You missed his point though--it isn't technically falsifiable. Although I know little about physics, I do know a LOT about research theory and how to construct proper theory.
Essentially, any theory which allows for the limits of falsifiability to be arbitrarily changed when shown to be false in its current state is NOT falsifiable.
It's like trying to disprove God--you can't do it. This is because no matter what you do, someone will come up with a counter argument. Although I am quite religious, I don't see religion as being a scientific endeavour for this very reason. That says nothing about its validity, but it does say a LOT about its usefulness in terms of scientific understanding.
It's also like trying to disprove ESP and the like. Uri Geller will say that it doesn't work for skeptics, so he can't do it his tricks in a lab. This is the ultimate lack of falsifiability--sorry, you can't measure this! If you *can't* measure something, you can't falsify it. (Note that this is different from something being difficult to measure, or not currently feasible to measure).
I think what you are saying, technically, is that we cannot currently measure the mass of photons (providing that they exist). Presumably we will eventually be able to measure the mass of an arbitrarilly small object (even if measuring it destroys/alters the object). This just means that we get the mass of the object at a particular moment, and would likely infer the mass at another moment (not being a physicist, I may be wrong...high school physics is very far distant, and very low key).
Okay, I'll shut up now, seeing as how I have likely made several stupid comments.
cool, thanks. Unfortunately, I am not savvy enough to know what's different, so am likely to be baffled when my progs don't function since I am writing Jscript.
I agree that w3schools.com is a great place..that's usually where I head to find a quick reference when I need it. There are a number of things I don't like about the site, namely the lack of acknowledging that Mozilla even exists! However, overall, I think that they are a great site.
I also use codewalkers for things php related (aside from the reference chm from php.net, which is AWESOME--anyone have one like that for html/javascript? I would love that).
You are correct, and I wish more people would see this for what it is. Unfotunately such a stance does nothing to make a preacher more popular, since the logical extension is that you must be even more careful about your actions than before. In this age of self-indulgence, that won't make you money.
I'm sorry, but there has been an evil(TM) program out there for a while that not only removes style sheets, but also breaks them. Something called IE? I think....
Glad to know that you weren't trolling. I agree with you in many ways, too--WinXP is light years ahead of where win9x was, both in terms of stability and usability. In fact, my motivation to use linux is much lower than it was before.
That said, I did have a lot of trouble with windows on my older hardware. Why? I don't know, but I know I didn't have trouble with that hardware under Linux.
I suspect that I have ben 0wnz3r3d by a tr011, but I'll say it all the same: Windows is not the pinnacle of stability.
This opinion is likely to be popular here, but the rest of what I say is not.
Recently, I saw what I think is the best illustration of the difference between linux and windows. I have a box that was unstable in windows. Couldn't burn a CD for jack...loxor3d every time! Under linux I never had a coaster. I had other troubles, but not with that.
At some point, windows got so bjorked that I decided that it was a HW issue, and replaced my mobo & cpu. Since that time, windows has locked on me exactly zero times. Ditto for linux.
So what's my point? I find that on good solid hardware, they are about the same for stability (not security, mind you, but stability). However, on faulty hardware with perhaps a few problems, I found linux to be much more stable.
That, to me, is the difference in terms of the technical side. There are others, but that's the one that sells me.
On social issues, linux wins, hands down. This is from a convicted capitalist (and sometime republican/libertarian). I only bring this up to avoid some of the flames. M$ is socially irresponsible because they do everything they can to keep prices high, which hurts those who are not as economically stable as others. In the end, though, those who can't afford windows will win if they just use linux instead (free) of pirating winxp (like so many do).
LOL.. What I find amusing is that you automatically connect this to "right-wing" politics. Sorry, but you missed the political clue-boat.
You see, it's NOT that the left wants laws and the right doesn't (in regards to corporations). In fact, BOTH sides are far too eager to pass more legislation that protects companies, as long as one thing remains constant: their side stays in power (and money).
You see, this is one of the areas that I happen to agree with libertarians--the left and right are not so different when it comes to their goals. Both want to stay in power (and when you get right down to it, both would rather see the other party in power than libertarians or some other non-majority party [this is why the so-called campaign finance reform bills are so amusing--both sides have plenty of money, and the bills will always have the loopholes necessary to allow both parties to out perform the non-left/non-right groups (libs, green, indie)]).
I do agree with you on this point though: there is a huge difference between liberty and lawlessness. To me, and I am not spouting any particular party line, the difference is this: your right to do whatever you want ends as soon as it damages another person.
Where I disagree with many people from the left, and the libertarians, is where that line is, but that is a personal choice, and I alone am responsible for making it. Unfortunately, society MUST have standards that are accepted as the 'official' line of liberty/harm -- and that's where the holy wars begin and end.
Typically, I don't buy any music. i have most of the music I want already (yes, I am boring), and what music I do want is pretty selective--unfortunately, it is also produced under the RIAA.
The bands I buy?
Josh Groban Vanessa Mae The Bare Naked Ladies Vertical Horizon
Personally, not being an audiophile, and NOT having the audiophile quality equipment, I can't tell the difference until the quality is pretty darn low OR I am listening to certain tracks (very few fit this).
To be honest, I think that the gp has it right--in a blind test MOST (not all) people wouldn't be very good at hearing the difference, even at lower qualities.
personally, I don't have a problem with Apple's iTunes. I like the idea. What I don't like is that is STILL supports the RIAA. i think that that is one group that just needs to disappear. now
Interesting. I wasn't up on the latest info about the STS.
I agree that the generals were passing the buck. I would also argue that the ingraining of optimistic views was so deep that to break them would have probably driven the generals mad. Of course, what they did to Ender wasn't good either, and it shows in some of their behaviors.
Notice that I did NOT claim that the US, in its current situation, was justified in using the self-defense claim.
Rather, I am stating that you CANNOT write off all war as unjustifiable unless you are also willing to admit that personal self-defense is not justified. This is the position of the Quaker movement, and I admire their staunch beliefs. I also disagree, but that is a very personal decision.
As far as 'pre-emptive strikes' (one of the justifications for the current mess, though not the only one, and of at best questionable validity) are concerned, I am not arguing either direction. I can see both the concern and the justification. I wouldn't want to have to make the decision without a high degree of certainty that the enemy was truly a threat. Even in that case, I would hesitate to call for armed force.
I would agree with Chomsky's assessment as you have quoted it, but I DO also believe that self-defense is a justified position. That does not mean that I believe the government is always telling the whole story when they cite security concerns. It also doesn't mean that I think that Bush was wrong. I think he made a mistake in how he approached the whole issue--I would have kept the focus on Osama bin Laden and pursued that route. (Of course I don't have the military intelligence that the president has access to).
I think that one of the mistakes that some reporters, and many laymen, make is that of assuming they can peice together the whole story. This is the SAME exact mistake that the CIA makes. We don't have the whole story, and likely never will. Therefore, we must be extremely cautious when dealing with foreign powers.
Personally, I deplore violence for its own sake, but justify it in self-defense. That means that if this country were attacked on our own soil (anything else is debatable in the seriousness of the attack), I would want us to defend ourselves.
Okay, I think that I am starting to ramble, so I'll stop writing.
I am familiar with both the story and the book, and I was referring to the book. If you pay attention in the book, Ender does sacrifice human lives that the adult generals wouldn't have done (or couldn't have due to socio-political pressures). Yes, the point of destroying the home world was also important, but tagential to the point I was trying to make.
It depends on WHY you are trying to get away from windows. For me it has almost zero to do with the UI, and everything to do with the company behind it.
I personally think that one of the best treatises on the matter is Ender's Game. In case you aren't familiar with the idea, Ender is trained in the latest military action/theory using a simulation, but what he isn't told is that the simulation is really just a control interface to give REAL soldier's orders.
The idea is that Ender would not have won the battle the way he did if he had known it wasn't a game (because there were sacrifices no one would really make that had to be made to win). Yes, I realize that it's *just* a book, sci-fi at that, but the social commentary is interesting, useful, and very important. Card did a wonderful job of making a very important concept accessible to pretty much anyone--war CAN be NECESSARY, but sometimes the sacrifices we make in war are very difficult.
I have seen some comments on this discussion that are very anti-war. I agree with the sentiment that when possible, war should be avoided. I disagree, however, with the concept that war is so evil that we should never fight one. To those who feel that war is NEVER justified, I have to say that I respect your willingness to believe such a high ideal, but I don't believe that you really accept the implications of that statement.
You see, if you state that war is never justified (because violence is wrong), what about personal defense? Are you justified in defending your own person? If you are, then what about you and say, five of your friends. If you are all attacked, should you defend yourselves? Yes? Then what is the difference between this and a battle or war? All war is, is someone attacking another person, and that person choosing to defend themselves. (Yes, I realize that it gets much more complicated than that, but I am talking about basic premises here).
Personally, I feel that you must either say that no one should defend themselves from attack (thus suffering rape, murder, theft, etc without argument) and war is never justified, OR you must accept that there are times when personal defense is justified, and therefore war (being NATIONAL DEFENSE) can be justified.
All that said, I did not serve in the military because I felt that I was not properly suited to the military mindset. (read: I don't like taking orders!)
mod me up, mod me down, I'd rather you replied intelligently.
I refuse to directly feed the trolls that are surrounding you with their clubs (look a shiny!). Morons.
Look, I can understand why some people feel that you shouldn't have kids if you are a bearer of some genetic disease. I think they are stupid. The step from there to euthanizing all the people with said disease is so small to be frightening.
This is exactly the kind of thing Hitler wanted--a perfect race free from defects. In his world everyone with Leukemia, Muscular Dystrophy, AIDS, etc, would be euthanized quickly and efficiently. What a nightmarish idea, but not too far.
My brother, in is normal insensitive manner, is one of the people who would rather abort a child than know it had some mental handicap. The people who talk about you (Tetsugaku-San) not having children are in the same boat, and this is very much the type of thing Hitler would have wanted. Get rid of all the freaks--anyone who makes us uncomfortable should be dead.
What a load of crap! Personally, I am glad that our society does not currently engage in such 'genetic cleansing'. I don't want to live in a society were its wrong to be different.
I do agree with you on the idea that if gene therapy can prevent the transmission of certain problems (such as MD), then go for it. But to deny a life because you can't prevent it? That is criminal in my mind.
Now, if you didn't want to have children (so that you wouldn't pass that on), I would applaud you for being noble, but I say to all the trolls, THAT IS EVERY INDIVIDUAL'S CHOICE, and should NOT be made by the government!
Does this hold true for things like AIDS? No, not necessarily, since an AIDS born child is likely to have AIDS too, and survival is unlikely. But, with the miracle of modern medicine, that is becoming less true (from what I understand), and soon a baby born to parents with AIDS will have very little chance of having the disease. In which case, more power to them. Perhaps they will teach their children to avoid the things that got them infected with AIDS in the first place (assuming it wasn't one of the VERY few cases of a hospital working becoming infected).
I think I am rambling, but that's just the after effect of the medicine (migraine). Perhaps since I have a tendency to get migraines I shouldn't have kids (it might be genetic). Wait--too late.
There is only one solution in my eye...vote libertarian.
Of course, it really makes me want to form a new political party--the Technocrats. This party would focus on the use of technology to better the lives of everyone, and go by the philosophy that technology should be placed in the hands of as many people as possible. This, of course, can best be done by making sure everyone has the highest possible income, and that taxes are low. (I will figure out a way to justify it...don't worry).
No, this is not a troll. Last comment I made that trashed filemaker got modded troll, and it was...sort of.
You see, I LEARNED databases on Filemaker. But that doesn't blind me to the truth--it stinks, as does Access.
They both have a use, and are about equal in my book. But for real database work, the answer is neither--use ANY SQL database and you will be much better off.
That said the open source tools I've seen for SQL databases stink for the most part. When I see one that is as easy to use (usability folks!) as Access or Filemaker, then I will be happy.
For you power DBA's out there, let me tell you something that should frighten you. If you design the GUI well enough, then the vast majority of ppl should be able to use it at a comfortable level, leaving you to do the tough stuff--figuring out why data is bjorked, etc. The design though is not a tough concept--and a well designed gui could encourage good design (not that bad designs won't happen, but you can encourage good design).
yeah, and it's even tougher--what would your wife say if she came home to find you helping the attractive woman move her stuff in? Your wife might understand, but only if you have a history of helping pretty much everyone who shows up.
On the contrary, if that's an exception to the rule, you could end up in a heap o'....you know.
Absolutely. Personally, I like the idea of an open XML based document format. Does that mean that I want all documents done in XHTML? Not really, but hey, it would work, but then again so would TEX or LATEX.
You know, I used to think that you were correct (at least that line of thinking), but there is a little snag to the logic--MS is unlikely to break backwards compatibility with its own office suite. That said, many people may need to upgrade to see documents produced by the newer, but the newer will always be able to read the older.
Otherwise they lose some of the "vendor lockin" that makes them so powerful...
Slashdot Mirror
You missed his point though--it isn't technically falsifiable. Although I know little about physics, I do know a LOT about research theory and how to construct proper theory.
Essentially, any theory which allows for the limits of falsifiability to be arbitrarily changed when shown to be false in its current state is NOT falsifiable.
It's like trying to disprove God--you can't do it. This is because no matter what you do, someone will come up with a counter argument. Although I am quite religious, I don't see religion as being a scientific endeavour for this very reason. That says nothing about its validity, but it does say a LOT about its usefulness in terms of scientific understanding.
It's also like trying to disprove ESP and the like. Uri Geller will say that it doesn't work for skeptics, so he can't do it his tricks in a lab. This is the ultimate lack of falsifiability--sorry, you can't measure this! If you *can't* measure something, you can't falsify it. (Note that this is different from something being difficult to measure, or not currently feasible to measure).
I think what you are saying, technically, is that we cannot currently measure the mass of photons (providing that they exist). Presumably we will eventually be able to measure the mass of an arbitrarilly small object (even if measuring it destroys/alters the object). This just means that we get the mass of the object at a particular moment, and would likely infer the mass at another moment (not being a physicist, I may be wrong...high school physics is very far distant, and very low key).
Okay, I'll shut up now, seeing as how I have likely made several stupid comments.
cool, thanks. Unfortunately, I am not savvy enough to know what's different, so am likely to be baffled when my progs don't function since I am writing Jscript.
You beat me to it....
I agree that w3schools.com is a great place..that's usually where I head to find a quick reference when I need it. There are a number of things I don't like about the site, namely the lack of acknowledging that Mozilla even exists! However, overall, I think that they are a great site.
I also use codewalkers for things php related (aside from the reference chm from php.net, which is AWESOME--anyone have one like that for html/javascript? I would love that).
Thank you.
You are correct, and I wish more people would see this for what it is. Unfotunately such a stance does nothing to make a preacher more popular, since the logical extension is that you must be even more careful about your actions than before. In this age of self-indulgence, that won't make you money.
I'm sorry, but there has been an evil(TM) program out there for a while that not only removes style sheets, but also breaks them. Something called IE? I think....
Glad to know that you weren't trolling. I agree with you in many ways, too--WinXP is light years ahead of where win9x was, both in terms of stability and usability. In fact, my motivation to use linux is much lower than it was before.
That said, I did have a lot of trouble with windows on my older hardware. Why? I don't know, but I know I didn't have trouble with that hardware under Linux.
LOL!
I suspect that I have ben 0wnz3r3d by a tr011, but I'll say it all the same: Windows is not the pinnacle of stability.
This opinion is likely to be popular here, but the rest of what I say is not.
Recently, I saw what I think is the best illustration of the difference between linux and windows. I have a box that was unstable in windows. Couldn't burn a CD for jack...loxor3d every time! Under linux I never had a coaster. I had other troubles, but not with that.
At some point, windows got so bjorked that I decided that it was a HW issue, and replaced my mobo & cpu. Since that time, windows has locked on me exactly zero times. Ditto for linux.
So what's my point? I find that on good solid hardware, they are about the same for stability (not security, mind you, but stability). However, on faulty hardware with perhaps a few problems, I found linux to be much more stable.
That, to me, is the difference in terms of the technical side. There are others, but that's the one that sells me.
On social issues, linux wins, hands down. This is from a convicted capitalist (and sometime republican/libertarian). I only bring this up to avoid some of the flames. M$ is socially irresponsible because they do everything they can to keep prices high, which hurts those who are not as economically stable as others. In the end, though, those who can't afford windows will win if they just use linux instead (free) of pirating winxp (like so many do).
Any questions?
LOL..
What I find amusing is that you automatically connect this to "right-wing" politics. Sorry, but you missed the political clue-boat.
You see, it's NOT that the left wants laws and the right doesn't (in regards to corporations). In fact, BOTH sides are far too eager to pass more legislation that protects companies, as long as one thing remains constant: their side stays in power (and money).
You see, this is one of the areas that I happen to agree with libertarians--the left and right are not so different when it comes to their goals. Both want to stay in power (and when you get right down to it, both would rather see the other party in power than libertarians or some other non-majority party [this is why the so-called campaign finance reform bills are so amusing--both sides have plenty of money, and the bills will always have the loopholes necessary to allow both parties to out perform the non-left/non-right groups (libs, green, indie)]).
I do agree with you on this point though: there is a huge difference between liberty and lawlessness. To me, and I am not spouting any particular party line, the difference is this: your right to do whatever you want ends as soon as it damages another person.
Where I disagree with many people from the left, and the libertarians, is where that line is, but that is a personal choice, and I alone am responsible for making it. Unfortunately, society MUST have standards that are accepted as the 'official' line of liberty/harm -- and that's where the holy wars begin and end.
Yes, but is downloading a *free* software package considered a purchase? I wouldn't think so, but IANAL
Typically, I don't buy any music. i have most of the music I want already (yes, I am boring), and what music I do want is pretty selective--unfortunately, it is also produced under the RIAA.
The bands I buy?
Josh Groban
Vanessa Mae
The Bare Naked Ladies
Vertical Horizon
And that's pretty much it.
no, sorry, you missed the point.
Personally, not being an audiophile, and NOT having the audiophile quality equipment, I can't tell the difference until the quality is pretty darn low OR I am listening to certain tracks (very few fit this).
To be honest, I think that the gp has it right--in a blind test MOST (not all) people wouldn't be very good at hearing the difference, even at lower qualities.
personally, I don't have a problem with Apple's iTunes. I like the idea. What I don't like is that is STILL supports the RIAA. i think that that is one group that just needs to disappear. now
Interesting. I wasn't up on the latest info about the STS.
I agree that the generals were passing the buck. I would also argue that the ingraining of optimistic views was so deep that to break them would have probably driven the generals mad. Of course, what they did to Ender wasn't good either, and it shows in some of their behaviors.
Notice that I did NOT claim that the US, in its current situation, was justified in using the self-defense claim.
Rather, I am stating that you CANNOT write off all war as unjustifiable unless you are also willing to admit that personal self-defense is not justified. This is the position of the Quaker movement, and I admire their staunch beliefs. I also disagree, but that is a very personal decision.
As far as 'pre-emptive strikes' (one of the justifications for the current mess, though not the only one, and of at best questionable validity) are concerned, I am not arguing either direction. I can see both the concern and the justification. I wouldn't want to have to make the decision without a high degree of certainty that the enemy was truly a threat. Even in that case, I would hesitate to call for armed force.
I would agree with Chomsky's assessment as you have quoted it, but I DO also believe that self-defense is a justified position. That does not mean that I believe the government is always telling the whole story when they cite security concerns. It also doesn't mean that I think that Bush was wrong. I think he made a mistake in how he approached the whole issue--I would have kept the focus on Osama bin Laden and pursued that route. (Of course I don't have the military intelligence that the president has access to).
I think that one of the mistakes that some reporters, and many laymen, make is that of assuming they can peice together the whole story. This is the SAME exact mistake that the CIA makes. We don't have the whole story, and likely never will. Therefore, we must be extremely cautious when dealing with foreign powers.
Personally, I deplore violence for its own sake, but justify it in self-defense. That means that if this country were attacked on our own soil (anything else is debatable in the seriousness of the attack), I would want us to defend ourselves.
Okay, I think that I am starting to ramble, so I'll stop writing.
I am familiar with both the story and the book, and I was referring to the book. If you pay attention in the book, Ender does sacrifice human lives that the adult generals wouldn't have done (or couldn't have due to socio-political pressures). Yes, the point of destroying the home world was also important, but tagential to the point I was trying to make.
Should have been more clear.
It depends on WHY you are trying to get away from windows. For me it has almost zero to do with the UI, and everything to do with the company behind it.
no, I disagree. The gp is correct.
I personally think that one of the best treatises on the matter is Ender's Game. In case you aren't familiar with the idea, Ender is trained in the latest military action/theory using a simulation, but what he isn't told is that the simulation is really just a control interface to give REAL soldier's orders.
The idea is that Ender would not have won the battle the way he did if he had known it wasn't a game (because there were sacrifices no one would really make that had to be made to win). Yes, I realize that it's *just* a book, sci-fi at that, but the social commentary is interesting, useful, and very important. Card did a wonderful job of making a very important concept accessible to pretty much anyone--war CAN be NECESSARY, but sometimes the sacrifices we make in war are very difficult.
I have seen some comments on this discussion that are very anti-war. I agree with the sentiment that when possible, war should be avoided. I disagree, however, with the concept that war is so evil that we should never fight one. To those who feel that war is NEVER justified, I have to say that I respect your willingness to believe such a high ideal, but I don't believe that you really accept the implications of that statement.
You see, if you state that war is never justified (because violence is wrong), what about personal defense? Are you justified in defending your own person? If you are, then what about you and say, five of your friends. If you are all attacked, should you defend yourselves? Yes? Then what is the difference between this and a battle or war? All war is, is someone attacking another person, and that person choosing to defend themselves. (Yes, I realize that it gets much more complicated than that, but I am talking about basic premises here).
Personally, I feel that you must either say that no one should defend themselves from attack (thus suffering rape, murder, theft, etc without argument) and war is never justified, OR you must accept that there are times when personal defense is justified, and therefore war (being NATIONAL DEFENSE) can be justified.
All that said, I did not serve in the military because I felt that I was not properly suited to the military mindset. (read: I don't like taking orders!)
mod me up, mod me down, I'd rather you replied intelligently.
Since we are on the subject of more obscure games--does anyone remember the game Tales from the Floating Vagabond?
links are
here
and
here
I loved it, but haven't seen it. If I can find a copy, I would love to buy it. Like paranoia, the rules are purposely vague.
I refuse to directly feed the trolls that are surrounding you with their clubs (look a shiny!). Morons.
Look, I can understand why some people feel that you shouldn't have kids if you are a bearer of some genetic disease. I think they are stupid. The step from there to euthanizing all the people with said disease is so small to be frightening.
This is exactly the kind of thing Hitler wanted--a perfect race free from defects. In his world everyone with Leukemia, Muscular Dystrophy, AIDS, etc, would be euthanized quickly and efficiently. What a nightmarish idea, but not too far.
My brother, in is normal insensitive manner, is one of the people who would rather abort a child than know it had some mental handicap. The people who talk about you (Tetsugaku-San) not having children are in the same boat, and this is very much the type of thing Hitler would have wanted. Get rid of all the freaks--anyone who makes us uncomfortable should be dead.
What a load of crap! Personally, I am glad that our society does not currently engage in such 'genetic cleansing'. I don't want to live in a society were its wrong to be different.
I do agree with you on the idea that if gene therapy can prevent the transmission of certain problems (such as MD), then go for it. But to deny a life because you can't prevent it? That is criminal in my mind.
Now, if you didn't want to have children (so that you wouldn't pass that on), I would applaud you for being noble, but I say to all the trolls, THAT IS EVERY INDIVIDUAL'S CHOICE, and should NOT be made by the government!
Does this hold true for things like AIDS? No, not necessarily, since an AIDS born child is likely to have AIDS too, and survival is unlikely. But, with the miracle of modern medicine, that is becoming less true (from what I understand), and soon a baby born to parents with AIDS will have very little chance of having the disease. In which case, more power to them. Perhaps they will teach their children to avoid the things that got them infected with AIDS in the first place (assuming it wasn't one of the VERY few cases of a hospital working becoming infected).
I think I am rambling, but that's just the after effect of the medicine (migraine). Perhaps since I have a tendency to get migraines I shouldn't have kids (it might be genetic). Wait--too late.
There is only one solution in my eye...vote libertarian.
Of course, it really makes me want to form a new political party--the Technocrats. This party would focus on the use of technology to better the lives of everyone, and go by the philosophy that technology should be placed in the hands of as many people as possible. This, of course, can best be done by making sure everyone has the highest possible income, and that taxes are low. (I will figure out a way to justify it...don't worry).
All right. Who's in?
fp?
mebbe
Hey, it beats filemaker.
No, this is not a troll. Last comment I made that trashed filemaker got modded troll, and it was...sort of.
You see, I LEARNED databases on Filemaker. But that doesn't blind me to the truth--it stinks, as does Access.
They both have a use, and are about equal in my book. But for real database work, the answer is neither--use ANY SQL database and you will be much better off.
That said the open source tools I've seen for SQL databases stink for the most part. When I see one that is as easy to use (usability folks!) as Access or Filemaker, then I will be happy.
For you power DBA's out there, let me tell you something that should frighten you. If you design the GUI well enough, then the vast majority of ppl should be able to use it at a comfortable level, leaving you to do the tough stuff--figuring out why data is bjorked, etc. The design though is not a tough concept--and a well designed gui could encourage good design (not that bad designs won't happen, but you can encourage good design).
Just a few thoughts.
yeah, and it's even tougher--what would your wife say if she came home to find you helping the attractive woman move her stuff in? Your wife might understand, but only if you have a history of helping pretty much everyone who shows up.
....you know.
On the contrary, if that's an exception to the rule, you could end up in a heap o'
yes, but its STILL better than filemaker!
Absolutely. Personally, I like the idea of an open XML based document format. Does that mean that I want all documents done in XHTML? Not really, but hey, it would work, but then again so would TEX or LATEX.
You know, I used to think that you were correct (at least that line of thinking), but there is a little snag to the logic--MS is unlikely to break backwards compatibility with its own office suite. That said, many people may need to upgrade to see documents produced by the newer, but the newer will always be able to read the older.
Otherwise they lose some of the "vendor lockin" that makes them so powerful...
just a thought