Category Archives: Uncategorized

Microsoft isn’t standard yet…

I’m tempted to say it is providential, except that I know the difference between “providence” and “serendipity.” This weekend a friend was telling me about Vern Poythress‘ article on Microsoft. I promised to look for it (and blog about it) but forgot.

But look at this headline from the top of Google News’ tech section: “Microsoft loses vote on file standards.

This weekend’s vote by national standards agencies from 104 nations did not provide the two-thirds majority needed to give Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT news people )’s format the ISO stamp of approval. But they will meet again in February to try to seek a consensus, and Microsoft could win them over at last.

ISO approval for Microsoft’s Open Office XML would encourage governments and libraries to recognize the format for archiving documents, which in turn could help ensure that people using different technologies in the future could still open and read documents written today in Open Office XML.

Approval of its system as a standard would also help Microsoft tamp down competition from the OpenDocument Format, created by open source developers and pushed by such Microsoft rivals as IBM Corp. (nyse: IBM news people )

Massachusetts state government stirred huge interest in the matter when it advocated saving official documents for long-term storage in the nonproprietary ODF format. That prompted Microsoft to seek recognition of Open XML by the global standards body.

The company has offered to license Open Office XML for free to anyone who wants to build products that access information stored in Office documents. It claims the format is richer than ODF because, being based on XML computer language, it can store the layout of spreadsheets and legal documents created with Office 2007.

But Shane Coughlan of the Free Software Foundation Europe, a group of open source developers, questioned whether Open Office XML would truly live up to its name and be open to all. Coughlan said it was unclear whether some of the code requires Microsoft’s permission to be used.

‘It is important that everyone owns their data, that access does not depend on any one company,’ he said. ‘Any serious corporation or government should be dubious about using it if the legality is unclear.’

Publishing an open standard means it will be available to everyone, a sort of Rosetta stone that makes sure the key documents of today _ whether they be legal texts, novels-in-progress or accounting spreadsheets _ don’t become unreadable hieroglyphics to future generations.

Let me just say: I don’t hate Microsoft. I think they have spread computer ownership and use. I think that Vista is actually cool (though I’ll bet all the fun could be had for an almost XP size).

But, while I’m open to correction, I think we should automatically assume that MS has a proprietary plan for their proposal until we are totally sure that we have made such a thing legally impossible.
With all that background in mind, here is Vern Poythress’ article, “Digital Ethics and File Formats,” which, as it happens, was updated for the current situation only fifteen days ago.

Here’s a major portion:

When we share files as email attachments or post files at a website, the format becomes an ethical issue. Few people in the Third World have sufficient wealth to afford Microsoft Office easily. Still less can they afford to keep buying multiple versions of Microsoft products as the formats change. Sharing files in secret formats effectively excludes these people from the information process, or else makes them pay a “tax” to Microsoft for obtaining information that should be freely available. Moreover, even outside the Third World, among wealthier nations, some people do not wish to support Microsoft Corporation, because they think it is arrogant and prone to use monopolistic practices. It is not courteous to send people files in a secret format that implies that they should support Microsoft.

Gradually, through hundreds of hours of work, programmers outside of Microsoft have decoded large parts of the secret formats. That has enabled programs like OpenOffice to read from these secret formats and write to them. But because of the secrecy, the exchange between formats is still not absolutely perfect. Pressure is therefore still in place to buy Microsoft products in order to access the secret formats.

In Microsoft Office 2003 there is a new “.xml” format available for Word and for Excel. (There is no new format for PowerPoint.) This format is easier for other programs to understand. Office 2007 has similar, but not identical, formats.

Office 2007 finally has publicly specified formats for most of its pieces. Moreover, Microsoft has posted on the internet a promise concerning open use of the Office 2007 formats.

But the future for Microsoft formats is still under discussion. Here is one evaluation that is less than encouraging:

In other words, even though the MS XMLRS [the new specification for Office 2007] may be fully unencumbered through patent grants and a convenant not to sue, a number of the features and functions that the MS Office applications implement remain proprietary, private, and are not available for implementation by other developers.

The litmus test to apply is whether, even in theory, a competitor could develop an application that implements the entire set of features and functionality represented in the current MS binary format or MS XMLRS, in a platform independent manner and without infringing on MS intellectual property. We believe such an implementation is not possible, thus necessarily limiting the fidelity of MS binary to ODF conversion. (from Andy Updegrove, quoting from Sun Microsystems)

As of Dec. 5, 2006, one may see a more positive evaluation from Stephen J. Vaughn-Nichols. The situation continues to change. Eventually, open programs for translation between Microsoft Office 2007 formats and other formats may be available. But they will necessarily be incomplete, because not everything is publicly specified in the new Microsoft formats.

For the time being, I have decided to wait to see what works out with respect to the Microsoft formats. Meanwhile, the international standards body OASIS has officially approved the “open document” formats, and they have become an ISO standard. These formats have no encumbrances. Moreover, they can be read by the OpenOffice program, which is available for free. The program is guaranteed to remain permanently free because the code is freely available and is freely modifiable under a generous license. For further discussion, see the Wikipedia article on OpenDocument, and its subsection under “Licensing.”

(By the way, I just started dabbling in StarOffice which is now free through the Google Pack. So far I am really impressed with the Word Processor, which has options I have not seen since I finally gave up my WordPerfect Suite and joined the MSOffice hegemon on both PCs and Macs [Full disclosure: the Mactopia MSOffice has always worked well for me too].)

In any case, it is pretty clear from the article that Microsoft is not giving up their quest:

Despite losing the initial round of voting with ISO, Microsoft was confident of future success, saying many of the ISO members that did not vote for the format said they would do so when certain criticisms have been addressed.

‘This preliminary vote is a milestone for the widespread adoption of the Open XML formats around the world for the benefit of millions of customers,’ said Microsoft’s general manager for interoperability, Tom Robertson. ‘We believe that the final tally in early 2008 will result in the ratification of Open XML as an ISO standard.’

According to ISO, Microsoft had 53 percent of the votes in favor _ instead of the 66 percent it needed.

The ISO process is essentially a debate that tries to fix outstanding problems so a format can win sufficient support. But Coughlan said Microsoft’s heavy lobbying for Open Office XML had showed that ISO selection needs to be reviewed to make sure one voice could not shout louder than others. Coughlan and others have alleged that Microsoft unduly influenced the industry committees that advise national standards bodies on ISO votes.

An allegation that sounds so plausible, I really don’t think it needs to be argued.

Hollywood officially out of ideas

I just heard on my G4 gaming news podcast that “they” (?) are making a movie based on the arcade game–can you believe this?–Joust.  Better.  It will be set in a future Las Vegas that hovers up in the sky.

I doubt I’m ever going to see that movie, but I would have purchased tickets to witness it first being proposed.  And bought popcorn.

Got a jones for new fantasy literature?

dragonMy childhood friend Katherine Hooper has a website devoted to fantasy literature. Much of the literature isn’t new in any objective sense, but hey, if you haven’t read it, it is new to you! I think finding a reviewer who likes what you have read, gives you reason to check out the books he likes that you haven’t read yet.

Also, there is a great forum. Check it out: fantasyliterature.net.

Grace: It is about the real god

There are lots of gods on offer today.

The lie that is “God.”

We all know we’re living in a post-Christian world but we also seem to be suppressing that knowledge. As a result, we actually making the situation worse since we are obstructing our opportunities to communicate the truth about the real god.

The question of God’s existence is not really like the question as to whether aliens or unicorns exist. Rather, it is a question about the existence of a specific person. Which god is God? We’d better off for the sake of accuracy, in most modern conversations, if we spelled out “god” without any capitalization.

Is the real god needy?

The Bible says that the real god–God, if you will–made everything. While some offshoots have arisen in the last couple of thousand years, originally this was a pretty powerful difference between God and other gods. The other gods made the universe from stuff they found, usually stuff they came from themselves.

The apostle Paul preached the true god by making just this point:

The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served (therapeuo) by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.

The real god does not get from us, but he constantly gives to us.

No trading possible

What this means (among other things) is that we are in no position to give this god something that obligates him to do anything for us. Everything we have is his gift and we don’t have anything to give him that he does not already own.

Everything is gift

But we don’t have any need to trade with him for that very reason. Everything we have is his gift because he is the giving god who freely grants us our lives and everything else.

The faithful giver

Furthermore, God, the true god, does not leave us wondering about the future, but puts himself under obligation by promises. He even uses these promises to improve us. His demands are not due to his need, but due to his desire to bless us. When God tells us he opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble, this is not because humility is something god needs and by which we can earn anything from god. It is because God wants us to be humble people for our own good (just like He is humble).

Man fell from grace

All of the above explains why it can be rather perverse and dangerous to describe sin as a failure to earn blessing from God. Man would never have existed if God had not blessed him with creation, and God did far more, making him a king and promising him the whole world. This was all a gift given by God. Man was never in a position to truly earn anything.
In other words, the story of Adam and Eve is not a story of an employee refusing to meet the job requirements. Rather, it is the story of an adopted child attempting to rob and usurp the place of his father, and inventing evil interpretations of all his father’s gifts to him in order to justify his patricide.

God is still gracious.

Happily, while the real god is just, He also remains gracious–and reveals even more grace now than before. For now he not only gives to people He created as perfect, but continually forgives those who are far from perfect who trust Him for his promises in Jesus. Before, he gave gratuitously but effortlessly. But now he gives at the great cost of His own Son.

So God’s grace is revealed as much greater than anything revealed in our creation. But it is still consistent. God gave before and he gives more now.

Grace and monotheism

So, to believe in a god who is truly independent of creation mandates the word, “grace.” If God was not constrained or acted upon by some outside force to create, then creation is simply an act that springs from his own character. It was pure grace.

For the finite gods of the pagans, grace is an optional characteristic, but for the real god who made everything, it is an essential necessity.

The only right human posture was as a receiver of grace.

There can be no question then of a time when any creature could relate to God on the basis of trade or earning. To claim that humanity fell from such a relationship would be like saying that at one time it was fine to believe that God was finite and man was in a position to obligate Him. It is perverse. Man was always supposed to receive all good from God as a gracious gift. The tragedy was that he refused to continue in trust and gratitude, becoming instead thankless and suspicious.

Now I know what to get Jeff Meyers for Christmas

How cool!

“It used to bother me that he played that game so much” said Elizabeth Grimes of her 13 year-old son Danny. “He would sometimes wake up on a Saturday and play all day long without stopping. He never read his Bible either. But now I’m much more at ease. With those Bible verses always flashing up there I can be assured that he’s getting a good dose of the Good Book. I ask him every day now ‘Danny, have you played your Halo today?’ and if I don’t think he’s played enough I make him go in there and sit down and play some more.”

Legislatures are radical; legislatures are planning committees

Judges would be assisted by neutral expert witnesses and guided by evidence-based practice guidelines. Unlike juries, they would issue written opinions that establish precedents and standards of care, removing much of the uncertainty physicians now practice under.

One of the weird things about philosophical Conservatives: opposition to Judge-made law.  There are understandable reasons for why Conservatives have seen the Supreme Court as the enemy of the Constitution (though I tend to think the Courts are forced to fill in the blanks left with the transition for state to national sovereignty).  But thinking that yearly legislatures are preferable to Courts just doesn’t seem all that consistent to me.

Good news can be instructions

There is a certain kind of heresy to which it is important to respond that, no matter what you achieve through your best efforts, you cannot be good enough to earn a place in heaven.

But for most of history and most of the human race, as any parent with more than one child knows, the issue is not whether anyone can be good enough.  The issue is that people think that evil is good.  They think that they are supposed to behave in certain ways involving boasting and rivalry and a demand for immediate recompense for any slight against them.

So for most of history and most of the human race, the simple story of how God acts in human circumstances, and his instructions to embrace new ideals of peace and reconciliation, is amazingly good news.

Eugenics is not possible, it appears

I found this post by a self-confessed Asperger’s sufferer really interesting, though I’m not sure I understand it all. Here’s a snip:

I believe it runs in my family somehow, but I got all the negative aspects of it. My oldest brother has an extremely high IQ, my youngest brother has an incredible capacity for creativity. My middle brother has a unique ability to spot anything different that most human eyes overlook. For example, standing in a yard of clover, he will find every 4-leaf clover there is to find in record time. Me? what did I get? The famous autistic traits of inability to connect to others and obsessive compulsive disorder. Break my routine and I throw a fit. Take me to a public place and I spaz out. My family chalked it up to extreme shyness. Some doctors said it was depression or ADD. I’ve even been asked repeatedly if I’ve ever been abused. Even when my elementary school teacher showed concern because I was more involved with organizing the pencils on my desk in a certain order than I was with participating in class, my parents chose to ignore the signs, whether out of fear or ignorance I dont know. Even if they hadn’t ignored the signs, what could they really do? What I do know is that, yes, I love my family very much. However, I do not have a connected feeling with anyone on the planet.

She ends by endorsing a possible cure or therapy for allergy-related autism.