Mozilla Thunderbird has both the features you mention.
1. Go the Tools menu, Options. Under the General tab, select your preferred window configuration.
2. Right-click on a message. You have the option of Labelling it as a particular category, or Marking with a flag.
To see flagged messages, you may need to enable this column, by clicking on the field selector on the right-hand side of the column headings.
One customisation where I think Outlook does beat Mozilla here is in labelling. Outlook lets you have as many label categories as you want. Thunderbird has a maximum of five, although you can change the labels and colours.
As another poster has said, both the features you mention have been available for a long time in both Outlook and Mozilla.
The importance of having literature available in digital format extends far beyond just the ability to read it on your computer.
For a start, digital copies are easier and cheaper to store than paper-based documents. For older documents, keeping a digital reproduction may be the only way to ensure the continuing existence of the work.
The "plain ASCII" restriction on all the documents in PG is a boon for usability in areas other than screen-based reproduction. For instance, you can print the document in a variety of formats, or have it played to you as sound. Quoting and searching digital material is also significantly faster than with paper documents.
Reading documents on your computer may be the most obvious, but it's certainly not the only benefit of digital literature.
I think the fact that so many people are posting and moderating on this story shows that it's a concern many people feel about the moderating of comments on slashdot, and not something that should just be disregarded (e.g. "Go elsewhere if you don't like it here!"). It a genuine attempt to improve the situation, or at least bring it to light...
Yes, it is obviously time something was done about the moderating situation. Is it impossible to have a user-run moderating system? Isn't that what Slashdot is? Today's events seems to deny that, and the editors or administrators seem to be taking active part (or at least have done so through the moderation rules coded) in making sure that the "users" don't get out of hands with their new-found moderating freedom.
A poor example (well, it's actually a good example, but of a Bad Thing) of both censorship and external control over public discussion -- something that the open source movement has tried hard to push aside.
Another issue that I've not seen raised so far is that digital capture is not yet sufficiently generic.
The fact that anyone can pick up a photograph or even a roll of film, and see the picture that's been taken on it makes it a far more interesting medium for preserving images for the indefinite future
On the other hand, digital media, in the form of documents, pictures, motion picture, sound, and others, has always had the problem of conflicting formats. Oh sure, you might say, now we have standard XYZ.. but where will that standard be in 25 years? Can anyone's PC easily read EBCDIC data stored in an IMS database these days? Got your tape drive handy?:)
This is quite a contrast compared with the way anyone can hold a photograph and see what's portrayed.
I suppose this is a bit of a plug for open standards, because in the end, if everyone is ever going to jump on any bandwagon as far as formats are concerned, it has to be an open alternative, which has been tried and proven.
Towards the bottom of the second page, Jacobs has said the following:
Someone better come up with a way to get better and better at protecting the rights of the artists, because without doing that, I think that the art and the ability to distribute the art goes away.
Now as far as I can remember, art was around long before there were recording companies to distribute it, and long before even copyright legislation was around. IMHO it's not something we're going to be losing because it becomes more widely distributed, electronically.
I think it's pretty obvious that it's the RIAA and the recording industry as a whole that's pushing for this. It's not in the interest of any performer that wants people to enjoy their work, nor the consumer who only wants to appreciate it.
Yes, I can say that eiffel is a fantastic language for teaching the principles of object-oriented programming.
I've done a lot of C/C++ programming, and a little bit of Java, but I haven't seen a clearer or more well-defined language. (We're studying it as a first year programming subject)
The features offered by Eiffel include:
* clean, english-like code
* promotes documentation of code, through commenting
* promotes standard of design (some Perl programmer would say this is limiting, but it's great for beginners)
* incredibly simple OO approach - even complex ideas like multiple inheritance and generic classes are implemented cleanly.
In short, I'd say Eiffel is the ideal language to teach beginner programmers, since the OO approach is the industry standard. Perhaps it wouldn't be suitable after studying Java, but what you don't learn in Java about the principles of good design, you can learn with Eiffel.
A final note: Based on the two distributions of Eiffel I've tried, there is a marked difference in standard syntax, even for basic I/O. I use SmallEiffel, and have found that the most consistent, and fully-featured.
I fail to see the usefulness of such a function. Firstly and most importantly, how can analysis of language pretend to pick up the tone of language that is found to be insulting by a human? I think you can see this in the example Eudora provide on their site, ranking a only slightly insulting message (IMHO) with three of their chillies. This is supposed to be for the most offensive language, yet their analysis of the sentence structure or whatnot indicates otherwise.
The most obvious flame signs (swear words etc) are mostly used by those new to the net, who use flames without considering fully the consequences. These are also most likely to turn this function off, or ignore the messages (often in the heat of anger) rendering the device useless.
But once again, my point is, don't complain that Eudora is going nowhere with their new version if you are not helping to create some project that is pushing mail clients forward. Eudora is working to do just that, and if you think it is the wrong direction, put your thoughts into code and write a better client!
I hear a lot of this type of discussion these days - "The games are all the same", or "I wish something new and different would come out". This is where the opensource movement is lacking, and where these dissatisfied gamers can put their code where their mouth is.
Open source has not had a strong history of games, but all the parts are available to put together a new game, even a new genre! We in the open source community may require device drivers, but games are an important factor in moving Linux and other open source platforms into mainstream use.
Broadening the genres currently available, and innovating with new designs is part of the open source philosophy, and should be equally applicable to games programming.
Commercial success is not an issue here, so artists are free to create and try new ideas without the overhanging threat of failure (meaning loss of job or income).
That anyway, is IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Thunderbird has both the features you mention.
1. Go the Tools menu, Options. Under the General tab, select your preferred window configuration.
2. Right-click on a message. You have the option of Labelling it as a particular category, or Marking with a flag.
To see flagged messages, you may need to enable this column, by clicking on the field selector on the right-hand side of the column headings.
One customisation where I think Outlook does beat Mozilla here is in labelling. Outlook lets you have as many label categories as you want. Thunderbird has a maximum of five, although you can change the labels and colours.
As another poster has said, both the features you mention have been available for a long time in both Outlook and Mozilla.
The importance of having literature available in digital format extends far beyond just the ability to read it on your computer.
For a start, digital copies are easier and cheaper to store than paper-based documents. For older documents, keeping a digital reproduction may be the only way to ensure the continuing existence of the work.
The "plain ASCII" restriction on all the documents in PG is a boon for usability in areas other than screen-based reproduction. For instance, you can print the document in a variety of formats, or have it played to you as sound. Quoting and searching digital material is also significantly faster than with paper documents.
Reading documents on your computer may be the most obvious, but it's certainly not the only benefit of digital literature.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=26264&threshol d=-1&commentsort=0&mode=nested&cid=2859676
I think the fact that so many people are posting and moderating on this story shows that it's a concern many people feel about the moderating of comments on slashdot, and not something that should just be disregarded (e.g. "Go elsewhere if you don't like it here!"). It a genuine attempt to improve the situation, or at least bring it to light...Yes, it is obviously time something was done about the moderating situation. Is it impossible to have a user-run moderating system? Isn't that what Slashdot is? Today's events seems to deny that, and the editors or administrators seem to be taking active part (or at least have done so through the moderation rules coded) in making sure that the "users" don't get out of hands with their new-found moderating freedom.
A poor example (well, it's actually a good example, but of a Bad Thing) of both censorship and external control over public discussion -- something that the open source movement has tried hard to push aside.
I sincerely hope you come to your senses.
Another issue that I've not seen raised so far is that digital capture is not yet sufficiently generic.
:)
The fact that anyone can pick up a photograph or even a roll of film, and see the picture that's been taken on it makes it a far more interesting medium for preserving images for the indefinite future
On the other hand, digital media, in the form of documents, pictures, motion picture, sound, and others, has always had the problem of conflicting formats. Oh sure, you might say, now we have standard XYZ.. but where will that standard be in 25 years? Can anyone's PC easily read EBCDIC data stored in an IMS database these days? Got your tape drive handy?
This is quite a contrast compared with the way anyone can hold a photograph and see what's portrayed.
I suppose this is a bit of a plug for open standards, because in the end, if everyone is ever going to jump on any bandwagon as far as formats are concerned, it has to be an open alternative, which has been tried and proven.
Matt
Someone better come up with a way to get better and better at protecting the rights of the artists, because without doing that, I think that the art and the ability to distribute the art goes away.
Now as far as I can remember, art was around long before there were recording companies to distribute it, and long before even copyright legislation was around. IMHO it's not something we're going to be losing because it becomes more widely distributed, electronically.I think it's pretty obvious that it's the RIAA and the recording industry as a whole that's pushing for this. It's not in the interest of any performer that wants people to enjoy their work, nor the consumer who only wants to appreciate it.
Just my $0.02.Matt Ryall <gholam@start.com.au>
Yes, I can say that eiffel is a fantastic language for teaching the principles of object-oriented programming.
I've done a lot of C/C++ programming, and a little bit of Java, but I haven't seen a clearer or more well-defined language. (We're studying it as a first year programming subject)
The features offered by Eiffel include:
* clean, english-like code
* promotes documentation of code, through commenting
* promotes standard of design (some Perl programmer would say this is limiting, but it's great for beginners)
* incredibly simple OO approach - even complex ideas like multiple inheritance and generic classes are implemented cleanly.
In short, I'd say Eiffel is the ideal language to teach beginner programmers, since the OO approach is the industry standard. Perhaps it wouldn't be suitable after studying Java, but what you don't learn in Java about the principles of good design, you can learn with Eiffel.
A final note: Based on the two distributions of Eiffel I've tried, there is a marked difference in standard syntax, even for basic I/O. I use SmallEiffel, and have found that the most consistent, and fully-featured.
Good luck!
I fail to see the usefulness of such a function. Firstly and most importantly, how can analysis of language pretend to pick up the tone of language that is found to be insulting by a human? I think you can see this in the example Eudora provide on their site, ranking a only slightly insulting message (IMHO) with three of their chillies. This is supposed to be for the most offensive language, yet their analysis of the sentence structure or whatnot indicates otherwise.
The most obvious flame signs (swear words etc) are mostly used by those new to the net, who use flames without considering fully the consequences. These are also most likely to turn this function off, or ignore the messages (often in the heat of anger) rendering the device useless.
But once again, my point is, don't complain that Eudora is going nowhere with their new version if you are not helping to create some project that is pushing mail clients forward. Eudora is working to do just that, and if you think it is the wrong direction, put your thoughts into code and write a better client!
I hear a lot of this type of discussion these days - "The games are all the same", or "I wish something new and different would come out". This is where the opensource movement is lacking, and where these dissatisfied gamers can put their code where their mouth is.
Happy coding!Open source has not had a strong history of games, but all the parts are available to put together a new game, even a new genre! We in the open source community may require device drivers, but games are an important factor in moving Linux and other open source platforms into mainstream use.
Broadening the genres currently available, and innovating with new designs is part of the open source philosophy, and should be equally applicable to games programming.
Commercial success is not an issue here, so artists are free to create and try new ideas without the overhanging threat of failure (meaning loss of job or income).
That anyway, is IMHO.