So what you're telling me is you actually believe there is no desktop mail client other than Outlook that supports Calendars, Email and Contacts properly but the mobile clients do.
When I asked you point blank just fucking NAME ONE, all you could do was reflect the question back at me.
If there are so many great desktop options that can replace outlook on exchange, name one.
In what ways exactly?
First you name one, then I'll tell you exactly what ways.
You and I must have different ideas of what that term means.
Actually, I only just learned it was all of $1000. I agree with everything you say in your response.
This has been blown way out of proportion. At this point I don't think what has transpired is justified. I won't go as far as to say it was "wrong" though.
How did this ever go viral? Its a warning that even small actions can be magnified by the lens of the internet.
If gays want the same spousal privileges, fight for those. Don't call it marriage, and rename marital benefits to something that doesn't imply the blessing of God.
No. The gays have it right here.
If a group has the right to call their union a marriage there is no reason gays shouldn't have that word too.
For the state to allow man+woman to have one word, and gays only get another, it makes the gay version a 2nd class. Further, if the rationale is that the word marriage 'implies the blessing of Gods' it is absolutely not the states place to decide whether gays are blessed by god or not.
No. Either they keep the word marriage and everyone gets it.
Or they get rid of it altogether. And those people in favor of prop-8 would NEVER allow a law that "strips" them of legal state recognition of their 'marriage' so that's not going to be any easier to pass.
You're attempts at portraying this as different fall flat.
You can lead a horse to water. You can't make him drink.
You will have to interact with those in life that you don't agree with, that is just the truth.
You have to accept responsibility for the things you say and do. That is also just the truth.
If you donate to a highly controversial cause and then take CEO at a major corporation with a highly involved and socially aware community... you will have to face up to it.
Here's the issue I have with your question. It's framed such that "giving up the 2nd amendment = gun ban" and that's fallacy.
The 'trouble' with the 2nd amendment is that it's too strong, too absolute. It results in absolute permission, and one is not required to display any competence with guns, have any knowledge about guns, nor even observe common sense safety practices to have a gun. That's ridiculous.
A "better" 2nd amendment would be one which treats guns much like we treat cars in practice. Anyone can get one, but we keep track of them, require you to demonstrate some level of competence before you can drive one, and if you do something stupid with one like operate it drunk we might take it away, even if you didn't hit anyone with it.
There really should be no practical difference between guns and cars.
note I said, practical. The way we manage cars TODAY should be how we manage guns forever. The problem with simply legislating guns and cars the same is that there is no protection for the status quo with cars. Its entirely possible that in some future we'll not be allowed to own or drive cars, and that would be unacceptable to have that as a possible endgame for guns.
I work with a number of people I don't particularly like
Good for you. That's your freedom. Other people are not you.
Other people might decide to quit. Or if a bunch of coworkers all disliked them for the same reason, they might put an ultimatum down... "we're not working with them, us or them."
If that person is customer facing, your customers might decide they will deal with your company, but not deal with him. That's pretty common. They might also choose to not to deal with your company at all. That's pretty common too.
As long as they're doing their job and act professionally, I don't care. I'm not there to party.
Now I'm curious if there is a limit to that. Is there really nothing they could do in their personal time that would make it so that you would refuse to work with them? What if they conned your mom out of her life savings? Posted photos of your kids taken at the public pool to pedo-sites? What if you found they were banging your wife behind your back?
What if 'they' were your boss? Would you still work for them? If 'they' were your vendor? Would you still buy from them?
Is it only bad because he is CEO? Can the mailroom kid hate anybody he wants publicly without regard to worrying about losing his job?
Depends.
Does he hate and offend his boss? Then yes, expect him to be fired.
Did he offend a bunch of his co-workers, to the point they gathered together and said, either he goes, or we all walk. Then yes, expect him to be let go.
Does the public identify the mailroom kid with the company? If yes, then yes, expect him to be let go.
There are plenty of cases of fast food workers doing socially unacceptable things while wearing their fast food uniforms (Drugs, criminal activity, etc) that have been posted to facebook, youtube, etc for example that have led to them being fired as a result.
A person doing something that is by its very nature public, such as campaigning, advertising, or speaking for a cause, has crossed the line you're talking about by tying themselves to that topic in public. They're fair game.
Good. Anything less would be ridiculous.
On the other hand, if someone simply makes a donation that happens to be a matter of public record, that's between them and the recipient of their donation.
I'm really sure I see the difference. Its not simply a privately held view. Why does it matter if he pays someone else to lobby for the change he wants vs goes out and does it himself? Isn't spending the money creating the public activity? Should we really be expected NOT to "follow the money"?
Making a big stink of it says more about the people dredging it up than it does about the person themselves.
Perhaps there should be some backlash against the people who dredged it up if they are the CEOs of major corporations and this "pro-gay agenda" violates the ethics of their employees, shareholders, and customers...:)
But at the end of the day he gave $$$ to support Prop 8? That's not misinformation. Its the unvarnished truth.
There is plenty I disagree with in the world but McCarthy like tactics aren't acceptable to me.
The difference between this and McCarthy is enormous. Starting off with the fact that McCarthy was a Senator, and his 'witchunt' was effectively backed by the US government.
Whereas this was simply the *public* and its *own employees* voicing its disapproval, it was not a matter of government policy.
A service does not have to be comprehensive to be useful.
Agreed. But then I don't go around saying "netflix 100% satisfies my needs" either. Its useful, its great value. But it FAR from 100% satisfies my needs. (And yes that "100% satisifies" is a quote from the post that started this thread... if the OP had said "I like netflix, its useful and good value" I wouldn't have responded. I responded because he said it "100% satisfies" and it doesn't.
It fails utterly if your expectation is "I want to be able to pull up any film that comes to mind."
Not just that, because I wouldn't be disappointed if it was missing Blood Sucking Nazi Zombies, Threads, Hellraiser Hellworld, Metropolis (2001 japanime remake), Children of the Corn V,.... "any film that comes to mind" is a vast set.
The "complaint", such as it is, is that it fails utterly even if your expectation is the much more limited "I want to be able to watch any major theatrically film from the last several years, or any of the 'biggest movies all time' such as a the very limited subset of all movies that one would expect pretty much any half decent video rental place to carry."
Once its out, its out. Its the truth and its public knowledge now, no matter how it got out there. It wasn't on twitter, it was a donor record that was stolen and published in violation of state and federal law.
People can't "un-know" something. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.
That's about the same scale of intrusion as a Pepsi employee getting fired because he bought a can of Coke with cash and someone stole the security footage at the gas station, identified him, and started a blog devoted to vilifying him.
Soft drink spokeman celebrities have lost contracts many times because they got outed drinking the wrong drink.
The office door. Eich's employment shouldn't be based on what he's doing in his personal time. If he says something intolerant at work, then yeah, fire him.
Would you hire someone you didn't like and didn't want to work with?
I'm not sure how we are supposed to take this. I guess the Thought Police have won another round.
The opposite. He's allowed to think and say whatever he wants. And so are we.
And the rest of society is free to disagree with him and refuse to associate with him if they disagree.
What other option should there be? Should I be FORCED to use Mozilla software? Should current employees be FORCED to work for him? Would that somehow be a "freer" world? A world where you are free to say anything you like no matter how offensive to me, and then after doing so I must just carry on working for you, doing business with you, etc? That's lunacy.
If you dig deep enough, none of us should keep our jobs.
Nobody is going to boycott IBM, and no employees are going to refuse to come into work because Joe in accounting tells racist jokes at family gatherings.
If the CEO did it on twitter, that would be entirely different, and you know it. Even if it was his 'personal' twitter account.
I am a lesbian and I still think hounding Eich for standing for Prop. 8 and threatening to boycott a cornerstone of the internet and internet development if he was CEO of the Mozilla foundation is complete and utter intolerant bullshit.
So where do you draw the line?
Lets just Godwin it right off the bat and get it over with; if he were openly a Nazi, funding white supremacy, attacking the jews and blacks right to own property etc... everyone at Mozilla should just show up to work because its no business of theirs what their boss does off the clock? All Mozilla's customers should just keep using the software, because its no business of theirs?
The reality is that what he stands for offended a lot of people.
The CEO is the face of the company.
If you are seriously disappointed that it culminated in people non-violently making it heard that they did not wish to work for this guy, or support a company this guy was the head of then I have to say I'm disappointed in YOU.
a nice fanless hardware player would be welcome but only if it can fully replace my software based player.
At this point, I'm not really interested in a device for there. As it stands I've got a win8 box; the netflix metro app is about the only thing genuinely good about metro:)
I've got XBMC now for video playback. (VLC is great, but fails at usability at 10 feet)
And I've got a pair of xbox 360 wireless controllers paired to it, along with Steam big picture mode.
Its only slightly less user friendly to use those 3 applications than a dedicated device would be. (mostly due to it being a bit clutzy to switch between them).
The games library is steam for windows... so... HUGE.
And its a full desktop OS, so I can do other things with it as well; playstation one emulator, NES emulator, torrent client, etc. these things are a bit of a pain to get going at 10 feet (particularly configuration, setup, etc) but its infinitely more flexible.
For anyone on slashdot I can't imagine why you'd go with anything else (although you might prefer linux or win7. I went windows because I want the bigger steam library, and I went with because I had a license available... although the netflix app, like i said, is quite good.
For my parents... yeah... I'd probably recommend an appliance. And in point of fact they do have an apple tv.
Do you honestly have sympathy/empathy for, say, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the Underwear Bomber), [...]
Or more to the point of the article, look at the Tsarnaev brothers.
I don't have much sympathy for their actions, but then I view those particulars as regular criminals, not political regimes the country needs to be at 'war' with.
(wars which, if anything, just serve to provoke individuals who would be predisposed to doing something crazy.)
The problem with that logic is everybody has pretty damned good reasons to be upset. If you have sympathy for Muslim terrorists then surely you sympathize with people who commit hate crimes against Muslims. After all, think of their world-view, wherein for their whole lives they've seen acts of terrorism against their countries in the name of the Muslim religion.
Give me a break. "Their whole lives?" What are you on about? They've seen 1 or 2 isolated events mostly perpetrated by disturbed individuals.
Its ridiculous to conflate that to someone raised and living in Afghanistan for the last 20 years living in actual war zones where wars were being prosecuted by actual armies.
If decent access to Exchange is what you need then you don't need Outlook either.
Yeah, actually you do. The other desktop clients with exchange support range from bearable to broken.
Outlook is just a client (like the many other mail clients)
No, it not like the many other mail clients.
that has nothing to do with Outlook nor does it matter whether you use Outlook as your email client for an Exchange server
Now you are arguing my point for me. The REASON you don't need outlook on a phone is that the phone already has a good exchange client. The desktop options other than outlook are not great.
But this is all irrelevant anyway because Outlook is not tied to Office, you can purchase Outlook individually at a fraction of the cost of Office.
But "Outlook" + "Outlook Home and Student" is in the same ball park as Office Standard VLA; with a fraction the licensing grief. So businesses that want office will pay the delta for outlook.
Calendars, Email and Contacts. None of which are exclusive to Outlook.
Like what else are you credibly going to replace outlook with on the desktop? Apple Mail? Kmail? Thunderbird with ExQuilla? All substantially inferior in a lot of ways; assuming you can get them to work at all in non-bog-vanilla deployments (e.g. via https proxy's, with certficate authentication, etc.
I can't see why you're so desperate to portray Outlook as some irreplaceable and unmatched product that is essential to businesses.
I don't need to portray as irreplaceable and unmatched. Its users do that.
I watched (Baz Lurman's) Romeo & Juliette last week with my 11 year old daughter and 10 year old son. They didn't know the story, and could -barely- keep up with the dialog (they spoke very fast, and it was in "Shakespearean English") -- but they still followed the movie extraordinarily well.
At the end of it they had questions like "why were they fighting" (which is a good question, never actually addressed... its just the setting.)
They certainly understood that Romeo and Juliette were in love, and couldn't/wouldn't live without each other. If "Romeo & Juliette" was a phrase that meant that, they'd have gotten that by watching the movie. So I think you underestimate the ability for someone to understand something, even if they can't follow much of the dialog.
Further, while a language composed ENTIRELY of metaphor doesn't really work (and the language in Darmok had lots of regular words), a language with metaphors replacing much of the abstract and emotional words could be very plausible.
As many slashdot posters have complained (and in doing so have sort of missed the point) "it makes no sense that the "universal translator" (UT) suddenly fails here".
How can the UT understand "fight like cats and mice" when all it has to work with is a recording of sound, jet fail to understand "like Tom and Jerry" when all its given is a recording of sound? What makes the meaning inherently more discoverable in the former than the latter. I have no explanation for that. It makes no sense. But its beside the point. Its the premise.
It assumes the UT can ('magically') grok basic word meanings, but can't solve idioms and metaphors and slang, and then puts it up against a language with more idiom and metaphor than it can handle so that its output is stilted gibberish In that vein, the episode is good, hard SF even. It sets a premise and then carries on to see how things work out.
I think the Star Trek universe, much like it glosses over why the majority of life is humanoid, (and largely sexually compatible) also presumes that all languages are more or less related in the same way English and German and French are related... and that the UT with all these languages can figure out a 'new one' because despite that fact that it is completely alien and evolved from nothing entirely independantly -- in star trek its also part of a family of other languages with a lot of commonalities etc.
And if so, then pitting the UT against a language with an abundance of metaphors will stump it... because even if it can solve the words, its missing too much of the cultural meaning to make sense. Similarly, I'd love to see the UT pitted against British rhyming slang -- under the same assumptions I give above it would be similarly stumped... returning, at best... British rhyming slang. Which is nearly incomprehensible.
If you need Outlook then the iOS mail client won't suffice for you anyway.
Why not? Its decent access to Exchange from a smartphone.
What precisely do you think businesses need Outlook for?
What precisely do -you- think businesses need Outlook for?
At minimum: Calendar, Contacts, Email - all synchronized to the server and desktop and phone. Ability to see others calendars or availability, ability to schedule meetings.
Sure there's a few alternatives out there; that all try to be exchange without exchange. Google Apps for enterprises for example, which is decent, but its not as good.
Again... what precisely do -you- think businesses need outlook for?
Slashdot Mirror
Lol, what else was there to say?
I've got no idea what your secrets are, nor what your job is...
I can guarantee I've had life experiences that some would fine abhorrent, am I only keeping my job through the lie of ommission?
Only one way to find out.
So what you're telling me is you actually believe there is no desktop mail client other than Outlook that supports Calendars, Email and Contacts properly but the mobile clients do.
When I asked you point blank just fucking NAME ONE, all you could do was reflect the question back at me.
If there are so many great desktop options that can replace outlook on exchange, name one.
In what ways exactly?
First you name one, then I'll tell you exactly what ways.
You and I must have different ideas of what that term means.
Actually, I only just learned it was all of $1000.
I agree with everything you say in your response.
This has been blown way out of proportion. At this point I don't think what has transpired is justified. I won't go as far as to say it was "wrong" though.
How did this ever go viral? Its a warning that even small actions can be magnified by the lens of the internet.
It defines the term marriage.
If gays want the same spousal privileges, fight for those. Don't call it marriage, and rename marital benefits to something that doesn't imply the blessing of God.
No. The gays have it right here.
If a group has the right to call their union a marriage there is no reason gays shouldn't have that word too.
For the state to allow man+woman to have one word, and gays only get another, it makes the gay version a 2nd class. Further, if the rationale is that the word marriage 'implies the blessing of Gods' it is absolutely not the states place to decide whether gays are blessed by god or not.
No. Either they keep the word marriage and everyone gets it.
Or they get rid of it altogether. And those people in favor of prop-8 would NEVER allow a law that "strips" them of legal state recognition of their 'marriage' so that's not going to be any easier to pass.
This is the same, it is a group of people,
Not its not the same.
You're attempts at portraying this as different fall flat.
You can lead a horse to water. You can't make him drink.
You will have to interact with those in life that you don't agree with, that is just the truth.
You have to accept responsibility for the things you say and do. That is also just the truth.
If you donate to a highly controversial cause and then take CEO at a major corporation with a highly involved and socially aware community... you will have to face up to it.
Here's the issue I have with your question. It's framed such that "giving up the 2nd amendment = gun ban" and that's fallacy.
The 'trouble' with the 2nd amendment is that it's too strong, too absolute. It results in absolute permission, and one is not required to display any competence with guns, have any knowledge about guns, nor even observe common sense safety practices to have a gun. That's ridiculous.
A "better" 2nd amendment would be one which treats guns much like we treat cars in practice. Anyone can get one, but we keep track of them, require you to demonstrate some level of competence before you can drive one, and if you do something stupid with one like operate it drunk we might take it away, even if you didn't hit anyone with it.
There really should be no practical difference between guns and cars.
note I said, practical. The way we manage cars TODAY should be how we manage guns forever. The problem with simply legislating guns and cars the same is that there is no protection for the status quo with cars. Its entirely possible that in some future we'll not be allowed to own or drive cars, and that would be unacceptable to have that as a possible endgame for guns.
I work with a number of people I don't particularly like
Good for you. That's your freedom. Other people are not you.
Other people might decide to quit. Or if a bunch of coworkers all disliked them for the same reason, they might put an ultimatum down... "we're not working with them, us or them."
If that person is customer facing, your customers might decide they will deal with your company, but not deal with him. That's pretty common. They might also choose to not to deal with your company at all. That's pretty common too.
As long as they're doing their job and act professionally, I don't care. I'm not there to party.
Now I'm curious if there is a limit to that. Is there really nothing they could do in their personal time that would make it so that you would refuse to work with them? What if they conned your mom out of her life savings? Posted photos of your kids taken at the public pool to pedo-sites? What if you found they were banging your wife behind your back?
What if 'they' were your boss? Would you still work for them?
If 'they' were your vendor? Would you still buy from them?
Is it only bad because he is CEO? Can the mailroom kid hate anybody he wants publicly without regard to worrying about losing his job?
Depends.
Does he hate and offend his boss? Then yes, expect him to be fired.
Did he offend a bunch of his co-workers, to the point they gathered together and said, either he goes, or we all walk. Then yes, expect him to be let go.
Does the public identify the mailroom kid with the company? If yes, then yes, expect him to be let go.
There are plenty of cases of fast food workers doing socially unacceptable things while wearing their fast food uniforms (Drugs, criminal activity, etc) that have been posted to facebook, youtube, etc for example that have led to them being fired as a result.
Sure. But you lose your right to claim to be pro free speech after advocating a boycott as an attempt to silence someone exercising their free speech.
Wow. This is just nuts, and you got +5 for it too. That's even more nuts.
A boycott isn't an attempt to silence him.
It a show of "non-support".
The fact that I don't to watch Fox news (ie I boycott it), is not "censorship" by ANY reasonable definition.
You are being ridiculous by attempting to conflate "boycott" with "censorship".
A person doing something that is by its very nature public, such as campaigning, advertising, or speaking for a cause, has crossed the line you're talking about by tying themselves to that topic in public. They're fair game.
Good. Anything less would be ridiculous.
On the other hand, if someone simply makes a donation that happens to be a matter of public record, that's between them and the recipient of their donation.
I'm really sure I see the difference. Its not simply a privately held view. Why does it matter if he pays someone else to lobby for the change he wants vs goes out and does it himself? Isn't spending the money creating the public activity? Should we really be expected NOT to "follow the money"?
Making a big stink of it says more about the people dredging it up than it does about the person themselves.
Perhaps there should be some backlash against the people who dredged it up if they are the CEOs of major corporations and this "pro-gay agenda" violates the ethics of their employees, shareholders, and customers... :)
But at the end of the day he gave $$$ to support Prop 8? That's not misinformation. Its the unvarnished truth.
All companies that is some way supported the Nazis
Your going to conflate incoming new leadership at Mozilla to long dead leadership at those companies?
Really?
There is plenty I disagree with in the world but McCarthy like tactics aren't acceptable to me.
The difference between this and McCarthy is enormous. Starting off with the fact that McCarthy was a Senator, and his 'witchunt' was effectively backed by the US government.
Whereas this was simply the *public* and its *own employees* voicing its disapproval, it was not a matter of government policy.
A service does not have to be comprehensive to be useful.
Agreed. But then I don't go around saying "netflix 100% satisfies my needs" either. Its useful, its great value. But it FAR from 100% satisfies my needs. (And yes that "100% satisifies" is a quote from the post that started this thread... if the OP had said "I like netflix, its useful and good value" I wouldn't have responded. I responded because he said it "100% satisfies" and it doesn't.
It fails utterly if your expectation is "I want to be able to pull up any film that comes to mind."
Not just that, because I wouldn't be disappointed if it was missing Blood Sucking Nazi Zombies, Threads, Hellraiser Hellworld, Metropolis (2001 japanime remake), Children of the Corn V, .... "any film that comes to mind" is a vast set.
The "complaint", such as it is, is that it fails utterly even if your expectation is the much more limited "I want to be able to watch any major theatrically film from the last several years, or any of the 'biggest movies all time' such as a the very limited subset of all movies that one would expect pretty much any half decent video rental place to carry."
Once its out, its out. Its the truth and its public knowledge now, no matter how it got out there.
It wasn't on twitter, it was a donor record that was stolen and published in violation of state and federal law.
People can't "un-know" something. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.
That's about the same scale of intrusion as a Pepsi employee getting fired because he bought a can of Coke with cash and someone stole the security footage at the gas station, identified him, and started a blog devoted to vilifying him.
Soft drink spokeman celebrities have lost contracts many times because they got outed drinking the wrong drink.
The office door. Eich's employment shouldn't be based on what he's doing in his personal time. If he says something intolerant at work, then yeah, fire him.
Would you hire someone you didn't like and didn't want to work with?
I'm not sure how we are supposed to take this. I guess the Thought Police have won another round.
The opposite. He's allowed to think and say whatever he wants. And so are we.
And the rest of society is free to disagree with him and refuse to associate with him if they disagree.
What other option should there be? Should I be FORCED to use Mozilla software? Should current employees be FORCED to work for him? Would that somehow be a "freer" world? A world where you are free to say anything you like no matter how offensive to me, and then after doing so I must just carry on working for you, doing business with you, etc? That's lunacy.
If you dig deep enough, none of us should keep our jobs.
Nobody is going to boycott IBM, and no employees are going to refuse to come into work because Joe in accounting tells racist jokes at family gatherings.
If the CEO did it on twitter, that would be entirely different, and you know it. Even if it was his 'personal' twitter account.
I am a lesbian and I still think hounding Eich for standing for Prop. 8 and threatening to boycott a cornerstone of the internet and internet development if he was CEO of the Mozilla foundation is complete and utter intolerant bullshit.
So where do you draw the line?
Lets just Godwin it right off the bat and get it over with; if he were openly a Nazi, funding white supremacy, attacking the jews and blacks right to own property etc... everyone at Mozilla should just show up to work because its no business of theirs what their boss does off the clock? All Mozilla's customers should just keep using the software, because its no business of theirs?
The reality is that what he stands for offended a lot of people.
The CEO is the face of the company.
If you are seriously disappointed that it culminated in people non-violently making it heard that they did not wish to work for this guy, or support a company this guy was the head of then I have to say I'm disappointed in YOU.
The world needs more of this not less.
a nice fanless hardware player would be welcome but only if it can fully replace my software based player.
At this point, I'm not really interested in a device for there. As it stands I've got a win8 box; the netflix metro app is about the only thing genuinely good about metro :)
I've got XBMC now for video playback. (VLC is great, but fails at usability at 10 feet)
And I've got a pair of xbox 360 wireless controllers paired to it, along with Steam big picture mode.
Its only slightly less user friendly to use those 3 applications than a dedicated device would be. (mostly due to it being a bit clutzy to switch between them).
The games library is steam for windows... so... HUGE.
And its a full desktop OS, so I can do other things with it as well; playstation one emulator, NES emulator, torrent client, etc. these things are a bit of a pain to get going at 10 feet (particularly configuration, setup, etc) but its infinitely more flexible.
For anyone on slashdot I can't imagine why you'd go with anything else (although you might prefer linux or win7. I went windows because I want the bigger steam library, and I went with because I had a license available... although the netflix app, like i said, is quite good.
For my parents... yeah... I'd probably recommend an appliance. And in point of fact they do have an apple tv.
Do you honestly have sympathy/empathy for, say, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the Underwear Bomber), [...]
Or more to the point of the article, look at the Tsarnaev brothers.
I don't have much sympathy for their actions, but then I view those particulars as regular criminals, not political regimes the country needs to be at 'war' with.
(wars which, if anything, just serve to provoke individuals who would be predisposed to doing something crazy.)
The problem with that logic is everybody has pretty damned good reasons to be upset. If you have sympathy for Muslim terrorists then surely you sympathize with people who commit hate crimes against Muslims. After all, think of their world-view, wherein for their whole lives they've seen acts of terrorism against their countries in the name of the Muslim religion.
Give me a break. "Their whole lives?" What are you on about? They've seen 1 or 2 isolated events mostly perpetrated by disturbed individuals.
Its ridiculous to conflate that to someone raised and living in Afghanistan for the last 20 years living in actual war zones where wars were being prosecuted by actual armies.
If decent access to Exchange is what you need then you don't need Outlook either.
Yeah, actually you do. The other desktop clients with exchange support range from bearable to broken.
Outlook is just a client (like the many other mail clients)
No, it not like the many other mail clients.
that has nothing to do with Outlook nor does it matter whether you use Outlook as your email client for an Exchange server
Now you are arguing my point for me. The REASON you don't need outlook on a phone is that the phone already has a good exchange client. The desktop options other than outlook are not great.
But this is all irrelevant anyway because Outlook is not tied to Office, you can purchase Outlook individually at a fraction of the cost of Office.
But "Outlook" + "Outlook Home and Student" is in the same ball park as Office Standard VLA; with a fraction the licensing grief. So businesses that want office will pay the delta for outlook.
Calendars, Email and Contacts. None of which are exclusive to Outlook.
Like what else are you credibly going to replace outlook with on the desktop? Apple Mail? Kmail? Thunderbird with ExQuilla? All substantially inferior in a lot of ways; assuming you can get them to work at all in non-bog-vanilla deployments (e.g. via https proxy's, with certficate authentication, etc.
I can't see why you're so desperate to portray Outlook as some irreplaceable and unmatched product that is essential to businesses.
I don't need to portray as irreplaceable and unmatched. Its users do that.
The analogy works, but only if you note that lobster isn't on any menu anywhere, at any price.
So how does that work?
I watched (Baz Lurman's) Romeo & Juliette last week with my 11 year old daughter and 10 year old son. They didn't know the story, and could -barely- keep up with the dialog (they spoke very fast, and it was in "Shakespearean English") -- but they still followed the movie extraordinarily well.
At the end of it they had questions like "why were they fighting" (which is a good question, never actually addressed... its just the setting.)
They certainly understood that Romeo and Juliette were in love, and couldn't/wouldn't live without each other. If "Romeo & Juliette" was a phrase that meant that, they'd have gotten that by watching the movie. So I think you underestimate the ability for someone to understand something, even if they can't follow much of the dialog.
Further, while a language composed ENTIRELY of metaphor doesn't really work (and the language in Darmok had lots of regular words), a language with metaphors replacing much of the abstract and emotional words could be very plausible.
As many slashdot posters have complained (and in doing so have sort of missed the point) "it makes no sense that the "universal translator" (UT) suddenly fails here".
How can the UT understand "fight like cats and mice" when all it has to work with is a recording of sound, jet fail to understand "like Tom and Jerry" when all its given is a recording of sound? What makes the meaning inherently more discoverable in the former than the latter. I have no explanation for that. It makes no sense. But its beside the point. Its the premise.
It assumes the UT can ('magically') grok basic word meanings, but can't solve idioms and metaphors and slang, and then puts it up against a language with more idiom and metaphor than it can handle so that its output is stilted gibberish In that vein, the episode is good, hard SF even. It sets a premise and then carries on to see how things work out.
I think the Star Trek universe, much like it glosses over why the majority of life is humanoid, (and largely sexually compatible) also presumes that all languages are more or less related in the same way English and German and French are related... and that the UT with all these languages can figure out a 'new one' because despite that fact that it is completely alien and evolved from nothing entirely independantly -- in star trek its also part of a family of other languages with a lot of commonalities etc.
And if so, then pitting the UT against a language with an abundance of metaphors will stump it... because even if it can solve the words, its missing too much of the cultural meaning to make sense. Similarly, I'd love to see the UT pitted against British rhyming slang -- under the same assumptions I give above it would be similarly stumped... returning, at best ... British rhyming slang. Which is nearly incomprehensible.
If you need Outlook then the iOS mail client won't suffice for you anyway.
Why not? Its decent access to Exchange from a smartphone.
What precisely do you think businesses need Outlook for?
What precisely do -you- think businesses need Outlook for?
At minimum: Calendar, Contacts, Email - all synchronized to the server and desktop and phone. Ability to see others calendars or availability, ability to schedule meetings.
Sure there's a few alternatives out there; that all try to be exchange without exchange. Google Apps for enterprises for example, which is decent, but its not as good.
Again... what precisely do -you- think businesses need outlook for?