Not really... if you work with the OEMs and offer them ultra cheap prices on your initial run or give them away free on the net, you can sit back and benefit from those customers coming to you for an upgraded version in the future so they can use whatever service it is that you provide.
Actually, given that Microsoft never released a slim XBox(1), I don't foresee them working on a slim 360. Besides, Microsoft has no initiative to make the 360 smaller. They can continue cranking out the current model and change the color of the paint for greater profit without having to redesign the whole thing again. (I know it sounds trollish... but kind of like Windows.)
The outside has all those bugs, not to mention all that glare from the sun detracting from your enjoyment. It's just easier to stay inside and venture outside in a virtual world where you can kill the bugs with huge fireballs and fancy weapons. If I go out in the real outside with fancy weapons or fireballs, I'll get sent to an indoors where I can't use my computer to go to these cooler virtual worlds.
It's simple. If Microsoft doesn't want to pay the taxes for local structural upkeep... spend the tax money on companies that will. Let the roads turn to rubble and let the neighborhood go to hell.
I'm honestly not trolling, but if the State can somehow back up this claim with documentation, I don't see why they would be in the wrong.
In a way, I see patents and copyright in the same manner, with a slight difference.
Copyright is using words to form meaningful (hopefully) sentences and nobody can use the same combination of said words in the same context. (Replace words with code, sentences with algorithms.)
Patents (should) be a specific design of some item that performs a task. IE: You make a curved handle with a wooden ball on the end. I make a straight handle that does the same thing as your handle... am I violating your patent? In the physical world, I'm not. In the digital world, I am... why?
How are they the same? You're using the same constructs (Iron, text, code, words, etc.) to make something that performs a task (winding up hose, drawing a picture on the screen, accepting input from the user) but if someone comes along and performs the same task, using different words, metals, shapes, or gearing, then why is it a violation? IMHO, for a patent on digital media to hold up, you have to undeniably prove that none of your code was used in a competitor's product. Of course, the patent system is giving people patents on "mash ups" of existing parts and tools and vague descriptions of function with no blueprints, which I think is wrong.
The message. It's a well known fact that Federal agencies are the least liked and least affective way to run anything, yet the populous hangs on the hope that one day they will get it right. This term, they are hoping the feds get it right with our health care. Next term, it will be something else. All along this path, we continue to get more and more Federal control and our country turns Socialist simply because of the cards piling up.
If Ron Paul doesn't make it, maybe someone in the next election will run on the same basis. They may not get in, but over time (hopefully) people will wake up and realize that Government control is not the answer.
How? By suggesting to dump more money into it? That's about as much control as the President has in this matter. Private schools are producing kids with better educations than public schools. Are you sure that schools will not try to compete with each other and hire the best teachers? Do you still think they will only have one school per district? (ie: Government controlled monopoly) Where is the basis that decides that public schools are better off with someone in D.C. deciding what your kids learn? Wouldn't you prefer to have a stake in voting (with your wallet) where your kid goes to school? Do you think you won't have any choices?
Also, someone of presidential material should have more political sense than to straight out attack everyone in their party. Being a politician is about getting stuff done, not having good ideas. A president should be able to rally other politicians, and get them to come together on issues that matter.
That's part of the reason he stated (if I recall correctly) that he wouldn't run for third party if he didn't have the Republicans behind him. He would never be able to get anything done. Rightly so. That's the idea behind three bodies to run the country. A president cannot change the country alone, and by not getting the nomination of one of the major parties to back him, he'd be powerless (minus veto) to do ANYTHING. He was smart enough to see this, but nobody looks at it that way. They all assume he wants to come in and just flip a switch to change the world. It can't happen.
My problem with McCain, besides the constant barrage of "Veteran" status that he's played dry, is that he's talked about putting Ballmer in his cabinet. Now... I'm not a fan of Microsoft, but you have to wonder what the CEO of a monopolistic company would do to help support his cause.
Actually, I've seen a lot of this kind of backwards reasoning. Just because one part market is not dominated by the monopolist of another industry, it's fair for the monopolist to step in and try to take over market share for said second industry? Wouldn't that give more power to the monopolist? The minute they stop looking at it from the corporate perspective and looking at it from the division perspective, they lose all rationale.
At my workplace, they approved a few different open source applications, FlashDevelop for the eLearning Flash content, Audacity, and Eclipse for some of the Web development. I'm sure there were a couple others. Though, I somehow don't think these types of software are counted in the OP survey or I'd think it would be a higher number.
Yeah, but it will be Microsoft vs Google where Microsoft has practically no cash on hand anymore. In some ways I hope this deal does go through. I think it will be humbling for Microsoft to see that they can't just dump cash into something and make it work.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but if the program is done right (using sizeof instead of constants to determine object sizes and such) couldn't you just recompile your code (if even that's needed) to just work in a 64-bit environment since the only factor here is how much memory you can allocate and use? This is my impression of the only real differences between 64-bit and 32-bit programs. I mean, yeah, there are 64-bit Linux kernels... but don't they just include a different memory handler and processor IDs?
So what would keep Microsoft from just recompiling the MS kernel to handle more memory?
Get technical if you like. I'm not afraid to read.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you suggesting the trolls seek reparations?
Not really... if you work with the OEMs and offer them ultra cheap prices on your initial run or give them away free on the net, you can sit back and benefit from those customers coming to you for an upgraded version in the future so they can use whatever service it is that you provide.
Actually, given that Microsoft never released a slim XBox(1), I don't foresee them working on a slim 360. Besides, Microsoft has no initiative to make the 360 smaller. They can continue cranking out the current model and change the color of the paint for greater profit without having to redesign the whole thing again. (I know it sounds trollish... but kind of like Windows.)
The outside has all those bugs, not to mention all that glare from the sun detracting from your enjoyment. It's just easier to stay inside and venture outside in a virtual world where you can kill the bugs with huge fireballs and fancy weapons. If I go out in the real outside with fancy weapons or fireballs, I'll get sent to an indoors where I can't use my computer to go to these cooler virtual worlds.
Ah man, do I have to? The smart ass comments are more entertaining...
There are also people out there that assume there is a magic bullet government program that will fix everything.
It's simple. If Microsoft doesn't want to pay the taxes for local structural upkeep... spend the tax money on companies that will. Let the roads turn to rubble and let the neighborhood go to hell.
I'm honestly not trolling, but if the State can somehow back up this claim with documentation, I don't see why they would be in the wrong.
In a way, I see patents and copyright in the same manner, with a slight difference.
Copyright is using words to form meaningful (hopefully) sentences and nobody can use the same combination of said words in the same context. (Replace words with code, sentences with algorithms.)
Patents (should) be a specific design of some item that performs a task. IE: You make a curved handle with a wooden ball on the end. I make a straight handle that does the same thing as your handle... am I violating your patent? In the physical world, I'm not. In the digital world, I am... why?
How are they the same? You're using the same constructs (Iron, text, code, words, etc.) to make something that performs a task (winding up hose, drawing a picture on the screen, accepting input from the user) but if someone comes along and performs the same task, using different words, metals, shapes, or gearing, then why is it a violation? IMHO, for a patent on digital media to hold up, you have to undeniably prove that none of your code was used in a competitor's product. Of course, the patent system is giving people patents on "mash ups" of existing parts and tools and vague descriptions of function with no blueprints, which I think is wrong.
If Ron Paul doesn't make it, maybe someone in the next election will run on the same basis. They may not get in, but over time (hopefully) people will wake up and realize that Government control is not the answer.
How? By suggesting to dump more money into it? That's about as much control as the President has in this matter. Private schools are producing kids with better educations than public schools. Are you sure that schools will not try to compete with each other and hire the best teachers? Do you still think they will only have one school per district? (ie: Government controlled monopoly) Where is the basis that decides that public schools are better off with someone in D.C. deciding what your kids learn? Wouldn't you prefer to have a stake in voting (with your wallet) where your kid goes to school? Do you think you won't have any choices?
My problem with McCain, besides the constant barrage of "Veteran" status that he's played dry, is that he's talked about putting Ballmer in his cabinet. Now... I'm not a fan of Microsoft, but you have to wonder what the CEO of a monopolistic company would do to help support his cause.
I have a problem with this sentence, but I can't put my finger on why...
... ? It just sounds wrong.
"XMPP has been designed since the beginning as an open technology for generalized XML routing."
The best reasoning I have is the use of "has been designed since"
Actually, I've seen a lot of this kind of backwards reasoning. Just because one part market is not dominated by the monopolist of another industry, it's fair for the monopolist to step in and try to take over market share for said second industry? Wouldn't that give more power to the monopolist? The minute they stop looking at it from the corporate perspective and looking at it from the division perspective, they lose all rationale.
Last time I installed Windows, it didn't work without installing Flash.
Damn, now that I already read it, it's hard to ignore! ;)
At my workplace, they approved a few different open source applications, FlashDevelop for the eLearning Flash content, Audacity, and Eclipse for some of the Web development. I'm sure there were a couple others. Though, I somehow don't think these types of software are counted in the OP survey or I'd think it would be a higher number.
Thanks. I was kind of wondering what happened to the site. I used to go there when I was looking to upgrade to get useful information...
No no... leave the spam one.
Yeah, but it will be Microsoft vs Google where Microsoft has practically no cash on hand anymore. In some ways I hope this deal does go through. I think it will be humbling for Microsoft to see that they can't just dump cash into something and make it work.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but if the program is done right (using sizeof instead of constants to determine object sizes and such) couldn't you just recompile your code (if even that's needed) to just work in a 64-bit environment since the only factor here is how much memory you can allocate and use? This is my impression of the only real differences between 64-bit and 32-bit programs. I mean, yeah, there are 64-bit Linux kernels... but don't they just include a different memory handler and processor IDs?
So what would keep Microsoft from just recompiling the MS kernel to handle more memory?
Get technical if you like. I'm not afraid to read.
...or it redirects you to MSN search for some ludicrous reason.
I'm sure the numbers are protected for "National Security."
You bring up an interesting point here... in a sideways kind of way.
How long is it before we have Federal Flash lite regulations in the US or how quickly do you think flash lites will be banned on carry on luggage?