While the amendment does not refer to open source software, the definition of 'open standards' that it contains would be conducive to open source implementations of open standards.
But this isn't about Open Source, it's about Open Standards, two orthogonal issues. Of course, Open Source is preferable, but it's not required to have Open Standards. Microsoft could add ODF support to its next version of MS Office (which they'll of course try to resist for as long as possible, as it'll kill their market lock-in), and it would be viable as a software supplier, but it'd have to compete on ease of use, price, robustness, etc.. It'd have to compete on its merits for once, instead of being the mandatory choice because of the current platform lock-in (even though OpenOffice.org does an excellent job interoperating with MS Office files).
In the article's history, click on the IP address in question, and you'll see the other articles that person (or persons) have edited. Then click on a link labeled "diff" to see what was added. Here's a funny example...
So you're essentially saying that blogs and social networking sites will somehow cause masses of mostly average people to collectively invent cheap efficient solar power, and cause people to buy less fish?
I have my doubts about that.
Do you perhaps think that the interconnected people will be the neurons of the global superintelligent brain? Sounds cool, but kind of far-fetched...
Well, then you'll need a firewall that blocks connections on ports 25 and 110, and IMAP ports, except to your company's email server, where stuff can get recorded. Also, you'll have to block all the webmail providers, but since anyone can setup their own webmail service, that isn't really feasible.
How about a custom-built build of Thunderbird that cannot save attachments + a personal-use-only, but no attachments email account, possibly also provided by the company?
That way, the employees can use email for personal reasons at work, but can't waste hours with the annoying "funny" and/or harmful attachments.
No, the Theory of Gravity doesn't say WHY it falls, but HOW it falls. Why it falls is anyone's guess. Somehow, masses attract eachother, except on really small distances.
Then you were taught wrong. Science isn't about absolute truth. Science is about finding explanations for phenomena, and making predictions based on those explanations. We can prove the explanations false by providing counterexamples, but we can never prove them to be true. The most we can say about these explanations is that we haven't been able to prove them false, and that as such, they're, AFAWK, pretty good.
I know of another interesting sleep schedule, which has considerable freedom. The only demand is that you are awake every 108 minutes, the time in between those moments can be spent sleeping or awake, your choice entirely!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, by making that demand, the commission has basically made the result any such study would provide, obvious, therefor saving $40,000!
But this isn't about Open Source, it's about Open Standards, two orthogonal issues. Of course, Open Source is preferable, but it's not required to have Open Standards. Microsoft could add ODF support to its next version of MS Office (which they'll of course try to resist for as long as possible, as it'll kill their market lock-in), and it would be viable as a software supplier, but it'd have to compete on ease of use, price, robustness, etc.. It'd have to compete on its merits for once, instead of being the mandatory choice because of the current platform lock-in (even though OpenOffice.org does an excellent job interoperating with MS Office files).
Funny, I buy a lot of books that I don't necessarily want to read.
In the article's history, click on the IP address in question, and you'll see the other articles that person (or persons) have edited. Then click on a link labeled "diff" to see what was added. Here's a funny example...
You should play Planescape: Torment sometime. There, you start in a morgue. A very creepy one, at that.
So you're essentially saying that blogs and social networking sites will somehow cause masses of mostly average people to collectively invent cheap efficient solar power, and cause people to buy less fish?
I have my doubts about that.
Do you perhaps think that the interconnected people will be the neurons of the global superintelligent brain? Sounds cool, but kind of far-fetched...
Do you want false hope or not?
Only if you don't have any real hope...
They probably use VOIP, anyway.
The process spawning time doesn't matter much, as most games are single-process programs.
Well, then you'll need a firewall that blocks connections on ports 25 and 110, and IMAP ports, except to your company's email server, where stuff can get recorded. Also, you'll have to block all the webmail providers, but since anyone can setup their own webmail service, that isn't really feasible.
Look at the word "of" you quote.
Yes, they do increase the space regularly on Gmail, at about 4 bytes per second :-P
How about a custom-built build of Thunderbird that cannot save attachments + a personal-use-only, but no attachments email account, possibly also provided by the company?
That way, the employees can use email for personal reasons at work, but can't waste hours with the annoying "funny" and/or harmful attachments.
Your sig is oddly appropriate now :-)
If they want to search documents on other computers inside the company, shouldn't they get a Google Search Appliance instead?
Well, in such a case, I'd investigate which of the two is better, since the price difference is very small, it might pay to go with the better option.
Touch eyeballs to screen for cheap laser surgery.
Ah, you regard your harddisk as an unnecessary service as well?
I think the whole "You don't find the grail, the grail finds you." stuff is a hint in that direction, yes ;-)
Yes.
No, the Theory of Gravity doesn't say WHY it falls, but HOW it falls. Why it falls is anyone's guess. Somehow, masses attract eachother, except on really small distances.
Then you were taught wrong. Science isn't about absolute truth. Science is about finding explanations for phenomena, and making predictions based on those explanations. We can prove the explanations false by providing counterexamples, but we can never prove them to be true. The most we can say about these explanations is that we haven't been able to prove them false, and that as such, they're, AFAWK, pretty good.
I know of another interesting sleep schedule, which has considerable freedom. The only demand is that you are awake every 108 minutes, the time in between those moments can be spent sleeping or awake, your choice entirely!
You should have watched TNG... ;-)
Isn't putty green stuff?