.cola domain names would be an invaluable tool to reach our core target audience who make cola soft drinks a defining part of their unique life experiences!
In addition,.diet-cola,.citrus,.diet-citrus,.max,.diet-max,.one,.diet-cola,.caffeine-free,.diet-caffeine-free,.wildcherry,.diet-wildcherry,.vanilla,.diet-vanilla-caffeine-free-wildcherry and other domain names will help grow our brand net out from just our core audience.
Antivirus XP 2009 has fooled many, many people, and it is quite possible that the poster actually does deal with clients that are unknowingly sending him files that are trashed beyond belief.
I asked if it was a joke because telling your boss / a client that you won't open their files because they're broken/infected/corrupted/immoral is often met with "just open it" or "we can resend the file" or "the deadline is tomorrow!".
It may very well be the case that the poster DOES in fact have to try to open up borked files from these clients. If so, I was merely commenting on the fact that Antivirus XP 2009 is particularly nasty and that I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot clown pole.
The "compatibility problems", "features", "specially crafted", and "thoughtfully secured" lines may scream "joke" to you, but they could just as easily be thick, delicious sarcasm from a IT worker who is dying on the inside.
It certainly does cost MS money to let you use XP. There are tons of support and administrative costs involved.
Until XP reaches EOL, it isn't free in any sense.
Regardless, MS wants, for whatever reasons, people to use Vista. As such, their licensing efforts are focused on Vista. They have NOT pulled the rug out from under people who want XP. In fact, they extended the kill date and OEM bundling date multiple times.
The "issue" is with people expecting to get something for free. That's not part of the deal. Even if there was no cost involved (and there is, on Microsoft's side as well as on the OEM side) it wouldn't be the case.
A key limitation with "computer code" that does NOT apply to physical goods is the copyability. Who's to say that the XP license would be used INSTEAD of the Vista license? It may very well be used in addition to it. MS and OEMs are not retarded, thus, it is not free.
No, and you don't need to buy Vista to get XP. Choose a vendor that still sells XP. Buy XP separately. Use your old XP license on your new computer.
XP Home is $90. Vista Home Basic is $90.
If a vendor has entered into an agreement with MS that states that all PCs must ship with Vista, then that was their fault. If they want to offer XP, for free or for an additional fee, that is their choice.
Most people DON'T pony up dough for office. They use the bundled OEM trial versions and then shrug their shoulders when shit doesn't work in 30,60, or 90 days.
60% of people won't do a damned thing, since they only use their computer for the internets.
20% of people will pirate it.
5% of people will have old versions of Office they'll eventually dig out and install.
5% of people will wait until Billy gets home from college, at which point he'll grab a free/cheap version through his school and slap it on, OR give them Open Office and say "it's better because it is, GOD just let me live my life!".
5% of people will buy it.
5% of people would add up the lulzy percentages in this post and be pissed that they don't add up to 100%, so this is for them.
Their agreements with the various players in the PCI state that they can NOT require ID for a purchase.
If they breach their agreement, they soon won't be able to process any credit cards. In effect, they won't be able to require ID for processing a credit card transaction because they won't be able to process a credit card transaction at all.
Again, you're wrong. Sure they can refuse cash. But they can also refuse cash when you're paying off a debt.
I sure as hell appreciate the places that ignore this rule and still ask to see ID, though.
Slashdot Mirror
.cola domain names would be an invaluable tool to reach our core target audience who make cola soft drinks a defining part of their unique life experiences!
In addition, .diet-cola, .citrus, .diet-citrus, .max, .diet-max, .one, .diet-cola, .caffeine-free, .diet-caffeine-free, .wildcherry, .diet-wildcherry, .vanilla, .diet-vanilla-caffeine-free-wildcherry and other domain names will help grow our brand net out from just our core audience.
Just open it in something other than Adobe Reader 9.
Antivirus XP 2009 has fooled many, many people, and it is quite possible that the poster actually does deal with clients that are unknowingly sending him files that are trashed beyond belief.
I asked if it was a joke because telling your boss / a client that you won't open their files because they're broken/infected/corrupted/immoral is often met with "just open it" or "we can resend the file" or "the deadline is tomorrow!".
It may very well be the case that the poster DOES in fact have to try to open up borked files from these clients. If so, I was merely commenting on the fact that Antivirus XP 2009 is particularly nasty and that I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot clown pole.
The "compatibility problems", "features", "specially crafted", and "thoughtfully secured" lines may scream "joke" to you, but they could just as easily be thick, delicious sarcasm from a IT worker who is dying on the inside.
There is no whooshing.
Adobe is horrible when it comes to being secure or efficient.
They are the kings of bloat, license roulette, and version spam.
Is that a joke?
Antivirus XP 2009 is a particularly nasty piece of malware.
I wouldn't accept anything from anyone who had that, regardless of whatever esoteric operating system I had.
In legal terms, this is basically forcing people to testify against themselves, with useless "evidence" that means less than nothing.
But it's not worth as much as the oil.
The UN? Who gives a shit what they say.
Fact: 11% of all Sim City cities, Animal Crossing towns, etc. are named Awesomeville.
Fact: This is awesome.
Yes they are, you just don't like them.
What the fuck is this shit? Seriously.
You mean +1 Vista +1 XP.
That's two valid licenses floating out there, expect them to be used.
If Dell sold systems with Vista and gave you XP for free, people would be exploiting that like there was no tomorrow.
~$500 PC (with monitor!) with Vista for a relative.
XP license for ebay.
Which is obviously not the case, as vendors still offer XP.
Nice try though.
It certainly does cost MS money to let you use XP.
There are tons of support and administrative costs involved.
Until XP reaches EOL, it isn't free in any sense.
Regardless, MS wants, for whatever reasons, people to use Vista. As such, their licensing efforts are focused on Vista. They have NOT pulled the rug out from under people who want XP. In fact, they extended the kill date and OEM bundling date multiple times.
The "issue" is with people expecting to get something for free. That's not part of the deal. Even if there was no cost involved (and there is, on Microsoft's side as well as on the OEM side) it wouldn't be the case.
A key limitation with "computer code" that does NOT apply to physical goods is the copyability. Who's to say that the XP license would be used INSTEAD of the Vista license? It may very well be used in addition to it. MS and OEMs are not retarded, thus, it is not free.
And this lawsuit is about...?
What vendor promised a free copy of XP?
What vendor didn't deliver?
What involvement does MS have in the fulfillment of contracts between vendors and customers?
Many people are paid to not grow corn.
No, and you don't need to buy Vista to get XP.
Choose a vendor that still sells XP.
Buy XP separately.
Use your old XP license on your new computer.
XP Home is $90.
Vista Home Basic is $90.
If a vendor has entered into an agreement with MS that states that all PCs must ship with Vista, then that was their fault. If they want to offer XP, for free or for an additional fee, that is their choice.
There is no rock or hard place.
Nope.
Backwards compatibility is incomplete (99%) in the original, and all currently-produced versions do NOT have backwards compatibility.
Open Office?
Most people DON'T pony up dough for office.
They use the bundled OEM trial versions and then shrug their shoulders when shit doesn't work in 30,60, or 90 days.
60% of people won't do a damned thing, since they only use their computer for the internets.
20% of people will pirate it.
5% of people will have old versions of Office they'll eventually dig out and install.
5% of people will wait until Billy gets home from college, at which point he'll grab a free/cheap version through his school and slap it on, OR give them Open Office and say "it's better because it is, GOD just let me live my life!".
5% of people will buy it.
5% of people would add up the lulzy percentages in this post and be pissed that they don't add up to 100%, so this is for them.
I'm confused.
Do you somehow think that buying Vista gives you a free copy of XP?
Does buying a PS3 give you a free PS2?
Does buying the bluray of Terminator 2 give you a free copy of the original?
That's bunk, and just not true.
The line means it is VALID for all debts public and private, as in, it CAN be accepted.
There are TONS of situations where cash is not accepted.
It does NOT have to be accepted.
Uh, no.
The agreements were updated recently.
They are no longer allowed to verify signatures.
Getting the merchants on the updated agreements and untraining the monkeys could take decades.
No, they can't.
Their agreements with the various players in the PCI state that they can NOT require ID for a purchase.
If they breach their agreement, they soon won't be able to process any credit cards. In effect, they won't be able to require ID for processing a credit card transaction because they won't be able to process a credit card transaction at all.
Again, you're wrong. Sure they can refuse cash. But they can also refuse cash when you're paying off a debt.
I sure as hell appreciate the places that ignore this rule and still ask to see ID, though.