Standards do not have to mean that everyone has to use Open Document or something. This is only a tool MA has used to begin to escape vendor lock-in. The whole point is that if you store data, you should be making public the way that you have formatted the data in order to allow it to be translated into another format if necessary. The reason people gravitate to XML is because it is a text-based file format that can be examined, rather than a proprietary binary format with the drawbridge firmly raised and the archers searching for targets.
Are you saying that it's not a contributing factor that Bush was DIRECTLY responsible for cutting the funding for maintenance of the levees that broke, taking away much of the national guard and their equipment and slashing FEMA to the point where they are turning away desperately needed water and fuel, not to mention cutting the city's emergency communication lines (according to NOLA emergency mgt on ABC News)? There are paper trails that clearly show that this is what happened.
And a mandatory evacuation order?!?!?!? How were people without cars and places to stay supposed to leave? The government didn't have any resources to offer them. They just opened a stadium, the results of which you can plainly see on the news. Were these people just ignorant as you suggest, or at the mercy of a system that failed them.
There was a clear warning before any of this took place which was simply not heeded. The US is supposed to represent all of the people, not just those that can afford it.
This is what happens when you elect a government that would rather lie down with big business and creep toward facism rather than support democracy. This is a far more effective anti-trust arguement than the browser wars, but thanks to the current "fiddle-while-Rome-burns" president, this will never happen.
Captialism is the greatest economic force the world has known, but corporatism was exactly what led to Nazi Germany. I'm not trying to sound too alarmist here, but can anyone argue after seeing the events of the last week that the US is losing it's grip on democracy? Please view the documentary "The Corporation" for further background.
Let's get back to democracy and free enterprise and the values that America was founded to protect. Microsoft deserves to be put out of business over this refusal. Inferior format may ass. The are looking for revenue lock-in at the expense of democracy.
I am sorry for you plight. Up here in Canada my experience has been far different. When I went to university there were more Linux computers available than Windows PCs. And the college that I taught at up here was mainly Mac and SGI. I guess it really comes down to choosing to move based on attending the school that really offers what you're looking for. Spend some time researching the facilities available before you choose the school you attend. If the school you would like to attend does not meet your needs, then by all means discover the email address for their IT support team and related administrative counterparts and lobby hard for improved facilities while you re still in high school. In your present situation, I can only recommend working in Windows when you must and using Knoppix when you need a real workstation.
FrameMaker has been the number one tool for technical writers for years. It could be replaced by something like LaTex, an infinitely better system, but the amount of time to convert all templates and libraries and create new ones is massive. Also, the amount of training most TWs would require to learn something like LaTex is also a hurdle. I did a contract recently for one of the biggest computer manufacturers, and their whole library (thousands of books) is in Frame. Tech writers on average don't tend to be really technical, and the loss of FM would have some big reprecussions.
When I was studying the history of technology, I thought a professor at York University named George Grant was incredibly insightful in his analysis. He pointed out that technologies necessarily manifest the values of the cultures that create them. Computers are a great example, because having a society that operates through corporations with a feudal governing structure have resulted in computers that are based on a similar structure. File permissions are a great example of this. Therefore, if you are in a comfortable position within this feudal structure, you are probably in better shape as far as technologically-based stress than say, someone operating a point of sale system for your company who is dealing with a situation the developers never thought of and didn't implement, and over which you have no overide authority. A tool is only a tool, but at the same time, that tool is the embodyment of the culture and values that produced it. The further you deviate from the values or the power structure that the tool was designed to embody, the more stress you are likely to find.
When I was studying the history of technology, I thought a professor at York University named George Grant was incredibly insightful in his analysis. He pointed out that technologies necessarily manifest the values of the cultures that create them. Computers are a great example, because having a society that operates through corporations with a feudal governing structure have resulted in computers that are based on a similar structure. File permissions are a great example of this. Therefore, if you are in a comfortable position within this feudal structure, you are probably in better shape as far as technologically-based stress than say, someone operating a point of sal system for your company who is dealing with a situation the developers never thought of and didn't implement, and over which you have no overide authority. A tool is only a tool, but at the same time, that tool is the embodyment of the culture and values that produced it. The further you deviate from the values or the power structure that the tool was designed to embody, the more stress you are likely to find.
It is nice to have a clear conversation on Slashdot. Since you seem receptive to actually thinking about the responses I've given, consider this. Many post-modern moral and political philosophers consider that the system itself is what causes the problems. It is a good show, but the returns are always disappointing. The enlightenment-era thinking that is manifest in the US constitution is not robust enough to cope with modern issues such as WMD and KWMD. Please see Bill Joy's comments on this in Wired (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.ht ml).
The quote at the bottom of my previous post was the most important part of it. Reason and rationality alone will leave us all in a smoking heap of rubble. Please feel free to read further in the works of J.R. Saul at http://www.aller-stead.com/martin/pages/equilibriu m.htm or many other places.
Here's just one example of someone who continues to spend a great deal of time uncovering malfeasance on the part of the US government and helped uncover the Iran/Contra affair. (http://www.efn.org/~chrp/parry.htm)
If the US government is trustworthy, why is this necessary? Just because they were caught once and made a fall guy of their junior member(North) doesn't mean that this is a rare case. We don't know because of the levels of paranoid secrecy within the military industrial complex. To relate this back to the original question, would giving them more surveilance powers stop this? I do not think it would. I think that it would allow them to blackmail anyone with a different viewpoint.
You are very much welcome to your opinion. That is the great thing about having freedom of conscience. The problem is that if the government is allowed to monitor you every time you express that conscience then you will be motivated not to express it.
In terms of the idea of "balancing powers and denying regional hegemony", the "free" market society that you refer to has a clear responsibility not to sell arms to oppressors just as they have a clear responsibility not to sell guns to school kids. I am not an American. But if I want to buy a joint in America I go to prison. If I want to but a truckload of weapons to cow my population though, that is OK. What good is that kind of freedom?
I believe in the essential goodness of humanity also. If I didn't, I would just say f**k these slashdotters, they are a lost cause. The use of a "k" in the word america is short hand for a whole viewpoint. You are correct though, it does not clearly spell out a perspective. However, in speaking to americans who are raised on and steeped in TV it is sometimes necessary. As one of your own congressmen said, "It's a bumper sticker culture. If you're explaining, you're losing."
Reason is not always the best arbitrator when it is in conflict with common sense.
"The answer over the last two centuries has been a gradual move towards a civilization of structure and form over on of content and consideration."
John Ralston Saul
A few points to consider:
The US armed Saudi Arabia to keep down the majority will of their citizens (http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/saudi_arabia.htm ).
The US also armed Egypt to allow control of a population that does not agree with the government (http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/egypt.htm).
In 1982-1983 the US armed both Iraq and Iran to try to get them to kill each other(remember Ollie North?).
Israel is now the third or fourth largest nuclear power on earth.
The US has larger stocks of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons than any other country.
Before 911, the largest terrorist act committed in the US was committed by a white American male. He was neither a religious extremist nor was he anti-western as you say most terrorists are. He simply had a beef with the overarching power of the Amerikan government. His arguement sounded eerily similar to some of what Osama has said.
There is no justification for militarism or oppression in the world. Osama bin Laden deserves to be punished for his crimes. But, just because American polititians have better press(propaganda) coverage, doesn't mean that they deserve to evade justice.
Obviously you and I have different definitions of the word liberal.
Slashdot Mirror
Standards do not have to mean that everyone has to use Open Document or something. This is only a tool MA has used to begin to escape vendor lock-in. The whole point is that if you store data, you should be making public the way that you have formatted the data in order to allow it to be translated into another format if necessary. The reason people gravitate to XML is because it is a text-based file format that can be examined, rather than a proprietary binary format with the drawbridge firmly raised and the archers searching for targets.
Are you saying that it's not a contributing factor that Bush was DIRECTLY responsible for cutting the funding for maintenance of the levees that broke, taking away much of the national guard and their equipment and slashing FEMA to the point where they are turning away desperately needed water and fuel, not to mention cutting the city's emergency communication lines (according to NOLA emergency mgt on ABC News)? There are paper trails that clearly show that this is what happened.
And a mandatory evacuation order?!?!?!? How were people without cars and places to stay supposed to leave? The government didn't have any resources to offer them. They just opened a stadium, the results of which you can plainly see on the news. Were these people just ignorant as you suggest, or at the mercy of a system that failed them.
There was a clear warning before any of this took place which was simply not heeded. The US is supposed to represent all of the people, not just those that can afford it.
This is what happens when you elect a government that would rather lie down with big business and creep toward facism rather than support democracy. This is a far more effective anti-trust arguement than the browser wars, but thanks to the current "fiddle-while-Rome-burns" president, this will never happen.
Captialism is the greatest economic force the world has known, but corporatism was exactly what led to Nazi Germany. I'm not trying to sound too alarmist here, but can anyone argue after seeing the events of the last week that the US is losing it's grip on democracy? Please view the documentary "The Corporation" for further background.
Let's get back to democracy and free enterprise and the values that America was founded to protect. Microsoft deserves to be put out of business over this refusal. Inferior format may ass. The are looking for revenue lock-in at the expense of democracy.
I am sorry for you plight. Up here in Canada my experience has been far different. When I went to university there were more Linux computers available than Windows PCs. And the college that I taught at up here was mainly Mac and SGI. I guess it really comes down to choosing to move based on attending the school that really offers what you're looking for. Spend some time researching the facilities available before you choose the school you attend. If the school you would like to attend does not meet your needs, then by all means discover the email address for their IT support team and related administrative counterparts and lobby hard for improved facilities while you re still in high school. In your present situation, I can only recommend working in Windows when you must and using Knoppix when you need a real workstation.
FrameMaker has been the number one tool for technical writers for years. It could be replaced by something like LaTex, an infinitely better system, but the amount of time to convert all templates and libraries and create new ones is massive. Also, the amount of training most TWs would require to learn something like LaTex is also a hurdle. I did a contract recently for one of the biggest computer manufacturers, and their whole library (thousands of books) is in Frame. Tech writers on average don't tend to be really technical, and the loss of FM would have some big reprecussions.
When I was studying the history of technology, I thought a professor at York University named George Grant was incredibly insightful in his analysis. He pointed out that technologies necessarily manifest the values of the cultures that create them. Computers are a great example, because having a society that operates through corporations with a feudal governing structure have resulted in computers that are based on a similar structure. File permissions are a great example of this. Therefore, if you are in a comfortable position within this feudal structure, you are probably in better shape as far as technologically-based stress than say, someone operating a point of sale system for your company who is dealing with a situation the developers never thought of and didn't implement, and over which you have no overide authority. A tool is only a tool, but at the same time, that tool is the embodyment of the culture and values that produced it. The further you deviate from the values or the power structure that the tool was designed to embody, the more stress you are likely to find.
When I was studying the history of technology, I thought a professor at York University named George Grant was incredibly insightful in his analysis. He pointed out that technologies necessarily manifest the values of the cultures that create them. Computers are a great example, because having a society that operates through corporations with a feudal governing structure have resulted in computers that are based on a similar structure. File permissions are a great example of this. Therefore, if you are in a comfortable position within this feudal structure, you are probably in better shape as far as technologically-based stress than say, someone operating a point of sal system for your company who is dealing with a situation the developers never thought of and didn't implement, and over which you have no overide authority. A tool is only a tool, but at the same time, that tool is the embodyment of the culture and values that produced it. The further you deviate from the values or the power structure that the tool was designed to embody, the more stress you are likely to find.
It is nice to have a clear conversation on Slashdot. Since you seem receptive to actually thinking about the responses I've given, consider this. Many post-modern moral and political philosophers consider that the system itself is what causes the problems. It is a good show, but the returns are always disappointing. The enlightenment-era thinking that is manifest in the US constitution is not robust enough to cope with modern issues such as WMD and KWMD. Please see Bill Joy's comments on this in Wired (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.ht ml).
u m.htm
The quote at the bottom of my previous post was the most important part of it. Reason and rationality alone will leave us all in a smoking heap of rubble. Please feel free to read further in the works of J.R. Saul at http://www.aller-stead.com/martin/pages/equilibri
or many other places.
Thanks for the chat.
Here's just one example of someone who continues to spend a great deal of time uncovering malfeasance on the part of the US government and helped uncover the Iran/Contra affair. (http://www.efn.org/~chrp/parry.htm) If the US government is trustworthy, why is this necessary? Just because they were caught once and made a fall guy of their junior member(North) doesn't mean that this is a rare case. We don't know because of the levels of paranoid secrecy within the military industrial complex. To relate this back to the original question, would giving them more surveilance powers stop this? I do not think it would. I think that it would allow them to blackmail anyone with a different viewpoint. You are very much welcome to your opinion. That is the great thing about having freedom of conscience. The problem is that if the government is allowed to monitor you every time you express that conscience then you will be motivated not to express it. In terms of the idea of "balancing powers and denying regional hegemony", the "free" market society that you refer to has a clear responsibility not to sell arms to oppressors just as they have a clear responsibility not to sell guns to school kids. I am not an American. But if I want to buy a joint in America I go to prison. If I want to but a truckload of weapons to cow my population though, that is OK. What good is that kind of freedom? I believe in the essential goodness of humanity also. If I didn't, I would just say f**k these slashdotters, they are a lost cause. The use of a "k" in the word america is short hand for a whole viewpoint. You are correct though, it does not clearly spell out a perspective. However, in speaking to americans who are raised on and steeped in TV it is sometimes necessary. As one of your own congressmen said, "It's a bumper sticker culture. If you're explaining, you're losing." Reason is not always the best arbitrator when it is in conflict with common sense. "The answer over the last two centuries has been a gradual move towards a civilization of structure and form over on of content and consideration." John Ralston Saul
A few points to consider: The US armed Saudi Arabia to keep down the majority will of their citizens (http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/saudi_arabia.htm ).
The US also armed Egypt to allow control of a population that does not agree with the government (http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/egypt.htm).
In 1982-1983 the US armed both Iraq and Iran to try to get them to kill each other(remember Ollie North?).
Israel is now the third or fourth largest nuclear power on earth.
The US has larger stocks of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons than any other country.
Before 911, the largest terrorist act committed in the US was committed by a white American male. He was neither a religious extremist nor was he anti-western as you say most terrorists are. He simply had a beef with the overarching power of the Amerikan government. His arguement sounded eerily similar to some of what Osama has said.
There is no justification for militarism or oppression in the world. Osama bin Laden deserves to be punished for his crimes. But, just because American polititians have better press(propaganda) coverage, doesn't mean that they deserve to evade justice.
Obviously you and I have different definitions of the word liberal.