Buying a PS3 devkit isn't something you can just buy off eBay.
Of course not, but the average person doesn't want one anyway, of course there's going to be a bit more to it.
Remember: They don't make unlocked versions of devices because they absolutely do not want you doing what you want with your device. This is true for almost every iOS/Android/WP7/Console made.
No, it's because they subsidized the device and they want to make sure that cost is covered. I can certainly understand a most people would rather the restricted device for the subsidized price than the other way around.
Also if people truly do just want a system to run homebrew on why not just buy the dev kit? It's basically an unlocked, unsubsidized PS3.
the retail PS3 isn't subsidized anymore. They are making profit on each unit sold and have been since at least the launch of the slim.
with that said, subsidized or not, how that makes any difference ?? for all I know I "bought" the damn thing, i'm not renting it (it said so on bill).
You might want to look up the meaning of 'subsidized', just because they are making a profit doesn't mean it isn't subsidized. And you did buy the PS3, but you are licensing the software. That's the point of contention, I don't agree with it but that's the way it is.
...with your shitty updates that seemingly do nothing except prevent me from using the online services until i've installed them.
I can't remember the last actual worthwhile update Sony pushed through, it seems every one of them is just another 'whoops forgot to plug a security hole that won't have any effect on you but may be able to be used for piracy'.
Also if people truly do just want a system to run homebrew on why not just buy the dev kit? It's basically an unlocked, unsubsidized PS3.
The end result is a nasty OS you have to root, that isn't compatible with anything else in the Linux world without a ton of hacking, code spread everywhere that doesn't go upstream (and except for the kernel, has no real upstream last I checked.)
Since when is compatibility with linux necessary for a platform to be 'open source friendly'? Android is VERY open, in particular i like the fact that i can run it on my N900.
As for upstream code, the idea is that developers make changes to those projects directly and they will be pulled into the Android project through the normal process.
Google did a bang up job kneecapping open source efforts in the mobile space
How so? The Android platform is great for open source, im not sure which open source efforts you're referring to that Google have affected.
Then they sit back and have the nerve to tell us that Android is "open" while users are forced to jailbreak and deal with vendors that try to cripple devices so they can leverage later versions as a selling point for the next carrier contract.
Not sure about the significance of linking to vendors' landing pages but whatever... The fact that vendors lock down the devices isn't anything to do with Android, that's an issue with the vendor. And in the end if you want something that's almost completely open then there's always the N900, that will run just about any linux app you want, but i doubt the average user would choose the N900 over Android.
They call it Java, but technically it's not Java...
It's Java in the sense that the language used is Java, any Java programmer can code for Android because the language used is Java.
it doesn't run on a JVM
Using the android development kit the generated bytecode doesn't run on a JVM, but the code can by compiled to JVM bytecode because it's Java.
and uses a custom development kit (not the JDK).
It doesn't support the full JDK because it discards parts of the Java class library - that aren't really relevant or suitable for Android - and uses it's own.
Down to the VM it's all Java, it's just that for Android you generate Dalvik bytecode instead of Java bytecode, which doesn't make any difference for the developer.
I'll admit I am inclined towards C++ on these, but one has to admit given the variety of devices out there and potentially the variety of hardware that it could run on, having an abstraction layer like the VM does have it's benefits.
It has its benefits within the platform scope, but not when it comes to porting across platforms.
you wouldn't be reading Slashdot, and thus wouldn't be able to answer the question of "what would you do if you were there"...
"what would you do if you were there."
You see it's the 'if' that makes the assumption that you are *not* there - which obviously can be made given that if you were there you likely wouldn't be reading this - therefore making this a hypothetical question.
Software is manifested physically as magnetic domains on a disk. It is my prerogative to physically manipulate my property in any way that I wish. That includes electromagnetism.
Obviously the legal system doesn't agree with you.
Not all of it. A fair number of bits were still closed source, and this irritated a lot of the user base.
I can't really think of anything off the top of my head that was closed source apart from non-OS components (like the Media Player UI framework, device drivers, mapping framework, etc...).
I guess, but without retaining whatever else is there. So where ribbon changes tabs based on the application context the Action Bar would replace the items not relevant in the current context.
Google might just end up making a new VM system, similar to what Microsoft did with.NET.
How would that be different though? MS still pay royalties to Oracle (initially to Sun) for patents used in the.Net system. If Google loses the case with Oracle over Java they will end up paying royalties just like MS does now.
Like this hasn't been covered a billion times before...you don't own the software, you own the hardware. You can modify the hardware all you want but the catch is that it's pretty much useless without the software.
I don't know if the community actually has/had the opportunity to do all the required changes to the N900 even if they wanted to.
You're right, they couldn't do everything, but most of OS' bugs could potentially be fixed by the community.
Couldn't actually change the phone/modem software, because there's no source for it to edit. At least that's how I understood it, and which I found to be quite pathetic.
The OS is open source, but not all the drivers can be, same with Android, and with any proprietary devices on linux systems.
The 'Action Bar' isn't static, it's is customizable by the application
In what way is that not a menu bar as on a desktop. It's the very definition of a menu bar...
It's meant to be context sensitive within the application, as opposed to a menu bar which is generally static per application. It is very menu-bar like but unlike iOS it gives the application a standard place to put controls when - and if - it needs to display them.
But it is almost a year and a half later, and in the meantime Nokia has not released any new Maemo/MeeGo hardware, and only 1 major update to the N900 firmware. Even that update only fixed minor bugs and added the QT libraries.
I think they tried to get the community to shoulder too much responsibility for the OS - it's great that it's open source, but there isn't much open source that succeeds without corporate backing and for a predominantly consumer device that corporate backing has to come from the manufacturer. It would be nice to see meego flourish, and it certainly could given Nokia's market share, but consumers have been consistently disappointed by Nokia's high-end offerings, sure the N95 and N900 are great but the N93, N96 and N97 were all pretty awful IMO. Hopefully Intel and Nokia devote their full attention to Meego, if they don't then i see it ending up like Maemo.
In every application, users have access to contextual options, navigation, widgets, or other types of content in an Action Bar, displayed at the top of the screen.
Isn't this just a menu bar then? It seems like an odd idea for a tablet, basically it seems overly desktop like.
The 'Action Bar' isn't static, it's is customizable by the application so there is a standard place for all application controls.
It has a presence, yes... but doing "just fine"? The iPhone and Androids each have more units in the channel than WP7 has in-channel and activated *combined*.
WP7's life is a matter of months, the other 2 have been around for years.
This is in spite of the fact that WinMo (in various incarnations) have been for sale for (almost) a decade.
WP7 and WinMo are completely different. WinMo was never an iOS/Android competitor.
And in the winrumors link you supplied, it says that MS took this route ".. days after Tivo brought a lawsuit against close Microsoft partner, AT&T". Surprise!
How is that a surprise? The reason AT&T are being sued by Tivo is because of microsoft's software, given the way these sort of patent suits usually play out i'd say this is the exact opposite of a surprise, this is exactly what you would expect to happen. Tivo sues AT&T over a patent issue with MS' software platform, so MS counters that Tivo infringes on patents in the same kind of software and the end result will be the most unsurprising one, a cross-licensing agreement.
Eh - I didn't "sort by" anything - I followed a link from google.
Whether it was sorted already or you sorted it makes no difference, the fact is you were unable to read a very basic chart and drew a conclusion from NO data whatsoever then used that as the basis for a condescending response about how there were no sources provided. You couldn't even comprehend the material *you* provided.
Meanwhile, the links you provided look credible at first look, until you try to follow the links to the sources. For the Gold one, one of the sources doesn't exist. Two are simple PSEs with atomic numbers but no obvious information on abundance in the crust. The last one (http://environmentalchemistry.com/) has an entry for abundance in the crust. The value is "p.p.m.: 0.0011". This would appear to be 1.1e-3 mg/kg, but the link you gave cites it as 4e-3 mg/kg. (and just in case there's something going on with molar vs "by weight", the entry for Lead at Enironmentalchemistry.com states 14 ppm and is listed at eoearth as 1.4e-1 mg/kg). There's something fishy going on here somewhere.
Regardless of what the actual numbers are, reading any of the links (and actually comprehending what was written) would bring you to the conclusion that lead is more abundant in the earth's crust than gold.
I did the exact same thing you did: hit up google and go with the first result I find.
Except i actually *read* and *understood* what i found, so i didn't end up writing some condescending post based on a table that wasn't even the slightest bit relevant.
Slashdot Mirror
Buying a PS3 devkit isn't something you can just buy off eBay.
Of course not, but the average person doesn't want one anyway, of course there's going to be a bit more to it.
Remember: They don't make unlocked versions of devices because they absolutely do not want you doing what you want with your device. This is true for almost every iOS/Android/WP7/Console made.
No, it's because they subsidized the device and they want to make sure that cost is covered. I can certainly understand a most people would rather the restricted device for the subsidized price than the other way around.
Also if people truly do just want a system to run homebrew on why not just buy the dev kit? It's basically an unlocked, unsubsidized PS3.
the retail PS3 isn't subsidized anymore. They are making profit on each unit sold and have been since at least the launch of the slim. with that said, subsidized or not, how that makes any difference ?? for all I know I "bought" the damn thing, i'm not renting it (it said so on bill).
You might want to look up the meaning of 'subsidized', just because they are making a profit doesn't mean it isn't subsidized. And you did buy the PS3, but you are licensing the software. That's the point of contention, I don't agree with it but that's the way it is.
...with your shitty updates that seemingly do nothing except prevent me from using the online services until i've installed them.
I can't remember the last actual worthwhile update Sony pushed through, it seems every one of them is just another 'whoops forgot to plug a security hole that won't have any effect on you but may be able to be used for piracy'.
Also if people truly do just want a system to run homebrew on why not just buy the dev kit? It's basically an unlocked, unsubsidized PS3.
The end result is a nasty OS you have to root, that isn't compatible with anything else in the Linux world without a ton of hacking, code spread everywhere that doesn't go upstream (and except for the kernel, has no real upstream last I checked.)
Since when is compatibility with linux necessary for a platform to be 'open source friendly'? Android is VERY open, in particular i like the fact that i can run it on my N900.
As for upstream code, the idea is that developers make changes to those projects directly and they will be pulled into the Android project through the normal process.
Google did a bang up job kneecapping open source efforts in the mobile space
How so? The Android platform is great for open source, im not sure which open source efforts you're referring to that Google have affected.
Then they sit back and have the nerve to tell us that Android is "open" while users are forced to jailbreak and deal with vendors that try to cripple devices so they can leverage later versions as a selling point for the next carrier contract.
Not sure about the significance of linking to vendors' landing pages but whatever... The fact that vendors lock down the devices isn't anything to do with Android, that's an issue with the vendor. And in the end if you want something that's almost completely open then there's always the N900, that will run just about any linux app you want, but i doubt the average user would choose the N900 over Android.
They call it Java, but technically it's not Java...
It's Java in the sense that the language used is Java, any Java programmer can code for Android because the language used is Java.
it doesn't run on a JVM
Using the android development kit the generated bytecode doesn't run on a JVM, but the code can by compiled to JVM bytecode because it's Java.
and uses a custom development kit (not the JDK).
It doesn't support the full JDK because it discards parts of the Java class library - that aren't really relevant or suitable for Android - and uses it's own.
Down to the VM it's all Java, it's just that for Android you generate Dalvik bytecode instead of Java bytecode, which doesn't make any difference for the developer.
I'll admit I am inclined towards C++ on these, but one has to admit given the variety of devices out there and potentially the variety of hardware that it could run on, having an abstraction layer like the VM does have it's benefits.
It has its benefits within the platform scope, but not when it comes to porting across platforms.
you wouldn't be reading Slashdot, and thus wouldn't be able to answer the question of "what would you do if you were there"...
"what would you do if you were there."
You see it's the 'if' that makes the assumption that you are *not* there - which obviously can be made given that if you were there you likely wouldn't be reading this - therefore making this a hypothetical question.
Software is manifested physically as magnetic domains on a disk. It is my prerogative to physically manipulate my property in any way that I wish. That includes electromagnetism.
Obviously the legal system doesn't agree with you.
In that case, I'd like to order one PS3 please, hold the software...thank you.
Wouldn't that be nice.
In Australia pretty much all carriers have the same phones, including the iPhone and Android devices.
Yeah that seems a pretty good way to describe it. Personally i like the idea, im not sure what the OP found to be 'dangerous' about it.
Not all of it. A fair number of bits were still closed source, and this irritated a lot of the user base.
I can't really think of anything off the top of my head that was closed source apart from non-OS components (like the Media Player UI framework, device drivers, mapping framework, etc...).
But in this case what the guy published were keys stored in hardware. They allow users to run software but they are not software.
That's not what i was responding to, read what i quoted. But yes that is what prompted the lawsuit, though it's not confined to that.
I guess, but without retaining whatever else is there. So where ribbon changes tabs based on the application context the Action Bar would replace the items not relevant in the current context.
Google might just end up making a new VM system, similar to what Microsoft did with .NET.
How would that be different though? MS still pay royalties to Oracle (initially to Sun) for patents used in the .Net system. If Google loses the case with Oracle over Java they will end up paying royalties just like MS does now.
Modification of your OWN property is not a crime.
Like this hasn't been covered a billion times before...you don't own the software, you own the hardware. You can modify the hardware all you want but the catch is that it's pretty much useless without the software.
I don't know if the community actually has/had the opportunity to do all the required changes to the N900 even if they wanted to.
You're right, they couldn't do everything, but most of OS' bugs could potentially be fixed by the community.
Couldn't actually change the phone/modem software, because there's no source for it to edit. At least that's how I understood it, and which I found to be quite pathetic.
The OS is open source, but not all the drivers can be, same with Android, and with any proprietary devices on linux systems.
The 'Action Bar' isn't static, it's is customizable by the application
In what way is that not a menu bar as on a desktop. It's the very definition of a menu bar...
It's meant to be context sensitive within the application, as opposed to a menu bar which is generally static per application. It is very menu-bar like but unlike iOS it gives the application a standard place to put controls when - and if - it needs to display them.
But it is almost a year and a half later, and in the meantime Nokia has not released any new Maemo/MeeGo hardware, and only 1 major update to the N900 firmware. Even that update only fixed minor bugs and added the QT libraries.
I think they tried to get the community to shoulder too much responsibility for the OS - it's great that it's open source, but there isn't much open source that succeeds without corporate backing and for a predominantly consumer device that corporate backing has to come from the manufacturer. It would be nice to see meego flourish, and it certainly could given Nokia's market share, but consumers have been consistently disappointed by Nokia's high-end offerings, sure the N95 and N900 are great but the N93, N96 and N97 were all pretty awful IMO. Hopefully Intel and Nokia devote their full attention to Meego, if they don't then i see it ending up like Maemo.
In every application, users have access to contextual options, navigation, widgets, or other types of content in an Action Bar, displayed at the top of the screen.
Isn't this just a menu bar then? It seems like an odd idea for a tablet, basically it seems overly desktop like.
The 'Action Bar' isn't static, it's is customizable by the application so there is a standard place for all application controls.
It has a presence, yes... but doing "just fine"? The iPhone and Androids each have more units in the channel than WP7 has in-channel and activated *combined*.
WP7's life is a matter of months, the other 2 have been around for years.
This is in spite of the fact that WinMo (in various incarnations) have been for sale for (almost) a decade.
WP7 and WinMo are completely different. WinMo was never an iOS/Android competitor.
And in the winrumors link you supplied, it says that MS took this route ".. days after Tivo brought a lawsuit against close Microsoft partner, AT&T". Surprise!
How is that a surprise? The reason AT&T are being sued by Tivo is because of microsoft's software, given the way these sort of patent suits usually play out i'd say this is the exact opposite of a surprise, this is exactly what you would expect to happen. Tivo sues AT&T over a patent issue with MS' software platform, so MS counters that Tivo infringes on patents in the same kind of software and the end result will be the most unsurprising one, a cross-licensing agreement.
Eh - I didn't "sort by" anything - I followed a link from google.
Whether it was sorted already or you sorted it makes no difference, the fact is you were unable to read a very basic chart and drew a conclusion from NO data whatsoever then used that as the basis for a condescending response about how there were no sources provided. You couldn't even comprehend the material *you* provided.
Meanwhile, the links you provided look credible at first look, until you try to follow the links to the sources. For the Gold one, one of the sources doesn't exist. Two are simple PSEs with atomic numbers but no obvious information on abundance in the crust. The last one (http://environmentalchemistry.com/) has an entry for abundance in the crust. The value is "p.p.m.: 0.0011". This would appear to be 1.1e-3 mg/kg, but the link you gave cites it as 4e-3 mg/kg. (and just in case there's something going on with molar vs "by weight", the entry for Lead at Enironmentalchemistry.com states 14 ppm and is listed at eoearth as 1.4e-1 mg/kg). There's something fishy going on here somewhere .
Regardless of what the actual numbers are, reading any of the links (and actually comprehending what was written) would bring you to the conclusion that lead is more abundant in the earth's crust than gold.
I did the exact same thing you did: hit up google and go with the first result I find.
Except i actually *read* and *understood* what i found, so i didn't end up writing some condescending post based on a table that wasn't even the slightest bit relevant.
Try not to be so condescending in your reply when it's obvious you can't even read a simple chart.