Using Timesheet Snap-In, Outlook users can view or submit time entries for regular tasks while the application also links Dynamics AX time entries to Outlook appointments and meetings.
So, you are scheduled to attend a meeting and that meeting will be billed to Project A.
Bill and Dave are also scheduled for the meeting, but something else comes up and they can't make it.
Because they are important people on the project, the meeting wraps up in 15 minutes instead of the scheduled 1 hour.
So now you have to go through and re-work the numbers so the correct people get billed to the correct project with the correct times.
This sounds like a solution in search of a problem.
Go ahead, be smug about it. But the bottom line is that as Mac becomes more popular you're going to have idiots who are going to let thing thru simply because they don't understand what they're doing.
So?
This isn't about individuals. This is about the population of Mac users.
If it is 99% impossible to get a virus, but some idiot manages to, that idiot will have to find another idiot to pass it on to.
The 99%'s keep adding up. So there's 1% chance of finding the first idiot.
There's only a 0.1% chance of finding the second idiot.
0.01% of finding a third idiot. 0.001% of finding the next, etc.
Meanwhile, there is a 0.001% chance of your hard drive failing. So, mathematically, you will lose data because your harddrive crashed BEFORE you will be infected with a virus.
You're more at risk of losing your data because your house burned down.
The upper limit of "security" is human stupidity. So you will never be 100% safe.
But you don't have to be.
Viruses, worms and trojans are only a problem when the infection rate is greater than the removal rate.
If machines get cleaned faster than they get infected, the virus, worm or trojan will die.
So the Mac's security model only has to be good enough to slow the infection rate below the removal rate.
You might hear rumours of someone's brother's friend's girlfriend's mother getting a "virus". But the reality is that more data will be lost because of human error than because of viruses, worms or trojans.
It's about configuring the computers so that the users can get the maximum amount of (business) work done, correctly, in the minimum amount of time and with the minimum amount of effort. With the required security.
And in order to achieve that, you have to find the current bottlenecks and solve them. And those bottlenecks will vary from company to company and MAY NOT BE 100% TECHNOLOGICAL.
Which means that you'll have to work around the existing corporate culture and kindoms and so forth.
It's the number of jobs at each salary range. Let's make it easy. Here's how it should look.
$20,000 and below | old # | new # | percent increase/decrease
$20,001 - $30,000 | old # | new # | percent increase/decrease
$30,001 - $40,000 | old # | new # | percent increase/decrease
And so on. Then you also need to look at the actual JOBS. Things like "programmer" (entry | mid | senior) and "network engineer" (entry | mid | senior).
Remember, most people do NOT start as the "senior" level. If we don't have the full spectrum from "entry" to "mid" to "senior", then we're going to, eventually, lose the higher end jobs also.
That means that you get all kinds of biases. We wouldn't accept that from any Microsoft funded "study". So we should not use the same techniques that Microsoft uses.
Although he does go far overboard in his condemnation of the the "study". Microsoft has published far more "studies" just like that and he has not complained at all about those.
He has a bias against Linux and now he has a "study" that he can rant against.
I'm a Muslim, and while Im not an Islamic scientist and thus dont know all the rules, I've never, ever read or knew of a rule that says "punishment X for a woman who doesn't cover her body and hair".
Strange, Google doesn't show many hits for "Islamic scientist" (only 466) and most of those refer to people studying science such as optics.
The only thing I read is a verse in the Quran where God orders women to cover themselves. I heard of the "moral police" in Saudi Arabia who threaten women to wear suitable attire among other duties, but honestly I don't know if this is part of Islam or an 'initiative' from the Saudi Government. I should read more about that.
Yes, you should read more.
Perhaps Saddam's regime did this in the name of Islam, but Islam is innocent from these horrible actions.
This is another of those cases where you have not read enough.
Saddam was secular. He did not enforce Islamic law (Sharia).
And why is this bad?
A third time. Under Saddam, women could work. Under the new government, this is not always allowed.
In that case, in Islam, a woman can work trade, fight in a war,teach,get educated, become presidents or parliment members, write poetry, and practically any type of business women in the west can do ( they can even sing, as far as I know, but to a women-only audience).
You might want to take a look at the fundamentalist Taliban and their implementation of Sharia.
Seriously, do some research. It's not like it's that difficult.
Ink has been around for a lot longer than graphite-based scribing. And it quickly became a specialized function. Students were not expected to make their own ink.
As for harvesting their own bark... we can go back 2,000+ years and find papyrus/paper merchants.
And who used quills in 1941? You're talking WORLD WAR II at that time. You know "atomic bomb" or "jet aircraft" or "radio"?
Is London's economy really "clean" or did they just farm out the dirty work? Is the environmental hit just being taken in another part of the world?
Many of the heavy polluting industries have not cleaned up... they've just moved to countries with fewer environmental restrictions (China for example).
The pollution still occures, just not where Londoners can see it.
Compared to the status quo, which is burning the chips in open fires, almost anything should be an improvement.
Not in the scenario they outlined.
They want to burn the chips to provide electricity to fuel light bulbs for use at night.
This can lead to burning more which leads to greater pollution.
Particularly if the potable water system works and you have an increased population. Which then needs more water to survive which means more machines burning more chips... and so forth.
Not only do they do as you say (use different email addresses), but they also use different DOMAINS. I forget if it was Bank of America or MBNA who was the worst offender.
It's like certain banks are doing everything they can to make it easy to defraud their customers.
The banks can still deal with you by having a login to their system (as most do now) where you can check your balance and such (and even send messages to their staff and receive them).
There, almost all the functionality and none of the phishing issues.
Because you know that they have never used it, you will be VERY careful if you ever receive a message claiming to be from them.
Once they do start using it, they lose that edge.
Something that has never happened before attracts a lot more of you attention than something that happens frequently. Something that happens frequently, but is a bit different this time, may be missed.
Slashdot Mirror
Bill and Dave are also scheduled for the meeting, but something else comes up and they can't make it.
Because they are important people on the project, the meeting wraps up in 15 minutes instead of the scheduled 1 hour.
So now you have to go through and re-work the numbers so the correct people get billed to the correct project with the correct times.
This sounds like a solution in search of a problem.
This isn't about individuals. This is about the population of Mac users.
If it is 99% impossible to get a virus, but some idiot manages to, that idiot will have to find another idiot to pass it on to.
The 99%'s keep adding up. So there's 1% chance of finding the first idiot.
There's only a 0.1% chance of finding the second idiot.
0.01% of finding a third idiot. 0.001% of finding the next, etc.
Meanwhile, there is a 0.001% chance of your hard drive failing. So, mathematically, you will lose data because your harddrive crashed BEFORE you will be infected with a virus.
You're more at risk of losing your data because your house burned down.
The upper limit of "security" is human stupidity. So you will never be 100% safe.
But you don't have to be.
Viruses, worms and trojans are only a problem when the infection rate is greater than the removal rate.
If machines get cleaned faster than they get infected, the virus, worm or trojan will die.
So the Mac's security model only has to be good enough to slow the infection rate below the removal rate.
You might hear rumours of someone's brother's friend's girlfriend's mother getting a "virus". But the reality is that more data will be lost because of human error than because of viruses, worms or trojans.
And that is the BEST that you can do.
That's how it is today. That's how it has been since Franklin was publishing his pamphlets.
You are wrong. Just deal with it.
It certainly isn't the US today. The cost of running off a thousand copies of a pamphlet is less than $100.
Distributing them just takes your time.Yeah? In which world? Unless you consider $100 to be "rich", you're sadly mistaken.
Physical media requires a larger financial investment. So that weeds out some of the less dedicated "producers".
When a site is free, you end up with lots of "my cat is funny" and "people I hate today" junk.
"blog"
"blogger"
"blogging"
"blogosphere"
"Web 2.0"
But then, I also find that the majority of those pages are filled with narcissistic drivel. So I'm probably overly biased.
It's not about users.
It's not about computers.
It's about configuring the computers so that the users can get the maximum amount of (business) work done, correctly, in the minimum amount of time and with the minimum amount of effort. With the required security.
And in order to achieve that, you have to find the current bottlenecks and solve them. And those bottlenecks will vary from company to company and MAY NOT BE 100% TECHNOLOGICAL.
Which means that you'll have to work around the existing corporate culture and kindoms and so forth.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/latestCOLA.html
So a 2% increase is less than the 4.1% increase in Social Security. So you're "increase" in salary still means you're falling behind.
It isn't the number of jobs.
It's the number of jobs at each salary range. Let's make it easy. Here's how it should look.
$20,000 and below | old # | new # | percent increase/decrease
$20,001 - $30,000 | old # | new # | percent increase/decrease
$30,001 - $40,000 | old # | new # | percent increase/decrease
And so on. Then you also need to look at the actual JOBS. Things like "programmer" (entry | mid | senior) and "network engineer" (entry | mid | senior).
Remember, most people do NOT start as the "senior" level. If we don't have the full spectrum from "entry" to "mid" to "senior", then we're going to, eventually, lose the higher end jobs also.
#1. The "data" is from a self-selecting group.
#2. The "data" is self-reported.
That means that you get all kinds of biases. We wouldn't accept that from any Microsoft funded "study". So we should not use the same techniques that Microsoft uses.
Although he does go far overboard in his condemnation of the the "study". Microsoft has published far more "studies" just like that and he has not complained at all about those.
He has a bias against Linux and now he has a "study" that he can rant against.
One "aw shit" wipes out a whole bunch of "attaboys".
It isn't that we don't do nice things for them. It isn't that they don't know about them.
It's that we also do a lot of things they don't like. And we seem to not care very much that they don't like them.
Saddam was secular. He did not enforce Islamic law (Sharia).A third time. Under Saddam, women could work. Under the new government, this is not always allowed.You might want to take a look at the fundamentalist Taliban and their implementation of Sharia.
Seriously, do some research. It's not like it's that difficult.
Because while all that is said can be considered "factual" (to certain people), not all that occured was said.
So, a different source could publish more factual information on the event and your propaganda drive would fail.
And THAT is the core problem when dealing with propaganda. It only really works when YOU are the one seen as providing the most accurate information.
Even if you're lying, the lies have to be perceived as factual.
Right now, Al Jazeera is perceived as providing more facts and fewer distortions ("lies") by the Iraqi people (and others).
Propaganda comes in 3 flavours:
White - factual.
Grey - some facts, some half-truths and a little bit of lying.
Black - all lies.
Just for the benefit of a doubt, I'm going to guess that he wants to focus on distributing more white propaganda.
That means that he seriously believes that the people opposing us would stop if they just heard how nice we are.
That boggles the mind.
Ink has been around for a lot longer than graphite-based scribing. And it quickly became a specialized function. Students were not expected to make their own ink.
... we can go back 2,000+ years and find papyrus/paper merchants.
As for harvesting their own bark
And who used quills in 1941? You're talking WORLD WAR II at that time. You know "atomic bomb" or "jet aircraft" or "radio"?
Because the soldier's interaction is all verbal.
That means that the soldier does not learn to moderate HIS non-verbal cues based upon the non-verbal cues of the other person.
That is the "backbone" and where the "bottleneck" is.
The pollution still occures, just not where Londoners can see it.
They want to burn the chips to provide electricity to fuel light bulbs for use at night.
This can lead to burning more which leads to greater pollution.
Particularly if the potable water system works and you have an increased population. Which then needs more water to survive which means more machines burning more chips
"It integrates MS Exchange/Outlook, MS Messenger and MS Phone in an amazing way."
And no, I don't want voice mail in my email. People store too much crap in it already.
Not only do they do as you say (use different email addresses), but they also use different DOMAINS. I forget if it was Bank of America or MBNA who was the worst offender.
It's like certain banks are doing everything they can to make it easy to defraud their customers.
The banks can still deal with you by having a login to their system (as most do now) where you can check your balance and such (and even send messages to their staff and receive them).
There, almost all the functionality and none of the phishing issues.
Because you know that they have never used it, you will be VERY careful if you ever receive a message claiming to be from them.
Once they do start using it, they lose that edge.
Something that has never happened before attracts a lot more of you attention than something that happens frequently. Something that happens frequently, but is a bit different this time, may be missed.
To stop phishing, the banks and such have to STOP using email to communicate with their customers.
The banks have your home address and your phone number.
The only reason they use email is because it is incredibly cheap and allows them to attach advertising to their messages.
If the banks were responsible for any losses due to phishing, you'd see them drop email overnight. Once the cost exceeds the benefits, it's gone.