<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The value of restricting choice</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/07/value-of-restricting-choice.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/07/value-of-restricting-choice.html?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=value-of-restricting-choice</link>
	<description>Thinking the unthinkable, pondering the imponderable, effing the ineffable and scruting the inscrutable</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:20:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Bruce Baxter</title>
		<link>http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/07/value-of-restricting-choice.html#comment-3421</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Bruce Baxter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2010 13:49:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=736#comment-3421</guid>
		<description>The point of a standard is to encapsulate the necessary functionality of a process, remove choice in it&#039;s implementation, and thereby improve interoperability.

Microsoft always talks like this; there is something distinctly Microsoft about it. It doesn&#039;t quite make sense but it sounds friendly.

If they were really concerned about interoperability, they would a) hire better software engineers to address &quot;backward compatibility issues&quot; (which everyone knows have always existed, even with their proprietary file formats), and b) propose modifications to the existing standard to achieve the &quot;level of functionality&quot; not already present - not create their own &quot;standard&quot; while corrupting the existing standard with a non-standard formula implementation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The point of a standard is to encapsulate the necessary functionality of a process, remove choice in it&#8217;s implementation, and thereby improve interoperability.</p>
<p>Microsoft always talks like this; there is something distinctly Microsoft about it. It doesn&#8217;t quite make sense but it sounds friendly.</p>
<p>If they were really concerned about interoperability, they would a) hire better software engineers to address &#8220;backward compatibility issues&#8221; (which everyone knows have always existed, even with their proprietary file formats), and b) propose modifications to the existing standard to achieve the &#8220;level of functionality&#8221; not already present &#8211; not create their own &#8220;standard&#8221; while corrupting the existing standard with a non-standard formula implementation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin</title>
		<link>http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/07/value-of-restricting-choice.html#comment-3419</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2010 16:03:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=736#comment-3419</guid>
		<description>Actually, Richard, I don&#039;t think any of your examples are examples of Americans not being willing to follow standards.   Most of your examples are examples of Americans following an older (and perhaps out-of-date) standard. 

The English units predate the metric system.  Americans use SI units for scientific uses and English units for everyday life.  (And both English and Metric nuts and bolts for cars :-)).  

CDMA vs. GSM is an example of the U.S. not mandating one standard over another.  Both are in common use, depending on which carrier you choose.  My AT&amp;T GSM Quad-Band phone works in most countries, that&#039;s one of the reasons I chose AT&amp;T.

OOXML is not an example of the U.S. versus the world.  It is an example of one U.S.-based company trying to hold onto its monopoly.   When you consider that the entire OOXML fiasco may have been started by one U.S. state (Massachusetts) mandating ODF for some state documents, I don&#039;t think you can make the claim that the U.S. has chosen OOXML as a standard over ODF.  Microsoft may exert more influence over the U.S. government than I would like, but the U.S. government is not alone in that regard.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, Richard, I don&#8217;t think any of your examples are examples of Americans not being willing to follow standards.   Most of your examples are examples of Americans following an older (and perhaps out-of-date) standard. </p>
<p>The English units predate the metric system.  Americans use SI units for scientific uses and English units for everyday life.  (And both English and Metric nuts and bolts for cars :-)).  </p>
<p>CDMA vs. GSM is an example of the U.S. not mandating one standard over another.  Both are in common use, depending on which carrier you choose.  My AT&amp;T GSM Quad-Band phone works in most countries, that&#8217;s one of the reasons I chose AT&amp;T.</p>
<p>OOXML is not an example of the U.S. versus the world.  It is an example of one U.S.-based company trying to hold onto its monopoly.   When you consider that the entire OOXML fiasco may have been started by one U.S. state (Massachusetts) mandating ODF for some state documents, I don&#8217;t think you can make the claim that the U.S. has chosen OOXML as a standard over ODF.  Microsoft may exert more influence over the U.S. government than I would like, but the U.S. government is not alone in that regard.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard</title>
		<link>http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/07/value-of-restricting-choice.html#comment-3417</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Aug 2010 06:55:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=736#comment-3417</guid>
		<description>&gt; There’s also one standard for the kind of electricity that comes through the walls of American homes; 110 volts, 60 Hertz, AC

This is good example.  People travelling the globe must choose the right voltage as there is a undesired choose 110 volt (OOXML) and 220V (ODF).

BTW: Americans have always been good in not following standards;, time (12H vs 24 H), metric (kilo meters, miles which resulted in the loss of a satelite), liters and gallons, A4 versus letter, CDMA vs GSM, OOXML (MS is an American Company) vs ODF.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt; There’s also one standard for the kind of electricity that comes through the walls of American homes; 110 volts, 60 Hertz, AC</p>
<p>This is good example.  People travelling the globe must choose the right voltage as there is a undesired choose 110 volt (OOXML) and 220V (ODF).</p>
<p>BTW: Americans have always been good in not following standards;, time (12H vs 24 H), metric (kilo meters, miles which resulted in the loss of a satelite), liters and gallons, A4 versus letter, CDMA vs GSM, OOXML (MS is an American Company) vs ODF&#8230;..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Puttick</title>
		<link>http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/07/value-of-restricting-choice.html#comment-3411</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Puttick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:43:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=736#comment-3411</guid>
		<description>How&#039;s this?

Choices you make take you down routes, which will lead to more choices in the future. You drive down a road and come to a T-junction; left takes you into a walled estate; limited options follow and the road you enter is also the only exit. Turning right takes you towards a crossroads and turns off that take you to a city, to a highway and to another crossroads. 

Choose right and get more choice, choose left and get no choice.

ODF is the document standard that gives the most choices in the future, OOXML is a dead end.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How&#8217;s this?</p>
<p>Choices you make take you down routes, which will lead to more choices in the future. You drive down a road and come to a T-junction; left takes you into a walled estate; limited options follow and the road you enter is also the only exit. Turning right takes you towards a crossroads and turns off that take you to a city, to a highway and to another crossroads. </p>
<p>Choose right and get more choice, choose left and get no choice.</p>
<p>ODF is the document standard that gives the most choices in the future, OOXML is a dead end.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Ward</title>
		<link>http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/07/value-of-restricting-choice.html#comment-3410</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Ward</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:04:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=736#comment-3410</guid>
		<description>You should also mention the value of standards. You could choose to put the letters &#039;abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz&#039; in any order you like; there is one standard order, and all the others are in some sense &#039;creative&#039;. We like our dictionaries to be in the standard order.

There&#039;s also one standard for the kind of electricity that comes through the walls of American homes; 110 volts, 60 Hertz, AC. It was not always so, but it is now, and it doesn&#039;t seem likely that anyone will ever try to come up with another one.

Of course, what you then go on to do with the letters, and with the electric power that comes through the walls, there&#039;s a huge variety of possibilities. Some have commercial value; some have attribution value.

&quot;Chris Ward created this, but it&#039;s not actually sellable for money as such&quot;. That&#039;s how the world works, sometimes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You should also mention the value of standards. You could choose to put the letters &#8216;abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz&#8217; in any order you like; there is one standard order, and all the others are in some sense &#8216;creative&#8217;. We like our dictionaries to be in the standard order.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s also one standard for the kind of electricity that comes through the walls of American homes; 110 volts, 60 Hertz, AC. It was not always so, but it is now, and it doesn&#8217;t seem likely that anyone will ever try to come up with another one.</p>
<p>Of course, what you then go on to do with the letters, and with the electric power that comes through the walls, there&#8217;s a huge variety of possibilities. Some have commercial value; some have attribution value.</p>
<p>&#8220;Chris Ward created this, but it&#8217;s not actually sellable for money as such&#8221;. That&#8217;s how the world works, sometimes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: harrytuttle</title>
		<link>http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/07/value-of-restricting-choice.html#comment-3409</link>
		<dc:creator>harrytuttle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:43:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=736#comment-3409</guid>
		<description>Choice in this context simply should _not refer to the document format itself_, but the choice in programs available to fully read, understand and render the information within the document correct.

If one can see that ODF is a free format without restrictions or obfuscation, one could assume the _choice of software and programs_ would be much much higher than compared to OOXML, which pretty much is MS Office only...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Choice in this context simply should _not refer to the document format itself_, but the choice in programs available to fully read, understand and render the information within the document correct.</p>
<p>If one can see that ODF is a free format without restrictions or obfuscation, one could assume the _choice of software and programs_ would be much much higher than compared to OOXML, which pretty much is MS Office only&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Fortune</title>
		<link>http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/07/value-of-restricting-choice.html#comment-3408</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick Fortune</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:09:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=736#comment-3408</guid>
		<description>I think part of the problem is the notion that more choice is always good. And that&#039;s easy to refute:

Suppose I stick a gun in your face and give you a choice. You can either choose give me all your money, or you can choose to get shot in the face. At this point in time you have two options that you didn&#039;t have before. I&#039;ve given you more choices. Therefore, or so some people would have us believe, I&#039;ve done you a favour.

So either we accept that holding people up at gunpoint is a good thing, or we need to concede that having more choices is not always a good thing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think part of the problem is the notion that more choice is always good. And that&#8217;s easy to refute:</p>
<p>Suppose I stick a gun in your face and give you a choice. You can either choose give me all your money, or you can choose to get shot in the face. At this point in time you have two options that you didn&#8217;t have before. I&#8217;ve given you more choices. Therefore, or so some people would have us believe, I&#8217;ve done you a favour.</p>
<p>So either we accept that holding people up at gunpoint is a good thing, or we need to concede that having more choices is not always a good thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: twitter</title>
		<link>http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/07/value-of-restricting-choice.html#comment-3407</link>
		<dc:creator>twitter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 04:57:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=736#comment-3407</guid>
		<description>The short version:  OOXML drags you into another decade of Microsoft incompetence.  

OOXML should be eliminated from consideration because it is a bad choice, a restrictive liability.  People who chose OOXML are stuck with Microsoft Office and Windows, worst of class software that are expensive, violate your privacy and perform poorly.  People who go with ODF can chose from many better Office suites that work on every OS and many different hardware platforms.  That&#039;s because ODF is a real standard that has many functioning implementation.  One day, even Microsoft may use it correctly but I would not hold my breath.  OOXML will only be considered by the willfully ignorant, the corrupt and those who have exploited them for more than a decade.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The short version:  OOXML drags you into another decade of Microsoft incompetence.  </p>
<p>OOXML should be eliminated from consideration because it is a bad choice, a restrictive liability.  People who chose OOXML are stuck with Microsoft Office and Windows, worst of class software that are expensive, violate your privacy and perform poorly.  People who go with ODF can chose from many better Office suites that work on every OS and many different hardware platforms.  That&#8217;s because ODF is a real standard that has many functioning implementation.  One day, even Microsoft may use it correctly but I would not hold my breath.  OOXML will only be considered by the willfully ignorant, the corrupt and those who have exploited them for more than a decade.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.599 seconds -->

