I would suggest you take your own advice, fool. Typical Mac Owner, content in their own ineptitute, happy to spend triple what the rest us pay for computing; hoping it will get them laid in the nuts and granola crowd they hang in.
You are in your favorite coffee house, zipping along at G-speed, when some loser B-Card holder opens up that ancient Apple boat-anchor, and slams the whole building down to B-Speed.
We are looking at the new "smoker" to be admonished, segregated and finally kicked to the curb for daring to fuck with our precious bandwidth, the way that smokers fucked with our oxygen.
Soon, you will see them outside on the street, shivering in the cold, huddled together over warm repeater, taking digital drags of packets, polluting the internet environment with their dropped bits, and NAT requests.
Scorn them, outlaw them, as they fuck it up for the rest of us. Let them connect in their poor neighborhoods, where you can still see the bitches walking the streets crying "Hey Daddy, I'll suck your dick for an IP address. Hook a bitch up!"
You have to ask yourself what would motivate IBM to want to undertake this risk for creating A LOT of Office competitors, instead of only themselves.
What would be the profit motive? I dont think they would want to dilute the potential market for their own solution, by providing functionality for others, do you?
Using your argument, anyone can use 'save as' today, to either plain or rich text. That has not helped other Office competitors prosper. There is only one game in town here, and that is whatever file compatibility that Microsoft defines for an Office suite.
All those things you mentioned come into play BEFORE the picture is taken. I can always switch to a backup camera.
What I am concerned about, is the data once the pictures are taken. If they are on a disk drive subject to all sorts of failure modes, then I am totally screwed.
Actually this thing is pretty cool. However, I am not too keen on a lot of movable(breakable) parts to insure my access to pictures in my digital cameras. For cameras, I think it is best to stick with solid-state memory. I cant imagine anyone being able to do data recovery on one of these things.
Were I shooting someone's wedding, there would be hell to pay if I came to them and said the DISK CRASHED, and their pictures are kaput. No, I think I will stick with flash memory, and let some other sucker iron out the kinks.
Microsoft could change the DTD's for their XML any time they wished, making any file format that IBM came up with worthless and irrelavant.
What I would suggest, is that IBM come up with an licence agreement(remember those?) with Microsoft that for a substantial fee(or technology sharing agreement)IBM would have access to MS Office file formats, which for all intents and purposes are the standard for the forseeable future.
Why reinvent the wheel? Having 100% MS-File compatibility would be a huge value proposition. Why dont the rest of these companies just pay up, and move on? None of them are going to beat Microsoft at this point on anything related to MS Office, so why not gain some industry acceptance and marketshare by ponying up the nessesary dollars?
Nothing wastes a techie's time more than someone bothering them with a question. Any IT department worth their salt, has a portal containing FAQs of every detail of their current environment. These FAQs should be updated weekly. Techies should have NO relatioship with end users.
There should be a single point of contact for addressing user issues, and that should be the IT manager and whatever system designed to accept, prioritize, consoladate(sic)and address user issues. Much of this can and should be automated.
IT managers need to be more concerned about their staff's technical ability than their communication skills. If a guy can script, code, configure and complete their tasks on time, I really couldnt care less whether he gives users a warm and fuzzy feeling.
I think any decent manager can handle IT management tasks, if they trust the people who work for them. Sure, there needs to be skill enough to understand what the techs are telling him, and translate that into manangement-speak, but this is less important to developing and mantaining an IT dept that works.
There is nothing so dangerous as some wannabe techie manager emboldened by reading one of these books to set about deciding the fate and future of technology in an organization.
IT Management should start and stop and defining business-related goals, and providing resources towards allowing the true technologists to emplement the plan based upon THEIR knowledge and experience. Any manager who cannot trust their true-technologists to do that, should fire them and hire those that he/she can.
All these books do, is provide enough information to the IT Manager to be dangerous. Decisions start to be made on the basis of what technology implemetation is going to get my mug and quote in a tech magazine, that I can then put in my resume towards a higher paying CIO position.
If anything, it bodes well for Microsoft, because it gives them another solution to point to as a competitor, dispelling claims about MSOffice being a monopoly.
File formats? Compatible with Office? I doubt it. That means this thing is boat anchor. Either that, or it will join those thousands of boxes of the old Lotus Suite gathering dust in cabinets that companies got for buying Notes.
If there was an award for software distributed that never got used, nobody would ever beat IBM.
The first time I saw the Matrix, I was literally in shock. I sat there thru the credits, then got up and bought a ticket for the next showing.
I doubt any movie will have the same first time effect as Matrix did. Maybe the third of the series at the end of the year, but until then nothing comes close. I dont care about the logic traps, or Keanu's blank stare, the movie rocked.
I had to watch the first Matrix 3-4 times before I caught all the little subtle clues. I just watched the trailer, and of course, it ROCKS.
There are things in this movie that I am going to want to see over and over again, just to behold the special effects.
After seeing the trailer, I know the parts where I need to pay less attention to the dialog, and more to the screen. People tend to focus only on where a particular sound is coming from, instead of the whole screen.
I want to see just how real the thousands of Agents are, since they are 100% CGI during one fight scene. This is going to easily be the biggest movie of the year, and I suspect it will set new box office records.
Nope. Only two were ever built. AV1 and AV2. It was AV2 that crashed in after the midair collision. AV1 is on display at the Wright Patterson Museum in Ohio.
Actually, the engine sustained a compressor stall, due to the high AOA of the manuver required to avoid the Mirage. The engine DID restart, but once it did, the pilot looked up from his instruments, no doubt he was monitoring EGT and RPM to see when he could apply power. He noticed he was very close to the ground at that point.
The accident investigators suggest that he tried to pull a sustained 12G on the airframe to come out of the dive. The starboard wing snaped off 150 feet off the ground.
The Air Force gave up on the XP-70, after intellegence reports suggested that the Soviets had developed SAM's that could possibly shoot it down at altitude, and were also developing the MIG-25 to intercept it. The XP-70 had an operational celing of 82,000 feet, easily reachable by the MIG. Now, the Air-Force was wrong on both counts, but didnt know so at the time. The crash had nothing to do with the decision.
Also, the XB-70 only crashed because an F-104 chase place got caught in it's wake turbulance and collided with the Valkyrie, snapping off one of it's vertical stabilizers, and damaging the other one. The resulting crash was blamed on the F-104 pilot. Now, I happen to think that the B-1 is the most beautiful airplane ever built.
The TU-144 crashed at the Paris Air Show during it's flight demonstration.
The pilot over-stressed the wings pulling out of a steep dive, and one of the wings snaped off, causing the plane to continue diving straight into the ground.
Fox News wins because in addition to being more entertaining, and not automatically taking the liberal position, but because they show more cleavage and legs among their anchor women.
None of them are serious babes, but compared to the homely ogres on CNN, they look great. Some of them overdose on lipstick and gloss, but to a person, each of them has a nice rack, and the skirts keep getting shorter and shorter over there. MSNBC has a couple of babes, but not 24 hours of nipples in your face, like Fox.
Let me see here, the LEFT has ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, MSNBC & PBS, but they are scared shitless over FOX.
It is the LEFT that cannot stand for alternative points of view, that attempts to shout down anything that doesnt adhere to their ideas for their socialist utopia.
To answer your question YOU HEARD ALL THAT STUFF, RIGHT????
Or did it just fly up your ass one morning during an inspiring dump?
I heard it too, on AMERICAN news. If you can get the information, then you cant bitch about not getting the information.
Oh wait, yes you can, because your are a stupid liberal, which means you can speak from your ass in any dialect you wish. You are not required to make sense, because you worship irrational emotionalism.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, they take themselves too seriously. Christ, it's a fuckin' tech forum. They need to lighten up.
What is it about humor that you dont understand?
RTFM not?
I would suggest you take your own advice, fool. Typical Mac Owner, content in their own ineptitute, happy to spend triple what the rest us pay for computing; hoping it will get them laid in the nuts and granola crowd they hang in.
Why dont you go shopping or something?
You are in your favorite coffee house, zipping along at G-speed, when some loser B-Card holder opens up that ancient Apple boat-anchor, and slams the whole building down to B-Speed.
We are looking at the new "smoker" to be admonished, segregated and finally kicked to the curb for daring to fuck with our precious bandwidth, the way that smokers fucked with our oxygen.
Soon, you will see them outside on the street, shivering in the cold, huddled together over warm repeater, taking digital drags of packets, polluting the internet environment with their dropped bits, and NAT requests.
Scorn them, outlaw them, as they fuck it up for the rest of us. Let them connect in their poor neighborhoods, where you can still see the bitches walking the streets crying "Hey Daddy, I'll suck your dick for an IP address. Hook a bitch up!"
Losers.
Dont be stupid. If you think this thing is NOT going to make it into digital cameras, then maybe YOU should read the article again yourself.
What would be the profit motive? I dont think they would want to dilute the potential market for their own solution, by providing functionality for others, do you?
Using your argument, anyone can use 'save as' today, to either plain or rich text. That has not helped other Office competitors prosper. There is only one game in town here, and that is whatever file compatibility that Microsoft defines for an Office suite.
That war is over, it's time for capitulation.
What I am concerned about, is the data once the pictures are taken. If they are on a disk drive subject to all sorts of failure modes, then I am totally screwed.
Were I shooting someone's wedding, there would be hell to pay if I came to them and said the DISK CRASHED, and their pictures are kaput. No, I think I will stick with flash memory, and let some other sucker iron out the kinks.
What I would suggest, is that IBM come up with an licence agreement(remember those?) with Microsoft that for a substantial fee(or technology sharing agreement)IBM would have access to MS Office file formats, which for all intents and purposes are the standard for the forseeable future.
Why reinvent the wheel? Having 100% MS-File compatibility would be a huge value proposition. Why dont the rest of these companies just pay up, and move on? None of them are going to beat Microsoft at this point on anything related to MS Office, so why not gain some industry acceptance and marketshare by ponying up the nessesary dollars?
You gotta pay to play.
There should be a single point of contact for addressing user issues, and that should be the IT manager and whatever system designed to accept, prioritize, consoladate(sic)and address user issues. Much of this can and should be automated.
IT managers need to be more concerned about their staff's technical ability than their communication skills. If a guy can script, code, configure and complete their tasks on time, I really couldnt care less whether he gives users a warm and fuzzy feeling.
I think any decent manager can handle IT management tasks, if they trust the people who work for them. Sure, there needs to be skill enough to understand what the techs are telling him, and translate that into manangement-speak, but this is less important to developing and mantaining an IT dept that works.
IT Management should start and stop and defining business-related goals, and providing resources towards allowing the true technologists to emplement the plan based upon THEIR knowledge and experience. Any manager who cannot trust their true-technologists to do that, should fire them and hire those that he/she can.
All these books do, is provide enough information to the IT Manager to be dangerous. Decisions start to be made on the basis of what technology implemetation is going to get my mug and quote in a tech magazine, that I can then put in my resume towards a higher paying CIO position.
You know who you are, asshole.
If anything, it bodes well for Microsoft, because it gives them another solution to point to as a competitor, dispelling claims about MSOffice being a monopoly.
File formats? Compatible with Office? I doubt it. That means this thing is boat anchor. Either that, or it will join those thousands of boxes of the old Lotus Suite gathering dust in cabinets that companies got for buying Notes.
If there was an award for software distributed that never got used, nobody would ever beat IBM.
The first time I saw the Matrix, I was literally in shock. I sat there thru the credits, then got up and bought a ticket for the next showing.
I doubt any movie will have the same first time effect as Matrix did. Maybe the third of the series at the end of the year, but until then nothing comes close. I dont care about the logic traps, or Keanu's blank stare, the movie rocked.
In a space suit,(another movie) she is a mutt.
There are things in this movie that I am going to want to see over and over again, just to behold the special effects.
After seeing the trailer, I know the parts where I need to pay less attention to the dialog, and more to the screen. People tend to focus only on where a particular sound is coming from, instead of the whole screen.
I want to see just how real the thousands of Agents are, since they are 100% CGI during one fight scene. This is going to easily be the biggest movie of the year, and I suspect it will set new box office records.
Nope. Only two were ever built. AV1 and AV2. It was AV2 that crashed in after the midair collision. AV1 is on display at the Wright Patterson Museum in Ohio.
The accident investigators suggest that he tried to pull a sustained 12G on the airframe to come out of the dive. The starboard wing snaped off 150 feet off the ground.
The rest is history.
Also, the XB-70 only crashed because an F-104 chase place got caught in it's wake turbulance and collided with the Valkyrie, snapping off one of it's vertical stabilizers, and damaging the other one. The resulting crash was blamed on the F-104 pilot. Now, I happen to think that the B-1 is the most beautiful airplane ever built.
The pilot over-stressed the wings pulling out of a steep dive, and one of the wings snaped off, causing the plane to continue diving straight into the ground.
None of them are serious babes, but compared to the homely ogres on CNN, they look great. Some of them overdose on lipstick and gloss, but to a person, each of them has a nice rack, and the skirts keep getting shorter and shorter over there. MSNBC has a couple of babes, but not 24 hours of nipples in your face, like Fox.
Then keep using it. Most people hearing it will automatically assume your lack of intellect.
Of course you do. Because you cant hold up an argument, you would rather wish violence on those who agree with you. I guess that means you give up?
Stupid jerk.
Your understanding of economics is about as bad as your grammar. IRREGARDLESS IS NOT A WORD, IDIOT!!
Not even worth a comment.
Let me see here, the LEFT has ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, MSNBC & PBS, but they are scared shitless over FOX.
It is the LEFT that cannot stand for alternative points of view, that attempts to shout down anything that doesnt adhere to their ideas for their socialist utopia.
To answer your question YOU HEARD ALL THAT STUFF, RIGHT????
Or did it just fly up your ass one morning during an inspiring dump?
I heard it too, on AMERICAN news. If you can get the information, then you cant bitch about not getting the information.
Oh wait, yes you can, because your are a stupid liberal, which means you can speak from your ass in any dialect you wish. You are not required to make sense, because you worship irrational emotionalism.
Forgive me, I forgot.