From: Mike '/m' 


Only up to the 65k row limit of Excel, among other things.

On the other hand, if they want to reach the most people, why make it so
difficult to get to the data?

 /m

On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 23:43:27 -0800, Ellen K.
 wrote:

>If you have Excel, you should be able to use MSQuery to get the Access
>data anyway.
>
>On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:58:55 -0500, Mike '/m'  wrote in
>message :
>
>>
>>Subsequently, they put it up as CSV files.  No Excel files were in
>>sight.
>>
>>Regardless, if they want to reach the most people, why not use the
>>version of MS Access that can reach the most people?
>>
>> /m
>>
>>On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 21:30:23 -0800, Ellen K.
>> wrote:
>>
>>>That information is available as text files and I think also as an Excel
>>>spreadsheet.
>>>
>>>On Sun, 25 Aug 2002 21:11:09 -0400, Mike '/m'
 wrote in
>>>message :
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I ran into a situation with the US gov that was similar to that
>>>>described by the honorable legislator in Peru.  I wanted to download
>>>>some nutrition data from the USDA site.  Unfortunately, the data was
>>>>in MS Access 2000 format.  My Access 97 would not read the file.  I
>>>>wrote to the contact for the site and the response I received was:
>>>>
>>>>"Thank you for your interest in the USDA Nutrient Database for
>>>>Standard Reference.  We understand that not everyone uses MS Access
>>>>2000, but chose it as a widely used package that would provide an
>>>>additional service to our users...."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In other words, ~tough luck~.  I cannot read data that I pay my tax
>>>>dollars to create.   Methinks the Peruvian Congressman Edgar
>>>>Villanueva was on the right track when he wrote of not placing
>>>>government data in the hands of a monopolist.
>>>>http://www.pimientolinux.com/peru2ms/villanueva_to_ms.html
>>>>
>>>>I note the section entitiled "Free access to public
information by the
>>>>citizen."    Why should I have to pay in order to use
data created
>>>>with my tax dollars by my government?
>>>>
>>>> /m
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 22:36:23 +0100, "Adam Flinton"
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Don't think so....
>>>>>
>>>>>Chinese do NOT want to be dependant upon a US company.
Heck would the US
gov
>>>>>decide to use a Chinese OS where they could not get the source?
>>>>>
>>>>>It's part of a longer terms move. I don't think the
Chinese are convinced
by
>>>>>the RIAA/MPAA tack either. Every piece of knowledge
belongs to the
>>>>>people..........Linux is providing a nice conjoining of
idealogy &
>>>>>practicality.
>>>>>
>>>>>Adam
>>>>>
>>>>>"Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
>>>>>news:sho2muspr2470gsu7he1n93o5cj8k7k3vd{at}4ax.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A bigger concern is that China is where Microsoft
was looking for a
>>>>>> lot of growth to replace the mature PC market here
in the US and
>>>>>> Europe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The China Linux project is not good news for
Microsoft.  On the other
>>>>>> hand, China may have its eye on the
many-multi-billion cash reserve
>>>>>> that Microsoft has, and wants a payout to stay
with Windows, just like
>>>>>> Peru.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  /m
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 18:47:38 +0100, "Adam Flinton"
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26737.html
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >"In last month's report on a Chinese
effort to build a home-grown
Win98,
>>>>>we
>>>>>> >appealed for further enlightenment on the
nature of the project. Well,
>>>>>it's
>>>>>> >taken a while, but a kindly Chinese speaker
has done some digging, and
>>>>>> >reveals it's Linux-based, and GPLed.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Thanks to the unnamed translator for the
following, and to Mark for
>>>>>passing
>>>>>> >it on. The apparent involvement of the
Taiwanese government, alongside
>>>>>Linux
>>>>>> >International, is particularly interesting:
>>>>>> >"
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Chinese inc Taiwan.......where are lots of PC
devices made again...?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Adam
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4