I could not agree with you more. Wordperfect 5.1 was (and maybe still is) the best wordprocessor for lawyers. It had both a super rich merge language and a good macro language (once you learned to name variables with variables). The advent of Windows killed it. I wish the lawsuit success. All this was obvious to me in the 90s.
Word is super-ugly when it comes to creating merge documents for lawyers. You can make VBA do anything, but you have to pay the price by writing lots of bloated VBA code.
Vista is a dead OS, by any standard. Once Adobe ports to Linux, I'm gone. When Gates talks about innovation, what he really means is persuading developers of crucial software to write for Windows. When they start writing for another OS, Windows (and then Office) will fold.
XP was OK. Vista on the other hand, is a monopoly trying to jam a nonperforming product down consumers throats. ARRRRRRRGH!!!!!
Wordperfect was SOOOO much better than MS Word in the DOS environment. Wordperfect 5.1 was the perfect wordprocessor (from a lawyer's point of view) at the time (and I'm not sure that anything ever improved upon it). Once I learned how to use variables to name variables, I could make it do anything I wanted. The merge language then is still WAY better than anything MS has subsequently come up with.
VBA is powerful and as flexible as you might want, but you have to write your own macro bloated code to make it do what you want.
I now use Word because it integrates with Windows. PERIOD. Wordperfect never did a good job at that. I wonder why. I hope the lawsuit will provide answers.
When the Adobe suite of products can standalone in a LINUX environment, I'm gone. VISTA is proof that the Microsoft monopoly is stale. The installed user base is the only thing keeping Windows afloat. When Windows dies, the Office Suite dies. I will not lament its passing.
I hear you. You're saying that the company with the operating system deserves to be able to slant their OS to work better with software from their company. I could see how that would be good for a masochistic consumer.
Prosecutors represent the public. If they have evidence against somebody, they are obligated to use all of it--not to half-step. That's their duty to the people they serve.
The idea that authors should have no rights in the work they create is so obviously bad policy that it deserves no argument. The only real question is HOW MUCH control over their product the authors should have. I think that the recent copyright amendments go too far, but the pre-amendment amendments were quite adequate.
If you strip authors of their copyright, then their work will become the commercial property of those with the best distribution system--the Sammy Glicks of the world (see "What Makes Sammy Run" by Budd Schulberg). That would suck so massively. I would much rather see the creator profit from the creator's work.
Spend your efforts arguing about free broadband distribution available to all. That's a much more worthwhile effort than trying to strip incentives away from creative people.
It's a question of balance.
No, it's because a prosecutor can only charge somebody if the prosecutor demonstrates that "probable cause" exists.
That's one of the 'big fundamentsls' that got laid down early!
If you owned a business would you hire a person (only) charged with embezzlement to manage your retirement fund? Would you want a person (only) charged with treason to run the CIA?
Obviously Google does not think so.
If the people applying the law to their commercial behavior think that the law is not clear cut, then isn't the law --in fact-- not clear cut?
Your opinion about the DMCA is only your opinion. Other reasonable, contrary, opinions exists. We can only see how the courts (and Congress) handle this subject matter.
Google doesn't want to bet its company on a fragile opinion that the DMCA protects their behavior.
Movies, can you dig it!!! Anything you want! Any time you want it! Old movies! New movies! Interactive movies!!
And then comes interactive games . . . and interactive pornography . . .
I had the same problem, but the velociraptor banging on the door diverted my attention from the precocious kid with the computer--especially when it starts jumping up to get them in the ceiling (utterly brilliant moviemaking!!!!!).
I reckon Spielberg was to some extent or another at that time making movies for kids (his kids?). A kid, rather than a computer-obsessive adult geek, would look at the scene much differently.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the point. Wordperfect for Windows sucked for a reason. It was locked out of the really nifty OS hooks that Word conveniently had access to.
I could not agree with you more. Wordperfect 5.1 was (and maybe still is) the best wordprocessor for lawyers. It had both a super rich merge language and a good macro language (once you learned to name variables with variables). The advent of Windows killed it. I wish the lawsuit success. All this was obvious to me in the 90s. Word is super-ugly when it comes to creating merge documents for lawyers. You can make VBA do anything, but you have to pay the price by writing lots of bloated VBA code. Vista is a dead OS, by any standard. Once Adobe ports to Linux, I'm gone. When Gates talks about innovation, what he really means is persuading developers of crucial software to write for Windows. When they start writing for another OS, Windows (and then Office) will fold. XP was OK. Vista on the other hand, is a monopoly trying to jam a nonperforming product down consumers throats. ARRRRRRRGH!!!!!
Wordperfect was SOOOO much better than MS Word in the DOS environment. Wordperfect 5.1 was the perfect wordprocessor (from a lawyer's point of view) at the time (and I'm not sure that anything ever improved upon it). Once I learned how to use variables to name variables, I could make it do anything I wanted. The merge language then is still WAY better than anything MS has subsequently come up with. VBA is powerful and as flexible as you might want, but you have to write your own macro bloated code to make it do what you want. I now use Word because it integrates with Windows. PERIOD. Wordperfect never did a good job at that. I wonder why. I hope the lawsuit will provide answers. When the Adobe suite of products can standalone in a LINUX environment, I'm gone. VISTA is proof that the Microsoft monopoly is stale. The installed user base is the only thing keeping Windows afloat. When Windows dies, the Office Suite dies. I will not lament its passing.
Yes! I absolutely agree. Once one mouse has found its way to the cheese, others will follow.
I hear you. You're saying that the company with the operating system deserves to be able to slant their OS to work better with software from their company. I could see how that would be good for a masochistic consumer.
Prosecutors represent the public. If they have evidence against somebody, they are obligated to use all of it--not to half-step. That's their duty to the people they serve. The idea that authors should have no rights in the work they create is so obviously bad policy that it deserves no argument. The only real question is HOW MUCH control over their product the authors should have. I think that the recent copyright amendments go too far, but the pre-amendment amendments were quite adequate. If you strip authors of their copyright, then their work will become the commercial property of those with the best distribution system--the Sammy Glicks of the world (see "What Makes Sammy Run" by Budd Schulberg). That would suck so massively. I would much rather see the creator profit from the creator's work. Spend your efforts arguing about free broadband distribution available to all. That's a much more worthwhile effort than trying to strip incentives away from creative people. It's a question of balance.
Patents expire, thank goodness. And may the Sonny Bono Copyright Act be soon repealed!
As it is profitable, so it will be written. So it will be done. Amen.
No, it's because a prosecutor can only charge somebody if the prosecutor demonstrates that "probable cause" exists. That's one of the 'big fundamentsls' that got laid down early! If you owned a business would you hire a person (only) charged with embezzlement to manage your retirement fund? Would you want a person (only) charged with treason to run the CIA?
Obviously Google does not think so. If the people applying the law to their commercial behavior think that the law is not clear cut, then isn't the law --in fact-- not clear cut?
Your opinion about the DMCA is only your opinion. Other reasonable, contrary, opinions exists. We can only see how the courts (and Congress) handle this subject matter. Google doesn't want to bet its company on a fragile opinion that the DMCA protects their behavior.
True . . . but if they charge you with something it is PROBABLY true that you did it.
Movies, can you dig it!!! Anything you want! Any time you want it! Old movies! New movies! Interactive movies!! And then comes interactive games . . . and interactive pornography . . .
You, sir, are a language deconstructor. I will have you stop. At once!!
I had the same problem, but the velociraptor banging on the door diverted my attention from the precocious kid with the computer--especially when it starts jumping up to get them in the ceiling (utterly brilliant moviemaking!!!!!). I reckon Spielberg was to some extent or another at that time making movies for kids (his kids?). A kid, rather than a computer-obsessive adult geek, would look at the scene much differently.