Yup, but I doubt it's a "technical issue" anyways... Plenty of 3rd parties are using the Google Calendar API to update back and forth - so it cannot be rocket science.
More likely that it's a battle of corporate overlords ("do we have more to gain or more to lose, if we allow this?")
you know, without hacks, 3rd party synchronizers, gapps subscription, etc etc. just painless straightforward two way synchronization like almost any other calendar client does.
genuinely interested to know if it works. last time I checked it was a nightmare.
I am not in any way a Trump supporter but is it not more likely that he was making a joke trying to tie the DNC email issue with the Clinton personal email server issue?
It is reminiscent of an aging relative who makes poo comments at funerals. Perhaps my Uncle Poo is joking - who can really tell for sure?
Uncle Poo's has a jovial nature and a certain "in your face" attitude that at times makes him popular in his circle.
Despite this, we know better than leaving him alone with strangers, or letting him handle sharp knives. Most definitely, we really know better than letting him close to any National Security responsibility.
We love Uncle Poo. And sometimes it's fun to see him breaking rules. He's not someone I would want in Office, for the love of my life.
"Waiting for a tesla to drive through a large pane of glass...."
As opposed to human drivers, who are known to masterfully avoid all those frequent large panes of glass that suddenly appear on your way while you are driving on the highway.
Yeah, right? It's not like he has a history of, say, putting actual rockets in space, or building an EV from scratch, or anything like that. It's absurd that people are paying any attention at all, right?
Probably because the "experts" have been so completely clueless over and over again that it's time to give your head a shake and stop listening to them.
exactly! shockingly, some people wrote some books and some were wrong. we should reject all human knowledge or expertise and revert to the rule of the biggest club. that will show them.
that's an old and tired argument, which sounds superficially reasonable - until you realize that civilization and progress never worked this way.
you could have used that same argument for any human advancement.
do you really want to spend money on chemical research / the Panama Canal / railroads / telegraph / cables under the sea/ etc, while there are people starving to death or dying of flu or lacking basic freedoms?
none of those things were ever a priority when money was spent on them throughout the centuries .
yet, without those, we would be living today in a world where millions more would be starving and be less free.
Re: Yes, we should give up because it is hard..
on
Let's Not Go To Mars
·
· Score: 1
"Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants." — Thomas Jefferson
It's a popular sport to pull the Founding Fathers out of context, to prove a point.
King George could not be voted out of his seat. I dare say that Thomas Jefferson, if he were to live today, would advocate peaceful means to oust anyone from power in the US.
To be sure: I am not saying that Parent is saying otherwise, I know he is just offering a quote.
However, the general mood of this thread is something like "tyranny demands exceptional means to be used". Which is fine, but if you live anywhere in the Western world today, you have no moral justification for violence against the system.
Because the system is far from perfect, but is far better than a tyranny.
The innocence of youth:-) The post above was wrongly moderated as troll, I suspect because someone thought it was meant to be serious (it's not) I guess not everybody was around when MS came out with the lovely crap called Bob 1.0
Bob received the 7th place in PC World Magazine's list of the 25 worst products of all time, a spot in Time Magazine's list of the 50 Worst Inventions and number ten worst product of the decade by CNET.com.
(After that, not even Steve Ballmer at the top of desperation would think of resurrecting any "Bob 2.0")
My point was that if talking about the system makes it less useful, then it is not very secure to begin with.
You are thinking in terms of computer security, and there 100% correct.
The larger point, however, is that there may be other 'security' reasons not to talk about it. For example, more people involved in the project may find themselves in the spotlight. People have a physical life, and their actions can be spied - or worse.
Unfortunately, there is no 'by design' security protection against a bullet. Overall, as long as the thing does not make too many headlines, it seems we are better off - no matter how much the system is inherently secure from a strictly IT point of view.
1. Reputable scientists publish research "X".
--> e.g.: "On some possible applications of AI-blabla to improve car safety"
2. Same scientists explain X to mainstream journalists, and in the process they simplify the message (sometimes in good faith, sometimes to get PRs).
--> e.g: "Cars will become more intelligent in the next 5 years"
3. Mainstream journalists write articles where X is further stretched.
--> e.g: "May be cars will drive themselves in the next 5 years"
4. Headline of such articles go a further mile in stretching X.
--> e.g.: "Are drivers obsolete?"
5. by the time X morphs on/. it has totally become Y.
--> e.g. "Scientists claim that uber-intelligent robotic cars have made drivers redundant. And my home-assembled truck overlord is also baking pizzas. It runs Linux."
From the number on neurons in the human brain, considering how many interconnections there are and how fast the neurons can fire, I think a machine with one million processing cores at 1 GHz would have approximately the same data handling capacity as a human brain.
We are not sure yet whether the equation :
"human brain" = "some current technology" * "some large number" has merit or not.
I wish we were there, but the vast majority of neuroscientists currently think this NOT to be the case. There is likely some qualitative difference that we still fail to understand. Assuming the equation above to be true, is largely responsible for the clear failure of AI of the last few dozens of years.
PS: to avoid misunderstandings - this does NOT mean that there is something mystique about our brain. We have simply not fully understood how it works, yet - but we are making very fast progress in this area, especially in the last 15 years or so. It's still a long road ahead, though.
You are assuming 1 neuron = 1 "byte" of data. It's much more complex than that. We are barely starting to understanding it now.
I agree with you, though, if you are implying that the brain is a physical entity with a physical size and physical limits. We just don't quite know yet what those limits are.
MADD won years ago. They should change their name to Mothers Against Drinking to more accurately reflect their policy recommendations.
This is actually more or less the opinion of the MADD founder
Lightner stated that MADD "has become far moreneo-prohibitionistthan I had ever wanted or envisioned I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving"
Google has enough market power to effectively set the rules.
Despite its market power, Google does NOT control the food chain. If 10 major ISPs decide tomorrow to do a "little favor" to Bing (God forbid), this would immediately and effectively hurt Google - massively.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, but I doubt it's a "technical issue" anyways...
Plenty of 3rd parties are using the Google Calendar API to update back and forth - so it cannot be rocket science.
More likely that it's a battle of corporate overlords ("do we have more to gain or more to lose, if we allow this?")
you know, without hacks, 3rd party synchronizers, gapps subscription, etc etc.
just painless straightforward two way synchronization like almost any other calendar client does.
genuinely interested to know if it works. last time I checked it was a nightmare.
I am not in any way a Trump supporter but is it not more likely that he was making a joke trying to tie the DNC email issue with the Clinton personal email server issue?
It is reminiscent of an aging relative who makes poo comments at funerals.
Perhaps my Uncle Poo is joking - who can really tell for sure?
Uncle Poo's has a jovial nature and a certain "in your face" attitude that at times makes him popular in his circle.
Despite this, we know better than leaving him alone with strangers, or letting him handle sharp knives.
Most definitely, we really know better than letting him close to any National Security responsibility.
We love Uncle Poo. And sometimes it's fun to see him breaking rules.
He's not someone I would want in Office, for the love of my life.
"Waiting for a tesla to drive through a large pane of glass...."
As opposed to human drivers, who are known to masterfully avoid all those frequent large panes of glass that suddenly appear on your way while you are driving on the highway.
Yeah, right?
It's not like he has a history of, say, putting actual rockets in space, or building an EV from scratch, or anything like that.
It's absurd that people are paying any attention at all, right?
http://www.nature.com/scitable...
I'll stick with the medical abomination for now.
Probably because the "experts" have been so completely clueless over and over again that it's time to give your head a shake and stop listening to them.
exactly! shockingly, some people wrote some books and some were wrong. we should reject all human knowledge or expertise and revert to the rule of the biggest club. that will show them.
that's an old and tired argument, which sounds superficially reasonable - until you realize that civilization and progress never worked this way.
you could have used that same argument for any human advancement.
do you really want to spend money on chemical research / the Panama Canal / railroads / telegraph / cables under the sea/ etc, while there are people starving to death or dying of flu or lacking basic freedoms?
none of those things were ever a priority when money was spent on them throughout the centuries .
yet, without those, we would be living today in a world where millions more would be starving and be less free.
https://youtu.be/wlMwc1c0HRQ
I can't believe nobody in this thread is welcoming our new radioactive worm overlords. Clearly /. isn't anymore what it used to be.
"Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants."
— Thomas Jefferson
It's a popular sport to pull the Founding Fathers out of context, to prove a point.
King George could not be voted out of his seat. I dare say that Thomas Jefferson, if he were to live today, would advocate peaceful means to oust anyone from power in the US.
To be sure: I am not saying that Parent is saying otherwise, I know he is just offering a quote.
However, the general mood of this thread is something like "tyranny demands exceptional means to be used". Which is fine, but if you live anywhere in the Western world today, you have no moral justification for violence against the system.
Because the system is far from perfect, but is far better than a tyranny.
You're living in the waning times of the US government, it has been going down hill ever since it was founded.
Wait a second. Maybe there were some good moments and some bad ones, in the last two centuries.
But in many key dimensions it has indeed become a more perfect Union over time.
(Unless of course you consider a "white males club" to be your ideal government, I believe you don't.)
The innocence of youth :-)
The post above was wrongly moderated as troll, I suspect because someone thought it was meant to be serious (it's not)
I guess not everybody was around when MS came out with the lovely crap called Bob 1.0
Bob received the 7th place in PC World Magazine's list of the 25 worst products of all time, a spot in Time Magazine's list of the 50 Worst Inventions and number ten worst product of the decade by CNET.com.
(After that, not even Steve Ballmer at the top of desperation would think of resurrecting any "Bob 2.0")
You may have heard rumors that Microsoft has also its hands on another Next Big Thing.
Internal name is said to be Bob 2.0
My point was that if talking about the system makes it less useful, then it is not very secure to begin with.
You are thinking in terms of computer security, and there 100% correct.
The larger point, however, is that there may be other 'security' reasons not to talk about it.
For example, more people involved in the project may find themselves in the spotlight. People have a physical life, and their actions can be spied - or worse.
Unfortunately, there is no 'by design' security protection against a bullet. Overall, as long as the thing does not make too many headlines, it seems we are better off - no matter how much the system is inherently secure from a strictly IT point of view.
You still miss the most relevant part of it: ...
6. Retire in disgrace, with $50 Million Severance Package as a punishment.
Am I the only one noticing a pattern here.
1. Reputable scientists publish research "X". /. it has totally become Y.
--> e.g.: "On some possible applications of AI-blabla to improve car safety"
2. Same scientists explain X to mainstream journalists, and in the process they simplify the message (sometimes in good faith, sometimes to get PRs).
--> e.g: "Cars will become more intelligent in the next 5 years"
3. Mainstream journalists write articles where X is further stretched.
--> e.g: "May be cars will drive themselves in the next 5 years"
4. Headline of such articles go a further mile in stretching X.
--> e.g.: "Are drivers obsolete?"
5. by the time X morphs on
--> e.g. "Scientists claim that uber-intelligent robotic cars have made drivers redundant. And my home-assembled truck overlord is also baking pizzas. It runs Linux."
From the number on neurons in the human brain, considering how many interconnections there are and how fast the neurons can fire, I think a machine with one million processing cores at 1 GHz would have approximately the same data handling capacity as a human brain.
We are not sure yet whether the equation :
"human brain" = "some current technology" * "some large number"
has merit or not.
I wish we were there, but the vast majority of neuroscientists currently think this NOT to be the case. There is likely some qualitative difference that we still fail to understand. Assuming the equation above to be true, is largely responsible for the clear failure of AI of the last few dozens of years.
PS: to avoid misunderstandings - this does NOT mean that there is something mystique about our brain. We have simply not fully understood how it works, yet - but we are making very fast progress in this area, especially in the last 15 years or so. It's still a long road ahead, though.
You are assuming 1 neuron = 1 "byte" of data.
It's much more complex than that. We are barely starting to understanding it now.
I agree with you, though, if you are implying that the brain is a physical entity with a physical size and physical limits. We just don't quite know yet what those limits are.
MADD won years ago. They should change their name to Mothers Against Drinking to more accurately reflect their policy recommendations.
This is actually more or less the opinion of the MADD founder
Lightner stated that MADD "has become far moreneo-prohibitionistthan I had ever wanted or envisioned I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving"
Google has enough market power to effectively set the rules.
Despite its market power, Google does NOT control the food chain.
If 10 major ISPs decide tomorrow to do a "little favor" to Bing (God forbid), this would immediately and effectively hurt Google - massively.
It is certainly unlikely, but not impossible.
I firmly believe (and hope), that the current administration has read enough history to avoid dumb blunders.
Mate, I'm afraid you may not be the average person.
Tell a random guy in a shop to spend 300+ bucks for "additional format compatibility" - good luck with that :-)
Then try: "with this, you can watch Avatar as in a movie theater". Which one do you think sells better..?
Why do the movie companies believe that we want 3D?
Because otherwise you have no reason to upgrade your Blue-Ray player.
....clearly, no physics paper is worth its name without a proper car analogy. *g*