Not likely. The changes are mostly on the hardware backend, the developers will probably never know the difference. MS may be evil but they are not stupid. The changes will only affect the 'chippers.
Now, one might say that the 'chippers will just come out with a new chip everytime MS updates. But wait, lack of customer confidence that the chip will actually work in their box, and the cost of developing and more importantly (and costly) producing the new chips will quickly drive the 'chippers out of business.
So, the question is: is it worse to sue the 'chippers, or just beat them at their own game?
Ahh, now I see why we were not understanding each other. I was thinking of a completely different definition of light horizon. I was assuming that you were speaking of THE horizon (ie the sun is on the horizon). Calling it a light horizon I though was a little odd, but oh well.
If I understood the original poster of whom you were debunking, I believe that is the type of horizion that he was referring to as well.
As for your assertion that photons are massless, it is my understanding that this is only a theory, and though well recieved is certainly not universally accepted. I only wish that you would present it as such.:)
And lastly, in reference to this discussion having nothing to do with the original post, I say 'so what?'. Isn't the intent of any discussion board to stimulate interaction?
This has been a most enlightening experience, I thank you for your time.
My dear sir,
Please re-read my post. I never once made the claim that light cones exist in 3d or because of the curvature of the earth. What I did say was that light horizons exist in 3 dimensions and are caused due to the curvature of the earth. We are in complete accord regarding the temporal nature of 'light cones' and 'event horizons.'
My objection to your original post was due to the fact that you equated light cones with light horizons.
(a) Photons are massless, so you can't use newtonian gravity F=GmM/r^2 to compute gravitation effects on it.
I trust that you are not saying that light is not affected by gravity? The mass of photons is debatable, but it is a well known, observed fact that light is indeed affected by gravity.
(b) There is no such thing as "stuff" out there to pull light beam away from us. That is even more completely bunk. According to your logic, the planets will be pulled away from us too.
Sure there is. Everything that has mass exerts a gravitational pull. It may be small and far away, but that don't mean it doesn't exist! As for the planets, well, they don't crash into 'us' do they? It ain't just centripital force keeping them out there...
(c) There is a light horizon from the solar system. It is but the future light cone of the event called the 'solar system' now in a space-time diagram. The word you want to use is "event horizon".
A light horizon exists in 3 dimensions and only because of the curvature of the earth (or other solar body). An event horizon exists in 4 dimensions. They are two different things. The same goes for a future light cone. It exists in the 4th dimension.
The bunk debunker has been debunked...
Slashdot Mirror
Not likely. The changes are mostly on the hardware backend, the developers will probably never know the difference. MS may be evil but they are not stupid. The changes will only affect the 'chippers.
Now, one might say that the 'chippers will just come out with a new chip everytime MS updates. But wait, lack of customer confidence that the chip will actually work in their box, and the cost of developing and more importantly (and costly) producing the new chips will quickly drive the 'chippers out of business.
So, the question is: is it worse to sue the 'chippers, or just beat them at their own game?
Our site is READY now,
but we got to
wait for few hours
for our new lines
to take place.
However, you can enter from HERE.
Please take note that
the lines are extremely SLOW.
We feel sorry for
our contractor whose
proxy/caching was blocked
because of somebody's
reaction. (Without Court Order AGAIN!!)
Seems like the Terrorist is identified!!
Regards,
Film88
Wow, I think they hit the nail on the head.... :)
"Hey, it's kinda cool holding a webserver in your hand and being able to walk around with it."
You mean, as opposed to a laptop?Ahh, now I see why we were not understanding each other. I was thinking of a completely different definition of light horizon. I was assuming that you were speaking of THE horizon (ie the sun is on the horizon). Calling it a light horizon I though was a little odd, but oh well. If I understood the original poster of whom you were debunking, I believe that is the type of horizion that he was referring to as well. As for your assertion that photons are massless, it is my understanding that this is only a theory, and though well recieved is certainly not universally accepted. I only wish that you would present it as such. :)
And lastly, in reference to this discussion having nothing to do with the original post, I say 'so what?'. Isn't the intent of any discussion board to stimulate interaction?
This has been a most enlightening experience, I thank you for your time.
What definition of light horizon are you using?
My dear sir, Please re-read my post. I never once made the claim that light cones exist in 3d or because of the curvature of the earth. What I did say was that light horizons exist in 3 dimensions and are caused due to the curvature of the earth. We are in complete accord regarding the temporal nature of 'light cones' and 'event horizons.' My objection to your original post was due to the fact that you equated light cones with light horizons.
Not even that, but Microsoft's investment in the company is probably the only thing that allowed them to 'float' in the first place.
Ahhhhh! What will I do!
Microsoft - badAMD - good
Microsoft - good!??
AMD - bad !??
Everything I've held so true and dear is collapsing around me!
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that they control the vast majority of the market share...