Seriously? The only logical comment I can come up with for this is "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahahaha!!"
I know, not the deepest comment ever posted on/. but this has got to be one of the biggest jokes ever... I'd expect to see something like that on April 1st...
As it is, that photo is probably floating around in a few stock photo libraries now, tagged as "average family, man woman children".
You haven't looked closely at the tags on most stock photography images, have you. There's no way the image would be tagged so logically and accurately.
You want to put an average family up on a billboard, put a Craigslist ad up for an average family photoshoot, and pay the $50 it would take to get them to come to you, and sign the model releases.
And then pay the makeup artist and the photographer and possibly the studio for renting the space if needed. So, in the end, you'll be paying about $1000, easily. Or go onto one of the numerous stock photography sites and pay about $5 for a high res image of an average family. I assume you know which choice is most cost effective, especially when doing a design job for a grocery store and not some major multinational brand.
I doubt they'll grant royalty free use but I do suspect they'll assure competitors "you don't get twitchy with your patent portfolio and we won't get twitchy with ours." Sorta like most major companies already do - using patents as defense against other company's patents...
Hey, Orrin. Just an FYI - those numbers have been proven wrong, on numerous occasions by numerous sources. And not wrong in the "close but not quite accurate" sense - wrong as in "so far off from any vague hint of accuracy as to be laughable." You keep quoting numbers that are being fed to you by the MPAA and RIAA and they're making you look stupid. You might want to have one of your staff members do a smidge of research so you don't look quite so idiotic. Oh, and when you spout off these incorrect numbers, it weakens any other point you may have by association. But, hey, you enjoy that new deck that the RIAA/MPAA donation allowed you to add to your country home.
Alright, let me clarify since you seemed to miss the point - I find it sad that referencing a bunker buster in an analogy about an event in space is appropriate. I find it sad that the term "bunker buster" has been used sufficiently that the average person will immediately know what you're describing _and_ know enough about it to be able to envision it. As I said, the analogy works - it accurately portrays what they're trying to describe - but I find it unfortunate that we live in a world where "bunker buster" is part of the average person's lexicon. As for my outlook, you know nothing at all about what my outlook is or what I always look for. Thanks.
"If a normal supernova is a nuclear bomb, then SN 2008ha is a bunker buster..."
I find it kind of a sad statement on society that a scientist finds a comparison to weapons of war to be the best way to describe an event to people. It's a good analogy because it explains the situation well but it says a lot about society that that's the analogy-of-choice...
So the settlement checks aren't even being written to the owner of the copyright??
Ok, that absolutely boggles my mind. I'd thought that, since the cases were company v. accused (for example, Captiol v. Thomas), that the RIAA was doing the leg work but the actual lawsuit was "by" the record company. If (as it appears) I'm entirely mistaken on that and, more so, the settlement checks aren't being written to the owner of the copyright (which, apparently, is now in question), this has gone from disgustingly bad to even worse, which I didn't think was possible at this point.
How can they NOT be brought up on RICO charges?? If people were being encouraged to settle with the owners of the copyright, it'd still suck but to settle with a third party organization?? People aren't even settling with the actual owner of the copyright, for crying out loud!...
I've been following this for a long time and didn't think any of it could surprise me but this blows my mind...
I'll ignore the snarky end of your reply and chalk it up to this being a subject near and dear to your heart. Instead, I'll ask for clarification - are the lawsuits not the individual company versus the alleged infringer? For example, the case at hand is "Capitol v. Thomas" not "RIAA v. Thomas". Or is it the cases are filed BY the RIAA on BEHALF OF the company?
As for the checks, I'll write that off as me being incorrect. It happens.
When people say "the RIAA" they usually mean "the record company in question at the direction of the RIAA." The lawsuits that have been filed have not been filed by the RIAA nor have the checks been written to "the RIAA" - they are filed by the member companies (EMI, Sony, Universal, and Warner being the four biggest). Thus, there won't be any "close up shop to avoid paying the money back."
Wait! What?! Microsoft is the simpler choice? Microsoft? Simple? What? Come on! Even people who like Microsoft will never claim that Microsoft is the simpler choice, ever. They may like it, but everyone knows Microsoft is complex... Well, everyone except this guy, it seems...
You're seriously complaining that the tech toy you bought went down in price and was replaced by a newer, better model? Have you never bought a computer before? Some might think I'm being a troll, but seriously, this is nothing new to tech products across the board - tech toy is released, sells, goes down in price and is replaced by better model, rinse and repeat until the model is phased out. Nothing new.
Is anyone seriously surprised? Did anyone really think they were going to give away their content for free forever? Of course they were giving it away free initially to generate interest and then later going to tack on a price tag...
How is what he does any different from someone who buys land as an investment rather than with an eye towards development? Lots of people buy up lots of land with an eye towards their vale to someone else in the future. So long as this guy is honestly selling the domains without attempting to defraud buyers, he's doing the same thing, just with virtual land rather than actual real land. I may not like it (and I don't) but, so long as they are conducting things legitimately, I see no difference.
The end will come when developers simply decide it's not worth jumping through hoops for an antiquated browser and IT departments in corporate America are flooded with calls of "this site won't work - what's wrong with my browser" thereby forcing IT departments to get with the program and update the browsers on their networks. Until then, why should an IT department invest any time and effort into updating the browsers on their systems? The kicker is all that it will take is one major website to take the bold step forward but the question is who has the balls to be first?
For an article on ign, a site frequented by gamers, the article is really weak. I would expect something like that from a local newspaper rather than something published on a site read by people already knowledgeable regarding the subject. The article spends a lot of time explaining concepts and ideas that are already obvious to anyone who even remotely considers themselves a gamer (the regular audience of ign, for example). I was hoping it would then build upon those basic concepts that I already knew to present an interesting or novel theory but - no - that was it. A very disappointing read and not worth the time...
As a note, a big part of my disappointment is I feel this would be a very interesting topic to discuss so reading an intelligent article on the subject would be great but this is not that article...
If it looks like an iPod Touch and acts like an iPod Touch but comes from Microsoft, it ain't an iPod Touch.
It must suck to be an engineer at Microsoft. Ignoring the phat paycheck, it must really suck to work for a company that has largely given up on any semblance of innovation and is simply following the lead of other companies. I would imagine that many of their best and brightest are begging to explore some very cool ideas but are being held back by Microsoft's corporate culture... I feel for them...
Actually, they get paid magnitudes more than I do so I don't feel too bad for them...
Ok, while I find the tech cool and this is certainly News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters but, seriously? "Details of the process are available at the American Chemical Society for $30." Seriously? We're just abandoning any pretense that these are news summaries now and just outright turning them into ads for products? We're now outright trying to sell things? Weak. Very weak indeed.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously? The only logical comment I can come up with for this is "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahahaha!!"
/. but this has got to be one of the biggest jokes ever... I'd expect to see something like that on April 1st...
I know, not the deepest comment ever posted on
Unfortunately, it'll never happen. It'd be nice if it did but, so long as ISPs have lobbying power, which they do, it'll never come to pass.
Sorry. What? The IRS is being logical? They want to repeal an outdated law? Who is this new IRS?
As it is, that photo is probably floating around in a few stock photo libraries now, tagged as "average family, man woman children".
You haven't looked closely at the tags on most stock photography images, have you. There's no way the image would be tagged so logically and accurately.
You want to put an average family up on a billboard, put a Craigslist ad up for an average family photoshoot, and pay the $50 it would take to get them to come to you, and sign the model releases.
And then pay the makeup artist and the photographer and possibly the studio for renting the space if needed. So, in the end, you'll be paying about $1000, easily. Or go onto one of the numerous stock photography sites and pay about $5 for a high res image of an average family. I assume you know which choice is most cost effective, especially when doing a design job for a grocery store and not some major multinational brand.
I doubt they'll grant royalty free use but I do suspect they'll assure competitors "you don't get twitchy with your patent portfolio and we won't get twitchy with ours." Sorta like most major companies already do - using patents as defense against other company's patents...
Hey, Orrin. Just an FYI - those numbers have been proven wrong, on numerous occasions by numerous sources. And not wrong in the "close but not quite accurate" sense - wrong as in "so far off from any vague hint of accuracy as to be laughable." You keep quoting numbers that are being fed to you by the MPAA and RIAA and they're making you look stupid. You might want to have one of your staff members do a smidge of research so you don't look quite so idiotic. Oh, and when you spout off these incorrect numbers, it weakens any other point you may have by association. But, hey, you enjoy that new deck that the RIAA/MPAA donation allowed you to add to your country home.
Alright, let me clarify since you seemed to miss the point - I find it sad that referencing a bunker buster in an analogy about an event in space is appropriate. I find it sad that the term "bunker buster" has been used sufficiently that the average person will immediately know what you're describing _and_ know enough about it to be able to envision it. As I said, the analogy works - it accurately portrays what they're trying to describe - but I find it unfortunate that we live in a world where "bunker buster" is part of the average person's lexicon. As for my outlook, you know nothing at all about what my outlook is or what I always look for. Thanks.
"If a normal supernova is a nuclear bomb, then SN 2008ha is a bunker buster..."
I find it kind of a sad statement on society that a scientist finds a comparison to weapons of war to be the best way to describe an event to people. It's a good analogy because it explains the situation well but it says a lot about society that that's the analogy-of-choice...
So the settlement checks aren't even being written to the owner of the copyright??
Ok, that absolutely boggles my mind. I'd thought that, since the cases were company v. accused (for example, Captiol v. Thomas), that the RIAA was doing the leg work but the actual lawsuit was "by" the record company. If (as it appears) I'm entirely mistaken on that and, more so, the settlement checks aren't being written to the owner of the copyright (which, apparently, is now in question), this has gone from disgustingly bad to even worse, which I didn't think was possible at this point.
How can they NOT be brought up on RICO charges?? If people were being encouraged to settle with the owners of the copyright, it'd still suck but to settle with a third party organization?? People aren't even settling with the actual owner of the copyright, for crying out loud!...
I've been following this for a long time and didn't think any of it could surprise me but this blows my mind...
I'll ignore the snarky end of your reply and chalk it up to this being a subject near and dear to your heart. Instead, I'll ask for clarification - are the lawsuits not the individual company versus the alleged infringer? For example, the case at hand is "Capitol v. Thomas" not "RIAA v. Thomas". Or is it the cases are filed BY the RIAA on BEHALF OF the company?
As for the checks, I'll write that off as me being incorrect. It happens.
Sorry Big Media Companies (tm), find another (legal) way to protect your dying business model. Or, better yet, adapt to the new reality...
When people say "the RIAA" they usually mean "the record company in question at the direction of the RIAA." The lawsuits that have been filed have not been filed by the RIAA nor have the checks been written to "the RIAA" - they are filed by the member companies (EMI, Sony, Universal, and Warner being the four biggest). Thus, there won't be any "close up shop to avoid paying the money back."
Wait! What?! Microsoft is the simpler choice? Microsoft? Simple? What? Come on! Even people who like Microsoft will never claim that Microsoft is the simpler choice, ever. They may like it, but everyone knows Microsoft is complex... Well, everyone except this guy, it seems...
Property is an investment. Commodities are investments. Stocks and bonds are investments. iPhones are tech toys.
You're seriously complaining that the tech toy you bought went down in price and was replaced by a newer, better model? Have you never bought a computer before? Some might think I'm being a troll, but seriously, this is nothing new to tech products across the board - tech toy is released, sells, goes down in price and is replaced by better model, rinse and repeat until the model is phased out. Nothing new.
Is anyone seriously surprised? Did anyone really think they were going to give away their content for free forever? Of course they were giving it away free initially to generate interest and then later going to tack on a price tag...
Ok, I confess my joke wasn't the best joke evar but, really, it was just a joke...
In other news, Russia announced that it was running out of money and would commence looking for new ways to generate funds.
How is what he does any different from someone who buys land as an investment rather than with an eye towards development? Lots of people buy up lots of land with an eye towards their vale to someone else in the future. So long as this guy is honestly selling the domains without attempting to defraud buyers, he's doing the same thing, just with virtual land rather than actual real land. I may not like it (and I don't) but, so long as they are conducting things legitimately, I see no difference.
The end will come when developers simply decide it's not worth jumping through hoops for an antiquated browser and IT departments in corporate America are flooded with calls of "this site won't work - what's wrong with my browser" thereby forcing IT departments to get with the program and update the browsers on their networks. Until then, why should an IT department invest any time and effort into updating the browsers on their systems? The kicker is all that it will take is one major website to take the bold step forward but the question is who has the balls to be first?
For an article on ign, a site frequented by gamers, the article is really weak. I would expect something like that from a local newspaper rather than something published on a site read by people already knowledgeable regarding the subject. The article spends a lot of time explaining concepts and ideas that are already obvious to anyone who even remotely considers themselves a gamer (the regular audience of ign, for example). I was hoping it would then build upon those basic concepts that I already knew to present an interesting or novel theory but - no - that was it. A very disappointing read and not worth the time...
As a note, a big part of my disappointment is I feel this would be a very interesting topic to discuss so reading an intelligent article on the subject would be great but this is not that article...
In my opinionated opinion.
If it looks like an iPod Touch and acts like an iPod Touch but comes from Microsoft, it ain't an iPod Touch.
It must suck to be an engineer at Microsoft. Ignoring the phat paycheck, it must really suck to work for a company that has largely given up on any semblance of innovation and is simply following the lead of other companies. I would imagine that many of their best and brightest are begging to explore some very cool ideas but are being held back by Microsoft's corporate culture... I feel for them...
Actually, they get paid magnitudes more than I do so I don't feel too bad for them...
Dear Mrs Morissette,
Please pay attention. This is ironic.
Thank you.
Ok, while I find the tech cool and this is certainly News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters but, seriously? "Details of the process are available at the American Chemical Society for $30." Seriously? We're just abandoning any pretense that these are news summaries now and just outright turning them into ads for products? We're now outright trying to sell things? Weak. Very weak indeed.
This cannot possibly end well...