Yes... it was *such* a "good-natured" comment. A "whole post"? Could I have written a partial post? And irony? Not really. I had made a comment and left it at a reasonably neutral "ymmv" however she (it was a "her" not a "him") was unwilling to leave it at that so I simply noted that such was also a characteristic of "tit-for-tat" -ism and invited her to go ahead and have the final say. Now if I had insisted that she not continue commenting, i.e. that I get the last word, then that would have been ironic (and other things). In any case I've spent enough time on this so respond if you like but having now explained myself my participation is over.
Ummmm yeah... that's pretty much exactly what the article summary said. Being able to read is now +5 insightful? Oh well, I'm here to witness the dying days of/. I guess.
This wizard will be run (only once!) by a small fraction of users that Mozilla don't actually have yet.
If your criteria is that you shouldn't write something for users you don't yet have then you are in big trouble. As for "small fraction", so far this has not been part of the discussion and I doubt you have any idea what percentage of users would want this ability. I know I don't know. As for "only once!", I can envisage situations where import would be done more than once by a user.
Business schools do, but ONLY when you are actually paying users to use the programs you develop.
Ummmm no actually, it's CS departments that teach that. Along with usability and other esoteric things you may have no use for. Both business and CS departments would also teach that increased ease of use promotes user acceptance and ultimately wider adoption. And if you'd care to get philosophical about it then it is better for the human race that 1 programmer spend 100 hours doing something than 100,000 users spend 2 hours doing something. If you want to believe differently then that's obviously your right, but I'm not going to waste any more time arguing about this.
Yes that is my understanding. So if one were (what I assume is) a typical user then one's entire inbox is a single file. I think it would be much better to have it be a directory and each message be a file or for it to be a sql db and each message an entry in that db. I'm pretty sure *nix directories are no longer O(n**2) to search.
storing all your email data in one gigantic file always struck me as a really bad design choice anyway.
I agree - it's unfortunate that TBird does that as well. Either make each folder a directory and each message a file or, as someone suggested above, use SQL databases to store the messages.
I mean, seriously, why should TB re-invent the wheel?
Do you really not understand this? It's really very simple. It' is better for one programmer to spend 100 hours implementing a.pst import function for Thunderbird than for 10,000 users to spend 2+ hours each (make that 5+ when it is a Linux user who has to install Windows, then Outlook just to import a.pst file) figuring out how to import their data. I don't know what your class taught you but I'm pretty sure most schools teach that it's better to spend 1 hour of programmer time than 100 hours of user time. It usually comes right after the lesson about how computers are supposed to make human life less tedious etc.
This doesn't do anything for communicating with Exchange, which is really what you want.
Well it isn't what I want. I want TBird (with its calendaring extensions) to be able to read the Outlook address book and calendar from the.pst files.
Then I want TBird to be able to sync to my phone but that's another story and doesn't seem likely to happen so I may as well get an android and run TBird on it.
Now if only Thunderird gets a.pst import function for the calendar and address book it will be almost perfect for my use... at least v2 - god knows what has been done to v3.
As I said YMMV. Since you are unwilling to accept that, it appears you are determined to both disagree *and* to have the last word - another aspect of "tit-for-tat" -ism imho. Be my guest.
I saw it as "tit for tat" -ism. Somebody makes a negative comment about an identifiable group so somebody else just *has* to even the scales... that's not humor - quite the opposite really. YMMV.
Does everything have to be frickin scented? Crap, it seems like every frickin product around has got to have a scent. And there are waaayyyyyy too many people who have no familiarity with the idea of "less is more"... now we have to have scents to promote ethical behavior? Just get people to take showers and lay off all the perfumed crap. Sheeeesh.
You must live somewhere like my neighborhood. In the local urban wilderness area (100's of acres of forest with trails) you are required to pick up your dog's poop. Horse owners can let their animals crap wherever they please, including the middle of trails, and don't have to do a damn thing about it.
As for the environmental impact of having pets... let's compare it to the environmental impact of having children. Then regulate the one with the most impact.
Just as an experiment I thought I'd see what they had for science fiction. I looked for Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, Brunner and some others - all authors with many books that should be long out of copyright but surprisingly found nothing there.
The same people who say that women must have free access to abortion, because they have the right to say what they do with their bodies, are now saying that NYS health care workers don't have the right to say what they do with their bodies with regards to a vaccine?
Well yes, but it's different - the workers aren't all women. Seriously that would be the first argument if they were - sexual discrimination.
Why is it that liberals say that a woman has the right to decide whether or not she gets an abortion because it's her body, but say that health care workers don't have the right to decide whether or not they get vaccines, even though it's their body?????
Because the lives of women are deemed to be more important than the lives of men? Again, seriously. Just look at the media (and mortality/injury statistics) and see what lives are given the most value and what lives are seen as more disposable. I've been waiting for feminists to start protesting the unequal treatment for a while now. I expect that will happen any day now.
No way I can tell how accurate this is but if it is then it raises a whole lot of questions that ought to be asked... starting with the obvious: who got the money?
I agree with the sentiment of finish Thunderbird first. To do that forget the tabs and other attempts at flashiness, the attempts to make messaging more sophisticated etc. and address basic functionality first. Get calendaring, tasks and scheduling fully integrated and working well; make it able to read Outlook calendars and address books; have supported and good syncing to/with phones... if all that happened that would make Thunderbird a major winner in my eyes.
Some of the world may be moving to web based email but not everybody. I'm certainly not - I want my email on my machine where I can control it, especially since much of it is confidential in nature. If I want off-site access I'll tunnel.
But you both base your commentary on "a growing population" which imho is the real problem. Making devices more efficient is all well and good and I have no problem with that. But the ultimate energy savings comes from convincing someone to have one less child not from getting them to buy more efficient merchandise for that child.
The world already has more than enough people in it.
But all seriousness aside I get your point - the general public couldn't deal with the fact filled, rigorously developed thought provoking discourse in something like like, well let's say/. for example.
Slashdot Mirror
Women, despite outnumbering men, have been unable to achieve equality in macho culture despite at least 100 years of effort.
Why would women want to decrease their status, life-expectancy, economic power etc. etc. etc. by lowering their status to equality with men?
Yes... it was *such* a "good-natured" comment. A "whole post"? Could I have written a partial post? And irony? Not really. I had made a comment and left it at a reasonably neutral "ymmv" however she (it was a "her" not a "him") was unwilling to leave it at that so I simply noted that such was also a characteristic of "tit-for-tat" -ism and invited her to go ahead and have the final say. Now if I had insisted that she not continue commenting, i.e. that I get the last word, then that would have been ironic (and other things). In any case I've spent enough time on this so respond if you like but having now explained myself my participation is over.
Ummmm yeah... that's pretty much exactly what the article summary said. Being able to read is now +5 insightful? Oh well, I'm here to witness the dying days of /. I guess.
This wizard will be run (only once!) by a small fraction of users that Mozilla don't actually have yet.
If your criteria is that you shouldn't write something for users you don't yet have then you are in big trouble. As for "small fraction", so far this has not been part of the discussion and I doubt you have any idea what percentage of users would want this ability. I know I don't know. As for "only once!", I can envisage situations where import would be done more than once by a user.
Business schools do, but ONLY when you are actually paying users to use the programs you develop.
Ummmm no actually, it's CS departments that teach that. Along with usability and other esoteric things you may have no use for. Both business and CS departments would also teach that increased ease of use promotes user acceptance and ultimately wider adoption. And if you'd care to get philosophical about it then it is better for the human race that 1 programmer spend 100 hours doing something than 100,000 users spend 2 hours doing something. If you want to believe differently then that's obviously your right, but I'm not going to waste any more time arguing about this.
Yes that is my understanding. So if one were (what I assume is) a typical user then one's entire inbox is a single file. I think it would be much better to have it be a directory and each message be a file or for it to be a sql db and each message an entry in that db. I'm pretty sure *nix directories are no longer O(n**2) to search.
storing all your email data in one gigantic file always struck me as a really bad design choice anyway.
I agree - it's unfortunate that TBird does that as well. Either make each folder a directory and each message a file or, as someone suggested above, use SQL databases to store the messages.
I mean, seriously, why should TB re-invent the wheel?
Do you really not understand this? It's really very simple. It' is better for one programmer to spend 100 hours implementing a .pst import function for Thunderbird than for 10,000 users to spend 2+ hours each (make that 5+ when it is a Linux user who has to install Windows, then Outlook just to import a .pst file) figuring out how to import their data. I don't know what your class taught you but I'm pretty sure most schools teach that it's better to spend 1 hour of programmer time than 100 hours of user time. It usually comes right after the lesson about how computers are supposed to make human life less tedious etc.
This doesn't do anything for communicating with Exchange, which is really what you want.
Well it isn't what I want. I want TBird (with its calendaring extensions) to be able to read the Outlook address book and calendar from the .pst files.
Then I want TBird to be able to sync to my phone but that's another story and doesn't seem likely to happen so I may as well get an android and run TBird on it.
2K7???? Is that supposed to mean 2007? If so then why did you put 2003 and 2010 instead of the far more trendy and obscure 2K3 and 2K10?
Now if only Thunderird gets a .pst import function for the calendar and address book it will be almost perfect for my use... at least v2 - god knows what has been done to v3.
As I said YMMV. Since you are unwilling to accept that, it appears you are determined to both disagree *and* to have the last word - another aspect of "tit-for-tat" -ism imho. Be my guest.
I saw it as "tit for tat" -ism. Somebody makes a negative comment about an identifiable group so somebody else just *has* to even the scales... that's not humor - quite the opposite really. YMMV.
Does everything have to be frickin scented? Crap, it seems like every frickin product around has got to have a scent. And there are waaayyyyyy too many people who have no familiarity with the idea of "less is more"... now we have to have scents to promote ethical behavior? Just get people to take showers and lay off all the perfumed crap. Sheeeesh.
Parent is modded Insightful??? How about Humorless?
You must live somewhere like my neighborhood. In the local urban wilderness area (100's of acres of forest with trails) you are required to pick up your dog's poop. Horse owners can let their animals crap wherever they please, including the middle of trails, and don't have to do a damn thing about it.
As for the environmental impact of having pets... let's compare it to the environmental impact of having children. Then regulate the one with the most impact.
Just as an experiment I thought I'd see what they had for science fiction. I looked for Heinlein, Asimov, Clarke, Brunner and some others - all authors with many books that should be long out of copyright but surprisingly found nothing there.
The same people who say that women must have free access to abortion, because they have the right to say what they do with their bodies, are now saying that NYS health care workers don't have the right to say what they do with their bodies with regards to a vaccine?
Well yes, but it's different - the workers aren't all women. Seriously that would be the first argument if they were - sexual discrimination.
Why is it that liberals say that a woman has the right to decide whether or not she gets an abortion because it's her body, but say that health care workers don't have the right to decide whether or not they get vaccines, even though it's their body?????
Because the lives of women are deemed to be more important than the lives of men? Again, seriously. Just look at the media (and mortality/injury statistics) and see what lives are given the most value and what lives are seen as more disposable. I've been waiting for feminists to start protesting the unequal treatment for a while now. I expect that will happen any day now.
No way I can tell how accurate this is but if it is then it raises a whole lot of questions that ought to be asked... starting with the obvious: who got the money?
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2130246
I agree with the sentiment of finish Thunderbird first. To do that forget the tabs and other attempts at flashiness, the attempts to make messaging more sophisticated etc. and address basic functionality first. Get calendaring, tasks and scheduling fully integrated and working well; make it able to read Outlook calendars and address books; have supported and good syncing to/with phones... if all that happened that would make Thunderbird a major winner in my eyes.
the world is moving to webmail
Some of the world may be moving to web based email but not everybody. I'm certainly not - I want my email on my machine where I can control it, especially since much of it is confidential in nature. If I want off-site access I'll tunnel.
They could take the Strata Council (condo board) of my building. I'll even help push them through the airlock.
Parallelism has been around for over 20 years now, not to mention the related discipline of distributed computing.
Quite a bit more than 20 years. If you're going to be snotty then be accurate as well.
But you both base your commentary on "a growing population" which imho is the real problem. Making devices more efficient is all well and good and I have no problem with that. But the ultimate energy savings comes from convincing someone to have one less child not from getting them to buy more efficient merchandise for that child.
The world already has more than enough people in it.
Dan who?
/. for example.
But all seriousness aside I get your point - the general public couldn't deal with the fact filled, rigorously developed thought provoking discourse in something like like, well let's say
in my MIT Ph.D. thesis
Did you also do a Ph.D. thesis at some other university?