"Personally, I find it deeply bizarre that they would put stuff on the title bar, but whatever."
You can move the "Quick Access Bar" to below the ribbon if you want, but modern widescreen monitors seem starved for vertical space. In that context, I can understand the decision.
Maybe you should try to look at the tab groups first and decide which one is right for you.
Home Insert Page Layout References Mailings Review View
I'll grant you here a fruitless search in the "Insert" tab.
"Hmm, References..." Table of Contents Footnotes Citations & Bibliography Captions Index Table of Authorities
The "insert footnote" button is the main button in the "footnotes" group and it's much larger than "Insert endnote". So I guess I still don't know what you're complaining about.
I will grant you that the Quick Access Bar (icons in the title area of Word) can be hard to notice at first.
1) They haven't filed the appeal yet, but they have made a press release saying that they will appeal. If Apple published the feature, they would immediately (in a legal timescale;-)) file lawsuit and Apple would not have precedent. Better for Apple to wait until this case is decided.
2) I know that the article said DVDCCA would have trouble pulling themselves together, but it seems that, in fact, they already have. (See other posts about an updated publication.) They could even just refuse to license Apple (or even everybody) until they sorted it out.
3) There is more to Disney than individual stockholders, and there is certainly more to Disney than Jobs. He can't just do whatever he likes. As for the second part, people do not expect to be able to rip DVDs. (I have had several conversations showing this.) I'm sure that if somebody actually gets an HTPC, their expectations will be different.
4) No, I didn't answer it. The Kaleidoscope system stored the discs with the CSS protection still applied, whereas this system would have to re-encode the movies. The contract probably forbids storing the video in a non-CSS form. Currently, CSS encoding is not available to the consumer, so Apple would need some sort of additional license to it.
"If the convenience were upped for the now-downloader to rip his own disks or buy video from iTS and competitors, PirateBay would be a shadow of itself"
You underestimate the value of getting something you could pay for, for free. There is also a stick-it-to-the-corporations feel to the whole thing.
I didn't mean that you would conciously be hunting around your screen for the View menu. I meant that in Office 2007 its label is larger, it is further seperated from the other parts, the target for your mouse is larger, and that there are less tabs to consider than their are menus in Office 2003.
In the "useful-but-should-have-been-done-years-ago" category is the removal of most limits in Excel, the ability to use more than 3 conditional formats, and to sort by more than 3 fields. I haven't noticed anything else very striking, but there is a new formulae feature in Word (much better than the old one, with a syntax similar to TeX), new features for references, and the beautiful new fonts and styles.
If you want to change how you're looking at stuff in Office 2007, click on (gasp!) the "View" tab, which is a larger target for your mouse and easier to spot than the old "View" menu. There are your options, with more contrast to indicate the currently selected option, and larger thumbnails to demonstrate each one.
The only exception is the zoom slider at the bottom-right.
I still think the new format is much better. And trust me, people - it won't change significantly in the next version of Office.
All the methods of bringing the old menus to Office 2007 are awful. Stop holding on to the past - it will just get more inconvenient. Either keep Office 2003, or move to Office 2007 proper. It's not like changing your holy keyboard.
No. Firstly, the lawsuit was not about "legally writing ripping software" - it was specifically about whether the companies who had gained a license for Content Scrambling System can write those programs. It doesn't mean anybody can use DVD Shrink to break "protection".
There are a few problems that would face Apple if they wanted to add that functionality: 1) DVD CCA is appealing the decision. 2) Apple would need to get a license for CSS, and DVD CCA will probably change the terms of the license to disallow such programs. 3) Apple risks pissing off the movie studios that offer video on iTunes stores. (AFAIK, only Disney so far.) People expect to be able to rip CDs, so that's OK. But if people aren't expecting to rip DVDs, why let them? It would cannibalise sales from iTunes Video Store. 4) The Kaleidoscope system maintained the copy protection, whereas iTunes would need to downscale and crop/letterbox the video in order to make the feature useful to smaller iPods - and in the process, re-protect it somehow.
You are not supposed to just edit/etc/apt/sources.list and run apt-get dist-upgrade. Ubuntu has complications in the upgrade more complex than the package manager has been made to handle.
Some people just have combinations of hardware that cause problems. Such is life.:( I recommend Feisty to people who get WGA troubles, but if their hardware isn't supported from the Live CD (including wireless if relevant), I wouldn't bother. It just gives people a bad feeling if they see me sitting in front of a text prompt for hours.
"Ubuntu doesn't have anything like Vista's shadow copy system and its user-friendly backup tools are pretty rudimentary."
Shadow Copy is a very cool feature, but it's only available in Business and Ultimate. That's $199.95 or 279 or AU$379.00 or £189.99 - and that's for the upgrade version. Per computer.
If you already got a version of Vista with your computer, you can upgrade to Ultimate for $199 (from Home Basic) or $159 (from Home Premium to Ultimate). (You can't upgrade to Business.) Your precious files are a mere price-of-iPod-Nano-and-five-albums away.
"Ubuntu has made more headway in organizing a usable system than RedHat, Mandrake, and Debian combined. It is really the first distro that nearly everyone can use."
I agree that it is one of the first truly usable distros, but all the other major distros made excellent progress in their day. For example, RedHat funds network-manager (now in Ubuntu), and Novell funds evolution (also in Ubuntu, I believe).
In the UK, UCAS (University and College Application System) is the *only* way to apply to domestic undergraduate courses. They eliminated the paper application a while ago, and everything is online.
They "support" "Internet Explorer version 4 or higher or Netscape Navigator 4.08 or higher". I e-mailed tech support once about a mistake in their user interface, and got a reply asking me to use Internet Explorer (instead of Firefox). I took the exact same screenshot in IE (thanks, tech support, you didn't try it yourself!) and then they replied with a misunderstanding. *goddamn them they're so stupid*. Eventually I figured out the problem myself and told them about it. Still, I bet it'll be just as buggy next year.
To their credit, it almost completely works in Firefox without their "support".
That's true, but a lot of quality is lost in a re-recording. That's ignoring the possibility of legislation outlawing cameras or requiring cameras to comply with copy protection in video.
Which is better? (Consider video but ignore sound.)
1) A DVD rip from filesharing networks. 2) The movie from an HD-DVD which has been projected onto a (HDCP) display, recorded with an HD camcorder on a tripod, compressed and uploaded to filesharing networks.
The DVD rip, of course. The movie studios, in this scenario, have won. If I want the movie in SD quality, I can get it online, just as I can today. If I want the movie in HD quality, I have to buy it. Thus it is protected.
Of course, they long for the day that they can phase out the old Audio CD and DVD-Video formats, but that is very very far away.
Dell said it would run fine. The computer is actually ridiculously slow (as some of them are, out-of-box). Why should the customer be worrying about the RAM? The customer didn't choose the hardware, Dell did.
"Some of the slashdot stories are pure spin, like that person who died during the trial and that they'd continue to sue the estate. That's completely standard legal practise."
Oh yay, it's "standard legal practise" - even if it is (and I don't know whether it is), that does not make it at all ethical.
Remember, the actual (compensatory) damages are $0.70 per song, the approximate wholesale price of a Big-Label song. The minimum (yes, minimum, the judge gets no say in this) payout is $750 per song. That means that $749.30 per song are just "punitive" damages, paid to the RIAA. It's a slap on the wrist that says "don't infringe on copyrights again". (After paying $750 per song, I certainly wouldn't be able to afford the internet connection. Or a TV license. Or, in fact, anything at all.)
So the person who (for argument's sake) infringed on the copyrights had to pay punitive damages. Then he dies. Why does his/family/ have to pay punitive damages? It isn't as though the RIAA needs that money. "This $749.30 per song we're taking is to remind you that you should not be in the will of somebody who infringes on our copyright. Always make sure nobody in your family is infringing on our copyrights, and if they are, disown them. Also, remember we drive fast cars."
That wouldn't work, because in all the court documents, the RIAA is rarely mentioned. "Plaintiffs" are defined as UMG, Sony etc. They are the ones who really are bringing the lawsuit.
Slashdot Mirror
Changing the way Office behaves /every time/ you paste something apparently qualified as "Advanced", I guess.
"Personally, I find it deeply bizarre that they would put stuff on the title bar, but whatever."
You can move the "Quick Access Bar" to below the ribbon if you want, but modern widescreen monitors seem starved for vertical space. In that context, I can understand the decision.
Yes. Office 2007 now uses grammar to find some common errors, such as loose/lose. They are given a wavy blue underline.
Maybe you should try to look at the tab groups first and decide which one is right for you.
Home
Insert
Page Layout
References
Mailings
Review
View
I'll grant you here a fruitless search in the "Insert" tab.
"Hmm, References..."
Table of Contents
Footnotes
Citations & Bibliography
Captions
Index
Table of Authorities
The "insert footnote" button is the main button in the "footnotes" group and it's much larger than "Insert endnote". So I guess I still don't know what you're complaining about.
I will grant you that the Quick Access Bar (icons in the title area of Word) can be hard to notice at first.
1) They haven't filed the appeal yet, but they have made a press release saying that they will appeal. If Apple published the feature, they would immediately (in a legal timescale ;-)) file lawsuit and Apple would not have precedent. Better for Apple to wait until this case is decided.
2) I know that the article said DVDCCA would have trouble pulling themselves together, but it seems that, in fact, they already have. (See other posts about an updated publication.) They could even just refuse to license Apple (or even everybody) until they sorted it out.
3) There is more to Disney than individual stockholders, and there is certainly more to Disney than Jobs. He can't just do whatever he likes. As for the second part, people do not expect to be able to rip DVDs. (I have had several conversations showing this.) I'm sure that if somebody actually gets an HTPC, their expectations will be different.
4) No, I didn't answer it. The Kaleidoscope system stored the discs with the CSS protection still applied, whereas this system would have to re-encode the movies. The contract probably forbids storing the video in a non-CSS form. Currently, CSS encoding is not available to the consumer, so Apple would need some sort of additional license to it.
"If the convenience were upped for the now-downloader to rip his own disks or buy video from iTS and competitors, PirateBay would be a shadow of itself"
You underestimate the value of getting something you could pay for, for free. There is also a stick-it-to-the-corporations feel to the whole thing.
Sorry for the late reply - I went to sleep. :-)
I didn't mean that you would conciously be hunting around your screen for the View menu. I meant that in Office 2007 its label is larger, it is further seperated from the other parts, the target for your mouse is larger, and that there are less tabs to consider than their are menus in Office 2003.
In the "useful-but-should-have-been-done-years-ago" category is the removal of most limits in Excel, the ability to use more than 3 conditional formats, and to sort by more than 3 fields. I haven't noticed anything else very striking, but there is a new formulae feature in Word (much better than the old one, with a syntax similar to TeX), new features for references, and the beautiful new fonts and styles.
If you want to change how you're looking at stuff in Office 2007, click on (gasp!) the "View" tab, which is a larger target for your mouse and easier to spot than the old "View" menu. There are your options, with more contrast to indicate the currently selected option, and larger thumbnails to demonstrate each one.
The only exception is the zoom slider at the bottom-right.
I still think the new format is much better. And trust me, people - it won't change significantly in the next version of Office.
All the methods of bringing the old menus to Office 2007 are awful. Stop holding on to the past - it will just get more inconvenient. Either keep Office 2003, or move to Office 2007 proper. It's not like changing your holy keyboard.
Actually, they would probably need a license for the iPod if they wanted that functionality.
No. Firstly, the lawsuit was not about "legally writing ripping software" - it was specifically about whether the companies who had gained a license for Content Scrambling System can write those programs. It doesn't mean anybody can use DVD Shrink to break "protection".
There are a few problems that would face Apple if they wanted to add that functionality:
1) DVD CCA is appealing the decision.
2) Apple would need to get a license for CSS, and DVD CCA will probably change the terms of the license to disallow such programs.
3) Apple risks pissing off the movie studios that offer video on iTunes stores. (AFAIK, only Disney so far.) People expect to be able to rip CDs, so that's OK. But if people aren't expecting to rip DVDs, why let them? It would cannibalise sales from iTunes Video Store.
4) The Kaleidoscope system maintained the copy protection, whereas iTunes would need to downscale and crop/letterbox the video in order to make the feature useful to smaller iPods - and in the process, re-protect it somehow.
My workplace uses Kaseya Agent, but I don't know how good it is.
http://www.kaseya.com/
"dist-upgrading"
/etc/apt/sources.list and run apt-get dist-upgrade. Ubuntu has complications in the upgrade more complex than the package manager has been made to handle.
:( I recommend Feisty to people who get WGA troubles, but if their hardware isn't supported from the Live CD (including wireless if relevant), I wouldn't bother. It just gives people a bad feeling if they see me sitting in front of a text prompt for hours.
You are not supposed to just edit
The correct thing is to run update-manager (the update GUI). See http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/upgrading. To be honest, I'm not surprised it broke.
Some people just have combinations of hardware that cause problems. Such is life.
"Ubuntu doesn't have anything like Vista's shadow copy system and its user-friendly backup tools are pretty rudimentary."
Shadow Copy is a very cool feature, but it's only available in Business and Ultimate. That's $199.95 or 279 or AU$379.00 or £189.99 - and that's for the upgrade version. Per computer.
If you already got a version of Vista with your computer, you can upgrade to Ultimate for $199 (from Home Basic) or $159 (from Home Premium to Ultimate). (You can't upgrade to Business.) Your precious files are a mere price-of-iPod-Nano-and-five-albums away.
Somehow, that fails to impress me.
"The site you have chosen has been categorized as: Criminal Skills
Your administrator has chosen to block this category.. "
(The filtering system is used in UK schools and seems to be called Synetrix.)
"if you see something you not in 0.5 that you want in 0.7"
Um... how about almost everything? 2,000 articles is paltry.
Dude, it's called Fairplay! Of course it's fair!
Did you read the bit about the hull designs of ships? Fascinating stuff!
"Ubuntu has made more headway in organizing a usable system than RedHat, Mandrake, and Debian combined. It is really the first distro that nearly everyone can use."
I agree that it is one of the first truly usable distros, but all the other major distros made excellent progress in their day. For example, RedHat funds network-manager (now in Ubuntu), and Novell funds evolution (also in Ubuntu, I believe).
In the UK, UCAS (University and College Application System) is the *only* way to apply to domestic undergraduate courses. They eliminated the paper application a while ago, and everything is online.
They "support" "Internet Explorer version 4 or higher or Netscape Navigator 4.08 or higher". I e-mailed tech support once about a mistake in their user interface, and got a reply asking me to use Internet Explorer (instead of Firefox). I took the exact same screenshot in IE (thanks, tech support, you didn't try it yourself!) and then they replied with a misunderstanding. *goddamn them they're so stupid*. Eventually I figured out the problem myself and told them about it. Still, I bet it'll be just as buggy next year.
To their credit, it almost completely works in Firefox without their "support".
That's a deliberate joke.
That's true, but a lot of quality is lost in a re-recording. That's ignoring the possibility of legislation outlawing cameras or requiring cameras to comply with copy protection in video.
Which is better? (Consider video but ignore sound.)
1) A DVD rip from filesharing networks.
2) The movie from an HD-DVD which has been projected onto a (HDCP) display, recorded with an HD camcorder on a tripod, compressed and uploaded to filesharing networks.
The DVD rip, of course. The movie studios, in this scenario, have won. If I want the movie in SD quality, I can get it online, just as I can today. If I want the movie in HD quality, I have to buy it. Thus it is protected.
Of course, they long for the day that they can phase out the old Audio CD and DVD-Video formats, but that is very very far away.
So you think before you use X11 copy-and-paste about whether you will need to select something else before you paste?
What a pain.
Dell said it would run fine. The computer is actually ridiculously slow (as some of them are, out-of-box). Why should the customer be worrying about the RAM? The customer didn't choose the hardware, Dell did.
"Some of the slashdot stories are pure spin, like that person who died during the trial and that they'd continue to sue the estate. That's completely standard legal practise."
/family/ have to pay punitive damages? It isn't as though the RIAA needs that money. "This $749.30 per song we're taking is to remind you that you should not be in the will of somebody who infringes on our copyright. Always make sure nobody in your family is infringing on our copyrights, and if they are, disown them. Also, remember we drive fast cars."
Oh yay, it's "standard legal practise" - even if it is (and I don't know whether it is), that does not make it at all ethical.
Remember, the actual (compensatory) damages are $0.70 per song, the approximate wholesale price of a Big-Label song. The minimum (yes, minimum, the judge gets no say in this) payout is $750 per song. That means that $749.30 per song are just "punitive" damages, paid to the RIAA. It's a slap on the wrist that says "don't infringe on copyrights again". (After paying $750 per song, I certainly wouldn't be able to afford the internet connection. Or a TV license. Or, in fact, anything at all.)
So the person who (for argument's sake) infringed on the copyrights had to pay punitive damages. Then he dies. Why does his
That wouldn't work, because in all the court documents, the RIAA is rarely mentioned. "Plaintiffs" are defined as UMG, Sony etc. They are the ones who really are bringing the lawsuit.
He never said it would help the average user. We aren't average users. It helps us.