4) Keep their current interface, and attract all the previous Office users who cannot stand the new interface with all this "ribbon" baloney.
The ribbon is a huge mistake that flies in the face of almost every UI design principle. The fact that all the menus change depending on both the tab you are currently on *and* the document you are writing, means that all gains you get from your motor memory is lost, you will have to *constantly* be reading the menu and taking double takes to make sure you are doing what you think you are doing.
I think one of three things will happen:
Users will spurn Offce 12 and not upgrade, keeping their current version
Users will spurn Office 12 and switch to alternatives
Users will take it up the ass as usual.
Despite the history of option 3, I think the fact that this UI is such a piece of crap that we may have a real chance at 1 or 2 this time.
I mean, he loses credibility in the first sentence.. "This is a long essay. There is, however, no limit to how long I could have made it.". Of course there is a limit!
If you really think that Europe is for some reason "less free" than the US, than I would suggest you take a look at the http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15333"> Worldwide Press Freedom Index, which lists it in a solid 44th place on the index of freedom of the press, which is mainly what you are talking about when you discuss speech on the Internet, since it is a form of press.
The US has really dipped a lot in this lately (20 places in the past year).
As a Canadian, I can never help but laugh myself silly at all the US drug ads I am subjected to on a daily basis.
What is the point of these ads? Do Americans actually see an ad for some weird drug for low cholesterol, and for some reason believe they are more qualified than their doctor to decide if they need it? Who would do this?
I can't even fathom this amount of commercialism in medicine - it is wrong on so many levels I cannot even begin to explain. "Ask your Doctor about <insert drug here>. I have a better idea - why dont I assume that my doctor, who has trained for nearly a decade (and more), and who would probably have multiple orders of magnitude more information on me on my condition, would know best, and let them tell me if I need you drug., instead of listening to drug company propeganda?
Because not everyone can paint, and not everyone can formulate theories. But everyone needs something to do, and a reasonf or getting up in the morning.
Othewise, you'll have total anarchy and the destruction of civilization, because basically, there was nothing else better to do.
That is, if the machines don't figure this out first and kill us beforehand.
You forget that in order for this law to apply you need a huge *demand* to draw down prices. How many people do you know who want a static IP? How many people woudl even know what one was?
The every-device-in-your-house-on-the-web mentality has a few years to tak eoff. And even when it does, it will likely be based on IPv4 with DHCP, since that is what every person with broadband will already have in their house.
Yet again, no demand for IPv6. It is a solution looking for a problem to solve.
Granting moral equivalency between a spider, which never outstrips the accomplishments of its ancestors; and a human capable of great creativity, nobility, and charity; is absurd to everyone outside of PETA.
The point of my argument is that nature can not grant rights, because it is not an intelligent entity. No one has "unalienable rights", because in order to have a right, someone or something has to grant it. And, unless you are talking about some religious diety, then there is nothing that could grant such rights.
All you have are the rights that the society you happen to live in chooses to grant you. No more, no less. Any other statement is based on nothing but theology.
... if you think that IPv6 is somehow going to make having personal static IP addresses cheaper.
The ISPs are not going to change their business models just because they can. Any given large ISP has *millions* of extra IP addresses that are never used that they could be handing out to the very small portion who want statics. Why don't they? Becaus e they want to make money. You think just because there will now be all these wide-open 128 bit IP ranges, that you will get a free ride? Think again.
If client-based firewalls ar eso great, then why doesn't IBM and Ford and the Fortune 500 have all their PCs connected directly to the web and install personal firewalls? Answer?
- Having direct connections to the web for each terminal is more expensive than having them all behind the NAT
- You can't trust your employees to keep a secure environment
Thus, corperations have no need or desitre to have all their terminals directly connected to the internet. Thus, they don't need IPv6. Thus, the vast majority of computers *in the world* (business use still trumps home use by a factor of like 5 to 1) do not need it.
Why do we need all these freaking IP addresses anyway? I, for one, do *not* want my house, and fridge, or even my home PC for that matter, connected directly to the web. I have to deal with enogh virii and trojans and crap as it is, without worrying about if the OS on my fridge is updated with the latest patch to fix the buffer overflow on the mayonaise level access port.
What is wrong with having to go through a VPN login procedure to access these types of services? Whats the big deal? You log into the NAT access point, the *only* thing in your house on the web, and from there you can get to any other device. It is *not* that hard people.
I personally do not see any need or use for all these new IP blocks people seem to think we need. No copanies will put their workstations directly on the web, it is a huge security risk. What is the business/use case for IPv6? What does it give you, when you don't want to connect devices directly to the internet anyway?
Irregardless of the existence of government, the natural rights of an individual cannot be given away (you can't sell yourself into slavery, you can't tell a higher power that it's ok to kill you). One such right is the right to private property, closed to others' prying eyes or presence.
This is crap. If I want to end my life, I should most certianly be allowed to give someone the right to kill me. I tis *my* life, no one should have any say what I do with it but me. Same goes with the slavery question. Maybe I enjoy having a master? Who are you to tell me what choices I should be making?
The only right you are born with is the right to die. You are not born with the right to personal property or anything else. Do you think that a spider has a right to it's web? If so, then why do you shoo it out of your house? If you don't , then why do you for some reason think nature has granted *you* "fundamental rights", but not other forms of life?
"Rights" are granted by society, a human construct, not by nature. The only reason people have rights is because that we as a community agree that certain things are allowed, and others are not.
It is when two sets of belief systems conflict with each other that we have problems; just because you feel that someone in China should have a "right" to free speech, does not mean that they automatically do, any more than just because someone in a cannabilistic tribe teels that Americans should have a "right" to eat each other, mean that they do. They are totally seperate sets of beleif systems, neither is any more wrong than the other. The only thing that determines what is "right" and "wrong" is society.
If you have really lived on a dairy for 15 years I would have a hard time believing you did not know this.
And knocking over a 1000 pound mass that is resting on a relativly narrow base with a high center of mass is actually pretty simple for someone who is 200 lbs, if they get a small dashing start for the first frew feet (which you need anyway to be fast enough to get the cow before it awakes).
This is crap. I *personally* have witnessed a cow tipping. It is not that difficult. When the cow is asleep, it is not consciously adjusting for it's balence, if you run at it and give it a hard shove, it falls over pretty easily. I have seen it myself.
3. With all the money you save, buy a giant foam middle finger to wave at the RIAA, Apple, Microsoft, and everyone else pushing their proprietary, imcompatable, DRM encumbered formats.
As I said above, that is not all Google is doing. In order to do what Google is doing, Microsoft will have to also integrate Hotmail and Terraserver and MSN.com seamlessly into windows, and search and index it all. This is easier said than done. Espeically since it would immediatly start competing with Outlook / Exchange licenses.
It is not as simple as it looks. Google has a far broader reach into the web than just indexing web pages. They are rapidly growing the aiility to find any information, on anything, anywhere.
For example, if you use GMail, what is to prevent Google from automatically indexing all your attached office documents so that you can search them? Nothhing. And if they added an online word processor to edit those documents? Of what use would your office desktop be anymore?
It was written before Google Maps, and more importantly, before Google Maps and Google Local combined.
It was written before Google Movies, and Google Video.
Frankly, I think Microsoft has at least a year of catching up to do, and that is *because* they are Microsoft. Any other company, I would give them at least double that.
That is just to match the technology. Then, they have to get marketshare. Sure, they have a huge channel to shove their stuff down (Windows), but Google is in a far better position than Netscape was in it's day. Netscape was still an app that had to be run. Google is a verb. You never saw the Jennifer Lopez talking about how she "Netscaped It" in Maid in Manhattan.
It is the same reason that Amazon auctions and Yahoo! auctions flounder in obscurity, even though they are cheaper to list on and have basically the exact same feature set as eBay. Ebay has the mindshare. It is featured in Movies and TV constantly. It is a verb. It is so commonplace it will be really a tough nut to crack.
Not to mention Google also has billions in the bank and is raking in revenue, while Netscape was giving away it's key product for free. They are also in a fa rbetter finiancial position to fight than Netscape ever was.
It is highly likely that the acronymn was specifically made to copy the one used in Star Trek.
Star Trek fueld the minds of many young scientists and is the inspiration behind ideas like the cell phone (especially the flip phone!), the PET scan, the PDA (PADD), etc.
It is not welcome. Linux is about Open Source, and allowing people to link-in binary closed drivers goes against this.
Bypassing the dogma of the above, there are numerous pragmatic reasons why this would be better for linux, even if you don't include support for binary third-party drivers.
Developing drivers against a stable API is much simpler and more time efficient than developing against a moving target.
It is much easier for a part-time open source developer to support one API than a moving target
It would make life easier part-time developers of experimental drivers. Right now, if your driver isn't in the kernel, there is no guarentee it will even build against the next stable sub-version of the current kernel. It is a huge pain in the ass.
It would make life easier for users. If I download a driver from sourceforge for my webcam, I don't have to download a new version and rebuild when a new kernel is released.
Sure, some of these are extreme cases. You can usually get away with just re-compiling the driver, and occasionally, you can even use the binary from the existing version.
The point is you should *always* be able to do this wihtin the same major kernel version. There is no technical reason, aside form the politicis of not wanting to ever allow binary drivers, to not have a stable driver API.
Imagine if the Mozilla plugin API changed with every new version of Firefox. And look at all the complaints when a new Firefox version doesn't work with all the old extentions. It is the exact same.
Slashdot Mirror
4) Keep their current interface, and attract all the previous Office users who cannot stand the new interface with all this "ribbon" baloney.
The ribbon is a huge mistake that flies in the face of almost every UI design principle. The fact that all the menus change depending on both the tab you are currently on *and* the document you are writing, means that all gains you get from your motor memory is lost, you will have to *constantly* be reading the menu and taking double takes to make sure you are doing what you think you are doing.
I think one of three things will happen:
Despite the history of option 3, I think the fact that this UI is such a piece of crap that we may have a real chance at 1 or 2 this time.
I mean, he loses credibility in the first sentence.. "This is a long essay. There is, however, no limit to how long I could have made it.". Of course there is a limit!
We all know that the number of computer bits that man could ever possibly compute is 1.35x(10^20), so his essay could *never* be more than that long, or else it would neve rbe completed.
Foolish!
I guess I don't understand how they wil be adding support "later". Are they planning on issuing a patch you need to download via the broadband?
Or is this simply a case of them not "certifying" the games yet?
If you really think that Europe is for some reason "less free" than the US, than I would suggest you take a look at the http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15333"> Worldwide Press Freedom Index, which lists it in a solid 44th place on the index of freedom of the press, which is mainly what you are talking about when you discuss speech on the Internet, since it is a form of press.
The US has really dipped a lot in this lately (20 places in the past year).
What is the point of these ads? Do Americans actually see an ad for some weird drug for low cholesterol, and for some reason believe they are more qualified than their doctor to decide if they need it? Who would do this?
I can't even fathom this amount of commercialism in medicine - it is wrong on so many levels I cannot even begin to explain. "Ask your Doctor about <insert drug here>. I have a better idea - why dont I assume that my doctor, who has trained for nearly a decade (and more), and who would probably have multiple orders of magnitude more information on me on my condition, would know best, and let them tell me if I need you drug., instead of listening to drug company propeganda?
If you have a Google ad on your page you are already giving them all this information.
Because not everyone can paint, and not everyone can formulate theories. But everyone needs something to do, and a reasonf or getting up in the morning.
Othewise, you'll have total anarchy and the destruction of civilization, because basically, there was nothing else better to do.
That is, if the machines don't figure this out first and kill us beforehand.
Maybe only only their own Open Source Software?
You forget that in order for this law to apply you need a huge *demand* to draw down prices. How many people do you know who want a static IP? How many people woudl even know what one was?
The every-device-in-your-house-on-the-web mentality has a few years to tak eoff. And even when it does, it will likely be based on IPv4 with DHCP, since that is what every person with broadband will already have in their house.
Yet again, no demand for IPv6. It is a solution looking for a problem to solve.
Granting moral equivalency between a spider, which never outstrips the accomplishments of its ancestors; and a human capable of great creativity, nobility, and charity; is absurd to everyone outside of PETA.
The point of my argument is that nature can not grant rights, because it is not an intelligent entity. No one has "unalienable rights", because in order to have a right, someone or something has to grant it. And, unless you are talking about some religious diety, then there is nothing that could grant such rights.
All you have are the rights that the society you happen to live in chooses to grant you. No more, no less. Any other statement is based on nothing but theology.
... if you think that IPv6 is somehow going to make having personal static IP addresses cheaper.
The ISPs are not going to change their business models just because they can. Any given large ISP has *millions* of extra IP addresses that are never used that they could be handing out to the very small portion who want statics. Why don't they? Becaus e they want to make money. You think just because there will now be all these wide-open 128 bit IP ranges, that you will get a free ride? Think again.
If client-based firewalls ar eso great, then why doesn't IBM and Ford and the Fortune 500 have all their PCs connected directly to the web and install personal firewalls? Answer?
- Having direct connections to the web for each terminal is more expensive than having them all behind the NAT
- You can't trust your employees to keep a secure environment
Thus, corperations have no need or desitre to have all their terminals directly connected to the internet. Thus, they don't need IPv6. Thus, the vast majority of computers *in the world* (business use still trumps home use by a factor of like 5 to 1) do not need it.
Why do we need all these freaking IP addresses anyway? I, for one, do *not* want my house, and fridge, or even my home PC for that matter, connected directly to the web. I have to deal with enogh virii and trojans and crap as it is, without worrying about if the OS on my fridge is updated with the latest patch to fix the buffer overflow on the mayonaise level access port.
What is wrong with having to go through a VPN login procedure to access these types of services? Whats the big deal? You log into the NAT access point, the *only* thing in your house on the web, and from there you can get to any other device. It is *not* that hard people.
I personally do not see any need or use for all these new IP blocks people seem to think we need. No copanies will put their workstations directly on the web, it is a huge security risk. What is the business/use case for IPv6? What does it give you, when you don't want to connect devices directly to the internet anyway?
Irregardless of the existence of government, the natural rights of an individual cannot be given away (you can't sell yourself into slavery, you can't tell a higher power that it's ok to kill you). One such right is the right to private property, closed to others' prying eyes or presence.
This is crap. If I want to end my life, I should most certianly be allowed to give someone the right to kill me. I tis *my* life, no one should have any say what I do with it but me. Same goes with the slavery question. Maybe I enjoy having a master? Who are you to tell me what choices I should be making?
The only right you are born with is the right to die. You are not born with the right to personal property or anything else. Do you think that a spider has a right to it's web? If so, then why do you shoo it out of your house? If you don't , then why do you for some reason think nature has granted *you* "fundamental rights", but not other forms of life?
"Rights" are granted by society, a human construct, not by nature. The only reason people have rights is because that we as a community agree that certain things are allowed, and others are not.
It is when two sets of belief systems conflict with each other that we have problems; just because you feel that someone in China should have a "right" to free speech, does not mean that they automatically do, any more than just because someone in a cannabilistic tribe teels that Americans should have a "right" to eat each other, mean that they do. They are totally seperate sets of beleif systems, neither is any more wrong than the other. The only thing that determines what is "right" and "wrong" is society.
Why would they give an award to some guys who just went out and bought a commercially available product?
Obviously you have never worked for the govenment.
You can get an award for *NOT* screwing things up, rather than doing something productive.
If you have really lived on a dairy for 15 years I would have a hard time believing you did not know this.
And knocking over a 1000 pound mass that is resting on a relativly narrow base with a high center of mass is actually pretty simple for someone who is 200 lbs, if they get a small dashing start for the first frew feet (which you need anyway to be fast enough to get the cow before it awakes).
This is crap. I *personally* have witnessed a cow tipping. It is not that difficult. When the cow is asleep, it is not consciously adjusting for it's balence, if you run at it and give it a hard shove, it falls over pretty easily. I have seen it myself.
For those who don't get the subject, I suggest http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040911/matht rek.asp
1. Buy a device that playes mp3s. Any device.
2. Buy all your music from http://www.allofthemp3.com, in mp3, FLAC, OGG, or whatever, for pennies.
3. With all the money you save, buy a giant foam middle finger to wave at the RIAA, Apple, Microsoft, and everyone else pushing their proprietary, imcompatable, DRM encumbered formats.
As I said above, that is not all Google is doing. In order to do what Google is doing, Microsoft will have to also integrate Hotmail and Terraserver and MSN.com seamlessly into windows, and search and index it all. This is easier said than done. Espeically since it would immediatly start competing with Outlook / Exchange licenses.
It is not as simple as it looks. Google has a far broader reach into the web than just indexing web pages. They are rapidly growing the aiility to find any information, on anything, anywhere.
For example, if you use GMail, what is to prevent Google from automatically indexing all your attached office documents so that you can search them? Nothhing. And if they added an online word processor to edit those documents? Of what use would your office desktop be anymore?
This article was written before GMail.
It was written before Google Maps, and more importantly, before Google Maps and Google Local combined.
It was written before Google Movies, and Google Video.
Frankly, I think Microsoft has at least a year of catching up to do, and that is *because* they are Microsoft. Any other company, I would give them at least double that.
That is just to match the technology. Then, they have to get marketshare. Sure, they have a huge channel to shove their stuff down (Windows), but Google is in a far better position than Netscape was in it's day. Netscape was still an app that had to be run. Google is a verb. You never saw the Jennifer Lopez talking about how she "Netscaped It" in Maid in Manhattan.
It is the same reason that Amazon auctions and Yahoo! auctions flounder in obscurity, even though they are cheaper to list on and have basically the exact same feature set as eBay. Ebay has the mindshare. It is featured in Movies and TV constantly. It is a verb. It is so commonplace it will be really a tough nut to crack.
Not to mention Google also has billions in the bank and is raking in revenue, while Netscape was giving away it's key product for free. They are also in a fa rbetter finiancial position to fight than Netscape ever was.
It is highly likely that the acronymn was specifically made to copy the one used in Star Trek.
Star Trek fueld the minds of many young scientists and is the inspiration behind ideas like the cell phone (especially the flip phone!), the PET scan, the PDA (PADD), etc.
And if you want some real fun, get yourself a real life tricorder.
Or a google comment that doesn't spawn a thread....
Sony's DRM is enabled by software that is installed when you autorun the CD.
So, can I modify this software, since I own a copy of the pysical media? But wouldn't this violate the DMCA?
Laws contradicting each other.
It is not welcome. Linux is about Open Source, and allowing people to link-in binary closed drivers goes against this.
Bypassing the dogma of the above, there are numerous pragmatic reasons why this would be better for linux, even if you don't include support for binary third-party drivers.
Sure, some of these are extreme cases. You can usually get away with just re-compiling the driver, and occasionally, you can even use the binary from the existing version.
The point is you should *always* be able to do this wihtin the same major kernel version. There is no technical reason, aside form the politicis of not wanting to ever allow binary drivers, to not have a stable driver API.
Imagine if the Mozilla plugin API changed with every new version of Firefox. And look at all the complaints when a new Firefox version doesn't work with all the old extentions. It is the exact same.
So, cruising around their site, the only thing I can find is a bunch of marketing buzzwords and a screenshot of google.
I am sorry I gave these bozos any traffic.