Apparently they lost this antitrust case or something, and they're punishment is supposed to be opening these formats up. At least, that's what I heard.
Word is the only application in the office stable that can be easily replaced with any text editor under the sun.
Who cares about word processors? Excel, Access and Outlook/Exchange are the important bits. Yeah, I suppose PowerPoint too... not that it has any redeeming qualities, but a lot of ppl do use it to put their employees down for their morning nap.
Indymedia is not a source of respectable economic research.
What is Indymedia? Never heard of it.
Seriously, can you point to any large-scale flight to safety from US treasuries to other currencies or assets? It just isn't realistically happening.
No it's not. The logical chain of events that would precede that goes as follows:
1) Countries start accepting an alternative currency for oil, such as the euro.
2) Other countries start purchasing oil in those currencies where it's appropriate
3) Those countries no longer need to keep a reserve of USD, so they maintain it less as they become more comfortable in the new business relationship
4) As time progresses, more countries become a party to the new trading relationship and thus also become less motivated to trade for USD
5) As the number hoarding USD becomes less and less, there are fewer places to spend that currency.
6) The US dollars start coming home like so many bad cheques.
The last country that tried to accept non US currency for oil got bombed and invaded, so no, we're not seeing that happening.
Do you really think that some scheme cooked up by Chirac and Hussein to sell Iraqs meager oil output in Euros would have been likely?
Yes. If the US hadn't invaded, I would say it's pretty much a certainty that Iraq would take Euros instead of food, and that many european nations would take oil for Euros. Are you seriously suggesting that this wouldn't have occurred?
Are you actually suggesting that Saddam Hussein had a great beneficient financial program for the world?
No, I didn't attribute any altruistic motives to him at all.. I believe I referred to him as a brutal dictator. His motives aren't relevant.
Some sort of Baran-Wallerstein type theory of global immiserization is not "an accepted fact" as you claim, but actually widely discredited. Because post-war Germany and Japan, South Korea, Canada, all the greatest trading partners of the US are not 'exploited'. I'm sorry, you lose, move away from the table.
I disagree with that statement. And I don't see anything from you that backs it up. I know that up here in Canada we're contemplating how to effectively retaliate against the US for their crooked dealings across a multitude of industries ranging from lumber to cattle to power to water. This isn't something I pulled out of my ass, or Indymedia for that matter (whatever Indymedia is)
Look, I can tell that you're not going to be convinced by anything anyone says about this that doesn't fit your world-view, but I'm going to give a simple analogy for anyone who might stumble across this discussion. If you buy stuff from me, I prosper more than if you don't. If I am Germany, and I have stuff for sale then I am better off if people buy my stuff. If no one offers to buy it, then I have less money to spend on things I need. It would hurt me, as Germany a great deal if suddenly the US started trading with me less. OK, that's not too hard to understand.
Your analogy only holds true if the germans lack the capacity to repurpose their production. If you're making more cars than you have people to drive them, then yes, you need a trading partner or your screwed. But if you're an intelligent human being, you'll stop making more cars than you can sell and find something more useful to do. And considering that the US is operating at such a huge trade deficit, it follows that you're getting back much less from selling your cars than you're giving, so you're likely to see more returns by either finding another trading partner or keeping the fruit of your production within your own country. Given the choice between selling the fruits of my labour at a very low return and hopefully being able to buy the things I need or investing in my capacity to make those things myself, I know which I see greater value in.
Yes it would be good if Japan was also buying more Japanese goods and services and Germa
You really think having the population of Japan and Germany ripping resources out of the ground, turning them into useful goods and sending them to the US in exchange for pieces of paper that are never redeemed is doing those countries good?
I think you're a little too close to the problem to see the big picture there mate. The people of Japan and every other nation would be a lot better off spending their time and resources to improve their own lot in life rather than improving yours.
And your dismissal of the Euro as a global currency are totally unconvincing and not based on fact. Countries hoard US dollars and swap them around as a global currency instead of redeeming them because other countries won't accept them, particularly where oil is concerned. If you can't see that having a huge source of oil like Iraq accepting Euros and removing that necessity to hoard US Dollars would have changed things, then there's not a lot I can say to enlighten you. It's an obvious chain of events. It was just swept under the table at the time... I mean, they were really there to get all those WMDs, right?
And that motive carries over to Britian, their major ally in that war. They were fighting very hard to put the breaks on the Euro at the time.
The current weakness of the currency that makes you so disparaging of the possibility is a result of the invasion of Iraq. It would be a great deal stronger now if that war hadn't occurred.
The US are looking out for themselves. It's been an accepted fact among the ruling class there that their standard of living depends on exploiting other nations for decades, and that those exploitive power structures must be preserved.
Think I'm wrong all you like... but do even a little research and the pieces all fall into place. The changes that brutal dictator would have brought to pass would have gone a long way towards breaking the US stranglehold on the global economy and making the world a better place to live in. Too late now though.
A trade deficit means that there are more goods flowing into your country from other countries than flowing out.
A record trade deficit means that there is more flowing in and less flowing out than ever before.
Couple this with the fact that the US has been using force of arms for ages to preserve their currencys status as the "global" currency, most recent example being the invasion of Iraq to prevent the Euro from becoming a second currency that can be traded for oil. Anyone with open eyes could see that the consequences of that would be the end of US ecomonic dominance and a fast slide into a massive depression.
Basically, we're set up in a structure where we're sending immense amounts of "stuff" to the US so they can print off some more US Dollars for the rest of us to swap with each other.
Explain to me how this makes the US a "nice guy"? Where I come from, we call that "ripping everyone off".
It looks to me like the grandparent was just an idiot who came across a tidbit of knowledge and has been using it to hammer down screws ever since.
How bout this... why don't you just stay in the states, drive drunk and shoot ppl with your handguns? We don't need those sorts of ppl here... so you just stay where you're happy.
This whole socialism thing you're going on about? I think it's a better way to live, and so do most of the other ppl here. If I'm going to pay my taxes towards funding the operation of a society and live within it, I'd like one that is structured to support the people who live here. I'd rather see the ignorant educated, the homeless given food and shelter, the criminals given social treatment and so on. I think investing in improving the lot of everyone is good for the every individual involved in addition to being good for the society.
I like living in a place where people care about each other to put their money where there mouth is rather than spouting rhetoric, cutting government programs, shifting responsibility for education and health care to the individuals who can afford it least when they need it most and looking for another country to bomb into submission and exploit.
I want to see this trend progress further along Socialist lines, a la the Nordic countries, rather than becoming more like the US. I consider your country to be a prime example of how badly things go when people don't give a shit about anyone but themselves. Fortunately for me, most of my countrymen seem to agree.
Rest assured though... if I become bitter and selfish and decide I want to live in a place where the social structure is set up to make it easy for me to exploit my fellow man, I'll be sure to pay your country a visit.
He's saying that because of the minority government, unpopular bills won't be forced down our throats. Then he's going off on a rant about the conservatives and how he'd rather leave the country than live under their rule.
I actually agree with him on the rant part. But it's still not relevant.
A reasonable tariff is zero. By your logic, they should go ahead and put me in prison for owning a gun "capable" of killing someone. Why does your country accept this idea of punishing everyone evenly for possible illegal use of something that is generally used for legal things? How come copiers aren't taxed? And who gets that tariff money?
We agree. If your gun is designed for killing people, handguns for example, you'll go to jail for owning it. Better stick to hunting rifles and shotguns.
I'm an "artistic" coder. But then, I'm also high maintenance and question every unclear piece of text in requirements documentation. Even an artist needs to know if you're looking for a head shot or a body shot. But I operate in a world full of black boxes just like everyone else, and recognize that the level of disipline and surity required of engineering is unavailable.
Personally, I'm usually not able to estimate how long every task will take, because I'm usually operating in an environment full of uncertainty and dealing with other peoples mess. If I'm building it from scratch, generally no problem... dead on estimates every time. But when you want me to build something that interacts with something else that I didn't write and don't give me the time to develop a thorough understanding of it before I start, don't ask me how long it will take. Cause I'm one of those assholes that will sing-song "I don't know" before I let you pass the buck on to me.
Nothing more frustruating than dealing with a project manager too stupid to understand this. Engineers building a bridge will have LOTS of time to ensure that there is NO uncertainty before they start. No one ever tells a bridge builder that they don't have the resources to test the earth it will be built on. But if you come up to a project manager and say "I don't know how long it will take because of these areas of uncertainty. These areas are known and will take this amount of time, these are not and cannot be predicted without research, I would like to spend x amount of time developing a thorough understanding of what I'm interoperating with before I complete my estimate." they will usually simply insist that you pull a number out of your ass for them.
If you're the project manager, you're the one sending your grunts out without a clue and wondering why they don't get things done when they said they would. Stop passing the buck and create a more stable and clear environment for your developers to work in. That is, after all, the only reason you're there.
Sounds to me like you met a couple of guys who insisted that you actually do your job properly and had an epiphany. Try learning from it.
The difference between a software engineer and a computer scientist is that the software engineer doesn't do any engineering, while the computer scientist doesn't do any science.
Computing is a creative technical discipline that has little to do with engineering and even less to do with science. It is an art, a craft and sometimes a trade.
Just because they're older buzzwords doesn't mean they're accurate.
Were you assured in writing? Do you pass that assurance forward to others in writing?
If not, then the only safe assumption is that those assurances aren't worth jack shit.
If I posted a comment that I'd been engaged in conversation with Linus Torvalds and he assured me that we could all use his code any way we saw fit, because he has veto power over GPL enforcement and would certainly use it, would you start sticking Linux code into your closed-source apps?
Perhaps if I got my hands on a copy of that leaked windows code and posted a comment that I'd been engaged in conversation with Bill Gates and he assured me that we could all use his code any way we saw fit. Would you be reassured?
If the legalese says "all rights reserved" then that's precisely what they are. Your assurances are not very convincing.
We were concerned at first about the license, especially the bit about "other distribution of any of these sounds, either as they exist upon downloading, or any modification thereof." This amounts to a cover-your-ass clause... the band and Interscope are encouraging people to remix or whatever with this file.
Doesn't sound like a cover your ass clause to me. Sounds like a "go ahead and play at home like you're already doing, but don't ever share anything you make with anyone else or you're guilty of copyright infringement. Same as always.
If that's not what it is, go ahead and explain why.
If there was a clause permitting non-commercial use and distribution, that would be something noteworthy. As far as I can see, this isn't noteworthy at all. Publishing this stuff in this format under this license looks more like sowing the seeds for some nice future lawsuits than anything else.
A survey of senior executives was recently completed in which they asked the various senior executives how the quality of the food in the cafeteria has changed over the last year. The results indicate that the quality of cafeteria food has improved.
A survey of cafeteria staff was recently completed in which they asked the various staff how often senior executives eat cafeteria food. The results indicate that senior executives NEVER eat cafeteria food.
"As the study was carried out independently, DiDio said she had no influence on the results."
Not when the speakers come with a hidden license you don't discover until you fire them up for the first time that says you can't play any creative commons music on the speakers, and you have the option to return the speakers for a full refund.
In that case, the seller has an obligation to refund the money. And that's the case with Windows.
I just had a big argument recently about this. My unpopular point of view on the subject for you all to disagree with:
A teacher teaches you. This means interaction, and a responsibility for ensuring that you learn. Teaching implies an interrelationship between the person doing the teaching and the student. It involves adapting on the fly the student in an effort to ensure that they are educated.
A professor professes things. They stand and lecture at you, but dont interact with you to any significant enough degree to be considered teaching. Most of them don't even read and critique your work. You can learn from them in the same fashion you can learn from reading a book or from watching a documentary, but they're not teaching you, because they don't take the responsibility for ensuring you get it.
If you stop buying into the fallacy that teaching and professing are the same, you'll have much more realistic expectations of your school experience. You'll be able to recognize when a supposed teacher isn't teaching, but just professing, and you'll be able to comment to your friends that this professor is really good, he actually teaches you.
Slashdot Mirror
Something that I can fit my music collection on!
Where do i buy an mp3 player that can read these?
Apparently they lost this antitrust case or something, and they're punishment is supposed to be opening these formats up. At least, that's what I heard.
Word is the only application in the office stable that can be easily replaced with any text editor under the sun.
Who cares about word processors? Excel, Access and Outlook/Exchange are the important bits. Yeah, I suppose PowerPoint too... not that it has any redeeming qualities, but a lot of ppl do use it to put their employees down for their morning nap.
What the hell are you going on about? OSX isn't open source either.
Mod this guy up. That "insightful" coward needs rebutting.
Or the government could just, oh, get rid of IP and be done with it?
Indymedia is not a source of respectable economic research.
What is Indymedia? Never heard of it.
Seriously, can you point to any large-scale flight to safety from US treasuries to other currencies or assets? It just isn't realistically happening.
No it's not. The logical chain of events that would precede that goes as follows:
1) Countries start accepting an alternative currency for oil, such as the euro. 2) Other countries start purchasing oil in those currencies where it's appropriate 3) Those countries no longer need to keep a reserve of USD, so they maintain it less as they become more comfortable in the new business relationship 4) As time progresses, more countries become a party to the new trading relationship and thus also become less motivated to trade for USD 5) As the number hoarding USD becomes less and less, there are fewer places to spend that currency. 6) The US dollars start coming home like so many bad cheques.
The last country that tried to accept non US currency for oil got bombed and invaded, so no, we're not seeing that happening.
Do you really think that some scheme cooked up by Chirac and Hussein to sell Iraqs meager oil output in Euros would have been likely?
Yes. If the US hadn't invaded, I would say it's pretty much a certainty that Iraq would take Euros instead of food, and that many european nations would take oil for Euros. Are you seriously suggesting that this wouldn't have occurred?
Are you actually suggesting that Saddam Hussein had a great beneficient financial program for the world?
No, I didn't attribute any altruistic motives to him at all.. I believe I referred to him as a brutal dictator. His motives aren't relevant.
Some sort of Baran-Wallerstein type theory of global immiserization is not "an accepted fact" as you claim, but actually widely discredited. Because post-war Germany and Japan, South Korea, Canada, all the greatest trading partners of the US are not 'exploited'. I'm sorry, you lose, move away from the table.
I disagree with that statement. And I don't see anything from you that backs it up. I know that up here in Canada we're contemplating how to effectively retaliate against the US for their crooked dealings across a multitude of industries ranging from lumber to cattle to power to water. This isn't something I pulled out of my ass, or Indymedia for that matter (whatever Indymedia is)
Look, I can tell that you're not going to be convinced by anything anyone says about this that doesn't fit your world-view, but I'm going to give a simple analogy for anyone who might stumble across this discussion. If you buy stuff from me, I prosper more than if you don't. If I am Germany, and I have stuff for sale then I am better off if people buy my stuff. If no one offers to buy it, then I have less money to spend on things I need. It would hurt me, as Germany a great deal if suddenly the US started trading with me less. OK, that's not too hard to understand.
Your analogy only holds true if the germans lack the capacity to repurpose their production. If you're making more cars than you have people to drive them, then yes, you need a trading partner or your screwed. But if you're an intelligent human being, you'll stop making more cars than you can sell and find something more useful to do. And considering that the US is operating at such a huge trade deficit, it follows that you're getting back much less from selling your cars than you're giving, so you're likely to see more returns by either finding another trading partner or keeping the fruit of your production within your own country. Given the choice between selling the fruits of my labour at a very low return and hopefully being able to buy the things I need or investing in my capacity to make those things myself, I know which I see greater value in.
Yes it would be good if Japan was also buying more Japanese goods and services and Germa
You really think having the population of Japan and Germany ripping resources out of the ground, turning them into useful goods and sending them to the US in exchange for pieces of paper that are never redeemed is doing those countries good?
I think you're a little too close to the problem to see the big picture there mate. The people of Japan and every other nation would be a lot better off spending their time and resources to improve their own lot in life rather than improving yours.
And your dismissal of the Euro as a global currency are totally unconvincing and not based on fact. Countries hoard US dollars and swap them around as a global currency instead of redeeming them because other countries won't accept them, particularly where oil is concerned. If you can't see that having a huge source of oil like Iraq accepting Euros and removing that necessity to hoard US Dollars would have changed things, then there's not a lot I can say to enlighten you. It's an obvious chain of events. It was just swept under the table at the time... I mean, they were really there to get all those WMDs, right?
And that motive carries over to Britian, their major ally in that war. They were fighting very hard to put the breaks on the Euro at the time.
The current weakness of the currency that makes you so disparaging of the possibility is a
result of the invasion of Iraq. It would be a great deal stronger now if that war hadn't occurred.
The US are looking out for themselves. It's been an accepted fact among the ruling class there that their standard of living depends on exploiting other nations for decades, and that those exploitive power structures must be preserved.
Think I'm wrong all you like... but do even a little research and the pieces all fall into place. The changes that brutal dictator would have brought to pass would have gone a long way towards breaking the US stranglehold on the global economy and making the world a better place to live in. Too late now though.
A trade deficit means that there are more goods flowing into your country from other countries than flowing out.
A record trade deficit means that there is more flowing in and less flowing out than ever before.
Couple this with the fact that the US has been using force of arms for ages to preserve their currencys status as the "global" currency, most recent example being the invasion of Iraq to prevent the Euro from becoming a second currency that can be traded for oil. Anyone with open eyes could see that the consequences of that would be the end of US ecomonic dominance and a fast slide into a massive depression.
Basically, we're set up in a structure where we're sending immense amounts of "stuff" to the US so they can print off some more US Dollars for the rest of us to swap with each other.
Explain to me how this makes the US a "nice guy"? Where I come from, we call that "ripping everyone off".
It looks to me like the grandparent was just an idiot who came across a tidbit of knowledge and has been using it to hammer down screws ever since.
How bout this... why don't you just stay in the states, drive drunk and shoot ppl with your handguns? We don't need those sorts of ppl here... so you just stay where you're happy.
This whole socialism thing you're going on about? I think it's a better way to live, and so do most of the other ppl here. If I'm going to pay my taxes towards funding the operation of a society and live within it, I'd like one that is structured to support the people who live here. I'd rather see the ignorant educated, the homeless given food and shelter, the criminals given social treatment and so on. I think investing in improving the lot of everyone is good for the every individual involved in addition to being good for the society.
I like living in a place where people care about each other to put their money where there mouth is rather than spouting rhetoric, cutting government programs, shifting responsibility for education and health care to the individuals who can afford it least when they need it most and looking for another country to bomb into submission and exploit.
I want to see this trend progress further along Socialist lines, a la the Nordic countries, rather than becoming more like the US. I consider your country to be a prime example of how badly things go when people don't give a shit about anyone but themselves. Fortunately for me, most of my countrymen seem to agree.
Rest assured though... if I become bitter and selfish and decide I want to live in a place where the social structure is set up to make it easy for me to exploit my fellow man, I'll be sure to pay your country a visit.
He's saying that because of the minority government, unpopular bills won't be forced down our throats. Then he's going off on a rant about the conservatives and how he'd rather leave the country than live under their rule.
I actually agree with him on the rant part. But it's still not relevant.
A reasonable tariff is zero. By your logic, they should go ahead and put me in prison for owning a gun "capable" of killing someone. Why does your country accept this idea of punishing everyone evenly for possible illegal use of something that is generally used for legal things? How come copiers aren't taxed? And who gets that tariff money?
We agree. If your gun is designed for killing people, handguns for example, you'll go to jail for owning it. Better stick to hunting rifles and shotguns.
I say respect the sovereignty of America and of the rest of the world and only violate someone's sovereignty when our country is CLEARLY threatened.
Shame the rest of America doesn't feel that way.
Um... if you're going to post that there's a trade surplus, maybe you shouldn't link to an article that talks about a record trade deficit.
Are we still supposed to wait for SP2, or does this mean that SP1 is the one that will be ready for production work?
Fill your boots. Only one hit wonders need copyright, and I've got a million of em :P
I'm an "artistic" coder. But then, I'm also high maintenance and question every unclear piece of text in requirements documentation. Even an artist needs to know if you're looking for a head shot or a body shot. But I operate in a world full of black boxes just like everyone else, and recognize that the level of disipline and surity required of engineering is unavailable.
Personally, I'm usually not able to estimate how long every task will take, because I'm usually operating in an environment full of uncertainty and dealing with other peoples mess. If I'm building it from scratch, generally no problem... dead on estimates every time. But when you want me to build something that interacts with something else that I didn't write and don't give me the time to develop a thorough understanding of it before I start, don't ask me how long it will take. Cause I'm one of those assholes that will sing-song "I don't know" before I let you pass the buck on to me.
Nothing more frustruating than dealing with a project manager too stupid to understand this. Engineers building a bridge will have LOTS of time to ensure that there is NO uncertainty before they start. No one ever tells a bridge builder that they don't have the resources to test the earth it will be built on. But if you come up to a project manager and say "I don't know how long it will take because of these areas of uncertainty. These areas are known and will take this amount of time, these are not and cannot be predicted without research, I would like to spend x amount of time developing a thorough understanding of what I'm interoperating with before I complete my estimate." they will usually simply insist that you pull a number out of your ass for them.
If you're the project manager, you're the one sending your grunts out without a clue and wondering why they don't get things done when they said they would. Stop passing the buck and create a more stable and clear environment for your developers to work in. That is, after all, the only reason you're there.
Sounds to me like you met a couple of guys who insisted that you actually do your job properly and had an epiphany. Try learning from it.
The difference between a software engineer and a computer scientist is that the software engineer doesn't do any engineering, while the computer scientist doesn't do any science.
Computing is a creative technical discipline that has little to do with engineering and even less to do with science. It is an art, a craft and sometimes a trade.
Just because they're older buzzwords doesn't mean they're accurate.
Were you assured in writing? Do you pass that assurance forward to others in writing?
If not, then the only safe assumption is that those assurances aren't worth jack shit.
If I posted a comment that I'd been engaged in conversation with Linus Torvalds and he assured me that we could all use his code any way we saw fit, because he has veto power over GPL enforcement and would certainly use it, would you start sticking Linux code into your closed-source apps?
Perhaps if I got my hands on a copy of that leaked windows code and posted a comment that I'd been engaged in conversation with Bill Gates and he assured me that we could all use his code any way we saw fit. Would you be reassured?
If the legalese says "all rights reserved" then that's precisely what they are. Your assurances are not very convincing.
We were concerned at first about the license, especially the bit about "other distribution of any of these sounds, either as they exist upon downloading, or any modification thereof." This amounts to a cover-your-ass clause... the band and Interscope are encouraging people to remix or whatever with this file.
Doesn't sound like a cover your ass clause to me. Sounds like a "go ahead and play at home like you're already doing, but don't ever share anything you make with anyone else or you're guilty of copyright infringement. Same as always.
If that's not what it is, go ahead and explain why.
If there was a clause permitting non-commercial use and distribution, that would be something noteworthy. As far as I can see, this isn't noteworthy at all. Publishing this stuff in this format under this license looks more like sowing the seeds for some nice future lawsuits than anything else.
Guess the moderators don't read the articles either. I think my mistake was making a joke about the article instead of the summary. :P
A survey of senior executives was recently completed in which they asked the various senior executives how the quality of the food in the cafeteria has changed over the last year. The results indicate that the quality of cafeteria food has improved.
A survey of cafeteria staff was recently completed in which they asked the various staff how often senior executives eat cafeteria food. The results indicate that senior executives NEVER eat cafeteria food.
"As the study was carried out independently, DiDio said she had no influence on the results."
Not when the speakers come with a hidden license you don't discover until you fire them up for the first time that says you can't play any creative commons music on the speakers, and you have the option to return the speakers for a full refund.
In that case, the seller has an obligation to refund the money. And that's the case with Windows.
Still think it's like a car?
Doesn't look like you're granting them ownership of your copyright, but a license to use your submission. It's still yours to do with as you wish.
How else are they supposed to use your submission if you don't grant them license to when you submit it?
I don't like Microsoft much either, but your criticism in this place seems a bit misplaced.
I just had a big argument recently about this. My unpopular point of view on the subject for you all to disagree with:
A teacher teaches you. This means interaction, and a responsibility for ensuring that you learn. Teaching implies an interrelationship between the person doing the teaching and the student. It involves adapting on the fly the student in an effort to ensure that they are educated.
A professor professes things. They stand and lecture at you, but dont interact with you to any significant enough degree to be considered teaching. Most of them don't even read and critique your work. You can learn from them in the same fashion you can learn from reading a book or from watching a documentary, but they're not teaching you, because they don't take the responsibility for ensuring you get it.
If you stop buying into the fallacy that teaching and professing are the same, you'll have much more realistic expectations of your school experience. You'll be able to recognize when a supposed teacher isn't teaching, but just professing, and you'll be able to comment to your friends that this professor is really good, he actually teaches you.