I usually eat pizza in restaurants, hence I pay after eating it.
However, software is not (At least traditionally) something capable of expiring, thus I expect to pay before before use. Would you expect to pay for a car before or after you clock up 10,000 miles?
No. Due to the lower gravity and atmospheric density on Mars, it is very easy for even light winds to whip the dust into what look like impressive storms. However, something reasonably solid such as a rover can (in theory, wouldn't recommend it due to the dust abrasion etc) plough straight through the middle of whirlwinds etc. with no issues of being flung around.
Doesn't this indicate a problem with the net's underlying design? I was always under the impression that if one peering went offline, even at tier 1, the traffic would simply redirect through any available route (As soon as the routers update).
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but unless Level 3 and Cogent are the only two tier-1 entities in a network there should be a non-direct route between them, even if it involves going through other peers?
I know this is going to sound bizzare, and possibly get me flamed into oblivion, but what if this is a genuine change in the way MS is thinking about business?
For a long time MS has been around locking people in to their own formats and systems, but I think with the advent of the internet MS has realised that the most money lies in integrating with existing systems. Having well designed products which can talk to everything else is a big plus, they have brand recognition to begin with, and even if everything talks in open standards Microsoft can still sell their 'solution'. SharePoint, Exchange, Active Directory, Outlook, Office and Windows is currently a tightly integrated system, what's to stop MS making it use open standards and basing their business model on the fact that they can then sell the entire bundle to companies, with a unified administration system (Group Policy can remain proprietary, even though everything can talk to everything else using open standards). I know businesses would rather pay a large MS licence fee for a solution which is easy to look after than use 'free' components and pay someone to maintain them all and make sure they can communicate properly.
should (if it's a well designed datacentre) reduce heating bills for the building, since in a well designed system the hot air from the server room is pumped around the building in winter, which has the dual benefit of keeping it warm and acting like a really big radiator for your server farm, reducing the need for expensive (and inefficient) heat exchangers.
That was my point. It's not MS's job to support anything, but it is the job of the techies for the school district to support the mail clients. And selecting one mail client is the easiest way to do it. And if they have an Exchange server, the best client is Outlook.
My point is that Microsoft offers a tightly integrated solution (Exchange, SharePoint, Outlook, Office, Active Directory) which is ideal for a corporate environment. Not to mention the fact that perhaps they want to have a chance in hell of supporting it. Imagine the conversations...
"My email doesn't work." "Okay, open Outlook for me." "I don't use Outlook." "Okay, what do you use?" "KMail." "Umm... Okay. Open that, then go Tools, then Email Accounts." "It's not there." "How the fuck am I supposed to support 500 different pieces of software?" *Click*
Depends. If the school district uses Exchange, it may be using shared calendars and contact lists. Whilst I'm aware of all the "OMGS PROPRIETARY SUX", the simple fact is that open source does not offer any solution as integrated as Exchange and Outlook.
OTOH, if it's only a POP3 or IMAP mailbox, tell them to shut the hell up.
And Outlook security problems - you seen Outlook 2003? It's no less inherently secure than Thunderbird, the only problem is the end user clicking all the links.
I disagree. VS makes putting together applications (Some of which are seriously powerful) very easy. The fact it is easy to do doesn't make it any less useful at the end.
Furniture from IKEA comes flat-packed with an alan key, and whilst an IKEA desk may not be a handmade mahogany desk with glass top, it is still a flat surface to work on. Does the fact you put it together out of pre-assembled components make it any less of a desk?
Once you've put together an IKEA desk there's no way you'd be stupid enough to manufacture an entire desk by yourself. Let someone else do the donkey work. And if the IKEA desk can't do exactly what you want you can develop skills to make your own.
Back to computers, I see no reason why I should spend hours wrestling with inane config files in Linux when a GUI in Windows or OSX can do the same thing in a few clicks. If I wanted to do something obscure then yes, I am willing to spend time to 'break the mould', but until then I'm not going to waste my energy. Likewise with VS, if all you want to do is create an application using the prebuilt components then what is the problem? If you want to break the mould, learn to code.
I'm an MSDN subscriber with access to the WinFS beta - it's damn powerful and it is a real shame it won't make the Vista release. The reason I'm backing Google more is that it seems they are better placed to unify things worldwide - WinFS will only be local unless MS release a seriously powerful web service. When one friend updates their contact info and calendar I want it to just be available without needing to manually re-sync or to put all my friends through a single Exchange server.
Google has the web infrastructure and data mining algorithms, Microsoft has the WinFS (And by the looks of the PCD demo the UI for it as well), Apple has the experience in 'plug and play computing'. What's missing is a company with the ability to force them to use a single standard and storage location for the data.
But if a non-state school has a "no blogs" rule they are within their rights to exclude you if you have a blog. Likewise with haircuts - some (non-state) schools have short haircut policies. Don't like it, go somewhere else.
I think Google have done anything but take their eye off the ball. Remember how Froogle and Google Local were once beta projects, and are now integrated with google.com search? And then Google Maps was slipped into the equation. define: has been moved out of a little-known backwater of the site and integrated with google.com...
Google having a foot in all the doors simply means they are finding the best way to index and search that information. It won't surprise me if they all end up integrated somewhere with just plain Google Search, to the extent that they lose their own 'section'. Google Base is simply (from what I can tell) a huge database of everything, which (chances are) will end up integrated.
I want to be able to log in to Google and have all my own data at my fingertips, easily searchable, and for the engine behind it all to know what I'm after. At the moment, powerful though other web searches may be, Google is the only company to attempt to unify everything for the users. If Google can provide what I'm after, I would be willing to pay a significant amount of money to have them organise all my data, be it news, emails, contacts, files, web history, chats, driving directions, cinema times... the list goes on.
As a designer myself I am painfully aware of this (And yes I know some of my sites don't resize horizontally, they're on my to-fix list), but that doesn't excuse the fact that 800x600 is uncomfortable to work at. The taskbar takes up an appreciable fraction of my screen, combine this with the piss-poor toolbar layout in Office (Nicely locked so I can't make it something more useful), and the fact that Google toolbar is now installed on all machines (What?) leaves most applications with about 8" of vertical space to work in. At 800x600, so all the text is huge.
It's mostly so I can see how software etc. reacts and also to use as a 'live' test bed without putting important data at risk. My point was if I can run two DCs at home, surely there's no excuse for a company running on only 1.
With me it's not the screen size, it's the resolution. I have a 19" monitor set to 1600x1200, and find it comfortable to work at (As long as I set the DPI properly). If I drop that to 1042x768, I immediately find it cramped. At school I'm forced to work with 800x600 on a 15" monitor, which drives me insane when you can't even view an entire webpage horizontally without scrolling.
My iPaq is currently used in tandem with Outlook to keep tabs on calendar, contacts, and tasks. I occasionally play solitare on it.
There is no way I could keep my college work organised without a PDA, but I do agree that it is far more than it needs to be. I'm not bothered about it having an MSN client, I want the bloody thing to sync with my PIM and do it well.
Nothing. It just so happens that in some cases the data contains formatting.
I would say that HTML is a neutral data form. The original tags were simply used to indicate title, headers, paragraphs etc. How the browser then displayed those 'stock elements' was down to the specific browser.
I think this is the real reason. Whilst Macs may not be as useful or versatile out-of-the-box as many other solutions, they are slick and shiny. They plug in and go, they ask sensible questions, and behave how you expect.
The Apple designs are right, and first impressions make all the difference. My first impression of Linux was when I tried to install it and it returned (what was to me) complete gibberish which was no help to anybody. My first impression of a Mac was when I plugged it in, turned it on, and it stepped me through everything it needed and then worked as expected.
Slashdot Mirror
It's probably easier and cheaper to buy a whole new motherboard than just replace the BIOS.
I usually eat pizza in restaurants, hence I pay after eating it.
However, software is not (At least traditionally) something capable of expiring, thus I expect to pay before before use. Would you expect to pay for a car before or after you clock up 10,000 miles?
No. Due to the lower gravity and atmospheric density on Mars, it is very easy for even light winds to whip the dust into what look like impressive storms. However, something reasonably solid such as a rover can (in theory, wouldn't recommend it due to the dust abrasion etc) plough straight through the middle of whirlwinds etc. with no issues of being flung around.
Doesn't this indicate a problem with the net's underlying design? I was always under the impression that if one peering went offline, even at tier 1, the traffic would simply redirect through any available route (As soon as the routers update).
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but unless Level 3 and Cogent are the only two tier-1 entities in a network there should be a non-direct route between them, even if it involves going through other peers?
Offtopic, but minor fix for your signature
girls=money^2, money=root(evil), therefore money^2=evil and girls=evil.
I know this is going to sound bizzare, and possibly get me flamed into oblivion, but what if this is a genuine change in the way MS is thinking about business?
For a long time MS has been around locking people in to their own formats and systems, but I think with the advent of the internet MS has realised that the most money lies in integrating with existing systems. Having well designed products which can talk to everything else is a big plus, they have brand recognition to begin with, and even if everything talks in open standards Microsoft can still sell their 'solution'. SharePoint, Exchange, Active Directory, Outlook, Office and Windows is currently a tightly integrated system, what's to stop MS making it use open standards and basing their business model on the fact that they can then sell the entire bundle to companies, with a unified administration system (Group Policy can remain proprietary, even though everything can talk to everything else using open standards). I know businesses would rather pay a large MS licence fee for a solution which is easy to look after than use 'free' components and pay someone to maintain them all and make sure they can communicate properly.
I thought underrated and overrated were not only karmaless moderations, but also couldn't be M2d?
should (if it's a well designed datacentre) reduce heating bills for the building, since in a well designed system the hot air from the server room is pumped around the building in winter, which has the dual benefit of keeping it warm and acting like a really big radiator for your server farm, reducing the need for expensive (and inefficient) heat exchangers.
When you tell somebody to clean their carburettor they should know what you're talking about. Otherwise they have no business owning a car.
Point made?
That was my point. It's not MS's job to support anything, but it is the job of the techies for the school district to support the mail clients. And selecting one mail client is the easiest way to do it. And if they have an Exchange server, the best client is Outlook.
Sorry, but that's the way it works.
My point is that Microsoft offers a tightly integrated solution (Exchange, SharePoint, Outlook, Office, Active Directory) which is ideal for a corporate environment. Not to mention the fact that perhaps they want to have a chance in hell of supporting it. Imagine the conversations...
"My email doesn't work."
"Okay, open Outlook for me."
"I don't use Outlook."
"Okay, what do you use?"
"KMail."
"Umm... Okay. Open that, then go Tools, then Email Accounts."
"It's not there."
"How the fuck am I supposed to support 500 different pieces of software?"
*Click*
Depends. If the school district uses Exchange, it may be using shared calendars and contact lists. Whilst I'm aware of all the "OMGS PROPRIETARY SUX", the simple fact is that open source does not offer any solution as integrated as Exchange and Outlook.
OTOH, if it's only a POP3 or IMAP mailbox, tell them to shut the hell up.
And Outlook security problems - you seen Outlook 2003? It's no less inherently secure than Thunderbird, the only problem is the end user clicking all the links.
I disagree. VS makes putting together applications (Some of which are seriously powerful) very easy. The fact it is easy to do doesn't make it any less useful at the end.
Furniture from IKEA comes flat-packed with an alan key, and whilst an IKEA desk may not be a handmade mahogany desk with glass top, it is still a flat surface to work on. Does the fact you put it together out of pre-assembled components make it any less of a desk?
Once you've put together an IKEA desk there's no way you'd be stupid enough to manufacture an entire desk by yourself. Let someone else do the donkey work. And if the IKEA desk can't do exactly what you want you can develop skills to make your own.
Back to computers, I see no reason why I should spend hours wrestling with inane config files in Linux when a GUI in Windows or OSX can do the same thing in a few clicks. If I wanted to do something obscure then yes, I am willing to spend time to 'break the mould', but until then I'm not going to waste my energy. Likewise with VS, if all you want to do is create an application using the prebuilt components then what is the problem? If you want to break the mould, learn to code.
I'm an MSDN subscriber with access to the WinFS beta - it's damn powerful and it is a real shame it won't make the Vista release. The reason I'm backing Google more is that it seems they are better placed to unify things worldwide - WinFS will only be local unless MS release a seriously powerful web service. When one friend updates their contact info and calendar I want it to just be available without needing to manually re-sync or to put all my friends through a single Exchange server.
Google has the web infrastructure and data mining algorithms, Microsoft has the WinFS (And by the looks of the PCD demo the UI for it as well), Apple has the experience in 'plug and play computing'. What's missing is a company with the ability to force them to use a single standard and storage location for the data.
Discworld, but close.
But if a non-state school has a "no blogs" rule they are within their rights to exclude you if you have a blog. Likewise with haircuts - some (non-state) schools have short haircut policies. Don't like it, go somewhere else.
I think Google have done anything but take their eye off the ball. Remember how Froogle and Google Local were once beta projects, and are now integrated with google.com search? And then Google Maps was slipped into the equation. define: has been moved out of a little-known backwater of the site and integrated with google.com...
Google having a foot in all the doors simply means they are finding the best way to index and search that information. It won't surprise me if they all end up integrated somewhere with just plain Google Search, to the extent that they lose their own 'section'. Google Base is simply (from what I can tell) a huge database of everything, which (chances are) will end up integrated.
I want to be able to log in to Google and have all my own data at my fingertips, easily searchable, and for the engine behind it all to know what I'm after. At the moment, powerful though other web searches may be, Google is the only company to attempt to unify everything for the users. If Google can provide what I'm after, I would be willing to pay a significant amount of money to have them organise all my data, be it news, emails, contacts, files, web history, chats, driving directions, cinema times... the list goes on.
As a designer myself I am painfully aware of this (And yes I know some of my sites don't resize horizontally, they're on my to-fix list), but that doesn't excuse the fact that 800x600 is uncomfortable to work at. The taskbar takes up an appreciable fraction of my screen, combine this with the piss-poor toolbar layout in Office (Nicely locked so I can't make it something more useful), and the fact that Google toolbar is now installed on all machines (What?) leaves most applications with about 8" of vertical space to work in. At 800x600, so all the text is huge.
It's mostly so I can see how software etc. reacts and also to use as a 'live' test bed without putting important data at risk. My point was if I can run two DCs at home, surely there's no excuse for a company running on only 1.
The existing tech staff were running the whole thing on one Domain Controller. My *home* network has two.
With me it's not the screen size, it's the resolution. I have a 19" monitor set to 1600x1200, and find it comfortable to work at (As long as I set the DPI properly). If I drop that to 1042x768, I immediately find it cramped. At school I'm forced to work with 800x600 on a 15" monitor, which drives me insane when you can't even view an entire webpage horizontally without scrolling.
My iPaq is currently used in tandem with Outlook to keep tabs on calendar, contacts, and tasks. I occasionally play solitare on it.
There is no way I could keep my college work organised without a PDA, but I do agree that it is far more than it needs to be. I'm not bothered about it having an MSN client, I want the bloody thing to sync with my PIM and do it well.
Skype traffic is encrypted anyway.
Nothing. It just so happens that in some cases the data contains formatting.
I would say that HTML is a neutral data form. The original tags were simply used to indicate title, headers, paragraphs etc. How the browser then displayed those 'stock elements' was down to the specific browser.
I think this is the real reason. Whilst Macs may not be as useful or versatile out-of-the-box as many other solutions, they are slick and shiny. They plug in and go, they ask sensible questions, and behave how you expect.
The Apple designs are right, and first impressions make all the difference. My first impression of Linux was when I tried to install it and it returned (what was to me) complete gibberish which was no help to anybody. My first impression of a Mac was when I plugged it in, turned it on, and it stepped me through everything it needed and then worked as expected.