Yeah, but remember that inline statements didn't come until the addition of explicit scope delimiters. The most common form actually is:

perform routine-name
  until condition

and in that case, the UNTIL really does come at the end. But it still is really a PERFORM ... WHILE.

The fact is that this trips up programmers. They forget that they need to init the condition before the PEFORM, lest it never execute.

Standard COBOL (COBOL-85) has both DO WHILE and DO UNTIL loops. But UNTIL loops are actually WHILE loops: they test the exit condition before executing the loop.

If you really want an UNTIL loop you have to code extra syntax:

perform until condition with test after
  statements...
end-perform

with a lot of custom macros.

Remember that the despised Eolas patents (claiming invention of web site interactivity & plugins, including playing videos) were originally issued to the University of California, and then licensed to Eolas.

Compress with ZeoSync (100:1 lossless compression of random data). Repeat until compressed file is small enough to backup.

Because Apple first introduced the iDisk in 2000.

(iDisk was part of iTools, which became .Mac, then MobileMe, and finally iCloud. iDisk was dropped in iCloud, and the iCloud storage is not comparable in functionality.)

That's the catch. The standard Wireless Customer Agreement says that you can avoid the ETF if AT&T "increase[s] the price of any of the services to which you subscribe, beyond the limits set forth in your customer service summary" (emphasis added).

The Customer Service Summary (CSS) is the piece of paper that you get when you sign up, and is unique to you. You can download it from the online account.

The back page lists the estimated credits, adjustments, other charges, government fees and taxes. So you have no case as long as the fee actually imposed is less than the estimate in the CSS.

And guess what? My CSS from a year ago has a line item for "Other AT&T Surcharges" (for which there was no actual charge until now), and the estimated amount is higher than the new "Administrative" charge.

No wonder people who complain are told it isn't a breach of contract.

Isn't that because the USA taxes income, while other countries use a Value Added Tax (VAT)?

If that was true then why would it by fixed by installing an update to the other winsock LSP?

My guess is the other program was not implementing their LSP in full conformance to the API.

Parent is the most informative post in this entire topic.

There seems to be confusion about the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuits.

Microsoft won the 1988 to 1994 lawsuit over infringement of the GUI by Windows 2.0 and Windows 3.0, but Apple's case was hamstrung due to a licensing agreement for Windows 1.0. The court ruled that the vast majority of the infringement was covered by the licensing agreement, and the only remaining elements were not original to Apple.

The 2nd case was in 1997, when Apple alleged that Microsoft and Intel stole QuickTime code. Apple threatened Microsoft with a multi-billion dollar lawsuit and Microsoft threatened to cancel Office for Mac. They reached a settlement deal, with public announcement that Microsoft would continue Office development and buy $150 million of non-voting Apple stock. Oh, and there would be cross-licensing of patents.

It wasn't public knowledge at the time that the $150 million was really to settle the QuickTime theft, but the details came out in the 1998 US vs. Microsoft case.

I'm not ashamed to admit I liked Battlefield Earth, the book.

For one thing, it is a masterpiece of plotting. Before the end of the over 1,000 pages there are dozens and dozens of loose plot threads, and yet by the end every single one is neatly tied up.

...unless you're doing the types of things COBOL was made for. Such as, dealing with fixed point numbers.

The issue is that some updater programs are expecting to be able to update the program in its original install location.

This is actually regression in OS X. In classic Mac OS, you can move an application anywhere or even rename it and it will still work. Don't like the Application folder organization? Change it!

In OS X, you should be wary of moving any of Apple's applications, since Apple's Software Update seems to be the one that is most guilty of making assumptions. Lately I've been leaving programs dropped by installers in their initial location. But if the "install" is simply dragging an icon from a disk image, you are free to put it in any folder you want.

OS X will automatically find applications in the Applications folder and in any subfolder, and also it scans applications when you click on them. After that, it knows everything it needs to about that application's existence. Usually application paths are not important, so it is OK to move an application, aside from the updater issue.

Another way to create your own "Start Menu" type organization is to create aliases to applications and organize the aliases anyway you want.

The rationalization for why Macs don't have a Start Menu and Window does, is you'd never want users to have to wade through the Program Files folders, since they contains so much more visible files than just the ones you're supposed to run. The Mac has always tried to keep the applications self-contained, so the Applications folder only contains the icons that are of use to the user. If you present the Applications folder as a menu hierarchy it is what would be in the Start menu.