Erm. Your post is very difficult to read. I don't understand what you are trying to say. But it sounds like it is full of prejudice and sweeping generalisations.
For a senior manager, you do a great impression of a insecure, whining teenager. I'm surprised to hear you might be in my earning bracket, but of course there is *some* truth to the article, so I shouldn't be surprised when a clueless manager pops up in the thread.
But save your preening for the gullible. People with either intelligence or experience won't place much value on it. Having the right to demonstrate you're in idiot doesn't mean it's a good idea.
The only reason there's "a lot of truth" to the article is that it makes points such as "clueless managers will be seen as clueless". A few comments about buzzwords aside, it's such completely generic pablum that anyone with a general prejudice against senior management of any kind, let alone CIOs, can happily confirm their own biases.
The most interesting aspect of the article is the presumption that the CIO must have the technical respect of the application developers. This is in fact not necessary. It does however suggest that the author (and yourself, perhaps) are letting their egos judge these CIOs on criteria that is important to *him*, rather than to *them* or their job role.
Well, no. A job title is just a job title, although in the case of "CIO" it pretty much guarantees "well paid for this company", and I'd be surprised to hear of any evidence that directly relates "well paid" to "guaranteed idiot".
More likely someone who judges someone's intelligence on the basis of holding a generic, popular job title is going to be the idiot.
You're getting ahead of yourself. We haven't even started debating - we were still clarifying the faulty logic and paranoid tone of your first post. But now that you've given up trying to maintain a consistent argument, let's move on to your attempt to change it to something you think is better.
they are leveraging their monopolies to their advantage. That's against the law.
Anti-trust law requires abusive behaviour of some kind. Leveraging a fairly won monopoly to one's own advantage is not illegal if prices are not artificially hiked, there is no evidence of collusion with other parties, and access to competitors is not blocked, especially with a 1% market share clearly does not represent a monopoly won by unfair practices. They may attract scrutiny, and Apple are certainly at risk of crossing the line in online music (witness their warning to reduce iTMS prices in the UK, for example), but with respect to the iPhone there is simply no basis to expect a viable lawsuit this year. There is nothing forcing a phone buyer to buy an iPhone, or to buy their music from the iTMS even if they do have one. mp3's are readily available from other sources, and playable on other phones. Apple have stated, and in the case of EMI demonstrated, that they are willing to sell DRM-free music. Like it or not, Apple has a get-out-of-jail free card as long as the music industry itself continues to shoot itself in the foot. I think Fairplay should go, but don't see any reason to think it will happen due to an imminent anti-trust lawsuit.
If you want to have a debate, provide an argument supported by facts. Stating you've won on the basis of your own assumptions is kindegarten logic.
"a few select readers" is rather negative phrasing for an impartial algorithm that favours contributors to a community site.
I didn't argue the sample was biased, I simply pointed out that a post upmodded by a few people can hardly be taken to be the viewpoint of hundreds of thousands of people. The sample is too small - it's irrelevant whether it is biased. And does it matter whether passive aggressive logic is schtick or not? The fact remains that you had already retreated behind an excuse that those who point out the manifest holes in your logic are hypocrites. Blaming others for your own mistakes as you make them is unhealthy behaviour.
The overall tone of your posts suggests that your intelligence is being overrun by emotion. Hope whatever is stressing you out works out ok.
When Microsoft included IE in Windows, it led directly to them having a browser monopoly as well. This is because their control of the desktop gave them control over what goes on that desktop. Apple will not have a monopoly of the phone market any time soon. Their monopoly in mp3 players and content distribution does not give them control over the phones people buy.
Your logic is therefore quite obviously not sound. Apple certainly has an advantage, but you do not make a case for anti-trust by arguing different things are the same. As for the iPhone having an iPod - is this important in an anti-trust discussion when they have less than 1% market share? And while I agree Apple would be nicer for opening up Fairplay, what examples are there of Apple preventing others from offering online stores, or charging excess fees, or otherwise abusing their monopoly?
Microsoft's illegal abuse of its monopoly position is not from simply having a mere "advantage" in the browser market. A browser requires an OS - whoever controls the OS has strong control over the browser. The OS is itself the distribution mechanism for the new browser. Conversely, iPod owners do not suddenly find themselves in possession of a free iPhone. These are quite obviously completely different situations.
Secondly, for a post to get +5 Insightful only requires a few moderators to mark it up. It does not mean the post is agreed to by the majority, or even makes a valid point. There's many a groupthink post that gets a +5 rating. It's actually kind of pathetic you think a point shouldn't be argued simply because of a +5 rating in another thread.
"I'm sure/. hypocrisy will see me modded down for point at cracks in Apple's armor though."
- The passive aggressive schtick is kind of lame, as well.
No, it isn't. ODF uses a different approach to achieve similar goals.
such idiocy is the rule, not the exception
I do have experience of the development process having worked with a number of product teams, and it is not my experience that such major changes do not involve lengthy discussion and politics, particularly when it involves legal and marketing aspects. The fact that Microsoft's priorities are rarely quality, security and openness is beside the point. The normal mistake is to add unnecessary things, not to leave things alone or trust the development team's judgment. Of course, anecdotal evidence and personal experience is unreliable. What examples do you have of a major change, highly visible to legal and marketing, in an environment with multiple layers of management where it was carried out with essentially no interference or scope change?
you've already stated that you are not qualified to make informed statements on the technical aspects of our topic, so by what authority to you feel you can make informed statements about my competency?
I made no such statement. On what basis are only programmers capable of making informed comments on technical subjects? Presumably though you are a programmer if you feel that is the essential qualification, it's a common egotistical fallacy. Why does it require any authority whatsoever to suspect (not make an "informed statement") that a programmer with incorrect facts and sloppy logic is being incompetent with his argument? You didn't even answer a single question put to you:
Why are you criticising Microsoft for not promising that Corel won't sue?
For reasons already given, it is clear the OOXML spec is not a simple translation. Why are you putting down irrelevant facts rather than justifying or adjusting your position, or directly challenging those reasons?
It's not safe to assume that I haven't read any of the spec. Why do you think that only programmers would be interested?
"When you define "paranoia" as "excessively long paragraphs" I suppose I may be paranoid"
It wasn't an excessively long paragraph that triggered the paranoia comment.
In general I find it pointless responding to someone who cannot maintain a logical flow even within a single conversation. When you willfully distort the facts, misrepresent the others point of view, and attempt to persuade by exaggeration and weight of words, it normally indicates that they are far too ideologically driven to be capable of a rational discussion.
Out of interest, have you ever noticed the inherent contradiction of people who accuse others of having their fingers in their ears, when their rants make it clear they're far more interested in talking than listening? And how often their frustration stems from the fact that no-one finds them worth listening to?
To your first point - it is an interesting contrast! There's a few specifics to the model that are important:
First, the BBC was established by one of the leaders of the free world. That's most likely a pre-condition to success. The repressive government example doesn't really apply, because that would then also be an argument for getting rid of the police, the military, the legal system, etc. Second, it is a fee rather than a tax i.e. the funding model is clearly separated. The UK Treasury has no control of the BBC budget. Third, the governance structure is relatively autonomous, even though the board is appointed not elected. It's dangerous to be seen to be interfering with the BBC - politicians don't want to go there. Fourth, the UK has a centuries long tradition of satire, we've had monarchs beheaded in the past, and so on - these traditions of free speech influence the way the board works.
I reckon the US is in an even better position to build something like the BBC on all four points (assuming the damage of Bush-Cheney is rolled back), except the focus on the free market makes it unlikely it would happen. I've often thought however that there must be some way to maintain freedom of speech and yet take Fox News to court for an extremely consistently partisan approach under a "Fair and Balanced" tagline.
Other networks - there's three other terrestial channels, two of which compete successfully and the third which struggles. Sports coverage and (unfortunately) reality TV are big home grown money spinners - big audiences, lots of advertising dosh. A key part of the dynamic is that corporations have big advertising budgets, so it's effectively guaranteed that the independents will always have funding. They're the equivalent to the majors in the US, There's more available via free digital, and then there's cable and satellite subscriptions which have more than anyone could ever need (although the US has even more, I believe).
We don't get copies of the US networks but we do get a lot of shows imported e.g. Channel 4 does well with the comedies such as Friends, Frasier, etc. One thing we find amusing is that shows like Sex and the City are shown on standard TV here, but the land of free speech restricts that kind of content to HBO and the like. It often makes us wonder just what the US is afraid of when it comes to, you know, reality.
Good points in terms of technical accuracy, completely pointless in terms of anything that matters.
On those occasions I turn on the TV - pretty rare - the lack of interruptions for adverts is much appreciated. The lack of ads on the web page is appreciated. The quality of the programmes, particularly in comparison to the assault on the intellect that is American TV, is extremely appreciated.
A service that provides references to other parts of the service is completely below my annoyance threshold, and I'm known amongst my friends for being impatient, sarcastic and grumpy. Not only that, but an awareness of the model under which they operate, which includes promoting news and cultural services and is to some extent measured by ratings, means I have an appreciation for the necessity for those couple of minutes of cross-service adverts which are rather simple to not watch without missing anything.
If you actually find all this annoying, I feel sorry for you. If you argue against the license fee because it's not an strictly speaking advert free service, I think you do a disservice to those of us who appreciate quality.
Yeah, I know, but there's no value in easy cynicism. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide what "relatively unbiased" means. Where perfection is impossible, there has to be some standard that is considered "good enough". Otherwise you're essentially saying that the BBC and Fox News are of the same quality.
Actually I think the specific example I'm thinking of was a reference to WordPerfect.
In that case, the question is: why are you criticising M$ for not promising that Corel won't sue?
Custom schemas is a function of XML itself, not MSOOXML. And Microsoft's binary formats already allowed for integration with external sources via their OLE/Compound Document format. The problem is that not all of those sources are covered by the promise not to sue. It would be like promising not to sue you for rendering HTML, but allowing the possibility to sue you for rendering GIF images, or processing Javascript, you can't build a compatible browser without them.
You forget the question. Do you actually have a basis for saying OOXML is a simple translation of the binary format? I would say it is not, because the functionality is different. If the custom schema functionality was simply a side effect of XML, for example, then it would be in the ODF spec as well. Clearly the M$ functional spec is not a simple translation. Are you just sticking as many facts down on the page in the hope that one of them might prove your point?
You've already admitted not being a programmer, is it safe to assume that you have not read any of the the MSOOXML spec as well?
Of course not. Why on earth would you think that only programmers have an interest in document formats? Are you being ignorant or egotistical?
what exactly qualifications do you have to detect bullshit on this topic?
Responding to accusations of bullshit with an ad hominen attack? Not exactly a powerful argument. But to answer your question - I've been a consultant in the software business for eight years, coming up through support and implementation rather than programming. I've had a lot of practice at spotting bullshit. As an example - Microsoft is one of my company's competitors. Because they're a big nasty competitor, it's important to have a reality-based understanding of what they're up to. To develop such an understanding, you have to spot the bullshit from people like you, otherwise you find yourself full of shit when attacking M$ and losing all respect amongst professionals. It's also important to understand the product lifecycle to work with R&D, and it is idiocy to think that such an important change as the Office file format would be treated the way you describe.
To work effectively as a consultant, it's also useful to spot traits such as the ones your posts demonstrate, such as dodging the question or talking about irrelevancies. It warns you when some people's opinions are unreliable, whether it's due to incompetence or a hidden agenda. My impression in your case is that it's both.
Paranoia is a completely different concept to the fact that big businesses have a lot of power. Paranoia is more the kind of personality that, for example, goes off on rants like yours. So thanks for proving my point.
Free speech is not a right to employment. Losing your job is not a free speech issue, except when you are speaking out in the public interest. This guy was not. His rights have not been infringed.
Other bits of your rant (e.g. how many TV media companies are there?) are irrelevant, except to the extent of making this guy an even bigger idiot. Stupidity is a universal crime; there is no court of appeal.
"If MSOOXML says "display this like it was displayed in Works97"" ?! There is no Works97, for starters. If you mean Word97 then I presume it's escaped your attention that releasing the Word97 format is exactly what The Fucking Article is about?!
The ability to add custom schemas suggests your simply bullshitting for the rest of the post as well. Not being a programmer, I can't comment as an expert but new functionality like mechanisms for data representation doesn't sound like the kind of thing you'd do in a cheap'n'easy conversion.
Overall - the bullshit factor seems high on your post.
If that's the case, yes very sad. As a Brit, I am more than happy to pay the TV license fee because I really, really value the BBC. Don't even watch TV, just use their website.
But would the US ever go for a mandatory $100 - $200 TV fee / tax, just to have advert free, relatively unbiased news? My sense is that when it comes to taxes, Americans lose their otherwise well developed sense of pragmatism and respect for information.
Wrong, condescending, verbose and redundant. Shouldn't you be having a go at the guy who thought "Worst. Workaround. Ever." was a useful comment?
The article was not about the community, but workarounds an individual might take. Your implicit argument is explicitly invalid. It was only raised after I pointed out that the first post was poor.
Further, I did not say "using it is stupid". I said the logic was inherently flawed. To draw any conclusions on what *I* think is therefore also inherently flawed. As it happens, my starting point would be similar to the argument you mention: the reason for doing something is because *you* see value in it, not because Microsoft does. That value could be personal, to the community, to someone you care for, whatever.
And to be frank, the conclusion of your third paragraph is so ridiculous it should have set of warning bells to go back and check your workings. For instance, your "using it is stupid" hypothesis seems to assume I am virulently anti-Microsoft for some reason. Which would be curious, because initially I was defending workarounds that required the purchase of Microsoft products.
Quite correct, an FAQ is indicative but hardly binding. OK, let's look at the promise itself then:
Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation to the extent it conforms to a Covered Specification ("Covered Implementation")
The "to the extent" clause covers partial implementations and optional sections, which was the first concern. The second concern was logically null - clearly external references that aren't covered, aren't covered.
That's pretty simple, then. Was there a real point you were trying to make, or is pointing out the obvious the extent of your insight?
I'm going on the working assumption that if something doesn't form part of the data that represents the document, then it can hardly be an important part of the spec. Could you give an example of what you'd be worried about?
I'm also curious about your "simple translation" comment. If it were simple for M$, I can't see why they would have required the intermediary XML format they used. Is there some other proprietary binary -> XML conversion work you've done to explain why it's such a simple process? What are the differences between their two XML formats, anyway?
Euros have been removed for so long from decent right-wing politics
Oh, give me strength. I grew in Hong Kong, whose market was freer than the US prior to the handover to China. I've got an Ivy League MBA and private health insurance. This year I celebrated New Year in Dallas. I hardly think I'm ignorant of the advantages of conservative thinking.
we see her almost as an outright Marxist.
On the other hand, do you have any clue what left wing really is?
Little about gun control
Irrelevant, in case you weren't aware of the issues of the day.
what she'll really do about Iraq or Afghanistan
You may not like her answers, but don't give me the "questions not asked" bullshit
how she plans to pay for ANYTHING she's promoting
Same answer again. There's broad agreement on the Democrat side on policy, so why not leave this until it's more entertaining when the Republicans try and claim anything other than a complete fiscal cockup?
I thought you considered them to be the arbiters of accountability?
No, there are three other branches to get through before you get to the fourth. Further, holding the elected government to account in the media for its actions is not creating the news - it is reporting it. Going through the minutiae of a candidate's background for anything that might be turned into a scare tactic (he once went to primary school!) would not be intelligent coverage of a candidate selection process. Spending a year or two ensuring every single President of the USA dragged through as much irrelevant shit as possible before taking office would simply not be a good system.
There isn't any question they SHOULDN'T ask, in ANY stage of the electoral process.
Do you spend much time in reality, out of interest? Time is a finite resource. Smear tactics take up time, distract from worthy issues, and add no value. The challenge is to know what questions SHOULD be asked, not to make whiny idealistic statements like some hippy who doesn't work for a living.
it's a good vote if you're on the left
This kind of line is the problem with the Republicans currently. You're too scared to answer a question straight. Too dishonest to say right at the start of the conversation that you're right wing. Too self-obsessed to understand the world outside your borders. It's a shame. I wonder how long it will take you to recover.
Slashdot Mirror
Erm. Your post is very difficult to read. I don't understand what you are trying to say. But it sounds like it is full of prejudice and sweeping generalisations.
For a senior manager, you do a great impression of a insecure, whining teenager. I'm surprised to hear you might be in my earning bracket, but of course there is *some* truth to the article, so I shouldn't be surprised when a clueless manager pops up in the thread.
But save your preening for the gullible. People with either intelligence or experience won't place much value on it. Having the right to demonstrate you're in idiot doesn't mean it's a good idea.
The only reason there's "a lot of truth" to the article is that it makes points such as "clueless managers will be seen as clueless". A few comments about buzzwords aside, it's such completely generic pablum that anyone with a general prejudice against senior management of any kind, let alone CIOs, can happily confirm their own biases.
The most interesting aspect of the article is the presumption that the CIO must have the technical respect of the application developers. This is in fact not necessary. It does however suggest that the author (and yourself, perhaps) are letting their egos judge these CIOs on criteria that is important to *him*, rather than to *them* or their job role.
Well, no. A job title is just a job title, although in the case of "CIO" it pretty much guarantees "well paid for this company", and I'd be surprised to hear of any evidence that directly relates "well paid" to "guaranteed idiot".
More likely someone who judges someone's intelligence on the basis of holding a generic, popular job title is going to be the idiot.
You're getting ahead of yourself. We haven't even started debating - we were still clarifying the faulty logic and paranoid tone of your first post. But now that you've given up trying to maintain a consistent argument, let's move on to your attempt to change it to something you think is better.
Anti-trust law requires abusive behaviour of some kind. Leveraging a fairly won monopoly to one's own advantage is not illegal if prices are not artificially hiked, there is no evidence of collusion with other parties, and access to competitors is not blocked, especially with a 1% market share clearly does not represent a monopoly won by unfair practices. They may attract scrutiny, and Apple are certainly at risk of crossing the line in online music (witness their warning to reduce iTMS prices in the UK, for example), but with respect to the iPhone there is simply no basis to expect a viable lawsuit this year. There is nothing forcing a phone buyer to buy an iPhone, or to buy their music from the iTMS even if they do have one. mp3's are readily available from other sources, and playable on other phones. Apple have stated, and in the case of EMI demonstrated, that they are willing to sell DRM-free music. Like it or not, Apple has a get-out-of-jail free card as long as the music industry itself continues to shoot itself in the foot. I think Fairplay should go, but don't see any reason to think it will happen due to an imminent anti-trust lawsuit.
If you want to have a debate, provide an argument supported by facts. Stating you've won on the basis of your own assumptions is kindegarten logic.
"a few select readers" is rather negative phrasing for an impartial algorithm that favours contributors to a community site.
I didn't argue the sample was biased, I simply pointed out that a post upmodded by a few people can hardly be taken to be the viewpoint of hundreds of thousands of people. The sample is too small - it's irrelevant whether it is biased. And does it matter whether passive aggressive logic is schtick or not? The fact remains that you had already retreated behind an excuse that those who point out the manifest holes in your logic are hypocrites. Blaming others for your own mistakes as you make them is unhealthy behaviour.
The overall tone of your posts suggests that your intelligence is being overrun by emotion. Hope whatever is stressing you out works out ok.
When Microsoft included IE in Windows, it led directly to them having a browser monopoly as well. This is because their control of the desktop gave them control over what goes on that desktop. Apple will not have a monopoly of the phone market any time soon. Their monopoly in mp3 players and content distribution does not give them control over the phones people buy.
Your logic is therefore quite obviously not sound. Apple certainly has an advantage, but you do not make a case for anti-trust by arguing different things are the same. As for the iPhone having an iPod - is this important in an anti-trust discussion when they have less than 1% market share? And while I agree Apple would be nicer for opening up Fairplay, what examples are there of Apple preventing others from offering online stores, or charging excess fees, or otherwise abusing their monopoly?
Two logical errors there:
/. hypocrisy will see me modded down for point at cracks in Apple's armor though."
Microsoft's illegal abuse of its monopoly position is not from simply having a mere "advantage" in the browser market. A browser requires an OS - whoever controls the OS has strong control over the browser. The OS is itself the distribution mechanism for the new browser. Conversely, iPod owners do not suddenly find themselves in possession of a free iPhone. These are quite obviously completely different situations.
Secondly, for a post to get +5 Insightful only requires a few moderators to mark it up. It does not mean the post is agreed to by the majority, or even makes a valid point. There's many a groupthink post that gets a +5 rating. It's actually kind of pathetic you think a point shouldn't be argued simply because of a +5 rating in another thread.
"I'm sure
- The passive aggressive schtick is kind of lame, as well.
I made no such statement. On what basis are only programmers capable of making informed comments on technical subjects? Presumably though you are a programmer if you feel that is the essential qualification, it's a common egotistical fallacy. Why does it require any authority whatsoever to suspect (not make an "informed statement") that a programmer with incorrect facts and sloppy logic is being incompetent with his argument? You didn't even answer a single question put to you:
"When you define "paranoia" as "excessively long paragraphs" I suppose I may be paranoid"
It wasn't an excessively long paragraph that triggered the paranoia comment.
In general I find it pointless responding to someone who cannot maintain a logical flow even within a single conversation. When you willfully distort the facts, misrepresent the others point of view, and attempt to persuade by exaggeration and weight of words, it normally indicates that they are far too ideologically driven to be capable of a rational discussion.
Out of interest, have you ever noticed the inherent contradiction of people who accuse others of having their fingers in their ears, when their rants make it clear they're far more interested in talking than listening? And how often their frustration stems from the fact that no-one finds them worth listening to?
To your first point - it is an interesting contrast! There's a few specifics to the model that are important:
First, the BBC was established by one of the leaders of the free world. That's most likely a pre-condition to success. The repressive government example doesn't really apply, because that would then also be an argument for getting rid of the police, the military, the legal system, etc.
Second, it is a fee rather than a tax i.e. the funding model is clearly separated. The UK Treasury has no control of the BBC budget.
Third, the governance structure is relatively autonomous, even though the board is appointed not elected. It's dangerous to be seen to be interfering with the BBC - politicians don't want to go there.
Fourth, the UK has a centuries long tradition of satire, we've had monarchs beheaded in the past, and so on - these traditions of free speech influence the way the board works.
I reckon the US is in an even better position to build something like the BBC on all four points (assuming the damage of Bush-Cheney is rolled back), except the focus on the free market makes it unlikely it would happen. I've often thought however that there must be some way to maintain freedom of speech and yet take Fox News to court for an extremely consistently partisan approach under a "Fair and Balanced" tagline.
Other networks - there's three other terrestial channels, two of which compete successfully and the third which struggles. Sports coverage and (unfortunately) reality TV are big home grown money spinners - big audiences, lots of advertising dosh. A key part of the dynamic is that corporations have big advertising budgets, so it's effectively guaranteed that the independents will always have funding. They're the equivalent to the majors in the US, There's more available via free digital, and then there's cable and satellite subscriptions which have more than anyone could ever need (although the US has even more, I believe).
We don't get copies of the US networks but we do get a lot of shows imported e.g. Channel 4 does well with the comedies such as Friends, Frasier, etc. One thing we find amusing is that shows like Sex and the City are shown on standard TV here, but the land of free speech restricts that kind of content to HBO and the like. It often makes us wonder just what the US is afraid of when it comes to, you know, reality.
Good points in terms of technical accuracy, completely pointless in terms of anything that matters.
On those occasions I turn on the TV - pretty rare - the lack of interruptions for adverts is much appreciated. The lack of ads on the web page is appreciated. The quality of the programmes, particularly in comparison to the assault on the intellect that is American TV, is extremely appreciated.
A service that provides references to other parts of the service is completely below my annoyance threshold, and I'm known amongst my friends for being impatient, sarcastic and grumpy. Not only that, but an awareness of the model under which they operate, which includes promoting news and cultural services and is to some extent measured by ratings, means I have an appreciation for the necessity for those couple of minutes of cross-service adverts which are rather simple to not watch without missing anything.
If you actually find all this annoying, I feel sorry for you. If you argue against the license fee because it's not an strictly speaking advert free service, I think you do a disservice to those of us who appreciate quality.
In that case, the question is: why are you criticising M$ for not promising that Corel won't sue?
You forget the question. Do you actually have a basis for saying OOXML is a simple translation of the binary format? I would say it is not, because the functionality is different. If the custom schema functionality was simply a side effect of XML, for example, then it would be in the ODF spec as well. Clearly the M$ functional spec is not a simple translation. Are you just sticking as many facts down on the page in the hope that one of them might prove your point?
Of course not. Why on earth would you think that only programmers have an interest in document formats? Are you being ignorant or egotistical?
Responding to accusations of bullshit with an ad hominen attack? Not exactly a powerful argument. But to answer your question - I've been a consultant in the software business for eight years, coming up through support and implementation rather than programming. I've had a lot of practice at spotting bullshit. As an example - Microsoft is one of my company's competitors. Because they're a big nasty competitor, it's important to have a reality-based understanding of what they're up to. To develop such an understanding, you have to spot the bullshit from people like you, otherwise you find yourself full of shit when attacking M$ and losing all respect amongst professionals. It's also important to understand the product lifecycle to work with R&D, and it is idiocy to think that such an important change as the Office file format would be treated the way you describe.
To work effectively as a consultant, it's also useful to spot traits such as the ones your posts demonstrate, such as dodging the question or talking about irrelevancies. It warns you when some people's opinions are unreliable, whether it's due to incompetence or a hidden agenda. My impression in your case is that it's both.
Paranoia is a completely different concept to the fact that big businesses have a lot of power. Paranoia is more the kind of personality that, for example, goes off on rants like yours. So thanks for proving my point.
Free speech is not a right to employment. Losing your job is not a free speech issue, except when you are speaking out in the public interest. This guy was not. His rights have not been infringed.
Other bits of your rant (e.g. how many TV media companies are there?) are irrelevant, except to the extent of making this guy an even bigger idiot. Stupidity is a universal crime; there is no court of appeal.
What, so if for instance a bartender tells everyone to fuck off, the bar manager can't sack him?
Sorry, Captain Paranoia, but I'm not convinced.
That's two words, not one, and infringe is also perfectly valid.
As to your point - he was not fired for protected speech, so I presume you think everything is as it should be?
"If MSOOXML says "display this like it was displayed in Works97"" ?! There is no Works97, for starters. If you mean Word97 then I presume it's escaped your attention that releasing the Word97 format is exactly what The Fucking Article is about?!
The ability to add custom schemas suggests your simply bullshitting for the rest of the post as well. Not being a programmer, I can't comment as an expert but new functionality like mechanisms for data representation doesn't sound like the kind of thing you'd do in a cheap'n'easy conversion.
Overall - the bullshit factor seems high on your post.
If that's the case, yes very sad. As a Brit, I am more than happy to pay the TV license fee because I really, really value the BBC. Don't even watch TV, just use their website.
But would the US ever go for a mandatory $100 - $200 TV fee / tax, just to have advert free, relatively unbiased news? My sense is that when it comes to taxes, Americans lose their otherwise well developed sense of pragmatism and respect for information.
And how has his right to free speech been infringed? He hasn't been banned from writing a blog.
Wrong, condescending, verbose and redundant. Shouldn't you be having a go at the guy who thought "Worst. Workaround. Ever." was a useful comment?
The article was not about the community, but workarounds an individual might take. Your implicit argument is explicitly invalid. It was only raised after I pointed out that the first post was poor.
Further, I did not say "using it is stupid". I said the logic was inherently flawed. To draw any conclusions on what *I* think is therefore also inherently flawed. As it happens, my starting point would be similar to the argument you mention: the reason for doing something is because *you* see value in it, not because Microsoft does. That value could be personal, to the community, to someone you care for, whatever.
And to be frank, the conclusion of your third paragraph is so ridiculous it should have set of warning bells to go back and check your workings. For instance, your "using it is stupid" hypothesis seems to assume I am virulently anti-Microsoft for some reason. Which would be curious, because initially I was defending workarounds that required the purchase of Microsoft products.
Quite correct, an FAQ is indicative but hardly binding. OK, let's look at the promise itself then:
Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation to the extent it conforms to a Covered Specification ("Covered Implementation")
The "to the extent" clause covers partial implementations and optional sections, which was the first concern. The second concern was logically null - clearly external references that aren't covered, aren't covered.
That's pretty simple, then. Was there a real point you were trying to make, or is pointing out the obvious the extent of your insight?
My question how the dimension of time was relevant to the thread at all, but anyhoo...
Yes, the perpetuation thing is bad.
I'm going on the working assumption that if something doesn't form part of the data that represents the document, then it can hardly be an important part of the spec. Could you give an example of what you'd be worried about?
I'm also curious about your "simple translation" comment. If it were simple for M$, I can't see why they would have required the intermediary XML format they used. Is there some other proprietary binary -> XML conversion work you've done to explain why it's such a simple process? What are the differences between their two XML formats, anyway?
Oh, give me strength. I grew in Hong Kong, whose market was freer than the US prior to the handover to China. I've got an Ivy League MBA and private health insurance. This year I celebrated New Year in Dallas. I hardly think I'm ignorant of the advantages of conservative thinking.
On the other hand, do you have any clue what left wing really is?
Irrelevant, in case you weren't aware of the issues of the day.
You may not like her answers, but don't give me the "questions not asked" bullshit
Same answer again. There's broad agreement on the Democrat side on policy, so why not leave this until it's more entertaining when the Republicans try and claim anything other than a complete fiscal cockup?
No, there are three other branches to get through before you get to the fourth. Further, holding the elected government to account in the media for its actions is not creating the news - it is reporting it. Going through the minutiae of a candidate's background for anything that might be turned into a scare tactic (he once went to primary school!) would not be intelligent coverage of a candidate selection process. Spending a year or two ensuring every single President of the USA dragged through as much irrelevant shit as possible before taking office would simply not be a good system.
Do you spend much time in reality, out of interest? Time is a finite resource. Smear tactics take up time, distract from worthy issues, and add no value. The challenge is to know what questions SHOULD be asked, not to make whiny idealistic statements like some hippy who doesn't work for a living.
This kind of line is the problem with the Republicans currently. You're too scared to answer a question straight. Too dishonest to say right at the start of the conversation that you're right wing. Too self-obsessed to understand the world outside your borders. It's a shame. I wonder how long it will take you to recover.