265 posts • joined 22 Nov 2012
As much I hate MS software being a Fanboi too, I did buy Office 365 for my home computer just because of Excel.
I could not believe that Excel had better Applescript support than Numbers. I could have lived with Numbers if it only had supported Applescript better, and script away the problems it has. But no Excel is unfortunately the only spreadsheet that works for an advanced user.
Outlook is, dare I say it, damn useful. Integrating a calendar with email is so obvious and so useful that I've often wondered why the concept hasn't been cloned into open source yet (and before you say it, I don't have the time to do it myself or the leadership skills to assemble a team to help).
This is the biggest fault with how outlook is designed. You don't want mail and calendar to be the same app. They should integrate with each other but let a calendar app do calendars well and a mail client mail well. For sure invitations etc should integrate just as it does with Apple products. But hey having calender in the mail app is my biggest complaint about Outlooks UI.
Re: An amazing piece of work?
Why can't outlook handle conversations properly, a simple iThingy handles that with excellence.
How outlook handles it is a joke with no comparison.
What about meta data, why can't I easily connect mails in a conversation (non existent) to some metadata as e.g. a service request number to easily link mails to other work activities.
Why can't I run something similar as AppleScript on it, why are the rules implementation so restrictive to be almost unusable?
MS software is a pain, as i said above consumer products are today more advanced than enterprise products, they may not be enterprise friendly, but they sure give the user better workflow possibilities.
Re: Lack of integrated email/contacts/calendar?
Do you remember the study they did. If I recall correctly, Mac's were considered, they were also forecasted to have the lowest support and maintenance cost of all platforms, but the highest investment cost for a change, was it roughly 3 times higher than continue with pc's.
The mac way would have had MS Office and Exchange support, apps would have been quite similar to work with, that meant lower training costs than going with Linux.
I still don't understand what the criterias was that made them go with Linux. They surely were not criterias that was made from the users perspective.
I may though mix it up with another similar study. As I've read a few of them.
Re: Lack of integrated email/contacts/calendar?
"I can only assume that you have never used Outlook / Lync / Unified Messaging - together with Office / Sharepoint / Yammer, etc? It's awesome. There is no comparison to any other product - it's the best integrated suite and the most powerful and pleasant to use product in that space that there is by a long long way."
I use them every day at work, and they purely suck. Outlook is a beast without comparison, Lync is faster than the crippleware Communicator, but has less functionality. Sharepoint, is a pain to use, that may though be our IT departments fault can't really say, still a pain and I'm missing a lot of key functionality that I do expect from it.
It's funny how consumer products are today more advanced than enterprise products.
1. Defenition of a Computer Virus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_virus
Se part "Vulnerability of different operating systems to viruses" and look for the reference... compare that with:
2. Defenition of Malware.
AV is only needed for just that Viruses. Some users use AV to shield them from being fooled with a trojan horse, that's fine. The problem is definitely not that we don't run AV software.
I do have an AV program, I use it only to scan some windows files now and then, like once or twice every fifth year. Yeah I'm a fanboi.
Re: We know The Register hates everything about Apple
Well it's easy, when you're about to buy that PC, just double the time you spent saving for it and you can afford a mac. You won't upgrade that often afterwards anyway. I got 8 years on my mac in october.
Re: Polar Bear
Is that Masai Mara, or some other Mara?
Apple had a computer, the Powerbook G4 Titanium, the hinges cracked on it.
As a side affect some airlines did prohibit it as the x-ray would not reveal anything inside them
Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle
More CO2 causes vegetation to grow faster, converting sunlight CO2 and water to; water vapor, sugar and O2.
This happens both above ground and under water. In aquariums, you know the really nice ones, google aquascape, they are infused with about 25 times more CO2 than plants normally gets in the wild.
It's all good as long as you keep your PH under check.
I'm in no denial that the climate is changing, it is, and it is mostly due to human activity. But please don't just blame CO2. The problem is more complex than that. CO2 is part of a ecological balancing process, CO2 is not bad as long as that process functions. I'm of the opinion that humans interfere way to much with the natures ecological processes. Why we may have a problem with CO2, but it's not CO2's fault.
Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle
Yes you are correct, if you only would be using Kelvin degrees instead of as we humans do, comfortable temperature.
We tend to think a weather that is hotter than our comfort zone is warm climate. And that weather that is colder than our comfort zone is cold climate.
If the rising average temperature on the globe was spread even on our planet you would have seen changes. As the Ice has just started to melt. We are just above 0C. We used to be under that.
So if the weather should be evened out, all of us would be freezing. In a country where there is lot's of winter, +1C is the worst kind of weather you can have. Everything get's wet and is bloody cold. -1C is much better as everything is stays dry and you feel warmer, though it is actually colder.
So stop talking about your feelings when others talk science.
Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle
Apparently it is 1 rabid extremist out of 4.
25%, sounds about right.
Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle
I live in those cold areas. I find it quite simple, when you put an ice-cream on the table and let it melt, it will expand over the table. The icecream is getting warmer, but the table is cooling down. The areas close to the ice-cream but not under the ice-cream will soon be covered in cold icecream.
So yes, that is only natural. Until the ice is all melted I'm expecting to freeze more than I do now. On the southpole we have -60C in the air (water temperature is more important btw). In sahara we have +60C. The average of those are 0C degrees.
So if earth's average temperature raises from 0.2C to 0.6C you still will freeze your bum off as that is almost freezing temperatures. Greetings from a country with more winter than summer.
So the chance is that Apple had it patented before HTC is actually 10 out of 12 based on the information you give and is found in this thread.
Oh wanna bet money on HTC was first with such odds? No, don't look it up... just state your bet...
Re: 3 Wise Men
It doesn't even call them wise men, we read instead that they were astrologers. Something that was disgusting, and something to be extinguished in ancient the Jewish society.
Re: Hell on earth
Yes, but I don't have to imagine it, I'm in it 5/7 days in a week. I'm typing this from something creepy with Windows.
If that would be the case, they would be excellent on a mac but their not.
Google is building their own platform. Mostly based on Android. They use macs at the moment for that. They started refusing windows after security issues they had. Before those it was optional for each worker to choose his platform.
Linux simply isn't as dynamic as OSX. It's fast and great for many tasks. But it's a much more fragmented base to build on. And support for specific configurations may simply not be there. OSX has much less of that hazzle. And basically everything is easily portable between the *nix'es and Unixes.
If that wouldn't be the case Google would be using Chrome Books.
Science even prove you wrong on that last statement. Scientists pursue their theses, even when science shows that it can't be so. One example is the search for life on Mars with our probes. We know enough to say that Mars is and has been lifeless. No need to send any probes looking for life, just waste of money and resources. Note, I'm not against missions to outer space, I just don't like it when they waste their time on futile tasks. They should know better than that.
We all believe in something, and many are willing to fight for their beliefs, just look at Richard Dawkins. He has a religious belief in that science will show that there exist no God. He is probably much excited about the tasks the probes to mars have been given.
Most of the atheists commenting here believes in the evolution theory, even to the point that they dismiss part's of the evolution theory, e.g. on the subject of adaptation while discussing with a theist.
Quite often the atheist says adaptation is not random, though the evolution theory in it's current state says adaptation comes through random mutations, where one in thousands/millions/billion/whatever mutations happens to be beneficial. Then natural selection after that would do it's work.
Last time I had this discussion here quite a few rejected the idea of random events that would lead to adaptation. In fact by doing so giving their God the name "the evolution theory". It's a religious behaviour, not one based on science or reason. They simply said it's not based on random events, but it's adaptation.
Now an adaptation not based on random mutations, would be an adaptation to either be based on a "mind" (note the citation marks) of the creature of itself to adapt to a certain situation, or be based on a pre programmed code for adaptation by a creator.
Both of those statements are contrary to the evolution theory itself, so an atheist who does not acknowledge this part of the evolution theory is simply religious in his belief, though he's an atheist.
Religion is not necessarily equal to a belief in a God or Gods.
Re: Microsoft account needed for Facebook? ??
That's why you all should go OSX.
But for me as an old macer, I can't stand the Dock or the taskbar, their functionality are so limited, and the designers have placed them wrong causing extra movements.
MS was almost cracking how it should be made with Vista. Yes Vista had one good feature that it beat all other systems with. They had the bar where gadgets lived, this was perfect at what it did. The only good development with vista UI and they removed it in Win7.
Instead they should have continued the development to make it replace the other stupidly designed user elements.
Re: I love...
Sometimes the dumbed down way is the smartest way to go.
And that is why i like iOS over android. I don't want to fiddle around with it. I want it to do what I asked it to do.
I did my fiddling and customizations when I was a teenager. I the days when System 7.x was the most customizable OS ever.
I'm feed up with it, don't want to as all it does is force me to do more fiddling around at a later stage.
Actually this it what we see.
Why are <insert non Apple phone maker name here> fans in a perpetual cycle of looking for new metrics to "prove" that their <same non Apple phone maker name device> is better than a Apple device?
iPhone users can't even brag over specs between iPhones. There is no way to tell the difference between a 16GB version and a 64GB version just by looking at it's outer appearance. It's simply just an iPhone that's all.
Re: Junk business
Got a mac, got a iphone, got a ipad, I do all of that on every device. So in what way are Apple users different that the average Windroid?
It seems that we use the tech, where ever we want and are comfortable with it.
One thing more, if you do afford an utterly expensive iPhone (yes I said it, not overpriced but very expensive), you probably also afford a data plan that covers your web habits on the phone). For me I see no reason to go to the computer for reading a mail or doing some web surfing. Infact I prefer to do those activities under iOS than under OSX.
Maybe the experience of surfing the web and doing email on a android device hasn't matured yet to the state that you guys prefer to do these activities on a android device. I'm not sure.
On the other hand, I also have my own domain for handling my own private email. I guess most droiders use gmail.
Re: Well, two thoughts...
What about using the waste in modern Nuclear power plants that can (could as no one builds them).
That might very well be due to some countries want's nuclear weapons too, so they build power plants that would feed them with such waste materials.
But the designs that could use the waste from normal nuclear power plants have been out there for decades now, I assume as the first time I read about them is pretty long time ago. Still the designs that are built are based on tech from the 60's. Common build something that at least is based on the tech from the 80's why is it so hard to use all the research that has been done?
Are we afraid of building modern plants, is it that everyone want's someone else to take the risk of introducing something new?
I understand countries that have nuclear weapons, but smaller countries as those within EU who build nuclear power plants but have no intention of producing such weapons. Why buy the same old designs from Japan?
Re: No middle ground for the hard Greens...
Blaming industrialised countries problem on developing countries, we heard it before, it's nothing new, just a way to remove one's own responsibility upon others. Imperialism?
If anyone can do anything about it's emissions it's the developed countries. If they learn how to control it they can show the developing countries how to build their infrastructure. Not the other way around as you imply, that the developing countries should solve the industrialised countries problems for them.
If you wouldn't had been so incredibly ignorant of your own responsibility I would have voted you up. As I can't stand the logics from the green movements either. But in comparison to your logic they are Einstein's each one of them.
Fortunate for you, you understood to comment as anonymous.
Re: Oh dear - oh dear oh dear oh dear
"That wasn't the case, but it didn't mean evolution wasn't science."
I'm gonna get downvoted here, but that is actually exactly what it it means.
So far no new kind of animal has been produced in a test lab, nothing that goes beyond simple variations in one kind of animal. Flies continue to be flies, mice continue to be mice.
Crossbreeding has been practised for millennias to get a new specimen of one kind, it was this knowledge that made Darwin form his theory on how all the kinds of animals we see could have evolved from just one or a few, but it has never been observed or proven by any predictable repeatable test.
Unless you're one of those that believe evolution is not gradual, as if one day an elephant will give birth to two mice one female and one male. But I assume there are very few evolutionists agreeing with that view anymore. Rather is the idea of infinite random mutations over time that will allow for adaptation to a new specimen and eventually a whole new kind of animal to be formed, that is popular for the time being.
What has been observed to happen is that one kind of organism do adapt to their environment. But never that they would have become a new organism from what they were before.
What we see is that an adapted specimen still is based on the original genetic code.
Re: Multiple universes?
Re: @ skelband - Hawink trolling again.
Circular arguments prove nothing for science.
Just test it in Excel, even MS acknowledges this as an error.
"What's the probability for life to evolve spontaneously in the universe, well we are here so it must be 1."
Try this in Excel, set A1 to = B1 then set B1 to = A1.
Unfortunately that is the argument we hear way too often, when one start to discuss the probability for life to appear spontaneously.
Re: doth protest too much....
"Sadly, Hawkins is chasing his dreams, and not the observed facts. That he finds the Higgs boring, might suggest he does not have an interest in scientific fact (mathematical of physics), but in what he wishes to be true?"
Well this is true with every scientist, and every one of us here to. Those who downvote such post's as yours, have not yet come to realise that about themselves or about other.
People believe in what they want to believe in, theists have different views of god and use science to different grades. Some atheists even believe we were created by aliens, many atheists believe life will be found in the universe outside where we humans have been, as it evolves by itself. Why the mars probes sent there, are programed to search for evidence of life. Some scientist believe life came from Mars to Earth. As they realise that the Miller Urey test pretty much proves that amino acids could not form spontaneously on earth.
However if only all these would had looked at the science they would have known that they would never find traces of life on Mars. And that is what the reports form the probes now are confirming. Mars has never had life. And I could tell that just from the fact that Mars lack a magnetosphere. But no, scientist believe what they want to believe, despite the facts.
I would have rather programmed those probes to start terraforming mars, than to have them search for something that they can not find. But that could as well be just as futile quest. I'm not sure, but Mars gravity could very well be to low for making it to a second earth. However that is actually more difficult question to answer, if mars could be terraformed, than if it has had life on it. Mars has never had life. But it may have in the future.
Still that is what the scientist want to believe in an pursue.
He's excited about the fact that birds flew during the dino era.
According to evolutionists birds are a result of reptiles evolving to birds, basically dinos became birds. But this shows that birds did fly already while dinos walked, before they had learned to fly.
So in a scientific world, he's unwrapping a significant if not revolutionary find. That's why he's excited about it.
Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline
I wasn't pleading to use science to prove god, nor disprove god.
I was pleading to use science to prove or disprove our theories about life and how it became to be. Please do the second calculation I proposed. Let us then discuss what is plausible.
I've done it and I do see huge problems with million years of evolution. There problems way of the top with just 100k years. It doesn't take 100k years to produce 7 billion (7 000 000 000) people. Just to give you a figure. If you start from just one family, and each generation produces 3 kids that are fertile and reproduce. ( I'm generalizing and simplifying it a lot to make it fit into this comment, and in a proper time frame) it takes only 57 generations. If one generation is 40 years. That is only 2440 years. If take 100 years for each generation to reproduce it takes only 5700 years.
Now we know that not every child reproduced nor in the same uniform amount. But we also know that families generally has been much larger that that family over the history. So it compensates to a large amount for the lost children. Now if each generation would only reproduce at a age of 200, 3 kids that would reproduce at the age of 200 additional 3 kids. It would only take 11400 years to reach 7 billion people.
That we are a result of neandertals etc that lived so long ago simply don't fit real science. It's mathematically impossible.
And i did refer to legends of non Jewish myths, true enough the story is found in the abrahamic religions to. But its by far not unique to them. I doubt that the people in Hawai had anything to do with christians or jews at all, or those in australia or in canada, etc etc.
Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline
You have to start from somewhere.
If you claim that the first DNA came by adaptation. You actually give it godly attributes.
If you can produce that first living cell with it's first dna molecule without intelligence, you need to be able to do it by random events. Spontaneous in this case is just another word for random. If spontaneous isn't random it has a mind and something intelligent behind it that tells it to adapt in a certain way.
This is what you don't seem to understand, what they call spontaneous here refers to mutations, that all happen quite seldom but do happen. E.g. cancer cells are mutated cells and have gone through a spontaneous mutation. The evolutionists calls this event adaptation when it has a positive result. This actually has not been observed yet to happen, all observed mutations have so far been degeneration, that is have an negative effect on the organism, making it weaker, and you know natural selection takes care of the rest.
So yes, they all go back to that random statement, because that is what the whole evolution theory claims and builds upon. If you don't understand it, maybe you need to study it more carefully. It's mindless, has no goal, nor intelligence behind it.
You need to create that first life form by pure random events, else it wasn't random and therefore wasn't spontaneous.
Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline
"Random? What is random about it? It isnt a spontaneous adjustment but a gradual adjustment over time. Viruses and bacteria are pretty good to see this because they have to modify (significantly for them) to survive."
Based on random mutations in the genes. First to have life you need genes to be coded, by non intelligence.
So its based on random events. Everything else implies intelligence, or a plan to go from one state to the other. So it's all random, with a few positive results, or it's intelligent.
If you claim anything else you don't understand it or you give the Evolution godly attributes. If you do that, you actually refer to evolution as the god. Or you realise that it has to be based on random events. This is though what many true evolutionists claim.
Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline
The idea was that with science we can prove what some consider science to be false.
If you actually did the second calculation, you would see that the belief that we being a result of million of years of random evolution is pretty non scientific. The numbers simply don't fit with our reality.
I consider math, physics, biology, etc to be forms of science. I've come to the conclusion that the evolution theory has rather become a religion to atheists than pure science. You do find some scientific reasoning in it, but to a large part it's a conviction of that everything has become to be by randomization, with other words based on some sort of faith. And many of their claims can be refuted by science, if you just care enough to critically test the claims with known science forms, rather than just blindly follow.
Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline
No, why would they answer that.
Magic would be something that is impossible. So weather you believe in a God or not would not change the situation not knowing how the universe is built, or more correctly "was" built in that case.
Just because someone believes it was created does not automatically translate to they know the answers to how. For them science is used to learn how it's formed, just as it is for atheist. And just as every scientist don't agree with every other scientist on the subject they study you will find areas where those won't agree with each other. I don't think anyone religious or not claim to know everything.
Here are my two cents in this topic, you may agree with me or not.
The evolutionist believes basically that with a random series of events, likely or not over a infinite long period of time life has come to be and evolved to different beings. The claim is that with "infinite" time it's bout to happen somewhere somehow. Most of the event won't lead to anything, but in the infinite time the conditions will be just right for it to happen.
Now there are many version of theists who have varying ideas of the creation. So let's not go to much into details of that, but consider their common factor that life and universe was created.
What science could we apply to determine who are the non factual ones? Could we use some known science that both parties can agree upon. What about using mathematics as a scientific tool, rather than fight about each others different viewpoints?
Now considering the evolutionist. Can a infinite series of random events bring life and in turn all the variety of live we see in the nature. I have a challenge for the skilled mathematicians. And I would love to see what result you/they come up with. I also have a little mathematical experiment that I've done myself and I think would be worthwhile for everyone to try them selves.
So here is my challenge:
If we would use a random text generator, to produce a text that would be identical to this comment I'm writing here now. And it would be truly random, so that even the length of each random generated "comment" also would be random, that is 0 is 0 and 1 would represent infinite length or "close to infinite length". And let's say you could produce 1 000 000 comments a second (feel free to suggest any other number here) . Statistically how long would it take to have produced at least one identical comment to this one. Keep in mind that each comment is not necessarily unique, each one needs to be randomly generated and duplicates are allowed.
The reasoning behind this challenge is our DNA. We all know that our DNA holds the code for how we are built. But it's not just a random series of code. There are 4 "letters" to use, but the information in DNA is coded in sequences. In our bodies these DNA sequences can be triggered to on an of states.
Now if the information that is found in our DNA and even in the most simple lifeforms have been generated by random events. We should be able to calculate a model for it. And this is what my challenge is about. Can we produce informations simple as this comment with a random text generator that produces text with a random length, well then maybe that is what actually happened with life, and information actually can be generated from random events.
The objection often put forth here is that always where there is information stored, there have been intelligence behind it, and I personally can't see a flaw in that reasoning, but prove me and others wrong that it is indeed possible within at least the age of this universe.
Now that is a calculation that would be pro evolution if successful.
Now to a different math experiment that I've personally done. Today we are talking about that we are overpopulating this earth. And there are mathematical ways to calculate the population explosion.
Apply the same calculation to when the first homosapiens where supposed to apear, and calculate how many we should be today.
When you do that calculation you will notice that something is not right, and you realise we had an ice age, and other natural disasters that have had a global impact on the population.
So do after that the same calculation from the time scientist consider us modern man, that is from recorded history etc about 10 000 years ago. And calculate how many of us should be alive today.
This number will still be astronomical, so you realise you have to calculate for wars, illness as spanish flu, food shortages etc.
Still when you start to kill a lot of people in your calculations the number will be astronomic. When was the ice age you soon start to think. Because you need to kill a lot of people in that calculation. No happy news here for that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age.
You will notice that you will need a pretty recent global fatal catastrophe to kill a sufficient number of people in that calculation. You will realise that it need to have happened during our known documented history.
So the big question is what happened and when? As the 7 billion we are today is way too few compared to the calculations you've just done ( I hope you did them well ).
Now the popular science tells us not any such event has happened in our near history.
Ok that is two calculations, purely mathematical. If you ponder a bit over them whatever conclusion you draw. I hope you realise that it's not as black n white many want's us to think it is. Some do not believe we were created, others do. We know that it's either but the what conclusion we draw is our own.
To the question what happened to us in the history we can find something by looking at what is considered legends and stories by many. We see such documents from different isolated civilizations from all 6 continents and islands. Just to name a few, Kurnai in Australia, Chiriguano in Bolivia, Montagnais and Cree in Canada, Lolo in China, Masais in east Africa, Book of the Dead from Egypt, Eddas from Iceland, Kamar from India, legend of Nu-u from Hawai, Bahnar from Vietnam. The list goes on hundreds of legends, that fits quite well with that calculation. Needless to tell that it's also documented in a few religious books. And they all tell the same story with small variations.
So the questions arise, when did man actually appear. If we aren't a result of a creator why are we so few. We should be trillions even more, and if not, we should have countless of records of global fatal events that basically kills most of us. They should have happened with the interval of just a few if not just a couple of thousand years. We have documented records that are considered more than 5000 years old.
So who's right, can the math tell us that? Nope but it should tell us that we actually can't say for sure that one is wrong. It may help us to make up our own mind, but what ever conclusion you take someone will not agree, and they may very well have good reasons for why they think as they think.
It's not just to explain the missing mass.
It's the problem with a accelerating expansion of the universe, that our measurement of the redshifting we see from distant stars and galaxies.
If dark energy doesn't exist, which it believed to exist due to dark matter, the whole bigbang theory is difficult to fit to the measurements of our reality.
Then there are alternative theories on the cause to redshifting, whether correct or not it would be interesting to find out for sure. If there may be other reasons to redshifting than we know of, we can conclude that we don't even know if the universe is expanding or not.
For more info google: plasma redshift.
Unfortunately scientist who study this are not that popular, I however think this should be ruled out or proven before we do more assumptions on our models of the universe.
If this turns out to be what causes the measured redshifting, we can throw away the whole big bang theory. That's probably the very reason to why so few scientists even want to touch on this subject as such a discovery would put all we think we know about the birth of the universe in the trashbin.
But what about us who may have some old info there, how can we check for if our info is in it?
Can't find that file on anonnews.org...
Re: Perhaps when
I have never referred to a sysad as a geek.
That would be to think way too highly of them.
Geeks use systems to do something important, cool, funny. In an essence to work for them.
Sysads just administer systems for the system's sake. What's geeky with that, being able to read a manual and apply it, where is the geekiness in that?
Re: You can't win
If they ever would investigate what I tell them.
Last example was support at Microsoft.
I wanted to try Office 365 on my mac, specifically Excel. On their download page, I'm supposed to be able to set the language I want to download. I want English, Finnish is the default language. I do so and press the button that says install. What it does is that it downloads a .exe file. Yes, it works just as web pages with trojan horses.
I fiddle around, it doesn't work. So I download the default installation that will be in "Suomi" on a webpage that is otherwise in English, idiots...! Thinking that maybe MS mac apps would work as normal mac apps does. Conform to the system setting for what language to use. But no, checking around there is only Finnish language set inside the ".app" "folder". So no chance that will become English in any way.
So I call MS support. I tell them that their download page has an error. When I set the language, I don't get a mac .dmg file but a Windows "Setup...exe" file. Which for natural reasons don't work under MacOSX.
I'm then told to repeat my bloody procedure, so I do. Now from my Work PC as support is only available normal working hours. Same error. So they figure maybe it's because I'm now on a PC. I again have to explain that I had the same error yesterday on my mac.
After a long call, they agree to send me by mail a link to a english version of Office for me. So at home I install. Guess does it work? No a freaking database error, and the 365 subscription doesn't work with it.
Have they fixed the core problem yet. No you still get the same error I told them about in first place. You are still given the wrong download file for a Windows computer.
So for freaking sake, Stop and fix what I told you to fix. STOP reading bullshit 101 helpdesk manuals and listen to what I exactly tell you, and stop doubting what I'm telling you.
I have found the best way to deal with so called support is to make a screen recording of your problem. Then repeat it. Write a manuscript with video timing where each step can be seen and when the errors happen. I have done this a couple of times when I have had the time for it. That resulted in no further stupid questions from the support persons, and that they actually tried to fix the issues.
On a mac this is easy to do but takes time and effort. On a work windows computer impossible, as you find no software available for you to do a screen recording nor a way to edit it.
So all you who work with support. Listen to your client. Whether he's a techie or not you should be able to discern in a few moments. But in both cases they are telling what they are experiencing. Whether there is a solution to it, or that it's an issue for you to solve, like faulty links on your company's homepage, you should also be able to discern in a few moments based on the type of information your client is giving you. And for FFS stop doubting what I tell you, try it first yourself before you tell me to redo what I've already done 10 times over, with the same error as a result, as I already explained to you fiftyeleven times.
Re: It dissuaded me
Focus follow mouse, is only irritating in *nix.
However in OSX you don't need to focus on a window to scroll in it.
Re: It dissuaded me
Early 2009 that is.
Re: Outsourcing your decision
"If you are married, then you surely do not have any form of free will left.
Whether or not anything then gets decided is not bound by traditional physics. Counterpart logic defies all rules and is either made by an Executive Decision Maker, or with tears no one can explain either."
Unless you happen to be the woman in that marriage. Suddenly you have two wills you can control freely.
Re: Free from what, exactly?
Let me try a quick definition of free will.
The ability to break ("free") from what is already known. As an extension maybe add "to something yet unknown".
As an example, some of you may have a habit of having a morning coffee at 9am. The ability to break that pattern should be free will in action.
You may be influenced to break that pattern in different ways, but these are not deciders. As you can also break free from being influenced when you know you are influenced.
As someone pointed out earlier, we behave in a certain way, when we become conscious about that behaviour we can change it. So in the end, its all about self programming. Our brain is as a computer running a software, a software that is self conscious that can manipulate the results at any given moment.
Thinking about this in this way leads me to that free will is a function of consciousness. We may have a decision made unconsciously, and that one may or may not be based on free will, but being able to break off from that decision that may or may not be based on patterns, that should be the essence of what we call free will.
"the origin of the word 'Woman' is Wife + Man."
Not really, the real origin should be "Female" + "Man". Though Wikipedia etc says female human, and they are partly correct as "man" has also been used as "human", also in modern language, e.g. mankind, referring to the specimen as whole including females.
But it's not Wife + Man. You could also consider the biblical view in how it has influenced the evolving languages. Where the woman is made out of a man's rib, where you could consider the meaning of man to both refer to the male man an to the species of "man".
That's what has influenced at least the languages of the western and mideast countries. I can't say how it is in asian or native american languages.
Furthermore you see the same structure when you consider the word's "male" and "female", were "female" is based on the word "male".
So to conclude if you want to refer to the other gender in a way that is not involving the opposite gender, you better start calling them aliens instead or maybe venuses, or simply invent a new word. For my sake, I happily follow the traditions where the female gender is included in the meaning of "man". That way a woman is privileged, as they have a word that describes only them specifically, while man refers to man of any gender.
Re: Stop making me think about sex. It's irrelevant.
And your wife, nor mine or any other wife I know is predictable.
The interesting part is that if they aren't predictable, you cannot simulate them either. You can only simulate based on past events, not on predictable behaviour.
With men it's questionable if we have a free will. Someone said once to me long time ago, few will like this ^^, "men are the head, the woman are the neck that turns the head".
Linux still catching up to launchd with their systemd.
Why it look like its pre2000, well it's a nice makeup.
Re: Go Microsuck
"Can't wait for Mickysoft to offer WIndows 8.1 + Office Pro Plus 2013 for free, just stabilise the PC OS environment, now where did I put my meds ?"
Microsoft bought Nokia, deal will be closed around new year.
Nokia just announced new hardware. MS is most probably becoming a hardware vendor. They have failed at mobile market and by total market share they are smaller than Google Android, on pair with Apple platforms about to be smaller.
They are most probably looking at their success with xBox, where they are a hardware vendor. They will be officially a tablet and phone hardware vendor by start of 2014. They cowork with DELL founder to move Dell from the stock market.
Question is, Will Dell make Microsoft's first computer, or will Nokia do that?
Or will they more or less let the computer market die naturally (it's already on the sick bed waiting for it's death), and only focus on the "mobile" market?
Microsoft is aiming for to become a hardware vendor, exactly how and what seems still to be open. But that's what they are becoming. When that transition is completed, they may very well do what you proposed.
Re: The important point is ....
There are already more Windows 8 users than every version of Mac OS X and Linux combined
Bollocks. To put it politely. Every Android device is running Linux for starters.
Here is a nice graph that shows in what situation MS really is in by market shares.
They still dominate the classic PC market. But they are about to be even smaller than Apple if you look at the total computing market share.
This graph combines Classic PC's as Laptops and Desktops (maybe even servers) and mobile devices.
Re: And now the world waits...
"Mountain Lion: 10.8
Surely even by Apple's own naming convention, this is just a .1 update, not a "new OS"?"
Yes, just as Windows still is Windows whether it is Windows 95 or Windows 8.
The OS on the Mac has the name Mac OS X, that X is a roman 10. There are totally 10 major versions of Mac OS X.
They range from 10.0 to 10.9, all except 10.9 has gotten a number of service packs. Update from 0 to 1 was free. Updates between 1 and 8 has had a price tag. Version 9 is free if you run any from version 6-8.
Re: And now the world waits...
Isn't this just a Service Pack for the OS?
Nope it's not
Re: And now the world waits...
You are still wrong. When have you got any Windows version for free?
Any macosx version that has the ability to download a new version from app store can be updated for free.
MacOSX Mavericks is more like a Windows 7 to Windows 8 update. And it is for free. The service packs like Windows 8.0 to 8.1 has always been free on MacOSX.
These are the versions of OSX that can be upgraded to the latest one, and the relative upgrade pricing between them.
10.6 (Major Release) Upgrade from 10.5.x $29
10.6.1 (SP1) Free
10.6.2 (SP2) Free
10.6.3 (SP3) Free
10.6.4 (SP4) Free
10.6.5 (SP5) Free
10.6.6 (SP6) Free
10.6.7 (SP7) Free
10.6.8 (SP8) Free
10.7 (Major Release) Upgrade from 10.6.x $29 Upgrade on USB stick $69
10.7.1 (SP1) Free
10.7.2 (SP2) Free
10.7.3 (SP3) Free
10.7.4 (SP4) Free
10.7.5 (SP5) Free
10.8 (Major Release) Upgrade from 10.7.x $19
10.8.1 (SP1) Free
10.8.2 (SP2) Free
10.8.3 (SP3) Free
10.8.4 (SP4) Free
10.8.5 (SP5) Free
10.9 (Major Release) Upgrade from 10.6-10.8 $0,00.
This is to be compared to as If you run Windows XP, Windows Vista or Windows 7 you can upgrade to Windows 8 for free, but not if you run a earlier version of Windows. In a time line it's not comparable, but release wise it is.
Go here to find out more:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_X
The 10 in each version represents the X in the name Mac OS X, where it's represented as a roman 10.