Seriously, save your self some effort and either save it as HTML, or PDF if you simply want others to view it.
HTML is good because nearly everyone has a webbrowser, PDF is good because it is hard to change for most people and nearly everyone has access to a PDF viewer.
If you actually do want people to edit your files, then it depends on what you are doing. If you have the whip hand, tell them to get OpenOffice.org, else continue what you are doing.
I know a few people who switched to OpenOffice.org for the one touch "save as PDF", but PDF Creator can be used in any Windows program. And I'm sure that there is an equivalent for X/GNU/Linux.
If you do care about your work being shared with others, then public domain is not really an option. Because quite simply, anyone can come and take that open work and close it again. The page on GNU philosophy at www.gnu.org has more information about this problem.
Personally, if I am happy with others using my work, I release it under a simple licence that says something like: Use as you like, but then if you do use, it make sure any copies or derivatives are, 1, under this same licence, and 2 that everybody else gets the same rights that I give you.
This enables attribution if they want (if it is is required, such as in an academic scenario), and I don't worry any more. It means that there is slightly more chance that they will make changes available, because they legally have to, but I'm not about to hunt them down.
OpenOffice.org can be had for as little as $0. In fact Microsoft products can be too, especially in these sort of places.
Which is sort of the point. They will make it cheaper to "rent" for a time then to actually buy the product outright, in an attempt to stem piracy. It won't work for most, but it might work for some.
I have to agree. Over at revleft.com there was a discussion on the matter http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtop ic=61058 >, and this site http://www.circumstitions.com/One-liners.html >got linked. Basically circumcision comes down to abuse. It is abusive to hurt children in this manner. The site with one liners has responses to any crap that people will try and argue.
You didn't vote for a Labour government though. ~35% of those who bothered voting (I don't vote by the way, I blow up police stations) voted for labour. ~32% voted for the Conservative and ~22% voted LibDem. In a decent electoral system, Labour would have received ~35% of the seats, they got ~55%. The Conservatives would have received ~32% of the seats, they got ~31%. The LibDems just under 10%.
You haven't got a democracy in the UK. You have First Past the Post. It doesn't matter who you vote for. Your vote won't get counted. Fuck that for a system.
Because communism is not about government or restrictions? Communism is about classless stateless society where resources are held in common. It is about empowerment. It is about freedom. Personally I am an anarchist, communism to me is a type of anarchism. I would be happy with it, so long as I had the choice. And under true communism, I would.
That said, I don't think that Free Software is about communism or is communistic. But it is still more so then Microsoft software.
I forgot to link to my university essay (which I published on a site called revolutionaryleft.com yes, just because it isn't posted on a scholarly site means it isn't scholarly) which explains why the USA is not a democracy. http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=24734&h l=
Here is why. "A political entity must be judged by its actions and not by its pronouncements", yes this is true, so we can say that while the USA and the UK *claim* to be democracies, the facts show that they aren't.
"And since Marx claimed that he was not Marxist, well that gives you a cute little get-out-of-losing-arguments-free card, doesn't it? When confronted with the facts concerning communism, you can always say 'well that wasn't real communism.'" Marx said in response to certain groups at the time saying that they were Marxist, that if they were Marxists he wasn't. He would have said the same thing about Lenin. When confronted with the "facts concerning communism", I give a definition of communism that is correct. I don't say that what is claimed by people to be communistic (the USSR or Cuba) is good. Or bad for that matter (though being an anarchist I don't like either possibility). I simply try and educate ignorant people like yourself on what communism really is. That being a classless stateless society where resources (and/or the means of production) are held in common.
"Pol Pot. Buddhist nuns tortured by insertion of cattle prods. The Chinese Cultural Revolution. The environmental disaster of the Aral Sea. The Tiennanmen Square massacre. The Berlin Wall.
Yes, yes, we all know, that's not real communism. Real communism says that it is sunshine and freedom and delicious food. Therefore death by the millions and enslavement of billions cannot ever be the product of communism. Marx wasn't Marsixt. Communism isn't communist." Just because a group of people who have a lot to loose (the rich and powerful in the "West") spin examples as being "communistic" because they were put in place by people who claimed to be communists (but never that there countries were) doesn't make it so. Would you rather believe someone who obviously have a lot to lose from the implementation of another system (for example the aristocrats who claimed that free and universal elections (i.e. "democracy") would cause chaos) or someone who is presenting the facts of the matter and trying to argue rationally without resort to spin or similar?
"And to the expected laundry list of the failures of capitalism, well that's not real capitalism." A lot of people don't think it is. However, going by what the people in power call it (capitalism) I'm more likely to believe them because if they had anything to loose, they would call it something different. And besides, even if you don't call it capitalism, even if you are an "anarcho-capitalist" wacko who wants true capitalism. We can still argue theoretically why thier ideas are completely fucked up and not anarchistic (or whatever). But communism in theory and what is called communism in reality are so different that there is no point.
Nothing for most people. For the rich and powerful, they loose their riches and power.
To stop people from thinking about what communism really is, they point to places which have never claimed to be communistic (the USSR, China, PDRK and of course Cuba)and claim that they are communistic.
Only ignorant people, and people who have something to lose (or who think that they might have something to lose, like the opportunity to oppress others) claim that there is something inherently wrong with communism.
Or even anarchists like Kropotkin. But it doesn't mean shit.
Free Software is not about people working on developing software together. It is about people being able to use and change the software they have. There is nothing that says if I develop a piece of software that I have to work with others. It is just that I enable others to share and use my software, to change it as they will.
I'm not a communist. BUT I'M ALSO NOT A COMPLETE AND UTTER STUPID FUCKWIT. Unlike say that ignorant person who I am replying to.
Communism is/not/ Cuba, China, the USSR or the DRPK. Communism is a classless stateless society where goods are held in common. The countries mentioned *never* claimed to be communist. The most they ever did was claim to be moving towards communism. The claimed (or still claim) to be in the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (or as I like to say, "dictatorship over the proletariat") stage.
Talking about "warped ideologies", what about the millions of starving children in Africa? They are not dying because of "communism" (or even "Communism"). No, it is capitalism that is doing them in.
Talking about violence, what is happening in Iraq just now? Oh, that's right, violence to defend an ideology ("democracy" in this case). Get a fucking life you loser. Or better still, learn to read and find out something about a topic before mouthing off about it.
There are already a few comments about Cuba, communism and "Open Source" software. How this will discourage people from using Free Software, or how this will be a PR coup for Microsoft or whatever else.
I just have to say that anyone who thinks that Free Software is communistic because Cuba (and Venezuela) are using it are stupid. Firstly, Cuba is not communist. The USSR never claimed to be communist. Comments about Cuba being communist show the ignorance of the person saying them.
Secondly, if you refuse to use a superior (technologically, or because it's cheaper or whatever) option because "communists" are using it. Then you are stupid. Full stop.
Free Software is not about communism, if you read the FSF definition, you will notice that the software must not be restricted for *any* usage. That includes totalitarian regimes, or real communists living in a hippy commune somewhere. Free Software is about Freedom. And that means that Cuba is free to use it.
For a definition of "communism" or to find out more about "communism", see my "homepage".
Considering the Australia currently has five time zones (only including the states and mainland territories) I think Austrlians cope fairly well.
Australia goes from 3 time zones in the winter to four (when Tasmania switches) and then five (when Victoria, NSW and SA switch).
For those who didn't know, Victoria, NSW and South Australia are considering changing at the same time as Tasmania (about 30 days earlier then what they have done previously). First time they have followed Tasmania and not the other way around...
Mind you, having 8 100W light bulbs is just silly even if you weren't concerned about the power costs. How big is this room you are trying to light? You could always have used 8 60W (or smaller) incandescent light bulbs (not that I am suggesting that you do, fuck that use the more modern better tech).
Exactly. Also, the proposal says something about setting up a flag so that moderators or something can tell when someone on the list enters a chatroom or something. This will work as well as having a no fly list has worked in the USA. It won't in other words.
Do you want democracy or not? Either you want it, in which case you want rule by the people, even if this means those very same people voting on actual legislation rather then "representatives" who can change their minds at a whim and who aren't bound by election "promises". Or you don't, in which case you may as well do away with elections altogether. 'Cause baby, they have so many problems, much more then the ones I listed above. I could talk about corruption, about buying votes in the parliament by rich corporations, I could talk about shit loads of stuff. (If you live in the US and think 'your' president is democratically elected, think again http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/lofiversion/index .php/t24734-0.html ) Not to mention the problems caused by corporations generally.
Of course so many of the problems with "democracy" could be solved with a quick surgical removal of capitalism and the power of the rich, but hey! who would want to do that?
Slashdot Mirror
If I had mod points I'd mod you flamebait just to prove you correct. But I don't, so I'll just laugh instead.
Seriously, save your self some effort and either save it as HTML, or PDF if you simply want others to view it.
HTML is good because nearly everyone has a webbrowser, PDF is good because it is hard to change for most people and nearly everyone has access to a PDF viewer.
If you actually do want people to edit your files, then it depends on what you are doing. If you have the whip hand, tell them to get OpenOffice.org, else continue what you are doing.
I know a few people who switched to OpenOffice.org for the one touch "save as PDF", but PDF Creator can be used in any Windows program. And I'm sure that there is an equivalent for X/GNU/Linux.
If you do care about your work being shared with others, then public domain is not really an option. Because quite simply, anyone can come and take that open work and close it again. The page on GNU philosophy at www.gnu.org has more information about this problem.
Personally, if I am happy with others using my work, I release it under a simple licence that says something like: Use as you like, but then if you do use, it make sure any copies or derivatives are, 1, under this same licence, and 2 that everybody else gets the same rights that I give you.
This enables attribution if they want (if it is is required, such as in an academic scenario), and I don't worry any more. It means that there is slightly more chance that they will make changes available, because they legally have to, but I'm not about to hunt them down.
I hereby endorse this comment.
What's the difference between ignorance and apathy?
I don't know and I don't care.
In this case, unless you pay it will hang around like a bad smell.
OpenOffice.org can be had for as little as $0. In fact Microsoft products can be too, especially in these sort of places.
Which is sort of the point. They will make it cheaper to "rent" for a time then to actually buy the product outright, in an attempt to stem piracy. It won't work for most, but it might work for some.
I have to agree. Over at revleft.com there was a discussion on the matter http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtop ic=61058 >, and this site http://www.circumstitions.com/One-liners.html >got linked. Basically circumcision comes down to abuse. It is abusive to hurt children in this manner. The site with one liners has responses to any crap that people will try and argue.
You didn't vote for a Labour government though. ~35% of those who bothered voting (I don't vote by the way, I blow up police stations) voted for labour. ~32% voted for the Conservative and ~22% voted LibDem. In a decent electoral system, Labour would have received ~35% of the seats, they got ~55%. The Conservatives would have received ~32% of the seats, they got ~31%. The LibDems just under 10%.
You haven't got a democracy in the UK. You have First Past the Post. It doesn't matter who you vote for. Your vote won't get counted. Fuck that for a system.
I tried this. However, it didn't work. Might it have something to do with my geeky friend installing something called FireFox?
I made sure to click yes to everything, except that there was never anything to click yes too!?
Please inform me of what the problem is and what any possible solutions might be.
Because communism is not about government or restrictions? Communism is about classless stateless society where resources are held in common. It is about empowerment. It is about freedom. Personally I am an anarchist, communism to me is a type of anarchism. I would be happy with it, so long as I had the choice. And under true communism, I would.
That said, I don't think that Free Software is about communism or is communistic. But it is still more so then Microsoft software.
I forgot to link to my university essay (which I published on a site called revolutionaryleft.com yes, just because it isn't posted on a scholarly site means it isn't scholarly) which explains why the USA is not a democracy. http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=24734&h l=
No ... You are a fuckwit.
Here is why. "A political entity must be judged by its actions and not by its pronouncements", yes this is true, so we can say that while the USA and the UK *claim* to be democracies, the facts show that they aren't.
"And since Marx claimed that he was not Marxist, well that gives you a cute little get-out-of-losing-arguments-free card, doesn't it? When confronted with the facts concerning communism, you can always say 'well that wasn't real communism.'" Marx said in response to certain groups at the time saying that they were Marxist, that if they were Marxists he wasn't. He would have said the same thing about Lenin. When confronted with the "facts concerning communism", I give a definition of communism that is correct. I don't say that what is claimed by people to be communistic (the USSR or Cuba) is good. Or bad for that matter (though being an anarchist I don't like either possibility). I simply try and educate ignorant people like yourself on what communism really is. That being a classless stateless society where resources (and/or the means of production) are held in common.
"Pol Pot. Buddhist nuns tortured by insertion of cattle prods. The Chinese Cultural Revolution. The environmental disaster of the Aral Sea. The Tiennanmen Square massacre. The Berlin Wall.
Yes, yes, we all know, that's not real communism. Real communism says that it is sunshine and freedom and delicious food. Therefore death by the millions and enslavement of billions cannot ever be the product of communism. Marx wasn't Marsixt. Communism isn't communist." Just because a group of people who have a lot to loose (the rich and powerful in the "West") spin examples as being "communistic" because they were put in place by people who claimed to be communists (but never that there countries were) doesn't make it so. Would you rather believe someone who obviously have a lot to lose from the implementation of another system (for example the aristocrats who claimed that free and universal elections (i.e. "democracy") would cause chaos) or someone who is presenting the facts of the matter and trying to argue rationally without resort to spin or similar?
"And to the expected laundry list of the failures of capitalism, well that's not real capitalism."
A lot of people don't think it is. However, going by what the people in power call it (capitalism) I'm more likely to believe them because if they had anything to loose, they would call it something different. And besides, even if you don't call it capitalism, even if you are an "anarcho-capitalist" wacko who wants true capitalism. We can still argue theoretically why thier ideas are completely fucked up and not anarchistic (or whatever). But communism in theory and what is called communism in reality are so different that there is no point.
Nothing for most people. For the rich and powerful, they loose their riches and power.
To stop people from thinking about what communism really is, they point to places which have never claimed to be communistic (the USSR, China, PDRK and of course Cuba)and claim that they are communistic.
Only ignorant people, and people who have something to lose (or who think that they might have something to lose, like the opportunity to oppress others) claim that there is something inherently wrong with communism.
Or even anarchists like Kropotkin. But it doesn't mean shit.
Free Software is not about people working on developing software together. It is about people being able to use and change the software they have. There is nothing that says if I develop a piece of software that I have to work with others. It is just that I enable others to share and use my software, to change it as they will.
Nice try, but no cigar.
I'm not a communist. BUT I'M ALSO NOT A COMPLETE AND UTTER STUPID FUCKWIT. Unlike say that ignorant person who I am replying to.
/not/ Cuba, China, the USSR or the DRPK. Communism is a classless stateless society where goods are held in common. The countries mentioned *never* claimed to be communist. The most they ever did was claim to be moving towards communism. The claimed (or still claim) to be in the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (or as I like to say, "dictatorship over the proletariat") stage.
Communism is
Talking about "warped ideologies", what about the millions of starving children in Africa? They are not dying because of "communism" (or even "Communism"). No, it is capitalism that is doing them in.
Talking about violence, what is happening in Iraq just now? Oh, that's right, violence to defend an ideology ("democracy" in this case). Get a fucking life you loser. Or better still, learn to read and find out something about a topic before mouthing off about it.
There are already a few comments about Cuba, communism and "Open Source" software. How this will discourage people from using Free Software, or how this will be a PR coup for Microsoft or whatever else.
I just have to say that anyone who thinks that Free Software is communistic because Cuba (and Venezuela) are using it are stupid. Firstly, Cuba is not communist. The USSR never claimed to be communist. Comments about Cuba being communist show the ignorance of the person saying them.
Secondly, if you refuse to use a superior (technologically, or because it's cheaper or whatever) option because "communists" are using it. Then you are stupid. Full stop.
Free Software is not about communism, if you read the FSF definition, you will notice that the software must not be restricted for *any* usage. That includes totalitarian regimes, or real communists living in a hippy commune somewhere. Free Software is about Freedom. And that means that Cuba is free to use it.
For a definition of "communism" or to find out more about "communism", see my "homepage".
Considering the Australia currently has five time zones (only including the states and mainland territories) I think Austrlians cope fairly well.
...
Australia goes from 3 time zones in the winter to four (when Tasmania switches) and then five (when Victoria, NSW and SA switch).
For those who didn't know, Victoria, NSW and South Australia are considering changing at the same time as Tasmania (about 30 days earlier then what they have done previously). First time they have followed Tasmania and not the other way around
Which is why I use a user-agent that says "I am not a Googlebot/2.1". But change it to IE or something else if websites don't like it.
Mind you, having 8 100W light bulbs is just silly even if you weren't concerned about the power costs. How big is this room you are trying to light? You could always have used 8 60W (or smaller) incandescent light bulbs (not that I am suggesting that you do, fuck that use the more modern better tech).
Exactly.
Also, the proposal says something about setting up a flag so that moderators or something can tell when someone on the list enters a chatroom or something. This will work as well as having a no fly list has worked in the USA. It won't in other words.
You tell 'em to fuck off. If they come back with the cops, then you let the cops in (if they have a warrant).
Then you sue them for being a waste of space, time, energy, money and all that (both the cops and the Bullshit Agency).
Fuck off they do. I don't use MS Software, therefore they have no right to audit me. They can get fucked.
Not only that, if I did, they could still get fucked, 'cause (as others have said) the EULA ain't binding bitch.
Do you want democracy or not? Either you want it, in which case you want rule by the people, even if this means those very same people voting on actual legislation rather then "representatives" who can change their minds at a whim and who aren't bound by election "promises". Or you don't, in which case you may as well do away with elections altogether. 'Cause baby, they have so many problems, much more then the ones I listed above. I could talk about corruption, about buying votes in the parliament by rich corporations, I could talk about shit loads of stuff. (If you live in the US and think 'your' president is democratically elected, think again http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/lofiversion/index .php/t24734-0.html ) Not to mention the problems caused by corporations generally.
Of course so many of the problems with "democracy" could be solved with a quick surgical removal of capitalism and the power of the rich, but hey! who would want to do that?
Nuclear power - 19th century technology.
After all, that is what boiling water to turn a turbine is. (Compare coal.)
Isn't it about time we moved on?