The level of detail in this standard is very impressive, previous standards we had to deal with were less than half as expansive in their documentation.
Heh, "less than half as expansive". What an understatement.
I guess 0.000000000000001 is still less than 1000:)
"2. There's no reason that they have to implement it on any specific schedule. It doesn't matter to Microsoft if it takes them five, ten, or twenty years to implement it fully... they only need to be able to promise that an implementation is under development or waiting on approval."
No, that is a pretty one. If we can convince the public opinion that MS doesn't implement OOXML, it will need to. Otherwise, it will be unable to sell Office to those government bodies that demand ISO standards (and they were the reason all that started).
Now, we "just" have to convince the people, while MSM will scream everywhere that we are lying...
"To clarify for non-statistics students, a confidence interval of 1.5% +-3% in a result of 0 hits out of a random sample, means that Rob Weir is at worst 95.5% confident and at best 100% confident that there were no defects addressed by Microsoft."
To clarify for staticians wannabe (altough I'm not one statician either, but I at least FINISHED the basic statistics course), a confidence value can only have some meaning toghether with an error margin.
What he is saying is that he is 95.5% confident (at worst) that the corrected flaws are betwwen 0 and N, where the value of N was lost during the report.
Alternatively, he is saying that he is 98.5% confident that less than 3% of the flaws were corrected, and, altough the words of that setence were displaced during the report, the numbers are still the same.
In other words, some big boys dislike creating requirements, and so, waste companies' money writing badly designed software by themselves instead of working on what they were hired to do.
On the good side, they are rarer than Dilbert would let one think.
Tobacco company representatives should not be believed when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests.
Just replace the relevant references with words like IBM, OOXML, etc. and it's basically the same.
I couldn't explain in a better way why, on real life, you can't blindly trust logics.
See, we can't stop to verify every testimony of every person that MS buy. We simply don't have the time, nor all the facts.
"Logic programming is not useful for general-purpose tasks, but can hugely reduce programming time in tasks which are difficult to solve any other way."
I have this strong supicious that logic programming excells for interface description (software-software and software-human interfaces). I just can't complete creating a system that does it right:(
"There are no major spam bots for linux because linux just doesn't have that all important desktop install base. However infected linux servers are frequently used to admin botnets."
There are no major bots for Linux because Linux can't be compromissed by a script. At least, not massively. Linux is too varied, so you can't reuse the same exploits. Also, it doesn't have all the interface problems that plage Windows, so Linux users are less likely to fall into social enginereeng done by programs.
"Most AV companies don't 'take bribes' to keep bots going, they just aren't very good these days."
Oh, yeah. Like they didn't take bribes to not detect Sonny's rootkit.
Exactly, but MS's marketing is known of doing miracles. It is hard to belive that they managed to create such a mess.
"By marketing, do you mean lying."
Well, at MS those are the same thing... Well, not exactly, marketing for them means lying lucratively and without getting catched. And they are very good at it.
"The really amazing thing is that the universe appears to respect our ideas of logic."
Not so sure there..heard of quantum physics?
Are you refering to that man made theory that predict lots of weird things? Like that a photon would interfere with itself and, thus, light creates an interference pattern even when photons are throwed one at a time?
And you are not amazed that nature agrees with such ideas?
"A new machine is usually cheaper than single day wasted by a highly skilled member or staff."
Well, just customizing a new machine, backing everything up, moving to the new computer, getting all the old software running again and all the "where the hell did that file go?" problems can easily spend several work days.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, no. You are looking for Perl (just forget about all that "compiling" stuff). Java runs on everything, assumed that it is a PC.
Heh, "less than half as expansive". What an understatement.
I guess 0.000000000000001 is still less than 1000 :)
Well, ISO did change the rules so the standard would not die after the two first voting rounds...
Didn't you intend to say "New P members that voted all joined specificaly to fote in favor of it"?
Or are you talking about some other corrupt standard body?
So you should read those rules again.
Not corrupt, but corruptible.
And, now, everybody knows how to expliot it.
No, that is a pretty one. If we can convince the public opinion that MS doesn't implement OOXML, it will need to. Otherwise, it will be unable to sell Office to those government bodies that demand ISO standards (and they were the reason all that started).
Now, we "just" have to convince the people, while MSM will scream everywhere that we are lying...
Well, the USA can start investigating its own NB, that also aproved OOXML on a not nice way.
Of course, that isn't one excuse for the others...
Do programs stop breaking if you put "My Documents" on a network map?
To clarify for staticians wannabe (altough I'm not one statician either, but I at least FINISHED the basic statistics course), a confidence value can only have some meaning toghether with an error margin.
What he is saying is that he is 95.5% confident (at worst) that the corrected flaws are betwwen 0 and N, where the value of N was lost during the report.
Alternatively, he is saying that he is 98.5% confident that less than 3% of the flaws were corrected, and, altough the words of that setence were displaced during the report, the numbers are still the same.
In other words, some big boys dislike creating requirements, and so, waste companies' money writing badly designed software by themselves instead of working on what they were hired to do.
On the good side, they are rarer than Dilbert would let one think.
I couldn't explain in a better way why, on real life, you can't blindly trust logics.
See, we can't stop to verify every testimony of every person that MS buy. We simply don't have the time, nor all the facts.
Yes, but now an experienced compiler is assuming its state is the documented one, instead of losing time checking.
I have this strong supicious that logic programming excells for interface description (software-software and software-human interfaces). I just can't complete creating a system that does it right :(
Well, they are not saying that they'll install Vista now. Just that they wouldn't install it before.
Those are two different things :)
There are no major bots for Linux because Linux can't be compromissed by a script. At least, not massively. Linux is too varied, so you can't reuse the same exploits. Also, it doesn't have all the interface problems that plage Windows, so Linux users are less likely to fall into social enginereeng done by programs.
Oh, yeah. Like they didn't take bribes to not detect Sonny's rootkit.
Well, it did help Windows, didn't it.
Exactly, but MS's marketing is known of doing miracles. It is hard to belive that they managed to create such a mess.
Well, at MS those are the same thing... Well, not exactly, marketing for them means lying lucratively and without getting catched. And they are very good at it.
Are you refering to that man made theory that predict lots of weird things? Like that a photon would interfere with itself and, thus, light creates an interference pattern even when photons are throwed one at a time?
And you are not amazed that nature agrees with such ideas?
It is hard for an individual to be dumber than a big team. It does happen sometimes, but not often.
Well, while we are at it, why not divide the year on some equaly sized chunks?
Is the Standard Model correct?
Eliza: I see...
That's deep :)
Well, just customizing a new machine, backing everything up, moving to the new computer, getting all the old software running again and all the "where the hell did that file go?" problems can easily spend several work days.
It is in the old locker, just behind the recently bilt wall.
But now that you know that, it may be as slow as a 90's server :)
And floppies, it seems.