If they don't then MS has a case for unfair treatment. I believe you can't give preferential access to APIs (or shouldn't) so, if they open up to others, but somehow block MS's calls, then that's not on
some on here may say that it's just a case of what goes around - MS having built in checks on websites and degrading, or refusing access to certain browsers, and similar stunts. But two wrongs don't make a right
Only gave it a cursory glance, so apologies if I've missed the crucial differentiator -
Windows Phone combines all your contacts from different sources, all your chats from facebook, twitter, Skype and SMS, all your emails (if you want) into linked mailboxes.
This just seems like a natural progression. however the above is incorrect. some of these features, which were so useful in one place, had the providers changing the APIs or Policies to prevent it. I used to be able to chat seamlessly with a friend on sms, then swap over to facebook chat mid flow. But then Facebook insisted MS remove this, as they wanted everyone in the app, so they could control what they see, make it more difficult to swap to another chat method, and place ads. even worse they then decided they wanted to spin out the chat functionality from the main app into a new one....
so, are all the media providers going to be happy with their products to being intermingled with other providers, and limited opportunity to redirect them to complementary services or 'upsell' content? I think the answer is probably not, and we'll see moves to disrupt it, or insist on greater control over what gets pulled alongside the content into these 'scopes'.
it's a shame, as it's a simple system for the user, and great workflow, but that's not important is it?
"but ultimately both were interested in the cars"
maybe you missed the bit "For reference the female apes in the program exclusively picked up 'girl' toys."
basically it's not that both were interested in the cars and the females "may have been interested in a different way" - the male apes went for the traditionally male toys, and the females were completely disinterested in them. I blame the larger ape society that keeps forcing sexist stereotypes on them.
May seem strange, but the absence of ads wouldn't really be noticed (the same way you mainly tune them out at the moment anyway) but a box not showing an advert, or thanking you for a contribution, where an advert should be gives you that positive confirmation that you're getting something for your money.
I made the same point in my submission on this, that you'd prefer a better laid out, easily read site. But the weird thing is, you'd probably not appreciate it!
There's also the danger of a protection racket angle on this - "hey nicely presented site you're reading here, be a shame if any adverts came along to spoil it" but I may be going to far....
Although the amount you're paying seems small, the amount per eyeball will work out very close to that of a traditional google ad. they will only get microcents from google for your single visit if you see an ad from Chrysler, or you pay yourself.
I'd mod you up to get this point made, but no points.
Yes, they're taking money and to make use of it you have to give them more in depth information about your life online.
'Contributor' allows you to contribute a selectable amount (between $1-£3 pm) and for that, whenever visiting a website served with google ads, you'll be presented with a 'thankyou' and a pixelated image instead of ads; a portion of your monthly amount will then go to the website owner (although google have not said how much).
At the moment, this is a trial (hey, it is Google) and limited to a few main websites.
This is an interesting approach to the problem — effectively you become your own advertiser, google can leverage their current framework with little difficulty, and the web site still gets paid (presumably through the same advertising account).
There are still concerns though, as in order to make this work you will presumably be required to disable any adblocking software, and in order to identify you as a 'contributing individual', regardless of device or IP, there must be some means of identification across all your devices and browsing sessions meaning that it does seem as if Google are asking you to pay for the privilege of letting them track you/your browsing habits in even more detail than the present. A lesser issue is that adverts that break up the flow are not actually removed, simply replaced; but is this a step in the right direction?
Link to Original Source
Walruses can't stay indefinitely in the water like seals and similar mammals, so need somewhere to rest. Usually this is on ice, but the ice has apparently receded past the continental shelf so it's over deeper water. As the Walruses dive to feed off crustaceans and other tidbits on the seafloor, their larder is beyond reach if they stayed on the ice. Putting all this together, they had to find somewhere else to rest which just so happens to be here.
And just in case you wondered, they live in large groups anyway - it's not like roaming walruses decided to all congregate at once in this spot.
there's been a few linked articles behind paywalls before, but this doesn't even need you to login to anything to read, what's your problem?
The tesla has a large amount of batteries, charged from an external generator.
The fisker has slightly fewer batteries, charged from an on-board generator in the space created (and external as needed)
both are driven by an electric motor powered by those batteries.