If she's competent with Linux, you can be pretty sure she won't need a manual to use Windows...
Besides, both Windows and Linux include help files -- a virtual, if not a printed 'manual'. Also, I've never used it, but some posters above have said that context-sensitive help in Vista is greatly improved on that in XP.
Well, one thing's for sure, Vista itself is premature, or it was released prematurely. How d'you figure that when it was in beta for over one and a half years? That's three seperate complete releases of Ubuntu in the time Vista's been in beta/RC!
Re the SP1 thing, IIRC from what I've read that's a combination of bringing Vista up to date with the by-then-released Longhorn Server and pacifying the "Don't upgrade till SP1!" crowd; but I could be wrong.
Meanwhile, Vista requires pretty stiff hardware upgrades, and even most systems IN STORES NOW are underpowered with regards to what Vista requires. Consumers don't run bleeding edge hardware. What are you talking about? I haven't updated my machine in 3 years, in it runs Vista fine. The *recommended* (not minimum) CPU requirement is 1GHz -- AMD first released a 1GHz processor seven years ago. Even Aero Glass only requires a DirectX 9 capable graphics card -- DirectX 9 was released in 2002 -- and these days, even Intel's crappy integrated graphics chips can run it.
This is nothing to do with public perception on Wikipedia. As other commenters have noted, it is bad practice to cite ANY encyclopaedia in a scholarly paper. In the days before Wikipedia existed, the same teachers would have been perfectly correct to downgrade the students for citing Britannica. An encyclopaedia is not an original source (citing Wikipedia/Britannica is the scholarly equivalent of linking to a blog that itself links to the article you're talking about).
Wikipedia is an excellent resource for researching, but instead of citing it as a reference you should cite the original source that Wikipedia cites. It's not as if this is difficult; scientific articles especially are usually very well referenced.
Having said that, I wouldn't have thought it was necessary to have to cite anything at all to justify "Plants need CO2"; it's not exactly a controversial statement. But I would imagine the teacher just wants to instill good referencing habits early on, which is no bad thing.
From the Wikipedia description:
This is a list of portable applications, software programs that either:
- do not require any kind of installation onto a computer
- if there's an installation procedure, the resulting directory can be copied into a portable device and run without dependencies.
This makes it ideal to be stored on removable storage such as a USB flash drive and used on multiple computers.
Many applications become portable very easily without special packaging. Most simple applications can be made portable by simply copying the Program File folder for that application to an USB stick. Attempt to run the application on another PC to confirm it will work as a portable app.
Doesn't Vista ask for the admin password before running an application in that level? Or does it drop into that level of access without asking first? It depends, and no, respectively.
If you're running as a standard user, Vista will prompt you for the Administrator password before doing anything you don't have permissions for or that could damage the system. If you're running as an Administrator, Vista will still prompt you for anything that could damage the system, but since you're already logged in as Administrator the prompt is just 'cancel/allow'.
While I'm at it, why does a printer (or other non-intrusive peripheral) driver have to have unfettered access to the life blood of the OS? Can I query this? I've just double-checked and VIsta definitely doesn't allow kernel-mode printer drivers (by default), so what do you mean by "life-blood" if not the kernel?
Re:Clippy's hints were often unrelated to the task
on
The Death of Clippy
·
· Score: 1
...and this prompts me to reprise an older comment on why Clippy is/was so sinister: Clippy is Microsofts way of saying that because you are so stupid, here is someone obviously smarter than you to give you advice. Try going to an online IQ test, then feed the questions into clippy. He will probably respond "It looks as if you're trying to make a list, do you want some help with that?" Personally, I'd actually find it more sinister if Clippy did *well* on the IQ test...
A while ago (at the time of WordPerfect 5.1) the makers of WordPerfect addressed this by coming out with a simpler version of their word processor called "LetterPerfect."... much less expensive that a full copy of WordPerfect... all of the features that I needed at home... this is something that is needed with MS Office What you're suggesting already exists in the delightfully oxymoronic Microsoft Works
Technically, Frontpage isn't part of the Office suite any more. It's been officially discontinued. The non-sucky bits of it (Non-sucky bits of Frontpage... The toolbar icon designs, maybe?) have been integrated into Microsoft Expression Web and Microsoft Sharepoint Designer.
You need some lessons on logic yourself. To quote from your post: "To demonstrate that I was misleading you need to show that Vista doesn't have exploits. Good luck." You're right, the argument from ignorance doesn't fit exactly: your statement actually has two seperate logical flaws. To enumerate:
You equated the assertion "You were being misleading" with "Vista doesn't have flaws", implying that by asserting the former I was also claiming the latter. The two statements are in no way equivalent, and the former in no way implies the latter.
That given, your statement simplifies to: You cannot prove {not A}, therefore {A}. This argument is certainly commonly used (for instance, by religious fundamentalists: "You can't prove God doesn't exist; therefore God exists", but that doesn't make it any less flawed.
When I wrote that post, I did two quick searches "Vista exploit" and "Vista patch" if I remember correctly. Then I posted links to a first page result from both searches. It's a slashdot post, not a thesis, not a research paper, not professional journalism. You're right. Since this is not professional journalism, mistakes and misleading statements are probably inevitable; hence why comments and corrections are prolofic, informative, and useful. Which is why I replied to your post in the first place.
Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant with Sophos, calls it a patch for Vista. The unnamed Microsoft spokesman call it a patch for Vista. You think I'm misleading to call it a patch for Vista. Go figure. I think you need a reality check. If two (presumably) professional journalists can report it as a Vista patch and not be called to account, if the Microsoft spokesman called it a Vista patch and hasn't issued a retraction, then I can call it a Vista patch in a slashdot post without accepting your assertion that I was misleading. The entire point is the timing. The spokesperson, tech consultant etc. called it a patch for Vista alsmot a year ago, when 'Vista' was an early beta. They weren't "called to account" back then because, back then, they were correct. Now, however, 'Vista' is a released OS, and the assumption is that people referring to Vista are referring to this.
Let me try to use a car analogy to make it clearer. If I were to post a statement to the effect that you shouldn't buy a Ford Focus because they have a habit of bursting into flames, and quoted a spokesman as saying that "Last month, it was revealed that all Focuses have a habit of bursting into flames" -- and then, if you happened to read the article, you discovered that it was from over a year before the Focus started being manufactured and referred to not-for-production "concept" cars produced by Ford, and the exploding vulnerability was not present in and unrelated to any Ford Focus you could actually buy; would you not accuse me of being misleading?
As with this, the Ford spokesperson and the journalist would have been perfectly accurate when they wrote the story, because at the time, the Focus *was* only a concept, and was not in production. Doesn't mean I would not be misleading by selectively quoting them today.
Since Vista (then Longhorn) was supposed to be RTM in 2005 http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/longhorn_prev iew_2003.asp then a December 2005 patch is relevant to the topic. Oh, come on. Are you serious? You can't argue based on the assumption that a possible alternative history that didn't happen, did happen.
The WMF vulnerability was published and widely known. If someone didn't realize that, they could see the date at the top of the page. You're an idiot if you think that's misleading. You're right, the page isn't misleading. it is your summary of the page, not the page itself, that was misleading; since it implied that it was a vulnerability in the final product (albeit a patched one): the only reference to time in your summary was the a mention of timing of the Microsoft spokespersons explanation as "earlier this month"; misleading, since the "earlier this month" was from the point of view of the article -- i.e. over a year ago.
Seeing the date at the top of an article is hardly having to carefully scrutinise it Summarising in a way that is misleading unless you follow the link and read the article anyway (even if the clarifying information is at the top of the page) rather takes the point away from summarising at all.
There are current bugs being sold apparently. Yes. As I said several posts ago, I have no issue with that example. It was only the other one I took exception to.
If you think that one of the bugs I pointed out being for the beta product negates the fact that Vista vulnerabilities are (apparently) being sold for tens of thousands of dollars, then you need your head examined. Where have I said anything even remotely resembling that the flaw in one of your examples somehow negates the other? As I said, it was only one of your examples that I took exception to; I have no issues with the other one.
If one of the examples I gave doesn't qualify as a Vista bug in your mind in no way negates or changes that there are exploits for Vista Correct.
...nor does it justify your accusation against me. If one of your examples was misleading, that doesn't justify an accusation that one of your examples was misleading?...Right.
If I had linked to the service pack instead of the WMF exploit, it would have in no way changed my point, and it would have been current, you're critisism would have been invalid. Was my conclusion that Vista has exploits accurate? Yes, therefore, by definition I was not misleading. You cannot mislead someone to an accurate conclusion. To the first point: Correct! My criticism would have been invalid. I was not criticising your conclusion, I was criticising one of the examples you used to support it, which was misleading. Just because your conclusion is accurate, that does not mean that you were not being misleading in the examples you cited to support it. Example: Just because Fermat's Last Theorem is true does not make Miyaoka's proof any less flawed. You can certainly mislead someone to an accurate conclusion.
To demonstrate that I was misleading you need to show that Vista doesn't have exploits. Good luck. Quite apart from the fact that I was never claiming that Vista doesn't have exploits -- e.g. I had no problem with your first example -- If you seriously believe that in order to show you were being misleading I would need to show that Vista doesn't have exploits, you need some serious lessons in logic. Start with this.
You're killing me... what you're implying is that because Vista is now out of beta it is also bug-free. When has that every been true about any product, let alone a Microsoft one? What are you on about? Of course Vista is not bug-free, nor have I said anything even remotely implying such a thing.
One of the examples rohan972 used to support his argument was flawed, which is what I was pointing out; but that does not say anything, positive or negative, about the conclusion. Have a look at Wikipedia on Argumentum ad Logicam: Just because an argument is fallacious, does not mean its conclusion is false (or true).
Because I stated in my original that it's a patched vulerabilitiy. Patched is not current. Got that? Patched is not current, and I clearly stated it was patched. If you don't get that because it's in bold, perhaps I should type it slowly for you. OK, you appear to have been missing the point. The difference is not between something that has been patched and something that has not, it is between a bug in an unreleased, beta version of a product and one in the final release. Obviously a beta product is going to have bugs, some of which will be security related. That's why it's still in beta. If it didn't have any, it wouldn't need to be a beta. This should not be news.
I did not specify a release, just Vista Yes. I know. That, in fact, WAS MY POINT. By not specifying a release, the implication is that you are talking about the final code. If this is not obvious to you, please think about it for a second: how could any rational discussion of security take place if everyone cited flaws in non-released beta, alpha, and pre-alpha products without making it clear that they were doing so? You could point to hundreds of security problems in Vista pre-alphas before any of the security features were implemented or even written; doesn't mean you'd have a valid argument against the final release code.
...One of them is not current. This was perfectly clear to anyone who read my post. I've just reread your point, and no, it isn't perfectly clear; rather the opposite. Here is the paragraph, copied directly from your post: "Microsoft Ships First Vista Security Patches [eweek.com]: A Microsoft spokesperson told eWEEK that the Vista patches address the same vulnerability that led to the WMF (Windows Metafile) malware attacks earlier this month." The only reference to time in there was the timing of the Microsoft spokespersons explanation; "earlier this month". This is deliberately misleading on your part, since the "earlier this month" was from the point of view of the article -- i.e. over a year ago. There was no indication that the vulnerable version was an early beta.
And no, the fact that "both the linked articles have dates on them" is no excuse; if you are linking to and summarising an article, I do not expect that I should have to carefully scritinise the article to check that you are not being misleading in your summary. Having to do so rather takes the point away from summarising it, no?
I didn't realise there were any morons reading my post that wouldn't realise that patched=not current. Patched is not a synonym for not current. Something can be patched but still current --for example, if it was applicable to the latest (release) code, only discovered last week, and patched yesterday.
If I was trying to mislead someone, I wouldn't give them a link to accurate information. The article was perfectly accurate. Your summary of it was not. See above.
In addition to that, my point has not been changed or refuted in the least part by the fact that one of the exploits was not current. The only claim I made was that there were Vista exploits, one of which had been already patched. The links I gave were entirely consistent with what I wrote and the point I made. See first and second paragraphs.
Someone happens to release a novel on the same day and it's a personal insult to those that died two years ago? Are you deliberately misquoting? The OP asked why the publishers didn't choose to release on 7/7/07; I answered why. Could you please point to where I said anything even remotely similar to "release a novel on the same day and it's a personal insult to those that died two years ago"?
Besides, even from Bloomsbury/Scholarest's point of view, the main point isn't that it isn't a good day to release a novel in general -- considering how many novels are released every day, probably quite a few will be released on 7/7/07 -- but releasing a book that has terrorism and murder as key themes on a date specifically designed to draw attention to itself and the 7s in the date in order to attract publicity? Not good PR.
Microsoft says it's a security update for Vista, you say it's not Both Microsoft and I are in complete agreement that it is a security update to the Vista December 2005 CTP and Beta 1.
I didn't claim it was current The text you used to link to it -- "Microsoft Ships First Vista Security Patches" -- implied it was current. Your posts since make it clear that you indeed realise that it only applied to beta versions from over a year ago, which means by posting it in the way you did (implying that it was a security flaw with the release version of Vista) you were being deliberately misleading. Which was why I called you up on it.
I still do not see what is so hard to understand about this.
So now I understand, you think I was misleading. Well, since I acknowledged in my original post that it was already patched, and the download page at Microsoft is titled "Security Update for Windows Vista December CTP (KB912919)" I hardly think I was misleading about it. If Microsoft says it's a security update for Vista, I believe them. It wasn't a security update for the release version of Vista; it was a security update for Beta 1 and the December 2005 CTP (Community Technology Preview). Not 2006, 2005.
If presenting a bug from an early beta version of an OS (from over a year before it was released) as a security exploit in the release version of Vista isn't misleading, I don't know what is.
Of the two examples in your post, one was accurate and illustrative, the other was highly misleading. I had no issue with the former one; the only example I took exception to was the one I indicated. I do not see what is so hard to understand about this.
Hmmm. You seem to be right; my post was based on a google of 'eml', but now I come to think of it, Thunderbird uses.eml as its extension too, and I'm pretty certain it doesn't use the same format as OE. Ah well; point conceded. (Doesn't change the point that since OE could save to eml for some time, they're hardly 'copying Apple' by doing so, as the GP alleged).
You're right! Microsoft shouldn't be moving to more compatible, open standards; that would be stealing! And would you believe some people thin that Office should adopt the ODF format? I can't believe they'd advocate stealing from OpenOffice like that! Despicable!
(PS: OE has had the capability to save to eml since the first version; the only thing that's changed is that that's now its default behavior.)
(PPS: The ironic thing is that Apple's emlx format *doesn't* follow RFC822, wheras OE's eml does.)
Slashdot Mirror
If she's competent with Linux, you can be pretty sure she won't need a manual to use Windows...
Besides, both Windows and Linux include help files -- a virtual, if not a printed 'manual'. Also, I've never used it, but some posters above have said that context-sensitive help in Vista is greatly improved on that in XP.
Re the SP1 thing, IIRC from what I've read that's a combination of bringing Vista up to date with the by-then-released Longhorn Server and pacifying the "Don't upgrade till SP1!" crowd; but I could be wrong.
This is nothing to do with public perception on Wikipedia. As other commenters have noted, it is bad practice to cite ANY encyclopaedia in a scholarly paper. In the days before Wikipedia existed, the same teachers would have been perfectly correct to downgrade the students for citing Britannica. An encyclopaedia is not an original source (citing Wikipedia/Britannica is the scholarly equivalent of linking to a blog that itself links to the article you're talking about).
Wikipedia is an excellent resource for researching, but instead of citing it as a reference you should cite the original source that Wikipedia cites. It's not as if this is difficult; scientific articles especially are usually very well referenced.
Having said that, I wouldn't have thought it was necessary to have to cite anything at all to justify "Plants need CO2"; it's not exactly a controversial statement. But I would imagine the teacher just wants to instill good referencing habits early on, which is no bad thing.
From the Wikipedia description: This is a list of portable applications, software programs that either:
- do not require any kind of installation onto a computer
- if there's an installation procedure, the resulting directory can be copied into a portable device and run without dependencies.
This makes it ideal to be stored on removable storage such as a USB flash drive and used on multiple computers.
Many applications become portable very easily without special packaging. Most simple applications can be made portable by simply copying the Program File folder for that application to an USB stick. Attempt to run the application on another PC to confirm it will work as a portable app.
If you're running as a standard user, Vista will prompt you for the Administrator password before doing anything you don't have permissions for or that could damage the system. If you're running as an Administrator, Vista will still prompt you for anything that could damage the system, but since you're already logged in as Administrator the prompt is just 'cancel/allow'.
...and this prompts me to reprise an older comment on why Clippy is/was so sinister: Clippy is Microsofts way of saying that because you are so stupid, here is someone obviously smarter than you to give you advice. Try going to an online IQ test, then feed the questions into clippy. He will probably respond "It looks as if you're trying to make a list, do you want some help with that?" Personally, I'd actually find it more sinister if Clippy did *well* on the IQ test...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_word_process
Technically, Frontpage isn't part of the Office suite any more. It's been officially discontinued. The non-sucky bits of it (Non-sucky bits of Frontpage... The toolbar icon designs, maybe?) have been integrated into Microsoft Expression Web and Microsoft Sharepoint Designer.
-
You equated the assertion "You were being misleading" with "Vista doesn't have flaws", implying that by asserting the former I was also claiming the latter. The two statements are in no way equivalent, and the former in no way implies the latter.
-
That given, your statement simplifies to: You cannot prove {not A}, therefore {A}. This argument is certainly commonly used (for instance, by religious fundamentalists: "You can't prove God doesn't exist; therefore God exists", but that doesn't make it any less flawed.
When I wrote that post, I did two quick searches "Vista exploit" and "Vista patch" if I remember correctly. Then I posted links to a first page result from both searches. It's a slashdot post, not a thesis, not a research paper, not professional journalism. You're right. Since this is not professional journalism, mistakes and misleading statements are probably inevitable; hence why comments and corrections are prolofic, informative, and useful. Which is why I replied to your post in the first place. Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant with Sophos, calls it a patch for Vista. The unnamed Microsoft spokesman call it a patch for Vista. You think I'm misleading to call it a patch for Vista. Go figure. I think you need a reality check. If two (presumably) professional journalists can report it as a Vista patch and not be called to account, if the Microsoft spokesman called it a Vista patch and hasn't issued a retraction, then I can call it a Vista patch in a slashdot post without accepting your assertion that I was misleading. The entire point is the timing. The spokesperson, tech consultant etc. called it a patch for Vista alsmot a year ago, when 'Vista' was an early beta. They weren't "called to account" back then because, back then, they were correct. Now, however, 'Vista' is a released OS, and the assumption is that people referring to Vista are referring to this.Let me try to use a car analogy to make it clearer. If I were to post a statement to the effect that you shouldn't buy a Ford Focus because they have a habit of bursting into flames, and quoted a spokesman as saying that "Last month, it was revealed that all Focuses have a habit of bursting into flames" -- and then, if you happened to read the article, you discovered that it was from over a year before the Focus started being manufactured and referred to not-for-production "concept" cars produced by Ford, and the exploding vulnerability was not present in and unrelated to any Ford Focus you could actually buy; would you not accuse me of being misleading?
As with this, the Ford spokesperson and the journalist would have been perfectly accurate when they wrote the story, because at the time, the Focus *was* only a concept, and was not in production. Doesn't mean I would not be misleading by selectively quoting them today. Since Vista (then Longhorn) was supposed to be RTM in 2005 http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/longhorn_pre
...nor does it justify your accusation against me. If one of your examples was misleading, that doesn't justify an accusation that one of your examples was misleading?What are you on about? Of course Vista is not bug-free, nor have I said anything even remotely implying such a thing.
One of the examples rohan972 used to support his argument was flawed, which is what I was pointing out; but that does not say anything, positive or negative, about the conclusion. Have a look at Wikipedia on Argumentum ad Logicam: Just because an argument is fallacious, does not mean its conclusion is false (or true).
...One of them is not current. This was perfectly clear to anyone who read my post. I've just reread your point, and no, it isn't perfectly clear; rather the opposite. Here is the paragraph, copied directly from your post: "Microsoft Ships First Vista Security Patches [eweek.com]: A Microsoft spokesperson told eWEEK that the Vista patches address the same vulnerability that led to the WMF (Windows Metafile) malware attacks earlier this month." The only reference to time in there was the timing of the Microsoft spokespersons explanation; "earlier this month". This is deliberately misleading on your part, since the "earlier this month" was from the point of view of the article -- i.e. over a year ago. There was no indication that the vulnerable version was an early beta.And no, the fact that "both the linked articles have dates on them" is no excuse; if you are linking to and summarising an article, I do not expect that I should have to carefully scritinise the article to check that you are not being misleading in your summary. Having to do so rather takes the point away from summarising it, no?
I didn't realise there were any morons reading my post that wouldn't realise that patched=not current. Patched is not a synonym for not current. Something can be patched but still current --for example, if it was applicable to the latest (release) code, only discovered last week, and patched yesterday. If I was trying to mislead someone, I wouldn't give them a link to accurate information. The article was perfectly accurate. Your summary of it was not. See above. In addition to that, my point has not been changed or refuted in the least part by the fact that one of the exploits was not current. The only claim I made was that there were Vista exploits, one of which had been already patched. The links I gave were entirely consistent with what I wrote and the point I made. See first and second paragraphs.
Besides, even from Bloomsbury/Scholarest's point of view, the main point isn't that it isn't a good day to release a novel in general -- considering how many novels are released every day, probably quite a few will be released on 7/7/07 -- but releasing a book that has terrorism and murder as key themes on a date specifically designed to draw attention to itself and the 7s in the date in order to attract publicity? Not good PR.
I still do not see what is so hard to understand about this.
If presenting a bug from an early beta version of an OS (from over a year before it was released) as a security exploit in the release version of Vista isn't misleading, I don't know what is.
Of the two examples in your post, one was accurate and illustrative, the other was highly misleading. I had no issue with the former one; the only example I took exception to was the one I indicated. I do not see what is so hard to understand about this.
Hmmm. You seem to be right; my post was based on a google of 'eml', but now I come to think of it, Thunderbird uses .eml as its extension too, and I'm pretty certain it doesn't use the same format as OE. Ah well; point conceded. (Doesn't change the point that since OE could save to eml for some time, they're hardly 'copying Apple' by doing so, as the GP alleged).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windo ws_Vista
(Sorry; I realise your post was tongue-in-cheek, but then you got an insightful mod, so I shouldn't really let it rest.)
To be fair, the latter patch was for Beta 1; the exploit isn't present in the RTM.
You're right! Microsoft shouldn't be moving to more compatible, open standards; that would be stealing! And would you believe some people thin that Office should adopt the ODF format? I can't believe they'd advocate stealing from OpenOffice like that! Despicable!
(PS: OE has had the capability to save to eml since the first version; the only thing that's changed is that that's now its default behavior.)
(PPS: The ironic thing is that Apple's emlx format *doesn't* follow RFC822, wheras OE's eml does.)