Soo...because you spend to much time on IRC I'm not supposed to laugh? You could've just stopped at the abstract if you knew you'd seen it all before, you know.
I don't get this one. My open office doesn't load any slower than word on any computer I've ever used. It certainly loads faster than most webpages do at work. Does it take a long time to load with big documents or something?
The point is, the school can provide Open Office both for itself and for the kids at home. It cannot do the same with microsoft office.
Not to mention the fact that when this questions comes up again, if you stay with office you have the same problems, while if you move to OOo you do not. Even if you decide that OOo does'nt suit your needs as well as something else, changing to something else is trivial, because you can actually still read your documents. It gives you choice now and in the future. Which alone makes it worth while.
Bingo. Thank you. No government entity should be allowed to use proprietary formats whatsoever. If its a private school, fine, whatever, but if its public...they ought to be able to handle RTF, PDF, the open document format (odf?), and any other open standard. They should not be allowed to require (or even request!) closed format that will force all their students to buy or steal products just to complete their homework.
Actually, we tend to prefer that people be able to use computers. You want people that can use whatever you throw at them.
So instead of teaching people "click precisely here, then here" you teach people to actually read the file menus.
It really isn't that difficult. Its all in how you explain it.
Open Office has all of the word processing features you'd need at a high school. While many of those secretaries do use things like mail merge quite effectively (which exists and is easy to use in OOo), they're not likely to be using some sort of powerful, complicated macro, which is the only reasonable reason I've seen to not switch to open office.
Its like teaching someone to fish vs giving them a fish. You can just show them how to do what they want in [input specific program here], or you can teach them to read menus and dialogs and help files and cover their computing needs for life.
So get used to using a computer instead of a program, grow up, join the twenty first century, and stop using the bandwagon peer-pressure approach.
Hate to break this to ya, dude, but Iraq is already very much a long standing war. We're pushing two years (half our involvement in WWII), and our actual monetary expenditures, in terms of percentage of GDP, are probably beginning to push it too.
As for fighting long term...we could break anyones military in pretty short order. Its holding the country that we can't do easily.
Again, though, if we want to make a point, better to make it by denying somebody power for a few hours and then restoring it then blowing the shit out of a power station, even if it is just for a "clean" war.
You still have to get planes and people in theatre to get any sort of lasting effects, even if you're the US.
This would be cheaper and just as effective if you could pull it off, plus its much easier to re-ghost (or equivilant) a hard drive than it is to rebuild a building, install new hardware, etc. And of course, there is always that nagging human life question. So if we could actually pull this off, it would be much better than warheads on foreheads.
PS. Trust me. Russia, France, UK, Israel and Chnia may have some sort of stand off capability, but it isn't crap to the US. We could beat any (and, given enough ammo, every) military in the world without breaking a sweat. NATO countries complain it costs to much to keep up with us. We are scary, and we are sick. Chinas working on it, but they can't even see us yet, let alone touch us. They will be able to in the future, though. Especially when we waste money on shit like star wars and iraq.
http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?strin g=fox
961 problems with fox and counting. BTW, I love "a university media study" type citations.
"In other news, Bob Jones University researchers found that Fox news, while the most centrist of news organizations was still way out left..."
What liberal views get aired on fox? I've watched more than my fair share, and I get to listen to the dittoheads at work spout off about how great fox is all day long (I work at an Air Force Base). There is no liberal news on fox.
If you want "liberal news" try Air America radio, http://www.commondreams.org, http://www.alternews.net, or a real liberal news source. CNN used to be centrist, but even they've skewed right. Same thing with NPR. The closest thing to centrist news available is the BBC. Everything else has been pulled waaaay right. Which you don't recognize until you actually read/listen to some openly liberal stuff. Then you'll see how out of whack all "news" in this country is.
Not to mention the fact that stories that shouldn't matter nationally keep getting picked up by conservative bloggers and forced onto national media. Like Terry Schiavo. Should have been a local/regional issue at most. Got picked up and pushed nationally by conservative right-to-lifers (and I'm not even going to start on the irony of Bush's "culture of life" coming from a man who signed more death warrents than any other governer in HISTORY!)
Ah ha! Fishnet stockings! Thats why I wasn't able to find a job, despite good grades and good projects...if only I'd known while I was still a free man...
But its the government that ends up enforcing the copyright/patents/whatever else goes into protecting a proprietary format. So you're saying that a government should back up a corporations right to restrict access to someone else data, but not back up a citizens rights to access the data that is theirs?
Me too. Not that it matters at all...do you get the same thing where you start a dl at 1.5-2000 k/s, and then shrink to about 100k/s on most downloads? I can't seem to get a steady stream above 200k/s from almost anywhere....
I don't know, but in the context of the question, maybe OSDL would be a good place to start.
And that is really what is important if you want linux to keep moving up, which I do. Its about having a choice, but you only really havea choice if you can transition from one idea to another smoothly, so you can pick your poison at a moments notice without have to worry about transition quite so much. Its a large part of what seperates linux from microsoft in a buisness sense; with linux, you should no longer be locked into one persons formats. This is where a desktop standard is a marvelous idea. Don't like the pricing/support of your current provider? Switch to someone else, with a minimum of effort.
Could just be me. But then, I'm going to try and convince the government to switch to linux, so I have to start working my arguments somewhere.
"free market equivilant".
Theft in the free market is charging to much for something and getting away with it. Like, say, Apple Itunes. (speaking of which, it would be cool if someone did an experiment where they sold DRM'd music for 50 cents, and non-DRM'd music for a dollar to see which one sold more, but I digress).
Rape in the free market is forcing a company to prostitute themselves to your company in order to keep making a profit. So yeah, I'm saying it with a straight face.
The key is in the metaphor. As far as I'm concerned, most modern buisness practices are immoral. To me, competing on any grounds besides convincing people you have the best product is immoral. So yeah, I'm an idealist. But heres the thing: life for everyone gets better in proportion to the number of ideolists around and in power.
Of course, Intel did not actually threaten to initiate force against their customers (theft, fraud, extortion, murder, rape, etc). If they had, there would be no debate over the ruling. Intel only "threatened" to stop engaging in voluntary trade with their customers! Can you not see the difference here? Or were you deliberately trying to present the case as an actual threat of force?
The fact is that Intel's customers voluntarily chose to do business with Intel, and they can voluntarily choose to end that business relationship. Can Intel choose to end the business relationship, as long as they don't break any contracts? Why or why not?
This is like saying that my boss could tell me that I have to have sex with them, or I lose my job. There is no violence being threatend; only a mutually "consenual" adult relationship. I volutarily took the job, right?
Yes, I do view monopolistic practices as the free market equivilant of rape, and no, that doesn't make me wierd.
FINALLY! Now all they need to do is post up a list of what distros use the bloody thing, and I'll be in *much* better shape. I have to say, the linux directory structure has been really, really confusing me and slowing down my transition to linux. Thank you so very much for that link Somebody mod this beautiful person up.
What good is an encrypted signal when the people that you're hunting in a city have a good parabolic antenna pointed at you through a wall that they're hiding behind and are listening to the signal from your radio? Heck, they don't even need to know what you're saying, just that you're there.
Answer: you don't get that close. Even in the "close in" fighting of a city, chances of being 50 feet from someone is really, really slim. Unless they're moving very fast, in which case you'd have other problems.
As for everything about warfare being harder if we fought a "real" enemy....no it wouldn't. All a real enemy does is provide us with more targets. Trust me. The USAF talks about "targets per sortie", which means, even (especially) against a real opponent, a single us aircraft can expect to get multiple kills every time out. I heard a speech from a british group captain recently saying that the US needs to help the brits keep us if we want them to keep fighting with us...and they're about as technologically advanced as anyone else on the planet. No, sad to say, the best way to fight the us is to do exactly what they're doing to us in Iraq...which is why we ought to get the hell out of there.
The one thing that can save humanity is technology -- that which the environmentalists seek to restrain ostensibly for the benefit of mankind. Those restraints will IMO prove more deadly to humankind as a race than smog will ever do
Actually, most environmentalists I know (we're talking the serious ones, not the fanatic retards) are all about improving technology so that we can have our cake and eat it to. In this case, have our lights and our computers and our cheap transporation, but do it without all the pollution. And you might have noticed that a number of people have mentioned simply improving our general environmental health, because even to the die-hards like myself its pretty clear Kyoto does jack shit.
As for "the problem of creating more baskets", thats all well and good. However, I submit to you that there is a certain amount of moral question here...afterall, do you really want to become like that alien race from Independence day? And many of the technologies for cleaner earth and new colonies on other planets would be complementary, so why is it so bad to research both?
No offense, but that is just the bush administration excuse for doing what they want to do.
Kind of like the reason for tax cuts was to give the people back what they deserved until the economy tanked, and then it was to improve the economy.
Or the war in Iraq was to find those WMDs, until there weren't any, and then it was to rid the poor middle east of that oppresive regime.
Or...well, I'm sure you get the idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Soo...because you spend to much time on IRC I'm not supposed to laugh? You could've just stopped at the abstract if you knew you'd seen it all before, you know.
I don't get this one. My open office doesn't load any slower than word on any computer I've ever used. It certainly loads faster than most webpages do at work. Does it take a long time to load with big documents or something?
The point is, the school can provide Open Office both for itself and for the kids at home. It cannot do the same with microsoft office. Not to mention the fact that when this questions comes up again, if you stay with office you have the same problems, while if you move to OOo you do not. Even if you decide that OOo does'nt suit your needs as well as something else, changing to something else is trivial, because you can actually still read your documents. It gives you choice now and in the future. Which alone makes it worth while.
Bingo. Thank you. No government entity should be allowed to use proprietary formats whatsoever. If its a private school, fine, whatever, but if its public...they ought to be able to handle RTF, PDF, the open document format (odf?), and any other open standard. They should not be allowed to require (or even request!) closed format that will force all their students to buy or steal products just to complete their homework.
Actually, we tend to prefer that people be able to use computers. You want people that can use whatever you throw at them.
So instead of teaching people "click precisely here, then here" you teach people to actually read the file menus.
It really isn't that difficult. Its all in how you explain it.
Open Office has all of the word processing features you'd need at a high school. While many of those secretaries do use things like mail merge quite effectively (which exists and is easy to use in OOo), they're not likely to be using some sort of powerful, complicated macro, which is the only reasonable reason I've seen to not switch to open office. Its like teaching someone to fish vs giving them a fish. You can just show them how to do what they want in [input specific program here], or you can teach them to read menus and dialogs and help files and cover their computing needs for life. So get used to using a computer instead of a program, grow up, join the twenty first century, and stop using the bandwagon peer-pressure approach.
Yeah, they're about a bijillion years behind, but http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59043,00 .html
Hate to break this to ya, dude, but Iraq is already very much a long standing war. We're pushing two years (half our involvement in WWII), and our actual monetary expenditures, in terms of percentage of GDP, are probably beginning to push it too.
As for fighting long term...we could break anyones military in pretty short order. Its holding the country that we can't do easily.
Again, though, if we want to make a point, better to make it by denying somebody power for a few hours and then restoring it then blowing the shit out of a power station, even if it is just for a "clean" war.
You still have to get planes and people in theatre to get any sort of lasting effects, even if you're the US. This would be cheaper and just as effective if you could pull it off, plus its much easier to re-ghost (or equivilant) a hard drive than it is to rebuild a building, install new hardware, etc. And of course, there is always that nagging human life question. So if we could actually pull this off, it would be much better than warheads on foreheads.
PS. Trust me. Russia, France, UK, Israel and Chnia may have some sort of stand off capability, but it isn't crap to the US. We could beat any (and, given enough ammo, every) military in the world without breaking a sweat. NATO countries complain it costs to much to keep up with us. We are scary, and we are sick. Chinas working on it, but they can't even see us yet, let alone touch us. They will be able to in the future, though. Especially when we waste money on shit like star wars and iraq.
Really? The turn around in the air force is generally no more than a coupla months...we've had SP2 for quite awhile...
http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?strin g=fox
961 problems with fox and counting. BTW, I love "a university media study" type citations.
"In other news, Bob Jones University researchers found that Fox news, while the most centrist of news organizations was still way out left..."
What liberal views get aired on fox? I've watched more than my fair share, and I get to listen to the dittoheads at work spout off about how great fox is all day long (I work at an Air Force Base). There is no liberal news on fox.
If you want "liberal news" try Air America radio, http://www.commondreams.org, http://www.alternews.net, or a real liberal news source. CNN used to be centrist, but even they've skewed right. Same thing with NPR. The closest thing to centrist news available is the BBC. Everything else has been pulled waaaay right. Which you don't recognize until you actually read/listen to some openly liberal stuff. Then you'll see how out of whack all "news" in this country is.
Not to mention the fact that stories that shouldn't matter nationally keep getting picked up by conservative bloggers and forced onto national media. Like Terry Schiavo. Should have been a local/regional issue at most. Got picked up and pushed nationally by conservative right-to-lifers (and I'm not even going to start on the irony of Bush's "culture of life" coming from a man who signed more death warrents than any other governer in HISTORY!)
Ah ha! Fishnet stockings! Thats why I wasn't able to find a job, despite good grades and good projects...if only I'd known while I was still a free man...
There is such a thing as too sacreligious? Wow...whoda thunk it? I best go tell my friends...
But its the government that ends up enforcing the copyright/patents/whatever else goes into protecting a proprietary format. So you're saying that a government should back up a corporations right to restrict access to someone else data, but not back up a citizens rights to access the data that is theirs?
Is there anywhere I can get jenever in the States? I can't find any...
Me too. Not that it matters at all...do you get the same thing where you start a dl at 1.5-2000 k/s, and then shrink to about 100k/s on most downloads? I can't seem to get a steady stream above 200k/s from almost anywhere....
Or at least when they're at work, like I am.
I don't know, but in the context of the question, maybe OSDL would be a good place to start.
And that is really what is important if you want linux to keep moving up, which I do. Its about having a choice, but you only really havea choice if you can transition from one idea to another smoothly, so you can pick your poison at a moments notice without have to worry about transition quite so much. Its a large part of what seperates linux from microsoft in a buisness sense; with linux, you should no longer be locked into one persons formats. This is where a desktop standard is a marvelous idea. Don't like the pricing/support of your current provider? Switch to someone else, with a minimum of effort. Could just be me. But then, I'm going to try and convince the government to switch to linux, so I have to start working my arguments somewhere.
"free market equivilant". Theft in the free market is charging to much for something and getting away with it. Like, say, Apple Itunes. (speaking of which, it would be cool if someone did an experiment where they sold DRM'd music for 50 cents, and non-DRM'd music for a dollar to see which one sold more, but I digress). Rape in the free market is forcing a company to prostitute themselves to your company in order to keep making a profit. So yeah, I'm saying it with a straight face. The key is in the metaphor. As far as I'm concerned, most modern buisness practices are immoral. To me, competing on any grounds besides convincing people you have the best product is immoral. So yeah, I'm an idealist. But heres the thing: life for everyone gets better in proportion to the number of ideolists around and in power.
Of course, Intel did not actually threaten to initiate force against their customers (theft, fraud, extortion, murder, rape, etc). If they had, there would be no debate over the ruling. Intel only "threatened" to stop engaging in voluntary trade with their customers! Can you not see the difference here? Or were you deliberately trying to present the case as an actual threat of force? The fact is that Intel's customers voluntarily chose to do business with Intel, and they can voluntarily choose to end that business relationship. Can Intel choose to end the business relationship, as long as they don't break any contracts? Why or why not?
This is like saying that my boss could tell me that I have to have sex with them, or I lose my job. There is no violence being threatend; only a mutually "consenual" adult relationship. I volutarily took the job, right? Yes, I do view monopolistic practices as the free market equivilant of rape, and no, that doesn't make me wierd.
FINALLY! Now all they need to do is post up a list of what distros use the bloody thing, and I'll be in *much* better shape. I have to say, the linux directory structure has been really, really confusing me and slowing down my transition to linux. Thank you so very much for that link Somebody mod this beautiful person up.
What good is an encrypted signal when the people that you're hunting in a city have a good parabolic antenna pointed at you through a wall that they're hiding behind and are listening to the signal from your radio? Heck, they don't even need to know what you're saying, just that you're there. Answer: you don't get that close. Even in the "close in" fighting of a city, chances of being 50 feet from someone is really, really slim. Unless they're moving very fast, in which case you'd have other problems. As for everything about warfare being harder if we fought a "real" enemy....no it wouldn't. All a real enemy does is provide us with more targets. Trust me. The USAF talks about "targets per sortie", which means, even (especially) against a real opponent, a single us aircraft can expect to get multiple kills every time out. I heard a speech from a british group captain recently saying that the US needs to help the brits keep us if we want them to keep fighting with us...and they're about as technologically advanced as anyone else on the planet. No, sad to say, the best way to fight the us is to do exactly what they're doing to us in Iraq...which is why we ought to get the hell out of there.
I'm sorry, but what is a hypervisor?
Actually, they can be. It appears ammonium nitrate, primarily, is somehow eventually refined from petroleum.
The one thing that can save humanity is technology -- that which the environmentalists seek to restrain ostensibly for the benefit of mankind. Those restraints will IMO prove more deadly to humankind as a race than smog will ever do Actually, most environmentalists I know (we're talking the serious ones, not the fanatic retards) are all about improving technology so that we can have our cake and eat it to. In this case, have our lights and our computers and our cheap transporation, but do it without all the pollution. And you might have noticed that a number of people have mentioned simply improving our general environmental health, because even to the die-hards like myself its pretty clear Kyoto does jack shit. As for "the problem of creating more baskets", thats all well and good. However, I submit to you that there is a certain amount of moral question here...afterall, do you really want to become like that alien race from Independence day? And many of the technologies for cleaner earth and new colonies on other planets would be complementary, so why is it so bad to research both?
No offense, but that is just the bush administration excuse for doing what they want to do. Kind of like the reason for tax cuts was to give the people back what they deserved until the economy tanked, and then it was to improve the economy. Or the war in Iraq was to find those WMDs, until there weren't any, and then it was to rid the poor middle east of that oppresive regime. Or...well, I'm sure you get the idea.