I understand that/. has a serious anti-Microsoft slant, but what justification is there for leaving Outlook out of the related links section? As for the linked article: it is sorely lacking any real information and the "review" is nothing but a poorly written listing of advertised features.
One of the main benefits to using Outlook is the groupware features. The abilty to use it as an email client is usually the second reason, behind the calendering system combined with email client reason. Comparing Outlook to Lotus Notes or Novell Groupware makes a lot more sense then Pine, The Bat! or the majority of other email clients "reviewed".
After getting your money for four years, Sony will probably care less - there are more people younger than you that will pay for these games.
For that matter - do you really believe that WoW is that much better? Won't it just be more of the same but with a certain newness that will make you overlook the similarities?
It is obviously a best guess based on IP address provided by your ISP. You can change that - just like on Google - if it got the location wrong. As I said: when it works, it is nice, but it is easily changed to work manually.
I realize that given Microsoft credit for anything is difficult on/. but they do know how to improve (i.e. embrace and extend) upon existing ideas. That is why they are where they are today.
Take a look at the News site as well: what comes to the top will be based on what you read.
Google has rested on the past too long. The search results are filled with junk and the key feature (speed) is easily imitated.
It is about time. The other day when the new MSN search launched, I noticed that the Near Me button already knew where I was. Looks like Microsoft got this feature better - the results are initially based on your IP address which, in most cases, can be backtracked to your physical location. Of course, this can be changed via cookies as Google does it but it is quite impressive to make the local search work right, mostly, without being told.
One thing that most people are missing is that he banned all games because he did not want to spend the money necessary to determine what games are too violent or inappropiate.
It's gotta feel damn good to actually pull your product because too many people want it. Seriously, this problem has gotta be the "best" problem Blizzard could have had with this game.
That has to be the worst feeling - knowing that you could be making sales but can't, even though the demand is there, has to be extremely frustrating.
I can't recall specifically, but I think she makes the point that the male mind is (on average, of course) better suited for engineering because of the spacial relationship thing. But, her basic premise is that the directions the world, and even corporate culture, are heading benefit women and we should expect them to lead much more in the future.
So, it is okay for her to say that males are - on average - better at engineering due to evolution, as long as she qualifies that by saying that women are better at what counts?
The real problem is that people are so sensistive now you can't even hint that men and women are different, unless you qualify it by saying that women are equal or better. Different is different, good or bad, and until there is real, peer-reviewed studies showing how they are different people will continue this discussion about pre-historical gender roles, nature vs. nuture, and extreme example (my brother sucks at math but my mom was an engineering god!).
I was watching the original seriers on Sci-Fi the other day, forcing my wife to "enjoy" it because she was in the room. Unfortunately I couldn't watch the entire episode because she was laughing too hard when I explained that, yes dear, they really are 50 microns away from that planet but you have to realize that these people are really, really small - which is why distance and time units of measure are centons and microns, and why they get mixed up at times.
I watched the remaining Tivo'd episodes when she wasn't in the room.
Problem only in the sense that the expense of compensating employees more and more via stock options was not being accounted properly. It isn't a problem that people were making more money.
The competition will still be there now but in other forms.
I can meaningfully log on and accomplish something in half an hour, even at the high levels
I think that is an important point - some time along the history of these games the idea that long and tedious became synomous with fun. I blame EQ for this. EQ was popular for other reasons - good grouping, graphics, and scope - but the bad parts, that people most complained about, is what developers learned. The dreaded treadmill.
Can we go back to games being challenging for more than death penalties, long waits, and tediousness?
The idea behind stock options was to give the people in the company- not just the upper level management, but everyone- a stake in the company. A stake in the long term prospects of the growth- especially if the options you're granted now can't be exercised for five years.
This is what they wanted you to believe during the dot-com era. The purpose of stock option was, originally, to tie the financial benefits of top executives to the performance of the company. This idea was extended to other employees when companies realized that they could compensate people without the expense by issuing stock options. This enabled employees to make a lot of money during the dot-com boom, even when the company wasn't making a profit at all. The real problem, though, was with traditional companies that needed to do the same thing to compete for talent. The increased use of stock options as compensation has led to this change - the practice of giving options, in some form, to top executives will continue because it has been shown effective. Regular employees will just not get them anymore.
If you need software to run critical proceses in a nuke plant or an airplane, would you use Microsoft products?
No, but people are willing to use it at home because - for the most part - it works as intended when you start it up. The same can not be said most other home computer products (Apply excluded.) THAT is what the home user wants. As soon as you start adding in more configuration or more choice, the eyes glaze over and the desire goes away.
I love how misinterpreted and confused Moore's law can be, yet people still insist on referring to it whenever microprocessor technology is discussed.
From four highly moderated posts we get:
It was just an observed trend. The trend is breaking, as far as retail availability, and thus we are not seeing our 10GHz rigs. (I believe that Moore's law is still trending fine in the labs.)
that the number of transistors per square inch on integrated circuits had doubled every year since the integrated circuit was invented. Moore predicted that this trend would continue for the foreseeable future.
It says that semi-conductor capacity doubles every 18 monthsm, not frequency. (With the corollary that there is no appreciable change in price). As we all know, semi-conductor capacity is roughly proportional to speed, so saying processor speeds double every 18 months is not quite wrong, just a little inaccurate.
No, Moore's law was about price performance not about absolute performance. If you look at the cost of a PC it has consistently gotten better performance while decreasing in price.
So, depending on where you start reading, one could believe that there are 10GHz rigs in the labs, transistor count == processor speed, Moore's Law is about price performance, or transistor density doubles every 18 months.
Can we stop quoting Moore's Law like it is anything other than an observation from 40 years ago? Yes, Moore's Law is used as a driving and motivation force at microprocessor companies (e.g. Intel...) but that doesn't mean your processor will double in SPEED every 18 months, or come down in price, or anything concrete.
For the record: I believe the original observation was regarding transistor count per area.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could do the f'ing work your office is intended for and stretch your creative muscles on your own time, at home.
One of the main benefits to using Outlook is the groupware features. The abilty to use it as an email client is usually the second reason, behind the calendering system combined with email client reason. Comparing Outlook to Lotus Notes or Novell Groupware makes a lot more sense then Pine, The Bat! or the majority of other email clients "reviewed".
For that matter - do you really believe that WoW is that much better? Won't it just be more of the same but with a certain newness that will make you overlook the similarities?
What department was this from again?
Not Sony, Toshiba, and IBM...
That is confusing when you are posting about chip makers...I would definitely consider STI patents open for critism!
I realize that given Microsoft credit for anything is difficult on /. but they do know how to improve (i.e. embrace and extend) upon existing ideas. That is why they are where they are today.
Take a look at the News site as well: what comes to the top will be based on what you read.
Google has rested on the past too long. The search results are filled with junk and the key feature (speed) is easily imitated.
It is about time. The other day when the new MSN search launched, I noticed that the Near Me button already knew where I was. Looks like Microsoft got this feature better - the results are initially based on your IP address which, in most cases, can be backtracked to your physical location. Of course, this can be changed via cookies as Google does it but it is quite impressive to make the local search work right, mostly, without being told.
search.msn.com is not really slow and clunky...atleast compare apples and apples.
Did you bother atleast loading the search page? Microsoft Search is not exactly slow or bloated.
That is pretty wide open already. Unfortunate side effect is probably loss of productivity I would imagine.
One thing that most people are missing is that he banned all games because he did not want to spend the money necessary to determine what games are too violent or inappropiate.
That has to be the worst feeling - knowing that you could be making sales but can't, even though the demand is there, has to be extremely frustrating.
$240,000 - or atleast that is how much Armstrong Williams's integrity costs.
So, it is okay for her to say that males are - on average - better at engineering due to evolution, as long as she qualifies that by saying that women are better at what counts?
The real problem is that people are so sensistive now you can't even hint that men and women are different, unless you qualify it by saying that women are equal or better. Different is different, good or bad, and until there is real, peer-reviewed studies showing how they are different people will continue this discussion about pre-historical gender roles, nature vs. nuture, and extreme example (my brother sucks at math but my mom was an engineering god!).
People, on average, have become too sensitive.
I was watching the original seriers on Sci-Fi the other day, forcing my wife to "enjoy" it because she was in the room. Unfortunately I couldn't watch the entire episode because she was laughing too hard when I explained that, yes dear, they really are 50 microns away from that planet but you have to realize that these people are really, really small - which is why distance and time units of measure are centons and microns, and why they get mixed up at times.
I watched the remaining Tivo'd episodes when she wasn't in the room.
The CIA and those that it employs are not idiots - contrary to what the Bush administration would like you believe.
Aren't physicists the last people you want attempting to make something "cool"? Isn't that the root of the problem?
Obviously he isn't tapped into the right grapevines...
The competition will still be there now but in other forms.
I think that is an important point - some time along the history of these games the idea that long and tedious became synomous with fun. I blame EQ for this. EQ was popular for other reasons - good grouping, graphics, and scope - but the bad parts, that people most complained about, is what developers learned. The dreaded treadmill.
Can we go back to games being challenging for more than death penalties, long waits, and tediousness?
This is what they wanted you to believe during the dot-com era. The purpose of stock option was, originally, to tie the financial benefits of top executives to the performance of the company. This idea was extended to other employees when companies realized that they could compensate people without the expense by issuing stock options. This enabled employees to make a lot of money during the dot-com boom, even when the company wasn't making a profit at all. The real problem, though, was with traditional companies that needed to do the same thing to compete for talent. The increased use of stock options as compensation has led to this change - the practice of giving options, in some form, to top executives will continue because it has been shown effective. Regular employees will just not get them anymore.
Why are you against the practice? What will entice employees to leave that would not have done so before?
As an investor, this change is good - better than just ignoring the options all together.
As employee, this change is good - less likely to get options that are underwater for years at a time.
As an accountant, this change is a nightmare - how do you *really* value options??
No, but people are willing to use it at home because - for the most part - it works as intended when you start it up. The same can not be said most other home computer products (Apply excluded.) THAT is what the home user wants. As soon as you start adding in more configuration or more choice, the eyes glaze over and the desire goes away.
I wouldn't dispute that - it is just funny that three different Moore's Law posts get +4 or +5 for being Informative or Insightful...
From four highly moderated posts we get:
So, depending on where you start reading, one could believe that there are 10GHz rigs in the labs, transistor count == processor speed, Moore's Law is about price performance, or transistor density doubles every 18 months.
Can we stop quoting Moore's Law like it is anything other than an observation from 40 years ago? Yes, Moore's Law is used as a driving and motivation force at microprocessor companies (e.g. Intel...) but that doesn't mean your processor will double in SPEED every 18 months, or come down in price, or anything concrete.
For the record: I believe the original observation was regarding transistor count per area.