Does anyone know of a calendaring app for the PocketPC that does not require Outlook on the back side of the sync? I have a PocketPC, and I want to sync my calendar to something ther then outlook, anything else would be prefereable.
Something that would work over the net would be a real bonus too.
Something about the Interstate Commerce Clause might get congress, or at least the judcial branch involved. How long until the first lawsuit to stop, or at least clarify, the law?
So aren't you legally allowed to download IE bundled with OE and run them on wine? I think so, but honestly am not 100% sure.
Even if you can't run them without purchasing Windows (cos they're Windows apps, surprise, surprise), you can get the files for free.
Read the EULA that comes with the "free" software that Microsoft distributes.
Cue the; "Phhhht. I can build a Linux box running Zebra for $100" comments. Which will be followed by: "FreeBSD is a much better platform than Linux for such a solution."
Don't forget to welcome the new terabit router overloards as well.
Mozilla Calendar has a lot of promise (I currently use it in a client server format) but it is no where near ready for wide spread deployment. There are way too many peices that are unfinished and unpolished.
I hate to detract from it because it will be a great product when finished. For being a 0.2 release it is quite usable, but I would not inflict it on the unwahsed masses yet.
My sister is still pissed at me for getting my nephew the "1000 Piece Lego Bucket" for hid birthday. She had to buy a new vacuume after 6 months of picking up legos from the carpet.
A double bonus of being educational, and annoying my sister. I guess we are all just kids at heart.:-)
They might lean further left than most of your papers but to the rest of the world they're still very right-wing. ...
You guys can't even tell anymore because you're only ever exposed to different shades of right-wing agendas.
By "you guys" I assume that you mean the USA...
What would you suggest as good reading that is more centric to the "rest of the world"?
The NYT and Washington Post both lean a good bit to the left in thier reporting. I read the Washington Post, right after reading the Wall Street Journal. Thats what I call "fair and balanced". Between the two of them I think I get a decent summary of whats happening in the world.
Require citizens to show up at the polls, or mail in ballots. That will get more partisipation.
Let each state decide how best to take care of its own electoral votes. The Fed should not force how each state casts its votes. The constitution lays out how it should work already, so leave it alone, if a state wants to change, let it.
Hmmm, so I can alter my XBox without any legal problems? I paid for it.
Sure, you just void your warrenty.
What about these DVDs and CDs I bought, I can rip them onto my laptop so I don't have to carry my CDs and DVDs around? I bought these too.
You can back them up, or convert them to some other format for your convinience.
So I can burn down my own house? I own it... ah... oh... well half of it, the bank owns the other bit (d'oh). If I select the half I own, say the bathroom and the box room; I can trash that with impunity.
You can do what you want with your house with in the limit of the law.
Ownership doesn't necessarily convey infinite rights, just demans good stewardship. Don't forget to tell Bush...
Ownership allows you to do what you want with your property as long as it is within the law. Nothing demands good stewardship, unless you count community peer pressure.
Why can't the Oil companies convert to nuclear companies? After all it is a very lucrative and future market for energy in the future.
Risk is what is stopping them. The investments required are HUGE, and there are no garuntees on returns. There is too much liability WRT getting sued for radioactive breaches, and no one wants one in their back yard.
When you are making money hand over fist pumping, and refining oil, why change? The economics of how energy is used in this country will have to change for the energy companies to want to change.
None of the big companies will make a move into nuclear energy until there are some predictable garuntees on their investments, and the gov't limits much of the risk involved.
The troubles is, so does North Korea, Iran, China...
True, I think the world in general has a good idea of what our capabilities are. We are streatched thin for now, but if there are any aggresive moves by any hostile country we can still meet them.
North Korea is really Chinas' problem, and the rest of the pacific rim. NK may get WMD, but they are more likley to use it on themselves them the US. China will keep a thumb on NK for the near future. Plus, the US could put the smakdown on NK from the Ocean via the Navy with minimal effort.
As for China, they are much more interested in trade, and keeping thier leaders in power, then poking the US in the eye at the moment. If China wanted to make a move, the would have done so against Taiwan by now.
Iran, might flex their mussles at some point, but with the US having 130,000 troops in a neigboring country with the ability to get more troops and supplies there fairly quickly if needed (no build up required, we have the logistics in place already), they are not going to get too restless.
The American people would back the President if we (the US, and possibly some other countries) were put in peril. Add to that the Presidents "Don't mess with Texas" attitude, and most dictators will think twice, lest they find a well placed cruise missle in his WC during his daily consitutional.
If he reaches too far (like invading more countries)
Even with hubris, Bush will not be invading any more countries in the near future. The military is streatched way too thin now, and his advisors know this.
He may well get in trouble in his second term, but he may well actually accomplish something too. He is not trying to get re-elected again, so we may well see the "real" Bush this go around.
Bush strikes me as someone who is acting more right wing then he really is. I'm sure there was a lot of pandering to the right up to this last election. I hope this is the case and now he can persue more moderate policies and have congress cooperate.
Slashdot Mirror
Something that would work over the net would be a real bonus too.
Something about the Interstate Commerce Clause might get congress, or at least the judcial branch involved. How long until the first lawsuit to stop, or at least clarify, the law?
Read the EULA that comes with the "free" software that Microsoft distributes.
This is a troll!?!?! It is the truth... sheesh...
IE? free.
Messenger? Free.
Free... once you purchase a copy of their operating system that is.
Note to self: call "DirePickle", Dec 20th, 1,000,002,004
Tell that to the cockroaches...
Don't forget to welcome the new terabit router overloards as well.
The best beer activity that I know of is making more beer (homebrew). All that sports stuff is unbarable with or with out the beer.
I hate to detract from it because it will be a great product when finished. For being a 0.2 release it is quite usable, but I would not inflict it on the unwahsed masses yet.
Having three kids soaks up a lot of your time. World domination will probably have to wait until they graduate college.
A double bonus of being educational, and annoying my sister. I guess we are all just kids at heart. :-)
...
You guys can't even tell anymore because you're only ever exposed to different shades of right-wing agendas.
By "you guys" I assume that you mean the USA...
What would you suggest as good reading that is more centric to the "rest of the world"?
I agree with you, I wish I had more time to read (or listen to) other outside sources of news.
The NYT and Washington Post both lean a good bit to the left in thier reporting. I read the Washington Post, right after reading the Wall Street Journal. Thats what I call "fair and balanced". Between the two of them I think I get a decent summary of whats happening in the world.
Let each state decide how best to take care of its own electoral votes. The Fed should not force how each state casts its votes. The constitution lays out how it should work already, so leave it alone, if a state wants to change, let it.
And a tax on exhaling CO2, gotta cover the global warming too.
Sure, you just void your warrenty.
What about these DVDs and CDs I bought, I can rip them onto my laptop so I don't have to carry my CDs and DVDs around? I bought these too.
You can back them up, or convert them to some other format for your convinience.
So I can burn down my own house? I own it... ah... oh... well half of it, the bank owns the other bit (d'oh). If I select the half I own, say the bathroom and the box room; I can trash that with impunity.
You can do what you want with your house with in the limit of the law.
Ownership doesn't necessarily convey infinite rights, just demans good stewardship. Don't forget to tell Bush...
Ownership allows you to do what you want with your property as long as it is within the law. Nothing demands good stewardship, unless you count community peer pressure.
And I did tell Bush, I voted for him. :-)
You're being deliberately obtuse in your statement about protocol sniffers. How do you know what I do with a sniffer on my network?
Protocol sniffers do not invade peoples privacy, people do.
It is perfectly legal for me to do anything I like on my network. What more justification do I need?
Perhaps we should ban debuggers too, because all we can use them for is breaking into commercial software...
Risk is what is stopping them. The investments required are HUGE, and there are no garuntees on returns. There is too much liability WRT getting sued for radioactive breaches, and no one wants one in their back yard.
When you are making money hand over fist pumping, and refining oil, why change? The economics of how energy is used in this country will have to change for the energy companies to want to change.
None of the big companies will make a move into nuclear energy until there are some predictable garuntees on their investments, and the gov't limits much of the risk involved.
True, I think the world in general has a good idea of what our capabilities are. We are streatched thin for now, but if there are any aggresive moves by any hostile country we can still meet them.
North Korea is really Chinas' problem, and the rest of the pacific rim. NK may get WMD, but they are more likley to use it on themselves them the US. China will keep a thumb on NK for the near future. Plus, the US could put the smakdown on NK from the Ocean via the Navy with minimal effort.
As for China, they are much more interested in trade, and keeping thier leaders in power, then poking the US in the eye at the moment. If China wanted to make a move, the would have done so against Taiwan by now.
Iran, might flex their mussles at some point, but with the US having 130,000 troops in a neigboring country with the ability to get more troops and supplies there fairly quickly if needed (no build up required, we have the logistics in place already), they are not going to get too restless.
The American people would back the President if we (the US, and possibly some other countries) were put in peril. Add to that the Presidents "Don't mess with Texas" attitude, and most dictators will think twice, lest they find a well placed cruise missle in his WC during his daily consitutional.
Even with hubris, Bush will not be invading any more countries in the near future. The military is streatched way too thin now, and his advisors know this.
He may well get in trouble in his second term, but he may well actually accomplish something too. He is not trying to get re-elected again, so we may well see the "real" Bush this go around.
Bush strikes me as someone who is acting more right wing then he really is. I'm sure there was a lot of pandering to the right up to this last election. I hope this is the case and now he can persue more moderate policies and have congress cooperate.
With or with out cocoanuts?