There is a cost associated with labelling. I'm not interested in paying more for my groceries due to anti-GMO fear mongering.
GMO-free providers can choose to label their food (as some do now). This lets consumers purchase GMO-free foods if they place a greater value on those and keeps the cost of doing so on the product they value more.
This particular "existential threat" is gaining a lot more visibility and, slowly, more funding.
Tomorrow marks the first Asteroid Day and it seems to be bringing a great deal of public attention to NEOs...at least amongst members of the public interested in science and museums and who are in metropolitan areas to see some of the events.
The article was OK, and mentioned B612 but didn't really touch on how much of the NEO hunt is going to end up being done by NGOs, small observatories, and other organizations that aren't direct reports to the NEOO.
Does that map aid in your ability to safely drive your car?
It is a tool that can do this, yes. I am a safer driver because I have the right information in the right amount of time. It informs me in advance where I will have upcoming traffic lights, traffic, road hazards (such as stopped vehicles). It informs me of 1-way roads and advises me on which lane to be in.
And don't try to claim that not getting lost or missing a turn is unsafe and that your cellphone map is helping you to be safe.
Why not? If I can reasonably ignore street names and other bits of information that are not worth me knowing, doesn't that mean I'm able to pay attention to things that are more important? If I can spend less time driving because I get to my destination efficiently, doesn't that mean I'm driving less (and less likely to be involved in an auto accident from that alone)?
Even though IANAL, IMHO that was the intent of the law when it was passed
The congressional record doesn't agree with your reading and the judges that decided this case disagree as well too.
As for eating? If you have to look at your food? Yeah, it's a distraction. But most people don't need to look at their quarter pounder to eat it.
You are taking at least one hand off the wheel. Your concentration is divided between two tasks. And, yes, you will almost certainly glance at what you're eating.
Listening to music? I fail to see how that's a distraction.
Distractions are not only visual. As you point out, sound cues (such as sirens, horns, etc.) are useful too. Hearing sound over another is no different than a "heads up display". Yes, it's illegal to wear headphones in both ears while driving in California. Further, dividing your focus is what is distracting. It doesn't matter whether that is something you're looking at or hearing or tasting or smelling or just thinking about.
No. The judge isn't allowed to consider those other pieces of legislation and non-legislation that you provided.
Not only can he, but he did. See pages 5-6 of the ruling, where the judges state (among other things):
Section 23123 applies only to use of a “wireless telephone” while driving. Section 23123.5 more broadly applies to use of an “electronic wireless communications device,” which would include a cellphone, but would also apply to other wireless devices used for communication.
The judge then goes on to use the example of a Blackberry when considering devices that "could not accurately be identified as 'wireless telephones'". This is laughable! We have an anti-texting statute because things like smart phones aren't phones? Well then, my map app is on a "handheld computer" and not a "wireless telephone" so 23123's prohibition on use doesn't apply to me.
The text of the ruling shows a flagrant ignorance for technology.
In 2010, I was written a citation for using my phone when I had passed it to a passenger. I was (rightfully) found not guilty. Because merely "touching" your phone is not using it as a communications device. Nor is the cell phone magically more distracting than other objects in a car.
A stand-alone GPS or a paper map can be at least as distracting, so why is there no provision banning their use? Because, while distracted driving is a problem, navigation aids do more good than harm. It is easier to defend them than eating, applying makeup, listening to music, etc. that we permit.
Why are people presenting the false dilemma of having either no cellular service or station/service interruptions?
"Protesters" have zero right to vandalize websites or physical property, steal personally identifying information, or cause service disruptions. They should expect to be caught when CCTV and cell records are subpoenaed & should look forward to felony conspiracy charges.
These demonstrators were doubly stupid because they alienated people who agreed with them. The transit union and mayor came out against the cell shutdown, as did many riders. Why infuriate those who agree with you? But just because the messengers are in the wrong does not mean their message is.
BART is not a private company that can do whatever they please. The California Public Utilities Commission regulates BART, and BART is partially funded by taxes. The public (and the transit union) have been supportive of cell phone coverage due to the safety benefits they bring (this was particularly true after people learned of the cell use during 9/11). I'm unconvinced that cell shutdowns disrupt protesters so much that it is worth losing this piece of mind. Any communications disruption has real financial costs & nobody has shown the math that shows those costs were lower than alternative actions that could have been taken.
BART receives $6.7M a year in telecommunications revenue ($2M from cell service). You take that away because you cut service & you have to make it up some how. That'd be a 2% fare hike (not including FCC-imposed penalties or fees for breaching the telecom contracts).
Trevor's blog also had this post: http://www.zotero.org/blog/help-zotero-by-donating-to-the-center-for-history-and-new-media/ which says that all tax-deductible donations made in June will be matched twice-over. This seems like a good opportunity to congratulate the team for making it through their legal hurdles & to support the development of great free/open source software.
EndNote includes customization options that licensed individual and institutional customers can use to create new and modify existing EndNote style (.ens), filter (.enf), and connection (.enz) files for their personal use and to share with other licensed EndNote users for use only in conjunction with EndNote.
(emphasis mine). In other words, they claim that you can't use the files that you create using their software in third-party software, such as Zotero. This would be like saying you can't open an MS Word Document in OpenOffice.org Writer.
Don't conflate strongly copyleft licenses with all open source licenses.
If you have a niche product & your customer base is enterprise users, others will still purchase your product and/or purchase support from you. F/OSS could be a strategy to widen your distribution in order to gain customers. See, e.g. MySQL.
There are no licenses that prohibit resale that are listed as "Free" by the FSF or "open" by the OSI, as there are none that would meet the four freedoms or the "open source definition"/DFSG.
We can speculate about his company's org chart forever. I did state that the poster should go to the boss of whoever is giving him grief. I disagree with your reading of the situation; I take the claim "programs from unknown vendors have a much better chance at approval" at face value. There might be some chance that an unheard of company is making "compliant" software, but I doubt it. Given that there is some mechanism in place to get some software approved, this doesn't really smell like a CCO to me (and if a CCO is making these decisions in a company that is large enough where the poster could not go above him, then he is micromanaging).
Open-source software often times as very poor support options.
It is relatively easy to find commercial support for any major open source packages. Red Hat provides support for cygwin (and that includes vim), for example. If there are no-name companies getting approved, I can guarantee that either the maintainers of the project or a third party will be willing to write a support contract.
Some people/companies just want a name to blame if something goes wrong. Rather than requesting the right to install Vim, request the ability to purchase a license for Vim. Many projects have already setup mechanisms to do this or are willing to do so.
If this doesn't work because:
A single person who decides what software to approve and disapprove within the organization.
then go to your manager and also the person or people who decide to how good of a job the "software evaluator" [single person] is doing. Point out a real business need for a particular application: "Vim has XXX feature. It is not available in any other software. If I had this feature, I'd be able to do YYY, which will [save/make] our company $[insert figure here]. Did I mention that it is written by a google employee, and that our competitor, ZZZ is probably going to use it if we don't? Here's a list of other companies that use Vim [insert fortune 100 here]. Can you please make [single person] justify why he is putting us at a competitive disadvantage?" Cost is rarely a concern. So save the fact that it is free as an additional argument that you can make if [single person] suggests some other app.
If you are passionate enough about your tools, you can always walk--some companies hire talented employees and understand that they will be more productive with their preferred tools. (If you find yourself in such a company, don't spoil it--produce results with your tools, so that the company will be rewarded for this wisdom.)
If you want to be a dick, point to comparisons of some no-name proprietary program that [single person] approved that turned out to have a security hole and that your app does not suffer this hole and try to pull other tricks to demonstrate that [single person] is incompetent.
How has MSOffice come along in the same time? Is pdf writing integrated now?
There is a gratis download from microsoft to allow this feature. Adobe did not want them to ship it built-in to MS Word (arguing that MS's near-monopoly would do damage to sales of Acrobat). I think MS is pushing their own XPS format more heavily, to some success (at least I seem to get them from PHBs).
The new version of OO.o has a plugin that can import PDFs for editing. So it still has Word beat in the area of PDF handling.
And have they fixed the font embedding that kills PDF export from Writer yet? It's only been a bug since forever, with more votes than almost anything else in the bug tracker.
Can you elaborate (perhaps with a link to the issue), please? OO.o has embedded all non-standard fonts in PDFs for a while now...
You can use PowerPoint templates from within Impress and you can download many more from oooextras and OO.o does have animations.
OO.o Calc has had some pitfalls, but version 3 is much improved. With several well-documented numerical errors that have survived in each new version of Excel, I don't know if that is the paragon to strive for.
I use OO.o daily. 3.0 has some major improvements, and you should check it out.
I largely prefer OO.o Writer to MS Word now that OO.o Writer has better commenting and revision control. I can rely on it for 99% of my work, but I find I still sometimes switch to Word under Wine if I get a manuscript that uses EndNote (rather than Zotero) or very complex embedded equations.
I have grown used to Impress. PowerPoint users might still have grips. I prefer LaTeX Beamer, but sometimes need to make or read PowerPoint presentations & Impress gets the job done.
The new solver in Calc makes it more useful. I think I prefer Gnumeric still & find myself breaking out stronger data analysis or data presentation programs.
Larry is speaking at the Free Culture Conference in Berekely right now (streaming video available on that site). He mentioned the essay (an excerpt from his book) and stated that he hated the title, had no control over it, and that it speaks to the problem with a fundamental problem of the free culture movement: people perceive us as thieves.
Yes--I'm talking about trademarks and I didn't say anything about copyrights. I agree that a trademark is not a copyright, but they can both be infringed.
As I said, Thomson requested their trademark not be used in the Refer/RIS option and in the most recent complaint, they want the court to enjoin against further "inappropriate use" of this trademark (such as using it to describe.ens style files).
I happen to think that Thomson is on weak ground in these two claims, due to fair use of the mark.
If Thomson's reading is accurate, though: I fail to see why Thomson would think that Zotero is infringing their "EndNote" trademark when it describes Refer files, while google is using the same trademark to refer to the same filetype. Trademark law says that marks must be licensed and protected zealously. (This is why we have "Iceweasel"--Mozilla must defend their "Firefox" mark, or risk losing it.) Either Thomson is not zealously protecting their mark against the likes of google (which can mean that it becomes unregistered), or they are misusing their trademark registration by asking Zotero to stop using it (and could also lose the mark).
Google documents or Zoho or some other gratis (but typically proprietary) "cloud" solution might be reasonable.
If you're fine with text-only, you have a lot of options. VIM and EMACS both allow collaborative editing, you can share a screen session, or you can get a specialized collaborative editor (such as Gobby and ACE) or a specialized framework, such as DocSynch
If you need light-weight word processing, Abiword has a plugin for real-time collaboration.
Heavier weight word processing of DOCX can be done with Plutext.
If you need more graphical documents & the above doesn't seem to fit AND if you have a small group of friends who you trust, I'd just go "simple" & host with VNC or some other remote desktop protocol.
As far as other pieces, there is a lot of good F/OSS voice/IM/whiteboard software. Coccinella and ekiga are good examples.
And then I notice the 'Import into EndNote' links on my papers in Google Scholar. I click, thinking I'll get to save an EndNote format reference so I can reverse-engineer it and get sued, and guess what... IT IMPORTS IT INTO ZOTERO!! There's an option in Zotero to use it for RIS/Refer files, so maybe that's what the.enw file is.
That option used to be called "Import EndNote/Refer files" or something similar, but Thomson had Zotero remove the "EndNote" trademark from that option. I wonder why they don't ask google to stop using their trademark? Doesn't their failure to enforce their registration mean that the trademark can be challenged & become unregistered?
Now, I can well imagine the EndNote guys not being happy with that!
If you have a legal copy of EndNote on your system, I'm sure they're happy enough.
True. But I see lots of folks at my university who are addicted to EndNote's buggy "Cite While You Write" functions that provide MS-Word integration. RefWorks has an analogous "Write while you cite" function, but still lots of people have accumulated libraries in EndNote and still have a love/hate addiction to CWYW.A lot of products provide "cite while you write"-like functionality. Zotero has CWYW-like functionality that can round-trip between MS Word and OO.o Writer. Bibus, another free/open source reference manager, also supports both word processors. Word processor support in other reference managers is detailed on Wikipedia.
Our library provides ISI Web of Science on-line....more open alternative will require freeing up all elements of the stack to include citation repositories.
Zotero plans to have a citation database that runs on a web server & plans to collaborate with the internet archive to provide storage of "open" publications (unfortunately, this excludes quite a bit of traditional content). Preprint/reprint servers, such as arXiv are a step in the right direction. Google scholar, PubMed Central, and other large repositories may help break the monopoly. If you'd like to help make your papers and citation information available to others, I encourage you to try out refbase or some other institutional repository software.
There are a wealth of APIs and standards to support this. I'm happy to say that refbase+zotero have adopted many of them. In addition to the citation style language, linked to above & which can create formatted citations form rich metadata, there is MODS XML, developed by the LoC, is a rich bibliographic format for exchange, unAPI makes it easy for websites to point to machine-readable metadata. SRW, also by the LoC, provides a uniform query language.
Both EndNote and Zotero can export BibTeX. Zotero can import BibTeX and you can transform BibTeX into a file format that EndNote can import.
Reference management software normally provides more than a single BibTeX file does--it can retrieve citation information in a way that is faster/easier than "wget http://some_publisher/some_journal/some_volume/some_paper/import.bib && cat import.bib >> bibtex_file.bib" (and can convert it if that site has no native BibTeX file. Zotero can index attached PDFs for full-text searching. It has much better support for UTF-8. You can easily give your bibliography to others who don't use BibTeX. You can store your notes and highlights on articles in your database. There are a ton of other features too.
BibTeX is a good (if somewhat dusty) file format that I use often. It is not the sole solution to reference management.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a cost associated with labelling. I'm not interested in paying more for my groceries due to anti-GMO fear mongering.
GMO-free providers can choose to label their food (as some do now). This lets consumers purchase GMO-free foods if they place a greater value on those and keeps the cost of doing so on the product they value more.
This particular "existential threat" is gaining a lot more visibility and, slowly, more funding.
Tomorrow marks the first Asteroid Day and it seems to be bringing a great deal of public attention to NEOs...at least amongst members of the public interested in science and museums and who are in metropolitan areas to see some of the events.
The article was OK, and mentioned B612 but didn't really touch on how much of the NEO hunt is going to end up being done by NGOs, small observatories, and other organizations that aren't direct reports to the NEOO.
It is a tool that can do this, yes. I am a safer driver because I have the right information in the right amount of time. It informs me in advance where I will have upcoming traffic lights, traffic, road hazards (such as stopped vehicles). It informs me of 1-way roads and advises me on which lane to be in.
Why not? If I can reasonably ignore street names and other bits of information that are not worth me knowing, doesn't that mean I'm able to pay attention to things that are more important? If I can spend less time driving because I get to my destination efficiently, doesn't that mean I'm driving less (and less likely to be involved in an auto accident from that alone)?
The congressional record doesn't agree with your reading and the judges that decided this case disagree as well too.
You are taking at least one hand off the wheel. Your concentration is divided between two tasks. And, yes, you will almost certainly glance at what you're eating.
Distractions are not only visual. As you point out, sound cues (such as sirens, horns, etc.) are useful too. Hearing sound over another is no different than a "heads up display". Yes, it's illegal to wear headphones in both ears while driving in California. Further, dividing your focus is what is distracting. It doesn't matter whether that is something you're looking at or hearing or tasting or smelling or just thinking about.
Not only can he, but he did. See pages 5-6 of the ruling, where the judges state (among other things):
The judge then goes on to use the example of a Blackberry when considering devices that "could
not accurately be identified as 'wireless telephones'". This is laughable! We have an anti-texting statute because things like smart phones aren't phones? Well then, my map app is on a "handheld computer" and not a "wireless telephone" so 23123's prohibition on use doesn't apply to me.
The text of the ruling shows a flagrant ignorance for technology.
If the judge's interpretation was the one the legislation intended, why would we have CVC 23123.5, that explicitly forbids texting. Why would the DMV note that it does "not prohibit reading, selecting or entering a phone number, or name" or the CHP advise safe ways to dial? The judge over-stepped in this case & is legislating from the bench.
In 2010, I was written a citation for using my phone when I had passed it to a passenger. I was (rightfully) found not guilty. Because merely "touching" your phone is not using it as a communications device. Nor is the cell phone magically more distracting than other objects in a car.
A stand-alone GPS or a paper map can be at least as distracting, so why is there no provision banning their use? Because, while distracted driving is a problem, navigation aids do more good than harm. It is easier to defend them than eating, applying makeup, listening to music, etc. that we permit.
Why are people presenting the false dilemma of having either no cellular service or station/service interruptions?
"Protesters" have zero right to vandalize websites or physical property, steal personally identifying information, or cause service disruptions. They should expect to be caught when CCTV and cell records are subpoenaed & should look forward to felony conspiracy charges.
These demonstrators were doubly stupid because they alienated people who agreed with them. The transit union and mayor came out against the cell shutdown, as did many riders. Why infuriate those who agree with you? But just because the messengers are in the wrong does not mean their message is.
BART is not a private company that can do whatever they please. The California Public Utilities Commission regulates BART, and BART is partially funded by taxes. The public (and the transit union) have been supportive of cell phone coverage due to the safety benefits they bring (this was particularly true after people learned of the cell use during 9/11). I'm unconvinced that cell shutdowns disrupt protesters so much that it is worth losing this piece of mind. Any communications disruption has real financial costs & nobody has shown the math that shows those costs were lower than alternative actions that could have been taken.
BART receives $6.7M a year in telecommunications revenue ($2M from cell service). You take that away because you cut service & you have to make it up some how. That'd be a 2% fare hike (not including FCC-imposed penalties or fees for breaching the telecom contracts).
Trevor's blog also had this post:
http://www.zotero.org/blog/help-zotero-by-donating-to-the-center-for-history-and-new-media/
which says that all tax-deductible donations made in June will be matched twice-over. This seems like a good opportunity to congratulate the team for making it through their legal hurdles & to support the development of great free/open source software.
Kind of. Their terms of use state:
(emphasis mine). In other words, they claim that you can't use the files that you create using their software in third-party software, such as Zotero. This would be like saying you can't open an MS Word Document in OpenOffice.org Writer.
:help sex
e.g. it give you a file exploring pane above the buffer you are currently using.
Don't conflate strongly copyleft licenses with all open source licenses.
If you have a niche product & your customer base is enterprise users, others will still purchase your product and/or purchase support from you. F/OSS could be a strategy to widen your distribution in order to gain customers. See, e.g. MySQL.
There are no licenses that prohibit resale that are listed as "Free" by the FSF or "open" by the OSI, as there are none that would meet the four freedoms or the "open source definition"/DFSG.
We can speculate about his company's org chart forever. I did state that the poster should go to the boss of whoever is giving him grief. I disagree with your reading of the situation; I take the claim "programs from unknown vendors have a much better chance at approval" at face value. There might be some chance that an unheard of company is making "compliant" software, but I doubt it. Given that there is some mechanism in place to get some software approved, this doesn't really smell like a CCO to me (and if a CCO is making these decisions in a company that is large enough where the poster could not go above him, then he is micromanaging).
It is relatively easy to find commercial support for any major open source packages. Red Hat provides support for cygwin (and that includes vim), for example. If there are no-name companies getting approved, I can guarantee that either the maintainers of the project or a third party will be willing to write a support contract.
Some people/companies just want a name to blame if something goes wrong. Rather than requesting the right to install Vim, request the ability to purchase a license for Vim. Many projects have already setup mechanisms to do this or are willing to do so.
If this doesn't work because:
then go to your manager and also the person or people who decide to how good of a job the "software evaluator" [single person] is doing. Point out a real business need for a particular application: "Vim has XXX feature. It is not available in any other software. If I had this feature, I'd be able to do YYY, which will [save/make] our company $[insert figure here]. Did I mention that it is written by a google employee, and that our competitor, ZZZ is probably going to use it if we don't? Here's a list of other companies that use Vim [insert fortune 100 here]. Can you please make [single person] justify why he is putting us at a competitive disadvantage?" Cost is rarely a concern. So save the fact that it is free as an additional argument that you can make if [single person] suggests some other app.
If you are passionate enough about your tools, you can always walk--some companies hire talented employees and understand that they will be more productive with their preferred tools. (If you find yourself in such a company, don't spoil it--produce results with your tools, so that the company will be rewarded for this wisdom.)
If you want to be a dick, point to comparisons of some no-name proprietary program that [single person] approved that turned out to have a security hole and that your app does not suffer this hole and try to pull other tricks to demonstrate that [single person] is incompetent.
There is a gratis download from microsoft to allow this feature. Adobe did not want them to ship it built-in to MS Word (arguing that MS's near-monopoly would do damage to sales of Acrobat). I think MS is pushing their own XPS format more heavily, to some success (at least I seem to get them from PHBs).
The new version of OO.o has a plugin that can import PDFs for editing. So it still has Word beat in the area of PDF handling.
Can you elaborate (perhaps with a link to the issue), please? OO.o has embedded all non-standard fonts in PDFs for a while now...
You can use PowerPoint templates from within Impress and you can download many more from oooextras and OO.o does have animations.
OO.o Calc has had some pitfalls, but version 3 is much improved. With several well-documented numerical errors that have survived in each new version of Excel, I don't know if that is the paragon to strive for.
I use OO.o daily. 3.0 has some major improvements, and you should check it out.
I largely prefer OO.o Writer to MS Word now that OO.o Writer has better commenting and revision control. I can rely on it for 99% of my work, but I find I still sometimes switch to Word under Wine if I get a manuscript that uses EndNote (rather than Zotero) or very complex embedded equations.
I have grown used to Impress. PowerPoint users might still have grips. I prefer LaTeX Beamer, but sometimes need to make or read PowerPoint presentations & Impress gets the job done.
The new solver in Calc makes it more useful. I think I prefer Gnumeric still & find myself breaking out stronger data analysis or data presentation programs.
Doesn't Word have kerning disabled by default? What do you recommend to people now? LaTeX?
Larry is speaking at the Free Culture Conference in Berekely right now (streaming video available on that site). He mentioned the essay (an excerpt from his book) and stated that he hated the title, had no control over it, and that it speaks to the problem with a fundamental problem of the free culture movement: people perceive us as thieves.
Thanks for the kudos. Matthias deserves all of the praise. He's done quite a bit & you can play with the beta version at:
http://beta.refbase.net/
Yes--I'm talking about trademarks and I didn't say anything about copyrights. I agree that a trademark is not a copyright, but they can both be infringed.
As I said, Thomson requested their trademark not be used in the Refer/RIS option and in the most recent complaint, they want the court to enjoin against further "inappropriate use" of this trademark (such as using it to describe .ens style files).
I happen to think that Thomson is on weak ground in these two claims, due to fair use of the mark.
If Thomson's reading is accurate, though: I fail to see why Thomson would think that Zotero is infringing their "EndNote" trademark when it describes Refer files, while google is using the same trademark to refer to the same filetype. Trademark law says that marks must be licensed and protected zealously. (This is why we have "Iceweasel"--Mozilla must defend their "Firefox" mark, or risk losing it.) Either Thomson is not zealously protecting their mark against the likes of google (which can mean that it becomes unregistered), or they are misusing their trademark registration by asking Zotero to stop using it (and could also lose the mark).
Google documents or Zoho or some other gratis (but typically proprietary) "cloud" solution might be reasonable.
If you're fine with text-only, you have a lot of options. VIM and EMACS both allow collaborative editing, you can share a screen session, or you can get a specialized collaborative editor (such as Gobby and ACE) or a specialized framework, such as DocSynch
If you need light-weight word processing, Abiword has a plugin for real-time collaboration.
Heavier weight word processing of DOCX can be done with Plutext.
If you need more graphical documents & the above doesn't seem to fit AND if you have a small group of friends who you trust, I'd just go "simple" & host with VNC or some other remote desktop protocol.
As far as other pieces, there is a lot of good F/OSS voice/IM/whiteboard software. Coccinella and ekiga are good examples.
That option used to be called "Import EndNote/Refer files" or something similar, but Thomson had Zotero remove the "EndNote" trademark from that option. I wonder why they don't ask google to stop using their trademark? Doesn't their failure to enforce their registration mean that the trademark can be challenged & become unregistered?
If you have a legal copy of EndNote on your system, I'm sure they're happy enough.
Both EndNote and Zotero can export BibTeX. Zotero can import BibTeX and you can transform BibTeX into a file format that EndNote can import.
Reference management software normally provides more than a single BibTeX file does--it can retrieve citation information in a way that is faster/easier than "wget http://some_publisher/some_journal/some_volume/some_paper/import.bib && cat import.bib >> bibtex_file.bib" (and can convert it if that site has no native BibTeX file. Zotero can index attached PDFs for full-text searching. It has much better support for UTF-8. You can easily give your bibliography to others who don't use BibTeX. You can store your notes and highlights on articles in your database. There are a ton of other features too.
BibTeX is a good (if somewhat dusty) file format that I use often. It is not the sole solution to reference management.