I concur - since ODF uses built-in compression, I save all of my archival documents in OpenDocument. The only reason I can see to convert items to DOCs is to e-mail something that needs to be edited.
If a document needs to be only edited by me, it's saved as OpenDocument. If I need to post it to the web, I convert it to PDF.
Okay, let's disregard whether parents would/should need a piece of software to help them watch their children.
More importantly, how are these parents going to install and use this software? I would say that the majority children are more tech-savvy than their parents, and aren't likely to willingly help their parents peer into their private life.
So, how are parents going to install and configure a piece of software that will require user names and other information they might need to ask their children for anyways? What's to stop a child from setting up a dummy account to render the software useless?
In other news, the Microsoft automotive line was revealed today. The cars run great when they run (which is occasionally) and come with an optional $50 annual subscription fee that provides seatbelts, a windshield, and doors.
I haven't used it in a while, but have you investigated Smoothwall linux? It's a linux distribution converts old PCs into very network-capable routers. Not only that, but it's manageable through web and SSH (I believe).
One of the reasons it came to mind is that it supports VPN connections between routers (again, I believe; haven't worked with it in a while). If you've got some spare PCs lying around (usually a prerequisite to reading Slashdot), this might be a great way to get your family networked for free while cleaning out the basement.
Microsoft and Rupert Murdoch (MySpace.com)... I'm starting to see the wisdom in the earlier post about the dark side. Perhaps the forces of darkness will band together to fight?
I'm afraid it doesn't really matter if I care about W3C standard or not... all the people that matter do already.
At work, I keep up the websites for a public government entity. It's been legally required since 1997 that any government agency web site (at least in NY, I'm a little fuzzy on the legislative aspects) is accessible to those with disabilities, and the first step to that is W3C compliance. It makes sense; have you ever seen a government building without a wheelchair ramp? Why should the web sites be any different?
On my own time, all of my sites comply because of Google. They have a tendency to give a much higher pagerank if your site is W3C compliant, or even if it follows the spirit of the standards. Search engine love the barebones HTML of a standards-compliant page.
Of course congress doesn't know how much this would cost; how many congressmen would have enough technical knowledge to know the inner workings of an ISP?
I think this is a "legislate the bar" move, where Congress thinks it's going to set the bar and everyone in the industry is going to rise to the occasion. Think of the automotive industry: it's like setting the minimum fuel economy of a vehicle to a level above most vehicles today, and expecting the new designs to reach that level.
Oh come on, you can't tell me you didn't see this one coming.
Now really, why would a company like Google start cooperating with the 'evil' intentions of a controlling government like China? It's been obvious for some time that Google was looking into ways to diversify it's sources of earnings, and it had already capitalized on most of the 'good' out there. It's company policy of "Do No Evil" doesn't specify anything about profiting from pre-existing evil. A closer association with China was inevitable.
One of the nasty aspects of web design is the speed of it. The next great standard, the next new browser, all these things impact your code negatively. Talk about an uphill battle!
After many trial and error experiences, I've started to force myself to segregate different types of information as much as possible. Separate content from markup, markup from script, etc. Times change, and the code you're using will change with them. If you keep different portions of a page separated, it makes it easier to update individual components for the new trends in the industry.
They mentioned that the central web server was secure, but is there any information about the security of each node?
Whenever I hear anything about Wireless networking, I instantly have a security lightbulb that goes off in my head. Since it's based on IP technology, is there anything in place to prevent traditional wireless security issues? Can you spoof nodes?
Granted, no system is perfect, but I'm wondering if this system could be used to draw security away from a particular area, only to allow a potential threat to get in the back door.
I understand the fact that these officials are unhappy that technology companies are aiding the oppressive Chinese government, but there's two things that need to be considered.
First of all, if there's anything that's truly international, it's the internet. People in china need access to blogs, search, and all the rest just like we do. Most people are not going to blog about democracy or political freedom, they're going to blog about what they did or didn't do that day. They'll blog about girls or boys they have crushes on. It won't make headlines, but they should still have an outlet for their musings, even if some political dissidents won't.
And secondly, from a strictly business standpoint, you'd have to be mad to exclude yourself from one of the fastest growing economies in the world that contains 1/6th of the world population, no matter how high your moral ground is.
During the installation, it does recommend that you "backup your important files and close all programs." I'm asuming that is in case you need to revert back to IE6 at a later point, but it could just mean that they don't want whiners at their door if people lose all of their data and try to blame it on the beta.
While that's unfortunate, and going through the hassle must have sucked, I'm sure that's exactly the kind of thing they were hoping for.
It would be quite a fiasco if every future computer packaged with IE7 had a tendency to break wireless cell card drivers, so as long as you filed a bug report, you might have saved everyone else in your position a boatload of trouble.
Unforunately, I don't have a lot of ActiveX programming experience. But from a strictly web-browsing point of view, this sounds like it might give the user a lot more control over what happens during their visits to web sites.
It sounds like this might break a few IE-based applications out there as well...
My issue with that statement lies with families and shared computers; if Little Billy downloads AIM on the family computer, or a fellow student installs AIM to chat with his/her girlfriend/boyfriend, then I still could get hit with that virus on my family computer/campus PC.
"Why would any government trust a resource that critical to be managed by any organization outside of its control?"
I believe you hit it on the head, sir.
Seeing as how the Internet is a global network, having the core infrastructure of said network in the hands of one country is an awful lot of power. Theoretically, giving the UN control of the root DNS would give every member nation a share in the responsibility.
I think that the only reason post like this one garner so much discussion is because the web browser has become (arguably) the most important program on the PC. Not only is it used for certain parts of the operating system, but I'm willing to bet my reputation that almost everyone in those 1000+ comments are using one of the browsers being discussed to discuss.
Until the web browser evolves or is replaced, this kind of conversation is unavoidable.
I'm not sure if this is just my knee-jerk reaction from using old technology frequently, but when I hear "remove support" it usually gets associated with bad things in my mind...
Slashdot Mirror
I concur - since ODF uses built-in compression, I save all of my archival documents in OpenDocument. The only reason I can see to convert items to DOCs is to e-mail something that needs to be edited.
If a document needs to be only edited by me, it's saved as OpenDocument. If I need to post it to the web, I convert it to PDF.
Okay, let's disregard whether parents would/should need a piece of software to help them watch their children.
More importantly, how are these parents going to install and use this software? I would say that the majority children are more tech-savvy than their parents, and aren't likely to willingly help their parents peer into their private life.
So, how are parents going to install and configure a piece of software that will require user names and other information they might need to ask their children for anyways? What's to stop a child from setting up a dummy account to render the software useless?
SEO is a bunch of superstitious witchcraft anyways, so who knows? Perhaps Google is a fan of elementally balanced web pages.
Of course, I would like to see some numbers before I go re-working all the "Paanchbhootas" of my site...
It's a shame there's no "-1 Loony" moderation...
Quite simple; become a web developer, my friend.
In other news, the Microsoft automotive line was revealed today. The cars run great when they run (which is occasionally) and come with an optional $50 annual subscription fee that provides seatbelts, a windshield, and doors.
I haven't used it in a while, but have you investigated Smoothwall linux? It's a linux distribution converts old PCs into very network-capable routers. Not only that, but it's manageable through web and SSH (I believe).
One of the reasons it came to mind is that it supports VPN connections between routers (again, I believe; haven't worked with it in a while). If you've got some spare PCs lying around (usually a prerequisite to reading Slashdot), this might be a great way to get your family networked for free while cleaning out the basement.
Microsoft and Rupert Murdoch (MySpace.com)... I'm starting to see the wisdom in the earlier post about the dark side. Perhaps the forces of darkness will band together to fight?
I'm afraid it doesn't really matter if I care about W3C standard or not... all the people that matter do already.
At work, I keep up the websites for a public government entity. It's been legally required since 1997 that any government agency web site (at least in NY, I'm a little fuzzy on the legislative aspects) is accessible to those with disabilities, and the first step to that is W3C compliance. It makes sense; have you ever seen a government building without a wheelchair ramp? Why should the web sites be any different?
On my own time, all of my sites comply because of Google. They have a tendency to give a much higher pagerank if your site is W3C compliant, or even if it follows the spirit of the standards. Search engine love the barebones HTML of a standards-compliant page.
Typosquatter site BistBuy.com reports record profits and an all-time high hit count.
Of course congress doesn't know how much this would cost; how many congressmen would have enough technical knowledge to know the inner workings of an ISP?
I think this is a "legislate the bar" move, where Congress thinks it's going to set the bar and everyone in the industry is going to rise to the occasion. Think of the automotive industry: it's like setting the minimum fuel economy of a vehicle to a level above most vehicles today, and expecting the new designs to reach that level.
Oh come on, you can't tell me you didn't see this one coming.
Now really, why would a company like Google start cooperating with the 'evil' intentions of a controlling government like China? It's been obvious for some time that Google was looking into ways to diversify it's sources of earnings, and it had already capitalized on most of the 'good' out there. It's company policy of "Do No Evil" doesn't specify anything about profiting from pre-existing evil. A closer association with China was inevitable.
One of the nasty aspects of web design is the speed of it. The next great standard, the next new browser, all these things impact your code negatively. Talk about an uphill battle!
After many trial and error experiences, I've started to force myself to segregate different types of information as much as possible. Separate content from markup, markup from script, etc. Times change, and the code you're using will change with them. If you keep different portions of a page separated, it makes it easier to update individual components for the new trends in the industry.
They mentioned that the central web server was secure, but is there any information about the security of each node?
Whenever I hear anything about Wireless networking, I instantly have a security lightbulb that goes off in my head. Since it's based on IP technology, is there anything in place to prevent traditional wireless security issues? Can you spoof nodes?
Granted, no system is perfect, but I'm wondering if this system could be used to draw security away from a particular area, only to allow a potential threat to get in the back door.
I understand the fact that these officials are unhappy that technology companies are aiding the oppressive Chinese government, but there's two things that need to be considered.
First of all, if there's anything that's truly international, it's the internet. People in china need access to blogs, search, and all the rest just like we do. Most people are not going to blog about democracy or political freedom, they're going to blog about what they did or didn't do that day. They'll blog about girls or boys they have crushes on. It won't make headlines, but they should still have an outlet for their musings, even if some political dissidents won't.
And secondly, from a strictly business standpoint, you'd have to be mad to exclude yourself from one of the fastest growing economies in the world that contains 1/6th of the world population, no matter how high your moral ground is.
During the installation, it does recommend that you "backup your important files and close all programs." I'm asuming that is in case you need to revert back to IE6 at a later point, but it could just mean that they don't want whiners at their door if people lose all of their data and try to blame it on the beta.
While that's unfortunate, and going through the hassle must have sucked, I'm sure that's exactly the kind of thing they were hoping for.
It would be quite a fiasco if every future computer packaged with IE7 had a tendency to break wireless cell card drivers, so as long as you filed a bug report, you might have saved everyone else in your position a boatload of trouble.
...uh, thanks?
It sounds like this might break a few IE-based applications out there as well...
My issue with that statement lies with families and shared computers; if Little Billy downloads AIM on the family computer, or a fellow student installs AIM to chat with his/her girlfriend/boyfriend, then I still could get hit with that virus on my family computer/campus PC.
Or perhaps I should have read the first paragraph in the article...
I wonder if anything picked up on a unintentional wiretap is still admissable in court - could provide for a nasty loop hole...
"Why would any government trust a resource that critical to be managed by any organization outside of its control?"
I believe you hit it on the head, sir.
Seeing as how the Internet is a global network, having the core infrastructure of said network in the hands of one country is an awful lot of power. Theoretically, giving the UN control of the root DNS would give every member nation a share in the responsibility.
I think that the only reason post like this one garner so much discussion is because the web browser has become (arguably) the most important program on the PC. Not only is it used for certain parts of the operating system, but I'm willing to bet my reputation that almost everyone in those 1000+ comments are using one of the browsers being discussed to discuss.
Until the web browser evolves or is replaced, this kind of conversation is unavoidable.
Does that mean that we're only one year away from the highly anticipated release of "Mario BeerPong"?
I'm not sure if this is just my knee-jerk reaction from using old technology frequently, but when I hear "remove support" it usually gets associated with bad things in my mind...