The best way to get women to is to point out that if they get involved with FOSS, they WILL get laid with no effort, no matter how repulsive they are, just due to the odds.
Oh, come one. We all know that no women anywhere wants to have sex with anyone and to titillate us with any thoughts otherwise is just bogus.
I don't know how you made the logical leap from "should not respect" to "should forcibly topple." There are lots of people I don't respect, yet I don't feel any particular need to go and kill them. On the other hand, if the idea that we should be just as respectful and deferential to the government of North Korea as, that of, say, Switzerland is a liberal idea, well, feel free to claim it.
And aren't corporations treated equivalently to people under US law?
No. This is usually a claim made by people who don't believe corporations should have any legal rights. They do have some legal rights, and in the area of, for example, civil procedure, a corporation and a person are both treated as similar legal entities. But just for example, commercial speech (apparently pretty much any corporate speech, see Kasky v. Nike, Inc. et al. (2002)) enjoys far less First Amendment protection than individual expression.
One thing is clear, it sends a message to the rest of the world that the United States government is conscious of the rights of other governments.
If so, that would be the exact wrong message to send. We are conscious of the rights of people. Governments are simply organizations created by those people for the purpose of protecting and enhancing those rights, and to they extent they do that, we should respect them, and to the extent that they do not, we should not.
And it is reall *wasted*, because that money is mbasically lost to the enconomy, since a large portion of it is expensses the power company incurrs aquiring a non-renewable resource. It's not like it is money going from A -> B -> C, it is money going from A -> B ->
What kind of goofy logic is this? You aren't assuming that mining companies bury their profits in the mines, are you?
Yes, and unsurprisingly the Office-2003-specific features don't work. But if my office is using Office 2000, is that such a huge concern? And how is this any different than with OO.o? Can you open OO.o version 2 documents in OO.o version 1 and still use all the version 2 features? Or at all, for that matter?
Q. Does the CNS only apply to the Office 2003 specifications as it is shown on the Web site, or will it also apply to the upcoming release of the specifications for Ecma and for the 2007 Microsoft Office release?
A. The CNS currently applies to the Office 2003 specifications because they are the only ones currently available that are complete. As the up-to-date specifications are released to Ecma, they will be posted on the same Web site and we will apply the CNS to them.
I also agree that the Groklaw "analysis" is based on a (probably deliberate) misconstruing of the plain language of the CNS, which nowhere requires that software must be "conformant" to be applicable to the CNS.
Maybe I missed it, but I don't see how Microsoft can "force" someone to upgrade after three years. Just because they come out with a new version doesn't mean you have to run out and buy it. If you only want to buy every five years, just buy every five years and ignore the release cycle. Is there something I'm missing?
the electricity to charge them would require a huge investment in nuclear power plants and a corresponding huge increase in nuclear waste.
But the amount of waste that comes out of an efficient reactor is tiny that even a "huge increase" would be easily manageable. (Note practically all of the old reactors currently operating are not terrible efficient.) It is simply incorrect to suggest that relying on nuclear energy as a primary energy source would be impractical.
It's not a flaw because there is no reason to put a window with escalated privileges on a non-privileged desktop. It's the exact same "flaw" as opening an xterm window logged in as "root" on a low-privileged X desktop.
Slashdot Mirror
The best way to get women to is to point out that if they get involved with FOSS, they WILL get laid with no effort, no matter how repulsive they are, just due to the odds.
Oh, come one. We all know that no women anywhere wants to have sex with anyone and to titillate us with any thoughts otherwise is just bogus.
Maybe if people didn't have your bias it wouldn't be so difficult for women in sports and mechanics, say, to have such a hard time to be accepted.
So true - I mean look at Danica Patrick, in a sport that includes engineering, and how she's been shunned and marginalized because she's a woman.
Why are women so ashamed of their sex that the mere mention of it is a "reduction?"
Ahh, I see. I didn't mean to use the term in that manner, but I can see how it could be construed that way.
I don't know how you made the logical leap from "should not respect" to "should forcibly topple." There are lots of people I don't respect, yet I don't feel any particular need to go and kill them. On the other hand, if the idea that we should be just as respectful and deferential to the government of North Korea as, that of, say, Switzerland is a liberal idea, well, feel free to claim it.
If we completely ignored the government and listened to this "right of the people," we'd be obligated to pull an Iraq in every other country.
What would obligate us? Can't we simply disapprove and offer lack of respect to the "bad" governments?
And aren't corporations treated equivalently to people under US law?
No. This is usually a claim made by people who don't believe corporations should have any legal rights. They do have some legal rights, and in the area of, for example, civil procedure, a corporation and a person are both treated as similar legal entities. But just for example, commercial speech (apparently pretty much any corporate speech, see Kasky v. Nike, Inc. et al. (2002)) enjoys far less First Amendment protection than individual expression.
If so, that would be the exact wrong message to send. We are conscious of the rights of people. Governments are simply organizations created by those people for the purpose of protecting and enhancing those rights, and to they extent they do that, we should respect them, and to the extent that they do not, we should not.
FYI, you need to update your talking point. The Supreme Court has already held that executing minors is unconstitutional. See Roper v. Simmons.
Logitech MX1000: $69.99
Vintage IBM Model M Keyboard: $49.99
Human Interface Bliss: Priceless
And it is reall *wasted*, because that money is mbasically lost to the enconomy, since a large portion of it is expensses the power company incurrs aquiring a non-renewable resource. It's not like it is money going from A -> B -> C, it is money going from A -> B ->
What kind of goofy logic is this? You aren't assuming that mining companies bury their profits in the mines, are you?
So is the advantage of OpenOffice.org here that it's not going to have any new features?
Yes, and unsurprisingly the Office-2003-specific features don't work. But if my office is using Office 2000, is that such a huge concern? And how is this any different than with OO.o? Can you open OO.o version 2 documents in OO.o version 1 and still use all the version 2 features? Or at all, for that matter?
From the Microsoft Website:
I also agree that the Groklaw "analysis" is based on a (probably deliberate) misconstruing of the plain language of the CNS, which nowhere requires that software must be "conformant" to be applicable to the CNS.
Maybe I missed it, but I don't see how Microsoft can "force" someone to upgrade after three years. Just because they come out with a new version doesn't mean you have to run out and buy it. If you only want to buy every five years, just buy every five years and ignore the release cycle. Is there something I'm missing?
certain things should not be privatised, medical research being one of them.
So - wait. You think Gates shouldn't be allowed to invest his private funds in medical research?
Interesting - I always heard of such a set-up being called a "sallyport."
I'm curious what you think the "conflict of interest" would be in allowing Microsoft to compete in open bidding with other vendors.
Is it lonely up there on your pedestal?
the electricity to charge them would require a huge investment in nuclear power plants and a corresponding huge increase in nuclear waste.
But the amount of waste that comes out of an efficient reactor is tiny that even a "huge increase" would be easily manageable. (Note practically all of the old reactors currently operating are not terrible efficient.) It is simply incorrect to suggest that relying on nuclear energy as a primary energy source would be impractical.
Yes, a company could do that. But can you see Microsoft doing it?
That's exactly what Microsoft is doing for their OpenXML document format.
Is it really? I always thought that "Linux" was for "Linus' Unix", and that "Linux Is Not Unix" was just an insightful backronym.
It's not a flaw because there is no reason to put a window with escalated privileges on a non-privileged desktop. It's the exact same "flaw" as opening an xterm window logged in as "root" on a low-privileged X desktop.
TF2 after all these many years? My heart is aflutter! Here's hoping TF2 is available on PC as well though...
But it's still trivially easy to copy a cryptographically valid barcode (say, from a legitimate stolen passport) to forged passports.