I absolutely hate, loathe, despise the RIAA. I wish some heavy companies would sink them. Please dear god in heaven if you can grant me this one wish, please bankrupt RIAA.
This is an excellent reply, and it explains the whole situation clearly. It's too bad stuff like that has to happen, but reading this clears it up a bit for me. So the problem was with the DHTML part of the backout, or it was the DHTML that caused them to try and back out of the patch, which caused the 1.2 mishap? I confused.:?
This wasn't intended to be a trolling post at all. I was not trying to poo-poo mozilla in any way. People make all kinds of mistakes, and likely my post was living proof of that, but this 1.2.1 release still strikes me as being suspicious, and sad.
I guess I've been on projects before when things have gone wrong and the package was released too soon, with missing files. The whole team pays when that happens, when it usually is someone's fault.
OF course slashdot mods would say "you troll", when someone tries to express some kind of disappointment with the way something has gone. Of course you could say that... but you'd be mistaken.
I'm trying to say that it's shameful to the team. Mozilla had to pull 1.2 so what is un-shameful about it? Don't be so quick to lambaste someone because you *think* you might know what they mean. The whole Mozilla team is likely kicking themselves over this, and it didn't have to happen. Did they do the right thing by posting a quick fix? Of course... they had to. But it's still a shame.
It is a shame this has happened and I'm not afraid to say it. Call me an asshole if you want. I don't care... it doesn't change the fact that I'm right and you're likely right too, about certain things.
I think you took me out of context without consideirng what I meant, rather than what you thought you saw. You know, I didn't say that they did the wrong thing by releasing this fix. I said it's shameful they had to do it. And it is.
So what's your problem, buddy? Are you the guy on the team who forgot the big chunk of code in 1.2?
It seems like they only just released a version a little while ago. Am I the only person who finds this somewhat annoying?
I love mozilla, but I'm curious why the rapid update? Zilla says it's because of a DHTML fix but How do errata sneak into progs like this? It's shameful, imo.
This is our latest stable release and users of all previous versions are encouraged to upgrade to this release for features, as well as performance, stability, and security fixes. It contains the fix for the DHTML bug that prompted us to pull Mozilla 1.2. See the release notes for more info.
This is an inversely proportional relationship -- as one goes up (age) the other goes down (seek time). If something has a directly proportional relationship, then as one factor goes up (e.g. age), the other goes up (e.g. population).
Eeek! You took me out of context or I didn't explain myself clearly. I'll paraphrase: The access/availability of factual information and the level of understanding of said info increases with the age of society -- that is what I meant. So I really meant to say directly proportionate. I think my stressing of the concept of the time decreasing was a mistake in that it's never wise to focus on what needs to be decreased as decreasing an abstract is quite difficult when it's not quantifiable, such as the time it takes to find something on the net that is valid, since that time is random. Therefore the increase of information available, the bonification of access via search tools like google, and the cross reference ability of a society are all stipulated and what really needs to be focused on. It's not the lack of any factor that is causing this benefit -- it's the existence of said facet.
An impetus is a push or shove that gets something going.
I did in fact mean to say that it's Neolithic *and* an impetus, in the sense that we must examine it and understand it. Now that we can see what it is, we can hold it up and thrust forward new ideologies.
"Unilateral" means "one-sided"
I did in fact mean to emphasize the fact that the exploits lead to a unilateral benefit, although my comment about it being unlikely given human behaviour was meant because once something is one sided, it turns back on itself by some other force as an eventuality (market / trend / gravity / Murphy's Law).
F=MA is what I was getting at.
I hope you decide to re-examine my writing and comment back!:) I love getting feedback like this because it give me a chance to clarify my meaning.
I guess it seems that I'm agreeing totally with you. =)
I think it's times like this (when Corps get greedy/scared) when we all need to pay attention to what's going on. Look at a cat falling into a tub of water as its claws rear up in panic to grab a hold of anything it can, to try and stay out of the water. Naturally, the cat is going to hurt someone if it gets a hold of them. Naturally the cat is going to get wet because they are totally scatterbrained at the moment - without any sobriety or common sense to spare. (and no uncommon sense to spare either!)
Big business is no different than that poor panicked kitty when the boardrooms start changing their tack, in an effort to leverage people into buying into their crap. Why would anyone in their right mind pay for a service when they could find the same info for free? Likely the same people who wear I'm with Stoopid T-shirts (or perhaps those standing NEXT to them!!).
Let some other sucker pay for news. And why should we rush to companies with cash in hand? They provide a service to make money and, like RIAA, they make all too much of it if you ask me, and they spend it all trying to influence courts and politics.
Another total insight is that any society is only as advanced as the time it takes to find a given fact, and you could rate any age of society where this same is true - that the time it takes to find out a fact and understand it is directly proportionate to the level of advancement of the given society in time (at this time). I could go really off the wall and say that the next logical step for human advancement is the abolishment of corporations and finance, since the very act of resource hogging is Neolithic and an impetus to human advancement! But to refine and restrain my argument, I will instead suggest that on a given trajectory, human finance is likely a cultural necessity and although future exploits be damned, eventually it will end and become replaced by either some other exploit or some unilateral benefit (unlikely given human nature).
Corporations wish to slow down the transfer of information because the people who are now in control of the world are mostly getting old themselves, or at the whim of those who are aging!
Put in stop-gaps so we can keep up! Add some more costs and measures to make 'em line up to hand them money for services we don't even provide! (CNN could post something, Time picks it up and the non-AOL users over at time have to pay? That's nonsense. And what about Reuter's/AP?!?)
What companies need to adopt now is a policy that allows them to save customers money and yet generate money at the same time. Give and take is essential for market growth; try selling that to a boardroom AND keep the evil twists out of the mix! Customer breaks have to be unilateral or they don't work out in the long run. Society is getting smarter. Give a bunch of stuff away for free, but charge for extra pampering / better bandwidth / services / and accessories. Or maybe don't charge?
I challenge some philanthropist to design a company that runs perfectly without charging anyone money for goods and service. (And at the same time refrain from cult or criminal status!!!) I bet if someone ever invented that company, they would be the next Ben Franklin because that company if entered into competition with other companies would likely crush all competition in existence today.
All it would take is fifty people who decided to adhere to certain principles of non-profit competition with the end goal being free provision via science, technology et al.
Shit guys, I'm sure we could find 50 of em here at/. if we could pull them away from whatever they are doing in their cubicle!
This post was pretty interesting. I read it during metamod and thought about some business practices that are going on and on, that cater to driving away business.
One such policy is at local video stores when they are willing to drive away business to try and make money on long term late charges. I know it's hard because the video rental business needs to have every video in the store for other customers, but if you've got seventy copies of the latest blockbuster, how are late charges warranted?
Instead, rental companies would be smart to only charge late charges on customers when there are no other copies in the store AND the movie is late AND only when there are no other copies in the store. You would see that most custmers might stop playing the shop-a-video game, going from store to store racking up late fees if the policy was less inept. You would also find that a policy like that ("take your chances") would work out to be a way better business model in the long run, since customers would know damn well they screwed up, IF they had to pay charges, and the mom&pop would not lose business from people taking their video, returning it three weeks late only to never come back AND never pay the bill!
Another type of business faux pas is when they tack on extra service charges to make money the sneaky way. There is a really good article about sneaky billing HERE.
The article is about how low amplitude vibrations can help a person better sense when they are off balance. I must use this new technology to disrupt Spiderman's Spidey Sense! Bring out the Megalatrogolagolotron!!!
Why? Retribution.... and that is exactly why they say you sell your soul to the Devil when you sign a record contract!
It's a tough business, and an unethical one. I think anyone with an ounce of courage or a dash of gumption would avoid record contracts like they were the plague. Even after you tour your guts out and dance until you can't dance anymore, and sign autographs until you're blue: you give up your life, your privacy, your whole time and any possible control you could have over your destiny as a human being, let alone an artist. This process strips the artist of any soul they might have and leaves them breathless and broke, wondering what happened.
Agreed. If you are just starting out, at least there is a choice to selling your soul to the RIAA. There is nothing that says a group can't be online/touring only. I wouldn't be surprised if this became the norm down the road. Radio will pick you up no matter what. Seems like some stations play mp3s they find on the net sometimes, too. Here in Kingston, it happens quite frequently on any one of our stations.
You don't have to be in a record deal to become famous anymore.
I'm not normally a Sade fan, and I remember holding some disdain for her music in years past (80's). But after hearing some of her recent stuff (downloaded via Gnucleus), I bought her album and went to her concert with my wife.
Exposure sells and it's the RIAA who are scared because maybe we don't want to buy the crap they are carpet bagging... maybe we will hold out for something better. They don't trust themselves.
One hit wonders shouldn't sell any records because the rest of their albums suck. While good musicians and artists who sweat blood to make amazing albums are still left behind. If the internet could do anything, I think it would even things out so real musicians would make the money they deserve and fluff bands get downloaded for the song that's good and passed over for concerts and cds.
This is a potentially dangerous endeavor for Carmack, as he is used to releasing games with bugs, and patching them down the road. You can't do that in space. To quote Khan, "It's very cold in space..."
Counter Strike could be amazing with high-end graphics, but perhaps there is a reason that DoomIII isn't going to have really advanced multiplayer? Carmack said, some multiplayer, but not that much multiplayer. Could it be that DoomIII is too cumbersome to play over the net? Maybe too cumbersome to play over a LAN? (*ahem*Blood2*ahem*)
I really think that a Counter Strike realism factor could rock, but what about the new Nvidia graphics language everyone keeps talking about? Maybe it won't be hard for us to make leaps toward a fast net CS game with super cool graphics. Maybe the new code would enable the CS team to split off from the Half Life engine and do their own thing?
If you look at the stats on Gamespy, Counterstrike takes the biggest share of online use. Take that and think about Valve and how much money they made on the backs of that project!
*shudder*
To clear up my point, I think that a glossy Doom3 version of CS might be immersive, but it might also lack the networking capability that the current version has. CS today doesn't take up much resources on higher end systems, or even lower ones. Today it's pretty cheap to get CS enabled.
Slashdot Mirror
I absolutely hate, loathe, despise the RIAA. I wish some heavy companies would sink them. Please dear god in heaven if you can grant me this one wish, please bankrupt RIAA.
This is an excellent reply, and it explains the whole situation clearly. It's too bad stuff like that has to happen, but reading this clears it up a bit for me. So the problem was with the DHTML part of the backout, or it was the DHTML that caused them to try and back out of the patch, which caused the 1.2 mishap? I confused. :?
So confrontational of you, sir. Ziprasidone could help... or perhaps psychotherapy. Seek help.
Where's your site, coward?
Well, you're obviously a troll
This wasn't intended to be a trolling post at all. I was not trying to poo-poo mozilla in any way. People make all kinds of mistakes, and likely my post was living proof of that, but this 1.2.1 release still strikes me as being suspicious, and sad.
I guess I've been on projects before when things have gone wrong and the package was released too soon, with missing files. The whole team pays when that happens, when it usually is someone's fault.
OF course slashdot mods would say "you troll", when someone tries to express some kind of disappointment with the way something has gone. Of course you could say that... but you'd be mistaken.
I'm trying to say that it's shameful to the team. Mozilla had to pull 1.2 so what is un-shameful about it? Don't be so quick to lambaste someone because you *think* you might know what they mean. The whole Mozilla team is likely kicking themselves over this, and it didn't have to happen. Did they do the right thing by posting a quick fix? Of course... they had to. But it's still a shame.
It is a shame this has happened and I'm not afraid to say it. Call me an asshole if you want. I don't care... it doesn't change the fact that I'm right and you're likely right too, about certain things.
I think you took me out of context without consideirng what I meant, rather than what you thought you saw. You know, I didn't say that they did the wrong thing by releasing this fix. I said it's shameful they had to do it. And it is.
So what's your problem, buddy? Are you the guy on the team who forgot the big chunk of code in 1.2?
Likely...
It seems like they only just released a version a little while ago. Am I the only person who finds this somewhat annoying?
I love mozilla, but I'm curious why the rapid update? Zilla says it's because of a DHTML fix but How do errata sneak into progs like this? It's shameful, imo.
This is our latest stable release and users of all previous versions are
encouraged to upgrade to this release for features, as well as performance,
stability, and security fixes. It contains the fix for the DHTML bug that
prompted us to pull Mozilla 1.2. See the release notes for more
info.
This is an inversely proportional relationship -- as one goes up (age) the other goes down (seek time). If something has a directly proportional relationship, then as one factor goes up (e.g. age), the other goes up (e.g. population).
:) I love getting feedback like this because it give me a chance to clarify my meaning.
Eeek! You took me out of context or I didn't explain myself clearly. I'll paraphrase: The access/availability of factual information and the level of understanding of said info increases with the age of society -- that is what I meant. So I really meant to say directly proportionate. I think my stressing of the concept of the time decreasing was a mistake in that it's never wise to focus on what needs to be decreased as decreasing an abstract is quite difficult when it's not quantifiable, such as the time it takes to find something on the net that is valid, since that time is random. Therefore the increase of information available, the bonification of access via search tools like google, and the cross reference ability of a society are all stipulated and what really needs to be focused on. It's not the lack of any factor that is causing this benefit -- it's the existence of said facet.
An impetus is a push or shove that gets something going.
I did in fact mean to say that it's Neolithic *and* an impetus, in the sense that we must examine it and understand it. Now that we can see what it is, we can hold it up and thrust forward new ideologies.
"Unilateral" means "one-sided"
I did in fact mean to emphasize the fact that the exploits lead to a unilateral benefit, although my comment about it being unlikely given human behaviour was meant because once something is one sided, it turns back on itself by some other force as an eventuality (market / trend / gravity / Murphy's Law).
F=MA is what I was getting at.
I hope you decide to re-examine my writing and comment back!
I guess it seems that I'm agreeing totally with you. =)
I think it's times like this (when Corps get greedy/scared) when we all need to pay attention to what's going on. Look at a cat falling into a tub of water as its claws rear up in panic to grab a hold of anything it can, to try and stay out of the water. Naturally, the cat is going to hurt someone if it gets a hold of them. Naturally the cat is going to get wet because they are totally scatterbrained at the moment - without any sobriety or common sense to spare. (and no uncommon sense to spare either!)
/. if we could pull them away from whatever they are doing in their cubicle!
Big business is no different than that poor panicked kitty when the boardrooms start changing their tack, in an effort to leverage people into buying into their crap. Why would anyone in their right mind pay for a service when they could find the same info for free? Likely the same people who wear I'm with Stoopid T-shirts (or perhaps those standing NEXT to them!!).
Let some other sucker pay for news. And why should we rush to companies with cash in hand? They provide a service to make money and, like RIAA, they make all too much of it if you ask me, and they spend it all trying to influence courts and politics.
Another total insight is that any society is only as advanced as the time it takes to find a given fact, and you could rate any age of society where this same is true - that the time it takes to find out a fact and understand it is directly proportionate to the level of advancement of the given society in time (at this time). I could go really off the wall and say that the next logical step for human advancement is the abolishment of corporations and finance, since the very act of resource hogging is Neolithic and an impetus to human advancement! But to refine and restrain my argument, I will instead suggest that on a given trajectory, human finance is likely a cultural necessity and although future exploits be damned, eventually it will end and become replaced by either some other exploit or some unilateral benefit (unlikely given human nature).
Corporations wish to slow down the transfer of information because the people who are now in control of the world are mostly getting old themselves, or at the whim of those who are aging!
Put in stop-gaps so we can keep up! Add some more costs and measures to make 'em line up to hand them money for services we don't even provide! (CNN could post something, Time picks it up and the non-AOL users over at time have to pay? That's nonsense. And what about Reuter's/AP?!?)
What companies need to adopt now is a policy that allows them to save customers money and yet generate money at the same time. Give and take is essential for market growth; try selling that to a boardroom AND keep the evil twists out of the mix! Customer breaks have to be unilateral or they don't work out in the long run. Society is getting smarter. Give a bunch of stuff away for free, but charge for extra pampering / better bandwidth / services / and accessories. Or maybe don't charge?
I challenge some philanthropist to design a company that runs perfectly without charging anyone money for goods and service. (And at the same time refrain from cult or criminal status!!!) I bet if someone ever invented that company, they would be the next Ben Franklin because that company if entered into competition with other companies would likely crush all competition in existence today.
All it would take is fifty people who decided to adhere to certain principles of non-profit competition with the end goal being free provision via science, technology et al.
Shit guys, I'm sure we could find 50 of em here at
... and Pringles sales skyrocket!
This post was pretty interesting. I read it during metamod and thought about some business practices that are going on and on, that cater to driving away business.
One such policy is at local video stores when they are willing to drive away business to try and make money on long term late charges. I know it's hard because the video rental business needs to have every video in the store for other customers, but if you've got seventy copies of the latest blockbuster, how are late charges warranted?
Instead, rental companies would be smart to only charge late charges on customers when there are no other copies in the store AND the movie is late AND only when there are no other copies in the store. You would see that most custmers might stop playing the shop-a-video game, going from store to store racking up late fees if the policy was less inept. You would also find that a policy like that ("take your chances") would work out to be a way better business model in the long run, since customers would know damn well they screwed up, IF they had to pay charges, and the mom&pop would not lose business from people taking their video, returning it three weeks late only to never come back AND never pay the bill!
Another type of business faux pas is when they tack on extra service charges to make money the sneaky way. There is a really good article about sneaky billing HERE.
The article is about how low amplitude vibrations can help a person better sense when they are off balance.
I must use this new technology to disrupt Spiderman's Spidey Sense! Bring out the Megalatrogolagolotron!!!
(mutters to self) It must be his weakness.
Why? Retribution. ... and that is exactly why they say you sell your soul to the Devil when you sign a record contract!
It's a tough business, and an unethical one. I think anyone with an ounce of courage or a dash of gumption would avoid record contracts like they were the plague. Even after you tour your guts out and dance until you can't dance anymore, and sign autographs until you're blue: you give up your life, your privacy, your whole time and any possible control you could have over your destiny as a human being, let alone an artist. This process strips the artist of any soul they might have and leaves them breathless and broke, wondering what happened.
Agreed. If you are just starting out, at least there is a choice to selling your soul to the RIAA. There is nothing that says a group can't be online/touring only. I wouldn't be surprised if this became the norm down the road. Radio will pick you up no matter what. Seems like some stations play mp3s they find on the net sometimes, too. Here in Kingston, it happens quite frequently on any one of our stations.
You don't have to be in a record deal to become famous anymore.
I'm not normally a Sade fan, and I remember holding some disdain for her music in years past (80's). But after hearing some of her recent stuff (downloaded via Gnucleus), I bought her album and went to her concert with my wife.
Exposure sells and it's the RIAA who are scared because maybe we don't want to buy the crap they are carpet bagging... maybe we will hold out for something better. They don't trust themselves.
One hit wonders shouldn't sell any records because the rest of their albums suck. While good musicians and artists who sweat blood to make amazing albums are still left behind. If the internet could do anything, I think it would even things out so real musicians would make the money they deserve and fluff bands get downloaded for the song that's good and passed over for concerts and cds.
Good music will always sell.
I know. Just wanted to clear up that contraction error that I made before I was modded down for it. :)
Khan: "Ah Kirk, my old friend. Do you know the Klingon proverb that tells us revenge is a dish that is best served cold? It is very cold in space."
Kind of detracts from my point, but I still needed to clarify that quote.
This is a potentially dangerous endeavor for Carmack, as he is used to releasing games with bugs, and patching them down the road. You can't do that in space. To quote Khan, "It's very cold in space..."
STOP THE PRESSES! :)
Every movie star in the world should move to Finland! Safe haven from the public eye!
For a split second I thought I had mixed them up. *THEN* I got it. :)
You made me open word and check the damn thesaurus!
*shutter* [sic(k)]
I don't want to think about all the lawsuits that could arise from a curious kid with a camera on a kite! *shudder*
Here is a link to the Redsherrif removal info.
Here is a link to Redsheriff's privacy policy, cached on google (just in case).
Imagine a CounterStrike server using this! :)
Llamma says "La'a'aaa'aa'aaa'a'a'g.
Counter Strike could be amazing with high-end graphics, but perhaps there is a reason that DoomIII isn't going to have really advanced multiplayer? Carmack said, some multiplayer, but not that much multiplayer. Could it be that DoomIII is too cumbersome to play over the net? Maybe too cumbersome to play over a LAN? (*ahem*Blood2*ahem*)
I really think that a Counter Strike realism factor could rock, but what about the new Nvidia graphics language everyone keeps talking about? Maybe it won't be hard for us to make leaps toward a fast net CS game with super cool graphics. Maybe the new code would enable the CS team to split off from the Half Life engine and do their own thing?
If you look at the stats on Gamespy, Counterstrike takes the biggest share of online use. Take that and think about Valve and how much money they made on the backs of that project!
*shudder*
To clear up my point, I think that a glossy Doom3 version of CS might be immersive, but it might also lack the networking capability that the current version has. CS today doesn't take up much resources on higher end systems, or even lower ones. Today it's pretty cheap to get CS enabled.
Maybe that plays a factor.