Yep. What MS have done in Outlook 2010 is incredible. In my experience, it's gone seriously downhill from 2003. The only reason I still use it is because it's so deeply tied into MS's proprietary Exchange server, and other Outlook clients' proprietary 'email' format, that I'm locked in to it at work. A couple of examples.
I used to be able to insert a signature with a single shortcut in 2003. In 2007, they forced the ribbon on me and the shortcut disappeared. It was then 'Alt-N G'. Unbelievably, they changed it AGAIN in 2010... and STILL prevent you from defining your own shortcuts. It's now 'Alt-N A S'. I wouldn't be surprised if they changed it to 'ALT-F U C K Y O U' in the next revision.
They also decided that the Outlook 2003 e-mail editor wasn't good enough; rich text and layout aside, there was a shedload of MS Word functionality users were just missing out on. The decision made was to basically send a Word document instead of an e-mail, which did 2 things. First, it made Outlook e-mails utterly incompatible with any e-mail client that wasn't Outlook. Second, it killed off the possibility of doing proper inline responses. I'm surprised more people haven't noticed this, but you used to be able to press 'unindent' to break the 'quote line' to the left of the quoted part of a reply. From 2007 when they implemented the MS Word e-mail editor, you can't. So, you see people using bastardized inline responses by colouring their response text red or something. Or just completely giving up on inline responses. Thanks, MS.
Honestly, I would be using something else if I could. And if I ran a business, I'd try to find a more standards-compliant (and preferably OSS) alternative to Outlook.
Android is still in the DOS days. Once Google gets around to learning the same lesson Microsoft learned (albeit slowly) and develops a QA test suite that they administer, the problem will only get worse.
Do you mean 'until'? As it stands your final statement doesn't quite make sense...
I agree with most of your points, but why would you make it illegal for use in private businesses premises, which were correctly licenced? Many soft drugs are used in a social recreational way, and it's not a major problem for people to take them responsibly even outside their own residences. I think that's too strong a restriction. Do you limit alcohol consumption to private residences only?
How do you think kids feel now. On one hand you have the government, parents and everyone saying that marijuana is not good for you. And on the other hand you have a Facebook founder telling them its ok and should be legal.
Actually, Prop 19 calls for cannabis to be legal for people *OVER 21*. Not for 'kids'. So, it maintains the notion that it's not good for kids (more likely to screw with their developing brains), but it legalizes it for adults, which is by far the most sensible solution.
"Drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis are extremely harmful and can cause misery to communities across the country."
... in response to yet another scientist proposing cannabis legalization seem all the more pitifully ignorant. (they later took cannabis out of that grouping, but it goes to show how naturally their brains group all 'drugs' together as 'harmful'.) We can only hope that California's legalizing cannabis acts as a catalyst for other enlightened countries around the world to do the same.
Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, etc all amazingly rich, richer than the drug lords, and did the same basic thing: Created a successful empire selling what people want.
Didn't Warren Buffet admit that he made a ton of money by basically being good at playing the numbers gambling game otherwise known as the stock market?
This isn't as off-topic as you may think. People have been convinced by government / police campaigns that paying the fine is "the done thing". For example, someone driving at 67mph in a 60mph zone may be faced with a £30 fine, but if they let it go to court they risk getting 6 points on their license (halfway to losing it!) and a fine in the thousands.
You get 3 points on your licence in any case. I got 3 automated 'average speed camera' charges against me in the course of 2 weeks, for going probably 55MPH on a 50MPH dual carriageway. 9 point on the licence, and £180 in fines.
I disagree with you that Windows 7 is a visual work of art, so I guess it's highly subjective. If anything, I prefer the relative clarity and simplicity of XP over 7.:-)
Their form at late with software is getting much better. Windows 7 was great, Office 2010 was great as well... Microsoft are finally waking up in face of some competition.
Whenever I see someone say this, I have to wonder... how?
Not meaning to be a troll or anything, but is it JUST the eye candy that you think is great about Windows 7 and Office 2010? You think the ribbon is really amazing? I've been using Windows 7 alongside XP for a while now and whilst it's different to Windows XP, I don't feel like I've lose anything when I switch back to XP. I prefer having text in my explorer location bar instead of clickable buttons for every directory level, I prefer having expanding programs submenus in the Start Menu. Win7's Start Menu search... meh. It's OK. But no game-changer for me. So what exactly is it about Win7 and Office 2010 that you think is 'great'? The way I see it, Microsoft spent a HUGE amount of time, effort and money to make their GUI windows translucent, and bugger around with the toolbar format. It's not bad, but it's not orgasmic either.
if losing half the markt in ~5 years isnt getten your lunch eaten, then i dont know what is
Perhaps losing 100% of the market in 5 years, which is what happened to Netscape when IE destroyed them.
Don't be fooled; IE is like the Borg... they might suffer a temporary setback, but they have the resources to very quickly come back and dominate again.
Yep, you're absolutely right. It's nothing to do with the fact that the MEPs are elected on a proportional basis, and national elections (mostly) on a non-proportional basis, locking out all but the biggest 2 or 3 (UKIP, the BNP, and the Greens combined got 2 million votes at the last UK GENERAL election.)
I do understand what Stewart is making fun of, and I still don't find him funny. He's been getting less and less funny since the Bush era and is now on the verge of annoying. Combine that with his moronic audience who whoop and cheer at literally anything he sais, and I'm not quite sure why intelligent people watch it anymore. Bill Maher is infinitely more witty.
Sure, YouTube is still pretty damned slow at 30Mbps.
You're telling me. You used to be able to download the whole video at your connection's max speed, but a while back they implemented a mechanism whereby you download a few seconds' buffer that quickly and then the download speed slows to a trickle. Understandable from their bandwidth's POV I guess, but annoying all the same.
Your connection speed won't make a difference here.
Slashdot Mirror
Talk about an almost entirely useless "broadcast" only Internet. Is that what you want?
Hmm. Perhaps the MPAA and the like are lobbying against IPv6. :-)
Ask yer average Zimbabwean.
Yep. What MS have done in Outlook 2010 is incredible. In my experience, it's gone seriously downhill from 2003. The only reason I still use it is because it's so deeply tied into MS's proprietary Exchange server, and other Outlook clients' proprietary 'email' format, that I'm locked in to it at work. A couple of examples.
I used to be able to insert a signature with a single shortcut in 2003. In 2007, they forced the ribbon on me and the shortcut disappeared. It was then 'Alt-N G'. Unbelievably, they changed it AGAIN in 2010... and STILL prevent you from defining your own shortcuts. It's now 'Alt-N A S'. I wouldn't be surprised if they changed it to 'ALT-F U C K Y O U' in the next revision.
They also decided that the Outlook 2003 e-mail editor wasn't good enough; rich text and layout aside, there was a shedload of MS Word functionality users were just missing out on. The decision made was to basically send a Word document instead of an e-mail, which did 2 things. First, it made Outlook e-mails utterly incompatible with any e-mail client that wasn't Outlook. Second, it killed off the possibility of doing proper inline responses. I'm surprised more people haven't noticed this, but you used to be able to press 'unindent' to break the 'quote line' to the left of the quoted part of a reply. From 2007 when they implemented the MS Word e-mail editor, you can't. So, you see people using bastardized inline responses by colouring their response text red or something. Or just completely giving up on inline responses. Thanks, MS.
Honestly, I would be using something else if I could. And if I ran a business, I'd try to find a more standards-compliant (and preferably OSS) alternative to Outlook.
Android is still in the DOS days. Once Google gets around to learning the same lesson Microsoft learned (albeit slowly) and develops a QA test suite that they administer, the problem will only get worse.
Do you mean 'until'? As it stands your final statement doesn't quite make sense...
No, the article is not describing a barred spiral galaxy. A barred spiral is one where there is a strong bar of stars across the galactic core
I think we now have a pretty good idea that at the galactic core is Steve.
When a nation develops nukes in Civ the first thing I always try to do is obliterate them because the computer loves to use them for the lolz.
Maybe not such an apt comparison... :-)
I know, all those aggressors are out of their minds, right? It's totally the wrong way to go about things.
The pacifists in Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Xinjiang (Uyghurs) have had much more success resisting Chinese imperialism.
"Sorry, this programme is not available to watch again"
Yay for the licence fee! Thank god we have such a cool broadcaster.
I agree with most of your points, but why would you make it illegal for use in private businesses premises, which were correctly licenced? Many soft drugs are used in a social recreational way, and it's not a major problem for people to take them responsibly even outside their own residences. I think that's too strong a restriction. Do you limit alcohol consumption to private residences only?
How do you think kids feel now. On one hand you have the government, parents and everyone saying that marijuana is not good for you. And on the other hand you have a Facebook founder telling them its ok and should be legal.
Actually, Prop 19 calls for cannabis to be legal for people *OVER 21*. Not for 'kids'. So, it maintains the notion that it's not good for kids (more likely to screw with their developing brains), but it legalizes it for adults, which is by far the most sensible solution.
Yep, which makes the UK Home Office's initial statement that...
"Drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis are extremely harmful and can cause misery to communities across the country."
... in response to yet another scientist proposing cannabis legalization seem all the more pitifully ignorant. (they later took cannabis out of that grouping, but it goes to show how naturally their brains group all 'drugs' together as 'harmful'.) We can only hope that California's legalizing cannabis acts as a catalyst for other enlightened countries around the world to do the same.
Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, etc all amazingly rich, richer than the drug lords, and did the same basic thing: Created a successful empire selling what people want.
Didn't Warren Buffet admit that he made a ton of money by basically being good at playing the numbers gambling game otherwise known as the stock market?
Anyone know of a high-FPS browser? Do I need a better video card??
Try IE9. I hear you can actually get a playable framerate for Crysis out of it.
This isn't as off-topic as you may think. People have been convinced by government / police campaigns that paying the fine is "the done thing". For example, someone driving at 67mph in a 60mph zone may be faced with a £30 fine, but if they let it go to court they risk getting 6 points on their license (halfway to losing it!) and a fine in the thousands.
You get 3 points on your licence in any case. I got 3 automated 'average speed camera' charges against me in the course of 2 weeks, for going probably 55MPH on a 50MPH dual carriageway. 9 point on the licence, and £180 in fines.
It sucks to be a motorist here.
I disagree with you that Windows 7 is a visual work of art, so I guess it's highly subjective. If anything, I prefer the relative clarity and simplicity of XP over 7. :-)
Their form at late with software is getting much better. Windows 7 was great, Office 2010 was great as well... Microsoft are finally waking up in face of some competition.
Whenever I see someone say this, I have to wonder... how?
Not meaning to be a troll or anything, but is it JUST the eye candy that you think is great about Windows 7 and Office 2010? You think the ribbon is really amazing? I've been using Windows 7 alongside XP for a while now and whilst it's different to Windows XP, I don't feel like I've lose anything when I switch back to XP. I prefer having text in my explorer location bar instead of clickable buttons for every directory level, I prefer having expanding programs submenus in the Start Menu. Win7's Start Menu search... meh. It's OK. But no game-changer for me. So what exactly is it about Win7 and Office 2010 that you think is 'great'? The way I see it, Microsoft spent a HUGE amount of time, effort and money to make their GUI windows translucent, and bugger around with the toolbar format. It's not bad, but it's not orgasmic either.
if losing half the markt in ~5 years isnt getten your lunch eaten, then i dont know what is
Perhaps losing 100% of the market in 5 years, which is what happened to Netscape when IE destroyed them.
Don't be fooled; IE is like the Borg... they might suffer a temporary setback, but they have the resources to very quickly come back and dominate again.
Yep, you're absolutely right. It's nothing to do with the fact that the MEPs are elected on a proportional basis, and national elections (mostly) on a non-proportional basis, locking out all but the biggest 2 or 3 (UKIP, the BNP, and the Greens combined got 2 million votes at the last UK GENERAL election.)
I do understand what Stewart is making fun of, and I still don't find him funny. He's been getting less and less funny since the Bush era and is now on the verge of annoying. Combine that with his moronic audience who whoop and cheer at literally anything he sais, and I'm not quite sure why intelligent people watch it anymore. Bill Maher is infinitely more witty.
There's an RFC for it!
The Atlantic Accelerator? :-)
But if the US telcos don't get arbitrarily high profits, how on Earth can they afford to pay for their lobbying operations?
Sure, YouTube is still pretty damned slow at 30Mbps.
You're telling me. You used to be able to download the whole video at your connection's max speed, but a while back they implemented a mechanism whereby you download a few seconds' buffer that quickly and then the download speed slows to a trickle. Understandable from their bandwidth's POV I guess, but annoying all the same.
Your connection speed won't make a difference here.
10 and 25 millimetres? That's tiny... didn't you mean centimetres?
We're pissing £10 million away on the Pope's visit. Compared to that, this is nothing.