Posts by Turtle 1888 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Jan 2010
It says "more than a million donors, who give an average donation of less than 30 dollars.". So the "$30" is high but the "1,000,000" is low. So taking this into account also, probably $30 million is a reasonable number to work with.
(Forgot to put this is my original answer, sorry.)
"I think your maths is missing the "less than". Though, "an average of less than $30," doesn't give much away. $29? $1.50?"
I understand your point, but I am assuming that they are rounding to the nearest whole number (or less possibly, the nearest multiple of 5 or far less likely, 10). This does not strike me as an unwarranted assumption. "$30" with a "less than" qualifier means, to me, that it is not exact but usable. If they felt that it has sufficient exactitude for their purposes, then it has sufficient exactitude for our purposes, I should think.
"We never run ads on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is funded by more than a million donors, who give an average donation of less than 30 dollars."
That's $30 million. I have read estimates of their annual expenses (the links to which I can not find right now) which put those annual expenses in the $2 million dollar range. The story of what happens to the money and where it goes is interesting and needs to better known and publicized.
"One of the seditionist acts taken as part of the soft war against the Iranian nation has been Google's shameless act to drop the name 'Persian Gulf' which is... against historical documents,"
They are not serious about it. Well not yet, anyway. If they were serious, or when they get serious, they will start blaming Zionism and Zionist agents.
"the courts are so fucked up over here."
Well the view from afar (i.e. to me personally) seems to be that your political class, being an unhealthy amalgam of marxism and bourgeois moralism - oh but forgive me that is rather redundant is it not?! - are trying to decriminalize crime.
Perhaps in true soviet fashion, they are more concerned with what foreigners will think, than with anything else, and having a foreigner involved as a victim, makes them feign concern for lawfulness.
It is not as though the very existence of an organization like WWF is a low-cost matter: it requires lots of money to run it. The question is, who is paying for it? Who is providing the necessary funds to pay for the fraudulent "reports" that they release, and to pay the salaries of the executives who run the organization, and so on? Irrespective of any fund which the WWF raises from the general public, I would expect them to have a number of very significant corporate bodies as donors; such corporate bodies being not only businesses, but "charitable foundations" and similar - and who doesn't know that many "charitable foundations" are created only to serve the business and financial interests of their creators at one remove?
Who are their largest donors, and what specifically is on their agendas? What is the payoff they are angling for?
(I am not saying that everyone aligned with the WWF is a bought-and-paid-for hireling: I am sure that many of them are sincere partisans of people such as the virulent racist Paul Ehrlich and his ilk.)
I would be interested to know who has given licenses to Google's music service. As far as I was aware, Google is having a great deal of difficulty getting licenses for music due to both distrust of Google as a business partner, and because of ongoing copyright infringement / content theft.
"Gameplay is horrible. I'll stick with DosBox for playing this."
Coincidentally I bought Wolfenstein 3D, Spear Of Destiny (which includes the "Lost Levels" according to what I have read) and Return To Castle Wolfenstein, for about $3.50 for the lot a few days ago on Steam. I haven't had a chance to play it yet, aside from Return To Castle Wolfenstein, which I bought on CD years ago and have played numerous times.
But if the Steam version of Wolfenstein 3D has the same unusable control scheme as does the browser version, then the Steam account to which I am going to register the games will be sold on eBay. (One reason for my dissatisfaction is that the browser version does not support my mouse at all, in spite of having enabled mouse suppor. But this could be a function of using an unsupported browser, very possibly.)
Pay no mind to the downvotes. If you were to post a comment about tomorrow's weather, it would get downvoted by people who either 1) thought your prediction was wrong, or 2) downvoted you because they had a trip to the beach planned and did not like your forecast, irrespective of it being right or wrong. Downvotes have no meaning whatsoever.
(While it might be nice to say that downvotes are an inverse indicator of insightfulness and perspicacity, in truth they really have no larger meaning.)
What I found interesting about your post was your mention of Iron, which is/was entirely unknown to me. I am using Firefox 3 for the sole reason that it is the best of a bad lot, but possibly might upgrade to Iron.
Thank you for the tip.
I really don't think that the rootkit fiasco or the PS3/Linux matter are all that important as reasons for Sony's predicament. People reading this site might care but that means nothing compared to the numbers of people who used to buy Sony gear, and no longer do.
A year or two ago I was given a Sony mp3 player as a gift, which was about a $90 item. It came with some sort of proprietary cable (don't recall what is was for, exactly, it was required) and when I looked at the cost of buying a replacement cable, I found the retail price was... $70! So naturally the mp3 was returned, and a player from a reputable manufacture was bought in its place.
ShelLuser:
I don't use Ableton and have never tried it. It does not seem to be suitable for what I do. But it is an odd coincidence that you bring it up, because, while I can't say anything about the color-scheme, the first time I saw Ableton screencaps I noticed its "flat look" i.e. no "faux-3D" widgets or graphic representation of hardware and so forth.
It seems to me that after Ableton's release, Steinberg began to shift their GUI philosophy to the same flat, 2D look. And I noticed this almost immediately after Steinberg's releases following Ableton's debut. Personally, I don't like it at all. In Cubase and Nuendo, having elements with a 3D look to them helps the eye to make sense out of what is necessarily a very busy environment. I don't know how "busy" the Ableton environment gets, but you seem to find it no problem. But it seems to me that Steinberg's "importation' of the 2D monochrome look into their apps is a big, big mistake.
Thanks for the comments, which give some new insight into the problem.
"'To paraphrase your post, 'I don't use the program we're talking about but I do feel like attacking two entirely unrelated programs and gratuitously mention that I'm still using an eleven-year old operating system because I like mouthing off on the internet'".
Let me make it a bit clearer for you because you really need it, not having been able to grasp the point, which was plainly stated in my original post: the roundly-condemned monochrome design "philosophy" currently espoused by the designers of the VS GUI is the same as that espoused by the stupid people who design the UI for the Steinberg apps. Most people would agree that this make the mention of the Steinberg apps in this context entirely appropriate, but, sadly, the surfeit of stupidity with which you are burdened makes it impossible for you to see this.
But we were glad to read your response, though. It made us remember life's less fortunate.
ktnxbai!
This is interesting to me, because, as a Steinberg Nuendo & Cubase owner, I have noticed the exact same syndrome: those idiots are determined to remove every bit of color from the interface and make it a dull gray, and that would be a gray as uniform as possible. For some reason they think the app will be more usable if *nothing* stands out - including controls, buttons, and widgets.
Evidently there are stupid people at both Microsoft and Steinberg who think that the Steam Client is the ideal model for a productivity app, and that by dulling down the interface (new term there, notice!) the app will become so popular that they will end up as rich as Gabe Newell, (without, they certainly assume, having to be as grossly and life-threateningly obese).
Then again, isn't the new Win8 logo also a uniform dark gray?
Well, I don't use Visual Studio,and I am not going to migrate to Win8 from my current XP, but I am looking into ditching the Steinberg apps and migrating to StudioOne, and Digital Performer 8. Those do not seem to be intended for people who are either colorblind, or who wish that they were colorblind.
PS I notice that the folder tree in the VS screencap has no lines connecing the folders in the let-hand navigation pane - just like the new, inferior Windows Explorer! Looks just like Dolphin. What are they trying to prove, I wonder...
Here's a key passage from the article linked to (it's paragraph 3):
"The faster the glaciers move, the more ice and meltwater they release into the ocean. In a previous study, scientists trying to understand the contribution of melting ice to rising sea level in a warming world considered a scenario in which the Greenland glaciers would DOUBLE their velocity between 2000 and 2010 and then stabilize at the higher speed, and another scenario in which the speeds would INCREASE TENFOLD and then stabilize." (EMPHASIS ADDED.)
Here's a passage from the fourth paragraph:
"At the lower rate (i.e. DOUBLING of velocity), Greenland ice would contribute about four inches to rising sea level by 2100 and at the higher rate (i.e. a TENFOLD INCREASE in velocity) the contribution would be nearly 19 inches by the end of this century. "(EMPHASIS ADDED.)
Here's a passage from paragraph 2:
"So far, on average we're seeing about a 30 percent speedup in 10 years.."
Putting this all together, we get what would seem to be a 1.3" increase in sea levels.
To me it is pretty clear that the point of this article and the original article was not sufficiently delineated.
To me, a political movement that seeks to expropriate people, such a musicians, songwriters, photographers, independent film makers, &c, and deprive them of their property rights and economic rights for the sake of some of the largest corporations in the world, easily qualifies as "fascism".
(By the way, isn't that the same "George Soros" who owns 2 million shares of Halliburton? Yes it is. But then he's in good company: Michael Moore also owns Halliburton stock.)
It really does make sense if you think about it: content creators and IP owners have no rights on-line; why should anyone else? And now, so that no one is unfairly advantaged, or disadvantaged, or privileged, everyone will now have no on-line rights.
One can hardly call this situation unjust. Or unexpected. Or surprising.
Possibly, if what I have been reading is correct, Windows 8 only needs to enable Microsoft to tread water until they make it into a usable, coherent operating system and "re-release" it as Windows 9 in three years time, thereby continuing their "bad Windows, good Windows" alternating release schedule, which has been a pretty successful formula so far.
"Gotta love science. It adjusts to the evidence and has no shame in admitting fault, unlike, to pick a random example, religion."
It's people like you who provide the audience for garbage like Lovelock and Paul Ehrlich, another incompetent "scientist" whose desire to influence society goes lightyears beyond his qualifications and fitness to do so.
The *reason* people like you provide an audience for trash like Lovelock and Ehrlich is that you really have *no* idea of what science actually is - because, if you did, you would have recognized their agenda immediately upon reading their "work" and would never have taken them seriously.
"Execution is cheap. Making sure that you're killing the right guy is costly."
Or!
"Sentencing someone to life imprisonment is cheap. Making sure that you're sentencing the right guy is costly."
The idea is that when you are sentencing someone to death, or to whatever is going to replace the execution, "making sure you've got the right guy" is as easy or as hard as it is, irrespective of the sentence in prospect.
Another thing: Death sentences are subject in numerous layers of judicial review. I do not believe (I could be wrong) that life sentences are subject to the same intensive scrutiny. If so, that would lead to the conclusion that more innocent people could be erroneously sentences to life imprisonment, than would be subjected to execution.
It might be the case - and certainly is the case, in my opinion - that the only fit punishment for some crimes is the death penalty, irrespective of its effectiveness as a deterrent, or its cost.
Did John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy really deserve anything other than the death penalty? And Richard Speck, having murdered eight student nurses one evening, had a wonderful time in prison! Or to put this in terms more understandable to those across the sea, for the names given, substitute "Fred West" and "Ian Brady", for example. Or "Harold Shipman". Well two of those topped themselves, so they had the last laugh, now didn't they? And we know what happened, or is happening, to Ian Brady. Is that really so humane?
Most people would gladly sell their privacy for a mess of porridge, or free digital content, or even the illusion that by putting the details of their lives on Facebook they are somehow becoming "famous" like the celebrities they see in the supermarket tabloids.
(Note for foreigners: "Supermarket tabloid" in the US are newspapers whose content is well indicated by their cover stories such as "Michelle Walks Out On Obama!" or "Jesus Returns To Earth In UFO!" I believe but am not certain that they are therefore somewhat different from what the UK understands by "tabloid".)
"They should order him not to commit any new crimes and be done with it."
The idea that a court needs to order someone not to commit any new crimes brings a smile to my face! You probably don't realize this, but the purpose of any criminal law is to order people not to commit that particular crime. And it is considered that the passage of the law is, by itself, enough to compel people to not commit the crime, irrespective of any person being specifically ordered by a judge to either not commit the crime or abide by the specific law.
It works like this: If you don't commit any new crimes, the judge has no reason to give you a harsher sentence when he passes sentence and can, if he sees fit, show leniency. If you have committed new crimes, then the judge assumes that you are a particularly egregious offender and possible recidivist and deserve that harsher sentence.
"I guess what I'm saying is the court shouldn't be allowed to ban him from doing something that isn't illegal."
It is *extremely* common for people to be released on bail only having agreed to conditions that prohibit them from doing things that are not illegal. And if they don't agree to the conditions, then they don't get released on bail. And they know full well that violating the conditions of release, even by doing something not in itself illegal, is sufficient for bail to be revoked.
That's why it's called "conditional release". Because you only get released having agreed to abide by the conditions the judge imposes.
I would have thought that Google's responsibility for its advertisers had been established when they agreed to the $500,000,000 settlement with the Feds about ads for counterfeit and prescription drugs.
(As an aside, there is evidently now some problem with Google profiting from advertising related to human trafficking. It will be interesting to see how this develops...)
"The professor is right, a lot of opposition to science is ideological and born of convenience (ie: what's in it for ME to believe in evolution?)
Or:
"The professor is right, a lot of support for global warming alarmism is ideological and born of convenience (ie: it's psychologically comforting for ME to believe in, and politically useful for ME to have other people believe in it.)"
You are assuming that the mayor is telling the truth. And it is not necessarily the case that he is lying; he might simply be twisting the facts. I have read that the Linux switchover has been subjected to a great deal of criticism for its expense. Here is a link about Limux: http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com (which, sadly, has not been updated in a very long time.)
It would be interesting to hear from some of the mayor's critics about the program, and whether they feel that the program has either cost or saved money in the long run.
If, as one commenter suggests, the savings have come from replacing their whole IT department with outsourced off-shore low-wage workers, then the mayor's whole position is fraudulent.
"'People have an expectation of privacy when using social media like Facebook and Twitter.' Perlmutter said in a canned statement."
Look, I'll try to make this as simple as possible: Anyone expecting PRIVACY while using SOCIAL MEDIA is an idiot. The whole POINT of SOCIAL MEDIA is PUT YOURSELF and your WHOLE TEDIOUS LITTLE LIFE on DISPLAY.
(Note please that I have used CAPITALS to EMPHASIZE the IMPORTANT WORDS.)
Out of curiosity: Could employers demand that employees "friend" them on Facebook, or whatever it is they do to get access to all the trivia of someone else's trivia life?
I read your post and I'm going to fix it for you!
"It's not a conspiracy theory to point out that the Climate Unit of East Anglia University have, as shown by a huge number of emails, been systematically engaged in gaming the peer review process, refusing to adhere to scientific procedures and principles, hidden their data and refused to release it "so that it would not be misintrepreted", considered attempting to stifle criticism of their work by starting libel actions against journals that published work critical of their research....".
You think guys like Phil Jones and Keith Briffa are just "making mistakes"? Jesus wept..."
"Google, however, is in the advertising business and busy applying some of the best minds of a generation to the problem of how to make us click on more ads"
One can argue whether a mind that occupies itself with the problem of how to make us click on more ads is actually a good mind, or merely a technically-skilled-in-certain-areas-but-otherwise-contemptible mind.
I looked at the pictures of the tasteless interiors but, because I am well aware that money does not buy sophistication, I found no surprises whatsoever.
What I did find, was that this was, in its own way, analogous to the large multi-storey toilet bowl in the woods that Apple is building for its new headquarters. But then again, the only work of artistic merit that Apple has ever produced, has been those heavily photoshopped pictures of Steve Jobs.
Compare all the foregoing with JP Morgan's art collection and library. Sometimes it seems as though only technology advances, and not anything else.
What could be worse? Unless it's the Alien movie. (Only saw one. That was enough and much much more than enough.)
I know that this is way outside the parameters of the discussion, but the worst *genre* of movies, or games, ever conceived, has to be sci-fi horror. While it would not be true to say that every sci-fi horror movie is execrable, it would be correct to say that *nearly* all of them are. ]
A different kind of "worst" is the film that gets the "Pure Tedium" award: the Lord Of The Rings trilogy. All I can say about that is "wowwwzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.z.........zzzzzzzzzzz........"
"One economic sector that does benefit from taking creators' rights out of markets are advertising-supported American web companies"
So! You know!
(I still do not quite understand why the UK and Canada - or somewhat more accurately but still too restrictively - their government and policy-making bureaucracies - want to expropriate their content-creators for the benefit of these American advertising companies.)
"I like how everyone says Vista is awful. I have been using it for years and it has worked fine outside of an occasional driver issue in the early days. I use 7 at work and Vista at home and there is hardly any difference, to the point of 7 not being worth the money for an upgrade."
I am on XP - and there I shall stay, it seems - but of the people I know using Vista, not only do they have no complaints, they all say it's great. It seems that the bad reputation that Vista has is current only among non-Vista users.
No, actually I *have* made a mistake there: as pointed out by several posters, money-laundering actually does only apply to illegally-gotten income. I seem to recall that there are actions similar to money-laundering but involving legally-obtained money that are also subject to severe criminal sanction, but I can not seem to find them at the moment. (Possible I was confusing it with crimes involving the use of fraudulent trusts and tax-shelters, but possibly not.)
Thanks for the correction! (Although, nevertheless, the money-laundering charges are still the most serious charges he faces, by far.)
"Apple as ALWAY REFUSED to licence is (NON DESERVED) patents (Magsafe anyone?). THe judge hould force apple to put all it;s patents in the public domain."
Oh that's just Mectron. No one is as stupid or as deluded as Mectron. He is a vehement freetard and lives in a world where the only things that have value are material things, and where courts exist to only to expropriate anyone whose product falls under the heading of intellectual property - and the reason he wants the courts to do that is because governments have been remiss in their obligation to abolish all laws protecting intellectual property, thereby hindering trash like Mectron from getting ever more stuff for free; or as close to free as can possibly be arranged.
Note please that the reason that he types so badly is not that he does not know how to type properly, but that the very idea of intellectual property as an impediment to him getting and having whatever he wants, simply makes him foam at the mouth, and dribble all over his keyboard!
"I see the Android Fans and Apple haters are out in force lol"
Well I hate Apple too but Motorola's actions here violate the entire meaning of FRAND. As a Motorola lawyer put it, "it only takes one bullet to kill" meaning that should Apple be denied even a single FRAND/SEP patent, the product can be removed from market. Having agreed to forego higher royalty rates by in essence "donating" it SEPs to be used by anyone who wants and thereby accepting a lower royalty rate but from a larger pool of users, Motorola is now attempting to use those same SEPs to extort money from Apple in direct violation of their legal obligations: obligations which they undertook voluntarily.
Here is how Florian Mueller puts it:
"Patent litigation is full of surprises, but what I learned this afternoon is beyond belief. Based on what was said in open court today in Mannheim, Germany, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Motorola Mobility submitted an expert report on patent royalties according to which a single patent that is essential to an industry standard is pretty much as valuable as a large number of patents on the same standard because, in the context of a bank robbery, "it only takes one bullet to kill", reducing the importance of any additional bullets in the same gun."
( from http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/02/motorola-likens-its-enforcement-of.html )
(for an additional piece regarding a recently-failed FRAND-based attack by Samsung against Apple, see http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/03/samsung-suffers-second-and-even-more.html )
"The Google I was passionate about was a technology company that empowered its employees to innovate."
Does one have to take lessons in order to use cliches like this, or does it just come naturally for an ad-man?
"He continued: 'The fact that all this was paid for by a cash machine stuffed full of advertising loot was lost on most of us.'"
You just have to wonder about these people sometimes.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
