For the majority of users, I'm sure there is no reason for a switch to WP. However, for those (like me) who have used WP for years the MS Word interface (and all its clones) is simply inferior. I am ecstatic that there is a version of WP that works on modern Linux distros, even if they never get further than the proof of concept.
Less subjectively, business users of WP are probably also the best candidates for a transition from MS to Linux. Law firms and the like don't need much other than WP, a browsesr and email. The word processor is probably the most used application on the computer, and having a Linux version would make a transition to Linux virtually painless, if not completely transparent. The switch from Exchange/Lotus to Evolution or Kmail would be the biggest change the average user would face.
If Corel goes ahead with this, I could see my firm possibly switching to Linux within 5-10 years (change happens slowly around here -- we just got computers in '97 or so). Without a Linux version of WP, I don't see it ever happening unless MS just implodes.
systems could be incorporated into mobile phones or hand-held computers and appear to the brain as a brightly lit widescreen TV version of what is on the device
I'd sell all my stock in companies making televisions and monitors, if I had any. Get the benefits of a monster plasma TV without taking up the real estate and, at about $4000, without spending as much.
You're right up to a point, but you're missing a critical distinction between inadmissible and "invalid." The police don't have to have admissible evidence in order to have probable cause and get a search warrant, just a reasonable basis for more than a mere suspicion.
If the evidence is "invalid," by which I'm assuming you mean that it is false or doctored in some way, you're right that the warrant might be invalidated -- BUT there's a world of difference between the police having to prove that a technique is sufficiently certain/secure to be admissible as evidence on it's own right, and the defendant having to cast enough doubt on the basis of the probable cause (and showing that the police officer knew about the problem) in order to have evidence suppressed. It depends on the judge, of course, but if the (further) evidence was found without a gross violation of the suspect's rights it is probably going to be seen by the jury.
It's a good point, but probably moot. Just because it's not admissible in court doesn't mean that the police/FBI can't use it to investigate the crime. And find such fingerprints would be more than sufficient probable cause to issue a search warrant, where (if the suspect is in fact guilty) admissible evidence can be found. At that point, the authenticity of the fingerprints really doesn't matter too much.
"Read"? Not at all. It just proves that we like to look at pictures of stuff flinging through the air violently, and if it's related to computers all the better. Imagine the bitching if it were a simple text-only "how-to" article.
I'm no chemist/physicist, but the way I understand it for the fuel cell to convert the energy stored in the hydrogen to a usable form is more efficient than directly using sunlight -- photocells have terrible efficiency.
So this house is supposedly self-sustaining because it stores rainwater and then uses solar power to free the hydrogen, which is used in the fuel cell. My question is, if you're getting enough water to convert to hydrogen, are you getting enough sunlight to power the electrolysis process (& vice versa)?
Sorry. The beer is more watered-down even than typical American beer, it's served warm, and to get any you have to listen to political candidates explain how much better things would be with them in charge.
It's not inconsistent at all. Slashdot is pro-technology, but anti-closed source. Diebold is closed source, and from that stem the insecurities and gripes of the majority of/.ers.
For example, imagine MS announcing the next big, amazing technology (it's a stretch, but it can be done). Now imagine/.'s response.
All most people are asking for is respect, and neither coercive legislation nor electronic devices are going to give them that.
I agree whole-heartedly. And if we were talking about coercive legistlation I would be yelling as loud as everyone else. However, I can't see getting too uptight about having to walk maybe 20 meters to make a phone call instead of being able to do without getting off my butt, just because the owner of an establishment has installed a device that prevents cell phone calls. That's just me, though.
My "luddite notions of communication" are that cell phones are a convenience, not a necessity. Yes, I have one, and yes, I use it, but I am not dependent on it. Acting like it is a gross invasion of my rights if I am unable to use one in a place where the proprietor does not wish me to is preposterous.
Go outside if you need to make a call. Does that make your phone less mobile? No. Does it make it slightly less convenient? Yes, but get over it. What makes you think you have a "right" to use your phone wherever you choose?
I am hardly a Luddite. Maybe an elitist snob, I guess. My gripe is not against cell phones, it is with the pathetic masses that believe it is their god-given right to do whatever they want where ever they want, and see any restrictions on that "right" as a personal affront or worse.
AFAIK, that error is primarily because of user error -- i.e., improper marks, not properly filled in bubbles (or whatever), etc. Although you may get into "hanging chad" territory, inconclusive/inaccurate counting can be redone by hand, whereas it cannot be with voting machines such as these. Any security or hardware stability concerns with computerized voting could be simply eliminated, even with the buggy Diebold machines, by providing that hard copy for the back up of hand counting.
Hardly an original insight, I know, but I think all of the technical solutions need to take a backseat to getting the simple stuff taken care of.
This shouldn't be used except in controlled circumstances
Because, as we all know, the world did not exist before cell phones became ubiquitous. I know the parent was being humorous, but there are all too many hysterical posts to the same effect that are completely serious. Heaven forbid someone actually had to move a short distance to make a phone call. I think it's a pretty sad commentary on us that this technology is seen as a potentially terrible thing, and an invasion of rights, yada-yada-yada.
Post notices, by all means, so that people will know that their phone won't ring. But other than that, I'm all for plastering these things everywhere. Let's restrict cell phone use in public places to small, unobtrusive zones analogous to phone booths. If you simply must use a telephone all the time, stay at home.
"What if you received a magazine that only had stories and ads that you were interested in and pertained to you?"
They already have this. It's called the internet.
Personally, the fact that this is cheap enough to be feasible for a print medium is far more impressive to me than the fact that it is technically possible.
I kid you not, one of my drill sergeant's in basic training was named Richard Head.
(If you don't believe me, rent Renaissance Man -- terrible movie, Danny DeVito, mid-90s sometime -- he's one of the drill sergeant's on the rappelling tower; it was filmed at Ft. Jackson about 2 years after I was there, and you check his name in the credits.)
I also had a professor named Richard Richards. They called him double-Dick.
My wife and I got married two years ago today. Of course, there were witnesses, but we did it again about six days later in a church just to make sure it stuck.
They are not making a profit, and in fact are mostly likely losing money. If you want cheap CDs (and it is something that Wally-World carries), it's the cheapest place to buy CDs -- which, if you haven't noticed, are usually all the way at the back of the store so that you have to walk by all that other merchandise that is just waiting to be bought (same reason the milk in grocery stores is in the back). They sell CDs at a loss, because they know that someone looking to save $2-$3 on a CD will probably end up spending more in the store in the long run.
I'm not sure how effective this strategy will be online, though. Does anyone live more than a few miles away from a Wal-Mart anymore? When I buy online, it's because I can't find something locally and/or that is the most convenient way to do it. Somehow I can't imagine ever buying something on line from Wal-Mart, except maybe bargain music.
DISCLAIMER - yes, I shop at Wal-Mart occasionally, but keep in mind that I'm only about 20 miles from the home office and my brother in law is a manager at store #1. If I didn't I'd probably be visited in the middle of the night by commandos wearing blue smocks and doing the "squiggly" (the Wal-Mart cheer).
Doesn't sound like a place I'd want to work. What happens when SCO gets swept back under the rug? I realize that some businesses may want the security of having this, but I would think that a more general insurer would be able to take care of that. This seems way too specialized for a niche that I'm not convinced exists, or, if it does, that will last.
I bought a Compaq Presario in 1999 that had the back up on a separate partition. It wasn't "hidden" the way this supposedly is, but it wasn't visibly mounted under Windows, either. Only the Compaq utilities program could access it. Until I wiped the whole thing out and reinstalled, that is.
Slashdot Mirror
For the majority of users, I'm sure there is no reason for a switch to WP. However, for those (like me) who have used WP for years the MS Word interface (and all its clones) is simply inferior. I am ecstatic that there is a version of WP that works on modern Linux distros, even if they never get further than the proof of concept.
Less subjectively, business users of WP are probably also the best candidates for a transition from MS to Linux. Law firms and the like don't need much other than WP, a browsesr and email. The word processor is probably the most used application on the computer, and having a Linux version would make a transition to Linux virtually painless, if not completely transparent. The switch from Exchange/Lotus to Evolution or Kmail would be the biggest change the average user would face.
If Corel goes ahead with this, I could see my firm possibly switching to Linux within 5-10 years (change happens slowly around here -- we just got computers in '97 or so). Without a Linux version of WP, I don't see it ever happening unless MS just implodes.
No, no, no! It has much more value as a collectible -- just put it on eBay pointing out the rarity of such a fascinating bit of computer history.
Trust me on this. My father-in-law has gotten over $25 for a simple book of Coke matches on multiple occasions, surely you can do even better.
systems could be incorporated into mobile phones or hand-held computers and appear to the brain as a brightly lit widescreen TV version of what is on the device
I'd sell all my stock in companies making televisions and monitors, if I had any. Get the benefits of a monster plasma TV without taking up the real estate and, at about $4000, without spending as much.
Chinese countries
So, who would that be? China and . . . China?
You're right up to a point, but you're missing a critical distinction between inadmissible and "invalid." The police don't have to have admissible evidence in order to have probable cause and get a search warrant, just a reasonable basis for more than a mere suspicion.
If the evidence is "invalid," by which I'm assuming you mean that it is false or doctored in some way, you're right that the warrant might be invalidated -- BUT there's a world of difference between the police having to prove that a technique is sufficiently certain/secure to be admissible as evidence on it's own right, and the defendant having to cast enough doubt on the basis of the probable cause (and showing that the police officer knew about the problem) in order to have evidence suppressed. It depends on the judge, of course, but if the (further) evidence was found without a gross violation of the suspect's rights it is probably going to be seen by the jury.
It's a good point, but probably moot. Just because it's not admissible in court doesn't mean that the police/FBI can't use it to investigate the crime. And find such fingerprints would be more than sufficient probable cause to issue a search warrant, where (if the suspect is in fact guilty) admissible evidence can be found. At that point, the authenticity of the fingerprints really doesn't matter too much.
"Read"? Not at all. It just proves that we like to look at pictures of stuff flinging through the air violently, and if it's related to computers all the better. Imagine the bitching if it were a simple text-only "how-to" article.
I'm no chemist/physicist, but the way I understand it for the fuel cell to convert the energy stored in the hydrogen to a usable form is more efficient than directly using sunlight -- photocells have terrible efficiency.
So this house is supposedly self-sustaining because it stores rainwater and then uses solar power to free the hydrogen, which is used in the fuel cell. My question is, if you're getting enough water to convert to hydrogen, are you getting enough sunlight to power the electrolysis process (& vice versa)?
Sorry. The beer is more watered-down even than typical American beer, it's served warm, and to get any you have to listen to political candidates explain how much better things would be with them in charge.
Why do you think they call it hell?
Oh, you had two rocks, did you? I only had one, and had to bang it against my head. And I liked it!
Wait a minute . . . what were we talking about?
It's not inconsistent at all. Slashdot is pro-technology, but anti-closed source. Diebold is closed source, and from that stem the insecurities and gripes of the majority of /.ers.
/.'s response.
For example, imagine MS announcing the next big, amazing technology (it's a stretch, but it can be done). Now imagine
All most people are asking for is respect, and neither coercive legislation nor electronic devices are going to give them that.
I agree whole-heartedly. And if we were talking about coercive legistlation I would be yelling as loud as everyone else. However, I can't see getting too uptight about having to walk maybe 20 meters to make a phone call instead of being able to do without getting off my butt, just because the owner of an establishment has installed a device that prevents cell phone calls. That's just me, though.
My "luddite notions of communication" are that cell phones are a convenience, not a necessity. Yes, I have one, and yes, I use it, but I am not dependent on it. Acting like it is a gross invasion of my rights if I am unable to use one in a place where the proprietor does not wish me to is preposterous.
Go outside if you need to make a call. Does that make your phone less mobile? No. Does it make it slightly less convenient? Yes, but get over it. What makes you think you have a "right" to use your phone wherever you choose?
I am hardly a Luddite. Maybe an elitist snob, I guess. My gripe is not against cell phones, it is with the pathetic masses that believe it is their god-given right to do whatever they want where ever they want, and see any restrictions on that "right" as a personal affront or worse.
Paper scanners are still not entirely accurate.
AFAIK, that error is primarily because of user error -- i.e., improper marks, not properly filled in bubbles (or whatever), etc. Although you may get into "hanging chad" territory, inconclusive/inaccurate counting can be redone by hand, whereas it cannot be with voting machines such as these. Any security or hardware stability concerns with computerized voting could be simply eliminated, even with the buggy Diebold machines, by providing that hard copy for the back up of hand counting.
Hardly an original insight, I know, but I think all of the technical solutions need to take a backseat to getting the simple stuff taken care of.
This shouldn't be used except in controlled circumstances
Because, as we all know, the world did not exist before cell phones became ubiquitous. I know the parent was being humorous, but there are all too many hysterical posts to the same effect that are completely serious. Heaven forbid someone actually had to move a short distance to make a phone call. I think it's a pretty sad commentary on us that this technology is seen as a potentially terrible thing, and an invasion of rights, yada-yada-yada.
Post notices, by all means, so that people will know that their phone won't ring. But other than that, I'm all for plastering these things everywhere. Let's restrict cell phone use in public places to small, unobtrusive zones analogous to phone booths. If you simply must use a telephone all the time, stay at home.
I pick the Nose. Uh, I mean . . .
"What if you received a magazine that only had stories and ads that you were interested in and pertained to you?"
They already have this. It's called the internet.
Personally, the fact that this is cheap enough to be feasible for a print medium is far more impressive to me than the fact that it is technically possible.
I kid you not, one of my drill sergeant's in basic training was named Richard Head.
(If you don't believe me, rent Renaissance Man -- terrible movie, Danny DeVito, mid-90s sometime -- he's one of the drill sergeant's on the rappelling tower; it was filmed at Ft. Jackson about 2 years after I was there, and you check his name in the credits.)
I also had a professor named Richard Richards. They called him double-Dick.
My wife and I got married two years ago today. Of course, there were witnesses, but we did it again about six days later in a church just to make sure it stuck.
Looking at the colors on their website, I would have to say yes.
My eyes! My eyes!
They are not making a profit, and in fact are mostly likely losing money. If you want cheap CDs (and it is something that Wally-World carries), it's the cheapest place to buy CDs -- which, if you haven't noticed, are usually all the way at the back of the store so that you have to walk by all that other merchandise that is just waiting to be bought (same reason the milk in grocery stores is in the back). They sell CDs at a loss, because they know that someone looking to save $2-$3 on a CD will probably end up spending more in the store in the long run.
I'm not sure how effective this strategy will be online, though. Does anyone live more than a few miles away from a Wal-Mart anymore? When I buy online, it's because I can't find something locally and/or that is the most convenient way to do it. Somehow I can't imagine ever buying something on line from Wal-Mart, except maybe bargain music.
DISCLAIMER - yes, I shop at Wal-Mart occasionally, but keep in mind that I'm only about 20 miles from the home office and my brother in law is a manager at store #1. If I didn't I'd probably be visited in the middle of the night by commandos wearing blue smocks and doing the "squiggly" (the Wal-Mart cheer).
That would just be boring. It's all about choice, man.
Chill man, every week has 'end of the world' news in it.
Yeah, but it's only Tuesday.
Doesn't sound like a place I'd want to work. What happens when SCO gets swept back under the rug? I realize that some businesses may want the security of having this, but I would think that a more general insurer would be able to take care of that. This seems way too specialized for a niche that I'm not convinced exists, or, if it does, that will last.
I bought a Compaq Presario in 1999 that had the back up on a separate partition. It wasn't "hidden" the way this supposedly is, but it wasn't visibly mounted under Windows, either. Only the Compaq utilities program could access it. Until I wiped the whole thing out and reinstalled, that is.