Or just use LibreOffice now. I did it the day they released it, and have noticed no usability or stability problems at all, personally. Or at least no more than usual for OO. It'd be different if we were talking about a server, but this is just office software on a personal machine. Roll the dice!
I only used CDE briefly, but I remember that it was like a combination of the sheer visual elegance of Tk's widgets with lush the color scheme of a bordello.
I'm unfamiliar with this 'CDE' but you're compelling me to try it.
You are assuming that WP8 will magically be a success, with, as you say, "25% of the market". What are the reasons to think that? It's not like WP7 is the first or second of Microsoft's forays into phones -- just look at the aptly named WinCE or the recent Microsoft Kin flop.
That's true. However, I'd caution that very similar things were said about Apple after their ROKR collaboration with Motorola. I realize there are differences - some might say that Uncle Steve didn't give his best effort, knowing that Apple was planning their own phone. Still, bear in mind that it usually takes a couple tries. It looks like MS has started to get why their consumer offerings aren't up to par. I wouldn't completely write them off.
Maker of supposedly cleaner engines thinks that cleaner engines is a better idea than electric vehicles. In other news, maker of windmills thinks wind energy is better than solar. Manufacturer of solar cells disagrees. BP thinks they're all full of shit.
Worse, take a look at the submitter's profile - very few posts (though going back a ways) and a whole lot of story submissions pimping some company or other. I'm catching a whiff of an ad campaign here.
Speaking as someone with a degree in English Literature, I can safely say that I've only used math two times in my life: when learning it in school, when counting my kids at night, and when doing my taxes
Bitslinger, we have the IRS for you on line 2. Something about an audit.
You say as if there are no direct planes from China to US.
It occurred to me, but I decided it's easily explainable. For a direct flight from China, the US will meddle in the security in China as they did with Korea in this instance. They won't meddle with a flight from China to Korea. In other words, the US will concern themselves with the last leg into the US in all cases, and won't trust whatever security you went through to get to the last leg.
It's not completely insane. If we posed this in terms of computer security - let's say somebody passed you a cert signed by some guy you don't know. Are you going to trust it? Not likely.
It's an insult to perfectly secure modern foreign airports that the US requires these ridiculous redundant security checks. Just last week I flew from Shanghai (China) to Seoul (Korea) and then to Seattle. When we got to Seoul we disembarked the plane in a secure area, went to the transfer area (still secure) and had to go through screening all over again. Does this mean the TSA doesn't think Korea can secure their airport? That seems like an insult.
If I understand you correctly, you weren't screened in Seoul, you were screened in China. Now I'm not commenting on the efficacy of the 'security theater' that's performed to get people on airplanes, but I think the US stance there is most certainly going to be that we don't trust the security check in China. And the point there is that the terrorists we're trying to prevent will look for the softest point in the security. If they can daisy chain flights together to start in a place with nearly non-existent security and end up in the US, they will.
As to the check at the jetway after getting checked in the secure area, that does seem excessive. Seems like a lack of trust in what you could do in the airport to acquire weapons from...vendors?
Why should Apple have to carry the burden of having to install and update software from other companies?
I don't think Apple runs their inventory so inefficiently that between making the computer and selling the computer that years transpire. I bet that by installing the most recent version of Flash, their customers would get a very recent version..
So if they have Flash problems they will stop pointing at Apple as if it's their fault that Flash sucks...It will also help lower the supposed "Flash installed base" percentage.
Aaaaand we have the real reason. Apple is at war with Adobe. And make no mistake, it has absoultely nothing, nada to do with the quality of the software. That is Jobs' scapegoat, but he'd have a different goat if Flash were less buggy (or if the Mac were less buggy running it). He is simply threatened by the proprietary environment that is Flash because he doesn't control it. And if we know Steve at all, we know he likes to control everything. Here, he'd like to substitute his own proprietary environment instead of Flash.
Another point is that when security lists are made for all operating systems they include software from the regular installation. If Apple drops Java and Flash they'll cut a huge percentage of security holes from their list which, frankly, is in Apple's best interest.
It's even more in their interests to cut off competitors, regardless of the overt reason.
As for power over the mobile Web, this isn't 1995 anymore. The mobile Web is the regular Web, if you see any difference then you're not coding using Web standards.
You're missing the point: on a mobile device, the browser and apps are the computer. Steve already owns the apps thanks to his walled garden. Now he wants the browser. So if Steve gets rid of flash - to be replaced with Apple-approved alternatives that will ultimately be proprietary - he completely controls the device, and Apple wins. Ultimately, Steve wants absolutely nothing on your iDevice that Apple doesn't get a cut on, and completely control.
And that is what this is about.
If you see this as a software quality issue, you have a tree/forest problem.
I give you credit for the false...trichotomy, but the preferred approach would be to ship an up-to-date version on a system that doesn't hang when it runs.
Not saying Apple should/shouldn't do that, but you're being a tad dishonest in your phrasing of the options.
It would also be somewhat disingenuous to consider any Apple vs. Flash decision in a vacuum. Make no mistake, this is a war for control and power over the mobile web. Flash on Mac is collateral damage.
It could be potentially useful though, too. Baseball is home to a lot of "we do it this way because we've done it since the 1800s", as well as a lot of "I'm doing it this way because I think I'm clever". This is in frequent contrast to the actual evidence.
For Chrissakes, there are runners who still slide/dive into *first* because they inexplicably think it's faster (and no, not just to avoid a tag).
Punish too little or too much too often, and the public will slowly lose its respect for those upholding the law, and even for the law itself. That's why it is better to pronounce rational sentences, rather than let pity or anger get in the way too much.
How are 'too little' and 'too much' defined? I propose the rate of recidivism, which for thieves is insanely high. As such, I suggest that the penalties are too light. Unfortunately, prison has been shown a poor deterrent as well.
So what are we left with? What will deter petty criminals? As a society, we shouldn't have to simply chalk it up as a cost of doing business. We need a punishment that prevents thieves and similar criminals from harming society without having to support their worthless asses in jail.
The cool thing is their greed is being eaten away from the other side as well - home recording, powerful computers/software, and the internet is making it easier and easier for artists to get a quality product to an audience, bypassing the "music industry" altogether - at least for recorded music.
Yup. Less and less reason for them to exist. With cheaper production and voluntarily electing not to make digital distribution work correctly, the only thing they have left is marketing. If the indie artists ever figure out some means of grabbing mindshare - if some indie online music finding service ever becomes both popular and legal - the RIAA is even more screwed.
I don't think the **AA-type organizations have any coherent picture on what the future of media should be, other than "everyone should buy every release of the same shit over and over again".
Oh, that's exactly it. And then they use those few good years when everybody is re-buying music as their projection going forward, and if they don't hit numbers it's those derned pirates.
There is always something that is putting the music industry on its "last leg". As technology advances, they just continue bitching and it obviously has not stopped today.
And the retarded thing? Advancing technology makes them money.
Consider the 90s, which they seem to conveniently peg as their baseline for normal. Putting their cries of poverty from today and the 80s together, they've been going out of business constantly from 1985 until now, except for the mid 90s. What happened then? The CD came out. And people replaced a helluvalot of vinyl and tapes with CDs. People did that because the product was significantly superior in nearly every way (with apologies to audiophiles who love vinyl).
So what's different now? Well, they've been fighting digital distribution tooth and nail to combat privacy (ostensibly), preferring to stamp out piracy even if it means killing themselves. As a result they've made a lot less money than they could have, and have allowed a robust black market to blossom. That's bad for them, not just because of the lost revenue (let's concede they lose some money for the sake of argument), but they also lose control over distribution. This is completely different from their mistakes before.. Previously, people bootlegged tapes to make illegal tapes, but it was an inferior product to the legit copies, and probably made little dent in sales. Now, people can bootleg CDs to make digital copies, shifting media as well as creating a potentially superior product. The black market can now fill a market they've chosen not to compete in. Bad news for them.
So what's the upshot? If they want to make money like in the 90s, they need to give people a reason to re-buy music. That will be very hard since the last iteration was digital and easily turned into other media - how do you improve on that? They need some way of adding actual value to the product that people bought or shared/stole. Otherwise, the level of sales growth seen now and in the 80s is the norm, and we shouldn't expect anything different.
If they're in your way because they're genuinely trying to buy something (for whatever reason), then you're simply being an asshole for thinking you deserve the space more than they do. Please go feel important somewhere else.
And if I did the things they do (sitting in the middle of an aisle and not letting people by), you'd have a point. Go learn reading comprehension somewhere else.
Our local library has a used book sale, and it's fantastic. Really, the only problem is the assholes with PDAs, because they camp in an aisle, scanning everything, blocking people trying to get by, and being a complete pain in the ass. The problem isn't that they're buying books, the problem is that they're taking up space.
So what he's saying is, we don't have a great idea for Windows on a tablet, but we know tablets are hot and we would look dumb if we don't make a windows tablet, so we're creating one just to try to look good. Of course, it will be a POS, but hey, we made it!
Well, that's the thing: Windows' best selling feature is it works on anything. Windows' (arguable) worst feature is that it wasn't designed to work with anything. The bad part of not being in the hardware business (in this context) is that MS doesn't really have the ability to drive the market in that regard. So they seem to be in the position of cajoling some hardware manufacturer into releasing a tablet. Now they can partner with that company to develop features that will work well on a tablet, but it's not the same as Apple deciding "we will make a tablet" and doing everything necessary to make it a success.
I don't know what the answer is for MS. Could be they need to acquire some sort of high-end, low-volume boutique PC manufacturer to serve as a marketing arm for new toys they want to develop. But for now they still depend on the manufacturers to decide what markets they want to get into.
Really? Have you established that networks are making fantastic profit margins?
We already pay subscription (cable or otherwise
To whom? That's like saying that since you pay to access the internet, that you should be able to download whatever you want for free. Many channels are not paid by the cable provider.
most movies/TV shows use product placement among other things to supplement the cost
Holding up a Coke can doesn't pay for production costs.
What really gets me is that now movies have 10 minutes of commercials before them. Did I really just pay $10 to watch 10 minutes of commercials before the 15 minutes of movie trailers?
Yeah, it sucks. Now you know to show up later.
It's odd that only a few years ago, the movie/theatre business made a nice profit without having these commercials, yet now they cannot live without them.
And their costs have gone up substantially. The theaters are in many ways more captive to the MPAA than we are.
I hope in time commercial-less media is the norm.
Would be nice. I assume you are willing to pay for it? No free lunch.
something doesn't exactly sit right with me with the Judge's argument that the newspaper gave an implied consent to copy the newspaper. Part of the reasoning is that the newspaper permitted the user to "'right-click' and copy the article". This seems like a dog of an argument to me.
As a dog owner, I take umbrage with that statement. It's a terrible argument on a few grounds, including those you mention as well as:
1) The right click thing is ludicrous, as you state and more. The site doesn't provide right-click functionality, the browser does. The site in question would have had to take extreme measures (like the de Wees Allen gambit) to prevent it, which never ends up working anyway. Besides, there are fair uses for newspaper articles (which would presumably be killed by effective copy protection) - just not necessarily this one.
2) Didn't we have this whole link vs. content thing before with sites that link to pirated works, CSS keys, things like that? Aren't "we" on the side that sharing a link is completely different than providing content? So they should be able to provide a *link* without that being interpreted as providing the content, right?
3) I really, really don't like the "it was freely (as in beer) available, so now there's an implicit license. Sounds a lot like the whole 'GPL software is in the public domain
We actually did once get a cafeteria monitor to say "Who's Dick Hertz?" At the time, I thought it was the funniest goddamn thing ever in the Universe. Today, of course, I am much more sophisticated
I'm sorry, that shit's funny no matter how old you are. And yeah, I'm over 30. Besides, the pranks only get more involved as you get older.
Slashdot Mirror
Or just use LibreOffice now. I did it the day they released it, and have noticed no usability or stability problems at all, personally. Or at least no more than usual for OO. It'd be different if we were talking about a server, but this is just office software on a personal machine. Roll the dice!
I only used CDE briefly, but I remember that it was like a combination of the sheer visual elegance of Tk's widgets with lush the color scheme of a bordello.
I'm unfamiliar with this 'CDE' but you're compelling me to try it.
If you put a wolverine, a badger, and a mountain lion into a box, will they cuddle?
You are assuming that WP8 will magically be a success, with, as you say, "25% of the market". What are the reasons to think that? It's not like WP7 is the first or second of Microsoft's forays into phones -- just look at the aptly named WinCE or the recent Microsoft Kin flop.
That's true. However, I'd caution that very similar things were said about Apple after their ROKR collaboration with Motorola. I realize there are differences - some might say that Uncle Steve didn't give his best effort, knowing that Apple was planning their own phone. Still, bear in mind that it usually takes a couple tries. It looks like MS has started to get why their consumer offerings aren't up to par. I wouldn't completely write them off.
Freakin lawyers, bunch of [my attorney has advised me not to complete this sentence].
I believe the term you are looking for is "motherfuckers".*
*This statement protected by the decision rendered in Falwell v. Flynt.
I was actually aware of that...but it's just a joke. Accuracy is not the primary goal. Try not to overthink it.
Yeah, good point. Any honorable engineer would never stoop that low.
I searched Google for some of the text in the submission, and it popped up identically in a ton of different sites. So yeah, spam.
Maker of supposedly cleaner engines thinks that cleaner engines is a better idea than electric vehicles. In other news, maker of windmills thinks wind energy is better than solar. Manufacturer of solar cells disagrees. BP thinks they're all full of shit.
Worse, take a look at the submitter's profile - very few posts (though going back a ways) and a whole lot of story submissions pimping some company or other. I'm catching a whiff of an ad campaign here.
Speaking as someone with a degree in English Literature, I can safely say that I've only used math two times in my life: when learning it in school, when counting my kids at night, and when doing my taxes
Bitslinger, we have the IRS for you on line 2. Something about an audit.
You say as if there are no direct planes from China to US.
It occurred to me, but I decided it's easily explainable. For a direct flight from China, the US will meddle in the security in China as they did with Korea in this instance. They won't meddle with a flight from China to Korea. In other words, the US will concern themselves with the last leg into the US in all cases, and won't trust whatever security you went through to get to the last leg.
It's not completely insane. If we posed this in terms of computer security - let's say somebody passed you a cert signed by some guy you don't know. Are you going to trust it? Not likely.
It's an insult to perfectly secure modern foreign airports that the US requires these ridiculous redundant security checks. Just last week I flew from Shanghai (China) to Seoul (Korea) and then to Seattle. When we got to Seoul we disembarked the plane in a secure area, went to the transfer area (still secure) and had to go through screening all over again. Does this mean the TSA doesn't think Korea can secure their airport? That seems like an insult.
If I understand you correctly, you weren't screened in Seoul, you were screened in China. Now I'm not commenting on the efficacy of the 'security theater' that's performed to get people on airplanes, but I think the US stance there is most certainly going to be that we don't trust the security check in China. And the point there is that the terrorists we're trying to prevent will look for the softest point in the security. If they can daisy chain flights together to start in a place with nearly non-existent security and end up in the US, they will.
As to the check at the jetway after getting checked in the secure area, that does seem excessive. Seems like a lack of trust in what you could do in the airport to acquire weapons from...vendors?
Why should Apple have to carry the burden of having to install and update software from other companies?
I don't think Apple runs their inventory so inefficiently that between making the computer and selling the computer that years transpire. I bet that by installing the most recent version of Flash, their customers would get a very recent version..
So if they have Flash problems they will stop pointing at Apple as if it's their fault that Flash sucks...It will also help lower the supposed "Flash installed base" percentage.
Aaaaand we have the real reason. Apple is at war with Adobe. And make no mistake, it has absoultely nothing, nada to do with the quality of the software. That is Jobs' scapegoat, but he'd have a different goat if Flash were less buggy (or if the Mac were less buggy running it). He is simply threatened by the proprietary environment that is Flash because he doesn't control it. And if we know Steve at all, we know he likes to control everything. Here, he'd like to substitute his own proprietary environment instead of Flash.
Another point is that when security lists are made for all operating systems they include software from the regular installation. If Apple drops Java and Flash they'll cut a huge percentage of security holes from their list which, frankly, is in Apple's best interest.
It's even more in their interests to cut off competitors, regardless of the overt reason.
As for power over the mobile Web, this isn't 1995 anymore. The mobile Web is the regular Web, if you see any difference then you're not coding using Web standards.
You're missing the point: on a mobile device, the browser and apps are the computer. Steve already owns the apps thanks to his walled garden. Now he wants the browser. So if Steve gets rid of flash - to be replaced with Apple-approved alternatives that will ultimately be proprietary - he completely controls the device, and Apple wins. Ultimately, Steve wants absolutely nothing on your iDevice that Apple doesn't get a cut on, and completely control.
And that is what this is about.
If you see this as a software quality issue, you have a tree/forest problem.
I give you credit for the false...trichotomy, but the preferred approach would be to ship an up-to-date version on a system that doesn't hang when it runs.
Not saying Apple should/shouldn't do that, but you're being a tad dishonest in your phrasing of the options.
It would also be somewhat disingenuous to consider any Apple vs. Flash decision in a vacuum. Make no mistake, this is a war for control and power over the mobile web. Flash on Mac is collateral damage.
It could be potentially useful though, too. Baseball is home to a lot of "we do it this way because we've done it since the 1800s", as well as a lot of "I'm doing it this way because I think I'm clever". This is in frequent contrast to the actual evidence.
For Chrissakes, there are runners who still slide/dive into *first* because they inexplicably think it's faster (and no, not just to avoid a tag).
Punish too little or too much too often, and the public will slowly lose its respect for those upholding the law, and even for the law itself. That's why it is better to pronounce rational sentences, rather than let pity or anger get in the way too much.
How are 'too little' and 'too much' defined? I propose the rate of recidivism, which for thieves is insanely high. As such, I suggest that the penalties are too light. Unfortunately, prison has been shown a poor deterrent as well.
So what are we left with? What will deter petty criminals? As a society, we shouldn't have to simply chalk it up as a cost of doing business. We need a punishment that prevents thieves and similar criminals from harming society without having to support their worthless asses in jail.
The cool thing is their greed is being eaten away from the other side as well - home recording, powerful computers/software, and the internet is making it easier and easier for artists to get a quality product to an audience, bypassing the "music industry" altogether - at least for recorded music.
Yup. Less and less reason for them to exist. With cheaper production and voluntarily electing not to make digital distribution work correctly, the only thing they have left is marketing. If the indie artists ever figure out some means of grabbing mindshare - if some indie online music finding service ever becomes both popular and legal - the RIAA is even more screwed.
I don't think the **AA-type organizations have any coherent picture on what the future of media should be, other than "everyone should buy every release of the same shit over and over again".
Oh, that's exactly it. And then they use those few good years when everybody is re-buying music as their projection going forward, and if they don't hit numbers it's those derned pirates.
There is always something that is putting the music industry on its "last leg". As technology advances, they just continue bitching and it obviously has not stopped today.
And the retarded thing? Advancing technology makes them money.
Consider the 90s, which they seem to conveniently peg as their baseline for normal. Putting their cries of poverty from today and the 80s together, they've been going out of business constantly from 1985 until now, except for the mid 90s. What happened then? The CD came out. And people replaced a helluvalot of vinyl and tapes with CDs. People did that because the product was significantly superior in nearly every way (with apologies to audiophiles who love vinyl).
So what's different now? Well, they've been fighting digital distribution tooth and nail to combat privacy (ostensibly), preferring to stamp out piracy even if it means killing themselves. As a result they've made a lot less money than they could have, and have allowed a robust black market to blossom. That's bad for them, not just because of the lost revenue (let's concede they lose some money for the sake of argument), but they also lose control over distribution. This is completely different from their mistakes before.. Previously, people bootlegged tapes to make illegal tapes, but it was an inferior product to the legit copies, and probably made little dent in sales. Now, people can bootleg CDs to make digital copies, shifting media as well as creating a potentially superior product. The black market can now fill a market they've chosen not to compete in. Bad news for them.
So what's the upshot? If they want to make money like in the 90s, they need to give people a reason to re-buy music. That will be very hard since the last iteration was digital and easily turned into other media - how do you improve on that? They need some way of adding actual value to the product that people bought or shared/stole. Otherwise, the level of sales growth seen now and in the 80s is the norm, and we shouldn't expect anything different.
If they're in your way because they're genuinely trying to buy something (for whatever reason), then you're simply being an asshole for thinking you deserve the space more than they do. Please go feel important somewhere else.
And if I did the things they do (sitting in the middle of an aisle and not letting people by), you'd have a point. Go learn reading comprehension somewhere else.
Our local library has a used book sale, and it's fantastic. Really, the only problem is the assholes with PDAs, because they camp in an aisle, scanning everything, blocking people trying to get by, and being a complete pain in the ass. The problem isn't that they're buying books, the problem is that they're taking up space.
We have a Ms. Streisand for you on line 2.
So what he's saying is, we don't have a great idea for Windows on a tablet, but we know tablets are hot and we would look dumb if we don't make a windows tablet, so we're creating one just to try to look good. Of course, it will be a POS, but hey, we made it!
Well, that's the thing: Windows' best selling feature is it works on anything. Windows' (arguable) worst feature is that it wasn't designed to work with anything. The bad part of not being in the hardware business (in this context) is that MS doesn't really have the ability to drive the market in that regard. So they seem to be in the position of cajoling some hardware manufacturer into releasing a tablet. Now they can partner with that company to develop features that will work well on a tablet, but it's not the same as Apple deciding "we will make a tablet" and doing everything necessary to make it a success.
I don't know what the answer is for MS. Could be they need to acquire some sort of high-end, low-volume boutique PC manufacturer to serve as a marketing arm for new toys they want to develop. But for now they still depend on the manufacturers to decide what markets they want to get into.
To me, at this point, commercials are greed.
Really? Have you established that networks are making fantastic profit margins?
We already pay subscription (cable or otherwise
To whom? That's like saying that since you pay to access the internet, that you should be able to download whatever you want for free. Many channels are not paid by the cable provider.
most movies/TV shows use product placement among other things to supplement the cost
Holding up a Coke can doesn't pay for production costs.
What really gets me is that now movies have 10 minutes of commercials before them. Did I really just pay $10 to watch 10 minutes of commercials before the 15 minutes of movie trailers?
Yeah, it sucks. Now you know to show up later.
It's odd that only a few years ago, the movie/theatre business made a nice profit without having these commercials, yet now they cannot live without them.
And their costs have gone up substantially. The theaters are in many ways more captive to the MPAA than we are.
I hope in time commercial-less media is the norm.
Would be nice. I assume you are willing to pay for it? No free lunch.
something doesn't exactly sit right with me with the Judge's argument that the newspaper gave an implied consent to copy the newspaper. Part of the reasoning is that the newspaper permitted the user to "'right-click' and copy the article". This seems like a dog of an argument to me.
As a dog owner, I take umbrage with that statement. It's a terrible argument on a few grounds, including those you mention as well as:
1) The right click thing is ludicrous, as you state and more. The site doesn't provide right-click functionality, the browser does. The site in question would have had to take extreme measures (like the de Wees Allen gambit) to prevent it, which never ends up working anyway. Besides, there are fair uses for newspaper articles (which would presumably be killed by effective copy protection) - just not necessarily this one.
2) Didn't we have this whole link vs. content thing before with sites that link to pirated works, CSS keys, things like that? Aren't "we" on the side that sharing a link is completely different than providing content? So they should be able to provide a *link* without that being interpreted as providing the content, right?
3) I really, really don't like the "it was freely (as in beer) available, so now there's an implicit license. Sounds a lot like the whole 'GPL software is in the public domain
We actually did once get a cafeteria monitor to say "Who's Dick Hertz?" At the time, I thought it was the funniest goddamn thing ever in the Universe. Today, of course, I am much more sophisticated
I'm sorry, that shit's funny no matter how old you are. And yeah, I'm over 30. Besides, the pranks only get more involved as you get older.
Sophisticated's overrated.
A lot longer than that, if you believe/read Chomsky. Challenging the wrong people is a career damaging move.
So is defending the Khmer Rouge.