That would be the same smart investors who got reamed in the dot com bubble burst, right? That stupid money has to go somewhere, and SCO have the best snake oil pitch in town.
Not necessarily. What if the winning team decides to sell the technology to North Korea? After being kicked in the nuts by DARPA, how patriotic do you think they'd be feeling?
The complaints seem to be that mnny teams had been promised funding conditional on being accepted, and that the initial position seemed to be that there was plenty of scope to submit a far out idea and have it accepted. Now DARPA only want "serious" competitors, i.e. people telling them what they already know. That's idiotic; the idea of this challenge is for people to demonstrate unproven ideas.
Now that DARPA have turned it into a GPS waypoint challenge, it seems fairly clear that they've already got everything they want (i.e. decided which Big Contractor to award the real money to) and can't really be bothered going through with the competition any more. Shame.
What else does he predict? The stock market will either rise or fall? The Republican candidate or the Democrat candidate will win the Presidential election? We'll be damned if we do, and damned if we don't?
Actually, I do accept that he was probably too lazy to set up the NFP entity in time to avoid taxation, but that just make him a liar, as he said he would do so. Pick one.
Yes, I forgot that the CMF doesn't exist yet, which just makes you a lazy liar rather than a tax avoider.
If there's any danger that my unsubstantiated opinion might be believed, the remedy is in your hands. Just provide substantiation of your version (pick any version you like) of the whole sordid story. I'm sure Slashdot will be happy to run it two or three times.
Until then, I'll state my opinion any way I like, thanks all the same. I lost any lingering shreds of respect that I had for you a long, long time ago.
Rogerborg was a contributor to K5 until he figured out that rusty had lost interest and abandoned it to the trolls, at which point he figured "When in Rome".
Flamebait? When did IQs drop to single digits around here? Proof, if further proof was needed, that only communists and faggots still have ratings powers round here.
Compare with Kuro5hin. Last year, the site owner asked for $70K so that he wouldn't have to take a full time job or drown the site in third party adverts (it has always had paid user-adverts). He promised great things for the site and the code that runs it, and shared a grand vision of seeding a Collaborative Media Foundation with the money. He got the money.
What happened was that he then spent a year kayaking, writing diaries about kayaking, breaking features (search has been broken for months now), adding third party adverts, selling premium subscriptions, and some minor fiddling with the ratings system that has basically made it pointless to rate anything (i.e. contribute) any more. The Collaborative Media Foundation turned out to be a tax dodge, and recently he let slip that he's been doing consulting work full time, and actually cranking up his fees to turn away business.
And it turned out that the site costs nothing to run. The bandwidth is donated in return for advertising, the hardware is donated. The only costs are the admin's time, and the user advertising revenues (when he was still publishing them) actually covered the notional (but completely falacious) $30K salary that he was claiming.
The problem with paying someone a lump sum is that you then have no leverage over them. Sure, the Wikipedia guy might not just go kayaking with the money, but the K5 admin seemed like one of the good guys as well.
Compare with Kuro5hin. Last year, the site owner asked for $70K so that he wouldn't have to take a full time job or drown the site in third party adverts (it has always had paid user-adverts). He promised great things for the site and the code that runs it, and shared a grand vision of seeding a Collaborative Media Foundation with the money. He got the money.
What happened was that he then spent a year kayaking, writing diaries about kayaking, breaking features (search has been broken for months now), adding third party adverts, selling premium subscriptions, and some minor fiddling with the ratings system that has basically made it pointless to rate anything (i.e. contribute) any more. The Collaborative Media Foundation turned out to be a tax dodge, and recently he let slip that he's been doing consulting work full time, and actually cranking up his fees to turn away business.
And it turned out that the site costs nothing to run. The bandwidth is donated in return for advertising, the hardware is donated. The only costs are the admin's time, and the user advertising revenues (when he was still publishing them) actually covered the notional (but completely falacious) $30K salary that he was claiming.
The problem with paying someone a lump sum is that you then have no leverage over them. Sure, the Wikipedia guy might not just go kayaking with the money, but the K5 admin seemed like one of the good guys as well.
Now, where can I buy divx or mpeg films, uncrippled, just the films, with no piracy warning bullshit or added garbage, right now, online? Oh, and available in the UK.
What's that? I can't. But they just said! Honestly, if we can't trust PR spin doctors to match saying with doing, then who can we trust?
How many of you guys sitting there feeling smug about your healthy cynicism actually believed this article absolutely, without checking a single fact, simply because it told you what you wanted to hear?
Actual translation: the director has no idea what the film is supposed to be about, or what he wants to do, he just knows that he needs to cast a Name to have any chance of getting a release. Meh.
Slashdot Mirror
> As a whole, financial analysts do quite well
True, they're nearly as good as dart throwing chimps.
Pretty good. ALso, how about asking why the GPL would be found invalid when fuck-you-in-the-ass EULAs aren't?
Psst, don't tell anyone, but I got it. But you're rather swimming against the tide of loosers and those who could care less.
Good point! We should all have bought SCOX at $1. Also, we should all be screwing Jennifer Lopez.
That would be the same smart investors who got reamed in the dot com bubble burst, right? That stupid money has to go somewhere, and SCO have the best snake oil pitch in town.
But Ford can't ask me to certify that I'm not using any GM parts in my Honda, right?
You, sir, are worse than Hitler.
Not necessarily. What if the winning team decides to sell the technology to North Korea? After being kicked in the nuts by DARPA, how patriotic do you think they'd be feeling?
The complaints seem to be that mnny teams had been promised funding conditional on being accepted, and that the initial position seemed to be that there was plenty of scope to submit a far out idea and have it accepted. Now DARPA only want "serious" competitors, i.e. people telling them what they already know. That's idiotic; the idea of this challenge is for people to demonstrate unproven ideas.
Now that DARPA have turned it into a GPS waypoint challenge, it seems fairly clear that they've already got everything they want (i.e. decided which Big Contractor to award the real money to) and can't really be bothered going through with the competition any more. Shame.
What you think he means? Why does that sound familiar? What God - uh, I mean Cringely - meant to say...
What else does he predict? The stock market will either rise or fall? The Republican candidate or the Democrat candidate will win the Presidential election? We'll be damned if we do, and damned if we don't?
Actually, I do accept that he was probably too lazy to set up the NFP entity in time to avoid taxation, but that just make him a liar, as he said he would do so. Pick one.
He could give a damn. I don't think he does any more. And why should he; he's had his fun.
Yes, I forgot that the CMF doesn't exist yet, which just makes you a lazy liar rather than a tax avoider.
If there's any danger that my unsubstantiated opinion might be believed, the remedy is in your hands. Just provide substantiation of your version (pick any version you like) of the whole sordid story. I'm sure Slashdot will be happy to run it two or three times.
Until then, I'll state my opinion any way I like, thanks all the same. I lost any lingering shreds of respect that I had for you a long, long time ago.
Hello, Anonymous Coward!
Rogerborg was a contributor to K5 until he figured out that rusty had lost interest and abandoned it to the trolls, at which point he figured "When in Rome".
Flamebait? When did IQs drop to single digits around here? Proof, if further proof was needed, that only communists and faggots still have ratings powers round here.
Once bitten.
Compare with Kuro5hin. Last year, the site owner asked for $70K so that he wouldn't have to take a full time job or drown the site in third party adverts (it has always had paid user-adverts). He promised great things for the site and the code that runs it, and shared a grand vision of seeding a Collaborative Media Foundation with the money. He got the money.
What happened was that he then spent a year kayaking, writing diaries about kayaking, breaking features (search has been broken for months now), adding third party adverts, selling premium subscriptions, and some minor fiddling with the ratings system that has basically made it pointless to rate anything (i.e. contribute) any more. The Collaborative Media Foundation turned out to be a tax dodge, and recently he let slip that he's been doing consulting work full time, and actually cranking up his fees to turn away business.
And it turned out that the site costs nothing to run. The bandwidth is donated in return for advertising, the hardware is donated. The only costs are the admin's time, and the user advertising revenues (when he was still publishing them) actually covered the notional (but completely falacious) $30K salary that he was claiming.
The problem with paying someone a lump sum is that you then have no leverage over them. Sure, the Wikipedia guy might not just go kayaking with the money, but the K5 admin seemed like one of the good guys as well.
Once bitten.
Compare with Kuro5hin. Last year, the site owner asked for $70K so that he wouldn't have to take a full time job or drown the site in third party adverts (it has always had paid user-adverts). He promised great things for the site and the code that runs it, and shared a grand vision of seeding a Collaborative Media Foundation with the money. He got the money.
What happened was that he then spent a year kayaking, writing diaries about kayaking, breaking features (search has been broken for months now), adding third party adverts, selling premium subscriptions, and some minor fiddling with the ratings system that has basically made it pointless to rate anything (i.e. contribute) any more. The Collaborative Media Foundation turned out to be a tax dodge, and recently he let slip that he's been doing consulting work full time, and actually cranking up his fees to turn away business.
And it turned out that the site costs nothing to run. The bandwidth is donated in return for advertising, the hardware is donated. The only costs are the admin's time, and the user advertising revenues (when he was still publishing them) actually covered the notional (but completely falacious) $30K salary that he was claiming.
The problem with paying someone a lump sum is that you then have no leverage over them. Sure, the Wikipedia guy might not just go kayaking with the money, but the K5 admin seemed like one of the good guys as well.
Best game not a sequel, genius.
You mean that we might see more than 98% of incumbents re-elected?
A 5-1 funding advantage is what does that. Spamming voters can't exactly make it worse.
Now, where can I buy divx or mpeg films, uncrippled, just the films, with no piracy warning bullshit or added garbage, right now, online? Oh, and available in the UK.
What's that? I can't. But they just said! Honestly, if we can't trust PR spin doctors to match saying with doing, then who can we trust?
Seriously, it makes bzflag look polished.
How many of you guys sitting there feeling smug about your healthy cynicism actually believed this article absolutely, without checking a single fact, simply because it told you what you wanted to hear?
Or what, you'd prefer that the bag transfer the impulse to the laptop? Sounds like the bag did its job admirably.
Actual translation: the director has no idea what the film is supposed to be about, or what he wants to do, he just knows that he needs to cast a Name to have any chance of getting a release. Meh.