Will they get CVs
-
I received by email, coming from one of my former computer university teacher, an annoucement for a position.
I won't get in details, but these 2 requirements highilight the kind of environment the applicant must know:
- knowledge in office programming (vb)
- administration of windows environments
Ok, but the full text was in a format i never met before (add to that is was renamed by mimedefang): rtfd.
According to wikipedia:
RTFD (due to its extension), is the primary document format of TextEdit, an application native to NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X which has also been ported to other versions of Unix. In contrast to RTF, RTFD is not portable to Windows, for the simple reason that hardly any Windows applications support the format.
See the problem?
-
I see no problem. They want a windows admin caz they like macs but need windows for w/e reason. They don't want to bother...
Honestly its probably because he was editing in TextEdit and just like richtext in ms outlook its easy to turn on and get carried away with and forget that not everyone has that program.
We seriously need one LEGAL standard for things like EMAIL. Anything else will make the program illegal. Why? Because them everyone implements it and anyone can read it, from any client. No monopolies. Also all code implementing this protocol has to be 100% uncopyrightable. In other words you don't have to open the source, but you can't claim any copyright infringement if someone uses same algorithms (problem of the microsoft open document format standards). And when I say LEGAL i don't mean standard, i mean punishable by DEATH!
-
@dlikhten said:
We seriously need one LEGAL standard for things like EMAIL. Anything else will make the program illegal. Why? Because them everyone implements it and anyone can read it, from any client. No monopolies. Also all code implementing this protocol has to be 100% uncopyrightable. In other words you don't have to open the source, but you can't claim any copyright infringement if someone uses same algorithms (problem of the microsoft open document format standards). And when I say LEGAL i don't mean standard, i mean punishable by DEATH!
I think html is a decent standard for email.
When you started to say "LEGAL" I thought you were going to get into legal as in "usable in a court of law." Like you can't say you weren't able to read this email because it was in this format.
I don't know much about law, but I wouldn't think an email should be evidence anyways. It's way to easy fudge things up and say someone emailed you something, or say you emailed someone something on a certain date. </rambling>
-
The real WTF is the document extension: RTFD (Read The F***ing Document).
-
@tchize said:
Ok, but the full text was in a format i never met before (add to that is was renamed by mimedefang): rtfd.
The real WTF is that you encountered a RTFD document. RTFD is a package format: it's a folder that's presented to the user as if it were a file. On anything but a Mac, it will show up as a folder containing an ordinary RTF file (and possibly a number of additional files).
-
@dlikhten said:
We seriously need one LEGAL standard for things like EMAIL. Anything else will make the program illegal. Why? Because them everyone implements it and anyone can read it, from any client. No monopolies. Also all code implementing this protocol has to be 100% uncopyrightable. In other words you don't have to open the source, but you can't claim any copyright infringement if someone uses same algorithms (problem of the microsoft open document format standards). And when I say LEGAL i don't mean standard, i mean punishable by DEATH!
We do: plain text. And I enforce it by stabbing people who send me anything else.
-
@asuffield said:
@dlikhten said:
We seriously need one LEGAL standard for things like EMAIL. Anything else will make the program illegal. Why? Because them everyone implements it and anyone can read it, from any client. No monopolies. Also all code implementing this protocol has to be 100% uncopyrightable. In other words you don't have to open the source, but you can't claim any copyright infringement if someone uses same algorithms (problem of the microsoft open document format standards). And when I say LEGAL i don't mean standard, i mean punishable by DEATH!
We do: plain text. And I enforce it by stabbing people who send me anything else.
Oh really? And how are you going to deliver a cruel point of steel into my susceptible fleshy body with just the power of electron flow?
-
@Otterdam said:
@asuffield said:
I take it http://bash.org/?4281 [0] hasn't happened yet then?@dlikhten said:
We seriously need one LEGAL standard for things like EMAIL. Anything else will make the program illegal. Why? Because them everyone implements it and anyone can read it, from any client. No monopolies. Also all code implementing this protocol has to be 100% uncopyrightable. In other words you don't have to open the source, but you can't claim any copyright infringement if someone uses same algorithms (problem of the microsoft open document format standards). And when I say LEGAL i don't mean standard, i mean punishable by DEATH!
We do: plain text. And I enforce it by stabbing people who send me anything else.
Oh really? And how are you going to deliver a cruel point of steel into my susceptible fleshy body with just the power of electron flow?
[0] Unnecessary QDB reference.
-
-
-
RTFD: Read The F*cking Details
-
@PJH said:
@misguided said:
@PJH said:
Which bit is the oxymoron?Unnecessary QDB reference. [1]
[1] Oxymoron.
i'm sure he meant "redundant".
-
@lanzz said:
@PJH said:
Well the keys /are/ quite close together...@misguided said:
@PJH said:
Which bit is the oxymoron?Unnecessary QDB reference. [1]
[1] Oxymoron.
i'm sure he meant "redundant".
-
@Otterdam said:
@asuffield said:
@dlikhten said:
We
seriously need one LEGAL standard for things like EMAIL. Anything else
will make the program illegal. Why? Because them everyone implements it
and anyone can read it, from any client. No monopolies. Also all code
implementing this protocol has to be 100% uncopyrightable. In other
words you don't have to open the source, but you can't claim any
copyright infringement if someone uses same algorithms (problem of the
microsoft open document format standards). And when I say LEGAL i don't
mean standard, i mean punishable by DEATH!We do: plain text. And I enforce it by stabbing people who send me anything else.
Oh
really? And how are you going to deliver a cruel point of steel into my
susceptible fleshy body with just the power of electron flow?Deliver
cruel points of steel? No problem! Into your susceptible
fleshy body? Easy! With just the power of electron
flow? Can do! What
fraction of c would you like it delivered at? Ok, you got it!Heh, I take it you haven't yet made the acquaintance of my little friend here, Mr. Railgun?
-
@DaveK said:
Deliver cruel points of steel? No problem! Into your susceptible fleshy body? Easy! With just the power of electron flow? Can do! What fraction of c would you like it delivered at?
How about 0/8? That's a good fraction. Tell you what, I'm in a good mood today, let's double it: 0/4.
-
@bstorer said:
@DaveK said:
I actually laughed out loud to that. Luckily it's lunch time so no one else was around to hear me.Deliver cruel points of steel? No problem! Into your susceptible fleshy body? Easy! With just the power of electron flow? Can do! What fraction of c would you like it delivered at?
How about 0/8? That's a good fraction. Tell you what, I'm in a good mood today, let's double it: 0/4.
-
@lanzz said:
@PJH said:
@misguided said:
@PJH said:
Which bit is the oxymoron?Unnecessary QDB reference. [1]
[1] Oxymoron.
i'm sure he meant "redundant".No I'm serious. I'm of the opinion that referencing QDB is never unnecessary. I thrive on that, it makes the world go around.
Redundant isn't a bad comment though; I guess you could say that reference and Quote are redundant, because anything from QDB is ALWAYS a reference by nature. I think from now on I will refer to specific instances of QDB passages as QDBQs. heh.
-
@dlikhten said:
We seriously need one LEGAL standard for things like EMAIL. Anything else will make the program illegal. Why? Because them everyone implements it and anyone can read it, from any client. No monopolies.
There is; it is known as plain text. I don't accept any HTML mail, at least here.
-
@DaveK said:
@Otterdam said:
@asuffield said:
@dlikhten said:
We
seriously need one LEGAL standard for things like EMAIL. Anything else
will make the program illegal. Why? Because them everyone implements it
and anyone can read it, from any client. No monopolies. Also all code
implementing this protocol has to be 100% uncopyrightable. In other
words you don't have to open the source, but you can't claim any
copyright infringement if someone uses same algorithms (problem of the
microsoft open document format standards). And when I say LEGAL i don't
mean standard, i mean punishable by DEATH!We do: plain text. And I enforce it by stabbing people who send me anything else.
Oh
really? And how are you going to deliver a cruel point of steel into my
susceptible fleshy body with just the power of electron flow?Deliver
cruel points of steel? No problem! Into your susceptible
fleshy body? Easy! With just the power of electron
flow? Can do! What
fraction of c would you like it delivered at? Ok, you got it!Heh, I take it you haven't yet made the acquaintance of my little friend here, Mr. Railgun?
Mr Railgun, have you met my friend, Miss Powercut?
-
@m0ffx said:
@DaveK said:
Miss Powercut, Reason. Reason, Miss Powercut.Heh, I take it you haven't yet made the acquaintance of my little friend here, Mr. Railgun?
Mr Railgun, have you met my friend, Miss Powercut?
-
@Renan_S2 said:
There is; it is known as plain text. I don't accept any HTML mail, at least here.
Do you at least accept <sarcasm> tags?
