Why would somebody using an open source code be called a 'looter'
That is not who is being called a looter in TFA which you apparently didn't R. The looters mentioned in the article are an analogy for SCO. Maddog says that the world needs to step in and prevent SCO from destroying the international public treasure of the OSS the way the U.S. should have stepped in and prevented the destroying of the international public treasure in the Iraqi museums. He gives examples of Munich, the UK, and Brazil as places where local governments at one level or another are supporting OSS. He did not even remotely imply that someone using OSS would be a looter.
Sorry to keep replying to my own posts, but I am really frosted.
Toshiba has admited and Microsoft has confirmed that there is *no* technical reason for the lack of support. Here is what Microsoft says. "Technically, all Pocket PC 2002 devices are capable of supporting the new Windows Mobile software for Pocket PC." See details.
Oh, and BTW, if you follow the update link from the MS page to the Toshiba update page, it happily let you fill in the form for an upgrade and that die when you put in a serial number for an e740.
Please mod the parent down, it is not informative. Yes, I know, I wrote the parent, but I did so as a naive fool, trusting what Toshiba told me. Today Toshiba says they will not support upgrades for e740 at all. If you are another e740 owner who paid $600 for a product that becomes obsolete in 6 months, please call the number above and complain.
I suggest looking at setting up Wiki. Collaborative writing with ability to make links inside and outside the wiki and the ability to edit each other's texts which will put a different spin on the nature of the collaboration. Also, the sheer simplicity of it will focus the students on the content rather than on playing around with a bunch of software widgets.
133 comments so far and not a single one says anything other than "M$ sux", well, gee, I (and everyone else who reads/.) knew that already, what's your point?
On the very limited possibility that someone is reading this thread for information, I just talked to Toshiba and they say that you get 2003 for free if you purchased an e75x after May 1, everyone else (including e740 owners) needs to pay $50 by calling 1-888-874-8247. I, for one, am going to get it just for the improvements in IE.
Note that it's the usual "big" artists, who routinely ship out crap CDs with 2 decent songs
Why stop at the level of the album/song? Why not say that song X contains only 2 minutes of decent music and 3 minutes of crap so it's ok for some company to edit out the crappy 3 minutes and sell the decent 2 minutes regardless of what the artist has to say in the matter?
Who gets to decide which are the crappy minutes? Well I get to decide that when I am at home listening, but I don't think I want Steve Jobs or anyone else deciding that for me, thank you very much.
Are you going to say that the artist shouldn't have the right to object to the 3 minutes being edited out? If so, then compnaies that distribute the $0.99 tracks will be the ones deciding who listens to what. An artist protecting their right to determine what gets sold under their name is protecting *our* right to even hear what they have to say. (Though I know full well that's not why Madonna is objecting, still if no one does object, our rights to listen are gone.)
P2P is a whole other issue, this particular issue of the $0.99 songs is not about what an individual does to the music (and obviously we should all be able to edit our own collections however we want), it is about what a *compnay* can do to an artist's work without the artist's permission. Protecting that is not protecting some fancy-shmancy notion of "art", it is protecting our right to hear what people create, not just the portion of it some third (commercial) party decides to make available.
Although I agree with you in general about IE and standards, moving from pocketPC 2002 to pocketPC 2003 is moving from IE 3.0 to IE 6.0 and by any measure, there is a huge improvement in standards support between those two versions. Try writing an ECMAscript or DOM app with Jscript (not even JavaScript) and you'll know what I mean.
Re:Yes... but, the real question is:
on
PocketPC 2003 Reviewed
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Can it run non-Microsoft apps?
I've run Perl under pocketpc OS. I've heard that Apache, and Python will also run there. There's a java VM for pocketpc. With mono and.NET there are now other possibllities too.
I can see how the remarks on priviledge and poverty might get modded as off topic but I think the question of how games relate to Real Life is definitely part of this conversation. Games, Art, any activity doesn't *have* to address human misery to be great, but if none of them address it at all, we have wandered into a an age of more than decadence.
I think there is a distinction between entertainment and art that lies in the interaction of the person with the artwork, not in the artwork itself. Games are required to be entertainment and have the potential to be art.
An entertaining movie/game/book/whatever stimulates the imagination as you consume it, pulling you in to a temporarily vivid world. But if it's only entertainment, an hour later you're hungry again. Art, OTOH, remains with you, changes you somehow, provides you a hook to hang future thoughts and emotions on.
Sure, if you play a game for X hours, you'll dream about it and find a thousand ways in which it is a metaphor for the events of your daily life, but how rich is the metaphor? how flexible? Does the extension of the game into your psychic life narrow your field of view, or expand it? If the game is multi-player, does it encourage social interaction along the single dimension of the game's progress, or does it provide a jointly formed framework for exploring many dimensions of social interaction?
I have a higher bar for the term "interactivity" - any shoot-em-up can absorb you and provide you with choices which impact the game, but a richly interactive game will also keep on interacting so that after the pixels have faded from the screen or the last stone has hit the Go board with a satisfying thunk, it will contnue to generatively engage you on multiple levels.
You mean they don't die of polio in rich countries anymore. The U.N. failed to meet its goal of erradicating polio in the year 2000 and has now pushed the goal to 2005. After years of decline, last year in India, the number of polio cases *increased* by something like 800%.
What I love is how the last time Cleanflicks was mentioned, most slashdotters were FIRMLY AGAINST the idea, screaming all sorts of crap about "artistic integrity of the director". Now that the EFF thinks it should be legal, you're all "Oh, yeah, you should be able to do this! Duh!"
Apparently the poster believes there is a contradiction between 1) being AGAINST Cleanflicks being able to sell/rent modified versions of DVDs and 2) being FOR individual user's right to modify how they themselves view a DVD they own or have rented.
I (admitedly snotilly) pointed out that the two situations are different contexts so there is no necessary contradiction bewteen the two views. One context is public (yelling fire in a crowded theatre, selling DVDs to the public) and one is private (yelling fire or watching DVDs at home).
I do not believe companies have the right to take an artist's work, modify, and sell/rent it without the aritst's permission. I do believe indidividuals have the right to view works of art in any way they choose.
Hmm, so let's see, by your reasoning... because I think it's bad for people to stand up in a crowded theatre and yell "fire" when there is no fire, I must also think it's bad for a person to stand alone in their own house and do the same thing.
Here's a word that may come in useful to you sometime in life: c-o-n-t-e-x-t.
not watching a commercial is stealing a tv program
That sir, or madame, is poetry, well said!
Maybe we can combine this with Hatch's new idea and make a tv that sends electro-shocks if you try to channel surf, blows itself up if you watch public access, and blows you up if you watch a pirated or edited dvd.
> Unfortunately, since the Perl grants were not viewed as a big success
Hey, I got to hear Damian's Mars-Bar Quantum talk. That was enough of a success for me.:-)
> even more likely that Perl6 won't "happen"
I guess my feelings (not based on any detailed knowledge of Perl6) are that 1) if you want to do something big, you have to overcome big things 2) stumbling blocks at one stage in a process can lead to immense paradigm changes that wouldn't have been achievable without the stumbling blocks 3) regardless of whether Perl6 as Perl6 "happens" the process of attempting it has got to be firing millions of neurons in the brains of some very smart, hard-working, generous people and the results of all that will find their way back into the community one way or another.
Having witnessed first hand the transition from perl4 to perl5, I have complete faith in the pumpkings to transition us as easily as possible into perl6. I think of the several thousands of lines of code that I had in perl4, perhaps several dozen lines needed changing to transition to perl5 and most of those could be done with a regex. And then, once I learned what was good about perl5 making the additional changes was not hard. I have no reason to believe that the perl6 transition will be any more difficult.
And if perl5 does everything you can imagine ever needing to have done, I suggest a) your imagination is a little lacking and b) you'll still be able to install and use perl5 for years even after perl6 comes out. Heck, I still have perl 4.019 sitting around somewhere.
Since perl6 is at least three years away and probably more, your posting is really chicken-little thinking. Not only is the sky not falling, it also won't even begin to lower for a long time:-)
There is a subtlety here: whether civilian casualties are the point or an unfortunate consequence.
If the consequnce was not also *inevitable* as well as unfortunate (a rather gross understatement), I would agree.
it becomes a game of balancing the morality of the war effort and the desire to minimize civilian casualties
I'm afraid I can't bring myself to do math and cost analysis with human lives. But you're right that there are many levels of morality and my lumping all politically motivated killing in the same category is an overstatement.
I guess, since my respondants called me a twit and a moron, modding my posts to flamebait is correct:-)
I do want to clarify one thing: I do *not* believe that American soldiers are terrorists or murderers. They are incredibly brave people doing a job that their country (wrongly) gave them.
Yes, probably, my language is sloppy, mea culpa. I'm a Perl guy, so I tend toward the poetical/absurdist take on language and reserve the right to use the same words differently in different contexts:-)
[excellent points about war, fear, etc. snipped]
Thanks, that is a much better way of saying some of what I was attempting to say.
I offer another more literal and useful definition instead: terrorism is any act designed to inspire terror in another person or group for political/ideological ends, said terror generally consisting of direct attacks on civilian populations.
Yes, I can agree with that definition. And by that definition the U.S./Brit war on Iraq qualifies in every respect. If you want to tell me "they murder people for the wrong reasons and we murder them for the right reasons", well I can respect your opinion even if I disagree with it. But if you tell me what they do is murder and what we do isn't, I think you are playing a semantic game. And if you think months of threatening "shock and awe" followed by 1,000 of bombs isn't terror-inspiring (and meant to inspire terror), then I don't know what is. If you want to tell me that our attacks were not "aimed at civilians" then, I think you have a misconception of what it means to aim 1,000s of bombs anywhere.
The complete lunacy of reserving the word terrorism for "bad" people and war for "good" people is clearly shown in Osama Bin Laden's history. When he was paid by the C.I.A. to fight the Russians, he was a "freedom fighter" and when he fights us he is a "terrorist". I prefer to say that in both cases he is a person who murders for ideology, which in my book makes him the same as Bush, Sharon, Hamas, and the rest.
And to get back to the reason I responded to this particular topic in this particular thread -- Sontag from SCO claimed that Linux is used by terrorists, then went on to name, not the September 11th bombers, but a number of countries it is now popular to label as terrorists. Well that right there is a gross abuse of the language both to somehow think he is muddying linux's reputation by linking it with terrorism and to link those countries (however misguided their leaders might be) with the Sept. 11th bombers. If you think my use of the word terrorism is confused, I hope you at least also recognize that Sontag's is more so.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would somebody using an open source code be called a 'looter'
That is not who is being called a looter in TFA which you apparently didn't R. The looters mentioned in the article are an analogy for SCO. Maddog says that the world needs to step in and prevent SCO from destroying the international public treasure of the OSS the way the U.S. should have stepped in and prevented the destroying of the international public treasure in the Iraqi museums. He gives examples of Munich, the UK, and Brazil as places where local governments at one level or another are supporting OSS. He did not even remotely imply that someone using OSS would be a looter.
Sorry to keep replying to my own posts, but I am really frosted.
Toshiba has admited and Microsoft has confirmed that there is *no* technical reason for the lack of support. Here is what Microsoft says. "Technically, all Pocket PC 2002 devices are capable of supporting the new Windows Mobile software for Pocket PC." See details.
Oh, and BTW, if you follow the update link from the MS page to the Toshiba update page, it happily let you fill in the form for an upgrade and that die when you put in a serial number for an e740.
$toshiba =~ s/(.).(...)../$2$1/;
Surely there must be other /. jugglers, it's multi-tasking in real time and relaxes those hunched backs and shoulders too.
Tai Chi makes those nanoseconds seem like minutes!
Please mod the parent down, it is not informative. Yes, I know, I wrote the parent, but I did so as a naive fool, trusting what Toshiba told me. Today Toshiba says they will not support upgrades for e740 at all. If you are another e740 owner who paid $600 for a product that becomes obsolete in 6 months, please call the number above and complain.
I suggest looking at setting up Wiki. Collaborative writing with ability to make links inside and outside the wiki and the ability to edit each other's texts which will put a different spin on the nature of the collaboration. Also, the sheer simplicity of it will focus the students on the content rather than on playing around with a bunch of software widgets.
133 comments so far and not a single one says anything other than "M$ sux", well, gee, I (and everyone else who reads /.) knew that already, what's your point?
On the very limited possibility that someone is reading this thread for information, I just talked to Toshiba and they say that you get 2003 for free if you purchased an e75x after May 1, everyone else (including e740 owners) needs to pay $50 by calling 1-888-874-8247. I, for one, am going to get it just for the improvements in IE.
Note that it's the usual "big" artists, who routinely ship out crap CDs with 2 decent songs
Why stop at the level of the album/song? Why not say that song X contains only 2 minutes of decent music and 3 minutes of crap so it's ok for some company to edit out the crappy 3 minutes and sell the decent 2 minutes regardless of what the artist has to say in the matter?
Who gets to decide which are the crappy minutes? Well I get to decide that when I am at home listening, but I don't think I want Steve Jobs or anyone else deciding that for me, thank you very much.
Are you going to say that the artist shouldn't have the right to object to the 3 minutes being edited out? If so, then compnaies that distribute the $0.99 tracks will be the ones deciding who listens to what. An artist protecting their right to determine what gets sold under their name is protecting *our* right to even hear what they have to say. (Though I know full well that's not why Madonna is objecting, still if no one does object, our rights to listen are gone.)
P2P is a whole other issue, this particular issue of the $0.99 songs is not about what an individual does to the music (and obviously we should all be able to edit our own collections however we want), it is about what a *compnay* can do to an artist's work without the artist's permission. Protecting that is not protecting some fancy-shmancy notion of "art", it is protecting our right to hear what people create, not just the portion of it some third (commercial) party decides to make available.
Although I agree with you in general about IE and standards, moving from pocketPC 2002 to pocketPC 2003 is moving from IE 3.0 to IE 6.0 and by any measure, there is a huge improvement in standards support between those two versions. Try writing an ECMAscript or DOM app with Jscript (not even JavaScript) and you'll know what I mean.
One gig compact flash cards are getting cheap.
Can it run non-Microsoft apps?
.NET there are now other possibllities too.
I've run Perl under pocketpc OS. I've heard that Apache, and Python will also run there. There's a java VM for pocketpc. With mono and
I just wish somebody would add wireless networking to the things
The Toshiba e740/750 come with built in 802.11b (or Bluetooth in Europe). And wifi CF cards are available for most other pocketpc devices.
I can see how the remarks on priviledge and poverty might get modded as off topic but I think the question of how games relate to Real Life is definitely part of this conversation. Games, Art, any activity doesn't *have* to address human misery to be great, but if none of them address it at all, we have wandered into a an age of more than decadence.
I think there is a distinction between entertainment and art that lies in the interaction of the person with the artwork, not in the artwork itself. Games are required to be entertainment and have the potential to be art.
An entertaining movie/game/book/whatever stimulates the imagination as you consume it, pulling you in to a temporarily vivid world. But if it's only entertainment, an hour later you're hungry again. Art, OTOH, remains with you, changes you somehow, provides you a hook to hang future thoughts and emotions on.
Sure, if you play a game for X hours, you'll dream about it and find a thousand ways in which it is a metaphor for the events of your daily life, but how rich is the metaphor? how flexible? Does the extension of the game into your psychic life narrow your field of view, or expand it? If the game is multi-player, does it encourage social interaction along the single dimension of the game's progress, or does it provide a jointly formed framework for exploring many dimensions of social interaction?
I have a higher bar for the term "interactivity" - any shoot-em-up can absorb you and provide you with choices which impact the game, but a richly interactive game will also keep on interacting so that after the pixels have faded from the screen or the last stone has hit the Go board with a satisfying thunk, it will contnue to generatively engage you on multiple levels.
Children don't die of polio anymore.
You mean they don't die of polio in rich countries anymore. The U.N. failed to meet its goal of erradicating polio in the year 2000 and has now pushed the goal to 2005. After years of decline, last year in India, the number of polio cases *increased* by something like 800%.
What the hell are you talking about?
The post I replied to said, among other things:
What I love is how the last time Cleanflicks was mentioned, most slashdotters were FIRMLY AGAINST the idea, screaming all sorts of crap about "artistic integrity of the director". Now that the EFF thinks it should be legal, you're all "Oh, yeah, you should be able to do this! Duh!"
Apparently the poster believes there is a contradiction between 1) being AGAINST Cleanflicks being able to sell/rent modified versions of DVDs and 2) being FOR individual user's right to modify how they themselves view a DVD they own or have rented.
I (admitedly snotilly) pointed out that the two situations are different contexts so there is no necessary contradiction bewteen the two views. One context is public (yelling fire in a crowded theatre, selling DVDs to the public) and one is private (yelling fire or watching DVDs at home).
I do not believe companies have the right to take an artist's work, modify, and sell/rent it without the aritst's permission. I do believe indidividuals have the right to view works of art in any way they choose.
Nuff clarity?
Hmm, so let's see, by your reasoning ... because I think it's bad for people to stand up in a crowded theatre and yell "fire" when there is no fire, I must also think it's bad for a person to stand alone in their own house and do the same thing.
Here's a word that may come in useful to you sometime in life: c-o-n-t-e-x-t.
not watching a commercial is stealing a tv program
That sir, or madame, is poetry, well said!
Maybe we can combine this with Hatch's new idea and make a tv that sends electro-shocks if you try to channel surf, blows itself up if you watch public access, and blows you up if you watch a pirated or edited dvd.
SCO: My way's not very sportsmanlike, is it?
> Unfortunately, since the Perl grants were not viewed as a big success
:-)
Hey, I got to hear Damian's Mars-Bar Quantum talk. That was enough of a success for me.
> even more likely that Perl6 won't "happen"
I guess my feelings (not based on any detailed knowledge of Perl6) are that 1) if you want to do something big, you have to overcome big things 2) stumbling blocks at one stage in a process can lead to immense paradigm changes that wouldn't have been achievable without the stumbling blocks 3) regardless of whether Perl6 as Perl6 "happens" the process of attempting it has got to be firing millions of neurons in the brains of some very smart, hard-working, generous people and the results of all that will find their way back into the community one way or another.
It's posts like this one which name the names of everyone but the author of the post that remind me how apt the C is in AC.
Having witnessed first hand the transition from perl4 to perl5, I have complete faith in the pumpkings to transition us as easily as possible into perl6. I think of the several thousands of lines of code that I had in perl4, perhaps several dozen lines needed changing to transition to perl5 and most of those could be done with a regex. And then, once I learned what was good about perl5 making the additional changes was not hard. I have no reason to believe that the perl6 transition will be any more difficult.
:-)
And if perl5 does everything you can imagine ever needing to have done, I suggest a) your imagination is a little lacking and b) you'll still be able to install and use perl5 for years even after perl6 comes out. Heck, I still have perl 4.019 sitting around somewhere.
Since perl6 is at least three years away and probably more, your posting is really chicken-little thinking. Not only is the sky not falling, it also won't even begin to lower for a long time
There is a subtlety here: whether civilian casualties are the point or an unfortunate consequence.
If the consequnce was not also *inevitable* as well as unfortunate (a rather gross understatement), I would agree.
it becomes a game of balancing the morality of the war effort and the desire to minimize civilian casualties
I'm afraid I can't bring myself to do math and cost analysis with human lives. But you're right that there are many levels of morality and my lumping all politically motivated killing in the same category is an overstatement.
I guess, since my respondants called me a twit and a moron, modding my posts to flamebait is correct :-)
I do want to clarify one thing: I do *not* believe that American soldiers are terrorists or murderers. They are incredibly brave people doing a job that their country (wrongly) gave them.
his language is sloppy
:-)
Yes, probably, my language is sloppy, mea culpa. I'm a Perl guy, so I tend toward the poetical/absurdist take on language and reserve the right to use the same words differently in different contexts
[excellent points about war, fear, etc. snipped]
Thanks, that is a much better way of saying some of what I was attempting to say.
I offer another more literal and useful definition instead: terrorism is any act designed to inspire terror in another person or group for political/ideological ends, said terror generally consisting of direct attacks on civilian populations.
Yes, I can agree with that definition. And by that definition the U.S./Brit war on Iraq qualifies in every respect. If you want to tell me "they murder people for the wrong reasons and we murder them for the right reasons", well I can respect your opinion even if I disagree with it. But if you tell me what they do is murder and what we do isn't, I think you are playing a semantic game. And if you think months of threatening "shock and awe" followed by 1,000 of bombs isn't terror-inspiring (and meant to inspire terror), then I don't know what is. If you want to tell me that our attacks were not "aimed at civilians" then, I think you have a misconception of what it means to aim 1,000s of bombs anywhere.
The complete lunacy of reserving the word terrorism for "bad" people and war for "good" people is clearly shown in Osama Bin Laden's history. When he was paid by the C.I.A. to fight the Russians, he was a "freedom fighter" and when he fights us he is a "terrorist". I prefer to say that in both cases he is a person who murders for ideology, which in my book makes him the same as Bush, Sharon, Hamas, and the rest.
And to get back to the reason I responded to this particular topic in this particular thread -- Sontag from SCO claimed that Linux is used by terrorists, then went on to name, not the September 11th bombers, but a number of countries it is now popular to label as terrorists. Well that right there is a gross abuse of the language both to somehow think he is muddying linux's reputation by linking it with terrorism and to link those countries (however misguided their leaders might be) with the Sept. 11th bombers. If you think my use of the word terrorism is confused, I hope you at least also recognize that Sontag's is more so.