Everybody is already using.DOC to store and share their documents, many applications support it, libraries exist for development and there are a lot of documents out there in the format today.
Most of which don't work right in Microsoft office or OpenOffice.org.
I might add that I have received documents in PDF for many years and never did have a problem rendering them.
Why force IBM and Suns minor document standand on the world?
Sorry, you're thinking of a different format. ODF was developed by OASIS based on OpenOffice.org XML format. Far more people were involved with the development of the format. Microsoft was even invited to participate, but they ignored the offer.
The fact that somebody somewhere put a rubber stamp on ODF does nothing for the user
The fact the document is properly usable actually does something for the user. But yes, putting a rubber stamp does nothing but puts a rubber stamp technically.
who you're now asking to evaluate which application they use and potentially spend hours messing with thier own PCs to meet a "government mandated standard" that only really got put in place because some technicla purists wanted to run the world to their own agenda.
There are ODF plugins for Microsoft Office, most of the other office suites already support ODF... What niche group that doesn't have ODF support are you referring to?
Kerns, who is in a wheelchair, told Conway at a hearing in March that he can no longer walk and that he has been refused the medication he needs to maintain a bearable level of pain.
Previous news accounts indicate Kerns suffered a spinal injury during his tour in Afghanistan.
Kerns had also been receiving services for post-traumatic stress disorder and was under medications that included methadone, morphine and hydrocodone, Lowry has said.
If torrentspy had a trivial way for anyone to flag an item as being 'copyrighted content' which meant that content would be reviewed and removed within 24 hours and put on a ban list, they might have a leg to stand on.
They let copyright owners block certain search queries and file DMCA requests to remove certain content which they have in the past. I think they were plenty compliant - especially when the DMCA does not even apply to torrent files.
We all know this isn't the case. They specifically make you send a snail mail copy (http://www.torrentspy.com/dmca.asp) despite knowing full well this is just a tactic to slow down the process.
It is not a tactic to slow down the process. It is actually required by the DMCA to send a copy via snail mail.
Why must it be the copyright owner who reports it?
Because nobody else has the right to dictate the copyright.
Is it not flipping obvious that spiderman 3 is copyrighted, regardless who spots it?
Why must the site operator have to verify each and every report from anyone? Verification would likely require contacting the copyright owner. So, can you tell me who exactly is the copyright owner of Spiderman 3, how to contact them and so on?
They were openly and knowingly a place to go to to get copyrighted content.
True.
If I was a judge hearing them plead innocence, I'd be unable to keep a straight face.
Fact is, I do not believe the legitimate sites (no intent for infringement) are anymore 'easier' at reporting violations.
The thing is there are far less mac models than PC models so you will often have to buy more than you need in some areas to get what you want in others This along with the fact you *are* paying for high build quality (macbooks are comparable in price to thinkpads, vaios, lattitudes etc not to inspirons and thier ilk) is what makes macs relatively expensive in practice.
True and I find Apple hardware expensive for the entry level for this reason.
Additionally, on regular PCs, you can exchange parts or insert new parts - new graphic cards, sound cards, wireless cards, capture cards and so on. The only system that lets you fully exchange/add parts the same way as a low-end PC is the Mac Pro and that is way over powered for most people's interests and because of that, it also removes the need to upgrade various parts when you can.
I don't like the Apple line of products, they don't work for me. I'm sure others find them 'superior' somehow though.
You can tell from my user ID I am not exactly new to Slashdot. Either way, while not everyone puts sources in their comments, it has been normal (in my experience) for people to oblige to such requests - those that don't respond usually give me the impression that their information is all hearsay.
I am sorry, but are you talking about Microsoft or Apple here?
Apple is not dominant, thus has no dominance to continue.
Again, I would like to point out your attention to the artificially high price Apple charges for its machines. They use standard Intel hardware, so why are they more expensive than the average Dell/HP/Sony?
Comparing the specs and prices with those specs, they're about the same actually.
You mean like when Apple decided to go with Firewire, when the whole world was going with USB?
Firewire is not dependent on any operating system or architecture, never has been. It is also a industry standard (IEEE 1394 interface). De facto usage and standards are a different thing.
You must be talking about the way Apple has been leveraging the iPod sales to push the MAC OS onto its customers. They didn't even release iTunes or any sync capability for Windows in the first 2 years of its release. The iPod syncs using a closed pseudo standard. It could have synced like a normal USB drive, but Apple unnecessarily makes it harder to sync as you only can use iTunes to do it.
Yes, Apple sucks. I know this already. They're still not dominant like Microsoft.
So what makes any large vendor different?
Microsoft does more harm and can't be punished for breaking laws like other companies.
except for the DRM left and right which bogs the system down.
Unfortunately I am unable to find reliable sources on Google that back up those claims (mostly just random comments on websites and bad articles). Would you mind providing some sources for this?
thanks to the drm the network traffic slows down to a crawl.
This was speculation on why it was slowing down but never actually proven... Unless you have sources to back that up?
What does "support" mean in this case? If Konqueror messes up their netscape plugin support by doing something non-standard spec, they aren't going to add a custom fix for that?
This is not so effective on FreeBSD, at least on 7.0 (and I hear it's the same on other versions as well.) Even with nspluginwrapper, the flash content is replaced with a grey box after a seemingly random number of seconds.
Well that sucks. I don't have a FreeBSD system to verify that, so I'll just assume that is the case.
Got a definitive link for it? Because the one I found listed a handful of gecko-based browsers as requirements, and it would be nice to get everyone on the same page.
No. I just use the browsers on my computer with the plugins.
Opera and Konqueror have supported Netscape type plugins for as long as I can remember.
Software permission policies in Windows let you define which programs can be executed. Generally the rules most corporations have setup is something like Program Files\*.exe and Windows\*.exe.
Any executables outside of these 'rules' are blocked from being launched. The user is also a 'limited user' (non-administrator) in these situations, so they cannot copy anything to those paths.
I'd like to add that I use these policies to stop annoying adware/auto updater stuff from legitimate software on my normal windows desktop systems - They're pretty nifty ^__^
So do I. As such, I don't complain and install PuTTY and it'll be there for me next time I need to help them. Perhaps they'll even have a use for it.
That's great that you don't speak out when you find something lacking. But that is not my way.
And no, I don't complain to friends about the lack of telnet in Vista when I need it (which I sense you're trying to imply), unless it would make for some interesting conversation.
So, if you're IT, and as such control what the end-user gets on the desktop, why is telnet client not in your default image?
Not deployed Vista at previous places that I have worked. Still, this does not stop partners, contractors who bring in their own stuff from having it. Some of these machines are not locked down at all, some of them are heavily locked down.
My main point was to provide you with a solution, and while it is more work, at least you can walk up to a Vista machine, download putty and do your work.
I already knew of this before you even mentioned it. It's not a solution in my opinion but a workaround which takes extra effort for something that is in my opinion, supposed to be standard.
You don't need to install it, it just need to be on a drive you can access.
Software permission policies in Windows let you define which programs can be executed. Generally the rules most corporations have setup is something like Program Files\*.exe and Windows\*.exe.
Any executables outside of these 'rules' are blocked from being launched. The user is also a 'limited user' (non-administrator) in these situations, so they cannot copy anything to those paths.
Slashdot Mirror
Software still requiring x86 will matter though.
Bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork!
(Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.)
I might add that I have received documents in PDF for many years and never did have a problem rendering them.Sorry, you're thinking of a different format. ODF was developed by OASIS based on OpenOffice.org XML format. Far more people were involved with the development of the format. Microsoft was even invited to participate, but they ignored the offer.The fact the document is properly usable actually does something for the user. But yes, putting a rubber stamp does nothing but puts a rubber stamp technically.There are ODF plugins for Microsoft Office, most of the other office suites already support ODF... What niche group that doesn't have ODF support are you referring to?
Mod parent up, he knows what he's talking about.
But yes, they should be punished for intent.
Additionally, on regular PCs, you can exchange parts or insert new parts - new graphic cards, sound cards, wireless cards, capture cards and so on. The only system that lets you fully exchange/add parts the same way as a low-end PC is the Mac Pro and that is way over powered for most people's interests and because of that, it also removes the need to upgrade various parts when you can.
I don't like the Apple line of products, they don't work for me. I'm sure others find them 'superior' somehow though.
That's nothing, you should see Linux there is.... Uh... uhm... uh... Doesn't work with unsupported hardware!
I can live with that.Okay?
There is my definitive link
Opera and Konqueror have supported Netscape type plugins for as long as I can remember.
And no, I don't complain to friends about the lack of telnet in Vista when I need it (which I sense you're trying to imply), unless it would make for some interesting conversation.Not deployed Vista at previous places that I have worked. Still, this does not stop partners, contractors who bring in their own stuff from having it. Some of these machines are not locked down at all, some of them are heavily locked down.I already knew of this before you even mentioned it. It's not a solution in my opinion but a workaround which takes extra effort for something that is in my opinion, supposed to be standard.Software permission policies in Windows let you define which programs can be executed. Generally the rules most corporations have setup is something like Program Files\*.exe and Windows\*.exe.
Any executables outside of these 'rules' are blocked from being launched. The user is also a 'limited user' (non-administrator) in these situations, so they cannot copy anything to those paths.