2000 Pa ~
not
and 194dB ~ 100,237 Pa ~ 1 atm
and 220 dB ~ 19 atm
and 250 dB ~ 620 atm which is more than six times the pressure at the bottom of the Marianas Trench. So if you can survive 600 atmospheres of pressure, then no sound can't kill you and you're also not human, or any form of life that originated on this planet. And that's no BS. It's simple logarithmic math. Or maybe not so simple.
So I guess someone needs to do a little better math.
But just because the sound isn't some high number of atmospheres, it doesn't necessarily follow that it can't kill you.
There is truth that the frequency counts. But not strictly in the way that is being put forward here. It is more about whether the sound is periodic or non-periodic (the sound weapon is non-periodic, as is a bomb blast). Of course not all ears are created equal, and my statements of course oversimplified things, sound is a complex topic. But all the medical and scientific experts agree that sound of sufficient power will kill you. Because it is already known to have killed in the past.So unless you can explain away the historical evidence then there really is no argument. I have no doubt these weapons could be modified to kill.
Your incredulous attitude is troubling.
The sound weapon being sold may be non-lethal, but who is to say they won't RE the device and make lethal sound weapons. Sound can kill. If you stand next to a speaker when 160db of sound comes out of it, you'll be dead. NASA uses sound to test the tiles on the shuttle, anyone caught inside that tester would be killed instantly when the sound came on.
That Mars life had a demise? We have only explored a tiny fraction of the planet. You are making multiple unsupported ass-u-me-s here.
Let me explain:
1) Life may still exist on Mars, we just haven't found any yet, but given the only places we've really successfully landed were deserts, this isn't surprising;
2) Any life found may possibly still be contamination from probes we've sent;
3) You offer no evidence that Mars is: (a) "once habitable" or (b) "no longer hospitable";
4) You are assuming Mars is similar enough to Earth so that we can project environmental changes from one to the other.
Most of your assumptions are invalid, but let's just look at #4. Mars has considerably less atmosphere and of largely different composition. Earth is covered by water on over 2/3 of it's surface, we have not found sufficient evidence that Mars is capable of close to this. The core of Mars is much smaller than Earth's and as such has cooled significantly, but may still be churning out enough lava to cause more eruptions on the planet's volcanoes, but we have yet to record an eruption on Mars. It will be more than "many millennium" before Earth is cooled this significantly. While most anything is plausible, it is highly improbable, scientifically speaking, that Earth will ever have all of it's water extracted from the atmosphere and locked in ice in the polar regions or in subterranean locations. Or in plain speech, it's not going to happen here save we cause it with WWIII, or we get hit with and ELO.
THere is a point beyond which it cannot be argued that it is a human. That point is the point at which the fetus can survive without the mother and without artificial means. That point is generally about 7 months, although modern science has pushed that arguably back further, but most normal fetus can survive and continue to develop normally at a bout 7 months gestation.
So, it is indisputalbe that a normal fetus at 7 months is a living human, and should be afforded all the protections of such. Except in certain cases, such as the health and life of mother. At this point you sometimes need to choose between which life to save.
Any embryo, under a week old really shouldn't qualify, as ther eis currntly no way to grow and embryo to full term without implanting into a living host. So anything under 4 months really shouldn't qualify as human life since the only way to get an embryo that young to develop require a living being with a womb. No human embryo has ever been able to be sustained beyond 3 months in a laboratory.
1) You are assuming there is an OS market to create a competitive price against, when in fact the business choices are M$, M$ and, well, M$ (unless you count those bit players: Unix, Linux, and Apple).
2) You are assuming and intelligent rational buyer's market, when there is only currently a seller's market (ie in the words of my infinitely wise toddler "You get what you get and you don't throw a fit").
The MS Spin machine will, and has already begun to, spin a new myth around SP3 to dazzle and disarm, and the fiasco will be averted yet again. While in the meantime, it becomes another brick in the crypt of MS among the more educated masses. I'll not argue that Windows is dieing a slow death, but we disagree with perhaps the timespan.
Another /. article stating the obvious, incorrectly and flamboyantly. Although, it offers little new knowledge and is somewhat of a Captain Obvious venue, it is still an important thing to keep in the public eye.
./ers will shred this article, nit-picking technicalities of shades of meaning, rather than argue the message and meaning attempted to be delivered by the author.
While Open Source is a poor word combination, and the author obviously really means FOSS and not Open Source, due to the, as mentioned, ambiguity of the term Open Source.
So now the
Of course, maybe I'm way off base and am reading more into the post than it deserves.
Only if you distribute. If you're an end user it's an End User license. I never said it was an EULA, I just said it is a license, but since you want to nitpick, it's both an EULA and a DLA. It all depends on how you use it, but it's still a license without which you can't: modify, incorporate into your own software, redistribute or any combination of the above.
Not sure how your irrelevant statement got to be modded informative, but there you are.