And? If you're in America, check your gas pump. This is exactly the thinking that has led us to increasing gasoline prices. "There's plenty of oil", "there won't be a crisis for years and years", and "if we run out of oil, the magic invention fairy will hit us with something new". Meanwhile, we still haven't reached the cost of gasoline in Europe and people are already sobbing and whining and begging for anything to be done to make it cheaper... except for coming up with new fuels.
Ugh. First, oil doesn't randomly appear and disapper. There's a finite amount of it. A virus mutating is pretty much random, and a lot of things have to come together for it to actually start killing lots of people. Secondly, oil prices aren't high because we are running out quickly, they are high because 1) demand has dramatically increased, worldwide and 2) oil companies are colluding to keep prices high.
Finally, THEY ARE LOOKING AT ALTERNATE FULES. Or have you missed the hybrid cars many manufacterers are selling. Did you also happen to miss the corn based fuels which I think Ford cars may run on. To say they aren't trying to come up with new alternatives it just stupid.
Sure, there might not be another flu pandemic for 100 years, but when it happens, do you want the problem to have already been solved, or do you want 50% of your crisis control staff turning purple and falling over dead at their posts?
Again, you're showing lack of thought here. What makes you think the flu that hits in 100 years will be anything like the variants we have today? For all you know, they could be almost unreconizable as a flu virus at all. We will always have diseases, but if you look at history you'll see there are relatively few that even come close to wiping out hordes of people.
Your argument is pretty weak. So what if it 'is halfway there?' The mutation which makes it lethal may also revert it back to being non contagious to humans.
Not only that, but this mutant version needs to actually find its way back to a human. For all we know, the bird carrying this version may drop dead in the middle of a forest, hundreds of miles from the nearest human.
There's never been a single disease that even came close to wiping out all of ANY species on this planet... why would THIS flu have that ability?
Go back in history (not even that far).. they told us the same thing about SARS, ebola and a host of other diseases. The one that did actually start spreading, HIV, rightly created a lot of fear. But as far as bird flu goes, you might as well start worrying that a meteor will fall on your head.
The problem is that he hasn't offered any proof that they are in fact taking advertising dollars from these people, nor has he offered proof of such an ad at all.
Perhaps thats why any attempt to say you must be x years old is a foolish attempt at best? Perhaps there is no magic number set in stone that defines when someone is mature?
Sooner or later there WILL be another flu with the ability to kill millions. The only way we have of preventing another 1919 is to spot the threat before it gets going and prepare a vaccine. Hence the worry over H5N1. It's entirely possible that it will all blow over. It's also possible that it will mutate to a form that can spread from one human to another, and become pandemic. If it doesn't, well, great. If it does, we'll be glad we prepared.
I'd think the chances of it mutating to something that would be as devistating are much less than the chances of it mutating to something else that people can't catch easily.
There are exactly 206 confirmed cases of bird flu.
Which is why I can't understand why this virus is even being talked about. Its pretty rare to catch it in the first place. But the media needs to create stories now to sell papers and ads..
I don't recall any treaties which have been added as amendments. What exactly is your point? I acknowledged the amendments, so your statement adds no value at all.
But if you live in a society where no one recognizes that right and it is thus consistently violated, can you still say you actually have it? And even if you think so, does it make any difference?
Just because everyone is doing it doesn't make something right. Yes you still have that right, and you have the right to fight to exercise that right.
It's like the people who believe they have a right to a steady, decently paying job (think riots in Paris, that was one of the issues). Without someone to give the job to them it's just an empty belief, and it's certainly not an inherent right.
That's because there really isn't any such right. This is where people get confused; Iran may stifle everyone's free speech, but they still have the right, and they have the right to overthrow their government to stop oppression of it.
You're picking nits. A right is something that can be defended, regardless of whether or not you personally are able to defend it.
Anything can be defended, that doesn't mean its a right. Just because you or somebody else isn't protecting your rights, does not mean they vanish.
Just because you happen to be a mute doesn't mean that the right to free speech does not exist.
No one claimed it didn't exist for a mute. Also, lets try to get freedom of Speech correct; it covers pretty much all forms of expression, not just the spoken or typed word.
Yeah. I suppose this works on a lot of kids. Occassionally you get a jerk like me that hauls off and decks his father and moves out on his own at the ripe age of 16.
Obviously you had a shitty father, and screwed you up enough that you would hit back at 16.
It made life a hell of a lot harder for me, but it was so worth it. I don't take kindly to anyone treating me like a fucking beast of burden, even now at 28. Mais c'est la vie. Your results may vary.
Waah, I had chores. Waah, I had to help out around the house. Waah, I should just be handed everything without me having to contribute anything at all.
Perhaps too many parents simply have more respect for their children than you.
Um, you do realize that in real life there are consequences to violating rules, right? He's not saying he'll beat them to a pulp, he's saying he'd ground them. Punishing your kids doesn't meant you don't have respect for them.
Perhaps too many parents have out of control kids because of attitudes like yours.
I'm sorry but these two sentences tell me you don't actually have teenage kids, or you're a very gullible parent (in which case MySpace.com would actually help protect your kids).
I'm sorry, but you obviously don't know anything at all about the relationship this guy has with his daughters. Its pretty arrogent to assume that his kids are anything like yours. Not all teenagers lie to their parents; the ones that do have bad parents. Wow, imagine that!
Those girls are my responsibility. I can't expect them to make sound judgements on their own. I also cannot expect the administrators of a site to take responsibility for others' actions. Here we have another case of putting the blame on the drug and not the user. Here's a tip for you parents that think a government agency should step in:
Thank god, I was beginning to think that there were no more responsible parents out there.
True, which is why its important for people to really understand how the government is supposed to work, and why its supposed to be difficult for the Executive branch to do its job.
Actually, it's not - you won't be arrested for calling the president a pedophile, for example.
Now, he can sue you for damages, but that's a civil case.
Actually he can't, since the rules are quite different for public figures. Thats why Micheal Jackson hasn't had anyone arrested for calling him a pedophile. (Which if you are being technical about it, and I'm sure a court would be, he's never been found guilty of that crime.)
Bingo. Although it is against the law to shout "FIRE" in a crowded room. And it's against the law to publish copyright protected works without permission, and it's against the law to make up lies about people that damage their reputation. So "freedom of speech" has some limits.
Thats why I hate laws banning the yelling of fire in a crowded room. It should not be illegal to do so, but it SHOULD be illegal to cause a false panic, waste emergency responder's time and resources, etc. Symantics I know.. but my suggestion makes it clear that you're freedom isn't being abbridged.
Copying other's work without permission isn't always illegal either.. there are pretty big allowances because of freedom of speech. You're allowed to paraphrase, cite and reprint portions of others text.
The senate cannot violate constitutional rights, treaty or no. When you agree to a treaty you generally just agree to make the contents of the treaty a law in your country. If you do not manage to make the treaty legally binding in your jurisdiction then the treaty is not ratified (much to the annoyance of treaty cosigners).
This is true I think. If a treaty is signed into law, our constitution still overrides it. I would think then that the Supreme court could rule a treaty unconsitutional. Anyone know if anything like that has been done? Remember, nothing overrides the Constitution and its amendments.
I don't think that is quite right. Someone that can't defend themself still has rights, they are just being violated. At least that was the belief of the Framers. Also, the state should have a very tough time taking away an individuals rights (after a fair trial, for example). I don't think it should be able to take rights from society as a whole.
I think what he's getting at is not that oocalc lacks the functionality, just compatibility with Excel macros. IIRC calc has the macros, but you'd have to rewrite them for the platform. But I'm not really 100% sure, that's just how I remember it. I barely ever use spreadsheets, and never with macros...
So, the point is, it's not better functionality that entrenches Excel here, but effective lock-in because the macro structure isn't portable.
Ah, well if macros are the cause, then its a more valid point. Of course I don't know of any macro language that is standard across different companies products. MS uses VBA in just about everything; I don't know what other vendors use for their macro solutions.
This completely blows Microsoft's lame argument out of the water that MA considering ODF is unfair to the millions of people who already use MSOffice, because it is impossible to rewrite office to use this "crazy new format."
Where did they say that? Could you site your quote please.
I thought the whole goal of MA wanting ODF was to allow the readers of documents to do so without buying MS products (and I agree; you shouldn't need software from one company to read your tax instructions, for example).
If the state sees benefits in keeping MS office to create these documents (because of better support, more familiarity among state employees, etc), then they should continue to do so. But the end goal is that someone with a Linux box or mac can read the documents published by the state, not to cut costs for the state.
But ulitmately it [odf plugin for Word] undermines an important USP for MS Office, namely, compatibility with MS Word documents! Microsoft specifically do not want people to use an open format such as OpenDocument because if they do, it makes it easier from them [the customer] to switch to a competing product, such as StarOffice or OOo.
Anyone could have written a plugin for ODF or any other document format they wanted to well before this. MS even provides a plugin API and API to word itself to do so. In that respect, people could have freed themselves from 'lockin' ages ago if they so chose.
If MS wanted to, they could very easily have added such functionality to Word themselves. The fact that they haven't offered to do so highlights to importance they attach to keepinig people locked into *.doc and now OpenXML.
Why would they want to though? It doesn't sound like any of their customers (until MA came along) really asked for it. Even if they did, the people asking for it could have written it themselves. Isn't that what OSS people tell someone that asks for a driver to support their currently unsupported printer? 'Go write it yourself.'
In some ways, this plugin might undermine OpenDocument since it might provide a way for MS to keep their foot in the door, which they will likely exploit to "convert" customers back to using proprietry formats.
How would it undermine ODF? It may undermine OOo, but if you're using ODF for your format, I'd say its a success. As long as a plugin architecture exists, there really isn't a way for MS to force people back to their own format.
However, I think that whilst it helps with using OpenDocument with MS Word, Excel is still a "killer app" that makes switching to competing office products difficult. There are a lot of companies that ship products that include Excel documents with macros as part of their product. Whilst these don't work with competing products (such as StarOffice/OpenOffice.org), then Excel retains the upper hand.
Perhaps Excel is still a 'killer app' because it provides features that people want, but are not available in competitors. Shouldn't people be allowed to chose MS if they want?
Slashdot Mirror
And? If you're in America, check your gas pump. This is exactly the thinking that has led us to increasing gasoline prices. "There's plenty of oil", "there won't be a crisis for years and years", and "if we run out of oil, the magic invention fairy will hit us with something new". Meanwhile, we still haven't reached the cost of gasoline in Europe and people are already sobbing and whining and begging for anything to be done to make it cheaper... except for coming up with new fuels.
Ugh. First, oil doesn't randomly appear and disapper. There's a finite amount of it. A virus mutating is pretty much random, and a lot of things have to come together for it to actually start killing lots of people. Secondly, oil prices aren't high because we are running out quickly, they are high because 1) demand has dramatically increased, worldwide and 2) oil companies are colluding to keep prices high.
Finally, THEY ARE LOOKING AT ALTERNATE FULES. Or have you missed the hybrid cars many manufacterers are selling. Did you also happen to miss the corn based fuels which I think Ford cars may run on. To say they aren't trying to come up with new alternatives it just stupid.
Sure, there might not be another flu pandemic for 100 years, but when it happens, do you want the problem to have already been solved, or do you want 50% of your crisis control staff turning purple and falling over dead at their posts?
Again, you're showing lack of thought here. What makes you think the flu that hits in 100 years will be anything like the variants we have today? For all you know, they could be almost unreconizable as a flu virus at all. We will always have diseases, but if you look at history you'll see there are relatively few that even come close to wiping out hordes of people.
Your argument is pretty weak. So what if it 'is halfway there?' The mutation which makes it lethal may also revert it back to being non contagious to humans.
Not only that, but this mutant version needs to actually find its way back to a human. For all we know, the bird carrying this version may drop dead in the middle of a forest, hundreds of miles from the nearest human.
There's never been a single disease that even came close to wiping out all of ANY species on this planet... why would THIS flu have that ability?
Go back in history (not even that far).. they told us the same thing about SARS, ebola and a host of other diseases. The one that did actually start spreading, HIV, rightly created a lot of fear. But as far as bird flu goes, you might as well start worrying that a meteor will fall on your head.
The problem is that he hasn't offered any proof that they are in fact taking advertising dollars from these people, nor has he offered proof of such an ad at all.
Perhaps thats why any attempt to say you must be x years old is a foolish attempt at best? Perhaps there is no magic number set in stone that defines when someone is mature?
All of them will happen eventually.
While this is true, 'eventually' may be 100 years. Its been almost 90 years since the last big flu.. and it could be 90 more before there's another.
Sooner or later there WILL be another flu with the ability to kill millions. The only way we have of preventing another 1919 is to spot the threat before it gets going and prepare a vaccine. Hence the worry over H5N1. It's entirely possible that it will all blow over. It's also possible that it will mutate to a form that can spread from one human to another, and become pandemic. If it doesn't, well, great. If it does, we'll be glad we prepared.
I'd think the chances of it mutating to something that would be as devistating are much less than the chances of it mutating to something else that people can't catch easily.
There are exactly 206 confirmed cases of bird flu.
Which is why I can't understand why this virus is even being talked about. Its pretty rare to catch it in the first place. But the media needs to create stories now to sell papers and ads..
fortunatly, bird flu is just the latest fear mongering attempt by our news media.
They've said teh same thing about SARS, ebola, and a host of other diseases that pretty much went nowhere.
I don't recall any treaties which have been added as amendments. What exactly is your point? I acknowledged the amendments, so your statement adds no value at all.
But if you live in a society where no one recognizes that right and it is thus consistently violated, can you still say you actually have it? And even if you think so, does it make any difference?
Just because everyone is doing it doesn't make something right. Yes you still have that right, and you have the right to fight to exercise that right.
It's like the people who believe they have a right to a steady, decently paying job (think riots in Paris, that was one of the issues). Without someone to give the job to them it's just an empty belief, and it's certainly not an inherent right.
That's because there really isn't any such right. This is where people get confused; Iran may stifle everyone's free speech, but they still have the right, and they have the right to overthrow their government to stop oppression of it.
You're picking nits. A right is something that can be defended, regardless of whether or not you personally are able to defend it.
Anything can be defended, that doesn't mean its a right. Just because you or somebody else isn't protecting your rights, does not mean they vanish.
Just because you happen to be a mute doesn't mean that the right to free speech does not exist.
No one claimed it didn't exist for a mute. Also, lets try to get freedom of Speech correct; it covers pretty much all forms of expression, not just the spoken or typed word.
Yeah. I suppose this works on a lot of kids. Occassionally you get a jerk like me that hauls off and decks his father and moves out on his own at the ripe age of 16.
Obviously you had a shitty father, and screwed you up enough that you would hit back at 16.
It made life a hell of a lot harder for me, but it was so worth it. I don't take kindly to anyone treating me like a fucking beast of burden, even now at 28. Mais c'est la vie. Your results may vary.
Waah, I had chores. Waah, I had to help out around the house. Waah, I should just be handed everything without me having to contribute anything at all.
Perhaps too many parents simply have more respect for their children than you.
Um, you do realize that in real life there are consequences to violating rules, right? He's not saying he'll beat them to a pulp, he's saying he'd ground them. Punishing your kids doesn't meant you don't have respect for them.
Perhaps too many parents have out of control kids because of attitudes like yours.
I'm sorry but these two sentences tell me you don't actually have teenage kids, or you're a very gullible parent (in which case MySpace.com would actually help protect your kids).
I'm sorry, but you obviously don't know anything at all about the relationship this guy has with his daughters. Its pretty arrogent to assume that his kids are anything like yours. Not all teenagers lie to their parents; the ones that do have bad parents. Wow, imagine that!
Those girls are my responsibility. I can't expect them to make sound judgements on their own. I also cannot expect the administrators of a site to take responsibility for others' actions. Here we have another case of putting the blame on the drug and not the user. Here's a tip for you parents that think a government agency should step in:
Thank god, I was beginning to think that there were no more responsible parents out there.
True, which is why its important for people to really understand how the government is supposed to work, and why its supposed to be difficult for the Executive branch to do its job.
Actually, it's not - you won't be arrested for calling the president a pedophile, for example.
Now, he can sue you for damages, but that's a civil case.
Actually he can't, since the rules are quite different for public figures. Thats why Micheal Jackson hasn't had anyone arrested for calling him a pedophile. (Which if you are being technical about it, and I'm sure a court would be, he's never been found guilty of that crime.)
Bingo. Although it is against the law to shout "FIRE" in a crowded room. And it's against the law to publish copyright protected works without permission, and it's against the law to make up lies about people that damage their reputation. So "freedom of speech" has some limits.
Thats why I hate laws banning the yelling of fire in a crowded room. It should not be illegal to do so, but it SHOULD be illegal to cause a false panic, waste emergency responder's time and resources, etc. Symantics I know.. but my suggestion makes it clear that you're freedom isn't being abbridged.
Copying other's work without permission isn't always illegal either.. there are pretty big allowances because of freedom of speech. You're allowed to paraphrase, cite and reprint portions of others text.
The senate cannot violate constitutional rights, treaty or no. When you agree to a treaty you generally just agree to make the contents of the treaty a law in your country. If you do not manage to make the treaty legally binding in your jurisdiction then the treaty is not ratified (much to the annoyance of treaty cosigners).
This is true I think. If a treaty is signed into law, our constitution still overrides it. I would think then that the Supreme court could rule a treaty unconsitutional. Anyone know if anything like that has been done? Remember, nothing overrides the Constitution and its amendments.
Entering into a treaty doesn't grant another entity power to govern us. It means we as a state agree to follow the terms of the treaty.
We can at any time exit any treaty we want. Contratry to the view of many corporations, a contract is not binding forever once entered into.
I don't think that is quite right. Someone that can't defend themself still has rights, they are just being violated. At least that was the belief of the Framers. Also, the state should have a very tough time taking away an individuals rights (after a fair trial, for example). I don't think it should be able to take rights from society as a whole.
I think what he's getting at is not that oocalc lacks the functionality, just compatibility with Excel macros. IIRC calc has the macros, but you'd have to rewrite them for the platform. But I'm not really 100% sure, that's just how I remember it. I barely ever use spreadsheets, and never with macros...
So, the point is, it's not better functionality that entrenches Excel here, but effective lock-in because the macro structure isn't portable.
Ah, well if macros are the cause, then its a more valid point. Of course I don't know of any macro language that is standard across different companies products. MS uses VBA in just about everything; I don't know what other vendors use for their macro solutions.
This completely blows Microsoft's lame argument out of the water that MA considering ODF is unfair to the millions of people who already use MSOffice, because it is impossible to rewrite office to use this "crazy new format."
Where did they say that? Could you site your quote please.
How would you like to store images in your document? Documents are more than just simple text. Which is faster for a machine to parse?
This is my optionNextOption
0x343This is my options0x34NextOption
I thought the whole goal of MA wanting ODF was to allow the readers of documents to do so without buying MS products (and I agree; you shouldn't need software from one company to read your tax instructions, for example).
If the state sees benefits in keeping MS office to create these documents (because of better support, more familiarity among state employees, etc), then they should continue to do so. But the end goal is that someone with a Linux box or mac can read the documents published by the state, not to cut costs for the state.
But ulitmately it [odf plugin for Word] undermines an important USP for MS Office, namely, compatibility with MS Word documents! Microsoft specifically do not want people to use an open format such as OpenDocument because if they do, it makes it easier from them [the customer] to switch to a competing product, such as StarOffice or OOo.
Anyone could have written a plugin for ODF or any other document format they wanted to well before this. MS even provides a plugin API and API to word itself to do so. In that respect, people could have freed themselves from 'lockin' ages ago if they so chose.
If MS wanted to, they could very easily have added such functionality to Word themselves. The fact that they haven't offered to do so highlights to importance they attach to keepinig people locked into *.doc and now OpenXML.
Why would they want to though? It doesn't sound like any of their customers (until MA came along) really asked for it. Even if they did, the people asking for it could have written it themselves. Isn't that what OSS people tell someone that asks for a driver to support their currently unsupported printer? 'Go write it yourself.'
In some ways, this plugin might undermine OpenDocument since it might provide a way for MS to keep their foot in the door, which they will likely exploit to "convert" customers back to using proprietry formats.
How would it undermine ODF? It may undermine OOo, but if you're using ODF for your format, I'd say its a success. As long as a plugin architecture exists, there really isn't a way for MS to force people back to their own format.
However, I think that whilst it helps with using OpenDocument with MS Word, Excel is still a "killer app" that makes switching to competing office products difficult. There are a lot of companies that ship products that include Excel documents with macros as part of their product. Whilst these don't work with competing products (such as StarOffice/OpenOffice.org), then Excel retains the upper hand.
Perhaps Excel is still a 'killer app' because it provides features that people want, but are not available in competitors. Shouldn't people be allowed to chose MS if they want?