Yes it can. At least at first, consoles are made and sold at a lost - that is to say it costs more to make and distribute one than the console company makes back on the purchase. The console company eventually makes its money in game licensing fees.
Eventually, the costs of manufacturing come down (as they always do) and the console company might actually make a profit on the systems themselves. But that takes a while (and they usually bring the selling price down a bit too, so maybe they don't make the cash back there).
If console companies didn't use that sort of a model, the PS2 would have easily been a $1,000 or more machine at debut.
MS has already said they'll treat dual-cores as single CPUs for licensing purposes. It might be reasonable to assume dual-cores will bring SMP into the mainstream, and within a year be pretty standard in new mid-to-high-end systems.
So will there be a point pretty soon when MS unlocks "Home" -- maybe via a windows update -- to properly use these dual-cores? If it's willing to consider them single CPUs for licensing, hopefully it's also not going to maintain its artificial crippling of these systems for the home users likely to eventually buy them.
I wouldn't be surprised to see an update that allows for SMP with dual-core systems, but that still locks out SMP on traditional SMP machines.
Another copy of the same torrent file mirrored elsewhere will still point you to the same network of seeds and peers. It's the tracker that matters, not the host for the torrent file.
It's a codec that might be contained within avi files, or wmv files, or mov files. MPG files are explicitly mpegs.
Now, to make it even more fun. divx is an implimentation of mpeg-4. So even through it's not an mpeg1 or mpeg2 file, in a sense, it's still an mpeg file.
"My company's biggest complaint with GPL is anything developed using GPL libraries must be GPL and released."
Almost. IF you release something GPL-derived, you have to release the source, and license it under the GPL. But noone says you have to release it. You can continue using the modified GPL program for in-house purposes and never release anything to anyone.
But the general idea you're getting at - that GPL-derived works should be GPLed as well - is sort of the point of the license. If that were to change in the next version, the new GPL wouldn't be very GPLish at all.
You're company might be better of looking at works under the BSD license or some of its varients. Those allow you do take open code, and optionally close it in your modified release.
Actually, considering the community aroudn firefox, it has more to do with providing a quality browser as an option than incresing marketshare
There's now an emphasis on marketshare as well, but it doesn't seem like it's being engineered specifically for mass-appeal. the marketing is a seperate effort.
And in general, for companies, the motivation is profit, not marketshare. Marketshare is a means to that end. If a company can be profitable with a fraction of the market (think apple) it's doing pretty well.
A writer or artist can look at one of those works, because they're not subject to patent protections like the Sun code or WinNT code is. It's unfortunate, but borrowing an idea from Sun or Windows can get a programmer in a heap of trouble.
If all was right with the world and software patents didn't exist, this would be a non-issue.
Check your firewall settings. If you don't have (IIRC) 6880-6899 or so open, you'll get awfully slow speeds on bittorrent. It'll still work, but be very slow.
Who says they don't need both? They need many, many things.
They need medicine, food and shelter to keep them healthy. They need education to empower them, and help them lead productive lives. They need community and family support systems to keep them emotionally stable in the face of tragedy and poverty. They need economic aid to give them the boost needed to apply their skills and education.
And, if all these things work the way we'd idealistically hope, they'll eventually be living lives of higher quality, protected from disease and the elements in reasonable ways. And at some point, they might have enough money and use for a computer (or some other less PCish technology that also depends on code somewhere down the line)... and freely available, freely redisrtibutable, freely examiniable, freely modifiable software is better than the alternative. Especially since it goes hand-in-hand with the uber-democratic principals of free speech and the marketplace of ideas.
Haven't read the article yet, so I'm sure this will be cleared up in a minute when I do, but... Turn over it's linux-related code? Isn't that what EVERYONE who distributes linux does?
As is yours, which depends on a willingness to coerce money from the general populance for the benefit of those who need aid. It's better to encourage the Haves to help the HAve-nots than to force them. If you can't convince the Haves, so be it. Taking it from them regardless is simply wrong.
Let's presuppose that you and I, as decent people, give a damn about the old people. And let's assume we know a thing or two about smart investing and saving. Let's go volunteer to teach a community course on money management. And let's both donate to a charity that helps seniors in need.
But let's not have the government pull the money out of our wallets at gunpoint (the people who deliver you to jail when you're delinquent on your taxes DO carry guns, as it turns out). It's not fair to those who feel they have better things to do with their cash. Maybe they want to hord it. Maybe there are other disenfranchised people they believe they can help instead. Maybe they want to spend it recklessly. They earned that right when they showed up for work in the morning.
Hey, Dr. Spin. If you're going to try to quote me to refute what I say, at least use the full quote - which ackowledges what you said in your response as a caveat from the get-go.
And yes, diversification is a valid way to avoid massive problems. You can never be sure there won't be a catastrophe, but you can take reasonable precautions against one. If you give the money to the government, all your eggs are in one basket. I'd rather spread my eggs out, keeping some of them in safe places and keeping others in high-yield, high-risk baskets. But the choice has been taken away from me.
The difference is that when a company has a track record of bad behavoir, you can always invest in a different company (if you have anything left). If it engages in illegal behavoir that costs you, you can sue. Even if you're completely fucked, you can encourage others not to make the same mistake and find a more responsible company. And only some people will get screwed - the rest invested in other companies to start.
But you only get one government. If it screws up, it screws EVERYONE, and there's no way out.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it can. At least at first, consoles are made and sold at a lost - that is to say it costs more to make and distribute one than the console company makes back on the purchase. The console company eventually makes its money in game licensing fees.
Eventually, the costs of manufacturing come down (as they always do) and the console company might actually make a profit on the systems themselves. But that takes a while (and they usually bring the selling price down a bit too, so maybe they don't make the cash back there).
If console companies didn't use that sort of a model, the PS2 would have easily been a $1,000 or more machine at debut.
Hey, that makes me wonder ...
MS has already said they'll treat dual-cores as single CPUs for licensing purposes. It might be reasonable to assume dual-cores will bring SMP into the mainstream, and within a year be pretty standard in new mid-to-high-end systems.
So will there be a point pretty soon when MS unlocks "Home" -- maybe via a windows update -- to properly use these dual-cores? If it's willing to consider them single CPUs for licensing, hopefully it's also not going to maintain its artificial crippling of these systems for the home users likely to eventually buy them.
I wouldn't be surprised to see an update that allows for SMP with dual-core systems, but that still locks out SMP on traditional SMP machines.
Another copy of the same torrent file mirrored elsewhere will still point you to the same network of seeds and peers. It's the tracker that matters, not the host for the torrent file.
It's a codec that might be contained within avi files, or wmv files, or mov files. MPG files are explicitly mpegs.
Now, to make it even more fun. divx is an implimentation of mpeg-4. So even through it's not an mpeg1 or mpeg2 file, in a sense, it's still an mpeg file.
Dude. This is a family web page. Stop talking about Britney's box.
"My company's biggest complaint with GPL is anything developed using GPL libraries must be GPL and released."
Almost. IF you release something GPL-derived, you have to release the source, and license it under the GPL. But noone says you have to release it. You can continue using the modified GPL program for in-house purposes and never release anything to anyone.
But the general idea you're getting at - that GPL-derived works should be GPLed as well - is sort of the point of the license. If that were to change in the next version, the new GPL wouldn't be very GPLish at all.
You're company might be better of looking at works under the BSD license or some of its varients. Those allow you do take open code, and optionally close it in your modified release.
Actually, considering the community aroudn firefox, it has more to do with providing a quality browser as an option than incresing marketshare
There's now an emphasis on marketshare as well, but it doesn't seem like it's being engineered specifically for mass-appeal. the marketing is a seperate effort.
And in general, for companies, the motivation is profit, not marketshare. Marketshare is a means to that end. If a company can be profitable with a fraction of the market (think apple) it's doing pretty well.
At least if there's a major suit, there's now a dedicated staff of four to help. When America sees a DVD-Jon, these guys could come in handy.
I'm going to start a foundation to help the humor-impaired. You most certainly would qualify for one of our grants.
And this is why software patents are a bad thing.
A writer or artist can look at one of those works, because they're not subject to patent protections like the Sun code or WinNT code is. It's unfortunate, but borrowing an idea from Sun or Windows can get a programmer in a heap of trouble.
If all was right with the world and software patents didn't exist, this would be a non-issue.
Money, resources and strategy are all helpful. MS wins there.
But a well-articulated superior argument goes a long way.
Check your firewall settings. If you don't have (IIRC) 6880-6899 or so open, you'll get awfully slow speeds on bittorrent. It'll still work, but be very slow.
No, you code for standards compliance, then adjust it to make sure it works in popular browsers.
Otherwise, your page is obsolete as soon as a new, good rendering engine comes along (KHTML anyone?).
The phone costs a lot too. But much/all of that is subsidized by your expensive service.
Try to buy a phone without the service - you'll pay $200 for the same phone you'd get as a free giveaway with a contract.
Who says they don't need both? They need many, many things.
... and freely available, freely redisrtibutable, freely examiniable, freely modifiable software is better than the alternative. Especially since it goes hand-in-hand with the uber-democratic principals of free speech and the marketplace of ideas.
They need medicine, food and shelter to keep them healthy.
They need education to empower them, and help them lead productive lives.
They need community and family support systems to keep them emotionally stable in the face of tragedy and poverty.
They need economic aid to give them the boost needed to apply their skills and education.
And, if all these things work the way we'd idealistically hope, they'll eventually be living lives of higher quality, protected from disease and the elements in reasonable ways. And at some point, they might have enough money and use for a computer (or some other less PCish technology that also depends on code somewhere down the line)
Who wants to know?
No, because even if it's USB, the device can still either be PS2-compatible (for instance) or not, and advertised as such.
... that's no better/worse than the plug just not fitting in the first place.
The plug might fit and the device might not work
And if the memory cards were all, say, CF, what would be the problem? It's a known spec, and easy to accomodate.
Haven't read the article yet, so I'm sure this will be cleared up in a minute when I do, but ... Turn over it's linux-related code? Isn't that what EVERYONE who distributes linux does?
No, demand is a function of utility and the size of the target market.
Value is a function of demand and availablity.
As is yours, which depends on a willingness to coerce money from the general populance for the benefit of those who need aid. It's better to encourage the Haves to help the HAve-nots than to force them. If you can't convince the Haves, so be it. Taking it from them regardless is simply wrong.
Just imagine where they'll place the products THEN.
No, lets not.
Let's presuppose that you and I, as decent people, give a damn about the old people. And let's assume we know a thing or two about smart investing and saving. Let's go volunteer to teach a community course on money management. And let's both donate to a charity that helps seniors in need.
But let's not have the government pull the money out of our wallets at gunpoint (the people who deliver you to jail when you're delinquent on your taxes DO carry guns, as it turns out). It's not fair to those who feel they have better things to do with their cash. Maybe they want to hord it. Maybe there are other disenfranchised people they believe they can help instead. Maybe they want to spend it recklessly. They earned that right when they showed up for work in the morning.
Hey, Dr. Spin. If you're going to try to quote me to refute what I say, at least use the full quote - which ackowledges what you said in your response as a caveat from the get-go.
And yes, diversification is a valid way to avoid massive problems. You can never be sure there won't be a catastrophe, but you can take reasonable precautions against one. If you give the money to the government, all your eggs are in one basket. I'd rather spread my eggs out, keeping some of them in safe places and keeping others in high-yield, high-risk baskets. But the choice has been taken away from me.
The difference is that when a company has a track record of bad behavoir, you can always invest in a different company (if you have anything left). If it engages in illegal behavoir that costs you, you can sue. Even if you're completely fucked, you can encourage others not to make the same mistake and find a more responsible company. And only some people will get screwed - the rest invested in other companies to start.
But you only get one government. If it screws up, it screws EVERYONE, and there's no way out.
Yes, but it's THIER money, and if they screw it up, it's THIER fault.
And some of us will be better at others with it. Don't penalize the smart and responsible people by taking away thier resources to do well.