In some cases, it makes financial sense to pay some. I was looking to start a gun reviews site a while back, and had a $500 budget for a domain name. I found one - I think it was gunreviews.org - and sent them an email offering $500. I got an automated response that they would not be accepting any offers under $2,500.
Meawhile, something like "buyviagraonline.com" would be worth thousands.
I agree - I host over 100 domains through Namecheap, and have never had any problem with them. I left GoDaddy because of their PlaySkool, Javascript intense interface, long before I had enough domains to be worried about the privacy and security implications.
He didn't expose corruption - he changed the password to the account, then posted it on a public forum. Had he hacked it, found evidence, and released the evidence, that would be an entirely different story in my eyes.
I think that's due to the way Google weights new stuff. I've been promoting my personal blog heavily, and got to the top 5 for a dozen of my target keywords. After a week there, suddenly I'm down to 800-1000 on all of them. WTF?
Google lets you rank highly for a few days before dropping you to the bottom. Hence, SEO experts with newsy keyword targets will outrank news sites - briefly.
As someone who is getting into SEO and Internet Marketing, I can tell you that there was a major change in the last 2-3 weeks that has lots of big names in that industry reeling.
Google makes major updates to their PageRank formula about quarterly, from what I can see.
That was tacked on to a credit card reform bill that Obama *really* wanted passed. Do you think he would have signed it had it been a single-purpose bill?
I'm simply pointing out that there is another side to it - I totally see where you're getting your "99% of marketers give the other 1% a bad name" stance.
Still, the fact remains that many of the services you use online would not be possible without the advertising dollars that support them.
Exactly. The end result is that we end up voting for our pet issues because there is no distinction for most "big" issues.
I live in Arkansas - I absolutely despise Blanche Lincoln. My alternative? John Boozman, who voted for TARP and stands behind his decision to this day. The only difference I can see between the two of them is that Boozman has been pro-gun, and Lincoln has been anti-gun.
FWIW, I've already voted, and I voted for Trevor Drown. I intended vote for Boozman, but in the end, I simply couldn't in good faith support someone who has stolen so much from me, my family, and my children.
I disagree. Fascism is rooted in Corporatism, which has *nothing* to do with corporations - Corporatism is nothing more than collectivism; the viewing of society as a single body, and making decisions based upon the perceived wellbeing of that body without regard to individuals. Fascism, in essence, is authoritarian corporatism.
Socialism, on the other hand, is typically meant as an economic system rather than a political one. Under Socialism, the means of production are owned directly be the collective, typically via a government. The US federal government's purchase of interest in AIG, GM, and other major corporations is a step that increase government control over private industry - hence, a step towards Socialism.
In theory, you can have libertarian socialism, where individuals willingly give up the ownership of the means of production in favor of egalitarianism - likewise, you can have authoritarian capitalism, where the government control every aspect of the citizens' lives except how they dispose of their wealth.
Actually, I just looked at a top 25 list and pulled out the ones I thought the Slashdot crowd would recognize. The top earners in America are actually somewhat mixed, and money seems to have little or no impact on politics.
In case you missed it, my original point was to point out a logical inconsistency, not to claim a causal relationship between wealth and political viewpoint.
Sure. I typically vote Republican, but I'm very much a social liberal. I'm for the decriminalization of all drugs, don't care who you sleep with, and believe that marriage should not be a function of government in the first place.
The Democrats fail for me on the issues of gun rights, immigration policy (though the GOP isn't much better here), and taxation/spending.
I'm impressed that you've pointed at that the Tea Party is not, at its base, conservative in nature. In my personal experience at the events and in my interactions with the local and regional level organizers in my area, the general political view is far more libertarian in nature than conservative.
I would like to point out thought that both Obama and Bush II have socialistic tendencies - starting with TARP, extending to the federal purchase of AIG and GM.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... Gran Torino had a Big Ass Gun in it - and Eastwood's character didn't kill anyone. He even had great opportunities to do so.
Professor? Is that you?
I have misgivings about giving Google access to this much data, and at least they promise to act responsibly.
I'll look into this - thanks :)
I don't do much web development these days, but this is still worth checking into.
Wow, lol. This wasn't a month ago, and it was squatted. Purchased, and thanks!
Damn ACs, making all Americans look stupid and unworldly ;(
In some cases, it makes financial sense to pay some. I was looking to start a gun reviews site a while back, and had a $500 budget for a domain name. I found one - I think it was gunreviews.org - and sent them an email offering $500. I got an automated response that they would not be accepting any offers under $2,500.
Meawhile, something like "buyviagraonline.com" would be worth thousands.
I agree - I host over 100 domains through Namecheap, and have never had any problem with them. I left GoDaddy because of their PlaySkool, Javascript intense interface, long before I had enough domains to be worried about the privacy and security implications.
I also like money. A lot. In that line, here's an affiliate link to Namecheap that might make me some :)
He didn't expose corruption - he changed the password to the account, then posted it on a public forum. Had he hacked it, found evidence, and released the evidence, that would be an entirely different story in my eyes.
Well, it's apparent that that's the case, but there are always things we might not have thought of.
Could it be possible for the city to provide some or all of its energy from wave-motion generators?
I'm confused. How do I moderate this comment on a metacomment?
Nevermind. It's you're problem now :)
I think that's due to the way Google weights new stuff. I've been promoting my personal blog heavily, and got to the top 5 for a dozen of my target keywords. After a week there, suddenly I'm down to 800-1000 on all of them. WTF?
Google lets you rank highly for a few days before dropping you to the bottom. Hence, SEO experts with newsy keyword targets will outrank news sites - briefly.
As someone who is getting into SEO and Internet Marketing, I can tell you that there was a major change in the last 2-3 weeks that has lots of big names in that industry reeling.
Google makes major updates to their PageRank formula about quarterly, from what I can see.
Hear, hear.
That was tacked on to a credit card reform bill that Obama *really* wanted passed. Do you think he would have signed it had it been a single-purpose bill?
I'm simply pointing out that there is another side to it - I totally see where you're getting your "99% of marketers give the other 1% a bad name" stance.
Still, the fact remains that many of the services you use online would not be possible without the advertising dollars that support them.
Marketing can be seen as manipulation, or it can be seen as simply connecting with people and offering something they may find valuable.
Exactly. The end result is that we end up voting for our pet issues because there is no distinction for most "big" issues.
I live in Arkansas - I absolutely despise Blanche Lincoln. My alternative? John Boozman, who voted for TARP and stands behind his decision to this day. The only difference I can see between the two of them is that Boozman has been pro-gun, and Lincoln has been anti-gun.
FWIW, I've already voted, and I voted for Trevor Drown. I intended vote for Boozman, but in the end, I simply couldn't in good faith support someone who has stolen so much from me, my family, and my children.
I disagree. Fascism is rooted in Corporatism, which has *nothing* to do with corporations - Corporatism is nothing more than collectivism; the viewing of society as a single body, and making decisions based upon the perceived wellbeing of that body without regard to individuals. Fascism, in essence, is authoritarian corporatism.
Socialism, on the other hand, is typically meant as an economic system rather than a political one. Under Socialism, the means of production are owned directly be the collective, typically via a government. The US federal government's purchase of interest in AIG, GM, and other major corporations is a step that increase government control over private industry - hence, a step towards Socialism.
In theory, you can have libertarian socialism, where individuals willingly give up the ownership of the means of production in favor of egalitarianism - likewise, you can have authoritarian capitalism, where the government control every aspect of the citizens' lives except how they dispose of their wealth.
Actually, I just looked at a top 25 list and pulled out the ones I thought the Slashdot crowd would recognize. The top earners in America are actually somewhat mixed, and money seems to have little or no impact on politics.
In case you missed it, my original point was to point out a logical inconsistency, not to claim a causal relationship between wealth and political viewpoint.
I like you. We'd get along.
Sure. I typically vote Republican, but I'm very much a social liberal. I'm for the decriminalization of all drugs, don't care who you sleep with, and believe that marriage should not be a function of government in the first place.
The Democrats fail for me on the issues of gun rights, immigration policy (though the GOP isn't much better here), and taxation/spending.
I'm impressed that you've pointed at that the Tea Party is not, at its base, conservative in nature. In my personal experience at the events and in my interactions with the local and regional level organizers in my area, the general political view is far more libertarian in nature than conservative.
I would like to point out thought that both Obama and Bush II have socialistic tendencies - starting with TARP, extending to the federal purchase of AIG and GM.
As an Objectivist, I disagree. I am completely selfish, but I share as much with the left as the right.
Another term for libertarian is "classical liberal".