It would be much easier if people started realizing that "Intelligent Design" is simply creationism; the same old shit served in new bottles with a happy new sticker! It's a spin people! I hate that word, but that's what it is nonetheless.
These people should be fought, or we shall surely revert to the dark ages. As we speak this mind virus has spread to Europe and is actually being debated in my home country (Denmark). It is is truly disturbing prospect, though the Danish Minister Of Education has rejected any such proposal by priests and whatnot, the fact that it's even being debated on this level here is disturning in itself. "Intelligent Design" should have been laughed out immediately, but alas.
And that's why you should always encrypt your emails.
That would certainly help, but how about newsletters you get from, say, Amazon? That would indicate to strangers that you have an account there, and they'd probably be able to use the standard "I forgot my password" service retrieve the password. Fun!
If you disagree with this direction, talk to your MP or vote. It's called democracy.
I was simply pointing out an error in the original comment. I'm not trying to fuel a pro/anti EU debate, though I can see now my chosen subject might make it appear that way.
This is good policy, because if the EU is to be taken seriously as a single bloc trading partner, then it must present a standardized set of laws and regulations so that it isn't just a loosely bound bunch of states. By unifying the law under a single EU regulating entity, they effectively present themselves as one country.
This, I believe, has never been the intent of the "union". The intent was to create a trading community among neighbouring countries in Europe. A sort of friendship, really, to avoid further wars among said countries. Wars that through the years had kept the individual countries from evolving.
While this may hurt certain groups within the borders of the EU, the EU was never supposed to be about individual states or particular companies. It was meant to unify Europe into a large trading bloc that would rival the U.S. in trading and negotiating power.
Maybe with the current globalization and everything, that would seem so. But again, it was never meant to be that way.
Sorry, that didn't come out right - obviously Microsoft is able to license their products in anyway they see fit.
What I meant was, that Microsoft with the current Word XML schema license, may be able to charge people, down the line, for specific use of said schemas, because of the patent license clause therein.
I mean, if they have an honest interest in the adoption of these schemas, and there are patents covering some specific use of these, why not state this and grant royalty free license on those patents? What if they patent some specific use of the schemas in the future?
The Word XML schema license is somewhat open-ended because of the the patent license clause. You might say, it's a trap.
Bear in mind that at no point does it need to even access MS's XML Schemas. It just applies an XSLT to a generic XML. How's MS going to use patents against that?
Unless they had a patent on XML itselt (like CSS?), I can't see how they could prevent you from doing that. What I'm suggesting is, that Microsoft, down the line, may be able (or wish) to license how you use their schemas. Read: charge you money. That's all.
The XML Schemas are freely downloadable, you don't have to sign anything. They are just patenting their own software implementation that processes those XML documents. You can still make your own implementaiton.
Ok, so you don't have to actually sign the patent license, but still the legal notice is provided within the downloadable MSI:
There is a separate patent license available to parties interested in implementing software programs that can read and write files that conform to the Specification. This patent license is available at this location: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpaten tlicense.asp.
But let's look at the article you linked to:
The patent application states: "The present invention (word processing document stored in a single XML file) is directed at providing a word-processing document in a native XML file format that may be understood by an application that understands XML, or to enable another application or service to create a rich document in XML so that the word-processing application can open it as if it was one of its own documents."
Broad, non-specific. This could include any kind of use of the schemas.
Microsoft spokesman Mark Martin denied that the recently discovered patents contradict Microsoft's fall 2003 moves to open up its XML schemas. [...] Martin said it would not make sense for Microsoft to block or hamper XML development -- "something it has been working to establish as a standard and get broadly and consistently developed."
Embrace.
However, Microsoft will "innovate above the standard -- just as other companies will do in an effort to seek differentiation, address customer needs, add competitive value, etc.," he explained.
Extend. You know the next word.
This isn't the first time that Microsoft has sought patent protection for technologies that are W3C standards. For example, the Redmond software company was granted a patent for the W3C cascading-style-sheet technology in 1999.
No, and that pretty much pissed off everybody at W3C. They filed for the patent in secret while developing CSS with the other members of the W3C.
Well, that's exactly what I'm asking. If the XML Schema for it is published, why can't I write a simple XSLT to convert it to some other format?
There's one important point most people seem to have forgotten so far. IIRC, to have the MS Word XML schema you have to sign a patent license. In essence what this means is that Microsoft want to retain control over how you use your data (ie. how you handle your documents, parse them, etc.). This should concern you. It goes against the purpose and the openness of XML, in my opinion anyway.
The questions people should really be asking are:
Will Microsoft use this to limit how people implement programs to interoperate with MS Word documents?
Will they use it to charge people for specific uses of Word documents? E.g. use by third party software? Or even your in-house developed software?
What kind of benefits would I see moving to another product?
I attended a Novell conference last year, where there was a talk on GroupWise 3rd party extensions. The speaker had an interesting survey for the audience (which consisted of mostly GroupWise admins, but also Exchange admins).
The question was how many email users were located at each site, and how many post office admins supported these users. That turned out a rather interesting ratio in favor of GroupWise, though, only a couple of samples were taken as the speaker interviewed the audience. I can't remember exactly, but I think it was something along the lines of one Groupwise admin per 500 email users, compared to only 100 email users for each Exchange admin.
Maybe you could ask around and compare yourself if you're considering moving to a new product. I know it's probably a bogus metric, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless.
His n, u, r and m all look very similar. I do like the way the entire page has a slant to the right though. Maybe some student of Freud could read something into that?
Ah yes, I see now! Without doubt, this shows he subconsciously desired his mother! Desires developed during the Phallic Phase, yadda yadda.:-)
The problem here is some activities, such as the creation of software, can be used for legal and illegal purposes, as is the case with Grokster...It gets really messy, because it is unclear what is legal or not legal, and it is problematic to operate with such abstract terms."
Well, let me make it easy for you! Here's a hood... it can protect you in a snowstorm, or you can use it to rob a bank. Ban hoods!
Canada being soft I understand, but Denmark? These people used to be Vikings, shessh!
I usually like to bring up this info from state.gov:
"Viking raids brought Denmark into contact with Christianity, and in the 12th century, crown and church influence increased. By the late 13th century, royal power had waned, and the nobility forced the king to grant a charter, considered Denmark's first constitution. Although the struggle between crown and nobility continued into the 14th century, Queen Margrethe I succeeded in uniting Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, and Greenland under the Danish crown. Sweden and Finland left the union in 1520; however, Norway remained until 1814. Iceland, in a "personal union" under the king of Denmark after 1918, became independent in 1944."
Unfortunately, Christianity tamed the Vikings, as it were.
Which leaves Greenland and the Faroe Islands. The Faroe Islands will leave the union, eventually, when they can support themselves. No problem there! And I suspect Canada can have the little island in dispute, if they ask nicely.:-)
In the spirit of french-fries becoming freedom fries, I ask all fellow Canadians to stop using the word danish for that flakey, overly sweet pastry, and instead use the term freedom-pastry.
I don't even know why it's called a Danish? AFAIK, we didn't even invent it! We call it Weinerbroed... as in bread from Vienna.
I was amazed when I was trying to install 'bioperl' at work (a somewhat esoteric perl library for handling biology data). I was just joking around and typed 'apt-get install bioperl', thinking to myself "if only life could be that nice". I couldn't beleive my eyes when I realized that bioperl was actually in the package repos. It blew me away.
And even if a particular Perl module isn't included, you can build a nice Debian package of it from source or right off CPAN with this handy Debian Helper script:
dh-make-perl --build --cpan Some::Perl::Module
This works great, as you can easily upgrade or remove it. I use it for DBD::Oracle for instance.
Slashdot Mirror
Could you take on some computer myths?
Oooh, how about Van Eck Phreaking? Not exactly a myth, but wouldn't it be cool?
Would it be allowed even?
zPrepare For The Dark Ages, Part II
Exactly right!!
It would be much easier if people started realizing that "Intelligent Design" is simply creationism; the same old shit served in new bottles with a happy new sticker! It's a spin people! I hate that word, but that's what it is nonetheless.
These people should be fought, or we shall surely revert to the dark ages. As we speak this mind virus has spread to Europe and is actually being debated in my home country (Denmark). It is is truly disturbing prospect, though the Danish Minister Of Education has rejected any such proposal by priests and whatnot, the fact that it's even being debated on this level here is disturning in itself. "Intelligent Design" should have been laughed out immediately, but alas.
zNote that in the U.S. Navy, the actual rank and name tends to be "Seaman".
Which, of course, never leads to embarassing and uncomfortable remarks.
Diane Simmons: And reports indicate she has also consumed a record amount of seamen.
zTom Tucker: That sounds like one powerful hurricane, Diane.
I'm not, I don't trust Google to handle my mailbox. ;-)
zAnd that's why you should always encrypt your emails.
That would certainly help, but how about newsletters you get from, say, Amazon? That would indicate to strangers that you have an account there, and they'd probably be able to use the standard "I forgot my password" service retrieve the password. Fun!
Lesson? Don't sign up for newsletters!
zHmm. If Google have to give up gmail.com, then whoever gets the domain instead would be able to receive a shit load of people's private e-mails?
zWhat /. filter are you using? Obviously you forgot:
4. ???
z5. Profit!
If you disagree with this direction, talk to your MP or vote. It's called democracy.
I was simply pointing out an error in the original comment. I'm not trying to fuel a pro/anti EU debate, though I can see now my chosen subject might make it appear that way.
And for you information, I always vote.
zThis is good policy, because if the EU is to be taken seriously as a single bloc trading partner, then it must present a standardized set of laws and regulations so that it isn't just a loosely bound bunch of states. By unifying the law under a single EU regulating entity, they effectively present themselves as one country.
This, I believe, has never been the intent of the "union". The intent was to create a trading community among neighbouring countries in Europe. A sort of friendship, really, to avoid further wars among said countries. Wars that through the years had kept the individual countries from evolving.
While this may hurt certain groups within the borders of the EU, the EU was never supposed to be about individual states or particular companies. It was meant to unify Europe into a large trading bloc that would rival the U.S. in trading and negotiating power.
Maybe with the current globalization and everything, that would seem so. But again, it was never meant to be that way.
zSorry, that didn't come out right - obviously Microsoft is able to license their products in anyway they see fit.
What I meant was, that Microsoft with the current Word XML schema license, may be able to charge people, down the line, for specific use of said schemas, because of the patent license clause therein.
I mean, if they have an honest interest in the adoption of these schemas, and there are patents covering some specific use of these, why not state this and grant royalty free license on those patents? What if they patent some specific use of the schemas in the future?
The Word XML schema license is somewhat open-ended because of the the patent license clause. You might say, it's a trap.
zBear in mind that at no point does it need to even access MS's XML Schemas. It just applies an XSLT to a generic XML. How's MS going to use patents against that?
Unless they had a patent on XML itselt (like CSS?), I can't see how they could prevent you from doing that. What I'm suggesting is, that Microsoft, down the line, may be able (or wish) to license how you use their schemas. Read: charge you money. That's all.
zThe XML Schemas are freely downloadable, you don't have to sign anything. They are just patenting their own software implementation that processes those XML documents. You can still make your own implementaiton.
Ok, so you don't have to actually sign the patent license, but still the legal notice is provided within the downloadable MSI:
There is a separate patent license available to parties interested in implementing software programs that can read and write files that conform to the Specification. This patent license is available at this location: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpaten tlicense.asp.
But let's look at the article you linked to:
The patent application states: "The present invention (word processing document stored in a single XML file) is directed at providing a word-processing document in a native XML file format that may be understood by an application that understands XML, or to enable another application or service to create a rich document in XML so that the word-processing application can open it as if it was one of its own documents."
Broad, non-specific. This could include any kind of use of the schemas.
Microsoft spokesman Mark Martin denied that the recently discovered patents contradict Microsoft's fall 2003 moves to open up its XML schemas. [...] Martin said it would not make sense for Microsoft to block or hamper XML development -- "something it has been working to establish as a standard and get broadly and consistently developed."
Embrace.
However, Microsoft will "innovate above the standard -- just as other companies will do in an effort to seek differentiation, address customer needs, add competitive value, etc.," he explained.
Extend. You know the next word.
This isn't the first time that Microsoft has sought patent protection for technologies that are W3C standards. For example, the Redmond software company was granted a patent for the W3C cascading-style-sheet technology in 1999.
No, and that pretty much pissed off everybody at W3C. They filed for the patent in secret while developing CSS with the other members of the W3C.
I'm not convinced by this article.
zWell, that's exactly what I'm asking. If the XML Schema for it is published, why can't I write a simple XSLT to convert it to some other format?
There's one important point most people seem to have forgotten so far. IIRC, to have the MS Word XML schema you have to sign a patent license. In essence what this means is that Microsoft want to retain control over how you use your data (ie. how you handle your documents, parse them, etc.). This should concern you. It goes against the purpose and the openness of XML, in my opinion anyway.
The questions people should really be asking are:
Or am I just spreading FUD?
zDoes anyone have any suggestions for one or two good comprehensive compendiums of his works?
I recommend the H.P. Lovecraft Omnibus vols 1-3. Here's the first.
zMicrosoft is a better netizen today than they were five years ago. Their development is more open, and their technologies are more cooperative.
Brian: Can I buy some pot from you?
:-)
zWhat kind of benefits would I see moving to another product?
I attended a Novell conference last year, where there was a talk on GroupWise 3rd party extensions. The speaker had an interesting survey for the audience (which consisted of mostly GroupWise admins, but also Exchange admins).
The question was how many email users were located at each site, and how many post office admins supported these users. That turned out a rather interesting ratio in favor of GroupWise, though, only a couple of samples were taken as the speaker interviewed the audience. I can't remember exactly, but I think it was something along the lines of one Groupwise admin per 500 email users, compared to only 100 email users for each Exchange admin.
Maybe you could ask around and compare yourself if you're considering moving to a new product. I know it's probably a bogus metric, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless.
zAre you mod fucking insane?
That'd be a nice modding option, actually: "-1, Fucking insane".
Oh, and I absolutely agree with you!
zeverything's relative, I guess.
Except the speed of light, I believe.
zHis n, u, r and m all look very similar. I do like the way the entire page has a slant to the right though. Maybe some student of Freud could read something into that?
Ah yes, I see now! Without doubt, this shows he subconsciously desired his mother! Desires developed during the Phallic Phase, yadda yadda. :-)
Sorry. Einstein.
zThe problem here is some activities, such as the creation of software, can be used for legal and illegal purposes, as is the case with Grokster...It gets really messy, because it is unclear what is legal or not legal, and it is problematic to operate with such abstract terms."
Well, let me make it easy for you! Here's a hood ... it can protect you in a snowstorm, or you can use it to rob a bank. Ban hoods!
Geez!
zCanada being soft I understand, but Denmark? These people used to be Vikings, shessh!
I usually like to bring up this info from state.gov:
"Viking raids brought Denmark into contact with Christianity, and in the 12th century, crown and church influence increased. By the late 13th century, royal power had waned, and the nobility forced the king to grant a charter, considered Denmark's first constitution. Although the struggle between crown and nobility continued into the 14th century, Queen Margrethe I succeeded in uniting Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, and Greenland under the Danish crown. Sweden and Finland left the union in 1520; however, Norway remained until 1814. Iceland, in a "personal union" under the king of Denmark after 1918, became independent in 1944."
Unfortunately, Christianity tamed the Vikings, as it were.
Which leaves Greenland and the Faroe Islands. The Faroe Islands will leave the union, eventually, when they can support themselves. No problem there! And I suspect Canada can have the little island in dispute, if they ask nicely. :-)
zIn the spirit of french-fries becoming freedom fries, I ask all fellow Canadians to stop using the word danish for that flakey, overly sweet pastry, and instead use the term freedom-pastry.
I don't even know why it's called a Danish? AFAIK, we didn't even invent it! We call it Weinerbroed ... as in bread from Vienna.
And yes, I'm from Denmark.
zThe name "Vores Øl"/"Our Beer" is a slogan used by a major danish brewery (Tuborg I think).
Yup! That's Carlsberg's slogan, in fact. Though, we like Tuborg better. ;-)
zapt-get install gnome-themes-extras
See the librsvg site for screenshots.
zI was amazed when I was trying to install 'bioperl' at work (a somewhat esoteric perl library for handling biology data). I was just joking around and typed 'apt-get install bioperl', thinking to myself "if only life could be that nice". I couldn't beleive my eyes when I realized that bioperl was actually in the package repos. It blew me away.
And even if a particular Perl module isn't included, you can build a nice Debian package of it from source or right off CPAN with this handy Debian Helper script:
dh-make-perl --build --cpan Some::Perl::ModuleThis works great, as you can easily upgrade or remove it. I use it for DBD::Oracle for instance.
z