Nowhere in the wikipedia entry does it say that is "criteria" for a data center. In fact, it says things like "they generally include..." or "are usually". The wikipedia entry does say this: "A data center can occupy one room of a building, one or more floors, or an entire building.". So give it up. I agree that the article is a bit of a stretch, "build" apparently doesn't include planning or sourcing equipment, and they started with an existing empty area of a building. But that's no reason to go on a rant about what a "data center" vs. a "server room" is. It's all relative.
I have to ask - what is your exact minimum qualifications of square footage, number of racks, kw density, storage density, and kw requirements before you would consider it a "data center"?
If two guys drive the same distance to work every day, and one gets paid minimum wage for doing backbreaking labor while the other gets a huge salary for sitting behind a desk, seems perfectly fair to me that the latter contributes more to road upkeep -- the roads are worth a lot more to him.
So then electricity to watch TV should be nearly free as it doesn't benefit you financially, but electricity to run your business should be much more expensive.
So the food you eat before you lounge around or see a movie should be very cheap because you're not using it's energy to benefit you financially, but the food you eat before you go to work should be more expensive.
You're on a slippery slope, the gas tax as it is (like a usage tax) seems to be a pretty good compromise.
I can't believe I'm about to feed a troll, but I can't help but to correct everything that is wrong in this post...
Apple has beaten the world's most popular desktop operating system and the world's most popular Unixalike to the punch with multi-platform support.
That has to be the funniest line in the whole thing. Apple, by any imaginable explanation, is dead last with "multi-platform support", especially if you're considering 64 bit to be multi-platform. For one, you only talk about PPC, x86, x64 and SPARC. Linux and *BSD run on literally dozens more architectures and have for many years (decades?). Windows went 64 bit years ago as well. Only in the past 1.5 years can you even remotely consider apple to be multi-platform.
... a user can use the same DVD to install Mac OS X on a...
Now I'm not sure if your argument is multi-platform support or fewest disks to install. Either way, apple is still the last one to the table. Vista's 6 versions, depending on which of the numerous methods you acquire the disk from (MSDN, open licensing, OEM, retail, etc.) can all be installed from a single disk with the version being chosen upon installation and verified by the key that's entered. For IT shops, it's easy to acquire a disk that contains all 12 versions of Vista (6 versions on both 32 and 64 bit) on one DVD, again with the key verifying which was installed. This is also possible with Windows XP; you can install Home or Professional edition, OEM or Retail versions from the same disk and have been able to since '01 or '02. Also on Ubuntu, the alternate install CD installs all of the following: x86, x64, SPARC, PPC, Sony PS3. So now both your multi-platform support and fewest disks arguments are destroyed. Now let's move on...
It even goes so far as to allow 64-bit apps without a 32-bit binary to run in 32-bit mode transparently, which is unprecedented thus far.
Because for Windows and Linux, it's been not needed thus far. Again, see above - Windows and Linux have been using 64 bit processors for over 4 years now. People who choose to run 64 bit apps don't have any need to run them on old busted 32 bit machines - every PC that can be considered even remotely current has a 64 bit processor. That's not true with apple, being so late to join the party, so they have to provide some way to support their previous architecture.
So while you can download one version of Ubuntu for both 32- and 64-bit x86, if you want to run 32-bit programs on a 64-bit system you have to download a compatibility layer, check library dependencies, and compile it yourself.
OK, now you've singled out Ubuntu. That's pretty much how Linux works, you install what you need when you need it. You're trying to praise apple for pre-loading a possibly unneeded 32 bit compatibility layer. The 32-bit compatibility layer in Linux is easy enough to install. In many distributions it can be installed during initial system installation. On other 64 bit distributions it's included by default (same as apple). And of course Windows does, and has been doing for years, exactly what apple is going to do, maybe, 5 months from now. Good job.
At most, when counting Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server as two different "versions" of the operating system, you still have only to choose one and are then done with it.
So, what you're saying is that apple offers very little choice in one's ability to buy what they need and customize a system. <car-analogy>Buying a mac is like buying a Ford but you can only pick between a Ford car and a F
Agreed. I've bought a number of Vista machines for myself and for work and for OEM you normally don't even receive a Vista DVD. Some of them came with the "Anytime Upgrade" DVD, but that is an "all-in-one" disk that has all versions of Vista on it with, as you said, the version installed being decided by the key that you provide. It's not even a holographic disk. I think the only holographic disks are retail, and what business in their right mind would buy a retail version of Vista? Also if you buy any quantity of disks you'll do it through the Open Business Licensing program, the media for which, again, isn't holographic.
Thinking about it some more, this is only good as a security feature if people knew about it to look for - if Microsoft knew it was there from the get-go wouldn't they be touting it themselves as a security feature off the bat? Wouldn't they want law enforcement to know as soon as possible to be able to identify pirated disks? I think you're right - something doesn't add up here.
Certainly it would depend on the company; but not every young person finishes school and then goes to work for a Fortune 500 company at the bottom of the ladder and then works their way up for the rest of their life. Competent people can move into management / decision making positions suprisingly quickly. Also they could go into business for themselves or go work for a smaller, growing company where they have more initial influence.
Also, rewind 10 years or so and that is exactly what happened. Younger people who were fresh out of school and who "knew more" about computers were absolutely sought after for computer advice of all kinds, and that's still the generally prevailing attitude - that young people know more about computers - and will always be sought after for advice.
I thought PA only required one party to know the conversation was being recorded (I live here) but it seems that you are correct.
However:
Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. ...
Anyone whose communication has been unlawfully intercepted can recover actual damages in the amount of $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater, and also can recover punitive damages, litigation costs and attorney fees.
I would expect a police officer acting on public grounds would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. So while the police can arrest anybody for anything, fortunately they're ultimately not the decision makers, and a judge will hopefully sort this all out. Or maybe I have too much faith in the system:)
You're point was about cost to the schools, my point was that the article didn't talk about cost to the schools, the only costs it mentioned were secondary costs which were things I hadn't considered and I felt went outside of the normal OSS vs. Proprietary cost argument that you focused on.
I don't work in education, but I'm disappointed that "do we need this" and "what does it cost" are the only concerns to administrators. You even mentioned "should be selected based on ONE criteria: suitability of purpose" - which I feel is narrow minded and was hoping that you would consider the other points as useful arguments as well if you're the person making recommendations.
"Yes, if you want to teach a class on Photoshop, you obligate the students, and the SCHOOL to buy Photoshop" - the secondary ramifications go even beyond that. Now the students only know and are only comfortable with Photoshop. Now they'll recommend it's use when they go out to work in the real world. They'll even fight the idea of using something different, for some dumb reason like "I know all the keyboard shortcuts". It becomes a vicious cycle - that proprietary software vendors want - that FOSS can help break. Teach the students to use Open Office / AbiWord / Gnumeric / Koffice / Google Docs depending if they're on Windows / Linux / web based and they'll learn to be adaptable and look for all possible solutions and blah blah blah I don't want to repeat the article. Again I just thought it made good points, glad to hear it warmed your heart - now go out and use those points with the decision makers.
From the header of the first article, had you bothered to read it:
Free software gives everyone the freedom to run, study, change and redistribute software. It is these freedoms, not the price, that is important about free software. Free software advocates make the distinction between free, as in speech, as opposed to free, as in beer. Though many people would gladly accept a free beer, it is not one of the fundamental principles of democracy.
The article doesn't even make the argument about cost to the schools. It does make another point about the cost of F/OSS vs. proprietary software however (one I hadn't considered):
I once spoke to a vendor of an online grade book who, upon learning that I train teachers, was very interested in my using it in my classes.
"What does it cost?" I asked.
"It will cost you nothing. You can use it for free for as long as you like."
"And once I addict my students to your software," I asked pointedly, afraid that I was being rude, "what will it cost them?"
The vendor became excited. "That's exactly what we were talking about in our last sales Free White Paper - What Retailers Should Know about M-Commerce meeting!"
When technology leaders train teachers and students to use proprietary software, it obligates those teachers and students to buy or steal that software or to have wasted their time on the training.
It made another 8 or 10 points that were not at all cost related. So overall, it was a good article. You should read it sometime.
why exactly was there a police car with lights ablazin that pulled up right behind this issue, in the same lane?
Because police often site at toll plazas, he likely saw the speeding car and the crash and immediately drove 300ft to the scene where we see him pull up.
Your post is well titled, as it does in fact contain misinformation about manifold vacuum:) . I also never stated that watching vacuum was a good way of maximizing fuel efficiency, I was merely explaining the theory to my parent. Later in my post I explained what actually determines maximum MPG efficiency.
you want the engine to be in an efficient power band, which is actually at low manifold vacuum and lower engine revs.
Efficiency <> low manifold vacuum <> lower engine revs (necessarily). Greater vacuum is caused by the difference between the current throttle position and current engine speed / power output. Once the engine has "caught up" to the throttle position the vacuum diminishes. For an exaggerated example look at how turbo cars build boost - floor it from idle = maximum vacuum, then it approaches atmospheric pressure as the engine speeds up, then the turbo spools up and you build toward positive pressure and maximum boost - somewhere in the positive pressure side is where you achieve maximum fuel efficiency (vs. engine power). Also, your statement that I quoted above seems to be at odds with your later statement:
there is an island of maximum fuel efficiency in the mid RPM range somewhat below but not much below wide open throttle.
So are you saying fuel efficiency is achieved at "low manifold vacuum and lower engine revs" or "not much below wide open throttle"?
Let me clarify something: fuel efficiency <> MPG efficiency. They can be related, but fuel efficiency is with regard to fuel consumption vs. engine power, MPG is fuel consumption vs. distance traveled. Achieving MPG efficiency involves many more variables external to the engine, most of which grossly outweigh operating the engine at its peak efficiency. There should definitely be a correlation in vehicles that are designed for good MPG, but again see my original post for more explanation of the dynamics involved.
so that a little bit of manifold vacuum is required to prevent spark knock, and at wide open throttle, you retard the spark and operate a little bit less efficiently
I'm not really sure what you're driving at here. I assume the "knock" you're speaking of is pre-ignition and not detonation. At WFO you retard the spark not to operate less efficiently, but to be timed with the down stroke and not pound the top of the piston prematurely. If the compression were too high for the fuel, pre-ignition would occur on compression and delaying the spark would have no effect. As such, delaying the spark is to increase efficiency.
accelerate so slowly that the gauge never comes out of the "green." That kind of driving is just plain sillyness.
The more vacuum the engine pulls, the further you have depressed the gas pedal compared to the current rpm/power output, and the more "extra" fuel will squirted into the engine by the injectors/carb. So keeping a low vacuum (granny starts) reduces these extra fuel squirts thus increasing mileage.
As for braking, braking hard has absolutely 0% to do with fuel efficiency. I think the key is that, as you pointed out, people who brake hard tend to accelerate hard, but you can do "granny starts" all day long and slam on the brakes at every stop sign / red light with no detriment to fuel efficiency. It really bugs me that reading every article about fuel efficiency "braking hard" is mentioned as a no-no that wastes gas - it does not.
To go into more technical detail about the GP's comment of every vehicle having a "sweet spot", let me go over what determines that speed. Basically a vehicles's "sweet spot" will always be in its highest gear, which provides the greatest forward motion per engine revolution. Within that criteria, the most efficient speed will be the speed where the rolling friction (a constant) equals the air resistance (which increases with the square of the speed), provided that the engine isn't operating at a grossly inefficient RPM (in a well designed car this should not be the case). So the engine RPM actually has the least to do with the actual efficiency of the car compared to other factors. This is why aerodynamic vehicles (low drag coefficient) and vehicles with generally small frontal surface areas tend to have a faster "sweet spot" than other vehicles.
Another way to optimize MPG that nobody has really touched on is to carry your speed through corners - don't drag your brakes through them and then gun it when you're pointing straight again. This has the added benefit of less road-rage to people who know how to drive and are following you:)
Now with all of that said, I have to say that my daily driver is a Land Rover Discovery which gets less than 10 MPG (aggressive driver) and requires 93 octane fuel... fortunately I have a short commute to work.
Yes, we get it, you're using the most strict definition of forced. But as the GP pointed out, there is no other option if you want to watch the movie that you paid for. It'd be like having your car play you a Ford commercial before it would let you start your car - that you own. Get it? Yes, nobody "forced" you to drive the car, but there's no choice if you want to use what you purchased. The commercial / preview has no benefit to you, so you should be able to use what you purchased in the manner that you want.
Any absolute still needs a qualifier. Like using "have to" or "has to" - you don't even "have to" breath, as long as living isn't one of your requirements. So stop being a dick and keep the context of the statement in mind.
Are you serious? Thunderbird has better IMAP support than any other client I've used (Outlook / Outlook Express / Evolution / Opera / Sylpheed / Windows Mail / etc.). Set it up to move deleted items to your trash IMAP folder and have it clear the trash folder on exit. Deleted messages get out of your way and there's no extra step.
I don't understand why every other IMAP client just strikes out "deleted" messages - why would you want messages you DELETED to hang around in your way until you "purge" or "expunge" it?
Good point. I used to hate flash and flash based sites, but for online video it's now my preferred format, especially now that Flash player 9 is out for Linux. Too bad the wmv plugin still only works on Windows. I think VLC has a Firefox plugin that works on Linux and now the new VLC supports WMV files better too, so videolan is doing MS's work for them on Linux.
2. Microsoft was looking at making this available for linux too.
The way you worded that doesn't sound very convincing - "was" and "looking at" aren't a strong sell. Plus VLC 0.8.6 supports WMV pretty well on Linux right now.
Yeah I agree except maybe the offline functionality - but I think instead I foresee another Google appliance for business use - run your own Google Office server (the "GO" appliance), only $30,000!
No, QOS is a hack you use when you didn't buy enough bandwidth in the first place. If you have sufficient bandwidth for your needs then Vonage / other VoIP systems work perfectly fine.
I've been with Vonage for about 3 years now and I'm in the same boat - looking for alternatives in case this ends up badly and I need to change providers. The two I found immediately are Packet8 and SunRocket. I'm just now reading a comparison article on them.
Skype is no good for me either, I want an adapter to plug into my broadband connection and light up my regular house phones like Vonage does, without the aid of an always-running Windows computer in the background. All the Skype phones and adapters I've seen to date need a USB connection to a computer.
An inline stylesheet? Are you kidding? The xhtml+css proposal was supposed to be easier than ODF / OOXML, thank you for proving my point that it isn't.
Even with an inline stylesheet there would still need to be an agreement as to what, in our current example, a "footer" is. So that when you go to Format | Page or whatever in any word processor they would be able to identify that element as a footer. I thought I was pretty clear that the GP's example just happened to use classes but the same theory would apply no matter what your method (2nd e.g., inline styles).
Text that needs a footnote.<div class="footnote">This is the footnote</div>
Then all the new word processors need to agree on the terminology for these new pseudo-elements (css classes in your example) that aren't already defined in HTML. Sounds an awful lot like adding another layer on top of this fictional xhtml+css proposal, i.e. a new standard. Then Microsoft wants to use a different class name in their word processor, or thinks they should be wrapped in spans instead of divs, and we end up with another standards war. Rinse, repeat.
FWIW, I just don't have the inclination to tinker with computers when all I want it to do is just "work." click, drool, and get on with my life *away* from the computer. Then what are you doing on Slashdot?
Slashdot Mirror
Nowhere in the wikipedia entry does it say that is "criteria" for a data center. In fact, it says things like "they generally include..." or "are usually". The wikipedia entry does say this: "A data center can occupy one room of a building, one or more floors, or an entire building.". So give it up. I agree that the article is a bit of a stretch, "build" apparently doesn't include planning or sourcing equipment, and they started with an existing empty area of a building. But that's no reason to go on a rant about what a "data center" vs. a "server room" is. It's all relative.
I have to ask - what is your exact minimum qualifications of square footage, number of racks, kw density, storage density, and kw requirements before you would consider it a "data center"?
So the food you eat before you lounge around or see a movie should be very cheap because you're not using it's energy to benefit you financially, but the food you eat before you go to work should be more expensive.
You're on a slippery slope, the gas tax as it is (like a usage tax) seems to be a pretty good compromise.
That has to be the funniest line in the whole thing. Apple, by any imaginable explanation, is dead last with "multi-platform support", especially if you're considering 64 bit to be multi-platform. For one, you only talk about PPC, x86, x64 and SPARC. Linux and *BSD run on literally dozens more architectures and have for many years (decades?). Windows went 64 bit years ago as well. Only in the past 1.5 years can you even remotely consider apple to be multi-platform.
Now I'm not sure if your argument is multi-platform support or fewest disks to install. Either way, apple is still the last one to the table. Vista's 6 versions, depending on which of the numerous methods you acquire the disk from (MSDN, open licensing, OEM, retail, etc.) can all be installed from a single disk with the version being chosen upon installation and verified by the key that's entered. For IT shops, it's easy to acquire a disk that contains all 12 versions of Vista (6 versions on both 32 and 64 bit) on one DVD, again with the key verifying which was installed. This is also possible with Windows XP; you can install Home or Professional edition, OEM or Retail versions from the same disk and have been able to since '01 or '02. Also on Ubuntu, the alternate install CD installs all of the following: x86, x64, SPARC, PPC, Sony PS3. So now both your multi-platform support and fewest disks arguments are destroyed. Now let's move on...
Because for Windows and Linux, it's been not needed thus far. Again, see above - Windows and Linux have been using 64 bit processors for over 4 years now. People who choose to run 64 bit apps don't have any need to run them on old busted 32 bit machines - every PC that can be considered even remotely current has a 64 bit processor. That's not true with apple, being so late to join the party, so they have to provide some way to support their previous architecture.
OK, now you've singled out Ubuntu. That's pretty much how Linux works, you install what you need when you need it. You're trying to praise apple for pre-loading a possibly unneeded 32 bit compatibility layer. The 32-bit compatibility layer in Linux is easy enough to install. In many distributions it can be installed during initial system installation. On other 64 bit distributions it's included by default (same as apple). And of course Windows does, and has been doing for years, exactly what apple is going to do, maybe, 5 months from now. Good job.
So, what you're saying is that apple offers very little choice in one's ability to buy what they need and customize a system. <car-analogy>Buying a mac is like buying a Ford but you can only pick between a Ford car and a F
Agreed. I've bought a number of Vista machines for myself and for work and for OEM you normally don't even receive a Vista DVD. Some of them came with the "Anytime Upgrade" DVD, but that is an "all-in-one" disk that has all versions of Vista on it with, as you said, the version installed being decided by the key that you provide. It's not even a holographic disk. I think the only holographic disks are retail, and what business in their right mind would buy a retail version of Vista? Also if you buy any quantity of disks you'll do it through the Open Business Licensing program, the media for which, again, isn't holographic.
Thinking about it some more, this is only good as a security feature if people knew about it to look for - if Microsoft knew it was there from the get-go wouldn't they be touting it themselves as a security feature off the bat? Wouldn't they want law enforcement to know as soon as possible to be able to identify pirated disks? I think you're right - something doesn't add up here.
Certainly it would depend on the company; but not every young person finishes school and then goes to work for a Fortune 500 company at the bottom of the ladder and then works their way up for the rest of their life. Competent people can move into management / decision making positions suprisingly quickly. Also they could go into business for themselves or go work for a smaller, growing company where they have more initial influence.
Also, rewind 10 years or so and that is exactly what happened. Younger people who were fresh out of school and who "knew more" about computers were absolutely sought after for computer advice of all kinds, and that's still the generally prevailing attitude - that young people know more about computers - and will always be sought after for advice.
However: I would expect a police officer acting on public grounds would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. So while the police can arrest anybody for anything, fortunately they're ultimately not the decision makers, and a judge will hopefully sort this all out. Or maybe I have too much faith in the system
You're point was about cost to the schools, my point was that the article didn't talk about cost to the schools, the only costs it mentioned were secondary costs which were things I hadn't considered and I felt went outside of the normal OSS vs. Proprietary cost argument that you focused on.
I don't work in education, but I'm disappointed that "do we need this" and "what does it cost" are the only concerns to administrators. You even mentioned "should be selected based on ONE criteria: suitability of purpose" - which I feel is narrow minded and was hoping that you would consider the other points as useful arguments as well if you're the person making recommendations.
"Yes, if you want to teach a class on Photoshop, you obligate the students, and the SCHOOL to buy Photoshop" - the secondary ramifications go even beyond that. Now the students only know and are only comfortable with Photoshop. Now they'll recommend it's use when they go out to work in the real world. They'll even fight the idea of using something different, for some dumb reason like "I know all the keyboard shortcuts". It becomes a vicious cycle - that proprietary software vendors want - that FOSS can help break. Teach the students to use Open Office / AbiWord / Gnumeric / Koffice / Google Docs depending if they're on Windows / Linux / web based and they'll learn to be adaptable and look for all possible solutions and blah blah blah I don't want to repeat the article. Again I just thought it made good points, glad to hear it warmed your heart - now go out and use those points with the decision makers.
oops, I copied the ad from the article into the quote - that should just be "... sales meeting!" - but somehow it almost works...
Let me clarify something: fuel efficiency <> MPG efficiency. They can be related, but fuel efficiency is with regard to fuel consumption vs. engine power, MPG is fuel consumption vs. distance traveled. Achieving MPG efficiency involves many more variables external to the engine, most of which grossly outweigh operating the engine at its peak efficiency. There should definitely be a correlation in vehicles that are designed for good MPG, but again see my original post for more explanation of the dynamics involved. I'm not really sure what you're driving at here. I assume the "knock" you're speaking of is pre-ignition and not detonation. At WFO you retard the spark not to operate less efficiently, but to be timed with the down stroke and not pound the top of the piston prematurely. If the compression were too high for the fuel, pre-ignition would occur on compression and delaying the spark would have no effect. As such, delaying the spark is to increase efficiency. Agreed. Driving at +15psi boost is much more fun.
The more vacuum the engine pulls, the further you have depressed the gas pedal compared to the current rpm/power output, and the more "extra" fuel will squirted into the engine by the injectors/carb. So keeping a low vacuum (granny starts) reduces these extra fuel squirts thus increasing mileage.
:)
As for braking, braking hard has absolutely 0% to do with fuel efficiency. I think the key is that, as you pointed out, people who brake hard tend to accelerate hard, but you can do "granny starts" all day long and slam on the brakes at every stop sign / red light with no detriment to fuel efficiency. It really bugs me that reading every article about fuel efficiency "braking hard" is mentioned as a no-no that wastes gas - it does not.
To go into more technical detail about the GP's comment of every vehicle having a "sweet spot", let me go over what determines that speed. Basically a vehicles's "sweet spot" will always be in its highest gear, which provides the greatest forward motion per engine revolution. Within that criteria, the most efficient speed will be the speed where the rolling friction (a constant) equals the air resistance (which increases with the square of the speed), provided that the engine isn't operating at a grossly inefficient RPM (in a well designed car this should not be the case). So the engine RPM actually has the least to do with the actual efficiency of the car compared to other factors. This is why aerodynamic vehicles (low drag coefficient) and vehicles with generally small frontal surface areas tend to have a faster "sweet spot" than other vehicles.
Another way to optimize MPG that nobody has really touched on is to carry your speed through corners - don't drag your brakes through them and then gun it when you're pointing straight again. This has the added benefit of less road-rage to people who know how to drive and are following you
Now with all of that said, I have to say that my daily driver is a Land Rover Discovery which gets less than 10 MPG (aggressive driver) and requires 93 octane fuel... fortunately I have a short commute to work.
Yes, we get it, you're using the most strict definition of forced. But as the GP pointed out, there is no other option if you want to watch the movie that you paid for. It'd be like having your car play you a Ford commercial before it would let you start your car - that you own. Get it? Yes, nobody "forced" you to drive the car, but there's no choice if you want to use what you purchased. The commercial / preview has no benefit to you, so you should be able to use what you purchased in the manner that you want.
Any absolute still needs a qualifier. Like using "have to" or "has to" - you don't even "have to" breath, as long as living isn't one of your requirements. So stop being a dick and keep the context of the statement in mind.
I think I just fed a troll.
We should just triple-ROT-13 the string:
09 S9 11 02 9Q 74 R3 5O Q8 41 56 P5 63 56 88 P0
Are you serious? Thunderbird has better IMAP support than any other client I've used (Outlook / Outlook Express / Evolution / Opera / Sylpheed / Windows Mail / etc.). Set it up to move deleted items to your trash IMAP folder and have it clear the trash folder on exit. Deleted messages get out of your way and there's no extra step.
I don't understand why every other IMAP client just strikes out "deleted" messages - why would you want messages you DELETED to hang around in your way until you "purge" or "expunge" it?
Good point. I used to hate flash and flash based sites, but for online video it's now my preferred format, especially now that Flash player 9 is out for Linux. Too bad the wmv plugin still only works on Windows. I think VLC has a Firefox plugin that works on Linux and now the new VLC supports WMV files better too, so videolan is doing MS's work for them on Linux.
Yeah I agree except maybe the offline functionality - but I think instead I foresee another Google appliance for business use - run your own Google Office server (the "GO" appliance), only $30,000!
I've been with Vonage for about 3 years now and I'm in the same boat - looking for alternatives in case this ends up badly and I need to change providers. The two I found immediately are Packet8 and SunRocket. I'm just now reading a comparison article on them.
Skype is no good for me either, I want an adapter to plug into my broadband connection and light up my regular house phones like Vonage does, without the aid of an always-running Windows computer in the background. All the Skype phones and adapters I've seen to date need a USB connection to a computer.
An inline stylesheet? Are you kidding? The xhtml+css proposal was supposed to be easier than ODF / OOXML, thank you for proving my point that it isn't.
Even with an inline stylesheet there would still need to be an agreement as to what, in our current example, a "footer" is. So that when you go to Format | Page or whatever in any word processor they would be able to identify that element as a footer. I thought I was pretty clear that the GP's example just happened to use classes but the same theory would apply no matter what your method (2nd e.g., inline styles).
Then all the new word processors need to agree on the terminology for these new pseudo-elements (css classes in your example) that aren't already defined in HTML. Sounds an awful lot like adding another layer on top of this fictional xhtml+css proposal, i.e. a new standard. Then Microsoft wants to use a different class name in their word processor, or thinks they should be wrapped in spans instead of divs, and we end up with another standards war. Rinse, repeat.
I'll stick with ODF, thanks.
click, drool, and get on with my life *away* from the computer. Then what are you doing on Slashdot?