If you're on good terms with your IT dept and want to be polite, ask one of them if it's okay for you to do that.
Almost certainly whoever uses it next will want a clean install anyway. Or they may just dump it and your info will be in a used PC for sale on eBay in a couple of weeks.
in so far that they both fall within the domain of being illegal.
Yeah, so all crimes are the same.
That's what the statement I was responding to boiled down to, and that's the "dishonest and manipulative" bit. Making a dumb joke is not assault, no matter what word games you play. Saying so is the same level as "You wouldn't steal a car, so why would you copy an MP3?"
merely a method of illustrating a point.
It was used to justify an action. Usually people use car analogies here and make similarly dumb leaps of logic. Using an analogy in an argument is almost always a sign that the speaker either doesn't understand the real issue, or is trying to manipulate the audience.
He's talking zero tolerance for harassment. Somehow even though we can't define it, everyone knows when a line is being crossed.
Of course they don't. The guy who "crossed" it didn't think he was (unless he was deliberately looking for a fight). That you think everyone has the same line as you is a problem. Not everyone was brought up in exactly the same environment as you. Not everyone is sensitive to others' feelings. Lots of people, especially technical people, just aren't socially adept. "Zero tolerance" means they will just get fired as if they were a sex offender, rather than being educated.
I have punch cards on my desk at work so I can remember back to a time when computers and software worked reliably.
Reliably? I have very unfond memories of my student years, the night before a project was due, standing in a queue in front of a bank of card readers waiting to run my Fortran or Cobol program. Then when the reader chewed up a card, going back to make a new card and waiting another 20 minutes to try to read it again. All the time the card readers were heating up and one by one stopping dead, so the queues got ever longer.
In second year we were granted the privilege of using a keyboard with attached line printer and entering the program with a line editor. And in third year we could use an actual CRT monitor and could use vi.
Card readers weren't quite Spock's "stone knives and bearskins", but close.
The "logic" of "one thing is like another, much worse thing, so we should treat them as if they WERE the same thing" is a dishonest and manipulative tactic, and deserves only contempt.
you are the one aren't you, the "won't someone please think of the children" trailer trash?
So because some assholes use "think of the children" to advance their own agenda, that means that there is no real risk that anyone else can take action ont?
Get guns banned first
And the police shouldn't worry about catching thieves or robbers till they catch all the murderers. etc, etc.
make the world totally safe for irresponsible morons.
Children, not morons. Children need to be protected. Adult morons can kill themselves, with my blessing. Just as long as they don't take anyone else with them.
If a parent chooses to buy a toy, marketed as an adult desktop toy, and they leave them where a young child has access to them it is clearly not the fault of the manufacturer.
No, it's not, and I don't think the government or anyone else (yet) is suing the manufacturer. They no doubt are labelling and marketing them as adult toys, they're covered, legally. However, the fact is that kids can and have played with them and some have swallowed them and needed surgery. Is allowing the sale, of a desk toy worth the risk to children? Does the divine right for a company to make a profit selling a time-wasting toy override all else?
what about bleach or any one of a number of other household products which are lethal if swallowed
The chemicals are expected to be kept out of children's reach, in a laundry cupboard say.
Desk toys are intended to be played with on a desktop. They not only look like toys, they ARE toys and kids can see their parents playing with them.
Aside from that, I take offence at the maufacturer calling these "Buckyballs". They aren't anything to do with Buckminster Fuller, and they certainly aren't "buckyballs" (Buckminsterfullerene). They aren't truncated icosahedra, just spherical magnets.
Its the Wall Street Journal. All their "science" articles are political. This started as an attack on Obama for saying in passing that the government created the Internet. O they wanted to "debunk" that, same as they "debunk" global warming.
And yet another person with a GED in law chimes in
Idiot. And I never claimed to have a "GED in law", whatever the fuck that is.
there's this little thing called "trade dress" that comes into play here - go look into it.
Let's look into it: "Trade dress protection is intended to protect consumers from packaging or appearance of products that are designed to imitate other products; to prevent a consumer from buying one product under the belief that it is another"
So, as this is a "novel", not a a "bottle of whisky", trade dress has absolutely no relevance.
Have you looked at the fucking cover? The vining is an _EXACT_ copy, the titleing is close enough to be an _exact_ copy, the whole damn thing was cloned in 5 minutes in photoshop with clonestamp and the text tool.
Yeah, I did look. Obviously closer than you did. The borders are the same. But Jack Daniels didn't invent doodles. It's generic. Loads of labels of the period are similar. And the text fonts are all completely different, and of course as is all the text (except "40% ALC BY VOL" which I hope you don't believe is a trademark).
Obviously they were parodying the JD label, but it's NOT in any way an "exact copy".
their trademark to stand out. Sure, they could have allowed him to use it, just this once....
Didn't anyone actually look at the book cover? He did not use their trademark or logo. It resembles it, but that's all. Especially as it's a book and not a bottle of spirits, they have no standing to complain about a design that uses some of the some elements, none of which are unique to the JD label. It's a bog standard label, similar to many of th period it was designed.
It's that Jack Daniel's failure to respond would be taken as evidence by a future trademark court that they don't care who uses their logo or for what purpose.
Which might be valid, if he had used their logo. He didn't. Did you even look at the cover? That's why JD tried the polite approach. They have no hope of winning in court, if the author referred them to the "reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram", and got a lawyer to sue them back for costs and harassment.
There's a reason they didn't just demand he change the cover; they have a very weak legal case. The cover has some of the graphic elements of the JD label, but they are not unique. Probably hundreds of 19th century labels are similar. The words "Jack Daniels" are not on the cover. And of course, its a novel, not a brand of spirits he is trying to pass off, so trademark protection doest really apply, since JD isn't a publisher.
So, they could have bullied him anyway with a threat of litigation, so I guess kudos for that, but they were actually asking hi to do something he has no legal obligation to do.
It's not a science journal, it's the fucking WALL STREET Journal.
What could be the motive behind an article in the Wall Street Journal implying that opponents of fracking are a bunch of superstitious self-deluded fools for opposing this wonderful technology. The same WSJ that periodically "debunks" global warming as a conspiracy.
Seriously: the cost of sequestering enough carbon dioxide to prevent 0.5 degree C warming over the next hundred years, has been estimated to be about the same as the cost of completely eliminating world hunger, even after considering inflation.
Which is the better investment?
What an excellent false dichotomy. We have a choice between starving or stopping global warming. How about, say, the much larger amounts spent on the military? But given a choice between letting their population starve, or building up the military, most governments choose the military. North Korea being an extreme example. But the are plenty of poverty stricken people in the USA as well, and they could be fed for a small percentage of what is spent on the military.
Or, if the military is untouchable, how about automobiles? Huge amounts of money are pissed away on those shiny penis extensions, their highways, parking lots, 50,000 deaths a year, and of course gasoline; and they contribute hugely to global warming. Tax those fuckers out of existence in urban areas where public transport can take up the slack for 1/10th the cost and it's win-win.
But that would be an infringement on your right to drive your SUV to the Quickie Mart to buy your sixpack, so that's a no-starter too.
So, fuck our grandchildren. Live it up while you can.
We convert everything to Adobe PDF, and the documents are guaranteed to look exactly the same on all systems, unlike MS docs, which are always a line or two off when opened on another computer.
That's not a feature. Try doing business with people who use metric paper sizes when you work in US sizes or the reverse. You can work around it, but all of a sudden your document isn't the same both places.
Acrobat has had an option "fit to page" in its printing dialogue for at least 10 years. It'll scale the page by a few percent. Exactly the same pagination. No problem unless you have some critically sized diagrams.
I'm in country that almost universally uses A4 paper. Yet most of the digital documents I get are sized "Letter" because that's the fucking default in Microsoft software and most people just accept that when installing. Also with American spelling (we use British) and American MDY date formats in speadsheets (again, we use a rational system) and that can seriously confuse your data.
Every time I install a a printer, I have to click about 5 times to change the default from "Letter" to A4, despite there only being ab A4 tray in the fucking printer, despite my "locale" being one that uses A4 paper. MS just assumes that if I speak English, I'm in America. Even the fucking timezone defaults to America.
So I need to deal with this crap very, very often.
Also, if you want to collaboratively edit a PDF you're pretty much on the hook for cash
No, plenty of free ways to do that, eg, FoxIt can add comments to any PDF and other markup.
MS could have long ago fixed paper size and margins etc. to the document, they've deliberately chosen to not do that because it's a pain in the arse when you work internationally.
Actually, MS are correct here. The document should reformat to fit the actual paper your printer uses. Office documents are about text, not pinpoint accuracy for layout.
If that's what you want, use a DTP app, not an office app.
Slashdot Mirror
putting them in camps if they persist.
And the forst Godwin goes to ....
Moron.
the GP post is obviously sarcastic
Maybe. There are so many sincere gun nuts that parodying them is fairly redundant.
Thanks
Is the NRA having a drive to counteract the last gun nut who massacred people in a cinema?
I read a paperback or a newspaper on the subway. No one ever tried to steal those.
There are also companies in Hong Kong that specialize in selling replacement PCBs. It's much cheaper, but bigger delays.
Any details? Might be useful to know.
I repaired a drive once by overwriting the entire drive with zeroes,
TFA is about a physically damaged drive. (Burnt out component on PCB.) The aim is to recover the data from that.
Your method won't work on that kind of failure, and certainly won't recover any data.
Just DBAN it.
If you're on good terms with your IT dept and want to be polite, ask one of them if it's okay for you to do that.
Almost certainly whoever uses it next will want a clean install anyway. Or they may just dump it and your info will be in a used PC for sale on eBay in a couple of weeks.
in so far that they both fall within the domain of being illegal.
Yeah, so all crimes are the same.
That's what the statement I was responding to boiled down to, and that's the "dishonest and manipulative" bit. Making a dumb joke is not assault, no matter what word games you play. Saying so is the same level as "You wouldn't steal a car, so why would you copy an MP3?"
merely a method of illustrating a point.
It was used to justify an action. Usually people use car analogies here and make similarly dumb leaps of logic. Using an analogy in an argument is almost always a sign that the speaker either doesn't understand the real issue, or is trying to manipulate the audience.
He's talking zero tolerance for harassment. Somehow even though we can't define it, everyone knows when a line is being crossed.
Of course they don't. The guy who "crossed" it didn't think he was (unless he was deliberately looking for a fight). That you think everyone has the same line as you is a problem. Not everyone was brought up in exactly the same environment as you. Not everyone is sensitive to others' feelings. Lots of people, especially technical people, just aren't socially adept. "Zero tolerance" means they will just get fired as if they were a sex offender, rather than being educated.
I have punch cards on my desk at work so I can remember back to a time when computers and software worked reliably.
Reliably? I have very unfond memories of my student years, the night before a project was due, standing in a queue in front of a bank of card readers waiting to run my Fortran or Cobol program. Then when the reader chewed up a card, going back to make a new card and waiting another 20 minutes to try to read it again. All the time the card readers were heating up and one by one stopping dead, so the queues got ever longer.
In second year we were granted the privilege of using a keyboard with attached line printer and entering the program with a line editor. And in third year we could use an actual CRT monitor and could use vi.
Card readers weren't quite Spock's "stone knives and bearskins", but close.
Yeah, you can find "similarities" between any two things.
http://www.jainworld.com/literature/story25.htm
The "logic" of "one thing is like another, much worse thing, so we should treat them as if they WERE the same thing" is a dishonest and manipulative tactic, and deserves only contempt.
imagine if this was physical abuse.
Equating a dumb spoken remark and physical abuse is stupid.
you are the one aren't you, the "won't someone please think of the children" trailer trash?
So because some assholes use "think of the children" to advance their own agenda, that means that there is no real risk that anyone else can take action ont?
Get guns banned first
And the police shouldn't worry about catching thieves or robbers till they catch all the murderers. etc, etc.
make the world totally safe for irresponsible morons.
Children, not morons. Children need to be protected. Adult morons can kill themselves, with my blessing. Just as long as they don't take anyone else with them.
If a parent chooses to buy a toy, marketed as an adult desktop toy, and they leave them where a young child has access to them it is clearly not the fault of the manufacturer.
No, it's not, and I don't think the government or anyone else (yet) is suing the manufacturer. They no doubt are labelling and marketing them as adult toys, they're covered, legally. However, the fact is that kids can and have played with them and some have swallowed them and needed surgery. Is allowing the sale, of a desk toy worth the risk to children? Does the divine right for a company to make a profit selling a time-wasting toy override all else?
what about bleach or any one of a number of other household products which are lethal if swallowed
The chemicals are expected to be kept out of children's reach, in a laundry cupboard say.
Desk toys are intended to be played with on a desktop. They not only look like toys, they ARE toys and kids can see their parents playing with them.
Aside from that, I take offence at the maufacturer calling these "Buckyballs". They aren't anything to do with Buckminster Fuller, and they certainly aren't "buckyballs" (Buckminsterfullerene). They aren't truncated icosahedra, just spherical magnets.
how did this turn political?
Its the Wall Street Journal. All their "science" articles are political. This started as an attack on Obama for saying in passing that the government created the Internet. O they wanted to "debunk" that, same as they "debunk" global warming.
And yet another person with a GED in law chimes in
Idiot. And I never claimed to have a "GED in law", whatever the fuck that is.
there's this little thing called "trade dress" that comes into play here - go look into it.
Let's look into it: "Trade dress protection is intended to protect consumers from packaging or appearance of products that are designed to imitate other products; to prevent a consumer from buying one product under the belief that it is another"
So, as this is a "novel", not a a "bottle of whisky", trade dress has absolutely no relevance.
Have you looked at the fucking cover? The vining is an _EXACT_ copy, the titleing is close enough to be an _exact_ copy, the whole damn thing was cloned in 5 minutes in photoshop with clonestamp and the text tool.
Yeah, I did look. Obviously closer than you did. The borders are the same. But Jack Daniels didn't invent doodles. It's generic. Loads of labels of the period are similar. And the text fonts are all completely different, and of course as is all the text (except "40% ALC BY VOL" which I hope you don't believe is a trademark).
Obviously they were parodying the JD label, but it's NOT in any way an "exact copy".
Didn't anyone actually look at the book cover? He did not use their trademark or logo. It resembles it, but that's all. Especially as it's a book and not a bottle of spirits, they have no standing to complain about a design that uses some of the some elements, none of which are unique to the JD label. It's a bog standard label, similar to many of th period it was designed.
It's that Jack Daniel's failure to respond would be taken as evidence by a future trademark court that they don't care who uses their logo or for what purpose.
Which might be valid, if he had used their logo. He didn't. Did you even look at the cover? That's why JD tried the polite approach. They have no hope of winning in court, if the author referred them to the "reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram", and got a lawyer to sue them back for costs and harassment.
So, they could have bullied him anyway with a threat of litigation, so I guess kudos for that, but they were actually asking hi to do something he has no legal obligation to do.
What could be the motive behind an article in the Wall Street Journal implying that opponents of fracking are a bunch of superstitious self-deluded fools for opposing this wonderful technology. The same WSJ that periodically "debunks" global warming as a conspiracy.
Seriously: the cost of sequestering enough carbon dioxide to prevent 0.5 degree C warming over the next hundred years, has been estimated to be about the same as the cost of completely eliminating world hunger, even after considering inflation. Which is the better investment?
What an excellent false dichotomy. We have a choice between starving or stopping global warming. How about, say, the much larger amounts spent on the military? But given a choice between letting their population starve, or building up the military, most governments choose the military. North Korea being an extreme example. But the are plenty of poverty stricken people in the USA as well, and they could be fed for a small percentage of what is spent on the military.
Or, if the military is untouchable, how about automobiles? Huge amounts of money are pissed away on those shiny penis extensions, their highways, parking lots, 50,000 deaths a year, and of course gasoline; and they contribute hugely to global warming. Tax those fuckers out of existence in urban areas where public transport can take up the slack for 1/10th the cost and it's win-win.
But that would be an infringement on your right to drive your SUV to the Quickie Mart to buy your sixpack, so that's a no-starter too.
So, fuck our grandchildren. Live it up while you can.
We convert everything to Adobe PDF, and the documents are guaranteed to look exactly the same on all systems, unlike MS docs, which are always a line or two off when opened on another computer.
That's not a feature. Try doing business with people who use metric paper sizes when you work in US sizes or the reverse. You can work around it, but all of a sudden your document isn't the same both places.
Acrobat has had an option "fit to page" in its printing dialogue for at least 10 years. It'll scale the page by a few percent. Exactly the same pagination. No problem unless you have some critically sized diagrams.
I'm in country that almost universally uses A4 paper. Yet most of the digital documents I get are sized "Letter" because that's the fucking default in Microsoft software and most people just accept that when installing. Also with American spelling (we use British) and American MDY date formats in speadsheets (again, we use a rational system) and that can seriously confuse your data.
Every time I install a a printer, I have to click about 5 times to change the default from "Letter" to A4, despite there only being ab A4 tray in the fucking printer, despite my "locale" being one that uses A4 paper. MS just assumes that if I speak English, I'm in America. Even the fucking timezone defaults to America.
So I need to deal with this crap very, very often.
Also, if you want to collaboratively edit a PDF you're pretty much on the hook for cash
No, plenty of free ways to do that, eg, FoxIt can add comments to any PDF and other markup.
MS could have long ago fixed paper size and margins etc. to the document, they've deliberately chosen to not do that because it's a pain in the arse when you work internationally.
Actually, MS are correct here. The document should reformat to fit the actual paper your printer uses. Office documents are about text, not pinpoint accuracy for layout. If that's what you want, use a DTP app, not an office app.