Yes, I'm sure they found it easy to create a standardized and unbiased IQ test for an extinct family based solely on their postulated brain size. *snicker*

In that case, I apologise. But as you have a faulty understanding of what I wrote, I don't see any reason to continue responding to you!

No, I didn't answer my own question. I am saying that I doubt that a 5 year old would use advanced features. Only you can really answer the question! So seriously, do they use the advanced features of Office 2007?

It can be surprisingly difficult. I'm wondering a few things though: does you 5 year old niece use sections, macros, table of contents, or any advanced aspect to Word? I doubt it somehow, which suggests to me that they don't use advanced features.

When you use a search engine, you can have only two of the following: comprehensive, impartial and relevant.

Ah crap. I missed the "on average" bit. Oops. Ignore the above.

Not only are you awesome at bad analogies, you are terrible at syllogistic logic.

Premise A: Global GDP = $60 trillion
Premise B: Total lost due to IT failue = $6 trillion
Conclusion: Every company on the planet has lost 10% of their productivity due to IT failures.

Let me restate this another way - this is like saying there were 100 million bananas grown in the world in 2009, and that monkeys threw 10% of bananas on the ground, which means that 10 million people slipped on bananas every year.

I'd look at it differently. I would firstly work out exactly how much money is generated through effective IT services and projects, and then I'd work out how much money is saved through effective IT services and projects, and then work out how much is lost through projects that go wrong. I think this sort of analysis would give a more true picture of the benefits and risks of IT projects.

P.S. André Klapper, is that you?

Well, the rationale for changing from spatial to browser mode in Nautilus is because much of the functionality is now being implemented in Gnome-Shell.

From the following post by Alexander Larsson:

The current ideas behind the design of nautilus is that its the main way to access files. By this I mean everyday stuff like finding and opening your files, rather than "file management" (reorganizing files, copying files, etc). This together with the desktop having links to important places (as well as being a repository for currently worked on files) makes this a sort of "desktop shell" in the sense that its how apps are launched to a large degree. This is also why spatial mode is the default for the desktop icons (and why browser mode is availibile in the menus as "File Browser" for those times you want to
do intense file management).

However, in the gnome-shell design a lot of the things nautilus is currently used for (locating and opening files) is integrated into the
shell and mixed together with the ui for locating and starting applications. This makes a lot of sense to me as launching applications and opening files with an application are closely related actions, and a merged UI could do a lot better than the current sort of double UI with the panel launching apps and the desktop launching files. The shell also wants to de-emphatize the desktop as a place for storing files in use and launching links, for good reasons (read the design paper[1] for details).

This leads to two initial conclusions from my side. First of all we should disable the drawing of the desktop by default. Second we should default to browser mode. This might seem a bit suprising (sic) since I've generally been on the spatial side. But, this has mainly been because I've seen nautilus as much more used as a kind of file activation shell rather than a hardcore file manager, and when that changes the rationale for spatial mode change too.

I tried site:target.com we could not find matches for and the third option was Anal Massage for Lovers Vol 2.

I wasn't aware that Target marketed to this demographic.

Ah, the wonderful sound of thousands of cancelled contracts! Nothing quite like it.

Tell that to the creators of ASCII.

That's true. But this is a moot point, given that it was nobody by the name of Stephen Conroy has anything to do with the website in question.

Oh come on! That comment is hilarious!