Cute, but that's not a realistic comparison. It would be a stretch to call Google a "content provider." Even if you did, their "content creation" process is largely automated so they can reach incredible economies of scale. It just isn't the same ballgame as something along the lines of a news organization.
If ads had continued to be a small banner at the top or bottom of the page with NO ANIMATION, or even small ads down the sides that didn't interrupt the flow of the CONTENT (again, no animation)
You mean "as long as they were out-of-the-way enough to be insufficient to generate enough revenue to pay for the content"?
(yes, it is MY BROWSER, and it is meant to render things as the USER sees fit...many seem to have forgotten that).
Yes, but it's THEIR CONTENT and they are offering it to you, free of charge, on the condition that you tolerate their ads. If that's not acceptable to you, find an ad-free source of content, such as those archaic things called books.
But, I know, I'm stupid because I didn't understand the legalese. I'm an ass because I didn't pay the extra fee for the contract-free option. I'm stupid because I didn't pay the extra $60/month.
No, you're "stupid" because you don't seem to realize that gaining a new customer is expensive (marketing, equipment, and installation) and there's no way a company could stay profitable offering service with razor thin margins unless they're guaranteed to have that customer long enough to make up for the initial hit.
You have a legitimate beef when it comes to deceptive practices, so don't do business with such companies. If it's too late for that, files complaints and lawsuits as appropriate.
Until my comcast tech decides to flip my interweb switch to OFF for 5 hours.
...and that web app will have enough fail-safes to run locally for short periods of time.
The only problem that can't be mitigated is the degree to which you trust a vendor with your important data.
It costs the company exactly $0.00 for a salaried employee to simply "waste" those precious extra seconds that you claim will add up.
That's just plain wrong. Sure, the cost is easier to calculate for an hourly employee, but even the most motivated salary employee is still only available for a finite amount of time each week. Every second of that time has an opportunity cost.
Now, depending on a company's financial condition, they may be willing to trade a hard cost for a higher opportunity cost, but you're grossly underestimating the the education of the bean-counters if you think they don't realize that they're borrowing from future income statements.
http://www.linfotech.com/
They're about mid-way through the dev of time/project management app. You obviously wouldn't be getting a battle-tested app yet, but they're classy guys and you could probably influence the direction of the project.
Do you mean that the seller is granting you a limited license to the work? If you don't like the terms, feel free to negotiate for something else. There's nothing new about that. The following paragraph predates digital music by a longshot.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitte, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the priori written permission of the copyright holder.
The only thing that changed is the ease at which we can flaunt the agreed upon terms.
[Insert obligatory "you greedy mo-fos are going to flame me" here]
Luckily, technology has come around to return Music to it's proper place. It is now, once again, a Service
... you're saying you want them to stop making recordings? No, you love the recordings, you just want them offered as loss-leaders. Some are doing that, but there's nothing wrong with others using a different model.
Look, you can rationalize your behavior however you want, but the bottom line is this: if you don't like the terms under which something is offered, communicate your position to the seller and move along. You're not entitled to anything until you reach an agreement with the seller.
If the rest of the market agrees with you, you can outlast the seller. He will either come around to your way of thinking or someone will replace him. Either way, when someone offers you what you're looking for, you reward that person with all the money you would have been spending all along. Capitalism 101, people.
The spectrum is expected to sell for billions of dollars. One billion dollars of that income is set aside to compensate those who are negatively affected by the decision to reallocate the spectrum. It's still a huge profit for the government and it's likely to result in a more efficient allocation of a scarce resource (the spectrum). What's not to like?
Aside: A free-market zealot might suggest the government shouldn't even be in the business of allocating the spectrum, but given that they are (and there is no significant push to change that), there's nothing wrong with this move.
Of course they would still spend the extra, but in doing so, I would get more value for my contribution. I'd rather have the cash back, but I'll take what I can get.
You're exactly right, but it's worth pointing out that the problem is not just with businesses. Everyone that reports less than their full earnings (especially tipped employees or those paid "under the table") is taking advantage of those of us who do./Yes, I think the size and role of the government need to be slashed, tax evasion isn't the answer
Tax accountants construct a tax system that is too complicated for Joe Average to use, so you need to hire a tax consultant.
Accountants didn't create the monstrosity that is the American income tax. The politicians did it. Personal accounting is a very simple matter. An intro level course is more than enough for the average joe. Tax accounting is only tricky because our politicians have created countless exceptions, exemptions, and deductions in order to win votes.
The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.
They do show us his interpretation, which is a good indicator of how he intends to act. If he acts contrary to existing laws in a classified program, what are you going to do about it? It would never even come to court unless some "traitor" happened to leak it to the press.
I misread your post; I'm off-topic.
Still, I can't imagine why a content provider would use different priorities. It could only hurt the rankings of some of the low-priority pages. Unless, of course, the search engines gave your high-priority pages an equivalent boost.
In other words, assigning a priority of 1 to all your pages will not affect their ranking vs. *other* sites that appear in the search results
Are you sure?
If two pages from different site are determined to be of approximately equal relevance to the search, couldn't a search engine pick a favorite by using the internal priority ranking?
Wouldn't a page on widgets be more relevant coming from a widget-maker (who would give it a higer internal priority than his gadget pages) than a similar page coming from a gadget-maker (who would give it a lower internal priority than his gadget pages)?
I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. It would probably yield better search results. But if things do go that way, I bet you'll find that content makers will quickly abandon the use of internal priorities.
Ranking mechanisms do give rise to paradoxes, but there are ways to resolve them.
Also, it's important to point out that it is not necessary to use rankings to improve the system. Approval Voting would be a big step in the right direction and you wouldn't even have to change the ballot. All you have to do is remove the needless "no overvoting" rule.
ASP and ASP.NET are about as close to each other as Java is to Javascript.
Your point is valid, but your analogy is bad. Java and Javascript serve different purposes. ASP and ASP.NET both serve the same purpose, but they are separated by a very large generation. I would use C and C++ as the analogy.
If you're uninformed because you're disgusted by the current nature of politics in this country, you really should vote for change. Pick an independent party (Green = Left, Libertarian = Right) and give them your support. It's a long shot (on the national level, at least), but it's really the only way we can ever change the status quo and it'll cost you less than an hour every couple years.
If you're uninformed because you simply don't want to be involved, please do us a favor and stay uninvolved.
BTW, the goal of voting for independents is two-fold.
- Make sure they get enough support in the short-term to keep them on the ballot.
- Try to elect enough of them (locally, if nothing else) so that alternative voting methods can be realistically explored. Personally, I think Approval voting is the best bet in the short term.
Slashdot Mirror
Cute, but that's not a realistic comparison. It would be a stretch to call Google a "content provider." Even if you did, their "content creation" process is largely automated so they can reach incredible economies of scale. It just isn't the same ballgame as something along the lines of a news organization.
http://www.linfotech.com/ They're about mid-way through the dev of time/project management app. You obviously wouldn't be getting a battle-tested app yet, but they're classy guys and you could probably influence the direction of the project.
...and let me know how well your strategy works out.
That's absolutely not what he said. He said:
The spectrum is expected to sell for billions of dollars. One billion dollars of that income is set aside to compensate those who are negatively affected by the decision to reallocate the spectrum. It's still a huge profit for the government and it's likely to result in a more efficient allocation of a scarce resource (the spectrum). What's not to like?
Aside: A free-market zealot might suggest the government shouldn't even be in the business of allocating the spectrum, but given that they are (and there is no significant push to change that), there's nothing wrong with this move.
Of course they would still spend the extra, but in doing so, I would get more value for my contribution. I'd rather have the cash back, but I'll take what I can get.
You're exactly right, but it's worth pointing out that the problem is not just with businesses. Everyone that reports less than their full earnings (especially tipped employees or those paid "under the table") is taking advantage of those of us who do. /Yes, I think the size and role of the government need to be slashed, tax evasion isn't the answer
Of course it would add resistance. Since we don't want their muscles atrophy, I would imagine the resistance is seen as a feature rather than a bug.
They do show us his interpretation, which is a good indicator of how he intends to act. If he acts contrary to existing laws in a classified program, what are you going to do about it? It would never even come to court unless some "traitor" happened to leak it to the press.
I misread your post; I'm off-topic. Still, I can't imagine why a content provider would use different priorities. It could only hurt the rankings of some of the low-priority pages. Unless, of course, the search engines gave your high-priority pages an equivalent boost.
Are you sure?
If two pages from different site are determined to be of approximately equal relevance to the search, couldn't a search engine pick a favorite by using the internal priority ranking?
Wouldn't a page on widgets be more relevant coming from a widget-maker (who would give it a higer internal priority than his gadget pages) than a similar page coming from a gadget-maker (who would give it a lower internal priority than his gadget pages)?
I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. It would probably yield better search results. But if things do go that way, I bet you'll find that content makers will quickly abandon the use of internal priorities.
Ranking mechanisms do give rise to paradoxes, but there are ways to resolve them.
Also, it's important to point out that it is not necessary to use rankings to improve the system. Approval Voting would be a big step in the right direction and you wouldn't even have to change the ballot. All you have to do is remove the needless "no overvoting" rule.
If you're uninformed because you're disgusted by the current nature of politics in this country, you really should vote for change. Pick an independent party (Green = Left, Libertarian = Right) and give them your support. It's a long shot (on the national level, at least), but it's really the only way we can ever change the status quo and it'll cost you less than an hour every couple years.
If you're uninformed because you simply don't want to be involved, please do us a favor and stay uninvolved.
BTW, the goal of voting for independents is two-fold.
- Make sure they get enough support in the short-term to keep them on the ballot.
- Try to elect enough of them (locally, if nothing else) so that alternative voting methods can be realistically explored. Personally, I think Approval voting is the best bet in the short term.