In Windows 7, they basically broke it into 3 disjointed calculators (standard, scientific, and programmer) by subdividing the features in the old "scientific" mode and splitting it into two. And you can't access all of the features from a single mode any more.
Switching between bases is a function in the "programmer" mode; you can't switch between bases in the "scientific" mode, and you can't access most of the "scientific" functions from the "programmer" mode. And when you switch from one mode to another mode, it forgets the value that it was displaying. So GP was completely correct. It's quite irritating, actually.
I don't think Notepad has changed much, if at all. I knew that Paint added the extra formats, but I'm not sure if I'd really call that a revision since most likely they just linked in a couple more libraries to import/export the new formats. The revision with Windows 7, on the other hand, was much more substantial. And to be honest I think I preferred the version of Calc that came with XP.
calculator, clock, calendar, notepad, print spooler, paint program, a primitive word processor and, of course, Reversi [...] Although Windows applications have evolved and expanded in the past quarter-century, Notepad and Paint survived all the way up to Windows 7.
I'm not sure whether he forgot to say Calc survived, or if he meant "survived unchanged" and deliberately left Calc out since it got a major revision in Windows 7.
If it's the latter case, he really shouldn't have included Paint either since that also got a major revision in Windows 7.
Your original comment got 1 semi-favorable reply and 8 replies to the effect that you're either dangerous, an asshole, breaking the law, or some combination of those, and its highest moderation percentage is Troll (40%). You hardly have moral high ground to stand on.
They don't have to claim copyright, though. Their argument goes like this:
The review was either written by a patient (in which case they claim it belongs to them) or it was written by someone posing as a patient (in which case it is a fraudulent review). They don't have to confirm or deny which of those two cases applies, because regardless of which case applies to the situation, they have legitimacy to demand that the review be taken down.
The problem is what if ALL the doctors and dentists do this? Then you don't have a choice, unless you happen to be a doctor and dentist (not or, and) yourself.
You still don't have a choice, unless you're the sort of doctor who can remove his own appendix.
Yeah, it seems painfully obvious but I'm sure I've heard it stated pretty much like that a few times on the radio and it's still being inferred in statements like the one I was replying to (earthquake + tsunami = perfect storm). "Earthquake + tsunami" should be more like the design guideline than an unexpected contingency.
Yeah, my property tax falls within that range, I think. But I've never heard of landlords raising rent prices exorbitantly high because their property taxes are so high. It's such a small chunk of change that it's not really a valid excuse.
You are completely wrong. Staying awake during civics class would have been beneficial to your understanding of this issue.
Care to enlighten me then? Any examples you can cite that don't fall under a few special cases such as contempt of court, libel, perjury, or inciting violence? When can a court punish you for something you say?
If they actually had a case they could subpoena the logs and find out who posted the review. If they wanted to spend that much time and effort on it, anyway.
But since I don't think they actually have a case, I don't think they could do that even if they wanted to.
So you are postulating that the entire civil court system is unconstitutional because there may feasibly be a case that hinges upon something someone said?
No, I'm saying that a ruling that punishes someone for something they said is unconstitutional, except in certain conditions such as if what they said was false.
And by the way, the court will not send soldiers to collect a civil judgement.
Who said anything about sending soldiers? So they wouldn't do that. A court order to pay it would be just as unconstitutional as sending soldiers, so my point is not moot.
The government has set up a system by which it can prevent me from re-claiming a constitutionally protected right because I waived it on one occasion.
That's no different than cops telling a suspect that because he said something previously when they asked him a question, he had waived his Miranda rights and couldn't use the 5th amendment to avoid answering a question they're asking him now.
It's wrong. Waiving a constitutional right does not prohibit me from re-claiming that right at any time.
Which is why any review claiming that the doctor was "rude" needs to explain what the doctor said or did that was so rude, so I can decide whether the review is a legitimate complaint, or laugh - it's funny.
Exactly. I'd like to at least hope that your average person can read the reviews and tell the difference between a customer who had unrealistic expectations and was infuriated when they weren't met, vs. one who legitimately had a bad experience.
The government is not going to enforce this by sending soldiers to break your fingers if you type a bad review on ihatemydentist.com. The contract is a civil matter, and you will be sued in civil court.
I'm aware, but they aren't trying to stifle the review because they don't like the creative opinion it expresses. They're stifling it because they don't want people to have the facts.
Slashdot Mirror
In Windows 7, they basically broke it into 3 disjointed calculators (standard, scientific, and programmer) by subdividing the features in the old "scientific" mode and splitting it into two. And you can't access all of the features from a single mode any more.
Switching between bases is a function in the "programmer" mode; you can't switch between bases in the "scientific" mode, and you can't access most of the "scientific" functions from the "programmer" mode. And when you switch from one mode to another mode, it forgets the value that it was displaying. So GP was completely correct. It's quite irritating, actually.
I don't think Notepad has changed much, if at all. I knew that Paint added the extra formats, but I'm not sure if I'd really call that a revision since most likely they just linked in a couple more libraries to import/export the new formats. The revision with Windows 7, on the other hand, was much more substantial. And to be honest I think I preferred the version of Calc that came with XP.
calculator, clock, calendar, notepad, print spooler, paint program, a primitive word processor and, of course, Reversi [...] Although Windows applications have evolved and expanded in the past quarter-century, Notepad and Paint survived all the way up to Windows 7.
I'm not sure whether he forgot to say Calc survived, or if he meant "survived unchanged" and deliberately left Calc out since it got a major revision in Windows 7.
If it's the latter case, he really shouldn't have included Paint either since that also got a major revision in Windows 7.
P.S.
Your original comment got 1 semi-favorable reply and 8 replies to the effect that you're either dangerous, an asshole, breaking the law, or some combination of those, and its highest moderation percentage is Troll (40%). You hardly have moral high ground to stand on.
Fine with me. I don't please everyone all the time, and I don't please some people ever.
No, I took offense with the statement "I'm a great driver. Other people are idiots and assholes."
They don't have to claim copyright, though. Their argument goes like this:
The review was either written by a patient (in which case they claim it belongs to them) or it was written by someone posing as a patient (in which case it is a fraudulent review). They don't have to confirm or deny which of those two cases applies, because regardless of which case applies to the situation, they have legitimacy to demand that the review be taken down.
Congress did not create the judiciary.
See, actually, you're wrong about that.
The problem is what if ALL the doctors and dentists do this? Then you don't have a choice, unless you happen to be a doctor and dentist (not or, and) yourself.
You still don't have a choice, unless you're the sort of doctor who can remove his own appendix.
Yeah, it seems painfully obvious but I'm sure I've heard it stated pretty much like that a few times on the radio and it's still being inferred in statements like the one I was replying to (earthquake + tsunami = perfect storm). "Earthquake + tsunami" should be more like the design guideline than an unexpected contingency.
I consider 2-5% of my income to be significant.
Yeah, my property tax falls within that range, I think. But I've never heard of landlords raising rent prices exorbitantly high because their property taxes are so high. It's such a small chunk of change that it's not really a valid excuse.
You are completely wrong. Staying awake during civics class would have been beneficial to your understanding of this issue.
Care to enlighten me then? Any examples you can cite that don't fall under a few special cases such as contempt of court, libel, perjury, or inciting violence? When can a court punish you for something you say?
If they actually had a case they could subpoena the logs and find out who posted the review. If they wanted to spend that much time and effort on it, anyway.
But since I don't think they actually have a case, I don't think they could do that even if they wanted to.
Of course, IANAL, so I could be wrong.
So you are postulating that the entire civil court system is unconstitutional because there may feasibly be a case that hinges upon something someone said?
No, I'm saying that a ruling that punishes someone for something they said is unconstitutional, except in certain conditions such as if what they said was false.
And by the way, the court will not send soldiers to collect a civil judgement.
Who said anything about sending soldiers? So they wouldn't do that. A court order to pay it would be just as unconstitutional as sending soldiers, so my point is not moot.
Maybe you would win, maybe you wouldn't, but you would need to spend the money to fight this.
Or just re-post it under a different name and let them try to sue you with a lawsuit that I'm pretty sure they can't win.
You mean the part where somebody employed by the government says "since you spoke freely, you now have to pay".
Yeah, that's where I thought this was going.
Treat ALL online reviews as biased! This is basic internet literacy!
Yeah, that would solve the problem too. But since people don't, soliciting positive reviews is the correct course of action.
The government has set up a system by which it can prevent me from re-claiming a constitutionally protected right because I waived it on one occasion.
That's no different than cops telling a suspect that because he said something previously when they asked him a question, he had waived his Miranda rights and couldn't use the 5th amendment to avoid answering a question they're asking him now.
It's wrong. Waiving a constitutional right does not prohibit me from re-claiming that right at any time.
And then?
Which is why any review claiming that the doctor was "rude" needs to explain what the doctor said or did that was so rude, so I can decide whether the review is a legitimate complaint, or laugh - it's funny.
Exactly. I'd like to at least hope that your average person can read the reviews and tell the difference between a customer who had unrealistic expectations and was infuriated when they weren't met, vs. one who legitimately had a bad experience.
Drown it with good reviews. If they are a good doctor, that shouldn't be so damn hard.
The government is not going to enforce this by sending soldiers to break your fingers if you type a bad review on ihatemydentist.com. The contract is a civil matter, and you will be sued in civil court.
And then what happens?
I'm aware, but they aren't trying to stifle the review because they don't like the creative opinion it expresses. They're stifling it because they don't want people to have the facts.
Proactively ask customers who are happy to write a review? No, see the "it's a plant!" comment from above.
No, that is exactly what you do.