Deep man, deep.. You just made me realize internet companies don't care about their user base, and that stupid accidents never happen on your a home server or hosting account.
Seriously though; supposing (just because we're being crazy and ridiculous) that global warming is happening, wouldn't it be a concern that the next solar cycle will be starting later, reducing only the short-term effects of a problem that is only significant in the long-term (and without delaying/decreasing those long-term effects)?
Put another way: Supposing the temperature is going to be X degrees higher by 2YYY, wouldn't it be much better for the increase to be steady and predictable?
Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started
on
Gulf Oil Leak Plugged?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Deciding who to blame is pretty pointless, the aim is (should be) to prevent it happening again. Replacing the CEO probably isn't going to make the guys specifically responsible for the kill-plug (or whatever they call it) be more careful next time.
You can argue that a new CEO won't want the same fate, so will enforce higher safety standards, but CEOs are judged by the money made for the shareholders, not by their safety record. If a CEO gets replaced over safety for political reasons, but made a crap-ton of money as CEO, you can bet they're not going to end up in a soup kitchen..
I'm in Australia (Perth), I have my own modem and use a FreeBSD gateway (so that I can use PF for firewalling and traffic queuing; for Skype and gaming at the same time), which I've been using for ~6 years and over two ISPs.
So to answer your question; no, this isn't news. If the new proposed national broadband network didn't allow a router of choice that would be news, because that would be absolutely ridiculous.
It certainly isn't a very complicated app, and I have no doubt there exist.NET apps tied to Windows APIs which would be much harder to port.
But the way that it opened, built and ran it, and even ran the VS.NET exe file, with each and every button behaving exactly the same, right down to the always-on-top,no-resize,no-maximize window settings, the backup file dialog working, the settings being saved, etc, even though it was written without any compatibility in mind, does make me wonder how far the compatibility extends.
Previously I thought it was more of a GNU-classpath-type project, implementing C# with some standard libs on Linux, I didn't realize it actually ran exe files compiled on Windows.
It would make me think twice before automatically choosing Java to develop something for both platforms, but I would have to see just how far that easy compatibility extends before taking the plunge with anything larger.
(And I guess that's exactly what MS want out of it; not to take over/destroy Linux where they have no leverage to do so, but to keep developers on their platform. Like Gates said "if [China] are going to steal it we want them to steal ours", but rather "if they are going to use Linux we want them to use our platform")
That's a bit touchy-feely; 30% sounds big, 10% doesn't.
If Facebook are the ones dealing with the sales and disputes, preventing money laundering and credit-card fraud, putting a bigger brand behind the virtual currency making it less suspect with better protection, keeping things legal across multiple countries and sets of laws, that juicy 30% might sound like a lot less all of a sudden, compared to 70% straight up, dealing with one company.
Also it's profit that someone is making. I really doubt FarmVille are going to go down without that 30%, since that wouldn't benefit Facebook or FarmVille; so if it's 30% Facebook is making vs FarmVille I don't see why it's greedy for Facebook to get it but not FarmVille.
You can't argue Facebook is being a parasite on FarmVille's success without acknowledging that FarmVille is a parasite on Facebook's success too.
If Facebook were really greedy and ruthless they would clone FarmVille, block FarmVille, promote their clone, and take 100%. (Doing it in a sneakier way to avoid the inevitable anti-competitive issues, perhaps by killing FarmVille by judging it as being too viral and spammy, or by changing the platform too quickly for FarmVille to keep up: The possibilities are endless when you control the platform your competitor uses.)
It's not that they're nice guys so they're only taking 30%, but that this isn't the height of greediness but greed taken to a point which won't ruin anything.
I guess for me the fact that they signed a deal on it means that the deal is in the best interests of both parties, whether or not Facebook had more bargaining power they have worked out an agreement; there will be winners and losers, but going forward the fates of the two companies will be more closely tied.
This means less Facebook vs FarmVille, and more Facebook, FarmVille, and all the other apps pulling together based on mutual interest, which is a much more stable and efficient relationship for everyone involved, than one built on these tensions and infighting.
Also re: Bruce's petition; it's easy to get people to sign an online petition that they are angry about anything. I bet the "thousands of disgusted linux advocates" are composed exclusively of people who read Bruce's blog post and agreed with his point of view, very possibly not including a single person who was previously considering buying anything from Novell.
But aren't they also contributing significantly to the Mono project?
(Before someone says "Mono is evil and helps MS" I'm not so sure. If it does Wine certainly does too, but no-one raises a fuss about Wine, and being able to run my.NET apps on Linux definitely seems like a good thing for reducing ties to Windows to me.)
They did make a deal which, in part, involved patent disputes with Microsoft regarding Linux, but unless there's a way that it "legitimizes" those claims in a legally tangible way I don't see why that's a problem. (And I haven't seen any reason why Novell getting protection against patent suits from Microsoft would affect the legal status of code external to Novell. It seems like paranoia to me.)
The Chinese government isn't "standing up" to anyone, as well you know (I hope). It would cost more for them to enforce copyright laws than they would make from taxing sales of IP, so it's not in their interest, so they don't do it.
Saying "the study where you say we steal the most IP is wrong" (i.e. bullshitting out of convenience) isn't praiseworthy no matter what your views on copyright. If they said "we don't care because we are making a stand against (our own) copyright laws" that would be different (but still ridiculous).
Also you totally misunderstand what copyleft licenses are for; in a world where all source code can be legally copied people can still distribute binaries without source (even binaries compiled from altered versions of FOSS software). Copyleft licenses are not about trying to prevent software licenses existing; they are software licenses.
Okay, assuming that is true (i.e. no maintenance costs or inevitable overhead involved with money management), how is it a bad thing?
I don't see how it is unfair, and even assuming that FarmVille loses out (i.e. they don't recoup costs from the tighter cooperation with Facebook that'll follow from their sharing a common revenue stream), is that a bad thing for end-users if Facebook now has the incentive to promote a more diverse set of games and applications?
1. My point was that the private sector and the garage inventor have thrived without any government/military help.
That couldn't be further from saying that Facebook on phones couldn't have happened without the military casualties over the last half-century.
2. If only those deaths were for the sake of technological development since the 60s; that would be much better than the grim reality that (for the most part) they were just a terrible waste.
(But also as I mentioned above Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc, etc, were all start-up companies that became huge without any government support; R&D does need huge teams these days but opportunities for the little guy are greater than ever.)
Those hundreds of electronic computers really beefed up government authority and took power out of the hands of individuals didn't they?
And the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop/garage, hasn't been able to come up with anything since 1961 right? That's why big government-contract-supported corporations like IBM have prospered while small start-ups have only failed.
Damn this military/government industrial-complex owned world, with all its electronic computers!!
If there's no need to do it why is X Windows the only windowing system that does it? Why does VNC/somethingX (the new one) exist for X Windows when X servers are available on all platforms?
I don't know that you're wrong in calling Microsoft's approach wrong, or have more than an idea of why you might be wrong, but the fact that everyone else uses the "wrong" approach sets off the BS-meter.
Please elaborate, I've only heard good things about Powershell (but am willing to accept that this may say more about people willing to learn Powershell than Powershell itself)
Extra profits, which means extra R&D, which means better services, which means a larger user-base, which generates opportunities for a more diverse set of Facebook-app development companies, which means extra profits, which means extra R&D...
It's a good thing for everyone except FarmVille, and who cares about them? (And you could even argue that their loss is short-term with a long-term benefit)
Slashdot Mirror
Turtlenecks are made of wool..
My uncle is an industry standard too
Deep man, deep.. You just made me realize internet companies don't care about their user base, and that stupid accidents never happen on your a home server or hosting account.
And the "not Donner, not Blitzen" thing; genius!
Freshmeat.net is also an excellent service, and don't forget to pick up a t-shirt of fun geeky gift at thinkgeek.com!
Don't present irrelevant facts..
Seriously though; supposing (just because we're being crazy and ridiculous) that global warming is happening, wouldn't it be a concern that the next solar cycle will be starting later, reducing only the short-term effects of a problem that is only significant in the long-term (and without delaying/decreasing those long-term effects)?
Put another way: Supposing the temperature is going to be X degrees higher by 2YYY, wouldn't it be much better for the increase to be steady and predictable?
Deciding who to blame is pretty pointless, the aim is (should be) to prevent it happening again. Replacing the CEO probably isn't going to make the guys specifically responsible for the kill-plug (or whatever they call it) be more careful next time.
You can argue that a new CEO won't want the same fate, so will enforce higher safety standards, but CEOs are judged by the money made for the shareholders, not by their safety record. If a CEO gets replaced over safety for political reasons, but made a crap-ton of money as CEO, you can bet they're not going to end up in a soup kitchen..
I'm in Australia (Perth), I have my own modem and use a FreeBSD gateway (so that I can use PF for firewalling and traffic queuing; for Skype and gaming at the same time), which I've been using for ~6 years and over two ISPs.
So to answer your question; no, this isn't news. If the new proposed national broadband network didn't allow a router of choice that would be news, because that would be absolutely ridiculous.
It certainly isn't a very complicated app, and I have no doubt there exist .NET apps tied to Windows APIs which would be much harder to port.
But the way that it opened, built and ran it, and even ran the VS.NET exe file, with each and every button behaving exactly the same, right down to the always-on-top,no-resize,no-maximize window settings, the backup file dialog working, the settings being saved, etc, even though it was written without any compatibility in mind, does make me wonder how far the compatibility extends.
Previously I thought it was more of a GNU-classpath-type project, implementing C# with some standard libs on Linux, I didn't realize it actually ran exe files compiled on Windows.
It would make me think twice before automatically choosing Java to develop something for both platforms, but I would have to see just how far that easy compatibility extends before taking the plunge with anything larger.
(And I guess that's exactly what MS want out of it; not to take over/destroy Linux where they have no leverage to do so, but to keep developers on their platform. Like Gates said "if [China] are going to steal it we want them to steal ours", but rather "if they are going to use Linux we want them to use our platform")
That's a bit touchy-feely; 30% sounds big, 10% doesn't.
If Facebook are the ones dealing with the sales and disputes, preventing money laundering and credit-card fraud, putting a bigger brand behind the virtual currency making it less suspect with better protection, keeping things legal across multiple countries and sets of laws, that juicy 30% might sound like a lot less all of a sudden, compared to 70% straight up, dealing with one company.
Also it's profit that someone is making. I really doubt FarmVille are going to go down without that 30%, since that wouldn't benefit Facebook or FarmVille; so if it's 30% Facebook is making vs FarmVille I don't see why it's greedy for Facebook to get it but not FarmVille.
You can't argue Facebook is being a parasite on FarmVille's success without acknowledging that FarmVille is a parasite on Facebook's success too.
If Facebook were really greedy and ruthless they would clone FarmVille, block FarmVille, promote their clone, and take 100%. (Doing it in a sneakier way to avoid the inevitable anti-competitive issues, perhaps by killing FarmVille by judging it as being too viral and spammy, or by changing the platform too quickly for FarmVille to keep up: The possibilities are endless when you control the platform your competitor uses.)
It's not that they're nice guys so they're only taking 30%, but that this isn't the height of greediness but greed taken to a point which won't ruin anything.
I guess for me the fact that they signed a deal on it means that the deal is in the best interests of both parties, whether or not Facebook had more bargaining power they have worked out an agreement; there will be winners and losers, but going forward the fates of the two companies will be more closely tied.
This means less Facebook vs FarmVille, and more Facebook, FarmVille, and all the other apps pulling together based on mutual interest, which is a much more stable and efficient relationship for everyone involved, than one built on these tensions and infighting.
Also re: Bruce's petition; it's easy to get people to sign an online petition that they are angry about anything. I bet the "thousands of disgusted linux advocates" are composed exclusively of people who read Bruce's blog post and agreed with his point of view, very possibly not including a single person who was previously considering buying anything from Novell.
But aren't they also contributing significantly to the Mono project? .NET apps on Linux definitely seems like a good thing for reducing ties to Windows to me.)
(Before someone says "Mono is evil and helps MS" I'm not so sure. If it does Wine certainly does too, but no-one raises a fuss about Wine, and being able to run my
They did make a deal which, in part, involved patent disputes with Microsoft regarding Linux, but unless there's a way that it "legitimizes" those claims in a legally tangible way I don't see why that's a problem. (And I haven't seen any reason why Novell getting protection against patent suits from Microsoft would affect the legal status of code external to Novell. It seems like paranoia to me.)
Well without Faraday we would never have discovered the laws of electricity, so really we should thank Faraday for Facebook.
(Though I am willing to accept that AOL would exist even without Faraday.)
The Chinese government isn't "standing up" to anyone, as well you know (I hope). It would cost more for them to enforce copyright laws than they would make from taxing sales of IP, so it's not in their interest, so they don't do it.
Saying "the study where you say we steal the most IP is wrong" (i.e. bullshitting out of convenience) isn't praiseworthy no matter what your views on copyright. If they said "we don't care because we are making a stand against (our own) copyright laws" that would be different (but still ridiculous).
Also you totally misunderstand what copyleft licenses are for; in a world where all source code can be legally copied people can still distribute binaries without source (even binaries compiled from altered versions of FOSS software). Copyleft licenses are not about trying to prevent software licenses existing; they are software licenses.
Okay, assuming that is true (i.e. no maintenance costs or inevitable overhead involved with money management), how is it a bad thing?
I don't see how it is unfair, and even assuming that FarmVille loses out (i.e. they don't recoup costs from the tighter cooperation with Facebook that'll follow from their sharing a common revenue stream), is that a bad thing for end-users if Facebook now has the incentive to promote a more diverse set of games and applications?
1. My point was that the private sector and the garage inventor have thrived without any government/military help.
That couldn't be further from saying that Facebook on phones couldn't have happened without the military casualties over the last half-century.
2. If only those deaths were for the sake of technological development since the 60s; that would be much better than the grim reality that (for the most part) they were just a terrible waste.
(But also as I mentioned above Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc, etc, were all start-up companies that became huge without any government support; R&D does need huge teams these days but opportunities for the little guy are greater than ever.)
I agree, I guess sarcasm really doesn't carry well in text.
Prophetic indeed.
Those hundreds of electronic computers really beefed up government authority and took power out of the hands of individuals didn't they?
And the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop/garage, hasn't been able to come up with anything since 1961 right? That's why big government-contract-supported corporations like IBM have prospered while small start-ups have only failed.
Damn this military/government industrial-complex owned world, with all its electronic computers!!
Samba works with Active Directory.
Can I get +5, Funny now?
(Shit, need to rephrase this as an in soviet russia joke..)
If there's no need to do it why is X Windows the only windowing system that does it? Why does VNC/somethingX (the new one) exist for X Windows when X servers are available on all platforms?
I don't know that you're wrong in calling Microsoft's approach wrong, or have more than an idea of why you might be wrong, but the fact that everyone else uses the "wrong" approach sets off the BS-meter.
Please elaborate, I've only heard good things about Powershell (but am willing to accept that this may say more about people willing to learn Powershell than Powershell itself)
Extra profits, which means extra R&D, which means better services, which means a larger user-base, which generates opportunities for a more diverse set of Facebook-app development companies, which means extra profits, which means extra R&D ...
It's a good thing for everyone except FarmVille, and who cares about them? (And you could even argue that their loss is short-term with a long-term benefit)
Because systems serving tens of millions of people run, maintain, and develop themselves..
People who pay for any of those thing should be shot at first sight.. Let's start (and end) with the GP.