The CLR allows multiple languages on the same runtime, but I can't view your VB code as C#.
This might be possible though, even though it doesn't exist now. I know that there are reverse compilers that can turn java bytecode into reasonable java, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone could write one that would turn.net bytecode into vb or c#.
If Joe Schmoe wasn't going to buy your software to begin with. It's not a loss whether he uses it illegally or not.
True. And if he was going to buy it, the it is a loss. So if you want to claim that software piracy isn't costing companies money, you have to be prepared to say that every single person who pirates software wouldn't have payed for it. Do you really believe that? It seems to be some sort of polite lie that everyone on slashdot is supposed to pretend that no one ever pirates something that they otherwise would have paid for.
I refuse to use this piece of software, period. Redmond are pulling their usual stunt of releasing crap just for the publicity
This strategy is known as "release early, release often". You let people play with/ beta-test your software before it is finished, even though you know that it will result in slashdot trolls five years from now condemning it because of bugs that haven't existed since the beta (just like everyone bashes windows for things that haven't been true since 98), since it ultimately leads to better quality. I think that this "stunt" works too well for Redmond, or anyone else making software, to ever stop pulling it.
Actually, this is how the windowing system orginally got its name.
Re:You changed formats and didn't bother to test i
on
eFax Hell?
·
· Score: 1
The software cannot think of every possible error condition or mistake.
No one has ever claimed that it should (and I think you know that). Just because you can't detect every possible error in all cases is not an excuse for failing to try to detect the most common or easily detectable errors and issue a warning. An email containing hundreds of pages of gargabe sent to multiple recipients should trigger some sort of warning to the user that this might not be what they intended.
Re:Beta testing a postscript fax?
on
eFax Hell?
·
· Score: 1
that shoulda worked no problem
Everything you try "should work". If it were supposed to fail, you wouldn't be doing it at all. That's not an excuse for not testing to confirm.
Is this necessary? Couldn't you just disable booting from them in the BIOS and then put a password on the BIOS? You're screwed then if someone is going to physically open the case and mess with the BIOS (e.g., replace it with another one), but if they can do that, they could also hook up a floppy drive or cdrom drive anyway.
Stuff like the google search bar? Does that count?
I don't get it. Why wouldn't it count? Admittedly, it's less relevant now as one of it's big features was popup blocking, and now (in xp sp2) IE has that built in, but it still seems fair to categorize this as "useful". This is the posterboy for "useful" BHOs.
is it really? I think it is kinda like calling a kenoka or sharp copy machine a zerox [sic] just because zerox made them so popular.
Yes, it really is. When people refer to a tissue as a kleenex, they aren't actively trying to be deceptive. They don't intentionally do it to try to trick someone into thinking that the brand who makes it is kleenex. When people go around changing the icons and such, this isn't the same as someone casually calling opera "internet explorer" because that's the term they use for any web browser. This is someone actively trying to trick someone into using a product they don't want to use. It's more similar to if sharp actually used the xerox logo on their copiers to try to lure customers who only wanted to buy actual xerox brand copiers (assuming there are any), and then tried to justify it by saying "but most people call them xerox machines".
How many people do you know that refer to bandages as "band-aids" or tissues as "kleenex" or spreadsheets as "Excel" or operating systems as "windows".
People who say "band-aids" are not usually trying to be deceptive. They are not actively trying to trick you into thinking you are getting that brand when it is really a cheap knockoff. If you rename and change the icon for mozilla to fool people who only want to use IE into thinking it's IE, then you are lying. If you can't understand the difference between lying and statements that are slighly incorrect when interpreted literally, but have a meaning that is generally understood, then you have serious ethical problems.
Um, I meant "literalists" there. Just clarifying because I used quotation marks, so I don't want you to think that those meant that I was attributing the typo to you (not the intention, just a genuine typo on my part).
Officer: Do you why I pulled you over?
Suspect: I was speeding.
That's enough to give you a speeding ticket in most states. You confessed to the crime.
This is interesting. I hadn't known this. What happens if you say "you think I was speeding"? Certainly that can't be a confession?
An officer will frequently be concerned for his safety, so if they want to check me for weapons, I let them.
If a cop pulls you over, he is legally permitted to pat you down for weapons, with or without having seen that you have a concealed weapons permit. You didn't "let him"; you were legally obligated to do so. Even though he can't search your car or your person without your permission, he can pat you down for weapons, since that's considered to be something he is doing for his immediate safety. Also, if he "happens to find" something illegal on you while legimiately checking for weapons, you can be prosecuted for it, which is why it's not a good idea to carry anything illegal on you, even if you think that a cop couldn't search for it without some cause.
Let's say that you have incompatibility problems with some of your common office applications and the Microsoft solution to this situation is to upgrade your applications.
Care to be more specific? I haven't had seen any "common office applications" that ran under xp sp1, but won't run under xp sp2. I think you are vastly overstating the situtation. Some obscure and old apps will break and maybe some LOB apps, but very few people are going to "have to spend hundreds of dollars/whatever per seat upgrading to the latest version of your commonly used apps".
I've found, that if you go into IE's securty preferences (TOOLS > INTERNET OPTIONS > SECURITY > CUSTOM LEVEL) and set all of the options that are set on "prompt" to "disable" keeps a PC from contracting spyware (that propagates through web browsing).
If you're going to go this route, it can be faster to just set the Internet security to High (rather than Custom and then doing everything yourself). If there's ever a site where you need stuff that is being blocked, and you're sure you trust the site, you can add it to your Trusted sites list (you probably want to set the Trusted sites security to Medium if you are doing this, rather than the default of Low).
Slashdot Mirror
In the current version (ie on xp sp2), the local machine zone has even less privledges than the internet.
ISR, a Beowulf cluser of these imagines YOU!
How did you find out/ figure out what your cost to the company was? I'd be interested to know mine.
YMBNH
This might be possible though, even though it doesn't exist now. I know that there are reverse compilers that can turn java bytecode into reasonable java, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone could write one that would turn
True. And if he was going to buy it, the it is a loss. So if you want to claim that software piracy isn't costing companies money, you have to be prepared to say that every single person who pirates software wouldn't have payed for it. Do you really believe that? It seems to be some sort of polite lie that everyone on slashdot is supposed to pretend that no one ever pirates something that they otherwise would have paid for.
Is it legal, or just unenforced? I've wondered this before when I was there.
Is "untested" or "bronze" really a more definite answer? That's almost all I see there.
Bah. If you were a real perl hacker, the script would step on the kids for you.
This strategy is known as "release early, release often". You let people play with/ beta-test your software before it is finished, even though you know that it will result in slashdot trolls five years from now condemning it because of bugs that haven't existed since the beta (just like everyone bashes windows for things that haven't been true since 98), since it ultimately leads to better quality. I think that this "stunt" works too well for Redmond, or anyone else making software, to ever stop pulling it.
Actually, this is how the windowing system orginally got its name.
No one has ever claimed that it should (and I think you know that). Just because you can't detect every possible error in all cases is not an excuse for failing to try to detect the most common or easily detectable errors and issue a warning. An email containing hundreds of pages of gargabe sent to multiple recipients should trigger some sort of warning to the user that this might not be what they intended.
Everything you try "should work". If it were supposed to fail, you wouldn't be doing it at all. That's not an excuse for not testing to confirm.
Is this necessary? Couldn't you just disable booting from them in the BIOS and then put a password on the BIOS? You're screwed then if someone is going to physically open the case and mess with the BIOS (e.g., replace it with another one), but if they can do that, they could also hook up a floppy drive or cdrom drive anyway.
I don't get it. Why wouldn't it count? Admittedly, it's less relevant now as one of it's big features was popup blocking, and now (in xp sp2) IE has that built in, but it still seems fair to categorize this as "useful". This is the posterboy for "useful" BHOs.
Yes, it really is. When people refer to a tissue as a kleenex, they aren't actively trying to be deceptive. They don't intentionally do it to try to trick someone into thinking that the brand who makes it is kleenex. When people go around changing the icons and such, this isn't the same as someone casually calling opera "internet explorer" because that's the term they use for any web browser. This is someone actively trying to trick someone into using a product they don't want to use. It's more similar to if sharp actually used the xerox logo on their copiers to try to lure customers who only wanted to buy actual xerox brand copiers (assuming there are any), and then tried to justify it by saying "but most people call them xerox machines".
Or discovers one hacker, catch him, and then doesn't catch the next one because he becomes a total luddite, as the case may be.
People who say "band-aids" are not usually trying to be deceptive. They are not actively trying to trick you into thinking you are getting that brand when it is really a cheap knockoff. If you rename and change the icon for mozilla to fool people who only want to use IE into thinking it's IE, then you are lying. If you can't understand the difference between lying and statements that are slighly incorrect when interpreted literally, but have a meaning that is generally understood, then you have serious ethical problems.
Yes, it's really a lie.
Um, I meant "literalists" there. Just clarifying because I used quotation marks, so I don't want you to think that those meant that I was attributing the typo to you (not the intention, just a genuine typo on my part).
Or "I could care less about
This is interesting. I hadn't known this. What happens if you say "you think I was speeding"? Certainly that can't be a confession?
If a cop pulls you over, he is legally permitted to pat you down for weapons, with or without having seen that you have a concealed weapons permit. You didn't "let him"; you were legally obligated to do so. Even though he can't search your car or your person without your permission, he can pat you down for weapons, since that's considered to be something he is doing for his immediate safety. Also, if he "happens to find" something illegal on you while legimiately checking for weapons, you can be prosecuted for it, which is why it's not a good idea to carry anything illegal on you, even if you think that a cop couldn't search for it without some cause.
Care to be more specific? I haven't had seen any "common office applications" that ran under xp sp1, but won't run under xp sp2. I think you are vastly overstating the situtation. Some obscure and old apps will break and maybe some LOB apps, but very few people are going to "have to spend hundreds of dollars/whatever per seat upgrading to the latest version of your commonly used apps".
If you're going to go this route, it can be faster to just set the Internet security to High (rather than Custom and then doing everything yourself). If there's ever a site where you need stuff that is being blocked, and you're sure you trust the site, you can add it to your Trusted sites list (you probably want to set the Trusted sites security to Medium if you are doing this, rather than the default of Low).