Can Mail.app 2.0 check mail in folders other than INBOX without having to run the "Synchronize" command all the time?
I haven't found a Mac OS X mail program yet besides Entourage that can check mail in multiple folders. Thunderbird thinks it can do that, but its new mail check shares the same bugs I've seen since Netscape 4. (It thinks mail that I've seen in another program, but that Thunderbird hasn't seen before, is "new.")
Right, but I can live in my house even if its value goes down. I can't live in my Google stock; it has no practical value beyond the piece of paper (record in a database) that certifies I own it.
Go to any cell phone store and ask to see the least expensive phone they stock. Sure, companies will try to sell you a feature-packed phone, but there are always options that involve little cash for a very low-end phone.
So get a Nokia 6010, T-Mobile's bottom of the line, and quit your bitching.
There are plenty of cheap, boring phones that work primarily as phones. They don't get much attention from the tech press because they don't have any useless whizbang features.
The double-underlined green links are provided by IntelliTXT, a sponsored-link service that runs a JavaScript function to replace selected words (such as "technology" or the "San" in "San Francisco") with sponsored links.
Try NeoOffice/J. It's every bit as enormous, slow, and ugly as OpenOffice, only it doesn't require X11 and it displays the menu bar at the top of the screen. All the other widgets and controls are very un-Mac-like, to a much greater extent than MS Office for Mac. (At least Microsoft pretended they were using native widgets for everything.)
In a strictly business sense, Google's customers are its advertisers. It is only thanks to the users that they have a viable product to sell. Google's only other source of income is through sharing its IP by leasing out Search Appliances, but that provides a very small amount of income when compared with advertising.
They are not brokers because users do not use Google to transmit money from users to the advertisers. We click on ads; that causes Google to collect money from its advertisers. That just happens to be Google's pricing model.
Google leverages web pages in its index, and the users that wish to find web pages, to sell to advertisers. It owes a great deal to its advertisers, but it does not owe anything to users and page owners.
Google has upset page owners in the past by utilizing only an "opt-out" system to cache content. Google News, for example, has drawn criticism from page owners in some countries and teeters on the legally-permissible fence of Fair Use. (Blah blah beta blah blah.)
Google has upset paranoid users by its data collection practices and its use of a persistent cookie to track search histories and its use of ad-serving technology based on the contents of personal e-mail.
Google has upset advertisers by accusing them of fraudulent clicks with little to no evidence, and by freezing payments to site owners whose users in turn are suspected of click fraud.
If another organization comes forward and can please all the people all the time, Google will slip into obscurity among the tech elite.
Wow. I didn't know that search engines were as important as world politics.
The "page in question" helps Google make more money by manipulating their search engines using a method that Google prohibits webmasters from using. I'd consider that pretty underhanded. Not "evil," but greedy.
Did you miss the point where Google became a corporation, whose goal (like all corporations) was to make assloads of money? I did, and now they're using questionable tactics to further a goal of making assloads more money.
Google charges people to use its software. Google's customers are its advertisers, not the users of its services. Google sure as hell charges advertisers for the right to use its services, and it makes about $1 billion a year from them.
What they* are also saying is that "hey this product is good, and if you criticize it then this is in beta and it's not finished yet." At least when companies like Apple release unfinished software, they have customers to answer to. If you criticize Google, then how dare you criticize a free service.
* Google fanboys, of course. Google as a public company doesn't say shit.
OpenOffice is ugly. OpenOffice is slow compared to Microsoft Office. OpenOffice has no native Mac OS X version (blah blah NeoOffice/J any day now blah blah blah). OpenOffice produces Excel files that are incompatible with other open source Excel parsers (such as the Spreadsheet::ParseExcel module for Perl). OpenOffice Calc has 32,000 rows in a spreadsheet compared with 65,000 rows for Excel.* OpenOffice can't parse macros written in VBA. OpenOffice Writer opens a Word document then writes out a Word document that doesn't look the same.** OpenOffice doesn't include a lightweight database system for quick development, like MS Office includes Access.* OpenOffice's file format is not widely accepted and has already changed a few times, requiring users of older versions to upgrade.** OpenOffice's full name is "OpenOffice.org" or "OOo," which sounds stupid.
* Blah blah wait for version 2.0 it will be so great blah blah blah. ** Blah blah Microsoft Office 97 versus 2000 versus 2002 versus 2003 blah blah.
If you're just going to reply by taking each of my sentences, pasting them into your reply, italicizing them, and making smarmy one-sentence rebuttals to each, then don't bother. I will reply with the sound a cat makes when it is bored.
Questions: CrackMonkey asks: Will slashdot ever support message pointers, so that users don't need to search through verbose discussions just to figure out which postings are new? CmdrTaco: Mmm. Scotch. hemos: Man, I'm getting a G&T. CmdrTaco: Thats a feature that we could do. Again, it's a little trickier than just a date stamp, but we could do it. Someone could submit a patch. Had to get a beverage. Sorry for the lag. hemos: Yeah, the patch situation is a fun one. Because the reality is that hardly anyone submits pathces.
Emphasis mine, apathy Rob and Jeff's. I wish I could make this stuff up.
Weigh that against the fact that open source programmers underestimate the need for a good macro language, as evidenced by the flippant comments throughout this discussion. Furthermore, StarBasic is not a "good macro language" other than the fact that it's free.
Wake me up in a few decades when OpenMacroBasic.org reaches version 0.3.4.
How exactly does StarBasic demonstrate any less "Vendor lock-in" than VBA? It's supported by exactly one product, and it's subject to break at any time.
Thank you for requesting a new feature (which I will call "feature X") in an open source product. Please choose from the following responses for the community to give you.
Insult the user. Feature X is only used by pointy-haired bosses for stupid reasons. I don't think anyone ever needs to use feature X outside your braindead company.
Insult the reporter. Why the hell do you need feature X? Other Open Source product already does it, and everyone on our mailing list hates other Open Source product. Go use other Open Source product if you want feature X.
Claim the feature already exists. I know it's not as simple as with your so-called "closed source product," but you can actually do feature X already. Just install plugin Y, extension Z, run the script at some broken URL, and recompile. Voila!
Cite a future release. Thanks for asking for feature X. We already have it in our beta branch. You can use it for now, but there's a long list of bugs in the branch. It's beta and it's free; what do you expect?
Walk over to the finance department of any sizable company and secretly switch an analyst's computer over to OpenOffice. It's a fun way to learn dozens of new swear words.
At this point, saying "OpenOffice Calc is just as good as Microsoft Excel" is just as dumb as saying "GIMP is just as good as Photoshop." It makes open source advocates really happy to hear, but it makes experts just roll their eyes. That makes open source advocates belittle the experts for very shallow reasons, calling the experts names like "Joe Businessman."
It's not that they're acting stuck up. The number one reason why people still shell out hundreds of dollars for Office is VBA compatibility. Whether you like it or not, many companies have built shockingly full-featured applications using Excel as a base. Imagine a spreadsheet where you need to fill out forms (which are in cells) and hit submit buttons to transmit data to a server which then transmits data to you which opens up another form in the same file. That's an extremely clunky way to build (say) a procurement platform, but it uses a tool (Excel) that everyone has.
Is VBA a great language? Not really. Does everyone use it? No. But you can use it to claim that OpenOffice does not have 100% of the functionality that MS Office does.
OpenOffice has its own programming language, StarBasic. When you* get done rewriting all your MS Office-based applications in StarBasic, let me know just how "free" OpenOffice was for you.
* By "you" I mean "a large albeit short-sighted company that entrusts important business functions to macros in spreadsheet programs."
Slashdot Mirror
Can Mail.app 2.0 check mail in folders other than INBOX without having to run the "Synchronize" command all the time?
I haven't found a Mac OS X mail program yet besides Entourage that can check mail in multiple folders. Thunderbird thinks it can do that, but its new mail check shares the same bugs I've seen since Netscape 4. (It thinks mail that I've seen in another program, but that Thunderbird hasn't seen before, is "new.")
Right, but I can live in my house even if its value goes down. I can't live in my Google stock; it has no practical value beyond the piece of paper (record in a database) that certifies I own it.
Go to any cell phone store and ask to see the least expensive phone they stock. Sure, companies will try to sell you a feature-packed phone, but there are always options that involve little cash for a very low-end phone.
So get a Nokia 6010, T-Mobile's bottom of the line, and quit your bitching.
There are plenty of cheap, boring phones that work primarily as phones. They don't get much attention from the tech press because they don't have any useless whizbang features.
Well, there's a beta of a US tax program, and then a bunch of programs that are not relevant to filing a 2004 federal tax return.
So I'd have to say I call it "nothing."
The double-underlined green links are provided by IntelliTXT, a sponsored-link service that runs a JavaScript function to replace selected words (such as "technology" or the "San" in "San Francisco") with sponsored links.
See Google Personalized, still in the labs, for a way that Google lets you build a profile explicitly.
Of course, if they have preferences that can be tied to your persistent Google cookie or Google/Gmail account, that's even easier for them.
No sign of their personalizing Google Ads just yet. Just think -- they could be the next DoubleClick if they did that! Imagine the synergy!
Try NeoOffice/J. It's every bit as enormous, slow, and ugly as OpenOffice, only it doesn't require X11 and it displays the menu bar at the top of the screen. All the other widgets and controls are very un-Mac-like, to a much greater extent than MS Office for Mac. (At least Microsoft pretended they were using native widgets for everything.)
In a strictly business sense, Google's customers are its advertisers. It is only thanks to the users that they have a viable product to sell. Google's only other source of income is through sharing its IP by leasing out Search Appliances, but that provides a very small amount of income when compared with advertising.
They are not brokers because users do not use Google to transmit money from users to the advertisers. We click on ads; that causes Google to collect money from its advertisers. That just happens to be Google's pricing model.
Google leverages web pages in its index, and the users that wish to find web pages, to sell to advertisers. It owes a great deal to its advertisers, but it does not owe anything to users and page owners.
Google has upset page owners in the past by utilizing only an "opt-out" system to cache content. Google News, for example, has drawn criticism from page owners in some countries and teeters on the legally-permissible fence of Fair Use. (Blah blah beta blah blah.)
Google has upset paranoid users by its data collection practices and its use of a persistent cookie to track search histories and its use of ad-serving technology based on the contents of personal e-mail.
Google has upset advertisers by accusing them of fraudulent clicks with little to no evidence, and by freezing payments to site owners whose users in turn are suspected of click fraud.
If another organization comes forward and can please all the people all the time, Google will slip into obscurity among the tech elite.
Wow. I didn't know that search engines were as important as world politics.
The "page in question" helps Google make more money by manipulating their search engines using a method that Google prohibits webmasters from using. I'd consider that pretty underhanded. Not "evil," but greedy.
Did you miss the point where Google became a corporation, whose goal (like all corporations) was to make assloads of money? I did, and now they're using questionable tactics to further a goal of making assloads more money.
...oh, you don't carry around a laptop whenever you want to hear music?
Pay $30 more than that, get an AC charger for the iPod mini.
Google charges people to use its software. Google's customers are its advertisers, not the users of its services. Google sure as hell charges advertisers for the right to use its services, and it makes about $1 billion a year from them.
So in conclusion, it does sound the same.
Hey, I edited the Wikipedia entry to state that one Gigabyte is 1,000,000 bytes. Until someone corrects it, your post is correct.
Really? Name the last improvement or enhancement made to Google News.
What they* are also saying is that "hey this product is good, and if you criticize it then this is in beta and it's not finished yet." At least when companies like Apple release unfinished software, they have customers to answer to. If you criticize Google, then how dare you criticize a free service.
* Google fanboys, of course. Google as a public company doesn't say shit.
How exactly does "beta" mean "no ads"?
Please look at Google Images, a non-beta site that has no ads.
Google News is in perpetual beta because Google hasn't done jack shit to improve it in years. It has nothing to do with "fair use."
That's right, it competes with NetZero, which provides Internet access for only $9.95 a month.
Welcome to bizarro-net.
OpenOffice is ugly. OpenOffice is slow compared to Microsoft Office. OpenOffice has no native Mac OS X version (blah blah NeoOffice/J any day now blah blah blah). OpenOffice produces Excel files that are incompatible with other open source Excel parsers (such as the Spreadsheet::ParseExcel module for Perl). OpenOffice Calc has 32,000 rows in a spreadsheet compared with 65,000 rows for Excel.* OpenOffice can't parse macros written in VBA. OpenOffice Writer opens a Word document then writes out a Word document that doesn't look the same.** OpenOffice doesn't include a lightweight database system for quick development, like MS Office includes Access.* OpenOffice's file format is not widely accepted and has already changed a few times, requiring users of older versions to upgrade.** OpenOffice's full name is "OpenOffice.org" or "OOo," which sounds stupid.
* Blah blah wait for version 2.0 it will be so great blah blah blah.
** Blah blah Microsoft Office 97 versus 2000 versus 2002 versus 2003 blah blah.
If you're just going to reply by taking each of my sentences, pasting them into your reply, italicizing them, and making smarmy one-sentence rebuttals to each, then don't bother. I will reply with the sound a cat makes when it is bored.
Emphasis mine, apathy Rob and Jeff's. I wish I could make this stuff up.
Weigh that against the fact that open source programmers underestimate the need for a good macro language, as evidenced by the flippant comments throughout this discussion. Furthermore, StarBasic is not a "good macro language" other than the fact that it's free.
Wake me up in a few decades when OpenMacroBasic.org reaches version 0.3.4.
How exactly does StarBasic demonstrate any less "Vendor lock-in" than VBA? It's supported by exactly one product, and it's subject to break at any time.
Thank you for requesting a new feature (which I will call "feature X") in an open source product. Please choose from the following responses for the community to give you.
Walk over to the finance department of any sizable company and secretly switch an analyst's computer over to OpenOffice. It's a fun way to learn dozens of new swear words.
At this point, saying "OpenOffice Calc is just as good as Microsoft Excel" is just as dumb as saying "GIMP is just as good as Photoshop." It makes open source advocates really happy to hear, but it makes experts just roll their eyes. That makes open source advocates belittle the experts for very shallow reasons, calling the experts names like "Joe Businessman."
It's not that they're acting stuck up. The number one reason why people still shell out hundreds of dollars for Office is VBA compatibility. Whether you like it or not, many companies have built shockingly full-featured applications using Excel as a base. Imagine a spreadsheet where you need to fill out forms (which are in cells) and hit submit buttons to transmit data to a server which then transmits data to you which opens up another form in the same file. That's an extremely clunky way to build (say) a procurement platform, but it uses a tool (Excel) that everyone has.
Is VBA a great language? Not really. Does everyone use it? No. But you can use it to claim that OpenOffice does not have 100% of the functionality that MS Office does.
OpenOffice has its own programming language, StarBasic. When you* get done rewriting all your MS Office-based applications in StarBasic, let me know just how "free" OpenOffice was for you.
* By "you" I mean "a large albeit short-sighted company that entrusts important business functions to macros in spreadsheet programs."
Diebold has been making ATMs long before they acquired a company that makes voting machines.
Of course, their old ATMs were relatively reliable although they couldn't run Windows Media Player.