I'll give Bing some credit, it does try to "decide" what I'm actually searching for. However, I hate to break it to M$, my brain is a much better decision engine. Part of the beauty of what Google gives you is that you know very quickly if you need to refine your search terms, which helps you actually use your brain and learn to think about what you are trying to find. So using Google I can quickly see that I need to refine my search question to give me better results, which almost always results in very relevant results. Bing tries to think for you, but in doing so doesn't actually help you find the best results. So instead of helping me figure out how to express my search better, Bing actually gave me fewer helpful results by limiting what it returned and returning things it thought I was trying to search for.
So no thank you Bing, I'd rather use the most powerful decision engine in existence, my brain.
It regularly corrupts network files simply by opening them.
Bullshit.
Actually, that's accurate, at least fore Vista before SP1. I had a test Vista computer corrupt network files regularly before SP1. Of course after SP1 then networking worked better (still a pain in the 4$$ with their stupid wizards).
My company analyzed Office 2007 briefly when it first came out, management decided to boycott it as long as possible. They were appalled at the total lack of anything familiar to them, which basically made doing basic daily tasks 3 times harder. So we're sticking with office 2003, the last good version of the Office suite. Perhaps Office 2009 will be better...? Unlikely.
Once OpenOffice 3.1 is rolled out I plan on making a case that we move to it, since Office 2003 licenses aren't going to be available forever.
According to my installation of Google Updater, it consumes a whopping 804KB of Physical memory, and 2.5MB of virtual memory.
So far it's working flawlessly, although I did change it to only notify me of updates instead of automatically updating. I do understand that they should make the updater more configurable (ie: removable), but c'mon it's a good first start.
But at work, people are still stuck with Microsoft shit. Why? Mozilla still hasn't released an MSI of Firefox.
I admin servers for several companies. If I could simply push out a copy of Firefox using Group Policy, I would give firefox about 250 additional users first thing tomorrow morning.
For this exact reason I'm switching my Active Directory Group Policies to use wpkg in combination with OCS Inventory NG (or maybe GLPI, I'm just starting my research on migrating).
With WPKG you aren't constrained to MSI packages, you can distribute and manage ANY package. With the latest IE security flaw fiasco it got me looking at how to deploy Firefox. This seems to be the best way and should actually make my maintenance jobs much easier.
I second this. In the US, college degrees are actually becoming less important because managers are realizing that, on average, non-technical colleges don't actually help the student get experience. They just get them to jump through hoops, which is not particularly useful when you need someone with experience in problem solving and innovative thinking.
As others have recommended, just look for entry level jobs that will gain you experience. This also will enable you to increase your flexibility, since you'll likely learn many different skills, and have the opportunity to become proficient in all of them. The more diversified you are the more valuable you are.
As a personal testimony, I only have an associates degree in Computer Science (2 years) but I've worked for a couple small companies and have ended up with fairly stable and enjoyable work for the past 10 years.
The reality is that "malicious" code can be inserted into any program, open source or proprietary. However, this "malicious" code is often unintentional, a security hole is created by not locking down a network port or variables are not properly managed. Whether that code is placed intentionally or not is irrelevant, the result is the same; someone can improperly access your program, network, or computer. Certainly we know of a few proprietary software products that have suffered from a security flaw or two (or fifty!).
So it comes down to the real question, when such "malicious" code is found how soon will a patch be made available to fix the problem? This is where Open Source products shine, because you can usually count on a patch being made available MUCH faster than if you had to wait on a single corporation. This is especially true of projects that are popular. Not only because there are more people looking at the code, but so often those programmers are very passionate about the software they contribute to, so they really care that the product succeeds. Open Source products have much more to lose if their product continually has problems, because they are easily replaced. Corporations, on the other hand, will often continue to release mediocre products because they get customers locked in to a data format, or whatever, and can exploit the customer's fear that they will lose data if they switch to something different, thus reducing the incentive to really care about the proprietary product as long as it creates some sort of profit.
There are some commercial products that are responsive and really do care. But this often doesn't last, and to be truthful it sometimes doesn't last in the Open Source world either. So what if a particular project, open or proprietary, starts to fail? If it's a good Open Source project, then other people who do care can easily pick it up and keep it going. In the proprietary world, the product dies and you are orphaned... until an open source project led by previous users reverse-engineers the proprietary one and gives you a way to move forward with the data you started with.
I'm the key IS employee of my organization, and I continually look for ways to get Open Source in the doors to reduce headaches for me. My biggest implementation is going to be our new IP-PBX system based on Asterisk (using PBX in a Flash). So far the amount of money we're saving is about 60% on hardware (even with fancy IP phones, a server computer, and new POE switches), and the functionality available to me is more than triple that of the proprietary solutions.
He may be arbitrarily denying requests for open source software for the reason that it simply isn't tested with the company's standard desktop pc disk image. I have (and would continue to do so) denied open source and closed source requests...
Your reasoning is sound, however the original poster said:
Closed source programs from unknown vendors have a much better chance at approval than Firefox does.
So his boss isn't actually doing any sort of testing at all, just biased by his own ignorance.
I saw recently this Slashdot story that detailed the use of SD cards to distribute music. At that moment it hit me, the next physical media format is not going to be discs at all, it's going to be solid state memory cards. They have faster read times, are smaller, and more robust. The hardware to read such cards is cheap and ubiquitous. While currently a card is about 10x more, the prices continue to plummet, and by the time that movie studios really need more than a DVD space (~4GB) the price will likely be comparable.
Like many others have said, Bluray just really doesn't offer any real benefit for people to spend their cash on.
The article definitely proves that a species can evolve, but it does not prove they can evolve outside of their species or genus.
The bacterium in question were still bacterium, they just weren't e.Coli anymore. At least not a strain we are familiar with.
It's like the birds that Darwin observed in the Galapagos that had adapted to the kind of nut on the island. Sparrows on one island and long beaks while the sparrows on the other island had short beaks. Yet they had not ceased to be sparrows, but instead were very different sparrows.
Making the leap from observing evolution of a species and saying that such evolution shows that a mole can give rise to a whale is quite a leap indeed. Perhaps that's what they mean by "leap of faith"?:)
This study is definitely interesting, and will be even more so when they actually finish it and find what changed genetically and why.
My problem is this: when you claim that evolution creeps in there, then the 24 hour days vanish.
You may want to brush up on the length of time that the Hebrew word "day" in the creation account refers to.
The original word is closer in meaning, and in this case the context agrees, to referring to a determined period of time, but not to 24 hours. It's the difference between saying "In my day we didn't wear bell-bottoms" and "It was a day I'll never forget".
However, this in no way supports the cross-species evolutionary theory. It just shows that God apparently did use the natural forces he put in place when creating the planets, there likely being time taken for the galaxies to form and planets to cool. And likely, he did take time to create each of the "kinds" of animals, allowing things to grow and flourish to create the garden of Eden for our first parents. But there's no indication he created one cell and then made it evolve from one species to the next. There's every indication he created each species with the enough variety programmed in that they could adapt through natural selection (the fact that he only needed 2 of each kind of animal) in whatever environment they found themselves in.
Number of these businesses going to Office 07: several. So how are they fairing? Are they more or less productive now? And of the companies you've worked for, what's the percentage of those moving to Office 07?
I'm honestly interested in the answers to the questions above, because I just can't see any real benefit to moving to Office 07 from the perspective of the worker, which is the only perspective that matters when it comes to Office suites.
The people at my corporation looked Office 07 over, even working with it a little, and I got a pretty unanimous "YUK". These people have been using Office since Office 95/97, and they are used to the standard that Microsoft set out in Office interfaces. I really do think Office 2007 is probably technically superior, but a mouse driven interface in the workplace? I don't see how they are going to get the office worker to voluntarily (they're corporations can force them of course) give up using the keyboard and start waisting time using the mouse on the ribbon interface.
So I'm interested in hearing how other corporations are doing with using this new user interface... is it helping or hindering?
Neither of those will be a serious threat to Office's market share in the next year or more. You're wrong. Office 2007 is a stinker for corporate use because moving to it would cause a huge hit to productivity until everyone would get over the ribbon fiasco, and many (my company included) are watching OpenOffice closely hoping to be able to move to it in the next year or so.
There's really little holding it back but a few small bugs... one being that if you open a powerpoint slide with numbered lists, OpenOffice doesn't bring in custom numbering (like if you start a list on a slide with 5 instead of 1), and resets all ordered lists to 1. I was introducing OpenOffice to my company, and they were rather pleased by it, until that little bug came up and then they pulled back from it because they use numbered lists alot in their presentations.
It's not much of a problem for most, but of course it became a show-stopper for us. I'm confident that these little things will get smoothed out in the next year. Then, unless MS releases an Office version that would allow a smooth migration of Office 2003 skills, OpenOffice is going to be it.
Until then I'm tasked with scrounging as many Office 2003 licenses I can find so we don't have to deal with Office 2007.
The community does seem less likely to use their products (Novell, Linspire, Xandros)
Well, perhaps the community is less likely, but I'd have to say that average sys-admins of SMB are more likely. In fact, I've gotten Linux in the door because of the Novell/Microsoft deal.
Here's our story... Up to this point, our shop has been Microsoft only, and just last year I was told that "Microsoft is huge, it's going to be around a loooong time, so we should stick with them." However, when they saw Office (err...Orifice) 2007 (every one of our management people who has seen it, hates it), plus we started to grow and started really feeling the "total cost of ownership" of Microsoft (the user tax on SBS 2003, plus the FORCED upgrade we'll face when we grow past the SBS user limit). I knew Linux would end up costing 1/50th the amount we would end up paying, and have all the functionality, so I suggested that we upgrade the remote office to use Linux, the worst that would happen is that we would have to buy SBS 2003 and install it, what could we loose? Nothing; and with the Novell/Microsoft deal I've been able to say "Hey Microsoft signed a deal to work with Novell, so this should work".
I know the Linux Zealots are fuming over this deal, but it's really served to put the spotlight on Linux and helped to give it the promotion it needed to get past the FUD. On that note... Microsoft has confused me lately (they think Linux is nothing, yet also do what they can to compete with it, yet...), and I wonder sometimes if there is some sort of weird dichotomy occurring at Microsoft. Or perhaps their arrogance has just outstripped their reasoning ability (reminds me of the proverb "pride comes before a fall").
Either way, it's helped me finally get Linux into our enterprise, and that's a win for me.:)
Adding clickability was a MAJOR pain, since VE does not expose access to the underlying drawing primitives or tag the primitives with the ID of the corresponding VE object.
Oops! I guess they messed up there, because Google maps provides you with click to access features! Funny that a couple sentences later he says it doesn't look like Google supports this; he needs to look again. They also talk about difficulty with asynchronous moving of the map messing up the location of their push-pins, again, Google maps does this perfectly.
The biggest thing to note is how the number of CONS at the end of the article outnumber the number of PROS for using Microsoft Live Maps. I'd say it's indicative of most of Microsoft offerings of the past 2-3 years (Vista, Office 2007), lots of pretty and interesting ideas which look good at first glance, but poorly implemented on the technical level which ends up driving developers mad.
Well there it is! I worked with VFP starting with version 6, and when version 8 came out the rumors started flying about VFP being discontinued at some point. Microsoft fired back saying that the lack of VFP in Visual Studio didn't mean anything, and they would be continuing development and supporting all the VFP code out there for some time to come. Well, looks like the rumors were right.
And I really don't care, because when I started hearing those rumors I started searching for a replacement, just in case. I found DABO, which was created by a couple of VFP supporters from back in the day. It's built on Python, has a data model which mimics in many ways the simplicity and robustness of VFP. Plus it can use any database for the back end! It's open source, free, and getting better all the time; and it's not even at version 1 yet! I've only been tinkering with DABO, but now it's time to move.
While it's true that some of these are not good... through the comments I've come to know of many great softwares and real user experiences which have helped me to find much better. So while it's true, I take the "Slashvertisements" with a shaker of salt, I do like seeing the insightful comments and real people who actually make it worthwhile.
Interesting, but absolutely absurd. I've seen some really beautiful and intelligent children born from some really ugly parents. Also I've known many intelligent people that just weren't very good looking. Since when does being ugly equate with being stupid? Or intelligence with beauty? Most here have experienced quite the opposite.
SBC has been running a special rate of $14.95 for it's basic DSL service... however this means you have to sign up for at least a year, and you have to sign up online, and they don't say whether that price is good after the first year or not.
Most likely you are using win98. On slower machines I've noticed that firefox barfs under win98, most likely because of how badly it uses memory and gdi/user heaps. Win2k runs it much better, even on slower hardware.
Because if there's content on your webpage that you DO NOT want to be indexed(private, restricted) then when the spider comes, you can restrict his probing, but the robots.txt or by other means.
USE BITTORRENT... Offer a secure server that you have to log into in order to get access to the tracker. This would offload all the burden from the tv studios and make the costs of serving said tv shows that much cheaper! I'd be willing to pay $2 a show for sure.
But what about this... offer the show WITH COMMERCIALS, just as it was aired, and offer it for free. How? Because they'd know DIRECTLY how many people would be at least downloading the show, and thus watching it. Say goodbye to the "Nielsen family" which is so rediculous and gets good shows canceled just because people tape instead of watch live! The AD revenue would be insane since they'd see how many ACTUAL watchers/downloaders there were.
Either way, money could be saved since bad TV would go away quickly since no one would want it.
The quality of downloads is usually not close to that of the DVD you buy, that will never change.
Outlook has a calendar, and there is no other calendar that provides the scheduling that Outlook does. Trust me, I've looked... mainly because my company needs to use Outlook scheduling, but we can't afford a flippin exchange server. Yet it provides a good amount of scheduling coordination that is not available otherwise.:( With the ability to publish and share a calendar, Sunbird would finally rid us of the bane of Outlook!:)
If you want to FORCE people to change operating systems, then yes making things unix-only may seem like it will make people to unix. WRONG... guess what, no one likes to be forced to do things, that's the reason why everone is rebelling against microsoft these days, because they have tried to force certain things (browser, interface, etc).
However, if you want to actually ENCOURAGE people to switch, then all these cross-platform apps will lead to the acceptance of desktop *nix. These apps remove the appeal of windows, because suddenly you don't HAVE to have windows to run a certain app. Also, when you come to the point where you have to upgrade, if you can have all your applications that you currently use on windows on unix as well, then the operating system is evaluated on it's worth...
The object should be for an operating system to be judged on it's quality, not what applications will run on it. Removing OS specific software will allow for windows to be analyzed against *nix desktops on it's merits, which should result in a better choice.;)
Slashdot Mirror
ROFL... You must be kidding.
I'll give Bing some credit, it does try to "decide" what I'm actually searching for. However, I hate to break it to M$, my brain is a much better decision engine. Part of the beauty of what Google gives you is that you know very quickly if you need to refine your search terms, which helps you actually use your brain and learn to think about what you are trying to find. So using Google I can quickly see that I need to refine my search question to give me better results, which almost always results in very relevant results. Bing tries to think for you, but in doing so doesn't actually help you find the best results. So instead of helping me figure out how to express my search better, Bing actually gave me fewer helpful results by limiting what it returned and returning things it thought I was trying to search for.
So no thank you Bing, I'd rather use the most powerful decision engine in existence, my brain.
Bullshit.
Actually, that's accurate, at least fore Vista before SP1. I had a test Vista computer corrupt network files regularly before SP1. Of course after SP1 then networking worked better (still a pain in the 4$$ with their stupid wizards).
My company analyzed Office 2007 briefly when it first came out, management decided to boycott it as long as possible. They were appalled at the total lack of anything familiar to them, which basically made doing basic daily tasks 3 times harder. So we're sticking with office 2003, the last good version of the Office suite. Perhaps Office 2009 will be better...? Unlikely.
Once OpenOffice 3.1 is rolled out I plan on making a case that we move to it, since Office 2003 licenses aren't going to be available forever.
According to my installation of Google Updater, it consumes a whopping 804KB of Physical memory, and 2.5MB of virtual memory.
So far it's working flawlessly, although I did change it to only notify me of updates instead of automatically updating. I do understand that they should make the updater more configurable (ie: removable), but c'mon it's a good first start.
But at work, people are still stuck with Microsoft shit. Why? Mozilla still hasn't released an MSI of Firefox.
I admin servers for several companies. If I could simply push out a copy of Firefox using Group Policy, I would give firefox about 250 additional users first thing tomorrow morning.
For this exact reason I'm switching my Active Directory Group Policies to use wpkg in combination with OCS Inventory NG (or maybe GLPI, I'm just starting my research on migrating).
With WPKG you aren't constrained to MSI packages, you can distribute and manage ANY package. With the latest IE security flaw fiasco it got me looking at how to deploy Firefox. This seems to be the best way and should actually make my maintenance jobs much easier.
I second this. In the US, college degrees are actually becoming less important because managers are realizing that, on average, non-technical colleges don't actually help the student get experience. They just get them to jump through hoops, which is not particularly useful when you need someone with experience in problem solving and innovative thinking.
As others have recommended, just look for entry level jobs that will gain you experience. This also will enable you to increase your flexibility, since you'll likely learn many different skills, and have the opportunity to become proficient in all of them. The more diversified you are the more valuable you are.
As a personal testimony, I only have an associates degree in Computer Science (2 years) but I've worked for a couple small companies and have ended up with fairly stable and enjoyable work for the past 10 years.
The reality is that "malicious" code can be inserted into any program, open source or proprietary. However, this "malicious" code is often unintentional, a security hole is created by not locking down a network port or variables are not properly managed. Whether that code is placed intentionally or not is irrelevant, the result is the same; someone can improperly access your program, network, or computer. Certainly we know of a few proprietary software products that have suffered from a security flaw or two (or fifty!).
So it comes down to the real question, when such "malicious" code is found how soon will a patch be made available to fix the problem? This is where Open Source products shine, because you can usually count on a patch being made available MUCH faster than if you had to wait on a single corporation. This is especially true of projects that are popular. Not only because there are more people looking at the code, but so often those programmers are very passionate about the software they contribute to, so they really care that the product succeeds. Open Source products have much more to lose if their product continually has problems, because they are easily replaced. Corporations, on the other hand, will often continue to release mediocre products because they get customers locked in to a data format, or whatever, and can exploit the customer's fear that they will lose data if they switch to something different, thus reducing the incentive to really care about the proprietary product as long as it creates some sort of profit.
There are some commercial products that are responsive and really do care. But this often doesn't last, and to be truthful it sometimes doesn't last in the Open Source world either. So what if a particular project, open or proprietary, starts to fail? If it's a good Open Source project, then other people who do care can easily pick it up and keep it going. In the proprietary world, the product dies and you are orphaned... until an open source project led by previous users reverse-engineers the proprietary one and gives you a way to move forward with the data you started with.
I'm the key IS employee of my organization, and I continually look for ways to get Open Source in the doors to reduce headaches for me. My biggest implementation is going to be our new IP-PBX system based on Asterisk (using PBX in a Flash). So far the amount of money we're saving is about 60% on hardware (even with fancy IP phones, a server computer, and new POE switches), and the functionality available to me is more than triple that of the proprietary solutions.
He may be arbitrarily denying requests for open source software for the reason that it simply isn't tested with the company's standard desktop pc disk image. I have (and would continue to do so) denied open source and closed source requests ...
Your reasoning is sound, however the original poster said:
Closed source programs from unknown vendors have a much better chance at approval than Firefox does.
So his boss isn't actually doing any sort of testing at all, just biased by his own ignorance.
I saw recently this Slashdot story that detailed the use of SD cards to distribute music. At that moment it hit me, the next physical media format is not going to be discs at all, it's going to be solid state memory cards. They have faster read times, are smaller, and more robust. The hardware to read such cards is cheap and ubiquitous. While currently a card is about 10x more, the prices continue to plummet, and by the time that movie studios really need more than a DVD space (~4GB) the price will likely be comparable. Like many others have said, Bluray just really doesn't offer any real benefit for people to spend their cash on.
The article definitely proves that a species can evolve, but it does not prove they can evolve outside of their species or genus.
:)
The bacterium in question were still bacterium, they just weren't e.Coli anymore. At least not a strain we are familiar with.
It's like the birds that Darwin observed in the Galapagos that had adapted to the kind of nut on the island. Sparrows on one island and long beaks while the sparrows on the other island had short beaks. Yet they had not ceased to be sparrows, but instead were very different sparrows.
Making the leap from observing evolution of a species and saying that such evolution shows that a mole can give rise to a whale is quite a leap indeed. Perhaps that's what they mean by "leap of faith"?
This study is definitely interesting, and will be even more so when they actually finish it and find what changed genetically and why.
You may want to brush up on the length of time that the Hebrew word "day" in the creation account refers to.
The original word is closer in meaning, and in this case the context agrees, to referring to a determined period of time, but not to 24 hours. It's the difference between saying "In my day we didn't wear bell-bottoms" and "It was a day I'll never forget".
However, this in no way supports the cross-species evolutionary theory. It just shows that God apparently did use the natural forces he put in place when creating the planets, there likely being time taken for the galaxies to form and planets to cool. And likely, he did take time to create each of the "kinds" of animals, allowing things to grow and flourish to create the garden of Eden for our first parents. But there's no indication he created one cell and then made it evolve from one species to the next. There's every indication he created each species with the enough variety programmed in that they could adapt through natural selection (the fact that he only needed 2 of each kind of animal) in whatever environment they found themselves in.
I'm honestly interested in the answers to the questions above, because I just can't see any real benefit to moving to Office 07 from the perspective of the worker, which is the only perspective that matters when it comes to Office suites.
The people at my corporation looked Office 07 over, even working with it a little, and I got a pretty unanimous "YUK" . These people have been using Office since Office 95/97, and they are used to the standard that Microsoft set out in Office interfaces. I really do think Office 2007 is probably technically superior, but a mouse driven interface in the workplace? I don't see how they are going to get the office worker to voluntarily (they're corporations can force them of course) give up using the keyboard and start waisting time using the mouse on the ribbon interface.
So I'm interested in hearing how other corporations are doing with using this new user interface... is it helping or hindering?
There's really little holding it back but a few small bugs... one being that if you open a powerpoint slide with numbered lists, OpenOffice doesn't bring in custom numbering (like if you start a list on a slide with 5 instead of 1), and resets all ordered lists to 1. I was introducing OpenOffice to my company, and they were rather pleased by it, until that little bug came up and then they pulled back from it because they use numbered lists alot in their presentations.
It's not much of a problem for most, but of course it became a show-stopper for us. I'm confident that these little things will get smoothed out in the next year. Then, unless MS releases an Office version that would allow a smooth migration of Office 2003 skills, OpenOffice is going to be it.
Until then I'm tasked with scrounging as many Office 2003 licenses I can find so we don't have to deal with Office 2007.
Well, perhaps the community is less likely, but I'd have to say that average sys-admins of SMB are more likely. In fact, I've gotten Linux in the door because of the Novell/Microsoft deal.
Here's our story... Up to this point, our shop has been Microsoft only, and just last year I was told that "Microsoft is huge, it's going to be around a loooong time, so we should stick with them." However, when they saw Office (err...Orifice) 2007 (every one of our management people who has seen it, hates it), plus we started to grow and started really feeling the "total cost of ownership" of Microsoft (the user tax on SBS 2003, plus the FORCED upgrade we'll face when we grow past the SBS user limit). I knew Linux would end up costing 1/50th the amount we would end up paying, and have all the functionality, so I suggested that we upgrade the remote office to use Linux, the worst that would happen is that we would have to buy SBS 2003 and install it, what could we loose? Nothing; and with the Novell/Microsoft deal I've been able to say "Hey Microsoft signed a deal to work with Novell, so this should work".
I know the Linux Zealots are fuming over this deal, but it's really served to put the spotlight on Linux and helped to give it the promotion it needed to get past the FUD. On that note... Microsoft has confused me lately (they think Linux is nothing, yet also do what they can to compete with it, yet...), and I wonder sometimes if there is some sort of weird dichotomy occurring at Microsoft. Or perhaps their arrogance has just outstripped their reasoning ability (reminds me of the proverb "pride comes before a fall").
Either way, it's helped me finally get Linux into our enterprise, and that's a win for me.
Oops! I guess they messed up there, because Google maps provides you with click to access features! Funny that a couple sentences later he says it doesn't look like Google supports this; he needs to look again. They also talk about difficulty with asynchronous moving of the map messing up the location of their push-pins, again, Google maps does this perfectly.
The biggest thing to note is how the number of CONS at the end of the article outnumber the number of PROS for using Microsoft Live Maps. I'd say it's indicative of most of Microsoft offerings of the past 2-3 years (Vista, Office 2007), lots of pretty and interesting ideas which look good at first glance, but poorly implemented on the technical level which ends up driving developers mad.
Well there it is! I worked with VFP starting with version 6, and when version 8 came out the rumors started flying about VFP being discontinued at some point. Microsoft fired back saying that the lack of VFP in Visual Studio didn't mean anything, and they would be continuing development and supporting all the VFP code out there for some time to come. Well, looks like the rumors were right.
And I really don't care, because when I started hearing those rumors I started searching for a replacement, just in case. I found DABO, which was created by a couple of VFP supporters from back in the day. It's built on Python, has a data model which mimics in many ways the simplicity and robustness of VFP. Plus it can use any database for the back end! It's open source, free, and getting better all the time; and it's not even at version 1 yet! I've only been tinkering with DABO, but now it's time to move.
While it's true that some of these are not good... through the comments I've come to know of many great softwares and real user experiences which have helped me to find much better. So while it's true, I take the "Slashvertisements" with a shaker of salt, I do like seeing the insightful comments and real people who actually make it worthwhile.
:)
So... thank you slashdot readers!
Interesting, but absolutely absurd. I've seen some really beautiful and intelligent children born from some really ugly parents. Also I've known many intelligent people that just weren't very good looking. Since when does being ugly equate with being stupid? Or intelligence with beauty? Most here have experienced quite the opposite.
SBC has been running a special rate of $14.95 for it's basic DSL service... however this means you have to sign up for at least a year, and you have to sign up online, and they don't say whether that price is good after the first year or not.
Most likely you are using win98. On slower machines I've noticed that firefox barfs under win98, most likely because of how badly it uses memory and gdi/user heaps. Win2k runs it much better, even on slower hardware.
Because if there's content on your webpage that you DO NOT want to be indexed(private, restricted) then when the spider comes, you can restrict his probing, but the robots.txt or by other means.
USE BITTORRENT... Offer a secure server that you have to log into in order to get access to the tracker. This would offload all the burden from the tv studios and make the costs of serving said tv shows that much cheaper! I'd be willing to pay $2 a show for sure.
But what about this... offer the show WITH COMMERCIALS, just as it was aired, and offer it for free. How? Because they'd know DIRECTLY how many people would be at least downloading the show, and thus watching it. Say goodbye to the "Nielsen family" which is so rediculous and gets good shows canceled just because people tape instead of watch live! The AD revenue would be insane since they'd see how many ACTUAL watchers/downloaders there were.
Either way, money could be saved since bad TV would go away quickly since no one would want it.
The quality of downloads is usually not close to that of the DVD you buy, that will never change.
Outlook has a calendar, and there is no other calendar that provides the scheduling that Outlook does. Trust me, I've looked... mainly because my company needs to use Outlook scheduling, but we can't afford a flippin exchange server. Yet it provides a good amount of scheduling coordination that is not available otherwise. :( With the ability to publish and share a calendar, Sunbird would finally rid us of the bane of Outlook! :)
Since when is it more cost effective to spend 3x more for something I'll most likely watch only once anyway?!?!
In any case, $12 movie??? What planet are you from, most DVDs cost at least $25...
If you want to FORCE people to change operating systems, then yes making things unix-only may seem like it will make people to unix. WRONG... guess what, no one likes to be forced to do things, that's the reason why everone is rebelling against microsoft these days, because they have tried to force certain things (browser, interface, etc).
;)
However, if you want to actually ENCOURAGE people to switch, then all these cross-platform apps will lead to the acceptance of desktop *nix. These apps remove the appeal of windows, because suddenly you don't HAVE to have windows to run a certain app. Also, when you come to the point where you have to upgrade, if you can have all your applications that you currently use on windows on unix as well, then the operating system is evaluated on it's worth...
The object should be for an operating system to be judged on it's quality, not what applications will run on it. Removing OS specific software will allow for windows to be analyzed against *nix desktops on it's merits, which should result in a better choice.