Yes, because they can't make the argument that a child is being exploited. Without that argument laws against child porn would be pretty hard to sell. I mean, what is the problem with a nude pic if no child was ever forced to pose nude to get it? No children were hurt.
So, I think this is a very important distinction to make. You can argue the merits of the argument of exploitation all you want, but that entire argument disappears with animation. Yet, the court here is still trying to make it stick. What's the rationale here? That someone will go out and think it's okay to have sex with kids that are over 20 years old? Homer admitted he gave them anti-growth pills, in reality they are just midgets.
If you release a product, expect benchmarks to be run. Saying, "it's not ready to benchmark" won't stop anyone. It certainly implies that they aren't happy with the performance, though.
Final judgement will be reserved for the final product, obviously. But 10 months out for a OS is not an unreasonable time to start benchmarking--tweaks will improve things somewhat but a general idea for speed should be attainable. If we don't know until the day Windows 7 is released whether it has any speed improvements, that will be very disappointing.
It is significant that the OS is showing basically identical performance to Vista, though. This doesn't sound like a product that isn't done--it sounds like a product we already have. If 10 months out, they haven't made any serious changes to performance related code, why should we expect them any time soon? Obviously if it were that easy to speed up Vista code they would have already done it for Vista. And everything points to this basically being repackaged Vista code.
Trust me, if Intel leaked benchmarks for their upcoming chip 10 months in advance and they showed ZERO improvement, it would be news. Saying, "well this chip isn't really ready for benchmarks" wouldn't change that. Major architectural improvements, whether in software or hardware, cause susbstantial performance differences even if not completely tweaked. It's clear that Windows 7 won't have those.
That said, I use PDFCreator because it supports all programs, not just office...
And while OO.o is great, it still doesn't support > 64K rows like Excel 2007 (it will open the doc, but silently truncate the rows!). And before you all start flaming me, no, I do not think it is a good idea to use Excel for spreadsheets with 64K rows, in general. But from time to time, someone makes one, and being able to read it is nice.
Perhaps if he had said, "From a security standpoint,..." his statement would make more sense. It's still his opinion, of course, but not a particularly unreasonable one. It does seem like a good place to draw the line if you want to increase security. And perhaps, if you want to play Quake, it's not a line you can draw so easily. But I do believe he was stating a security method, rather than a law.
I agree with getting rid of software patents. In fact, I don't like the idea of having exclusive rights to an idea at all. I don't necessarily have a great solution, but that doesn't prevent me from recognizing flaws in a suggested one. I'm not sure why it's considered a valid argument to say, "well, do you have a better idea?" Sometimes doing nothing is better than implementing a bad idea, after all.
How is "revenue the product had generated" calculated? For example if I'm sony and I have a patent on some small part of the PS3, how do you calculate the "revenue" from the item? Sony could argue that they receive no revenue since the PS3 is sold at a loss and part of that loss is the components they aren't even charging for. Meanwhile they're keeping anyone from building something similar.
Another example would be Microsoft having a patent on some small software device used in Windows. I'm fairly certain they do:)
In short, how do you calculate revenue on a patent that isn't licensed but rather only used in one's own product, but not necessarily a substantial portion of that product?
Reading your comments, it seems you may be focusing on a different part of the definition than I am. I did not mean to restrict the agnosticism question to God only, as you seem to think--I have no problem expanding it to include the Absolute (or "reality" as you say). Rather, I focus on the proposition that lack of evidence is the only thing standing in the way of absolute knowledge, when I believe agnosticism takes the position that such knowledge is impossible (for mankind, if you like). IOW, the absolute, including the question of God's existence, his attributes, etc., is all unknowable. Since we are using the term in relationship to atheism, it seems reasonable to restrict our thinking to the God/theology part of the question, but it isn't necessary.
Regarding your comments that my position on Huxley is "[an] attempt at a joke," "mind- bogglingly silly,", "absurd," or "an eloquent attempt to grasp at straws," I think there are a lot of philosophers who would disagree with you. It is quite commonly agreed among philosophers that his definition is not the correct use of the term. See my quote of Stein, later, for more on this.
You say "The real definition of an invented word is the one that it's inventor gave it." Interesting definition of definition. God luck finding a dictionary that defines definition in this way! That is a more accurate description, perhaps, of "original definition." Definition is a more ambiguous term, which refers to the meaning of a word (I'm not sure "real" is particularly significant here). The "meaning" of a word is an elusive thing, changing with usage, audience, context, etc. All I'm saying is that from a religious/philosophical context, the meaning is widely accepted as I've previously stated. It doesn't mean there aren't other uses; it doesn't mean the word always meant the same thing. It just means there is a consensus among those who use the term in philosophical debate. It's worth noting that the term is now used to refer to philosophers that wrote long before Huxley, such as Kant
You say: This is true for words that came into the English language via largely unknown routes whose definitions can only be arrived at by examining common usage at different historic periods. We do however have a very precise record of when "agnostic" entered the language, and also copious amounts of published material from its inventor describing its meaning, so your claim is at best an eloquent attempt to grasp at straws.
Are you claiming words don't change meaning once they become part of the english language and are clearly defined? It's simply not true, and here are some examples:
These words are of known origin, the definitions were known, and were changed. Or are you going to argue that we should stop misusing the word hobby to mean pasttime? I think you're on shaky ground with this argument. That Huxley codified his particular meaning so copiously doesn't really seem relevant.
-------
"Philosophy pages" is not a respected philosophical dictionary. In fact, there aren't really any on the web. But I have looked the term up previously in philosophical dictionaries (while arguing for the position you now take, actually), and became convinced that the definition is as I say. Quoting from the "philsophypages" definition, it contains a sentence I agree with:
the agnostic, who holds that we cannot know whether or not god exists,
The key here is "cannot know." Obviously I disagree with the first line in the paragraph, which cites "insufficient evidence" as the problem. The idea of insuffi
It really is unreasonable to ask any rejector of the demonology to say more with respect to those other matters, than that the statements regarding them may be true, or may be false; and that the ultimate decision, if it is to be favourable, must depend on the production of testimony of a very different character from that of the writers of the four gospels. Until such evidence is brought forward, that refusal of assent, with willingness to re-open the question, on cause shown, which is what I mean by Agnosticism, is, for me the only course open.
This does essentially agree with your explanation of Huxley's view. However, his having invented the term does not make his view authoritative. Agnosticism is a formal, philosophical term which means what I had written previously. It is essentially universally agreed to have this definition, in spite of its distinction from Huxley's. "Real definition" is an interesting term; I suppose it depends what you mean by that. Philosophical dictionaries almost universally do not contain the definition you speak of, and respected dictionaries such as merriam-webster prefer the one I've mentioned. The hypothetical opinion of one man who invented the term is not really relevant--the etymology of a word is interesting, but it doesn't determine the definition.
Incorrect. Agnosticism is a philosophical position that God is unknown and/or inherently unknowable. In layman's terms, our subjective experiences are not capable of producing a knowledge of God. In other words, it is not possible to have knowledge of God, period...not that there is just insufficient evidence.
Atheism, however, is not restricted to those that assert the nonexistence of God. Its original meaning ("ungodliness") is no longer in common use. It has been applied to those that lack a belief in God, as well as those that assert the nonexistence (sometimes referred to as "strong" and "weak" atheism). Depending on your dictionary, you may have any of several definitions, but here's one that disagrees with you, and one that agrees:
# S: (n) atheism, godlessness (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)
# S: (n) atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)
Another word has come into use which perhaps more accurately reflects the second postion: nontheism (literally, "not theism"). This essentially equates to "weak atheism" or a lack of belief in God, without assertion. However, the "a" prefix is commonly used to mean "without," so "without theism" is a reasonable definition of atheism.
It would be nice if everyone used the same word to mean the same thing...but they don't. Most self-described atheists I know do not assert the nonexistence of God. Most theists I know consider atheists those who do assert the nonexistence (although from a Christian judgement point of view, the distiction is basically meaningless). Agnosticism is a more complicated topic than simple "absence of faith," and should not be used as an alternative to "weak atheism."
> Ubuntu users, be sure to get the patch right away.
I hope the "patch" deletes the log file, and doesn't just fix the installer. Ubuntu users, delete the log file, since I doubt you will ever set the root password w/your installer again. Or, change the root pw--then the one in the log file won't match. Honestly...
For example, they fault Linux OpenOffice desktops for not having all the features in Microsoft Windows Office, even though few actually use all of the Microsoft stuff. So, in essence, they're saying they want desktops cluttered with unnecessary features.
No, they aren't saying this. They're saying they want the specific features they use in Office. If you can't offer them those features, why should they switch? However, if I have to choose between having the features I need, and a slim app which has no "unnecessary features," I choose the app with the features I need...even if it has extra features I don't want/need.
Of course, this is ironic, considering how bloated and slow OO is. It's hardly a "slim" app, even though it is missing tons of features that MS Office has. The best solution is the firefox extension model, I believe.
At the moment, the main feature I miss in OO is the "text to columns" feature of Excel. There is some macro add-on which tries to fill this need, but it has always had problems, and such a useful feature of a spreadsheet ought to be standard, IMO. Data cubes are another big deal.
Users do not want every single feature of MS office. They want the ones they use. Until a reasonable subset of MSO's features is implemented, most users won't find in OO what they need. And until the entire group at one workplace find what they need, that entire workplace is unlikely to switch (standardization). This will be hard to overcome (especially as MS adds features), but that is the problem being faced.
I'd argue that OO isn't even "good enough" for most users (it is getting much closer). It certainly isn't "good enough" for power users. And finally, it's just too damn slow. So don't say we're being illogical when we reject OO for not having features we use every day. Every simple, remotely useful feature of MSO must be duplicated or you will never convince the average user to care about OO. Most businesses can afford to pay license fees to get these features, and they will do it until they don't have to anymore. And frankly, it's absolutely logical if those features make the employees even moderately more efficient.
> The findings could mean that many websites are fronts for spammers, > phishing gangs and other net criminals.
The findings could mean any of a number of things, but choosing this one option and saying, "It could mean X" is extremely misleading.
At least in my case, my info is often blurred to avoid getting 100 letters from companies wanting to (a) list my domain on their stupid search engine, (b) transfer me to another registrar, (c) "renew" my domain with them (even though they aren't my registrar, they write their letter as if they are), (d) use the whois info to provide me with snail spam of any kind.
My email address is correct, and I can login to my dotster account any time, so I'm not worried about domain transfers, but I sure hate that mail.
No, it isn't. Theft of services implies that you agreed to be serviced with the implication that you would pay upon receipt of services. When you then fail to pay, you have taken their service (time they could have spent servicing someone else) but not paid anything. Not only is this different from copyright infringment because of the unspoken contract, you are actually taking something tangible without reimbursement (their time). The salon is then out that time and service, hence "theft of services."
Theft of service is different from theft of goods, but it's also different from copyright infringment. It still involves depriving the vendor of something with value, without paying for it. Copyright infringment doesn't qualify as this since it only deprives the vendor when the infringment replaces a purchase (i.e., I copy something I would have bought if I couldn't find a copy).
So, nice try, but it's still not theft. It's illegal; it may be immoral, and it may hurt the industry, and it may be just plain mean--but it's not theft. Get over it--you can't use that loaded word to describe these people no matter how horrible you think they are, until the definition is altered. In which case, we'd still have to differentiate, since it means something fundamentally different (i.e., "theft of previously non-existent property," or perhaps "definition 2: copyright infringment."). It can never be the same thing because the same thing isn't happening (even if both result in decreased profits).
Every version of Red Hat since ~4.0 has had special patches to unbreak it (home/end/pgup/pgdn keys, mostly). I had to apply these patches on FreeBSD since the port uses that vanilla source. Yes, technically this is not a "bug" but it's annoying not having the use of keys that have been on keyboards for 15 years.
Of course, I love VI and it has at least as many problems depending on the term type...
-Dan
Now that pf comes standard with FreeBSD, I prefer it for firewalls. IPFW is not nearly as nice as pf for a variety of reasons. OpenBSD has its own issues but for a firewall most of them are acceptable.
> Then we're screwed, democracy is lost and we > should all just give up and go home.
We're screwed as long as we play their game, and we should go play another game, like not following stupid laws until enforcing them doesn't make sense anymore.
Democracy is good, but not perfect. Sometimes the only way for the weak to change the law is to use unsanctioned tactics. Riots, rebellion, and revolution are all options. In this case some advocate a slightly less dramatic option, like p2p file sharing that says "fuck you" to ridiculous copyright laws.
What if there were no free JVM? What if thousands of hours hadn't been invested to allow GNU zealots to run java on a "completely free" system? Then any java code would present a problem. FSF was not being irrational, because as far as they are concerned, all java code is dangerous until GCJ is finished (it's not remotely finished). Even then, it will be dangerous because Sun can extend it at any time, effectively breaking GCJ.
As it turns out, Stallman was willing to compromise once he found out there was a free solution not far away. But this doesn't invalidate the original argument: code that requires proprietary run-times is inherently "un-safe" because it can't be guaranteed to run on a free system.
I'm with Stallman on this one, although I'm usually not. I'm a BSD fan, and java (read: a working jvm) always takes longer to arrive there. That means things with java dependencies sometimes won't work. Although I'm not a big "Free" software advocate (e.g., I use proprietary software and BSD licensed stuff), I do find it annoying when a proprietary language is used for a open-source project. Sure, I can modify the source, but the lack of the libraries may make it nearly impossible to run on my OS of choice.
It just *happens* that a free JVM is being created. It just *happens* that it has nearly enough functionality to allow OO.o to run on it. But that is because of the work of programmers who want to free themselves from Java's terms. In the meantime, they will oppose projects that depend on a language they haven't fully cloned--an attitude 100% compatible and consistent with the FSF's stated goals and guiding principles. You and I may not agree with this attitude, but it is not irrational--unless the desire to have a truly "free" system is also irrational.
He hasn't proven Card "absolutely correct" unless you can show:
1. He is a member of the fanatical Left (a loaded term to say the least)
2. There *is* a "fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation".
3. Grandparent thinks Card and all other "fundamentalists" are not only a homophobes, but also mentally ill (are the two synonymous? I wasn't aware of this).
4. All others in the "fanatical Left" agree with grandparent.
Yeah, I don't think he's proven much of anything, except that he views such hyperbolic statements defending (what he views as) discrimination against homosexuals as homophobic.
I'm surprised that this has been your experience, troll. I've found that dhcp and ethernet typically work without any manual configuration. The only time I've had to do any manual changes was when I added a second network card. It didn't automatically add it for me, and I had to load the module myself.
There are a lot of benefits to FreeBSD and other BSDs, but ease of setting up isn't one of them. But the only hardware I really have had trouble with was sound cards and ACPI. Video cards were about the same to set up as Linux (it's all about X, not BSD or Linux). This new BSD may eventually turn into something that's easy to configure, which would bring the benefits of BSD to some who find it too difficult to setup.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because they can't make the argument that a child is being exploited. Without that argument laws against child porn would be pretty hard to sell. I mean, what is the problem with a nude pic if no child was ever forced to pose nude to get it? No children were hurt.
So, I think this is a very important distinction to make. You can argue the merits of the argument of exploitation all you want, but that entire argument disappears with animation. Yet, the court here is still trying to make it stick. What's the rationale here? That someone will go out and think it's okay to have sex with kids that are over 20 years old? Homer admitted he gave them anti-growth pills, in reality they are just midgets.
-Dan
How's the speed?
If you release a product, expect benchmarks to be run. Saying, "it's not ready to benchmark" won't stop anyone. It certainly implies that they aren't happy with the performance, though.
Final judgement will be reserved for the final product, obviously. But 10 months out for a OS is not an unreasonable time to start benchmarking--tweaks will improve things somewhat but a general idea for speed should be attainable. If we don't know until the day Windows 7 is released whether it has any speed improvements, that will be very disappointing.
It is significant that the OS is showing basically identical performance to Vista, though. This doesn't sound like a product that isn't done--it sounds like a product we already have. If 10 months out, they haven't made any serious changes to performance related code, why should we expect them any time soon? Obviously if it were that easy to speed up Vista code they would have already done it for Vista. And everything points to this basically being repackaged Vista code.
Trust me, if Intel leaked benchmarks for their upcoming chip 10 months in advance and they showed ZERO improvement, it would be news. Saying, "well this chip isn't really ready for benchmarks" wouldn't change that. Major architectural improvements, whether in software or hardware, cause susbstantial performance differences even if not completely tweaked. It's clear that Windows 7 won't have those.
-Dan
What are you talking about? PDF export is free to Office 2007 users:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=F1FC413C-6D89-4F15-991B-63B07BA5F2E5&displaylang=en
That said, I use PDFCreator because it supports all programs, not just office...
And while OO.o is great, it still doesn't support > 64K rows like Excel 2007 (it will open the doc, but silently truncate the rows!). And before you all start flaming me, no, I do not think it is a good idea to use Excel for spreadsheets with 64K rows, in general. But from time to time, someone makes one, and being able to read it is nice.
-Dan
Perhaps if he had said, "From a security standpoint,..." his statement would make more sense. It's still his opinion, of course, but not a particularly unreasonable one. It does seem like a good place to draw the line if you want to increase security. And perhaps, if you want to play Quake, it's not a line you can draw so easily. But I do believe he was stating a security method, rather than a law.
Dan
I agree with getting rid of software patents. In fact, I don't like the idea of having exclusive rights to an idea at all. I don't necessarily have a great solution, but that doesn't prevent me from recognizing flaws in a suggested one. I'm not sure why it's considered a valid argument to say, "well, do you have a better idea?" Sometimes doing nothing is better than implementing a bad idea, after all.
How is "revenue the product had generated" calculated? For example if I'm sony and I have a patent on some small part of the PS3, how do you calculate the "revenue" from the item? Sony could argue that they receive no revenue since the PS3 is sold at a loss and part of that loss is the components they aren't even charging for. Meanwhile they're keeping anyone from building something similar.
:)
Another example would be Microsoft having a patent on some small software device used in Windows. I'm fairly certain they do
In short, how do you calculate revenue on a patent that isn't licensed but rather only used in one's own product, but not necessarily a substantial portion of that product?
-Dan
Reading your comments, it seems you may be focusing on a different part of the definition than I am. I did not mean to restrict the agnosticism question to God only, as you seem to think--I have no problem expanding it to include the Absolute (or "reality" as you say). Rather, I focus on the proposition that lack of evidence is the only thing standing in the way of absolute knowledge, when I believe agnosticism takes the position that such knowledge is impossible (for mankind, if you like). IOW, the absolute, including the question of God's existence, his attributes, etc., is all unknowable. Since we are using the term in relationship to atheism, it seems reasonable to restrict our thinking to the God/theology part of the question, but it isn't necessary.
Regarding your comments that my position on Huxley is "[an] attempt at a joke," "mind- bogglingly silly,", "absurd," or "an eloquent attempt to grasp at straws," I think there are a lot of philosophers who would disagree with you. It is quite commonly agreed among philosophers that his definition is not the correct use of the term. See my quote of Stein, later, for more on this.
You say "The real definition of an invented word is the one that it's inventor gave it." Interesting definition of definition. God luck finding a dictionary that defines definition in this way! That is a more accurate description, perhaps, of "original definition." Definition is a more ambiguous term, which refers to the meaning of a word (I'm not sure "real" is particularly significant here). The "meaning" of a word is an elusive thing, changing with usage, audience, context, etc. All I'm saying is that from a religious/philosophical context, the meaning is widely accepted as I've previously stated. It doesn't mean there aren't other uses; it doesn't mean the word always meant the same thing. It just means there is a consensus among those who use the term in philosophical debate. It's worth noting that the term is now used to refer to philosophers that wrote long before Huxley, such as Kant
You say: This is true for words that came into the English language via largely unknown routes whose definitions can only be arrived at by examining common usage at different historic periods. We do however have a very precise record of when "agnostic" entered the language, and also copious amounts of published material from its inventor describing its meaning, so your claim is at best an eloquent attempt to grasp at straws.
Are you claiming words don't change meaning once they become part of the english language and are clearly defined? It's simply not true, and here are some examples:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=discomfit
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hobby
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=horrid
These words are of known origin, the definitions were known, and were changed. Or are you going to argue that we should stop misusing the word hobby to mean pasttime? I think you're on shaky ground with this argument. That Huxley codified his particular meaning so copiously doesn't really seem relevant.
-------
"Philosophy pages" is not a respected philosophical dictionary. In fact, there aren't really any on the web. But I have looked the term up previously in philosophical dictionaries (while arguing for the position you now take, actually), and became convinced that the definition is as I say. Quoting from the "philsophypages" definition, it contains a sentence I agree with:
the agnostic, who holds that we cannot know whether or not god exists,
The key here is "cannot know." Obviously I disagree with the first line in the paragraph, which cites "insufficient evidence" as the problem. The idea of insuffi
I'm aware of Huxley's views:
h tml e arch=agnosticism&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=ex act
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd00225.htm
"Science and Christian Tradition,"
It really is unreasonable to ask any rejector of the demonology to say more with respect to those other matters, than that the statements regarding them may be true, or may be false; and that the ultimate decision, if it is to be favourable, must depend on the production of testimony of a very different character from that of the writers of the four gospels. Until such evidence is brought forward, that refusal of assent, with willingness to re-open the question, on cause shown, which is what I mean by Agnosticism, is, for me the only course open.
This does essentially agree with your explanation of Huxley's view. However, his having invented the term does not make his view authoritative. Agnosticism is a formal, philosophical term which means what I had written previously. It is essentially universally agreed to have this definition, in spite of its distinction from Huxley's. "Real definition" is an interesting term; I suppose it depends what you mean by that. Philosophical dictionaries almost universally do not contain the definition you speak of, and respected dictionaries such as merriam-webster prefer the one I've mentioned. The hypothetical opinion of one man who invented the term is not really relevant--the etymology of a word is interesting, but it doesn't determine the definition.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Dictionary.
http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&frees
If you go to the library and use any dictionary of philosophy, you'll find that it uses the term the way I've defined it.
Dan
Incorrect. Agnosticism is a philosophical position that God is unknown and/or inherently unknowable. In layman's terms, our subjective experiences are not capable of producing a knowledge of God. In other words, it is not possible to have knowledge of God, period...not that there is just insufficient evidence.
Atheism, however, is not restricted to those that assert the nonexistence of God. Its original meaning ("ungodliness") is no longer in common use. It has been applied to those that lack a belief in God, as well as those that assert the nonexistence (sometimes referred to as "strong" and "weak" atheism). Depending on your dictionary, you may have any of several definitions, but here's one that disagrees with you, and one that agrees:
wordnet: atheism
# S: (n) atheism, godlessness (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)
# S: (n) atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)
Another word has come into use which perhaps more accurately reflects the second postion: nontheism (literally, "not theism"). This essentially equates to "weak atheism" or a lack of belief in God, without assertion. However, the "a" prefix is commonly used to mean "without," so "without theism" is a reasonable definition of atheism.
It would be nice if everyone used the same word to mean the same thing...but they don't. Most self-described atheists I know do not assert the nonexistence of God. Most theists I know consider atheists those who do assert the nonexistence (although from a Christian judgement point of view, the distiction is basically meaningless). Agnosticism is a more complicated topic than simple "absence of faith," and should not be used as an alternative to "weak atheism."
oops, that was eScan...eTrust is not included.
I use E-trust at work, it's fine and not a hog. Interesting that it and Kaspersky have identical scores! Anyone know the reason for this?
-Dan
I always thought it was meant to be said sarcastically, like some people say, "I care."
-Dan
> Ubuntu users, be sure to get the patch right away.
I hope the "patch" deletes the log file, and doesn't just fix the installer. Ubuntu users, delete the log file, since I doubt you will ever set the root password w/your installer again. Or, change the root pw--then the one in the log file won't match. Honestly...
-Dan
For example, they fault Linux OpenOffice desktops for not having all the features in Microsoft Windows Office, even though few actually use all of the Microsoft stuff. So, in essence, they're saying they want desktops cluttered with unnecessary features.
No, they aren't saying this. They're saying they want the specific features they use in Office. If you can't offer them those features, why should they switch? However, if I have to choose between having the features I need, and a slim app which has no "unnecessary features," I choose the app with the features I need...even if it has extra features I don't want/need.
Of course, this is ironic, considering how bloated and slow OO is. It's hardly a "slim" app, even though it is missing tons of features that MS Office has. The best solution is the firefox extension model, I believe.
At the moment, the main feature I miss in OO is the "text to columns" feature of Excel. There is some macro add-on which tries to fill this need, but it has always had problems, and such a useful feature of a spreadsheet ought to be standard, IMO. Data cubes are another big deal.
Users do not want every single feature of MS office. They want the ones they use. Until a reasonable subset of MSO's features is implemented, most users won't find in OO what they need. And until the entire group at one workplace find what they need, that entire workplace is unlikely to switch (standardization). This will be hard to overcome (especially as MS adds features), but that is the problem being faced.
I'd argue that OO isn't even "good enough" for most users (it is getting much closer). It certainly isn't "good enough" for power users. And finally, it's just too damn slow. So don't say we're being illogical when we reject OO for not having features we use every day. Every simple, remotely useful feature of MSO must be duplicated or you will never convince the average user to care about OO. Most businesses can afford to pay license fees to get these features, and they will do it until they don't have to anymore. And frankly, it's absolutely logical if those features make the employees even moderately more efficient.
-Dam
> The findings could mean that many websites are fronts for spammers,
> phishing gangs and other net criminals.
The findings could mean any of a number of things, but choosing this one option and saying, "It could mean X" is extremely misleading.
At least in my case, my info is often blurred to avoid getting 100 letters from companies wanting to (a) list my domain on their stupid search engine, (b) transfer me to another registrar, (c) "renew" my domain with them (even though they aren't my registrar, they write their letter as if they are), (d) use the whois info to provide me with snail spam of any kind.
My email address is correct, and I can login to my dotster account any time, so I'm not worried about domain transfers, but I sure hate that mail.
-Dan
No, it isn't. Theft of services implies that you agreed to be serviced with the implication that you would pay upon receipt of services. When you then fail to pay, you have taken their service (time they could have spent servicing someone else) but not paid anything. Not only is this different from copyright infringment because of the unspoken contract, you are actually taking something tangible without reimbursement (their time). The salon is then out that time and service, hence "theft of services."
Theft of service is different from theft of goods, but it's also different from copyright infringment. It still involves depriving the vendor of something with value, without paying for it. Copyright infringment doesn't qualify as this since it only deprives the vendor when the infringment replaces a purchase (i.e., I copy something I would have bought if I couldn't find a copy).
So, nice try, but it's still not theft. It's illegal; it may be immoral, and it may hurt the industry, and it may be just plain mean--but it's not theft. Get over it--you can't use that loaded word to describe these people no matter how horrible you think they are, until the definition is altered. In which case, we'd still have to differentiate, since it means something fundamentally different (i.e., "theft of previously non-existent property," or perhaps "definition 2: copyright infringment."). It can never be the same thing because the same thing isn't happening (even if both result in decreased profits).
-Dan
Every version of Red Hat since ~4.0 has had special patches to unbreak it (home/end/pgup/pgdn keys, mostly). I had to apply these patches on FreeBSD since the port uses that vanilla source. Yes, technically this is not a "bug" but it's annoying not having the use of keys that have been on keyboards for 15 years. Of course, I love VI and it has at least as many problems depending on the term type... -Dan
Or FreeBSD with pf.
Now that pf comes standard with FreeBSD, I prefer it for firewalls. IPFW is not nearly as nice as pf for a variety of reasons. OpenBSD has its own issues but for a firewall most of them are acceptable.
-Dan
> Then we're screwed, democracy is lost and we
> should all just give up and go home.
We're screwed as long as we play their game, and we should go play another game, like not following stupid laws until enforcing them doesn't make sense anymore.
Democracy is good, but not perfect. Sometimes the only way for the weak to change the law is to use unsanctioned tactics. Riots, rebellion, and revolution are all options. In this case some advocate a slightly less dramatic option, like p2p file sharing that says "fuck you" to ridiculous copyright laws.
-Dan
Like Opera had years ago, and Mozilla copied years later. Tabs were a welcome addition to Mozilla, but let's be honest: Opera invented them.
-Dan
What if there were no free JVM? What if thousands of hours hadn't been invested to allow GNU zealots to run java on a "completely free" system? Then any java code would present a problem. FSF was not being irrational, because as far as they are concerned, all java code is dangerous until GCJ is finished (it's not remotely finished). Even then, it will be dangerous because Sun can extend it at any time, effectively breaking GCJ.
As it turns out, Stallman was willing to compromise once he found out there was a free solution not far away. But this doesn't invalidate the original argument: code that requires proprietary run-times is inherently "un-safe" because it can't be guaranteed to run on a free system.
I'm with Stallman on this one, although I'm usually not. I'm a BSD fan, and java (read: a working jvm) always takes longer to arrive there. That means things with java dependencies sometimes won't work. Although I'm not a big "Free" software advocate (e.g., I use proprietary software and BSD licensed stuff), I do find it annoying when a proprietary language is used for a open-source project. Sure, I can modify the source, but the lack of the libraries may make it nearly impossible to run on my OS of choice.
It just *happens* that a free JVM is being created. It just *happens* that it has nearly enough functionality to allow OO.o to run on it. But that is because of the work of programmers who want to free themselves from Java's terms. In the meantime, they will oppose projects that depend on a language they haven't fully cloned--an attitude 100% compatible and consistent with the FSF's stated goals and guiding principles. You and I may not agree with this attitude, but it is not irrational--unless the desire to have a truly "free" system is also irrational.
-Dan
Not dropped, relegated to tier 2.
See here.
He hasn't proven Card "absolutely correct" unless you can show:
1. He is a member of the fanatical Left (a loaded term to say the least)
2. There *is* a "fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation".
3. Grandparent thinks Card and all other "fundamentalists" are not only a homophobes, but also mentally ill (are the two synonymous? I wasn't aware of this).
4. All others in the "fanatical Left" agree with grandparent.
Yeah, I don't think he's proven much of anything, except that he views such hyperbolic statements defending (what he views as) discrimination against homosexuals as homophobic.
-Dan
I'm surprised that this has been your experience, troll. I've found that dhcp and ethernet typically work without any manual configuration. The only time I've had to do any manual changes was when I added a second network card. It didn't automatically add it for me, and I had to load the module myself.
There are a lot of benefits to FreeBSD and other BSDs, but ease of setting up isn't one of them. But the only hardware I really have had trouble with was sound cards and ACPI. Video cards were about the same to set up as Linux (it's all about X, not BSD or Linux). This new BSD may eventually turn into something that's easy to configure, which would bring the benefits of BSD to some who find it too difficult to setup.
-Dan