I'm in nearly the same boat as you with word processing. I use OO almost exclusively (pdf being the deciding factor), but I have to copy/paste into Word for document summary (word count, etc) info. OO has the basics done, but most intermediate and advanced features are lacking. Try changing text color to something other than a preset.
First, I am in a collegiate academic environment. The chart example was random. It would have been more accurate to cite the small spreadsheet size as opposed to charts (we do use SPSS for that). I'm working on something with over 160,000 rows of data. In Excel, that splits into 3 workbooks. In OO.org it's twice that. May not seem like much, but when you need to sort that data by different columns, it's a real headache.
I definitely agree. I'm probably in the minority, having several major problems with OO.org instead of one or two, but there is enough missing or less functional that almost everyone will find something.
As for Outlook, I'm using Thunderbird, which is great, for email, and the Calendar extension for Firefox, which is pathetic. If Mozilla could make a nice calendar/scheduler, I think Outlook would be outdone.
I believe you quite handily defeat yourself there.
"Product W [...] is sold [...] by a single vendor who relies on [...] features to sell the product." (emphasis added)
Features are more important than stability to many people. Rebooting is annoying, but not being able to do certain things is unacceptable. In environments were stability is most important (always-on systems, such as internet, power, and telecom), Linux will do well. In other environments, it won't.
"Small note to evangelists: convert people to OpenOffice.org on Windows first."
You assume that OpenOffice is just as good as OfficeXP. For people who don't use any advanced features, this may be true, but not for many others. OpenOffice can never get a foothold in academea while its chart-making is so poor, for example. For individuals, there simply is no need for a different office suite. Why would someone who has a perfectly good copy of MS Office want to switch? People paying licensing fees for multiple machines are far more likely to need the features not found in OO.org than individuals, in my estimation.
The new download manager is terrible. Installing extensions has gone from a 3-click simple maneuver to a multi-window nightmare. Firefox crashed within 3 minutes while I was re-installing extensions (I wanted it clean). That's not a good sign
I didn't develop bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and bilateral cubital tunnel syndrome at 19 from watching too much television. Let's be realistic here - too much of almost anything is bad.
"As we move away from text, we become completely dependent on metadata..."
Exactly what do you think metadata is? This system would require more text than current. At present, you can rename the files and put them in folders, which works quite well if you have any organizational ability. Metadata would require dozens of unrelated pieces of info be input, and the a more complex retrieval (search) process would be required. While metadata standards are important, it's only advanced users who will be using them. How many "typical" users do you know that are going to search for a photo by the F-value?
And for the record, I've never used the "containing text" search, because I name files in unambiguous ways.
Having sex for purposes other than reproduction has nothing to do with the VHEMT. Your claiming it does is simply evidence of your complete ignorance of what it is. The VHEMT is about making a choice not to reproduce during your lifetime. Having sex for fun or profit doesn't "make you a member". Additionally, there is nothing Catholic about having sex for fun or profit. Sex for any purpose other than reproduction is expressly prohibited by Christianity.
Just because people draw incorrect conclusions based on your actions doesn't make you dishonest - it just makes them gullible (or simply misled). Have you ever seen a movie? Chances are, it's all fake. Hollywood and reality don't often agree - romance, fights, etc. just don't work the same way. According to your statements, every actor is dishonest.
"Porno acting is as dishonest a job as being a pro-wrestler."
...And how are either different from any other acting? By definition, an actor is pretending to be something they aren't, and getting paid for it. I'd say pornography has a greater degree of improvisation than most other acting forms, and the only difference between pro-wrestling and ballet is the fans; 'dishonest' doesn't really apply. Is an actor who smokes for a part, yet is against smoking (there are a lot of people in that category) any better or worse ethically? I don't watch pro wrestling or pornography myself , but I don't think they're 'dishonest'. They are morally questionable, but still legitimate.
Civil protests, alternative polical parties, etc. are not inherently illegal. It's this kind of overreaction to the Patriot Act which makes everyone laugh at you (you=group). The government can't track you unless you're a criminal. It's a waste of resources on their end. Do you realize how much computer data would be generated every minute of every day? If cameras where *everywhere*, then every person (300+ million) would be seen on at least a dozen a mintue. That creates about 60 million scans, lookups, and loggings per second, or 2,000,000,000,000,000 per year (the numbers may be somewhat random, but they give a rough idea). Then consider the infrastructure needed to get it working - we'd need tons of cameras (I'm assuming hundreds of millions, if not billions), and every one would need a high-quality broadband connection (probably fiber) which goes back to a local router which connects to the mainframe. Next, realize that unlike phone and cable operators, the government wouldn't have any income off of this (the American public would not let that data be sold). The government doesn't spend unless there's a return. While looking for criminals might be feasible 50-100 years from now if the economy is way up and tech is dirt cheap, I don't think the general public has anything to fear.
You've been on the highway for 3 hours. You've entered a city, and there's heavy traffic (but roads are moving fast). You're looking for your exit. Perhaps you're lost. There are people getting on in the right lane, you're in the center. A sign with multiple exits is on the right. You're keeping track of those getting on, reading the sign, maintaining constant speed, etc.. A barrel rolls off of a truck in front of you. What's your move? Don't tell me you know about someone in the left lane.
I agree. My main concern when driving is not changing lanes at leisure, but being forced to by a deer, car accident, or certain debris on the road. In those conditions, you really can't look in mirrors, and you're likely to cause an accident that may be easily avoidable (if your instinct is to go left when right is what's clear...).
If the knocking daemon 'goes to sleep' after invalid knocks, you're in bad shape. I wasn't saying it would be a DoS, I said it would be DoS-like. Basically, if you stop listening whenever someone gives the wrong knock, they can just keep knocking and you'll never be able to let anyone in.
"The "knocking ports" could also be configured that if there are random hits to the standard port without the proper knock, the system could lock down for 30 seconds and even ignore the proper knock so that if somebody's trying to brute force all the possible knocks, they'll never get feedback when they have the right one."
That would just create a new variant to DOS attacks. Instead of taking you offline, they just persistantly knock on random ports, thereby disabling your ability to communicate with trusted sources.
Right now, script kiddies have their computers automatically try to access other peoples' computers, looking for ones without firewalls, etc.. If this happens, wouldn't you expect them to just send out random knocks in the hopes of getting something? If that happens, you will be more secure personally, but the increased traffic may cause more problems that it solves.
Yes, I "was there" when Windows rolled out, too. I remember when most games required Windows 3.1 and a double-speed CD-ROM. I remember WordPerfect for Windows, AOL 2.5, etc.. Don't treat me like a kid just because you don't like my opinions (although this isn't even a question of opinion). Windows was a huge step up from DOS, allowing far better graphics, multitasking, etc.. That isn't even debatable.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, I think that a file called "This_is_a_virus_-_do_not_open.exe" would be just as effective as any other.
I'm in nearly the same boat as you with word processing. I use OO almost exclusively (pdf being the deciding factor), but I have to copy/paste into Word for document summary (word count, etc) info. OO has the basics done, but most intermediate and advanced features are lacking. Try changing text color to something other than a preset.
First, I am in a collegiate academic environment. The chart example was random. It would have been more accurate to cite the small spreadsheet size as opposed to charts (we do use SPSS for that). I'm working on something with over 160,000 rows of data. In Excel, that splits into 3 workbooks. In OO.org it's twice that. May not seem like much, but when you need to sort that data by different columns, it's a real headache.
I definitely agree. I'm probably in the minority, having several major problems with OO.org instead of one or two, but there is enough missing or less functional that almost everyone will find something.
As for Outlook, I'm using Thunderbird, which is great, for email, and the Calendar extension for Firefox, which is pathetic. If Mozilla could make a nice calendar/scheduler, I think Outlook would be outdone.
I believe you quite handily defeat yourself there.
"Product W [...] is sold [...] by a single vendor who relies on [...] features to sell the product." (emphasis added)
Features are more important than stability to many people. Rebooting is annoying, but not being able to do certain things is unacceptable. In environments were stability is most important (always-on systems, such as internet, power, and telecom), Linux will do well. In other environments, it won't.
"Small note to evangelists: convert people to OpenOffice.org on Windows first."
You assume that OpenOffice is just as good as OfficeXP. For people who don't use any advanced features, this may be true, but not for many others. OpenOffice can never get a foothold in academea while its chart-making is so poor, for example. For individuals, there simply is no need for a different office suite. Why would someone who has a perfectly good copy of MS Office want to switch? People paying licensing fees for multiple machines are far more likely to need the features not found in OO.org than individuals, in my estimation.
So will the movies only be playable every seven years?
The new download manager is terrible. Installing extensions has gone from a 3-click simple maneuver to a multi-window nightmare. Firefox crashed within 3 minutes while I was re-installing extensions (I wanted it clean). That's not a good sign
I didn't develop bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and bilateral cubital tunnel syndrome at 19 from watching too much television. Let's be realistic here - too much of almost anything is bad.
"As we move away from text, we become completely dependent on metadata..."
Exactly what do you think metadata is? This system would require more text than current. At present, you can rename the files and put them in folders, which works quite well if you have any organizational ability. Metadata would require dozens of unrelated pieces of info be input, and the a more complex retrieval (search) process would be required. While metadata standards are important, it's only advanced users who will be using them. How many "typical" users do you know that are going to search for a photo by the F-value?
And for the record, I've never used the "containing text" search, because I name files in unambiguous ways.
Having sex for purposes other than reproduction has nothing to do with the VHEMT. Your claiming it does is simply evidence of your complete ignorance of what it is. The VHEMT is about making a choice not to reproduce during your lifetime. Having sex for fun or profit doesn't "make you a member". Additionally, there is nothing Catholic about having sex for fun or profit. Sex for any purpose other than reproduction is expressly prohibited by Christianity.
Just because people draw incorrect conclusions based on your actions doesn't make you dishonest - it just makes them gullible (or simply misled). Have you ever seen a movie? Chances are, it's all fake. Hollywood and reality don't often agree - romance, fights, etc. just don't work the same way. According to your statements, every actor is dishonest.
"Porno acting is as dishonest a job as being a pro-wrestler."
...And how are either different from any other acting? By definition, an actor is pretending to be something they aren't, and getting paid for it. I'd say pornography has a greater degree of improvisation than most other acting forms, and the only difference between pro-wrestling and ballet is the fans; 'dishonest' doesn't really apply. Is an actor who smokes for a part, yet is against smoking (there are a lot of people in that category) any better or worse ethically? I don't watch pro wrestling or pornography myself , but I don't think they're 'dishonest'. They are morally questionable, but still legitimate.
Civil protests, alternative polical parties, etc. are not inherently illegal. It's this kind of overreaction to the Patriot Act which makes everyone laugh at you (you=group). The government can't track you unless you're a criminal. It's a waste of resources on their end. Do you realize how much computer data would be generated every minute of every day? If cameras where *everywhere*, then every person (300+ million) would be seen on at least a dozen a mintue. That creates about 60 million scans, lookups, and loggings per second, or 2,000,000,000,000,000 per year (the numbers may be somewhat random, but they give a rough idea). Then consider the infrastructure needed to get it working - we'd need tons of cameras (I'm assuming hundreds of millions, if not billions), and every one would need a high-quality broadband connection (probably fiber) which goes back to a local router which connects to the mainframe. Next, realize that unlike phone and cable operators, the government wouldn't have any income off of this (the American public would not let that data be sold). The government doesn't spend unless there's a return. While looking for criminals might be feasible 50-100 years from now if the economy is way up and tech is dirt cheap, I don't think the general public has anything to fear.
"''This is a revenge worm,'' he explained -- for ''not hiring me, and hiring some loser that is not even half the programmer I am.''"
Perhaps someone should tell him that personality counts.
Little scenario for you:
You've been on the highway for 3 hours. You've entered a city, and there's heavy traffic (but roads are moving fast). You're looking for your exit. Perhaps you're lost. There are people getting on in the right lane, you're in the center. A sign with multiple exits is on the right. You're keeping track of those getting on, reading the sign, maintaining constant speed, etc.. A barrel rolls off of a truck in front of you. What's your move? Don't tell me you know about someone in the left lane.
...and I don't think it qualifies as a 'job' if you have to pay the other parties to let you do it.
I agree. My main concern when driving is not changing lanes at leisure, but being forced to by a deer, car accident, or certain debris on the road. In those conditions, you really can't look in mirrors, and you're likely to cause an accident that may be easily avoidable (if your instinct is to go left when right is what's clear...).
Perhaps a Class Action suit, then?
If the fault is theirs, wouldn't anyone with a warranty be able to demand a replacement?
If the knocking daemon 'goes to sleep' after invalid knocks, you're in bad shape. I wasn't saying it would be a DoS, I said it would be DoS-like. Basically, if you stop listening whenever someone gives the wrong knock, they can just keep knocking and you'll never be able to let anyone in.
If they're half as dedicated as spammers, I wouldn't put it past them.
This isn't about having multiple doors - it's about turning doors into doorbells.
Ignoring computers wouldn't help - the knock requests would still be made, which is the traffic itself.
"The "knocking ports" could also be configured that if there are random hits to the standard port without the proper knock, the system could lock down for 30 seconds and even ignore the proper knock so that if somebody's trying to brute force all the possible knocks, they'll never get feedback when they have the right one."
That would just create a new variant to DOS attacks. Instead of taking you offline, they just persistantly knock on random ports, thereby disabling your ability to communicate with trusted sources.
Right now, script kiddies have their computers automatically try to access other peoples' computers, looking for ones without firewalls, etc.. If this happens, wouldn't you expect them to just send out random knocks in the hopes of getting something? If that happens, you will be more secure personally, but the increased traffic may cause more problems that it solves.
Yes, I "was there" when Windows rolled out, too. I remember when most games required Windows 3.1 and a double-speed CD-ROM. I remember WordPerfect for Windows, AOL 2.5, etc.. Don't treat me like a kid just because you don't like my opinions (although this isn't even a question of opinion). Windows was a huge step up from DOS, allowing far better graphics, multitasking, etc.. That isn't even debatable.