Even if it was a simple matter of "we just don't want to run their ad", what would be wrong with that?
It's capitalism and free entertprise. If Google doesn't want to sell adspace to someone for any particular reason, it is their business. If someone doesn't like it, they can buy a controlling share of google's stock and do something about it.
I usually manage to get excited about certain MMORPGs (such as Vanguard and Gods and Heroes, but not LOTRO or WoW), but no matter what, I usually get incredibly bored by the repetitive "single player game . . . that is online!" aspect of it within a few weeks and never play again. I'm waiting for something truly exciting and revolutionary. *sigh*
Of course someone who has made 800 versions of one crappy game for the last 15 years would encourage a world where game remakes are popular. Tomb Raider games are TERRIBLE. The only redeeming quality is polyogonal tits and that's only a purchase-worthy game quality if you're ten years old.
This is interesting, because just a few minutes ago I read that this game was going to be delayed until 2008; not canceled.
Either way, it sounds like they don't care enough about the game or the staffing for it to maintain it in the long run. Even if it was finally released, I would not risk my time and money in the investment as they probably would not provide enough resources to keep the game and community running properly.
Oh well . . . still no decent MMORPG on the horizon. I guess we'll have to wait until 2009 for something to pop up.
As another already pointed out, Mozilla was a not-for-profit organization for almost all of its life (until very recently). Not to mention, there are significant contributions made by the community-at-large who are not in any way part of this $50m-and-more/yr "corporation", so I see no problem with questioning justifications for taking various compensations.
Perhaps the money all goes into a secret vault and is touched for no other reason than promotion of open-source projects for improving mankind. Or perhaps everyone drives a Ferrari and has an on-call corporate jet. *shrug* Just asking.
Presuming for a moment that there actually were any infringement occurring . . .
Saying that the customer who is the end-user of the operating system is liable for any infringement said developer has included in said operating system is like saying that I am liable for the royalty fees to ASCAP if I watch a commercial on television in which the producer and directory did not acquire proper rights and make proper payments to the artists. If you have a problem, take it up with the offending party and don't pull out these bullshit scare tactics on the end-user who has nothing to do with this.
Anyway, as I'm sure others have already pointed out, I thought there was that whole thing of Microsoft using (without license -- or at least perhaps without proper license adherence to its use) the BSD TCP stack? I could be completely wrong about that, but I seem to recall us going through a whole set of hysteria over that on Slashdot some years ago.
Go buy one or two spare 360s today, so you'll have a system around when the other one bricks! Remember, they're disposable!
Re:Two things seem to have affected MozFo:
on
Thunderbird in Crisis?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yes, but what in the hell does Mozilla need $50m per year for? Do the top developers fly from the east coast to mountain view by private jet every morning to begin the work day or something?!
This entire article is the equivalent of a bunch of whining, wanking carpenters complaining that people can resort to do-it-yourself for many home projects these days or that "regular people" have video cameras at home and not just big film directors.
Yes, the internet has made a lot of people much stupider (witness your average idiot's abbreviated text message session) but the probability of such people being consumers of quality magazine or book content is low to begin with, even if the internet doesn't exist.
Of course it matters. In fact, that is the apparent entirety of the matter, correct?
The reason a royalties board cares is that they charge fees based on the estimated size of the listening audience. That is why when you submit a request to play music in a commercial or in a store, you have to establish what use it will serve and approximately how many people will hear the music in a certain period of time. Likewise, you have to gauge a radio station's audience to guesstimate how much to charge them.
My point is that -- unless a ton of these people who are listening second-hand are Nielson families (where their listening is actually recorded much like television) -- then what does it matter? The people listening to a single radio would not be counted as individual listeners *ANYWAY*.
Let me put it another way. If ten Nielson Families all watch the same television show on a single television together -- it counts as a single viewer. If ten Nielson Families each watch ten separate televisions, it counts as ten viewers. If ten NON-Nielson Families watch one or ten televisions at a time, it doesn't matter -- because the fact that they are watching is not trackable either way.
So these people listening in an office could not be tracked whether they each had their own radio or not. It would not affect the reported numbers, the estimated audience, the reports to the royalties board or the royalties that would be collected. Not in any way on earth whatso-freaking-ever.
And when a company does that to you at work, remember to block their phone calls and email to you outside of work, work time, work hours to keep them from using your personal time for corporate purposes.
Radio is supported by advertising. What does it matter if 500 people are listening to 500 radios or 500 are listening to a single radio? I understand that the idea is that "those are 500 people who will not be counted toward royalty payments", but since royalties are entirely calculated by the size of the listening audience -- how does it matter unless some of those 500 people are also part of some "Nielson" family? If they're all listening to separate radios, is some sort of magic going to occur where they can tell that 500 radios are turned on and to a specific station?
Teachers should be familiar with that concept. Remember, when someone isn't producing results, it's not their fault -- it's that you're not throwing enough cash at the problem!
No kidding. Who cares if eight million Japanese users are on fiber? I would suspect that almost that many are on fiber in America, too. The population of Japan is about one third that of America and exists within a much smaller land mass, which makes it easier to deploy such things. Or at least . . . that is what we're told. Honestly, if we can run massive cables across the entire ocean, why can't we run a cable from the west coast to the midwest (gapping the large expanse of nothingness between the two)? And then the deployments within each actual city are trivial (theoretically).
We don't need to wire the entire interstate and the vast swaths of nothingness. We just need to wire the actual cities. You know, where dense populations live. Those populations, right now, have an option of 8mbps/768kbps at best (with hidden bandwidth limits included, of course). Other than telcom "insiders" telling us it's due to the great size of this country versus places like Japan, I don't know what the real reason is (well, we do -- but we can save that infrastructure, monopolizing, wall-street-bowing stuff for another discussion).
Remember, this is America. Most of the country believes that all faster bandwidth across the country will do is get the paedophiles to your door to rape your toddler ten times faster than DSL.
Who is this guy's post off-topic? It is, in fact, entirely ON TOPIC. That is, if the moderators even bothered to READ the topic.
The blurb posted on slashdot states that in the human body, there are MORE BACTERIA than there are HUMAN CELLS. Which would suggest that a minimum of 51% of the human body is made up of bacteria and only 49% (or less) of our body is made of things like . . . water, carbon and other . . . you know . . . human composition stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if it was a simple matter of "we just don't want to run their ad", what would be wrong with that?
It's capitalism and free entertprise. If Google doesn't want to sell adspace to someone for any particular reason, it is their business. If someone doesn't like it, they can buy a controlling share of google's stock and do something about it.
Really, who even cares? The only dead horse that has been beat more than Star Wars is Star Trek. Let it die already. Good grief.
I usually manage to get excited about certain MMORPGs (such as Vanguard and Gods and Heroes, but not LOTRO or WoW), but no matter what, I usually get incredibly bored by the repetitive "single player game . . . that is online!" aspect of it within a few weeks and never play again. I'm waiting for something truly exciting and revolutionary. *sigh*
Of course someone who has made 800 versions of one crappy game for the last 15 years would encourage a world where game remakes are popular. Tomb Raider games are TERRIBLE. The only redeeming quality is polyogonal tits and that's only a purchase-worthy game quality if you're ten years old.
This is interesting, because just a few minutes ago I read that this game was going to be delayed until 2008; not canceled.
Either way, it sounds like they don't care enough about the game or the staffing for it to maintain it in the long run. Even if it was finally released, I would not risk my time and money in the investment as they probably would not provide enough resources to keep the game and community running properly.
Oh well . . . still no decent MMORPG on the horizon. I guess we'll have to wait until 2009 for something to pop up.
As another already pointed out, Mozilla was a not-for-profit organization for almost all of its life (until very recently). Not to mention, there are significant contributions made by the community-at-large who are not in any way part of this $50m-and-more/yr "corporation", so I see no problem with questioning justifications for taking various compensations.
Perhaps the money all goes into a secret vault and is touched for no other reason than promotion of open-source projects for improving mankind. Or perhaps everyone drives a Ferrari and has an on-call corporate jet. *shrug* Just asking.
In other news, the western half of the globe now opens ".westernhemisphere" TLD.
or . . .
In other news, insensitive clods still refer to new TLD as "dot-orientals".
Stupid.
Presuming for a moment that there actually were any infringement occurring . . .
Saying that the customer who is the end-user of the operating system is liable for any infringement said developer has included in said operating system is like saying that I am liable for the royalty fees to ASCAP if I watch a commercial on television in which the producer and directory did not acquire proper rights and make proper payments to the artists. If you have a problem, take it up with the offending party and don't pull out these bullshit scare tactics on the end-user who has nothing to do with this.
Anyway, as I'm sure others have already pointed out, I thought there was that whole thing of Microsoft using (without license -- or at least perhaps without proper license adherence to its use) the BSD TCP stack? I could be completely wrong about that, but I seem to recall us going through a whole set of hysteria over that on Slashdot some years ago.
Go buy one or two spare 360s today, so you'll have a system around when the other one bricks! Remember, they're disposable!
Yes, but what in the hell does Mozilla need $50m per year for? Do the top developers fly from the east coast to mountain view by private jet every morning to begin the work day or something?!
This entire article is the equivalent of a bunch of whining, wanking carpenters complaining that people can resort to do-it-yourself for many home projects these days or that "regular people" have video cameras at home and not just big film directors.
Yes, the internet has made a lot of people much stupider (witness your average idiot's abbreviated text message session) but the probability of such people being consumers of quality magazine or book content is low to begin with, even if the internet doesn't exist.
And free tang.
Just be sure you pack the adult diapers for that ride.
Wait, what?! 50 million bucks a year?!
What the hell for?! I mean, they couldn't possibly have one tenth that in expenses, even if they tried.
Of course it matters. In fact, that is the apparent entirety of the matter, correct?
The reason a royalties board cares is that they charge fees based on the estimated size of the listening audience. That is why when you submit a request to play music in a commercial or in a store, you have to establish what use it will serve and approximately how many people will hear the music in a certain period of time. Likewise, you have to gauge a radio station's audience to guesstimate how much to charge them.
My point is that -- unless a ton of these people who are listening second-hand are Nielson families (where their listening is actually recorded much like television) -- then what does it matter? The people listening to a single radio would not be counted as individual listeners *ANYWAY*.
Let me put it another way. If ten Nielson Families all watch the same television show on a single television together -- it counts as a single viewer. If ten Nielson Families each watch ten separate televisions, it counts as ten viewers. If ten NON-Nielson Families watch one or ten televisions at a time, it doesn't matter -- because the fact that they are watching is not trackable either way.
So these people listening in an office could not be tracked whether they each had their own radio or not. It would not affect the reported numbers, the estimated audience, the reports to the royalties board or the royalties that would be collected. Not in any way on earth whatso-freaking-ever.
And when a company does that to you at work, remember to block their phone calls and email to you outside of work, work time, work hours to keep them from using your personal time for corporate purposes.
I don't understand the point here.
Radio is supported by advertising. What does it matter if 500 people are listening to 500 radios or 500 are listening to a single radio? I understand that the idea is that "those are 500 people who will not be counted toward royalty payments", but since royalties are entirely calculated by the size of the listening audience -- how does it matter unless some of those 500 people are also part of some "Nielson" family? If they're all listening to separate radios, is some sort of magic going to occur where they can tell that 500 radios are turned on and to a specific station?
The answer is to spend more money.
Teachers should be familiar with that concept. Remember, when someone isn't producing results, it's not their fault -- it's that you're not throwing enough cash at the problem!
More importantly, are you still going to ban someone's account when "they" use too much "secret limit" bandwidth in a given month?
My sick great-grandmother uses csh, you insensitive clod!
Of course the PS3 is not as powerful as a hefty PC rig today.
A hefty PC from the PS3 launch date wouldn't be as powerful as a hefty PC rig today, either.
Ah-hah! So *you're* the sucker that they make folding@home for, so you can spend $15/mo of your own cash to pay the electric bill!
No kidding. Who cares if eight million Japanese users are on fiber? I would suspect that almost that many are on fiber in America, too. The population of Japan is about one third that of America and exists within a much smaller land mass, which makes it easier to deploy such things. Or at least . . . that is what we're told. Honestly, if we can run massive cables across the entire ocean, why can't we run a cable from the west coast to the midwest (gapping the large expanse of nothingness between the two)? And then the deployments within each actual city are trivial (theoretically).
We don't need to wire the entire interstate and the vast swaths of nothingness. We just need to wire the actual cities. You know, where dense populations live. Those populations, right now, have an option of 8mbps/768kbps at best (with hidden bandwidth limits included, of course). Other than telcom "insiders" telling us it's due to the great size of this country versus places like Japan, I don't know what the real reason is (well, we do -- but we can save that infrastructure, monopolizing, wall-street-bowing stuff for another discussion).
Remember, this is America. Most of the country believes that all faster bandwidth across the country will do is get the paedophiles to your door to rape your toddler ten times faster than DSL.
Wrong hole. Biology fails you.
Who is this guy's post off-topic? It is, in fact, entirely ON TOPIC. That is, if the moderators even bothered to READ the topic.
The blurb posted on slashdot states that in the human body, there are MORE BACTERIA than there are HUMAN CELLS. Which would suggest that a minimum of 51% of the human body is made up of bacteria and only 49% (or less) of our body is made of things like . . . water, carbon and other . . . you know . . . human composition stuff.