Simple...you state in the advertising materials for your product that it can open the same documents that a software suite with a name similar to Orifice made by a company with a name similar to Muckrosaft can...example documentation follows:
Errfice 1.0 can open lots and lots of files...in addition to native StarOffice/OpenOffice document compatibility, there is another company that has a name like "Muckrosaft" that makes an office suite called "Orifice" with which this software is compatible (can you guess which company it is?)
You can:
Open/Edit/Save "Muckrosaft Orifice" word-proccessing, spreadsheet, and presentation files...
Actually, if they are really, honestly publishing the xml schemas for said documents, "most compatible" would only be a sustainable position if they keep changing said schema. Not that they're above doing that, but I imagine that would draw a fairly substantial amount of fire and cast a lot of suspicion on their "opening-up" of the underlying schemas for office docs.
WWII was won by a small contingent of mutated guinea pigs armed only with paper-clips, chewing gum, and a bizarre for-knowledge of something called "television", and a serial program shown on it called "MacGuyver"...
I think equal doses of NPR and Talk Radio keep me fairly well balanced in terms of the opinions I'm exposed to. I think my visits to some of the countries in question make me more likely to pay attention to the world around me than most. I also don't disagree with anything that he said, but hey, who cares.
Sending american forces in to stop the slaughter of ethnic minorities is worse than letting historical artifacts get stolen? I hope that's not what you meant to convey...
I *know* that we told Saddam that we'd stay out of his way (and that we helped put him in power) and I think it was wrong, and that we needed to put things right again.
You can't fight every battle: agreed
It matters which ones you pick: agreed
It matters *why* you pick the ones you pick: agreed
I don't think I ever disagreed with any of that. I said that thought we should have gone in.
It's not too bad that the Rwandans didn't have oil, it's too bad Americans don't (generally speaking) give a shit about anything that happens outside our borders that doesn't involve Americans.
I agree that all of that is true. I'm saying that the fact that the current administration has sealed records and denied requests for information may be the result of general information being more widely available.
If I have no idea that there is information available on a particular subject, I'm less likely to ask for it. Even if I *do* ask for it, it's the fact that (today) I cane instantly share this information with a few billion people that makes it dangerous. That kind of distribution would have been impossible 20 years ago without a substantial cash outlay.
Knowing that the current administration is hiding things means that you are aware of some things that apparently need to be hidden by someone, not that it is any worse (or better) than the situation has been in the past. THAT is my argument. Our peripheral vision has increased to the point that we can make pretty good guesses about things that 2 decades ago would have been considered crackpot theories.
My point was that it was stupid to compare them. That comment was the most obvious stupid Bush Vs. Clinton example I could think of.
Was fighting in Bosnia better than fighting in Iraq? Why? Does the administration's intent matter more than the effect its actions have? Why?
They were fighting to kill people in Bosnia, and they were fighting to kill people in Iraq. In both cases, those we were fighting were ostensibly causing harm to other people, so, no, in this case what they were fighting for is not a big factor for me.
I don't support some of Bush Jr's reasons for war (the WMD argument, for example), but I've said before (and I'll say again) that I saw firsthand what things were like for Iraqis in '91. A lot of bad things happened to them in the 12 years since then, and since I know that we helped put Saddam in place, I think it's correct to remove him and let the rest of Iraq do what they can without him. I have no direct experience with the situation in Bosnia/Kosovo, so I can't give intelligent comment on it.
The only thing I have to say to this is related to this statement: Governments cannot, at least not until this administration, hide what they do for very long.
How do you know that? I have a different idea about the state of information and government (although I have no proof). I think that the patriot act (shudder), and a lot of the other civil-liberty restrictive legislation and activity we're seeing lately is a direct result of the recent wide availability of information on the internet (specifically, on the web).
20 years ago, you relied on printed media for information...out of date, not easily searchable or cross-checkable, and simple to control. What is different is that now everyone with access to the internet can publish information, rumour, speculation, documentation, evidence, or opinion in moments, and anyone else on earth can potentially see it, use it, and gain insight on things through it.
This makes traditional government impossible (a good thing, IMHO), since there is now a degree of transparency that the government is unprepared to operate with. The backlash of this is for restrictions to be placed on the freedoms of US citizens. The obvious remedy is to vote everyone out of office...and I mean EVERYONE. If we manage to get a fresh set of senators, representatives, executives, and judges in place (judges are a tough nut, here), maybe we stand a chance of bringing equity to citizens and government again.
Maybe what we're seeing now is that things have ALWAYS been hidden from us. Maybe so much has been swept under the rug that a big lump is starting to show.
Okay. You have swayed my opinion. It's now obvious to me that Republican politicians are evil, and Democratic politicians are not (I guess those not affiliated with either party are in limbo). It couldn't possibly be that politicians in general are involved in politics in an effort to gain power, and that a lot of them become greedy, corrupt, horrible people in the process.
There were more days of military action under Clinton than there have been so far under Bush, but why does that matter? It doesn't. What matters is our perception of right and wrong, and what crap the various media outlets can feed us to steer that perception.
Not everyone who is non-democrat is a republican, and some of those people are repulsed by the actions of politicians in both parties. I personally don't give a damn whether Bill and Monica screwed on the whitehouse lawn, although I'm irritated that I had to help pay for a formal inquest on the issue. I care equally little about whether "Arnie" fondled women who apparently didn't make a big deal about it until he ran for political office.
Looking back on past presidents and the way things were always leaves you with a sense that "things were better when X was in charge", but the following things all sucked:
The holocaust
Nuclear weapons
Japanese internment camps
The korean war
McCarthyism
Kennedy's assasination
The Vietnam War
Watergate
The oil shortage
The Iran hostage crisis
The Arms race
Iran-Contra
The first gulf war
The war in Bosnia
The dot-com bust
September 11th, 2001
War in afghanistan
The war in Iraq
There are other things in there that sucked, but I'm sure you already know that. The point is that there is ALWAYS something bad happening, and most of the time, the only way people pay attention is if it affects or offends them directly in some way.
It's not about Bush and Clinton! It's about sound bites, short attention spans, the public's poor collective memory, laziness, and an I-don't-care attitude (except for things considered insulting or offensive).
Speak your mind, but make sure you're not spoting useless shit if you do (hey, I tried to...doubt I succeeded). Why post AC if you stand behind your words?
My personal favorite hand-drawn...Heavy Metal. Could have used some better sound-recording technology, though...sounds pretty awful these days, even if most of it's still interesting to look at.
You know...that really bothers me. How in the hell is it okay to trademark a 2-letter combination? What about IF, IS, IT, NO, or even NI (shrubbery, anyone?). The only upside I can see is that it was bad (expensive) for a company I can't say I like much.
Vote anyway. Write-in a candidate. At least it shows a vote that was counted, but didn't go to a candidate that you couldn't stand. The difference between sex and voting is that with sex, abstinence prevents you from getting screwed.
Okay...and an election isn't a test...You're not going to go to the polls and see:
Two trains start out 50 miles apart travelling in opposite directions. If train A is travelling at 50 miles-per-hour, and train B is travelling at 30 miles-per hour, who would you vote for?
George "Dubya" Bush
Al "I have facial hair now" Gore
Scooby "dooby-dooby" Doo
None of the above
All of the above
I'll agree that for testing, there can be issues, but for ballots, I don't see the problem...unless you don't have any idea who you're going to vote for, in which case a different ballot won't make things any better for you.
But having everyone sign their ballot would mean that they can't have anonymity (one of those guarantees that's meant to stymie repercussions for voting a certain way).
"In today's news, the Federal Paper-use Reduction Act IV was passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses. The act, intended to preserve important protected forests from an ever-increasing paper demand, mandates that all books, newspapers, and periodicals be published on re-usable "Electronic Paper". The recent settlement of several major DRM-related lawsuits between major publishers and technology industries has been cited as the main reason for the sudden, rapid passage of the bill. Manufacturers of Electronic Paper point out its various advantages, such as; the ability to update and correct erroneous content on-the fly, the ability to locate lost or stolen devices through the embedded RFID-2.2 smart-chips and the now widely-distributed emergency-locator system, and the fact that it eliminates the need for the use of a scarce natural resource. This is CNN."
Your current television will work as it does now until analog broadcasting stops. Under federal law, analog service will continue until DTV service and equipment are widely available. Even after the transition is over, your current TV will not become obsolete. A converter box can be used to receive DTV signals and change them into the format of your current television. Converters for over-the-air broadcasts are available at retail stores. However, even with a converter, your current analog television is not capable of displaying the full picture quality of DTV. To enjoy the full picture quality, you will need to purchase a DTV set. Subscribers to cable and DBS services should contact their providers regarding converters for those services.
What does that mean, exactly? is there some magical threshhold of adoption when the FCC finally says "okay, pull the plug...we have 88% adoption". This fucking sucks. I apologize if I offended anyone with my use of the words "this" or "sucks".
Do the people that wrote that v-chip article actually believe that (supposing it's true) covering the inside of your TV with tin-foil is the best solution? I hope to god that article is an obscure reference to tin-foil hats. What about, say, covering up the camera instead (just a thought).
That's kind of the point...since it isn't that hard, you could do it, release it in a way that misdirects, frame somebody else, etc...Being a skilled hacker, you could use your L337-ness to make it "obvious" that somebody in particular had written it.
Slashdot Mirror
Errfice 1.0 can open lots and lots of files...in addition to native StarOffice/OpenOffice document compatibility, there is another company that has a name like "Muckrosaft" that makes an office suite called "Orifice" with which this software is compatible (can you guess which company it is?)
You can:
etc... ;)
Actually, if they are really, honestly publishing the xml schemas for said documents, "most compatible" would only be a sustainable position if they keep changing said schema. Not that they're above doing that, but I imagine that would draw a fairly substantial amount of fire and cast a lot of suspicion on their "opening-up" of the underlying schemas for office docs.
err...fore-knowledge, I mean.
WWII was won by a small contingent of mutated guinea pigs armed only with paper-clips, chewing gum, and a bizarre for-knowledge of something called "television", and a serial program shown on it called "MacGuyver"...
That's SO unfair...
I think equal doses of NPR and Talk Radio keep me fairly well balanced in terms of the opinions I'm exposed to. I think my visits to some of the countries in question make me more likely to pay attention to the world around me than most. I also don't disagree with anything that he said, but hey, who cares.
I *know* that we told Saddam that we'd stay out of his way (and that we helped put him in power) and I think it was wrong, and that we needed to put things right again.
You can't fight every battle: agreed
It matters which ones you pick: agreed
It matters *why* you pick the ones you pick: agreed
I don't think I ever disagreed with any of that. I said that thought we should have gone in.
It's not too bad that the Rwandans didn't have oil, it's too bad Americans don't (generally speaking) give a shit about anything that happens outside our borders that doesn't involve Americans.
If I have no idea that there is information available on a particular subject, I'm less likely to ask for it. Even if I *do* ask for it, it's the fact that (today) I cane instantly share this information with a few billion people that makes it dangerous. That kind of distribution would have been impossible 20 years ago without a substantial cash outlay.
Knowing that the current administration is hiding things means that you are aware of some things that apparently need to be hidden by someone, not that it is any worse (or better) than the situation has been in the past. THAT is my argument. Our peripheral vision has increased to the point that we can make pretty good guesses about things that 2 decades ago would have been considered crackpot theories.
That's probably the best I've ever heard it summed up. Somebody mod parent insightful!
Was fighting in Bosnia better than fighting in Iraq? Why? Does the administration's intent matter more than the effect its actions have? Why?
They were fighting to kill people in Bosnia, and they were fighting to kill people in Iraq. In both cases, those we were fighting were ostensibly causing harm to other people, so, no, in this case what they were fighting for is not a big factor for me.
I don't support some of Bush Jr's reasons for war (the WMD argument, for example), but I've said before (and I'll say again) that I saw firsthand what things were like for Iraqis in '91. A lot of bad things happened to them in the 12 years since then, and since I know that we helped put Saddam in place, I think it's correct to remove him and let the rest of Iraq do what they can without him. I have no direct experience with the situation in Bosnia/Kosovo, so I can't give intelligent comment on it.
How do you know that? I have a different idea about the state of information and government (although I have no proof). I think that the patriot act (shudder), and a lot of the other civil-liberty restrictive legislation and activity we're seeing lately is a direct result of the recent wide availability of information on the internet (specifically, on the web).
20 years ago, you relied on printed media for information...out of date, not easily searchable or cross-checkable, and simple to control. What is different is that now everyone with access to the internet can publish information, rumour, speculation, documentation, evidence, or opinion in moments, and anyone else on earth can potentially see it, use it, and gain insight on things through it.
This makes traditional government impossible (a good thing, IMHO), since there is now a degree of transparency that the government is unprepared to operate with. The backlash of this is for restrictions to be placed on the freedoms of US citizens. The obvious remedy is to vote everyone out of office...and I mean EVERYONE. If we manage to get a fresh set of senators, representatives, executives, and judges in place (judges are a tough nut, here), maybe we stand a chance of bringing equity to citizens and government again.
Maybe what we're seeing now is that things have ALWAYS been hidden from us. Maybe so much has been swept under the rug that a big lump is starting to show.
There were more days of military action under Clinton than there have been so far under Bush, but why does that matter? It doesn't. What matters is our perception of right and wrong, and what crap the various media outlets can feed us to steer that perception.
Not everyone who is non-democrat is a republican, and some of those people are repulsed by the actions of politicians in both parties. I personally don't give a damn whether Bill and Monica screwed on the whitehouse lawn, although I'm irritated that I had to help pay for a formal inquest on the issue. I care equally little about whether "Arnie" fondled women who apparently didn't make a big deal about it until he ran for political office.
Looking back on past presidents and the way things were always leaves you with a sense that "things were better when X was in charge", but the following things all sucked:
There are other things in there that sucked, but I'm sure you already know that. The point is that there is ALWAYS something bad happening, and most of the time, the only way people pay attention is if it affects or offends them directly in some way.
It's not about Bush and Clinton! It's about sound bites, short attention spans, the public's poor collective memory, laziness, and an I-don't-care attitude (except for things considered insulting or offensive).
Speak your mind, but make sure you're not spoting useless shit if you do (hey, I tried to...doubt I succeeded). Why post AC if you stand behind your words?
My personal favorite hand-drawn...Heavy Metal. Could have used some better sound-recording technology, though...sounds pretty awful these days, even if most of it's still interesting to look at.
also "butt in doing so...witch eye find frankly unseasoned."
Oh, come on...SOMEbody mod this parent funny.
You know...that really bothers me. How in the hell is it okay to trademark a 2-letter combination? What about IF, IS, IT, NO, or even NI (shrubbery, anyone?). The only upside I can see is that it was bad (expensive) for a company I can't say I like much.
That is my new favorite sig...replacing "In the beginning there was nothing...which exploded."
Vote anyway. Write-in a candidate. At least it shows a vote that was counted, but didn't go to a candidate that you couldn't stand. The difference between sex and voting is that with sex, abstinence prevents you from getting screwed.
Two trains start out 50 miles apart travelling in opposite directions. If train A is travelling at 50 miles-per-hour, and train B is travelling at 30 miles-per hour, who would you vote for?
I'll agree that for testing, there can be issues, but for ballots, I don't see the problem...unless you don't have any idea who you're going to vote for, in which case a different ballot won't make things any better for you.
But having everyone sign their ballot would mean that they can't have anonymity (one of those guarantees that's meant to stymie repercussions for voting a certain way).
It's not going to be implemented in software.
"In today's news, the Federal Paper-use Reduction Act IV was passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses. The act, intended to preserve important protected forests from an ever-increasing paper demand, mandates that all books, newspapers, and periodicals be published on re-usable "Electronic Paper". The recent settlement of several major DRM-related lawsuits between major publishers and technology industries has been cited as the main reason for the sudden, rapid passage of the bill. Manufacturers of Electronic Paper point out its various advantages, such as; the ability to update and correct erroneous content on-the fly, the ability to locate lost or stolen devices through the embedded RFID-2.2 smart-chips and the now widely-distributed emergency-locator system, and the fact that it eliminates the need for the use of a scarce natural resource. This is CNN."
Your current television will work as it does now until analog broadcasting stops. Under federal law, analog service will continue until DTV service and equipment are widely available. Even after the transition is over, your current TV will not become obsolete. A converter box can be used to receive DTV signals and change them into the format of your current television. Converters for over-the-air broadcasts are available at retail stores. However, even with a converter, your current analog television is not capable of displaying the full picture quality of DTV. To enjoy the full picture quality, you will need to purchase a DTV set. Subscribers to cable and DBS services should contact their providers regarding converters for those services.
What does that mean, exactly? is there some magical threshhold of adoption when the FCC finally says "okay, pull the plug...we have 88% adoption". This fucking sucks. I apologize if I offended anyone with my use of the words "this" or "sucks".
Do the people that wrote that v-chip article actually believe that (supposing it's true) covering the inside of your TV with tin-foil is the best solution? I hope to god that article is an obscure reference to tin-foil hats. What about, say, covering up the camera instead (just a thought).
That's kind of the point...since it isn't that hard, you could do it, release it in a way that misdirects, frame somebody else, etc...Being a skilled hacker, you could use your L337-ness to make it "obvious" that somebody in particular had written it.