The built in portable outlook only fetches recent messages and only from Inbox. You cannot access IMAP folders other then INBOX and have no means of accessing your old mail.
Perhaps the 2003 edition is different, but mine does IMAP folders just fine. In fact, it's the only client I've seen that gives reliable unread counts next to the folder, without having to go into the folder to refresh the cache.
To add to that, Pocket PC Outlook on the Smartphone Edition does not have client side SSL certificate support for IMAP or POP3 so you cannot provide secure remote access.
Again, I'm using IMAPS with mine, no problems at all. Never tried it without SSL to be honest.
This is essential, because it does not support any (even lame) encrypted VPNs and there are no third party clients for it.
SecureRemote has a VPN client for the PPC.
And very few who actually care about a working third party browser to replace IE.
I've been watching this MiniMo for a couple of weeks now, since it was first announced. I'll be trying it out as soon as I can. For the moment, I'm using the ftxPBrowser, which does use the IE renderer, but has tabbed browsing etc.
I thought it was a nice touch that they give directions on how to stop network services for someone who gets root. Most people who root linux boxes have trouble with those advanced administrative functions
Actually, with all the l33t kiddies out there, that might not be too far from the truth. Many hack tools are point-and-click, but if they are getting kiddies comming in using off-the-shelf exploits, they have a bigger problem!
Hmm, someone has spent three mod points already modding the above down as "overrated"...it was never higher than the 2 I posted at. Some folks just don't know how to use moderation in moderation...
Sorry, if you took any offence, probably should have used more smilies! What I was trying to (jokingly) say is that regardless of whether you get a all bells & whistles phone, or a basic "your mother could use it" Nokia, they all sound pretty much the same.
I'm not giving my external hard drive OR trying to send a 4.3 GB movie over the net.
That's pretty shortsighted. Within 10-15 years you'll be able to do that in just a couple of minutes and you won't bat an eyelid when doing it. You might briefly think back to the days when it took days to get a movie downloaded, but then your download will be finished and you can move on with your life...
My phone has an FM radio, camera, GPRS, xhtml browser, infra red, bluetooth and Java. Yet I never use this stuff and when I actually want to make a call, the sound quality is crap!
He he, I bet you think there is a little genie in there doing all the work, and with his FM/bluetooth duties, he doesn't have the time to do as good a job on your phone calls.
I've got a little surprise for you; the technical "gubbins" (I use that word as well;-) HAS NO BREARING on the sound quality of a phone call. The comes down to the audio codec used (which is crap but efficient), the quality of the microphone/speaker (which is not really size related and is now fairly standard) and how the nework is set up.
Your phones Java VM isn't what's making the calls sound poor!
Really, what kind of tone deaf bonehead would listen to tunes on a cell phone. It's sad but I guess there will be a maket for this.
The same tone deaf boneheads that have portable CD players, mp3 players, ipods, portable radios? A phone is capable of playing just as well as all the others. You have storage. You have CPU cycles to decompress the codec. You have an audio circuit.
The sound quality on my phone is about average for a portable device.
Or, are you thinking we are compressing our media in the 8-bit mono GSM-endoded voice codec?
Now, it's true that you don't have to TCP/IP-connect a Windows-based ATM, you can operate it solely over SNA or SDLC or whatever you have --snip-- you don't get the handy stuff like remote management which means that you spend $$ sending humans out to the site rather than just doing task 'x' from your network.
Why would you need to be connected to the public internet for remote management? There is no technical reason for this, TCP is just a transport; a private network could do this just as well.
The only advantage I can see is that an ATM could share an existing lnternet connection, saving money. I doubt that a new net connection would be cheaper than an other communication mechanism used by ATMs.
I take it these things are hidden behind a VPN and are not publicly available on the net?
Forcing people to pay for crappy TV that only appeals to a small minority of citizens is ridiculous.
Only a small portion of the shows have small viewer markets. The BBC is pretty much like all the other stations in terms of the shows they broadcast most of the time. A lot less reality TV than the commercial stations. Reality TV is a great money-maker (phone-in votes etc).
Plus, this reality-tv thing is only going to get worse. The SOLE purpose of any normal network is to make money. You will only get shows that make money. But not all entertaiment is profitable.
These included doing the same sort of thing they do with the radio broadcasts (listen again for a week after they have aired) with all their popular TV shows
You can already do that on NTL cable. They have an on-demand system where you can watch music videos etc for 30 pence (50c) and well as a selection of BBC shows for free.
It's still in trial though, so only some areas have it. Glasgow being one!!:-)
What kind of law allows that?!? In my country you need a judge to order it.
Same here. The guys friend was just unlucky, he thought he could show the guy he didn't need one. Inspectors turn up at your door..."can I come in?" they ask. You say no, there is nothing they can do. They aren't the police, and even the police need just cause or a warrant to come in!
I don't know what happens if you continually do this, I guess they have some proceedure. Probably involves a court summons. Personally, I don't mind paying for the BBC, it's the best broadcaster on the planet. Not commercial. No special interests. No bias to favour the owners leanings (cough FOX!). Inovative shows and technology, e.g. the BBC have been at the forefront of just about every new technology. It's a misnomer that they are a TV & Radio broadcaster, their official remit is to use any broadcasting technology. Their web site has always been one of the best on the net, and recently I discovered the childrens section of their site, it's outstanding. NO ADDS!! I'm sure all the parents out there would appreciate a form of entertainment that doesn't literally revolve around selling product.
I've been expecting this announcment for a while. With TV broadcast slowly moving over to TCP/IP (like everything else), it was inevitable. If you can receive the BBCs signal, you should be paying for it. But what if you aren't in the UK...well, it's gonna get messy!
Same here, with the SPV phone I bought THREE years ago. Go Sony, leading-edge stuff here! Does the loudspeaker thing (very handy!) as well and all the other things this new "wonder" device does.
Oh, do be quiet, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Three years ago, I bought a smartphone that could also play mp3s. It takes SD-cards AND FOR THAT REASON ALONE it is still better than all of the flash based players out there. That's right, it's better at playing mp3s than most mp3 players. The only thing that gives some the edge is the large hard-drive storage.
My new phone? It has WiFi, a large full colour screen, SD-cards again. Does a better job of playing mp3s than ANY of the players out there. Can they steam free shoutcase streams? Can they drop into a WiFi hotspot, delete music and redownload diffent music from my home library? Nope? If you want to change your music, you are tied to a PC. Great idea when you live in your parents basement, but it's not much use in the real world.
The fact is, convergence can be a good thing. A phone is a communications device. Combine that with any other portable device, and it gets better. Think about it; when was the last time you saw a PC that did not have a modem or a network card? A non-connected device is next to useless nowadays.
The exception? Camera phones. Cameras need optics that you can't do well yet in a phone. However, as my phone takes SD-cards, I take the card from the camera, put it in the phone and send the pictures home via WiFi. Or I could use the phones storage space as a buffer, or reduce space requirements thru downsampling the photos, removing bad ones etc.
And the article itself is talking nonsense. First "walkman" phone? Bullshit. It may be the first phone with the "Walkman" brand, but it's not the first phone advertised for it's music capabilities. If they are going for "first post", someone better tell them they are about three years late.
Outlook *.pst files are another interesting one to search for. And most cameras prefix all photographs with something, e.g. DSGXXXXXX.jpg, so you can search for them.
One interesing thing to note is that the site spammers are onto these things already. The photo one now pulls in lots of sample advert images for adult sites, as did a couple of the older searches that are linked on the site the article refers to.
Nothing, that's the problem. EVERYONE in the UK gets completely free dental treatment to the age of 16, or for as long as they remain in education. Meanwhile, on the US side of the pond, about half the nation don't even have basic medical coverage, never mind dental. Sure, in Calif, NY and Hollywood (and therefore TV), Americans appear to have good teeth. Go to trailervile and it's an entirely different story!:-)
My understanding was that the calls were made from the $5/minute (or whatever they are now) phones built into the plane, rather than private cell phones. Where's the claim they were made from private cell phones?
In most of the reports at the time. There was a mixture of both, but there are too many cellphone stories for it to be possible. And why were they taped anyway? Family members got to hear transcripts. The chances of a successful call even getting connected have been 100-1, and most of the calls ended not through network disconnections if you listen to the stories. Usually there was a bang, a scuffle, or a "got to go", on the now legendary "let's roll".
The damage pattern of the fourth plane, spread over eight miles, indicates a fair altitude, certainally not below the two thousand feet required to have a decent chance of making a call.
Finally, several witnesses reported seeing a missle trail, or smoke from one of the engines. The plane was shot down. Now, I have no issue with this, given the events of the day it was the correct thing to do. I do take issue with the lies.
The Whitehouse has NEVER catagorically said that the passengers brought down the plane. They have meerly implied it, in the same way they implied Saddams involvement to the tune of more than 50% of Americans thinking he was involved. Anyone who said they saw differently has been intervied by the authorities and now refuse to speak on the matter, including a 9/11 tape of an eyewitness on the plane saying that the engine had just exploded. The operator is not allowed to speak to the press, and the tape is not available.
most of the people who are posting who support come kind of conspiracy are using their real names and most of the ones who call everyone "nuts" are AC
I'm not crying conspiracy, but the fact is that Bush and co. have intentially misled everyone over Iraq since day one, so why trust them on this? They have blatantly manipulated events to invade Iraq, something that was on the drawing board since before 9/11.
They have taken a huge dump on the graves of those who died that day by using it for their own strategic and financial gain. Why isn't America mad? Or even a little annoyed?
It's going to disappoint a lot of travelers to learn that they can't use their phones in the air after all despite the legislation currently in the works
And the micro-repeaters that make it possible. The ones with antenas on the outside of the plane...
Not if you follow the timeline, here is just one random google attempt to find times of the calls and the altitude. Many were supposedly made 30000+ feet.
So, in the Spanish American war, the Maine really was bombed by the Spanish? And in the first Iraq war, Iraqi troops really did steal incubators and leave babies to die? In German 1930's, the Jews really did burn the Reistag? And in the first world war, the Germans really did eat babies? And Saddam supported 9-11 and had WMD?
I suggest you get yourself a history book buddy. These things are rarely as simple as they seem, and the majority of wars start out from a lie. You mention Occam's razor. I prefer "cui bono?", Latin for "who benefits"...
That link looks pretty clueless to me. He didn't even look into what type of cell towers were near the path of the plane and instead just assumed the ones in Canada were the same.
Well, it's just one of many studies that say you can't. I've yet to see one that says you can. Plus, he does count for the different cell types, they compare population density etc for the areas, plus the experiment has been repeated all over the world with identical results.
Most private fliers know that cellphones work under 2000 feet and they carry them as radio backups. However, they also know they cannot be used at height.
Hell, it's hard enough to keep a call going travling in a car at 70 mph. In a jet at 400mph, with a cell-handover every 10-15 seconds? Not a chance in hell of it working. Especially as a commercial jet has a lot less radio-transparent class in the passenger area, compared to the cockput of a private plane. A jet airliner isn't all that far removed from a faraday cage.
Exactly. UNDER LOW ALTITUDE. The official story states that most of the calls were made while the jet was at crusing height and speed. It's just not possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps the 2003 edition is different, but mine does IMAP folders just fine. In fact, it's the only client I've seen that gives reliable unread counts next to the folder, without having to go into the folder to refresh the cache.
To add to that, Pocket PC Outlook on the Smartphone Edition does not have client side SSL certificate support for IMAP or POP3 so you cannot provide secure remote access.
Again, I'm using IMAPS with mine, no problems at all. Never tried it without SSL to be honest.
This is essential, because it does not support any (even lame) encrypted VPNs and there are no third party clients for it.
SecureRemote has a VPN client for the PPC.
And very few who actually care about a working third party browser to replace IE.
I've been watching this MiniMo for a couple of weeks now, since it was first announced. I'll be trying it out as soon as I can. For the moment, I'm using the ftxPBrowser, which does use the IE renderer, but has tabbed browsing etc.
Actually, with all the l33t kiddies out there, that might not be too far from the truth. Many hack tools are point-and-click, but if they are getting kiddies comming in using off-the-shelf exploits, they have a bigger problem!
Hmm, someone has spent three mod points already modding the above down as "overrated"...it was never higher than the 2 I posted at. Some folks just don't know how to use moderation in moderation...
Sorry, if you took any offence, probably should have used more smilies! What I was trying to (jokingly) say is that regardless of whether you get a all bells & whistles phone, or a basic "your mother could use it" Nokia, they all sound pretty much the same.
I just got a phone that has WiFi built-in. I've not used mobile data since I got it, why bother? Free vs. extortainate. Tough choice!
That's pretty shortsighted. Within 10-15 years you'll be able to do that in just a couple of minutes and you won't bat an eyelid when doing it. You might briefly think back to the days when it took days to get a movie downloaded, but then your download will be finished and you can move on with your life...
He he, I bet you think there is a little genie in there doing all the work, and with his FM/bluetooth duties, he doesn't have the time to do as good a job on your phone calls.
I've got a little surprise for you; the technical "gubbins" (I use that word as well ;-) HAS NO BREARING on the sound quality of a phone call. The comes down to the audio codec used (which is crap but efficient), the quality of the microphone/speaker (which is not really size related and is now fairly standard) and how the nework is set up.
Your phones Java VM isn't what's making the calls sound poor!
The same tone deaf boneheads that have portable CD players, mp3 players, ipods, portable radios? A phone is capable of playing just as well as all the others. You have storage. You have CPU cycles to decompress the codec. You have an audio circuit.
The sound quality on my phone is about average for a portable device.
Or, are you thinking we are compressing our media in the 8-bit mono GSM-endoded voice codec?
I already do! My phone is not 3G though, so I use WiFi. I've streamed 64kbits over GPRS (2.5G) successfully though, but it's not exactly reliable.
--The one thing any politician must do, no matter how powerful, is stay bought.
That's actually a bastarization of the original quote: "An honest politician is one who when he's bought stays bought." -- Simon Cameron
Why would you need to be connected to the public internet for remote management? There is no technical reason for this, TCP is just a transport; a private network could do this just as well.
The only advantage I can see is that an ATM could share an existing lnternet connection, saving money. I doubt that a new net connection would be cheaper than an other communication mechanism used by ATMs.
I take it these things are hidden behind a VPN and are not publicly available on the net?
Only a small portion of the shows have small viewer markets. The BBC is pretty much like all the other stations in terms of the shows they broadcast most of the time. A lot less reality TV than the commercial stations. Reality TV is a great money-maker (phone-in votes etc).
Plus, this reality-tv thing is only going to get worse. The SOLE purpose of any normal network is to make money. You will only get shows that make money. But not all entertaiment is profitable.
You can already do that on NTL cable. They have an on-demand system where you can watch music videos etc for 30 pence (50c) and well as a selection of BBC shows for free.
It's still in trial though, so only some areas have it. Glasgow being one!! :-)
Same here. The guys friend was just unlucky, he thought he could show the guy he didn't need one. Inspectors turn up at your door..."can I come in?" they ask. You say no, there is nothing they can do. They aren't the police, and even the police need just cause or a warrant to come in!
I don't know what happens if you continually do this, I guess they have some proceedure. Probably involves a court summons. Personally, I don't mind paying for the BBC, it's the best broadcaster on the planet. Not commercial. No special interests. No bias to favour the owners leanings (cough FOX!). Inovative shows and technology, e.g. the BBC have been at the forefront of just about every new technology. It's a misnomer that they are a TV & Radio broadcaster, their official remit is to use any broadcasting technology. Their web site has always been one of the best on the net, and recently I discovered the childrens section of their site, it's outstanding. NO ADDS!! I'm sure all the parents out there would appreciate a form of entertainment that doesn't literally revolve around selling product.
I've been expecting this announcment for a while. With TV broadcast slowly moving over to TCP/IP (like everything else), it was inevitable. If you can receive the BBCs signal, you should be paying for it. But what if you aren't in the UK...well, it's gonna get messy!
Same here, with the SPV phone I bought THREE years ago. Go Sony, leading-edge stuff here! Does the loudspeaker thing (very handy!) as well and all the other things this new "wonder" device does.
Three years ago, I bought a smartphone that could also play mp3s. It takes SD-cards AND FOR THAT REASON ALONE it is still better than all of the flash based players out there. That's right, it's better at playing mp3s than most mp3 players. The only thing that gives some the edge is the large hard-drive storage.
My new phone? It has WiFi, a large full colour screen, SD-cards again. Does a better job of playing mp3s than ANY of the players out there. Can they steam free shoutcase streams? Can they drop into a WiFi hotspot, delete music and redownload diffent music from my home library? Nope? If you want to change your music, you are tied to a PC. Great idea when you live in your parents basement, but it's not much use in the real world.
The fact is, convergence can be a good thing. A phone is a communications device. Combine that with any other portable device, and it gets better. Think about it; when was the last time you saw a PC that did not have a modem or a network card? A non-connected device is next to useless nowadays.
The exception? Camera phones. Cameras need optics that you can't do well yet in a phone. However, as my phone takes SD-cards, I take the card from the camera, put it in the phone and send the pictures home via WiFi. Or I could use the phones storage space as a buffer, or reduce space requirements thru downsampling the photos, removing bad ones etc.
And the article itself is talking nonsense. First "walkman" phone? Bullshit. It may be the first phone with the "Walkman" brand, but it's not the first phone advertised for it's music capabilities. If they are going for "first post", someone better tell them they are about three years late.
One interesing thing to note is that the site spammers are onto these things already. The photo one now pulls in lots of sample advert images for adult sites, as did a couple of the older searches that are linked on the site the article refers to.
Nothing, that's the problem. EVERYONE in the UK gets completely free dental treatment to the age of 16, or for as long as they remain in education. Meanwhile, on the US side of the pond, about half the nation don't even have basic medical coverage, never mind dental. Sure, in Calif, NY and Hollywood (and therefore TV), Americans appear to have good teeth. Go to trailervile and it's an entirely different story! :-)
In most of the reports at the time. There was a mixture of both, but there are too many cellphone stories for it to be possible. And why were they taped anyway? Family members got to hear transcripts. The chances of a successful call even getting connected have been 100-1, and most of the calls ended not through network disconnections if you listen to the stories. Usually there was a bang, a scuffle, or a "got to go", on the now legendary "let's roll".
The damage pattern of the fourth plane, spread over eight miles, indicates a fair altitude, certainally not below the two thousand feet required to have a decent chance of making a call.
Finally, several witnesses reported seeing a missle trail, or smoke from one of the engines. The plane was shot down. Now, I have no issue with this, given the events of the day it was the correct thing to do. I do take issue with the lies.
The Whitehouse has NEVER catagorically said that the passengers brought down the plane. They have meerly implied it, in the same way they implied Saddams involvement to the tune of more than 50% of Americans thinking he was involved. Anyone who said they saw differently has been intervied by the authorities and now refuse to speak on the matter, including a 9/11 tape of an eyewitness on the plane saying that the engine had just exploded. The operator is not allowed to speak to the press, and the tape is not available.
I'm not crying conspiracy, but the fact is that Bush and co. have intentially misled everyone over Iraq since day one, so why trust them on this? They have blatantly manipulated events to invade Iraq, something that was on the drawing board since before 9/11.
They have taken a huge dump on the graves of those who died that day by using it for their own strategic and financial gain. Why isn't America mad? Or even a little annoyed?
And the micro-repeaters that make it possible. The ones with antenas on the outside of the plane...
(found via google, never seen it before)
Plus no one seems surprised/bothered that all these calls were recorded. What, is it routine to record ALL phone calls in the USA?
I suggest you get yourself a history book buddy. These things are rarely as simple as they seem, and the majority of wars start out from a lie. You mention Occam's razor. I prefer "cui bono?", Latin for "who benefits"...
Well, it's just one of many studies that say you can't. I've yet to see one that says you can. Plus, he does count for the different cell types, they compare population density etc for the areas, plus the experiment has been repeated all over the world with identical results.
Most private fliers know that cellphones work under 2000 feet and they carry them as radio backups. However, they also know they cannot be used at height.
Hell, it's hard enough to keep a call going travling in a car at 70 mph. In a jet at 400mph, with a cell-handover every 10-15 seconds? Not a chance in hell of it working. Especially as a commercial jet has a lot less radio-transparent class in the passenger area, compared to the cockput of a private plane. A jet airliner isn't all that far removed from a faraday cage.
Exactly. UNDER LOW ALTITUDE. The official story states that most of the calls were made while the jet was at crusing height and speed. It's just not possible.