I personally, consciously do not support advertising even though I recognize the reason from both the perspective of the advertiser and the website.
They do not defend me, so I see no reason to defend them. Block it all, I say. If that means that 99% of the sites will close, so be it.
People are so bombarded by ads that they thing a small amount is ok. As if you are defending the bully and say a slap in the face is 'not that bad'. It is.
Many people us it because they do not like ads. That includes me. I oppose to native advertising. I oppose to any advertising.
I understand that the ads industry has a different point of view, but they can defend themselves if they so like to do and they do that pretty well, as many people defend them without even being paid for it or get anything in return.
They say things like 'I would not mind ads that have XXX'. Well, I do.
Or to quote Banksy: People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply youâ(TM)re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. Itâ(TM)s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially donâ(TM)t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, donâ(TM)t even start asking for theirs.
I wonder if they sign sort of paper or receive some sort of paper or proof that indicates that they are released. And I wonder if there is then some sort of disclaimer that says 'you are free, unless we fuck up and then you are not free anymore, because fuck you.'
If not, they will probably just say they are fugitives and shoot them on sight.
In Belgium there are three large unions. I can join any union I desire anf they represend roughly the political ideas of some large parties.
You need to pay a due (and some companies even pay back that dues). Hoevere ther is never an obligation to join a union. If there are more than 50 employees, a union representative is enforced by law, so basically all comapnies are unionized.
You can be part of a union or not and nobody cares. I have no idea who is in a union and who is not. Management does not care either as all people are treated equally (some exceptions of the union reps).
Sometimes they go on strike and I hate that. But in general they are the people that can stand up to companies and say no, where you would be out of luck.
And companies use this as well. At one company that was in a reorginisation, they included the unions and when I asked the CEO if he was not pissed off that it now too longer, his answer was: It might have taken longer, but we anticipated that, so there is no real delay. Also now the unions are ok with it, we can go on as expected and the changes they brought up were well founded and implemented most of the time.
You see, there can be a gain if you look at your staff as psrtners and not as a cost.
Thanks to the unions I get payed extra if I do overtime and my boss tries to avoid it. Instead he rather hires more people. So instead of two people working 60 hours, 3 work 40 hours. I get 35 days holiday + sick days when I am sick. I get presents and bonusses and the company does well and is making money.
On the downside, the CEO has only two cars and no helicopters. So there's that, but he is not unhappy and still can take his holidays anywhere he likes, because he ALSO has 35 holdiays.
The way I see it is that they are not unions, but rather gildes. And yes, there is a difference.
In Belgium I can go to any union I like. There are three major ones. Or I can not go. Nobody cares. I am free to do so an my boss will never ask, because he does not care.
Ever heard of scaling? The cost in Europe was higher, because there are less cards. Also people in Europe use the cards less and use cash more than in the US. The cost of the card is easily recuperated in the lower amount of theft.
So the price per terminal is higher in the EU (and the rest of the world). Yes, the total sum will be higher in the US, but looking per transaction and per user and per terminal it will be lower.
The terminal can be had for less than 100USD easily. And then you will have a high end one that you can take with you to the table in the restaurant. The low end ones I buy for 20EUR and that is retail price in the store including 21%tva, so they should be easily going for 10USD or less.I would say the standard terminal would be around 25USD. Companies spend more on paper for the printer per year.
Software is also cheaper per user, because there are more users.
The thing is that in the US many are not very keen on investment. Rather have 5USD today than 10USD tomorrow it seems.
The thing is that you say that you are ok with ads. You say 10%, Others say only text. I say no ads at all. That should be the goal.
No ads on tv, on the radio, on my underwear.
'But they make it possible to pay for...' I do not care. If you ask me if I want ads, the answer is no. If I were able to use something IRL to block ads on the street, in magazines and what not, you bet I would use it.
An acceptable ad is one I do not see. Not on a website, not on TV, not in magazines, not on my clothes.
I do not want ads. I understand they exist. I do understand that they will not go away. I do understand having no ads is unrealistic. However my stand on starting is 0 ads, not 1 ad.
If you ask me if you want ads, the answer is no. That includes 'acceptable ads' whatever that means to you and everybody else.
Look what you want in a self build system and then look if you can buy anything like it. If not, you build it.
That said, I always build because I like doing it. But then I only upgrade and not buy a new machine. So to me that means: New Mobo, CPU and memory if I need a new machine. And when I need a new videocard, I just add that. I have 3 videocards, 4 monitors, so I do not have a standard setup that I can just buy and I only run Linux. http://pcpartpicker.com/ can be a nice place to start.
Advantage of pre-build and running Windows is that the PCs are full of shareware who pay for your Licence. Companies get money to put their crap on your PC.
And to be honest, instead of dualboot, I would go with two systems, unless thye both need to be gaming systems.
Making French Fries? Sure, that can be automated. Making a complete meal? On what is the recepy based?
Just look at any cooking show where people get the same ingredients with a recipy. They will al look and perhaps taste different. Do not forget that measurements are just a direction and not the law.
e.g. Tomatoes. What kind do you use? What taste do they have? How ripe are they?
Prototype 1 could scan the majority of books without damage, but may tear one or two pages in some books. Out of 50 books tested, 45% had one or two of their pages either torn or folded. This is a very early prototype and there are many areas for improvement in the design.
I prefer paper books. The advantage for me of ebooks is portability. Say you want to take a book with you on a trip. So you carry a book. What if you want to take two? Now you have either 2 books or an machine the size of one.
I personally have an ipad mini (gift from the company, so no monies from me). I commute by train (again paid for by the company) so I use that as a reader.
The obvious downside is that if you break the reader or do not have access to power, a book will be way better.
|NO. They should not show any ads at all. On the one side you have people who do not want advertising. On the other side you have companies that want to have adversiting 100% of the time if not more.
Saying that you agree with part of it is discussing the amount. For me that amount is 0. I do not want it on tv, on the streets, on my underwear. I do not want it.
I understand that it excists. I understand that Ebola exists as well. That does not mean I can agree with 1% people dying from it instead of 10% (or whatever the numbers are). I want that number to be 0. I want the number of ads to be 0.
The way you build a credit score in Belgium is to live in Belgium.
The rest is comparing incoming and outgoing monies.
Having extra cards will lower your score. How does this work?
Say you have an income of 1500 netto a month. Obviously you need to give proof of that.You pay rent of 500 a month. Deduction of living of e.g. 250 a month. (not sure what the numbers are). That leaves 750 that you could spend on paying back credit.
You buy a car on credit and you pay back 500 a month for that, that means you have 250 left for payment of 1 or more other credits. As you need to pay say 5% at least of the open amount (this will differ, again just an example) you could get another credit of 250x20=5000 If you only need to pay back 2.5% per month, you can get a credit of 10.000.
If you do those with one or two or 20 credits does not matter.
Each time you ask for a new credit or a change in credit (or loan) it will be recalculated again as things might have changed.
Sometimes it will be refused because you are blacklisted. Sometimes you will be refused for whatever reason. If, however, they accept you and it was clear you should not have gotten that credit or loan, you DO NOT have to PAY BACK anyting. All is at the loss of the credit provider.
They will try, obviously, but you will not need to pay back. Fraud is obviously a different matter.
So: steady income. No credits or loans. Low expenditure. Great! Yes; a house does count as something. So there are differences if you rent, have a morgage (how many years into it?) or morgage free.
When does it go wrong? With people who are bad with money and if the situation changes radically over a longer period of time.
There are many rules and regulations that are mainly in place to protect the credit taker and even discourage the people from taking credit (e.g. nulstelling).
Each credit and loan is noted at the National Bank. So each company giving credit sees how much credit uyou have (not with what company) If you negected to pay a credit, you will be put on a black list. No new credit is possible.
If you take a new loan/credit, you have to provide proof of your income and e.g. tell how much rent you pay.
So the credit company sees your income and sees what goes out. Risk calculation is then very easy.
Now if you give a loan and the person can prove that he should NEVER have gotten that loan, he is not required to pay.
Obviously this excludes fraude on the side of the credit taker.
No bullshit looking what you do on FacePalm. No looking if you are nice to kids. Just boring numbers that are provided by either the state or the customer.
Again: if a credit company gives out a credit and the customer should not have gotten it, they do not need to pay back the loan and it is a loss for the company. If they take too many of these risky customers, fist warnings then serious fines and finaly the closing of the company can and will be enforced.
I have see credit companies up close behaving badlly. Adapt or close shop is what the message is.
Obviously fraude and fraude prevention are part of it, just like money maudry detection and what not, but basics are: Look at the National bank what the credits and loans are as well if he is on a black list Look at the income of the customer Look at their expenses to live and what not And then calculate if there is room for a credit or not. It is complex to to, but not very hard.
Hold it right there. This is not the case. Basicaly they are bad because they are illegal. If they were not ilegal, the consequences of using them would not be as bad.
Yes; there are cases of drug abuse. That is bad. It is also clear that that is bad because of the word 'abuse'.
And those drug dealers can become legal sales people. OK, not all of them, but still.
And most of the information is not handed over or even handled by journalists.
Probably you are thinking about freedom of the press. That means that the press is free from intrusion. For me freedom goes both ways. A free press is not only one that is not influenced directly. It is also one that does not influence directly. So they should not be paying political parties 5nor their sister companies) or they should be taken away all the rights that come with freedom of the press.
So, no the reason is not to control the media. That is done on a much higher level. It is about some frustrated mall cop who finaly got a real uniform and is pissed off because he was not alled to have sex with his wife.
The public knows. They are aware. They are not interested. Persons are smart. People are stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
I personally, consciously do not support advertising even though I recognize the reason from both the perspective of the advertiser and the website.
They do not defend me, so I see no reason to defend them. Block it all, I say. If that means that 99% of the sites will close, so be it.
People are so bombarded by ads that they thing a small amount is ok. As if you are defending the bully and say a slap in the face is 'not that bad'. It is.
Many people us it because they do not like ads. That includes me. I oppose to native advertising. I oppose to any advertising.
I understand that the ads industry has a different point of view, but they can defend themselves if they so like to do and they do that pretty well, as many people defend them without even being paid for it or get anything in return.
They say things like 'I would not mind ads that have XXX'. Well, I do.
Or to quote Banksy:
People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply youâ(TM)re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. Itâ(TM)s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially donâ(TM)t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, donâ(TM)t even start asking for theirs.
So was this a military type drone on a mission to do whatever military drone do? e.g. spying on whomever as it had a camera and not a missile.
Or was this a quadcopter that was used for the event and that was it and there is actually nothing really newsworthy?
This is why they do not want to make a difference between the two. So you think military when it is not.
I wonder if they sign sort of paper or receive some sort of paper or proof that indicates that they are released. And I wonder if there is then some sort of disclaimer that says 'you are free, unless we fuck up and then you are not free anymore, because fuck you.'
If not, they will probably just say they are fugitives and shoot them on sight.
Better the Pinto+ or even the iPinto than the Pinto BSOD.
In Belgium there are three large unions. I can join any union I desire anf they represend roughly the political ideas of some large parties.
You need to pay a due (and some companies even pay back that dues). Hoevere ther is never an obligation to join a union. If there are more than 50 employees, a union representative is enforced by law, so basically all comapnies are unionized.
You can be part of a union or not and nobody cares. I have no idea who is in a union and who is not. Management does not care either as all people are treated equally (some exceptions of the union reps).
Sometimes they go on strike and I hate that. But in general they are the people that can stand up to companies and say no, where you would be out of luck.
And companies use this as well. At one company that was in a reorginisation, they included the unions and when I asked the CEO if he was not pissed off that it now too longer, his answer was:
It might have taken longer, but we anticipated that, so there is no real delay. Also now the unions are ok with it, we can go on as expected and the changes they brought up were well founded and implemented most of the time.
You see, there can be a gain if you look at your staff as psrtners and not as a cost.
Thanks to the unions I get payed extra if I do overtime and my boss tries to avoid it. Instead he rather hires more people. So instead of two people working 60 hours, 3 work 40 hours. I get 35 days holiday + sick days when I am sick. I get presents and bonusses and the company does well and is making money.
On the downside, the CEO has only two cars and no helicopters. So there's that, but he is not unhappy and still can take his holidays anywhere he likes, because he ALSO has 35 holdiays.
The way I see it is that they are not unions, but rather gildes. And yes, there is a difference.
In Belgium I can go to any union I like. There are three major ones. Or I can not go. Nobody cares. I am free to do so an my boss will never ask, because he does not care.
Or perhaps being poor in the US means being poor and in Europe it means, having less money. So you compare two different groups.
There are also pre-paid cards without a swipe strip. Just a chip. And the bank card is basically a Debit Card.
Ever heard of scaling?
The cost in Europe was higher, because there are less cards. Also people in Europe use the cards less and use cash more than in the US.
The cost of the card is easily recuperated in the lower amount of theft.
So the price per terminal is higher in the EU (and the rest of the world). Yes, the total sum will be higher in the US, but looking per transaction and per user and per terminal it will be lower.
The terminal can be had for less than 100USD easily. And then you will have a high end one that you can take with you to the table in the restaurant. The low end ones I buy for 20EUR and that is retail price in the store including 21%tva, so they should be easily going for 10USD or less.I would say the standard terminal would be around 25USD. Companies spend more on paper for the printer per year.
Software is also cheaper per user, because there are more users.
The thing is that in the US many are not very keen on investment. Rather have 5USD today than 10USD tomorrow it seems.
The thing is that you say that you are ok with ads. You say 10%, Others say only text. I say no ads at all. That should be the goal.
No ads on tv, on the radio, on my underwear.
'But they make it possible to pay for ...'
I do not care. If you ask me if I want ads, the answer is no. If I were able to use something IRL to block ads on the street, in magazines and what not, you bet I would use it.
Please read http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg....
An acceptable ad is one I do not see. Not on a website, not on TV, not in magazines, not on my clothes.
I do not want ads. I understand they exist. I do understand that they will not go away. I do understand having no ads is unrealistic. However my stand on starting is 0 ads, not 1 ad.
If you ask me if you want ads, the answer is no. That includes 'acceptable ads' whatever that means to you and everybody else.
Just read http://branddna.blogspot.be/20...
They poisoned the well just by existing.
http://www.ebay.com/sch/PC-Des...
Or ny other place yo by second hand stuff.
Look what you want in a self build system and then look if you can buy anything like it. If not, you build it.
That said, I always build because I like doing it. But then I only upgrade and not buy a new machine. So to me that means:
New Mobo, CPU and memory if I need a new machine. And when I need a new videocard, I just add that.
I have 3 videocards, 4 monitors, so I do not have a standard setup that I can just buy and I only run Linux.
http://pcpartpicker.com/ can be a nice place to start.
Advantage of pre-build and running Windows is that the PCs are full of shareware who pay for your Licence. Companies get money to put their crap on your PC.
And to be honest, instead of dualboot, I would go with two systems, unless thye both need to be gaming systems.
Making French Fries? Sure, that can be automated. Making a complete meal? On what is the recepy based?
Just look at any cooking show where people get the same ingredients with a recipy. They will al look and perhaps taste different. Do not forget that measurements are just a direction and not the law.
e.g. Tomatoes. What kind do you use? What taste do they have? How ripe are they?
Prototype 1 could scan the majority of books without damage, but may tear one or two pages in some books. Out of 50 books tested, 45% had one or two of their pages either torn or folded. This is a very early prototype and there are many areas for improvement in the design.
I prefer paper books. The advantage for me of ebooks is portability. Say you want to take a book with you on a trip. So you carry a book. What if you want to take two? Now you have either 2 books or an machine the size of one.
I personally have an ipad mini (gift from the company, so no monies from me). I commute by train (again paid for by the company) so I use that as a reader.
The obvious downside is that if you break the reader or do not have access to power, a book will be way better.
|NO. They should not show any ads at all. On the one side you have people who do not want advertising. On the other side you have companies that want to have adversiting 100% of the time if not more.
Saying that you agree with part of it is discussing the amount. For me that amount is 0. I do not want it on tv, on the streets, on my underwear. I do not want it.
I understand that it excists. I understand that Ebola exists as well. That does not mean I can agree with 1% people dying from it instead of 10% (or whatever the numbers are). I want that number to be 0. I want the number of ads to be 0.
I was thinking along the lines of "STEM jobs give you autism.", but what you said works as well.
The way you build a credit score in Belgium is to live in Belgium.
The rest is comparing incoming and outgoing monies.
Having extra cards will lower your score. How does this work?
Say you have an income of 1500 netto a month. Obviously you need to give proof of that.You pay rent of 500 a month. Deduction of living of e.g. 250 a month. (not sure what the numbers are). That leaves 750 that you could spend on paying back credit.
You buy a car on credit and you pay back 500 a month for that, that means you have 250 left for payment of 1 or more other credits. As you need to pay say 5% at least of the open amount (this will differ, again just an example) you could get another credit of 250x20=5000 If you only need to pay back 2.5% per month, you can get a credit of 10.000.
If you do those with one or two or 20 credits does not matter.
Each time you ask for a new credit or a change in credit (or loan) it will be recalculated again as things might have changed.
Sometimes it will be refused because you are blacklisted. Sometimes you will be refused for whatever reason. If, however, they accept you and it was clear you should not have gotten that credit or loan, you DO NOT have to PAY BACK anyting. All is at the loss of the credit provider.
They will try, obviously, but you will not need to pay back. Fraud is obviously a different matter.
So: steady income. No credits or loans. Low expenditure. Great!
Yes; a house does count as something. So there are differences if you rent, have a morgage (how many years into it?) or morgage free.
When does it go wrong? With people who are bad with money and if the situation changes radically over a longer period of time.
There are many rules and regulations that are mainly in place to protect the credit taker and even discourage the people from taking credit (e.g. nulstelling).
In Belgium Credit Scores work differently.
Each credit and loan is noted at the National Bank. So each company giving credit sees how much credit uyou have (not with what company)
If you negected to pay a credit, you will be put on a black list. No new credit is possible.
If you take a new loan/credit, you have to provide proof of your income and e.g. tell how much rent you pay.
So the credit company sees your income and sees what goes out. Risk calculation is then very easy.
Now if you give a loan and the person can prove that he should NEVER have gotten that loan, he is not required to pay.
Obviously this excludes fraude on the side of the credit taker.
No bullshit looking what you do on FacePalm. No looking if you are nice to kids. Just boring numbers that are provided by either the state or the customer.
Again: if a credit company gives out a credit and the customer should not have gotten it, they do not need to pay back the loan and it is a loss for the company. If they take too many of these risky customers, fist warnings then serious fines and finaly the closing of the company can and will be enforced.
I have see credit companies up close behaving badlly. Adapt or close shop is what the message is.
Obviously fraude and fraude prevention are part of it, just like money maudry detection and what not, but basics are:
Look at the National bank what the credits and loans are as well if he is on a black list
Look at the income of the customer
Look at their expenses to live and what not
And then calculate if there is room for a credit or not. It is complex to to, but not very hard.
I am sure the ones to oversee this is the Ministry of Truth.
Hold it right there. This is not the case. Basicaly they are bad because they are illegal. If they were not ilegal, the consequences of using them would not be as bad.
Yes; there are cases of drug abuse. That is bad. It is also clear that that is bad because of the word 'abuse'.
And those drug dealers can become legal sales people. OK, not all of them, but still.
We have that information. Nobody cares.
And most of the information is not handed over or even handled by journalists.
Probably you are thinking about freedom of the press. That means that the press is free from intrusion. For me freedom goes both ways. A free press is not only one that is not influenced directly. It is also one that does not influence directly. So they should not be paying political parties 5nor their sister companies) or they should be taken away all the rights that come with freedom of the press.
So, no the reason is not to control the media. That is done on a much higher level. It is about some frustrated mall cop who finaly got a real uniform and is pissed off because he was not alled to have sex with his wife.
The public knows. They are aware. They are not interested. Persons are smart. People are stupid.