Even Sony has admitted that sales of Playstations increased when mod-chips became available. This M$ world domination scheme must stop. If I were to buy an X-Box it would ONLY be after a divx mod was available. Until then, I will absolutely not give M$ even one cent.
But I can still understand why they're upset, even though they have only themselves to blame for the situation. They practically give away the box to entice people to buy the software for it, knowing that this is the best way to gain a bigger market share since so many people already have PS's Nintendo's and whatnot. It's like when a cell phone company gives you the cell phone in return for spending money on usage. They lose money by giving you the phone, but make it back in service charges. The main difference here is that Microsoft does not require anyone to sign up for a monthly service and as such are not guaranteed any additional income. So, since they're losing money on the box itself, it doesn't make sense that no further income is guaranteed. Nobody can run a business like that. IF they did require a monthly service one would require to sign up for, I don't think a lot of people would even consider buying the box when the competition doesn't and has a bigger selection of software available. This is exactly why the X-Box is likely not to be the success Microsoft wants it to be. Anyone who buys any type of electronic gadget has every right to do with it whatever he or she wants. They can even plug it in and drop it in their bathtub in order to kill themselves if they want to. If Microsoft relies solely on revenue from software bought AFTER the initial sale of the box, when that sale is not required, it's just a plain dumb business plan. I don't think ANY other company could suggest that kind of wishful thinking to it's shareholders. But because Microsoft has billions to spend on this endeavour they can stand to lose money longer than most companies, before seeing a profit. The question is, how long are the shareholders willing to wait? How long before the X-Box either goes up in price or off the market?
What he doesn't seem to realize (or maybe he does, but doesn't want to talk about), is that the GPL doesn't force you to do anything. If you want to use code that is licensed under GPL, that's great, just stick to the license. If you don't want to use the code, don't use it. It's really up to you.
Also, he seems to have drastically misunderstood the license, since he states: "The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source." Of course, anyone who knows anything about the GPL, knows this is total BS. It just means that if you use GPL code for 'a particular piece of software' you must release the code to 'that particular piece of software'. It doesn't mean you have to release the source code to the rest of your products.
Also, he doesn't specify 'USE', although I suspect he's talking in development terms, his comment might be misunderstood as "You can't run closed source and open source on the same computer.", which may be exactly the misunderstanding he wants to generate. What a big portion of his target audience doesn't realize is that there is plenty of proprietary and closed source software available for Linux. Just look at Corel WordPerfect or Corel Draw, or Unreal and Quake or all those games and applications available, which are not open source in any way shape or form. So, technically, there's nothing stopping M$ from releasing Office or IE for Linux, except they realize that wouldn't make them enough money (it would in fact ease the move from Windoze to Linux for businesses), the main reason being that they don't own any part of Linux (they own a big share of Apple, which is the only reason Office and IE are available for Macs).
His over simplifications may be a misunderstanding, or it may simply be SPIN, to try to invoke sympathy from those NOT in the know. Which of course are his primary market targets anyway. How else can you explain that amazingly annoying animated paperclip?
Isn't gravity the simplest explanation?
According to Einstein, everything is relative, including time.
Black holes supposedly have a gravity field so powerful nothing can escape them, not even light or time.
So, isn't it possible that there's an unknown gravity field outside the solar system that is not a black hole yet is so powerful it's actually slowing down time relative to the earth?
Couldn't it be that the probes are not slowing down but they just appear that way to us because of relativity and that the probes are in fact still going strong? Or am I missing something?
Slashdot Mirror
Even Sony has admitted that sales of Playstations increased when mod-chips became available.
This M$ world domination scheme must stop.
If I were to buy an X-Box it would ONLY be after a divx mod was available. Until then, I will absolutely not give M$ even one cent.
But I can still understand why they're upset, even though they have only themselves to blame for the situation. They practically give away the box to entice people to buy the software for it, knowing that this is the best way to gain a bigger market share since so many people already have PS's Nintendo's and whatnot.
It's like when a cell phone company gives you the cell phone in return for spending money on usage. They lose money by giving you the phone, but make it back in service charges. The main difference here is that Microsoft does not require anyone to sign up for a monthly service and as such are not guaranteed any additional income. So, since they're losing money on the box itself, it doesn't make sense that no further income is guaranteed. Nobody can run a business like that.
IF they did require a monthly service one would require to sign up for, I don't think a lot of people would even consider buying the box when the competition doesn't and has a bigger selection of software available. This is exactly why the X-Box is likely not to be the success Microsoft wants it to be. Anyone who buys any type of electronic gadget has every right to do with it whatever he or she wants. They can even plug it in and drop it in their bathtub in order to kill themselves if they want to. If Microsoft relies solely on revenue from software bought AFTER the initial sale of the box, when that sale is not required, it's just a plain dumb business plan. I don't think ANY other company could suggest that kind of wishful thinking to it's shareholders. But because Microsoft has billions to spend on this endeavour they can stand to lose money longer than most companies, before seeing a profit. The question is, how long are the shareholders willing to wait? How long before the X-Box either goes up in price or off the market?
What he doesn't seem to realize (or maybe he does, but doesn't want to talk about), is that the GPL doesn't force you to do anything. If you want to use code that is licensed under GPL, that's great, just stick to the license. If you don't want to use the code, don't use it. It's really up to you.
Also, he seems to have drastically misunderstood the license, since he states: "The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source."
Of course, anyone who knows anything about the GPL, knows this is total BS. It just means that if you use GPL code for 'a particular piece of software' you must release the code to 'that particular piece of software'. It doesn't mean you have to release the source code to the rest of your products.
Also, he doesn't specify 'USE', although I suspect he's talking in development terms, his comment might be misunderstood as "You can't run closed source and open source on the same computer.", which may be exactly the misunderstanding he wants to generate.
What a big portion of his target audience doesn't realize is that there is plenty of proprietary and closed source software available for Linux. Just look at Corel WordPerfect or Corel Draw, or Unreal and Quake or all those games and applications available, which are not open source in any way shape or form.
So, technically, there's nothing stopping M$ from releasing Office or IE for Linux, except they realize that wouldn't make them enough money (it would in fact ease the move from Windoze to Linux for businesses), the main reason being that they don't own any part of Linux (they own a big share of Apple, which is the only reason Office and IE are available for Macs).
His over simplifications may be a misunderstanding, or it may simply be SPIN, to try to invoke sympathy from those NOT in the know. Which of course are his primary market targets anyway. How else can you explain that amazingly annoying animated paperclip?
Isn't gravity the simplest explanation?
According to Einstein, everything is relative, including time.
Black holes supposedly have a gravity field so powerful nothing can escape them, not even light or time.
So, isn't it possible that there's an unknown gravity field outside the solar system that is not a black hole yet is so powerful it's actually slowing down time relative to the earth?
Couldn't it be that the probes are not slowing down but they just appear that way to us because of relativity and that the probes are in fact still going strong? Or am I missing something?