The information coming out of some countries, like Europe and Australia, is that Apple's maps are obnoxiously wrong. So while perhaps for some areas everything is reasonably good, clearly there are countries where it is bad, and countries where it is very very bad.
Admitting flaws is all well and good, but the fact is that a very good map app has been replaced by a laughably bad one, and the solutions are inadequate.
So what about pirates like UMG, who sell music for direct profit without the permission of the rights holders, and without adequate accounting controls to even give a proper statement of sales and royalties? If Kim Dotcom can have commandos break down his front door, why aren't you demanding the immediate arrest of the CEO, CFO, CIO and the board of directors of UMg?
And why aren't you demanding an immediate deep forensic audit by the IRS of every Hollywood film made over the last thirty years?
Is it a bad thing, though? After my grandfather's first heart attack, the doctor told him "Bacon should come with a skull and crossbones on the label..."
But I do love the stuff. If they could make zero-fat zero-cal bacon, that would more than make up for not having returned to the Moon.
How could anyone meaningfully ban encryption? First of all, financial security is built on top of encryption algorithms. Second of all, they're algorithms. I would be like trying to ban F=MA.
It would work very easily. You just drop all the packets at your choke points to international lines. You capture all DNS requests and forward them to approved internal DNS servers, and voila, probably 95% of your Internet surfing populace now can only see internal Iranian servers.
Sure there are ways around it, and the technically savvy will be able to scale the wall, so to speak, but for the bulk of the populace, the Internet ceases to be accessible.
It's like telling your firewall to block all outgoing traffic. Your LAN remains intact, your internal DNS still serves up local addresses, but no Google, no Facebook, no New York Times, no Slashdot, no nothing if it comes from the external ports.
I think we know enough about Iran's internal power dynamic to know that Khameini and the Guardian Council themselves are just figureheads. It certainly was the case when Khomeini was Supreme Leader that the position was unassailable, but Khameini was always considered a relatively weak man, and almost certainly since 2009 Iran is now really run by the Revolutionary Guard and the leadership of the Basij. If Khameini was independent before, he is now a sick old man dominated by the "guardians of the Islamic revolution", and most certainly when he kicks the bucket, the next Supreme Leader will be the Revolutionary Guard's man. The day when the Supreme Leader was an independent authority capable of bringing the other factions to heal are gone. Iran is essentially a thinly veiled military dictatorship.
It means Iranian the business, education and research industries will be starved of the valuable interactions that have made the Internet such a key part of the global economy. Even China is wise enough not to actually build a wall, contenting itself with imperfect filtering.
This whole concept underlines what is so critically wrong with the Iranian regime. It's not that it is an authoritarian government, it's that it is an authoritarian government that knows a lot about being authoritarian, but lacks the imagination or wit to understand that if you keep adopting measures that suppress economic activity, sooner or later the house of cards will topple and the very power you seek to keep in your clutches will fall away.
Even Burma/Myanmar has finally figured it out, as it watches its neighbors making vast fortunes as its own economy underperform with tragic social consequences. Iran is rapidly moving to join North Korea in the incurable basket case club. Yes, they will likely have nukes like NK does, and that will certainly mean they are immune from direct threat, but internally it will be a situation of where the elite spend their days and nights wondering whether they should point the nukes at neighboring countries, or at their own populace.
Well I'm happy it has its fans. For me Street view has proved very valuable on a number of occasions, and once Google has its map app for iOS6 I won't touch Apple's app again. I see no reason I should be a victim of their pathetic corporate wars. Maybe next phone won't be an iPhone at all if shitty apps pushes out just to fuck over competitors is the direction apple is going. Spent $700 for this phone and use google maps a lot, so fuck you Apple.
Huh? Google supports POP3, IMAP and ICAL. Google Drive has clients that pretty much allow you to move Google Docs files on to your computer, not to mention exporting to several common formats.
Have you used the app? The quality of the satellite images are atrocious and there's no street view equivalent. Bad data is only part of the problem. If this was any other company it would be considered an alpha release. Google Maps is so superior in every respect that Apple's app is like holding up a grade schooler's crayon-and-construction paper art project up to a Cézanne and claiming "he just needs to draw sharper lines."
Particularly when said employees worked on a successful mapping project and the pathetic half wits on your project deserved to be dropped out of a tenth storey window.
I'm not clear as to how Google is a monopoly. It does not control the physical or electronic structure of the Internet. Web searching certainly cannot be considered a natural monopoly. It can't stop competing web services.
So how can Google maintain any kind of abusive monopoly.
So you're saying I shouldn't submit my question about what to do now that I've killed my landlady, ate her kidneys, posed as her daughter and emptied her bank account, and now need a solution to the smell emanating from the floorboards where I buried her dismembered remains?
Phew, glad you told me. I'll phone a lawyer and a fumigator instead.
No they are not. With the more advanced functions available in docx, a save as on a complex 2007 or 2010 spreadsheet back to 97/xp/2002 format will simply lead to a sheet where formulas have been essentially saved as static values. Again, the file is viewable but is not without conversion of formulas themselves a useable spreadsheet. We've been down that path, and presumably with the fully OOXML compliant format with the next version of Office it will become worse and likely these incompatibilities will creep in 2007 and 2010, so that by two versions of Office these versions will become glorified viewers for new formats and I will wager 2003 won't receive a compatibility pack and won't be able to even act as a viewer.
Microsoft has no interest in keeping old software useful and every reason to increase incompatibilities as time goes by.
And yes, I know you can write custom functions to mimic newer behaviour, but on large sheets like we receive, recalculation can take an astonishingly long time for vbscript extensions.
I would love nothing more, but my company is primarily a government contractor, and until the departments we deal with start using open formats, we are stuck. As it is, we are pretty much looking at buying licenses for the remaining Office 2003 installs by the end of this year. So far our Office 2007 workstations still seem capable of dealing with anything Office 2010 throws at us.
Indeed. We are running up against this with Excel 2003. While with the compatibility pack it can open Excel 2007 and 2010 files, the newer features do not work rendering 2003 little better than a glorified viewer for some of the spreadsheets being sent to some of our staff.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't quite decided whether you're an Apple shill, a Microsoft shill, or just a paranoid schizophrenic.
The information coming out of some countries, like Europe and Australia, is that Apple's maps are obnoxiously wrong. So while perhaps for some areas everything is reasonably good, clearly there are countries where it is bad, and countries where it is very very bad.
Admitting flaws is all well and good, but the fact is that a very good map app has been replaced by a laughably bad one, and the solutions are inadequate.
We could start with how the satellite images in my area look like a dirty rug in apple maps while they're full color in google.
Apples maps sucks donkey balls.
Indeed... Like his navel
I'm going to sneak into your house and change the way all the doors swing. It's change and that's a good thing.
You'll be really keen to see how I changed the toilet lid hinge!
Except for the fact that HyperV sucks.
Then they should have used swirling circles instead of tile.
So what about pirates like UMG, who sell music for direct profit without the permission of the rights holders, and without adequate accounting controls to even give a proper statement of sales and royalties? If Kim Dotcom can have commandos break down his front door, why aren't you demanding the immediate arrest of the CEO, CFO, CIO and the board of directors of UMg?
And why aren't you demanding an immediate deep forensic audit by the IRS of every Hollywood film made over the last thirty years?
Double standards much?
Is it a bad thing, though? After my grandfather's first heart attack, the doctor told him "Bacon should come with a skull and crossbones on the label..."
But I do love the stuff. If they could make zero-fat zero-cal bacon, that would more than make up for not having returned to the Moon.
I've got some acreage. Thinking of raising a few hogs, and then charging extortionate prices to the addicts! Gawddamn but I love capitalism!
Don't rush him. He's not ready to come out of the closet yet.
How could anyone meaningfully ban encryption? First of all, financial security is built on top of encryption algorithms. Second of all, they're algorithms. I would be like trying to ban F=MA.
It would work very easily. You just drop all the packets at your choke points to international lines. You capture all DNS requests and forward them to approved internal DNS servers, and voila, probably 95% of your Internet surfing populace now can only see internal Iranian servers.
Sure there are ways around it, and the technically savvy will be able to scale the wall, so to speak, but for the bulk of the populace, the Internet ceases to be accessible.
It's like telling your firewall to block all outgoing traffic. Your LAN remains intact, your internal DNS still serves up local addresses, but no Google, no Facebook, no New York Times, no Slashdot, no nothing if it comes from the external ports.
I think we know enough about Iran's internal power dynamic to know that Khameini and the Guardian Council themselves are just figureheads. It certainly was the case when Khomeini was Supreme Leader that the position was unassailable, but Khameini was always considered a relatively weak man, and almost certainly since 2009 Iran is now really run by the Revolutionary Guard and the leadership of the Basij. If Khameini was independent before, he is now a sick old man dominated by the "guardians of the Islamic revolution", and most certainly when he kicks the bucket, the next Supreme Leader will be the Revolutionary Guard's man. The day when the Supreme Leader was an independent authority capable of bringing the other factions to heal are gone. Iran is essentially a thinly veiled military dictatorship.
It means Iranian the business, education and research industries will be starved of the valuable interactions that have made the Internet such a key part of the global economy. Even China is wise enough not to actually build a wall, contenting itself with imperfect filtering.
This whole concept underlines what is so critically wrong with the Iranian regime. It's not that it is an authoritarian government, it's that it is an authoritarian government that knows a lot about being authoritarian, but lacks the imagination or wit to understand that if you keep adopting measures that suppress economic activity, sooner or later the house of cards will topple and the very power you seek to keep in your clutches will fall away.
Even Burma/Myanmar has finally figured it out, as it watches its neighbors making vast fortunes as its own economy underperform with tragic social consequences. Iran is rapidly moving to join North Korea in the incurable basket case club. Yes, they will likely have nukes like NK does, and that will certainly mean they are immune from direct threat, but internally it will be a situation of where the elite spend their days and nights wondering whether they should point the nukes at neighboring countries, or at their own populace.
Well I'm happy it has its fans. For me Street view has proved very valuable on a number of occasions, and once Google has its map app for iOS6 I won't touch Apple's app again. I see no reason I should be a victim of their pathetic corporate wars. Maybe next phone won't be an iPhone at all if shitty apps pushes out just to fuck over competitors is the direction apple is going. Spent $700 for this phone and use google maps a lot, so fuck you Apple.
Huh? Google supports POP3, IMAP and ICAL. Google Drive has clients that pretty much allow you to move Google Docs files on to your computer, not to mention exporting to several common formats.
Either you're an ignoramus or a liar.
Have you used the app? The quality of the satellite images are atrocious and there's no street view equivalent. Bad data is only part of the problem. If this was any other company it would be considered an alpha release. Google Maps is so superior in every respect that Apple's app is like holding up a grade schooler's crayon-and-construction paper art project up to a Cézanne and claiming "he just needs to draw sharper lines."
Particularly when said employees worked on a successful mapping project and the pathetic half wits on your project deserved to be dropped out of a tenth storey window.
I'm not clear as to how Google is a monopoly. It does not control the physical or electronic structure of the Internet. Web searching certainly cannot be considered a natural monopoly. It can't stop competing web services.
So how can Google maintain any kind of abusive monopoly.
So you're saying I shouldn't submit my question about what to do now that I've killed my landlady, ate her kidneys, posed as her daughter and emptied her bank account, and now need a solution to the smell emanating from the floorboards where I buried her dismembered remains?
Phew, glad you told me. I'll phone a lawyer and a fumigator instead.
No they are not. With the more advanced functions available in docx, a save as on a complex 2007 or 2010 spreadsheet back to 97/xp/2002 format will simply lead to a sheet where formulas have been essentially saved as static values. Again, the file is viewable but is not without conversion of formulas themselves a useable spreadsheet. We've been down that path, and presumably with the fully OOXML compliant format with the next version of Office it will become worse and likely these incompatibilities will creep in 2007 and 2010, so that by two versions of Office these versions will become glorified viewers for new formats and I will wager 2003 won't receive a compatibility pack and won't be able to even act as a viewer.
Microsoft has no interest in keeping old software useful and every reason to increase incompatibilities as time goes by.
And yes, I know you can write custom functions to mimic newer behaviour, but on large sheets like we receive, recalculation can take an astonishingly long time for vbscript extensions.
I would love nothing more, but my company is primarily a government contractor, and until the departments we deal with start using open formats, we are stuck. As it is, we are pretty much looking at buying licenses for the remaining Office 2003 installs by the end of this year. So far our Office 2007 workstations still seem capable of dealing with anything Office 2010 throws at us.
Indeed. We are running up against this with Excel 2003. While with the compatibility pack it can open Excel 2007 and 2010 files, the newer features do not work rendering 2003 little better than a glorified viewer for some of the spreadsheets being sent to some of our staff.