If you're questioning whether the features that are in MS office but not Openoffice (and applications that openoffice has no equivalent to) are worth $X, then no-one can give an answer that applies to everyone: it depends what features & programs you personally use. If every feature *you* happen to use in MS office has an exact or better equivalent in Openoffice, and you are happy with the speed & interface of Openoffice on your system, then no, for you it's not worth $X. Doesn't mean the same conclusion will apply to everyone.
(If, on the other hand, you're saying you disagree the idea of paying for software as a concept in itself, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.)
Article price quoted Australian RRP; buying software at RRP in any country and you're probably getting screwed. There's no Amazon Australia, but Amazon US has it discounted $90, and Amazon UK for comparison has it discounted £110 -- that's $210 -- over RRP, to give a net price of...
Huh? Is that right? £490? That's $950 in USD, even with the $210 discount! The UK RRP is $1150 in USD! That's nearly $1500 Australian! Wow, forget the Aussies, it's the British who are getting screwed!
It's worth a grand cause:
1) it's the edition that corporates will buy and accordingly it's waaaay overpriced. browse joel on software for a good article on this sort of pricing.
It's not the edition corporations will buy. Enterprises with volume license agreements will buy the volume-licenses Enterprise edition. Small businesses will buy the Small business edition. Or possibly the Professional edition. Or Professional Plus edition. Anyway, the one edition corporations will not buy to roll out en mass is the all singing all dancing "We've got everything!" edition.
2) office has a lot of lock-in, especially in the corporate environment..doc extension is worth billions of dollars.
Office 2007 doesn't even USE.doc; it uses Open Office XML. If you don't like that, I think there's an addon that lets it save in ODF. Legacy.docs can be converted to OOXML (tool provided by MS) or ODF (tool not provided by MS); and OpenOffice reads and writes to.doc perfectly fine.
If you check for polorisation on any plane it will happen to be polorised in that plane, but so then would the other, but if you had chosen a different plane it would be polorised in that way. So its not like writing the number, because it is set when its read and the other entangled particle of sufficient distance away to be faster than light communication is set to a known polorisation You can't 'set' the polarization to what you want it to be -- at least, not without breaking the entanglement; you can only read it (possibly in different directions). That given, consider: Two entangled electrons, with opposite spin. I'm on one side of the galaxy with one electron, I measure its spin. It's up. Now, what does that tell me?
The person with the other electron could have measured its spin (in the same orientation as you did), in which case they would have found it to be down.
The other person might not have measured its spin (in the same orientation as you did) yet, in which case, they will find it to be down when they do.
I don't know whether they've measured it (in the same orientation as I did) or not. No information can be transferred.
Now, coming on to your point: what if the other guy had/will measure its spin in a perpendicular plane to that which I used?
If they measured it first (e.g. as right), I destroyed that information when I measured it's spin in the up-down plane. Since my electron is down, their electron is now up, by entanglement. But no information has been transferred. If they now measure it in the up-down plane, they will find it to be up, but for all they know it was their measuring device that destroyed the left-right orientation, not mine. There is no possible way to distinguish the two situations.
If I measure it first, the same situation occurs, but in reverse. Again, no information can be transferred between us.
For all the MS Office products I've used, generally there's been a Standard (Word/Excel/Powerpoint/Outlook) and Pro (Add Access and I believe frontpage). So what does "ultimate" bring to the table? Pro has Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, Access, and Publisher; Ultimate adds OneNote, Groove, and InfoPath. What are Groove and Infopath, you ask? Your guess is as good as mine, because I have no ****ing idea whatsoever. Microsoft claim Groove is a "peer-to-peer collaboration solution", which has left me only slight more enlightened than before. Onenote's supposed to be pretty good, though.
I have to ask, what's so good about an office produce that makes it worth more than a grand Ultimate is $590 in US dollars, the article was in Australian dollars.
Except that you can't transmit information with tachyons; not least because doing so would require interacting with the them in some way in a localized tachyon field, and sending it off at superluminal speed toward the intended receiver: but you can't have it both ways -- localized tachyon disturbances are subluminal and superluminal disturbances are nonlocal. (Props to the Physics FAQ for help with that answer).
You're thinking of Quantum Entanglement, and no, it doesn't violate relativity. Think about it: it's basically the equivalent of getting someone to write down the same number on two pieces of paper; you take one, someone else takes the other, and you both agree to look at the paper at 12:01 on the 1st of January, 2008. During the year you travel to opposite ends of the galaxy. On the 1st, you both open the paper, see the number '6', and suddenly you *know* what is on the paper of the other person on the other side of the galaxy! But has information travelled faster than the speed of light? Nope.
Excellent! I don't think I've seen any discussions about Vista on Slashdot before! It's always nice to see some original topics; it can get so boring when, say, a news article that was posted three weeks ago is reposted with the meagre justification of additional multiply regurgitated opinions that add little to nothing in actual substance. Isn't it lucky that, with our excellent and discriminating Editorial team, such a thing happens so little now?
...
that killed the butcher that slew the ox, that drank the water that quenched the fire, that burned the stick that beat the dog,
that bit the cat that ate the kid,
that my father bought for two zuzim
Chad gadya, chad gadya!
believe that the Theory of Evolution is a fact. You keep using that work. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Scratch that: when used in a scientific context it definitely does not mean what you appear to think it means. Please have a read through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science and stop trying to twist the semantics to support your beliefs.
No you haven't, you've linked to a distro specifically designed for running on low spec systems. That misses the entire point. There are versions of Windows specifically designed for legacy PCs as well; and installing and using one of them on the kind of system it was designed for wouldn't exactly be newsworthy either. The fun thing is getting an OS that isn't specifically designed for low end systems to run on them, hence the parent's challenge.
Because only one of the specifications is really akin to a memory dump - the Microsoft one. You're right! I know you are, even though I haven't actually read through either specification, or seen the XML either one outputs -- because you must be right! Because Microsoft are evil; and, errr... Yeah! -- Really! Very evil, very, uh, bad, and, err... --And 6000isabiggernumberthan700! And OOXML is a longer acronym than ODF. So yeah, there you go. Only the MS one is a memory dump. Evil! Very evil. And... something.
so basically you don't know what a firewall is but offer an opinion on apple's firewall So I "dont know what a firewall is" because I was unable to substantiate something that apparently "someone once told [you]"; and assumed good faith? Riiight. Also, where do I offer an opinion on Apple's firewall (which is actually just a GUI on top of BSD's ipfw)? I certainly opined that it was a good idea to keep it on (or have a hardware firewall) -- something I doubt many would disagree with -- but I don't recall offering an opinion on how good it was!
you most certainly did not cut and paste the original poster. the original poster wrote 'monthly updates', you wrote 'monthly security updates'. so basically, you're lying as well as misrepresenting someone. I have just copied and pasted both the OP and my quote from the OP into notepad. Both are indisputably absolutely identical. If you wish, I'll post them here:
..The OP: the only time the mac bugs me is when I'm installing something or doing a monthly update. Try rebooting a windows machine and you are prompted to update something every time. [...] My quote: the only time the mac bugs me is when I'm installing something or doing a monthly update. Try rebooting a windows machine and you are prompted to update something every time.
They are quite plainly letter-for-letter identical. As you would expect them to be, since, as I said, I copied and pasted the quote directly; hence why it was in quote tags, after all. Now, precisely who should be accusing whom of "lying"?
I'm happy to take your word for it on the firewall front; I don't know enough of the specifics about either firewall to do otherwise.
I apologise if I misrepresented the OP, though I'm not sure how; it was certainly unintentional. I don't believe I misquoted them; the quotes were copied & pasted. In any case, I've just had a glance at the Apple web site, and from a cursory glance they appear to do exactly the same thing as Microsoft do: release security updates on one day per month (the 15th in February's case), and general & functionality updates at any time; though I suppose I could be misreading it.
now i don't know what OSX has switched on by default, but it's quite possible this is better than the windows model. I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Yes, I suppose it is possible that the OS X firewall is better in some unspecified respects than the Windows one. And vice versa. So?
he said monthly updates, not monthly security updates. sometimes updates are made to fix bugs in a system or to add more functionality. Yes. In Mac OS as well as in Windows. And in every other actively maintained operating system. Again, so?
As seven people have now pointed out, the parent is just wrong; you can do exactly the same thing in Vista. How it got to +4 insightful, I don't know...
the difference being, linux doesn't claim to be 'totally new and revolutionary'... the original poster was just exposing lies in advertising I'm calling bull. Where is this supposed Microsoft advertising that claims that Vista is "totally new and revolutionary" that the OP, in 14 words, has apparently somehow managed to expose?
Where was the item by item? If you want an item by item, go find an item by item, don't sit around and post comments for articles that *aren't* item by items complaining that they're not something they never pretented to be...
MS have the free Windows Desktop Search for 2000, XP, & 2003, which gives most of what Vista gives, just not built in to the start menu. If you prefer a non-Microsoft solution, Copernic (also free) is good (that's what I use). At the enterprise level, I've heard good things about X1 (though that's *not* free). I'm afraid I don't know of any open-source ones.
They were mostly retarded features like an updated design that everyone in the know just returned to classic mode. "In the know"? I'd have thought whether you use Luna or Classic was just a matter of personal preference; are you saying there's some kernel of knowledge, passed around break rooms in whispers, sideways glances, and surreptitious handwritten notes that would cause anyone judged as being worthy of the knowledge to gasp, glance into the middle distance, look back, and affirm, "I see it now -- I must switch back to Classic!", and never stray from the path of righteousness again...?
the only 'improvement' in XP [over 2000] is the Telly Tubby GUI. WIA? Fast user switching? Remote assistance / Remote desktop? Subpixel font rendering? System restore? Driver rollback? Prefetch? And, of course, 64-bit support?
the only time the mac bugs me is when I'm installing something or doing a monthly update. Try rebooting a windows machine and you are prompted to update something every time. Windows aredates are also on a monthly schedule. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_Tuesday
The difference between the two is fighting with the OS in Vista and not noticing the OS in Leopard. I use computers for the software not to get my rocks off configuring OSs. Care to substantiate this in any way whatsoever?
Funny how Mac is never trying to fix their security. ...Huh? As you said yourself a few sentences ago, Apple releases monthly security updates just like Windows does. The Mac, being BSD-based, uses the Unix security model.
I leave a Mac logged onto the net for days or weeks at a time without one problem. No need for firewalls.. Mac OS, like Windows, comes with a personal firewall. When switched on, there's no problem with leaving a computer on the net for any length of time. If you switch it off, and you have no hardware firewall, then I'm sorry, but there's no other way to put this: you are an idiot. There is a reason Mac OS comes with a firewall, and it's not just for show. No operating system magically absolve you of the need to have a firewall; e.g. the Linux kernel has had a firewall built in since version 2.0. Virus scanner yes; firewall no.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're questioning whether the features that are in MS office but not Openoffice (and applications that openoffice has no equivalent to) are worth $X, then no-one can give an answer that applies to everyone: it depends what features & programs you personally use. If every feature *you* happen to use in MS office has an exact or better equivalent in Openoffice, and you are happy with the speed & interface of Openoffice on your system, then no, for you it's not worth $X. Doesn't mean the same conclusion will apply to everyone.
(If, on the other hand, you're saying you disagree the idea of paying for software as a concept in itself, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.)
Article price quoted Australian RRP; buying software at RRP in any country and you're probably getting screwed. There's no Amazon Australia, but Amazon US has it discounted $90, and Amazon UK for comparison has it discounted £110 -- that's $210 -- over RRP, to give a net price of...
Huh? Is that right? £490? That's $950 in USD, even with the $210 discount! The UK RRP is $1150 in USD! That's nearly $1500 Australian! Wow, forget the Aussies, it's the British who are getting screwed!
1) it's the edition that corporates will buy and accordingly it's waaaay overpriced. browse joel on software for a good article on this sort of pricing.
- It's worth $590 in US (as opposed to Australian) dollars.
- It's not the edition corporations will buy. Enterprises with volume license agreements will buy the volume-licenses Enterprise edition. Small businesses will buy the Small business edition. Or possibly the Professional edition. Or Professional Plus edition. Anyway, the one edition corporations will not buy to roll out en mass is the all singing all dancing "We've got everything!" edition.
2) office has a lot of lock-in, especially in the corporate environment.- The person with the other electron could have measured its spin (in the same orientation as you did), in which case they would have found it to be down.
- The other person might not have measured its spin (in the same orientation as you did) yet, in which case, they will find it to be down when they do.
I don't know whether they've measured it (in the same orientation as I did) or not. No information can be transferred.Now, coming on to your point: what if the other guy had/will measure its spin in a perpendicular plane to that which I used?
- If they measured it first (e.g. as right), I destroyed that information when I measured it's spin in the up-down plane. Since my electron is down, their electron is now up, by entanglement. But no information has been transferred. If they now measure it in the up-down plane, they will find it to be up, but for all they know it was their measuring device that destroyed the left-right orientation, not mine. There is no possible way to distinguish the two situations.
- If I measure it first, the same situation occurs, but in reverse. Again, no information can be transferred between us.
Do you see what I mean?Quote>What kind of paperwork is needed for my company to be recognized as a "university" It would need to be accredited.
Except that you can't transmit information with tachyons; not least because doing so would require interacting with the them in some way in a localized tachyon field, and sending it off at superluminal speed toward the intended receiver: but you can't have it both ways -- localized tachyon disturbances are subluminal and superluminal disturbances are nonlocal. (Props to the Physics FAQ for help with that answer).
No it doesn't; I've just tried it.
You're thinking of Quantum Entanglement, and no, it doesn't violate relativity. Think about it: it's basically the equivalent of getting someone to write down the same number on two pieces of paper; you take one, someone else takes the other, and you both agree to look at the paper at 12:01 on the 1st of January, 2008. During the year you travel to opposite ends of the galaxy. On the 1st, you both open the paper, see the number '6', and suddenly you *know* what is on the paper of the other person on the other side of the galaxy! But has information travelled faster than the speed of light? Nope.
o rem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_communication_the
Excellent! I don't think I've seen any discussions about Vista on Slashdot before! It's always nice to see some original topics; it can get so boring when, say, a news article that was posted three weeks ago is reposted with the meagre justification of additional multiply regurgitated opinions that add little to nothing in actual substance. Isn't it lucky that, with our excellent and discriminating Editorial team, such a thing happens so little now?
...
that killed the butcher
that slew the ox,
that drank the water
that quenched the fire,
that burned the stick
that beat the dog,
that bit the cat
that ate the kid,
that my father bought for two zuzim
Chad gadya, chad gadya!
Ah, memories...
Scratch that: when used in a scientific context it definitely does not mean what you appear to think it means. Please have a read through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science and stop trying to twist the semantics to support your beliefs.
No you haven't, you've linked to a distro specifically designed for running on low spec systems. That misses the entire point. There are versions of Windows specifically designed for legacy PCs as well; and installing and using one of them on the kind of system it was designed for wouldn't exactly be newsworthy either. The fun thing is getting an OS that isn't specifically designed for low end systems to run on them, hence the parent's challenge.
Nope, I got nothing.
And I suspect you don't either...
My quote: the only time the mac bugs me is when I'm installing something or doing a monthly update. Try rebooting a windows machine and you are prompted to update something every time.
They are quite plainly letter-for-letter identical. As you would expect them to be, since, as I said, I copied and pasted the quote directly; hence why it was in quote tags, after all. Now, precisely who should be accusing whom of "lying"?
I'm happy to take your word for it on the firewall front; I don't know enough of the specifics about either firewall to do otherwise.
I apologise if I misrepresented the OP, though I'm not sure how; it was certainly unintentional. I don't believe I misquoted them; the quotes were copied & pasted. In any case, I've just had a glance at the Apple web site, and from a cursory glance they appear to do exactly the same thing as Microsoft do: release security updates on one day per month (the 15th in February's case), and general & functionality updates at any time; though I suppose I could be misreading it.
As seven people have now pointed out, the parent is just wrong; you can do exactly the same thing in Vista. How it got to +4 insightful, I don't know...
MS have the free Windows Desktop Search for 2000, XP, & 2003, which gives most of what Vista gives, just not built in to the start menu. If you prefer a non-Microsoft solution, Copernic (also free) is good (that's what I use). At the enterprise level, I've heard good things about X1 (though that's *not* free). I'm afraid I don't know of any open-source ones.