MS Promotion Site Flagged By MS Anti-Phishing

Stony Stevenson writes "Microsoft has launched a marketing campaign that lets any student at an Australian university buy the Ultimate edition of Office 2007, usual price $1,150, for only $75 — a discount of about 93%. But when students go to the promotion site, Microsoft Live OneCare pops up a warning that the site may be a phishing scam. The warning reads: 'Phishing filter has determined this might be a phishing website. We recommend that you do not give any of your information to such websites. Phishing websites impersonate trustworthy websites for the purpose of obtaining your personal or financial information.'"

Comments

Microsoft has finally done it!

[Samalie]

Its about time....Microsoft has finally recognized itself as evil. Hell has officially frozen over :)

Re:Microsoft has finally done it!

[DittoBox]

Yes but I don't see Steve Ballmer sprouting wings and gaining lift.

Ergo, the swine are not flying yet.

Re:Microsoft has finally done it!

[memojuez]

That seems to go hand in hand with my antivirus program deleting the IE7 installer from my computer because it deemed it a "Generic Trojan"

Re:Microsoft has finally done it!

[antirelic]

Well... this is actual proof that the Anti-Phishing shit actually works...

Re:Microsoft has finally done it!

[mnmn]

This is the last time they'd outsource programming.

You can't nudge nudge wink wink "exclude me from the list" through email to someone 12 timezones away.

Re:Microsoft has finally done it!

[Hal_Porter]

The guys who write the anti phishing stuff would probably not be too keen on that sort of thing anyway.

If you read Showstopper the Dec guys who were hired to create Windows NT used to call traditional Microsoft OSs as Microslop. Interestingly, Bill Gates approved of this contempt. He was quoted as saying that he "Didn't hire Dave Cutler for his charm".

It makes sense really, if your company is bad at something - protecting OSs from malicious programs on the same machine before NT, and protecting OSs from malicious programs on other machines before the recent push to security, and you have a lot of money, you solve it by hiring people from outside. And then when people inside the company complain about them being obnoxious, you say the sort of thing that Gates said about Cutler.

Ok, I'm not sure if the current security stuff is quite as radical as this - it seems to be done by the team that did the original code - but if they want it to work, they need it to be. And they definitely shouldn't have special cases that allows Microsoft stuff to sneak under the defenses, since it compromises the whole system.

Re:Microsoft has finally done it!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they did that a while ago: http://thesource.ofallevil.com

Re:Microsoft has finally done it!

[Smurfeur]

More surprising : MS has finally produced a piece of software that WORKS !

Re:Microsoft has finally done it!

[jez9999]

Yeah, it just got the name slightly wrong. It meant 'bait and vendor lock-in'.

Re:Microsoft has finally done it!

[StartCom]

It seems, that it's not them which produced the software...hence it works... ;-)

Re:Microsoft has finally done it!

[Master of Transhuman]

Sure, the swine are flying - right out of Steve's ass!

Or maybe that's just excessive flatulence...

Re:Microsoft has finally done it!

[Master of Transhuman]

"if your company is bad at something" - like making an OS? - "and you have a lot of money, you solve it by hiring people from outside..."

Gee, maybe open source has the right idea after all...

And they don't even have a lot of money...

Oh, wait, that latter part is WHY Bill is in business.

Never mind.

Oh no!

[AlphaLop]

A Microsoft product that does not work right? The Shock of it... I better unload all my Microsoft stock before the other investors get wind of this! ;)

Re:Oh no!

[ack154]

Who said it wasn't working right? I wouldn't want to give my info to "such websites" either!

Re:Oh no!

[armareum]

Almost ironically (perhaps intentional?), your sig uses the wrong 'your'.

Oh the irony....

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wait forget it...

It Works!

[7bit]

Wow! Live OneCare actually does work!

On a related topic..

[StikyPad]

If any Australian students would like to make a cool 100% profit, please let me know. :)

Re:On a related topic..

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft has been informed of you evil intensions...

Re:On a related topic..

[ZachPruckowski]

Yeah, if you can deal with Clippy saying "G'day mate, how 'bout some letter-writing?"

Re:On a related topic..

[nilbog]

Unfortunately the EULA that you never actually agree to until you install the software but is still enforceable because MS said so prevents students from reselling their discounted copies of Windows.

Re:On a related topic..

[moronoxyd]

Well, that may be true for the US and Australia, but customer rights are (for the most part) no empty shells in Germany and the E.U., so that doesn't hold true over here.

We can also legally buy OEM versions without hardware, so if you are in need of some MS OS and want to spent as little as possible while staying legal...

Re:On a related topic..

[StarvingSE]

And when has anyone actually followed the agreements they "agree" to on the EULA?

Re:On a related topic..

[Anonymous Coward]

And a high profile hitman is currently waiting at your doorstep, slapping at a chair leg in one hand.

Re:On a related topic..

[Kris_J]

I use a tool to remove the EULA from the installation process, so I never agree to anything. Or maybe I don't, how would Microsoft know?

Re:On a related topic..

[MichaelSmith]

Unfortunately the EULA that you never actually agree to until you install the software but is still enforceable because MS said so prevents students from reselling their discounted copies of Windows.

Somebody I work with started a course to do something like an MBA. He dropped out after the first week and got most of his fee refunded. He kept the copy of MS Office he bought as a student.

Re:On a related topic..

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't work. If you don't accept the license, you have no right to use the software.

Re:On a related topic..

[DeathElk]

Nah, take it from an Australian - that should be "Wanna write a f@#kn' letter? Well? Do ya c*nt??"

Re:On a related topic..

[rob1n1]

IIRC, though, OEM versions are tied to the motherboard they're installed on, with hardware or without. So if you get another computer (or build one, more likely) and you need an OS, you can't use the OEM version you originally bought. I'm not sure if this is actually enforced in the software or if it's just a legal technicality, though.

Re:On a related topic..

[Hooded One]

They can be, but it's not necessary. I believe BIOS-locking is done in lieu of activation, which pretty much only happens with Dells and the like where you don't get the actual Windows CD, just a "recovery disc." My mom has an OEM copy of XP with her computer from a local shop, and the last time I upgraded my computer, we switched her hardware to my old box with no trouble at all.

Re:On a related topic..

[Sparr0]

Says who? Microsoft has no standing to tell me that I can or can not use their software. The right to use the software is not one reserved exclusively to the copyright holder. They have control over who copies it, who distributes those copies, who displays it publically, and who creates derivative works, but they have no control over who uses it. clicky

Re:On a related topic..

[cheater512]

But thats in the EULA - the thing that uhh....went missing.

Re:On a related topic..

[DRobson]

Well, I can't get you Office, but pretty much any of the OSs or development suites are given out for free at my uni as part of the 'Academic Alliance' package. Hell, they even have the ISOs up internally and give out serials on request...

Re:On a related topic..

[Hal_Porter]

What would you say if someone used that defense to claim they weren't covered by the GPL? I.e. paid some third party to strip the Copyright messages out of the code and the license.txt out of the archive.

http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6823&cid=8 86346

Re:On a related topic..

[spuzzzzzzz]

If you don't accept the GPL, you have no legal right to copy and distribute the code. The GPL grants rights, by letting you redistribute the code under certain conditions. That is, by agreeing to a EULA, you give up rights. By agreeing to the GPL, you gain rights. So there is no point in avoiding agreeing to the GPL.

Re:On a related topic..

[Hal_Porter]

Doesn't the same thing apply to commercial EULAs though? In the sense that if you don't agree to them you don't have a right to use the software since this inevitably implies copying it from the distribution media to your hard disk and from your hard disk to ram.

I'm not sure what the legal situation is, but it seems that morally both commercial EULAs and the GPL should be enforceable, based on that argument. You're free to not use the software, but I don't think you should be free to use in violation of the copyright owner's wishes.

Of course you could make an argument based on first sale doctrine, which is that I bought the CD in a shop and I can then do whatever I want with it, but that seems to be expropriation to me.

But I don't think you can argue consistently that GPL code is in one category and Microsoft code (or for that matter Metallica mp3s) are in another based on your personal feelings about they owner of the IP.

Re:On a related topic..

[arose]

What would you say if someone used that defense to claim they weren't covered by the GPL?

Copyright violation.

Re:On a related topic..

[geminidomino]

See the post above.

Copying software and using software are not the same thing.

Re:On a related topic..

[Magada]

Common sense would say it isn't the same thing. The right to use a thing you purchased any way you see fit is one of the rights you gain by law when making a purchase (others are things like the rights to copy (within the confines of copyright law), to reverse-engineer it (that's how the x86 architecture came to rule the world), to re-sell, rent or otherwise cede any of these rights).

What an usual EULA does is make you renounce some of the rights you had when you bought the thing, in exchange for letting you use it (when you actually have a right to use it in the first place). The fact that most commercial EULAs contain some crap about "unauthorized copying and distribution blah blah..." does not mean a thing, legally speaking, because you're not allowed to distribute software without explicit permission from the copyright owner anyway - that's covered by copyright law.

The GPL constitutes such an explicit permission (and it is not an EULA, it is a true license - a document by which the copyright owners grant you some rights wrt their work). It does not place limits on how you can use the thing you bought or otherwise acquired (in fact it states explicitly that you can do as you damn well please), but in fact also gives the right to distribute it, only placing conditions on how you can distribute it - which is well within the rights of the copyright holder.

Re:On a related topic..

[spuzzzzzzz]

I don't think you should be free to use in violation of the copyright owner's wishes.

When I buy a book, the copyright holder isn't allowed to stop me from reading it while standing on my head, hitting myself on the head with it or using it as toilet paper. Why should a computer program be any different? Copyright refers to copying only. That's why it's called copyright and not, for example, useright.

I'm not a lawyer, but I am under the impression that installing a computer program in order to use it is not restricted by copyright (in the same sense that if you buy a CD, you don't need express permission from the copyright holder to load that music into the RAM of your CD player in order to listen to the music). Even if there is a no legal distinction between listening to a CD (or installing a piece of software on a single computer) and handing out copies on the street, I feel that there is a moral distinction.

To summarise my position:

• When you buy a copyrighted work, you are free to use it however you like (including such copying as is required by normal use).
• When you buy a copyrighted work, you are not allowed to copy and distribute it without express permission from the copyright holder
• Any document that imposes restrictions on the use of the work does not impose those restrictions unless you agree to it.
• Any document that grants rights for the distribution of the work does not grant those rights unless you agree to it.

It's implied by these points that if you manage to install and run a (legally purchased) piece of software without agreeing to the EULA, it has no effect. If you feel that my argument relies on a personal feeling about Microsoft or Metallica, please point out where.

Re:On a related topic..

[cavac]

As far as i undetstand it, when you "buy Office", you are actually buying a license to use the software on ONE computer, which, by the terms of most licenses, is bound to the first computer you install it on. And yes, every company van tell you how you can use a technology you licensed from it.

If that license comes with or without install media doesn't directly affect the contract terms regarding the usage terms, it only affects delivery conditions (and of course the price). See also companies like ActiveState or VMWare, that sell mostly over the Internet.

IANAL but the only legal argly-bargly i CAN find questionable, is that most times you can only see the contract terms after buying the product - at least, when you are a private person instead of a company.

Re:On a related topic..

[Tsagadai]

Australian spell checkers won't add the symbols, pure uncensored cursing is english here, we don't spell shit with an octothorpe.

Re:On a related topic..

[Anonymous Coward]

But doesn't one create a derivative work by modifying the installer to not display the EULA?

Re:On a related topic..

[warsql]

And when has anyone actually followed the agreements they "agree" to on the EULA?

s/followed/read/

Re:On a related topic..

[Tony Hoyle]

In the UK you need to by hardware but they can't restrict *what* hardware, so OEM versions of Windows often come with a mouse or network cable.

There's no BIOS locking I've ever seen.

It's quite a saving - Vista Ultimate OEM £121 (~$200). Vista Ultimate Retail £369 (~$700).

Re:On a related topic..

[Experiment 626]

Copying software and using software are not the same thing.

True, but the post you were replying to refers to the GPL. The GPL does not deal with using software, it spells out terms under which the copyright holders give you permission to copy their software. By not agreeing with the GPL, all you manage to do is have permission to use, but not copy, the software (unless you negotiate a separate agreement with the creator).

Contrast this with a EULA, which tries to grab powers over and above what copyright law grants, and what you agreed to when you purchased the software. If you can avoid it, you again are only bound by the provisions of copyright law, but in this case that's better for you instead of worse.

Re:On a related topic..

[SirTalon42]

You can not agree to the GPL and still use GPL software. You just can't distribute the software in any form without agreeing to it. GPL just covers 'copying'.

Re:On a related topic..

[VJ42]

In the same vein, what if I get my 7yr old cousin to "accept" (she's perfectly capable of clicking "next") it? Here in the UK, at least, minors cannot enter into contracts. How would MS enforce the EULA on her? This just reinforces by belief that EULAs have no legal standing in this country.

Re:On a related topic..

[geminidomino]

That was my point. :) They're comparing apples to oranges.

Re:On a related topic..

[karmatic]

And yes, every company can tell you how you can use a technology you licensed from it.
No, they can't. Software companies can't do it any more than Ford can forbid you from having your car serviced by someone else. Specifically, see Microsoft Corp. v. DAK Indus.

IANAL but the only legal argly-bargly i CAN find questionable, is that most times you can only see the contract terms after buying the product - at least, when you are a private person instead of a company.
Well, let me help.

Re:On a related topic..

[karmatic]

Missing hyperlink from the one before:
An interesting argument against EULAs.

So, how does this apply to computer software? Well, the original thought was that a license was required, because when you run and install software, it's copied to the disk (sometimes) and to ram (always). Copyright holders thought "Great! We can do whatever we want, and change the terms to whatever we want after purchase!" When you purchase a car, for example, they can't sell you the car and then say "you can only use Ford service on it", or "You can only use Chevy parts".

Regardless, copyright law (in the US, at least - YMMV) now specifically grants the right to make copies for installation, running, and archiving of purchased software. In other words, You don't need an EULA or license to use software you have already bought. The modern EULA pretends to be a "contract", yet it attempts to modify the terms of sale, post-sale, supposedly applies to minors, and supposed applies whether or not you've had a chance to read it beforehand.

Re:On a related topic..

[Dogtanian]

In the same vein, what if I get my 7yr old cousin to "accept" (she's perfectly capable of clicking "next") it? Here in the UK, at least, minors cannot enter into contracts. IANAL and I don't play one on the Internet, but I strongly suspect that such action-by-proxy would not be the simple solution you think it might be. Whether or not it was legally possible for them to consider that you (as a responsible adult) had signed the contract by proxy, I suspect there may be other issues of (your) responsibility at stake.

Re:On a related topic..

[VJ42]

You might think that, but under 16s legally buy and install PC games all the time. All of them also have EULAs who is entering into a contract by proxy in that situation? Absolutely no one as far as I can see, especially if the PC is in the hypothetical child's room, and for all intents and purposes, belongs to the child. IANAL either, but IMO any PC game EULA entered into by a child wouldn't stand up in court, why should an OS be any different? At the very least it would make for an interesting, if absurd, case.

Re:On a related topic..

[Dogtanian]

You might think that, but under 16s legally buy and install PC games all the time. All of them also have EULAs who is entering into a contract by proxy in that situation? But that's not the situation we were discussing. You asked- and I quote- "what if I get my 7yr old cousin to "accept"".

As I said, IANAL, but I strongly suspect that a court (in full possession of the facts) would treat this somewhat differently to the same cousin buying and installing a copy of Barbie Horse Adventures of his own volition.

In short, even if any EULA "accepted" by a minor has no legal power, I would *not* assume that a court would absolve me of any responsibility if it was clear that I had got them to sign it by proxy; quite the opposite.

Of course, in real life, there is also the issue of proving who clicked the "accept" button anyway. My gut reaction is that the court would more likely view this from the perspective of the person who was likely to have licensed the software anyway. That is, they would be more likely to accept that it was your cousin who installed "Barbie Horse Adventures", whereas a £1500 high-end architect's CAD that was the same as the one you used at work (and that your cousin clearly had no interest in) would probably be yours. And whether you had got your cousin to click "accept" would probably be irrelevant.

(Again; to re-emphasise.... IANAL. Also, the above assumes that EULAs are legitimate in the first place- whilst that may be open to debate, it wasn't the point that I was addressing).

Re:On a related topic..

[Anonymous Coward]

sure, how will I get it to you though?
wouldn't it be effectively the same as pirating it since you're not a student?

New Marketing Campaign

[L. VeGas]

It's just part of an overall "bad boy" campaign that MS is using to try to seem cool.

Go ahead and buy from us. IF YOU HAVE THE GUTS.

Too Funny

[DaMattster]

This one gave me a belly ache from laughing. Imagine that MS would anti-phish itself. Gee, I wonder where the disconnect happen between product development and marketing. HAHA

Re:Too Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly phising. Kudos to the Microsoft who added the line to stop us from falling for discounts for a -- let's say "problematic" -- operating system. (Nvidia, Ipod, anyone?) While the price reduces, the bugs don't.

No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

I've found that at most large companies, the right hand doesn't even know there is a left hand, much less know what it's doing.

Re:No surprise

[CommunistHamster]

I have a large company, and it knows exactly what my right hand is doing...

Re:No surprise

[JimDaGeek]

Dang, am I the only one to laugh at this? I just shot some beer out my nose.

You, sir, owe me one beer!

Re:No surprise

[FLEB]

That's one helluva nose.

Does it ....

[Creepy Crawler]

Does it come with an Australian to English converter for us in the states?

My Australian is rusty.

Re:Does it ....

[celardore]

My Australian is rusty.

Give him a good going over with some wire wool and light oil, that should fix him right up!

Re:Does it ....

[moatra]

Grrr.... I keep wanting to reply to your comment, but slashdot keeps telling me I'm logged out!

Re:Does it ....

[didde]

Thank you very much for making me laugh. Your post is funny. Period.

Re:Does it ....

[mjwx]

Last time I checked, they didn't speak English in the US.
 
  Aint is not a word.

Re:Does it ....

[shudde]

Actually it does have an Australian to English converter. I'm not too sure what good that would do a Yank though.

Re:Does it ....

[HTH NE1]

Actually it does have an Australian to English converter. I'm not too sure what good that would do a Yank though.

I think it must be broken. I keep putting in Fosters but I don't get back beer.

And in the English to Australian converter, I keep putting in coffee but I still don't get back beer.

Re:Does it ....

[shudde]

I think it must be broken. I keep putting in Fosters but I don't get back beer.

There's a simple answer, Fosters isn't beer. We just export that swill, no one here actually drinks it.

Re:Does it ....

[snicho99]

Amen brother.

No one out there really seems to get it. Fosters - goes in the same category with Rolf Harris, Steve Irwin (god bless him) and Crocodile Dundee:

Shit we foist on other people.

Re:Does it ....

[c6gunner]

No you don't. Foster's isn't even brewed in Australia! I found that out when, while in a Canadian bar, I saw Fosters listed as a domestic beer. Long story short, Fosters is actually brewed in Canada.

Re:Does it ....

[mollymoo]

Thank you very much for making me laugh. Your post is funny. Period.

You're using Vista's speech recognition, right?

Re:Does it ....

[morethanapapercert]

And if you had watched a Coors commercial or read a Coors label, it also would have appeared to have been brewed in Canada. For most "imported" beers available in Canada, it does not make sense to ship large quantities of cans or (fragile) bottles from one country to another. Beer goes bad rather quickly when traveling in uneven temps like you find on board ship.* Instead, foreign brewers that make popular swill ^h^h^h^h beer will license the name and various copyrighted logos etc to a local/domestic brewer who makes the actual product using local water, barley, hops and so on. Here in Ontario Budweiser and Stella Artois are brewed by Labatt's while Coors Lite and Corona Extra are brewed by Molson's under license. Many of the better foreign beers are actually imported since the better quality can command a higher price, high enough to make importing the comparative small numbers profitable.

Check out www.labatt.com and www.molson.com for more info (warning, the Labatt site has an annoying and worthless age check. Feel free to lie, I did ;) ) *I'm told that trying to ship beer long ways with inadequate refrigeration is behind the origin of the various India Pale Ales. During the early days of British colonialism in places like India, the British Empire shipped large amounts of beer to the colonies. Lagers, Porters and Stouts tend to go bad the quickest when warm, so brewers came up with a pale beer that traveled well and was very refreshing to dry throats despite being shipped in unrefrigerated cargo holds for weeks.

Re:Does it ....

[shudde]

Foster's isn't even brewed in Australia! ...snip... Long story short, Fosters is actually brewed in Canada.

It's brewed in pretty much every country, including Australia. I said we export it anyway, very little difference if it's licensed to be brewed locally to save on shipping/spoilage.

I apologize on behalf of my country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster's_Lager

Re:Does it ....

[lachlan76]

I've never even seen a can of it. And I live in Australia.

Re:Does it ....

[z3d4r]

my friends family operates a large number of holiday units.
i recall that once thay had an american tourist staying there who was determined to shout all his aussie mates a bottle of fosters.

it took three days for local bottleshop to order it in for him.

and then no one would drink it with him.

Re:Does it ....

[asavage]

Even if it says imported it might not be imported from where you think. Some European beers sold in Canada are brewed in USA and vice versa so they can label them as imported. The way the British modified beer to last longer was increase the alcohol and hops. India Pale Ale still is high in hops but not alcohol.

Re:Does it ....

[Hal_Porter]

And John Howard. Oh wait...

Re:Does it ....

[multisync]

goes in the same category with Rolf Harris, Steve Irwin (god bless him) and Crocodile Dundee
Shit we foist on other people.

I thought Steve Irwin was Crocodile Dundee

Re:Does it ....

[ProfessionalCookie]

In international trade we like to call those "non-traditional agricultural exports," NTAEs.

Re:Does it ....

[I'll Provide The War]

What about The Chaser?

Re:Does it ....

[spootle]

I drink Fosters, so screw you buddy.

Re:Does it ....

[Tsagadai]

Strewth, that's what you get for not buying rust resistant Australian.

Re:Does it ....

[Tsagadai]

Just to dispell a myth no one in Australia actually drinks fosters. Honestly I've lived heere for 21 years and most of those years I was drunk and I've never seen anyone drink fosters. XXXX, tooheys, VB, boags, coopers and Gulf are beers Australians actually drink. Fosters is an export beer for gullible foreigners.

Re:Does it ....

[segedunum]

There's a simple answer, Fosters isn't beer. We just export that swill, no one here actually drinks it.

Australia doesn't export Fosters at all. It is owned and brewed by Scottish and Newcastle, and probably isn't even brewed in Australia.

Re:Does it ....

[Tsagadai]

The chaser http://www.abc.net.au/tv/chaser/ is actually humour to be enjoyed. I know Chris and Julian personally and tehy are really funny guys. Julian got arrested for streaking through a streakers trial, you can't get much funnier than that. Also for anyone who doesn't know what I'm on about most of the episodes are available freely from the site I linked.

Re:Does it ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats good to know. Now I can put Australia back on my list of Countries-to-get-drunk-in-before-I-die.

Re:Does it ....

[shudde]

Australia doesn't export Fosters at all. It is owned and brewed by Scottish and Newcastle, and probably isn't even brewed in Australia.

I'm already sick of this discussion but here goes...

Australia still brews and exports Fosters, admittedly on a small scale since in some countries the Fosters Group license local breweries to make it. Scottish and Newcastle own the European rights to the beer, please note... Europe does not equal the whole world.

I'm wondering why people keep posting on this stupid topic without doing any damn reading about it. Fosters still sucks.

Re:Does it ....

[Anonymous Coward]

ain't, v.1
dial. and colloq.
1778 F. BURNEY Evelina (1873) I. xxi. 87 Those you are engaged to ain't half so near related to you as we are. 1829 LAMB Life & Lett. (1860) I. 348 An't you glad about Burk's case? 1865 DICKENS Mut. Fr. iii. 12 'You seem to have a good sister,' 'She ain't half bad.' 1873 C. H. SMITH Bill Arp's Peace Papers 201, I thought I was but I aint. 1875 TROLLOPE Prime Minister I. xiii. 203, I ain't thinking of her marrying. I don't want her to marry. 1898 Eng. Dial. Dict. I. 198/2 Aint ah or am ah n{umac}t? 1919 MENCKEN Amer. Lang. 146 Ain't is already tolerably respectable in the first person..'ain't I in this?' 1938 V. WOOLF Let. 3 Oct. (1980) VI. 278, I believe politics will bring L..to London. And I've not the spirit to pack up and go without him. Ain't I a craven? 1959 W. MILLER Cool World 8, I aint paying that kind of bread.

--The Oxford English Dictionary.

Re:Does it ....

[MeanderingMind]

Say it ain't so!

Re:Does it ....

[UbuntuDupe]

Beer goes bad rather quickly when traveling in uneven temps like you find on board ship.

Oh yeah, because we can't let beer taste like bitter, fermented swill, right? Good thing we have all these innovations to preserve its "taste".

Re:Does it ....

[Pollardito]

Amen brother.

No one out there really seems to get it. Fosters - goes in the same category with Rolf Harris, Steve Irwin (god bless him) and Crocodile Dundee:

Shit we foist on other people.

oh, we get it. now you understand why they're pricing Vista so low in Australia

Re:Does it ....

[HTH NE1]

There's a simple answer, Fosters isn't beer. We just export that swill, no one here actually drinks it.

Wow, you sure got a lot of responses just for successfully spotting the joke. Well, half the joke anyway. And the karma to boot!

Re:Does it ....

[an.echte.trilingue]

And if you had watched a Coors commercial or read a Coors label, it also would have appeared to have been brewed in Canada.

Having grown up in Denver, I was totally unaware that Golden, Colorado, was in Canada. Damn, American schools really suck!

Re:Does it ....

[shudde]

Wow, you sure got a lot of responses just for successfully spotting the joke. Well, half the joke anyway.

HTH NE1 is a strange name, I'd have called myself Chazwozza.

And the karma to boot!

Yep, that'll come in handy the next time someone mentions religion and I wield the mighty stick of the FSM.

Re:Does it ....

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you were serious (apologies if you were joking). Steve Irwin is the (recently deceased) Crocodile Hunter. Paul Hogan is Crocodile Dundee, from the 80s movie of the same name.

-TUAC

Re:Does it ....

[e4g4]

A true IPA *should* have a higher alcohol content - unfortunately, most American IPAs have the same alcohol content as most other beer due to the fact that a beverage containing more than a certain amount of alcohol cannot legally be called beer.

Re:Does it ....

[multisync]

That's what i get for reading /. when I'm half asleep. In my defense, they look sort of alike, and they're both named "crocodile something" ...

Re:Does it ....

[Dogtanian]

XXXX, tooheys, VB, boags, coopers and Gulf are beers Australians actually drink. Yeah, well as the old joke goes, Why do Australians call their beer XXXX? Because they can't spell piss :-)

Re:Does it ....

[c6gunner]

Apology accepted. Most Aussies I know drink good beers. My favourite beer is Kilkenny, and the two coolest broads I've ever met were Aussies who loved it too, so we're good. I don't mind the fact that you guys also happen to be poisoning all the ignorant college kids with that Fosters crap.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad Live's philter isn't self-detecting.

tough problem

[iammaxus]

That's a tough problem because the easy way to solve it is to add a whitelist to the phishing filter, but that is just asking for security problems (think malware hijacking the whitelist). I guess they will actually just have to make the filter work...

Re:tough problem

[1u3hr]

The problem is that the site, "www.itsnotcheating.com.au" was obviously created just for this campaign by some advertising agency. So it shares many of the qualities of a phishing site; no history, lots of content referring to a "trusted" site or a big company. If marketing idiots didn't insist on creating a new TLD for every campaign, people would simply know that if it didn't end in microsoft.com(.au) then it was bogus. Would it really have been so hard to use "itsnotcheating.microsoft.com.au"?

And looking at the who is info for the site, it's no wonder it's flagged as suspicious. Microsoft is never mentioned at all.

Domain Name: itsnotcheating.com.au
Last Modified: Never Updated
Registrar ID: R00014-AR
Registrar Name: PlanetDomain
Status: OK
Registrant: AMNESIA CREATIVE PTY LIMITED
Registrant ID: ABN 65091735867
Eligibility Type: Company
Registrant ROID: C2767016-AR
Registrant Contact Name: Iain McDonald
Registrant Email: domains@amnesia.com.au
Tech ID: C2767016-AR
Tech Name: Iain McDonald
Tech Email: domains@amnesia.com.au
Name Server: ns2.iprimus.com.au
Name Server IP: 203.134.65.67
Name Server: ns1.iprimus.com.au
Name Server IP: 203.134.64.67

Re:tough problem

[AHuxley]

http://www.hotfrog.com.au/Companies/Amnesia-Creati ve

What's the problem

[Zygamorph]

As far as I can see OneCare is correct. The site in question is gathering personal information for neferious reasons, unless of course you think installing MS products is a Good Thing TM

What kind of paperwork is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

...for my company to be recognized as a "university", its employees as "students", and their job as "homework"? Seriously.

Re:What kind of paperwork is needed

[SEMW]

Quote>What kind of paperwork is needed for my company to be recognized as a "university" It would need to be accredited.

Re:What kind of paperwork is needed

[Anonymous Coward]

When last I sold academic versions of MS software in Australia (about 3 years ago) there was no requirement to actually provide any proof that you were a student. Prior to that a copy of a student card or letter from a school official was sufficient but I don't think anyone past the retailer ever checked it so you could just photo shop one up or do a 2 night cooking course that cost less than the price difference to qualify.
I'm not sure what requirements there are for this offer but I would expect that it might be a good time for any Australians wanting a cheap copy of Office to do that short course they might have been considering...

Re:What kind of paperwork is needed

[edgr]

ftfa:

To be eligible for the offer students must be enrolled in an Australian university that has a Volume Licensing Agreement with Microsoft.

So, even if you manage to get accredited as a uni, you still have to have a volume licensing agreement with M$. Probably not worth it just to save $1000.

Re:IE7 declares...

[SEMW]

No it doesn't; I've just tried it.

Yes, it is

[C4st13v4n14]

75$AU? Microsoft? Sounds like it really is a phising scam, or it's at least phishy!

Re:Yes, it is

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that Vista is just bad - or badly received - right now, the price drop is justified. Though I still would not want to buy it. Free operating systems are just around the corner.

Re:Yes, it is

[Froster]

I bought Office 2003 for $39 Canadian through the Microsoft Home Use Program and my mothers company. We got a full copy of Office 2003 Pro (including Publisher and Access), but it was just a disc in a DVD case with a black and white label and a CD Key on the back. Not very impressive, until you think of the savings! I was even impressed that I could install it on both a desktop and laptop with full activation through MS (does that make it 2 $19 copies? :-) )

Re:Yes, it is

[steveo777]

Got the same thing through my job. $20(US) and full version of 2003Pro. Up to three computers.

Apple says it best

[mad_psych0]

"You are attempting to save money! Would you like to allow or deny?"

Microsoft mistake lead to office price cut

[Anonymous Coward]

Those $75 dollar deals are great!

It turns out to be part of a bigger MS mistake. Turns out they sent out way too many copies of office 2007 to Nigeria that should have been sent to Nashville. All those very expensive licenses would have gone to waste in Nigeria where nobody can offord office 2007 let alone all that memory cost. So the $75 dollars is the price needed to get these office licenses past customs.

Re:Microsoft mistake lead to office price cut

[PopeRatzo]

Let's think about the wonderful "free marketplace" and those supposedly immutable laws of supply and demand.

Is there an abundance of Office 2007 licenses in Australia that is causing this price drop or is demand so low that Microsoft has to practically give its products away there to move them off the shelves?

If this isn't clear evidence that companies like Microsoft are no more interested in anything like a "free market" than your average Republican congressman, I don't know what is. The only thing that's free is these corporations' desire and ability to fuck us over.

We are being played, friends.

Re:Microsoft mistake lead to office price cut

[mschuyler]

> We're being played

Microsoft has ALWAYS had student/academic and non-profit deals out there. Look in any University bookstore at very good prices. You don't even have to do that with a student ID card. You can just declare you're a student and buy it online. This is a particularly good deal, but the fact is, I've never paid over $60.00 for a full office suite ever, because Microsoft sells to schools and libraries at a heavy discount.

Re:Microsoft mistake lead to office price cut

[Short Circuit]

Last semester, I could have bought Windows XP through my college for $10. Now the list Vista.

I wish I'd had the money to stock up on XP licenses before Vista rolled out.

Re:Microsoft mistake lead to office price cut

[JimDaGeek]

I would like to know what Microsoft shill has modded you as "Flamebait". Seriously. I guess Microsoft pays some of their employees to go through the top technical sites to try to "evangelize" or something. What a shame.

Semper Fi brother.

Re:Microsoft mistake lead to office price cut

[BlackEmperor]

Call me stupid but I really don't get it. MS has always given generous discounts to students AND developers. MSDN subscriptions are an amazing boon to any small and startup company.

So why are we being fucked over? Surely corporates (who are effectively subsidising these discounts) are the ones being fucked over?

Re:Microsoft mistake lead to office price cut

[EvanED]

It's a drug-dealer-style "the first hit is free."

And it's not anything new. My undergrad institution when I entered (and only for a couple weeks after I entered) had a deal with MS where students could get many MS products, including Office 2002 Pro, VS .Net (2002 at the time), Windows XP, Frontpage, and others for *free*. They still have something similar, but more restrictive, in the form of the MSDNAA (Academic Alliance) where you can get some of their stuff for free. The selection doesn't include Office and it's restricted to CS-related departments, unlike the previous deal. Just recently I've installed VS 2005, Windows XP (I may have needed another license for a virtual machine), and Windows Server 2003 (also into a VM) from MSDNAA.

Even if you're not eligible for this because you're not at a participating university or in the wrong department, as others have said, there are heavy discounts available.

Re:Microsoft mistake lead to office price cut

[PopeRatzo]

If a "small and startup company" is using MSDN subscriptions on their desktops, they're violating their EULA.

Do you think you'll be able to get academic pricing of Office 2007 Ultimate Edition for $60? Or Vista for $10? Think again.

I had lunch with someone who does purchasing for a major University the other day and he's saying that MS isn't going that route this time. There will still be academic licensing, but it won't be anything like it's been in the past.

And my comments above aren't even directed only at Microsoft. They're just playing a game that's SOP in all of business these days. Put your customers in an impossible position, squeeze everything you can out of them while giving them less and less, repeat when necessary to your stock price. MS does it, Apple does it, Sony does it, Dell, HP. Name your company. Name your industry. Transportation, energy, telecommunications, financial. Media.

I repeat: The "Free Market" was always a fantasy - bait and switch where they don't even have to use bait. We are the consumables now.

Re:Microsoft mistake lead to office price cut

[spootle]

Through my University course I have access to some MSDN Academic Alliance where I can get Vista Business, XP Pro, Visual Studio 2003 and 2005 and other various software (none of the basic Office stuff though) for free.

Overheard at Microsoft HQ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, SNAP!

OMG!!!

[Creepy Crawler]

Im using IE7 and wow! It is teh smartest!!

Is this a fishing site??? Cause IE knows and I knows!! Thats awesome!

Wonder if you can find what lures work with what on IE7?

Re:OMG!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Gerald Holmes, is that you?

And if MS white flagged all their advocates

[Timesprout]

Slashdot would implode with rage

Re:And if MS white flagged all their advocates

[Anonymous Coward]

rage is exothermic; we would EXplode...

Re:And if MS white flagged all their advocates

[Anonymous Coward]

Advocates? You sure you don't mean adversaries?

Re:IE7 declares...

[MorderVonAllem]

sure did when i first installed vista and went to get firefox. i've since disabled it. (although it could have just been warning me about phishing scams. it was about a month ago)

Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Anonymous Coward]

Slightly off topic, but can we motion to come up with a new 'M$' logo?

1. The guy is barely involved within the company anymore.
2. Bill Gates has started a profoundly large charity foundation
3. Someone could make some downright hilarious steve ballmer cyborg icons with minimal effort.

Am I the only one feeling this?

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[realcoolguy425]

All you really need is a chair being gripped by a hand. Problem Solved.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[JimDaGeek]

2. Bill Gates has started a profoundly large charity foundation

So what. Give me 20, 30, 40, 50 billion and see if I don't throw around a few billion! Seriously. Give me a call when Billy G. gives away all his money and takes up a hard-working middle-class type job. It won't happen.

Please note that I am not expecting very rich people to give all their money away. However, I am just not impressed by someone with 50 billion giving away 25 billion. You are still left with more freaking money than some smaller countries and more money than most could imagine or more money than you could spend in a life time.

Why in the world would anyone be impressed by a person who only gives out of their extreme abundance? For example, I have 100,000 barrels of soup. I go to my local soup kitchen, for the homeless, and give them 1,000 barrels of soup. I make the news as a great "philanthropist". However, Betty, who has spent 25 hours a week for the last 10 years working at the soup kitchen, is never mentioned. Why?

Please spare me the "rich person gave X amount" and that make them a good person. They only gave out of their abundance. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Anonymous Coward]

They tried. Unfortunately, the Borg Ray Ozzie was indistinguishable from the original.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Anonymous Coward]

frankly speaking, it's just another way to get around the IRS

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[StikyPad]

They only gave out of their abundance. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not true. It doesn't matter that he had an abundance, rather that he felt compelled to use it for the benefit of others. He may have benefitted the reputation of himself, or his company, but the gains for himself were not nearly as much as the gains of the recipients. It was inequitable, therefore it was charitable. There are plenty of rich people who sit on their money instead of putting it to good use.

All your shit talking does is discourage others from following his lead, because they're just going to say "Hey, I'm just going to get flack for it anyway -- fsck 'em."

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Jarden]

Yawn. I'm tired of this incessant need to bag Bill Gates no matter what he does. And your argument doesn't stand up at all.

The fact is he's given more money to philanthropic endeavours than any other person. Ever. So get off your fucking high horse.

I saw this guy the other day give $20 to a homeless person. I went over to him and said "Hey you fuck, you earn over $50k a year and I just saw you give ONLY $20 to that hungry guy? You tight asshole!". Then I punched him in the face and took his wallet. Because we need less assholes like that.

Going by your stats Bill Gates has given to charity around 50% of the money he's EARNED. What proportion of the money YOU have EARNED have you given to charity?

Apparently you have some preconceived notion of how much money rich people should be left with after donating for their donation to "mean" something. Perhaps you should publish a "JimDaGeek guide to philanthropy" so the world's rich can learn from you.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[spells]

Bill - why are you reading slashdot on a Tuesday night - I thought it was bridge night with Buffett.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[10101001 10101001]

The fact is he's given more money to philanthropic endeavours than any other person. Ever.

Ever heard of inflation?

I saw this guy the other day give $20 to a homeless person. I went over to him and said "Hey you fuck, you earn over $50k a year and I just saw you give ONLY $20 to that hungry guy? You tight asshole!". Then I punched him in the face and took his wallet. Because we need less assholes like that.

Perhaps you should try to understand what was said. The issue is that while a person with $40+ billion gives away $1 billion, they're still left with $39+ billion. The person with $50k who gives away $20 is left with $50k minus $20. Now, would you rather have $39+ billion or $50k minus $20? Which person has less?

It's almost always good to give to charity, whatever the amount. But at least at this time, Bill hasn't given substantially of himself. Even if his plan to give away all his money before he dies holds true, he'll have lived 20+ years in a million dollar house. So, it's hard to act like whatever he does is something substantial. Hell, how much money goes into charities and research from the US government (ie, taxpayers)?

Going by your stats Bill Gates has given to charity around 50% of the money he's EARNED. What proportion of the money YOU have EARNED have you given to charity?

Some people believe that everything is relative. If that were the case, Bill would have to pay $800,000 for a candy bar that a person who made $50,000 would only have to pay $1. Perhaps talking about proportions isn't exactly an exactly fair metric given it doesn't apply everywhere.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[skoaldipper]

Slightly off topic, but can we motion to come up with a new 'M$' logo?

This is the best I could do on such short notice.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Anonymous Coward]

I just noticed I still need to dodge a few more strokes on his left arm in Gimp. It was hard blending a black to white background on the transparency (to make it smooth), and left a splotch there if you look closely. Anyways, I got the original png and can upload it too if someone wants to play around with it (add a shadow text caption or something). I don't know what the dimensions are for an article tag icon, so I just used the 75x55 borg icon as a reference.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[JimDaGeek]

Last year I gave about 60% of my income to different causes. Yes, 60%. I would have given more, though I was doing some things with my money. Yeah, I am a "rich" guy, money-wise. However, You won't see me on the news saying, "look at me, I am giving out of my abundance". Nope, that is only for the "philanthropists". Why would Billy G. give away so much and not do it anonymously? Seriously. Does he want the tax credit? Does he want the news coverage?

While I don't make anything close to what Billy G. does, I do well. However, the one difference is that all of my big donations have been anonymous.

Why do all of these _super_ rich people give money out of their abundance and then shout it from the roof tops? Is it to get a pat on the back? Please spare me. I grew up in need, and now I live very well. I give money to help people, not to get my name on the news. That is why you have never heard of people like me who have given more than $200,000 in the last 10 years to charity/research. I don't do it to have people pat me on the back. I do it because I spiritually feel compelled to help my fellow humans who have not been given the blessings that I have. I don't want anyone to know who I am when I give money. I just want to make sure that the money that I earned is going to good use.

Now compare that to Billy G. He wants to "give" money, out of his massive abundance, and shout it from the roof-tops. "Hey, look at how much I am giving to 'help' people". I would like to see Billy G.'s tax returns. I bet he claims as much as he can from what he "gives". I have never claimed what I give to charity/research. I don't give for a tax break. I give to really help. Sure, I am making myself sound like a saint. Though I am not. There are selfish reasons in there as well. I have seen a lot of sickness in my family over the years. So I give to research in the hopes that a treatment will be found. I give to help poor families because I know what the hell that is like.

There are millions of Americans that give some of their income to really help others. Why are they not in the news? There have been plenty of people that have given a larger percent of their income, than Billy G., to help others. Why are they not in news?

There have been far more American that have made a far greater sacrifice than Billy G. giving out of his extreme abundance. Why are they not in the news?

I will say it again. Please spare me the whole "philanthropist" garbage. Most of the "philanthropists" just give out of their abundance. Please, give me 20 billion and see how much freaking money I give away. Damn, I'd give away just about all of it. I would save about 3-4 million (USD) for myself and give the rest away.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Anonymous Coward]

And exactly how do you think it would be possible for Bill Gates to do anything anonymously?

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[justinlee37]

I bet you think Rockefeller was a saint, too.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it matters that he had an abundance. That doesn't mean that this sort of charity is bad, it just means that the "moral value" of a good deed is not measured directly in dollars. In my opinion, we shouldn't start measuring good deeds in dollars even if doing so would mean that people who have a lot of money would be encouraged to give more of it away.

If you have a lot of money and you're willing to give (some of) it away to a good cause, I appreciate that and I think it's a decent thing to do. However, the fact that the figures are large does not automatically mean that you've attained sainthood. This is not a problem if you're giving away your money for the purpose of helping people instead of for the purpose of attaining moral superiority. (I'm not saying Bill Gates or any other philantropists are making these claims to moral superiority, but at times it would seem that other people make them on their behalf.)

(Note that I'm not at all trying to attack Bill Gates here. I'm quite sure his intentions are good with his philantropic efforts, and that the large sums of money he gives away have positive effects. This is Slashdot, and Bill Gates will be unfairly bashed, just like Steve Jobs and Linus Torvalds will be idolized.)

On the subject of the Gates-as-Borg image, I always took that as a bit of tongue-in-cheek "us-vs-MS" humour, rather than an expression of seething hatred for Mr. Gates. If it's meant to be(or is widely interpreted as) the latter, then it should be removed and probably never should've been used in the first place, but if it's the former, I'd say it can stay for the sake of tradition. It's not as if the "us-vs-MS" concept is any less relevant now; Slashdot is still a largely anti-MS site(as for making a similar updated image, I'd say the problem is that the image of Ballmer is far less recognizable than that of Gates).

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[JimDaGeek]

Huh? Are you retarded? Have you ever given money to charity? If you are giving a large sum of money, you just stipulate that it is only on the condition of that you remain anonymous. It is that simple.

I am not talking about giving away $100, $500 or even $1,000. When you plan to give a large sum to a charity, the top-brass of that charity gets involved. All you have to do is ask to remain anonymous.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[JimDaGeek]

Please. Spare me your diatribe. Again, I will say, give me 20 billion and see what I do with it. I would keep a _little_ for me and my family and the rest would go to help others and science.

All your shit talking does is discourage others from following his lead

Huh? Are you for real? Do you think there is a billionaire out there that was thinking of giving money to a good cause, happened to be reading /. and then said, "wait, JimDaGeek doesn't think I am giving for real reasons, so fsck 'em'."? Man, you must have 3.14159 brain cells.

I am just so tired of people who pat the ultra-rich on the back because they give a little of their abundance. Billy G. is still super rich. The dude can give away a few more billion and still be a billionaire. Please spare me the "Billy G. is a great man because he gave away money."

Oh, and by the way, even in his "giving" Billy G. is doing business deals. He was making business deals with the big pharma companies. Just read up on it. It is _so_ great to see Billy G. invest in AIDS vaccinations that are unaffordable for Africans!

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[NtroP]

I agree. As a dyed-in-the-wool Microsoft loather, I have to give Bill and Melinda some props for their charitable causes. I wish I had resources like theirs to give, but we all must do what we can with what we've got. I'm just glad they're doing as much as they are.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[samwichse]

Get that one to CmdrTaco, stat!

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Anonymous Coward]

>Going by your stats Bill Gates has given to charity around 50% of the money he's EARNED. What proportion of the money YOU have EARNED have you given to charity?

That's where the issue is. Ethically, he stole the money. Legally, he defrauded others of it. Remember the various court cases Microsoft was involved in when Bill Gates was owner and operator of Microsoft? Yeah, the ones they either lost or settled out of court (or bought out other companies to settle). The ones that actually made The Simpson's do a parody of Bill Gates "buying out" Homer by busting up the place.

Giving back 50% of what's not yours is a really good start, though. Once he's finished giving out the rest of his ill-gotten gains, well, then I'll consider his debt getting closer to being paid. He still needs to pay for lying to a judge under oath. He should have received jail time for that, and the lack of punishment means he needs to make it up to society in another way. Perhaps if the millions he stole manage to create a cure for HIV (supposedly that's something his foundation is working on) that'll make up for that one.

Until then, the man ran a criminal enterprise and was (I wouldn't be surprised if he still is, he's shown no attempts at reformation) an incredible scofflaw. He deserves every ounce of suspicion we give him.

For the fallen comrades, shouts to: Digital Research, Stac, Intuit, Syn'x, Spyglass, 3Com, Temps, SCO (ok, not really), Borland, Bristol Technologies, AT&T (oh well), Caldera, Sun, Java, Ed Curry, Goldtouch, Netscape, Palm, Blue Mountain Arts, Eolas, Hyperphrase, Intertrust, Eastman Kodak, Daum Communications, Be, AOL (heh), Network Commerce, Burst.com, SPX, E-Data, Real Networks, Mythic, and all Israeli; American; Japanese; EU; and Brazilian citizens.

Yes, Bill Gates has indeed "touched" a lot of lives. As the other poster commented, "touched" like Rockefeller "touched" American (heck, indeed worldwide) lives.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[choongiri]

Oh my, that's so funny I laughed until I cried. Thanks.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Mister Whirly]

Yeah, because if someone makes a 5 billion dollar donation, the list of potential donors is practically limitless. I mean who doesn't have 5 billion to give to charity??? Besides apparently you and Bill Gates... And I think your "anonymous" cover has been blown.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Anonymous Coward]

"For the fallen comrades, shouts to: Digital Research, Stac, Intuit, Syn'x, Spyglass, 3Com, Temps, SCO (ok, not really), Borland, Bristol Technologies, AT&T (oh well), Caldera, Sun, Java, Ed Curry, Goldtouch, Netscape, Palm, Blue Mountain Arts, Eolas, Hyperphrase, Intertrust, Eastman Kodak, Daum Communications, Be, AOL (heh), Network Commerce, Burst.com, SPX, E-Data, Real Networks, Mythic"
Oh fucking please. Half those companies put themselves out of business by making stupid decisions. Making Bill Gates the anti-christ is giving him waaaaaaayyyyyy to much credit.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[RealGrouchy]

2. Bill Gates has started a profoundly large charity foundation

Which funds initiatives that try to "cure" AIDS by paying for expensive, patented drug treatments for some people, instead of cheap generic equivalents that could reach a much greater portion of those who need the treatments.

While this will help many people with AIDS, it will also support the concept of Intellectual Property, which is central to those billions of dollars that Bill Gates has invested in Microsoft.

The Borg/Locutus icon is quite appropriate: there will always be some of it in you (even when you give away shitloads of money).

- RG>

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Anonymous Coward]

Of all the things you could cut down Gates for, you chose him giving away billions to charity? Tsk tsk.
Has Bill personally done some wrong to you? You feeling okay champ? Maybe want me to buy you a soda to cheer you up sport?

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Anonymous Coward]

"Again, I will say, give me 20 billion and see what I do with it. I would keep a _little_ for me and my family and the rest would go to help others and science."

I call "Bullshit" in a loud voice. Or I would ask you to define "little". You'd be SO giving, that with a 20 billion dollar windfall, you wouldn't provide the "Good Life" for you and your family?

If not, then you're truly a good person. Reality says differently for most, however.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Anonymous Coward]

EARNED?!?

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Daniel Phillips]

Which funds initiatives that try to "cure" AIDS by paying for expensive, patented drug treatments for some people, instead of cheap generic equivalents that could reach a much greater portion of those who need the treatments.

While this will help many people with AIDS, it will also support the concept of Intellectual Property, which is central to those billions of dollars that Bill Gates has invested in Microsoft.

And those not helped? Essentially a death sentence. For that reason and others I for one remained unconvinced that the Gates' foundation primary purpose is truly charity, as opposed to a glorified tax shelter and a means of extending influence.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Involved or not, he is the figurehead. E.G. - Disney
2) The ultra rich have a social responsibility for the well being of the less fortunate. This ideal is getting lost in the US. It's wonderful that he does it, but he damn better.
3) Steve Ballmer is not recognized by his face if you are not a nerd. Bill Gates is world renown.

Feel free to tell your boss the plan failed.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[JimDaGeek]

Well, I don't have 5 billion to give away. Heck, I don't even have a billion. However, there are a boat load of billionaires in the world. Add up the money of the top 100 billionaires and see how much freaking money they have and think of what good that can do for the humans around the world.

If Billy G. donated 5 billion USD anonymously, it would not link the donation to Billy G. at all. There are a lot of people that could do that. The donation doesn't even need to be from a "person". Just spend a little bit of money (a few hundred bucks at most) to make a non-profit company. Then the donation doesn't come from Billy G., but from the "We Like to Help" corporation/LLC.

I have done it a few times, it is not hard at all. Heck, any knuckle-head can start a private LLC for chump-change. Start the LLC in your friends name and be an anonymous supporter. Then give the money to charity. It is real simple to give money to help others without being known.

Most "philanthropists" _want_ to be known. They want to be thanked and patted on the back for giving from their extreme abundance. That is my big beef with the "philanthropists" of the world.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[JimDaGeek]

Yes, I would keep about 5 million for me and the family. Anything else would just be living an extremely extravagant life-style IMO. Do I really need a super-yacht to be happy? Do I really need my own personal jet to be happy?

I am a little older and (I hope) a little wiser. I didn't grow up with the means I have now. But you know what? I was very happy as a kid because I had great parents that gave me love.

With 5 Million, you could buy a nice house, nice car, some cool toys and invest the rest. I went down that path and have been very happy.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[JimDaGeek]

I was not "cutting him down". I just don't like people that "give" away money and then want a press release about it. End of story.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Mister Whirly]

Yep, and even the 10th richest man in the world is only worth 18 billion, so I doubt he would be able to give away 5. Most billionaires don't have that much liquid cash around. So really if a hypothetical (and it is only hypothetical in this conversation) 5 billion dollar donation was made, I would say the list of potential donors would be around 5 or 6. Wouldn't be too hard to go down that list and figure out who was most likely. (Donation to Muslim mosque - probably oil sheik. Donation of thousands of computers - Gates or Allen) Just because you don't attach your name to something doesn't mean someone else won't.
And a dummy LLC isn't going to fool anyone. Give an investigator a few hours (and some bribe money) and you can find out who photocopied their ass at the last company christmas party if you want - greed is an excellent motivator. Now a 5 million dollar donation could probably be made anonymously. And if there are any rich philanthropists reading this, I would totally accept a 5 million dollar donation AND keep your name out of the papers!

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think Bill Gates have given away much cash? No, he has given away Microsoft stock. There's no reason a donation has to be cash. In fact, there are advantages from giving away stock:

If you are a major shareholder, selling the shares off to give away the cash would drive down the price - in other words, the real impact on Gates from giving away all those shares is significantly less than it seems: If he'd sold the shares and kept the proceeds to himself, he'd both have to pay capital gains AND he'd drive down the price. So the net value of those shares to Gates would be far less than the market value pre-tax.

As for finding out who set up an LLC - if you do it in the right jurisdiction the only way they'd find out would be massive bribes at the risk of years in prison.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Carewolf]

Sounds great, except: CEO Monkey Boy, can't be a cyborg. He's a Monkey Boy.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[LinuxIsRetarded]

However, the one difference is that all of my big donations have been anonymous.

Not any more, they're not. You sure don't have a problem touting your hefty donations here when you want to claim yourself to be a better person than someone else. Why not shout from the rooftops, "I'm the humblest man alive!"

I have never claimed what I give to charity/research.

And that's just stupid. Jesus said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's...". Why pay any more taxes than are required? You could donate the savings themselves.

I would save about 3-4 million (USD) for myself and give the rest away.

And that statement alone proves that you're a hypocrite. 3-4 million in savings for someone under 50 (or possibly even older) is an abundance. Why would you even keep that much? Give sacrificially, otherwise don't even bother.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[TractorBarry]

Top stuff !

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[saforrest]

Most "philanthropists" _want_ to be known. They want to be thanked and patted on the back for giving from their extreme abundance. That is my big beef with the "philanthropists" of the world.

I can see where you're coming from, but I think the problem is not philanthropists who publicize their donations: there is an objectively good argument to made for publicizing, since it raises awareness of the donation, encourages others to give, and probably even reduces class tensions.

The problem is the public that is willing to adore them for it. Sitting on a mountain of cash ought to carry with it an automatic moral penalty.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Mister Whirly]

Really? So the thousands of computers he donated to libraries and schools all across the country is actually Microsoft stock? Won't the kids using them be disappointed when they find out! And those schools he opened, I guess they pay their bills and buy their books with Microsoft stocks, because every store and utility company accepts MS stocks as payment. Your statement is so moronic it's no wonder you posted it anonymously. Do some simple research - yes sometimes stocks are donated (which are turned around and, my god!, sold for cash) but most of the time it is cash donations. I know you think Bill G and MS are evil, but don't try to find evil in every single action he does. If you want to bag on him, there are far better things to do it on than his charity work. How many schools has Sam Walton started??

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm tired of this incessant need to bag Bill Gates no matter what he does

That's bullshit. We "bag bill" for the bad shit he does, not for everything.

The fact is he's given more money to philanthropic endeavours than any other person

No shit Dick Tracy. He's also made more money than anyone else, so this isn't saying much at all.

I saw this guy the other day give $20 to a homeless person. I went over to him and said "Hey you fuck, you earn over $50k a year and I just saw you give ONLY $20 to that hungry guy? You tight asshole!". Then I punched him in the face and took his wallet. Because we need less assholes like that.

You're an idiot. First off, giving money away isn't a requirement of being a good persion. I earn money. I spend my money the way I see fit. Secondly, giving money away to bums is a bad fucking thing. If you really want to help those poor bums, either walk away and let entropy take it's effect (that's if you have the balls to see reality for what it is and let nature run it's course) or donate to a charity that will help try to clean up the decay of western society (this one's for the bleeding heart liberals or the obnoxiously pious "All life is sacred" retards out there).

Someone should punch you in the face for being retarded.

Going by your stats Bill Gates has given to charity around 50% of the money he's EARNED

You just keep getting more and more stupid. Earned? Are you fucking joking? The man has lied, cheated and stolen every penny he has. The man is not to be admired, but scorned as the worlds most notorious villian, and you raise him on a pedestal, you ignorant fucktwit.

Apparently you have some preconceived notion of how much money rich people should be left with after donating for their donation to "mean" something

Apparently YOU DO TOO. Didn't you just talk about punching some guy in the face for not giving enough? Here's a thought: Why don't you let people decide what they want to do with their money and shut the fuck up about it??

Here's another thought:
Stop thinking that Bill Gates is a "good man" or a "philanthropist" because he gave money to charity. Guess what obnoxiously naive, ignorant boy; giving to charities allow you tax breaks. I HIGHLY doubt that his giving to charity was a "selfless act". Given his track record, I'd say it's downright impossible.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Anonymous Coward]

> Going by your stats Bill Gates has given to charity around 50% of the money he's EARNED. What proportion of the money YOU have EARNED have you given to charity?

You misspelled "gained via shady business dealings."

Look, I'm glad he gave billions and all. He's even doing some important things like fighting malaria (and some less important things that look like they're intended to give PR to Microsoft) with his charity.

But I still wouldn't thank a guy who finagled the bank out of $100 for giving $50 to charity. Yes, it's nice and all, but you can't (or shouldn't be able to) buy respect. At least not my respect. Maybe yours is cheaper.

I'll look more favorably upon the widow's two mites any day.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Shadowlore]

3. Someone could make some downright hilarious steve ballmer cyborg icons with minimal effort.

I dunno. I think a better one would be an animated one of his head from the jumping and flopping about on stage video) the head of a fish flopping about.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[skoaldipper]

Just for kicks. I made this ballmer one too. Personally, I'm still kind of partial to the gates borg icon myself. But, It was all in good fun.

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Anonymous Coward]

>Oh fucking please. Half those companies put themselves out of business by making stupid decisions. Making Bill Gates the anti-christ is giving him waaaaaaayyyyyy to much credit.

'Scuse me, I didn't ever say he's the anti-christ. However, your argument applies equally to the mob. They make others pay protection money and put some places out of business doing it. A lot of them put themselves out of business with other stupid decisions. You saying the mafia is a great thing is wanting to live in a demilitarized zone. Fuck that.

And how about the other half of those companies? Fuck them and their employees out of jobs, that's fine, right?

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Anonymous Coward]

>Really? So the thousands of computers he donated to libraries and schools all across the country is actually Microsoft stock?

You mean the ones where the charities had to pay for windows, right? For the life of the machine in some cases. I just want to be sure what we're talking about here, because, you know, I have a car to give away, but you have to buy the tires from me for the life of the vehicle and they're a bargain at only $1,000 each.

>If you want to bag on him, there are far better things to do it on than his charity work.

On the contrary, I actually think it's one of the better things to bag him on, since he can't even be honest when it comes to that. If you can't donate to charity without expecting a profit, just don't.

>How many schools has Sam Walton started??

Oh, he's even more giving than Bill Gates. And he likes to teach a political lesson at the same time. Or didn't you know about this? It's in Wikipedia, man.

In 1985, Sam Walton began a program designed to stem the 'tide of communism' in Central America by promoting capitalism and privatization. His efforts included funding scholarship programs to bring Central American students to Christian universities in the United States, hoping that exposure to American capitalist and Protestant Christian values would dissuade them from becoming involved in communist movements.

Funny thing is, even if it's for the wrong reasons, he's still way more of an honest man than Bill G. Bill G surreptitiously tries to use his charitable donations to make money, until he's found out and (sometimes) backpedals. Sam Walton says his intentions loud and clear, and at least he's not doing it with a business angle.

Some other things that make Sam Walton a "great" man (at least according to your way of thinking, which is if you donate enough to charity, you're a great guy):

Walton supported various charitable causes, including those of his church, the Presbyterian Church (USA). The Sam and Helen R. Walton Award was created in 1991 when the Waltons made a gift of six million dollars which included an endowment in the amount of three million dollars to provide annual awards to new church developments that are working in creative ways to share the Christian faith in local communities.

Sam Walton's family has also donated more to the University of Arkansas than anyone else, ever.

There's the $85 million to the children's scholarship fund, $41 million to Children's Educational Opportunity (CEO) Foundation America, and $12 million to San Diego Society of Natural History Balboa Park, $11 million for John Brown University, etc, etc. In fact, with the $1/2 billion they've donated, I dare say Sam Walton's family more generous and benevolent to society than Bill Gates!

Sucks to eat your own words, doesn't it?

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Mister Whirly]

Straw Man - look it up, it's on Wikipedia too man! I never said he was a saint, or that he didn't have ulterior motives. I simply refuted that he only donated Microsoft stocks, as he actually donates cash to charities.

But seeing as you like to answer my questions with unrelated answers, I'll do it for you.

So the thousands of computers he donated to libraries and schools all across the country is actually Microsoft stock?
Nope, as it turns out, they were actually computers, as you pointed out yourself! As a matter of fact, there is such a thing as the Microsoft Educational Discount, where schools and students can buy Microsoft products at a largely discounted rate. At the University where I work, students can buy XP or Office 2003 for well under $100.

How many schools has Sam Walton started??
That would be none. I didn't ask how much he gave away to right-wing conservative charities, or how many foreign kids he tried to brainwash.


Sucks to eat your own words, doesn't it?
Not really, as they were your words, and I didn't eat any of them. I had Thai food for lunch, but thanks for asking.

Sucks to eat your own fallacy, doesn't it?

Re:Bill Gates Cyborg Icon

[Dogtanian]

Man, you must have 3.14159 brain cells. Meaning that someone replaced his brain with a custard pi?

Because, you know

[dctoastman]

It's not like anyone would report the site as a phishing scam for cheap laughs.

Re:Because, you know

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying they did it for the lulz?

Re:Because, you know

[PsychicX]

Well. Let me show you a screenshot I snapped early on in the IE betas. I think this was beta 1, but it's been a while now. And just to be clear, I took the shot myself. It's not doctored in any way. It happened while I was on the MS corporate network, and you can even see that the Passport login passed. Flagged for Phishing

Am I the only one not outraged by their "contest"?

[joe_cot]

Bribing Pro Bloggers with laptops? Bad. Very bad.
Bribing amateur bloggers with scooters/laptops/mp3 players? No problem
From the website:

Enter the Golden Blog Awards to win great prizes
All you have to do is mention the word 'office' and the link 'www.itsnotcheating.com.au' in your blog. Winner is judged on creativity of the story.
The blog or video with highest number of supporting comments will have the chance to win this fab music pack.

I don't think that needs comment.

(PS: The original text cited is in all caps, which set off Slashdot's "Lameness filter". Define irony)

Ultimate?

[phorm]

I have to ask, what's so good about an office produce that makes it worth more than a grand... and what's special about "Ultimate"?

For all the MS Office products I've used, generally there's been a Standard (Word/Excel/Powerpoint/Outlook) and Pro (Add Access and I believe frontpage). So what does "ultimate" bring to the table? What does it offer that would make it worth the non-discounted price?

It really seems that MS has jumped on the tiered-product bandwagon (standard, pro, ultimate, superdooperfantabulous, etc) and I really have to wonder what the market is for these products. How many actually buy the product at the standard pricing anyhow?

Re:Ultimate?

[MrCopilot]

I have to ask, what's so good about an office produce that makes it worth more than a grand

....
Office for Apple Mac? umm

We use a lot of fruits for snacks at lunch time but I'm pretty sure it doesn't comes to over a grand.

Re:Ultimate?

[SEMW]

For all the MS Office products I've used, generally there's been a Standard (Word/Excel/Powerpoint/Outlook) and Pro (Add Access and I believe frontpage). So what does "ultimate" bring to the table? Pro has Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, Access, and Publisher; Ultimate adds OneNote, Groove, and InfoPath. What are Groove and Infopath, you ask? Your guess is as good as mine, because I have no ****ing idea whatsoever. Microsoft claim Groove is a "peer-to-peer collaboration solution", which has left me only slight more enlightened than before. Onenote's supposed to be pretty good, though.

I have to ask, what's so good about an office produce that makes it worth more than a grand Ultimate is $590 in US dollars, the article was in Australian dollars.

Re:Ultimate?

[BlackEmperor]

It's worth a grand cause :

1) it's the edition that corporates will buy and accordingly it's waaaay overpriced. browse joel on software for a good article on this sort of pricing.
2) office has a lot of lock-in, especially in the corporate environment. .doc extension is worth billions of dollars.

Re:Ultimate?

[naspime]

That still makes Office Ultimate about $890 U.S. I understand that software costs more overseas (taxes, etc)...but a $300 markup...? Wow...Australians are getting screwed.

Re:Ultimate?

[Afecks]

I have to ask, what's so good about an office produce that makes it worth more than a grand... and what's special about "Ultimate"?

It has fewer menus grayed out.

No but seriously, the Ultimate versions of Windows share a common theme, which is merging business features together with home features. It's really a waste of money for most people that just want to write an essay or edit spreadsheets. It's all just a big grab for more money and it seems to be working very well.

Re:Ultimate?

[kocsonya]

> Ultimate is $590 in US dollars, the article was in Australian dollars.

Considering that 1 AUD is about 0.78 USD, the US $590 should be AU $756 and not 1,150... Interesting.

Re:Ultimate?

[SEMW]

It's worth a grand cause :
1) it's the edition that corporates will buy and accordingly it's waaaay overpriced. browse joel on software for a good article on this sort of pricing.

• It's worth $590 in US (as opposed to Australian) dollars.
  
• It's not the edition corporations will buy. Enterprises with volume license agreements will buy the volume-licenses Enterprise edition. Small businesses will buy the Small business edition. Or possibly the Professional edition. Or Professional Plus edition. Anyway, the one edition corporations will not buy to roll out en mass is the all singing all dancing "We've got everything!" edition.

2) office has a lot of lock-in, especially in the corporate environment. .doc extension is worth billions of dollars.

• Office 2007 doesn't even USE .doc; it uses Open Office XML. If you don't like that, I think there's an addon that lets it save in ODF. Legacy .docs can be converted to OOXML (tool provided by MS) or ODF (tool not provided by MS); and OpenOffice reads and writes to .doc perfectly fine.

Re:Ultimate?

[SEMW]

Article price quoted Australian RRP; buying software at RRP in any country and you're probably getting screwed. There's no Amazon Australia, but Amazon US has it discounted $90, and Amazon UK for comparison has it discounted £110 -- that's $210 -- over RRP, to give a net price of...

Huh? Is that right? £490? That's $950 in USD, even with the $210 discount! The UK RRP is $1150 in USD! That's nearly $1500 Australian! Wow, forget the Aussies, it's the British who are getting screwed!

Re:Ultimate?

[Ramadog]

It is not a straight price conversion. When I have compared American prices with Australian prices I have found it to be convert USD to AUD then add anything up to a few hundred dollars and you might have the Australian price.

Just a quick look and the prices I found
office pro varying from $750 AUD to $850 AUD
office ultimate $999 AUD

Re:Ultimate?

[Max Littlemore]

I have to ask, what's so good about an office produce that makes it worth more than a grand... and what's special about "Ultimate"?

It's called ultimate because they changed the interface, it's release coincided with the release of Vista and they're selling on sites that are flagged as phishing.

If they continue their current approach, it will be the "Ultimate" version of office.

Re:Ultimate?

[PPGMD]

You are also forgetting that in that UK RPP they are including VAT. Where as in the US because sales tax varies from state to state is added after the fact.

Once you factor in VAT the prices are pretty much in line with some allowances made for cost of living and wider selection of retailers.

Anyways if you think thats insane you should see the prices for cameras in Europe. The mark up is insane.

Re:Ultimate?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what does "ultimate" bring to the table? It goes up to 11.

Re:Ultimate?

[Hucko]

I believe the question still stands...

I have to ask, what's so good about an office produce that makes it worth more than a grand

Yes, I'm Aussie. I am considering donating my $75 to OpenOffice.org as I am supposed to have MSOffice for my education degree.

Re:Ultimate?

[SEMW]

If you're questioning whether the features that are in MS office but not Openoffice (and applications that openoffice has no equivalent to) are worth $X, then no-one can give an answer that applies to everyone: it depends what features & programs you personally use. If every feature *you* happen to use in MS office has an exact or better equivalent in Openoffice, and you are happy with the speed & interface of Openoffice on your system, then no, for you it's not worth $X. Doesn't mean the same conclusion will apply to everyone.

(If, on the other hand, you're saying you disagree the idea of paying for software as a concept in itself, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.)

Re:Ultimate?

[westlake]

What are Groove and Infopath, you ask? Your guess is as good as mine, because I have no ****ing idea whatsoever.

Groove Home Page

Building an Emergency Operations Center on Groove and SharePoint

Infopath Home Page Create and manage electronic forms.

Re:Ultimate?

[suv4x4]

Pro has Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, Access, and Publisher; Ultimate adds OneNote, Groove, and InfoPath. What are Groove and Infopath, you ask? Your guess is as good as mine, because I have no ****ing idea whatsoever. Microsoft claim Groove is a "peer-to-peer collaboration solution", which has left me only slight more enlightened than before. Onenote's supposed to be pretty good, though.

The question is: what happened to Microsoft Visio. It's in neither of the packages. Nor is Microsoft Project.

licensing

[vimh42]

According to TFA, the deal is for students of AU universities with volume licences. In the education volume liscences I have seen, the liscence extends to the students. Which means the school just burns the student a copy. For nothing (or for a materials fee). The school already paid for the student to have it. Why would the student fork out additional money to MS?

Re:licensing

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that at least for my school, the MSDNAA licencing covers everything EXCEPT Office. Probably because they know students actually need that one, and will fork over the money for it.

Re:licensing

[Anonymous Coward]

The volume license agreement that is covered infact does not allow for home use by students, it's simply a way for the University to save money by not paying for each and every student's home use rights (like they do for staff in this case) and still provide an option for the Office package.
this poster works for one of the universities offering the software as an SOE developer so I have to know the licensing arrangements!

Re:licensing

[Anonymous Coward]

The uni i'm at (university of western australia) notified us by email of this offer. I believe the difference was that this $75 version was not restricted to academic use as the free (as far as students are concerned) office would be. Then again, I doubt any students will care.

(Disclaimer: did not rtfa)

Re:licensing

[rootEToTheIPi]

The Universtiy of Texas at San Antonio sells various microsoft software to students at a discount. I paid $26 for XP Pro 64. Though, I only get personal ownership of the license once I graduate. If I fail to graduate for any reason, I have to wipe it from my computer and return the disc.

Re:licensing

[Bryansix]

If I fail to graduate for any reason, I have to wipe it from my computer and return the disc.

(sarcasm) Ya like that's going to happen!(/sarcasm)

half way there

[Anonymous Coward]

Now all we need is for Norton AntiVirus to detect itself as a virus and everything will be all set.

Probably a way to reduce "losses"

[gcnaddict]

It's probably just a way to reduces losses which Microsoft might incur as a result of this huge discount.

losses... lol

A Better Question ...

[Anonymous Coward]

A better question would be: why isn't this deal available to students in the United States, or any country besides Australia, for that matter? There are students here in the US that can't afford basic software (even if the US is more prosperous than other countries), so why focus solely on Australia? In my opinion, this may be the true reason for Microsoft's Anti-Phishing Tool to identify this as a scam; even Microsoft's own software can recognize a raw deal when it sees one.

Oblig Simpsons

[mastershake_phd]

HA HA

Editors patronising the readers

[philml]

My first thought is... this is a rubbish story, not worth broadcasting. An amusing accident, nothing more.

My second thought is... what patronising editors to think it's worth posting, to get us commenting.

Wolf in sheep's clothing

[joe_cot]

From the site:
It's not cheating if...

• You do it in another postcode
• You use the thesaurus in word
• You drink light beer
• You're home before midnight
• You don't get caught

Contrast that with Bill's response to Gorbachov's Plea for mercy for a School teacher at a poor Russian school
According to Microsoft, it's not cheating if you don't get caught, but if you do get caught, they're more than happy to send you to Siberia to rot. I'm glad they're trying to show a friendly, smiling face to the 18-24 age demographic, but in reality, they're a faceless, soulless corporation, and no amount of hype or jive is going to change that.

Well, how could something like this happen?

[Opportunist]

How does this scam detector work?

Does it analyze a page and determine whether it gathers information? If so, the number of false positives would go through the roof, considering just how many pages do it today and (allegedly) with benign reasons.

Is it peer reported? In that case, MS should probably prepare to see this a lot more often, given the amount of people who'd just love to make them look bad.

So does anyone know where this scam detector actually gets its information?

Now all that remains

[GFree]

is for Windows Defender in Vista to stuff up and flag IE7 as spyware. That would be most amusing. :)

This shows it's working

[Rix]

No jabbing at MS intended. Something like this *should* generate more false positives than false negatives, because the cost to the user from a false positive is less than a false negative. Further, it shows that they aren't playing favourites, they've been caught in the same net anyone else might.

A $1200 product being sold for $75 is probably either a) not a $1200 product, or b) a scam, so this seems to have worked well. Special academic discounts are a fringe case.

Re:This shows it's working

[Anonymous Coward]

Something like this *should* generate more false positives than false negatives, because the cost to the user from a false positive is less than a false negative.

Not true. The cost to the user from false positives is that they get trained to not believe warnings from security software. That can follow them around for the rest of their life, causing damage over and over again, even when they've switched software and even after Microsoft fix their bugs.

Re:This shows it's working

[Archangel Michael]

"A $1200 product being sold for $75 is probably either a) not a $1200 product, or b) a scam,"

a) is true with Microsoft Products
b) is also true because anything from Microsoft is a scam.

Therefore, your base choice is a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy. The conclusion "so this seems to have worked well." therefore isn't proven true. More than likely the product (antiphishing) is a scam, along with all their other products.

Re:This shows it's working

[Handover Phist]

As much as I would love to jab at MS, mod parent UP!

Re:This shows it's working

[Anonymous Coward]

actually XSI advanced normally costs $7000, student price is only $275

it's not a scam, they just want you to get you used to it so you'll pay full price for it later.

Re:This shows it's working

[Nevyn]

Something like this *should* generate more false positives than false negatives, because the cost to the user from a false positive is less than a false negative

No, because if it keeps generating false positives it will just train the users to ignore it. In fact I'd argue it's probably much better to have zero false positives, knowing you'll have some false negatives. Then when it tells you something is wrong, you'll trust it.

Meanwhile

[Orion Blastar]

the Microsoft Anti-Phishing filter fails to find web sites selling OEM versions of Microsoft's software if the user makes a typo in the URL to any of the Microsoft web sites. Offering Office 2007 Ultimate edition for $50, Vista Ultimate for $65, and other discounts on so called OEM software that is really pirated versions of Microsoft software and the personal information is sold and used for identity theft so the buyer gets burned twice.

Re:Am I the only one not outraged by their "contes

[whitehatlurker]

I think I could get creative, but I'm not sure that the result would be work place safe.

It is an interesting quote and goes along nicely with the payola scam posted on the front page.

Hope its not a phishing site!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just ordered my copy online, got the produt key and just have to download the install file.

I guess I'll find out soon how legit the offer is :D

Re:Hope its not a phishing site!

[crossmr]

It should have been long enough? I'm curious to what you've found out.

Re:Hope its not a phishing site!

[Anonymous Coward]

OP here..

Install went well. They email you the product key after you order (to your university email address) and then give you a link to install the file (available on aarnet X12-30307.exe )

Install went normally and certified itself as genuine allowing me to update. So all good for $75!

no more openoffice on my windows machine :)

Re:Hope its not a phishing site!

[crossmr]

So you actually are from Australia. I was hoping to find out if anyone outside of Australia was able to purchase a key or not.

There's never been a better time to buy!

[Keith Russell]

This deal is so good, even we can't believe it's for real! Order yours today! OPERATORS ARE STANDING BY!

the most frightening possibility

[malevolentjelly]

What if X Australian Marketing Department Microsoft Employee simply forgot to whitelist the site and it was reported as a phishing scam as a joke/occasional concern? It's a fairly large company.

These sort of things wouldn't be news if people would simply stop personalizing large corporations and remember that they're massive aggregates of people spread across the world.

selective recognition

[Anonymous Coward]

and yet microsoft word doesn't recognize the word "microsoft." my browser has it underlined right now.

Misspelling

[sexybomber]

Am I the only one who wishes that MS named their product the Phishing Philter?

Giving from Abundance

[freedomlinux]

Sure, Bill has given $25billion, but it is from an abundance of money. Considering that the remaining $25billion is more than Bill will likely be able to spend in his remaining life, the $25billion is a moot point. I believe his motivation for donating any amount at all is for public appearance and tax incentives. Yes, the $25billion has benefited many persons, but imaging what effect the other $23billion would have if donated. This still leaves Bill with $2,000,000,000 ! He still has an outrageous amount left for himself. This is totally different that a person with $1 who will gladly donate it to charity, rather than buy themselves food or clothes. (Yes, I have seen it.) Tell me, who has made the GREATER contribution? --*knocking* Grammar Police; Open the door! I believe you mean "fewer assholes", not "less assholes." Thank you, and please speak loudly so the Telescreens can hear.

Re:Giving from Abundance

[gordo3000]

can soemone tell me what tax incentives he is recieving? His income now is hardly worth noting compared to his net worth. giving away one major clip does almost nothing for his tax bill. He still gets hit with the AMT in the US.

further, why do you seem to ignore that he has now dedicated his entire life to charity work?

Of course, you don't seem to knwo what would happen if he donated almost all his money. absolutely nothing because charity organizations that specialize in where he wants to give money are incapable of using that much money immediately. The flow of money from the gates foudation would remain about the same.

Probbably deliberate

[MikShapi]

They probably left in in the anti-phishing filter deliberately. Irony generates news, and news generate truckloads of free exposure.

"Any publicity is good publicity, as long as they spell my name right"

We all think it's ironic that MS software blocks an MS promotion campaign. We generated a truckload of comments laughing our asses off.
The REAL irony that escapes us is that we gentoo- and ubuntu- running geeks all talk about it, laugh about it, tell our friends, family and collegues in the office about it, and get the word out to a lot of people, a decent percentage of which (who have student IDs in AU and/or access to someone with such) will hear "blah blah office 2k7 ultimate for 75A$ blah blah microsoft blooper blah". And guess what those of them who use office and can do the math will do then.

Thus, thanks to us slashdot crowd, myself being a gentoo-desktop-running Aussie student (who also runs Windows on some of his machines) who is neither religious about being anti-microsoft nor thinks they do not deserve a sane amount of money for a software suite I wish to use, I promptly went out and paid microsoft 75$. Good'on'em.

And looking back at our beloved slashdot crowd, I think that I, for one, welcome our new microsoft-promoting slashdotter overlords.

Don't be absurd

[Rix]

I'm hardly the last to take a jab at MS, but that sort of reactionary attitude doesn't help. Is the wireless mouse I bought from MS for use on my Linux machine a scam?

Re:Don't be absurd

[Archangel Michael]

I was going for "funny" not "inciteful" (pun intended).

Re:IE7 declares...

[code shady]

However, If you are an MCT or MCP, and try to access the official Microsot Certified Trainer/Certified Professional website, IE7 will happily not load it up, giving you a big warning screen and saying that this web site cannot be verified, because the certificate has expired.

Hilarious.

New slogan

[SnarfQuest]

MicroSoft: We're phishing 4 u!

The left hand...

[xlsior]

...doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Back when I worked for an ISP a few years ago, we received a threatening letter from EBay demaning the immediate disconnection of one of our customers for running a phishing site. And better speed it up, because they'd already reported it to the FBI as well. Of course, we pointed out to ebay that the site in question was actually one of their own subsidiaries. (they had links to it from all over the place on the main ebay.com website, even). Sure we can cut it off, but I really don't think you'd want us to. By the way, might want to call the FBI back to tell them "never mind", while you're at it. *sigh*

Re:Ultimate? - It goes to Eleven!

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously it's the ultimate edition because it goes to eleven!

Re:IE7 declares...

[Anonymous Coward]

IE7 isn't meant to pop up the warning. TFA says that Microsoft Live OneCare pops up the warning.

Left hand, meet right hand

[Anonymous Coward]

Left hand: Pleased to meet ya'h
Right hand: Hi
Right hand: Yuck! Where did all this jiz come from?!?

Filters are innacurate

[JackMeyhoff]

They flag my BANK as a phishing site, I reported it to Google but they don't care about accuracy as it still reports it as a phishing site. I even reported a URL that is showing a Police take down notice for child porn, Google don't care as they let that URL still persist in their index. Google has no morals, their do no evil mantra is pure marketing bullshit.

It is a phishing site?

[babbling]

It looks like a phishing site to me. Some weird company called Microblast or something is trying to create an expensive proprietary rip-off of OpenOffice.org. It probably comes with all kinds of spyware, too.

Re:It is a phishing site?

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be so funny if OO.o was even in the same league as Office when it comes down to stability and usability.

Unfortunately for you it's not, so you're about as funny as a hernia.

Re:It is a phishing site?

[jez9999]

The funny thing is, OOo is probably where MS office was 5 years ago. And people paid megabucks for MS Office 5 years ago.

Screw apple...

[geminidomino]

I'm still trying to find that C++ GUI Programming guide!

Re:Screw apple...

[_LORAX_]

http://cocoadevcentral.com/

Re:Screw apple...

[geminidomino]

Damn. It's cocoa. :P

I don't have a Mac, and never will thanks to those commercials.

The EULA does allow resale

[bastianmz]

I know because I bought a copy (.NET development pays the bills) and the relevant part of my invoice is:

Product SKU: 76H-00423
Product Name: Microsoft® Office Ultimate 2007 (Unlimited Licence)
Qty Ordered: 1
Amount: 75.00AUD
Product Key (FPP):

Note the FPP designation, the EULA states (for once I actually decided to read it) "If your designation is FPP, then the Retail License Terms below apply". This is not an academic licence and you are able to sell it. The relevant section of the licence is this bit "16. TRANSFER TO A THIRD PARTY. The first user of the software may make a one-time transfer of the software, and this agreement, directly to a third party."

The other positive thing is that installation on a portable device is back, "1b. Portable Device. You may install another copy on a portable device for use by the single primary user of the licensed device.".

The only thing that I can't find online is an official version of the EULA itself, there is a copy at http://www.chat11.com/Microsoft_Office_2007_Ultima te_License_Agreement

So if any aussie students want to sell their copy and make a quick buck, I say go for it. Think of the beer.

Re:The EULA does allow resale

[nilbog]

I was referring to this: http://clevescene.com/2005-03-30/news/kill-bill/1

Yea, you can resale the software so long as you agree to the EULA first, but if you sell it before installing it - you haven't agreed to the EULA and are therefore not an authorized end user and can't resell the software.

defectivebytwats

[Anonymous Coward]

what idiots keep spamming every story with 'defectivebydesign' its just a silly buzzword that means fuck all, yet the kiddies here spam it at everything.
grow up.

Limited time?

[mgiuca]

1. Rofl rofl rofl.

2. "Buy it for 1 year for $25, or for life for $75".

Wow... I didn't know they were selling time-limited versions now. This Vista+Office07 operation is just such a ripoff. Without going into the moral or technical problems with these systems, just from a cost perspective there's something wrong. You used to get all the features rolled in with the pro version (and there was the cheaper home version). Now there are like 7 versions, the good features going into only the ridiculously-beyond-the-means-of-most-people versions, and you're still paying for limited time (or you can UPGRADE to a perpetual license!)

This is just going to slip slide down and get worse and worse. We predicted that in a few years you won't actually own any software, just license it... looks like it's true.

Er... not that I care because I don't pay for software anymore.

Re:Limited time?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, a lifetime licence version of Office Ultimate 2007! Just imagine, if you had bought a lifetime licence for Windows 3.1 back when it was all the rage, you could use it for your entire life!

Re:Limited time?

[ToriaUru]

Lifetime, until they make you pay for the next overpriced, bloated piece of crap that makes you have to go out to buy that new computer to run it! WOOT, aren't we LUCKY? We should be kissing the ground upon which Bill walks shouldn't we be? Or, that's the impression I get, anyhow. Uh-oh, we're being independent thinkers. Scary thought, to them I'm sure.

It's not cheating if ...

[mgiuca]

From the website:

Top 5 It's Not Cheating lines:

It's not cheating if...

• You do it in another postcode
• You use the thesaurus in Word
• You drunk light beer
• You're home before midnight
• You don't get caught

More from the best of "It's not cheating lines"...

It's not cheating if ...

• Hollywood made you do it
• You yell loudly that "Google did it too!"
• Software isn't patentable
• Software is patentable
• The user pressed "allow"
• You pay someone $348 million to tell everyone you're not cheating
• You embrace the concept of cheating, extend it in your favour, then extinguish the concept altogether

Re:It's not cheating if ...

[ToriaUru]

LOL, very true... It's not cheating if.... ...your net worth is more than the GDP of countries in the EU ...if your CEO is a smooth talker ...if you can pay your lawyers to fight the lawsuits and make them "just go away".

Best Post of the Year!

[cyberkahn]

ROFL LMAO I am in tears. That is so perfect! :-)

Re:Ha Ha Ha Ha

[cypherz]

OS X :)

Re: Sprouting Wings & Flying

[TaoPhoenix]

Balmer didn't throw the chair. The chair sprouted wings & flew.

That's not all ...

[cascadingstylesheet]

No one out there really seems to get it. Fosters - goes in the same category with Rolf Harris, Steve Irwin (god bless him) and Crocodile Dundee:

Shit we foist on other people.

You bastards!

Apple.com?

[CF4L]

What does Live OneCare say for apple.com?

The problem

[Anonymous Coward]

...Is that Bill Gates is not a good person at all. He's the founder of the largest criminal organization in the world. I don't care how much Bill Gates donates to charity - he's still reaping the benefits of all his past illegal and unethical behaviour.

Are you reading this yet Taco?

[VJ42]

For the first time ever, I feel the urge to use the abbreviation: ROFLMAO!!!!!oneoneeleventyone!!!, seriously, good job.:-D

I'm not surprised!

[vparkash]

Finally a microsoft software that actually works! ha ha!

How are you going to use it without copying it?

[mbessey]

Given that you have to make a copy of the software on your local hard drive in order to run it, how do you propose to get around the EULA? Without agreeing to that "license to make one copy on a single computer for the purposes of running the program", you don't even have the right to install the software.

Now, I will agree that a license that you can't read until you've already paid for the software is not a particularly customer-friendly thing, but I don't see any reason why that invalidates the basic concept.

Re:How are you going to use it without copying it?

[Sparr0]

The one copy on the hard drive (for installation) and the one copy in RAM (while running), each being "an essential step in the utilization of the computer program", are explicitly authorized by law, and again are not subject to Microsoft's control. clicky

I'd totally forgotten about that exception...

[mbessey]

Oops. Oh well, I guess it's all down to the enforceability of the EULA then, rather than Copyright law. I have this vague idea that I've read about a lawsuit based on someone bulk-reselling discounted (academic) software into another market, but I can't rmeember the details.

Hey wait a minute ...

[Shadowlore]

A $1200 product being sold for $75 is probably either a) not a $1200 product, or b) a scam,

So when buying a new PC and deselecting the MS OS (at stores or sites that let you do that) results in only a 50 dollar, if any, drop in price, that OS being sold for several hundred dollars is either a scam or not a several hundred dollars product. Hmm guess you're right.

I'm sorry Bill, but I cannot do that...

[Anonymous Coward]

However, if you ask really nicely and wave a few billion dollars, I think I can be persua$#&)@^NO CARRIER

This comment and its parent domain (slashdot.org) have been auto-flagged as a phishing scheme by IE7.

No

[Rix]

Sure, zero false positives would be better, but not if it means false negatives. While you need to make sure there aren't excessive false positives, it's better to err on the side of caution. You don't lose anything from simply not doing business with people who set off the flags.

Yes, false positives are very bad for UI security

[Nevyn]

You don't lose anything from simply not doing business with people who set off the flags.

There are a lot of assumptions in that sentence, and many of them are repeated from the earlier comment ... hint some sites will still be known to be good or bad by the user, it's only the third category of "don't know" that is helped by this. And users general don't goto "bad" sites on purpose.

Look at it this way, if you have zero false positives (FP) with an assumption of some false negatives (FN) then in all cases you are better off than before. With the FN you can still decide it's bad, it's not saying "this is trusted" it's just not saying "this isn't trusted". In the same way you'll never goto a site you know is fine and have it try and tell you otherwise, or make you click extra stupid dialogs away.

Now, consider it the other way around. When you goto a site it'll sometimes tell you it's bad, and some of the times it does you know it's wrong. So you goto a new site, you haven't seen before, and it looks OKish but the thing says "this is bad" ... what do you do? Just believe it now, knowing that it has been wrong in the past? My bet is that pretty much everyone will just ignore it.

If that doesn't convince you, here are some stats. Say a user hits 99 good sites a day, and 1 bad one. If you have 0%FP/1%FN, that user will see 1 bad site every 100 days (instead of 1 a day), which is a huge improvement. If you have 1%FP/0%FN, then as far as the user can see it has a win/lose of roughly 50% (Ie. the user could just toss a coin).

Maybe a silver lining?

[ricksmith]

I've been getting e-mails from financial organizations for at least five years whose contents suggest a phishing scam. Most of the time the e-mail matches the indicators given in the organizations' own anti-fraud recommendations on their own corporate web sites.

The problem is that corporations don't have consistent policies on how to use e-mails. The anti-fraud people write up a policy and the marketeers ignore it.

FINALLY there is something akin to policy enforcement at a corporate level.