Absolutely. My calendar is on my treo, which is the only logical place for it since that is the only thing that stays with me throughout my day. Who cares if Outlook beeps at you to remind you about that meeting if you aren't at your desk?
For me, Exchange calendaring is the only really useful thing in exchange (especially when everyone in-house uses it!). Since my Treo syncs with exchange wirelessly, I never have to plug in my Treo, and I have no need for an full featured exchange application on my desktop. This meant I could quit dorking around with evolution/evolution connector and just use various mail clients over IMAP on my Linux desktop.
If I went to iPhone, which I like in other ways over the Treo, I'd have to get a Linux desktop exchange setup, and it still wouldn't be as nice as my Treo.
Actually I would mod both posts offtopic because this is a story about robots... ...and these posts are about people who still support Bush and drive SUVs. I'm sorry, how is this OT?
But chad is a problem not because the Florida recount came out wrong (or right or whatever you like), but because of the fact that there had to be so much effort/time/guesswork put into it. Processing accuracy (not to mention time) for e voting is a huge win. Chad is merely the most famous example, but any paper system is fundamentally inaccurate above a certain size election.
Sometimes people forget this, but Florida was an excellent example that, with paper, there is really no meaningful way to define the "true" result. With many thousands of paper ballots, one can only speak of a statistical result accurate to within a certain %. With electronic voting you trade a 100% chance of these small errors for a much smaller chance of much larger errors (fraud, crashes, etc). That trade probably isn't worth it, and the only sensible system is electronic with paper trail which removes small errors (and provides accessibility) but allows for backup (albeit with aforementioned small errors) in the case of an electronic failure.
"peer" does not mean "expert", it means someone at an equal level http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/peer.
Therefore since patents are submitted by the general public, they can be reviewed by the general public, and that is peer review. Whether it is effective peer review or not is up for debate. Academic peer review is generally done by experts because the community in question is unified by its expertise in a certain area, thus reviewers, and authors, are experts and peers.
In this case I'd think that patents would surely benefit from this broad peer review, and it is far simpler than organizing expert review, or refereeing in the academic sense. To do that one would need a large infrastructure of patent "editors" to select appropriate referees. Of course, there is already a similar infrastructure in the Pat. Office.
I assumed it was so that you can run out of "feature battery life" without disabling your phone for that important phone call? Seems a bit tenuous to me, as presumably you get less lifetime per oz. of battery with dual batteries unless you happen to use both batteries at exactly the same rate and you could accomplish the same thing with software...but, perhaps the power needed to transmit a cell phone call is higher than that needed by music or camera features. So for one application you need high power short use, while for music you want low power long use. Could be that a different battery could optimize them. Anyone know?
Not only that, but the poor reporter can't even figure out what the Nat'l Academies are. The building is _not_ a federal building any more than say, Lockheed Martin, is a federal building. Both Natl Academies and Lockheed do large amounts of work for the government, but they aren't directly part of it. (See for example http://www.nationalacademies.org/about/faq1.html) There is a big difference. It hardly matters here, but it is one more reason to discount this rant.
There is a difference between crying foul the day after the election, and acting to ensure fair voting. Last time around, the same people were doing both, because of who happened to win. This time liberals aren't going to cry foul, for obvious reasons.
I imagine, though, that they will happily stand up and agree that e-voting systems are still problematic, and document instances of problems. They simply aren't up in arms as much, since they believe that, for the most part, the right person won this time (perhaps in spite of the rigging that they believe the conservatives are doing.)
Of course many conservatives quite reasonably are part of fair voting movements. They weren't crying foul last time, for obvious reasons, and it is up to them as to why they are silent this time.
Perhaps, the problem for conservative vote conspiracy theorists is that in most of the states in question, the power and opportunity mostly resides with the conservatives, so they are in a tougher position to argue that the election results are invalid. Not an impossible position, just tougher.
The article points out that those attending the meeting represented only a fraction of internet users. In other words, they were all from a similar US/UK type background. It was not a truly global group.
Presumably the reason the article is so excited by what, as others have pointed out, was at best an equivocal statement about the future of ICANN, is that this group of Ameri-centric folks actually admitted that ICANN needed to be global at some point. A big step for a previously closed organization.
Amen brother. It's exactly like people who argue against carpool/HOV lanes, claiming that they are under-utilized. Actually sit and count, don't complain that they "look empty." Anecdotes are for dopes-give me statistics. Of course they look empty, that's the whole point. Few people are going to use a [self-checkout/carpool] lane if it the line is the same length as a regular lane.
No doubt Phil and Paul are the greatest, and while Al and Bob are useful for their entertainment value in small doses, they aren't worth listening to for any length of time.
That said, did anyone else notice that Phil couldn't keep Floyd Landis and Levi Leipheimer straight. Nearly every day he had at least one confusing moment like:
"oh no! Landis is cracking!"
I panic, look to see a blue gerolsteiner jersey moving backwards...
Seriously, by the time Landis did crack in the Alps, I assumed that he was talking about Leipheimer for a moment. Even on the very last day he did it (and that was the only time I ever heard him catch himself!). I mean, I love his commentary, but can't he keep 2 names straight? I guess after 7 years of "Lance this" and "Lance that" he isn't used to talking about more than one American...
Slashdot Mirror
When did Google hire Randy Waterhouse?
Absolutely. My calendar is on my treo, which is the only logical place for it since that is the only thing that stays with me throughout my day. Who cares if Outlook beeps at you to remind you about that meeting if you aren't at your desk?
For me, Exchange calendaring is the only really useful thing in exchange (especially when everyone in-house uses it!). Since my Treo syncs with exchange wirelessly, I never have to plug in my Treo, and I have no need for an full featured exchange application on my desktop. This meant I could quit dorking around with evolution/evolution connector and just use various mail clients over IMAP on my Linux desktop.
If I went to iPhone, which I like in other ways over the Treo, I'd have to get a Linux desktop exchange setup, and it still wouldn't be as nice as my Treo.
You're conflating liquid bags and gas bags.
But chad is a problem not because the Florida recount came out wrong (or right or whatever you like), but because of the fact that there had to be so much effort/time/guesswork put into it. Processing accuracy (not to mention time) for e voting is a huge win. Chad is merely the most famous example, but any paper system is fundamentally inaccurate above a certain size election. Sometimes people forget this, but Florida was an excellent example that, with paper, there is really no meaningful way to define the "true" result. With many thousands of paper ballots, one can only speak of a statistical result accurate to within a certain %. With electronic voting you trade a 100% chance of these small errors for a much smaller chance of much larger errors (fraud, crashes, etc). That trade probably isn't worth it, and the only sensible system is electronic with paper trail which removes small errors (and provides accessibility) but allows for backup (albeit with aforementioned small errors) in the case of an electronic failure.
Chad
"peer" does not mean "expert", it means someone at an equal level http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/peer. Therefore since patents are submitted by the general public, they can be reviewed by the general public, and that is peer review. Whether it is effective peer review or not is up for debate. Academic peer review is generally done by experts because the community in question is unified by its expertise in a certain area, thus reviewers, and authors, are experts and peers. In this case I'd think that patents would surely benefit from this broad peer review, and it is far simpler than organizing expert review, or refereeing in the academic sense. To do that one would need a large infrastructure of patent "editors" to select appropriate referees. Of course, there is already a similar infrastructure in the Pat. Office.
OK, so what about vending machines that didn't take the new style bills when they came out. It sounds like that was illegal...right?
I assumed it was so that you can run out of "feature battery life" without disabling your phone for that important phone call? Seems a bit tenuous to me, as presumably you get less lifetime per oz. of battery with dual batteries unless you happen to use both batteries at exactly the same rate and you could accomplish the same thing with software...but, perhaps the power needed to transmit a cell phone call is higher than that needed by music or camera features. So for one application you need high power short use, while for music you want low power long use. Could be that a different battery could optimize them. Anyone know?
Not only that, but the poor reporter can't even figure out what the Nat'l Academies are. The building is _not_ a federal building any more than say, Lockheed Martin, is a federal building. Both Natl Academies and Lockheed do large amounts of work for the government, but they aren't directly part of it. (See for example http://www.nationalacademies.org/about/faq1.html) There is a big difference. It hardly matters here, but it is one more reason to discount this rant.
There is a difference between crying foul the day after the election, and acting to ensure fair voting. Last time around, the same people were doing both, because of who happened to win. This time liberals aren't going to cry foul, for obvious reasons. I imagine, though, that they will happily stand up and agree that e-voting systems are still problematic, and document instances of problems. They simply aren't up in arms as much, since they believe that, for the most part, the right person won this time (perhaps in spite of the rigging that they believe the conservatives are doing.) Of course many conservatives quite reasonably are part of fair voting movements. They weren't crying foul last time, for obvious reasons, and it is up to them as to why they are silent this time. Perhaps, the problem for conservative vote conspiracy theorists is that in most of the states in question, the power and opportunity mostly resides with the conservatives, so they are in a tougher position to argue that the election results are invalid. Not an impossible position, just tougher.
...finally admit to the incessant whining noises caused by its software?
The article points out that those attending the meeting represented only a fraction of internet users. In other words, they were all from a similar US/UK type background. It was not a truly global group.
Presumably the reason the article is so excited by what, as others have pointed out, was at best an equivocal statement about the future of ICANN, is that this group of Ameri-centric folks actually admitted that ICANN needed to be global at some point. A big step for a previously closed organization.
Amen brother. It's exactly like people who argue against carpool/HOV lanes, claiming that they are under-utilized. Actually sit and count, don't complain that they "look empty." Anecdotes are for dopes-give me statistics. Of course they look empty, that's the whole point. Few people are going to use a [self-checkout/carpool] lane if it the line is the same length as a regular lane.
No doubt Phil and Paul are the greatest, and while Al and Bob are useful for their entertainment value in small doses, they aren't worth listening to for any length of time. That said, did anyone else notice that Phil couldn't keep Floyd Landis and Levi Leipheimer straight. Nearly every day he had at least one confusing moment like: "oh no! Landis is cracking!" I panic, look to see a blue gerolsteiner jersey moving backwards... Seriously, by the time Landis did crack in the Alps, I assumed that he was talking about Leipheimer for a moment. Even on the very last day he did it (and that was the only time I ever heard him catch himself!). I mean, I love his commentary, but can't he keep 2 names straight? I guess after 7 years of "Lance this" and "Lance that" he isn't used to talking about more than one American...