seek euphoria through drugs and those who seek euphoria by controlling other people's access to drugs
The second part of that statement is absurd. It describes Dr. Frankenstein not health practitioners. I seems to reason that William Burroughs was on drugs when he theorized he was being victimized by the health care community.
You actually reversed the process twice in your claim meaning you ended up delivering the letter to yourself after a long drive and finally parked at the destination the letter should have gone to, but hey if it's patentable then who am I to judge your process.
This Dark Web description sounds good, it even uses "semantic" technology but stop and think how little progress Google has made into the semantic web compared to what they want to do, contrasted with the talent they have hired. Considder the description of this NSF tool again. I predict there will be another/. posting in just over a year talking about how the project didn't quite work out as expected.
you really mean to tell me that ms doesn't try to force people on to windows?
Nobody said Microsoft doesn't try to force Windows so there's no need to go looking in caves:). Yes companies do tend to force their products because that's kind of how they make money. You probably won't see a company promoting somebody else's product in spite of its own. Look at any company and its product. A company will tend to sell its product whether your personally like it or not. You're basically describing business as usual and trying to spin something or start an argument... still very confusing, your point.
You're pointing out a large corporation's methods have flaws. I doubt you would find anybody who would disagree or even be surprised no matter who the corporation represents.
Search and replace MS in your posting with company X. No biggies here.
We see a lot of problems here but not what you're describing. Interoperability doesn't mean putting proprietary code in Linux, but maybe variations on standards. Hasn't the Samba project been tweaking standards for years to interoperate with Windows for years, and it's still open source which is a real-world example that disproves your automatic assumption.
The part about the folks in Redmond having a problem with your decisions about what OS you use.... doesn't make sense. You should clarify.
Well not likely if you want to become PCI compliant or adhere to any number of secure standards. In theory a paper like this sounds good but you only need to dip below the surface of the real world to discover it's more like a sci-fi dream at the moment.
Just call Microsoft and work it out over the phone. They're a pretty normal company and have a customer service dept. Don't assume just because they're the evil empire on/. that they won't actually help you. But it's more fun to jump to assumptions.
Microsoft has been fighting piracy for a while now, deactivating pirated sofware. Obviously those unintended consequences don't seem to exist or else your theory would have come true a while ago.
... or my posting does make as much sense as that because I did not comment on whether there's a point in standardizing document formats. That's your assumption.
Hey if somebody else is knocking at your country's door and catering better to business (as far as business is concerned) then more power to you. The rest of us will have to learn to adapt to a changing world, choose to die, or die trying.
Everybody is adverse to change, but it's often not such a big deal if you embrace it -- only then will you be able to see the opportunies when you learn to work with it instead of fearing it.
From a developer point of view I'll parse any XML. If said corruption wins the day I'll being parse Microsoft Open XML with XML parsers otherwise I'll parse OpenDocument XML format with same XML parsers.
Hell, I'll even parse both formats or convert one into another with same XML parsers.
Don't get too anal retentive over bloated vs. slim sofware because it's an unusual preference depending on the circumstance. If you're running desktop software (only affecting yourself) run as much bloat as you like (or don't run as much as you dislike) -- just throw some more cheap RAM or HDD space at if you needed. You can be happy running your select slimming desktop software to the degree that the rest of the world progresses around you and leaves you in the dust, or you can take a balanced approach. The guy who establishes unbloated software as priority #1 above any other software factors is unrealistically skewed. I don't care, I'll run Winamp + Windows Media + Foobar whatever all at the same time on my desktop at times if the various media files want to launch them.
However if you're running a server you might choose slimming software to reduce resource usage because it affects multiple users and is more costly to maintain as a result. This is where hypersensitivity to bloatware makes more sense.
From the perspective of using Windows Vista, I just installed the beta of this optional software, and it's very welcome providing a centralized desktop environment to manage my Live services.
Makes life easier and faster. In the end isn't that what software should strive to do?
Slashdot Mirror
At that price he had better start making them disposable and then go public.
The second part of that statement is absurd. It describes Dr. Frankenstein not health practitioners. I seems to reason that William Burroughs was on drugs when he theorized he was being victimized by the health care community.
You actually reversed the process twice in your claim meaning you ended up delivering the letter to yourself after a long drive and finally parked at the destination the letter should have gone to, but hey if it's patentable then who am I to judge your process.
Many are criticising Novell. On the other hand they are brave enough to walk a important tight rope and take the flack.
You're not jumping on a bandwagon, you're creating one. Kneejerk reaction! Care to expand on anything like "it", what "it" means to them and us, etc?
Hey, more interestingly they should split the winners between amounts of infringing code. ta-ching!
This Dark Web description sounds good, it even uses "semantic" technology but stop and think how little progress Google has made into the semantic web compared to what they want to do, contrasted with the talent they have hired. Considder the description of this NSF tool again. I predict there will be another /. posting in just over a year talking about how the project didn't quite work out as expected.
Nobody said Microsoft doesn't try to force Windows so there's no need to go looking in caves :). Yes companies do tend to force their products because that's kind of how they make money. You probably won't see a company promoting somebody else's product in spite of its own. Look at any company and its product. A company will tend to sell its product whether your personally like it or not. You're basically describing business as usual and trying to spin something or start an argument ... still very confusing, your point.
You're pointing out a large corporation's methods have flaws. I doubt you would find anybody who would disagree or even be surprised no matter who the corporation represents. Search and replace MS in your posting with company X. No biggies here.
You've obviously never gone through the steps which are very broad to say the least, even focusing on your wired vs wireless networks...
We see a lot of problems here but not what you're describing. Interoperability doesn't mean putting proprietary code in Linux, but maybe variations on standards. Hasn't the Samba project been tweaking standards for years to interoperate with Windows for years, and it's still open source which is a real-world example that disproves your automatic assumption. The part about the folks in Redmond having a problem with your decisions about what OS you use .... doesn't make sense. You should clarify.
Well not likely if you want to become PCI compliant or adhere to any number of secure standards. In theory a paper like this sounds good but you only need to dip below the surface of the real world to discover it's more like a sci-fi dream at the moment.
Just call Microsoft and work it out over the phone. They're a pretty normal company and have a customer service dept. Don't assume just because they're the evil empire on /. that they won't actually help you. But it's more fun to jump to assumptions.
Microsoft has been fighting piracy for a while now, deactivating pirated sofware. Obviously those unintended consequences don't seem to exist or else your theory would have come true a while ago.
In Soviet Russia Word Perfect misses you, you old fart.
Well we're sure as hell not going to remember your story if you can't so no need to apologize. Good story though.
This mistake you made here is posting on /. because your post is automatically assumed to be total crap, or sub-par at best ... just like this comment!
That's the case with any XML document, whether Microsoft's or "open". The point seems moot.
... or my posting does make as much sense as that because I did not comment on whether there's a point in standardizing document formats. That's your assumption.
No luck needed -- the answer's provided right there for automated parsing needs: "base64"
Hey if somebody else is knocking at your country's door and catering better to business (as far as business is concerned) then more power to you. The rest of us will have to learn to adapt to a changing world, choose to die, or die trying. Everybody is adverse to change, but it's often not such a big deal if you embrace it -- only then will you be able to see the opportunies when you learn to work with it instead of fearing it.
From a developer point of view I'll parse any XML. If said corruption wins the day I'll being parse Microsoft Open XML with XML parsers otherwise I'll parse OpenDocument XML format with same XML parsers.
Hell, I'll even parse both formats or convert one into another with same XML parsers.
Don't get too anal retentive over bloated vs. slim sofware because it's an unusual preference depending on the circumstance. If you're running desktop software (only affecting yourself) run as much bloat as you like (or don't run as much as you dislike) -- just throw some more cheap RAM or HDD space at if you needed. You can be happy running your select slimming desktop software to the degree that the rest of the world progresses around you and leaves you in the dust, or you can take a balanced approach.
The guy who establishes unbloated software as priority #1 above any other software factors is unrealistically skewed.
I don't care, I'll run Winamp + Windows Media + Foobar whatever all at the same time on my desktop at times if the various media files want to launch them.
However if you're running a server you might choose slimming software to reduce resource usage because it affects multiple users and is more costly to maintain as a result. This is where hypersensitivity to bloatware makes more sense.
I see Microsoft is your enemy, not mine. Do you think Microsoft is trying to do something to us? You are in good company here.
From the perspective of using Windows Vista, I just installed the beta of this optional software, and it's very welcome providing a centralized desktop environment to manage my Live services. Makes life easier and faster. In the end isn't that what software should strive to do?