2160x1440 resolution isn't all that bad either...

In other professions you might actually get a break or two.

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:

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 .csv.

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.

And yet you can export your calendar in ics format as well from the page. Tried it myself (although I am pretty sure I have zero events nicely going along with the single welcome mail there)... The Calendar export might have been better named (share), but the contacts one was clearer.

google: outlook.com export calendar

Yep, I'm not an Outlook mail user...

Server: imap-mail.outlook.com Server port: 993 Encryption: SSL

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.

How would you build it transparently?

How is time limited rental not transparent if the customer knows that the time limit exists? Do Netflix and Spotify need special justification from FSF?

I trust them slightly more when talking about email privacy, but personally I'm transferring my mails to a local nonprofit.

I read your longer (similar) post earlier, and while the argument sounds convincing, I would like to see some statistics about the execution being a major deterrent (in comparison to prison terms). I wonder if there are any papers that take into account the subcultures of an area (say state) with death penalty and compare the crime rate to a similar states (and so on). Could you link to one of these, or what is your argument based on?

I wonder. Are less similar crimes committed in states (or countries) with death penalty than in states (or countries) without? Related to this, United States has pretty hefty prison population, thus the country should be pretty much crime free because of all the deterrents....

So... which one you consider has been decided to be wrong on arbitrary grounds? The crime (for example, torturing someone to death) that was committed for whatever reason, or torturing that person to death?

Nope. With a resistive screen and a stylus you can actually select which pixel you are clicking. With capacitive screen and stylus, not so much... (but the movements relative to the original point are reasonably accurate).

The advantage of a capacitive screen is that you don't need a special technique to use it well, along with the multitouch, and scratch resistance. On a resistive screen you get accuracy (which allows clicking a specific link in a web browser without zooming in), and since you also have pressure sensitivity you can use it for drawing. And you can even implement hoovering.

And yes, my latest phones have been capacitive. Yet, the resistive screens had read advantages.