This actually changed between Win2K and WinXP. In 2000 the admin was always a data recovery agent, so it was not possible to secure data from the admin. It also meant that if the admin account was violated every other account was violated as well.
In XP they added the ability to have what they call an empty recovery policy, where there is no backup key.
I was teaching a class years ago that was also the first exposure to a mouse for many of the participants.
Several people were having real trouble with double clicking. It kept coming out as two clicks. When I went over to help them I realized they were actually bending their arm at the elbow to make a click, and hence completely blowing the double click time.
In general I agree that you can't write a real review from a demo, but there are extenuating circumstances here.
Given that the systems he was reviewing were localized to Thai and Hindi, giving it to him unsupervised for a review would be somewhat counterproductive.
MS's contention is that much of the utility of the Starter Edition is in the localized content and the comprehensiveness of the help system. Having a review by someone not proficient in the local language means that much of what MS considers significant would be missed.
I've heard tales of this "near 50%" rate several times, but never seen any documentation of it. Can you cite a reference? (not trying to flame, I genuinely want to know if it is real or an urban legend).
I can well believe that when you receive a bonus from a company, the income is treated like it is coming on top of your annual salary (which it is of course). In that case the tax rate paid on the bonus would be at a higher marginal rate than your ordinary paycheck. But so far as I know it still counts as ordinary income and standard rates apply.
Despair.com (http://www.despair.com/consulting.html) sums this up perfectly: "If you can't be part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem"
But how is this different from what corporations already do with help desks and managed PCs now? Internal networks are already fast enough to serve applications remotely, and things like SMS and other management tools let the IT staff run things remotely.
How many people who experience that at the office would willingly sign up for it at home? "What do you mean I can't install this copy of Python that I just downloaded?" "My kids Reader Rabbit software won't run. What do you mean it is not supported?"
I disagree with the premise that people would want this. But even if they did, think of the commercial hurdles. Will CompUSA and Best Buy sell such systems, knowing that they will destroy the market for software bought at retail? How will small programs break through the ISP's support staff to sell a few thousand copies of a program that an ISP doesn't want to take the time to deal with? Lot's of people in the software industry would be rooting for this to fail.
Read the settlement - the vouchers do not have to be used on MS products. So the next time you need a hard drive, a sound card, a printer, etc., you can use a voucher.
I can't speak to how things were in California, but the Minnesota settlement sounds much the same - you filed forms to claim rebate vouchers based on the number of licenses you had purchased in the eligible time period.
The claims forms were easy. As I recall, you didn't need any kind of proof of purchase if they total amount claimed was under $100 (maybe $150). I usually register software I purchase, so I received 4 or 5 claim forms in the mail. I filled one out and dropped it back in the mail, total effort something like 10 minutes. For that investment of time I think I was able to legitimately claim something like $93 in vouchers.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune had one or two articles about the vouchers, and pretty much everyone in the industry that I talked to got one or more vouchers in the mail. I suppose people who didn't register software, don't watch TV or read the paper would be unaware of it, but it was hardly secret.
Amen to that. I suspect that in a few years it won't be uncommon to name a beneficiary of your email repository - upon proof of your demise, the provider will grant access to the named beneficiary, or if there is no beneficiary, burn it and scatter the ashes widely.
Your post contradicts itself. If ISOs and NQSOs have no value until they are exercised, then you have no reason to be bothered if you stop receiving something that has no value.
But "...getting a break and making some real money..." certainly says that the options have value to you.
Which is it - do they have value or not?
Determining the value that should be assigned at time of issue is not simple, but it is disingenuous to claim that they have no value at the time of issue.
This seems like typical anti-MS paranoia to me. If Firefox is using documented APIs for its behavior, any change that MS made to break one of those APIs would be noticed by lots of other ISVs, and the breakage would extend far beyond Firefox. And if MS breaks something that a fortune 500 company relies on they are going to be under immense pressure to fix it.
If MS put code in that detected Firefox running and introduced breakage in only that case, they run the risk of a huge downside in publicity and potential legal remedies if they got caught.
I think MS reaction to Firefox is going to be to put a team back together to upgrade IE before the defection gets out of hand. Oh wait, they've already done that.
1.) First, you can't talk about how Microsoft despises C++. Microsoft is a corporation made up of tens of thousands of employees. Some of them may hate it, some love it, the majority probably don't care one way or the other.
2.) Prior to the introduction of the.Net languages, VC6 was their flagship developer product, and what they pointed you at for large scale development. VB had a distinct role, but I never got the feeling that VC6 was supposed to be replaced by it. (And I too have been using it since the days when it was the "Microsoft C Compiler, Version 4.0")
3.) Read some of the blogs written by MS employees (I don't have a link handy, but I can find one if challenged). IIRC, the story they tell is that MS expected C# to replace C++ since it was so obviously easier to use, so that they could let C++ wither away. Some of the people on the C++ team were agitating for renewed attention to be paid to C++. When VS.Net came out and the C++ side was shortchanged, people both in and out of MS howled. In VS 2005, they spent huge dollars upgrading the C++ end of the product.
4.) Because of pointers, destructors and explicit memory management, standard C++ is never going to be a good fit with the managed code world. While I have some reservations about some of the things they have done in VS 2005 to make C++ and managed code play nicely, they obviously thought about it very hard and put a huge amount of work into it. And it still builds unmanaged apps just fine. The evidence of some nefarious lock-in scheme seems rather lacking to me.
That sounds good in principal, but what if you are dealing with extremely large files? Video editing or photo editing can easily run files into the gigabyte range. If you suddenly need 2x the space to do a save some of the users are going to be unhappy about that as well.
I believe Joel Spolsky refers to this sort of thing as "leaky abstractions" - you can try to shield the user from the fact that there is a distinction between RAM and disk, but every now and then you can't prevent the distinctions from leaking through.
For trivial programs (an exe, a few DLLs, collateral files), an uninstaller is indeed trivial, and is usually created automatically by the installer provider (MSI/Installshield/Wise, etc.)
For larger apps or ones that have more complicated installs, an uninstaller takes some work, but nowhere near the scope required to write the program, or even to do the installer.
And it may be low on the priority list for most developers, but that is no excuse for writing a crappy product.
The FA didn't give any reason for why he thought the phish was targeted at him. Without an explanation, I'm sceptical that it was targeted in any way.
I get phishing mails all the time - most commonly aimed at Citibank or Paypal, neither of which I do business with.
I don't know why the phisher would bother to target them. Seems like more effort than it is worth.
How do you know that they didn't tell the LCD panel manufacturers to stop?
Think of the timelines involved when you have big companies, lawyers, and huge dollars. First someone ships a product. Someone at Honeywell realizes that it infringes. Email sent to legal. 3 or 4 weeks go by and the legal department sends a nastygram. Recipients sit on it for several weeks, then send a letter saying "we are reviewing your claims...". 6 months later the parties start trading letters about possible licensing fees. This drags on for months. Negotiation eventually break down, and Honeywell decides to sue. More weeks while the paperwork is done.
Finally the lawsuit is ready and the action is announced.
It would not surprise me at all to learn that this has been simmering for 2 or 3 years at this point - taking us back to when cheap LCD panels really took off.
Not true. To continue the vehicle manufacturer analogy, Ford motor company realizes their brakes may fail when the vehicle is operating +80mph. Engineers are working diligently to resolve the issue, but a fix will not be available for another week. Wouldn't you agree that a premium customer, who is notified of the issue would be at less risk than someone who believes their car to operate properly?
To continue the analogy, if Ford sent you a notice that said "Heads up, next week there will be a product safety recall affecting your vehicle", are you really at less risk?
Microsoft isn't telling them what the vulnerability is, just the severity rating and the product(s) affected. If you know a patch to Windows is coming, but don't know what the vulnerability is, how are you going to protect yourself?
Re:Why 100CDN denominations?
on
Make Money Fast
·
· Score: 1
Inside the US, the 20 is the most widely counterfeited note, since 50's and 100's are relatively rare and get some amount of scrutiny.
Outside the US the $100 is king, and counterfeiting usually attack it.
Note that the US has been redesigning bills lately. The old 100, 50, 20, 10 and 5 have all been replaced with harder to fake versions. The 20 (and soon the 50) are already on their second iteration ($20, version 3.0?), and while I haven't seen an announcement I presume the 100, 10 and 5 are coming as well.
So far however, the Treasury hasn't bothered to redo the $1 - apparently no significant pressure to do so. Probably also a desire on their part to replace it with a coin.
In the properties of a style you can set the notion of a following style. Usually this is used with Header styles, where it jumps back to the Normal style following a header.
Could that be the formatting issue you are seeing?
Slashdot Mirror
This actually changed between Win2K and WinXP. In 2000 the admin was always a data recovery agent, so it was not possible to secure data from the admin. It also meant that if the admin account was violated every other account was violated as well.
In XP they added the ability to have what they call an empty recovery policy, where there is no backup key.
I believe that setting the policy can only be done by the admin, so individual users don't have the ability to make that decision for themselves. But the option does exist. More info: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxI was teaching a class years ago that was also the first exposure to a mouse for many of the participants.
Several people were having real trouble with double clicking. It kept coming out as two clicks. When I went over to help them I realized they were actually bending their arm at the elbow to make a click, and hence completely blowing the double click time.
Using a mouse is learned behavior.
In general I agree that you can't write a real review from a demo, but there are extenuating circumstances here.
Given that the systems he was reviewing were localized to Thai and Hindi, giving it to him unsupervised for a review would be somewhat counterproductive.
MS's contention is that much of the utility of the Starter Edition is in the localized content and the comprehensiveness of the help system. Having a review by someone not proficient in the local language means that much of what MS considers significant would be missed.
I've heard tales of this "near 50%" rate several times, but never seen any documentation of it. Can you cite a reference? (not trying to flame, I genuinely want to know if it is real or an urban legend).
I can well believe that when you receive a bonus from a company, the income is treated like it is coming on top of your annual salary (which it is of course). In that case the tax rate paid on the bonus would be at a higher marginal rate than your ordinary paycheck. But so far as I know it still counts as ordinary income and standard rates apply.
Despair.com (http://www.despair.com/consulting.html) sums this up perfectly: "If you can't be part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem"
But how is this different from what corporations already do with help desks and managed PCs now? Internal networks are already fast enough to serve applications remotely, and things like SMS and other management tools let the IT staff run things remotely.
How many people who experience that at the office would willingly sign up for it at home? "What do you mean I can't install this copy of Python that I just downloaded?" "My kids Reader Rabbit software won't run. What do you mean it is not supported?"
I disagree with the premise that people would want this. But even if they did, think of the commercial hurdles. Will CompUSA and Best Buy sell such systems, knowing that they will destroy the market for software bought at retail? How will small programs break through the ISP's support staff to sell a few thousand copies of a program that an ISP doesn't want to take the time to deal with? Lot's of people in the software industry would be rooting for this to fail.
Read the settlement - the vouchers do not have to be used on MS products. So the next time you need a hard drive, a sound card, a printer, etc., you can use a voucher.
I can't speak to how things were in California, but the Minnesota settlement sounds much the same - you filed forms to claim rebate vouchers based on the number of licenses you had purchased in the eligible time period.
The claims forms were easy. As I recall, you didn't need any kind of proof of purchase if they total amount claimed was under $100 (maybe $150). I usually register software I purchase, so I received 4 or 5 claim forms in the mail. I filled one out and dropped it back in the mail, total effort something like 10 minutes. For that investment of time I think I was able to legitimately claim something like $93 in vouchers.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune had one or two articles about the vouchers, and pretty much everyone in the industry that I talked to got one or more vouchers in the mail. I suppose people who didn't register software, don't watch TV or read the paper would be unaware of it, but it was hardly secret.
Amen to that. I suspect that in a few years it won't be uncommon to name a beneficiary of your email repository - upon proof of your demise, the provider will grant access to the named beneficiary, or if there is no beneficiary, burn it and scatter the ashes widely.
Your post contradicts itself. If ISOs and NQSOs have no value until they are exercised, then you have no reason to be bothered if you stop receiving something that has no value.
But "...getting a break and making some real money..." certainly says that the options have value to you.
Which is it - do they have value or not?
Determining the value that should be assigned at time of issue is not simple, but it is disingenuous to claim that they have no value at the time of issue.
This seems like typical anti-MS paranoia to me. If Firefox is using documented APIs for its behavior, any change that MS made to break one of those APIs would be noticed by lots of other ISVs, and the breakage would extend far beyond Firefox. And if MS breaks something that a fortune 500 company relies on they are going to be under immense pressure to fix it.
If MS put code in that detected Firefox running and introduced breakage in only that case, they run the risk of a huge downside in publicity and potential legal remedies if they got caught.
I think MS reaction to Firefox is going to be to put a team back together to upgrade IE before the defection gets out of hand. Oh wait, they've already done that.
1.) First, you can't talk about how Microsoft despises C++. Microsoft is a corporation made up of tens of thousands of employees. Some of them may hate it, some love it, the majority probably don't care one way or the other.
.Net languages, VC6 was their flagship developer product, and what they pointed you at for large scale development. VB had a distinct role, but I never got the feeling that VC6 was supposed to be replaced by it. (And I too have been using it since the days when it was the "Microsoft C Compiler, Version 4.0")
2.) Prior to the introduction of the
3.) Read some of the blogs written by MS employees (I don't have a link handy, but I can find one if challenged). IIRC, the story they tell is that MS expected C# to replace C++ since it was so obviously easier to use, so that they could let C++ wither away. Some of the people on the C++ team were agitating for renewed attention to be paid to C++. When VS.Net came out and the C++ side was shortchanged, people both in and out of MS howled. In VS 2005, they spent huge dollars upgrading the C++ end of the product.
4.) Because of pointers, destructors and explicit memory management, standard C++ is never going to be a good fit with the managed code world. While I have some reservations about some of the things they have done in VS 2005 to make C++ and managed code play nicely, they obviously thought about it very hard and put a huge amount of work into it. And it still builds unmanaged apps just fine. The evidence of some nefarious lock-in scheme seems rather lacking to me.
That sounds good in principal, but what if you are dealing with extremely large files? Video editing or photo editing can easily run files into the gigabyte range. If you suddenly need 2x the space to do a save some of the users are going to be unhappy about that as well.
I believe Joel Spolsky refers to this sort of thing as "leaky abstractions" - you can try to shield the user from the fact that there is a distinction between RAM and disk, but every now and then you can't prevent the distinctions from leaking through.
For trivial programs (an exe, a few DLLs, collateral files), an uninstaller is indeed trivial, and is usually created automatically by the installer provider (MSI/Installshield/Wise, etc.)
For larger apps or ones that have more complicated installs, an uninstaller takes some work, but nowhere near the scope required to write the program, or even to do the installer.
And it may be low on the priority list for most developers, but that is no excuse for writing a crappy product.
The FA didn't give any reason for why he thought the phish was targeted at him. Without an explanation, I'm sceptical that it was targeted in any way. I get phishing mails all the time - most commonly aimed at Citibank or Paypal, neither of which I do business with. I don't know why the phisher would bother to target them. Seems like more effort than it is worth.
How do you know that they didn't tell the LCD panel manufacturers to stop? Think of the timelines involved when you have big companies, lawyers, and huge dollars. First someone ships a product. Someone at Honeywell realizes that it infringes. Email sent to legal. 3 or 4 weeks go by and the legal department sends a nastygram. Recipients sit on it for several weeks, then send a letter saying "we are reviewing your claims...". 6 months later the parties start trading letters about possible licensing fees. This drags on for months. Negotiation eventually break down, and Honeywell decides to sue. More weeks while the paperwork is done. Finally the lawsuit is ready and the action is announced. It would not surprise me at all to learn that this has been simmering for 2 or 3 years at this point - taking us back to when cheap LCD panels really took off.
To continue the analogy, if Ford sent you a notice that said "Heads up, next week there will be a product safety recall affecting your vehicle", are you really at less risk? Microsoft isn't telling them what the vulnerability is, just the severity rating and the product(s) affected. If you know a patch to Windows is coming, but don't know what the vulnerability is, how are you going to protect yourself?
Counterfeiters don't always pick huge demoninations.
Inside the US, the 20 is the most widely counterfeited note, since 50's and 100's are relatively rare and get some amount of scrutiny.
Outside the US the $100 is king, and counterfeiting usually attack it.
Note that the US has been redesigning bills lately. The old 100, 50, 20, 10 and 5 have all been replaced with harder to fake versions. The 20 (and soon the 50) are already on their second iteration ($20, version 3.0?), and while I haven't seen an announcement I presume the 100, 10 and 5 are coming as well.
So far however, the Treasury hasn't bothered to redo the $1 - apparently no significant pressure to do so. Probably also a desire on their part to replace it with a coin.
In the properties of a style you can set the notion of a following style. Usually this is used with Header styles, where it jumps back to the Normal style following a header.
Could that be the formatting issue you are seeing?