Why don't they write an OASIS exporter/importer then?
All I as a user/customer care for is the ability to echange my files with whom I choose and need to. But they don't want to give me that. How convenient that they sneaked an advertising clause into their license for the Office 12 XML formats that makes it GPL-incompatible.
Read Brian Jones' (manager of MS Word development group) blog and the comments (esp. June/July archive IIRC). The OASIS standard looks like OOo because MS declined to take part in its development. Then they turned around and claimed that since OASIS doesn't do what they need, they to have to develop a competing XML file format in Office 12.
What makes you think the OASIS standard is even worth supporting?
can't claim to be pro-choice unless you give the lady a choice- and a choice can't be made without proper eductation
I'm not arguing in favor of ignorance. But you can't require each woman to study medicine either, therefore in many (most) cases, the doctor will be able to argue from a stronger position.
Funny- makes it look like you're against rationality
Not at all of course. I'm just saying that humans are not only rational, and abortion is an incredible emotional topic. Therefore it just doesn't cut it to only take rationality into account.
Scenario: woman gets pregnant and after detailed and painful consideration,she decides for abortion. Reasons don't matter here, all that matters that for her, it seems the only option. But of course she still hates to do it (contrary to what some pro-life say, the decision is nearly never easily made, and people do struggle with it).
Now, she's pretty informed, she's also already seen scans (women in general have, even if not their own). And since she hates to have to do it, but needs to do it and is on the edge, she consciously decides not to look at the scan of her own. This is IMHO entirely reasonable
if what you say is the truth (that the fetus is nothing more than a clump of cells) how could a picture of a clump of cells be considered to be pressuring the woman?
Um, because of lack of education on the topic, power issues, and emotions?
Speak for yourself, when it comes to eating beef, I stick to what I get off the family farm- it's the only way to avoid GM foods these days.
Appreciated, but does not work today without fundamental changes in society that are so unforseeable that one can not meaningfully discuss them
I think that EVERY American, should, as a part of their basic education (...)
Funny, I once argued a lot (and still think) a similar thing, namely that a visit in a slaughterhosue should be required education in school. We had that in my school.
If she's poor- read the article I linked- and her only choice is a Planned Parenthood clinic (...)
Oh yeah, I forgot to take the US into account. Well, my condolences, you really should get yourself a real health system over there;)
You argue from an extremely rational position that I just don't find valid. I agree that the woman should have all info. However one does not preclude the other, i.e., a woman can be well-educated about the subject and still choose not to be confronted with all she knows in that particular moment. It's part of how we (most of us anyway) function. If you have to fire someone, you -know- that will impact his/her family, but do you need to explore it in detail in this particular moment?
But that all doesn't matter anyway, it's simply her choice to see it or not.
Uhm, because it could/would be used to pressure the woman? And because it is actually contradictory to what you do and people in general just might have to do when dealing with things in life? You shouldn't be stopped from looking at a photo of the cute calf before downing that veal, but you shouldn't be forced to either.
And there is a difference between "not being allowed to see scans" and "being required to see scans". I'm sure that the woman will have little trouble seeing a scan if she wants to. But if not, that should be her decision.
You might want to look into Rupert Riedl and other biologists who explore self-organising properties of matter and process. It is possibly not as random as you seem to think.
I forgot: in addition to (1) and (2) in my previous reply, the main error in your post is a logical one:
If there isn't a non-spatial version, my statement that it is spatial is notparticularly wrong. Quite the opposite, if there isn't a non-spatial version, it follows that it is spatial, thus I am right:)
Excuse the question, but do you have any idea at all what you are talking about?
First, there is a non-spatial version, just go to Edit -> Preferences and check "Always open in Browser Mode". This will turn off spatial nautilus and give you browser (i.e., Win File Explorer) mode. Or you can rightclick a folder and select "Open in Browser Mode", which will give you a non-spatial browser mode window.
Second, since they switched to spatial mode in Gnome 2.6 (see link, it works now), there obviously was a non-spatial mode before the switch
IANADRME, but as I understand it, I can sign a binary, or use a binary signed by someone else, and tell the system that it is ok to run binaries signed as such (by providing the public key I guess), which would be validated using info on the chip.
No, because you stated that Linux is "inherently incompatible with DRM". Which it just isn't.
It's probable that you will not be able to access *AA's content (among others), but this doesn't mean that you couldn't use DRM for other things, like preventing software from running if you didn't sign it (or preventing the RIAA from accessing music you created;)
You'll probably believe Linus more than me, so here it goes.
No. You can do interesting things with DRM, provided that the user of the machine is the one managing the rights. It's probably incompatible with other people managing your rights though (RIAA etc.)
Stuck with Windows PC at work and not being able to stand the single most featureless windowing system around?
Seriously, there is no feature at all in Win's window management. Well, maximise (stupidly, always to full screen), minimize, overlap. No multiple desktops (and available options are mostly either a joke or cost money - not that I'm cheap, but if you add up all the utilities from Gnome or KDE, it really gets steep, and this is work after all). No window shading (roll-up), no sticky windows, and so on and so on. Every Free window manager would be laughed at for that feature set, heck even Metacity does way more.
While PG mixed up the drugs, it's not as if methadone addiction would not exist
Methadone addiction is a real problem, which has probably worse effects than heroin, where it not for being artificially legal and heroin artificially illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the clarification. Not that familiar with the MS nomenclatura
I know that. So? It's better to not be able to read the doc at all than with some formatting errors? I don't get what's your point.
Why don't they write an OASIS exporter/importer then?
All I as a user/customer care for is the ability to echange my files with whom I choose and need to. But they don't want to give me that.
How convenient that they sneaked an advertising clause into their license for the Office 12 XML formats that makes it GPL-incompatible.
I doubt any major distribution will ever ship it out of the box.
Already done
Read Brian Jones' (manager of MS Word development group) blog and the comments (esp. June/July archive IIRC). The OASIS standard looks like OOo because MS declined to take part in its development. Then they turned around and claimed that since OASIS doesn't do what they need, they to have to develop a competing XML file format in Office 12.
What makes you think the OASIS standard is even worth supporting?
EU encouragement?
can't claim to be pro-choice unless you give the lady a choice- and a choice can't be made without proper eductation
I'm not arguing in favor of ignorance. But you can't require each woman to study medicine either, therefore in many (most) cases, the doctor will be able to argue from a stronger position.
Funny- makes it look like you're against rationality
Not at all of course. I'm just saying that humans are not only rational, and abortion is an incredible emotional topic. Therefore it just doesn't cut it to only take rationality into account.
Scenario: woman gets pregnant and after detailed and painful consideration,she decides for abortion. Reasons don't matter here, all that matters that for her, it seems the only option.
But of course she still hates to do it (contrary to what some pro-life say, the decision is nearly never easily made, and people do struggle with it).
Now, she's pretty informed, she's also already seen scans (women in general have, even if not their own). And since she hates to have to do it, but needs to do it and is on the edge, she consciously decides not to look at the scan of her own.
This is IMHO entirely reasonable
if what you say is the truth (that the fetus is nothing more than a clump of cells) how could a picture of a clump of cells be considered to be pressuring the woman?
;)
Um, because of lack of education on the topic, power issues, and emotions?
Speak for yourself, when it comes to eating beef, I stick to what I get off the family farm- it's the only way to avoid GM foods these days.
Appreciated, but does not work today without fundamental changes in society that are so unforseeable that one can not meaningfully discuss them
I think that EVERY American, should, as a part of their basic education (...)
Funny, I once argued a lot (and still think) a similar thing, namely that a visit in a slaughterhosue should be required education in school. We had that in my school.
If she's poor- read the article I linked- and her only choice is a Planned Parenthood clinic (...)
Oh yeah, I forgot to take the US into account. Well, my condolences, you really should get yourself a real health system over there
You argue from an extremely rational position that I just don't find valid. I agree that the woman should have all info.
However one does not preclude the other, i.e., a woman can be well-educated about the subject and still choose not to be confronted with all she knows in that particular moment.
It's part of how we (most of us anyway) function. If you have to fire someone, you -know- that will impact his/her family, but do you need to explore it in detail in this particular moment?
But that all doesn't matter anyway, it's simply her choice to see it or not.
Uhm, because it could/would be used to pressure the woman? And because it is actually contradictory to what you do and people in general just might have to do when dealing with things in life?
You shouldn't be stopped from looking at a photo of the cute calf before downing that veal, but you shouldn't be forced to either.
And there is a difference between "not being allowed to see scans" and "being required to see scans". I'm sure that the woman will have little trouble seeing a scan if she wants to. But if not, that should be her decision.
You might want to look into Rupert Riedl and other biologists who explore self-organising properties of matter and process. It is possibly not as random as you seem to think.
To add to that, some biologists, like Rupert Riedl explore self-organising properties that seem to add further guidance to the process.
We both managed to misunderstand each other completely. Sorry for my part :)
I forgot: in addition to (1) and (2) in my previous reply, the main error in your post is a logical one:
:)
If there isn't a non-spatial version, my statement that it is spatial is not particularly wrong. Quite the opposite, if there isn't a non-spatial version, it follows that it is spatial, thus I am right
there isn't a non-spatial version
Excuse the question, but do you have any idea at all what you are talking about?
First, there is a non-spatial version, just go to Edit -> Preferences and check "Always open in Browser Mode". This will turn off spatial nautilus and give you browser (i.e., Win File Explorer) mode.
Or you can rightclick a folder and select "Open in Browser Mode", which will give you a non-spatial browser mode window.
Second, since they switched to spatial mode in Gnome 2.6 (see link, it works now), there obviously was a non-spatial mode before the switch
Huh? What's wrong? That it's spatial or that it's been flamed?
:)
Mind you, I'm not saying that the flames were
deserved
Where have you been these last 2 years? Yes, it's spatial, and it's been flamed to hell and back for it.
IANADRME, but as I understand it, I can sign a binary, or use a binary signed by someone else, and tell the system that it is ok to run binaries signed as such (by providing the public key I guess), which would be validated using info on the chip.
I see where you're going now.
But I have a hard time beliving that no linux kernel will ever support a DRM chip.
No, because you stated that Linux is "inherently incompatible with DRM". Which it just isn't.
;)
It's probable that you will not be able to access *AA's content (among others), but this doesn't mean that you couldn't use DRM for other things, like preventing software from running if you didn't sign it (or preventing the RIAA from accessing music you created
You'll probably believe Linus more than me, so here it goes.
It's completely inherently incompatible with DRM
No. You can do interesting things with DRM, provided that the user of the machine is the one managing the rights.
It's probably incompatible with other people managing your rights though (RIAA etc.)
Stuck with Windows PC at work and not being able to stand the single most featureless windowing system around?
Seriously, there is no feature at all in Win's window management. Well, maximise (stupidly, always to full screen), minimize, overlap.
No multiple desktops (and available options are mostly either a joke or cost money - not that I'm cheap, but if you add up all the utilities from Gnome or KDE, it really gets steep, and this is work after all). No window shading (roll-up), no sticky windows, and so on and so on.
Every Free window manager would be laughed at for that feature set, heck even Metacity does way more.
Which is approximately what I said. I agree with you and think you replied to the wrong guy. Hope someone gives you +1 Insightful or so.
without any applications running
So your computer is running ten times faster doing nothing?
I would say this only shows that you need to ask a fucking lot of questions to maintain a Slackware box ;)
We can and we do. It's called XFCE.
Agreed. And Ion and a lot of other innovative window managers/desktop environments. What about Rox?
Plenty of new stuff, in any case compared with MS which has how many new concepts for window managing? 0? I thought so.
While PG mixed up the drugs, it's not as if methadone addiction would not exist
Methadone addiction is a real problem, which has probably worse effects than heroin, where it not for being artificially legal and heroin artificially illegal.
Also: The Methadone Conspiracy - Can Addicts Sue?