Maybe they just want to show that they don't need the UK to do computer things. After all, they still have the SAP country, the Ubisoft country, and the non-Asian cheap IT labor countries.
"Cyber security" is stretching things a bit, they're essentially some kind of GeekSquad and their "security" expertise is installing antivirus software.
The article title is misleading, I guess it creates more traffic than "small IT provider gets caught trying to hack the Google Drive of another small IT provider".
The fact that someone submits numbers to the court doesn't make it "hard numbers"; anyone who followed the Enron story can tell you that. And anyways those are numbers from 3 years before the reuters article - which shows data provided by the DHS, not by some disgruntled civil servant with a chip in his shoulder.
Bottom line, just like Obama spied more on American citizens than any other US president in history, he also deported more immigrants, and he managed to spent 800 billions more than Bush on the military (in addition to the 300 billions to kickstart Obamacare and the trillion more it will cost over the next decade).
I don't know if Trump could really make America great again, but just getting Obama out of the White House will probably help a lot.
Critics may declare President Obama soft on immigration, but as this Reuters graphic shows, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data the Department of Homeland Security deported 414,481 people in fiscal year 2014, down from 438,421 the year before. Each year of the Obama administration has seen more deportations than any preceding president; the pre-Obama high of 358,886 removals in FY2008 came during President George W. Bush’s last full fiscal year in office.
From what I see in the linked article, the scammers use a very low quality profile picture, very pixelated. Either they used an iPhone camera or they're from Japan.
That's how civilizations work. Layers upon layers of dead people who thought they knew better than the previous layer and never saw the next one coming.
Just a few modifications and that game would be perfect:
- remove the part that forces you to physically walk around - make it work on PC and consoles - replace pokemons with criminals and wild beasts - give the world a post-apocalyptic flavor - allow you to loot weapons and bottle caps from the corpses of your ennemies - give you companions that won't abandon you no matter how often you shoot at them with a quad missile launcher
For added fun the game could send you kill the same ennemies over and over and make you look at spinning things while it takes forever to let you enter or exit buildings.
Maybe I was wrong. I've worked with Office since the days it came on something like 25 floppy disks, up to the latest versions that come with the Office365 deal (the one with desktop licenses) and I've never seen that. I don't do tech support though, and thinking about it I kinda remember a time when Microsoft was blocking "unsafe" stuff right and left, so I guess I stand corrected.
This being said, I've also worked with StarOffice and most of its later incarnations (OpenOffice, LibreOffice), as well as WordPerfect since the MS-DOS days, and Amipro and all that, so whenever someone says those work better than MS-Office (other than the emergency scenario you describe) I can confidently call bullshit.
Anyways I still think the other guy was lying, he just got lucky that the things he made up do happen.
I have no idea what bar you're talking about but from the look of it, you based your logic on doubtful anecdotes like this:
I have old microsoft doc files that won't even open up in newer versions, yet show up pretty as you please in OO or AO.
which are clear signs that you're either lying or that you're having a bad case of cognitive dissonance.
If you had made the point that for you MS-Office is not worth the extra price tag compared to free alternatives, or that you refuse to use proprietary software, that would have been valid points. But instead you're saying that those free alternatives are better and that they even open Word documents that Word cannot open, so clearly you're a zealot or a buffoon.
There's plenty of cases where FOSS products are better than commercial alternatives, but word processing and spreadsheets are not one of them.
We're not talking about nuclear reactor plans here. This is just documents, we don't need pixel perfect. Yes if you open a MS-Word 97 document in BrokenOffice or LibreOffice it may get a little off here and there, but for the most part it will work.
The problem is that those alternatives suck compared to the original. Microsoft fails at creating high quality applications in general, but somehow for Word, Excel and PowerPoint they've hit the sweet spot. Just like the iPod; the competition never got it as good as the original. Anyone who says LibreOffice is a total piece of shit is wrong, but anyone who claims it offers a better user experience than Microsoft Office is a zealot or an idiot.
But see Microsoft also created Outlook (a true horror) and Apple created iTunes (total garbage), while open source projects created Krita and Netbeans and many oher applications that are better than most commercial alternatives. So you can never assume that something is better or worse because of who made it.
Maybe those dozens of "satisfied" people lie to you because you're clearly not in touch wih reality and now that you've dragged them down in your pit of bad software you're on radio silence for them. And while you're here, talking about inferior products, oblivious that the seed of discontent and misery shoveled down the throat of people is bound to grow into crops of hate, they're planning their revenge.
I used to work with someone like you, who convinced management of switchting to BrokenOffice to save money. People used to take turn shaking his dessert tupperware in the fridge, every single day. That's how happy we were all.
That isn't anti-competitive because Apple made the product specifically for its browser. If there were 20 different manufacturers making iPhones, it would be a different matter.
Yes, this is known as the "No Homers Club" rule; as long as there's only one of them it's okay.
Lately yes. If you go back 10 years ago they had a few slightly profitable years, but then if you go back in time at one point Microsoft was worth 620 billions so you have to put things in context.
Amazon has been sinking shittons of billions in automated warehouses and in brutal price wars against the competition in all segments. Just look at AWS vs Azure; Microsoft is basically printing money with their cloud segment while Amazon (which has a bigger market share) had just started to turn a profit, but AWS is a lot cheaper.
AWS is so cheap that I've actually moved all my "highly successful" blogs and other abandonned projects from Bluehost - which itself costs only $8/month after the initial discount. I pay about $3 for a nano CentOS instance on AWS, plus maybe $1.25 in bandwidth, and since it's sitting behind cloudfront it's fast as if it was a huge server. Same kind of thing on Azure can't be done under $15/month.
Dude/dudette, chillout with the big brother stuff.
I said they are more keen on respecting user privacy in *webmail* (not office or windows) and it was as opposed to google or yahoo.
We all know about the NSA/FBI/etc stuff. None of the mainstream providers has a good track record when it comes to law enforcement or government snooping. Google has even provided the court with emails that were deleted and unavailable to the legitimate account owner. They all suck.
My point is about privacy in your daily life, with people that don't have access to NSA supercomputers or stingrays or wiretaps.
Suppose that you have a jealous wife to which you frequently lie. Consider this:
-outlook.com won't show the original ip from which you sent a message, so you won't get busted if you sent it from Vegas while you're supposed to be on a business trip in Idaho
-outlook.com won't use the content of your emails to tailor the ads you see on all Microsoft properties; unlike gmail, which can put you in an awkward situation if you've been pursuing a project that your wife forbids (ex: moving to Spain, or going to gun shows). When ads linked to that hot topic show up in your google or youtube searches or others, and your wife is not clueless, she will figure out what you're up to
-outlook.com puts a big warning at the bottom of the screen when your account is configured to forward a copy of all your incoming mail to another address. That's tool #1 in the jealous wife arsenal.
-outlook.com is a lot more suspicious of connections from a new device/location, even if people guess your password.
So yeah, there's many aspects to privacy, and none of the above points apply to Office Outlook or other Microsoft products. If someone wants total privacy they need more serious stuff but this is just an outlook.com vs gmail thread.
Microsoft has always been more keen on respecting users privacy with webmail (they don't even show the origin ip in the header when you email someone) and outlook.com works well for casual emails, they make it easy to block/unsubscribe/search, and it's also easy to create email aliases so you don't share your real addresss with say, Papa johns or Amazon.
However for some reason when you start using Office365 (the paid one) you're forced to use this crime against computing called Outlook Web, and it's 100% horrible (performance, GUI, features, etc).
Meanwhile with Google you always get Gmail, free or paid, and while I'm not a fan of their icons UI or the lack of basic features such as a mailing list in the paid version, at least it's consistent.
I'm guessing they don't buy the store brand for their free soft drinks for employees because despite those "trillions of dollars" in subscriptions they made less than 250 millions in profit last year. That's more or less 2% of their revenue.
By comparison, here's an approx. profit/revenue for famous companies (recently): -Alibaba: 68% -Visa: 42% -Google: 31% -Apple: 25% -Bank of America: 21% -McDonalds: 19% -Microsoft: 17% -Facebook: 17% -Verizon: 14% -Berkshire Hathaway: 10% -Ford: 7% -Walmart: 3% -Amazon: 1% (first year they make a profit) -Exxon: 0.05% -Twitter: -13% -Tesla: -18% (they lose $15,000 on each car they sell) -Yahoo: -34%
Obviously some companies with lower percentages make more profits in dollar amount (ex: Apple vs Visa) but it's interesting to see those numbers.
I agree with that. Also they started having incomplete series that get new episodes every week; when it gets to that point they're no longer in their niche of "a bit dated but binge-ready" and outside that niche they can't compete with HBO or even Xbox video.
They do have great content, but for Sense8 I gave up after that scene where they zoom on a dirty dildo. I'm all for creative freedom and I appreciate that they depicted all kinds of lifestyles, but that scene was just a cheap attempt at creating some kind of buzz. I don't mind graphic scenes but I do mind feeling like my "queer sex tolerance threshold" is tested on purpose, I find that insulting and condescending.
Slashdot Mirror
Over in Russia, things aren't the same; they don't have a booming tech sector like we do
They have a booming tech sector: spam, botnets, credit card fraud, etc.
And it's a real industry. Not happy with the stolen credit card numbers you bought? Call customer service and you get a discount on your next order.
They make non-Russian organized crime look like drunk hooligans.
Maybe they just want to show that they don't need the UK to do computer things. After all, they still have the SAP country, the Ubisoft country, and the non-Asian cheap IT labor countries.
"Cyber security" is stretching things a bit, they're essentially some kind of GeekSquad and their "security" expertise is installing antivirus software.
The article title is misleading, I guess it creates more traffic than "small IT provider gets caught trying to hack the Google Drive of another small IT provider".
The fact that someone submits numbers to the court doesn't make it "hard numbers"; anyone who followed the Enron story can tell you that. And anyways those are numbers from 3 years before the reuters article - which shows data provided by the DHS, not by some disgruntled civil servant with a chip in his shoulder.
Bottom line, just like Obama spied more on American citizens than any other US president in history, he also deported more immigrants, and he managed to spent 800 billions more than Bush on the military (in addition to the 300 billions to kickstart Obamacare and the trillion more it will cost over the next decade).
I don't know if Trump could really make America great again, but just getting Obama out of the White House will probably help a lot.
Dude you're quoting out of context from a 2013 article.
If words are too confusing for you look, at the picture on thie DHS chart (posted in reuters last year):
http://blogs.reuters.com/data-...
Critics may declare President Obama soft on immigration, but as this Reuters graphic shows, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data the Department of Homeland Security deported 414,481 people in fiscal year 2014, down from 438,421 the year before. Each year of the Obama administration has seen more deportations than any preceding president; the pre-Obama high of 358,886 removals in FY2008 came during President George W. Bush’s last full fiscal year in office.
"Put all your eggs in one basket, and then WATCH that basket."
- Mark Twain
His administration also deports a lot more Illegal mexican immigrants than the two previous administrations combined.
Yes we can.. make America great again?
From what I see in the linked article, the scammers use a very low quality profile picture, very pixelated. Either they used an iPhone camera or they're from Japan.
That's how civilizations work. Layers upon layers of dead people who thought they knew better than the previous layer and never saw the next one coming.
Just a few modifications and that game would be perfect:
- remove the part that forces you to physically walk around
- make it work on PC and consoles
- replace pokemons with criminals and wild beasts
- give the world a post-apocalyptic flavor
- allow you to loot weapons and bottle caps from the corpses of your ennemies
- give you companions that won't abandon you no matter how often you shoot at them with a quad missile launcher
For added fun the game could send you kill the same ennemies over and over and make you look at spinning things while it takes forever to let you enter or exit buildings.
Now THAT would be a terrific game.
Maybe I was wrong. I've worked with Office since the days it came on something like 25 floppy disks, up to the latest versions that come with the Office365 deal (the one with desktop licenses) and I've never seen that. I don't do tech support though, and thinking about it I kinda remember a time when Microsoft was blocking "unsafe" stuff right and left, so I guess I stand corrected.
This being said, I've also worked with StarOffice and most of its later incarnations (OpenOffice, LibreOffice), as well as WordPerfect since the MS-DOS days, and Amipro and all that, so whenever someone says those work better than MS-Office (other than the emergency scenario you describe) I can confidently call bullshit.
Anyways I still think the other guy was lying, he just got lucky that the things he made up do happen.
Well stop making shit up about being able to open Word documents in LibreOffice but not in Word and people may take you more seriously.
I suspect that lucm might be like the guy that complains about how there aren't any drivers for Linux, which is another 1998 problem.
I don't know where that comes from but you're wrong again. I use mostly Fedora at home and it's been a long time since I've had driver issues.
Hell, you talk purdier than I do!
This is correct, even when you're not dumbing down your language on purpose.
So Sparky, what's your solution to the need for cross platform compatibility in office functions?
Is calling me "Sparky" some kind of insult? That's so cute! Care to share where you're from? Somewhere in the third world I guess?
I have no idea what bar you're talking about but from the look of it, you based your logic on doubtful anecdotes like this:
I have old microsoft doc files that won't even open up in newer versions, yet show up pretty as you please in OO or AO.
which are clear signs that you're either lying or that you're having a bad case of cognitive dissonance.
If you had made the point that for you MS-Office is not worth the extra price tag compared to free alternatives, or that you refuse to use proprietary software, that would have been valid points. But instead you're saying that those free alternatives are better and that they even open Word documents that Word cannot open, so clearly you're a zealot or a buffoon.
There's plenty of cases where FOSS products are better than commercial alternatives, but word processing and spreadsheets are not one of them.
We're not talking about nuclear reactor plans here. This is just documents, we don't need pixel perfect. Yes if you open a MS-Word 97 document in BrokenOffice or LibreOffice it may get a little off here and there, but for the most part it will work.
The problem is that those alternatives suck compared to the original. Microsoft fails at creating high quality applications in general, but somehow for Word, Excel and PowerPoint they've hit the sweet spot. Just like the iPod; the competition never got it as good as the original. Anyone who says LibreOffice is a total piece of shit is wrong, but anyone who claims it offers a better user experience than Microsoft Office is a zealot or an idiot.
But see Microsoft also created Outlook (a true horror) and Apple created iTunes (total garbage), while open source projects created Krita and Netbeans and many oher applications that are better than most commercial alternatives. So you can never assume that something is better or worse because of who made it.
Maybe those dozens of "satisfied" people lie to you because you're clearly not in touch wih reality and now that you've dragged them down in your pit of bad software you're on radio silence for them. And while you're here, talking about inferior products, oblivious that the seed of discontent and misery shoveled down the throat of people is bound to grow into crops of hate, they're planning their revenge.
I used to work with someone like you, who convinced management of switchting to BrokenOffice to save money. People used to take turn shaking his dessert tupperware in the fridge, every single day. That's how happy we were all.
If he restated what you just said, why do you have to restate his restatement?
Someone's got to break the cycle.
That isn't anti-competitive because Apple made the product specifically for its browser. If there were 20 different manufacturers making iPhones, it would be a different matter.
Yes, this is known as the "No Homers Club" rule; as long as there's only one of them it's okay.
Lately yes. If you go back 10 years ago they had a few slightly profitable years, but then if you go back in time at one point Microsoft was worth 620 billions so you have to put things in context.
It's not out of incompetence, though, it's how Jeff Bezos does business. See:
http://www.cnet.com/news/amazo...
Amazon has been sinking shittons of billions in automated warehouses and in brutal price wars against the competition in all segments. Just look at AWS vs Azure; Microsoft is basically printing money with their cloud segment while Amazon (which has a bigger market share) had just started to turn a profit, but AWS is a lot cheaper.
AWS is so cheap that I've actually moved all my "highly successful" blogs and other abandonned projects from Bluehost - which itself costs only $8/month after the initial discount. I pay about $3 for a nano CentOS instance on AWS, plus maybe $1.25 in bandwidth, and since it's sitting behind cloudfront it's fast as if it was a huge server. Same kind of thing on Azure can't be done under $15/month.
Dude/dudette, chillout with the big brother stuff.
I said they are more keen on respecting user privacy in *webmail* (not office or windows) and it was as opposed to google or yahoo.
We all know about the NSA/FBI/etc stuff. None of the mainstream providers has a good track record when it comes to law enforcement or government snooping. Google has even provided the court with emails that were deleted and unavailable to the legitimate account owner. They all suck.
My point is about privacy in your daily life, with people that don't have access to NSA supercomputers or stingrays or wiretaps.
Suppose that you have a jealous wife to which you frequently lie. Consider this:
-outlook.com won't show the original ip from which you sent a message, so you won't get busted if you sent it from Vegas while you're supposed to be on a business trip in Idaho
-outlook.com won't use the content of your emails to tailor the ads you see on all Microsoft properties; unlike gmail, which can put you in an awkward situation if you've been pursuing a project that your wife forbids (ex: moving to Spain, or going to gun shows). When ads linked to that hot topic show up in your google or youtube searches or others, and your wife is not clueless, she will figure out what you're up to
-outlook.com puts a big warning at the bottom of the screen when your account is configured to forward a copy of all your incoming mail to another address. That's tool #1 in the jealous wife arsenal.
-outlook.com is a lot more suspicious of connections from a new device/location, even if people guess your password.
So yeah, there's many aspects to privacy, and none of the above points apply to Office Outlook or other Microsoft products. If someone wants total privacy they need more serious stuff but this is just an outlook.com vs gmail thread.
Microsoft has always been more keen on respecting users privacy with webmail (they don't even show the origin ip in the header when you email someone) and outlook.com works well for casual emails, they make it easy to block/unsubscribe/search, and it's also easy to create email aliases so you don't share your real addresss with say, Papa johns or Amazon.
However for some reason when you start using Office365 (the paid one) you're forced to use this crime against computing called Outlook Web, and it's 100% horrible (performance, GUI, features, etc).
Meanwhile with Google you always get Gmail, free or paid, and while I'm not a fan of their icons UI or the lack of basic features such as a mailing list in the paid version, at least it's consistent.
I'm guessing they don't buy the store brand for their free soft drinks for employees because despite those "trillions of dollars" in subscriptions they made less than 250 millions in profit last year. That's more or less 2% of their revenue.
By comparison, here's an approx. profit/revenue for famous companies (recently):
-Alibaba: 68%
-Visa: 42%
-Google: 31%
-Apple: 25%
-Bank of America: 21%
-McDonalds: 19%
-Microsoft: 17%
-Facebook: 17%
-Verizon: 14%
-Berkshire Hathaway: 10%
-Ford: 7%
-Walmart: 3%
-Amazon: 1% (first year they make a profit)
-Exxon: 0.05%
-Twitter: -13%
-Tesla: -18% (they lose $15,000 on each car they sell)
-Yahoo: -34%
Obviously some companies with lower percentages make more profits in dollar amount (ex: Apple vs Visa) but it's interesting to see those numbers.
I agree with that. Also they started having incomplete series that get new episodes every week; when it gets to that point they're no longer in their niche of "a bit dated but binge-ready" and outside that niche they can't compete with HBO or even Xbox video.
They do have great content, but for Sense8 I gave up after that scene where they zoom on a dirty dildo. I'm all for creative freedom and I appreciate that they depicted all kinds of lifestyles, but that scene was just a cheap attempt at creating some kind of buzz. I don't mind graphic scenes but I do mind feeling like my "queer sex tolerance threshold" is tested on purpose, I find that insulting and condescending.