The only "extra" layer on SMTP is anti-spam technologies. Fixing the e-mail protocol does little if anything for anti-virus, anti-phishing, anti-spoofing cumbersome encryption technologies, etc as they are not solely e-mail targets. For example, there's nothing specific to e-mail which invented viruses. Thus, there's nothing to fix in e-mail for viruses.
To cross reference headers/sections/tables/graphics/etc, I find OOo's hyperlink to work very well:
- Insert->Hyperlink...
- Click 'Document' on left side
- Click "circle" icon besides Target field
- Expand Headings item
- Choose desired heading
- Click Apply, then Close
- Provide Text for document (if desired)
- Click Apply
The catch 22 is quite the opposite from what the article proposes.
Being careful almost always means improved schedules, not the opposite. It's better to spend 10 min reviewing code before committing it each day than have a lump of crap after 12 months which can't float for more than 5 min w/out a problem.
Debugging problems takes orders of magnitude longer than small incremental reviews. Some things that attribute to this are awareness (the code is fresh in your mind after being written; it's half forgotten when problems surface), scope (the problem will likely surface after the system grows making it harder--and thus consuming more time--to find the problem), and complexity (even after the problem is found, a solution is easier to apply when the code is fresh because the interfaces are new; if a bug entails an interface change or worse--a design change--then the time will really grow).
The catch 22 is really an old-school mentality forced into this generation.
MS + SCO is a different issue w/ different circumstances (read: OT here).
Eolas has a bogus patent (anyone w/ 1/2 an IT brain cell knows that). I'm not a fan of software patents to begin w/, and this one is a real winner.
They're basically trying to extort $$$ from MS, not much from the GIF fiasco. An example needs to be set; let's hope it makes some big waves.
Of course they're going to respond from a perspective that is customer-centric. They certainly won't win any points by stating the same goal from their shareholders' perspective.
I think it was yesterday I read an article where the movie studios and theaters were arguing about the release time of movies to the theaters vs rental. And both ends cited "improved customer satisfaction" as their goal. Yeah, right...
> Eolas Chief Operating Officer Mark Swords called on the software maker to purchase a patent license instead of worsening the browsing experience.
Gee, who would've guessed they're interesting in selling a patent license...
Hopefully MS' actions here will put a damper on all those ludicrous patents and their holders to collect.
I hope Eolas spent a bundle on litigation and gets nothing in return. That'll teach them.
Two things that guarantee such a thing will not become a product for general distribution: 1. Lack of complete and seamless multimedia support 2. Support infrastructure
I'm sure many will want to argue with #1, but don't kid yourself. Linux doesn't support the most popular formats completely, and the integration w/ the system and browser is not seamless.
> 1 - Managers don't like to go on record. They don't reply to e-mails, for example. They lack the confidence to go on record with whatever they want to say. Here's an idea - if you don't have the balls to put your "communication" on paper with your name on it for all to see, then STFU.
Disdain for written communication (hard copy or e-mail) may not be due to lack of confidence.
I'm not a manager but I've communicated via e-mail long enough to know that there are many "information exchange" (if you don't like the word communication) situations that don't lend themselves well to e-mail. In fact, e-mail is horrid for many situations. Think about a harrasment situation. There's more to business than black and white work.
While I agree office politics are the primary cause for "communication problems", it's not the only issue. Not everyone in an organization things exactly the same or shares the same opinions. Coming off as a ruthless manager (especially for all to see) is a sure-fire way to get nowhere.
Re:PHP vs. Java
on
Java Is So 90s
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I don't see why it has to be a black or white issue. While websites can certainly be developed using only one or the other, it doesn't have to be that way. And I don't think it should be portrayed that way.
I'll use http://www.wheeloyum.com/ as an example. The web site is 100% LAMP. The app (client, applet, and server) is 100% Java. They both do well for their job. They even communicate with each other. Obviously they have their own strengths and weaknesses, especially relative to each other.
As with most other tasks, the right tool for the job is key.
> You should tell him about Netscape 8 Thanks for the suggestions, but unfortunately he is one of the masses (ie. average user). If IE works (now that's a subjective term, huh?), he'd rather use it w/ the risk of being vulnerable than try something different.
Unfortunately, I've found most people are willing to take the risk by justifying it with "it won't happen to me, I only visit 'safe' sites." Without any technical knowledge on the subject, and even worse, ignorance to learn, people just use what's available even if it's not optimal. Hence IE's market share. Anyone w/ 3 brain cells knows it's sufficiently lacking to most alternatives.
> hopefully it will lead to less advertising, so money put into marketing can be put to actual productive use. I'd prefer it lead to more effective advertising which in turn leads to less (wasted) advertising. Reducing advertising as a whole may have other ill effects.
For instance, many content-providing web sites gain most if not all revenue from advertising. A reduction in advertising may affect such sites.
> It's only a matter of time before non-tech savvy grandmas and the like are going to start > using Firefox in order to cut through the craptastic ad-laden world that is viewed through IE. Hopefully this will yield 'better' advertising. That is, targetted, on-topic, acceptable, and possibly even helpful (ie. Google style); as opposed to bigger and more obnoxious graphics desparately trying to grab your attention.
> People who care about not getting hacked are using [a non-IE browser] Unfortunately there are still some sites that require IE, if for no other reason than ActiveX. A friend works w/ a site whose interface is primarily ActiveX. He doesn't want to use IE, but at least for that site, it's his job if he doesn't. That starts the snowball effect (personal settings, bookmarks, default browser, etc) which makes it harder to *only* use IE for that particular site. Sad but true.
Slashdot Mirror
...I can get my lownmower blade to be that sharp...
The only "extra" layer on SMTP is anti-spam technologies.
Fixing the e-mail protocol does little if anything for anti-virus, anti-phishing, anti-spoofing cumbersome encryption technologies, etc as they are not solely e-mail targets. For example, there's nothing specific to e-mail which invented viruses. Thus, there's nothing to fix in e-mail for viruses.
To cross reference headers/sections/tables/graphics/etc, I find OOo's hyperlink to work very well:
- Insert->Hyperlink...
- Click 'Document' on left side
- Click "circle" icon besides Target field
- Expand Headings item
- Choose desired heading
- Click Apply, then Close
- Provide Text for document (if desired)
- Click Apply
The catch 22 is quite the opposite from what the article proposes.
Being careful almost always means improved schedules, not the opposite. It's better to spend 10 min reviewing code before committing it each day than have a lump of crap after 12 months which can't float for more than 5 min w/out a problem.
Debugging problems takes orders of magnitude longer than small incremental reviews. Some things that attribute to this are awareness (the code is fresh in your mind after being written; it's half forgotten when problems surface), scope (the problem will likely surface after the system grows making it harder--and thus consuming more time--to find the problem), and complexity (even after the problem is found, a solution is easier to apply when the code is fresh because the interfaces are new; if a bug entails an interface change or worse--a design change--then the time will really grow).
The catch 22 is really an old-school mentality forced into this generation.
As usual, an open standard/system/format can solve the problem: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/03/14 20214&from=rss
I wonder if they are generating a report of the migration (positives and negatives).
And if so, will they publish it?
Not exactly.
XBox live doesn't substitute for an ISP; it's just an account service. You still need network access.
MS + SCO is a different issue w/ different circumstances (read: OT here). Eolas has a bogus patent (anyone w/ 1/2 an IT brain cell knows that). I'm not a fan of software patents to begin w/, and this one is a real winner.
They're basically trying to extort $$$ from MS, not much from the GIF fiasco. An example needs to be set; let's hope it makes some big waves.
Of course they're going to respond from a perspective that is customer-centric. They certainly won't win any points by stating the same goal from their shareholders' perspective.
I think it was yesterday I read an article where the movie studios and theaters were arguing about the release time of movies to the theaters vs rental. And both ends cited "improved customer satisfaction" as their goal. Yeah, right...
> Eolas Chief Operating Officer Mark Swords called on the software maker to purchase a patent license instead of worsening the browsing experience.
Gee, who would've guessed they're interesting in selling a patent license...
Hopefully MS' actions here will put a damper on all those ludicrous patents and their holders to collect.
I hope Eolas spent a bundle on litigation and gets nothing in return. That'll teach them.
This affects all active (aka "rich) content in IE. Aside from ActiveX, this includes technologies like Flash, Java, etc.
And if you continue down this line of thinking, you realize that the GPU and CPU are asymptotically approaching each other.
Hence the Cell processor.
More like an ArmWatch (C) than a WristWatch. First thing I thought of was: this has nothing to do w/ my wrist.
Two things that guarantee such a thing will not become a product for general distribution:
1. Lack of complete and seamless multimedia support
2. Support infrastructure
I'm sure many will want to argue with #1, but don't kid yourself. Linux doesn't support the most popular formats completely, and the integration w/ the system and browser is not seamless.
http://www.wheeloyum.com/WheelOYum.com, which is almost entirely used by office workers during the day sees 40% of visitors using Firefox, 45% for IE.
I agree completely. I find it so much more satisfying to harass co-workers to their faces...
I meant harrasment resolution (ie. harassee raises the issue). Typo in my original message.
> 1 - Managers don't like to go on record. They don't reply to e-mails, for example. They lack the confidence to go on record with whatever they want to say. Here's an idea - if you don't have the balls to put your "communication" on paper with your name on it for all to see, then STFU.
Disdain for written communication (hard copy or e-mail) may not be due to lack of confidence. I'm not a manager but I've communicated via e-mail long enough to know that there are many "information exchange" (if you don't like the word communication) situations that don't lend themselves well to e-mail. In fact, e-mail is horrid for many situations. Think about a harrasment situation. There's more to business than black and white work.
While I agree office politics are the primary cause for "communication problems", it's not the only issue. Not everyone in an organization things exactly the same or shares the same opinions. Coming off as a ruthless manager (especially for all to see) is a sure-fire way to get nowhere.
I don't see why it has to be a black or white issue. While websites can certainly be developed using only one or the other, it doesn't have to be that way. And I don't think it should be portrayed that way.
I'll use http://www.wheeloyum.com/ as an example. The web site is 100% LAMP. The app (client, applet, and server) is 100% Java. They both do well for their job. They even communicate with each other. Obviously they have their own strengths and weaknesses, especially relative to each other.
As with most other tasks, the right tool for the job is key.
Has Linux been ported to that already!?
> You should tell him about Netscape 8
Thanks for the suggestions, but unfortunately he is one of the masses (ie. average user). If IE works (now that's a subjective term, huh?), he'd rather use it w/ the risk of being vulnerable than try something different.
Unfortunately, I've found most people are willing to take the risk by justifying it with "it won't happen to me, I only visit 'safe' sites." Without any technical knowledge on the subject, and even worse, ignorance to learn, people just use what's available even if it's not optimal. Hence IE's market share. Anyone w/ 3 brain cells knows it's sufficiently lacking to most alternatives.
> hopefully it will lead to less advertising, so money put into marketing can be put to actual productive use.
I'd prefer it lead to more effective advertising which in turn leads to less (wasted) advertising.
Reducing advertising as a whole may have other ill effects.
For instance, many content-providing web sites gain most if not all revenue from advertising. A reduction in advertising may affect such sites.
> It's only a matter of time before non-tech savvy grandmas and the like are going to start
> using Firefox in order to cut through the craptastic ad-laden world that is viewed through IE.
Hopefully this will yield 'better' advertising.
That is, targetted, on-topic, acceptable, and possibly even helpful (ie. Google style); as opposed to bigger and more obnoxious graphics desparately trying to grab your attention.
> People who care about not getting hacked are using [a non-IE browser]
Unfortunately there are still some sites that require IE, if for no other reason than ActiveX.
A friend works w/ a site whose interface is primarily ActiveX. He doesn't want to use IE, but at least for that site, it's his job if he doesn't. That starts the snowball effect (personal settings, bookmarks, default browser, etc) which makes it harder to *only* use IE for that particular site.
Sad but true.
> Where's the problem?
What if a person commits a crime and uses this surgery to escape identification and/or conviction.
Putting a new spin on the proverbial: "Who am I?"