They need to decide if they're going to be ad-supported or subscription, because you can't be both

Isn't standard cable and/or satellite both subscription and ad supported?

I'm fairly certain magazines and newspapers are both subscription and ad supported as well. And movies. And some streaming / satellite radio services.

And there's this whole "world wide web" thing that I've heard of. I hear it is also supported by both a monthly subscription cost, plus advertising.

Why is it OK to have a hate campaign against Eich and what he believed in?

For the same reason it is OK for Eich to speak about what he believes in.

As much as the interwebs are desperately trying to make someone the villain here, I don't have a problem with either side.

1) Eich contributed to a political cause he believed in - fine
2) A segment of the public was in opposition to his cause, and spoke out opposing his viewpoint - fine
3) A website stopped allowing Mozilla on their site due to being in opposition of his viewpoint - fine
4) Mozillia & Eich realized that the situation was fubar, and Eich decided to resign - fine

A few commentators have had serious issues with (3), claiming that this could lead to any corporation with enough cash forcing certain opinions out of favor. To this I answer:

a) This already happens
b) This can typically only happen when there is significant public support for a particular position.

Sure, it's not ideal for corporate entities to be the "stick" via which social change can come about, but given that the opponents to certain changes tend to be very wealthy and powerful individuals, some sort of stick is often needed.

Damnit, now I have to wipe coffee off my screen!

Where are my damn mod points when I want them?

+1 Funny

you could have explained this to a mildly intelligent person in about 1/4 of the words.

This

I find it ironic that a post describing the benefits of "whole-audience based results" so completely and utterly fails its own success criteria....

I'm guessing if you lost your job because someone stole your ideas/methods and ran you out of business, you'd look more favorably at patents.

Or maybe you're just stupid.

No, if my source of income was based on an idea that was easily copied and I ran my business so poorly that I couldn't handle the inevitable competition, THEN I'd be stupid.

BTW, you can't "steal" ideas, only copy them.

Please, stop with the hyperbole. It doesn't help the case for autism at all.

If one in 68 children were missing limbs at birth, there would be an international outcry

Autism is a spectrum disorder...ranging from barely noticeable to completely life-dominating.

The equivalent would be 1 in 68 children ranging from missing their left arm to having a slightly shorter fingernail on their pinky.

Why aren't we investigating more? Why?!

12% of people (1 in 8!!!!) DIE from cancer.

Why aren't we investigating more? Why?!

Funding rates for autism are similar to funding rates for epilepsy, which has a similar incidence rate. Lot's of investigation is being done, but unfortunately it is very difficult to research.

It's inaccurate to simply put it all under that one umbrella and treat things under a "common core" and ultimately unhealthy to do so.

Cancer also ranges from a mild irritation (skin cancer) to a life-altering extremely serious issue. Guess what? The cures for each are pretty much the same. Just because the intensity of the effects vary, this does not mean that it is inaccurate to treat them similarly.

but we do have some basic facts we can at least point to:
1. The rate is high and climbing still.
2. The problem isn't being studied properly.

1. High compared to what?
2. You have provided absolutely no evidence that the problem isn't being studied properly.

This problem definitely fits the definition of "epidemic" and yet somehow it doesn't warrant investigation and study? Is it because important business models will be threatened? I believe that will be of high likelihood.

If you are serious about this, you may want to consider seeking professional help. The level of paranoia required to believe it is "highly likely" that big business or the government is inducing autism in the population for their own nefarious reasons is quite disturbing.

Insightful! Strange they didn't mention that idea in the article...or even in the summary...

Oh wait, they did...in both:
"whether the startling increase is due to skyrocketing rates of the disorder or more sensitive screening,"

This is how all languages work.

Joey and the turkey.

Oh wait, that's not at all how languages work.....

Yes, but I think the GP's point was that FB doesn't make enough revenue to be buying multi-billion dollar speculative investments as rapidly as they are.

It certainly appears as though FB is just casting about randomly, hoping to latch on to the "next big thing". Whatsapp was a particularly strange investment as their income entirely depends on the business model of telecom companies. The minute telecoms wise up and just package SMS in with data, Whatsapp's revenue stream dries up.

It's as though Zuckerberg wants to be as cool as Jobs (in the prior to being dead way)....but has no idea how to do it.

Yeah...played Exile up to the point where I realized I'd screwed up my talent tree. Then realized it would be prohibitively expensive for me to fix it. Moved on.

Yes, Diablo 3 is more casual. I like that. Strangely, I want games to be fun, not work. The minute I need to spend offline time researching how to best min/max my video game character is the minute I stop playing. Some people enjoy doing that...but I'm just not one of them.

Interesting, as almost all of your complaints were actually fixed by Loot 2.0 / RoS.

I originally found D3 to be an above-average, but not amazing game.

After 2.0...items that were fixed:
grind-fest - power-levelling is completely viable now. Grab a couple of level 60 friends and you can level to 60 in a few hours
random maps - added in RoS
Loot / Botched AH - AH gone. Loot 2.0 fixes most loot issues
Different Game - D3 "feels" a lot more like a Diablo game than it did previously. If anything, it is an improvement on D2.

I've played 40+ hours since the launch of the Loot 2.0 system and have yet to see a legendary or epic drop.

That seems very strange. I get at least one legendary almost anytime I play (around 2-3 hour play sessions).

From what I understand, there is actually a legendary "timer" that increases the chance of finding a legendary as you play. Based on this, it should be nearly impossible to play 10+ hours without finding a legendary.

Diablo guarantees you a legendary the first time you kill him (after loot 2.0)....you've gone 40+ hours and haven't reached Diablo yet?

In that same spirit, here's the g you missed out of 'gnashing' ;)

And the ' the GP missed out of here's

(I totally get it though. It drives me nuts when people don't close their parentheses

metric giga-fuckton of energy as gravity waves

For our metric-impaired American friends, the conversion rate is 4.739 giga-fucktons to a mega-shitload.

Cue the low UID battle!

Hey you kids, get off my lawn!