What if ad revenue doesn't pay for the site? Several years ago ad revenue may have been enough to pay for the site. Ad rates have dropped a lot since then and clickthrough rates are steadily decreasing as adblocking technology becomes more widespread. Also, as the forums become more popular the amount of resources required to maintain them grows. Finally, I imagine that several years ago a higher percentage of forum users subscribed to the magazine.
Why shouldn't they charge? Just because people made the forums great, doesn't mean the people who host the forums should lose money. $20/yr isn't so much to pay if you've made lots of friends there. Perhaps if they think the forum are so great, they should subscribe to the magazine and attempt to ensure the forums can be sustained.
I think it's a crock that people pay nothing for a service and then feel they have been cheated because they used it for free and now have to pay.
Oh, and their "payment" for contributing to the forums and making them great was the enjoyment they got from reading and posting.
Operating the forums is not free, why should the magazine continue to sponsor the forums for non-subscribers?
People are certainly welcome to start and host their own forums if they don't feel like paying. Then when the bill for the bandwidth comes in, they will be welcome to start charging as well.
You asked how you were being puritanical. My comment, "Um...there you go" was an acknowledgement that you find sex out of wedlock to be a sin and an answer to how you are being puritanical.
You have never seen me and my wife in bed how do you know that my views are 'puritanical'.
please define puritanical
Puritanical: Rigorous in religious observance; marked by stern morality.
Hey its a sin...
Um...there you go.
Is believing that maybe waiting until marrage to have sex some weird thing and bar hopping for a quick piece of ass is perfectly normal?
No...and the poster never indicated that. However, you are trying very hard to indicate the reverse, that is that bar hopping for a quick piece of ass is not normal or is somehow wrong.
80% of women get HPV before they hit 50, and 50% of all sexually active adults have it.
So *if* you meet a woman who stimulates you enough that you might want to start a family youre proposal should go something like this
I love you, and I have HPV ill probabbly give it to you and it can cause you to be infertile or even get cancer, please marry me...
Shouldn't be that big of deal. 80% of women have it before they are 50, right? That means there's a high likelihood whoever you meet will already have it. In your scenario the likely response will be, "I love you too, and don't worry about it because I have it too."
Probably because you can use skype to call regular phones and it's very cheap. Also it doesn't matter where you're calling from, the rate is the same and for many popular areas (i.e. the us, western europe, australia) it's real cheap (only about $0.02 a minute).
Finally it's cross platform (does iChat work on non mac clients?) and it works very well.
1. Why is your office still using Trend Micro if it has given you problems in the past?
2. Why aren't the updates tested on a test machine before being passed to end users? Surely avoiding the problems you listed would easily pay for a centralized update system and a test rig.
Are you saying that no competent developer would ever make a change to a support library that would ever introduce a problem into one of their applications? Are you suggesting that this is enough reason for the DOJ to break up MS?
That or they thought it was mildly amusing...geeze
I'm not sure I understand what the big deal is here. Who cares if the clerks check the signature? In the US, at least, if someone steals your card you'll be liable for at most $50 and that's if you don't report it quickly.
The whole idea behind credit card security is to make fraud more difficult, not impossible. They do this by tracking purchasing habits and automatically shutting the card down when they get weird. I've had this happen before when making a lot of purchases at once. It's also why if you go on vacation, you should let the credit card company know.
Credit card companies want it to be easy for people to use their cards. That's why in the commercials they tout the no id requirement. They realize the signatures aren't a reliable means of fraud detection, and hence the signatures aren't a big deal.
Debit card rules are not as nice, but if you report it within two days you're again only liable for $50. After that you're liable for $500. The best thing is to not use debit cards at all...after all if someone steals your credit card, it's not your money they've got. Someone steals your debit card and the money comes right out of your account. Therefore you have to worry about getting YOUR money back.
Everyone else does not have to pay to do the online thing. In fact, for Federal no one has to pay. For state, many people can do their state taxes online for free too.
A statement of fact has no bearing on a statement of value. If I said "murder is wrong", would you counter "people get murdered anyway" and expect that to somehow counter my argument?
What a dumbass. If you had bothered to pay attention to what was being talked about you might understand how stupid your post is.
RTFA Microsoft isn't stopping people from updating Office.
From the article:
The spokesperson said users who are not running Windows XP or Windows 2000 natively can still download updates for Microsoft Office from the Office Update Web site.
Considering you decided to use Office as an example...what do you think Office update, updates? I'll give you a hint...it's not Windows.
It's a standard scam now for an unscrupulous merchant to charge millions of people a small amount of money fraudulently with the hopes that the vast majority won't even notice. Imagine what they will do when all they have to do is walk around a mall waving something at people purse's and backpockets!
The original scam requires someone to purchase something from the merchant...i.e. charge like $1 more than they should. This scheme does not make this practice any easier to do.
If a merchant just randomly charges people by collecting numbers and using them later, enough people will notice to where the merchant gets busted.
If a merchant walks around the mall and does this it would be no different than the above scenario. Except that this time people would be more likely to notice because they'd get a charge from someone they never bought something from. In addition, don't you think VISA is going to notice the odd increase in sub $25 purchases?
They should've told SCO to stuff it. Their money (ev1's) went to help SCO perpetuate this crap on others. By extension, so did their customers' money. I know if I were an ev1 customer I would've gone balistic and dropped them immediately. I imagine many people did. If everyone stands up to SCO, what they going to do?
I'm not so certain I believe their excuse that they were protecting customers. Let the customers decide if they want to purchase SCO licenses. EV1 has the resources to fight and that's what they should've done.
I certainly see no reason to give them more money. I'd choose a different SSL provider that is not verisign (they suck too) that didn't give money to SCO, even if that provider cost more.
When you steal something from someone you deprive them of the use of that thing against their will. Using your example, if you take a cd off the shelf and then bring it back later, before a customer notices, you still stole something. That is you deprived the store the use of that particular item while you had it in your possession. The fact that you brought it back doesn't invalidate the original crime. Neither does the fact that the store had 1000 of them and no one noticed that that particular one was gone.
Notice the above example has nothing to do with copyright infringement. The thing about copyright infringement is that you don't deprive the copyright holder the use of anything when you download a CD. They still have the CD! You didn't steal money from them, because they didn't have the money in the first place! You haven't stolen anything from them. What you have done is infringed on their right to dictate how their work is copied...that is copyright infringement. Also, no you didn't steal their rights from them either. They still have those too. In fact, they enforce them when they sue you.
Copyright infringers are not thieves...because they did not commit a theft. They are not pirates because well...they aren't out on ships raping and pillaging people.
Whether copyright infringement is moral or not is beside the point here...whether or not money and effort is spent trying to stop copyright infringers is also not the point. The point is it's important to use the proper terminology and not allow people to distort the truth by misslabeling things.
People who commit murders are not thieves...why? Because they didn't steal anything. They aren't pirates either. They're murderers. You would probably agree that murderers cost people money and effort...doesn't make them pirates and thieves.
Same is true with copyright infringers. After all, you might as well label them murderers...it's just as true as labeling them as pirates and thieves and it sounds a lot worse.
Slashdot Mirror
What if ad revenue doesn't pay for the site? Several years ago ad revenue may have been enough to pay for the site. Ad rates have dropped a lot since then and clickthrough rates are steadily decreasing as adblocking technology becomes more widespread. Also, as the forums become more popular the amount of resources required to maintain them grows. Finally, I imagine that several years ago a higher percentage of forum users subscribed to the magazine.
Why shouldn't they charge? Just because people made the forums great, doesn't mean the people who host the forums should lose money. $20/yr isn't so much to pay if you've made lots of friends there. Perhaps if they think the forum are so great, they should subscribe to the magazine and attempt to ensure the forums can be sustained.
I think it's a crock that people pay nothing for a service and then feel they have been cheated because they used it for free and now have to pay.
Oh, and their "payment" for contributing to the forums and making them great was the enjoyment they got from reading and posting.
Operating the forums is not free, why should the magazine continue to sponsor the forums for non-subscribers?
People are certainly welcome to start and host their own forums if they don't feel like paying. Then when the bill for the bandwidth comes in, they will be welcome to start charging as well.
So Buddhist are puritanical, gotcha..
They most certainly can be.
Yea we love diversity except that of thought...
You asked how you were being puritanical. My comment, "Um...there you go" was an acknowledgement that you find sex out of wedlock to be a sin and an answer to how you are being puritanical.
You have never seen me and my wife in bed how do you know that my views are 'puritanical'.
please define puritanical
Puritanical: Rigorous in religious observance; marked by stern morality.
Hey its a sin...
Um...there you go.
Is believing that maybe waiting until marrage to have sex some weird thing and bar hopping for a quick piece of ass is perfectly normal?
No...and the poster never indicated that. However, you are trying very hard to indicate the reverse, that is that bar hopping for a quick piece of ass is not normal or is somehow wrong.
80% of women get HPV before they hit 50, and 50% of all sexually active adults have it.
So *if* you meet a woman who stimulates you enough that you might want to start a family youre proposal should go something like this
I love you, and I have HPV ill probabbly give it to you and it can cause you to be infertile or even get cancer, please marry me...
Shouldn't be that big of deal. 80% of women have it before they are 50, right? That means there's a high likelihood whoever you meet will already have it. In your scenario the likely response will be, "I love you too, and don't worry about it because I have it too."
That's unfortunate. In this case it appears that their incompetance is seriously affecting your ability to do your work.
Maybe a chat with management is in order. If that doesn't work...and they wouldn't let me manage my own machine, I'd be sending out resumes.
Probably because you can use skype to call regular phones and it's very cheap. Also it doesn't matter where you're calling from, the rate is the same and for many popular areas (i.e. the us, western europe, australia) it's real cheap (only about $0.02 a minute).
Finally it's cross platform (does iChat work on non mac clients?) and it works very well.
Two questions.
1. Why is your office still using Trend Micro if it has given you problems in the past?
2. Why aren't the updates tested on a test machine before being passed to end users? Surely avoiding the problems you listed would easily pay for a centralized update system and a test rig.
This won't help with OO.org, but if you still need to convert the Word files to pdf, check out PDF Creator
It's free and will let you print anything to PDF.
Are you saying that no competent developer would ever make a change to a support library that would ever introduce a problem into one of their applications? Are you suggesting that this is enough reason for the DOJ to break up MS?
That or they thought it was mildly amusing...geeze
Why don't you just turn off the browser plugin?
In other news they didn't find the droids they were looking for either.
Federal law makes you only liable for $50. So if you pay 20% you're getting screwed, unless the 20% is less than $50.
Go to ING Direct...they're paying 2.6% now. Granted it's not great, but it's more than .2%.
People should keep an emergency fund in a savings account.
Generally speaking though, yes, putting your life savings in a savings account is not the best use of your money.
I'm not sure I understand what the big deal is here. Who cares if the clerks check the signature? In the US, at least, if someone steals your card you'll be liable for at most $50 and that's if you don't report it quickly.
The whole idea behind credit card security is to make fraud more difficult, not impossible. They do this by tracking purchasing habits and automatically shutting the card down when they get weird. I've had this happen before when making a lot of purchases at once. It's also why if you go on vacation, you should let the credit card company know.
Credit card companies want it to be easy for people to use their cards. That's why in the commercials they tout the no id requirement. They realize the signatures aren't a reliable means of fraud detection, and hence the signatures aren't a big deal.
Debit card rules are not as nice, but if you report it within two days you're again only liable for $50. After that you're liable for $500. The best thing is to not use debit cards at all...after all if someone steals your credit card, it's not your money they've got. Someone steals your debit card and the money comes right out of your account. Therefore you have to worry about getting YOUR money back.
No...everyone qualifies for Federal. I and they never said everyone qualifies for state. I said that -many- people qualify for free state.
I did mine through the state's online filing service which is free.
No really...everyone qualifies.
http://www.taxfreedom.com/
Everyone else does not have to pay to do the online thing. In fact, for Federal no one has to pay. For state, many people can do their state taxes online for free too.
http://www.irs.gov/app/freeFile/jsp/index.jsp
If you pay to do your taxes online, you're getting ripped off!
Your obviously an idiot.
That one made me spew pepsi all over my keyboard.
Thanks for the laugh.
Did you even read the post?
A statement of fact has no bearing on a statement of value. If I said "murder is wrong", would you counter "people get murdered anyway" and expect that to somehow counter my argument?
I guess you didn't. What they say makes sense.
What a dumbass. If you had bothered to pay attention to what was being talked about you might understand how stupid your post is.
RTFA Microsoft isn't stopping people from updating Office.
From the article:
The spokesperson said users who are not running Windows XP or Windows 2000 natively can still download updates for Microsoft Office from the Office Update Web site.
Considering you decided to use Office as an example...what do you think Office update, updates? I'll give you a hint...it's not Windows.
It's a standard scam now for an unscrupulous merchant to charge millions of people a small amount of money fraudulently with the hopes that the vast majority won't even notice. Imagine what they will do when all they have to do is walk around a mall waving something at people purse's and backpockets!
The original scam requires someone to purchase something from the merchant...i.e. charge like $1 more than they should. This scheme does not make this practice any easier to do.
If a merchant just randomly charges people by collecting numbers and using them later, enough people will notice to where the merchant gets busted.
If a merchant walks around the mall and does this it would be no different than the above scenario. Except that this time people would be more likely to notice because they'd get a charge from someone they never bought something from. In addition, don't you think VISA is going to notice the odd increase in sub $25 purchases?
They should've told SCO to stuff it. Their money (ev1's) went to help SCO perpetuate this crap on others. By extension, so did their customers' money. I know if I were an ev1 customer I would've gone balistic and dropped them immediately. I imagine many people did. If everyone stands up to SCO, what they going to do?
I'm not so certain I believe their excuse that they were protecting customers. Let the customers decide if they want to purchase SCO licenses. EV1 has the resources to fight and that's what they should've done.
I certainly see no reason to give them more money. I'd choose a different SSL provider that is not verisign (they suck too) that didn't give money to SCO, even if that provider cost more.
Didn't these people buy SCO linux licenses? Why on earth would I give them money?
I believe that was a MAD TV sketch...but maybe they did it on SNL too. Dunno. I do know they did it on MAD TV though.
The solution is to use a Windows Live CD.
http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/
It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement.
You may call it stealing, but the law does not.
When you steal something from someone you deprive them of the use of that thing against their will. Using your example, if you take a cd off the shelf and then bring it back later, before a customer notices, you still stole something. That is you deprived the store the use of that particular item while you had it in your possession. The fact that you brought it back doesn't invalidate the original crime. Neither does the fact that the store had 1000 of them and no one noticed that that particular one was gone.
Notice the above example has nothing to do with copyright infringement. The thing about copyright infringement is that you don't deprive the copyright holder the use of anything when you download a CD. They still have the CD! You didn't steal money from them, because they didn't have the money in the first place! You haven't stolen anything from them. What you have done is infringed on their right to dictate how their work is copied...that is copyright infringement. Also, no you didn't steal their rights from them either. They still have those too. In fact, they enforce them when they sue you.
Copyright infringers are not thieves...because they did not commit a theft. They are not pirates because well...they aren't out on ships raping and pillaging people.
Whether copyright infringement is moral or not is beside the point here...whether or not money and effort is spent trying to stop copyright infringers is also not the point. The point is it's important to use the proper terminology and not allow people to distort the truth by misslabeling things.
People who commit murders are not thieves...why? Because they didn't steal anything. They aren't pirates either. They're murderers. You would probably agree that murderers cost people money and effort...doesn't make them pirates and thieves.
Same is true with copyright infringers. After all, you might as well label them murderers...it's just as true as labeling them as pirates and thieves and it sounds a lot worse.