Of course nobody can tell what future holds, or he'd be a millionaire. However I stand by what I said. Just check out these snippets from the article and tell me how any of these could be good for the consumer:
Google has also been faced with demands for compensation from content providers such as newspapers, who charge the search giant makes lots of advertising revenue from referencing their material.
Is it fair use or not? If it is, then they should STFU and come up with a business model that works better for them and gets them what they want. If it's not, then take Google to court.
France and Germany are considering imposing compensation schemes on Google as the company has refused to reach any deal with media outlets.
Who do you think will pay for these "compensation schemes"? You and I. We're the only ones who have untapped money. True that we're already paying an arm and a leg for Internet connectivity and Satellite audio/video, but where there's more, greedy bastards will follow.
French President Francois Hollande warned Google on Wednesday that his government would legislate a so-called Google tax if the company doesn't reach a deal with French media companies.
Of course the other side of the coin is that it's in nobody's interest for newspapers or media companies to go out of business, but enough is enough. Newspapers can definitely reach a sustainable model. It just means they'll have to change. Look at Newsweek. They just issued their last print edition. They figured they'd make out better financially. Media companies are the whores of this planet, loving to charge for both ends as someone else already put it very elegantly in this thread. For them, the more holes they have the better off they are.
I'm not saying we have all the facts of the case and obviously more information is always good. I'm just saying that a network provider who is (highly) likely already getting paid for traffic going across their wires getting paid twice CANNOT end up being good for us consumers. If Google pays for the double traffic, then the least it'll cost us is in terms of innovation coming out of Google.
You know, that's the fucking problem. I have plenty of money to pay for good, on-demand video and the selection I want. However, because my time is literally worth money, I don't want to have to sit through commercials and ads. I subscribed to Hulu plus for a week before I discontinued it, and it wasn't because I didn't want to pay the $9/month fee. I would have gladly paid $20/month if I could watch the content ad-free.
Face it, as another poster said already above, downloading offers a whole bunch of incentives, such as DRM fee, Ad free, and great selection. If I had that combination, heck, I'd even pay $30/month for it. Not that I download shit, cough cough, but I'm already paying $119/month for my satellite TV with HBO, Show Time, Starz, Encore, and lots of other programming. Obviously it's not the money that's the issue.
I know this is flamebait, but you'd have to wonder what an educated girl would want to do with you. Let me turn on the grammar police.
Dating sites come with a bunch of filters. Find me a well educated, intelligent, white Catholic girl (Hey, I'm an atheist, but Catholic girls' schools seem to produce my sort of woman) who's a good cook, likes to dance, can put up with four hours of computer gaming on non-dance nights and has a slim or athletic build.
Or skip the dating site and find yourself with an interesting person that has few of those attributes, but is great to spend time with. Bonus if it's a girl and she fancies you.
That said, I'm still reluctant to ask out the intelligent female dancer that's about my age and fancies me, purely because we have the same dress size. Sadly I appear to be sufficiently superficial to want someone slimmer than I am.
Bad English turns a lot of folks off. I only hit on the punctuation, but there's a lot of room for improvement in sentence structure. Let me also say that I agree with what you've stated.
I fully expect the higher ups in the grammar department to correct some of my bad English as well, but truth be known, English is my second language.
Link to Original Source
I don't know. I just tried to order something and during the checkout process there was NO tax added. I am using Amazon Prime. I wonder if Amazon will lower its prices if it ends up charging taxes. I am a democrat and am not opposed to more taxes. In a way more taxes could help things.
Here's how I see it. Amazon is all of a sudden forced to charge sales tax on out of state purchases, while it'll be a few years before smaller businesses will have to charge sales tax. Meanwhile, some people will flock over to small businesses, which will help those businesses. Amazon, in return, will have to lower its prices to stay competetive. So the Amazon users will pay the proper sales tax, which goes to the states and will benefit the people as a whole. Small businesses will not necessarily flourish, but will do better meanwhile. It's a win-win situation for tax payers.