Is it possible to develop IPAQ apps under the.NET framework?
(I realize it can go to.aspx web pages, but I'm wondering if it's possible to, say, write C# and then compile it to IL and then run natively on an IPAQ?)
I know Microsoft released beta 2 of the.NET SDK last night, and while I know there's a mobile SDK that generates WAP, I'm wondering if it's possible to compile down.NET apps to the IPAQ platform.
From the press release:
The founding companies are: ACTV, ATI Technologies, Broadcom Corporation, Concurrent Computer Corporation, Conexant, Convergence Integrated Media, DIVA, Excite@Home, iSurfTV, Liberate Technologies, Lineo, MontaVista, Motorola, nCUBE, OpenTV, Pace Micro Technology, Qpass, PeplayTV...
Is "PeplayTV" actually a misspelling for Replay? I assume it is, but then I wondered if it was some unknown startup trying to ride on the coattails (and mis-typings) of Replay's users...
Does anyone know?
Also: what's with the "I'll believe it when I see it" cynicism? This is a *good thing* -- especially when TIVO, PePlay, and ATI are involved.
What, you want Microsoft to come on in with their odd UltimateTV and stomp all over anyone who's not Microsoft?
I don't see MS looking for a "standards-based" television platform. (Although I wonder if their.NET technology will someone play into Ultimate TV and XBOX. That might be somewhat exciting...)
It debunks some of the spin that's being spun. (I'm still opposed to the idea of Smart Tags, but this article at least helps sort out the alarmist spin from the actual implentation.)
What I wonder is who is doing the community more good, Napster (who have encouraged communication and sharing) or the RIAA (who encourage closemindness and destroy that feeling of community.
Please. You've got to be kidding. Napster is doing good? Napster is as greedy -- and as astute as any corporation out there. Even more so.
Recall the "March on Washington for Napster?" It's the naive people that actually took this seriously -- as seriously as if Napster claimed that "file sharing" was a "civil right."
What people must understand -- and be able to perform in their technology analyses [i.e. posts on Slashdot] -- is that corporations are out for one thing: profit. To believe otherwise is to fall prey to corporate spin: "Oh no. We believe in you. We believe in the people. We believe in the rights to share files. Share warez. Share porn. Whatever. Sharing is your *right*!"
It's spin, my friend. Slick corporate spin. I urge you to kick your shit detector up a notch and realize that corporations are not our friends. None of them are. Not even those who (as Napster once did) claimed that they were working "on our behalf" (sorta like the spin on MP3.com. "Why are your files locked? Well, certain corporations want to keep you from listening to music for free! But rest assured, we at MP3.com are *working diligently* to restore your music."
It boggles my mind -- first, the idea that a corporation is working on my behalf and second that people actually believe this. ("Oh thank you MP3.com! Thank you for tirelessly working day and night to restore my music!")
Corporations do not care about consumers. They want you to believe they care. And if you do believe, they are happy. They've successfully spun their greed into some sort of wacked philanthropic notion that, gee whiz, we actually care about the customers that we bilk for bucks.
*Corporations only care about consumers as long as those consumers are able to contriubute to the corporate bottom-line.*
Where's Napster now? Where's their "Marching on Washington?" How come they're not rallying the troops anymore? Looking back -- and this wasn't this long ago -- I can't believe that successful hype machine that Napster had. Grassroots lobbying organizations. Marches on Washington. Letter writing campaigns. Front page stories on CNN and MSNBC pimping the 'Patel Decision. More to follow.' Breaking news.
You'd think they were involved in something important.
Er, no. A truly good business man knows that trust and reputation count, and screwing people catches up with you pretty fast. Do some folks get away with it? Yes, but they're the minority...
Er, no. Sorry, pal. "Business ethics" have nothing to do with "Trust" and "Reputation." Trust and Reputation are whatever the business is skillful enough to spin.
If I "trust" a company, it has nothing to do with how it conducts business. (It may, but who's to say that I know how a company conducts business if I'm not a part of the business and actually conducting the business' business?)
"Trust" are "Reputation" are media and customer manipulations. It's PR spin. It has nothing to do with the core business "conduct."
How many businesses do you trust? What, you list a couple of "Linux" businesses? Like businesses won't sell their first-born for a larger profit?
If you're so naive to believe that businesses care about *conducting* their businesses in an open, trustworthy and nice way, then you ought to go back to Optimists Anonymous. They want you to believe that the conduct their businesses in an honest and upfront way -- that's what they're supposed to do -- but if you don't think most successful businesses push their "conduct" to the legal-limits then you've misunderstood how businesses work.
He (or she) who wins in business is he (or she) who is able to get the public to believe whatever the business want the public to believe. This is business mastery and success. Business mastery is also staying clear and legal -- but anything else is fair game.
The more interesting time is to correlate ping times to suckage. I remember the Quake1 days where LPB's were very highly regarded -- and whenever one appeared on the server, all the modem users would hit their little chat keys and gripe about the LPB that just joined the game.
"I'm on a T1, guys," the LBP would say and would -- under most circumstances -- dominate the game. There were (at least from my vantage point as a modem gamer playing with mostly other modem players) very few LPBs, and those that I recall playing with -- especially in the Q1 days -- were pretty good and knew how to exploit their LPBness.
Now, however, it's a whole different story. You got SDSL users, wacky @home kiddies, whiny ADSL users, and the odd Starband user who invariably lands in your game, starts chatting about pings ("Hey, guys, I'm on Starband! Look at my terrible ping!") and then starts wanting to know you can see his new skin ("Hey, Kelso, can you see my new Skin?").
Ping times have gone down, but suckage -- at least from where I sit on my SDSL -- has gone way, way up. Which leads me to believe that the overall on-line gaming ain't what it used to be. When suckage is so high and pings are so low, you get discouraged.
Campers never bothered me, BFGers never bothered me, but there's nothing worse than a LPB that sucks.
Well, I'm a big fan of TIVO. I've had one for about a year now and love it. I even bought a second one for my other televsion set.
But one thing I'm curious about: I just this week got an ATI Radeon All-In-Wonder card. It's pretty nifty -- great TV receiver, pretty good graphics -- but it also has the 'TV-On-Demand' option: you can watch TV, pause it, skip past commercials, etc.
It even has (evil) Gemstar's GuidePlus software which makes the Radeon *very* much like the TIVO in that you can select shows in the future and have the Radeon record them as MPEG streams. (In fact, the Radeon has the added benefit -- along with some additional software -- of being able to serve up your TV across your LAN, which is quite nifty if yo actually need (or want) TV streaming across your home LAN.)
Anyway, I wonder if this new TIVO patent will put an end to one of the Radeon's AIW's big selling points: the ability to time-shift, encode, and then view time-shifted television files.
(The Radeon software isn't as quick as the TIVO software, but it does do essentially the same thing: encode while simultaneously allowing the file to be viewed.)
Ah well. I guess if the patent was gonna be awarded, I'd rather see TIVO get it than Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it possible to develop IPAQ apps under the .NET framework?
.aspx web pages, but I'm wondering if it's possible to, say, write C# and then compile it to IL and then run natively on an IPAQ?)
.NET SDK last night, and while I know there's a mobile SDK that generates WAP, I'm wondering if it's possible to compile down .NET apps to the IPAQ platform.
(I realize it can go to
I know Microsoft released beta 2 of the
Is "PeplayTV" actually a misspelling for Replay? I assume it is, but then I wondered if it was some unknown startup trying to ride on the coattails (and mis-typings) of Replay's users...
Does anyone know?
Also: what's with the "I'll believe it when I see it" cynicism? This is a *good thing* -- especially when TIVO, PePlay, and ATI are involved.
What, you want Microsoft to come on in with their odd UltimateTV and stomp all over anyone who's not Microsoft?
I don't see MS looking for a "standards-based" television platform. (Although I wonder if their .NET technology will someone play into Ultimate TV and XBOX. That might be somewhat exciting ...)
Try this: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/techart/ODC_stXM L.htm
Goes right to the article.
Here's a link that describes the basic tech behind smart tags and gives some implentation examples:
R L= /library/techart/ODC_stXML.htm
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?U
It debunks some of the spin that's being spun. (I'm still opposed to the idea of Smart Tags, but this article at least helps sort out the alarmist spin from the actual implentation.)
What I wonder is who is doing the community more good, Napster (who have encouraged communication and sharing) or the RIAA (who encourage closemindness and destroy that feeling of community.
Please. You've got to be kidding. Napster is doing good? Napster is as greedy -- and as astute as any corporation out there. Even more so.
Recall the "March on Washington for Napster?" It's the naive people that actually took this seriously -- as seriously as if Napster claimed that "file sharing" was a "civil right."
What people must understand -- and be able to perform in their technology analyses [i.e. posts on Slashdot] -- is that corporations are out for one thing: profit. To believe otherwise is to fall prey to corporate spin: "Oh no. We believe in you. We believe in the people. We believe in the rights to share files. Share warez. Share porn. Whatever. Sharing is your *right*!"
It's spin, my friend. Slick corporate spin. I urge you to kick your shit detector up a notch and realize that corporations are not our friends. None of them are. Not even those who (as Napster once did) claimed that they were working "on our behalf" (sorta like the spin on MP3.com. "Why are your files locked? Well, certain corporations want to keep you from listening to music for free! But rest assured, we at MP3.com are *working diligently* to restore your music."
It boggles my mind -- first, the idea that a corporation is working on my behalf and second that people actually believe this. ("Oh thank you MP3.com! Thank you for tirelessly working day and night to restore my music!")
Corporations do not care about consumers. They want you to believe they care. And if you do believe, they are happy. They've successfully spun their greed into some sort of wacked philanthropic notion that, gee whiz, we actually care about the customers that we bilk for bucks.
*Corporations only care about consumers as long as those consumers are able to contriubute to the corporate bottom-line.*
Where's Napster now? Where's their "Marching on Washington?" How come they're not rallying the troops anymore? Looking back -- and this wasn't this long ago -- I can't believe that successful hype machine that Napster had. Grassroots lobbying organizations. Marches on Washington. Letter writing campaigns. Front page stories on CNN and MSNBC pimping the 'Patel Decision. More to follow.' Breaking news.
You'd think they were involved in something important.
Er, no. A truly good business man knows that trust and reputation count, and screwing people catches up with you pretty fast. Do some folks get away with it? Yes, but they're the minority...
Er, no. Sorry, pal. "Business ethics" have nothing to do with "Trust" and "Reputation." Trust and Reputation are whatever the business is skillful enough to spin.
If I "trust" a company, it has nothing to do with how it conducts business. (It may, but who's to say that I know how a company conducts business if I'm not a part of the business and actually conducting the business' business?)
"Trust" are "Reputation" are media and customer manipulations. It's PR spin. It has nothing to do with the core business "conduct."
How many businesses do you trust? What, you list a couple of "Linux" businesses? Like businesses won't sell their first-born for a larger profit?
If you're so naive to believe that businesses care about *conducting* their businesses in an open, trustworthy and nice way, then you ought to go back to Optimists Anonymous. They want you to believe that the conduct their businesses in an honest and upfront way -- that's what they're supposed to do -- but if you don't think most successful businesses push their "conduct" to the legal-limits then you've misunderstood how businesses work.
He (or she) who wins in business is he (or she) who is able to get the public to believe whatever the business want the public to believe. This is business mastery and success. Business mastery is also staying clear and legal -- but anything else is fair game.
Good businesses are sharks feeding on guppies.
How about: "Cool but slightly evil?"
The more interesting time is to correlate ping times to suckage. I remember the Quake1 days where LPB's were very highly regarded -- and whenever one appeared on the server, all the modem users would hit their little chat keys and gripe about the LPB that just joined the game.
"I'm on a T1, guys," the LBP would say and would -- under most circumstances -- dominate the game. There were (at least from my vantage point as a modem gamer playing with mostly other modem players) very few LPBs, and those that I recall playing with -- especially in the Q1 days -- were pretty good and knew how to exploit their LPBness.
Now, however, it's a whole different story. You got SDSL users, wacky @home kiddies, whiny ADSL users, and the odd Starband user who invariably lands in your game, starts chatting about pings ("Hey, guys, I'm on Starband! Look at my terrible ping!") and then starts wanting to know you can see his new skin ("Hey, Kelso, can you see my new Skin?").
Ping times have gone down, but suckage -- at least from where I sit on my SDSL -- has gone way, way up. Which leads me to believe that the overall on-line gaming ain't what it used to be. When suckage is so high and pings are so low, you get discouraged.
Campers never bothered me, BFGers never bothered me, but there's nothing worse than a LPB that sucks.
Well, I'm a big fan of TIVO. I've had one for about a year now and love it. I even bought a second one for my other televsion set.
But one thing I'm curious about: I just this week got an ATI Radeon All-In-Wonder card. It's pretty nifty -- great TV receiver, pretty good graphics -- but it also has the 'TV-On-Demand' option: you can watch TV, pause it, skip past commercials, etc.
It even has (evil) Gemstar's GuidePlus software which makes the Radeon *very* much like the TIVO in that you can select shows in the future and have the Radeon record them as MPEG streams. (In fact, the Radeon has the added benefit -- along with some additional software -- of being able to serve up your TV across your LAN, which is quite nifty if yo actually need (or want) TV streaming across your home LAN.)
Anyway, I wonder if this new TIVO patent will put an end to one of the Radeon's AIW's big selling points: the ability to time-shift, encode, and then view time-shifted television files.
(The Radeon software isn't as quick as the TIVO software, but it does do essentially the same thing: encode while simultaneously allowing the file to be viewed.)
Ah well. I guess if the patent was gonna be awarded, I'd rather see TIVO get it than Microsoft.