I insert the safety key and press the on button. The motor turns on and it just works. Dangerous? Mildly to extremely depending on the tool. But it Just Works
Spoken like someone who doesn't use power tools on a regular basis.
You turn it on, it starts spinning slowly, there's no torque. Tools useless now, I have to go down the hardware store and buy another.
This is exactly why professionals spend $25,000 on large tool kits and benches with replaceable parts. So that it's reliable and easily repairable. Not everyone lives in a disposable world, for anything you need or want to do to an extreme, buying disposable tools is pointless. I can get a cheap Hyundai i30 buzzbox, newer and less expensive than my 350GT, but fuck knows why I'd take an i30 on the track... So I bought a Nissan 350 GT.
So it's the same with Linux, a professionals tool compared to some chinese no-name brand drill. A sports car compared to a Korean made hatch that handles like a whale.
It's also the same with PC gaming. So it's more expensive and requires slightly more maintenance than a console, in return you get more games, better games, a wider variety of games (still waiting to see a strategy game that works on a console after a decade of bad attempts) and cheaper games. Just as someone who cares about driving buys a car designed for a better ride compared over a cheaper, newer A to B crapbox, someone who cares about gaming will spend the extra time and money* to get a better gaming experience.
* With the price difference between PC and console games, buying 2 games a month makes the TCO of a $1500 gaming rig the same as a $600 console.
Acquisition of territory by force has happened all through history,
is continuing to happen, and will continue to happen for the forseeable
future. The supposed illegitimacy of this practice is used as a tool
to demonize Israel, but it's completely ignored when anyone else does it.
Why stop there.
The Jews would have to give Israel back to the British, who would have to give it back to the Ottomans who would have to give it back to the Arabs, who'd have to swap it with the Europeans for a while until they have to give it back to the Romans who would have to give it back to the Greeks who would have to give it back to the Egyptians who'd have to give it back to the Jews.
What the summary talks about is something that could happen based on ideas from the trade industry that covers travel agency.
And what the article talks about is something that has already happened. Package holidays where a package of flights, accommodation and activities are personally tailored to an individual.
My first reaction when reading this was "Fuck me, the travel agent industry hasn't been doing this for the last few decades". Even Airlines are in on the game. If I book a flight with Malaysian or Singapore Airlines to Bangkok, they'll offer me the choice of booking a hotel on the same ticket. I personally dont care for this feature (I dont pre-pay for hotels) but some people are dumb enough to pre-pay, *cough* I mean some people want this feature and I see no reason why they shouldn't
Of course SAL and MAS tend to offer these kind of ancillary services in a non intrusive way.
The single price means the minimum total cost that is able to be quantified (or calculated) at the time of making the representation.
That's all well and good for taxes, but what about
luggage
carry-on
choosing a seat
better seat (extra leg room, emergency exit, etc)
priority lane
You could argue that these are not necessities (thus the law you quote does not apply). But I would say that a carry-on charge, for example, really pushes the line of "necessity".
All conditions of the product or service must be declared before taking payment.
In Australia we have both budget and premium airlines. Premium airlines dont charge for food, luggage, carry on (fscking seriously, they charge you for a carry on) although some now charge for the exit rows (looking at you QANTAS) and there is no such thing as the "priority lane" as no-one in Oz is dumb enough to pay for it.
But if I were to book a flight on Air Asia, a budget airline then before Air Asia take my payment I have to select my baggage options, meal options, seating options and everything else after which I am presented with a final price including taxes, fees and surcharges BEFORE I pay a cent. They have to do this under Australian law.
Now what this means
The single price means the minimum total cost that is able to be quantified (or calculated) at the time of making the representation.
Is that the advertised price is what I can buy a flight for including all fees, taxes and surcharges. This does not include optional extras, but the minimum total (I thought that would be self explanatory) of what I'd pay for that flight.
Going back to an airline example, if Bob's Budget Air advertised a flight to Wagga Wagga for $50, he has to sell that flight for $50. He can offer extras but I dont have to take them. If Pete's Premium Airline advertises the same flight for $100 with baggage and a meal, they have to sell it to me for $100 and provide me with a baggage allowance and an in-flight meal (as per the conditions of the sale) at no extra cost. As long as the conditions of sale are made known (I.E. no baggage allowance included) before the sale it is OK (the law does not get around Caveat Emptor).
If Bob's Budget Air doesn't disclose that there is no baggage allowance in their fare, then they are in violation of the law.
If it wasn't being used for something, it wouldn't be the price to get less expensive groceries.
I thought it was mostly used to put the things you buy at opposite ends of the store so you have to walk past all the other stuff every time you go there.
They dont need loyalty cards for that.
They just look at the most commonly sold items from their sales records. They aren't reconfiguring the store just for you, you know.
Loyalty cards are not designed for data mining (sorry paranoid cranks, but this is true) they are designed to keep you going back to the same store as opposed to going to the cheaper or more convenient stores. Either that or they're scams like FlyBuy's in Australia which only give you discounts on items that are bad value for money (I.E. the 4pk of toilet rolls that costs more per roll than the 8pk).
If you're that paranoid, sign up to loyalty programs with fake names and details. It's not that hard.
We're really worried about optional grocery profiling for reduced prices?
If only for laughs, please give us the rationale for this extreme brand of paranoia.
This, talk about missing the forest for the trees.
I have two loyalty cards. Singapore Airlines who already knows who the fuck I am because I have to put in my passport details in order to book a flight (no such thing as domestic in Singapore) and Nando's and I'm sure they're really interested in knowing the Shogoth the Destroyer likes the classic chicken burger, hot, with a large chips (Yes, I did register as Shogoth the Destroyer, mainly because the cashiers get a kick out of it when it comes up on the register) and it's not an incentive to keep me coming back to Nando's instead of KFC.
BTW, as a result of being a Krisflyer member (Singapore Airlines) I get notified of all major SAL sales which has netted me some real bargains over the years. So it's a two way street, I know when cheap airfares are coming up and SAL gets repeat business.
The bad thing is, Ubuntu was something of great value just four years ago. At the time, it was the only version of Linux that you could show someone out of the box and get them excited about using a new operating system. Part of the allure was beryl/compiz, but most of what made it special in the Linux world was that it played nicer with the mandatory binary blobs (like wireless firmware and graphics drivers). It was an acceptable compromise between the GNU way and everyone else.
This.
But I wouldn't call Ubuntu a false prophet.
Firstly because it's just an OS, not a religion and secondly because blind belief in something only gets you (and normally a lot of other people) hurt when it finally has to face reality.
Now Ubuntu was a very good example of Linux for the masses, done right. Then Shuttleworth started changing things, moving the close/minimise boxes to the left hand side was what killed it for a lot of people. Trying to copy Mac when what people wanted was a Windows replacement. Now it seems Shuttleworth is looking at the buzzwords of last year in a desperate attempt to remain relevant when what he needs to do is go back to making Ubuntu a stable experience usable out of the box.
I've since switched to Linux Mint and I don't hold out much hope of Ubuntu returning to sanity.
Stability is central to the OP's point and stability is not the only place where outlook fails. The way OL handles authentication is terrible as well.
. I doubt Google's web based clients could handle 10% of what Outlook does and not crash,
Here you've shown you have no idea what you're on about.
There's functionality in Gmail's web client that works a hell of a lot better than Outlook (search for instance, I'm constantly having to delete and rebuild OL's index because it doesn't work properly in OL 2010). Also, 90% of the functionality in Outlook is not used. Gmail may miss some obscure features, but it has 99.9% of the features people want in an email client, 100% of the features people need in everyday use.
1 web portal is also a hell of a lot easier to keep up to date than 100 email clients.
The audience of 2072 will look on the sci-fi of 1970s the same way that we look at the sci fi of 1910s. There will be a niche audience that enjoys it, but the majority won't be interested.
Because movies were in their infancy in 1910 I'd say books would be more accurate. We'd look at 1970 movies in 2070 in the same way we'd look at books from 1910. A lot of people will still be interested in them and they will be remade into the latest media (I.E. Lord of the Rings books to film). Add to this the fact that old movies are being constantly remade and "re-imagined". I give it until 2040 at the latest before we see a remake of A New Hope (with more Jar-Jar). Especially with Disney in command now.
Sharepoint is a product that promises the world and delivers most of what it promises in a very poor fashion. Imagine if I offered you an Argentine steak with some French wine and Belgian chocolates. Yet what I delivered you was a steak that had been left in the fridge for 2 weeks, a bottle of 4 penny dark (cheap wine) that had been left open for a week and chocolate I'd left in the sun. That is SharePoint.
I've heard SharePoint described as a Swiss Army gun. It does a little of everything, none of it well and why the fuck is it even a gun. What purpose does that serve?
Maybe I've never seen it implemented properly,
I'm not sure this is even possible.
I've never seen a SharePoint set up that was done well, by this I mean well enough for me to consider a production system for client access. To set it up you need a DBA AND a Web developer AND a Sysadmin AND a.net developer AND you need them all at once, preferably in one person as you need to know exactly what the other person has done. Even migrating databases is an utter PITA which sucks when you want to upgrade the 2005 SQL on 2003 Server.
I've had consultants in for a sharepoint install who spent six weeks and weren't able to deliver a working site. They promised us that SharePoint could provide what we wanted right up to the last day when they said "Oh, sorry, SharePoint doesn't do that". These were from a very, very large consulting firm, not just some dodgy 2 man outfit.
I generally try to avoid SharePoint like the plague. Most peoples DR plan for SharePoint is "Prey it never fails". I've gotten as far as "backup the VM's and DB's, then hope we can restore".
We also have a NAZA controller but it does not do waypoints
We kind of need to do waypoints as we use it for aerial photography and remote sensing, the more accurate the positioning when we take the photo the less work required to mosaic them later. One of the drones we use is the Yamaha RMAX helicopter that can carry 20 KG, the other is a custom built (basically a kit built) petrol powered plane using a MicroPilot 2028G that can carry just under 30 KG, 20 KG is enough to lift any of our sensing packages (mostly regular and IR cameras but we can get LIDAR units for clients that request them).
Apple just wants to make and sell hardware as well made as they can
This falls apart when you consider that Apple doesn't let you run your own OS on their hardware. They make it as hard as possible to run Windows on a Mac, they've been caught trying to prevent Linux from overtaking the bootloader. You cant run anything except IOS on an Ipod, Ipad or Iphone desipte it being the exact same hardware that runs Android and Windows Phone8/RT.
No, Apple wants you locked into their ecosystem. Why?
Because they make more money from you that way.
there are too many other high quality mapping solutions already (including Apple's own maps).
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha,
Don't give up your day job. When Apple cant even put train stations on train lines, you cant call it quality.
Last millenium weq had RC planes and shit. Why call them drones now?
I use drones, you can call them RC planes or model planes (as we do in Australia), I wont get upset.
To me the difference is a drone is autonomous whilst an RC plane requires continuous input from a remote pilot.
With our drone, we program it with a flight path and parameters and it does it's thing with little or no input from the user. We do manual take off and landings via remote but once it reaches the starting co-ords we flip it into automatic mode. The biggest usage we have for them is to take aerial photo's we can program them with the co-ords for each photo and let it's do it's thing. We used to use expensive manned planes and helicopters for this (Australian rules requires any externally fixed device to be certified by aircraft engineers, which is bloody expensive so putting the same camera inside a model plane designed for it is a lot cheaper), the drone is surprisingly accurate in comparison.
If anything, hunting rifles are -more- dangerous than so-called "assault weapons" because they've got more power behind the rounds. They are also far more accurate.
High alpha, but their DPS sucks.
OK, OK, bad analgoy.
But it's true, when you want to kill or hurt a lot of people will you pick something that fires a powerful round once every 5 seconds or something that 2-3 less powerful rounds per second. Then tell me why the armies of the world use the same philosophy when choosing rifleman/general infantry weapons.
To kill you don't need to do a lot of damage. 22LR's are easily capable of killing, not instantly but definitely will cause wounds that are fatal. A 7.62 may have more energy behind it than a 5.56 but the difference is immaterial when your targets are unarmoured. Accuracy is less important when you're engaging targets at close range, an inaccuracy of 2m at 500 m is not a problem at 50 m. For the Washington Sniper this mattered, but for a spree killer they dont care about accuracy or weapon power.
Your assertion is wrong, assault weapons are more dangerous than hunting rifles because things like long range accuracy and a minor increase in kinetic energy are inconsequential because the range is not long enough to make inaccuracy an issue and "low powered" assault rifle rounds are still powerful enough to easily kill (I use "low powered" sarcastically, a 5.56 mm round is low powered my arse)
If you sort on gun-homicides, you will see that the USA is 14th. Most of the "winners" are in Latin America.
The US is in the same league as third world nations. There's no point in saying "yay, Philippines and Colombia have more gun murders" because the Philippines and Columbia have serious civil insurgencies. Compared to other nations with a similar socio-economic status it's a huge difference. The US homicide rate is over 4 times greater than the next first world nation, Canada (CAN 0.76 / USA 3.7 ).
Comparing gun use in Switzerland to that in the US is like comparing chalk and cheese. Unless you're suggesting as a solution to gun crime that everyone of age should be conscripted to receive military training and the government should be allowed in private homes to audit your weapons?
Which one of you can tell me who Charles Whitman was.
So next years consoles are going to be inferior to last years PC?
Personally I think between PC and mobile, the console is doomed. This will never happen with iDevices but Android tablets already support HDMI out and input from bluetooth controllers. All we need is for them to get a bit more powerful (Nvidia is advertising a 6 fold power increase between Tegra 2 and Tegra 3) and a method of transfering large games (SD card) and they will become plugin replacements for consoles.
As for real cutting edge games, these never left the PC because it was the only platform that could be counted on to increase in processing power.
Consoles were never about power, they were about the money. Carmack should know that. Casual games are now the big earners. This does not mean that traditional cutting edge games have no place, they're earning better than ever but it's still chicken feed compared to casual.
Console developers will follow the money, which is on mobile and cutting edge developers will concentrate on PC. Traditional Consoles are left with first party developers which wont cut it. Even Nintendo with it's Mario and Zelda cash cows would struggle if it doesn't adapt (I.E. release a tablet/console hybrid. They're half way there with the Wii U).
Exactly. It's like seeing 999999 on the car odometer and thinking that the car will self destruct if you drive it one more kilometre (or mile, depending).
For sale.
1988 Toyota Camry, 999999K's, excellent cond. one lady owner.
$4000 o.n.o.
We are talking about enterprises, any enterprise that cares about a UI has already failed at running their enterprise. one of the big benefits of windows 2012 is finally the push towards completely headless servers. it was sorta their in 2008, but far more viable in 2012 with huge improvements to file system and virtualisation as well as storage and scalability. The enterprises I work with have zero interest in windows 8 but they are already in the process of deploying 2012.
LoL,
Windows is not a headless server. Just because the head has been replaced with RDP/Terminal Services does not change the fact that the servers are GUI bound.
So sysadmins are going to care about the UI. Hell look at the flame wars between KDE/GNOME or VI/EMACS. UI is very important to people who use these systems day in and day out.
I'm going to guess you're a market drone, probably working for MS because what you posted is complete bollocks in the real world.
The World Bank has already rolled out Win8 to enterprise machines, via Dell hardware, and the machines boot into the desktop. So learning curve is near 0. Based on that, I doubt much trouble in the enterprise over this.
Ignoring the non-sequitur, meaning you provided no proof that there was zero learning curve (which we both know is bullshit, there was a learning curve between Win XP and Win7 and the UI was very, very similar) Windows 8 is going to have trouble in the enterprise because it is a radical change and enterprises are covered under SA/EA agreements which means they aren't forced to upgrade if they dont want to. There are still organisations on Windows XP because they don't want to go to 7.
I will give you windows 8. But Server 2012 is basically completely built around enterprise and while win 8 will probably be a failure in the enterprise, server 2012 will be a huge success with many large functionality upgrades.
As long as there is a way to change the interface back to "Classic".
They've put some kind of dodgy neutered form of Metro on Server 2012, it will seriously hinder it unless it can be replaced.
Slashdot Mirror
Spoken like someone who doesn't use power tools on a regular basis.
You turn it on, it starts spinning slowly, there's no torque. Tools useless now, I have to go down the hardware store and buy another.
This is exactly why professionals spend $25,000 on large tool kits and benches with replaceable parts. So that it's reliable and easily repairable. Not everyone lives in a disposable world, for anything you need or want to do to an extreme, buying disposable tools is pointless. I can get a cheap Hyundai i30 buzzbox, newer and less expensive than my 350GT, but fuck knows why I'd take an i30 on the track... So I bought a Nissan 350 GT.
So it's the same with Linux, a professionals tool compared to some chinese no-name brand drill. A sports car compared to a Korean made hatch that handles like a whale.
It's also the same with PC gaming. So it's more expensive and requires slightly more maintenance than a console, in return you get more games, better games, a wider variety of games (still waiting to see a strategy game that works on a console after a decade of bad attempts) and cheaper games. Just as someone who cares about driving buys a car designed for a better ride compared over a cheaper, newer A to B crapbox, someone who cares about gaming will spend the extra time and money* to get a better gaming experience.
* With the price difference between PC and console games, buying 2 games a month makes the TCO of a $1500 gaming rig the same as a $600 console.
Nonsense. If this were the case:
Acquisition of territory by force has happened all through history, is continuing to happen, and will continue to happen for the forseeable future. The supposed illegitimacy of this practice is used as a tool to demonize Israel, but it's completely ignored when anyone else does it.
Why stop there.
The Jews would have to give Israel back to the British, who would have to give it back to the Ottomans who would have to give it back to the Arabs, who'd have to swap it with the Europeans for a while until they have to give it back to the Romans who would have to give it back to the Greeks who would have to give it back to the Egyptians who'd have to give it back to the Jews.
And what the article talks about is something that has already happened. Package holidays where a package of flights, accommodation and activities are personally tailored to an individual.
My first reaction when reading this was "Fuck me, the travel agent industry hasn't been doing this for the last few decades". Even Airlines are in on the game. If I book a flight with Malaysian or Singapore Airlines to Bangkok, they'll offer me the choice of booking a hotel on the same ticket. I personally dont care for this feature (I dont pre-pay for hotels) but some people are dumb enough to pre-pay, *cough* I mean some people want this feature and I see no reason why they shouldn't
Of course SAL and MAS tend to offer these kind of ancillary services in a non intrusive way.
The single price means the minimum total cost that is able to be quantified (or calculated) at the time of making the representation.
That's all well and good for taxes, but what about
You could argue that these are not necessities (thus the law you quote does not apply). But I would say that a carry-on charge, for example, really pushes the line of "necessity".
All conditions of the product or service must be declared before taking payment.
In Australia we have both budget and premium airlines. Premium airlines dont charge for food, luggage, carry on (fscking seriously, they charge you for a carry on) although some now charge for the exit rows (looking at you QANTAS) and there is no such thing as the "priority lane" as no-one in Oz is dumb enough to pay for it.
But if I were to book a flight on Air Asia, a budget airline then before Air Asia take my payment I have to select my baggage options, meal options, seating options and everything else after which I am presented with a final price including taxes, fees and surcharges BEFORE I pay a cent. They have to do this under Australian law.
Now what this means
The single price means the minimum total cost that is able to be quantified (or calculated) at the time of making the representation.
Is that the advertised price is what I can buy a flight for including all fees, taxes and surcharges. This does not include optional extras, but the minimum total (I thought that would be self explanatory) of what I'd pay for that flight.
Going back to an airline example, if Bob's Budget Air advertised a flight to Wagga Wagga for $50, he has to sell that flight for $50. He can offer extras but I dont have to take them. If Pete's Premium Airline advertises the same flight for $100 with baggage and a meal, they have to sell it to me for $100 and provide me with a baggage allowance and an in-flight meal (as per the conditions of the sale) at no extra cost. As long as the conditions of sale are made known (I.E. no baggage allowance included) before the sale it is OK (the law does not get around Caveat Emptor).
If Bob's Budget Air doesn't disclose that there is no baggage allowance in their fare, then they are in violation of the law.
If it wasn't being used for something, it wouldn't be the price to get less expensive groceries.
I thought it was mostly used to put the things you buy at opposite ends of the store so you have to walk past all the other stuff every time you go there.
They dont need loyalty cards for that.
They just look at the most commonly sold items from their sales records. They aren't reconfiguring the store just for you, you know.
Loyalty cards are not designed for data mining (sorry paranoid cranks, but this is true) they are designed to keep you going back to the same store as opposed to going to the cheaper or more convenient stores. Either that or they're scams like FlyBuy's in Australia which only give you discounts on items that are bad value for money (I.E. the 4pk of toilet rolls that costs more per roll than the 8pk).
If you're that paranoid, sign up to loyalty programs with fake names and details. It's not that hard.
We're really worried about optional grocery profiling for reduced prices?
If only for laughs, please give us the rationale for this extreme brand of paranoia.
This, talk about missing the forest for the trees.
I have two loyalty cards. Singapore Airlines who already knows who the fuck I am because I have to put in my passport details in order to book a flight (no such thing as domestic in Singapore) and Nando's and I'm sure they're really interested in knowing the Shogoth the Destroyer likes the classic chicken burger, hot, with a large chips (Yes, I did register as Shogoth the Destroyer, mainly because the cashiers get a kick out of it when it comes up on the register) and it's not an incentive to keep me coming back to Nando's instead of KFC.
BTW, as a result of being a Krisflyer member (Singapore Airlines) I get notified of all major SAL sales which has netted me some real bargains over the years. So it's a two way street, I know when cheap airfares are coming up and SAL gets repeat business.
The bad thing is, Ubuntu was something of great value just four years ago. At the time, it was the only version of Linux that you could show someone out of the box and get them excited about using a new operating system. Part of the allure was beryl/compiz, but most of what made it special in the Linux world was that it played nicer with the mandatory binary blobs (like wireless firmware and graphics drivers). It was an acceptable compromise between the GNU way and everyone else.
This. But I wouldn't call Ubuntu a false prophet.
Firstly because it's just an OS, not a religion and secondly because blind belief in something only gets you (and normally a lot of other people) hurt when it finally has to face reality.
Now Ubuntu was a very good example of Linux for the masses, done right. Then Shuttleworth started changing things, moving the close/minimise boxes to the left hand side was what killed it for a lot of people. Trying to copy Mac when what people wanted was a Windows replacement. Now it seems Shuttleworth is looking at the buzzwords of last year in a desperate attempt to remain relevant when what he needs to do is go back to making Ubuntu a stable experience usable out of the box.
I've since switched to Linux Mint and I don't hold out much hope of Ubuntu returning to sanity.
That's not related to GP's point.
Actually it is.
Stability is central to the OP's point and stability is not the only place where outlook fails. The way OL handles authentication is terrible as well.
. I doubt Google's web based clients could handle 10% of what Outlook does and not crash,
Here you've shown you have no idea what you're on about. There's functionality in Gmail's web client that works a hell of a lot better than Outlook (search for instance, I'm constantly having to delete and rebuild OL's index because it doesn't work properly in OL 2010). Also, 90% of the functionality in Outlook is not used. Gmail may miss some obscure features, but it has 99.9% of the features people want in an email client, 100% of the features people need in everyday use.
1 web portal is also a hell of a lot easier to keep up to date than 100 email clients.
The audience of 2072 will look on the sci-fi of 1970s the same way that we look at the sci fi of 1910s. There will be a niche audience that enjoys it, but the majority won't be interested.
Because movies were in their infancy in 1910 I'd say books would be more accurate. We'd look at 1970 movies in 2070 in the same way we'd look at books from 1910. A lot of people will still be interested in them and they will be remade into the latest media (I.E. Lord of the Rings books to film). Add to this the fact that old movies are being constantly remade and "re-imagined". I give it until 2040 at the latest before we see a remake of A New Hope (with more Jar-Jar). Especially with Disney in command now.
I've never understood the point of SharePoint.
Sharepoint is a product that promises the world and delivers most of what it promises in a very poor fashion. Imagine if I offered you an Argentine steak with some French wine and Belgian chocolates. Yet what I delivered you was a steak that had been left in the fridge for 2 weeks, a bottle of 4 penny dark (cheap wine) that had been left open for a week and chocolate I'd left in the sun. That is SharePoint.
I've heard SharePoint described as a Swiss Army gun. It does a little of everything, none of it well and why the fuck is it even a gun. What purpose does that serve?
Maybe I've never seen it implemented properly,
I'm not sure this is even possible.
.net developer AND you need them all at once, preferably in one person as you need to know exactly what the other person has done. Even migrating databases is an utter PITA which sucks when you want to upgrade the 2005 SQL on 2003 Server.
I've never seen a SharePoint set up that was done well, by this I mean well enough for me to consider a production system for client access. To set it up you need a DBA AND a Web developer AND a Sysadmin AND a
I've had consultants in for a sharepoint install who spent six weeks and weren't able to deliver a working site. They promised us that SharePoint could provide what we wanted right up to the last day when they said "Oh, sorry, SharePoint doesn't do that". These were from a very, very large consulting firm, not just some dodgy 2 man outfit.
I generally try to avoid SharePoint like the plague. Most peoples DR plan for SharePoint is "Prey it never fails". I've gotten as far as "backup the VM's and DB's, then hope we can restore".
That's not Outlook, that's an Exchange setting. If you were using Outlook as your gmail client you wouldn't get that either.
Strange, I've never seen the "Lock Up Outlook for x Seconds" check box in Exchange, do I find setting under Hub Transport?
If you used Outlook as your gmail client you'd still get freezes and crashes.
Is it just me, or shouldn't Lego be an uncountable noun?
Yes, this has always been this way. Lego is it's own plural.
Lego = one brick
Lego = many bricks
Legos = pasta sauce
We also have a NAZA controller but it does not do waypoints
We kind of need to do waypoints as we use it for aerial photography and remote sensing, the more accurate the positioning when we take the photo the less work required to mosaic them later. One of the drones we use is the Yamaha RMAX helicopter that can carry 20 KG, the other is a custom built (basically a kit built) petrol powered plane using a MicroPilot 2028G that can carry just under 30 KG, 20 KG is enough to lift any of our sensing packages (mostly regular and IR cameras but we can get LIDAR units for clients that request them).
Expensive setup, but this is for a business.
This falls apart when you consider that Apple doesn't let you run your own OS on their hardware. They make it as hard as possible to run Windows on a Mac, they've been caught trying to prevent Linux from overtaking the bootloader. You cant run anything except IOS on an Ipod, Ipad or Iphone desipte it being the exact same hardware that runs Android and Windows Phone8/RT.
No, Apple wants you locked into their ecosystem. Why?
Because they make more money from you that way.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha,
Don't give up your day job. When Apple cant even put train stations on train lines, you cant call it quality.
Last millenium weq had RC planes and shit. Why call them drones now?
I use drones, you can call them RC planes or model planes (as we do in Australia), I wont get upset.
To me the difference is a drone is autonomous whilst an RC plane requires continuous input from a remote pilot.
With our drone, we program it with a flight path and parameters and it does it's thing with little or no input from the user. We do manual take off and landings via remote but once it reaches the starting co-ords we flip it into automatic mode. The biggest usage we have for them is to take aerial photo's we can program them with the co-ords for each photo and let it's do it's thing. We used to use expensive manned planes and helicopters for this (Australian rules requires any externally fixed device to be certified by aircraft engineers, which is bloody expensive so putting the same camera inside a model plane designed for it is a lot cheaper), the drone is surprisingly accurate in comparison.
High alpha, but their DPS sucks.
OK, OK, bad analgoy.
But it's true, when you want to kill or hurt a lot of people will you pick something that fires a powerful round once every 5 seconds or something that 2-3 less powerful rounds per second. Then tell me why the armies of the world use the same philosophy when choosing rifleman/general infantry weapons.
To kill you don't need to do a lot of damage. 22LR's are easily capable of killing, not instantly but definitely will cause wounds that are fatal. A 7.62 may have more energy behind it than a 5.56 but the difference is immaterial when your targets are unarmoured. Accuracy is less important when you're engaging targets at close range, an inaccuracy of 2m at 500 m is not a problem at 50 m. For the Washington Sniper this mattered, but for a spree killer they dont care about accuracy or weapon power.
Your assertion is wrong, assault weapons are more dangerous than hunting rifles because things like long range accuracy and a minor increase in kinetic energy are inconsequential because the range is not long enough to make inaccuracy an issue and "low powered" assault rifle rounds are still powerful enough to easily kill (I use "low powered" sarcastically, a 5.56 mm round is low powered my arse)
Indeed, the amount of gun violence in the US is disproportionately higher than any other country on earth.
[citation needed]
I have no citation that the statement is correct, but here is citation that it is wrong:
List of countries by firearms related death rate.
If you sort on gun-homicides, you will see that the USA is 14th. Most of the "winners" are in Latin America.
The US is in the same league as third world nations. There's no point in saying "yay, Philippines and Colombia have more gun murders" because the Philippines and Columbia have serious civil insurgencies. Compared to other nations with a similar socio-economic status it's a huge difference. The US homicide rate is over 4 times greater than the next first world nation, Canada (CAN 0.76 / USA 3.7 ).
Comparing gun use in Switzerland to that in the US is like comparing chalk and cheese. Unless you're suggesting as a solution to gun crime that everyone of age should be conscripted to receive military training and the government should be allowed in private homes to audit your weapons?
Which one of you can tell me who Charles Whitman was.
So next years consoles are going to be inferior to last years PC? Personally I think between PC and mobile, the console is doomed. This will never happen with iDevices but Android tablets already support HDMI out and input from bluetooth controllers. All we need is for them to get a bit more powerful (Nvidia is advertising a 6 fold power increase between Tegra 2 and Tegra 3) and a method of transfering large games (SD card) and they will become plugin replacements for consoles.
As for real cutting edge games, these never left the PC because it was the only platform that could be counted on to increase in processing power.
Consoles were never about power, they were about the money. Carmack should know that. Casual games are now the big earners. This does not mean that traditional cutting edge games have no place, they're earning better than ever but it's still chicken feed compared to casual.
Console developers will follow the money, which is on mobile and cutting edge developers will concentrate on PC. Traditional Consoles are left with first party developers which wont cut it. Even Nintendo with it's Mario and Zelda cash cows would struggle if it doesn't adapt (I.E. release a tablet/console hybrid. They're half way there with the Wii U).
The old drone shaped USB drive trick
That's the third time I've fallen for that this week.
Windows users know that the world ended at the dawn of the Ballmerzoic Epoch in January 2000.
Microsoft End of the World Counter.
Microsoft(R)
End of the world predicted for: 2012, 2014, 2218, 1997,
Exactly. It's like seeing 999999 on the car odometer and thinking that the car will self destruct if you drive it one more kilometre (or mile, depending).
For sale.
1988 Toyota Camry, 999999K's, excellent cond. one lady owner.
$4000 o.n.o.
We are talking about enterprises, any enterprise that cares about a UI has already failed at running their enterprise. one of the big benefits of windows 2012 is finally the push towards completely headless servers. it was sorta their in 2008, but far more viable in 2012 with huge improvements to file system and virtualisation as well as storage and scalability. The enterprises I work with have zero interest in windows 8 but they are already in the process of deploying 2012.
LoL, Windows is not a headless server. Just because the head has been replaced with RDP/Terminal Services does not change the fact that the servers are GUI bound.
So sysadmins are going to care about the UI. Hell look at the flame wars between KDE/GNOME or VI/EMACS. UI is very important to people who use these systems day in and day out.
I'm going to guess you're a market drone, probably working for MS because what you posted is complete bollocks in the real world.
The World Bank has already rolled out Win8 to enterprise machines, via Dell hardware, and the machines boot into the desktop. So learning curve is near 0. Based on that, I doubt much trouble in the enterprise over this.
Ignoring the non-sequitur, meaning you provided no proof that there was zero learning curve (which we both know is bullshit, there was a learning curve between Win XP and Win7 and the UI was very, very similar) Windows 8 is going to have trouble in the enterprise because it is a radical change and enterprises are covered under SA/EA agreements which means they aren't forced to upgrade if they dont want to. There are still organisations on Windows XP because they don't want to go to 7.
I will give you windows 8. But Server 2012 is basically completely built around enterprise and while win 8 will probably be a failure in the enterprise, server 2012 will be a huge success with many large functionality upgrades.
As long as there is a way to change the interface back to "Classic".
They've put some kind of dodgy neutered form of Metro on Server 2012, it will seriously hinder it unless it can be replaced.
Windows 8 will be a complete failure