I tried and gave up. It doesn't really make sense. If I give Slashdot money, I have to see ads. If I post (and don't give Slashdot money) then I can disable them. The "weird" statement is that as a positive contributor I can disable ads - but as soon as I give Slashdot some money, the checkbox disappears and I have to see ads again.
And it'll be WebM (and it's licensing fees) once the MPEG LA pulls a test case in court against a major WebM user. Half their patents are so vague that Winzip probably violates them - all they need is a court to agree that one of their hundreds of patents covers WebM, and the whole thing blows up.
And you can guarantee that the idiocy that is the Courts of the District of Eastern Texas will agree that WebM is covered.
Oh, bugger off. I've had it with people insisting that businesses trying to subsidise free content with ads need to "find a business model that works" because at the end of the day, someone needs to fund it. The problem is that these are the typical responses:
* Advertising: "I don't like ads. Find a business model that works". * Paid content: "I don't want to pay. Find a business model that works". * Merchandise: "I don't want to pay. Find a business model that works". * Shutting down: "WTF? I visited that site! Why couldn't they find a business model that works?".
In short, stop spouting "find a business model that works" and offer some fucking suggestions.
That's hardly relevant. In NZ, the exclusive carrier is the one with the wrong frequency for the iPhone. The one that you can't get the device on is the one that the phone works best on.
In New Zealand where I live, the law is that if someone sends you something unsolicited (mistakes excluded) then the object is considered a gift and you own it. The sender cannot invoice you after the fact or demand the object's return.
And then they'll find out that the app is actually available on the iTunes store and the author is full of shit. Just like My Frame. No, really - do a search in iTunes for My Frame. See what shows up - version 1.2, the app that was "pulled" by the big bad Apple.
But, hey, the author certainly drummed up a lot of interest in his app and probably got some sales out of it, regardless of the fact that the story is lacking in, well, facts.
If you completely ignore that the author used future tense when describing the app being pulled, yeah.
But even with just it, peruse the scheme archive and tell me things like that notepaper theme are possible, even today with Windows 7. Can you theme the standard widgets yet in Windows? I know you can mess with the borders of windows, but can you make the progress bars look like they are being scribbled in? The buttons look like sketches?
Not to mention that the reality of Free Software is that it becomes free as in cost anyway, so anyone who worked hard on developing software as a job to put food on the table effectively doesn't get paid during development, the idea is that hopefully they can get paid for support.
I admit I have tried releasing software as free with source available before. People still expected support if it broke. Guess how much I made in donations and support offerings?
$0.
So as you can see, when those type talk about "making money from support", they're really saying "give me the software for free, because I don't want to pay for it". I don't, however, see a major problem with letting people who pay for the product use the code for their own devices (I refuse to encode my PHP apps).
Travel time from my work or house to the closest Google office? About 6 hours (consisting of a drive to the airport, a plane trip to another country, followed by another drive to the office).
I still want to know where I can find this bloody free beer. The cheapest I can find is $3 a pint.
Personally, I hold that "free" has referred to "without cost" for significantly longer than Stallman's newspeak "as in freedom" when in the context of products. Therefore, I reject Stallman's definition of "free".
You're in a country where the consumer protection law doesn't get summed down to "fuck what the warranty says, you're covered for whatever you'd reasonably expect for a product this expensive for this purpose"? How quaint.
You put too much faith in the court system. From what I've seen, it's the same the world over - and we had an organisation (local government actually) successfully sue itself - and got itself awarded $30,000 in damages.
Slashdot Mirror
That's some interesting reading there - thanks for that.
I tried and gave up. It doesn't really make sense. If I give Slashdot money, I have to see ads. If I post (and don't give Slashdot money) then I can disable them. The "weird" statement is that as a positive contributor I can disable ads - but as soon as I give Slashdot some money, the checkbox disappears and I have to see ads again.
Indian Casinos are on Sovereign Territory. For all intents and purposes, they aren't even in the United States.
This, now THIS I agree 100% with. I hate Flash. Hate it. It seems that these days, it's used to deliver obnoxious ads and that's about it.
No. You can use it without getting sued by Google. It remains to be seen whether anyone else has any claim to bits of the spec.
H264 (and it's licensing fees) is here to stay.
And it'll be WebM (and it's licensing fees) once the MPEG LA pulls a test case in court against a major WebM user. Half their patents are so vague that Winzip probably violates them - all they need is a court to agree that one of their hundreds of patents covers WebM, and the whole thing blows up.
And you can guarantee that the idiocy that is the Courts of the District of Eastern Texas will agree that WebM is covered.
Find a business model that works.
Oh, bugger off. I've had it with people insisting that businesses trying to subsidise free content with ads need to "find a business model that works" because at the end of the day, someone needs to fund it. The problem is that these are the typical responses:
* Advertising: "I don't like ads. Find a business model that works".
* Paid content: "I don't want to pay. Find a business model that works".
* Merchandise: "I don't want to pay. Find a business model that works".
* Shutting down: "WTF? I visited that site! Why couldn't they find a business model that works?".
In short, stop spouting "find a business model that works" and offer some fucking suggestions.
That's hardly relevant. In NZ, the exclusive carrier is the one with the wrong frequency for the iPhone. The one that you can't get the device on is the one that the phone works best on.
In New Zealand where I live, the law is that if someone sends you something unsolicited (mistakes excluded) then the object is considered a gift and you own it. The sender cannot invoice you after the fact or demand the object's return.
Carriers can still enforce the requirement for Symbian Signed apps though, which requires a $400 developer certificate.
And then they'll find out that the app is actually available on the iTunes store and the author is full of shit. Just like My Frame. No, really - do a search in iTunes for My Frame. See what shows up - version 1.2, the app that was "pulled" by the big bad Apple.
But, hey, the author certainly drummed up a lot of interest in his app and probably got some sales out of it, regardless of the fact that the story is lacking in, well, facts.
If you completely ignore that the author used future tense when describing the app being pulled, yeah.
But even with just it, peruse the scheme archive and tell me things like that notepaper theme are possible, even today with Windows 7. Can you theme the standard widgets yet in Windows? I know you can mess with the borders of windows, but can you make the progress bars look like they are being scribbled in? The buttons look like sketches?
With WindowBlinds, yeah.
Sigh. Used to be used for Point of Sale. Now apparently not so much.
It doesn't apply to Google Apps. The period is actually part of the email too and can't be relocated.
Terrible. Don't they know that purchases from the iTunes Store are for personal use only :P
Though Apple's probably got an Enterprise Developer Program membership.
Lots of Apple employees use Windows Mobile devices. Go into an Apple Store some time ;)
Not to mention that the reality of Free Software is that it becomes free as in cost anyway, so anyone who worked hard on developing software as a job to put food on the table effectively doesn't get paid during development, the idea is that hopefully they can get paid for support.
I admit I have tried releasing software as free with source available before. People still expected support if it broke. Guess how much I made in donations and support offerings?
$0.
So as you can see, when those type talk about "making money from support", they're really saying "give me the software for free, because I don't want to pay for it". I don't, however, see a major problem with letting people who pay for the product use the code for their own devices (I refuse to encode my PHP apps).
Tip: this does not apply to Google Apps, where the "." is actually considered part of the account name.
Travel time from my work or house to the closest Google office? About 6 hours (consisting of a drive to the airport, a plane trip to another country, followed by another drive to the office).
You are not everyone.
Hell, if he'd hosted it using proprietary software he'd still be fine.
But their reverse DNS wouldn't be "crawl-66-xx-xx-xx.googlebot.com"
I still want to know where I can find this bloody free beer. The cheapest I can find is $3 a pint.
Personally, I hold that "free" has referred to "without cost" for significantly longer than Stallman's newspeak "as in freedom" when in the context of products. Therefore, I reject Stallman's definition of "free".
However; if you didn't pay for it, and can see it, then it is both free and open.
You're in a country where the consumer protection law doesn't get summed down to "fuck what the warranty says, you're covered for whatever you'd reasonably expect for a product this expensive for this purpose"? How quaint.
You put too much faith in the court system. From what I've seen, it's the same the world over - and we had an organisation (local government actually) successfully sue itself - and got itself awarded $30,000 in damages.