Yes, I saw that too. I'm perfectly aware of what that phrase means. In the way it is used in this sentence it could mean two different things. It could mean that Works can read/write MS Office files, or it could mean that MS Office can write files that can be read by Works. These possible meanings are very different. This being a quote from a Microsoft marketing page that is trying to sell Works, I'm going to assume that it is snake oil. Microsoft has tended in the past to be less than honest. I have no desire to spend money on Works to test this hypothesis, therefore I will just assume it is business as usual until someone can demonstrate otherwise.
And yes, I am that cynical when it comes to Microsoft.
Share & edit Works Word Processor and Spreadsheet files with Microsoft® Office Word and Microsoft® Office Excel and vice versa. *MS Office versions 97-2007 Microsoft Works 9
In my opinion this quote doesn't say what you think it does. (Emphasis is mine.) It says that Microsoft Office and Excel can read/write the Works file formats and not that Works can read read/write MS Office file formats. It is weasel-worded.
...and provide almost no functionality. How much functionality do you think a battery connector is supposed to provide? If it allows one to replace the battery it's fully functional. Its function is to allow two objects (a phone and a battery) to connect. You seem to be implying it would need to do something additional to be worthwhile... Being able to replace the battery is rather important. Rechargeable batteries will die eventually just like the standard non-rechargeable ones. Some of us don't like throwing our money/hardware away every two or so years. I doubt the Iphone's battery will last any longer than that.
(Of course I must admit I think Iphone is way overpriced anyway. It is rather pretty though.)
Actually usenet isn't anonymous at all. It's very difficult to identify downloaders, but much easier to identify uploaders. This is why people have drifted away from it. That, and the fact that most usenet servers have lousy retention, no binary groups, or monthly download limits. Plus most people I know have no idea what usenet actually is. (Nor that it can be used to download files.)
This reminds me a a trojan I once saw crossposted to several newsgroups I read regularly. The software used to post the program included the full pathname in the message, C:\windows\Desktop\trojan\[something].exe. Since I was annoyed, I deployed the trojan on a vmware virtual machine and tracked down the IRC server it was using. Whoever it was had over 4000 bots in their channel when I connected to it. People never cease to amaze me.
So OO.o isn't a fully functional, intuitive, reliable office sweet? Correct. It's actually more like a collection of software programs, though I will admit I've occasionally found myself tempted to nibble around the edges just a little to see how it tastes.;-)
Re:No, you cannot have Fair Use. Not Yours.
on
False Copyright Claims
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I could be wrong (If I am, someone will prove it) but I don't think that BD+ is in use at all yet. That might have something to do with why the media analyst thinks it won't be cracked for 10 years...
Maybe, but Joe Social Engineer has to first be employed by the said company. That's the first hurdle. If Joe doesn't actually work for VictimCo, Inc. nothing he does is going to obligate VictimCo. It is just your basic case of fraud. If he does things are going to get trickier. Say Joe works in Purchasing, he's ordered items from BigVendor several times in the past. BigVendor knows that Joe buys things for VictimCo, so if Joe places an unauthorized order for something, and BigVendor supplies it, then odds are pretty good that unless the order itself was somehow unusual, VictimCo might be liable for the bill. (Of course they're also going to fire Joe and probably press charges in an attempt to recover their expense.)
As far as I know, if Joe is impersonating Steve in the Boardroom, nothing he does is going to obligate VictimCo. He isn't actually Steve so anything he signs is just a forgery, i.e. fraud.
That's my understanding anyway. Standard disclaimers do apply of course.
No, it is safe to say that who ever put it there was not acting under any authority from Microsoft's management. Microsoft's execs would never willing have allowed it to be placed there. You can't claim you honestly believe they would. It is far more believable that the site was hacked.
The last two examples I gave occurred in the last twenty years (DUI laws and Smoking Bans). And while, being basically a Libertarian at heart I don't care much for bans of that nature, it is very hard to argue that these laws were bought and paid for by their beneficiaries. You are very much mistaken. Those laws aren't for our, that is to say private citizens, benefit. It isn't hard to argue these two at all. I have two words for you: Insurance Companies.
That said, I don't think the so called "old-school" days were any better.
It wouldn't hold water because it wasn't authorized by anyone with the authority to authorize that. Not quite true. If the individual signing the contract appeared to have that authority, reguardless of their actual authority, the company could be held to the terms of the contract. However, reasonablity would apply. "Bob" in Customer Service wouldn't be able to do something like that. No one could seriously claim that they thought he had that authority. However, if an executive did that it might be binding.
This is the same reason that many companies require purchase orders be used when they setup accounts with vendors.
There are basically two groups of people who don't vote. Those who don't care who wins, and those who believe that, for what ever reason, voting is pointless. Would you agree with this, admittedly simplified, statement? (This is apathy by the way.)
For the sake of our disagreement, we can safely ignore the first group of non-voters. By definition, they don't care. The second group, who may or may not be registered voters are a bit more difficult. If they aren't voting because of a dislike of the candidates, they are basically saying that "I dislike both and would pick neither." Would you agree with this thus far? If they aren't voting because they possess a dislike of the system, they are basically saying, "I dislike the the manner in which the system functions and will abstain from participating." Would you agree to this?
Ok, so let us assume that only a thousand people show up at the polls and vote. Someone wins, obviously. You have expressed your opinion by not voting. This means what to the winning candidate and his supporters? What about the losing party? Hint: They don't care why you didn't vote.
Here's a famous quote for you:
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke"
You claimed in another portion of this thread that, "I haven't voted for evil since I became aware of the problem." (19160695) Good to know. But you haven't done anything have you? You freely admit that by doing nothing the system will get worse. In fact, you seem to be promoting the acceleration of its corruption. I'd call that evil. It's just passive evil.
I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with your logic.
Not really an option. Funny. You seem to directly contradict this statement later in your post. It certainly IS an option. Ok, since you seem to be trying to be deliberately obtuse: Not really an option, because there will be, at the very least, the candidate and his campaign workers who will vote. (Happy now? I assumed this would be understood. Silly me.)
They'll have plenty of trouble explaining how a President got elected when nobody voted for him or her. You're missing the point. Someone will vote. If the public becomes so apathetic that no one can be bothered to go to the polls, do you really think they will care how many actual votes the winner received? This is why TV and newspaper usually just flash the percentages.
If no one voted, no one could be elected. That directly contradicts your assertion. Not really an option.
Also, as has been noted previously, the lesser of two evils IS STILL EVIL and should not be supported. Suppose we get the 'lesser evil'; how long do you believe that evil will be lesser? Evil does not tend in the direction of good. It tends in the direction of greater evil. Why not stop voting until the vote is useless as a cover for how things are really decided? Blindly following the existing, non-working, path to its logical conclusion is stupid, shortsighted, and the main reason we're in the situation we're in.
I think Richard Pryor said it best in Brewster's Millions, Vote "None of the Above". Unfortunately, not voting at all (your suggestion) is the logical conclusion of the "existing, non-working, path". Voter turnout is horrid. Making it worse won't help at all. Because you can be certain that even if you convince the American public not to vote, the politicians, and their campaign workers will vote. Forgot about them didn't you?
I believe you misunderstand the grandparent post's point. They, the *AA organizations, don't care if the law is enforced in those "poor" countries. They just want to be able to point at all these countries and say to their sponsored congress members that their requests aren't unreasonable in comparison to prevailing copyright laws worldwide. (In other words, since everyone else is doing it so should the U.S.) Actual enforcement is irrelevant.
The answer is that "they" is really "us"; that is, the electorate. We keep putting the same idiots into government who pull crap like this rather than voting them out of office. Instead of priorities based on news-media sales, people should be using their brains and voting in people who are competent at governing. Are you certain we keep voting them in? I wonder sometimes...
Slashdot Mirror
Dooes anyone know if they ever fixed the problem with the Kylix IDE hanging on the 2.6 kernels?
Yes, I saw that too. I'm perfectly aware of what that phrase means. In the way it is used in this sentence it could mean two different things. It could mean that Works can read/write MS Office files, or it could mean that MS Office can write files that can be read by Works. These possible meanings are very different. This being a quote from a Microsoft marketing page that is trying to sell Works, I'm going to assume that it is snake oil. Microsoft has tended in the past to be less than honest. I have no desire to spend money on Works to test this hypothesis, therefore I will just assume it is business as usual until someone can demonstrate otherwise.
And yes, I am that cynical when it comes to Microsoft.
In my opinion this quote doesn't say what you think it does. (Emphasis is mine.) It says that Microsoft Office and Excel can read/write the Works file formats and not that Works can read read/write MS Office file formats. It is weasel-worded.
At least that is how I read it.
...and provide almost no functionality. How much functionality do you think a battery connector is supposed to provide? If it allows one to replace the battery it's fully functional. Its function is to allow two objects (a phone and a battery) to connect. You seem to be implying it would need to do something additional to be worthwhile... Being able to replace the battery is rather important. Rechargeable batteries will die eventually just like the standard non-rechargeable ones. Some of us don't like throwing our money/hardware away every two or so years. I doubt the Iphone's battery will last any longer than that.(Of course I must admit I think Iphone is way overpriced anyway. It is rather pretty though.)
Actually usenet isn't anonymous at all. It's very difficult to identify downloaders, but much easier to identify uploaders. This is why people have drifted away from it. That, and the fact that most usenet servers have lousy retention, no binary groups, or monthly download limits. Plus most people I know have no idea what usenet actually is. (Nor that it can be used to download files.)
This reminds me a a trojan I once saw crossposted to several newsgroups I read regularly. The software used to post the program included the full pathname in the message,
C:\windows\Desktop\trojan\[something].exe.
Since I was annoyed, I deployed the trojan on a vmware virtual machine and tracked down the IRC server it was using. Whoever it was had over 4000 bots in their channel when I connected to it. People never cease to amaze me.
Bah, I previewed that one too... Previous post should say "break".
True, but you're far more likely to brake the cup first.
They%20most%20certainly%20are. ;-)
Maybe, but Joe Social Engineer has to first be employed by the said company. That's the first hurdle. If Joe doesn't actually work for VictimCo, Inc. nothing he does is going to obligate VictimCo. It is just your basic case of fraud. If he does things are going to get trickier. Say Joe works in Purchasing, he's ordered items from BigVendor several times in the past. BigVendor knows that Joe buys things for VictimCo, so if Joe places an unauthorized order for something, and BigVendor supplies it, then odds are pretty good that unless the order itself was somehow unusual, VictimCo might be liable for the bill. (Of course they're also going to fire Joe and probably press charges in an attempt to recover their expense.)
As far as I know, if Joe is impersonating Steve in the Boardroom, nothing he does is going to obligate VictimCo. He isn't actually Steve so anything he signs is just a forgery, i.e. fraud.
That's my understanding anyway. Standard disclaimers do apply of course.
No, it is safe to say that who ever put it there was not acting under any authority from Microsoft's management. Microsoft's execs would never willing have allowed it to be placed there. You can't claim you honestly believe they would. It is far more believable that the site was hacked.
That said, I don't think the so called "old-school" days were any better.
This is the same reason that many companies require purchase orders be used when they setup accounts with vendors.
Ok, lets consider this then.
There are basically two groups of people who don't vote. Those who don't care who wins, and those who believe that, for what ever reason, voting is pointless. Would you agree with this, admittedly simplified, statement? (This is apathy by the way.)
For the sake of our disagreement, we can safely ignore the first group of non-voters. By definition, they don't care. The second group, who may or may not be registered voters are a bit more difficult. If they aren't voting because of a dislike of the candidates, they are basically saying that "I dislike both and would pick neither." Would you agree with this thus far? If they aren't voting because they possess a dislike of the system, they are basically saying, "I dislike the the manner in which the system functions and will abstain from participating." Would you agree to this?
Ok, so let us assume that only a thousand people show up at the polls and vote. Someone wins, obviously. You have expressed your opinion by not voting. This means what to the winning candidate and his supporters? What about the losing party? Hint: They don't care why you didn't vote.
Here's a famous quote for you:
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke"You claimed in another portion of this thread that, "I haven't voted for evil since I became aware of the problem." (19160695) Good to know. But you haven't done anything have you? You freely admit that by doing nothing the system will get worse. In fact, you seem to be promoting the acceleration of its corruption. I'd call that evil. It's just passive evil.
I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with your logic.
I think Richard Pryor said it best in Brewster's Millions, Vote "None of the Above". Unfortunately, not voting at all (your suggestion) is the logical conclusion of the "existing, non-working, path". Voter turnout is horrid. Making it worse won't help at all. Because you can be certain that even if you convince the American public not to vote, the politicians, and their campaign workers will vote. Forgot about them didn't you?
I believe the word you are seeking is Schadenfreude. (German word meaning "shameful joy".)
I believe you misunderstand the grandparent post's point. They, the *AA organizations, don't care if the law is enforced in those "poor" countries. They just want to be able to point at all these countries and say to their sponsored congress members that their requests aren't unreasonable in comparison to prevailing copyright laws worldwide. (In other words, since everyone else is doing it so should the U.S.) Actual enforcement is irrelevant.
Not all of us apparently.
(Note to self: Never post on Slashdot when dead tired.)
Forget Ultima, he's referring to Elder Scrolls: Oblivion.