The reason Outlook is good is that it's far more than an e-mail client. Yes, Gmail does a lot of the e-mail stuff better (and searching, in particular, ridiculously much better). But I still use Outlook at work and I'd really hate to switch.
The reason is that the integration between mail, tasks and the calendar is so much better than Gmail or any other competitor I have seen. As an example: I have a rule that takes any message sent from myself (i.e. when I bcc myself), creates a task of said message, and correctly populates the subject, body and category fields, and then deletes the e-mail. What's the point of this, then? The point is that it creates a "Waiting for"-task as per David Allen's Getting Things Done methodology. By just bcc-ing myself, I get the task into my trusted system so I'm sure I will follow up on it later.
I am sure this can be done in other PIMs as well. But I have never seen any other PIM where this is even remotely as easy to setup.
In a dry historical sense, a wife who cheats on her husband has pretty much been a death sentence in many cultures for centuries.
In a dry historical sense, denying the existense of the god that happened to be popular at that place and time has pretty much been a death sentence in many cultures for centuries. Can we now agree that while what you wrote is technically correct, it is also 100% irrelevant to how things are today?
Actually, there is no evidence that long sentences or the death penalty adds deterrence, so you could remove that from your list of benefits of ultra long sentences. The risk of getting caught, on the other hand, is a huge deterrant, so that's where you should put your time and money if you want to reduce crime.
Pet peeve: that should be reMuNeration, not reNuMeration. The former means getting paid. The latter means recounting. It's easy to remember like this: renumeration has something to do with numbers. Remuneration has something to do with money.
And, as another pet peeve, Bill Clinton has not "literally" made "hundreds of millions" since leaving his post. The couple has in toal made a bit over $100M, and it's a safe guess that Hillary has contributed at least eight figures to that. (That said, I do realize that the fact that Bill Clinton has "only" made, say $90M changes your argument, well, not one bit.)
This is completely false. There are 32K different "semirandom" games, and one of them is not solvable. And they are of course not "deconstructed". How would you "deconstruct" a Freecell game?
The unsolvable game is #11,982. (And yes, I know that it hasn't formally been proved to be unsolvable, but there are a zillion solvers out there and all of them has failed, so for all practical purposes it is unsolvable.)
You never know, indeed. Linux and Mac may dwarf Windows in four years, but I'm not exactly holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
The one, and just about only, thing we do know for certain about that time span is that Slashdot will proclaim that this is the year for Liunx on the desktop exactly four more times.
There were coverage obligations in Sweden as well. However, building the network at the pace suggested by the companies when they received the concessions proved economically unfeasible. (Big surprise there, right...)
And then the government let them get away with not building at the pace they promised. I'm not sure why that happened, but I assume that most of the leverage was gone, by then. Also, the government at the time were economically illiterate morons. I'm sure that helped in making the incorrect decision.
If the funding for a Sunk Cost comes from borrowing then of course it affects future business decisions.
Sorry, but no. Whatever investments a company chooses to make in 3G roll-out is only based on what they can expect each investment to return. Are you suggesting that an investment with an expected ROI of x% will be made if the debt is below $y, but will not be made if it is above $y?
Also, why compare to Japan? Compare to Sweden, where the Social Democrats gave the licenses away. It turned out that making massive investments in infrastructure in areas where only few people lived did not make any economic sense even when the operators had not paid for the licenses. Strange that, huh?
The mobile market in Japan is much more mature, hence all the "texting like a Japanese teenager" references here and elsewhere.
The 3G auctions in Europe raised a fortune for exchequers but the huge burden the placed on operators has crippled 3G roll-out for the best part of a decade.
How do you figure? Are you suggesting that 3G roll-out has been quicker in other countries where the governemnt gave away valuable rights to private companies for free instead of selling them?
Whatever an operator payed for a license is sunk cost. The subsequent roll-out will be at whatever pace is economically feasible and will not be affected by the amount payed for the license.
Life is unfair. Get over it. Suggesting that "everyone should have access to the safest possible technology" is simply ridiculous. At what cost? Who should pay for it? What other safety meassures could we no longer afford because everyone should have the latest car technologies? (And if you think that everyone should have access to *every* piece of "safest possible technology" in every area imaginable, you are, I'm sad to say, truly delusional.)
OMG. OMFG. That has to be the most hilariously stupid link ever posted on/. And yes, I understand that the competition is quite stiff.
It just boggles the mind that anyone could fall for that crap. And it's even more surprising how anyone could fall for that crap, yet claim that astrology is somehow false.
Huh? The point is that we routinely dismiss astrology as false without anyone having to explain the reasoning behind that. As can be seen in this thread, the same can't be said for religion. So my question is: what is this difference between astrology and religion that causes so many of us to dismiss one but not the other?
What, pray tell, is the difference between the observations of the religious people and the observations of those who believe in astrology? Do you seriously think that some people believe in astrology without in some way having observed that whatever they believe in works?
I didn't think it was controversial to state that more women than men believe in astrology etc. In some quarters, it's considered incredibly politically incorrect to even hint at differences between the genders, but I did not quite think that/. was such a place.
I await with anticipation your testing model for this hypothesis.
Why would the burden of proof be with the guy who refuses to believe the religious crap? For astrology, crystals, healing, tarot cards and the idiotic things some women believe, most everyone agrees that it's all nonsense and that the burden of proof is on them. For the idiotic things that some men believe, i.e. organized religion, the burden of proof is on the atheists? WTF?
Blue ray DVDs are useless for me. I only have an HD DVD player. Oh, yes, and a Betamax player. Did you know that the picture quality is much better than on VHS?
Most people use Outlook as a calendar as well, and it would seem to me like the number of companies that use Outlook as the *only* accepted means of scheduling a meeting has increased significantly. But maybe this is more common in Europe than in the US?
Anyway, I agree that most people use Outlook in an extremely basic way. But it is possible to use it as a really, really good task management tool. That will require far more tweaking than most people are capable of, but it is possible. As an example, I have defined a rule that incoming e-mail sent to me as bcc from myself will automatically be converted into a task, with the actual e-mail included as an attachment in the task. This is an incredibly convenient "Waiting For" list, as per David Allen's GTD methodology. By simply bcc:ing myself, I never forget that I should follow up on that particular e-mail at some later time.
I will grant you that setting this up required digging fairly deep into Outlook's object model and was generally a PITA, but now that it's done, it really is invaluable to me.
I should, however, note that I have no idea what Thunderbird can and can't do, so maybe this is possible there too?
The "alpha geeks who help others make choices" are not people in weird clothes who use Adobe software. The people who select tools for others to use wear boring clothes and make more money than you do. To be more specific, they are power users of Excel, often working in the financial industry.
I know this is my mantra here on/.: "It's Excel, stupid!" But it's still true. And yes, I know both the standrad answers from the crowd here. It's either "use (this free software, often OpenOffice or StarOffice)" or "use (this emulator, often wine)".
The first answer is embarrassingly bad. Excel is incredibly superior to any competitor. Yes, there are bugs, but there are also pivot tables and VBA, and you will *not* get a power user to switch unless the other option is at least as good in every respect. Please not "every" before flaming away about the superiority of applications that lack features.
The second answer is marginally better, as these people can still run Excel. But really, what's the point of jumping through hopps to avoid running MS software if what you really want to do is run MS software?
Everybody, please repeat after me: "It's Excel, stupid!" And "the year of Linux on the desktop is the year Linux has an Excel killer". Don't hold your breath waiting for the last one. But please do work on said Excel killer. As one of the Excel power users, I very much welcome competition.
Jackson himself only got paid after he sued New Line.
Not true. jackson got paid according to his contract. However, his contract did not specify that he should get a percentage of the "tie in revenues" (games, toys etc.) He sued New Line to get a piece of that as well.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason Outlook is good is that it's far more than an e-mail client. Yes, Gmail does a lot of the e-mail stuff better (and searching, in particular, ridiculously much better). But I still use Outlook at work and I'd really hate to switch.
The reason is that the integration between mail, tasks and the calendar is so much better than Gmail or any other competitor I have seen. As an example: I have a rule that takes any message sent from myself (i.e. when I bcc myself), creates a task of said message, and correctly populates the subject, body and category fields, and then deletes the e-mail. What's the point of this, then? The point is that it creates a "Waiting for"-task as per David Allen's Getting Things Done methodology. By just bcc-ing myself, I get the task into my trusted system so I'm sure I will follow up on it later.
I am sure this can be done in other PIMs as well. But I have never seen any other PIM where this is even remotely as easy to setup.
In a dry historical sense, denying the existense of the god that happened to be popular at that place and time has pretty much been a death sentence in many cultures for centuries. Can we now agree that while what you wrote is technically correct, it is also 100% irrelevant to how things are today?
Actually, there is no evidence that long sentences or the death penalty adds deterrence, so you could remove that from your list of benefits of ultra long sentences. The risk of getting caught, on the other hand, is a huge deterrant, so that's where you should put your time and money if you want to reduce crime.
Pet peeve: that should be reMuNeration, not reNuMeration. The former means getting paid. The latter means recounting. It's easy to remember like this: renumeration has something to do with numbers. Remuneration has something to do with money.
And, as another pet peeve, Bill Clinton has not "literally" made "hundreds of millions" since leaving his post. The couple has in toal made a bit over $100M, and it's a safe guess that Hillary has contributed at least eight figures to that. (That said, I do realize that the fact that Bill Clinton has "only" made, say $90M changes your argument, well, not one bit.)
This is completely false. There are 32K different "semirandom" games, and one of them is not solvable. And they are of course not "deconstructed". How would you "deconstruct" a Freecell game?
The unsolvable game is #11,982. (And yes, I know that it hasn't formally been proved to be unsolvable, but there are a zillion solvers out there and all of them has failed, so for all practical purposes it is unsolvable.)
The one, and just about only, thing we do know for certain about that time span is that Slashdot will proclaim that this is the year for Liunx on the desktop exactly four more times.
And then the government let them get away with not building at the pace they promised. I'm not sure why that happened, but I assume that most of the leverage was gone, by then. Also, the government at the time were economically illiterate morons. I'm sure that helped in making the incorrect decision.
Sorry, but no. Whatever investments a company chooses to make in 3G roll-out is only based on what they can expect each investment to return. Are you suggesting that an investment with an expected ROI of x% will be made if the debt is below $y, but will not be made if it is above $y?
Also, why compare to Japan? Compare to Sweden, where the Social Democrats gave the licenses away. It turned out that making massive investments in infrastructure in areas where only few people lived did not make any economic sense even when the operators had not paid for the licenses. Strange that, huh?
The mobile market in Japan is much more mature, hence all the "texting like a Japanese teenager" references here and elsewhere.
I think you misspelled "pivot tables". Are they in yet? If not, please end the discussion of why people are not switching from Excel to OO right here.
How do you figure? Are you suggesting that 3G roll-out has been quicker in other countries where the governemnt gave away valuable rights to private companies for free instead of selling them?
Whatever an operator payed for a license is sunk cost. The subsequent roll-out will be at whatever pace is economically feasible and will not be affected by the amount payed for the license.
Life is unfair. Get over it. Suggesting that "everyone should have access to the safest possible technology" is simply ridiculous. At what cost? Who should pay for it? What other safety meassures could we no longer afford because everyone should have the latest car technologies? (And if you think that everyone should have access to *every* piece of "safest possible technology" in every area imaginable, you are, I'm sad to say, truly delusional.)
Common sense? We're talking religion and/or cults here. Surely "common sense" can't be involved, by definition.
It just boggles the mind that anyone could fall for that crap. And it's even more surprising how anyone could fall for that crap, yet claim that astrology is somehow false.
Huh? The point is that we routinely dismiss astrology as false without anyone having to explain the reasoning behind that. As can be seen in this thread, the same can't be said for religion. So my question is: what is this difference between astrology and religion that causes so many of us to dismiss one but not the other?
What, pray tell, is the difference between the observations of the religious people and the observations of those who believe in astrology? Do you seriously think that some people believe in astrology without in some way having observed that whatever they believe in works?
I didn't think it was controversial to state that more women than men believe in astrology etc. In some quarters, it's considered incredibly politically incorrect to even hint at differences between the genders, but I did not quite think that /. was such a place.
And a confusing life it is! But finally, I understand why so many scientists have problems with time management...
Why would the burden of proof be with the guy who refuses to believe the religious crap? For astrology, crystals, healing, tarot cards and the idiotic things some women believe, most everyone agrees that it's all nonsense and that the burden of proof is on them. For the idiotic things that some men believe, i.e. organized religion, the burden of proof is on the atheists? WTF?
Blue ray DVDs are useless for me. I only have an HD DVD player. Oh, yes, and a Betamax player. Did you know that the picture quality is much better than on VHS?
I'm not so sure that's the case when Diebold is invlved.
For full disclosure, I should add that last I checked was twenty years ago.
You misspelled "Excel", but otherwise you are 100% correct.
Anyway, I agree that most people use Outlook in an extremely basic way. But it is possible to use it as a really, really good task management tool. That will require far more tweaking than most people are capable of, but it is possible. As an example, I have defined a rule that incoming e-mail sent to me as bcc from myself will automatically be converted into a task, with the actual e-mail included as an attachment in the task. This is an incredibly convenient "Waiting For" list, as per David Allen's GTD methodology. By simply bcc:ing myself, I never forget that I should follow up on that particular e-mail at some later time.
I will grant you that setting this up required digging fairly deep into Outlook's object model and was generally a PITA, but now that it's done, it really is invaluable to me.
I should, however, note that I have no idea what Thunderbird can and can't do, so maybe this is possible there too?
I know this is my mantra here on /.: "It's Excel, stupid!" But it's still true. And yes, I know both the standrad answers from the crowd here. It's either "use (this free software, often OpenOffice or StarOffice)" or "use (this emulator, often wine)".
The first answer is embarrassingly bad. Excel is incredibly superior to any competitor. Yes, there are bugs, but there are also pivot tables and VBA, and you will *not* get a power user to switch unless the other option is at least as good in every respect. Please not "every" before flaming away about the superiority of applications that lack features.
The second answer is marginally better, as these people can still run Excel. But really, what's the point of jumping through hopps to avoid running MS software if what you really want to do is run MS software?
Everybody, please repeat after me: "It's Excel, stupid!" And "the year of Linux on the desktop is the year Linux has an Excel killer". Don't hold your breath waiting for the last one. But please do work on said Excel killer. As one of the Excel power users, I very much welcome competition.
Not true. jackson got paid according to his contract. However, his contract did not specify that he should get a percentage of the "tie in revenues" (games, toys etc.) He sued New Line to get a piece of that as well.