Absolutely. It's amazing the amount of utter tripe that gets posted to/. If you can't distinguish between "a technology" and "an application," you deserve to be consigned to the loony-bin. Whoever "manishs" is, he/she should be ashamed of owning this piece of nonsense.
Now, hackers won't have to deal with that pesky machine code to find the loopholes; they can look for intriguing bits of source code first. Should do wonders for the security of Government-held data, don't you think?
On the other hand, we can hope that "white hats" will do the same...but what's THEIR incentive to help government systems become even more secure? A bounty program would be nice...but not in a time when austerians are on the ascent!
Except, of course, government agencies and selected large corporations will continue to be allowed worldwide access, so they can break into foreign systems and advance their own technologies with what they can steal.
Then, somebody will figure out how those government-sanctioned breaches of their "Chinese Wall" are accomplished, then the crackdowns start anew.
The "only way?" Do you have NO faith in future developments that would dramatically reduce the per-capita/per-annum energy cost? Your grandchildren will think you a fool for such a sweeping, thoughtless assertion.
...the sun...kills tens of thousands of people every year from radiation-induced cancers.
And, there are well-known practices that limit that possibility of death from solar radiation. And, where do you get your "tens of thousands" estimate from, you a**?
Remember, Life is defined simply as: A sexually-transmitted fatal condition.
Anonymous Coward indeed. You think ENVIRONMENTALISTS are the problem. Where do you get YOUR air to breathe; YOUR water to drink. Environmentalists care that ALL of us have adequate resources for a happy, peaceful, long, healthy life.
Frankly, I wish/. would abandon the "Anonymous Coward" option; all it does is invite inane, thoughtless comments like yours.
...the developers, builders and operators have comprehensive plans for the life-cycle of the radioactive components and waste. In this era of the 1% (I'm including YOU, Duke Energy) feel their effluent is a "public" problem to be solved by somebody else, I will remain opposed. Fukushima was a wake-up call, especially when TEPCO (The Tokyo Electric Power Co.) tried to stonewall their obstructionism, and destroyed vast tracts of Japanese farmland. And, now, we see, an atomic facility North of Manhattan is about to (or may already have) fouled the waters in the vicinity to 10 Million people. Until they are personally and corporately responsible for ALL side-effects of their adoption of atomic energy, I am opposed to it. I'd rather not see us go back to the stone age, but renewable sources are better options, even though they have environmental costs, too.
Life is about trades-off. It not about getting rich, and leaving everybody else behind (yeah, I talk 'bout YOU, coal companies).
Probably, because our Legislators, largely still ignorant about computer "innards" can't understand it. We need population-wide, overarching understanding of systems, and how to design them. Coding is just capturing design in code. I'm amazed at the number of people who think "feedback" is either your critique of their latest ill-formed idea, or the sound that speakers make when the sound gets into the microphone. They have no concept of how "feedback" is--in the language of systems design and cybernetics--a much broader concept. The notions of sequence, iteration, conditional execution, and formal definition of values are utterly beyond most of today's adults, but second nature to those of us who'd learned how to translate those system implementations into reliable code. Teaching coding is about giving kids a tool set, and an old car, and say, "Go to it, kid!" They don't understand what the transmission is for, or the principals behind a crankshaft, no matter how many times they unbolt parts, and bolt them back on. Sure, they know that you're supposed to used a "torque wrench," but they seldom understand the concept of "torque" and why it's important...which is why the "shade tree mechanic's" only wrench is a pipe wrench.
If our electorate is to understand governments, and businesses, and economies are systems, they need to understand what systems are, and how they work, and how they can go wrong. Teaching them coding is just rote learning, and it imparts a false sense of "understanding" what systems are all about.
Actually, if local stations were to bit.ly to NPR's podcasts on their websites, they could promote them on their interstitial ads, and get local credit for doing so. But, NPR broadcast managers aren't the brightest bulbs in the bunch.
...while most kids who learn coding in school don't actually learn the higher level arts (e.g., system design; writing comprehensive--and comprehensible--specifications, etc.), they will gain an understanding of the sequential nature of today's software models, how much they can accomplish with just a few verbs and parameters, and the limitations/dangers of leaving things unspecified. In that way, they gain a deeper understanding of what we who program actually do, the limitations the technology imposes, and the inherent uncertainty remaining in code after has been deemed "complete." That should make the majority of them suspicious of their politicians who--in utter ignorance--make absurd statements about computer technology and its' effects on society.
Programming, in my view, is a way of understanding the core of knowledge about a subject, just like civics, and science, and math, that they will need to be successful citizens in the future. It is not coding/programming itself that is the lesson, but the abstract understanding of how to develop robust procedures, and the inherent limitations of that model.
It nothing else, it should make them wary of claims about self-driving vehicles, unconstrained spying technologies, and how votes are counted!
-inducer removed. If you don't have boots on the existing RJ45, you're going to waste a lot of time pulling that cable back out of the route it's on.
The problem is that impedance matching could be a problem over very long runs of cable with a smaller connector at very high speeds. It probably wouldn't be just a "scaled down" RJ-45 with a mandatory boot over the snag-inducing tab.
And, of course, you'd need to have (and keep in stock) RJ-45 to "New" connectors, both M/F and F/M genders, 'cause one has to accept a cable, and the other side has to accommodate the replacement standard. Ain't the march of technological improvements wonnerful?
Just because USB 3.x came out, USB 2.x and 1.0 haven't had to be changed! So, why would everybody have to retrofit? Dis CAT4 obsolete CAT3? Did CAT6 obsolete either predecessor? Are you even THINKING when you type?
...if you even BOTHERED to look at your Streaming GUI from a customers' perspective. Difficult to find anything, hard to stop and backup, or skip forward. It's as if you threw it together at a drunken party. I love to watch the content, but getting there and being able to control the experience is at about the Windows 3.1 level of design.
THEN brag about your production build process as something that turns a great user experience into code that delivers it!
Oh, I'm confident you're both testing it and sending feedback to M$. The issue is, DO THEY LISTEN? The answer is generally clear: Those folks in Redmond think they're smarter than you, so your opinions don't really matter. They just select the stuff they like, and share it with their investors to pump the stock.
...Inverse Square Law? Fer ******* sakes! Even a "focused" beam spreads out over distances. Those who dream of "laser propulsion" might think of a huge laser onboard, but the power source to drive it would be immense!
You are sensitive to 120 Hz (zero-crossing of the 60 Hz A.C. frequency)? That some pretty spectacular eyesight. Or, is there some other "flicker" rate I've never seen with an LED bulb?
...over the years--particularly successful one's, I find/. a rude, juvenile environment where putting someone down with nastiness is encouraged and applauded. How many legitimate questions have "well, get off the Internet," or "go read a book" or "use Linux" responses that are clearly intended to insult; I'm sure their authors are grinning at their own creativity, while the rest of us wish that would just go away.
A thread with posts from angry people is not a post I care to read. Moderators are desperately needed, who can simply "Hide" the offensive, off-topic stuff. If you really need your fix of dumb and nasty, you can still have it, but it wouldn't impede others from dealing with real substance.
The original poster at the top of a thread should also be a moderator for that thread: If responses are off-topic, nasty or just serve no useful to the purposes of the thread can be hidden so only those primarily interested in helping and sharing can play, and those of broken brain can still get their jollies with an extra click.
...we need to provide some useful guidance to Microsoft.
My problem is that like all "one-size-fits-all" products, Outlook is equally unusable by virtually anyone who tries to use it.
To me, the first question: Is Outlook an eMail client, or is it a Personal Information Manager? I can use Gmail if all I want is to send/receive/categorize mail. But, what I want is an integrated PIM: My eMail, Calendar, Contacts and Tasks, all together in one common place, and integrated with each other. Why, for example, do I have to work so hard to put someone's eMail address in the "To:" field (click the field, open Contacts, search for the name...which is poorly implemented in the first place)? I should be able to start typing the user's name (say, last name first, or first name first, depending on your preference setting), and it should provide me with a number of entries, until I provide enough information to reduce it down to some small number (also configurable; say, 10), from which I can select my intended recipient(s) for that eMail. Why can't Calendar and Task documents be directly linked to the Contact(s) they include (if any), so I can see all my transactions centered around a particular person, all in one place, both past and future.
Think of the Real-Estate Broker trying to deal with multiple, on-going offers and bids and other questions. How is that stuff organized? It's organized by ADDRESS of the subject property. What makes it easier than to give the user a map to pick from, and--after they've got it all set up--the names of Buyers and Sellers associated with the address involved in the transaction? Then, link all the Tasks, Appointments, Buyers, Sellers and Others (lawyers, CPAs, etc.). And, provide a way to link to other documents, on- or off-line (e.g., draft contracts). THAT makes the customers' life easier, because all he/she thinks about every day are properties, uniquely identified by address. Click on the map of properties for which that broker has contracts (to sell, lease, rent or buy), and everything is available. In other words: Provide a platform for which experts in a field can build a user-oriented experience, without having to get all users to comply/conform to ideas spawned by some group of geeks writing the code for the product. These would become the "new apps" for Outlook, and another competitive market is built up.
The second question: Why does the GUI have to be so clumsy, so artificial, and so hard to customize? Give me a starting point for the GUI...maybe 10 possible templates from which to choose: "Friends and Family" and "Small Business" and "Enterprise" and "Smartphone". THEN, let me customize if I want.
The third question: Why do things have to have bizarre names known only to M$ and geeks? "File / Options" is an example...What the @#%&(& does Options have to do with File? Call it what it is: Personalization, and give me a place (out of the way, like a drop-down list in the right margin of the app) where I can go do that. Burying things under complex menus with bizarre names picked by geeks is not user-friendly. And don't get me started on the transmogrification of the common word "Ribbon."
If "Outlook" is the product name, in short, give real-live people in real-live situations the ability to apply a template (which can then be customized) to provide an up-to-the-minute status report, and to "peer" into (aka have an "outlook" on) the near future. It should work for Granny, with a far-flung network of offspring and friends (super-simple menu), and it should work for the CEO/Admin team, so they can work seamlessly together via computer, cloud or smartphone (separate menus for CEO and for Admin, each working on the same data.
Outlook is STILL stuck in the 2003 era, and my Outlook 2013 shows it. It's time for a radical re-think of what a useful tool, all-in-one (not in separate applications) Outlook COULD be, instead of just putting another coat of paint over the old girl and let her continue to look grotesque and work ineptly.
Try reading my post again, and this time, try putting a brain on for a change. I OVERCAME the gender issues, but I had to learn how to deal with them, and the men in my (personal and professional) life didn't.
With posts like yours, it's abundantly clear that "(my) gender IS the Fucking Issue", you Neanderthal!
So, you have so much experience living and working as a woman, have you, Cedric?
What kind of warped thinking has to be injected into your poor, wounded ego to vent your spleen at a woman who DARES to actually share her real experience.
Go back to your cave (you DID understand the "shadows" reference, didn't you...or was that wa-a-ay over your head?
As a woman who's been in the electronics/computer field for more than 55 years, now, I read with much disgust the attempts by some in this thread to discount women, and then claim that, somehow, "It ain't true."
Believe me, I've been there. After three books, hundreds of published papers and articles, and decades of consulting to Fortune 500 firms, I have been on the receiving end of the misogynistic "swinging dicks" who couldn't write a competent subroutine or draw a working circuit if their lives depended on it. I can (and, in the past, have) named names and identified organizations where women dare not go. What's interesting is having the CEO of a Fortune 500 company hire me (at $2,500/day) and then have twerps three years out of school decide they know more than I and refuse my counsel because my anatomy is different from theirs. Usually, there's a competent male around who steps in and shuts the abuse down. When there's not, I have developed a strong skill in suckering such blithering idiots into cul de sacs of their own ignorant reasoning, until they are reduced to mumbling to themselves. But, why should I ever have had to DEVELOP that skill?
We are all born the same way, and discover our gender as we grow up...but, due to family influences (e.g., drunken men abusing their wives, "men of the house" who want their women "barefoot and pregnant"), some males grow up with a tacit belief that women are, somehow, inferior to men. There's a name for these people: They are BIGOTS (and it often extends to other differences, like cultural heritage, skin color, education, that are patently irrelevant to judging whether the person is "human" or not).
Fortunately, not all men are chained to this philosphers' wall, drawing conclusions from shadows and accepting them as fact. There are many men who exhibit humanity and treat ALL others with respect and dignity...and they are a delight to work alongside. Unfortunately, they are outnumbered by the dolts, in my experience.
...then new owners decided they're in it for the money, not customer satisfaction and a reasonable profit. So, I didn't see this; I've already migrated all my clients to Webroot...cheaper, better, and without all the self-serving pop-up messages or uninvited "adds-on" to other products and the O.S.
Webroot is a good product, albeit underdocumented (what is it with all these security companies who think their products don't need or shouldn't have Admin or User documentation???).
eMail is not a storage medium; it is for short communiques, and sometimes those lead to threads while an issue is threshed through. But using your eMail system for historical storage is like buying a small automobile for long-haul freight. Or, using Twitter to negotiate a contract.
Decide what of all your data you intend keep, and find a useful, generic tool for storage and retrieval, irrespective of content.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely. It's amazing the amount of utter tripe that gets posted to /. If you can't distinguish between "a technology" and "an application," you deserve to be consigned to the loony-bin. Whoever "manishs" is, he/she should be ashamed of owning this piece of nonsense.
Now, hackers won't have to deal with that pesky machine code to find the loopholes; they can look for intriguing bits of source code first. Should do wonders for the security of Government-held data, don't you think?
On the other hand, we can hope that "white hats" will do the same...but what's THEIR incentive to help government systems become even more secure? A bounty program would be nice...but not in a time when austerians are on the ascent!
Except, of course, government agencies and selected large corporations will continue to be allowed worldwide access, so they can break into foreign systems and advance their own technologies with what they can steal.
Then, somebody will figure out how those government-sanctioned breaches of their "Chinese Wall" are accomplished, then the crackdowns start anew.
The "only way?" Do you have NO faith in future developments that would dramatically reduce the per-capita/per-annum energy cost? Your grandchildren will think you a fool for such a sweeping, thoughtless assertion.
...the sun...kills tens of thousands of people every year from radiation-induced cancers.
And, there are well-known practices that limit that possibility of death from solar radiation. And, where do you get your "tens of thousands" estimate from, you a**?
Remember, Life is defined simply as: A sexually-transmitted fatal condition.
Anonymous Coward indeed. You think ENVIRONMENTALISTS are the problem. Where do you get YOUR air to breathe; YOUR water to drink. Environmentalists care that ALL of us have adequate resources for a happy, peaceful, long, healthy life.
Frankly, I wish /. would abandon the "Anonymous Coward" option; all it does is invite inane, thoughtless comments like yours.
...the developers, builders and operators have comprehensive plans for the life-cycle of the radioactive components and waste.
In this era of the 1% (I'm including YOU, Duke Energy) feel their effluent is a "public" problem to be solved by somebody else, I will remain opposed. Fukushima was a wake-up call, especially when TEPCO (The Tokyo Electric Power Co.) tried to stonewall their obstructionism, and destroyed vast tracts of Japanese farmland. And, now, we see, an atomic facility North of Manhattan is about to (or may already have) fouled the waters in the vicinity to 10 Million people. Until they are personally and corporately responsible for ALL side-effects of their adoption of atomic energy, I am opposed to it. I'd rather not see us go back to the stone age, but renewable sources are better options, even though they have environmental costs, too.
Life is about trades-off. It not about getting rich, and leaving everybody else behind (yeah, I talk 'bout YOU, coal companies).
Probably, because our Legislators, largely still ignorant about computer "innards" can't understand it. We need population-wide, overarching understanding of systems, and how to design them. Coding is just capturing design in code. I'm amazed at the number of people who think "feedback" is either your critique of their latest ill-formed idea, or the sound that speakers make when the sound gets into the microphone. They have no concept of how "feedback" is--in the language of systems design and cybernetics--a much broader concept. The notions of sequence, iteration, conditional execution, and formal definition of values are utterly beyond most of today's adults, but second nature to those of us who'd learned how to translate those system implementations into reliable code. Teaching coding is about giving kids a tool set, and an old car, and say, "Go to it, kid!" They don't understand what the transmission is for, or the principals behind a crankshaft, no matter how many times they unbolt parts, and bolt them back on. Sure, they know that you're supposed to used a "torque wrench," but they seldom understand the concept of "torque" and why it's important...which is why the "shade tree mechanic's" only wrench is a pipe wrench.
If our electorate is to understand governments, and businesses, and economies are systems, they need to understand what systems are, and how they work, and how they can go wrong. Teaching them coding is just rote learning, and it imparts a false sense of "understanding" what systems are all about.
Actually, if local stations were to bit.ly to NPR's podcasts on their websites, they could promote them on their interstitial ads, and get local credit for doing so. But, NPR broadcast managers aren't the brightest bulbs in the bunch.
...while most kids who learn coding in school don't actually learn the higher level arts (e.g., system design; writing comprehensive--and comprehensible--specifications, etc.), they will gain an understanding of the sequential nature of today's software models, how much they can accomplish with just a few verbs and parameters, and the limitations/dangers of leaving things unspecified. In that way, they gain a deeper understanding of what we who program actually do, the limitations the technology imposes, and the inherent uncertainty remaining in code after has been deemed "complete." That should make the majority of them suspicious of their politicians who--in utter ignorance--make absurd statements about computer technology and its' effects on society.
Programming, in my view, is a way of understanding the core of knowledge about a subject, just like civics, and science, and math, that they will need to be successful citizens in the future. It is not coding/programming itself that is the lesson, but the abstract understanding of how to develop robust procedures, and the inherent limitations of that model.
It nothing else, it should make them wary of claims about self-driving vehicles, unconstrained spying technologies, and how votes are counted!
-inducer removed. If you don't have boots on the existing RJ45, you're going to waste a lot of time pulling that cable back out of the route it's on.
The problem is that impedance matching could be a problem over very long runs of cable with a smaller connector at very high speeds. It probably wouldn't be just a "scaled down" RJ-45 with a mandatory boot over the snag-inducing tab.
And, of course, you'd need to have (and keep in stock) RJ-45 to "New" connectors, both M/F and F/M genders, 'cause one has to accept a cable, and the other side has to accommodate the replacement standard. Ain't the march of technological improvements wonnerful?
Sure; let's set up WIFI only for Corporations with 10,000 people on a campus! Great idea!!!
Just because USB 3.x came out, USB 2.x and 1.0 haven't had to be changed! So, why would everybody have to retrofit? Dis CAT4 obsolete CAT3? Did CAT6 obsolete either predecessor? Are you even THINKING when you type?
...if you even BOTHERED to look at your Streaming GUI from a customers' perspective. Difficult to find anything, hard to stop and backup, or skip forward. It's as if you threw it together at a drunken party. I love to watch the content, but getting there and being able to control the experience is at about the Windows 3.1 level of design.
THEN brag about your production build process as something that turns a great user experience into code that delivers it!
Oh, I'm confident you're both testing it and sending feedback to M$. The issue is, DO THEY LISTEN? The answer is generally clear: Those folks in Redmond think they're smarter than you, so your opinions don't really matter. They just select the stuff they like, and share it with their investors to pump the stock.
Amen! It's why I dropped out already. With current management, they have a BIG MOUTH and only teentsy ears, which they're selective about using.
...Inverse Square Law? Fer ******* sakes! Even a "focused" beam spreads out over distances. Those who dream of "laser propulsion" might think of a huge laser onboard, but the power source to drive it would be immense!
Is it April 1st, yet?
You are sensitive to 120 Hz (zero-crossing of the 60 Hz A.C. frequency)? That some pretty spectacular eyesight.
Or, is there some other "flicker" rate I've never seen with an LED bulb?
...over the years--particularly successful one's, I find /. a rude, juvenile environment where putting someone down with nastiness is encouraged and applauded. How many legitimate questions have "well, get off the Internet," or "go read a book" or "use Linux" responses that are clearly intended to insult; I'm sure their authors are grinning at their own creativity, while the rest of us wish that would just go away.
A thread with posts from angry people is not a post I care to read. Moderators are desperately needed, who can simply "Hide" the offensive, off-topic stuff. If you really need your fix of dumb and nasty, you can still have it, but it wouldn't impede others from dealing with real substance.
The original poster at the top of a thread should also be a moderator for that thread: If responses are off-topic, nasty or just serve no useful to the purposes of the thread can be hidden so only those primarily interested in helping and sharing can play, and those of broken brain can still get their jollies with an extra click.
...we need to provide some useful guidance to Microsoft.
My problem is that like all "one-size-fits-all" products, Outlook is equally unusable by virtually anyone who tries to use it.
To me, the first question: Is Outlook an eMail client, or is it a Personal Information Manager? I can use Gmail if all I want is to send/receive/categorize mail. But, what I want is an integrated PIM: My eMail, Calendar, Contacts and Tasks, all together in one common place, and integrated with each other. Why, for example, do I have to work so hard to put someone's eMail address in the "To:" field (click the field, open Contacts, search for the name...which is poorly implemented in the first place)? I should be able to start typing the user's name (say, last name first, or first name first, depending on your preference setting), and it should provide me with a number of entries, until I provide enough information to reduce it down to some small number (also configurable; say, 10), from which I can select my intended recipient(s) for that eMail. Why can't Calendar and Task documents be directly linked to the Contact(s) they include (if any), so I can see all my transactions centered around a particular person, all in one place, both past and future.
Think of the Real-Estate Broker trying to deal with multiple, on-going offers and bids and other questions. How is that stuff organized? It's organized by ADDRESS of the subject property. What makes it easier than to give the user a map to pick from, and--after they've got it all set up--the names of Buyers and Sellers associated with the address involved in the transaction? Then, link all the Tasks, Appointments, Buyers, Sellers and Others (lawyers, CPAs, etc.). And, provide a way to link to other documents, on- or off-line (e.g., draft contracts). THAT makes the customers' life easier, because all he/she thinks about every day are properties, uniquely identified by address. Click on the map of properties for which that broker has contracts (to sell, lease, rent or buy), and everything is available. In other words: Provide a platform for which experts in a field can build a user-oriented experience, without having to get all users to comply/conform to ideas spawned by some group of geeks writing the code for the product. These would become the "new apps" for Outlook, and another competitive market is built up.
The second question: Why does the GUI have to be so clumsy, so artificial, and so hard to customize? Give me a starting point for the GUI...maybe 10 possible templates from which to choose: "Friends and Family" and "Small Business" and "Enterprise" and "Smartphone". THEN, let me customize if I want.
The third question: Why do things have to have bizarre names known only to M$ and geeks? "File / Options" is an example...What the @#%&(& does Options have to do with File? Call it what it is: Personalization, and give me a place (out of the way, like a drop-down list in the right margin of the app) where I can go do that. Burying things under complex menus with bizarre names picked by geeks is not user-friendly. And don't get me started on the transmogrification of the common word "Ribbon."
If "Outlook" is the product name, in short, give real-live people in real-live situations the ability to apply a template (which can then be customized) to provide an up-to-the-minute status report, and to "peer" into (aka have an "outlook" on) the near future. It should work for Granny, with a far-flung network of offspring and friends (super-simple menu), and it should work for the CEO/Admin team, so they can work seamlessly together via computer, cloud or smartphone (separate menus for CEO and for Admin, each working on the same data.
Outlook is STILL stuck in the 2003 era, and my Outlook 2013 shows it. It's time for a radical re-think of what a useful tool, all-in-one (not in separate applications) Outlook COULD be, instead of just putting another coat of paint over the old girl and let her continue to look grotesque and work ineptly.
Try reading my post again, and this time, try putting a brain on for a change. I OVERCAME the gender issues, but I had to learn how to deal with them, and the men in my (personal and professional) life didn't.
With posts like yours, it's abundantly clear that "(my) gender IS the Fucking Issue", you Neanderthal!
So, you have so much experience living and working as a woman, have you, Cedric?
What kind of warped thinking has to be injected into your poor, wounded ego to vent your spleen at a woman who DARES to actually share her real experience.
Go back to your cave (you DID understand the "shadows" reference, didn't you...or was that wa-a-ay over your head?
As a woman who's been in the electronics/computer field for more than 55 years, now, I read with much disgust the attempts by some in this thread to discount women, and then claim that, somehow, "It ain't true."
Believe me, I've been there. After three books, hundreds of published papers and articles, and decades of consulting to Fortune 500 firms, I have been on the receiving end of the misogynistic "swinging dicks" who couldn't write a competent subroutine or draw a working circuit if their lives depended on it. I can (and, in the past, have) named names and identified organizations where women dare not go. What's interesting is having the CEO of a Fortune 500 company hire me (at $2,500/day) and then have twerps three years out of school decide they know more than I and refuse my counsel because my anatomy is different from theirs. Usually, there's a competent male around who steps in and shuts the abuse down. When there's not, I have developed a strong skill in suckering such blithering idiots into cul de sacs of their own ignorant reasoning, until they are reduced to mumbling to themselves. But, why should I ever have had to DEVELOP that skill?
We are all born the same way, and discover our gender as we grow up...but, due to family influences (e.g., drunken men abusing their wives, "men of the house" who want their women "barefoot and pregnant"), some males grow up with a tacit belief that women are, somehow, inferior to men. There's a name for these people: They are BIGOTS (and it often extends to other differences, like cultural heritage, skin color, education, that are patently irrelevant to judging whether the person is "human" or not).
Fortunately, not all men are chained to this philosphers' wall, drawing conclusions from shadows and accepting them as fact. There are many men who exhibit humanity and treat ALL others with respect and dignity...and they are a delight to work alongside. Unfortunately, they are outnumbered by the dolts, in my experience.
...then new owners decided they're in it for the money, not customer satisfaction and a reasonable profit. So, I didn't see this; I've already migrated all my clients to Webroot...cheaper, better, and without all the self-serving pop-up messages or uninvited "adds-on" to other products and the O.S.
Webroot is a good product, albeit underdocumented (what is it with all these security companies who think their products don't need or shouldn't have Admin or User documentation???).
...Solving the wrong problem.
eMail is not a storage medium; it is for short communiques, and sometimes those lead to threads while an issue is threshed through. But using your eMail system for historical storage is like buying a small automobile for long-haul freight. Or, using Twitter to negotiate a contract.
Decide what of all your data you intend keep, and find a useful, generic tool for storage and retrieval, irrespective of content.