Um, because most geeks here also have an interest in science outside the computer variety. These kind of stories aren't new here... they've been on/. for quite a while now.
I did those things, and also watched a lot of TV. Somehow, no one in my extended family has ADD (which is likely just a made update "disorder" to sell drugs).
We're not going to move from local apps to web services, sorry. WS just sucks too much, and its awful for anything interactive and depends too much on a network (yes, people do lose their internet connection). The local apps aren't going anywhere.. I'm sure both will co-exist.
I guess you never do anything collaboratively with your customers or suppliers, such as a Statement of Work where both parties need to add/edit line items? Or maybe a draft version of a document that you send to a partner for markup/feedback? If you did, you would immediately understand the limitations of PDF.
This is something done in a meeting, face to face, on paper. Since it has to be signed (with a pen), this worked out quite well.
Ok, fine then - use a different document example, such as the above mentioned SOW. Any document that might need edits from both parties. If you never see documents like this, congratulations, and keep using PDF. You will find that this is not the use case for the majority of people in the world, likely including others in your own organization.
I've addressed this. Also, please don't claim to speak for "the majority of people in the world." You just look really stupid.
Remember, there is also the problem that someday you will want to upgrade in order to use some nifty new feature in Word/Excel/Powerpoint and unless you have a really, really small company not everyone is going to be upgraded in the same nanosecond. Enjoy the problems that occur when the upgraded folks on Office 2007 are creating documents that are incompatible with the Office 2000 suite being used by the rest of the company. You may see that productivity loss as a cost of doing business, but in reality it is only a cost of doing business using a protected proprietaty document format.
Only if the IT people are incompetent. In that case, yes, you'll have problems. Proper planning and training (you do train people at your company, right?) address this. I've gone through an upgrade, and it was pretty painless.
Sorry Plague, but there is a known penalty for using proprietary document formats. It has just been a penalty most have been willing to endure, as MS Office was the closest thing we had to a standard - that isn't the case anymore.
Ya, I guess that's why PDF failed. Oh wait. And why Office is failing. Oh wait..
A standard is only as useful as much as its implemented. So far ODF is implemented in a bunch of OO.org software, some web pages, and Abiword. Wow.
What is the difference between you believing that you're a normal, functioning person and what people in psych wards believe?
For all you know, you're sitting in a psych ward imagining this post.
I have no evidence to suggest that I am, however, just as I have no evidence to suggest there is a god.
You have to take some things on faith in order to function as a human being. I fail to see why one should think that people's choice to believe in God is any less valid than you believing you're not in a mental institution, or that the world actually exists beyond your own perception.
You don't need faith in god though to function as a human being. Rather, such a belief is detremental to society. Doubting your senses is just as useless as believing in fairy tales. So you can take your own sanity for granted, because to do otherwise is useless.
Believing in god however should require some evidence.
Waahhh, someone is competing with flash, waaahhh!!
Ugh, grow up please. Competition is good. MS did a really nice job with.Net, and now Java is taking cues from.Net as well. That is good, because each product can rip off what is sucessful in each other, building better and better products. I don't want.Net to kill java, I want them to both compete.
Silverlight allows me to do flash style stuff with my existing.Net knowledge and experience.
I agree, but for some reason you've ruled out Nvidia. Great drivers and a fast card. ATI is the only company that thinks its ok to put out shitty graphics drivers.
No, you're still responsible for failing to keep a list up to date or whatever. I ran into this recently; we had an IP blacklisted, but the lister disappeared. So emails (order confirmations) were being bounced due to the black list, and it was impossible to get off the list.
Its like slander or liable; just because you say its spam, doesn't make it true. You can't setup any arbitrary rules you like, and say anything that violates them is spam without some kind of proof. Getting an email you didn't want doesn't equal spam.
Religion and faith are not about proof. It's a choice you make, and since the basis of the choice you make can never be proven one way or the other, it's completely up to you.
So what exactly is the difference between religous belief and what some people locked in pysch wards believe? More people believe the same unprovable position?
So we should just pick the easiest answer instead of searching for the correct one? The fact that WE exist proves nothing more than somehow chemicals came together and life began. That doesn't mean something else made it happen.
What is this bunch of garbage? We've proved the universe is expanding. We've proved that the earth is NOT the center of the universe. We've proved that sulfric acid eats away other matter. We've proved that atoms do exist.
What we've never found evidence of is that there is a god. Certainly not as described in the various religions. We've never seen evidence that a burning bush talked to anyone (unless it was a marjuana bush), we've never seen evidence that Jesus rose, or that he turned water into anything.
It is just "wishful thinking," and unfortunately a majority of the people on this planet delude themselves into believe in such non-sense.
So you let something you have no proof for guide and shape your life? Why? You can't find happiness in this world without believing in a fairy tale? It seems rather pointless to believe something for which there is no proof.
How much are you paying for MS Office? Is that a fair price? Do you have any bargaining power as a costumer?
Given that the other products out there are shit (yes, including OO), I think its a fair price. OH, and we're getting quite the value too, since we're still on Office 2000.
Could you access all your information if you don't continue using MS's software?
I had a really nasty suprise when I decided to ditch Linux desktop and go back to Windows; GNUCash doesn't have an export function. Oh, I was told in no uncertain terms I could write my own Xslts to convert it to whatever format I wanted. Great, wonderful. I just have to figure out their spec, figure out the target spec, then start typing away!
At least with Office I can save as an RTF or Html.
There is no way to prevent it from happening, if you'standardize' on MS Office document formats. Even if every company that you ever have to deal with in the history of your company's existance uses MS Office, you will still have a multitude of problems sharing documents between people that use Office 2007, Office 2003, Office XP, Office 2000, and god forbid, even earlier versions. Don't believe me? Get a random sampling of Office 2007 documents and open them up on the equivalent tools in an Office 2003 or Office XP suite.
Bull. Outside the company, you can use something like PDF. Or simply enforce a policy that your documents must be saved in the earlier version of office.
All it takes is for one customer to modify a sales order that you sent them in Word 2003 format, and save it in Word 2007 format before sending it back to you to cause you a load of grief.
Interesting, I've never heard of companies letting their order be modified. We sure don't allow that; if there's a change needed, they need to tell us, and we will change it.
If you haven't experienced this with the MS formats, perhaps you have been in a position where you are only sharing documents with other folks internal to your company that are on the same version? Or perhaps the documents you use are simple enough thta the differences in formatting between versions was not evident?
We're (unfortunately) still on Office 2000, and have no problems interally or with our customers externally.
Re-read my comment yourself. I didn't say that the conditions on the sign were legally binding, I said that it was reasonable for them to be binding.
Believe it or not, reason and law do go hand in hand. I notice you never address my comment on a sign stating you give up your freedom. I think its reasonable for anyone seeing such a sign to simply ignore it.
(a) the store is the property of someone else
No one is disputing that fact. Whats you're point?
(b) knowingly entering someone else's property against their wishes is commonly known as trespassing
Show me an example of a sign that says you can't enter unless you consent to a search when exiting. Also, a store can only make money if people enter, so as long as the store is open, one can reasonably expect that you are invited in.
(c) the sign clearly indicates that the owner grants permission to enter the property only to those who agree to the conditions
There no such signs; a sign declaring you must give up a right is null and void, and can reasonally be ignored as a condition to enter.
d) ergo, after having seen the sign, continuing to enter indicates your acceptance of the owner's terms
A sign stating something which cannot legally be waived can be treated as a sign that doesn't exist at all; thus such a sign can NEVER been terms to enter.
unless you care to admit to trespassing instead. Any differences between that conclusion and contract or property law are indicative of one or more defects in the law.
You can only be guilty of trespass if the property is posted as "No trespassing." The law doesn't allow for you to put conditions; either you are allowed on the property, or you are never allowed on the propery without express permission from the owner. Signs saying "we reserve the right to [xy]" are meaningless and hold no weight. Sorry, that's life.
Of course if a store were to push it, I'm sure people will happily keep out of the store, and it will close shortly after.
Any differences between that conclusion and contract or property law are indicative of one or more defects in the law.
Its a defect in your line of "reason." You can't waive rights, period. Any reasonable person will ignore any sign or policy insisting otherwise. Again, legally its as if the signs don't even exist. That's one of the fundamental premises this country was built on; an unconsititutional law is such from the very first day its passed, not just when the SC decides it is so.
You don't have a right to force others to give up their rights just because you own something.
I would think this version is one that does; I bought the 10 year aniversary pack which included everything from C&C to Generals (+ all exansions at the time) and they did update to work on XP.
Some years before though I bought something similar, but it was not updated.. needless to say I was not happy.
Not just by walking past the sign, no, but it is perfectly reasonable to assume that by choosing to enter the private property of another after having been advised of the conditions of such entry you have indeed agreed to abide by those conditions for the duration of your presence.
Please re-read my comment; the conditions are invalid whether anyone chooses to enter or not. Just as an unconsitional law was NEVER valid, even though it may have been enforced for some time.
To continue onto the property while rejecting the conditions would be an obvious case of trespassing. The sign is meaningless except as a limitation on the general permission to enter extended by the owner, without which you have no right to enter the store in the first place.
This is also false. To have trespass, you must have a sign stating that trespassers are not allowed. Good luck trying to say someone was trespassing simply by entering a store which depends on people entering it to survive.
If the sign instead read "you agree to become property of XYZ corp" and people enter, do you think they'd be found guilty of breaking any law when they refuse to become store property? They would not, because you don't lose your rights by walking into a store with some stupid policy posted. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.
You also should read more on trepass laws; in some places a landowner may lose the right to forbid people from trespassing, if he, for example, let people trespass through many times before such that it becomes a common pathway.
Finally, go read up on contract law some more. Those waivers you sign agreeing not to sue when you do any dangerous activity (mountain climbing, rafting, etc); they're pretty much toliet paper. You don't lose your right to sue even when you sign a paper and pay money.
There are people doing embryonic stem-cell research, they simply are not government/public funded here in the U.S.
From what I can see, however, the folks doing research with the adult-stem-cells are outpacing embryonic research by leaps and bounds.
Hmm... read those two statements, and see if you can't figure out how linked they really are.
From what a vaguely remember, the embryonic-stem-cell experiments have either failed outright, or ultimately failed after initial success. We've heard lots of promises, but adult-stem-cells are delivering, where embryonic-stem-cells do not seem to be.
Since loss of federal funding likely shut down much of the research, that's expected. Also, the lines that ARE still in existance are mostly contaminated and are useless.
Let's see some links to comparable embryonic-stem-cell successes...
Since I'm in the US, and we've 1) cut federal funding for research using new lines of embryonic SCs, and 2) the existing lines are contaminated, I won't be able to do so, since a good portion of research is not being done anymore. I wouldn't know where to look for research by other countries.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, because most geeks here also have an interest in science outside the computer variety. These kind of stories aren't new here... they've been on /. for quite a while now.
Well take into account plant and picking by hand, you get more food per acre per day usin modern techniques.
ADD and ADHD are just excuses to drug children. Amazing how many new "diseases" have come about since the drug companies were allowed to advertise.
I did those things, and also watched a lot of TV. Somehow, no one in my extended family has ADD (which is likely just a made update "disorder" to sell drugs).
You're kidding right? Time to upgrade, I think you got your money's worth.
We're not going to move from local apps to web services, sorry. WS just sucks too much, and its awful for anything interactive and depends too much on a network (yes, people do lose their internet connection). The local apps aren't going anywhere.. I'm sure both will co-exist.
That's still flash, so not really an alternative to Flash itself, which is what is needed.
I guess you never do anything collaboratively with your customers or suppliers, such as a Statement of Work where both parties need to add/edit line items? Or maybe a draft version of a document that you send to a partner for markup/feedback? If you did, you would immediately understand the limitations of PDF.
This is something done in a meeting, face to face, on paper. Since it has to be signed (with a pen), this worked out quite well.
Ok, fine then - use a different document example, such as the above mentioned SOW. Any document that might need edits from both parties. If you never see documents like this, congratulations, and keep using PDF. You will find that this is not the use case for the majority of people in the world, likely including others in your own organization.
I've addressed this. Also, please don't claim to speak for "the majority of people in the world." You just look really stupid.
Remember, there is also the problem that someday you will want to upgrade in order to use some nifty new feature in Word/Excel/Powerpoint and unless you have a really, really small company not everyone is going to be upgraded in the same nanosecond. Enjoy the problems that occur when the upgraded folks on Office 2007 are creating documents that are incompatible with the Office 2000 suite being used by the rest of the company. You may see that productivity loss as a cost of doing business, but in reality it is only a cost of doing business using a protected proprietaty document format.
Only if the IT people are incompetent. In that case, yes, you'll have problems. Proper planning and training (you do train people at your company, right?) address this. I've gone through an upgrade, and it was pretty painless.
Sorry Plague, but there is a known penalty for using proprietary document formats. It has just been a penalty most have been willing to endure, as MS Office was the closest thing we had to a standard - that isn't the case anymore.
Ya, I guess that's why PDF failed. Oh wait. And why Office is failing. Oh wait..
A standard is only as useful as much as its implemented. So far ODF is implemented in a bunch of OO.org software, some web pages, and Abiword. Wow.
What is the difference between you believing that you're a normal, functioning person and what people in psych wards believe?
For all you know, you're sitting in a psych ward imagining this post.
I have no evidence to suggest that I am, however, just as I have no evidence to suggest there is a god.
You have to take some things on faith in order to function as a human being. I fail to see why one should think that people's choice to believe in God is any less valid than you believing you're not in a mental institution, or that the world actually exists beyond your own perception.
You don't need faith in god though to function as a human being. Rather, such a belief is detremental to society. Doubting your senses is just as useless as believing in fairy tales. So you can take your own sanity for granted, because to do otherwise is useless.
Believing in god however should require some evidence.
Waahhh, someone is competing with flash, waaahhh!!
.Net, and now Java is taking cues from .Net as well. That is good, because each product can rip off what is sucessful in each other, building better and better products. I don't want .Net to kill java, I want them to both compete.
.Net knowledge and experience.
Ugh, grow up please. Competition is good. MS did a really nice job with
Silverlight allows me to do flash style stuff with my existing
I agree, but for some reason you've ruled out Nvidia. Great drivers and a fast card. ATI is the only company that thinks its ok to put out shitty graphics drivers.
No, you're still responsible for failing to keep a list up to date or whatever. I ran into this recently; we had an IP blacklisted, but the lister disappeared. So emails (order confirmations) were being bounced due to the black list, and it was impossible to get off the list.
Its like slander or liable; just because you say its spam, doesn't make it true. You can't setup any arbitrary rules you like, and say anything that violates them is spam without some kind of proof. Getting an email you didn't want doesn't equal spam.
Intel graphics are also shit compared to Nvidia or ATI.
Also, I don't think your number "prove" most linux installs are desktops. Many probably still are just servers.
Religion and faith are not about proof. It's a choice you make, and since the basis of the choice you make can never be proven one way or the other, it's completely up to you.
So what exactly is the difference between religous belief and what some people locked in pysch wards believe? More people believe the same unprovable position?
So we should just pick the easiest answer instead of searching for the correct one? The fact that WE exist proves nothing more than somehow chemicals came together and life began. That doesn't mean something else made it happen.
Science can disprove; it cannot prove.
What is this bunch of garbage? We've proved the universe is expanding. We've proved that the earth is NOT the center of the universe. We've proved that sulfric acid eats away other matter. We've proved that atoms do exist.
What we've never found evidence of is that there is a god. Certainly not as described in the various religions. We've never seen evidence that a burning bush talked to anyone (unless it was a marjuana bush), we've never seen evidence that Jesus rose, or that he turned water into anything.
It is just "wishful thinking," and unfortunately a majority of the people on this planet delude themselves into believe in such non-sense.
So you let something you have no proof for guide and shape your life? Why? You can't find happiness in this world without believing in a fairy tale? It seems rather pointless to believe something for which there is no proof.
How much are you paying for MS Office? Is that a fair price? Do you have any bargaining power as a costumer?
Given that the other products out there are shit (yes, including OO), I think its a fair price. OH, and we're getting quite the value too, since we're still on Office 2000.
Could you access all your information if you don't continue using MS's software?
I had a really nasty suprise when I decided to ditch Linux desktop and go back to Windows; GNUCash doesn't have an export function. Oh, I was told in no uncertain terms I could write my own Xslts to convert it to whatever format I wanted. Great, wonderful. I just have to figure out their spec, figure out the target spec, then start typing away!
At least with Office I can save as an RTF or Html.
There is no way to prevent it from happening, if you'standardize' on MS Office document formats.
Even if every company that you ever have to deal with in the history of your company's existance uses MS Office, you will still have a multitude of problems sharing documents between people that use Office 2007, Office 2003, Office XP, Office 2000, and god forbid, even earlier versions. Don't believe me? Get a random sampling of Office 2007 documents and open them up on the equivalent tools in an Office 2003 or Office XP suite.
Bull. Outside the company, you can use something like PDF. Or simply enforce a policy that your documents must be saved in the earlier version of office.
All it takes is for one customer to modify a sales order that you sent them in Word 2003 format, and save it in Word 2007 format before sending it back to you to cause you a load of grief.
Interesting, I've never heard of companies letting their order be modified. We sure don't allow that; if there's a change needed, they need to tell us, and we will change it.
If you haven't experienced this with the MS formats, perhaps you have been in a position where you are only sharing documents with other folks internal to your company that are on the same version? Or perhaps the documents you use are simple enough thta the differences in formatting between versions was not evident?
We're (unfortunately) still on Office 2000, and have no problems interally or with our customers externally.
Re-read my comment yourself. I didn't say that the conditions on the sign were legally binding, I said that it was reasonable for them to be binding.
Believe it or not, reason and law do go hand in hand. I notice you never address my comment on a sign stating you give up your freedom. I think its reasonable for anyone seeing such a sign to simply ignore it.
(a) the store is the property of someone else
No one is disputing that fact. Whats you're point?
(b) knowingly entering someone else's property against their wishes is commonly known as trespassing
Show me an example of a sign that says you can't enter unless you consent to a search when exiting. Also, a store can only make money if people enter, so as long as the store is open, one can reasonably expect that you are invited in.
(c) the sign clearly indicates that the owner grants permission to enter the property only to those who agree to the conditions
There no such signs; a sign declaring you must give up a right is null and void, and can reasonally be ignored as a condition to enter.
d) ergo, after having seen the sign, continuing to enter indicates your acceptance of the owner's terms
A sign stating something which cannot legally be waived can be treated as a sign that doesn't exist at all; thus such a sign can NEVER been terms to enter.
unless you care to admit to trespassing instead. Any differences between that conclusion and contract or property law are indicative of one or more defects in the law.
You can only be guilty of trespass if the property is posted as "No trespassing." The law doesn't allow for you to put conditions; either you are allowed on the property, or you are never allowed on the propery without express permission from the owner. Signs saying "we reserve the right to [xy]" are meaningless and hold no weight. Sorry, that's life.
Of course if a store were to push it, I'm sure people will happily keep out of the store, and it will close shortly after.
Any differences between that conclusion and contract or property law are indicative of one or more defects in the law.
Its a defect in your line of "reason." You can't waive rights, period. Any reasonable person will ignore any sign or policy insisting otherwise. Again, legally its as if the signs don't even exist. That's one of the fundamental premises this country was built on; an unconsititutional law is such from the very first day its passed, not just when the SC decides it is so.
You don't have a right to force others to give up their rights just because you own something.
I would think this version is one that does; I bought the 10 year aniversary pack which included everything from C&C to Generals (+ all exansions at the time) and they did update to work on XP.
Some years before though I bought something similar, but it was not updated.. needless to say I was not happy.
Not just by walking past the sign, no, but it is perfectly reasonable to assume that by choosing to enter the private property of another after having been advised of the conditions of such entry you have indeed agreed to abide by those conditions for the duration of your presence.
Please re-read my comment; the conditions are invalid whether anyone chooses to enter or not. Just as an unconsitional law was NEVER valid, even though it may have been enforced for some time.
To continue onto the property while rejecting the conditions would be an obvious case of trespassing. The sign is meaningless except as a limitation on the general permission to enter extended by the owner, without which you have no right to enter the store in the first place.
This is also false. To have trespass, you must have a sign stating that trespassers are not allowed. Good luck trying to say someone was trespassing simply by entering a store which depends on people entering it to survive.
If the sign instead read "you agree to become property of XYZ corp" and people enter, do you think they'd be found guilty of breaking any law when they refuse to become store property? They would not, because you don't lose your rights by walking into a store with some stupid policy posted. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.
You also should read more on trepass laws; in some places a landowner may lose the right to forbid people from trespassing, if he, for example, let people trespass through many times before such that it becomes a common pathway.
Finally, go read up on contract law some more. Those waivers you sign agreeing not to sue when you do any dangerous activity (mountain climbing, rafting, etc); they're pretty much toliet paper. You don't lose your right to sue even when you sign a paper and pay money.
Sounds like you work for a shitty company, because any large company I've worked for has not let that happen.
Wait long enough, and voila - new identical replacement parts become available.
Um, if its identical, won't it also be incomplete?
There are people doing embryonic stem-cell research, they simply are not government/public funded here in the U.S.
From what I can see, however, the folks doing research with the adult-stem-cells are outpacing embryonic research by leaps and bounds.
Hmm... read those two statements, and see if you can't figure out how linked they really are.
From what a vaguely remember, the embryonic-stem-cell experiments have either failed outright, or ultimately failed after initial success. We've heard lots of promises, but adult-stem-cells are delivering, where embryonic-stem-cells do not seem to be.
Since loss of federal funding likely shut down much of the research, that's expected. Also, the lines that ARE still in existance are mostly contaminated and are useless.
Let's see some links to comparable embryonic-stem-cell successes...
Since I'm in the US, and we've 1) cut federal funding for research using new lines of embryonic SCs, and 2) the existing lines are contaminated, I won't be able to do so, since a good portion of research is not being done anymore. I wouldn't know where to look for research by other countries.