I told him, Considering you got to play about 10 different games on his PS3 compared to the hundreds on his old PS2 (Which never actually failed) - The PS3 has been a lemon as far as he's experienced. And an expensive lemon at that.
And im sure you'll find just as much anecdotal evidence to the contrary too.
Of course if one is happy with a development environment that "lack the full breadth of features found in higher-end Visual Studio and SQL Server Editions" and all one wants to be is a "hobbyist, student, and novice developer" then one can develop for MS Windows Phone 7. Otherwise it costs $1300 with a $800 yearly upgrade.
And what exactly do you need in the higher end versions of Visual Studio that you don't get in the version explicitly for WP7 development?
Over three years, for a professional developer, not someone who is just knocking off fart applications, this is $1000 for the iPhone vesus $2900 for the MS WIndows Phone 7.
Don't project your inability to create anything beyond 'fart applications' with the WP version of VS2010 express onto other developers.
That is what many developers fail to see. At the end of the day, a PC + Visual Studio costs more than a Mac, which provides all the developer tools together with the operating system.
It is true that you can get the Windows SDK + Visual Studio express versions for free, but those are the light versions, so to speak.
And what you fail to see is that there is no need to buy Visual Studio when developing for WP7, the version you use is the free Visual Studio 2010 Express for Windows Phone.
And you know what? Apple doesn't care about your fringe desires.
On the contrary they spend quite a lot of money on DRM 'solutions' to deliberately disallow his 'fringe desires'. For his 'fringe desires' to be fulfilled they don't have to do anything except stop spending time and money on DRM lockouts.
Do you *seriously* expect any random reporter to understand the difference between encryption and hashing?:)
It seems he got it right, they *weren't* encrypted, however they *were* hashed. 3:01 JST: Sony decided to correct an earlier statement, saying that PSN passwords were not encrypted but rather hashed.
Why is it that slashdotters hate MSFT with the fire of a thousand suns - except Xbox. In that case, Microsoft are the good guys?
who are these 'slashdotters'? are they everyone except you?
wrt msft hate and xbox i guess it's because MS are such a big company, in some markets the different divisions act as though they are a completely different company. The xbox is far from perfect but ms do seem to treat their xbox customers better than sony treat their playstation customers.
I disagree with his statement. Stealing databases with user info is only "not cool" if you do something with them. Having a bunch of 1's and 0's stored in a lock box doesn't hurt anyone.
Sony certainly seems to be suffering from it, and all the people who's info was stolen have likely done the smart thing and cancelled their credit cards.
I doubt any of you have the cajones to actually stick it out against sony with an obviously technically illiterate judiciary the chips were seriously stacked against him. GEOHOT is a young guy looking at a potential lifetime of owing sony. I understand what he did.
So why did he say he was going to fight sony and ask for money to do so then?
His statements were false on their face. OP made a claim that was incorrect. I cannot prove that he is incorrect by showing the results of an empty search: that proves nothing.
What was the search you did that yielded no results then?
Furthermore, no one is disputing the word "app." Anyone in the world is legally allowed to use the term for any reason. It has no trademark. If you can prove with internet search results that "App Store" was a term that was in common use,, globally, prior to 2008, as a generic term that is equivalent to software repository (because that's exactly what it is), then I'd like to see you try.
Why would i try to do that? I didn't dispute that, i responded to this comment made by you regarding the term 'app': The use of the word "app" was uncommon. If you can find 10 examples of the term being used by any companies prior to Apple's release of the "App Store," then I will concede
He stated that the term 'app' was common use - admittedly without basis - you refuted it - without basis - and a google search using the date range feature shows that he is correct. Even webster's dictionary has it defined and dating back to 1987.
If, however, you post again with nonsense, as you have since you have joined the thread, then you will continue to be a troll doing what you do... trolling, and the reader will be left to wonder if you are indeed borderline retarded, or that you just think that you are clever or funny by being an annoying troll. Let's see which it is.
This coming from the guy who attempted to brag about his small rooster.
Because I take glorious pleasure in correcting your nonsense, to show you that even if you were correct, your point is irrelevant and nonsensical.
But i didn't even make the initial comment, so if you really believed the initial comment to be irrelevant you wouldn't have replied to it much less refute it, yet you did.
Again, irrelevant. Whether or not I am believed has no bearing on Apple's case nor the dispute..
Then why did you bother to comment at all?
I am disagreeing with him because his statements are false, as are yours.
On what basis is his statement false? I did a basic date range search and that showed he was right and you are wrong. If the burden is on the person making the assertion to prove it then given you're making the assertion that he's wrong you should prove him wrong, but you can't because even a basic date range search shows that you are wrong.
Let's assume for a moment that you are correct... that I have not the abilities of one as you in that rarest of elite skills, search engine prowess (incorrect, but lets see if you can follow along).
Then why did you make such an obviously false argument?
So what if I can't use a search engine? What is your point, and how does it affect the argument?
Because why would anyone believe anything you say if what you say is so obviously wrong which you would have found out if you did a basic search.
even if true, which you can't prove, it is irrelevant to Apple's case against Amazon.
If it's irrelevant then why did you refute it at all?
Once again you have failed to comprehend what is salient. If spun makes an assertion (such as "app was in wide use prior to App Store"), then it is his burden to prove this, not mine to disprove it should I disagree.
On what basis are you disagreeing with him? The obvious thing to do would be - if you don't know and are incapable of searching - to ask, rather than just disagree.
Wrong again, you dipshit troll. Under what rules of debate am I required to disprove my own argument?
The obviousness of how false it is, you've made a statement that is so easily proven false by the most basic and simple research method. You might as well post [citation required] when someone asserts that 'water is wet'.
Furthermore, the burden of proof, to provide these examples, rests upon the individuals that made or agrees with the assertion (that "app" was in wide use prior to the App Store announcement), namely, spun or yourself.
So even though the most basic and rudimentary search technique would prove you wrong you still decide to refute the comment. All that shows is not only do you have no idea what you're talking about but you also seem incapable of using a common tool to check your argument before you post it.
If you can find 10 examples of the term being used by any companies prior to Apple's release of the "App Store,"
Are you really that inept that you cannot figure out how to use the 'date range' in a search engine? It's *really* basic functionality.
Are you really that inept that you can't think of anything relevant to post other than off topic remarks just to attempt a personal attack?
It's quite obvious you don't understand the term 'relevant' as this is entirely relevant given that it's incredibly easy to find the information you're requesting that proves wrong your assertion that 'app' was not a widely used term before apple used it. So you've made that incorrect assertion without even the slightest bit of the most basic research you could possibly do - and so of course i'm asking if you are lazy or just inept - and yet you STILL request that someone else do it for you.
Before MS had an operating system that used windows called Windows, there was Mac OS, which also had "windows". I think windows is pretty generic.
It is not generic in the context of operating systems, it *is* a generic term in the context of the openings in walls or the UI element and nothing stops you from referring to those entities as such, you just can't call your operating system 'Windows'. Apple is a generic term too, there are various different kinds of fruit that are apples, but it is not generic in the context of being a company.
It makes Amazon wrong for trying to financially benefit off the concept of another company's trademarked term.
The term should not have been allowed to be trademarked in the first place, not only is 'App' a well-known and widely used (prior to apple's use) abbreviation for 'Application', but apple didn't come up with 'AppStore' either.
Okay, so who is going to stand up and take on Microsoft "Windows"? Any takers?
Really? After all these discussions there is still someone who doesn't realise that the 'App Store' is an 'app store' but Microsoft's 'Windows' is an 'operating system' and not a 'windows'.
In case you didn't notice, Appz is rather unlike App. Also that domain is based around the concept of "Warez", more than a shortened form of Application.
In any case the idea and name AppStore was around before Apple's App Store and was also a place to buy Applications from.
Slashdot Mirror
We got nothing but Political Posturing from Bush 2.0 for 8 years
Can't we just refer to him as Bush Vista....or Bush ME.
I told him, Considering you got to play about 10 different games on his PS3 compared to the hundreds on his old PS2 (Which never actually failed) - The PS3 has been a lemon as far as he's experienced. And an expensive lemon at that.
And im sure you'll find just as much anecdotal evidence to the contrary too.
Indeed. My current income from WP7 isn't spectacular
What app(s) is it derived from?
Of course if one is happy with a development environment that "lack the full breadth of features found in higher-end Visual Studio and SQL Server Editions" and all one wants to be is a "hobbyist, student, and novice developer" then one can develop for MS Windows Phone 7. Otherwise it costs $1300 with a $800 yearly upgrade.
And what exactly do you need in the higher end versions of Visual Studio that you don't get in the version explicitly for WP7 development?
Over three years, for a professional developer, not someone who is just knocking off fart applications, this is $1000 for the iPhone vesus $2900 for the MS WIndows Phone 7.
Don't project your inability to create anything beyond 'fart applications' with the WP version of VS2010 express onto other developers.
That is what many developers fail to see. At the end of the day, a PC + Visual Studio costs more than a Mac, which provides all the developer tools together with the operating system.
It is true that you can get the Windows SDK + Visual Studio express versions for free, but those are the light versions, so to speak.
And what you fail to see is that there is no need to buy Visual Studio when developing for WP7, the version you use is the free Visual Studio 2010 Express for Windows Phone.
And you know what? Apple doesn't care about your fringe desires.
On the contrary they spend quite a lot of money on DRM 'solutions' to deliberately disallow his 'fringe desires'. For his 'fringe desires' to be fulfilled they don't have to do anything except stop spending time and money on DRM lockouts.
I know Android developers who have bought a dozen or more different Android phones on which to test their software.
They needed to test on 12 or more devices? How many significantly different configurations are there?
Do you *seriously* expect any random reporter to understand the difference between encryption and hashing? :)
It seems he got it right, they *weren't* encrypted, however they *were* hashed.
3:01 JST: Sony decided to correct an earlier statement, saying that PSN passwords were not encrypted but rather hashed.
Why is it that slashdotters hate MSFT with the fire of a thousand suns - except Xbox. In that case, Microsoft are the good guys?
who are these 'slashdotters'? are they everyone except you?
wrt msft hate and xbox i guess it's because MS are such a big company, in some markets the different divisions act as though they are a completely different company. The xbox is far from perfect but ms do seem to treat their xbox customers better than sony treat their playstation customers.
So why did he say he was going to fight sony and ask for money to do so then?
Because he knew there were idiots who would pay up. And they did.
lol...fair enough, i guess he was right then.
I disagree with his statement. Stealing databases with user info is only "not cool" if you do something with them. Having a bunch of 1's and 0's stored in a lock box doesn't hurt anyone.
Sony certainly seems to be suffering from it, and all the people who's info was stolen have likely done the smart thing and cancelled their credit cards.
I'm actually suprised people are still supporting a Video Game console with a shockingly (almost criminal) failure rate
That's old news, pre-XBox S. Anyway they extended warranty to 3 years to cover the defect on the old xbox.
massive levels of piracy & online cheating
what's this massive level of online cheating?
no freedom to use your own peripherals or storage devices.
my own usb sticks, ipod, FAT32-formatted usb hard drives, etc... work fine, just as they do on my ps3.
or are you another Sony Shill?
Im not sure you know what a 'shill' is.
I doubt any of you have the cajones to actually stick it out against sony with an obviously technically illiterate judiciary the chips were seriously stacked against him. GEOHOT is a young guy looking at a potential lifetime of owing sony. I understand what he did.
So why did he say he was going to fight sony and ask for money to do so then?
His statements were false on their face. OP made a claim that was incorrect. I cannot prove that he is incorrect by showing the results of an empty search: that proves nothing.
What was the search you did that yielded no results then?
Furthermore, no one is disputing the word "app." Anyone in the world is legally allowed to use the term for any reason. It has no trademark. If you can prove with internet search results that "App Store" was a term that was in common use,, globally, prior to 2008, as a generic term that is equivalent to software repository (because that's exactly what it is), then I'd like to see you try.
Why would i try to do that? I didn't dispute that, i responded to this comment made by you regarding the term 'app':
The use of the word "app" was uncommon. If you can find 10 examples of the term being used by any companies prior to Apple's release of the "App Store," then I will concede
He stated that the term 'app' was common use - admittedly without basis - you refuted it - without basis - and a google search using the date range feature shows that he is correct. Even webster's dictionary has it defined and dating back to 1987.
If, however, you post again with nonsense, as you have since you have joined the thread, then you will continue to be a troll doing what you do... trolling, and the reader will be left to wonder if you are indeed borderline retarded, or that you just think that you are clever or funny by being an annoying troll. Let's see which it is.
This coming from the guy who attempted to brag about his small rooster.
Because I take glorious pleasure in correcting your nonsense, to show you that even if you were correct, your point is irrelevant and nonsensical.
But i didn't even make the initial comment, so if you really believed the initial comment to be irrelevant you wouldn't have replied to it much less refute it, yet you did.
Again, irrelevant. Whether or not I am believed has no bearing on Apple's case nor the dispute..
Then why did you bother to comment at all?
I am disagreeing with him because his statements are false, as are yours.
On what basis is his statement false? I did a basic date range search and that showed he was right and you are wrong. If the burden is on the person making the assertion to prove it then given you're making the assertion that he's wrong you should prove him wrong, but you can't because even a basic date range search shows that you are wrong.
Let's assume for a moment that you are correct... that I have not the abilities of one as you in that rarest of elite skills, search engine prowess (incorrect, but lets see if you can follow along).
Then why did you make such an obviously false argument?
So what if I can't use a search engine? What is your point, and how does it affect the argument?
Because why would anyone believe anything you say if what you say is so obviously wrong which you would have found out if you did a basic search.
even if true, which you can't prove, it is irrelevant to Apple's case against Amazon.
If it's irrelevant then why did you refute it at all?
Once again you have failed to comprehend what is salient. If spun makes an assertion (such as "app was in wide use prior to App Store"), then it is his burden to prove this, not mine to disprove it should I disagree.
On what basis are you disagreeing with him? The obvious thing to do would be - if you don't know and are incapable of searching - to ask, rather than just disagree.
Wrong again, you dipshit troll. Under what rules of debate am I required to disprove my own argument?
The obviousness of how false it is, you've made a statement that is so easily proven false by the most basic and simple research method. You might as well post [citation required] when someone asserts that 'water is wet'.
Furthermore, the burden of proof, to provide these examples, rests upon the individuals that made or agrees with the assertion (that "app" was in wide use prior to the App Store announcement), namely, spun or yourself.
So even though the most basic and rudimentary search technique would prove you wrong you still decide to refute the comment. All that shows is not only do you have no idea what you're talking about but you also seem incapable of using a common tool to check your argument before you post it.
If you can find 10 examples of the term being used by any companies prior to Apple's release of the "App Store,"
Are you really that inept that you cannot figure out how to use the 'date range' in a search engine? It's *really* basic functionality.
Are you really that inept that you can't think of anything relevant to post other than off topic remarks just to attempt a personal attack?
It's quite obvious you don't understand the term 'relevant' as this is entirely relevant given that it's incredibly easy to find the information you're requesting that proves wrong your assertion that 'app' was not a widely used term before apple used it. So you've made that incorrect assertion without even the slightest bit of the most basic research you could possibly do - and so of course i'm asking if you are lazy or just inept - and yet you STILL request that someone else do it for you.
Before MS had an operating system that used windows called Windows, there was Mac OS, which also had "windows". I think windows is pretty generic.
It is not generic in the context of operating systems, it *is* a generic term in the context of the openings in walls or the UI element and nothing stops you from referring to those entities as such, you just can't call your operating system 'Windows'. Apple is a generic term too, there are various different kinds of fruit that are apples, but it is not generic in the context of being a company.
If you can find 10 examples of the term being used by any companies prior to Apple's release of the "App Store,"
Are you really that inept that you cannot figure out how to use the 'date range' in a search engine? It's *really* basic functionality.
Too generic like "windows"
No, I hate to be Captain Obvious but it seems you actually need this pointed out for you:
'Windows' is an 'operating system', not a 'windows'.
It makes Amazon wrong for trying to financially benefit off the concept of another company's trademarked term.
The term should not have been allowed to be trademarked in the first place, not only is 'App' a well-known and widely used (prior to apple's use) abbreviation for 'Application', but apple didn't come up with 'AppStore' either.
Okay, so who is going to stand up and take on Microsoft "Windows"? Any takers?
Really? After all these discussions there is still someone who doesn't realise that the 'App Store' is an 'app store' but Microsoft's 'Windows' is an 'operating system' and not a 'windows'.
In case you didn't notice, Appz is rather unlike App. Also that domain is based around the concept of "Warez", more than a shortened form of Application.
In any case the idea and name AppStore was around before Apple's App Store and was also a place to buy Applications from.