So if the movie makes $50 mil domestically, All Microsoft gets is $5 mil.
Microsoft also gets a ton of hype and free promotion for their Halo sequels. You could think of the movie as a commercial for the Halo video games, a commercial that not only does Microsoft not have to pay for, they actually GET paid $5 million for it. Then somebody else spends a fortune marketing the movie, which spreads the Halo name far and wide without Microsoft spending a dime. It's free marketing! Microsoft should be paying them to make the movie, but then Bill Gates didn't get rich by writing a bunch of checks.. "Buy 'em out, boys!"
And the GPL allows you the right to copy any GPLed code into your own software and use it for whatever purpose you want. The only restrictions kick in when you DISTRIBUTE the software you wrote that incorporates GPLed code to others. I don't know how that could be any more clear.
You're seriously being obtuse on this point, by defining the word "use" as whatever you want it to mean. I could as easily say that the Microsoft EULA allows me to make copies of a Windows XP CD and sell them or give them away, because I have a license to "use" the software and I define "use" as whatever I want it to mean.
You're the one who is unclear on the meaning of simple English words. The GPL has absolutely no restrictions on the USE of software released under it. The only restrictions have to do with REDISTRIBUTION of GPLed software.
"Use" and "distribution" are two ENTIRELY separate things. Your complete inability to grasp that concept smacks of FUD.
Hear, hear.. This topic is filled with posts about how the poster is a technical genius, saved the company's ass time and time again, and was rewarded by being shown the door.
If you're really, truly that competent and indispensable, start your own company and run it the way YOU see fit. You'll get no loyalty from a company unless you own a piece of the action. Yeah, it's a big risk, but so is working for someone else, as the above referenced posters will tell you. At least working for yourself the big risk can actually pay off.
Google's engineers have decreed that familiar email practices are no longer useful, and have substituted approaches they prefer, arrogantly denying users any choice.
Well, you could always.. not use Gmail? Isn't that considered a choice?? Or will the arrogant Google engineers come beat you if you use Yahoo mail?
My reply was about the recent tax cut, the recent tax cut was an income tax cut, and the poor pay little to no income taxes, like I said in the post you just replied to. If you'll read it again, you'll see that I specifically said income tax in that post.
When you smear me and put words in my mouth based on a post you misread, you're the one who looks the fool.
The rich guy earned the money, and he'll invest it in whatever brings him the best return, since he knows that if it's wasted it won't be easy to replace. The money tends to go to companies that are managed well, and are successful.
The government didn't earn the money, and when it's spent there's more where that came from, so they don't care nearly as much. The person deciding what to spend it on decides based on politics, not whether the money will be put to good use. The money tends to go to companies who've given large campaign contributions and spent the most money on lobbyists.
That's a simple utilitarian argument about why it's better, but there's also a moral argument to be made that the people who best know how to spend the money are the ones who the money belongs to, as in the people who earned it. Remember, a tax cut doesn't mean giving money to the rich, it means taking less money from the rich. There's a difference, if you're not a frothing at the mouth slashdot leftist.
You can't cut taxes for the poor. They don't pay any income taxes in the first place, since by definition they don't have any money. The poor have nothing to do with this discussion, though you and others keep bringing them up for some reason.
You clearly don't understand economics either, but I guess I'll take a small shot at enlightening you a little.
Your comparison between rich people buying yachts and poor people buying food is a strawman. The tax cuts take money the government would have spent (i.e. wasted, since the choices the government makes have nothing to do with efficiency) and gives it back to the people it came from in the first place. Impoverished people have nothing to do with this. No one got a reduced welfare check because of the tax cuts.
Rich people investing their money leads to unemployed people getting jobs, as the companies invested in use the money to expand their businesses and purchase goods and services. This is better than the government spending the money if you believe that the money will be spent more wisely by the person who earned it and worked for it rather than by some government functionary who decides based on who contributed the most to his re-election campaign.
The absence of design leadership in the OSS development process and a motivation for OSS developers to create free versions of their favourite proprietary software may also explain why there would appear to be a distinct lack of imagination in OSS projects. The open source community has so far tended to create facsimiles of proprietary packages rather than the next killer application.
A continued shift towards OSS solutions at the expense of proprietary ones is likely to result in many of the companies that develop proprietary software going out of business. This might not be such a bad thing, as I'm sure that many of us would secretly welcome the collapse of the virtual monopoly that currently exists in the desktop software market. However, the first companies affected are likely to be the small but highly innovative firms, which are the lifeblood of the software industry, not the giant corporations that we all love to hate.
Open source doesn't have imagination or innovation, yet is likely to put innovators out of business? This makes no sense. OSS will tend to put non-innovators out of business IMO, while innovators will still be able to sell proprietary software because of their innovations.
Then later the author pooh-poohs OSS because "it is clearly not the panacea for all the software industry's ailments". Who ever said it was? Reading blatant strawman attacks like this make me wonder what the author's motivations are.
"When will the technology market begin to stabilize? I will not invest in technology that very well may become out of date or unsupported by newer technology in the near future. As such, I will continue to use an abacus, thank you very much."
"Blue State" edition : It still screws up all the time, but instead of it being Microsoft's fault it's obviously George Bush's fault, because he hates your files almost as much as he hates black people.
PS: Agree 100% with almost everything he said. Smart man.
I thought the same after reading the interview. Then I checked out his site and read his essay about Christianity. I'm not trying to slam, but I was far from impressed.
Your response is just so much nitpicking, half of which is besides the point of the original article.
For example, you say Linux needs patches too, so as far as security goes Linux and Windows are even. Really? How urgent are those patches? If I have a fresh Linux install vs. a fresh Windows install, which do I have more time to patch before it gets owned? Then you go off on a tangent about how Linux makes it difficult to share files with other users on the same box because it lacks ACLs, while completely glossing over the fact that you almost have to constantly run as an Administrator under windows just to allow your apps to work.
You complain that Linux is too complicated, and your example contrasts Apache vs. IIS, while the article is talking about desktop machines..
I could go on, but there's not much point. Anyone trying to claim Windows is as secure as Linux since both require patches is either completely deluded or has an axe to grind.
>> the once-favorite whipping boy Microsoft is seemingly on the ropes
I defo don't agree with that; they will be just as powerful in 5 years as now, if things tick along as they are.
Yeah, I don't really think MS is on the ropes in any real way, but they definitely are on the ropes buzzwise.. Apple and Google are the hot topics these days. The only talk about Microsoft right now tends to be about how underwhelming Vista is looking.
Google is FAR more powerful. Who cares of Word vs. ClarisWorks, which is the bottom line of the OS market. We're talking about being the gatekeeper for the majority of information retrieved via the net.
Doesn't using the word "gatekeeper" imply that without Google, the information wouldn't be available? That really isn't the case..
Google is the "gatekeeper" because it's the easiest, quickest way to find what you're looking for on the net. If Yahoo was markedly better, people would switch (back) in droves, and Yahoo would become the new "gatekeeper".
IMHO this whole Google paranoia meme is pretty laughable. Seems like people need to fret about some big corp threatening to take over, and the once-favorite whipping boy Microsoft is seemingly on the ropes so the paranoid venting gets pointed in Google's direction, mostly undeservedly.
If Google strongarmed ISPs into null routing competing search engines, it'd be comparable to the way Microsoft blocks OEMs from installing competing operating systems, but Google doesn't do that. Google's good at what they do, and they deserve to succeed as long as that's the case.
Slashdot Mirror
BTW, to which label do I need to make my check out to for using Imagine in a parody? I'm sure even that will require royalty payments soon enough...
I expect the cease and desist letters over my sig any day now.
Sounds like Microsoft learned the most important lesson in the music business: Never trust anyone in the music business.
So if the movie makes $50 mil domestically, All Microsoft gets is $5 mil.
Microsoft also gets a ton of hype and free promotion for their Halo sequels. You could think of the movie as a commercial for the Halo video games, a commercial that not only does Microsoft not have to pay for, they actually GET paid $5 million for it. Then somebody else spends a fortune marketing the movie, which spreads the Halo name far and wide without Microsoft spending a dime. It's free marketing! Microsoft should be paying them to make the movie, but then Bill Gates didn't get rich by writing a bunch of checks.. "Buy 'em out, boys!"
The GPL also defines "use" and "distribution" very specifically, yet you still don't seem to be able to discern the difference between the two.
I myself am having trouble discerning whether you are an anti-GPL shill, a troll, or functionally retarded. HTH.
And the GPL allows you the right to copy any GPLed code into your own software and use it for whatever purpose you want. The only restrictions kick in when you DISTRIBUTE the software you wrote that incorporates GPLed code to others. I don't know how that could be any more clear.
You're seriously being obtuse on this point, by defining the word "use" as whatever you want it to mean. I could as easily say that the Microsoft EULA allows me to make copies of a Windows XP CD and sell them or give them away, because I have a license to "use" the software and I define "use" as whatever I want it to mean.
You're the one who is unclear on the meaning of simple English words. The GPL has absolutely no restrictions on the USE of software released under it. The only restrictions have to do with REDISTRIBUTION of GPLed software.
"Use" and "distribution" are two ENTIRELY separate things. Your complete inability to grasp that concept smacks of FUD.
The difference is that Democrats think Republicans are evil, and Republicans think Democrats are stupid.
Hear, hear.. This topic is filled with posts about how the poster is a technical genius, saved the company's ass time and time again, and was rewarded by being shown the door.
If you're really, truly that competent and indispensable, start your own company and run it the way YOU see fit. You'll get no loyalty from a company unless you own a piece of the action. Yeah, it's a big risk, but so is working for someone else, as the above referenced posters will tell you. At least working for yourself the big risk can actually pay off.
Google's engineers have decreed that familiar email practices are no longer useful, and have substituted approaches they prefer, arrogantly denying users any choice.
Well, you could always.. not use Gmail? Isn't that considered a choice?? Or will the arrogant Google engineers come beat you if you use Yahoo mail?
Nope, I'm not rich, but I aspire to be rich someday.
When that day comes, I'd like to be able to keep most of what I worked for and earned.
My reply was about the recent tax cut, the recent tax cut was an income tax cut, and the poor pay little to no income taxes, like I said in the post you just replied to. If you'll read it again, you'll see that I specifically said income tax in that post.
When you smear me and put words in my mouth based on a post you misread, you're the one who looks the fool.
The rich guy earned the money, and he'll invest it in whatever brings him the best return, since he knows that if it's wasted it won't be easy to replace. The money tends to go to companies that are managed well, and are successful.
The government didn't earn the money, and when it's spent there's more where that came from, so they don't care nearly as much. The person deciding what to spend it on decides based on politics, not whether the money will be put to good use. The money tends to go to companies who've given large campaign contributions and spent the most money on lobbyists.
That's a simple utilitarian argument about why it's better, but there's also a moral argument to be made that the people who best know how to spend the money are the ones who the money belongs to, as in the people who earned it. Remember, a tax cut doesn't mean giving money to the rich, it means taking less money from the rich. There's a difference, if you're not a frothing at the mouth slashdot leftist.
You can't cut taxes for the poor. They don't pay any income taxes in the first place, since by definition they don't have any money. The poor have nothing to do with this discussion, though you and others keep bringing them up for some reason.
You clearly don't understand economics either, but I guess I'll take a small shot at enlightening you a little.
Your comparison between rich people buying yachts and poor people buying food is a strawman. The tax cuts take money the government would have spent (i.e. wasted, since the choices the government makes have nothing to do with efficiency) and gives it back to the people it came from in the first place. Impoverished people have nothing to do with this. No one got a reduced welfare check because of the tax cuts.
Rich people investing their money leads to unemployed people getting jobs, as the companies invested in use the money to expand their businesses and purchase goods and services. This is better than the government spending the money if you believe that the money will be spent more wisely by the person who earned it and worked for it rather than by some government functionary who decides based on who contributed the most to his re-election campaign.
with any luck it'll hit the rich and loosen up some of those tax cut dollars into the economy.
Yeah, totally, because all those rich bastards just take their tax cut loot and throw it on the money pile they keep under their mattress, right?
You should really refrain from comments about what would be good for the economy until you have two brain cells to rub together.
The absence of design leadership in the OSS development process and a motivation for OSS developers to create free versions of their favourite proprietary software may also explain why there would appear to be a distinct lack of imagination in OSS projects. The open source community has so far tended to create facsimiles of proprietary packages rather than the next killer application.
A continued shift towards OSS solutions at the expense of proprietary ones is likely to result in many of the companies that develop proprietary software going out of business. This might not be such a bad thing, as I'm sure that many of us would secretly welcome the collapse of the virtual monopoly that currently exists in the desktop software market. However, the first companies affected are likely to be the small but highly innovative firms, which are the lifeblood of the software industry, not the giant corporations that we all love to hate.
Open source doesn't have imagination or innovation, yet is likely to put innovators out of business? This makes no sense. OSS will tend to put non-innovators out of business IMO, while innovators will still be able to sell proprietary software because of their innovations.
Then later the author pooh-poohs OSS because "it is clearly not the panacea for all the software industry's ailments". Who ever said it was? Reading blatant strawman attacks like this make me wonder what the author's motivations are.
You might as well have said :
"When will the technology market begin to stabilize? I will not invest in technology that very well may become out of date or unsupported by newer technology in the near future. As such, I will continue to use an abacus, thank you very much."
"Blue State" edition : It still screws up all the time, but instead of it being Microsoft's fault it's obviously George Bush's fault, because he hates your files almost as much as he hates black people.
Interesting that the sources that hold that the hole is gtting worse are European, while the sources that state everything's OK are American.
If things were getting better it couldn't be America's fault, so of course the European sources have that outlook.
After all, according to Germany's environmental minister, Hurricane Katrina is George Bush's fault.
Get a grip BBC - some of us are paying for you to produce this material and we deserve better than that.
So stop paying them. Oh, right.. you don't have a choice.
PS: Agree 100% with almost everything he said. Smart man.
I thought the same after reading the interview. Then I checked out his site and read his essay about Christianity. I'm not trying to slam, but I was far from impressed.
Your response is just so much nitpicking, half of which is besides the point of the original article.
For example, you say Linux needs patches too, so as far as security goes Linux and Windows are even. Really? How urgent are those patches? If I have a fresh Linux install vs. a fresh Windows install, which do I have more time to patch before it gets owned? Then you go off on a tangent about how Linux makes it difficult to share files with other users on the same box because it lacks ACLs, while completely glossing over the fact that you almost have to constantly run as an Administrator under windows just to allow your apps to work.
You complain that Linux is too complicated, and your example contrasts Apache vs. IIS, while the article is talking about desktop machines..
I could go on, but there's not much point. Anyone trying to claim Windows is as secure as Linux since both require patches is either completely deluded or has an axe to grind.
Not an exact quote, but Rockerfeller was asked how much money was enough and his response was something to the tune of a little more than I have.
Homer: You know, Mr. Burns, you're the richest guy I know. Way richer than Lenny.
Mr. Burns: Oh yes. But I'd trade it all for a little more.
>> the once-favorite whipping boy Microsoft is seemingly on the ropes
I defo don't agree with that; they will be just as powerful in 5 years as now, if things tick along as they are.
Yeah, I don't really think MS is on the ropes in any real way, but they definitely are on the ropes buzzwise.. Apple and Google are the hot topics these days. The only talk about Microsoft right now tends to be about how underwhelming Vista is looking.
Google is FAR more powerful. Who cares of Word vs. ClarisWorks, which is the bottom line of the OS market. We're talking about being the gatekeeper for the majority of information retrieved via the net.
Doesn't using the word "gatekeeper" imply that without Google, the information wouldn't be available? That really isn't the case..
Google is the "gatekeeper" because it's the easiest, quickest way to find what you're looking for on the net. If Yahoo was markedly better, people would switch (back) in droves, and Yahoo would become the new "gatekeeper".
IMHO this whole Google paranoia meme is pretty laughable. Seems like people need to fret about some big corp threatening to take over, and the once-favorite whipping boy Microsoft is seemingly on the ropes so the paranoid venting gets pointed in Google's direction, mostly undeservedly.
If Google strongarmed ISPs into null routing competing search engines, it'd be comparable to the way Microsoft blocks OEMs from installing competing operating systems, but Google doesn't do that. Google's good at what they do, and they deserve to succeed as long as that's the case.