Comment On Really Secure WPA

"I appreciate that TeamViewer gives me an option to update," writes Chris, "it's just too bad that option is 'No'." [expand full text]
« PrevPage 1 | Page 2Next »

Re: Really Secure WPA

2012-04-08 11:50 • by Ralph (unregistered)
378702 in reply to 378699
Don:
Ralph:

Hint: "Word" is not a standard, it is a vendor's proprietary product. So saying "my document is in Word format" is like saying "I know how to make noise with my mouth without expressing anything meaningful."

Ah, of course. Yet by saying exactly "my document is in Word format"; most intelligent - crap no, pretty much all users I've ever known in 20 years doing IT - know what product to use when opening the document. At most, you're missing the information of version but since most office platforms have compatibility patches that allow you to read Word 2010 docs natively on Word 2003; even that's not a barrier.

So in conclusion, you're essentially an idiot with too much time on your hands mate.
Yeah, so I guess you're one of those people who thinks everyone runs Windows. And it's a joy to test and deploy those "compatibility" patches on the umpty-leven versions of Windows still hanging around with those users who don't send Redmond more money every time a pop-up tells them to.

And the web, with the genius concept of everyone can talk to everyone, will never really take off, because, frankly, who needs it when you can just email Word documents to anybody who matters?

Re: Really Secure WPA

2012-04-09 02:50 • by wazza2 (unregistered)
I just think if you are considering upgrading your version of Teamviewer in order to establish some sort of connection with your partner - then the relationship is already over.

Re: Really Secure WPA

2012-04-09 03:40 • by Cratig
378704 in reply to 378698
nevyn:
Woot! Software I work on is featured on TDWTF! Is that a milestone or a new low...?

Long story short, statfs and statvfs are not interchangeable...


Software I support (I assume you mean Snapfish) is featured here - Do any of the rollouts go without issue?!!

And, why oh why oh why - for the love of god, is this site done in Java. </rant>

Re: Really Secure WPA

2012-04-09 13:02 • by Jay (unregistered)
378738 in reply to 378702
Ralph:
Don:
Ralph:

Hint: "Word" is not a standard, it is a vendor's proprietary product. So saying "my document is in Word format" is like saying "I know how to make noise with my mouth without expressing anything meaningful."

Ah, of course. Yet by saying exactly "my document is in Word format"; most intelligent - crap no, pretty much all users I've ever known in 20 years doing IT - know what product to use when opening the document. At most, you're missing the information of version but since most office platforms have compatibility patches that allow you to read Word 2010 docs natively on Word 2003; even that's not a barrier.

So in conclusion, you're essentially an idiot with too much time on your hands mate.
Yeah, so I guess you're one of those people who thinks everyone runs Windows. And it's a joy to test and deploy those "compatibility" patches on the umpty-leven versions of Windows still hanging around with those users who don't send Redmond more money every time a pop-up tells them to.

And the web, with the genius concept of everyone can talk to everyone, will never really take off, because, frankly, who needs it when you can just email Word documents to anybody who matters?


Good point. That's why it is absurd to say, "This book is written in English", when there are many people in the world who don't speak English and have never been to an English-speaking country.

Ummm ... the fact that not everyone has the software to read a particular data format does not mean that that data format does not exist. The fact that a data format is proprietary does not mean that it does not exist. The fact that you don't like a data format does not mean that it does not exist. The fact that a format is known by the name of the product it was intended to be used with does not mean that it does not exist.

I don't like Word format either. But the reality is that it DOES exist and that LOTS AND LOTS of people use it. You can't wish it out of existence.

Re: Really Secure WPA

2012-04-09 21:29 • by Mick (unregistered)
378762 in reply to 378630
Nagesh:
Please do not be disterbing this thread. I am coming here for insite and entertanement, not stupidity.
I once heard someone say that "Nagesh is Insightful".

Some time later, I realised Insightful is not a word.

Re: Really Secure WPA

2012-04-09 21:40 • by William the Second (unregistered)
378763 in reply to 378702
Ralph:
Don:
Ralph:

Hint: "Word" is not a standard, it is a vendor's proprietary product. So saying "my document is in Word format" is like saying "I know how to make noise with my mouth without expressing anything meaningful."

Ah, of course. Yet by saying exactly "my document is in Word format"; most intelligent - crap no, pretty much all users I've ever known in 20 years doing IT - know what product to use when opening the document. At most, you're missing the information of version but since most office platforms have compatibility patches that allow you to read Word 2010 docs natively on Word 2003; even that's not a barrier.

So in conclusion, you're essentially an idiot with too much time on your hands mate.
Yeah, so I guess you're one of those people who thinks everyone runs Windows. And it's a joy to test and deploy those "compatibility" patches on the umpty-leven versions of Windows still hanging around with those users who don't send Redmond more money every time a pop-up tells them to.

And the web, with the genius concept of everyone can talk to everyone, will never really take off, because, frankly, who needs it when you can just email Word documents to anybody who matters?
So it's more important to be pedantically correct than understood?

Re: Really Secure WPA

2012-04-09 21:42 • by Joh (unregistered)
378764 in reply to 378738
Jay:
Ralph:
Don:
Ralph:

Hint: "Word" is not a standard, it is a vendor's proprietary product. So saying "my document is in Word format" is like saying "I know how to make noise with my mouth without expressing anything meaningful."

Ah, of course. Yet by saying exactly "my document is in Word format"; most intelligent - crap no, pretty much all users I've ever known in 20 years doing IT - know what product to use when opening the document. At most, you're missing the information of version but since most office platforms have compatibility patches that allow you to read Word 2010 docs natively on Word 2003; even that's not a barrier.

So in conclusion, you're essentially an idiot with too much time on your hands mate.
Yeah, so I guess you're one of those people who thinks everyone runs Windows. And it's a joy to test and deploy those "compatibility" patches on the umpty-leven versions of Windows still hanging around with those users who don't send Redmond more money every time a pop-up tells them to.

And the web, with the genius concept of everyone can talk to everyone, will never really take off, because, frankly, who needs it when you can just email Word documents to anybody who matters?


Good point. That's why it is absurd to say, "This book is written in English", when there are many people in the world who don't speak English and have never been to an English-speaking country.

Ummm ... the fact that not everyone has the software to read a particular data format does not mean that that data format does not exist. The fact that a data format is proprietary does not mean that it does not exist. The fact that you don't like a data format does not mean that it does not exist. The fact that a format is known by the name of the product it was intended to be used with does not mean that it does not exist.

I don't like Word format either. But the reality is that it DOES exist and that LOTS AND LOTS of people use it. You can't wish it out of existence.
I rection you miss his point....

I think he's saying the standard (if we can call it that) is DOC not Word. Word just happens to be the program that created the DOC standard.

That said, I think Ralph's being a pedantic knob-jockey, FWIW

Re: Really Secure WPA

2012-04-10 02:35 • by Randy Snicker (unregistered)
378769 in reply to 378641
Steve The Cynic:
three orders of magnitude larger than the teen quantity of PB...

I am not familiar with this unit.
What is the size of "teen quantity of PB"?

Re: Really Secure WPA

2012-04-10 09:33 • by FishDude (unregistered)
TRWTF is gun and ammo prices at Gander Mountain.

Re: Really Secure WPA

2012-04-10 14:01 • by Zunetang (unregistered)
378865 in reply to 378769
Randy Snicker:
Steve The Cynic:
three orders of magnitude larger than the teen quantity of PB...

I am not familiar with this unit.
What is the size of "teen quantity of PB"?
It's not a very precise amount, as teens grow different sizes of Public Bush at different points in adolescence.

Re: Really Secure WPA

2012-04-10 14:02 • by Zunetang (unregistered)
378866 in reply to 378865
Zunetang:
Randy Snicker:
Steve The Cynic:
three orders of magnitude larger than the teen quantity of PB...

I am not familiar with this unit.
What is the size of "teen quantity of PB"?
It's not a very precise amount, as teens grow different sizes of Pubic Bush at different points in adolescence.
Today, I feel like such an asshat that I must be wearing a cockscarf.

Re: Really Secure WPA

2012-04-17 14:26 • by sc517 (unregistered)
379349 in reply to 378636
HFS+ is not supported by Windows (at least not without installing an extra filesystem driver). It's Apple's FS for Macs.

Re: Really Secure WPA

2012-04-18 14:02 • by pewee herman (unregistered)
379419 in reply to 378865
Man, I've got to get me some of that public bush...
« PrevPage 1 | Page 2Next »

Add Comment