Comment Re:Yawn... (Score 1) 566
At least the exe has the same hashes as my copy downloaded on 13.2.2014.
True, but this requires excluding the Firewire from the listing. My main complain is the inaccuracies, which I partially addressed above.
I even ignore USB 3.0's expanded and incompatible cables - you can't plug a USB 3.0 cable into anything that doesn't support USB 3.0. You can plug USB pre-3.0 cables into USB 3.0 devices though. The saving grace is that USB 3.0 cables are rarer so you're far more likely to pull a USB 2.0 cable than a USB 3.0 one.
This is misleading, considering that you can indeed use a USB3 cable with a USB2 host. And as stated above, you can use the old cables with new devices, so I would not exactly call this an actual change of standard. Upgrade it is. And personally I much prefer the idea that you can use any cable, not a proprietary one.
That's not what he's saying. Of course USB B cable from 2001 still works today. What he's saying is that mini B, micro B (and now C) have been added since 2001 and new devices use these new ports. So you'll need a new cable if your new device doesn't connect using that old B cable. By comparison, Apple changed their cable once in 10 years.
I know, but you do realize that all those mini and micro cables can be connected to the same original usb1 port (and/or usb2 / usb3 port), as the host end has always been the same. Does the same 'of course' apply to Apple's cables? Admittedly I think the mini was a bit of a misstep, and going straight to micro would have been better.
Of course all this may change with the 3.1, but if it does, it is in my count the first major change for the cables...( And hopefully there's no 'hardware drm' in the cables to prevent unauthorized copies..)
Firewire - well, we had USB 1.1 and the gigantic USB B connector. (2001)
USB B is still being used... There's one in my display (which only supports USB1-2), another in my printer (although I connect via wifi).
USB has gone through more changes in its plugs than Apple in the same period. And it's a standard.
And yet I can take a USB1 memory stick and it works in a USB3 port.
While I understand your point, I still don't get what is so difficult with Outlook.com export.:
Calendar (the ics is the one you want). Access to sharing is in the top bar of the page:
Links to "[xxxxx] calendar" with event details Anyone with these links can view event details on this calendar View in a web browser (HTML) Import into other calendar applications (ICS) View in a feed reader (XML)
The ICS is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W... uri, but if you want to import your calendar somewhere that doesn't understand it (most calendars do...), you can simply replace the webcal with https and do things manually...
Mail: IMAP
People / Contacts: There's an export function directly in the top-bar of the people page, which starts a download for
And please note that I am not in the context of Google being a rotten company, just curious as I've visited the Outlook.com to see what it looks like. I only use OneDrive from there... most of my emails are in gmail..
Would you mind elaborating what you are trying to do? I've never needed to export my calendar, but the ui behind the sharing seemed to be rather simple.[*] You probably have some valid criticism, but going from 'you can only get a pst file' to imported events (imported to where?) become read only (and uneditable) sounds like a non sequitur. And I wonder where you got the 'a lot more open' claim... Sorry if trying (and managing) to export my calendar from Outlook offended you.
[*]And yet, to prevent causing further offence, exporting to files is simpler with google calendar.
Can you show how to export from Outlook.com? Because everything I found says you cant, except through the Outlook client and a PST export.
google: outlook.com export calendar
I don't know if you can. In the real world, duplicating objects is impossible. However, duplicating information in computers is essentially free. Therefore, I'm not sure that simulating the notion of "property rights" on a computer even makes sense. It certainly doesn't make sense if it costs DRM to achieve it.
I am not sure ease of duplication is a good indicator for the value of an object, disregarding unique(ish) objects. Linux is certainly not worthless. And while I wouldn't mind watching volunteer made blockbusters, I haven't seen all that many. (And having even more advertisements in movies does not sound fun at all) Should actors only work in theaters (and without limits on filming, as of course preventing it is an artificial limitation)?
So, considering a movie, what exactly do you want to buy? Are you personally buying the whole production (and ideally paying nothing, as copying is free)? (Or do you consider that a movie has no value at all? Watching a movie once has no value? Having access to a library of movies (that annoyingly is in a state of flux) has no value?)
You know, technically, manufacturing costs also approach zero if you produce enough of something... Why keep property rights at all if we are disregarding all but the final manufacturing expenses? All those pesky atoms are just a form of drm.
Was VHS renting a 'justified' form of commerce (and if not, how come it existed)? Personally I dislike those 'on internet' patents and I consider this to be much the same. Just because something happens on internet/electronically does not make it less valuable. And yes, I dislike DRM. However, if I am getting a streaming service, I can bloody live with the DRM that only allows the content to be streamed. I am not insulted by the fact that my neighbors have locks on their doors.
The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.
