Actually, it wasn't. Integration to sharepoint came after. May not be important to you but some businesses live off those features. You could also say the same about Excel but I can assure you that many of the enhancements made in the recent years were greatly appreciated by many businesses.
Also adaptation to new hardware capabilities came into play to allow richer content and better word processing performance. Take a document with 250 pages that includes images in Word 1997. Do the same in the new version of word. The performance and usability of the document is night and day.
Customer wants, company gives. Doesn't matter what the risk is, short term its money in the bank. Most companies work this way. Some care more and prevent sale of a product until it's fit. Others release the product knowing it's go major flaws and leans on the ability to push firmware updates.
You could say the same thing about almost anything put into a patent. The problem here is that the patent office approves patent for concepts, not actual intellectual property.
Swiping your finger left to right is a concept, not technology. Technology would be the touch screen used to do it.
Software patents should only be allocated to their creators if an amount of research and planning was required. If it takes you 15 minutes to write an application, is probably should not be approved for patent.
As you state, inflation is required in a capitalist system BUT don't be mistaken to believe work paid for work done. Using that same reasoning you would say an employee that can afford to buy himself a television is overpaid.
Company: Makes product or service for X $$$ and hopes to make profit to move the company forward of further compensate owners and employees Employee: Works X hours to pay for survival, hopes to have something left
If you buy a Monster HDMI cable over a no name HDMI cable you aren't getting the same thing. For 1, the connectors are of much better quality, the copper used is capable of handling more bending without breaking and it is capable of higher frequencies and longer distances. Would I pay as much money as they want for this cable? No but I would pick a better choice than the crappy $5 cable.
I only partially agree with the argument of "why do we care if it's a digital signal". In the case of HDMI instead of getting a fuzzy signal you will get intermittent connectivity. This is especially true when you break the 5 meter distance. A digital signal is only good if it makes it intact to it's destination. Due to the high frequency used to transfer the data, EMI can deteriorate the signal and it's data significantly.
Conclusion: Don't waste your money on a outrageously priced cable and don't buy the extremely cheap cable if you plan on exceeding 5 meters.
Maybe where you live the ratios have not increased but where I live they have. The government in some countries are getting involved and forcing ISPs to provide a minimum level of service as well as setting limitations on what they can charge overage on. Cheap access to unlimited information normally equals a more educated population and better social awareness.
Companies like Bell have found other ways around charging more for bandwidth. Instead they control content and charge large dollars for it. Same goes with Rogers who not long ago purchased exclusive rights to NHL games in Canada for 5.4 billions.
Generally in my experience users who use more than 1 TB of transfer per month are downloading illegal content. Question is, should the infrastructure be there to support you? Probably not but your online freedom is yours, right? I would debate that if you want freedom online you need to pay for it. ISPs have equipment cost, employee cost and overhead cost. Someone has to pay for it and logically the bigger users should pay a proportional share of the pie and that is why caps are put in place.
But in the case of more users downloading copyright material, paying overage is too much yet they would not pay for the $700 in content they illegally obtained. All this to say that you comment on monopoly greed is only partially justified.
But like anything, it evolved to the next level so it's news worthy. People had to work to achieve the level they are at now. The concept isn't new but the achievement is.
The idea and theory on how to go on the moon existed way before we could actually do it.
Learning is not a one time listening session. When going to school you take notes so you can remember key items that are fuzzy or simply forgotten. It's well known that seeing something at a later time helps you remember parts of the presentation.
If your bandwidth as a provider of content is costing you 400K and you can reduce it by 1% by just using a new image standards, that's a nice 4K saving per year just on service. Now you have to decide if saving 4K will cost you more than 4K. In some cases it's not about saving money but rather avoiding the need to upgrade hardware and infrastructures.
Don't get you panties in a knot. I was just pointing out an observation that resulted in documents being published for study. My wife isn't the one who helped gather information for the study. The doctors took the time to ask the questions which is how they came to know they were all heavy cell phone users. This was over 10 years ago so cell phones weren't as predominant as today.
As for the study, we've seen many studies from the past become obsolete after new information was brought in. E.g. Vitamin D.
I would like to also note that this study is one of many published. There are many other studies published in the last 3 years that could not conclude 100% that non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation does not cause cancer. So what makes this study more concrete than previous studies? The answer is: It doesn't matter because we won't stop using the devices.
The fact is that you don't know why they want to do this. There may be a very valid reason for this.
E.g. Recording a show for it to be featured on a DVD at a future time BUT not allowing the crowd to use their phones to record. People get bent out of shape so easily these days.
Anyhow, what's different between that and restricting your WIFI to yourself? I really don't see the difference here. Both can result in invasion of privacy and miss use by the guests.
You're right but women in our office all prefer bing for the nice daily background they get from it. Most of the women in the office our knowledgeable enough to switch to google if they aren't happy with the results.
My wife worked at the Toronto general for a few years. During her stay she did care on dozens of girls between the ages of 15 - 18 that all had brain tumours. Of all of these girls most were heavy cell phone users. This at the time had prompted these observations to be submitted to a university (don't remember which one). Now, this could have been a complete coincidence since girls of that age usually do spend lots of time on their phones.
My comment was in no way sexist. FYI, I just hired a female programmer so you are completely over reacting and miss judging my comment.
The fact and the matter is, you don't see women running to open the hood of a car when they buy it. They look at the look and feel. What's under the hood is of no interest to most women. I'm basing this on the women in my ilfe. Would you say this lack of interest in such activity would be a fairly good justification to why there aren't that many female mechanics?
Since my daughter was born I've been performing a restoration on an old car. I've tried to get her interested at a young age thinking she would like that. Guess what, she wants nothing to do with it. So you can't tell me I programmed her to do female things, instead I tried to involve her but she never picked up interest. On the other hand my son immediately hoped on to help me as if he was genetically programmed to like cars.
Here's a link. It is scientific proof that women are wire differently and hence their interest in different things then men. Look at 3 and 9 to understand why men would show more interest in engineering and science (generalizing of course) http://www.mastersofhealthcare...
It's not an assumption. And stop being mad, it does nothing for you.
Explain the following: - Why are 97% of nurses female? - Why are over 65% of psychologist female? - Why are over 60% of teachers female (This number is much higher the lower the grade)? - Why are over 70% of HR people female? - Why are over 70% of translators female?
It always amazes me how we attempts to entice a gender to gain interest into something they generally aren't interested in. Women's brains are wired differently than mens.
I'm sure the car industry attempted to entice more women into working tech jobs but it just didn't work out. Most women I know end up in social service positions such as teaching, nursing, health and retail. I'm not saying women can't, I'm just saying there's a minority of women that like the industry and it's not lack of trying.
Maybe but I'll tell you what. I'd love my car to be able to tell me there's an accident ahead. I just had to wait 3 hours due to a 50 car pileup. It wasn't pretty. According to the fireman I spoke to, it started with only 2 cars, quickly turned ugly as more cars arrived at high speed no knowing about the stoppage ahead due to limited visibility. Luckilly, I don't think anybody died but 10 rigs were left on the side of the road overnight along with many cars. It could have been much worst.
One could say slow down but you and me both know it's not going to happen. "Human nature". When you can't change the driver you put measured in place to protect the drivers. In this case communication between vehicles could enable notifications to avoid crazy accidents like the one I witnessed.
As for your comment about drivers paying attention. I though I read something about Android developing technology to prevent the use of the phone while driving unless commands are performed via voice. Would be cool if someone linked the article.
108 was a bad month. He said the average yield is 3.5 times more. In addition there is currently an incentive in Ontario where he gets paid 54 cents per KW produced (This energy is dropped back in the system). This means on a bad month he made $388.80. Not a bad deal.
You tell me that isn't going to pay for itself even at the 15 cents per KW. 4 years and this system is paid at 15 cents per KW. It produces 22 000 KW per month. Roof top equivalent produce the same. Take it in the face NAY SAYERS!
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it wasn't. Integration to sharepoint came after. May not be important to you but some businesses live off those features. You could also say the same about Excel but I can assure you that many of the enhancements made in the recent years were greatly appreciated by many businesses.
Also adaptation to new hardware capabilities came into play to allow richer content and better word processing performance. Take a document with 250 pages that includes images in Word 1997. Do the same in the new version of word. The performance and usability of the document is night and day.
Customer wants, company gives. Doesn't matter what the risk is, short term its money in the bank. Most companies work this way. Some care more and prevent sale of a product until it's fit. Others release the product knowing it's go major flaws and leans on the ability to push firmware updates.
My bank and credit card company already do fraud detection. Maybe it's only in the US that its not standard.
I don't pay extra for the features.
You could say the same thing about almost anything put into a patent. The problem here is that the patent office approves patent for concepts, not actual intellectual property.
Swiping your finger left to right is a concept, not technology. Technology would be the touch screen used to do it.
Software patents should only be allocated to their creators if an amount of research and planning was required. If it takes you 15 minutes to write an application, is probably should not be approved for patent.
I use this solution but who pays for the 20TB of storage. As far as I know 4TB @ $150 X 5 = $600.00
And watch out for the bandwidth throttling and overage if applicable. I know my connection gets throttled after I hit the 150GB mark per month.
As you state, inflation is required in a capitalist system BUT don't be mistaken to believe work paid for work done. Using that same reasoning you would say an employee that can afford to buy himself a television is overpaid.
Company: Makes product or service for X $$$ and hopes to make profit to move the company forward of further compensate owners and employees
Employee: Works X hours to pay for survival, hopes to have something left
I don't see much difference here. Do you?
I don't judge a gender for being bad at math or anything else. Instead I judge a PERSON based on my experience around them.
If you buy a Monster HDMI cable over a no name HDMI cable you aren't getting the same thing. For 1, the connectors are of much better quality, the copper used is capable of handling more bending without breaking and it is capable of higher frequencies and longer distances. Would I pay as much money as they want for this cable? No but I would pick a better choice than the crappy $5 cable.
I only partially agree with the argument of "why do we care if it's a digital signal". In the case of HDMI instead of getting a fuzzy signal you will get intermittent connectivity. This is especially true when you break the 5 meter distance. A digital signal is only good if it makes it intact to it's destination. Due to the high frequency used to transfer the data, EMI can deteriorate the signal and it's data significantly.
Conclusion: Don't waste your money on a outrageously priced cable and don't buy the extremely cheap cable if you plan on exceeding 5 meters.
You know the 80s are over right?
Online content has much value. Is it miss used? Maybe a little but I can tell you it makes my life easier.
Maybe where you live the ratios have not increased but where I live they have. The government in some countries are getting involved and forcing ISPs to provide a minimum level of service as well as setting limitations on what they can charge overage on. Cheap access to unlimited information normally equals a more educated population and better social awareness.
Companies like Bell have found other ways around charging more for bandwidth. Instead they control content and charge large dollars for it. Same goes with Rogers who not long ago purchased exclusive rights to NHL games in Canada for 5.4 billions.
Generally in my experience users who use more than 1 TB of transfer per month are downloading illegal content. Question is, should the infrastructure be there to support you? Probably not but your online freedom is yours, right? I would debate that if you want freedom online you need to pay for it. ISPs have equipment cost, employee cost and overhead cost. Someone has to pay for it and logically the bigger users should pay a proportional share of the pie and that is why caps are put in place.
But in the case of more users downloading copyright material, paying overage is too much yet they would not pay for the $700 in content they illegally obtained. All this to say that you comment on monopoly greed is only partially justified.
But like anything, it evolved to the next level so it's news worthy. People had to work to achieve the level they are at now. The concept isn't new but the achievement is.
The idea and theory on how to go on the moon existed way before we could actually do it.
Learning is not a one time listening session. When going to school you take notes so you can remember key items that are fuzzy or simply forgotten. It's well known that seeing something at a later time helps you remember parts of the presentation.
I agree. Or a Android device. They are bullet proof and will do all she asks and have a very small learning curve.
If your bandwidth as a provider of content is costing you 400K and you can reduce it by 1% by just using a new image standards, that's a nice 4K saving per year just on service. Now you have to decide if saving 4K will cost you more than 4K. In some cases it's not about saving money but rather avoiding the need to upgrade hardware and infrastructures.
Don't get you panties in a knot. I was just pointing out an observation that resulted in documents being published for study. My wife isn't the one who helped gather information for the study. The doctors took the time to ask the questions which is how they came to know they were all heavy cell phone users. This was over 10 years ago so cell phones weren't as predominant as today.
As for the study, we've seen many studies from the past become obsolete after new information was brought in. E.g. Vitamin D.
I would like to also note that this study is one of many published. There are many other studies published in the last 3 years that could not conclude 100% that non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation does not cause cancer. So what makes this study more concrete than previous studies? The answer is: It doesn't matter because we won't stop using the devices.
The fact is that you don't know why they want to do this. There may be a very valid reason for this.
E.g. Recording a show for it to be featured on a DVD at a future time BUT not allowing the crowd to use their phones to record. People get bent out of shape so easily these days.
Anyhow, what's different between that and restricting your WIFI to yourself? I really don't see the difference here. Both can result in invasion of privacy and miss use by the guests.
You're right but women in our office all prefer bing for the nice daily background they get from it. Most of the women in the office our knowledgeable enough to switch to google if they aren't happy with the results.
My wife worked at the Toronto general for a few years. During her stay she did care on dozens of girls between the ages of 15 - 18 that all had brain tumours. Of all of these girls most were heavy cell phone users. This at the time had prompted these observations to be submitted to a university (don't remember which one). Now, this could have been a complete coincidence since girls of that age usually do spend lots of time on their phones.
My comment was in no way sexist. FYI, I just hired a female programmer so you are completely over reacting and miss judging my comment.
The fact and the matter is, you don't see women running to open the hood of a car when they buy it. They look at the look and feel. What's under the hood is of no interest to most women. I'm basing this on the women in my ilfe. Would you say this lack of interest in such activity would be a fairly good justification to why there aren't that many female mechanics?
Since my daughter was born I've been performing a restoration on an old car. I've tried to get her interested at a young age thinking she would like that. Guess what, she wants nothing to do with it. So you can't tell me I programmed her to do female things, instead I tried to involve her but she never picked up interest. On the other hand my son immediately hoped on to help me as if he was genetically programmed to like cars.
Here's a link. It is scientific proof that women are wire differently and hence their interest in different things then men. Look at 3 and 9 to understand why men would show more interest in engineering and science (generalizing of course)
http://www.mastersofhealthcare...
It's not an assumption. And stop being mad, it does nothing for you.
Explain the following:
- Why are 97% of nurses female?
- Why are over 65% of psychologist female?
- Why are over 60% of teachers female (This number is much higher the lower the grade)?
- Why are over 70% of HR people female?
- Why are over 70% of translators female?
Read this and find out if my argument is valid:
http://www.mastersofhealthcare...
It always amazes me how we attempts to entice a gender to gain interest into something they generally aren't interested in. Women's brains are wired differently than mens.
I'm sure the car industry attempted to entice more women into working tech jobs but it just didn't work out. Most women I know end up in social service positions such as teaching, nursing, health and retail. I'm not saying women can't, I'm just saying there's a minority of women that like the industry and it's not lack of trying.
Maybe but I'll tell you what. I'd love my car to be able to tell me there's an accident ahead. I just had to wait 3 hours due to a 50 car pileup. It wasn't pretty. According to the fireman I spoke to, it started with only 2 cars, quickly turned ugly as more cars arrived at high speed no knowing about the stoppage ahead due to limited visibility. Luckilly, I don't think anybody died but 10 rigs were left on the side of the road overnight along with many cars. It could have been much worst.
One could say slow down but you and me both know it's not going to happen. "Human nature". When you can't change the driver you put measured in place to protect the drivers. In this case communication between vehicles could enable notifications to avoid crazy accidents like the one I witnessed.
As for your comment about drivers paying attention. I though I read something about Android developing technology to prevent the use of the phone while driving unless commands are performed via voice. Would be cool if someone linked the article.
A fresh install of server 2000, 2003, 2008 or 2012 server does not install IIS.
On the other hand some software will activate some IIS features but not the OS installation.
It's pretty standard for retail products. Why would it be different for software?
108 was a bad month. He said the average yield is 3.5 times more. In addition there is currently an incentive in Ontario where he gets paid 54 cents per KW produced (This energy is dropped back in the system). This means on a bad month he made $388.80. Not a bad deal.
Look at this setup: http://solardirectcanada.com/p...
You tell me that isn't going to pay for itself even at the 15 cents per KW. 4 years and this system is paid at 15 cents per KW. It produces 22 000 KW per month. Roof top equivalent produce the same. Take it in the face NAY SAYERS!