To put it politely, bollocks. Nobody uses StarOffice or OpenOffice in business (except for v. small consultancies.
It's a small fraction of the cost of a PC to get the student license. Most PCs have MS Office or MS Works bundled in. Frequently (as is the case at the University I'm currently working at) MS Office is used as the suite of choice.
As I pointed out, most companies have standardized on MS Office. It would be a disservice to them to not have those particular skills on their CV.
It's not that I like the current situation, but ffs I'm talking about the real world, not some fantasy place where slashdotters retreat to.
I'm not too familiar with the American environment, but when small businesses screw their employees like this, does a call to the local "Better Business Bureau" help?
Microsoft sell student/teacher licenses for MS Office that are a fraction of the full retail price. I don't think that for students, cost is that much of an issue.
There is also no such thing as a "generic wordprocessor". MS Office, rightly or wrongly, sets the company standards for most businesses. It should be taught in schools and colleges as a key skill for employment
I don't agree with MS's business practices, nor its monopolization in software, but children are not best served by denying them the skills they're most likely to use in work.
"NO2ID is a campaigning organisation opposed to the government's planned ID card and National Identity Register"
If you want to register for the free newsletter you have to put in name, e-mail address and POSTCODE. For you non-Brits that means that you can be identified down to one of a few houses.
Dear Buster,
You are smoking something that isn't Craven-A.
I've just sat through HG2G in the movies and I could have counted the number of laughs on one hand. They followed the story all right, but while the special effects were spectacular especially towards the end, the laughs were hard to come by. As I pointed out, the plot is dated.
Even Adams' biographer pointed out that the film was unfunny.
Anyone who thinks that "Mostly Harmless" was funny, needs their head examining. It was terrible and worse, boring.
Me *choosing* to contribute to organizations that can actually do good for my fellow citizens (which I do, despite flushing way too many other dollars down the hole in taxes) is *way* different than mandatory taxes - which wind up benefitting almost noone that really needs help.
You have a choice with "contributions". Pay up or go to jail. It's a choice and its a free country.
Or you could pay your taxes and stop whining.
You obviously have no clue about energy source development, so I'll not even bother attempting to educate you.
Good. You were in for an ass-kicking anyway.
I'm also not dragging this down further into a war discussion. You started that. I'll just say that we should have stopped at Afganistan if all you wanted as retribution for 9/11.
I would completely agree with you on the question of 9/11. Surprised?
The war in afghanistan was not done by "contributions" or charitable donations, but by taxation. If you know of a better method, do let your congressman know about it.
Consumption-based taxes actually "hurt" everyone equally since the $1 million house bought by a Goooogle employee ends up costing much more for them than no taxes on rent in a city apartment for a middle-class city dweller
I have no objection to consumption based taxes. I do have a problem with only consumption based taxes - they disproportionately affect the poor. Say what you like about income taxes - but they are based on people's ability to pay.
And, finally, you gave it up at the end. Your last statement pretty much says that the Goooogle folks (or anyone who is successful) didn't earn their income and status by hard work and determination...it was just handed to them - and from tax money (of all places). What a freakin' crock.
Now we know that you're a troll. Why? Because nowhere in the above statements did I claim that the founders of Google did not earn their income and status by hard work. NOWHERE.
You made it up. Admit it, it's a straw man argument you pulled out of your wide ass.
My objection is not about the founders' wealth, just their manoevering to not pay their taxes using the same rules as everyone else.
I'll give you the last word if you really need it, but AFAIC, the thread's done.
It is done. You run away from reality. I declare myself the winner of this thread.
It's got to be a bad Saturday. I'm replying to an ignorant moron.
"Contributions" are still "taxes". You've still got to pay them. Changing the name of the tax doesn't change what it is.
Throughout your tedious rant you've demonstrated that you hate your fellow citizen and don't give a shit.
Yes, paying for wars is sad. But so is picking up the pieces of your loved ones (maybe you don't have any - so what does it matter?) attacked by terrorists. "Alternative energy sources" are produced by those very evil energy companies you evidently have a hard time with.
Replacing income based taxes to consumption based taxes places the larger burden on the middle classes and the poor - but hey! maybe you'll win the lottery and then it won't affect you. You don't give a shit anyway.
But here's a way to stop using fossil fuels - switch off your POS computer and walk away.
The rest of us pay taxes - the alternatives are the fun packed tax holiday destinations of Russia and the third world. Not much taxes collected there - and it shows.
I don;t like paying tax any more than anyone else - but I prefer it to the alternative.
You want to cheer on the mega rich avoiding paying their share of the prosperity bought them by the taxes of others? It's a shame but I don't expect any better from you.
Really? How much taxes do crack addicts actually pay? You think that taxes pay for people to sit on the street smoking crack?
Maybe they go pay for wars against terrorists. They pay for firetrucks and police officers. They pay for education. For public amenities that you use every day.
The reason why everybody else pays more taxes is because the very wealthy avoid paying their share.
They want representation? Then they should pay the taxes. Its as simple as that. Democracies don't come cheap and freedom is expensive.
If that's all the outlay required, what say a few of us Slashdotters got together, put a business plan which calls for $1mill, goto some some VCs and tell them about the next sure thing, then take the company public and retire by November....
Or did I miss something?
we've been hearing about control of gadgets, faucets and light bulbs using heat, remote control, computer control, nodding, winking, clapping, voice control and other electronic marvels for as long as I can remember (ie the mid 1970s).
Yet, we're still using light switches whose fundamental design hasn't changed since Edison. We still have doors that open or close (instead of slide to one side a la "Star Trek") manually using something we old-timers call a "door handle". We still open a faucet which is entirely mechanical in design.
Face it, these hyped-up-but-never-deployed electronic marvels are poor quality alternatives to straightforward mechanical design, and always liable to go wrong (especially during a power-outage).
We'll still be using the same stuff in fifty years - just get over it. There are more compelling uses for technology than these solutions-for-problems-that-don't-require-solution s.
Slashdot Mirror
After having his paper censored by Science magazine for spurious reasons, Benny Peiser should pay for an advert instead!
Why didn't somebody think of it before?
To put it politely, bollocks. Nobody uses StarOffice or OpenOffice in business (except for v. small consultancies. It's a small fraction of the cost of a PC to get the student license. Most PCs have MS Office or MS Works bundled in. Frequently (as is the case at the University I'm currently working at) MS Office is used as the suite of choice. As I pointed out, most companies have standardized on MS Office. It would be a disservice to them to not have those particular skills on their CV. It's not that I like the current situation, but ffs I'm talking about the real world, not some fantasy place where slashdotters retreat to.
I'm not too familiar with the American environment, but when small businesses screw their employees like this, does a call to the local "Better Business Bureau" help?
Microsoft sell student/teacher licenses for MS Office that are a fraction of the full retail price. I don't think that for students, cost is that much of an issue.
There is also no such thing as a "generic wordprocessor". MS Office, rightly or wrongly, sets the company standards for most businesses. It should be taught in schools and colleges as a key skill for employment
I don't agree with MS's business practices, nor its monopolization in software, but children are not best served by denying them the skills they're most likely to use in work.
"In a world of peace, four children are sent to a strange house, where they find a portal to another world of perpetual snow and talking animals."
*Cue gratuitous beaver shot*
"My word, Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve! Come in and and have tea!"
Four children clash hands together and shout "Talking Beavers! Excellent!"
But then one encounters a mysterious woman:
"Yes, dear boy. I am an evil witch! You can tell by my impeccable manners and cut-glass English accent!"
"Uh oh!"
"Like some Turkish Delight?"
"Are they like Hershey Bars?"
"Yes, but not quite as evil and low carb as well"
To be continued...
*sigh*
Can someone mod this down to -5 (Theft)?
I've no idea. But at least he can spell.
Brilliant.
Dear Buster, You are smoking something that isn't Craven-A. I've just sat through HG2G in the movies and I could have counted the number of laughs on one hand. They followed the story all right, but while the special effects were spectacular especially towards the end, the laughs were hard to come by. As I pointed out, the plot is dated. Even Adams' biographer pointed out that the film was unfunny. Anyone who thinks that "Mostly Harmless" was funny, needs their head examining. It was terrible and worse, boring.
...the book isn't very funny. It's very dated and cliched. The radio series was a lot better.
Fortunately they won't get as far as making the movie of the completely unfunny "Mostly Harmless". What a pile of crap that was.
Me *choosing* to contribute to organizations that can actually do good for my fellow citizens (which I do, despite flushing way too many other dollars down the hole in taxes) is *way* different than mandatory taxes - which wind up benefitting almost noone that really needs help.
You have a choice with "contributions". Pay up or go to jail. It's a choice and its a free country.
Or you could pay your taxes and stop whining.
You obviously have no clue about energy source development, so I'll not even bother attempting to educate you.
Good. You were in for an ass-kicking anyway.
I'm also not dragging this down further into a war discussion. You started that. I'll just say that we should have stopped at Afganistan if all you wanted as retribution for 9/11.
I would completely agree with you on the question of 9/11. Surprised?
The war in afghanistan was not done by "contributions" or charitable donations, but by taxation. If you know of a better method, do let your congressman know about it.
Consumption-based taxes actually "hurt" everyone equally since the $1 million house bought by a Goooogle employee ends up costing much more for them than no taxes on rent in a city apartment for a middle-class city dweller
I have no objection to consumption based taxes. I do have a problem with only consumption based taxes - they disproportionately affect the poor. Say what you like about income taxes - but they are based on people's ability to pay.
And, finally, you gave it up at the end. Your last statement pretty much says that the Goooogle folks (or anyone who is successful) didn't earn their income and status by hard work and determination...it was just handed to them - and from tax money (of all places). What a freakin' crock.
Now we know that you're a troll. Why? Because nowhere in the above statements did I claim that the founders of Google did not earn their income and status by hard work. NOWHERE.
You made it up. Admit it, it's a straw man argument you pulled out of your wide ass.
My objection is not about the founders' wealth, just their manoevering to not pay their taxes using the same rules as everyone else.
I'll give you the last word if you really need it, but AFAIC, the thread's done.
It is done. You run away from reality. I declare myself the winner of this thread.
It's got to be a bad Saturday. I'm replying to an ignorant moron.
"Contributions" are still "taxes". You've still got to pay them. Changing the name of the tax doesn't change what it is.
Throughout your tedious rant you've demonstrated that you hate your fellow citizen and don't give a shit.
Yes, paying for wars is sad. But so is picking up the pieces of your loved ones (maybe you don't have any - so what does it matter?) attacked by terrorists. "Alternative energy sources" are produced by those very evil energy companies you evidently have a hard time with.
Replacing income based taxes to consumption based taxes places the larger burden on the middle classes and the poor - but hey! maybe you'll win the lottery and then it won't affect you. You don't give a shit anyway.
But here's a way to stop using fossil fuels - switch off your POS computer and walk away.
The rest of us pay taxes - the alternatives are the fun packed tax holiday destinations of Russia and the third world. Not much taxes collected there - and it shows.
I don;t like paying tax any more than anyone else - but I prefer it to the alternative.
You want to cheer on the mega rich avoiding paying their share of the prosperity bought them by the taxes of others? It's a shame but I don't expect any better from you.
Really? How much taxes do crack addicts actually pay? You think that taxes pay for people to sit on the street smoking crack?
Maybe they go pay for wars against terrorists. They pay for firetrucks and police officers. They pay for education. For public amenities that you use every day.
The reason why everybody else pays more taxes is because the very wealthy avoid paying their share.
They want representation? Then they should pay the taxes. Its as simple as that. Democracies don't come cheap and freedom is expensive.
You're not responding to a troll. I am.
They just America so much that they don't have to pay their fair share. Let some other proud citizen pay for the services they use.
It's the Google Way(tm)
If that's all the outlay required, what say a few of us Slashdotters got together, put a business plan which calls for $1mill, goto some some VCs and tell them about the next sure thing, then take the company public and retire by November.... Or did I miss something?
Folks,
n s.
we've been hearing about control of gadgets, faucets and light bulbs using heat, remote control, computer control, nodding, winking, clapping, voice control and other electronic marvels for as long as I can remember (ie the mid 1970s).
Yet, we're still using light switches whose fundamental design hasn't changed since Edison. We still have doors that open or close (instead of slide to one side a la "Star Trek") manually using something we old-timers call a "door handle". We still open a faucet which is entirely mechanical in design.
Face it, these hyped-up-but-never-deployed electronic marvels are poor quality alternatives to straightforward mechanical design, and always liable to go wrong (especially during a power-outage).
We'll still be using the same stuff in fifty years - just get over it. There are more compelling uses for technology than these solutions-for-problems-that-don't-require-solutio