Pangloss

So getting back to the point, these statements, on an objective basis, have to be ruled inaccurate: Both paragraphs are functionally and factually incorrect.

This is not the case. I don't believe MS has made a major change in file formats (to the point of incompatibility) in Office since 1995 -- ten years ago (might've been Office 97; I'd have to check). They've added new features with each subsequent release, but the new formats only added the additional capabilities -- they were fully backward compatible. Not only could new versions open the old files, but the old programs could open the output from the new programs so long as the proper save format was chosen, which has never been a problem so long as you didn't use the new features in that document. Since people demand new features, surely that's the most user-friendly way they could have done it. Addressed above, but let me just add that you wouldn't lose any formatting or any product from features that were available in Word 2000. In fact when going from Word 2003 to Word 2000, you wouldn't even have to select a different output format. It simply works -- any product from new features just wouldn't be visible in Word 2000.

Well PogoC7 I can't say that I think much of your opinions on computers, but you do know how to make me laugh (and I mean that in a nice way).

I'm done with this, standing by the reasons I outlined above, none of which have been refuted except on an opinion level, which I respect. Unlike you, Aardvark, I respect your opinion on this, and I'm sorry my postings don't meet your quality standards.

Here's a question: Does it constitute a protectionist trade practice? In other words, what is the difference between, for example, the US protecting its clothing industry, and Canada protecting its entertainment industry?

I'm actually a sciforums refugee myself, btw. That place is a nuthouse for sure. Welcome Madanthony.

Interesting points.

Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more!

Far be it from me to stand in the way of anybody straightening out Herme's fanboy fawnings (grin), but I did want to make the point that I think this is actually a good thing, and it's a trend shared by every other OS. Software has lagged way behind hardware in every area except for cutting-edge games, which is one of the reasons business workstations are so dirt cheap right now. Not that I'm suggesting that operating systems need to eat more CPU cycles in order to be more productive, mind you, I'm just saying that it's about freaking time the system software tried to do a little more with the power that's available. By the way, just as a side note about legacy software, I've had some interesting experiences in that area over the years. I have one customer (a small manufacturing concern in the construction industry) who has this one ridiculous but completely mission-critical application that runs in a series of macros in Lotus 1-2-3 version 2.3 in DOS. (Hey, it works!) I've been trying for years to do something about that, but I've just never hit on the right combination of cost and benefit to convince them to bring it out of the stone ages (they're misers, what can I say). Anyway, when Windows 2000 came out I discovered that their application could not run in that OS. At that point I was naturally hopeful that I would be able to use this piece of information to convince the customer that it was finally time to port the old beast, and after a year or two of convincing they were just about ready to pull the trigger, when guess what? Windows XP came out! And wouldn't you just know it? It runs this bloody old app JUST FINE! (rofl) After banging my head into the pavement a few times, I finally just chalked it up to life. (chuckle)

Lol, you're right. I missed that.

Atlantis was grounded today over that debris, which by the way has been falling off shuttles since 1981. The newspeak coming from NASA bureaucrats today suggests to me that there will never be another shuttle launch. You've seen the last one. They were looking for an excuse to end the program before this launch and the only thing that kept it going was the Space Station. Now they have an excuse to axe both programs. I'll be *floored* if they ever launch again.

Rubbish. Not everyone who buys a laptop is just doing so because they don't want to spend an hour setting up a real desktop computer at LAN parties every night. Some of us actually work for a living with our laptops. It's not about respect. It's about what lasts and works. You want a no-name knockoff made by children earning 20 cents an hour in Uzvietstaniland, hop on over to CyperPower and try to ignore the 20% markup they slap on high-performance hardware. You want something that's going to be working well and looking good a couple of years from now, Dell and IBM are your options.

You can put me on the graph if you like. It's not THAT far off. One thing that's kinda interesting about that graph is the way it shows how liberals who think they're libertarians are just deluding themeslves. (grin)

Ed, did you actually score +7.8 on the authoritarian axis? Ala Adolf Hitler? Or did you just forget to include the minus sign? Some of the questions on this thing are pretty lame and difficult to assess. For example, "A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system." Do they mean "do you feel that a one-party state is a good thing or a bad thing"? Because surely that question, on an entirely factual basis, could only be answered "yes". How could it be answered "no"? There were a lot of dubious questions like that, so I feel my score is not accurate. I think I lean farther towards the libertarian side on that Y axis, and closer to the center on the X axis. But hey, to each his own, I guess. It's not like this test is objective.

Economic Left/Right: 3.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08

Well you say that but then you go on to support the "fire in a crowded theater" caveat, so I'll spare you the lecture and just point out that what we're suggesting here is that there are cases similar to that caveat that appear to warrant the same protection. For example, leading a terrorist cell (but not actually committing an act of terrorism yourself) could become be a crime if you specifically order them to commit violent acts, and they do so. It's reasonable to have to show a causal link between "orders" and "expectations" (i.e. why the individual felt the need to carry out those orders), but once that's shown, the claim "it was just free speech" pretty much flies out the window. Where these issues become somewhat "gray" is when they aren't orders, but just inciteful speech. I agree that someone simply pounding the podium and then someone else blowing up a school bus doesn't necessarily make the first person responsible. There has to be some kind of demonstrable expectation on the part of the speaker that a violent act will result (he doesn't have to admit it, it just has to be apparent).

Right, good point. I think the margins at work here between "free speech" and "yelling fire in a crowded theater" are pretty narrow -- we're having to set very sharp lines in very gray areas -- but the war on terror seems to be more or less forcing us to split those legal hairs. One thing that I think is critical in order for that to succeed is that the citizenry needs to understand what that means and what the reasons are for doing it that way. Why is it important to make such fine distinctions? What protections are we giving ourselves by so carefully defining things, and why is that more important than, say, issues of complexity (or "too many laws")? One of the more tragic dynamics for change in a society when something *totally expected* happens and people react to it in unexpected, unpredicted ways, owing to either lack of knowledge or the context of other recent events. Knowledge is power. At the moment my gut feeling is that the British people are doing a better job of this than we are -- they're engaged, focused, and determined to such a degree that we can only sit back and admire. But maybe I'm reading too much into it. (shrug)

(grin) Yeah I've noticed this as well. You know how that's spelled in a competitive environment, though, right? O-P-P-O-R-T-U-N-I-T-Y

Well they are now, but that wasn't yet the case when I bought mine. My 8500 has a Pentium 4 Mobile running at 2.4 ghz. From what I understand, the Pentium Ms are much better, even through they run at slower clock rates. But Herme's question was irrelevent -- processors are nowhere near being the primary heat source in a typical laptop. (Except perhaps the ones with desktop processors.) Most of the heat comes from the video card and/or the hard drive.

Looks like more arrests in the 7/7 case: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4720027.stm Just as a brief aside, it's fascinating to me how fast the British authorities have been able to move on this case. The number of people arrested and the way information has been coming out is really impressive. It suggests to me a number of things: 1) British intelligence is pretty darn good. These people know what's going on within their borders. (Quite unlike my country.) 2) Right or wrong, the London public surveillance system certainly seems to be paying massive dividends at the moment. 3) Britain seems to be reconsidering its policy of tolerating pro-violent extremist movements. 4) I still don't detect an ounce of blame (at least not the kind that's taken seriously) being aimed at America. I think Americans can learn a lot from watching the British during this time. While I've been critical regarding the shooting incident, it seems to me that there's a much greater sense of national unity and purpose (not to mention level-headedness) there than we have here.

I'm sorry to hear you say that, but I think you've lost your perspective (not to mention your composure) and should take a step back from the keyboard before commenting further on the issue. I'm an opponent of the death penalty, and I dislike the fact that Britain appears to be going through some of the same flawed reasoning that put my country in the place where it is on this. That doesn't mean I don't respect or admire your tenacity and stalwart determination to deal with the problem. Relax. Unlike some people around here, I'm not trying to piss anyone off. I'm just trying to point out a few logical flaws that I believe are being made under the current blinders of extreme national duress.

And yet, Jean Charles de Menezes, who was not a terrorist, is dead. No, you don't have a death penalty. You just have procedures that can result in death when mistakes are made. What exactly is the difference between a UK policeman mistaking a citizen for a terrorist, and a US jury sentencing an innocent man to die? I don't know, but it sure seems like a valid comparison to me. That may ultimately be the price that has to be paid for freedom, I don't know. I am hopeful, however, that more realistic restrictions will either be discovered or put into place about that policy.

No such guidelines have been stated. All we know at the moment is that if they suspect someone of being a terrorist, they can kill them on the spot. (And again, I am predicting that such guidelines will be put into place.) And stop being such a jerk. You have no cause to be so insulting towards me, and it doesn't help you make your point.