I may be in the minority (everybody loves free, right?), but I think this is a bad move. I really don't see it as fundamentally different from Apple deciding that all iPhone apps must be free.
Banning users from charging for their addons is questionable. Banning users from even mentioning in-game that their addon relies on donations is just stupid. If you are familiar at all with WoW addons, you know that the author's site is in the minority of the places people get the addon from. There are a lot of 3rd party collection sites, and there a lot of 3rd party addon installers that install and update the addon for you. Basically, this is like if a different group made Windows Paintbrush and tried soliciting donations on their website. How likely is that that people will go there, see it and donate? Now imagine it was far more useful than paintbrush.
The reason this is colossally stupid is twofold. First, if someone makes a commercial addon, other addon creators will see it and realize it's possible to clone. If it's a really good addon, they will clone it and release it for free. Sounds familiar, no? This is basically a large part of the way OSS works.
The second reason is that addons become work, if the addon is at all complex and popular (aka useful). At some point, you're spending a lot of time supporting the addon that could be spent doing other work for money, playing WoW, or just actually enjoying your life. As codebases age, they definitely fall out of that "enjoying your life" category. This is why donations can actually motivate you to work on an addon when you would have otherwise abandoned it.
The people who take a simplistic view that "other people shouldn't be making money off of Blizzard's hard work!" either do not understand or are too dogmatic to consider the reality. Addons add value to WoW. Blizzard makes money off of addons, be they free or pay, through increased subscriptions. There are numerous users who would stop playing if addons weren't around to make up for the deficiencies in WoW's UI. Addons also very frequently serve as their research department, as you will often see a new version of WoW incorporate the concepts of a popular addon.
This will result in many popular addons being discontinued. It will result in many addon authors losing interest in the game (I used to build addons even once I had lost interest in actually playing.) It will result in many players dropping out of the game because of lack of addon support (WoW updates and UI code changes typically mean that an addon will stop working within a year of being abandoned).
This is financially bad for Blizzard. However, if it's only 0.01% of their income, they will likely not care. I guess the new policy will be a good form of market research to see just how important the addon community is.
BTW, this has already been discussed in much more detail by the people who actually make addons. For those who aren't in the community, I'd recommend you read it to see how it has already killed some popular addons that relied on donations.
Yes, I know that. Glith is included in the "anyone." Where in that post did Glith say you don't need a temperature scale other than for weather?
Glith said "how often are you caring what temperature water is going to boil relative to the current temperature outside?". He doesn't say "how often are you caring what temperature water is going to boil?" The crucial part is "relative to the current temperature outside." This part of the post is pointing out that basing the high end of a scale on the boiling point of water in no way helps to tie it to a number that is relatable to a human being able to conceptualize how a temperature would feel.
The other half was "Fahrenheit maps the normal range of temperatures for the area it was created." 400 F is not a normal range of temperatures for ANY human inhabited area. It's in the range of temperatures for inside your OVEN. But that has nothing to do with the statement.
I'll be damned if I can tell how any of your posts even relate to the original comment. They seem to be just smartass non sequiturs.
Now I think you're just being intentionally obtuse. You probably were before, too.
My references to cooking were to illustrate how commonly we need a temperature scale other than for weather. Sorry if this wasn't obvious to you.
Did I say we didn't need a temperature scale other than for weather? Did anyone? Are you reading some alternate reality version of slashdot?
Let me see if I can make it clear to you one last time. Every temperature scale is based on arbitrary points and/or definitions of one "degree." The only parts of the scale people need to be able to easily conceptualize is what a given temperature "feels like." Because once it's outside of that range, what does it matter since it's going to just be a number? So the base of your scale should be what things feel like to human in the normal range (aka WEATHER).
Otherwise it doesn't matter what the temperature scale you use because you're going to be reading a number off an instrument that you cannot relate to, other than in the abstract.
Okay for knowing whether or not it will snow, but how often are you caring what temperature water is going to boil relative to the current temperature outside?
In other words, why would you need to conceptualize outdoor weather temperatures as they relate to the boiling point of water?
That was completely unlike asking why anyone would need to measure temperatures greater than 100 C.
His entire point that a given temperature scale is only really useful for determining how the weather will feel to a human. Everything else is going to be a number on a scale, no matter what the arbitrary points chosen for 0. The boiling point of water has no relevance to how the weather will feel to a human.
Again, though, neither scale has a real benefit over the other. When you boil water, you're often adding salt or other solutes to it. The boiling point of water with solutes in it is no longer 100 C. Not that you need to measure the temperature of boiling water most of the time, anyway. The bubbles tend to give it away.
And you cook meat to various safe temperatures:
Steaks, Roasts, Fish - 145 F, 63 C
Pork, Ground Beef, Egg Dishes - 160 F, 71 C
Chicken - 165 F, 74 C
(Note that I arrived at the Celsius figures by converting Fahrenheit. Five minutes of googling and I could not find a single site that listed food temperatures from the whole *.co.uk hierarchy. Apparently cooking with Celsius is easier because in Fahrenheit you have to cook to a certain temp and in Celsius you just arbitrarily decide it's done...)
While I agree with your premise (long term sales could outweigh short term sales), I'm afraid I must disagree with how you're applying them. Do you really think 2001 has been shown more often than Jurassic Park, a film 15 years younger than it? I do not. I believe JP does far more business on TV than 2001 ever does. And if you look at IMDB at it's all time rental figures, you'll see that even if you pretend that ALL the 2001 dollar amounts are in 1968 dollars and don't adjust JPs dollars, it still far surpasses it.
When you go to the rental store or to your run of the mill store that sells dvds, which do you think will have more copies in stock? Do you not agree that this is a good indicator of demand? And how much money PPV, HBO, broadcast networks and a finally cable channels will pay to play a movie and how often are directly proportional to its box office receipts. Very rarely do you have sleeper hits these days. They're the exception, not the rule. You don't run a business based on exceptions.
And this is a GOOD movie. I think even movies like Austin Powers 3 will completely outsell fellow 2002 movie The Pianist over time. AP3 already has a big head start in that they made 100 million more profit at the box office (after you take budgets out). That's 100 million 2002 dollars. Even if AP3 never sold a single dvd or never showed up on PPV, HBO, broadcast networks or cable channels, I think The Pianist might never catch up. And AP3 made truckloads full of money from all those thigns, so good luck.
Of course, all of this is kind of a diversion. How much of 2001 being as good as it was is based on the story, how much is based on the director, how much is based on the performances, and how much is based on the studio investing money to make the film a reality? To say that the writer is the "breadwinner" in this situation is really not something I can agree with.
How is this any different than going to a library and looking up info after court?
Well, because you don't have to go to a library. And you don't have to look it up. And you don't have to wait until after court. But other than that, it's identical!
I have to chime in on this one. To paraphrase Churchill, trial by a jury of your peers is the worst form of justice except all the others that have been tried.
Is there something severely wrong with you? MP3 players were an entirely different category, especially when they got a hard drive. Suddenly you could carry over a thousand songs with you in a device not much larger than a pack of cigarettes. This was a breakthrough compared to the previous generation of cassette players. A huge market of people who would never carry around a CD based player (or previously, a cassette based one) were interested in this product.
Really, your main problem is that you don't know what the iPod category is. It's not a portable music player, as such. It's a portable music library.
And no, the iPod wasn't the first. I never said that. In fact, my post was saying the exact opposite. It came into a market that had a lot of players like Creative Labs, Diamond MM, and tons of others most people have never heard of. None of them were leaders. And Sony completely dropped the ball and wouldn't even make real mp3 players and instead stuck with their ATRAC format and made you cross-convert. Plus they charged a premium because it was made by Sony.
Yes, the iPod had a good product, but haven't you see good products fail over and over again because they aren't marketed? Apple used print and TV advertising far more than any of the other competitors. And they were good campaigns. Can you even remember a Creative Labs or Diamond commercial? Now, if I showed you a person in silhouette with headphones, wouldn't you immediately recognize it as an iPod commercial style? Apple made a brilliant marketing move in not just marketing the player, but the lifestyle. The iPod was only half music player; the other half was fashion accessory. This was early in it's life, too. It's what made it the standard for mp3 players. Without the marketing, the iPod could likely have been one of the most popular mp3 players. With the marketing, it became the mp3 player.
If you want to continue to bury your head in the sand, feel free. Or you could actually open your mind and educate yourself. Go google "ipod advertising". There's even a wikipedia page just on that topic.
The main problem with the gist of your post is that you are saying that writers are the primary reason a movie is financially successful. This simply is not the case. Good writing is necessary for critical success. These two are not the same thing. If you're going to look at the entertainment industry as an industry, you have to measure it on financial performance.
Jurassic Park was spun around a great story (with some caveats), but do you think it would have ever been such a financial success without the groundbreaking CGI dinosaurs?
Jaws had an interesting story, but what would have happened to it without a studio to food the bill for what could have been a huge flop?
Would The Exorcist have succeeded without Friedkin being such a bastard on set, getting some very amazing performances from the cast?
Do you think anyone other than Tom Hanks could likely have pulled off Forrest Gump?
Would Shrek the Third be on the top 100 grossing films list of all time if not for the advertising muscle put behind it?
All of these are highly financially successful movies. These are the kind of films that make Hollywood the big bucks. Not well received, fantastically written pictures that do a modest amount of business. There is just far too much that goes on after the movie is written to support giving the "breadwinner" role to the writers.
And though I left it for last, I'd say that these days the advertising is actually the number 1 breadwinner for Hollywood films. They can serve up some utterly poor shit as long as they aim it at the right demographic and advertise the hell out of it.
I'd say the definition of citizen changing is one of the fundamental revolutions of our entire experiment in democracy. It's a change that can't be emphasized enough. In reality, the original effect of the constitution was to create a democratic state for a small subset of people - white male landowners. Most of the founders simply did not intend for democracy to be extended beyond this subset of people. We far to often gloss over this reality.
Speaking of the amendment process, you realize that's not the same as designed by the founding father's when they drafted the Constitution, right? We changed it indirectly by changing how the senators were elected. Their way of doing it just wasn't relevant to our times anymore. Many of them would be thoroughly pissed.
So, back to my original point, plenty of the ideas of the founding fathers are just not applicable to our time. We should evaluate them based on their merit as it relates to our societal norms now.
I think that's probably the last I'll have to say on this particular thread. It's already getting a bit circular.
Expect certain posters to pivot from claiming copy-and-paste is a useless unnecessary feature to ragging on another other phone that does not include it out of the box.
Our Constitution IS a living document and is subject to change based on the norms and fads of the day, given that it passes the amendment process. How ignorant of reality and history do you have to believe to think otherwise? If it wasn't, our nation as it currently is would never exist. And by "our nation as it currently is", I mean the one where black people aren't slaves and women can vote, among many other things.
True, but for better or worse a lot of the original language of the Constitution was intentionally unspecific. The problem is that they had to get a very heterogeneous group of people to all agree to the same thing. The only way that worked was if they were a bit vague on some of the more contentious topics. That way each side could believe their interpretation was right.
Central rule only ensures that when there's corruption, we all get corrupted the same way.
On the other hand, it provides a focus for a sizable minority of concerned citizens to actually mobilize against. The reason why a lot of crappy state and local government corruption stays in place for decades is that it's too hard to mobilize a large enough group of people against it. This is especially true with people moving in and out of cities and states.
I'm not saying I always like federal rule more than state, but you have to admit there are two sides to that coin.
This is all true. But if snopes has taught us anything, it's that when some random person claims something without a citation, you probably shouldn't lend much credence to it. Especially when it sounds like something you'd want to repeat to someone else.
Then why does Apple still have 80% of the mp3 player market. And don't give us that BS about advertising; if Apple's marketing was all-powerful, then why are they behind Dell & HP in marketshare.
Advertising in an area in which they were was no established leader, combined with a decent piece of hardware.
That answers both parts of your question. There are better devices, depending on your needs and social circles.
This is true in so many different industries. The first company that does a great job at advertising and doesn't have a failure for a product can often coast for quite some time.
If you're including me in this comment, I think you're missing my point. My feeling is that the arguments of the founding fathers need to stand on the basis of the arguments, not on the basis of the author. The weight we give them should not be based on who wrote them, but on the truth of what is written. As such, some of the things they wrote and believed simply do not hold with what we believe today. Many others still do.
Ars shows no such thing. I did RTFAs and the tweet stream. From the period between being selected as a juror to his tweet AFTER the verdict was given, he made one tweet during a break. Singular. Not "tweets." Not "breaks." Here is that tweet, in it's entirety:
And the verdict is...Penguin Eds can not make fries
Slashdot Mirror
I may be in the minority (everybody loves free, right?), but I think this is a bad move. I really don't see it as fundamentally different from Apple deciding that all iPhone apps must be free.
Banning users from charging for their addons is questionable. Banning users from even mentioning in-game that their addon relies on donations is just stupid. If you are familiar at all with WoW addons, you know that the author's site is in the minority of the places people get the addon from. There are a lot of 3rd party collection sites, and there a lot of 3rd party addon installers that install and update the addon for you. Basically, this is like if a different group made Windows Paintbrush and tried soliciting donations on their website. How likely is that that people will go there, see it and donate? Now imagine it was far more useful than paintbrush.
The reason this is colossally stupid is twofold. First, if someone makes a commercial addon, other addon creators will see it and realize it's possible to clone. If it's a really good addon, they will clone it and release it for free. Sounds familiar, no? This is basically a large part of the way OSS works.
The second reason is that addons become work, if the addon is at all complex and popular (aka useful). At some point, you're spending a lot of time supporting the addon that could be spent doing other work for money, playing WoW, or just actually enjoying your life. As codebases age, they definitely fall out of that "enjoying your life" category. This is why donations can actually motivate you to work on an addon when you would have otherwise abandoned it.
The people who take a simplistic view that "other people shouldn't be making money off of Blizzard's hard work!" either do not understand or are too dogmatic to consider the reality. Addons add value to WoW. Blizzard makes money off of addons, be they free or pay, through increased subscriptions. There are numerous users who would stop playing if addons weren't around to make up for the deficiencies in WoW's UI. Addons also very frequently serve as their research department, as you will often see a new version of WoW incorporate the concepts of a popular addon.
This will result in many popular addons being discontinued. It will result in many addon authors losing interest in the game (I used to build addons even once I had lost interest in actually playing.) It will result in many players dropping out of the game because of lack of addon support (WoW updates and UI code changes typically mean that an addon will stop working within a year of being abandoned).
This is financially bad for Blizzard. However, if it's only 0.01% of their income, they will likely not care. I guess the new policy will be a good form of market research to see just how important the addon community is.
BTW, this has already been discussed in much more detail by the people who actually make addons. For those who aren't in the community, I'd recommend you read it to see how it has already killed some popular addons that relied on donations.
"Have it in for you?" My, my, you sure have an inflated sense of worth.
Good advice. Unfortunate that you didn't take it to begin with.
I was replying to this post by "Glith" : http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1167077&cid=27255687 NOT TO YOU.
Yes, I know that. Glith is included in the "anyone." Where in that post did Glith say you don't need a temperature scale other than for weather?
Glith said "how often are you caring what temperature water is going to boil relative to the current temperature outside?". He doesn't say "how often are you caring what temperature water is going to boil?" The crucial part is "relative to the current temperature outside." This part of the post is pointing out that basing the high end of a scale on the boiling point of water in no way helps to tie it to a number that is relatable to a human being able to conceptualize how a temperature would feel.
The other half was "Fahrenheit maps the normal range of temperatures for the area it was created." 400 F is not a normal range of temperatures for ANY human inhabited area. It's in the range of temperatures for inside your OVEN. But that has nothing to do with the statement.
I'll be damned if I can tell how any of your posts even relate to the original comment. They seem to be just smartass non sequiturs.
Now I think you're just being intentionally obtuse. You probably were before, too.
My references to cooking were to illustrate how commonly we need a temperature scale other than for weather. Sorry if this wasn't obvious to you.
Did I say we didn't need a temperature scale other than for weather? Did anyone? Are you reading some alternate reality version of slashdot?
Let me see if I can make it clear to you one last time. Every temperature scale is based on arbitrary points and/or definitions of one "degree." The only parts of the scale people need to be able to easily conceptualize is what a given temperature "feels like." Because once it's outside of that range, what does it matter since it's going to just be a number? So the base of your scale should be what things feel like to human in the normal range (aka WEATHER).
Otherwise it doesn't matter what the temperature scale you use because you're going to be reading a number off an instrument that you cannot relate to, other than in the abstract.
Actually, no, that wasn't what he said. He said
Okay for knowing whether or not it will snow, but how often are you caring what temperature water is going to boil relative to the current temperature outside?
In other words, why would you need to conceptualize outdoor weather temperatures as they relate to the boiling point of water?
That was completely unlike asking why anyone would need to measure temperatures greater than 100 C.
His entire point that a given temperature scale is only really useful for determining how the weather will feel to a human. Everything else is going to be a number on a scale, no matter what the arbitrary points chosen for 0. The boiling point of water has no relevance to how the weather will feel to a human.
And you cook meat to various safe temperatures:
(Note that I arrived at the Celsius figures by converting Fahrenheit. Five minutes of googling and I could not find a single site that listed food temperatures from the whole *.co.uk hierarchy. Apparently cooking with Celsius is easier because in Fahrenheit you have to cook to a certain temp and in Celsius you just arbitrarily decide it's done...)
I can't think of any case of an actor who got tapped for a part because of differentiation from the norm.
Haven't seen Andre the Giant in The Princess Bride, eh? ;)
While I agree with your premise (long term sales could outweigh short term sales), I'm afraid I must disagree with how you're applying them. Do you really think 2001 has been shown more often than Jurassic Park, a film 15 years younger than it? I do not. I believe JP does far more business on TV than 2001 ever does. And if you look at IMDB at it's all time rental figures, you'll see that even if you pretend that ALL the 2001 dollar amounts are in 1968 dollars and don't adjust JPs dollars, it still far surpasses it.
When you go to the rental store or to your run of the mill store that sells dvds, which do you think will have more copies in stock? Do you not agree that this is a good indicator of demand? And how much money PPV, HBO, broadcast networks and a finally cable channels will pay to play a movie and how often are directly proportional to its box office receipts. Very rarely do you have sleeper hits these days. They're the exception, not the rule. You don't run a business based on exceptions.
And this is a GOOD movie. I think even movies like Austin Powers 3 will completely outsell fellow 2002 movie The Pianist over time. AP3 already has a big head start in that they made 100 million more profit at the box office (after you take budgets out). That's 100 million 2002 dollars. Even if AP3 never sold a single dvd or never showed up on PPV, HBO, broadcast networks or cable channels, I think The Pianist might never catch up. And AP3 made truckloads full of money from all those thigns, so good luck.
Of course, all of this is kind of a diversion. How much of 2001 being as good as it was is based on the story, how much is based on the director, how much is based on the performances, and how much is based on the studio investing money to make the film a reality? To say that the writer is the "breadwinner" in this situation is really not something I can agree with.
Do we have programmers that are smart enough to program stupidity algorithms to be smart enough to be as stupid as humans?
How is this any different than going to a library and looking up info after court?
Well, because you don't have to go to a library. And you don't have to look it up. And you don't have to wait until after court. But other than that, it's identical!
I have to chime in on this one. To paraphrase Churchill, trial by a jury of your peers is the worst form of justice except all the others that have been tried.
Is there something severely wrong with you? MP3 players were an entirely different category, especially when they got a hard drive. Suddenly you could carry over a thousand songs with you in a device not much larger than a pack of cigarettes. This was a breakthrough compared to the previous generation of cassette players. A huge market of people who would never carry around a CD based player (or previously, a cassette based one) were interested in this product.
Really, your main problem is that you don't know what the iPod category is. It's not a portable music player, as such. It's a portable music library.
And no, the iPod wasn't the first. I never said that. In fact, my post was saying the exact opposite. It came into a market that had a lot of players like Creative Labs, Diamond MM, and tons of others most people have never heard of. None of them were leaders. And Sony completely dropped the ball and wouldn't even make real mp3 players and instead stuck with their ATRAC format and made you cross-convert. Plus they charged a premium because it was made by Sony.
Yes, the iPod had a good product, but haven't you see good products fail over and over again because they aren't marketed? Apple used print and TV advertising far more than any of the other competitors. And they were good campaigns. Can you even remember a Creative Labs or Diamond commercial? Now, if I showed you a person in silhouette with headphones, wouldn't you immediately recognize it as an iPod commercial style? Apple made a brilliant marketing move in not just marketing the player, but the lifestyle. The iPod was only half music player; the other half was fashion accessory. This was early in it's life, too. It's what made it the standard for mp3 players. Without the marketing, the iPod could likely have been one of the most popular mp3 players. With the marketing, it became the mp3 player.
If you want to continue to bury your head in the sand, feel free. Or you could actually open your mind and educate yourself. Go google "ipod advertising". There's even a wikipedia page just on that topic.
The main problem with the gist of your post is that you are saying that writers are the primary reason a movie is financially successful. This simply is not the case. Good writing is necessary for critical success. These two are not the same thing. If you're going to look at the entertainment industry as an industry, you have to measure it on financial performance.
Jurassic Park was spun around a great story (with some caveats), but do you think it would have ever been such a financial success without the groundbreaking CGI dinosaurs?
Jaws had an interesting story, but what would have happened to it without a studio to food the bill for what could have been a huge flop?
Would The Exorcist have succeeded without Friedkin being such a bastard on set, getting some very amazing performances from the cast?
Do you think anyone other than Tom Hanks could likely have pulled off Forrest Gump?
Would Shrek the Third be on the top 100 grossing films list of all time if not for the advertising muscle put behind it?
All of these are highly financially successful movies. These are the kind of films that make Hollywood the big bucks. Not well received, fantastically written pictures that do a modest amount of business. There is just far too much that goes on after the movie is written to support giving the "breadwinner" role to the writers.
And though I left it for last, I'd say that these days the advertising is actually the number 1 breadwinner for Hollywood films. They can serve up some utterly poor shit as long as they aim it at the right demographic and advertise the hell out of it.
You fail to understand what the area is. It's portable mp3 players.
*whoosh*
I'd say the definition of citizen changing is one of the fundamental revolutions of our entire experiment in democracy. It's a change that can't be emphasized enough. In reality, the original effect of the constitution was to create a democratic state for a small subset of people - white male landowners. Most of the founders simply did not intend for democracy to be extended beyond this subset of people. We far to often gloss over this reality.
Speaking of the amendment process, you realize that's not the same as designed by the founding father's when they drafted the Constitution, right? We changed it indirectly by changing how the senators were elected. Their way of doing it just wasn't relevant to our times anymore. Many of them would be thoroughly pissed.
So, back to my original point, plenty of the ideas of the founding fathers are just not applicable to our time. We should evaluate them based on their merit as it relates to our societal norms now.
I think that's probably the last I'll have to say on this particular thread. It's already getting a bit circular.
Expect certain posters to pivot from claiming copy-and-paste is a useless unnecessary feature to ragging on another other phone that does not include it out of the box.
Our Constitution IS a living document and is subject to change based on the norms and fads of the day, given that it passes the amendment process. How ignorant of reality and history do you have to believe to think otherwise? If it wasn't, our nation as it currently is would never exist. And by "our nation as it currently is", I mean the one where black people aren't slaves and women can vote, among many other things.
True, but for better or worse a lot of the original language of the Constitution was intentionally unspecific. The problem is that they had to get a very heterogeneous group of people to all agree to the same thing. The only way that worked was if they were a bit vague on some of the more contentious topics. That way each side could believe their interpretation was right.
Central rule only ensures that when there's corruption, we all get corrupted the same way.
On the other hand, it provides a focus for a sizable minority of concerned citizens to actually mobilize against. The reason why a lot of crappy state and local government corruption stays in place for decades is that it's too hard to mobilize a large enough group of people against it. This is especially true with people moving in and out of cities and states.
I'm not saying I always like federal rule more than state, but you have to admit there are two sides to that coin.
This is all true. But if snopes has taught us anything, it's that when some random person claims something without a citation, you probably shouldn't lend much credence to it. Especially when it sounds like something you'd want to repeat to someone else.
Then why does Apple still have 80% of the mp3 player market. And don't give us that BS about advertising; if Apple's marketing was all-powerful, then why are they behind Dell & HP in marketshare.
Advertising in an area in which they were was no established leader, combined with a decent piece of hardware.
That answers both parts of your question. There are better devices, depending on your needs and social circles.
This is true in so many different industries. The first company that does a great job at advertising and doesn't have a failure for a product can often coast for quite some time.
If you're including me in this comment, I think you're missing my point. My feeling is that the arguments of the founding fathers need to stand on the basis of the arguments, not on the basis of the author. The weight we give them should not be based on who wrote them, but on the truth of what is written. As such, some of the things they wrote and believed simply do not hold with what we believe today. Many others still do.
Ars shows no such thing. I did RTFAs and the tweet stream. From the period between being selected as a juror to his tweet AFTER the verdict was given, he made one tweet during a break. Singular. Not "tweets." Not "breaks." Here is that tweet, in it's entirety:
And the verdict is...Penguin Eds can not make fries
Damning evidence, indeed.