Sort of. OWA gives you a stripped-down interface if you're using Firefox, Safari or any other browser besides IE. On Exchange 2003 if you've never used IE you might not be aware of this; on Exchange 2007 it tells you on the login page that you can only use the Lite version.
Entourage is essentially Outlook Express, plus half-assed Exchange support (and a calendar) tacked on. It is definitely not Outlook - it can't use MAPI, can't use.pst files, and the code base dates back to the era of System 7.
They chose to call it Entourage, because it is definitely not Outlook.
(By the way, Outlook Express has nothing to do with Outlook. Outlook Express was originally called Internet Mail & News until Microsoft's marketing people renamed it, which is why the executable binary for the Windows version of Outlook Express is still named msimn.exe. Similarly, JavaScript was originally called LiveScript and has nothing to do with Java, but Netscape's marketing people wanted to confuse everyone and Sun foolishly let them.)
What ever happened to quality? What ever happened to people, and companies, recognising that lower cost came at the expense of higher quality? What ever happened to production and purchasing being an optimisation problem with price, quality, speed and other factors thrown into the mix?
Companies figured out that they could use their reputation for expensive quality products to hoodwink the consumer and sell expensive crappy products, and the consumer wouldn't notice the difference until they'd already spent their money. Consumers then became jaded, concluding that all products are equally crappy regardless of price.
The basic problem is that consumers don't know how to identify quality prior to purchase, and there's not enough consistency in the marketplace for prior experience to count for much.
Your cable company advertises 7Mbps and your phone company advertises 1.5Mbps. Which is better? Well, neither company will actually commit to these speeds if you press them, and an expert might tell you with DSL you can choose from several competing local ISPs while with cable you're locked into a single company that will firewall your ports, throttle your traffic, impose monthly caps that they may or may not tell you about, and have some of the worst customer service in the industry. Also, the bandwidth is shared, so depending on who your neighbors are, performance might suck in the evenings. Or, you might have blazing-fast speeds 24/7, while DSL may be prone to intermittent connectivity issues every time it starts raining depending on how crappy your wires are and how far you are from the CO, which the phone company considers to be proprietary and confidential information that they can't tell you. And then there's FIOS, if it's available in your area, which is even faster but even more restrictive, and they'll rip up your copper lines so you can never switch to DSL if you ever become dissatisfied.
An expert might tell you these things. Or they might tell you something completely different, because some people who call themselves "experts" don't actually know what they're talking about. How is the average consumer supposed to make an informed decision?
If you look closely all menus in OS X are slightly transparent.
That's true, but they always appear on top of whatever was underneath them, and only temporarily. The menubar isn't allowed to have anything underneath it other than your desktop, and the menubar being transparent looks like complete crap when your screen is full of windows. Steve Jobs likes his screen to be uncluttered, and probably has a 30" LCD on his desk, so it's not completely full of stuff, so he can probably actually see his desktop, and having a transparent menubar probably doesn't look so bad then.
The ambulance isn't going to stop to remove the chains when they turn off of a snow-covered asphalt-paved road to drive on heated snow-free glass-topped solar panels for awhile.
This was mentioned on Slashdot when it was introduced, and I thought it sounded like a fantastic idea. I often don't know how long I'll be staying when I park.
Twitter is built around SMS text messages. The whole original concept was that you could post messages from your cell phone and other people could receive them on their cell phones; no computer needed. Also, Twitter functions more like a mailing list: rather than choosing someone from your buddy list to send a message to, you just post your message and let the recipients subscribe (follow) if they want to receive your messages. None of these are new ideas, but Twitter combined them in a unique way.
As for MySpace and Facebook, these are built around the "buddy list" concept from IM, but they're NOT designed for instant messaging (they've added IM capability, but this is an extra side feature, not the main draw of the site). Also, don't underestimate the value of the network effect: just about everyone has a Facebook account now, which means you can connect with virtually anyone through that site. It used to be that just about everyone who used the Internet for chatting had AIM, but while that meant I could use it to talk to most of my friends, it didn't include the general public. The real value of Facebook doesn't really have much to do with its technical merits.
But odds are, most of the people crying about the LAN issues on here are going to buy it anyways. There haven't been many good RTS games out lately. If you are a gamer...particularly one that like RTS's...you are like a moth to the flame. You know it is going to burn, but you are going to go anyways and enjoy the ride.
I won't.
I was planning to buy Starcraft II as soon as it was available. I no longer intend to do so, and LAN gaming is the reason why. If Blizzard pulls their head out of their ass and enables LAN gaming without Battle.net, then I will buy it. If a third-party hack becomes available, then I will evaluate whether the most convenient solution is to buy it and hack it, or to illegally download a pre-hacked copy. If such a hack does not become available, I simply won't play it.
I have no objection to Battle.net being required at install time. However, playing a private game on a Battle.net server is not an acceptable substitute for a LAN game, since bandwidth at LAN parties is usually severely limited and lag is intolerable. And it has always been my position that the only purpose of a single-player campaign in Warcraft/Starcraft is to serve as a tutorial; once I've learned how to play, I no longer have any interest in playing single-player.
If you're using a combination registrar and hosting service, of course they will. If, however, you're expected to set up your own hosting and so on, they probably don't. Good point, though, in any case.
Generally the registrar will set up DNS hosting on their servers by default, with "www" pointing to one of their web servers showing an ad-laden "parking" page, regardless of what you intend to change it to in 15 minutes.
what's to stop me separating my program into a GPLv2-compliant client app that talks to the rest of my (choose my own license) application?
Umm... nothing?
If you're writing your application from scratch without using anybody else's libraries, you're free to release it under whatever license you like, even if it happens to talk to a GPL'd client plugin thingie, and even if you wrote that GPL'd client plugin thingie around somebody else's GPL'd library.
Why do you imagine that somehow there's a problem here?
I just got a new job and we have some internal stuff that apparently doesn't fully support other browsers yet, so I'm trying IE just to see what it's like. So far it's mostly usable, but I've encountered some pretty strange bugs. If I can get it to work reliably, I intend to keep using it.
Ask anyone who is in web publishing business. You can't replace Flash just by putting some fancy tags and video tag which doesn't have h264 just because of political, fanatical reasons.
If MS thinks they will hit flash that way, they are dreaming. No matter what nerds think, Adobe or Flash isn't going anywhere especially if their rival wannabe is idiot enough to drop PPC support on OS X and provide no kind of design/develop support on OS X. Eclipse/Mono? Yea, right.
The video tag isn't meant to replace Flash, only the use of Flash for video, which is a pretty recent development in Flash's history. If Apple hadn't dropped the ball by making QuickTime for Windows a steaming pile of crap in the early days, we'd all be using that for video on the web; using Flash for video was a workaround for not having a better way.
The canvas tag is meant to replace a lot of what Flash does, but that's completely different.
I think you misunderstand the bickering about codecs. Theora is not as good as h.264. It produces larger files at comparable quality, which would cost Google a lot of money (and last I heard, YouTube isn't profitable anyway). Apple's browser uses QuickTime to display videos (which is exactly the correct behavior) so it automatically supports anything that QuickTime supports, which includes h.264 but does not currently include Theora unless you install XiphQT. I would like Apple to add Theora (and Vorbis) support to QuickTime, but they say they're concerned about patent trolls.
Really, it's not political fanaticism that's holding things up here. Mozilla can't implement h.264 because they can't afford to license the patent. Opera won't implement h.264 because they can't really afford it either. Apple won't implement Ogg because they're afraid it might be secretly patented. Google will probably support Ogg in their browser but won't use it as a content provider because the quality isn't as good for the same bandwidth cost. Microsoft has yet to weigh in, but since they're late to the game they're just going to try to be compatible with whatever the content producers want, which isn't Ogg.
ping or traceroute to a destination like www.google.co.in, it would work. It would resolve the right IP. However, with any of the browsers, as soon as access to a site was attempted - We would get a message "Connection Reset" or the browsers equivalent. (Firefox, Chrome and IE tried).
Broken firewall software can cause this sort of thing - not usually the built-in firewall, but something like Norton Internet Security and similar products. Don't just disable it - completely uninstall the program, and see if that fixes the problem. If so, go ahead and reinstall.
If you need to download something, try command-line FTP.
Consider the ~30% of the population who honestly thinks George W. Bush was a great president. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that some of them might be willing to pay a monthly fee to get access to foxnews.com, if the alternatives are left-leaning sites like msnbc.com or blogs they've never heard of.
And yes I concur - the F'ing drummer always sets the volume of the band. They just can't seem to play fast, without playing really loud (and vise-versa)
The faster the tempo, the faster you have to move the sticks, and the faster you move the sticks, the harder they hit the drum.
A good drummer can play softer, by altering their playing style. That may not be desirable.
Slashdot Mirror
I drive a 1989 Mercury Sable (which is really just a Ford Taurus with a different label on it). That's about the same gas milage I get.
In two decades, you'd think they'd find a way to make it run more efficiently.
Sure, they run it on the servers, behind the scenes. But how many corporate IT departments would let a user run Linux on their desktop?
Sort of. OWA gives you a stripped-down interface if you're using Firefox, Safari or any other browser besides IE. On Exchange 2003 if you've never used IE you might not be aware of this; on Exchange 2007 it tells you on the login page that you can only use the Lite version.
Entourage is essentially Outlook Express, plus half-assed Exchange support (and a calendar) tacked on. It is definitely not Outlook - it can't use MAPI, can't use .pst files, and the code base dates back to the era of System 7.
They chose to call it Entourage, because it is definitely not Outlook.
(By the way, Outlook Express has nothing to do with Outlook. Outlook Express was originally called Internet Mail & News until Microsoft's marketing people renamed it, which is why the executable binary for the Windows version of Outlook Express is still named msimn.exe. Similarly, JavaScript was originally called LiveScript and has nothing to do with Java, but Netscape's marketing people wanted to confuse everyone and Sun foolishly let them.)
I would love to also sacrifice those things.
Also, if for some reason your attempt fails, try the manual override by simply pressing the same button again.
What ever happened to quality? What ever happened to people, and companies, recognising that lower cost came at the expense of higher quality? What ever happened to production and purchasing being an optimisation problem with price, quality, speed and other factors thrown into the mix?
Companies figured out that they could use their reputation for expensive quality products to hoodwink the consumer and sell expensive crappy products, and the consumer wouldn't notice the difference until they'd already spent their money. Consumers then became jaded, concluding that all products are equally crappy regardless of price.
The basic problem is that consumers don't know how to identify quality prior to purchase, and there's not enough consistency in the marketplace for prior experience to count for much.
Your cable company advertises 7Mbps and your phone company advertises 1.5Mbps. Which is better? Well, neither company will actually commit to these speeds if you press them, and an expert might tell you with DSL you can choose from several competing local ISPs while with cable you're locked into a single company that will firewall your ports, throttle your traffic, impose monthly caps that they may or may not tell you about, and have some of the worst customer service in the industry. Also, the bandwidth is shared, so depending on who your neighbors are, performance might suck in the evenings. Or, you might have blazing-fast speeds 24/7, while DSL may be prone to intermittent connectivity issues every time it starts raining depending on how crappy your wires are and how far you are from the CO, which the phone company considers to be proprietary and confidential information that they can't tell you. And then there's FIOS, if it's available in your area, which is even faster but even more restrictive, and they'll rip up your copper lines so you can never switch to DSL if you ever become dissatisfied.
An expert might tell you these things. Or they might tell you something completely different, because some people who call themselves "experts" don't actually know what they're talking about. How is the average consumer supposed to make an informed decision?
If you look closely all menus in OS X are slightly transparent.
That's true, but they always appear on top of whatever was underneath them, and only temporarily. The menubar isn't allowed to have anything underneath it other than your desktop, and the menubar being transparent looks like complete crap when your screen is full of windows. Steve Jobs likes his screen to be uncluttered, and probably has a 30" LCD on his desk, so it's not completely full of stuff, so he can probably actually see his desktop, and having a transparent menubar probably doesn't look so bad then.
The ambulance isn't going to stop to remove the chains when they turn off of a snow-covered asphalt-paved road to drive on heated snow-free glass-topped solar panels for awhile.
This was mentioned on Slashdot when it was introduced, and I thought it sounded like a fantastic idea. I often don't know how long I'll be staying when I park.
You slightly misunderstand.
Twitter is built around SMS text messages. The whole original concept was that you could post messages from your cell phone and other people could receive them on their cell phones; no computer needed. Also, Twitter functions more like a mailing list: rather than choosing someone from your buddy list to send a message to, you just post your message and let the recipients subscribe (follow) if they want to receive your messages. None of these are new ideas, but Twitter combined them in a unique way.
As for MySpace and Facebook, these are built around the "buddy list" concept from IM, but they're NOT designed for instant messaging (they've added IM capability, but this is an extra side feature, not the main draw of the site). Also, don't underestimate the value of the network effect: just about everyone has a Facebook account now, which means you can connect with virtually anyone through that site. It used to be that just about everyone who used the Internet for chatting had AIM, but while that meant I could use it to talk to most of my friends, it didn't include the general public. The real value of Facebook doesn't really have much to do with its technical merits.
charred corpses don't terminate jobs
Nor do they sign paychecks.
But odds are, most of the people crying about the LAN issues on here are going to buy it anyways. There haven't been many good RTS games out lately. If you are a gamer...particularly one that like RTS's...you are like a moth to the flame. You know it is going to burn, but you are going to go anyways and enjoy the ride.
I won't.
I was planning to buy Starcraft II as soon as it was available. I no longer intend to do so, and LAN gaming is the reason why. If Blizzard pulls their head out of their ass and enables LAN gaming without Battle.net, then I will buy it. If a third-party hack becomes available, then I will evaluate whether the most convenient solution is to buy it and hack it, or to illegally download a pre-hacked copy. If such a hack does not become available, I simply won't play it.
I have no objection to Battle.net being required at install time. However, playing a private game on a Battle.net server is not an acceptable substitute for a LAN game, since bandwidth at LAN parties is usually severely limited and lag is intolerable. And it has always been my position that the only purpose of a single-player campaign in Warcraft/Starcraft is to serve as a tutorial; once I've learned how to play, I no longer have any interest in playing single-player.
If you're using a combination registrar and hosting service, of course they will. If, however, you're expected to set up your own hosting and so on, they probably don't. Good point, though, in any case.
Generally the registrar will set up DNS hosting on their servers by default, with "www" pointing to one of their web servers showing an ad-laden "parking" page, regardless of what you intend to change it to in 15 minutes.
what's to stop me separating my program into a GPLv2-compliant client app that talks to the rest of my (choose my own license) application?
Umm... nothing?
If you're writing your application from scratch without using anybody else's libraries, you're free to release it under whatever license you like, even if it happens to talk to a GPL'd client plugin thingie, and even if you wrote that GPL'd client plugin thingie around somebody else's GPL'd library.
Why do you imagine that somehow there's a problem here?
I just got a new job and we have some internal stuff that apparently doesn't fully support other browsers yet, so I'm trying IE just to see what it's like. So far it's mostly usable, but I've encountered some pretty strange bugs. If I can get it to work reliably, I intend to keep using it.
Ask anyone who is in web publishing business. You can't replace Flash just by putting some fancy tags and video tag which doesn't have h264 just because of political, fanatical reasons.
If MS thinks they will hit flash that way, they are dreaming. No matter what nerds think, Adobe or Flash isn't going anywhere especially if their rival wannabe is idiot enough to drop PPC support on OS X and provide no kind of design/develop support on OS X. Eclipse/Mono? Yea, right.
The video tag isn't meant to replace Flash, only the use of Flash for video, which is a pretty recent development in Flash's history. If Apple hadn't dropped the ball by making QuickTime for Windows a steaming pile of crap in the early days, we'd all be using that for video on the web; using Flash for video was a workaround for not having a better way.
The canvas tag is meant to replace a lot of what Flash does, but that's completely different.
I think you misunderstand the bickering about codecs. Theora is not as good as h.264. It produces larger files at comparable quality, which would cost Google a lot of money (and last I heard, YouTube isn't profitable anyway). Apple's browser uses QuickTime to display videos (which is exactly the correct behavior) so it automatically supports anything that QuickTime supports, which includes h.264 but does not currently include Theora unless you install XiphQT. I would like Apple to add Theora (and Vorbis) support to QuickTime, but they say they're concerned about patent trolls.
Really, it's not political fanaticism that's holding things up here. Mozilla can't implement h.264 because they can't afford to license the patent. Opera won't implement h.264 because they can't really afford it either. Apple won't implement Ogg because they're afraid it might be secretly patented. Google will probably support Ogg in their browser but won't use it as a content provider because the quality isn't as good for the same bandwidth cost. Microsoft has yet to weigh in, but since they're late to the game they're just going to try to be compatible with whatever the content producers want, which isn't Ogg.
This is about patents and money, not politics.
ping or traceroute to a destination like www.google.co.in, it would work. It would resolve the right IP. However, with any of the browsers, as soon as access to a site was attempted - We would get a message "Connection Reset" or the browsers equivalent. (Firefox, Chrome and IE tried).
Broken firewall software can cause this sort of thing - not usually the built-in firewall, but something like Norton Internet Security and similar products. Don't just disable it - completely uninstall the program, and see if that fixes the problem. If so, go ahead and reinstall.
If you need to download something, try command-line FTP.
Are there many compatibility issues with Flash 8? I think I'll have to try downgrading.
Yes, that's precisely the case.
Weird. My iBook isn't fast enough to play YouTube videos, but handled this with no problem at all.
Consider the ~30% of the population who honestly thinks George W. Bush was a great president. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that some of them might be willing to pay a monthly fee to get access to foxnews.com, if the alternatives are left-leaning sites like msnbc.com or blogs they've never heard of.
And yes I concur - the F'ing drummer always sets the volume of the band. They just can't seem to play fast, without playing really loud (and vise-versa)
The faster the tempo, the faster you have to move the sticks, and the faster you move the sticks, the harder they hit the drum.
A good drummer can play softer, by altering their playing style. That may not be desirable.
Of course, this scheme doesn't allow offline credit card processing, but that's rare these days.
No it isn't. Small businesses and other organizations use these ALL THE TIME.
Thanks, I'd forgotten about that.