I did not know that viewing websites is a gaurenteed right protected by law? I didn't know that I had to make my website free for the world to view. I swore I could make it a pay service, a ad-view service, a totally free service, or some combination of them. There are many services protected by law (probably one is the military, public law enforcement, and other gov't works) but websites are not one of them (unless maybe it is a gov't website).
There are many free, non-ad inhabited websites out there - for those of you who do not want to pay for a website OR view their ads' go there. Do not go to ad-supported or pay websites.
I don't feel I deserve something for free. In fact I pay for Keenspot's premium service (just so I can read General Protection Fault in hi-def) and subscribe to Girlamatic.com so I can read archives of The Wisdom of Moo and Smile. Yet I still use adblocking and feel no guilt. The simple fact is I'll donate or subscribe to a site if it's worth it. But I will NEVER click on an ad. They're not losing any money from me blocking their ads, as I'm not going to click through anyway.
And while we're at it, what about sites I do donate to. I pay them what I think their site's worth, and even if I only donate $5, it's probably a LOT more than they'd get if I clicked all their ads in a day. Should I still have to see their ads if I've donated? Are they violatint the social contract by making me still see their ads when I give them money? This works both ways you know.
Well you donate to a couple of sites - but I am sure you surf many more sites then that. What about those sites? Don't they deserve to make a profit from their work and money invested? When a site relies on click-throughs to make profit - you not clicking on it actually makes them lose money. You see - they are making money per click-through. So maybe your click is only worth 1/10 of a penny - but that is still money which adds up.
A site that you donate to and still gives you ads - I would say complain to the site owner. Once you pay however, you have probably agreed to their EULA (even if you did not read it) and it may state in the EULA that you will still get inundated with commercials. If you do not like it - do not support them (or visit them). The choice is yours...but circumventing their reasonable and non-malicious ads is the same as stealing since you are denying them money.
You're trying to force a link between respect for a site and viewing it's ads. It just doesn't work that way. If I respect a site I'll support them, but I will _NOT_ view their ads. I'll support them in other ways, mostly by donating, or subscribing if it's an option. By your twisted logic, even though I donate to sites I disrespect them because I have ad blocking on. Care to explain how that makes any sense?
You are trying to force "respect" to "payment" - you do not have to "respect" a product to pay for it...you have to pay to use a product (unless its free). On the web, the payment is to look at the ads. So look. Because if my criteria to pay for a website is "respecting it" - I will find that I do not respect many websites. In fact, I prefer free ad driven to having to pay. I simply cannot afford to pay $5/month to every website I regularly visit...for me that would be hundreds a month.
As for my "twisted logic" - who said that donating to a website will remove the ads? Some websites do this - some do not...it is part of the agreement you made with the site owner. If you do not like it - stop donating it. You can then view the ads and not pay...or you can view the ads and pay...your choice - but within the agreed upon scope of the website. I believe/. is similar. Youget advertisements, but if you pay you do not get any?
Of course you fail to realize that television is free. Put up any antenna you too can receive free over the air television. All your major broadcast networks and a smattering of independents! All for the low low price of zero. Why? Because the stations are using your electromagnetic spectrum. It has always been that way.
With the exception of "your electromagnetic spectrum" - i don't think this is something that can be owned. You can apply the whole statement to the Internet. Just like in television you have advertisements (both in the program you are viewing and outside the program) so also have that on the Internet. Most websites are free (just like most TV channels are free). You can even say your tv provider is providing a similar resource as your ISP provider - a gateway to the televion/internet world. Each is advertising to make money - otherwise you would be getting stations like HBO where you do not get commercials - but you get to pay for it.
The social contract is between you and the media provider. You get free television (unlike services like HBO) and they get to inundate you with commercials. If you want to be upset with anyone - be upset with the people who CHARGE you a monthly fee and then force you to watch commercials - or better yet just don't pay or watch them...circumventing their requirements is stealing. You may think you have an implicit right to their television broadcast, or their website content without paying (be it monetarily or through commercial viewings) but really - you don't. Just because I make my product available for everyone to "purchase" does not mean it should be given for free. It is like saying "well you put that sweater on your store rack, in plain public view - so you really meant to give it away for free." Let's be a little reasonable here people. If you don't like the advertisement's don't go to their websites
Apples and oranges. It would be better to compare websites to TV. You come to my television channel- you watch my show - you even get hit by my commercials. You may say "well i channel surf" - but I am sure you are not so precise on the key that you do not get hit by part of my commercial --- or better yet that "Coke" product placement (come on you know you are thirsty).
There is no expectation that someone walks to my house, mows my lawn and then will demand payment (unless i hired that someone). There is some expectation if you come to my website which talks about "how to paint your house efficiently" which gives you great tricks of the trade - but in return all it asks is that you look at the "home Depot" advertisement to the right of the screen. Good god was that so painful? I can understand if you went to "FixYourHome.com" - you see tips for fixing your home and porn started poping up (and your kids got to see that porn), but if you go to "FixYourHome.com" and got a pop-up for "Lowes" would it be such a big deal? It is not like the website charged you to view the information someone spent valuable time/money writing up. It is their business model - and it may or may not be working (depending on the quality of the site) -- -all I can say is - don't go there.
And if you turn the argument about, you feel you deserve to make money off of your venture, no matter what. No reasonable limits apply.
Nope the inverse of my argument does not equal your above statement. Though what is unreasonable profits? Nobody forced anyone to buy anything. Nobody put a gun to your head and said "Buy that PSP or die" So if everyone in the world likes my product, and if everyone in the world is willing to pay $100 for the product and if everyone in the world is willing to buy multiples of it - whats wrong with that? Hell thats like me going to my favorite sushi place. I go there over and over and over again, and each time I go I spend about 100-150. Maybe they should have only charged me once - and each time after that it should have been for free right?
As for the right to view what you want to view - with the exception of malicious pop-ups (which I stated in my earlier posts and you conveniently forgot) - you went to my site of your own accord. You typed in my URL address - I didn't (presumably I am a responsable web designer & do not have malicious pop-ups that force you to my website) force you to my site. Plus, since my site is just sitting there it would be very unfair to say "I went to your site, your site is on my screen - pay for that bandwidth". It would be along the line of saying "I walked into your store, it took me ten minutes to navigate through your store to the exit - pay me for my ten minutes of time"
You paid your ISP for the right to get on the internet - you did not pay your ISP for the right to enter someone's website. They provide the bridge for you to get there - now to go from there you have to play by the website owners rules.
because a link to http://123.456.789.111 is really meaningful? Not everyone wants to buy a domain name. But also, why should they just be limited to text? How about TV commercials be limited to a phone number, address, and title of the company/product? Doesn't exactly grab attention in a productive and civil manner.
I don't know though, there are some movies that I would prefer to keep close during the entire movie;0
Break into the movie theatre (or steal tickets)
Boycott the movie - write letters to congress, etc
Continue to go see the movies.
I have a feeling most people on here will not break into the movie theatres or steal tickets because they are scared of getting busted. But instead, they will go on some file sharing program and download the movie for free because there is very little chance of getting caught. While the movie industry is wrong for price gouging (you can also blame your top-seller movie actor who got paid 50 million for 6 months worth of work) the person stealing the movies is 110% wrong morally and legally.
I think we are being robbed - but they are doing it within the law. Fight back within the law. When you fight outside of the law they will just say "these criminals are what is causing us to raise our rates....these criminals cannot argue we are wrong when they are b reaking the laws and we are not."
But then you gotta ask - do you want a socialist setting where the gov't controls all the prices or a capitalist setting where the market controls the prices?
Well I agree with you - that spending (waste) is out of control, and many organizations take advantage with their $$$ clout. Our options are to boycott them but enough people don't care when their cable bill goes up 2-3$ each 6 months. Unfortunate, but a fact of life.
The only thing I would say - to break one social contract (i.e. stealing cable tv) because cable tv companies are raising their prices is not justified. In fact, the person stealing is MORE wrong - legally and morally. The cable company is just wrong morally because they do have a pseudo-monopoly if not a complete monopoly in a given area.
You are not willing to pay a penny for tv huh? So I guess you think you deserve you should get it for free. Well what do you do for a living. When I come to your office - i think you should perform those services for me for free.
Just because it is in a public space. Just because it is not tangeable does not mean it is free. It is a service - in TV mostly entertainment. In website it could be entertainment/information. SOmetimes free, soemtimes not. In the end someone has to foot the bill for the service of someones time for creating the content, for paying of the server, electricity, maintenance, etc. While you may lack the forsight and believe that you deserve everything for free - you are dead wrong.
Those creators of the websites want you (obviously) to view their information but pay for it by viewing their ads. If they didn't want you to view their ads - they would not have put it there. Why should the burdeon be put on them? WIth the exception of malicious websites (which i do not agree with) why should a webmaster have to make access to his site restrictive and unfriendly because *YOU* feel you deserve something for free?
As for your That's how the social contract works -- You are dead wrong. Show me where this says this tidbit of information. A social contract is one of mutual respect. A website puts up its content - the website owner pays fee's and spends his/her time. They, in good faith, would like for you to view their ads which help them keep that material going. Again, with the exception of malicious websites - there is nothing wrong with this.
But again, you probably feel you deserve everything in life for free. Right - go work for free
I hate to tell you this - but your subject says "Annoying People != $$$" is false. You want to know why? If these guys were not making any money, they would stop doing it. Apparantly, there are enough people out there who support them - they are making money.
Now you got to ask yourself - how much more would you be paying to watch TV without any commercials? How much will that movie ticket cost you without previews? Lets say that instead of $30/month for cable tv the cost is $90/month for the same service...are you willing to pay for it now? Lets say that $10 movie ticket is now $20 - are you willing to pay it?
Advertising keeps our costs down - and sometimes it brings valuable awareness to us. THis is not a problem. As far as pop-ups (and the like go) it is the persistant, self-propagating, tracking, malware installing ones that are the problem. THese are the reasons why we use adblockers. If websites limited themselves to skyscrapers and one or two harmless pop-ups I am sure we would not worry about pop-up blockers as much.
Thats right because its not a physical product it doesn't count. Ok go to a doctor ask him to give you a checkup, when he is done - tell him you won't pay because there was no handshake, contract, etc.
Website ads are fine (skyscrapers, one or two non-self propagating, malware installing related popups) - it is the persistant, malware installing, evasive pop-ups/unders that are the problem.
To ask a sight to have their front page a contract is just unfair and not going to happen - it is fine if they have a link for "terms of use" somewhere on the bottom of the page. It is fine if they do some advertising (i.e. google style) - it is not fine when they are highly intrusive.
Yes if I go to a website I should have to pay some kind of price - if it is an ad then fine. But when these adds are persistant pop-ups/under that create an infinite amount of screens that have a tendency to crash computers that is a problem. When these pop-ups link to sites that install malware on your computer that is a problem. When these pop-ups take you to less savory sites, and trying to close them (sometimes an ordeal in and of itself) does nothing but open up more ads, that is a problem.
I have no problem with a pop-up here or there - but websites have abused their privelages - and as such if they want me to honor their "social contract" they better honor my side of it. Put a pop-up/under (one maybe two), use skyscrapers - but do not invade my computer - using malware to track me, put spyware, tracking cooking (to track me accross the net), etc.
When all websites can conform to a set of decency standards - then they can complain about ad blockers. Until then, the legitimate sites can blame their fellow website owners.
The other side of Paramount which said the cancellation was "final." There are only two things in life that are final - death and taxes. Even the latter is not always final. So given that, throw enough money or potential money at Paramount and the "final cancellation" will get changed to "due to recent considerations, there will be a 5th season of Enterprise."
On a side note, I did like seeing Twilight again this past Friday and cannot wait for the season/series finale (though hope it is seasonal)
Even my moms heard of Google. Hell my co-workers sister says "google-it" and she thinks that every computer house has the Internet BUILT into it (meaning if you have a house you automatically have the internet). Google is extremely popular and extremely well known. Now should we start hating it? Thats a question only the masses can hate. When we are all saying "Hail Google" and "Yavoll heir Google" then I will probably say 'down with google', but so far they are just trying to be the best.
Unless they can bring cheaper shipping costs. Amazon has a good shipping system, and they might (I really don't know, but would think this is plausible) have some agreements with shipping companies (including USPS) for discounts due to high volume. Now Netflix also has high volumbe - but put those two together and they might be able to shave off another 2-3 cents per delivery which is a LOT of money for the amount of deliveries Netflix does.
As for other posters who mentioned the benefits of Amazon's exposure - honestly, I don't think Netflix needs to worry about that - they have a pretty damn good name as it is. Go type in google "online dvd rental" and you get Blockbuster in the top blue, netflix right underneath it and in the non-blue (non-paid) spot the first listing is netflix.
People who are interested in online dvd rentals and know of amazon are probably in the know about doing online search. I personally recommend and stay with Netflix because they were the first... they may not be the cheapest (marginal) but I think overall they are the best.
Besides, we all know that the moon and us getting there was a hollywood trick done in some studio. We have never been to the moon, in fact it is not real...well that is what the gov't will tell those people with that certificate anyhow.
Slashdot Mirror
If the girl was 15 when seduced, and this happend two years ago...how can the girl be 19 now? 15 + 2 = 19????
I did not know that viewing websites is a gaurenteed right protected by law? I didn't know that I had to make my website free for the world to view. I swore I could make it a pay service, a ad-view service, a totally free service, or some combination of them. There are many services protected by law (probably one is the military, public law enforcement, and other gov't works) but websites are not one of them (unless maybe it is a gov't website).
There are many free, non-ad inhabited websites out there - for those of you who do not want to pay for a website OR view their ads' go there. Do not go to ad-supported or pay websites.
I don't feel I deserve something for free. In fact I pay for Keenspot's premium service (just so I can read General Protection Fault in hi-def) and subscribe to Girlamatic.com so I can read archives of The Wisdom of Moo and Smile. Yet I still use adblocking and feel no guilt. The simple fact is I'll donate or subscribe to a site if it's worth it. But I will NEVER click on an ad. They're not losing any money from me blocking their ads, as I'm not going to click through anyway. And while we're at it, what about sites I do donate to. I pay them what I think their site's worth, and even if I only donate $5, it's probably a LOT more than they'd get if I clicked all their ads in a day. Should I still have to see their ads if I've donated? Are they violatint the social contract by making me still see their ads when I give them money? This works both ways you know.
/. is similar. Youget advertisements, but if you pay you do not get any?
Well you donate to a couple of sites - but I am sure you surf many more sites then that. What about those sites? Don't they deserve to make a profit from their work and money invested? When a site relies on click-throughs to make profit - you not clicking on it actually makes them lose money. You see - they are making money per click-through. So maybe your click is only worth 1/10 of a penny - but that is still money which adds up.
A site that you donate to and still gives you ads - I would say complain to the site owner. Once you pay however, you have probably agreed to their EULA (even if you did not read it) and it may state in the EULA that you will still get inundated with commercials. If you do not like it - do not support them (or visit them). The choice is yours...but circumventing their reasonable and non-malicious ads is the same as stealing since you are denying them money.
You're trying to force a link between respect for a site and viewing it's ads. It just doesn't work that way. If I respect a site I'll support them, but I will _NOT_ view their ads. I'll support them in other ways, mostly by donating, or subscribing if it's an option. By your twisted logic, even though I donate to sites I disrespect them because I have ad blocking on. Care to explain how that makes any sense?
You are trying to force "respect" to "payment" - you do not have to "respect" a product to pay for it...you have to pay to use a product (unless its free). On the web, the payment is to look at the ads. So look. Because if my criteria to pay for a website is "respecting it" - I will find that I do not respect many websites. In fact, I prefer free ad driven to having to pay. I simply cannot afford to pay $5/month to every website I regularly visit...for me that would be hundreds a month.
As for my "twisted logic" - who said that donating to a website will remove the ads? Some websites do this - some do not...it is part of the agreement you made with the site owner. If you do not like it - stop donating it. You can then view the ads and not pay...or you can view the ads and pay...your choice - but within the agreed upon scope of the website. I believe
Of course you fail to realize that television is free. Put up any antenna you too can receive free over the air television. All your major broadcast networks and a smattering of independents! All for the low low price of zero. Why? Because the stations are using your electromagnetic spectrum. It has always been that way.
With the exception of "your electromagnetic spectrum" - i don't think this is something that can be owned. You can apply the whole statement to the Internet. Just like in television you have advertisements (both in the program you are viewing and outside the program) so also have that on the Internet. Most websites are free (just like most TV channels are free). You can even say your tv provider is providing a similar resource as your ISP provider - a gateway to the televion/internet world. Each is advertising to make money - otherwise you would be getting stations like HBO where you do not get commercials - but you get to pay for it.
The social contract is between you and the media provider. You get free television (unlike services like HBO) and they get to inundate you with commercials. If you want to be upset with anyone - be upset with the people who CHARGE you a monthly fee and then force you to watch commercials - or better yet just don't pay or watch them...circumventing their requirements is stealing. You may think you have an implicit right to their television broadcast, or their website content without paying (be it monetarily or through commercial viewings) but really - you don't. Just because I make my product available for everyone to "purchase" does not mean it should be given for free. It is like saying "well you put that sweater on your store rack, in plain public view - so you really meant to give it away for free." Let's be a little reasonable here people. If you don't like the advertisement's don't go to their websites
Apples and oranges. It would be better to compare websites to TV. You come to my television channel- you watch my show - you even get hit by my commercials. You may say "well i channel surf" - but I am sure you are not so precise on the key that you do not get hit by part of my commercial --- or better yet that "Coke" product placement (come on you know you are thirsty).
There is no expectation that someone walks to my house, mows my lawn and then will demand payment (unless i hired that someone). There is some expectation if you come to my website which talks about "how to paint your house efficiently" which gives you great tricks of the trade - but in return all it asks is that you look at the "home Depot" advertisement to the right of the screen. Good god was that so painful? I can understand if you went to "FixYourHome.com" - you see tips for fixing your home and porn started poping up (and your kids got to see that porn), but if you go to "FixYourHome.com" and got a pop-up for "Lowes" would it be such a big deal? It is not like the website charged you to view the information someone spent valuable time/money writing up. It is their business model - and it may or may not be working (depending on the quality of the site) -- -all I can say is - don't go there.
Luckily I box too (collegiate USA boxing member) - I might get my butt handed to me - but it would still be fun :D
And if you turn the argument about, you feel you deserve to make money off of your venture, no matter what. No reasonable limits apply.
Nope the inverse of my argument does not equal your above statement. Though what is unreasonable profits? Nobody forced anyone to buy anything. Nobody put a gun to your head and said "Buy that PSP or die" So if everyone in the world likes my product, and if everyone in the world is willing to pay $100 for the product and if everyone in the world is willing to buy multiples of it - whats wrong with that? Hell thats like me going to my favorite sushi place. I go there over and over and over again, and each time I go I spend about 100-150. Maybe they should have only charged me once - and each time after that it should have been for free right?
As for the right to view what you want to view - with the exception of malicious pop-ups (which I stated in my earlier posts and you conveniently forgot) - you went to my site of your own accord. You typed in my URL address - I didn't (presumably I am a responsable web designer & do not have malicious pop-ups that force you to my website) force you to my site. Plus, since my site is just sitting there it would be very unfair to say "I went to your site, your site is on my screen - pay for that bandwidth". It would be along the line of saying "I walked into your store, it took me ten minutes to navigate through your store to the exit - pay me for my ten minutes of time"
You paid your ISP for the right to get on the internet - you did not pay your ISP for the right to enter someone's website. They provide the bridge for you to get there - now to go from there you have to play by the website owners rules.
because a link to http://123.456.789.111 is really meaningful? Not everyone wants to buy a domain name. But also, why should they just be limited to text? How about TV commercials be limited to a phone number, address, and title of the company/product? Doesn't exactly grab attention in a productive and civil manner.
;0
I don't know though, there are some movies that I would prefer to keep close during the entire movie
Ok so here are your options:
Break into the movie theatre (or steal tickets)
Boycott the movie - write letters to congress, etc
Continue to go see the movies.
I have a feeling most people on here will not break into the movie theatres or steal tickets because they are scared of getting busted. But instead, they will go on some file sharing program and download the movie for free because there is very little chance of getting caught. While the movie industry is wrong for price gouging (you can also blame your top-seller movie actor who got paid 50 million for 6 months worth of work) the person stealing the movies is 110% wrong morally and legally.
I think we are being robbed - but they are doing it within the law. Fight back within the law. When you fight outside of the law they will just say "these criminals are what is causing us to raise our rates....these criminals cannot argue we are wrong when they are b reaking the laws and we are not."
But then you gotta ask - do you want a socialist setting where the gov't controls all the prices or a capitalist setting where the market controls the prices?
Well I agree with you - that spending (waste) is out of control, and many organizations take advantage with their $$$ clout. Our options are to boycott them but enough people don't care when their cable bill goes up 2-3$ each 6 months. Unfortunate, but a fact of life.
The only thing I would say - to break one social contract (i.e. stealing cable tv) because cable tv companies are raising their prices is not justified. In fact, the person stealing is MORE wrong - legally and morally. The cable company is just wrong morally because they do have a pseudo-monopoly if not a complete monopoly in a given area.
You are not willing to pay a penny for tv huh? So I guess you think you deserve you should get it for free. Well what do you do for a living. When I come to your office - i think you should perform those services for me for free.
Just because it is in a public space. Just because it is not tangeable does not mean it is free. It is a service - in TV mostly entertainment. In website it could be entertainment/information. SOmetimes free, soemtimes not. In the end someone has to foot the bill for the service of someones time for creating the content, for paying of the server, electricity, maintenance, etc. While you may lack the forsight and believe that you deserve everything for free - you are dead wrong.
Those creators of the websites want you (obviously) to view their information but pay for it by viewing their ads. If they didn't want you to view their ads - they would not have put it there. Why should the burdeon be put on them? WIth the exception of malicious websites (which i do not agree with) why should a webmaster have to make access to his site restrictive and unfriendly because *YOU* feel you deserve something for free?
As for your That's how the social contract works -- You are dead wrong. Show me where this says this tidbit of information. A social contract is one of mutual respect. A website puts up its content - the website owner pays fee's and spends his/her time. They, in good faith, would like for you to view their ads which help them keep that material going. Again, with the exception of malicious websites - there is nothing wrong with this.
But again, you probably feel you deserve everything in life for free. Right - go work for free
I hate to tell you this - but your subject says "Annoying People != $$$" is false. You want to know why? If these guys were not making any money, they would stop doing it. Apparantly, there are enough people out there who support them - they are making money.
Now you got to ask yourself - how much more would you be paying to watch TV without any commercials? How much will that movie ticket cost you without previews? Lets say that instead of $30/month for cable tv the cost is $90/month for the same service...are you willing to pay for it now? Lets say that $10 movie ticket is now $20 - are you willing to pay it?
Advertising keeps our costs down - and sometimes it brings valuable awareness to us. THis is not a problem. As far as pop-ups (and the like go) it is the persistant, self-propagating, tracking, malware installing ones that are the problem. THese are the reasons why we use adblockers. If websites limited themselves to skyscrapers and one or two harmless pop-ups I am sure we would not worry about pop-up blockers as much.
Thats right because its not a physical product it doesn't count. Ok go to a doctor ask him to give you a checkup, when he is done - tell him you won't pay because there was no handshake, contract, etc.
Website ads are fine (skyscrapers, one or two non-self propagating, malware installing related popups) - it is the persistant, malware installing, evasive pop-ups/unders that are the problem.
To ask a sight to have their front page a contract is just unfair and not going to happen - it is fine if they have a link for "terms of use" somewhere on the bottom of the page. It is fine if they do some advertising (i.e. google style) - it is not fine when they are highly intrusive.
Yes if I go to a website I should have to pay some kind of price - if it is an ad then fine. But when these adds are persistant pop-ups/under that create an infinite amount of screens that have a tendency to crash computers that is a problem. When these pop-ups link to sites that install malware on your computer that is a problem. When these pop-ups take you to less savory sites, and trying to close them (sometimes an ordeal in and of itself) does nothing but open up more ads, that is a problem.
I have no problem with a pop-up here or there - but websites have abused their privelages - and as such if they want me to honor their "social contract" they better honor my side of it. Put a pop-up/under (one maybe two), use skyscrapers - but do not invade my computer - using malware to track me, put spyware, tracking cooking (to track me accross the net), etc.
When all websites can conform to a set of decency standards - then they can complain about ad blockers. Until then, the legitimate sites can blame their fellow website owners.
Your drained bank account and .25 cents still won't buy you a pack of bubble gum ;)
which is way to easy anyhow.
The other side of Paramount which said the cancellation was "final." There are only two things in life that are final - death and taxes. Even the latter is not always final. So given that, throw enough money or potential money at Paramount and the "final cancellation" will get changed to "due to recent considerations, there will be a 5th season of Enterprise."
On a side note, I did like seeing Twilight again this past Friday and cannot wait for the season/series finale (though hope it is seasonal)
*Speed of the Earth in Orbit
:)
As opposed to the Speed of Earth out of Orbit? I hope not
Under Siege 2 used satellite imagery, an airplanes transponder signal and a satellite with freakin laser beams to create an earthquake in the sky.
When enough people like Google?????
Even my moms heard of Google. Hell my co-workers sister says "google-it" and she thinks that every computer house has the Internet BUILT into it (meaning if you have a house you automatically have the internet). Google is extremely popular and extremely well known. Now should we start hating it? Thats a question only the masses can hate. When we are all saying "Hail Google" and "Yavoll heir Google" then I will probably say 'down with google', but so far they are just trying to be the best.
Unless they can bring cheaper shipping costs. Amazon has a good shipping system, and they might (I really don't know, but would think this is plausible) have some agreements with shipping companies (including USPS) for discounts due to high volume. Now Netflix also has high volumbe - but put those two together and they might be able to shave off another 2-3 cents per delivery which is a LOT of money for the amount of deliveries Netflix does.
As for other posters who mentioned the benefits of Amazon's exposure - honestly, I don't think Netflix needs to worry about that - they have a pretty damn good name as it is. Go type in google "online dvd rental" and you get Blockbuster in the top blue, netflix right underneath it and in the non-blue (non-paid) spot the first listing is netflix.
People who are interested in online dvd rentals and know of amazon are probably in the know about doing online search. I personally recommend and stay with Netflix because they were the first... they may not be the cheapest (marginal) but I think overall they are the best.
"Sorry, please phrase your answer as a Question."
This is Double Jeapardy
Eminent domain.
Besides, we all know that the moon and us getting there was a hollywood trick done in some studio. We have never been to the moon, in fact it is not real...well that is what the gov't will tell those people with that certificate anyhow.
Well since I built my Astro's baseball field there offcourse it is going to be always lit with my stadium lights....DUH!!!!
Just bring this bad boy computer next to your girlfriend when she is pissed off at ya...the cold shoulder should take care of the cooling for ya.