Conference 7.286::digital

Ok..... Microsoft Exchange.... it just works horribly on a DIGITAL system. Is
this better?

>> I find it somewhat depressing that so many Noters here find it necessary to
>> refer to Microsoft via derogatory variants on their name.

So many Noters find it necessary to refer to anything and everything via
derogatory variants on their proper names.  This includes (but is not limited
to) Microsoft, Digital, Intel, their managers, their personnel, and their
products.  It's a losing battle, Bevin.

						Brian

>                       <<< Note 5180.0 by ADA9X::BRETT >>>
>                -< Call them by their proper name - Microsoft >-

>I find it somewhat depressing that so many Noters here find it necessary to
>refer to Microsoft via derogatory variants on their name.
    
    My badge still says Digital, my check still says Digital and this is 
    the "Digital" notesfile.
    
    You want depression?  Pitch this alliance for two years to your
    customers, talk about integrating and supplementing WNT with 
    OpenVMS and have Gates come to DECUS and tell your customers that 
    WNT is the only thing you ever need...
    
    You want depression?  Explain the Alliance, and Microturn's 
    reliance on Wolfpack and how this new "CLUSTER Group" with MS,
    Compaq, HP, and Tandum fits with the work and intellectual property 
    that's been  transfered from Digital already...
    
    You want depression? I've yet to see Microscrew call that press 
    conference to congratulate Digital Equipment on having the only 
    surviving RISC architecture running WNT, two years before Mercede, and 
    recommitting to same-time software releases with Intel code.  
    
    You want depression? Host a "Wizards" meeting in Microself-serve's
    back yard and have only a token MS presense in attendance...
    
    I'm not depressed, just confused... and confusion make's me 
    mispell trademarked names sometimes...
    
    But this is a Digital notesfile and my fat-fingered mispelling 
    will go un-noticed...
    
    Unless there is a Microstealth spy among us, extracting our questions
    about MS's motives and forwarding them to the Bill Gates' "Enemies" 
    list for those who won't have jobs in the new world order because we 
    mistyped their company's name.
    
    JMHO by JAMS (Just Another Micro-serf)
    
    John W.
    

	Would you rather we call them "Alfer"?

							mike

    Uh oh, someone left the horse out of the barn...
    
    ;v)

    r.3 
    If you've ever seen the movie "Life of Brian" you remind me of
    person being stoned, "There you've said it AGAIN!" If you don't
    stop its going to be very hard with you!
    
    Maybe you had to be there.
    
    Fred

    .0 hubris alert
       

|    If you've ever seen the movie "Life of Brian" you remind me of
|    person being stoned, "There you've said it AGAIN!" If you don't
|    stop its going to be very hard with you!

	But the subject also responds: How can it get any worse than
	this? Jehova, Jehova, Jehova... 

	Good movie indeed. Wonder if the women with beards had Microsoft
	badges? 

	>Per

    Re: .7
    So where in .0 is
    'overweening pride towards the gods, leading to nemesis' ?
    
    John.

    
    
    Mr Wiggins:
    
    Good morning, gentlemen.  This is a twelve-state Microsoft rant
    combining classical neo-Georgian features with all the advantages
    of modern techniques.  The Digital-Microsoft boosters arrive at
    Note .0 and are carried along the Note Thread in extreme comfort
    past text murals depicting Mediterranean sceanes, twords the 
    Notes pointing out some of the practical flaws in the Digital-Microsoft 
    Alliance.  The last .20 Notes are heavily soundproof.  The false sense of 
    security pour out into the "Microsoft is Benevolent" notesfile
    and the mangled egos go to the Soapbox notesfile for some real abuse...
    
    Notesfile Observer1:
    Excuse me...
    
    Mr Wiggins:
    
    Humm?
    
    Notesfile Observer1:
    
    Did you say flaws?
    
    Mr Wiggins:
    
    Practical Flaws.. Yes..
    
    Notesfile Observer1:
    
    Are you proposing to insult the business planning and acummen of 
    our business teams?
    
    Mr Wiggins:
    
    Does that not fit in with this notes-thread?
    
    Notesfile Observer1:
    
    No, it does not .  We wanted a simple corporate toadie-thread 
    extoling the praises of how wonderful everything is going....
    
    Mr Wiggins:
    
    Oh, I see.  I hadn't correctly divined your attitude twords the
    Digital-Microsoft Alliance.  You see I usually design win-win solutions
    for Digital and our customers and point out flaws in any other strategy. 
    Yes, pity.  Mind you this note-thread was a real beaut.  I mean, none of 
    your blood caked on the replies, and flesh flying out the microsoft 
    windows inconveniencing the passers-by with this one..  I mean, my life 
    has been building up to this...
    
    Notesfile Observer1:
    
    Yes and well done, but we did want a note that ignored any negative 
    problems and toadied up to Microsoft.
    
    Mr Wiggins:
    
    Well may I ask you to reconsider? I mean, you wouldn't regret it think
    of the number of replies and general involvement we'll generate from 
    this note-thread.
    
    Notesfile Observer1:
    
    No, no it's just that we wanted a simple note praising the Digital -
    Microsoft Alliance, not a rant.
    
    Mr Wiggins:
    
    Yes, well of course, that's just the sort of blinkered philistine
    pig ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage.
    You sit there on your loathsome, spotty beinds squeezing blackheads
    not caring a tinker's cuss about the struggling artist.
    YOU EXCREMENT! You lousy hypocritical whining toadies with your lousy 
    color Monitors, with your "Intel" inside them and bleeding Microsoft
    secret handshakes!  You wouldn't let me join, would you, you
    blackballing bastards!  Well I wouldn't become a Microsoft SE now if
    you went down on your lousy stinking purulent knees and begged me.
    
    Notesfile Observer1:
    
    Well, we're sorry you feel like that but we, er, did want a nice 
    Microsoft note.  Well thought out and accurate though your rant was...
    
    Mr Wiggins:
    
    Oh to hell with the rant, that's not important.  But if you could put
    in a word for me I'd love to be an SE.  Certification opens doors, I 
    mean I was a bit on edge just now, but If I was an SE and could go
    to the wizards meetings I'd just sit at the back and not get in
    anyone's way.
    
    Notesfile Observer1:
    
    Thank you.
    
    Mr Wiggins:
    
    I've got a second-hand self-study guide...
    
    Notesfile Observer2:
    
    Thank you.
    
    Mr Wiggins:
    
    I nearly passed the TCP/IP Drake test at Hendon..
    
    Notesfile Observer 1&2:
    
    THANK YOU...
    

    John,
    
    Give the "lunatic fringe" theme a rest.  You are much better
    appreciated for original material like .3   
    
    I thought at least that .3 was a fair debating riposte to .0 who has
    laid open a topic worthy of discussion.  For perhaps all the wrong
    reasons we are now considered to be on Microsoft's coat tails if not
    actually in their pocket.  Some people (many Digital engineers) even
    think that Microsoft are out to deliberately screw us to the wall.
    
    Does the name-calling help?   Help to do what?  I think it helps people
    vent a little frustration.  It certainly doesn't help us make the real
    (or perceived) situation any different or better vis-a-vis the market
    realities.  Perhaps it helps the individuals tolerate the situation
    somewhat easier.  Love 'em or hate 'em, Microsoft are responsible for
    the market demand generation that is driving much of our chance for
    future revenue.   It's up to individuals to figure out if they can live
    with that fact while remaining employees of Digital.
    
    /Chris/
    
    P.S.  I'm reminded of the oldy but goody joke from Woody Allen:
    
    Man:	Doctor! you gotta help me!.  You really must!.  My brother
    		is driving me crazy - he thinks he's a chicken. He spends
    		all day pecking and clucking and stuff - What can I do?
    
    Doctor:	He's obviously mad.  You need to have him hospitalized.
    
    Man:	Well I would, but I really need the eggs.
    

.0>I find it somewhat depressing that so many Noters here find it necessary to
.0>refer to Microsoft via derogatory variants on their name.

If this is what depresses you, life is good to you my friend...

.11> Does the name-calling help?   Help to do what?  I think it helps people
.11> vent a little frustration.  It certainly doesn't help us make the real
   
Does it help?  No.  Does it hurt?  No.  Who really cares?  This topic is so
insignificant in the big picture, I can't believe I wasted my time responding to it.

    
    I never bad mouth Microsoft.
    
    First, this is business.  Microsoft only does what is in Microsofts
    interest.  And Microsoft has a well established history of using
    "partners" for short term advantage.  We get what we deserve.  So why
    call them names?  We knew what they were when we asked them to the
    dance.
    
    Second, it never pays to piss off the 800lb gorilla with the all the 
    power.  It won't do you any good long or short term.  Heck, you might
    work for them someday.  You should take the time honored tradition of
    waiting for them to slip up and hit the skids, then you bring out your
    knives.
    
    

	Related to this vein:

	http://www.boardwatch.com/borgtee2.jpg

							mike

    Re.9
                                   
    "arrogant pride or presumption"

     Call them by their proper name - Microsoft 
    
    ya and while you're at it call DEC by its proper
    name Digital      ;-,

Re: .16

Nope.  The "proper name" now is DIGITAL.  See, ya turn your back for just a
second and they change the rules on ya again!

					Steve

    
    Come on, as far back as 10 years ago I was told by legal that DIGITAL
    was the proper usage if Digital Equipment Corporation was not fully
    written out.  And that DEC was not proper except as part of a product
    name.  This is really *not* new.
    
    Heck, I couldn't trademark XUIS because XUI was already a trademark of
    DIGITAL and you can't add a "S" to any trademark to create a new one.
    
    This isn't anything but the lawyers.
    
    

Re: .18

I imagine that Steve meant that "Digital" is not the same as "DIGITAL".

- Scott

    ...except it's still "Digital Equipment Corporation," not
    DIGITAL Equipment Corporation....

    It's NOT an exception.  Use DIGITAL when used alone, use Digital
    Equipment Corporation when spelled out fully.  It's pretty simple, and
    it's been the rule for a *long* time.
    

    But doesn't our logo still say
    
    	digital
    
    ??????
    
    And where's the internal publicity announcing this obviously
    important change in our corporate standards?????
    

>    But doesn't our logo still say
>    
>    	digital
> ?

The logotype is a symbol that stands by itself. While I agree we are saddled 
with a problematic name and there's been a lot of thrashing over what to do
about the problems the name has engendered, the logo is, IMHO, an excellent
design and does not conflict with the rest of the current edition of the
what's-our-name schema. 

    re: .21
    
    Please define a "a *long* time."  I've been writing manuals for
    about 16 years now, and as far as I know the change from "Digital"
    to "DIGITAL" phased in as of about December 1996.
    

>>    But doesn't our logo still say
>>    
>>    	digital
>> ?
>
>The logotype is a symbol that stands by itself. While I agree we are saddled 
    
    
    Think of it like "Prince".
    
    Digital is that symbol thing.

    
    How long ago?  Well, let's see... I can say with *no* doubt that I was
    told this when VWS was still a viable window system, and VMS was still
    the king.  Long enough for you?  There *was* no "decision" handed down,
    although you may have gotten one in a long line of memo's that keep
    getting generated every so many years trying to get everyone on the
    same page.  I got it from someone in legal eons ago (in fact, so long
    ago I don't even have the mail archives any longer... they are on some
    unreadable TK50).
    
    What I was told was what I said.  In terms of the *logo* it is just
    that, a logo.  The fact that the logo contains the lower case
    "digital" is immaterial, it is not text.  Nor are we supposed to
    attempt to mimic the logo in text (like you see on lot of old memo
    templates).
    
    What they are telling you is not marketing cruft, but legal cruft in
    the usage of the corporate logo, and the company name.
    
    

    RE .10...
    
    Most, most excellent work, Wiggins!  Keep it up!!!

    If we're doing history, I think the "`DIGITAL never Digital' is new"
    camp wins this one at least in a comparison I quickly did between 
    published standards from 1990 and 1996. 

    I have the 1990 edition of the "Company Identity Manual" from the
    "Corporate Identity Group" in PKO. This is a high-touch job of the kind
    a New York ad agency'll do for a top-tier company with big bucks, and
    must have cost a few hundred thousand $. It fills a 2" 3-ring binder and
    has 22 sections separated by laminated tab pages. I wonder if the
    existence of this binder was forgotten in the panic that hit the
    company shortly after it was issued.

    In 1996 DIGITAL issued a 20-page color brochure titled "The DIGITAL
    brand identity toolbox" that covers some of the same ground. 

    In the 1990 opus, I find they go on at great length about 
    "the DIGITAL Logo" as it is consistently referred to. In a quick scan
    of the beginning of the book and some possibly relevant sections, I
    find that:

    * There is little mention of how or whether to use "DEC". They do USE
      it, and I find a reference to "DEC Standard 178-5". It also says
      "VAX, VMS and DEC are always in all caps" but they may be discussing
      "DEC" only insofar as it's part of a trademark like "DECwindows".
      They say "Consider an established trademark formative, e.g., DEC,
      VAX, VMS, ULTRIX as the basis for developing new marks."

      I see no mention of using DEC to refer to Digital Equipment
      Corporation, yea or nay.

    * They use "Digital" when referring to the company (but not if
      referring to the logo, as stated above). For example, they say:
      "Digital's new four-tiered architecture for marketing communications
      vehicles is an effort by the corporation to provide uniformity...."

    * They do not, as far as my quick scan of this tome can determine, say
      anything about use of "Digital" vs. "DIGITAL", and there are numerous
      examples of their using "Digital" to refer to the company.

    In the 1996 "toolbox", they clearly state in an extremely large
    pointsize headline: "DIGITAL not Digital". I don't see any mention of
    "DEC", but we all know its status: $30 and falling.

    Had enough yet, or would you like to know what the design standards are
    for a company truck, car, or office building? 

I've yet to meet a customer who calls us "DIGITAL" (or "Digital", for that 
matter).

I've just written a Statement of Work for a project. Seeing uppercase "DIGITAL" 
scattered throughout a document written in normal lower case just looks stupid.

As for calling Microsoft by the right name, it does seem reasonable that we 
should treat others as we would have others treat us; if only they wsated as 
much time and effort on renaming themselves every couple of years.

See also http://www.microsnot.com/.

PJDM

    
    
    re .25
    
    >think of it like "Prince"
    
    you mean the singer formally known as "Prince"?
    SO we're the corporation formally known as ... ????
    
    

    Here's an electronic version of the text referred to earlier:
    
          <<< ICS::ICS_SYS01:[NOTES$LIBRARY]COMPANY_IDENTITY.NOTE;1 >>>
                      -< Company Identity Bulletin Board >-
================================================================================
Note 17.17               Company Identity Manual on-line                17 of 17
ICS::MAZZONE                                        482 lines   7-JUN-1990 14:16
                       -< Chapter 1   The DIGITAL Logo >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	.
	.
	.    
The DIGITAL Logo is used as a graphic element; it is never used within 
a sentence.  When referring to the company within text, use our trade 
name, "Digital," in upper-lower case.  Using "DIGITAL" in all caps 
signifies its use as a trademark, as in "DIGITAL Logo."  The term 
"DEC" should be used as a trademark for our products and as a service 
mark for our services, but not in reference to the company itself.

The following is a reference to the THERMOS case, in which a Federal 
Court declared it a generic term rather than still a trademark:

"Internal misuse of a trademark by employees of the company owning it 
has been a factor in a Federal Court's declaring that a one-time 
trademark has lost its trademark significance altogether.  The Court 
found that internal misuse of the trademark THERMOS by employees of 
its owner, King-Seeley, was so widespread that it was additional proof 
that the mark had become a generic term rather than remaining a 
trademark.  In other words, if the employees of the company did not 
even use the trademark correctly, that is convincing proof that it 
isn't a trademark that the courts should protect."

Given the above, employees should always use the DIGITAL Logo and all 
of our trademarks correctly in both internal and external documents.  
A periodically updated list of trademarks can be found in our 
Corporate Videotex Library under "ADMINISTRATION" (or type "VTX LAW" 
at DCL).
	.
	.
	.

>I've just written a Statement of Work for a project. Seeing uppercase "DIGITAL" 
>scattered throughout a document written in normal lower case just looks stupid.

According to the 1996 "DIGITAL brand identity booklet", you are allowed to use
small caps for "IGITAL" part of "DIGITAL" to lower the impact. This can be
approximated with a 1-pt font reduction if you don't have small caps font.* 
So, if your proposal is done in type rather than ASCII text, you can do this in
your copious spare time. It may be possible to define a variable, symbol or
macro of some sort, depending on the software you're using, to make this easier.

By using "small caps", the shouting DIGITAL text should quiet down
substantially. 

*The DIGITAL brand identity booklet says small caps and doesn't deal with lack
of small caps font. If you use the reduced point size to approximate it, you're
sailing in uncharted waters! ;^)

In my scanning of it, I believe that the DIGITAL brand identity booklet gives
little or no consideration to our internal document systems, common PC word
processors, or the default fonts of our printers. I don't know if your office
has "Franklin Heavy Gothic" or "Walbaum Italic", some of the required fonts,
but I don't think they're on our lps20 or lps32, etc.

Of course, when DIGITAL (or was it Digital?) did the identity manuals in 1990
and before, there was also a failure to take this into consideration. Who is
surprised that the mistake is replicated in the 1996 version? 

I would guess the 1996 booklet was done by people who send out for type or have
nice Mac's with high-level graphics arts capabilities. To be fair, the booklet
addresses "advertising, product brochures, package designs, web pages, events
and so on." Can you get Netscape to display "Walbaum"? I thought that was a
chain of foodstores in NY. Oh, wrong, that's "Waldbaums". 

Just remember this, and I quote: "These are firm standards, not flexible
guidelines, and we must all adhere to them." 

    Well that's interesting.
    
    I've seen a few DIGITALs in (electronic versions of) brochures lately
    where the IGITAL appeared slightly offset from the D.
    
    I'd been blaming it on bugs in GhostScript, or Acrobat, or some Mac
    converter, or whatever.
    
    Turns out it was deliberate.
    
    DIGITAL (all caps) really does look unsatisfactory (to me) outside the
    "brochure" environment, but there's little point arguing...
    
    regards
    john

    Pleasant surprise over the weekend as I was using idle network banwidth
    to testdrive the new Exchange 5.0 server in Redmond.
    
    Microsoft doing an unashamed plug for Alpha.  Check it out ...
    
    	http://www.exchangeserver.com/testdrive/rules.htm

    And each mail message sent seems to have the following text inserted at
    the top
    
    "This message was sent to you by Microsoft Exchange Server 5.0 running
    on a Digital AlphaServer 4000.
      Microsoft is not responsible for the content of this message. Message
    text follows:"
    
    Maybe Microsoft has finally noticed us...
    
    	Owen.

    re: .35
    
    Mistaken identity.  They're referring to a company called
    Digital, and we're DIGITAL..... ;-)

Speaking of which, there's now a corporate branding Web site at 
http://www.imc.das.dec.com/brand/.

It seems we now have some new colours:

DIGITAL burgundy
DIGITAL grey
DIGITAL ecru
DIGITAL blue
DIGITAL orange
DIGITAL green
DIGITAL purple

Then there's the statements "Research shows that current and prospective 
customers are not familiar with the DIGITAL brand and what it stands for" (I 
wonder if they bothered to do any research on the DEC brand), and "Think in 
customer terms, keep it simple, concise and make it easy" (the customer thinks 
in terms of DEC, and DEC is simpler, more concise, and easier than DIGITAL, why 
do they think everybody uses DEC?).

Where do we get copies of Franklin Gothic Heavy and Walbaum?

PJDM

    My understanding is that if you need the two fonts you have to purchase
    them.

    For "online" applications, you are allowed to use Times New Roman
    instead of Waldbaum, and Arial Bold instead of Franklin Gothic - if you
    have Corel DRAW, it contains an "ITC Franklin Gothic" font which is
    pretty close to the "official" one.
    
    				Steve

>    For "online" applications, you are allowed to use Times New Roman
>    instead of Waldbaum, and Arial Bold instead of Franklin Gothic - if you

http://www.digital.com/info/SP3350/SP3350SC.TXT does say there is a kit for a
flavor of Walbaum that you can purchase. Franklin and Arial are not listed.

The Branding Group's web site
http://www.imc.das.dec.com/brand/btbox/tool_type.html deals with font issues.
It says "We use the typeface Walbaum for body copy and text on all
communications." ...  "Franklin Gothic Regular may be used as a secondary text
face for captions and within newsletters, for example. Times Roman may be used
as a substitute for PC-based desktop publishing and web site layouts only." It
It also says, with respect to headlines, that "Arial Bold may be used for
PC-based or Web layouts only." I'm glad I don't have any of these fonts or I
might have to try to figure out what exactly that all means.

Maybe some wizard can advise how viewers like Netscape deal with fonts. The
only font directives I see in the source for
http://www.imc.das.dec.com/brand/btbox/tool_type.html are
<font face="Arial,Helvetica">.

As an example, for DIGITAL UNIX documentation, we don't use Walbaum or Franklin
Gothic or Arial, and we don't generally use PCs to generate the documents. I
think the DIGITAL UNIX docset uses uses NewCenturySchlbk (as PS calls it) and
Helvetica, and I'll bet we'll see the stock at $199-1/2 before we're asked to
retool. I'd be surprised if VAX Document now or will ever output books whose
typography is up to the new snuff. Maybe NT documentation will have a shot at
it.

Bottom line: IMHO, unless you're in marketing communications, or unless you set
up DIGITAL web sites, especially external ones, except for the usage "DIGITAL",
I think the typography issues will prove to be moot. 

Just in case anyone's interested, the 1990 Corporate Identity Manual, which I
think dealt with a whole lot more design issues than the current efforts,
says "Under no circumstances should any typefaces other than GARAMOND or
HELVETICA be used for Digital literature, signage, packaging, or other
applications." Guess we forgot to follow that one too.

I think the branding and identity effort is important and should be followed
whenever feasible. No consideration seems to have been given to accommodating
our tech doc publications in the new standards, and I wonder why. (We ARE doing
the heavy lifting of substituting DIGITAL for Digital, thank you, you're
welcome.) 

Also, in developing and promulgating the new identity standards, I wonder what
role, if any, was played by the very very expensive work that culminated in the
1990 version of the "Company Identity Manual". 

So they tell us "These are firm standards, not flexible guidelines, and we must 
all adhere to them", and at the same time, when we want to do the right thing, 
we're told to be flexible because we can't get the tools needed to follow the 
standards.

Makes about as much sense as anything else this company has done in the last few 
years.

PJDM

    We purchased the Walbaum font via Adobe Type-on-call today for $49.99 +
    tax
    

    I'm in the wrong business.  I should be generating fonts, at 50 bucks a
    pop; then name them after NY supermarkets; then get some company to
    spec them for their use.  I'll wait 'til QVC offers the font for "three
    easy payments of $14.95").
    

    
    
    Memo from the Chief,
    
    I'm adding another Division to the corporation following Gordon Bell's
    very successful No Output Division (NOD), this is the Outputs a Lot But 
    its All Drivel and Causes the Field Immense Irritation Division 
    (OALBIADACTFIID).
    
    When referring to this group, you can use the very intelligible acronym
    they themselves have designed in internal correspondence only if you use 
    a palantino grist pierpoint font in 14 point bold without shadow and make 
    sure you use all capitals and please dont superimpose any of the letters, 
    you'll only confuse them with some other group of people who should have 
    been on the first flight out with the telephone sanitisers and marketing
    executives.
    
    The palantino grist pierpoint 14 font is a wholly owned product of
    someone else, so I guess you can never refer to them in internal
    correspondence. Kind of convenient, huh?
    
    I'm sure you'll join in congratulating me on making this major
    important ground breaking decision in creating the OALBIADACTFIID, it
    sure saved making several real business decisions today, and, given my
    track record lately, this is wholly a good thing.
    
    The Boss 
    
    
    
    

    
    	Memos from The President just aren't the same without four pages
    	of ALL-IN-1 headers, but nice try.
    
    
    
    	8^)
    

    Sorry, I should have prefaced with [ALL-IN-1 HEADERS DELETED], or
    should I say it was sent via Exchange, so no one received it anyway.

    Maybe you should have said "4 pages of ALL-IN-1 headers at the top of 
    an Exchange message that no one ever recieved." ?
    
    .mike.

    
    	RE: .46
    
    	I'm rolling over here!!  8^)
    

>    should I say it was sent via Exchange, so no one received it anyway.

Now, now, that's kind of unfair, isn't it?  I mean, 1997's not even half
over yet -- there's still plenty of time for normal delivery...

If it was an Exchange message, then some of it would have been missing for us 
ALL-IN-1 stick in the muds, like the "Exchange Tips" that our IS people send 
out, so it would read:

	The new division is called:

	The Boss

PJDM

I received mail from a branding person saying that we do not have a corporate 
license for these fonts. Vendors and others have to buy them directly from 
Adobe.

PJDM

| I received mail from a branding person saying that we do not have a corporate 
| license for these fonts. Vendors and others have to buy them directly from 
| Adobe.

This is just too much :-) :-) :-) Maybe we should change our phone number,
while we're at it, to 1-800-TRANTOR.

>Per

    Its a good thing that Hari didn't know about Digital since I doubt
    that any psychohistory laws could be made to explain/predict our
    behavior.  We should just put Daneel in charge...
    
    				-John

    You heard about that Second Foundation Bluegrass group, didn't you? 
    
    The Seldon Scene...

There's no comparison: the Foundation actually encouraged their Traders to go 
out and sell things to grow the economy.

PJDM

    assuming of course, that Foundation==DEC. on the other hand, if
    Empire==DEC, then we all know what happened to _that_ ;'/

re  .56

I think of Digital as the 2nd Foundation: doing brilliant work that 
absolutely no one knows about, because they do their best to keep
their existence a complete secret...

-- Ken Moreau