But for a lot of people, the reason they don't use simpler, cheaper, more portable alternatives is because of Office's proprietary file-formats, not because Office is better for them.
Well, with all due respect, we're kind of getting into a semantic argument, here. If you need to exchange files with your friends or co-workers or whatever, you're going to need software that produces files that those people can use. That's a necessary feature. If Microsoft Office fits that bill, then Microsoft Office is a good choice for you.
It's important to point out, though, that lots of programs can read and write the various Office file formats. AppleWorks, for example, reads and writes Word and Excel files with virtually no problems. Of course, if a file takes advantage of a feature that only Word or Excel has, you're going to have problems moving it into another program. But that kinda goes without saying.
Since interoperability is important, it should be obvious that any product that competes with Office must be able to read and write Office file formats. If Microsoft changes the format and doesn't release the specification, well, hard cheese. They've got the right to do that. Competitors will be back to competing solely on the basis of price and features.
When shopping around for laptops for example, I could not find one that did not require me to pay for both Windows XP and Office.
That's funny. When you said this, I went looking for a laptop on the web. The very first one I picked-- the Dell Inspiron 8200, chosen for no other reason that because it came up first on the Dell web site-- is available with Microsoft Works instead of Office. Sounds like you didn't look hard enough.
When a monopoly abuses their power, the solution is to prosecute.
Did you miss the part of my post where I talked about the fact that Office is the leading productivity software product for reasons that have nothing to do with Microsoft's monopoly? It's not like they're bundling Office with every copy of Windows or anything.
Um... that's got nothing to do with a monopoly, dude. That's got to do with the fact that Office gives them one thing that nobody else can-- universality-- and the fact that there's no compelling reason for them to spend the time and money retraining their people to use something new. What you described is basically the same reason why any software product attains market dominance. Adobe Photoshop is the market leader in professional image editing for the same reasons that you mentioned; is Adobe a monopoly?
If something significantly better than Office came along, that also offered compatibility with Office in the ways that people need, you can believe it would be successful. I, personally, have no real idea what features or functions this notional product would have to have to excite the people who currently use Office. I suspect that the people who work on projects like this one and like Open Office don't really, either.
Look at the evolution of Windows over the past decade: Windows 3.1 to Windows 95, with a sidestep to Windows NT, then bringing the two together with Windows 2000, and then improving it here and there with Windows XP. It's not a perfect OS, but you can't exactly accuse Microsoft of resting on its laurels, either. They work very hard on Windows, if for no other reason than to make Windows N+1 enough of an improvement over Windows N to get people to buy the new version.
You already mentioned Parmigiano (Reggiano?) on out-of-the-box stuff, I don't see why not with the gourmet version, too.
That's one. A little of this, mixed with panko-style breadcrumbs, over the top, and then two minutes under the salamander before service. Can you guess the other one?;-)
Mozzarella Fresca is the safest guess.
No, that would be too sweet, too acidic. This dish needs a more complex flavor base. Also, think less stringy.
I ran into a Dutch Mimolette in France that is my current favorite
No, I've gotta say that you're way off there. Mimolette is too fruity for this dish.
I'll give it to you. The secret ingredient is Stilton. Stinky, veiny Stilton. Make a blonde roux, add just a bit warm cream and some white stock, then crumble in the Stilton. I, personally, could eat this mixture with a spoon. That's what forms the base of my mac and cheese.
I had a feeling you'd have the response-notification-by-email turned on
Not by email, no, but I do have notification enabled.
Sure, it's a bit big and sluggish, but that should only make MS Office users feel more at home
You haven't used Office lately, huh? Office 2000 or XP for Windows is slick and fast. Office for Mac is also slick and fast. If Open Office is sluggish, that's a very bad thing.
It seems to me that, going beyond OpenOffice, the notion of an "integrated office suite" itself is broken.
It is, though, what the market seems to want. You can buy the various Office products individually, but people still buy Office instead.
Woah, woah. Office is the most popular productivity product because it's good. Complain all you like about Microsoft; they've produced an exceptional set of products in Office. It doesn't have anything to do with mindshare or monopoly power.
Consider the Mac. There are basically two office products for the Mac: Office and AppleWorks. Although some people use AppleWorks, Office owns the Mac productivity market. Why? Because Office for Mac is a good-- not perfect, but good-- product.
The answer to the market dominance of Office isn't to prosecute Microsoft for playing unfairly. The answer is to create an office product that's better than Microsoft Office. It shouldn't be too hard; everybody around here always complains about how Microsoft sucks, and how Office sucks, right? So coming up with something better ought to be child's play.;-)
Bravo. It's important that people realize that Microsoft Office does not-- well, usually doesn't, anyway-- come bundled with new computers. If you want Office, you have to buy a copy. People use Office because they choose to.
Let me say that just one more time. People are not using Office because it's already installed on their new computers. And they're not suffering along with Office because there are no alternatives. People buy and use Office because they choose to.
Until one or another of the various free office products gets to the point where it's at least as good as Office, most people will choose Microsoft's product.
The "it's good enough" mentality will not result in a successful office productivity package.
You might want to make note of the fact that karma is not redeemable; it cannot be exchanged for valuable prizes. There is no reason to begrudge it of anyone.
Instead of trying to drag this guy down-- who, even if nothing else, is really entertaining-- why don't you try posting something insightful or funny yourself?
Fontina, pecorino, a New Hampshire cheddar that I'm especially fond of, montasio, asiago, and two that I won't tell you about, but that you could probably guess. Neither of them is Velveeta, and neither of them comes wrapped in plastic that says "cheez" on it, but that's all I'm saying.;-)
What's the brand on that elbow noodle?
You know, I have no idea. I get it in bulk from my importer, and I've never even looked at the sacks. But next time I'm in the restaurant-- Tuesday-- I'll check.
Of course, I'm waiting for the explanation on how anti-gravity works.
That's in the writer's guide. (Well, not anti-gravity, but rather ship's artificial gravity, which is what I assume you meant.) It's right there in black and white: the answer is magic. Ship's artificial gravity works by magic, which is to say that it's not important to the story, and it will never be important to the story. So don't worry about it. And if that's good enough for the writers, it's good enough for me.;-)
... according to fans online, Fox has run about 2 promos for the show? Since.. ever!
That's not exactly accurate. Fox has spent quite a bit on marketing for the show, even going so far as to set up a pretty impressive official web site with message boards and whatnot. They didn't have to do that. Fox spent a blessed fortune on the pilot-- the sets alone cost more than most episodes. When they got a pilot that wasn't exactly what they wanted, they could have cancelled the show completely and put the pilot on a shelf, but they didn't. They ordered some more episodes and decided to give it a shot.
And the most important thing is that they don't show up at story meetings every Tuesday with a briefcase full of notes. Amazingly, there hasn't been one "more sex," "more proactive," or "can you Rastify him by about 10%?"
Fox could have been a lot worse.
Re:What were you expecting, Ocean's 11 in space??
on
Solaris: Another View
·
· Score: 2
Yay! Somebody else who gets it! (Please read this.)
the new one, from what i can tell from the previews for it, completely missed the point.
Aren't you being a little harsh toward a movie you haven't seen? I haven't seen it myself, so I can't say whether it's any good or not, but it sounds like you're rushing to judgment here.
another sad attempt to cash in on a great foreign film, and make it acceptable for the average, illiterate american.
Gee, snobby much?
Apart from your rudeness, I can tell you without reservation that Soderberg's Solaris is definitely not dumbed down. If anything, it's inacceptable to the American audience. It's a challenging movie that asks questions without providing answers. You may or may not care for the questions, or the way they're asked, but it's going too far to say that the movie was dumbed down.
Re:The review seems to have missed the point
on
Solaris: Another View
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The role was a gutsy move for George Clooney
I'm glad somebody else realized this, too. Did you notice the way Clooney performed the last scene of the film straight into the camera? Usually when you're shooting a scene with two actors, one of them stands or sits behind or beside the camera to give the other actor an eye-line, and a performance to act against. Then they move the camera and shoot the scene again from the reverse angle, this time with the first actor behind the camera. Both angles are shot slightly off-center, because the actors are making eye contact with each other, and not with the camera. It's a hell of a lot harder to act looking at a camera lens than at another person.
But that last scene had Clooney acting right into the camera. It was an incredibly powerful scene. His performance was just outstanding.
Few Slashdotters will realize this, though, and even fewer will appreciate it. But it's there, it's there.
(Shameless plug here: if you liked Solaris at all-- or even if you didn't but are willing to listen to a slightly different take on it-- you might be interested in my recent journal entry about it.)
My guess is that most of the guns are probably minature rail guns - using magnetic acceleration to propel the bullets.
Hmm. Sounds like kind of a reach to me. Railguns require enormous amounts of electrical power to accelerate even bullet-sized masses to dangerous speeds, and the guns they use on the show are small. They could be equipped with some kind of super-batteries, but that has all sorts of implications. Can's open, worms everywhere, and so on.
No, I think it's better to just assume that the guns are your typical chemical type, and that the bullets are powered by gunpowder or something like it, and that they sound different from real guns because of... oh, let's say magic.
Besides, remember the scene in "Our Mrs. Reynolds" when Mal wanted to use Vera to shoot their way through the net? They had to wrap her in a space suit because she needed ambient air to fire. Needing ambient air implies the need for an oxidizer, which implies combustion, which leads to the conclusion that it's gunpowder or something like it.
And Whedon, if you see this....
He hates it when people call him "Whedon." He doesn't even like "Mr. Whedon." It's just "Joss.";-)
However, this seems pointless, as we now have methods which can neutralize nuclear waste here on earth -- certain machines can heat it to such an extent that it becomes a hard inert substance.
Uh... what? How do you turn radioactive material into non-radioactive material through the application of heat? Are you alluding to the recent "Brown's Gas" claptrap, in which it was asserted that the notional substance can be used to turn radioactive material into non-radioactive material without releasing any radioactivity into the environment? That's right up there with cold fusion in the annals of bad science. Or are you talking about the "Patterson process," which is just about as credible?
Despite your vapid ignorance of all matters political and social, you do seem at least marginally well read in the physical sciences. You should know better than to believe these sorts of things.
What is outrageous is your attempt and other's attempts to shut up people who disagree with the war on terrorism.
Actually, if you'll notice, it was just a request, not an attempt to shut you up. Based on what I know about you, I would shut you up in an instant if I could. But since that's not an option, I'll just ask. And I'll keep asking.
The simple fact is, that the FSF is an authority on what Free Software means.
True, in the sense that "Free Software" is a trademark under the control of the Free Software Foundation. False, in the sense of un-capitalized "free software," which is what we're talking about. And in this case, the FSF's definition of Free Software (the trademark) is completely incompatible with the definition of "free software" (the notion). So incompatible, in fact, that I hold the opinion that the FSF's use of the word "free" is so inappropriate as to border on the deceptive. I'm quite close, in fact, to calling it out-and-out fraud.
A world where developers are "free" to impose the most restrictive EULA's on their end-users doesn't sound free to me.
Then you need to revise your definition of "free." A world in which people are free is, by definition, a free world. Q.E.D. If you are trying to say that freedom is a double-edged sword, then you are correct, if somewhat trite.
The GPL offers many freedoms to end-users and developers which proprietary licenses don't.
Perhaps, in some cases. But it offers far fewer freedoms that the BSD license does, or, indeed, that releasing software with no license at all would. The only difference between the GPL and another non-free license is the specific details of which activities are prohibited.
But in the long term, the revised-BSD may lead to a situation where there is much less freedom than there would be had the GPL been used (because under the GPL, all derivative will be Free Software, but not necessarily so under the BSD).
So... the fact that the GPL means that users are not free to create unrestricted derivative works somehow means that an all-GPL would would somehow be more free? I hope you realize how insane that sounds. It's positively, to invoke your idol, Orwellian. "In order to be free, we must all be enslaved. Only when we are all enslaved can we all be free!"
No, actually I know there is no absolute right and wrong.
You are mistaken on this point. Someday you probably realize this. There is a chance that you may live out your life as an amoral sociopath, but for your sake and the sake of those around you, I hope you come to your senses.
The fact that our ideas of absolute right and absolute wrong are not based on natural, physical laws is not relevant. Every man has a conscience. You, it seems, have learned to ignore yours, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
Actually, the opinions of anyone and everyone is irrelevant to what the truth is.
I thought you said you didn't believe in absolute right and absolute wrong. Now you're saying that opinions are irrelevant. Which is it, friend?
Your opinion, my opinion, the opinion of everyone else in the world, is completely irrelevant to whether or not something is true.
I agree. Your opinion is irrelevant to the question of whether or not-- for example-- prostitution is wrong. My conscience says that it is. I am in the majority on this point. Your opinion that it is not, therefore, has no bearing at all on the question.
No, I believe the world would be a better place if everyone left their neighbors to do as they please in-so-much as possible (that is, in so far as their neighbor's activities aren't significantly directly harmful to them).
You are also mistaken on this point. The world would be a better place if everybody lived a sound, decent, moral life. That is not the natural human tendency, however, so we need laws to govern behavior. You would abolish most of those laws, resulting in a policed anarchy. No decent person wants to live in that kind of world. You, therefore, must not be a decent person. That's okay; it's not incurable. You can get better if you put your mind to it.
That means, if your neighbor decides to have sex with a prostitute, fine -- doesn't necessarily harm you or anyone else
It does indelible harm to the fabric of civilized society. It devalues sexual relations, and trivializes the bond between lovers. This harms us all in an observable way. That's why it must not be permitted.
Prove it. You can't.
I don't have to. It's not even up for debate. It is moral truth. The only reason you deny it is because you have convinced yourself, somehow, to ignore your conscience.
Prove that life has inherent value. You can't. But that doesn't mean it isn't true. It just means that that idea doesn't require proof in order to be accepted as true. Didn't somebody once say, "Logic is all well and good, but it's no substitute for thought?"
Nothing can be better evidence for the non-existence of morality/ethics as an a priori entity than that we can't prove any moral/ethical statements in the same solid sense that we can prove scientific facts.
Trying to answer a moral question using science is about as helpful as trying to answer a scientific question with morality. You're missing the mark, friend.
Yeah, I've been trying to rationalize that all day. I mean, we can start with the fact, like you said, that TV gunfire doesn't sound at all like real gunfire. Pistols don't go "blam!" Pistols go "pop!" Pistols on "Firefly" almost go "ping!"
If I figure out an explanation for that one that makes sense in the context of the show, I'll let you know. But until then, I'm putting it in the same category as the ubiquitous artificial gravity: it just is, and the fact that it is isn't relevant to the story, so don't worry about it.
Slashdot Mirror
But for a lot of people, the reason they don't use simpler, cheaper, more portable alternatives is because of Office's proprietary file-formats, not because Office is better for them.
Well, with all due respect, we're kind of getting into a semantic argument, here. If you need to exchange files with your friends or co-workers or whatever, you're going to need software that produces files that those people can use. That's a necessary feature. If Microsoft Office fits that bill, then Microsoft Office is a good choice for you.
It's important to point out, though, that lots of programs can read and write the various Office file formats. AppleWorks, for example, reads and writes Word and Excel files with virtually no problems. Of course, if a file takes advantage of a feature that only Word or Excel has, you're going to have problems moving it into another program. But that kinda goes without saying.
Since interoperability is important, it should be obvious that any product that competes with Office must be able to read and write Office file formats. If Microsoft changes the format and doesn't release the specification, well, hard cheese. They've got the right to do that. Competitors will be back to competing solely on the basis of price and features.
When shopping around for laptops for example, I could not find one that did not require me to pay for both Windows XP and Office.
That's funny. When you said this, I went looking for a laptop on the web. The very first one I picked-- the Dell Inspiron 8200, chosen for no other reason that because it came up first on the Dell web site-- is available with Microsoft Works instead of Office. Sounds like you didn't look hard enough.
When a monopoly abuses their power, the solution is to prosecute.
Did you miss the part of my post where I talked about the fact that Office is the leading productivity software product for reasons that have nothing to do with Microsoft's monopoly? It's not like they're bundling Office with every copy of Windows or anything.
Um... that's got nothing to do with a monopoly, dude. That's got to do with the fact that Office gives them one thing that nobody else can-- universality-- and the fact that there's no compelling reason for them to spend the time and money retraining their people to use something new. What you described is basically the same reason why any software product attains market dominance. Adobe Photoshop is the market leader in professional image editing for the same reasons that you mentioned; is Adobe a monopoly?
If something significantly better than Office came along, that also offered compatibility with Office in the ways that people need, you can believe it would be successful. I, personally, have no real idea what features or functions this notional product would have to have to excite the people who currently use Office. I suspect that the people who work on projects like this one and like Open Office don't really, either.
It resulted in a successful OS, Windows.
Look at the evolution of Windows over the past decade: Windows 3.1 to Windows 95, with a sidestep to Windows NT, then bringing the two together with Windows 2000, and then improving it here and there with Windows XP. It's not a perfect OS, but you can't exactly accuse Microsoft of resting on its laurels, either. They work very hard on Windows, if for no other reason than to make Windows N+1 enough of an improvement over Windows N to get people to buy the new version.
You already mentioned Parmigiano (Reggiano?) on out-of-the-box stuff, I don't see why not with the gourmet version, too.
;-)
That's one. A little of this, mixed with panko-style breadcrumbs, over the top, and then two minutes under the salamander before service. Can you guess the other one?
Mozzarella Fresca is the safest guess.
No, that would be too sweet, too acidic. This dish needs a more complex flavor base. Also, think less stringy.
I ran into a Dutch Mimolette in France that is my current favorite
No, I've gotta say that you're way off there. Mimolette is too fruity for this dish.
I'll give it to you. The secret ingredient is Stilton. Stinky, veiny Stilton. Make a blonde roux, add just a bit warm cream and some white stock, then crumble in the Stilton. I, personally, could eat this mixture with a spoon. That's what forms the base of my mac and cheese.
I had a feeling you'd have the response-notification-by-email turned on
Not by email, no, but I do have notification enabled.
Sure, it's a bit big and sluggish, but that should only make MS Office users feel more at home
You haven't used Office lately, huh? Office 2000 or XP for Windows is slick and fast. Office for Mac is also slick and fast. If Open Office is sluggish, that's a very bad thing.
It seems to me that, going beyond OpenOffice, the notion of an "integrated office suite" itself is broken.
It is, though, what the market seems to want. You can buy the various Office products individually, but people still buy Office instead.
Woah, woah. Office is the most popular productivity product because it's good. Complain all you like about Microsoft; they've produced an exceptional set of products in Office. It doesn't have anything to do with mindshare or monopoly power.
;-)
Consider the Mac. There are basically two office products for the Mac: Office and AppleWorks. Although some people use AppleWorks, Office owns the Mac productivity market. Why? Because Office for Mac is a good-- not perfect, but good-- product.
The answer to the market dominance of Office isn't to prosecute Microsoft for playing unfairly. The answer is to create an office product that's better than Microsoft Office. It shouldn't be too hard; everybody around here always complains about how Microsoft sucks, and how Office sucks, right? So coming up with something better ought to be child's play.
Bravo. It's important that people realize that Microsoft Office does not-- well, usually doesn't, anyway-- come bundled with new computers. If you want Office, you have to buy a copy. People use Office because they choose to.
Let me say that just one more time. People are not using Office because it's already installed on their new computers. And they're not suffering along with Office because there are no alternatives. People buy and use Office because they choose to.
Until one or another of the various free office products gets to the point where it's at least as good as Office, most people will choose Microsoft's product.
The "it's good enough" mentality will not result in a successful office productivity package.
Got a link for that writer's guide?
No, it's definitely not on the web. As far as I know, it exists only in three-ring-binder form.
even if you respect the speed limits, a 12 cylinder car can accelerate faster, in fact spending more time in the speed limit.
You can only accelerate as quickly as the guy in the '77 El Camino in front of you. A Ferrari in stop-and-go traffic is no faster than a Fiesta.
You might want to make note of the fact that karma is not redeemable; it cannot be exchanged for valuable prizes. There is no reason to begrudge it of anyone.
Instead of trying to drag this guy down-- who, even if nothing else, is really entertaining-- why don't you try posting something insightful or funny yourself?
Seven cheeses! Which?
;-)
Fontina, pecorino, a New Hampshire cheddar that I'm especially fond of, montasio, asiago, and two that I won't tell you about, but that you could probably guess. Neither of them is Velveeta, and neither of them comes wrapped in plastic that says "cheez" on it, but that's all I'm saying.
What's the brand on that elbow noodle?
You know, I have no idea. I get it in bulk from my importer, and I've never even looked at the sacks. But next time I'm in the restaurant-- Tuesday-- I'll check.
Does Vera make the "ping" noise?
;-)
Didn't notice. Good question, though.
Of course, I'm waiting for the explanation on how anti-gravity works.
That's in the writer's guide. (Well, not anti-gravity, but rather ship's artificial gravity, which is what I assume you meant.) It's right there in black and white: the answer is magic. Ship's artificial gravity works by magic, which is to say that it's not important to the story, and it will never be important to the story. So don't worry about it. And if that's good enough for the writers, it's good enough for me.
... according to fans online, Fox has run about 2 promos for the show? Since.. ever!
That's not exactly accurate. Fox has spent quite a bit on marketing for the show, even going so far as to set up a pretty impressive official web site with message boards and whatnot. They didn't have to do that. Fox spent a blessed fortune on the pilot-- the sets alone cost more than most episodes. When they got a pilot that wasn't exactly what they wanted, they could have cancelled the show completely and put the pilot on a shelf, but they didn't. They ordered some more episodes and decided to give it a shot.
And the most important thing is that they don't show up at story meetings every Tuesday with a briefcase full of notes. Amazingly, there hasn't been one "more sex," "more proactive," or "can you Rastify him by about 10%?"
Fox could have been a lot worse.
Yay! Somebody else who gets it! (Please read this.)
the new one, from what i can tell from the previews for it, completely missed the point.
Aren't you being a little harsh toward a movie you haven't seen? I haven't seen it myself, so I can't say whether it's any good or not, but it sounds like you're rushing to judgment here.
another sad attempt to cash in on a great foreign film, and make it acceptable for the average, illiterate american.
Gee, snobby much?
Apart from your rudeness, I can tell you without reservation that Soderberg's Solaris is definitely not dumbed down. If anything, it's inacceptable to the American audience. It's a challenging movie that asks questions without providing answers. You may or may not care for the questions, or the way they're asked, but it's going too far to say that the movie was dumbed down.
The role was a gutsy move for George Clooney
I'm glad somebody else realized this, too. Did you notice the way Clooney performed the last scene of the film straight into the camera? Usually when you're shooting a scene with two actors, one of them stands or sits behind or beside the camera to give the other actor an eye-line, and a performance to act against. Then they move the camera and shoot the scene again from the reverse angle, this time with the first actor behind the camera. Both angles are shot slightly off-center, because the actors are making eye contact with each other, and not with the camera. It's a hell of a lot harder to act looking at a camera lens than at another person.
But that last scene had Clooney acting right into the camera. It was an incredibly powerful scene. His performance was just outstanding.
Few Slashdotters will realize this, though, and even fewer will appreciate it. But it's there, it's there.
(Shameless plug here: if you liked Solaris at all-- or even if you didn't but are willing to listen to a slightly different take on it-- you might be interested in my recent journal entry about it.)
Book adaptations tend to suck because it's a completely different medium
Yeah. Movies like The Godfather, Gone with the Wind, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and The Wizard of Oz really disappointed me.
But hey, you know what sucks even worse? Absurd generalizations.
Sorry, wrong again. It's spelled "Stanislaw," but it's pronounced "throat-wobbler mangrove."
My guess is that most of the guns are probably minature rail guns - using magnetic acceleration to propel the bullets.
;-)
Hmm. Sounds like kind of a reach to me. Railguns require enormous amounts of electrical power to accelerate even bullet-sized masses to dangerous speeds, and the guns they use on the show are small. They could be equipped with some kind of super-batteries, but that has all sorts of implications. Can's open, worms everywhere, and so on.
No, I think it's better to just assume that the guns are your typical chemical type, and that the bullets are powered by gunpowder or something like it, and that they sound different from real guns because of... oh, let's say magic.
Besides, remember the scene in "Our Mrs. Reynolds" when Mal wanted to use Vera to shoot their way through the net? They had to wrap her in a space suit because she needed ambient air to fire. Needing ambient air implies the need for an oxidizer, which implies combustion, which leads to the conclusion that it's gunpowder or something like it.
And Whedon, if you see this....
He hates it when people call him "Whedon." He doesn't even like "Mr. Whedon." It's just "Joss."
However, this seems pointless, as we now have methods which can neutralize nuclear waste here on earth -- certain machines can heat it to such an extent that it becomes a hard inert substance.
Uh... what? How do you turn radioactive material into non-radioactive material through the application of heat? Are you alluding to the recent "Brown's Gas" claptrap, in which it was asserted that the notional substance can be used to turn radioactive material into non-radioactive material without releasing any radioactivity into the environment? That's right up there with cold fusion in the annals of bad science. Or are you talking about the "Patterson process," which is just about as credible?
Despite your vapid ignorance of all matters political and social, you do seem at least marginally well read in the physical sciences. You should know better than to believe these sorts of things.
What is outrageous is your attempt and other's attempts to shut up people who disagree with the war on terrorism.
Actually, if you'll notice, it was just a request, not an attempt to shut you up. Based on what I know about you, I would shut you up in an instant if I could. But since that's not an option, I'll just ask. And I'll keep asking.
The simple fact is, that the FSF is an authority on what Free Software means.
True, in the sense that "Free Software" is a trademark under the control of the Free Software Foundation. False, in the sense of un-capitalized "free software," which is what we're talking about. And in this case, the FSF's definition of Free Software (the trademark) is completely incompatible with the definition of "free software" (the notion). So incompatible, in fact, that I hold the opinion that the FSF's use of the word "free" is so inappropriate as to border on the deceptive. I'm quite close, in fact, to calling it out-and-out fraud.
A world where developers are "free" to impose the most restrictive EULA's on their end-users doesn't sound free to me.
Then you need to revise your definition of "free." A world in which people are free is, by definition, a free world. Q.E.D. If you are trying to say that freedom is a double-edged sword, then you are correct, if somewhat trite.
The GPL offers many freedoms to end-users and developers which proprietary licenses don't.
Perhaps, in some cases. But it offers far fewer freedoms that the BSD license does, or, indeed, that releasing software with no license at all would. The only difference between the GPL and another non-free license is the specific details of which activities are prohibited.
But in the long term, the revised-BSD may lead to a situation where there is much less freedom than there would be had the GPL been used (because under the GPL, all derivative will be Free Software, but not necessarily so under the BSD).
So... the fact that the GPL means that users are not free to create unrestricted derivative works somehow means that an all-GPL would would somehow be more free? I hope you realize how insane that sounds. It's positively, to invoke your idol, Orwellian. "In order to be free, we must all be enslaved. Only when we are all enslaved can we all be free!"
No, actually I know there is no absolute right and wrong.
You are mistaken on this point. Someday you probably realize this. There is a chance that you may live out your life as an amoral sociopath, but for your sake and the sake of those around you, I hope you come to your senses.
The fact that our ideas of absolute right and absolute wrong are not based on natural, physical laws is not relevant. Every man has a conscience. You, it seems, have learned to ignore yours, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
Actually, the opinions of anyone and everyone is irrelevant to what the truth is.
I thought you said you didn't believe in absolute right and absolute wrong. Now you're saying that opinions are irrelevant. Which is it, friend?
Your opinion, my opinion, the opinion of everyone else in the world, is completely irrelevant to whether or not something is true.
I agree. Your opinion is irrelevant to the question of whether or not-- for example-- prostitution is wrong. My conscience says that it is. I am in the majority on this point. Your opinion that it is not, therefore, has no bearing at all on the question.
No, I believe the world would be a better place if everyone left their neighbors to do as they please in-so-much as possible (that is, in so far as their neighbor's activities aren't significantly directly harmful to them).
You are also mistaken on this point. The world would be a better place if everybody lived a sound, decent, moral life. That is not the natural human tendency, however, so we need laws to govern behavior. You would abolish most of those laws, resulting in a policed anarchy. No decent person wants to live in that kind of world. You, therefore, must not be a decent person. That's okay; it's not incurable. You can get better if you put your mind to it.
That means, if your neighbor decides to have sex with a prostitute, fine -- doesn't necessarily harm you or anyone else
It does indelible harm to the fabric of civilized society. It devalues sexual relations, and trivializes the bond between lovers. This harms us all in an observable way. That's why it must not be permitted.
Prove it. You can't.
I don't have to. It's not even up for debate. It is moral truth. The only reason you deny it is because you have convinced yourself, somehow, to ignore your conscience.
Prove that life has inherent value. You can't. But that doesn't mean it isn't true. It just means that that idea doesn't require proof in order to be accepted as true. Didn't somebody once say, "Logic is all well and good, but it's no substitute for thought?"
Nothing can be better evidence for the non-existence of morality/ethics as an a priori entity than that we can't prove any moral/ethical statements in the same solid sense that we can prove scientific facts.
Trying to answer a moral question using science is about as helpful as trying to answer a scientific question with morality. You're missing the mark, friend.
Yeah, I've been trying to rationalize that all day. I mean, we can start with the fact, like you said, that TV gunfire doesn't sound at all like real gunfire. Pistols don't go "blam!" Pistols go "pop!" Pistols on "Firefly" almost go "ping!"
If I figure out an explanation for that one that makes sense in the context of the show, I'll let you know. But until then, I'm putting it in the same category as the ubiquitous artificial gravity: it just is, and the fact that it is isn't relevant to the story, so don't worry about it.