MVP Award...
in [MFC]
|
Prev: CMenu class and menu object
Next: need some class help
From: Hector Santos on 5 Mar 2010 11:44 I will say one thing David, In recent weeks, I some of my messages being "Expired" just the one I responded to your message here to basically point out there is no standard for NNTP clients or any RFC based mail client to display anything beyond what is standard or BCP (Best Current Practice). If this is just a technical mistake, I can understand that but I can guarantee you that if Microsoft begins to go into vendor support system with an CENSORSHIP aspect for PAYING CUSTOMERS, they will be running into legal issues with US ECPA violations. They are not the exception to this long time issue with all online hosting entities - its the law. Can be just DELETING MAIL just because some young punk MS engineer doesn't understand basic LAWS of the LAND and put MS at legal risk. The more you move towards PRIVATE system the MORE the US EPCA applies. I've developing and marketing for 30 years, this is not just talk. So if someone is DELETING my mail at Microsoft, they better begin to think twice about the can of worms you are opening. -- HLS David Ching wrote: > "BobF" <nothanks(a)no.spam> wrote in message > news:##QLuxGvKHA.3708(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> Last year I participated in ASP.Net forums for a few months. Those >> forums have (had?) an nntp interface that worked fine without an >> additional process running on my machine. >> > > Microsoft's contention is that NNTP does not provide things like rating > posts, marking posts as answers, etc. Windows Live Mail does have these > features, which I assume work with the bridge. > > >> The only reason I can think of to have an additional local process is >> to provide some other data mining capability for MS. But I'm paranoid >> about process communicating over the net for no apparent [good] reason. >> >> Anyway, yes, you should look again. > > Thanks, I will ceratinly do so. In particular the VC++ General forum is > relevant for us here in this newsgroup.
From: David Lowndes on 5 Mar 2010 14:14 >Oh I know, having been down that road many times with my wife! ;) I just >didn't expect to hear the same argument from Joe, an expert of Windows and >the IDE! I don't think the IDE designers are necessarily wrong for assuming >a certain amount of Windows background from VC++ programmers (such as >knowing how a drop button and status bar in a MDI app work). Maybe those >aren't optimal, but it's certainly not the first time we should have seen >them. We can all miss things - I know I (and a lot of people) missed seeing the drop down on the VS Open dialog until someone pointed it out to me. Things so often are obvious - but only when you know. Dave
From: Joseph M. Newcomer on 5 Mar 2010 15:23 See below... On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 07:19:38 -0800, "David Ching" <dc(a)remove-this.dcsoft.com> wrote: >"BobF" <nothanks(a)no.spam> wrote in message >news:##QLuxGvKHA.3708(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> Last year I participated in ASP.Net forums for a few months. Those forums >> have (had?) an nntp interface that worked fine without an additional >> process running on my machine. >> > >Microsoft's contention is that NNTP does not provide things like rating >posts, marking posts as answers, etc. Windows Live Mail does have these >features, which I assume work with the bridge. **** (a) No ratings? So what? I don't take time to rate posts; it is not part of what I care about. I don't read the ratings. Even on forums where ratings occur, I don't read the ratings. (b) A followup on a post is an answer. (c) I avoid anything with the word "Live" in it. **** > > >> The only reason I can think of to have an additional local process is to >> provide some other data mining capability for MS. But I'm paranoid about >> process communicating over the net for no apparent [good] reason. >> >> Anyway, yes, you should look again. **** But if the purpose of the process is to provide an interface for what you are going anyway, why is it a problem? joe **** > >Thanks, I will ceratinly do so. In particular the VC++ General forum is >relevant for us here in this newsgroup. > >-- David > Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP] email: newcomer(a)flounder.com Web: http://www.flounder.com MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
From: Joseph M. Newcomer on 5 Mar 2010 15:58 I think I mentioned this in an earlier post, but AOL employs, as its "conformance officer", a Constitutional scholar. She gave us a lecture on the subtleties of 1st Amendment (freedom of speech), 4th Amendment (search and seizure), 5th amendment, and 14th amendment (the "due process" amendments) and their interactions with ECPA (which even more severely restricts what can be done to your communication). Anyone who manages any form of electronic communication has to be painfully aware of all of these issues. Censorship issues, even when there are "terms of usage", are problematic, both to enforce and to complain about; for example, AOL got into trouble when they tried to censor a newsgroup critical of AOL policies, and some of what they did is now prohibited by law. So if you think something should be removed, you cannot force the ISP to remove it unless there are compelling reasons, and even then, you risk annoying the ACLU. This is of the "you may not like what I say, but you can't stop me from saying it". We had a case here in one of the 130 jurisdictions in Allegheny County (near Pittsburgh) where someone put a small "Vote for X" sign in his yard, and was told that it "violated the terms of usage for the community" which prohibited signs in yards. The judge ruled that political signs smaller than a (fairly generous) dimension in the weeks preceding an election were a form of protected free speech and the cimmunity was not permitted to prohibit them. In another case, there was a 30-day limit that was overturned. ECPA extends many of those same protections to electronic media. And in some ways, ECPA is more restrictive than wiretap laws, which are pretty restrictive already. joe On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:44:56 -0500, Hector Santos <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote: >I will say one thing David, > >In recent weeks, I some of my messages being "Expired" just the one I >responded to your message here to basically point out there is no >standard for NNTP clients or any RFC based mail client to display >anything beyond what is standard or BCP (Best Current Practice). > >If this is just a technical mistake, I can understand that but I can >guarantee you that if Microsoft begins to go into vendor support >system with an CENSORSHIP aspect for PAYING CUSTOMERS, they will be >running into legal issues with US ECPA violations. They are not the >exception to this long time issue with all online hosting entities - >its the law. Can be just DELETING MAIL just because some young punk >MS engineer doesn't understand basic LAWS of the LAND and put MS at >legal risk. The more you move towards PRIVATE system the MORE the US >EPCA applies. I've developing and marketing for 30 years, this is not >just talk. > >So if someone is DELETING my mail at Microsoft, they better begin to >think twice about the can of worms you are opening. Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP] email: newcomer(a)flounder.com Web: http://www.flounder.com MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
From: Joseph M. Newcomer on 5 Mar 2010 16:04
The issue is that we get accustomed to having one kind of interface, and then Microsoft throws a completely different interface at us, and assumes that somehow we will "naturally" discover that functionality previously obvious will now be deducable from unknown and unexpected clues. It is *anyone* who uses an interface, independent of expertise. So I expect find functionality where it *was*, and if it changed, it would be part of the "breaking changes" where the interface has changed in a significant way. We think of "breaking changes" as being those things that represent either language changes, or library changes, that have the property that something that used to work no longer works. But a "breaking change" is ANY change that means something doesn't work like it used to. Converting the "single step" command from F8 to F11, for example, is a breaking change. ANY change to the user interface is a "breaking change". I know that a status bar exists, but I also know that it rarely, if ever, has anything useful in it when using most apps. So if it suddenly has something interesting, I'm not going to notice, because years of knowing it is completely useless have conditioned me against looking at it. In addition, as a concept, it is often a failure because instead of giving long-term status, it sometimes is erroneously used to encode immediate state, the sort of thing that we need to look at while correctly focusing on what we are really doing. As such, this is an abuse of the idea of the status bar. joe On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 07:16:24 -0800, "David Ching" <dc(a)remove-this.dcsoft.com> wrote: >"David Lowndes" <DavidL(a)example.invalid> wrote in message >news:8bs1p592653m2mv4b5dnj0esvm3s5ojict(a)4ax.com... >> David, >> >> Never underestimate how much *you've* learned to use a piece of >> software - no matter how good or bad it is. >> >> You only have to sit with someone who's not already familiar with much >> software, to discover how unintuitive many aspects of today's UIs >> really are. >> >> I'd recommend everyone to do this periodically to remind yourself just >> how bewildering things are to someone who doesn't know. >> > >Oh I know, having been down that road many times with my wife! ;) I just >didn't expect to hear the same argument from Joe, an expert of Windows and >the IDE! I don't think the IDE designers are necessarily wrong for assuming >a certain amount of Windows background from VC++ programmers (such as >knowing how a drop button and status bar in a MDI app work). Maybe those >aren't optimal, but it's certainly not the first time we should have seen >them. > >-- David Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP] email: newcomer(a)flounder.com Web: http://www.flounder.com MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm |