Abiword already uses.odt - I *think* it's standard, but it may just be available - and is small, and very portable. It even has a "Portable Abiword" windows binary available.
Don't they already do that with the entire patent?
I wonder... How well would the following work?
If your patent is ambiguous, confusing, and not clear as to what it refers (and I don't mean just to patent lawyers), it should be legally interpreted as meaning the least beneficial thing to the filers.
If they've made enough to live off royalties then they should have also made enough to plan ahead with a pension and so forth. If not, that's their own stupid fault.
Nothing is stopping them writing new music. I think even fifty years is forty too long.
It probably ISN'T cheaper in the long run, that's the point. It might be cheaper in the short run, since a simple upgrade to the next version of the same system should be cheaper and easier than a migration complete with retraining to a different system. But in the long run, you save all that money that would go on extortionate license fees.
The rate of change in temperature and CO2 levels has never been as fast as it is now. Not by an order of magnitude or three. We can definitely say that we are putting out a certain amount of CO2; that can easily be measured at source. This has also never been higher. This I can see from the raw numbers - yes, I've worked with the raw data; I've investigated it myself to some extent.
Yes, global temperature does change naturally. But it doesn't change this fast; it never has and there doesn't seem to be anything special causing it this time. Except for us.
Possibly some tiny part of it is natural. Are you trying to tell me, though, that you think none of it is our fault at all?
Try looking at the science and the numbrs behind it, rather than pulling theories out of your hat. Temperature and CO2 levels are rising faster now than they EVER have. And not just faster. Many many times faster. And you want to explain such huge rapid increases on natural phenomena that have never had even a tenth of that effect?
There's ALWAYS a lot more other people than you, so naturally others will cause more of the problem than you.
Should everybody take your attitude then? "Oh, Big Company B and Big Company C together produce more harmful wastes than us here at Big Company A, so we don't need to do anything about it!"
We're running out of fossil fules anyway, and we're going to have to find something else to rely on eventually. Why not do it sooner rather than later and have the reserves around for what actually NEEDS them?
Also, many of the main carbon sink methods aren't too efficient. Some are even quite energy intensive - if that energy is coming from carbon-emitting sources then generally you're not doing a lot of good.
We can't predict exactly what will happen. But we can say with reasonable certainty that things WILL happen, even if we can't exactly quantify them. We can say that, to the best of our knowledge, any number of this long list of mostly bad things could happen.
We're not certain what exactly will happen. However, we are pretty certain that sea levels will rise, and if they rise enough, they will alter the Gulf Stream.
Rising sea levels by themselves are bad enough. See all those coastal cities around the US? Mostly gone. See low lying countries like Bangladesh and Holland? Mostly flooded; millions homeless. If the Gulf Stream changes direction, most of the northeastern US and most of northern Europe could well become like Siberia. What's the chances of your Scottish wine industry being successful there?
Those of us who understand the basic science and data involved, as compared to those who read about it third or fourth hand from sources who may not have a clue themselves, tend to be reasonably sure something will happen. Nobody knows exactly what will happen, but most of what's been suggested with reasonable scientific backing tends not to be good. Personally, I don't feel sitting around doing nothing to limit it is a remotely good idea.
Even the Kyoto protocol's goals considered simply in the timescale they were agreed for, as part of a longer-term plan, probably aren't enough to level off global CO2 levels for hundreds of years. To even try to level CO2 levels off within 50 years, we'll need to cut CO2 emissions by around 90-95%. And even that gives us a rise in sea level that could be up to most of two metres. Possibly enough to alter the Gulf Stream; definitely enough to cause flooding of low-lying areas.
Making CO2 and other relevant gases level off, along with limiting temperature increases, will be very difficult. But if we don't? I hope people realise that as bad as it will be if we do our best, it'll be worse if we do nothing.
I'd assume the code dealing with the various about:config options has comments explaining them all; they could even just take them and stick that in a text file for reference if anything else is too much work.
I did prefer it on the front page. In many cases it's one of the major thing you need to get to in the options. Even more so on a laptop used in multiple locations with different network setups and probably proxies.
Slashdot Mirror
The pound WAS gold-backed before the second world war, but no longer.
Abiword already uses .odt - I *think* it's standard, but it may just be available - and is small, and very portable. It even has a "Portable Abiword" windows binary available.
This is something that's been pointed out many times. It'll never get through to them, of course.
I've used a fork as a knife occasionally for years. I've seen sporks with a flat/sharper edge for cutting. So, yes, definitely not new.
Don't they already do that with the entire patent?
I wonder... How well would the following work?
If your patent is ambiguous, confusing, and not clear as to what it refers (and I don't mean just to patent lawyers), it should be legally interpreted as meaning the least beneficial thing to the filers.
"No, you don't. Nor do you pay musicians royalties every time you listen to a CD in your car."
Not for much longer, if the industry gets their way.
If they've made enough to live off royalties then they should have also made enough to plan ahead with a pension and so forth. If not, that's their own stupid fault.
Nothing is stopping them writing new music. I think even fifty years is forty too long.
Prior art would include my AS-level computing course. That's pre-university.
It was something I did in the sixth form, before I came to uni, as I recall. Doubly linked lists were specifically explained to us.
(Not that I do CS at uni, now.)
Did the other company develop their product independently? If so, then why should they not be able to distribute it as well
As I recall, it's an option, not an obligation. And even then it is limited to systems which prmote the cause of science etc.
It probably ISN'T cheaper in the long run, that's the point. It might be cheaper in the short run, since a simple upgrade to the next version of the same system should be cheaper and easier than a migration complete with retraining to a different system. But in the long run, you save all that money that would go on extortionate license fees.
I've heard worse plans for dealing with rapists than that.
Yeah; they remove anything that might be considered entertaining.
That sounds very very satisfying from the winner's point of view... I like it.
Put that way, I see your point.
The rate of change in temperature and CO2 levels has never been as fast as it is now. Not by an order of magnitude or three. We can definitely say that we are putting out a certain amount of CO2; that can easily be measured at source. This has also never been higher. This I can see from the raw numbers - yes, I've worked with the raw data; I've investigated it myself to some extent.
Yes, global temperature does change naturally. But it doesn't change this fast; it never has and there doesn't seem to be anything special causing it this time. Except for us.
Possibly some tiny part of it is natural. Are you trying to tell me, though, that you think none of it is our fault at all?
Try looking at the science and the numbrs behind it, rather than pulling theories out of your hat. Temperature and CO2 levels are rising faster now than they EVER have. And not just faster. Many many times faster. And you want to explain such huge rapid increases on natural phenomena that have never had even a tenth of that effect?
There's ALWAYS a lot more other people than you, so naturally others will cause more of the problem than you.
Should everybody take your attitude then? "Oh, Big Company B and Big Company C together produce more harmful wastes than us here at Big Company A, so we don't need to do anything about it!"
We're running out of fossil fules anyway, and we're going to have to find something else to rely on eventually. Why not do it sooner rather than later and have the reserves around for what actually NEEDS them?
Also, many of the main carbon sink methods aren't too efficient. Some are even quite energy intensive - if that energy is coming from carbon-emitting sources then generally you're not doing a lot of good.
We can't predict exactly what will happen. But we can say with reasonable certainty that things WILL happen, even if we can't exactly quantify them. We can say that, to the best of our knowledge, any number of this long list of mostly bad things could happen.
We're not certain what exactly will happen. However, we are pretty certain that sea levels will rise, and if they rise enough, they will alter the Gulf Stream.
Rising sea levels by themselves are bad enough. See all those coastal cities around the US? Mostly gone. See low lying countries like Bangladesh and Holland? Mostly flooded; millions homeless.
If the Gulf Stream changes direction, most of the northeastern US and most of northern Europe could well become like Siberia. What's the chances of your Scottish wine industry being successful there?
Those of us who understand the basic science and data involved, as compared to those who read about it third or fourth hand from sources who may not have a clue themselves, tend to be reasonably sure something will happen. Nobody knows exactly what will happen, but most of what's been suggested with reasonable scientific backing tends not to be good. Personally, I don't feel sitting around doing nothing to limit it is a remotely good idea.
Even the Kyoto protocol's goals considered simply in the timescale they were agreed for, as part of a longer-term plan, probably aren't enough to level off global CO2 levels for hundreds of years. To even try to level CO2 levels off within 50 years, we'll need to cut CO2 emissions by around 90-95%. And even that gives us a rise in sea level that could be up to most of two metres. Possibly enough to alter the Gulf Stream; definitely enough to cause flooding of low-lying areas.
Making CO2 and other relevant gases level off, along with limiting temperature increases, will be very difficult. But if we don't? I hope people realise that as bad as it will be if we do our best, it'll be worse if we do nothing.
I'd assume the code dealing with the various about:config options has comments explaining them all; they could even just take them and stick that in a text file for reference if anything else is too much work.
I did prefer it on the front page. In many cases it's one of the major thing you need to get to in the options. Even more so on a laptop used in multiple locations with different network setups and probably proxies.