It really is unfair to consumers. And that is why I am surprised no one is asking the question. I am also surprised at the number of people who believe what they'd want us to believe.
Absolutely. This is another value proposition, just beyond the license. The key here, if you are serious, is to be a business. By being a business entity, you are also offering a "business relationship" beyond just being available on the opposite side of an email address. You are also saying you pay your taxes. It is also far easier for businesses to buy from businesses than it is from people.
Pretend you are an army even if you are alone. If you can do an army's work on your own, then all the better. They don't have to know. And they don't want to know.
Knowing and becoming who your customers would rather deal with is half the sale.
They actually do, with their re-releasing of hit titles for about half price. This actually started partly to curb the used game market.
But why isn't anyone asking why games are so expensive in the first place? If supply and demand are suppose to govern the market price, then where there is unlimited supply, there should be aggressive price competition to lure in business. Yet, with games (and music), you find indifference.
I thought this was called price fixing and was illegal.
You start taking a significant chunk of that energy out of the atmosphere, couldn't you end up with climate changes that could be even more devestating than the global warming you're trying to avoid?
No. The wind is surface wind, so imagine how much wind is actually in the atmosphere. The wind pushing your clouds is a bit higher up. With sunlight, the energy is either heating your tiles, or charging them. It is a preference, not a robbery of some sort. And we find charge has more uses than hot tiles.
Free, though, it is not, and you are correct about there being a downside. It is in the form of cost, infrastructure, and energy efficiency, among others.
Dual-licensing always seemed like a no-brainer to me.
This cannot be emphasized enough.
Businesses have money. Their sole purpose is to make it and not use it. If you give them the option to not use it, they will gladly accept. But if you don't give them that option, they will gladly pay, if what you are offering is worth the price.
Nothing is personal about a business, and it seems many GPL programmers expect some transaction on some personal level, like an IOU or something. But if you take the money element out of a business transaction, there is no human element left. Unless the law requires it, they owe you nothing, and they have better things to do than console you.
If you don't dual license your OSS, then you are not interested in making money. You are making it clear, and you cannot expect anything in return. If you do dual license, then you are asking for money from those who make it. They will review your value proposition, and either accept, or go to a competitor.
Make your intentions clear with the licenses you choose, not with your mouth or your blog.
It is that cut and dry. There really isn't much to rant about.
In typical modern capitalism fashion, companies are free to compete for exclusivity and preferential treatment, but not freely with each other.
The playing field is never even, and be it lobbying with congress, inking expensive deals, hiring an army of salesmen and lawyers, or leveraging your monopolistic weight, big businesses know how to tilt the market so money trickles only their way. New comers and outsiders on the wrong side of the slope cannot compete by price or quality, and the issue precedes supply and demand.
Definite no. But neither is it ethical for google to modify their policies just to legitimize doing business with crooks. Though I pick no sides, maybe that is what got Rosetta's lawyers out of their seats.
Ethics never governs big business. They are only governed by the law.
FYI These violations themselves have been going on for ages. The policy change is what's news, not the violations.
Swearing can transfer pain. From the person in pain, to the person being sweared at.
On a more serious note, I believe screaming and crying are also effective, which are both natural reactions to pain. In severe cases, the sufferer can simply pass out, which might suggest the body knows more about pain tolerance than we do.
It is also said that the anticipation of pain can be just as horrific or worse psychologically than pain itself. Hence torture looses its effectiveness as the unpredictable subsides and the ends appears nearer.
I'm confused though, as to why Google JUST now started to allow this.
This has been happening since Adwords started, but they modifying their policy recently maybe from legal advice or as a business move.
However, I am afraid this change is what opened the door for them to get sued, because now they are openly justifying it. And Google is a much bigger fish than Joe Schmuck buying ads from his home office.
The solution is to stop trying to find a way to keep your customers from learning about competitors and start making your product better and cheaper.
No. We are talking about scam sites. Rosetta is complaining about illegal sites selling their product illegally being capable of advertising through google's services.
I can go to an online shop selling Nike shoes. If they have google Ads, there is a high chance Ads of fake Nike sellers will appear. If I am Nike, I am competing with criminals. If I am a shopper, I may get conned into buying fake merchandise.
These contractors don't get paid 18 million dollars for a web site for nothing. It's called sales and marketing. It is something free coders never have, and it can get very dirty. But it is highly rewarding, as can be seen by all these contractors being awarded absurd amounts of money for code they didn't write, and shit that's worthless. That is why the government shouldn't decide what the people want. They should never be allowed to go shopping, because they do not have a budget, in the normal sense.
Case in point, if any of this came out of their own pockets, none of these purchases would be made.
It's not a hardware breakthrough that'll create a true AI - it's an algorithm breakthrough that's required. Faster computers might be nice - but it'll always comes down to the algorithm.
I fear this may be an oversimplification. Current software can simulate virtually any hardware, be it existing or hypothetical. We also have no problem simulating physics and doing math. These memristors may be novel pieces of hardware, but simulating them seems quite trivial, as computers already have a "perfect" memory.
However, the ability to physically implement such a device seems why this is so important, and I cannot say for certain that hardware inventions will not contribute to the evolution of AI.
Algorithms drive hardware. Sure, new algorithms on current hardware will lead to breakthroughs, but we aren't even close enough to know if that is indeed enough to solve the problem. For if we even knew exactly what the problem was, we would already be much closer to solving it.
Armed with easy access to this information, taxpayers can make government more accountable for its decisions.
The gov't knows very well that taxpayers CANNOT make them accountable for anything. Proof? Will anyone make them accountable for THIS decision? No. Never. Nadda.
Here is why you are making this a difficult problem for yourself. Social and technical skills do not have to be acquired simultaneously. First and foremost, programming is best learned on your own, and programmers often aren't good teachers of teamwork to begin with. So I say, do something specifically for teamwork. Like, picking up a team sport.
If you are making social skills into a technical problem for yourself, you are already starting off on the wrong foot.
If you want to become the leader of a programming team, first and foremost, you should be the best programmer on that team. If you were at that level with your programming, you wouldn't be looking to volunteer.
If you just want to be on a team, but not necessarily lead, then you don't need to focus on team skills. Just get your foot in the door with your programming portfolio/degree, and learn at the workplace like the rest of us.
that aren't keen to run their business on software that sounds like it's still in the trial phase.
This is the precise moment the last developer with a say in business, died at google. May they rest in peace.
The beta label issue has been around about as long as gmail itself, and every time they were asked about it, the answer was always the same: it's trial software. Because, IT WAS, and STILL IS.
Now we have google announcing on their own their graduation from beta, but for all the wrong reasons. The marketing heads had to make it known that they won. They should have just said, "it is now stable software." But no, that is what a responsible developer would say. They basically denounced the beta label being there in the first place, giving strategic reasons, and not technical ones. The worst part? If they had known better, they would have still pretended to be responsible developers.
They are idiots, and they are taking over. If I had google stock, I would sell it right about... NOW.
Google and Yahoo, who give their services away for "free"
No. They have free services, but they make money by charging for those that are not, and both companies have a viable business model. "Had" may be a better term for Yahoo. Google AdSense is a cash cow. Amazon and eBay are another two companies that come to mind as dotcom survivors, and both have paying customers. They almost charge too much.
Virtual murder might be fun, but as long as it is a game, we will get over it. No game lasts forever. Not even Tetris.
We are all interested in murder. We draw it, write it, film it, then read it, watch it, dream it... Yet, we can safely say most of us won't ever do it. These games won't change that. All the game is is yet another outlet - a safe outlet. One of many many many.
Right. If a hacker plants a script that is then embedded in the content that visitors of the page execute, then users using FireFox will be protected, and this is not a browser selection problem.
I am referring to the other scenario though where hackers try and run code for themselves. Or maybe no one does that anymore.
So only FireFox has this feature to stop XSS attacks. If this feature is bothering me, then how is resorting to IE or a different browser not a workaround? That is all I am saying.
This is pretty much where this debate was during the IT bubble 10 years ago. Everyone was wondering how all the.coms were planning on making money when everything they sold was "free."
Of course, those services that truly were free didn't last, and those that actually weren't free and had many strings attached didn't last either, except the latter pissed a lot of people off in the process. Some managed to IPO and raise money successfully, but raising money and making money are different things, and in the end everyone lost except those who knew when to get out.
They should require by law that every company disclose how they make their money and how they cover their costs. This used to be obvious. Only recently has this become convoluted with all the "innovation" in the financial sector and with contracts. They should also require "simple commerce" without any non-upfront, opt-out type of fees.
Manipulation is not innovation. It is manipulation.
our web developers are incompetent and naive and cannot be trusted to take basic security measures so we feel making our web development practices more cumbersome and inefficient (if not impossible) is a healthy trade off.
The real question is, can YOU trust your web developers? And is this really that more cumbersome and inefficient than every other measure? It's just another tag. In fact, it is *just* a tag. It is also in the source of the problem - the web browser. You could argue everything else is a workaround, and finally we are getting help from the people responsible for inventing the problem.
A more effective program would be to develop and promote standardized html sanitization routines for popular web development languages
Yes, except, this is not easy, it is already being done, and it isn't quite working.
If one tag could eliminate the risk of external scripts running on my pages, I am all for it. Of course, this only works with firefox, so it is actually quite meaningless. Hackers can just fire up a different browser, so the number of hackers this will stop are exactly ZERO.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't have to, they aren't being forced to. They are just getting the game at a certain price and selling it at the MSRP for maximum profit.
No. They are being forced to. The laws in the States allow vertical price fixing.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb274/is_18_12/ai_n29408649/
ebay is fighting this US law.
http://www.stoth.com/2009/05/20/ebay-and-ftc-push-congress-over-retail-price-fixing/
It really is unfair to consumers. And that is why I am surprised no one is asking the question. I am also surprised at the number of people who believe what they'd want us to believe.
But big businesses want accountable support;
Absolutely. This is another value proposition, just beyond the license. The key here, if you are serious, is to be a business. By being a business entity, you are also offering a "business relationship" beyond just being available on the opposite side of an email address. You are also saying you pay your taxes. It is also far easier for businesses to buy from businesses than it is from people.
Pretend you are an army even if you are alone. If you can do an army's work on your own, then all the better. They don't have to know. And they don't want to know.
Knowing and becoming who your customers would rather deal with is half the sale.
Retail game prices are fixed, and so are used game prices at most retail stores. If you are looking for new titles, always buy from eBay.
eBay is the only place where real economics is at work, when it comes to the game market.
Anywhere else, you are dealing with dark forces influencing the prices.
Just make sure you buy from someone with 100+ feedback, and always pay by credit card.
Game companies should progressively lower prices
They actually do, with their re-releasing of hit titles for about half price. This actually started partly to curb the used game market.
But why isn't anyone asking why games are so expensive in the first place? If supply and demand are suppose to govern the market price, then where there is unlimited supply, there should be aggressive price competition to lure in business. Yet, with games (and music), you find indifference.
I thought this was called price fixing and was illegal.
You start taking a significant chunk of that energy out of the atmosphere, couldn't you end up with climate changes that could be even more devestating than the global warming you're trying to avoid?
No. The wind is surface wind, so imagine how much wind is actually in the atmosphere. The wind pushing your clouds is a bit higher up. With sunlight, the energy is either heating your tiles, or charging them. It is a preference, not a robbery of some sort. And we find charge has more uses than hot tiles.
Free, though, it is not, and you are correct about there being a downside. It is in the form of cost, infrastructure, and energy efficiency, among others.
Dual-licensing always seemed like a no-brainer to me.
This cannot be emphasized enough.
Businesses have money. Their sole purpose is to make it and not use it. If you give them the option to not use it, they will gladly accept. But if you don't give them that option, they will gladly pay, if what you are offering is worth the price.
Nothing is personal about a business, and it seems many GPL programmers expect some transaction on some personal level, like an IOU or something. But if you take the money element out of a business transaction, there is no human element left. Unless the law requires it, they owe you nothing, and they have better things to do than console you.
If you don't dual license your OSS, then you are not interested in making money. You are making it clear, and you cannot expect anything in return. If you do dual license, then you are asking for money from those who make it. They will review your value proposition, and either accept, or go to a competitor.
Make your intentions clear with the licenses you choose, not with your mouth or your blog.
It is that cut and dry. There really isn't much to rant about.
In typical modern capitalism fashion, companies are free to compete for exclusivity and preferential treatment, but not freely with each other.
The playing field is never even, and be it lobbying with congress, inking expensive deals, hiring an army of salesmen and lawyers, or leveraging your monopolistic weight, big businesses know how to tilt the market so money trickles only their way. New comers and outsiders on the wrong side of the slope cannot compete by price or quality, and the issue precedes supply and demand.
Definite no. But neither is it ethical for google to modify their policies just to legitimize doing business with crooks. Though I pick no sides, maybe that is what got Rosetta's lawyers out of their seats.
Ethics never governs big business. They are only governed by the law.
FYI These violations themselves have been going on for ages. The policy change is what's news, not the violations.
Swearing can transfer pain. From the person in pain, to the person being sweared at.
On a more serious note, I believe screaming and crying are also effective, which are both natural reactions to pain. In severe cases, the sufferer can simply pass out, which might suggest the body knows more about pain tolerance than we do.
It is also said that the anticipation of pain can be just as horrific or worse psychologically than pain itself. Hence torture looses its effectiveness as the unpredictable subsides and the ends appears nearer.
Right. But if you can go after Google, it might be worth your time. The crooks here are too small of a fish.
I'm confused though, as to why Google JUST now started to allow this.
This has been happening since Adwords started, but they modifying their policy recently maybe from legal advice or as a business move.
However, I am afraid this change is what opened the door for them to get sued, because now they are openly justifying it. And Google is a much bigger fish than Joe Schmuck buying ads from his home office.
Rosetta's lawyers know what they are doing.
The solution is to stop trying to find a way to keep your customers from learning about competitors and start making your product better and cheaper.
No. We are talking about scam sites. Rosetta is complaining about illegal sites selling their product illegally being capable of advertising through google's services.
I can go to an online shop selling Nike shoes. If they have google Ads, there is a high chance Ads of fake Nike sellers will appear. If I am Nike, I am competing with criminals. If I am a shopper, I may get conned into buying fake merchandise.
This is not a free market issue.
These contractors don't get paid 18 million dollars for a web site for nothing. It's called sales and marketing. It is something free coders never have, and it can get very dirty. But it is highly rewarding, as can be seen by all these contractors being awarded absurd amounts of money for code they didn't write, and shit that's worthless. That is why the government shouldn't decide what the people want. They should never be allowed to go shopping, because they do not have a budget, in the normal sense.
Case in point, if any of this came out of their own pockets, none of these purchases would be made.
It's not a hardware breakthrough that'll create a true AI - it's an algorithm breakthrough that's required. Faster computers might be nice - but it'll always comes down to the algorithm.
I fear this may be an oversimplification. Current software can simulate virtually any hardware, be it existing or hypothetical. We also have no problem simulating physics and doing math. These memristors may be novel pieces of hardware, but simulating them seems quite trivial, as computers already have a "perfect" memory.
However, the ability to physically implement such a device seems why this is so important, and I cannot say for certain that hardware inventions will not contribute to the evolution of AI.
Algorithms drive hardware. Sure, new algorithms on current hardware will lead to breakthroughs, but we aren't even close enough to know if that is indeed enough to solve the problem. For if we even knew exactly what the problem was, we would already be much closer to solving it.
That we've developed a whole industry based on an incomplete model
In hindsight, every industry ever is an incomplete model.
We will always have much to look forward to.
If these people think technology has the solution for humor, then they are really taking the problem too seriously!
Armed with easy access to this information, taxpayers can make government more accountable for its decisions.
The gov't knows very well that taxpayers CANNOT make them accountable for anything. Proof? Will anyone make them accountable for THIS decision? No. Never. Nadda.
It's also no surprise their web site SUCKS: http://www.smartronix.com/
They might as well spit in our face.
Here is why you are making this a difficult problem for yourself. Social and technical skills do not have to be acquired simultaneously. First and foremost, programming is best learned on your own, and programmers often aren't good teachers of teamwork to begin with. So I say, do something specifically for teamwork. Like, picking up a team sport.
If you are making social skills into a technical problem for yourself, you are already starting off on the wrong foot.
If you want to become the leader of a programming team, first and foremost, you should be the best programmer on that team. If you were at that level with your programming, you wouldn't be looking to volunteer.
If you just want to be on a team, but not necessarily lead, then you don't need to focus on team skills. Just get your foot in the door with your programming portfolio/degree, and learn at the workplace like the rest of us.
that aren't keen to run their business on software that sounds like it's still in the trial phase.
This is the precise moment the last developer with a say in business, died at google. May they rest in peace.
The beta label issue has been around about as long as gmail itself, and every time they were asked about it, the answer was always the same: it's trial software. Because, IT WAS, and STILL IS.
Now we have google announcing on their own their graduation from beta, but for all the wrong reasons. The marketing heads had to make it known that they won. They should have just said, "it is now stable software." But no, that is what a responsible developer would say. They basically denounced the beta label being there in the first place, giving strategic reasons, and not technical ones. The worst part? If they had known better, they would have still pretended to be responsible developers.
They are idiots, and they are taking over. If I had google stock, I would sell it right about... NOW.
Google and Yahoo, who give their services away for "free"
No. They have free services, but they make money by charging for those that are not, and both companies have a viable business model. "Had" may be a better term for Yahoo. Google AdSense is a cash cow. Amazon and eBay are another two companies that come to mind as dotcom survivors, and both have paying customers. They almost charge too much.
Virtual murder might be fun, but as long as it is a game, we will get over it. No game lasts forever. Not even Tetris.
We are all interested in murder. We draw it, write it, film it, then read it, watch it, dream it... Yet, we can safely say most of us won't ever do it. These games won't change that. All the game is is yet another outlet - a safe outlet. One of many many many.
Right. If a hacker plants a script that is then embedded in the content that visitors of the page execute, then users using FireFox will be protected, and this is not a browser selection problem.
I am referring to the other scenario though where hackers try and run code for themselves. Or maybe no one does that anymore.
So only FireFox has this feature to stop XSS attacks. If this feature is bothering me, then how is resorting to IE or a different browser not a workaround? That is all I am saying.
This is pretty much where this debate was during the IT bubble 10 years ago. Everyone was wondering how all the .coms were planning on making money when everything they sold was "free."
Of course, those services that truly were free didn't last, and those that actually weren't free and had many strings attached didn't last either, except the latter pissed a lot of people off in the process. Some managed to IPO and raise money successfully, but raising money and making money are different things, and in the end everyone lost except those who knew when to get out.
They should require by law that every company disclose how they make their money and how they cover their costs. This used to be obvious. Only recently has this become convoluted with all the "innovation" in the financial sector and with contracts. They should also require "simple commerce" without any non-upfront, opt-out type of fees.
Manipulation is not innovation. It is manipulation.
our web developers are incompetent and naive and cannot be trusted to take basic security measures so we feel making our web development practices more cumbersome and inefficient (if not impossible) is a healthy trade off.
The real question is, can YOU trust your web developers? And is this really that more cumbersome and inefficient than every other measure? It's just another tag. In fact, it is *just* a tag. It is also in the source of the problem - the web browser. You could argue everything else is a workaround, and finally we are getting help from the people responsible for inventing the problem.
A more effective program would be to develop and promote standardized html sanitization routines for popular web development languages
Yes, except, this is not easy, it is already being done, and it isn't quite working.
If one tag could eliminate the risk of external scripts running on my pages, I am all for it. Of course, this only works with firefox, so it is actually quite meaningless. Hackers can just fire up a different browser, so the number of hackers this will stop are exactly ZERO.