He knows he's in trouble.
Being caught with his hands on the kitty, the result is likely to be catastrophic.
61 posts • joined 14 Oct 2008
Being caught with his hands on the kitty, the result is likely to be catastrophic.
Stainless Steel Rat.
Harry Harrison's Slippery Jim DeGriz was tampering with such establishments decades ago.
It could also be because microsoft are making it harder to purchase Windows 7.
Where in hell the PFY has got to with that roll of carpet and bag of quicklime?
Couldn't we just defenestrate* the lot of them?
That would get them out of Windows.
(* From the thirteenth floor at minimum for luck, or from orbit just to be sure.)
That sees "Healthkit" and reads Heathkit?
Or am I just showing my age.
Sorry, still wrong.
I mean opening the raw source of the message as a single unit, headers, attachments, the lot exactly as it was received and prior to any unpacking of the message contents.
Your suggestion will show the html source for the body of the message, but will not show the headers.
You can also see the headers if you wish, but the body will not be included in that view.
There seems to be no way to view the entire raw message source, headers and all in a single view.
In Thunderbird for instance, "Ctrl-U" will show the view I want to see.
(I'm talking about Outlook 2010 as the version which can't quote html contextually.)
And just to add to the fun of winmail.dat, the old (now defunct) Outlook Express would go one step further and decide that as it is not the full-blown version of Outlook, the winmail.dat attachment should be completely ignored, and no hint of it's existence is given (until you look at the raw source of the message of course, which was something tha Outlook Express _would_ do) so people would reply to the sender, stating that there was no attachment received.
Older versions of Outlook used IE as the rendering engine for html messages. 2007 used Word itself but by Outlook 2010 the rendering engine is taken from Word instead which often makes a dogs breakfast of that job too, unless the mail came from another Outlook user where it was written using the same dodgy html that Word generates.
You will note the first line of my statement was "In html mode"
I was being quite specific on that point.
In html mode, please show me an example of contextual quoting.
Because Outlook uses the core editor from Word, it won't allow you to quote contextually, as it refuses to allow you to break up the quoted material into blocks for Question/Answer, Q/A, Q/A...
Even if you do use the necessary keystrokes to break the quoted material, when you re-open the reply thus generated, the quoted material will all be merged once again.
Outlook can turn a single line email into several kb of html cruft with every line of text having it's own font and style settings (even when they are identical to all of the previous lines).
Then there's the boondoggle that is MS-TNEF formatted RTF mode that merges everything into a file called winmail.dat, which can of course only be opened natively by Outlook. Plugins exist for various other clients, but is yet another example of how Microsoft try to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish existing standards such as MIME encoding which were already designed with this use in mind.
One of the most common things I do when receiving a message that looks a bit suspicious is to open is in raw text mode so that I can properly inspect the content and headers. Guess what? Outlook won't let you look at the raw incoming message!
What's amazing is how after all these years, Outlook still can't get such simple things right.
Rarely an issue?
Try Honeywell's security camera recorder web interface. It requires Java AND ActiveX.
The worst of both worlds, it requires IE, and makes no guarantees about running on any recent version of that.
Internet Explorer rename?
A sows ear by any other name will still never be a silk purse, and will still smell just as bad.
There's no "None of the above." option in any of the questions!
From the comic strip BC.
Politics: A many handed game in which mudballs are trumps.
Farcebook. Who needs it!
The sheer amount of time people waste on it each day is staggering.
Don't have an account, don't want an account, don't need Farcebook.
Is definitely taking the piss.
From the "makes sense to me" school of engineering, I would probably have opted to use the pivot purely as a pivot point, and moved the control horn forward of backward along the canard through a suitably sized slot in the body. Drive the system via an L shaped link to convert the horizontal movement of the servo control movement to a vertical movement of the control arm of the canard protruding through the slot. This would take the control torque away from the threaded rod of the pivot.
I'd love to see Judge Koh reply "Denied! Award halved for being greedy and vexatious."
then add "Want to try for double or nothing, or will you stop wasting the court's time?"
When will the judiciary finally slap down these stupid patent squabbles?
With all of the unloved stock sitting on shop shelves around the world, I can just see the poor rube that purchases one only to find that they can't apply any security patches.
Or will Microsoft send someone to each of these shops to perform the update so as not to leavh customers stranded? HA!
If you could get the entire commitee gathered together in one place, a LAWS drone could do the job just fine.
The icon should be self explanatory, though the black helicopter should precede it of course.
Even given that Centos now receives active support from Redhat, I still doubt that Centos can remove all of the trademark branding from RHEL 7 without a considerable level of due care.
So I suspect that months is the more likely answer, though probably fewer of them than the likes of Scientific Linux et al.
(IRS) Microsoft support?
(MS) Yes, how can I help you?
(IRS) We seem to be having issues with some of our computers running Windows XP.
(MS) Sorry, XP has reached end of life and is no longer supported except where extra support fees are to be paid.
(IRS) Sorry, I missed that because the the boss was just asking about scheduling Microsoft and its staff for a tax audit. Could you repeat what you just said?
(MS) Of course. I was asking for a full description of the problem you are experiencing so I can get our staff onto the problem..
"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
I was thinking more in the realms of the Babel fish entry in the guide.
1. God refuses to prove that (S)He exists, because proof denies faith, and without faith God is nothing.
2. Man then counters that the Babel fish is a dead giveaway because it could not have evolved by chance. So the fish proves that God exists, therefore (S)He doesn't. Q.E.D.
3. God says that (S)He hadn't thought of that, and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
"Oh that was easy" says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white, and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing."
(Or words to that effect anyway.)
So in many ways, the Internet is the equivalent to the Babel fish.
We should steer clear of zebra crossings.
(Or so Douglas Adams tells us.)
The settlement also obligates the competing search engines to clearly show Google search entries in their results?
A management tool that requires a continuing source of security embarrasment (flash) on top of a browser, (another cause of security headaches) on top of Windows.
Collect the whole set!
(Not that Java would be a better option.)
Let me guess. The official release date would have to be April 1st, wouldn't it?
After all, Windows 8 can be best described as a bad joke, and suggesting that a point release will fix it would have to warrant an exclamation of "April Fool!"
Returning the data?
Everyone should know the answer to this one.
Just reverse the polarity.
(After all, it always works in the movies!)
"Microsoft's format is published and freely available."
Except that the OOXML "Standard" <cough> is replete with instances of backward compatibility features (often optional of course <cough><splutter>) that are described along the lines of "Treat version X feature the same way that versoin X does." but with no details on exactly how the proprietary format version X actually performed said function. The documentation for version X being proprietary and not available.
It leaves Microsoft as the only ones that could possibly implement the OOXML standard in full, while they point at their competition on performance issues over exactly such ill defined behaviour.
Even then, Microsoft railroaded OOXML through as an IEEE standard by stacking the ballot by having Microsoft business partners join IEEE, purely for the purpose of filling seats at meetings and in doing so, ensuring that objectors were not able to attend these meetings in enough numbers to make a difference.
Despite that, several modifications to the original OOXML standard as proposed by Microsoft were pushed into the final OOXML standard that made Mocrosoft Office only partially compliant to their own standard. Microsoft however were uninterested in making changes to Office so that it does comply.
In other words, it is a standard that even Microsoft don't comply with.
I have a toy my kids left behind when they grew up and moved out. One of them now with an 8 year old kid of his own.
It comprises of a base upon which the model Vegeeta stands, the feet being held by magnets in the base. The magnets and metal slugs in the models feet, are used to provide power to a yellow LED in the head of the model. When you push the button on the base, the electronics within the base make the appropriate noises, and power up the LED in the model in harmony with the sound effects.
Magnets to hold the two electronic units together in correct alignment? - Check!
The magnets allow the two electronic units interact? - Check!
Year of manufacture 2002.
I'd claim that as over 11 years of prior art, not to mention patently obvious.
And of course this means that all of the protocols are open, fully documented, royalty free, and have no patent restrictions, proprietary dependancies, or other legal entanglements. <cough!>
I wonder if there has been / should be a cost-benefit analysis done on a politicians wages.
It would probably make the NBN look like a steal by comparison.
If only for once the judge would decide that enough is enough, and hand down a judgement that the patents involved in the case from both warring parties are now null and void.
Then rip, shred and burn the patents, bury the ashes and salt the earth where they lie, with some silver nitrate for good measure, just to ensure that they never rise from the grave.
The judgement should also include payment by the warring parties of the courts costs for the time the case has wasted, at a rate equal to the combined rates charged by the lawyers of both parties. (With tripple damages of course.)
Then dismiss the case "with predjudice" and demand that the parties never darken the courts with such stupid bickering over such trivial rubbish henceforth!
<Sigh> Unfortunately very unlikely to happen. </Sigh>
The first rule of driving: Everyone else on the road is an idiot.
So expect the worst possible behaviour from them and drive to give yourself the chance to react when they inevitably do something stupid or unexpected. You will rarely be disappointed.
The seal on the side states "Warranty void if broken"
I wonder what the warranty has to say about dropping it from 113,000 feet?
I can also picture the following scenario:
Lester: Hey, I want a new one because this one is not working!
Sales Droid: Sorry, you obviously didn't read the label. "Warranty void if broken."... Next!
Someone really should let Steven Hawking have a go with this!
It would provide a huge profile boost to the project if the good professor could be seen with an ear to ear grin while piloting this thing, making it do what his muscles can no longer do.
I read this article shortly after having finished reading the document mentioned below.
It covers the development of rocket propellants in the early parts of the 20th century.
It is rather heavy on the chemistry, but the author (Yes, he is an actual rocket scientist (or chemist at least)) manages to cover a great deal of the same sort of tomfoolery that was demonstrated by Ms Wilmot, and does so in a very readable way that kept me entertained for the length of the book.
The difference is that when things went awry in their experiments, it was more than a plastic bottle that went pop-fizz. The other difference was that back then, the government and armed forces actively encouraged such experimentation.
It's well worth the read.
On the expulsion and criminal charges issue, I agree that it is a way out of proportion knee jerk reaction by a rather paranoid establishment. Disciplinary action to reinforce the need to think harder on the possible consequences of her actions before she commits them would be a more appropriate response.
Based on those rules, I would have been expelled from primary school, but that was back in the 60's where common sense (and the feel of a leather strap across the back of the legs for more serious infractions) was the norm.
Damn religious extremism and terrorism for making common sense a casualty of war.
Swap the payload swivel with a hollow one, an inward flanged tube sitting inside an outward flanged tube with ball bearings sandwiched between the flanges.
That way you can pass the safety tether through the middle of the swivel.
(A ball retaining plate like used to support the platter in a microwave oven can be used to reduce the number of ball bearings needed without having the all bunch up at one location.)
Use a length of line for your tether in a "Y" configuration between opposing shroud lines of the chute and place a small fishing line type swivel at the junction of the Y. That way, as the chute opens, the "Y" becomes a "T", pulling the safety pin.
Forget the Kangaroo, an Echidna suppository would be far more appropriate.
(Flame? Post suppository side effects of course.)
Doesn't anyone else remember the fun to be had hand-keying the PDP 8 bootstrap sequence on the front panel switches?
The 6502 was simple, but the Z80 had so many more registers to play with.
Ah the memories!
I wonder if Microsoft have learned their lesson, or are all Windows 8 users going to be limbered with IE as the default browser again? Will they offer a ballot screen in the tablet/mobile editions?
How much will it cost them this time?
For proof, see http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail58.html
Trogdor! (The Burninator!)
(Flame icon? Obvious.)
Or lawsuit for trademark infringement.
"Paradox" HA!. "Oxymoron" is closer to the mark.
Religion and Government should never be mixed together.
It's absolutely ridiculous!
I have a desktop calculator at work, the design of which is a rectangle with rounded corners, with the buttons being squares and rectangles, once again with rounded corners. It's other innovative feature is that the icons (read "Buttons") are below the screen!
It uses mechanical buttons rather than a touch screen, but in terms of basic design appearance, the iPhone is nothing more than an expensive knockoff of a calculator that I have had for over a decade.
Apple's use of "Design Patents" is an example of patent abuse at it's worst. It should never have been granted in the first place, and the granting examiner should be fitted out for a white cane immediately!
Fuzzy, you are not quite right. Patents were designed with a specific purpose. The idea was that an inventor was given a limited time monopoly on an invention in exchange for making the design and methods available to the public. It was intended to provide an alternative to "trade secrets" and encourage dissemination of knowledge.
Examples of trade secrets still in use are KFC's 11 herbs and spices, Coca Cola's formulation etc.
They don't dare patent their secret because it would entail full disclosure.
I'm not for one second defending software patents, though I can reluctantly accept that pharmaceutical patents due to the R&D required to develop the product though testing, clinical trials, FDA approval, with the implicit risk that the development investment may never make it to market due to dead ends at any point along the process.
Software and design patents (like Apple's rounded corners on icons) are not being used to disseminate information, but instead as a corporate version of "Keepings off" that kids used to play in the schoolyard before political correctness tried to outlaw it. They are using them as landmines for any who tread close enough to their turf, and bury the actual working knowledge beneath vague patent speak with a strong peppering of pluralities and jargon to allow the patent holder to blur the meaning to cover as many surrounding ideas as possible.
Instead of a pixel sized dot, they are more like a bottle of ink on blotting paper. They are now used as weapons of corporate warfare.
I would love to see corporate bodies who try to pull this sort of stunt with dubious patent claims and unwarranted lawsuits hit with huge fines as a disincentive against bring their corporate squabbles into the courts. The current tendency to "sue and see what sticks" mentality needs to be stomped on hard.
Judge Posner receives my heartfelt appreciation for his stance.
Just like their iPad, iPhone and other hardware. Rounded corners enclosing a walled garden.
(The mushroom cloud because Steve Jobs did declare thermonuclear war on Android.)
Thunderbirds are go!
The TomTom does indeed run linux.
Unfortunately, that doesn't extend to the management utility "TomTom Home" which is available for Windows and Mac only. Hows that for a kick in the teeth?
Take the benefits of the linux code, then exclude that very community from being able to update their maps etc. if they happen to be using Linux as their preferred desktop environment.
Try and raise the issue with them and you get a response along the lines:
"At TomTom we take all customer comments, feedback and suggestions seriously and therefore we have passed your comments on to our 2nd Line team, Product Management and Marketing Team."
End quote. And later when I replied: "Ouch! Not the mythical 2nd Line team, Product Management and Marketing Team. That part of the phrase has been offered up verbatim on several prior requests, and in each case, nothing further ever eventuated." they came back with:
"I am glad to see your concern into this issue. Please be assured that I have really spoken to the Senior Department regarding the feedback you had given in the previous email. I have explained them as to what really the query is. Hopefully in the future updates w get see some development on this subject."
Needless to say, TomTom has provided no further feedback, and there is still no news of any linux client.
(a) How it will have cope with someone like Marty Feldman?
(b) Would Steven Hawking's eye and cheek operated wheelchair computer interface count as prior art?
And I'm still waiting on a linux equivalent to their TomTom Home software!
You can't buy online map updates without it, but the damn thing only runs under Microsoft Windows.
Online support staff keep telling me that they have passed it to to the second level support and marketing teams, but invariable that is the last you hear of it. Now they are firing exactly the people that are needed to create such software. Figures!