Fewer seamen suffer from PTSD than VB coders.

I find it hard to consider anyone who owns a house (even with a mortgage), especially in one of the places with the highest property prices in the world, poor. This scheme seems very odd, because the poorest residents of California are renting, they don't own houses (well, the poorest are homeless), who can't just stick solar panels on top of a house that they're renting.

Obviously, you are entirely ignorant about recent politics in this country, which copied every neo-conservative idea coming out of US think tanks and added a couple of their own on top of it.

You never learnt the history of social security systems either, or very badly. When Bismarck created the foundations of the social security systems still in effect in Germany, his intention was so right-wing that Republicans would immediately support him as president: He wanted to undercut the growing influence of unions and socialist parties, by creating a stripped-down version of their vision. Now that the working class was not fighting for survival anymore, he could pretend it's a non-issue and catch their votes on other topics.

After WW2, it was the USA that, let's say "strongly encouraged" western Germany and other european countries to adopt what we call "social capitalism", a blend of the cut-throat capitalism of the US and the socialism of the communist countries. A mostly capitalist system with strong social security protections in place. Again the purpose was purely political: America was afraid that especially in war-torn Europe where many people had lost everything, a pure unleashed capitalism with its income gaps and class divides would drive too many people to embrace socialistic ideals, widening the sphere of influence of communist Russia. The purpose was, again, to give people just enough to make the political alternative less interesting.

As for "disastrous results", let's talk about the Wirtschaftswunder and how Germany, #16 in the world by population, became the #1 export nation for many years and has never for the past 60 years not been in the top 3.

The real kicker (and why I switched to AdBlock Edge a long time ago) is that they ask for 30% revenue share on those acceptable ads, and with that they got too much into bed with the advertisement industry.

Especially given that AdBlock now belongs to a group of advertisement companies, and they whitelist all the ads from their network by default.

They sold out, simple as that, and they fight in court not for the good cause (though that is a side-effect and a very good one) but to protect their revenue stream.

So if you like my home, you should pay me for inviting you?

Outside the crazy world of advertisement, it doesn't work like that. You can offer a good or service for money, or you can offer it for free, those are two very simple choices everybody in the world understands.

Advertisers are trying to have the cake, and eat it. They understand that more people take a free offer. Check what sites run on advertisement. Mostly those where large numbers of customers by themselves are a KPI. Media sites, social networks, such like.
They could easily paywall themselves, but they choose not to, because in their sphere they are more important if they have more visitors. So they lure visitors in with the appearance of free service, but actually it is not for free, because ads. That's a bait-and-switch, if not for the fact that we all know the game.

If you post your newspaper online, I am free to read it. If you try to collect money for it, I am free to ignore you. The same as if you go to the park and make a public performance and then pass a hat around. I can decide to give you money or not, but you don't have a right to my money. If you want to have a right to my money, play in a hall and sell tickets.

Talk to your government and convince them to follow the example of Sao Paulo. They did what every city should do: Ban outdoor advertisement.

https://www.adbusters.org/maga...

It is also a lot of free public exposure due to the newspaper articles, so I don't think they are very unhappy about it.

That is what you have insurance for. This really is one of the insurances that pays for itself.

Nearly? You mean that there is a difference between them? I'd be curious to find out what that is, because I really don't see any difference whatsoever.

There used to be a time when it was easy: .com was for commercial purposes and that's it.

If only we had an organization that manages the TLDs and makes some rules about them... It would be so easy to say that if you have a .com domain you can buy and sell and do whatever you want, and if you have a .org domain you can not.

I would even welcome a seperate non-profit TLD where any and all advertisement is strictly forbidden. I would instantly switch all my domains and if Google gave us an option to prioritize results from that TLD I would turn it up to the highest setting.

Only if you bring me a couple, otherwise you'll have to fight me for it.

Every time I have to use the Internet on someone elses non-adblocked computer, I'm shocked and I wonder how people can possibly use this shit at all. And in meast space, it's becoming worse and worse. Since they've started putting ads into toilets, you can't even take a piss anymore without someone staring at you.

Yes, we still believe that doing sports is good for health, soccer is a good game, the Autobahn is pretty awesome, and we haven't abolished mothers day.

Of course, you meant nothing of the kind, hiding behind an unspecific, unsubstantiated phrase instead of risking to make a statement that could be falsified.

EOT

In Qatar, substantially by letting impoverished migrant laborers handle the outdoor stuff, under more and less voluntary conditions, and air conditioning.

While the people in this video are utter morons(even if you have actually verified the existence of a safety cut-off on a dangerous piece of hardware; Why would you test it on yourself?); Volvo's response seems...tactically unwise.

There may be good reasons for the 'pedestrian detection' feature to be an extra purchase(more sensors, more DSP, recouped development costs, etc.) or it may just be a single bit in the firmware waiting to be flipped in a magic screwdriver upgrade; but either way, "Yeah, we have a feature that would have prevented that accident; but it didn't because we prefer to charge more for it." seems like the sort of statement that is likely to attract the wrong sort of scrutiny.

If you admit to having the mature capability; how long before failing to include it is negligence? Will you be able to keep it as an add-on, rather than a standard feature like antilock braking? Are you absolutely sure that your sales people didn't misrepresent the capabilities of what they sold? and so on.

It seems as though they'd be much better off just issuing a flat 'don't do stupid irresponsible things' and quietly dropped the matter.

Apple used to ship iSync with OS X, which could sync calendars and contacts with a wide variety of phones via bluetooth or a cable. It also had a nice plug-in architecture for adding new sync clients (and new kinds of data to sync). They also had some Bluetooth integration with the address book app, so when someone called your phone you'd get a pop-up on the screen of who it was and could send SMS directly from the address book. All of these features disappeared with the first OS X release after the iPhone and were replaced with cloud-base syncing that only worked with the iPhone.