On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:21:52 +0000, Jeff P. wrote:
You'd think so. I recently got a book from the library about all sorts of
fasteners. Couldn't stand to read it because the prose was so choppy. The
fellow knew his stuff, though. (Still does. He's a regular here.) The
lesson is to get a good editor.
"Keep your ass behind you"
vladimir a t mad scientist com
I am very suspicious. I am in the process of starting up a small
woodworking business. I figure I can learn from anyone (even if I have to
disregard 95% or what I am told). So when I went to download, Explorer
started acting real goofy and I never downloaded anything (that I know of).
So I am off to update Norton definitions and run a system scan.
Through the golden door our children can walk into tomorrow with the
knowledge that no one can be denied the promise that is America.
~Ronald W. Reagan
The beware *IS*JUSTIFIED*. on several counts.
First, the "free" (a $29.95 value) report is just a come-on for a $497
"one year subscription" that supposedly has a "value" in excess of $2,400.
I can't think of any _legitimate_ reason for that. But I can come up
with lots of illegitimate ones. It doesn't appear to be "heavily"
encrypted, but I havn't gone through and decrypted it, to see what it
is _really_ doing.
*IF* you feel compelled to visit the site. I would *STRONGLY*RECOMMEND*
using a browser where you can (and _have_) disabled JavasSript.
approaching a recent version of Internet Explorer.
Why do I believe that? Because that's what reliable sources told me, some
time ago. :) This _was_ at least a couple of versions back, but MS
If they've reversed that policy decision, *GREAT*. I'm stunned, shocked,
and amazed, that MS would _allow_ users to turn off a 'feature' that
provides lots of 'flash and sizzle', along with a bunch of security risks.
Historically anything that fit that description they've forced down your
throat. <wry grin>
I don't use MSIE _at_all_; I don't have direct experience, and do have to
rely on what I hear from my professional peers that do "know what they're
talking about" in that regard.
Well, I figured that you knew something I didn't - not that you don't know
plenty that I don't :) - but if I am not mistaken, you have always been
able to disable the Java VM, at least since it was included in the recent
versions of IE.
Can't argue with that ...
Morale: I've learned to be careful about what someone who "knew what they're
talking about" told be if I didn't know the answer first myself,
particularly from my "networking peers" who "don't do MSFT". ;>)
that you actually can in the latest version ... but, like you I don't
believe a damn thing they say and always want to test/verify each iteration
to make sure they aren't just blowing smoke.
swingman ... who is plenty sick and tired of applying seemingly endless MSFT
security patches to upwards of 30 boxes a month, and dreads seeing the
latest "Microsoft Security Bulletin" arrive ... the one last week had SEVEN
"critical" patches that needed to be applied!!
*completely* different. Paraphrasing Jack Webb, "only the names are similar,
to confuse the innocent."
Does current MSIE provide *two* options -- one for disabling Java, and a
Nit: I _think_ you mean "moral", not "morale". <grin>
I get my info on such matters from peers who *do* do MSFT.
And there is a reason I stated things exactly the way I did. I know what I
"don't know". Thus I identified it as my 'belief', not as 'fact'. :)
Again, I have to ask, are we talking about the Java VM, or the -unrelated-
Some time back, I came across this definition of "Windows":
a 32-bit graphical interface for
a 16-bit extension to
an 8-bit operating system for
a 4-bit processor, written by
a 2-bit company, without
1 bit of common sense.
Word Perfect existed *BEFORE* the IBM PC existed. Several _years_ in fact.
I used version 1.08(!!) on Data General mini-computers in (I think) 1979.
DG "Eclipse" machines was it's "native" environment. It was then "ported" to
the 8088 architecture.
And we won't even mention the _many_ CP/M word-processors -- e.g. Wordstar,
volkswriter, etc. Although, admittedly, most of those _were_ a PITA to use,
due to having _only_ a QWERTY keyboard, and no "function keys" or similar.
Nope, this was a few years before the IBM PC. The word processor itself was
dedicated and called the "IBM DisplayWriter". It was about the only word
processor, other than the Wang, available for mid-size company level word
processing toward the late 70's, still very much the heyday of the IBM
Secretaries had to go to school on it, and software updates and _mandatory_
maintenance agreements brought the initial, _upfront_ price to over $18,000
with all the bells and whistles ... I remember vividly because t'was I who
wrote the check.
IBM had a stranglehold on the market that made the MSFT of today look
benign by comparison. Basically, if you're too young to have spent years
banging on a typewriter in college, or as part of your job, you're arguably
missing a big part of the perspective necessary to make the comparison
between the companies, leading to that all too familiar propensity to bash,
mainly from those who got into the game after 1981, when the PC was
I'm not arguing that $18,000 word software packages existed.
But you said that MSFT caused software to be cheap.
Word Perfect was first sold in 1979, and it wasn't a Micro$oft product.
Do you still claim that MSFT was the reason for cheap software?
I believe that prices would have dropped anyway.
$18,000 software on a $3000 computer with millions of potential buyers?
THAT's a business plan destined to die!
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
Do you know what the word "dedicated" meant in the computer business at that
place and time?
If, as it appear, you are reading what you wanted to hear (or argue about)
into what was actually said, don't bother wasting your time trying to get a
rise when it comes to OS bashing.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.