Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.basic.visual.misc > #233 > unrolled thread

MS Word problem

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.basic.visual.misc

Contents

  MS Word problem "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> - 2011-06-11 08:43 +0100
    Re: MS Word problem "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2011-06-11 08:39 -0400
    Re: MS Word problem "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2011-06-11 15:10 +0000
      Re: MS Word problem "Access Developer" <accdevel@gmail.com> - 2011-06-12 12:41 -0500
        Re: MS Word problem Michael Cole <invalid@microsoft.com> - 2011-06-13 15:04 +1000
          Re: MS Word problem "mbyerley" <mbyerley@byerley.net> - 2011-06-13 09:52 -0400
            Re: MS Word problem Michael Cole <invalid@microsoft.com> - 2011-06-14 10:32 +1000
              Re: MS Word problem "mbyerley" <mbyerley@byerley.net> - 2011-06-13 23:00 -0400
          Re: MS Word problem "Jeff Johnson" <i.get@enough.spam> - 2013-11-14 12:22 -0500
            Re: MS Word problem "Jeff Johnson" <i.get@enough.spam> - 2013-11-14 12:27 -0500
            Re: MS Word problem Deanna Earley <dee.earley@icode.co.uk> - 2013-11-15 08:57 +0000
    Re: MS Word problem "StrandElectric" <Strand@dummyspit> - 2011-06-12 05:18 +1000
    Re: MS Word problem "David Kaye" <sfdavidkaye2@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-11 12:54 -0700
    Re: MS Word problem DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> - 2011-06-12 11:07 -0500
      Re: MS Word problem "mbyerley" <mbyerley@byerley.net> - 2011-06-12 16:43 -0400
        Re: MS Word problem "StrandElectric" <Strand@dummyspit> - 2011-06-13 07:07 +1000
        Re: MS Word problem David Kerber <dkerber@WarrenRogersAssociates.invalid> - 2011-06-13 11:18 -0400
          Re: MS Word problem DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> - 2011-06-15 11:51 -0500
            Re: MS Word problem David Kerber <dkerber@WarrenRogersAssociates.invalid> - 2011-06-15 13:16 -0400
    Re: MS Word problem Dee Earley <dee.earley@icode.co.uk> - 2011-06-13 09:15 +0100

#233 — MS Word problem

I see that Micro$oft have been caught thieving again! The evil bastards 
attempt to screw everybody into the ground by aggressively attempting to 
patent just about everything they do, often including things they have 
themselves previously stolen, and yet when they want to include somone 
else's work into their own bloatware they just go ahead and steal it. They 
have in recent years been caught behaving like coporate gansters in Jamaica 
and now they have been caught stealing stuff from Canada. What a bunch of 
unprincipled bastards!

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/microsoft-must-pay-copyright-cash-084855404.html

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#235

|I see that Micro$oft have been caught thieving again! The evil bastards
| attempt to screw everybody into the ground by aggressively attempting to
| patent just about everything they do, often including things they have
| themselves previously stolen, and yet when they want to include somone
| else's work into their own bloatware they just go ahead and steal it. They
| have in recent years been caught behaving like coporate gansters in 
Jamaica
| and now they have been caught stealing stuff from Canada. What a bunch of
| unprincipled bastards!
|
| http://uk.news.yahoo.com/microsoft-must-pay-copyright-cash-084855404.html
|

  Is that something to celebrate? As I understand it,
i4i has patented something akin to object embedding
and is applying it to a publicly standardized file format.
Shouldn't we blame the patent office for this? Saying
that MS has "got their due" only strengthens the overall
system of copyright and patent "booty", which ends up
creating a tech. world ruled by giants, while the little
people have to pay protection money.
  One might call it the World of the iWarlords... if Steve
Jobs hasn't already been granted a copyright on "i".  :) 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236

Mike Williams wrote:

> I see that Micro$oft have been caught thieving again!

What does this have to do with VB? *THAT* at least they paid for.

-- 
Not only do US programmers have to compete against programmers in
other countries, but now we have to compete against the Undead?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241

"Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> wrote

 > Mike Williams wrote:
 >
 >> I see that Micro$oft have been caught
 >> thieving again!
 >
 > What does this have to do with VB?
 > *THAT* at least they paid for.

Mike's got a hardon against Microsoft, so cut him a little slack for being 
off-topic. There aren't enough posts here now for it to matter as much as it 
once did.

The U.S. Patent Office, knowing little about computers or software, began 
granting unwarranted software patents years ago, and companies of all sizes 
are just taking advantage of the Patent Office's idiocy.  Everybody and the 
fleas on their dogs are applying for patents, and having them granted, for 
trivial, non-unique, non-original work and then suing everyone in sight.

It's not just Microsoft, and it's not 'just desserts'.

 Larry 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#248

Access Developer brought next idea :

> It's not just Microsoft, and it's not 'just desserts'.

Minor quibble - you are correct in that it is not 'just desserts'.  It 
is actually 'just deserts' (one 's').

-- 
Michael Cole

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#254

"Michael Cole" <invalid@microsoft.com> wrote in message 
news:it45r6$q4p$1@dont-email.me...
> Access Developer brought next idea :
>
>> It's not just Microsoft, and it's not 'just desserts'.
>
> Minor quibble - you are correct in that it is not 'just desserts'.  It is 
> actually 'just deserts' (one 's').
>

  your error.  Dessert is food and desert is dry arid region.

> -- 
> Michael Cole
>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#261

mbyerley brought next idea :
> "Michael Cole" <invalid@microsoft.com> wrote in message 
> news:it45r6$q4p$1@dont-email.me...
>> Access Developer brought next idea :
>>
>>> It's not just Microsoft, and it's not 'just desserts'.
>>
>> Minor quibble - you are correct in that it is not 'just desserts'.  It is 
>> actually 'just deserts' (one 's').
>>
>
>   your error.  Dessert is food and desert is dry arid region.

Which might be relevent if we were talking about either food or dry 
arid regions, wheras we are actually talking about a desert being what 
someone deserves.  One 's'.

Contrary to popular belief, the phrase has nothing to do with food.  
Not my error.

-- 
Michael Cole

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#263

"Michael Cole" <invalid@microsoft.com> wrote in message 
news:it6a7o$5bq$1@dont-email.me...
> mbyerley brought next idea :
>> "Michael Cole" <invalid@microsoft.com> wrote in message 
>> news:it45r6$q4p$1@dont-email.me...
>>> Access Developer brought next idea :
>>>
>>>> It's not just Microsoft, and it's not 'just desserts'.
>>>
>>> Minor quibble - you are correct in that it is not 'just desserts'.  It 
>>> is actually 'just deserts' (one 's').
>>>
>>
>>   your error.  Dessert is food and desert is dry arid region.
>
> Which might be relevent if we were talking about either food or dry arid 
> regions, wheras we are actually talking about a desert being what someone 
> deserves.  One 's'.
>
> Contrary to popular belief, the phrase has nothing to do with food.  Not 
> my error.

   Yup.. My mistake.

> -- 
> Michael Cole
>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1894

"Michael Cole" <invalid@microsoft.com> wrote in message 
news:it45r6$q4p$1@dont-email.me...

> Access Developer brought next idea :
>
>> It's not just Microsoft, and it's not 'just desserts'.
>
> Minor quibble - you are correct in that it is not 'just desserts'.  It is 
> actually 'just deserts' (one 's').

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/07/its-just-deserts-not-just-desserts/ 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1895

"Jeff Johnson" <i.get@enough.spam> wrote in message 
news:l630tl$tbk$1@dont-email.me...
> "Michael Cole" <invalid@microsoft.com> wrote in message 
> news:it45r6$q4p$1@dont-email.me...
>
>> Access Developer brought next idea :
>>
>>> It's not just Microsoft, and it's not 'just desserts'.
>>
>> Minor quibble - you are correct in that it is not 'just desserts'.  It is 
>> actually 'just deserts' (one 's').
>
> http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/07/its-just-deserts-not-just-desserts/


HAHAHAHAHA! Apparently I thought I had scrolled to the bottom of the list* 
and I was in the current messages, so I didn't notice the date of the post I 
was responding to until later.


*I sort ascending by date. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1896

On 14/11/2013 17:22, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> "Michael Cole" <invalid@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:it45r6$q4p$1@dont-email.me...
>
>> Access Developer brought next idea :
>>
>>> It's not just Microsoft, and it's not 'just desserts'.
>>
>> Minor quibble - you are correct in that it is not 'just desserts'.  It is
>> actually 'just deserts' (one 's').
>
> http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/07/its-just-deserts-not-just-desserts/

Just like "another think coming" (instead of the common and apparently 
incorrect "another thing coming") :)

-- 
Deanna Earley (dee.earley@icode.co.uk)
iCatcher Development Team
http://www.icode.co.uk/icatcher/

iCode Systems

(Replies direct to my email address will be ignored. Please reply to the 
group.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#238

"Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> wrote in message 
news:isv6bl$osg$1@dont-email.me...
>I see that Micro$oft have been caught thieving again! The evil bastards 
>attempt to screw everybody into the ground by aggressively attempting to 
>patent just about everything they do, often including things they have 
>themselves previously stolen, and yet when they want to include somone 
>else's work into their own bloatware they just go ahead and steal it. They 
>have in recent years been caught behaving like coporate gansters in Jamaica 
>and now they have been caught stealing stuff from Canada. What a bunch of 
>unprincipled bastards!
>
> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/microsoft-must-pay-copyright-cash-084855404.html
>
And I believe that in discussing the "Cloud Computing" model, where it is 
proposed that all your software and data will be held on a distant company's 
machine, so that your own is merely an internet terminal, some learned twit 
has stated that one of the "trusted" companies to provide such hosting might 
be Microsoft!  Incredible! 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#239

"Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> wrote

> and now they have been caught stealing stuff from Canada. What a bunch of 
> unprincipled bastards!

Yeah, just like Apple stealing the mouse and the windowing environment from 
Xerox Star.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240

"Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> wrote in
news:isv6bl$osg$1@dont-email.me: 

> I see that Micro$oft have been caught thieving again! The
> evil bastards attempt to screw everybody into the ground by
> aggressively attempting to patent just about everything
> they do, often including things they have themselves
> previously stolen, and yet when they want to include somone
> else's work into their own bloatware they just go ahead and
> steal it. They have in recent years been caught behaving
> like coporate gansters in Jamaica and now they have been
> caught stealing stuff from Canada. What a bunch of 
> unprincipled bastards! 
> 
> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/microsoft-must-pay-copyright-cash-0
> 84855404.html 

Actually, s/w patent are ridiculous and the entire system 
needs to be overhauled for the computer industry.

There are almost no *truly* innovative ideas anymore, and some 
companies buy & apply for and receive patents as their main 
business now.

The system is ocmpletely broken.....

Take this for example.... http://arstechnica.com/open-
source/news/2009/11/microsofts-psuedo-sudo-patent-doesnt-
really-cover-sudo.ars

....while the initial reaction across the open source & linux 
communities was appauled that MS was able to 'patent' the SUDO 
command, which was mistakn, I see nothing innovative in the 
nature of what this patent really covers.....

What it covers is when elevated rightas are needed to do 
something, the OS will show you a GUI of all users that have 
admin rights, so you can pick it off a list, instead of having 
to type in a user name.

That's it, in a nutshell.

Forgive me if I'm simplfying this, but isn't this just a 
database lookup table ?

I mean, really, the OS will look through the registry (or 
wherever this info is stored), filter out which don't have 
admin rights, and then present them to you in a box which you 
can scroll up or down to highlight the one you want to select, 
and prese enter.

This certainly isn't anything 'innovative'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242

"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in message 
news:Xns9F027B6CC915Dthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131...
> "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> wrote in
> news:isv6bl$osg$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> I see that Micro$oft have been caught thieving again! The
>> evil bastards attempt to screw everybody into the ground by
>> aggressively attempting to patent just about everything
>> they do, often including things they have themselves
>> previously stolen, and yet when they want to include somone
>> else's work into their own bloatware they just go ahead and
>> steal it. They have in recent years been caught behaving
>> like coporate gansters in Jamaica and now they have been
>> caught stealing stuff from Canada. What a bunch of
>> unprincipled bastards!
>>
>> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/microsoft-must-pay-copyright-cash-0
>> 84855404.html
>
> Actually, s/w patent are ridiculous and the entire system
> needs to be overhauled for the computer industry.
>
> There are almost no *truly* innovative ideas anymore, and some


    I have thought for a very long time, that in any given language to 
address a specific problem, and the problem is addressed many to the fourth 
or so, that exact source code replication is inevitable, so in that context, 
when the particular replicator comes up with the exact solution, independent 
of the discovery or exposure to the originating source code, how has he 
violated anything?

  Music is another shithole of copyrights.  An album/song can't be sold by a 
label until each song has been checked for sampling and if any song has (I 
don't know the exact standard) sampling, inadvertant or not, the label has 
to secure a release by either paying for or being granted outright before 
releasing for sale because of the monetary exposure..


> companies buy & apply for and receive patents as their main
> business now.
>
> The system is ocmpletely broken.....
>
> Take this for example.... http://arstechnica.com/open-
> source/news/2009/11/microsofts-psuedo-sudo-patent-doesnt-
> really-cover-sudo.ars
>
> ....while the initial reaction across the open source & linux
> communities was appauled that MS was able to 'patent' the SUDO
> command, which was mistakn, I see nothing innovative in the
> nature of what this patent really covers.....
>
> What it covers is when elevated rightas are needed to do
> something, the OS will show you a GUI of all users that have
> admin rights, so you can pick it off a list, instead of having
> to type in a user name.
>
> That's it, in a nutshell.
>
> Forgive me if I'm simplfying this, but isn't this just a
> database lookup table ?
>
> I mean, really, the OS will look through the registry (or
> wherever this info is stored), filter out which don't have
> admin rights, and then present them to you in a box which you
> can scroll up or down to highlight the one you want to select,
> and prese enter.
>
> This certainly isn't anything 'innovative'.
>
>
>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243

"mbyerley" <mbyerley@byerley.net> wrote in message 
news:za6dnRs3g5VluWjQnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in message 
> news:Xns9F027B6CC915Dthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131...
>> "Mike Williams" <Mike@WhiskyAndCoke.com> wrote in
>> news:isv6bl$osg$1@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> I see that Micro$oft have been caught thieving again! The
>>> evil bastards attempt to screw everybody into the ground by
>>> aggressively attempting to patent just about everything
>>> they do, often including things they have themselves
>>> previously stolen, and yet when they want to include somone
>>> else's work into their own bloatware they just go ahead and
>>> steal it. They have in recent years been caught behaving
>>> like coporate gansters in Jamaica and now they have been
>>> caught stealing stuff from Canada. What a bunch of
>>> unprincipled bastards!
>>>
>>> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/microsoft-must-pay-copyright-cash-0
>>> 84855404.html
>>
>> Actually, s/w patent are ridiculous and the entire system
>> needs to be overhauled for the computer industry.
>>
>> There are almost no *truly* innovative ideas anymore, and some
>
>
>    I have thought for a very long time, that in any given language to 
> address a specific problem, and the problem is addressed many to the 
> fourth or so, that exact source code replication is inevitable, so in that 
> context, when the particular replicator comes up with the exact solution, 
> independent of the discovery or exposure to the originating source code, 
> how has he violated anything?
>
>  Music is another shithole of copyrights.  An album/song can't be sold by 
> a label until each song has been checked for sampling and if any song has 
> (I don't know the exact standard) sampling, inadvertant or not, the label 
> has to secure a release by either paying for or being granted outright 
> before releasing for sale because of the monetary exposure..
>
>
>> companies buy & apply for and receive patents as their main
>> business now.
>>
>> The system is ocmpletely broken.....
>>
>> Take this for example.... http://arstechnica.com/open-
>> source/news/2009/11/microsofts-psuedo-sudo-patent-doesnt-
>> really-cover-sudo.ars
>>
>> ....while the initial reaction across the open source & linux
>> communities was appauled that MS was able to 'patent' the SUDO
>> command, which was mistakn, I see nothing innovative in the
>> nature of what this patent really covers.....
>>
>> What it covers is when elevated rightas are needed to do
>> something, the OS will show you a GUI of all users that have
>> admin rights, so you can pick it off a list, instead of having
>> to type in a user name.
>>
>> That's it, in a nutshell.
>>
>> Forgive me if I'm simplfying this, but isn't this just a
>> database lookup table ?
>>
>> I mean, really, the OS will look through the registry (or
>> wherever this info is stored), filter out which don't have
>> admin rights, and then present them to you in a box which you
>> can scroll up or down to highlight the one you want to select,
>> and prese enter.
>>
>> This certainly isn't anything 'innovative'.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
It all sounds like American lawyers to me... 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#255

[This followup was posted to comp.lang.basic.visual.misc and a copy was 
sent to the cited author.]

In article <za6dnRs3g5VluWjQnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@giganews.com>, 
mbyerley@byerley.net says...

...

> > Actually, s/w patent are ridiculous and the entire system
> > needs to be overhauled for the computer industry.

Agreed; software is nothing more than a mathematical algorithm, and 
therefore shouldn't be patentable, but currently is.


> >
> > There are almost no *truly* innovative ideas anymore, and some
> 
> 
>     I have thought for a very long time, that in any given language to 
> address a specific problem, and the problem is addressed many to the fourth 
> or so, that exact source code replication is inevitable, so in that context, 
> when the particular replicator comes up with the exact solution, independent 
> of the discovery or exposure to the originating source code, how has he 
> violated anything?

That's just the way patents work.  Even if you come up with something 
completely independently, if somebody else has already patented it, 
you're in violation; you don't have to have copied anything.  It's not 
the same as a trade secret, where somebody else is perfectly within 
their rights to re-invent the wheel.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#267

David Kerber <dkerber@WarrenRogersAssociates.invalid> wrote
in
news:MPG.285ff465dfc7d37098972a@news.eternal-september.org: 

>> > There are almost no *truly* innovative ideas anymore,
>> > and some 
>> 
>> 
>>     I have thought for a very long time, that in any given
>>     language to 
>> address a specific problem, and the problem is addressed
>> many to the fourth or so, that exact source code
>> replication is inevitable, so in that context, when the
>> particular replicator comes up with the exact solution,
>> independent of the discovery or exposure to the
>> originating source code, how has he violated anything?
> 
> That's just the way patents work.  Even if you come up with
> something completely independently, if somebody else has
> already patented it, you're in violation; you don't have to
> have copied anything.  It's not the same as a trade secret,
> where somebody else is perfectly within their rights to
> re-invent the wheel. 



Here's an example.....

http://www.emailman.com/web/servers.html

...."PrivateMail's PMKey Server  installs as easily as an 
office application, and its configuration wizard helps you get 
your own mail server up & running in minutes. Features include 
patent-pending filtering technology, receipted messages, 
secure message delivery,"...........

What can be patented in an e-mail filtering system ?

IMO, nothing.....You have a list of items to look at in each 
e-mail....each item in the list has one or more 'blacklisted' 
data sets, or a fuzzy interpreter based on regex expresions.

That's certainly nothing innovative either. The e-mails are 
stored in a database format. The db engine then provides 
subsets of data that contain the criteria it's looking for, 
and the e-mail system either deletes it, or forwards it, or 
whatever it does.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#268

[This followup was posted to comp.lang.basic.visual.misc and a copy was 
sent to the cited author.]

In article <Xns9F0582E94AB18thisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131>, 
t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m says...
> 
> David Kerber <dkerber@WarrenRogersAssociates.invalid> wrote
> in
> news:MPG.285ff465dfc7d37098972a@news.eternal-september.org: 
> 
> >> > There are almost no *truly* innovative ideas anymore,
> >> > and some 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>     I have thought for a very long time, that in any given
> >>     language to 
> >> address a specific problem, and the problem is addressed
> >> many to the fourth or so, that exact source code
> >> replication is inevitable, so in that context, when the
> >> particular replicator comes up with the exact solution,
> >> independent of the discovery or exposure to the
> >> originating source code, how has he violated anything?
> > 
> > That's just the way patents work.  Even if you come up with
> > something completely independently, if somebody else has
> > already patented it, you're in violation; you don't have to
> > have copied anything.  It's not the same as a trade secret,
> > where somebody else is perfectly within their rights to
> > re-invent the wheel. 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an example.....
> 
> http://www.emailman.com/web/servers.html
> 
> ...."PrivateMail's PMKey Server  installs as easily as an 
> office application, and its configuration wizard helps you get 
> your own mail server up & running in minutes. Features include 
> patent-pending filtering technology, receipted messages, 
> secure message delivery,"...........
> 
> What can be patented in an e-mail filtering system ?

Probably only the algorithm.

> 
> IMO, nothing.....You have a list of items to look at in each 
> e-mail....each item in the list has one or more 'blacklisted' 
> data sets, or a fuzzy interpreter based on regex expresions.
> 
> That's certainly nothing innovative either. The e-mails are 
> stored in a database format. The db engine then provides 
> subsets of data that contain the criteria it's looking for, 
> and the e-mail system either deletes it, or forwards it, or 
> whatever it does.

I didn't say I agreed with it; I just said that's the way the law works 
as of now, in the US.  In fact, you clipped out my comments that said I 
thought all software patents are inherently bogus.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249

On 11/06/2011 08:43, Mike Williams wrote:
> I see that Micro$oft have been caught thieving again!

Ah, just as off topic as everyone claims .NET to be...

-- 
Dee Earley (dee.earley@icode.co.uk)
i-Catcher Development Team
http://www.icode.co.uk/icatcher/

iCode Systems

(Replies direct to my email address will be ignored.
Please reply to the group.)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.basic.visual.misc

csiph-web