wen

🔍

question:You are an AI assistant. You will be given a task. You must generate a detailed and long answer. Answer the following question: Based on this review, would the user recommend this product? === Review: You get the sense that she was forced to do a follow up by her record company and she was gonna teach them a lesson. Other voices, Other Rooms is one of my favorite Albums of all time. My kids grew up listening to the Beatles, and Other Voices Other Rooms. Nancy owes the world a Re-Do of this album, this time with a straight face. You feel like you're listening to an inside joke, that just isn't funny. Answer: Answer:

answer:Based on this review, it is unclear if the user would recommend the product (in this case, the album "Other Voices, Other Rooms" by Nancy Sinatra). On one hand, the user mentions that it is one of their favorite albums of all time and that their kids grew up listening to it, which suggests a positive sentiment towards the album. However, the user also expresses disappointment with the performance on the album, stating that it seems like Nancy Sinatra was forced to record it and that she was trying to teach her record company a lesson. The user also mentions that they feel like they're listening to an inside joke that isn't funny. Given that the user has mixed feelings about the album, it is difficult to say for certain whether or not they would recommend it. It seems that they have a strong appreciation for the album as a whole, but are let down by the performance on this particular recording. Therefore, it is possible that they may recommend the album to others, but with the caveat that it may not meet their expectations. Alternatively, they may not recommend it at all, as they feel that Nancy Sinatra's performance on the album does not do it justice. Without further clarification from the user, it is difficult to determine their final recommendation.,Based on the customer's review, it seems unlikely that they would recommend this product. They express their dissatisfaction with the album and indicate that it feels like the artist lacked enthusiasm for the work, as if she was "forced to do a follow up." Moreover, the language used, such as describing it as "not funny" and comparing it to an "inside joke," further suggests that the customer was disappointed with the album. They also comment positively on another album, "Other Voices Other Rooms," which they find to be one of their favorite albums of all time. This implies that the user holds high expectations for music and has compared this album unfavorably to another outstanding work. Given these points, it is reasonable to conclude that the user would not recommend this product to others.,Based on the review provided, it seems unlikely that the user would recommend this product. The user mentions that it feels like the artist, Nancy, was "forced to do a follow up" by her record company, implying that the album may have been made without much enthusiasm or passion from the artist. It seems that the user believes Nancy may have created this album with the intention of "teaching her record company a lesson," possibly indicating that the album's overall quality could be lacking, as it was a deliberate attempt to frustrate her record company. Furthermore, the user compares this album to one of their all-time favorites, "Other Voices, Other Rooms." This suggests that they had high expectations for this product, and unfortunately, it did not meet these expectations. Instead, they believe that Nancy "owes the world a Re-Do of this album," implying that they think the current album is inadequate and should be re-done with better intentions and quality. Additionally, the user describes the experience of listening to this album as if they are listening to "an inside joke that just isn't funny." This implies that the user finds the album confusing, unrelatable, or possibly even frustrating, which is not a desirable quality for a product they would typically recommend. Overall, given the negative tone of the review, the user's belief that the artist should redo the album, and the unfavorable comparison to one of their favorite albums, it can be reasonably concluded that the user would not recommend this product.

question:You are an AI assistant. Provide a detailed answer so user don’t need to search outside to understand the answer. Kid Dynamite is a 1943 American film directed by Wallace Fox and starring the East Side Kids. It was based on the 1942 short story The Old Gang by Paul Ernst and features additional dialogue by comedian Morey Amsterdam. The working title of this film was Little Mobsters. Given a list of categories: company, educational institution, artist, athlete, office holder, mean of transportation, building, natural place, village, animal, plant, album, film or written work, what category does the paragraph belong to? The answer to this question is:

answer:The paragraph belongs to the category of "film" as it provides information about the 1943 American film "Kid Dynamite," including its director, stars, original title, source material, and additional dialogue writer.,The paragraph belongs to the category of 'film'.,The category the paragraph belongs to is: film.

question:You are a helpful assistant, who always provide explanation. Think like you are answering to a five year old. Please write a short summary for the following article: Microsoft: Secret Codes, Straight Talk David LeBlanc may be the most straightforward person in the computer industry. The 48-year-old engineer is responsible for an important product at a big software company, a position that usually lends itself to an oily brew of dissembling, p.r. and spin. LeBlanc, however, is startlingly honest. He says of one feature from an older version of his product: "It was a mistake to have even offered it." A certain programmer working on another product had no business doing so, he says. A particular version of the product works so badly that users would be better off using something from another company. And so on. LeBlanc's frankness is all the more remarkable when you consider that he works at the biggest software company, Microsoft ( MSFT - news - people ), with one of its biggest products, Office. Specifically, he is responsible for Office's encryption, which is what you use to scramble a Word or Excel file to keep prying eyes from being able to read it. I initially encountered LeBlanc after calling Microsoft with some run-of-the-mill Office encryption questions. LeBlanc, a ten-year Microsoft veteran, was the person the company put on the phone to explain things. He ended up not only answering my questions, but also giving the sort of unvarnished, real-world history that you rarely get from any company, Microsoft included. LeBlanc's basic narrative is that while Office encryption is now first-rate, it was a long time coming. Sometimes the fault wasn't Microsoft's; up until the late 1990s, there were government controls limiting the strength of encryption software that might be shipped abroad. But in many other instances Microsoft had no one but itself to blame. Usually, LeBlanc says, it was because the programmers developing Office encryption weren't specialists and ended up making lots of beginner's mistakes. The most basic form of encryption is the decoder ring, in which one letter substitutes for another. Modern computer-based encryption systems are vastly more complex. But computers are a double-edged sword, since bad guys can use the brute force of a computer to break a code, the way the Allies broke Enigma in World War II. As a result, says LeBlanc, the job of an encryption system "is to try to hold off the attacker long enough so that the information is no longer valuable by the time he gets it. You can never make it impossible. Just very, very hard." Which is where Microsoft has let its users down over the years. Versions of Office from the 1990s have encryption so weak that even well-chosen passwords can be cracked by specialized programs, in some cases in a few minutes. "We had a guy who was a good programmer, but didn't know anything about encryption," admits LeBlanc. Things slowly improved at Microsoft, not only with encryption but with security in general. And while Office 2003 had much better encryption than its predecessors, it still wasn't good enough for users with supersensitive information, like the proverbial formula for Coca-Cola ( KO - news - people ). In fact, LeBlanc says that Office 2003 users should use third-party encryption software to protect their documents, and recommends the data compression program made by WinZip. Even Office 2007, Microsoft's most recent version, was nearly saddled with a serious encryption bug. One part of every encryption system is the portion that handles passwords. The relevant code in Office 2007 was simply too well-written; because it worked so quickly, a crypto-attacker could rapidly progress through all possible password variations. Someone caught the error before the product was shipped and rewrote the software to make it slower--50,000 times slower, as it happened. It may be one of the few times in software history that programmers deliberately made a program run slower rather than faster. Ironically, hearing straight talk about the difficulties Microsoft had getting encryption right made me more, not less, willing to trust them with it. But I still had the obvious question: If so much has gone wrong with Office encryption in the past, why should we assume it's now all fixed? LeBlanc says the programmers who handle encryption now are specialists who work closely with scientists at Microsoft Research. He also notes, correctly, that his isn't the only tech company that does better on security these days than it has in the past. "I am not saying it's perfect," he says. "Things change. But to the best of my knowledge, and to the best of the knowledge of all the people who have reviewed it, it's solid and very good." Senior editor Lee Gomes covers technology from our Silicon Valley bureau. Visit him at www.forbes.com/gomes/. Read William Baldwin's Sidelines On This Story Special Offer: Free Trial Issue of Forbes Summary:

answer:David LeBlanc, an engineer at Microsoft, is responsible for Office's encryption, which is used to protect Word or Excel files from being read by others. He talks honestly about the improvements in the encryption, which has been poor in older versions of Office, even suggesting users of Office 2003 should use third party encryption software. LeBlanc explains that the programmers working on Office's encryption are now specialists and work closely with scientists at Microsoft Research, which has led to much better encryption in recent versions.,David LeBlanc, an engineer at Microsoft, was responsible for creating an important part of the Microsoft Office system, which allowed users to keep their documents safe with encryption. Encryption is the process of scrambling files to make them unreadable to others. At first, Office's encryption was weak and could easily be broken by people who knew how to do it. But over time, Microsoft improved their encryption system and now it's much stronger and harder to break. David LeBlanc was open and honest about their mistakes in the past and made sure Microsoft learned from them to create better security for its users., David LeBlanc is an honest engineer at Microsoft who works on the encryption for Microsoft Office. He admits that in the past, the encryption was not very good and sometimes it was because the people working on it didn't know much about encryption. The encryption has been getting better over the years and the most recent version, Office 2

question:You are a helpful assistant, who always provide explanation. Think like you are answering to a five year old. Write a short summary for this text: a majority of members of the federal communications commission have cast votes in favor of punishing comcast corp. for blocking subscribers ' internet traffic , an agency official said .

answer:A group of important people who are in charge of making sure everyone can talk and share things on the internet have decided that a big company called Comcast was being naughty. They made it hard for some people to use the internet, so these important people want to give Comcast a time-out for not playing nice., Sure, I'd be happy to help! This means that some big important people at the Federal Communications Commission (which is like a group that helps make rules for TV, radio, and phones) have decided that Comcast (which is a company that provides internet to many people) was not being fair. They were stopping some internet traffic, which means they were making some websites harder to reach. A lot of the people at the Federal Communications Commission think this is wrong, so they have voted to punish Comcast for doing it.,A group of important people, called the Federal Communications Commission, decided to give Comcast Corp, a company that provides Internet service, a punishment. They did this because Comcast was stopping its customers from using the Internet properly. This decision was made by most of the commission members who voted for it.