> the chances of encountering malware in a pirated copy of software is one in three.
Microsoft calls a lot of things malware that do nothing bad. For instance Microsoft calls a serial number generator malware even if it's only function is generating serial numbers. Also to pirate games you need the steam.dll to stop calling home for that game and replacing the steam.dll with something inert is considered malware.
There can be malware in pirated software, but the study would find far less malware if it was properly defined as doing something bad or unwanted to your computer.
Freemason is not a religion in its self. Freemasons might be Christian, Muslim, Buddhists, etc, but there is heavy emphasis on the nobler motives common among most religions; especially organizing charitable acts.
I find the technology morally neutral. How you use it is where the moral debate comes in. I think Microsoft has a far more profitable way to use the technology.
If people don't watch an add, it isn't going to have the effect the advertiser is looking for. If the add is interesting enough to watch, it's more likely to result in a buying to decision. What if Microsoft were to use the technology to gather non-personalized metrics and sell them to the advertiser. The advertiser could then pay the advertising agency according to performance. Advertising agencies would then prioritize viewing interest more.
I would love to see Mike interview:
- Politicians who are trying push good Techdirt type bills through congress
- People successfully using free in their business model
- Michael Geist
- Trent Reznor
- Google Transparency Reports
I could list 100 more, but you get the idea. Don't forget to include people you respect and have something worthwhile to say, but have different view point than you do.
I agree with what Ingmar said in his "Keep it tight!" post.
I love that this is even being discussed. It fits well with my general belief that you should "Tax people for things you don't want them to do, not for the things you do want them to do."
While I understand and agree with the reasoning behind all 6 points, I differ slightly on how I would implement them.
1. Replace the mortgage tax deduction with a large onetime capped deduction for first time buyers.
2. Instead of taxing the company for health benefits, make them a taxable benefit paid for by the employee. You should never tax a company for hiring more people. However this point and the one above it are mute if you eliminate income tax.
3. I agree completely with eliminating the corporate income tax. You want them to keep their profit in the country, not trying to move the profitable parts of their business offshore.
4. I strongly agree with eliminating all income and payroll taxes. However while a Consumption Tax is the lesser of two evils, I think it would be better to replace the revenue with taxing things you don't want people to do. Increase the US taxes on gas, cigarettes and alcohol to what Canada charges or slightly above. Enormous fines for corporate fraud. Large fines for bogus DMCA takedown notices. Large fines for frivolous law suits. Etc etc.
5. Yes increase gas taxes some, but don't stop there on pollution taxes. Tax gas guzzling vehicles to bring the sticker price in line with hybrids. Tax other types of pollution so pollution controls and alternatives become a cost savings.
6. Tax marijuana so heavily that it costs almost as much as it did before legalization.
The government should run fiber to everyone's home. Then rent out the bandwidth to the private companies offering the services like phone, cable, internet and a dozen other things not available yet. This would offer true competition when a variety of companies could offer competing services over the same fiber.
This would take billions for a big city, but the government could recoup the costs over the next 10 years from the private companies offering the services.
HBOT (Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy) is one of the most effective methods of reducing the amount of time it takes to heal. It increases the body's natural ability to create stem cells by 800%. You seem to heal like someone less than half your age. It is one of the worst kept secrets for professional sports teams to speed up recovery time.
I have a family bible that's over 100 years old. It's nearly a foot thick with over 1500 pages and as many illustrations. It has both the old and new testaments side by side and huge concordance(index) at the back.
The last copyright I can find in it is from 1890. Could I scan the pages and put them into some public domain web site or does copyright still stop me from doing that?
I would not be surprised to find out Facebook wasn't nearly as profitable as it claims.
There are lots of ways to make revenues appear larger than they are. Remember back in the Tech bubble when other internet darlings would advertise with each other. No money changed hands, but advertising revenue would be inflated. Facebook is probably doing something different, but they have made it clear they don't want the SEC or anyone else auditing their accounting practices.
I agree with Mike. A simple page on their web site stating which facts they got wrong. If they want to include any commentary other than the facts it should be humours. If it was done write that single page could get more press than the movie.
I am no lawyer, but could the clothing manufacture sue them for using the jacket in the movie without permission? Seems like the next logical step. However if they held off until after the free advertising they are getting from being sued in the first place started to wane, they could refresh it with this suite. Both the movie and the clothing line are gaining from being in the news. Wouldn't it be interesting to find out they had gotten together on this in advance and were both in on it.
> I doubt very many (if any) people will really pay much extra
Customers are already use to paying extra in the restaurant business. 10-20% extra in the form of tips. I have never eaten at Panera, but if it is an average or below average restaurant, then I would agree with you that they won't see many people paying extra. However if their food is really good with great service, great atmosphere and a real fan base, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people paid extra.
Like other commenter's have said the "Celestial Steed" or other pets Blizzard sells for real world dollars offer no game play advantage. For instance having a faster mount could be considered a small game play advantage. The fastest flying mount in Wrath of the Lich King is 310% speed compared to the slowest at 100%. The fastest flying mounts can only be acquired through achievements in game play. The Celestial Steed will only go that fast if you already have a 310 mount. So what you are buying is purely cosmetic. Like a fashion accessory. An inexpensive purse can be just a functional as a Gucci bag, but many women would gladly pay for the more fashionable item.
Some people get a real kick out a cool looking mount, or a silly non-combat pet that does funny things and makes you laugh a little. Since there is a proven demand for them, Blizzard is making the game more fun for people who value them enough to pay for them.
> Aha.. interesting, well even so, the only reason Blizzard can do this is because they have such absolute control over the game's economics.
Comments like this give me the impression you still don't get it. Yes Blizzard has done a better job than most MMO's at designing the game so it has a thriving economy, but it is not so much control as designing the game to be as much fun as they can. You can get hundreds if not thousands of pets in game without buying them for real dollars. Again these things are more like a fashion accessory. They offer no game play advantage, but can still be fun.
I think the “Coolness” is only a small factor of something more important. Innovate or die! The warning sign is stagnation.
With each of the social networks that fell out of grace, someone took a look at what they are doing and came out with a better way of doing it. If top one had continued to innovate and improve faster than the new start ups they would of stayed on top.
For example look at Google. They weren't the first search engine. They came up with a better way of organizing search results and rose to the top. If they'd stopped innovating when they hit the top, someone else would have came up with something better and beaten them. But Google has continued to innovate and improve fast than any new upstart has even come close to so far.
If you don't see constant worthwhile improvements coming from a social networking site, then they are going to be out innovated by someone new.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Brock Phillimore.