... that it's exactly a bunch of stupid Linux freaks that's saving M$ by porting Linux to the eggsbox. They must be laughing their asses of in Redmond.
No, they don't, they win about $299 if you buy one.
They have already paid $320 to $450 before the Xbox goes over the counter. If they don't sell it, they must write that money off, if they sell it they gain $299. Go ask an economics teacher if you don't believe me.
I knew that you were going to mod that down../ moderators are not only incompetent, they also fear critics. They are AC's after all. Why don't they have to show their face?
>> Besides, you're still giving your cash to >> Microsoft. Nope, yer not.. M$ loses money (a lot of money) on each xbox purchase.
Please stop this nonsense.
In my first year studying mechanical engineering I have learned that, if you can't sell a product you already built for profit, it is more profitable to sell it below your own cost then not to sell it at all. So even if M$ loses on every Xbox they sell they still make more profit with every sold Xbox.
Furthermore, as the development costs are already paid, an increase in sales numbers diminishes the loss on an individual Xbox.
So once and for all: Buying an Xbox is supporting M$ regardless what you do with it
> "Why is everyone so against Microsoft? And what is up with that dollar sign?"
To avoid the confusion of a severe illness with the world biggest cardboard manufacturer and PR company the latter is commonly abbreviated as M$ -- which is also more figurative.
> In terms of molecular dynamics and thermodynamics it is possible to justify various different views that [glass] is a highly viscous liquid, an amorphous solid, or simply that glass is another state of matter which is neither liquid nor solid.
Thus it seems best to call it a "solid liquid" as this phrase emphasizes the antagonistic properties of glass.
It doesn't even have anything to do with the former German Democratic Republic which is called DDR in germany (and that's still my prime association with this abbreviation as that was it's only meaning for most of my lifetime). But as the DDR didn't have much to do with democracy I think that's consistent
> According to Moore's Law, we shouldn't be approaching those densities for another 15 years.... > > So, who's been lying to us all along?
Nobody. There are no superparamagnetic drives *available* now, it may well take 10 or more years until they are. And remember, Moore's law is not a law of nature but just an empirical rule of thumb. Thus you can expect some major deviations.
I'd rather say 10 years -- 1984, the start of the GNU project to 1994, when the Linux kernel version 1.0 came out. Cloning the OS kernel only took 2 years.
Multiply a half dozen students by every university in the world and you've suddenly increased our detection capacity by several orders of magnitude.
Wouldn't help much if they are looking at the sky with naked eyes. I bet the bottleneck is the number of appropriate telescopes not the number of watching eyes.
As someone modded that "insightful" there must be people out there taking it serious. But it's plain nonsense as you can as easily turn a pencil into a diamond. You just need some carbon, some heat and a lot of pressure. After all a diamond is nothing else than graphite with a different crystal structure.
It is obvious that the linear plot is better. The logarithmic plot has too many points not on the curve. This doesn't look good. To make nice plots you shouldn't take more samples than the dimension of the curve you want to fit, else you may have to discard some points which don't fit. That's how engineers do it.
(Just in case someone hasn't yet noticed:;)
How do you know it was a /.er?
on
First Man To Mars?
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
There is a flagpole with the attached flag bearing the text: "First Post"
Slashdot Mirror
... last I heard they're selling eggs boxes now ;)
And if you still believe that you are hurting M$ by buying an eggsbox for running Linux, have a look at this On Thursday, Microsoft once again beat the analysts' estimates
(this body intentionally left blank)
No, they don't, they win about $299 if you buy one. They have already paid $320 to $450 before the Xbox goes over the counter. If they don't sell it, they must write that money off, if they sell it they gain $299. Go ask an economics teacher if you don't believe me.
"No moderation without representation"
Ooops, I missed an important part, here is the corrected sentence:
... And BTW, it was obvious from the Subject line that my post was offtopic so your moderation should be meta-modded -1 Redundant.
... And BTW, it was obvious from the Subject line that my post was so your moderation should be meta-modded -1 Redundant.
... Now go and spoil some more mod points on my message.
I knew that you were going to mod that down. ./ moderators are not only incompetent, they also fear critics. They are AC's after all. Why don't they have to show their face?
>> Besides, you're still giving your cash to
>> Microsoft. Nope, yer not.. M$ loses money (a lot of money) on each xbox purchase.
Please stop this nonsense.
In my first year studying mechanical engineering I have learned that, if you can't sell a product you already built for profit, it is more profitable to sell it below your own cost then not to sell it at all. So even if M$ loses on every Xbox they sell they still make more profit with every sold Xbox.
Furthermore, as the development costs are already paid, an increase in sales numbers diminishes the loss on an individual Xbox.
So once and for all: Buying an Xbox is supporting M$ regardless what you do with it
Read #4205566 and then tell me how this can be modded troll.
> "Why is everyone so against Microsoft? And what is up with that dollar sign?"
To avoid the confusion of a severe illness with the world biggest cardboard manufacturer and PR company the latter is commonly abbreviated as M$ -- which is also more figurative.
> In terms of molecular dynamics and thermodynamics it is possible to justify various different views that [glass] is a highly viscous liquid, an amorphous solid, or simply that glass is another state of matter which is neither liquid nor solid.
Thus it seems best to call it a "solid liquid" as this phrase emphasizes the antagonistic properties of glass.
They stole the Palladium first, because that was what protected Troy.
It doesn't even have anything to do with the former German Democratic Republic which is called DDR in germany (and that's still my prime association with this abbreviation as that was it's only meaning for most of my lifetime). But as the DDR didn't have much to do with democracy I think that's consistent
> According to Moore's Law, we shouldn't be approaching those densities for another 15 years....
>
> So, who's been lying to us all along?
Nobody. There are no superparamagnetic drives *available* now, it may well take 10 or more years until they are. And remember, Moore's law is not a law of nature but just an empirical rule of thumb. Thus you can expect some major deviations.
Soldaten sind Mörder Kurt Tucholsky
"It only took 9 years to clone UNIX via Linux."
I'd rather say 10 years -- 1984, the start of the GNU project to 1994, when the Linux kernel version 1.0 came out. Cloning the OS kernel only took 2 years.
How does one capture an asteroid on film?
This is just a typo. The correct headline is: "Yale Students Capture A Steroid On Film"
Multiply a half dozen students by every university in the world and you've suddenly increased our detection capacity by several orders of magnitude.
Wouldn't help much if they are looking at the sky with naked eyes. I bet the bottleneck is the number of appropriate telescopes not the number of watching eyes.
As someone modded that "insightful" there must be people out there taking it serious. But it's plain nonsense as you can as easily turn a pencil into a diamond. You just need some carbon, some heat and a lot of pressure. After all a diamond is nothing else than graphite with a different crystal structure.
Ooops,
sorry, a little mistake has slipped through, it must obviously read:
"To make nice plots you shouldn't take more samples than the dimension of the curve you want to fit" plus one
It is obvious that the linear plot is better. The logarithmic plot has too many points not on the curve. This doesn't look good. To make nice plots you shouldn't take more samples than the dimension of the curve you want to fit, else you may have to discard some points which don't fit. That's how engineers do it.
;)
(Just in case someone hasn't yet noticed:
There is a flagpole with the attached flag bearing the text: "First Post"