Besides, since Outlook costs money I doubt many home users bought Outlook and are using it instead of the free Outlook Express.
Outlook is part of MS Office. Unless they bought the most basic Office package, they will probably have Outlook. Office must be on ~95% of all Windows machines. Hell, a lot people have trouble telling the two apart.
No. The question is whether Linux is ready for the desktop. Because it doesn't matter if Windows is, or is not, because it already owns 90% of the desktop market anyway.
Most people do NOT want to go to work in the morning, or change diapers, or watch commercials either and find each one of those frustrating.
That's a silly argument because most people have to do those things. Most people don't have to use Linux because most already use Windows. You could argue that Windows costs money. But for most people it's very little, and they don't even realise they're paying for it anyway.
It's not just that these people don't have the skills, it's that they can't be bothered to learn the skills, let alone use them all the time.
I'm intelligent. I do web development, and have had to install and upgrade apache/MySQL/PHP/Perl on both Mac and Win (win probably being harder to install, since most packages are configured for unix based systems). I've even installed quite a few Linux distros to see what they were like. If I'm experienceing a problem, I can usually research it and find a solution. Etc, etc...
But do you know why I don't use Linux? It's not that I'm not capable of dealing with all the little technicalities, it's that I can't be bothered.
Call me lazy, but that's the way I feel. I'd rather just get to work (or play) than have to deal with little things all the time. Little technicalities just annoy the hell out of me. This is why I'm saving up for a Mac; the power is there, but I don't have to use it when I can't be botherd.
Maybe Linux will be ready for the average user in a few years. But not at the moment.
The question is. Should Linux be ready for the desktop. Not when. Linux already does well in techical applications, like servers. Why not focus on it's strong points?
Re:Google is losing its main draw: SIMPLICITY.
on
New Google Groups in Beta
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You mean google is deviating from it's core? That being search technology?
I don't think so. All of Google's spin-offs use search technology as a key part of the product.
Yahoo! was a portal that grew to do pretty much everything unrealted to what a portal does. They deviated from their core idea.
You dolt, read MY fucking post. The LCD on the windshield was a joke.
No shit. But why make a joke about it when it's nothing like that? It doesn't require you to look, or hold anything in your hand.
Basic controls on the wheel are much safer than a device in the hand that is not designed to be used while driving. Your post compared this to handheld cellphones.
Do you have any idea how retarded that statement is?
You dolt, read MY fucking post. The iPod one hand and a cellphone in the other was a joke.
BTW, the term "hands free" doesn't mean no pushing buttons, all voice controlled. It simply means you don't have to hold the cellphone to your ear with your hand. Early hands free systems didn't have voice recognition and still required the user to press a button. I imagine many still do now.
No. That's why it has controls on the steering wheel and you can't see the the iPod's library. Else you'd have people holding the iPod in one hand while steering with the other. Or in some caces, an iPod one hand and a cellphone in the other. This is like a hands-free car kit.
Next time, think before you post. Or atleast just read the artical.
There are other details to. One is that you can't have one folder open in two different views, since it destroys the spatial concept. The average user will find it confusing. Especial if they try to drag a file from one to the other etc.
But how long does it take to sync War and Peace?;)
Unless you're just jotting down ideas, a pad of paper is no replacment to a PDA, in the same way that a typewritter is no replacment to a computer, unless all you ever use is the word processor.
PDAs aren't failing because the technology is of no use. They're failing because cellphones and "smartphones" are making them redundant. Hell, even the iPod has partial PIM functionality.
Completly wrong. A spatial UI remembers how the user does things, and keeps it that way. Other UIs are the ones forcing the user to adapt to the developer's whims.
Once multi-GB drives started becoming popular, people started realising how bad spatial was. Eventually, Apple wised up, thankfully.
But that's obsurd. Spatial orientaion isn't "bad" it's a theory of how the mind relates to space. There is nothing inheritly good or bad about it.
Also, if you think that the idea behind Apple's spatial Finder was to have all the folders open at the same time, then you have completly missed the point entirely.
What exactly makes it spatial, then? Just opening folders in new windows the way Win95 and Win98 did by default (and most of us probably disabled?) Or is it remembering your preferences for each seperate folder, the way WinXP does?
Windows has never been truly spatial, not even XP I think.
If you want a good example, you'll have to go back to Mac OS 9 etc. When you open a folder, it opens up in exactly the same position, size as when it was last closed, all the icons are in the same sorting order or position as when they were last time.
Mac OS X finder is a load of crap in terms of being spatial. It's unpredicable half the time, and that defeats the entire purpose of using spatial orientation in a folder system.
If that frightens you, then you are obviously not aware of what the military does. Sounds a lot less scary that a nuclear bomb, or a covnentional bomb for that matter.
It is attention to detail. The sound computers generate these days is oftern overlooked by most makers. "Attention to detail" isn't just limited to asthetics you know.
Doesn't sound so simple after you consider that you'd have to seal it properly. Not as easy as it sounds. And you'd have to drain it out when you just wanted to add RAM etc.
Yes, E2 does have those tendencies. But it's still an excellent site. And I don't think you can really compare the two. Maybe E2 originaly had the same goal as Wikipedia, but it morphed into something else a long time ago. If you're using them both as an info source, then Wikipedia is a more authoritive/deffinitive source, where as E2 is more oppinionated and culturalised.
There really needs to be some sort of democratic, multi-admin way to run a server and site.
I'm sure it's possable to write a website that has admins (that are assignable to different areas) voted in, and to make it so that all major events have a democratic process etc. But the problem is acctually writting the code for it, and the testing time/effort required to adjust and re-write parts that aren't working.
8 of these things can lift a 300lb model. You'll need over 24 for a 1000lb craft. Why not just use a couple of larger turbines instead? Probably cheaper, more effecient, powerfull and reliable.
Also color fidelity and saturation, low-light photography, slow shutter-speed photography
I've heard claims that digital is more accurate in colour (for starters, can you change the white balance of your film? No). As for slow shutter speeds, what do you think astronamers use? Yip, digital. Dynamic range still isn't good. But it's catching up fast, I wouldn't be suprised if it overtook film within a couple of years.
You list medium-and-large format, but their only advantage is resolution.
Also, digitals can do IR, and are esspecialy good once you remove the IR blocking filter. With film, you can't see what you're taking unless you remove the IR filter on the front. I can take handheld shots with mine on a sunny day. Try that with film IR;). As for color accuracy in IR, neither is right.
Film isn't nessesarily any more accurate than digital. Infact many consider digital to be more accurate.
Where film has it's advantage is resolution. It's cheaper to get more resolution, and has a higher limit than digital the moment (and probably will for a while).
Slashdot Mirror
Outlook is part of MS Office. Unless they bought the most basic Office package, they will probably have Outlook. Office must be on ~95% of all Windows machines. Hell, a lot people have trouble telling the two apart.
No. The question is whether Linux is ready for the desktop. Because it doesn't matter if Windows is, or is not, because it already owns 90% of the desktop market anyway.
That's a silly argument because most people have to do those things. Most people don't have to use Linux because most already use Windows. You could argue that Windows costs money. But for most people it's very little, and they don't even realise they're paying for it anyway.
I'm intelligent. I do web development, and have had to install and upgrade apache/MySQL/PHP/Perl on both Mac and Win (win probably being harder to install, since most packages are configured for unix based systems). I've even installed quite a few Linux distros to see what they were like. If I'm experienceing a problem, I can usually research it and find a solution. Etc, etc...
But do you know why I don't use Linux? It's not that I'm not capable of dealing with all the little technicalities, it's that I can't be bothered.
Call me lazy, but that's the way I feel. I'd rather just get to work (or play) than have to deal with little things all the time. Little technicalities just annoy the hell out of me. This is why I'm saving up for a Mac; the power is there, but I don't have to use it when I can't be botherd.
Maybe Linux will be ready for the average user in a few years. But not at the moment.
The question is. Should Linux be ready for the desktop. Not when. Linux already does well in techical applications, like servers. Why not focus on it's strong points?
I don't think so. All of Google's spin-offs use search technology as a key part of the product.
Yahoo! was a portal that grew to do pretty much everything unrealted to what a portal does. They deviated from their core idea.
No shit. But why make a joke about it when it's nothing like that? It doesn't require you to look, or hold anything in your hand.
Basic controls on the wheel are much safer than a device in the hand that is not designed to be used while driving. Your post compared this to handheld cellphones.
Do you have any idea how retarded that statement is?
You dolt, read MY fucking post. The iPod one hand and a cellphone in the other was a joke.
BTW, the term "hands free" doesn't mean no pushing buttons, all voice controlled. It simply means you don't have to hold the cellphone to your ear with your hand. Early hands free systems didn't have voice recognition and still required the user to press a button. I imagine many still do now.
Next time, think before you post. Or atleast just read the artical.
There are other details to. One is that you can't have one folder open in two different views, since it destroys the spatial concept. The average user will find it confusing. Especial if they try to drag a file from one to the other etc.
How does a cellphone make you on a leash? Ignoring/diverting a call, or turning it off is not illegal, you know.
Unless you're just jotting down ideas, a pad of paper is no replacment to a PDA, in the same way that a typewritter is no replacment to a computer, unless all you ever use is the word processor.
PDAs aren't failing because the technology is of no use. They're failing because cellphones and "smartphones" are making them redundant. Hell, even the iPod has partial PIM functionality.
It's missconceptions like this that is half the reason Linux has so many GUI issues.
Completly wrong. A spatial UI remembers how the user does things, and keeps it that way. Other UIs are the ones forcing the user to adapt to the developer's whims.
But that's obsurd. Spatial orientaion isn't "bad" it's a theory of how the mind relates to space. There is nothing inheritly good or bad about it.
Also, if you think that the idea behind Apple's spatial Finder was to have all the folders open at the same time, then you have completly missed the point entirely.
Windows has never been truly spatial, not even XP I think.
If you want a good example, you'll have to go back to Mac OS 9 etc. When you open a folder, it opens up in exactly the same position, size as when it was last closed, all the icons are in the same sorting order or position as when they were last time.
Mac OS X finder is a load of crap in terms of being spatial. It's unpredicable half the time, and that defeats the entire purpose of using spatial orientation in a folder system.
True, many sit next to bombs/shells
If that frightens you, then you are obviously not aware of what the military does. Sounds a lot less scary that a nuclear bomb, or a covnentional bomb for that matter.
It is attention to detail. The sound computers generate these days is oftern overlooked by most makers. "Attention to detail" isn't just limited to asthetics you know.
Doesn't sound so simple after you consider that you'd have to seal it properly. Not as easy as it sounds. And you'd have to drain it out when you just wanted to add RAM etc.
Yes, E2 does have those tendencies. But it's still an excellent site. And I don't think you can really compare the two. Maybe E2 originaly had the same goal as Wikipedia, but it morphed into something else a long time ago. If you're using them both as an info source, then Wikipedia is a more authoritive/deffinitive source, where as E2 is more oppinionated and culturalised.
I'm sure it's possable to write a website that has admins (that are assignable to different areas) voted in, and to make it so that all major events have a democratic process etc. But the problem is acctually writting the code for it, and the testing time/effort required to adjust and re-write parts that aren't working.
8 of these things can lift a 300lb model. You'll need over 24 for a 1000lb craft. Why not just use a couple of larger turbines instead? Probably cheaper, more effecient, powerfull and reliable.
I've heard claims that digital is more accurate in colour (for starters, can you change the white balance of your film? No). As for slow shutter speeds, what do you think astronamers use? Yip, digital. Dynamic range still isn't good. But it's catching up fast, I wouldn't be suprised if it overtook film within a couple of years.
You list medium-and-large format, but their only advantage is resolution.
Also, digitals can do IR, and are esspecialy good once you remove the IR blocking filter. With film, you can't see what you're taking unless you remove the IR filter on the front. I can take handheld shots with mine on a sunny day. Try that with film IR ;). As for color accuracy in IR, neither is right.
Where film has it's advantage is resolution. It's cheaper to get more resolution, and has a higher limit than digital the moment (and probably will for a while).
The artical description is still missleading though. Scanning film is nothing out of the ordinary.