GoogleDocs converts to PDF just fine. As does your LATEX file. PDF is "portable" while MSWORD, MacWrite, even LibreOffice are not. However MSWORD and LibreOffice both can save as PDF.

Don't be a douche

Yeah, I'm a student (25 year career as a Computer/Networking Professional) with no real business experience (other than running my own business). Other than that, you're 100% right.

Google Docs does 90 % of what anyone does and stuff Office CANNOT do, that when people see it, they will want it. Namely Multiple and simultaneous editing of documents. Sharepoint is not easy or cheap, and therefore doesn't count. Google Docs also forces users to do their own security, rather than have IT do it for them. Sharing a doc with only two people, easy in GDOCS, impossible with Office.

Collaboration is the new "hot" thing for organizations. And for the people that "need" office, well then they can buy it.

Yes. Everyone who is neither gay nor straight. Haven't the whole non-heterosexual crowd (aka the GLBT) been making the case that sexuality is not black and white, but a whole bunch of gray in between?

So yeah, homosexual Marriage isn't about sexuality, it is about trying to feel "normal" (whatever that is) and forcing people to accept them. The fact is, quite frankly, I don't give a shit who is sleeping with who, who wants to marry who, and everything else associated with this argument. The fact is rights are not assigned to groups, and shouldn't be. Rights are INDIVIDUALs. If marriage is a right, it is a right assigned to an individual to make a contract with another individual without interference from government. PERIOD.

The problem is, that gay marriage activists have taken hold of a benefit assigned to people who are contracted (marriage) together. And at that point, I will agree that they should have that benefit. But then again, so should Polygamy and other forms of Plural contracts. If you're talking discrimination, then lets deal with the whole problem, not just the part that you agree with, while not dealing with the parts you don't. IS THIS NOT the whole argument of gay marriage?

The easiest solution is to remove the benefit, making all people equal, (single, married, plural etc) and let those that want to give preferential treatment do so according to their own conscience.

But here is the real crux of the issue, I would want to "marry" my daughter, not for sexual / procreation purposes, but rather for the "Benefits" associated with it, namely inheritance tax avoidance. IF you say you're not okay with this, then the whole point of Marriage is then taken from the "benefits" and put back into the "for love" (romantic type) realm. The problem is, the gay people want it both ways. They want it for, they can have their "civil union" and have all the noise of a "marriage" and none of the benefits today, in just about every state. They don't accept that. If they say "two adult people" then why then can't I "marry" my daughter to gain the benefits they want to gain (insurance, social security, death benefits etc) ? The moment you start excluding people you making "special rights" associated with some people, not others, based on arbitrary distinctions. Which is the exact opposite of the goal they claim they are working towards.

The can of worms they want opened is not one I dare say they expected.

The "standard" is an anachronism of "Old School". It is not really useful, it is actually a hindrance. It is only "helpful" in the sense that a rotary phone is "helpful", because it uses "pulse dialing", something I used to be able to do with my finger and the "off the hook" button (giving away my age). It is a neat trick, that you can't do on today's push button phones, at all. But I can't tell you the last time i needed to use that trick because the Rotor on my phone broke.

Give me collaboration via Google Docs verses one person working on a Office Doc any day.

Student to Professor: "Here is a link to my GoogleDoc version, which shows complete revision history. And I didn't kill any trees creating this document, making it very green. You can't be bothered clicking a link? Okay, let me print it out in dead tree version ...."

There is no need for "Microsoft Word Formatted File", except people who don't want to learn new things. Funny, but that is exactly how I view many teachers (not wanting to learn new things).

For Collaboration, people really ought to look at GoogleDocs. There are features here that are nearly impossible to duplicate without a very expensive infrastructure tied around Microsoft products. And if you're going to go to Office365, well, you might want to try the Google version out.

The only caveat I have for this, is proprietary documents (secret), where you don't want anyone else to know, in which case you're really talking about a very narrow market.

Gay marriage isn't about rights, it is about benefits granted by government. Nothing more, nothing less.

Most gay people oppose Polygamy, even though that is exactly the same issue, government deciding who can and who can't be "married" (Defining Marriage). Why do they oppose polygamy (polyandry, other plural marriages)? Historically, there is much more evidence of polygamy and even polyandry being "legal" forms of marriage than homosexual marriages.

Here is my view, as a Libertarian: Government has no right to define what is or what isn't marriage. Period. Individuals are the only people with rights, therefore, marriage is simply a contract between two people. And at that point, it is no longer something that government has a say in. The opponents of gay marriage, made the mistake all along of suggesting that it was a right for only Heterosexual people. It isn't a right, it is a contract, and a sacred one at that (religious). If the Muslims and Mormons want to define marriage to have their polygamy, then that is who defines marriage for them.

How is his stance related to the job, other than it is unpopular?

If that is all that you care about (popular opinions of the left) , which seems to the point, then it WILL cut both ways. This is the tyranny that the left opposes except when it benefits them. Think about it this way, what if the NRA said that the CEO of Startbucks should be fired for his comments about people with guns (CC permits) not being welcomed at Starbucks? I mean, THAT does affect Starbucks, but is also SIMPLY a political belief, having nothing to do with coffee and crumpets.

The left LOVES to mix their business with political beliefs. Had Right Wingers known that they support suppression of speech, I'm sure that would have done so earlier.

Libertarians don't give a shit as long as people get the job they were hired to do, done.

The cake is a lie!

DST was first used as an insult to the French by Benjamin Franklin. It isn't an anachronism, it is that the joke is on those that continue to cater to it, namely the US House and Senate and Previous Presidents (though I have no doubt Obama would follow their suit).

The ONLY thing we can do is simply laugh at those that cannot figure out how to set their own schedules and need the Federal and State Governments to help them.

A well regulated market, that ends up serving only those regulated, and not the customers, or anyone else for that matter. And liberals love regulated markets and think that there is nothing wrong with over-regulation.

Well, here is a GREAT example or the wonderfulness of REGULATION.

Nothing will change, because the status quo forbids it. And that is itself a problem

Rodney King didn't get beat up because he was black. He was beat up because they were cops.

The problem with High School required reading of 1984 ends up being most kids reading Cliff Notes (tm) version, which doesn't really cover the horrors in the book.

So nobody really recalls that we are indeed in 1984, and we have always been at war with _________

The solution to this is to stop believing in all powerful government is capable of giving you everything you need. While it might be possible to give you everything you need, the cost is everything you have, for any government that can give you everything you need, can take everything you have. To some people, this is acceptable compromise. To me it isn't.

Decentralized governance is the ONLY real solution to the tyranny that is inevitable otherwise. The problem with Decentralization is that progressive politics doesn't fair well on a micro scale, and leads to tyranny on the macro scale. Of course the Progressives will come out with name calling "hate" speech to shut people up. I don't fear them ... yet.