Re:Children, grow up and admit that OSS isn't perf
on
OpenOffice Bloated?
·
· Score: 1
While I agree with your premise that "bloated" and "slow" are always bad, I'm not sure that using a 200+ MB file is representative of how most people use Excel and/or OO. Therefore, if someone found some type of atypical data set that would by it's very nature make either Office or OO perform differently than the average user would expiernce, it's hardly appropriate to use either bloated or slow to describe the results.
A much more representative test would be to use files that are more typical and common. I doubt that the majority of users have such large spreadsheets and documents, at least not for their normal usuage (and if they do, they really should look at using a database instead).
I'm not making a case that OO is better than Office or vice versa. However, using the testing methodology as described, my Ford Focus is slow and bloated because it can't go as fast as a Formula 1 race car. And that would be true, if your criteria was just on the top speed. However, that's not how the typical automobile is used.
So, yes, the Formula 1 is faster and leaner than the Ford Focus, but since the speed limit is far below the top speed of the Formula 1, does it really make a difference? Likewise, Microsoft Office can load more quickly, some huge data file that the average person will never have, but does it really make a difference?
Yes, OSS isn't perfect, however it's strengths (and weaknesses) are not measured in load times and/or memory footprints.
I don't know about the RIAA, but I believe that Microsoft has a patent on producing wind against a tightly stretched membrane while storing the effect on a magnetic media.
So, you're going to write your Congresscritter and ask them to allocate a bigger budget to the USPTO? Perhaps ask them to increase your taxes to help out?
I didn't think so.;-) Also, I'd point out that raising the application fees doesn't stop big companies from filing as many patents as they do today. It just hurts small inventors.
Of course, you could always allow the patents court slap punitive damages on the filer of a patent that is found to be prior art and the filer should have known it was. At a minimum, it should have to pay the legal fees of the defender.
Would Creative sue Apple over this if that was hanging over it's head? Maybe, but who knows? This approach wouldn't stop people from patenting everything under the sun, but it would stop the enforcement of those patents unless they were sure they were valid.
You would have to define for me what you mean by a volunteer before I could answer your question.
Are you talking about somebody who knows all the risks associated with the experiment, they aren't receiving compensation (nor are their next of kin if it goes wrong), they have a full understanding that they are subjecting themselves to procedures that most likely have no chance of working and on and on?
If the volunteer doesn't meet the above and similar requirements, then they aren't a volunteer, but only a victim.
..that will never make it to human trials in America. Reason? It's another one of those taboo research topics; it's fine and dandy to clone a sheep or a mouse, it's fine to use crocodiles to fight HIV, it's acceptible to take a look at the human genes for eye-color and hair color, but the minute you even mention any of these actually going into clinical trials, or even attempting to get government funding, and you're shutdown for life.
The research climate in this country's starting to get ridiculous. We hear about all of these new advances almost daily in the news, but we're still waiting to see any practical use come from them. These are things that save lives, things that make terrible diseases easier to fight.
I know if I lost an arm or a leg or more importantly a heart or lung, I'd love the ability to grow one back..
Of course you'd love to grow a lost arm, leg, lung, etc. Who wouldn't? Unless of course, it made your testicles fall off in the process.
The last country that pushed human experimentation, quit doing so in 1945.
Most of what we hear about in terms of medical research never comes to light because a) most of it is hype and b) it's a lot more complicated than any of us can believe. Most of it relies on peoples emotions of something successful coming from it so there is additional funding. No hype means no emotion. No emotion means no government grants. No government grants means no job for the researcher.
It wasn't too long ago that new thing was cold fusion. Too bad nobody else could duplicate it (even the lab that supposedly did it the first time).
Even the article states that everything but the brains regenerated. So, in the long run what's the results of this resarch if used on people? Well, we'd have a bunch of people with brains that have turned to Jello, but the bodies of 20yr olds. But hey, at least they'd all have two arms, two legs, a heart and lungs.
If you had RTFA you would know that creative applied for the patent *before* the ipod was even released, so no, creative did not rip off apples interface
Creative patented the directory structure, not the actual user interface. While the article does refer to the user interface, that's not what the actual patent is about.
The Creative patent is so lame because it is about presenting information in a heirarchical directory structure on an lcd display. Heirarchical directory structures have been around for thirty years, plus. LCD screens have been around since the mid 1980s.
Of course this kind of nonsense would all be cleared up if the patent office went back to only allowing patents for tangible things, like it did prior to the 1990s.
Prior to then, you not only to think up how to build a better mousetrap, you actually had to build it before receiving your patent.
Under the recent P2P court cases, it was found that companies that provide for P2P are liable for copyright violations, even if that isn't the purpose of the P2P service.
Wouldn't that line of thinking now mean that Creative, which has patented (owns) the method of storing legal and illegal mp3s is liable for allowing people to store illegal mp3s? Again, the P2P cases said the companies intended use didn't matter it was the ability to do illegal activities that did.
If Apple is infringing, then so is Microsoft and everybody else. If I understand correctly, Creative received a patent for storing digital music in a heirarchal directory structure. And that differs from the mp3s stored on my local harddrive, how?
Does that mean I can sue Microsoft because I can use IE as an FTP client and get copyrighted media? I mean, if the volumne of noninfringing copies doesn't really matter, then technically, any file transfer application or protocol would fall under the same ruling. Right?
As a followup to this, you would also need to look at their SEC filings and their federal tax returns and see how they view themselves for reporting purposes, too.
It's a lot more complicated than just having a brick and mortar storefront.
QVC got in trouble, because they were owned by Sears and used Sears warehouses for storage purposes. Even though the goods were separated and they paid "rent," they were deemed to have nexus, since the rent went to the parent company and was eliminated for tax purposes.
Microsoft got it, because they would send sales reps into various states for institutional sales.
Nexus refers to a financial presence in the state, not necessarily a physical one (ie store front).
It is a pretty well defined concept and if Borders lost the case, then they were trying to do something to get around it and the courts didn't buy it.
Again, if I can return an online purchase locally, then the local store is what probably triggered the nexus.
No, that exactly is the point. In the case in question, the fact that the online Borders brand has no nexus in California other than brand and marketing similarity with the separately incorporated brick-and-mortars, wasn't enough to insulate them from remitting CA sales tax.
Since I can order a book online from Borders but return it to the local Borders for credit, Borders has nexus. Barnes and Noble tried the same thing and loss in a different state.
If I read this story correctly, the chain of events appears to "maybe" be a bit more interesting (but I am speculating on some of this).
* Borders was apparantly not paying sales tax (speculation) * They decided to pay the sales tax
* This might have been encourages by the California Tax
Amnesty program (again, speculation)
* ie, no penalties, but still interest
* Ahhhnolds plan to help balance the budget * Borders then sues the state to get the money back
* They lost * Borders then appealed
* They lost again (this is the current case)
You are basically right, but you have left out a couple of things. Yes, they paid under the amnesty program. But they were already on CAs radar scope as not paying. Without the amnesty program, they would owe interest and penalties. Interest is relatively cheap, penalties are as high as 25% of the tax due.
They didn't sue the state to get a refund, they filed for it. The refund was denied and they went to tax court.
The tax court upheld the state position that Borders did indeed have Nexus with the State of California and therefore, sales to California residents should be taxed, like every other company doing business in the State of California.
The suprising part is why Borders went this route. Most states, will forgive the back taxes, interest and penalties, if the company voluntarily comes into compliance for future sales. Unless Borders truly thought they had a case, they should have gone that route. From the sounds of it, though, even a first year tax accountant should have been able to advise them to settle out of court.
If we do sales tax by the location of the business, what happens when the business has multiple locations? What if I order from an online store, which has multiple locations where it's running it's webserver as a whole, and multiple warehouses?
This isn't how sales tax is done.
If we do sales tax by the physical location of the buyer at the time of transaction or perhaps the shipping address, does that sales tax go to that relative state? If so, how does the business location get it's tax revenue for itself? But then again, that leads to the first problem I mentioned above.
This is how sales tax is done and the seller remits the tax to the state it collected it for, not the state where they are located. The business usually gets to keep a percentage of the tax collected to offset the cost of collecting it.
Ramifications could include good old print catalog operators, store-less biggies like Amazon that have partnerships with CA companies, and more."
This is just such a wrong statement I don't know where to begin. There is so much case law in the US about mail order and catalogue sales that this particular case has nothing to do with upsetting. It's gone all the way to the Supreme Court.
When will people get it through their heads, if a business has a presences in a state (as defined by law), they are responsible for remitting sales tax on sales made in that state, whether the sale was at a local store, by phone or on the internet. If they don't have a presence in that state, no tax is due.
It's that simple (of course the lawyers get involved with what exactly a "presence" is, but that's besides the point).
Taxes are levied by California against everyone, even those that don't live in CA and can't vote in CA. For example, a professional athlete that plays one game in CA, owes the state income tax, regardless of where they life or what country they are a citizen of.
The fact that said professional athlete played one game in CA means that he worked in CA, so why shouldn't he/she pay income taxes?
Income taxes are owed where the work is performed. Sales taxes are owed where the sale takes place.
Why can't people understand that? This isn't like recompiling a kernel, you know?
Actually, you are wrong. The tax IS being levied against you, but most state statutes require the seller to collect it and remit it to the state to simplify the collection.
Don't feel too bad for the seller, either. Most states allow them to keep up to 2% of the tax collected, for their trouble. Now, think about how much Borders is making off of your sales tax your state says they must collect.
You're not going to find Borders or any other company complain about that-- just the back taxes they owe and never collected in the first place.
Want to be really sick? Think how much that 2% equates to for somebody like Walmart.
How is this taxation without representation? You are having to remit the tax to the state that you live in. If you lived in CA and ordered from Borders on the internet, you are paying CA sales tax.
You don't like that, then lobby your state representatives to change the law.
Well, I could have the home vs business computer being taxable backwards or you could live in a state where Dell has Nexus (obivously Texas, does).
But, unless they changed, if you are buying a home computer, it is shipped by one Dell subsidary. If you are buying a business computer, it is shipped by another. One is taxable, the other isn't. It's the way they have created their businesses and most state tax departments hate it.
It depends on where the sale took place. Obviously, if you drive to California or your friend buys it there, the sale took place in California and the State collects the sales tax.
If, however, you purchased it online or over the phone, the sale actually took place in your state. The California company would only owe taxes to your state if they also had a presence (something called Nexus) in your state. A national chain store, like Walmart would. A specialty store may or may not.
However, in most states, if the selling store doesn't have Nexus, you must pay something called Use Tax (which is similar to a sales tax). Of course, it is up to you to remit and most likely never detected by the state unless you are being audited.
Sales taxes are owed in the jurisdiction where the sale takes place. For mail-order/internet sales that would be the buyers location, if the company has Nexus - or a "presence" as defined by law in the state of the buyer.
What most people don't realize is that most states also have Use Tax. The main difference to the consumer is that for a Sales Tax, the seller charges it and remits it to the state. For Use Tax, it is the buyers obligation and it is payable for anything that isn't charged a sales tax (so all mail order/internet sales that don't charge a sales tax).
Anyway, these laws have been on the books for at least 50 years in most states. This isn't anything new. If it had been Sears and QVC instead of Borders, nobody would have even noticed.
Sales taxes are owed in the jurisdiction where the sale takes place. For mail-order/internet sales that would be the buyers location.
What most people don't realize is that most states also have Use Tax. The main difference to the consumer is that for a Sales Tax, the seller charges it and remits it to the state. For Use Tax, it is the buyers obligation and it is payable for anything that isn't charged a sales tax (so all mail order/internet sales that don't charge a sales tax).
Anyway, these laws have been on the books for at least 50 years in most states. This isn't anything new. If it had been Sears and QVC instead of Borders, nobody would have even noticed.
There are pretty specific issues regarding inter-state sales taxes called Nexus. There are reams and reams of case law and it is fairly well defined. If Borders had Nexus with California, then like any business with Nexus in California, they would be liable for the taxes.
There are ways to structure your business to avoid Nexus. Dell is a prime example. Business computers are taxable, but home computers are not.
Evidently, Borders' accounting/tax department messed up.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree with your premise that "bloated" and "slow" are always bad, I'm not sure that using a 200+ MB file is representative of how most people use Excel and/or OO. Therefore, if someone found some type of atypical data set that would by it's very nature make either Office or OO perform differently than the average user would expiernce, it's hardly appropriate to use either bloated or slow to describe the results.
A much more representative test would be to use files that are more typical and common. I doubt that the majority of users have such large spreadsheets and documents, at least not for their normal usuage (and if they do, they really should look at using a database instead).
I'm not making a case that OO is better than Office or vice versa. However, using the testing methodology as described, my Ford Focus is slow and bloated because it can't go as fast as a Formula 1 race car. And that would be true, if your criteria was just on the top speed. However, that's not how the typical automobile is used.
So, yes, the Formula 1 is faster and leaner than the Ford Focus, but since the speed limit is far below the top speed of the Formula 1, does it really make a difference? Likewise, Microsoft Office can load more quickly, some huge data file that the average person will never have, but does it really make a difference?
Yes, OSS isn't perfect, however it's strengths (and weaknesses) are not measured in load times and/or memory footprints.
I don't know about the RIAA, but I believe that Microsoft has a patent on producing wind against a tightly stretched membrane while storing the effect on a magnetic media.
So, you're going to write your Congresscritter and ask them to allocate a bigger budget to the USPTO? Perhaps ask them to increase your taxes to help out?
;-) Also, I'd point out that raising the application fees doesn't stop big companies from filing as many patents as they do today. It just hurts small inventors.
I didn't think so.
Of course, you could always allow the patents court slap punitive damages on the filer of a patent that is found to be prior art and the filer should have known it was. At a minimum, it should have to pay the legal fees of the defender.
Would Creative sue Apple over this if that was hanging over it's head? Maybe, but who knows? This approach wouldn't stop people from patenting everything under the sun, but it would stop the enforcement of those patents unless they were sure they were valid.
You would have to define for me what you mean by a volunteer before I could answer your question.
Are you talking about somebody who knows all the risks associated with the experiment, they aren't receiving compensation (nor are their next of kin if it goes wrong), they have a full understanding that they are subjecting themselves to procedures that most likely have no chance of working and on and on?
If the volunteer doesn't meet the above and similar requirements, then they aren't a volunteer, but only a victim.
Of course you'd love to grow a lost arm, leg, lung, etc. Who wouldn't? Unless of course, it made your testicles fall off in the process.
The last country that pushed human experimentation, quit doing so in 1945.
Most of what we hear about in terms of medical research never comes to light because a) most of it is hype and b) it's a lot more complicated than any of us can believe. Most of it relies on peoples emotions of something successful coming from it so there is additional funding. No hype means no emotion. No emotion means no government grants. No government grants means no job for the researcher.
It wasn't too long ago that new thing was cold fusion. Too bad nobody else could duplicate it (even the lab that supposedly did it the first time).
Even the article states that everything but the brains regenerated. So, in the long run what's the results of this resarch if used on people? Well, we'd have a bunch of people with brains that have turned to Jello, but the bodies of 20yr olds. But hey, at least they'd all have two arms, two legs, a heart and lungs.
Creative patented the directory structure, not the actual user interface. While the article does refer to the user interface, that's not what the actual patent is about.
The Creative patent is so lame because it is about presenting information in a heirarchical directory structure on an lcd display. Heirarchical directory structures have been around for thirty years, plus. LCD screens have been around since the mid 1980s.
Of course this kind of nonsense would all be cleared up if the patent office went back to only allowing patents for tangible things, like it did prior to the 1990s.
Prior to then, you not only to think up how to build a better mousetrap, you actually had to build it before receiving your patent.
Under the recent P2P court cases, it was found that companies that provide for P2P are liable for copyright violations, even if that isn't the purpose of the P2P service.
Wouldn't that line of thinking now mean that Creative, which has patented (owns) the method of storing legal and illegal mp3s is liable for allowing people to store illegal mp3s? Again, the P2P cases said the companies intended use didn't matter it was the ability to do illegal activities that did.
If Apple is infringing, then so is Microsoft and everybody else. If I understand correctly, Creative received a patent for storing digital music in a heirarchal directory structure. And that differs from the mp3s stored on my local harddrive, how?
No, but they do advertise easy file sharing and peer to peer networking.
Does that mean I can sue Microsoft because I can use IE as an FTP client and get copyrighted media? I mean, if the volumne of noninfringing copies doesn't really matter, then technically, any file transfer application or protocol would fall under the same ruling. Right?
As a followup to this, you would also need to look at their SEC filings and their federal tax returns and see how they view themselves for reporting purposes, too.
It's a lot more complicated than just having a brick and mortar storefront.
QVC got in trouble, because they were owned by Sears and used Sears warehouses for storage purposes. Even though the goods were separated and they paid "rent," they were deemed to have nexus, since the rent went to the parent company and was eliminated for tax purposes.
Microsoft got it, because they would send sales reps into various states for institutional sales.
Nexus refers to a financial presence in the state, not necessarily a physical one (ie store front).
It is a pretty well defined concept and if Borders lost the case, then they were trying to do something to get around it and the courts didn't buy it.
Again, if I can return an online purchase locally, then the local store is what probably triggered the nexus.
No, that exactly is the point. In the case in question, the fact that the online Borders brand has no nexus in California other than brand and marketing similarity with the separately incorporated brick-and-mortars, wasn't enough to insulate them from remitting CA sales tax.
Since I can order a book online from Borders but return it to the local Borders for credit, Borders has nexus. Barnes and Noble tried the same thing and loss in a different state.
In your case, it would be New Hampshire. However, if you were living in New Hampshire and working in Vermont, then it would be Vermont.
If I read this story correctly, the chain of events appears to "maybe" be a bit more interesting (but I am speculating on some of this).
* Borders was apparantly not paying sales tax (speculation)
* They decided to pay the sales tax
* This might have been encourages by the California Tax
Amnesty program (again, speculation)
* ie, no penalties, but still interest
* Ahhhnolds plan to help balance the budget
* Borders then sues the state to get the money back
* They lost
* Borders then appealed
* They lost again (this is the current case)
You are basically right, but you have left out a couple of things. Yes, they paid under the amnesty program. But they were already on CAs radar scope as not paying. Without the amnesty program, they would owe interest and penalties. Interest is relatively cheap, penalties are as high as 25% of the tax due.
They didn't sue the state to get a refund, they filed for it. The refund was denied and they went to tax court.
The tax court upheld the state position that Borders did indeed have Nexus with the State of California and therefore, sales to California residents should be taxed, like every other company doing business in the State of California.
The suprising part is why Borders went this route. Most states, will forgive the back taxes, interest and penalties, if the company voluntarily comes into compliance for future sales. Unless Borders truly thought they had a case, they should have gone that route. From the sounds of it, though, even a first year tax accountant should have been able to advise them to settle out of court.
If we do sales tax by the location of the business, what happens when the business has multiple locations? What if I order from an online store, which has multiple locations where it's running it's webserver as a whole, and multiple warehouses?
This isn't how sales tax is done.
If we do sales tax by the physical location of the buyer at the time of transaction or perhaps the shipping address, does that sales tax go to that relative state? If so, how does the business location get it's tax revenue for itself? But then again, that leads to the first problem I mentioned above.
This is how sales tax is done and the seller remits the tax to the state it collected it for, not the state where they are located. The business usually gets to keep a percentage of the tax collected to offset the cost of collecting it.
Actually, online, mail order and telephone sales are only responsible for the state portion of sales taxes, not the local community portion.
Ramifications could include good old print catalog operators, store-less biggies like Amazon that have partnerships with CA companies, and more."
This is just such a wrong statement I don't know where to begin. There is so much case law in the US about mail order and catalogue sales that this particular case has nothing to do with upsetting. It's gone all the way to the Supreme Court.
When will people get it through their heads, if a business has a presences in a state (as defined by law), they are responsible for remitting sales tax on sales made in that state, whether the sale was at a local store, by phone or on the internet. If they don't have a presence in that state, no tax is due.
It's that simple (of course the lawyers get involved with what exactly a "presence" is, but that's besides the point).
Taxes are levied by California against everyone, even those
that don't live in CA and can't vote in CA. For example, a
professional athlete that plays one game in CA, owes the
state income tax, regardless of where they life or what
country they are a citizen of.
The fact that said professional athlete played one game in CA means that he worked in CA, so why shouldn't he/she pay income taxes?
Income taxes are owed where the work is performed. Sales taxes are owed where the sale takes place.
Why can't people understand that? This isn't like recompiling a kernel, you know?
Actually, you are wrong. The tax IS being levied against you, but most state statutes require the seller to collect it and remit it to the state to simplify the collection.
Don't feel too bad for the seller, either. Most states allow them to keep up to 2% of the tax collected, for their trouble. Now, think about how much Borders is making off of your sales tax your state says they must collect.
You're not going to find Borders or any other company complain about that-- just the back taxes they owe and never collected in the first place.
Want to be really sick? Think how much that 2% equates to for somebody like Walmart.
How is this taxation without representation? You are having to remit the tax to the state that you live in. If you lived in CA and ordered from Borders on the internet, you are paying CA sales tax.
You don't like that, then lobby your state representatives to change the law.
Well, I could have the home vs business computer being taxable backwards or you could live in a state where Dell has Nexus (obivously Texas, does).
But, unless they changed, if you are buying a home computer, it is shipped by one Dell subsidary. If you are buying a business computer, it is shipped by another. One is taxable, the other isn't. It's the way they have created their businesses and most state tax departments hate it.
It depends on where the sale took place. Obviously, if you drive to California or your friend buys it there, the sale took place in California and the State collects the sales tax.
If, however, you purchased it online or over the phone, the sale actually took place in your state. The California company would only owe taxes to your state if they also had a presence (something called Nexus) in your state. A national chain store, like Walmart would. A specialty store may or may not.
However, in most states, if the selling store doesn't have Nexus, you must pay something called Use Tax (which is similar to a sales tax). Of course, it is up to you to remit and most likely never detected by the state unless you are being audited.
Sales taxes are owed in the jurisdiction where the sale takes place. For mail-order/internet sales that would be the buyers location, if the company has Nexus - or a "presence" as defined by law in the state of the buyer.
What most people don't realize is that most states also have Use Tax. The main difference to the consumer is that for a Sales Tax, the seller charges it and remits it to the state. For Use Tax, it is the buyers obligation and it is payable for anything that isn't charged a sales tax (so all mail order/internet sales that don't charge a sales tax).
Anyway, these laws have been on the books for at least 50 years in most states. This isn't anything new. If it had been Sears and QVC instead of Borders, nobody would have even noticed.
Sales taxes are owed in the jurisdiction where the sale takes place. For mail-order/internet sales that would be the buyers location. What most people don't realize is that most states also have Use Tax. The main difference to the consumer is that for a Sales Tax, the seller charges it and remits it to the state. For Use Tax, it is the buyers obligation and it is payable for anything that isn't charged a sales tax (so all mail order/internet sales that don't charge a sales tax). Anyway, these laws have been on the books for at least 50 years in most states. This isn't anything new. If it had been Sears and QVC instead of Borders, nobody would have even noticed.
There are pretty specific issues regarding inter-state sales taxes called Nexus. There are reams and reams of case law and it is fairly well defined. If Borders had Nexus with California, then like any business with Nexus in California, they would be liable for the taxes.
There are ways to structure your business to avoid Nexus. Dell is a prime example. Business computers are taxable, but home computers are not.
Evidently, Borders' accounting/tax department messed up.