Exactly -- Google is a monopoly and just does whatever the hell it wants, saying "but if we're not there, no-one will find your site". And that's an excuse how?
Arguable statements? It's pretty well established now that free newspaper sites are failing. They do not earn their keep. It is a known fact, a done deal.
Who said "lots of money"? I'm talking adequate money. And as for constructive proposals... how about the RTFA...? Pay the content providers a cut of advertising revenue for providing the content that makes Google News the most visited news site on the planet.
So, how do you build "brand loyalty" when people don't even suspect your site exists?
BINGO!
You have inadvertently hit the nail on the head: Google is, to all intents and purposes a monopoly in search space. This leaves the page owner trapped between a rock and a hard place: go on Google, get lots of hits, make no money; or stay off Google, get next-to-no hits, make no money.
Monopolies require regulation, because otherwise they can do whatever the hell they want, and Google is weilding its monopoly like a very sharp sword right now.
Google didn't create the internet, but it has harvested users until many genuinely believe that Google is the front page to the internet.
these newspapers get valuable traffic thanks to google
Traffic != "valuable traffic".
Advertising money often comes from click-through, not page impressions. Newspapers have traditionally been profitable as advertising engines thanks to the predictable demographics -- early "targeted advertising", essentially. Casual browsing via Google doesn't do this for them. People come and go without even thinking about what site they're on, and the adverts are harder and harder to target... hence cheaper and cheaper.
Newspapers are already dropping off the free net because they're just not making any money. What the French are proposing is a genuinely viable alternative to the paywall.
They [Google] direct millions and millions of people to the websites of those publishers.
And the publishers want those hits.
You clearly weren't paying attention to your Introduction to Web Design class: the success of a website is not in the "hits" it's in reader retention, or stickiness. Google as a basic search engine was defensible. However, Google News is having a marked negative effect on the publications it links to. By indexing so effeciently, it dramatically reduces reader retention. People don't stay on the newspaper site, they go back to Google and find more news there. Without reader retention, the news sites find it very very difficult to attract advertisers. The news sites can't make money. Google is leaching money out of the system and away from the content creators. So it's OK for webshops, it's OK for fansites, but it's a massive problem for professional journalism.
I think you're missing the point. It's all well and good saying sites will "shrivel up and die" without search engine results, but right not they're shrivelling up an dieing due to a lack of money. Google isn't just a search engine it's the "front page" to most people's internet. It's undermined the "stickiness" of everyone else's site, making it very difficult for individual sites to survive on ad revenue.
Google isn't "symbiotic", it's "parasitic", because while it appears to offer short-term benefits, it devalues individual sites (especially news sites) and destroys brand loyalty (I personally read stories from 5 different news sites this morning thanks to Google News -- good for me, bad for the news sites).
Sites don't earn money on eyeballs alone, you know....
I can't imagine coding something like that at $20k a year -- isn't $30-35k more like the average? And that's not counting pension plans, medical insurance, sickness cover etc. $50-60k sounds like absolute bottom-end for that sort of work as a contractor (and that's still more that Lunduke was asking!)
So, it's great that he's willing to accept it, but it sets the bar awfully low for the rest of us.
But if you were to make it into a one-off Kickstarter project, it wouldn't be pulling a Lunduke. Personally, I'm getting sick of all the Kickstarter campaigns that are "I want to make a profit, but I'm not willing to risk my own time and money -- you guys take the risk, I'll make the profit, m'kay?" and would relish more campaigns that say "I want to make an honest buck -- pay me fair and square for my time, and I'll forego future royalties," because that's really the whole point of risk-reward. People working on royalties take a high risk, gambling on the reward. Eliminating the risk without eliminating the chance of a high payout, it's, well... unfair.
Exactly. If it really will improve the OP's projects, it will pay off in the long term. However, as to the question of "properly open sourcing the code", I would hope that the OP has indeed already done that: if he's using GPL code and there's a copy of the source code available to the recipient of the object code, then it is already properly open source by the terms of the GPL. If the customer later provides a derivative to someone else as closed source, that's still not the OP's problem.
Because the power draw of your PC is negligible next to your (hypothetical) electric car. Modifying the price of electricity such that inefficient computers and light bulbs are expensive would render other day-to-day electricity uses prohibitively expensive.
The PC industry is currently inherently energy-inefficient, because they're constantly fighting for the next-gen "top end" components, and the current-gen "average" is last gen's top end. No-one really focuses on energy efficiency, because it doesn't shift boxes, and it costs money to design. Regulation is the only way to prevent the current nonsense of glorified typewriters with enough physics horsepower to fry an egg.
I may have worded my argument wrong, then, because that, in a way, proves my point. Fish as quite biologically different from us, so safer than many other animals. But the carnivores are more desirable. In the fish world, the rule's kind of inverted, because carnivores aren't the ones who each shit and concentrate the microorganisms.
On the other hand, there appears to be a statistically significant correlation between intelligence and hygeine/access to medicine. Childhood exposure to illness increases the immune system, but at the cost of brain development.
"Vomiting" is an involuntary process, caused by illness. The voluntary process is called "regurgitation". Poison a bee, and it will vomit, like anything else with a stomach. You will not get honey.
Yes, but salmonella doesn't only live in the digestive tract. If an animal that can be infected by salmonella eats an animal that can be infected by salmonella which in turn eats the shit of an animal that is one of the best incubators of salmonella, there's a problem. Most traditional food taboos reflect a dangerous infection vector....
The reason very few cultures eat the meat of carnivores is that the closer the physiology and biology of two animals, the higher the chance of the same micro-organisms infecting the two animals. I had to explain this to my mother once, to explain why cow dung is a good fertiliser, but cat shit should be kept out of the compost heap.
If you're going to farm an animal that can harbour parasites than can also infect humans, you need to go out of your way to ensure that they don't come into contact with those parasites.
That doesn't mean "don't feed them shit", but "be selective in which animals' shit you feed them". Which basically means ruminant shit.
Which is the biggest shelf in your local supermarket? Is it the organic one? If not, you might want to reconsider your opinion. If so, you live in a very weird place.
You've clearly never had food poisoning. It may not kill you...
... or it may actually kill you.
And even if it doesn't kill you, it may mess you up for life, by triggering Irritable Bowel Syndrome, or increasing your risk of various alimentary-tract diseases, including cancer.
I met a security guard once who used to be a chef. He had to leave the (well-paid) kitchen he worked in after one of his trainees brought a particularly nasty strain of salmonella into the workplace -- one that is highly infectious and (then, at least) incurable, leading to him being told he was never allowed to cook for anyone else, as long as he lived. Not even (and particularly not) his children.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly -- Google is a monopoly and just does whatever the hell it wants, saying "but if we're not there, no-one will find your site". And that's an excuse how?
Arguable statements? It's pretty well established now that free newspaper sites are failing. They do not earn their keep. It is a known fact, a done deal.
Who said "lots of money"? I'm talking adequate money. And as for constructive proposals... how about the RTFA...? Pay the content providers a cut of advertising revenue for providing the content that makes Google News the most visited news site on the planet.
So, how do you build "brand loyalty" when people don't even suspect your site exists?
BINGO!
You have inadvertently hit the nail on the head: Google is, to all intents and purposes a monopoly in search space. This leaves the page owner trapped between a rock and a hard place: go on Google, get lots of hits, make no money; or stay off Google, get next-to-no hits, make no money.
Monopolies require regulation, because otherwise they can do whatever the hell they want, and Google is weilding its monopoly like a very sharp sword right now.
Google didn't create the internet, but it has harvested users until many genuinely believe that Google is the front page to the internet.
these newspapers get valuable traffic thanks to google
Traffic != "valuable traffic".
Advertising money often comes from click-through, not page impressions. Newspapers have traditionally been profitable as advertising engines thanks to the predictable demographics -- early "targeted advertising", essentially. Casual browsing via Google doesn't do this for them. People come and go without even thinking about what site they're on, and the adverts are harder and harder to target... hence cheaper and cheaper.
Newspapers are already dropping off the free net because they're just not making any money. What the French are proposing is a genuinely viable alternative to the paywall.
They [Google] direct millions and millions of people to the websites of those publishers. And the publishers want those hits.
You clearly weren't paying attention to your Introduction to Web Design class: the success of a website is not in the "hits" it's in reader retention, or stickiness. Google as a basic search engine was defensible. However, Google News is having a marked negative effect on the publications it links to. By indexing so effeciently, it dramatically reduces reader retention. People don't stay on the newspaper site, they go back to Google and find more news there. Without reader retention, the news sites find it very very difficult to attract advertisers. The news sites can't make money. Google is leaching money out of the system and away from the content creators. So it's OK for webshops, it's OK for fansites, but it's a massive problem for professional journalism.
I think you're missing the point. It's all well and good saying sites will "shrivel up and die" without search engine results, but right not they're shrivelling up an dieing due to a lack of money. Google isn't just a search engine it's the "front page" to most people's internet. It's undermined the "stickiness" of everyone else's site, making it very difficult for individual sites to survive on ad revenue.
Google isn't "symbiotic", it's "parasitic", because while it appears to offer short-term benefits, it devalues individual sites (especially news sites) and destroys brand loyalty (I personally read stories from 5 different news sites this morning thanks to Google News -- good for me, bad for the news sites).
Sites don't earn money on eyeballs alone, you know....
'If you fly twice as far away, your camera does half as well; if it's 10 times as far, it does one-tenth as well,' says Stern
Surely "twice as far away" = "a quarter as well", and "10 times as far" = "one-hundredth as well"...?
I can't imagine coding something like that at $20k a year -- isn't $30-35k more like the average? And that's not counting pension plans, medical insurance, sickness cover etc. $50-60k sounds like absolute bottom-end for that sort of work as a contractor (and that's still more that Lunduke was asking!)
So, it's great that he's willing to accept it, but it sets the bar awfully low for the rest of us.
But if you were to make it into a one-off Kickstarter project, it wouldn't be pulling a Lunduke. Personally, I'm getting sick of all the Kickstarter campaigns that are "I want to make a profit, but I'm not willing to risk my own time and money -- you guys take the risk, I'll make the profit, m'kay?" and would relish more campaigns that say "I want to make an honest buck -- pay me fair and square for my time, and I'll forego future royalties," because that's really the whole point of risk-reward. People working on royalties take a high risk, gambling on the reward. Eliminating the risk without eliminating the chance of a high payout, it's, well... unfair.
Exactly. If it really will improve the OP's projects, it will pay off in the long term. However, as to the question of "properly open sourcing the code", I would hope that the OP has indeed already done that: if he's using GPL code and there's a copy of the source code available to the recipient of the object code, then it is already properly open source by the terms of the GPL. If the customer later provides a derivative to someone else as closed source, that's still not the OP's problem.
Because the power draw of your PC is negligible next to your (hypothetical) electric car. Modifying the price of electricity such that inefficient computers and light bulbs are expensive would render other day-to-day electricity uses prohibitively expensive.
The PC industry is currently inherently energy-inefficient, because they're constantly fighting for the next-gen "top end" components, and the current-gen "average" is last gen's top end. No-one really focuses on energy efficiency, because it doesn't shift boxes, and it costs money to design. Regulation is the only way to prevent the current nonsense of glorified typewriters with enough physics horsepower to fry an egg.
Any ful kno the TARDIS is analogue....
My god is a cruel and angry god. ;-)
I may have worded my argument wrong, then, because that, in a way, proves my point. Fish as quite biologically different from us, so safer than many other animals. But the carnivores are more desirable. In the fish world, the rule's kind of inverted, because carnivores aren't the ones who each shit and concentrate the microorganisms.
Do the people who don't earn much try but try to be trendy economise on A) gadgets, or B) food?
Spot the flaw in your argument....
On the other hand, there appears to be a statistically significant correlation between intelligence and hygeine/access to medicine. Childhood exposure to illness increases the immune system, but at the cost of brain development.
Jeez, man... mushrooms do not incubate salmonella. Mushroom fish.
How many stomachs does a cow have? How many stomachs does a fish have? Now, which is more likely as a transmission vector for salmonella...?
"Vomiting" is an involuntary process, caused by illness. The voluntary process is called "regurgitation". Poison a bee, and it will vomit, like anything else with a stomach. You will not get honey.
Yes, but salmonella doesn't only live in the digestive tract. If an animal that can be infected by salmonella eats an animal that can be infected by salmonella which in turn eats the shit of an animal that is one of the best incubators of salmonella, there's a problem. Most traditional food taboos reflect a dangerous infection vector....
Yes, but there are safe cycles and unsafe cycles.
The reason very few cultures eat the meat of carnivores is that the closer the physiology and biology of two animals, the higher the chance of the same micro-organisms infecting the two animals. I had to explain this to my mother once, to explain why cow dung is a good fertiliser, but cat shit should be kept out of the compost heap.
If you're going to farm an animal that can harbour parasites than can also infect humans, you need to go out of your way to ensure that they don't come into contact with those parasites.
That doesn't mean "don't feed them shit", but "be selective in which animals' shit you feed them". Which basically means ruminant shit.
Is the iPhone the most common phone in your town? I seriously, seriously doubt it....
Which is the biggest shelf in your local supermarket? Is it the organic one? If not, you might want to reconsider your opinion. If so, you live in a very weird place.
You've clearly never had food poisoning. It may not kill you...
... or it may actually kill you.
And even if it doesn't kill you, it may mess you up for life, by triggering Irritable Bowel Syndrome, or increasing your risk of various alimentary-tract diseases, including cancer.
I met a security guard once who used to be a chef. He had to leave the (well-paid) kitchen he worked in after one of his trainees brought a particularly nasty strain of salmonella into the workplace -- one that is highly infectious and (then, at least) incurable, leading to him being told he was never allowed to cook for anyone else, as long as he lived. Not even (and particularly not) his children.
Food poisoning is not good news.
In Soviet Russia, cluster of Beowulf dupes you!