Depends on the audience of the web sites your ads were displayed on. If you were, for instance, advertising for a US company on a site that had lots of viewers from Europe, the exhaustion early in the day might have been legitimate. Europe is a few time zones ahead.
If your intention is to advertise only to the US market, which is what I assume from your example, you're doing it wrong if you are even showing AdWords to audiences in Europe. Unless, of course, they are using a VPN or proxy or other means to browse with a US-based IP address.
Heck, you can target down to individual zipcodes, Congressional districts, counties, Metro areas, and a bunch more ways. No excuse other than ignorance if you or your clients ads are running in an entirely different continent.
If you want your ads for your US company to appear in Europe as well as in USA, then you need to create a sufficient AdWords daily budget, plus perhaps do time of day targeting. Or to be better at it, have separate AdWords campaigns for each geo, with separate budgets, even if you're using the same ads.
There's a lot I don't like about AdWords, including how Google loves to split functionality into different menus and services and levels of products to create massive confusion about how to use them. Like WTF isn't there one single thing that has all my ad budgets, my analytics, my webmaster tools, my everything-about-it, all in one damn place? Or to use another, non-ads example, Google Voice can be used as VOIP from a computer, but only by a not-well-explained combo of Google Voice + Google Chat + Gmail page + Google Talk plugin, something no non-technical "normal person" will ever discover. Some of that dysfunctional UX comes from Google's only-engineers culture, but on the advertising products I think some of it is also deliberate ambiguity so you will inadvertantly spend more. Same reason that in USA and many other jurisdictions, Google will not let you prepay for a fixed spend, only postpay - they like that you can't quite control it, and the house always has the edge.
But they do provide geotargeting tools, rather good ones. So no excuse if your ads are running in the wrong locales.
That doesn't make the sleazy service abusing AdWords any less evil themselves. But if the ads are eaten up by wrong geolocations, whether from that sleazy service or just from legitimate browsing clicks in the wrong countries, that is the advertiser's own fault for not using the control Google gives them.
CAs normally issue certs with 1-year validity. As they may not expire later than 2015-11-01, CAs will mostly stop issuing them on 2014-11-01. I guess you could ask them to cut a cert with a special, shorter lifetime but that would be hassle (and therefore extra cost).
Your attempt to confuse here isn't really helpful.
Google does *sell* Google Glass and Nexus phones and tablets and Chromecast and Nest and soon Dropcams and probably more. They are "Google products" branded and sold by Google as theirs.
Mozilla only has one device that it works on directly, the Firefox OS Flame reference phone. The rest of the hardware you see out there is being made and sold by someone else.
And that's not just true of the hardware. Much of the work going on to extend Firefox OS software into areas outside of phones is being done by third parties for their products.
Mozilla doesn't build hardware. We make software, including Firefox OS. Firefox OS is a completely open platform freely available for any company to build on top of without restriction. There are dozens of companies building Firefox OS-based products today and there will be more tomorrow, covering mobile phones, tablets, TVs, set top boxes, game consoles, streaming dongles, wearables, and more. Some of those companies are working directly with Mozilla and others are taking the code and running with it on their own.
Netcraft confirms it.
Sometimes I wonder if I was the only one paying attention in Civics and Social Studies. Cliff notes version:
1) The United States is not a Democracy, it's a Republic.
Oh jeez this again? The classic GOP / Libertarian / Tea weak-minds binary thinking that gets the meaning of both "republic" and "democracy" wrong.
The US is (supposed to be) a democracy. Just ask any living current or ex-President. Look at any respected list of "countries that are democracies". You do the research. It's simple.
The US is a republic. As in, "not a monarchy".
Republics can be democracies or they can be dictatorships, and pretty much anything in between. There is also nothing in the word "republic" which implies "representative". Just ask North Koreans.
Democracies can be direct democracies, like ancient Athens or a current-day New England Town Meeting or California ballot initiative. Or they can be representative. There is nothing in the word "democracy" that implies "direct-only".
"Democracy" and "Republic" are orthogonal concepts, they are not antonyms. Even when the US Senate was appointed, it was appointed by state legislatures which were comprised of elected representatives, who were elected by democratic elections. As opposed to being appointed by the monarch or being passed down via aristocratic houses.
Actually nowadays we are closer to that, with the money=speech nonsense and an increasingly distractable and distracted public who will vote whichever way paid media brainwashes them to do. House Clinton, House Bush, House Kennedy, and the upstart House Paul.
You may flip the order of the following words around, depending on what you want to emphasize, change some from adjectives to nouns, but all these terms are needed to properly define what the US system of government is:
Constitutional Federal Republic governed as a Representative Democracy,
Federal Constitutional Representative Democratic Republic.
Choose your emphasis, but you cannot leave any of those terms out without misrepresenting how the system is designed.
- It's a Federation of States. Not a unitary central government with weak subdivisions that have only specifically designated powers (like for example Uruguay is, where the "departamentos" of my new country of residence are far weaker than US States or even Canadian provinces, are more like counties in US states.)
- It operates under a written Constitution, rather than an unwritten or partially-wrtten collection of basic law (like the UK has)
- It is a Republic, not a Monarchy (unlike the UK which is a monarchy even though it is also a democracy)
- It is a Representative democracy rather than a direct democracy, at its Federal and in most cases at lower levels (same as UK)
- It is a Democracy rather than a dictatorship. We The People (supposedly) have a voice and a fairly-run, democratic vote, in deciding who represents us.
Leaving any of that out is at best, ignorant point-missing. Usually it is deliberate agitprop.
The sky isn't blue, it's where birds fly. What you are saying is every bit as nonsensical and more dangerous.
Mozilla is not a public company. It is a 501C3 tax exempt non profit and its wholly owned taxable subsidiary. Our stockholders are the people of the world. Our decisions are based on maximizing the value of the Internet for the benefit of everyone everywhere, especially those who lack representation from the giant institutional multinational publicly traded corporations like Google, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft.
Typical slashdot bad editors. Fastest in Norway != fastest in world.
I now live in a small beach town in Uruguay, on a dirt road, and I got a free upgrade to fibre-to-home, which is being extended to every home in Uruguay. Time for me to get my bogus submission ready for "Uruguay has the best internet in the world". Just because a country is socialist on basic services, and extends fiber to everywhere, does not make it the best in the world. Makes it damn good, but "best" or as hyperbolically stated, "the highest quality Internet experience in the world" requires proof. As others have mentioned, that requires specific speeds, pings, and total transfer allowances, before making such a claim.
Better than the Comcast/ATT/Verizon cabal does not mean "best". Despite what all you US-centric folks may think.
Which phones with 128MB or 256MB of RAM run a modern version of Android?
Firefox OS is trying to fix much of this.
The Web is the most successful platform of all time and we're leading the pack on bringing a the Web platform to mobile in a way that's integrated rather than fractured like the existing app store models.
What he said. The truth is, I never had cable TV for those reasons, and this: Remember, the deal was commercials = free TV. Cable started out with no commercials (yes, it did - except for the network channels), but they slowly began adding them in, until now, where there are more commercials on cable channels than on network television. Of course, TV watchers are a docile group to begin with...
When was that ever "the deal" as opposed to "what you wanted to be the deal"? Cable used to be called CATV, for "Community Antenna TV" and was primarily a way to bring television programming into areas that were geographically un-served by TV, usually due to actual geological / topographic reasons. Places like Ithaca, NY, or Breckenridge, Colorado, where no way in hell is a TV signal from Syracuse or Denver is getting into them through the hills down into the valleys. Later, urban canyons like NYC where not everyone had the ability to put up any kind of outdoor antenna - not because of regulations as much as real estate realities, and indoor antennas suffered from horrible multipath. I've lived in all three of the places I mentioned, laughably tried to get OTA TV in them, and have been a cable subscriber in all of them at one point or another. Getting "content" without commercials was never the deal - it was getting content, at all.
Later, the idea of "cable channels" started taking off, and what we now think of as the "basic tier" of cable stations began to show up. Watching "USA Night Flight" back in the day, then the launch of MTV with actual music videos. Along with the "Arts and Entertainment Network" that had plays, classical concerts, opera, not dysfunctional yahoos. Whether or not these extra stations had commercials, there was never any "deal" that "your cable bill pays for the content", CATV was a distribution method. Then the "pay tv" channels like HBO became popular. You can't pay for HBO without paying first for the "CATV" distribution subscription. In 2014 that's a dumb idea, but back then it wasn't - you were paying for the pipe, and now that you had the pipe, you could also pay for premium content. Given that "pay tv" is either "pay by having commercials" or "pay by having a CONTENT fee", I don't see a difference.
Your strawman argument against cable is flawed. You never understood the deal. You weren't paying for the pizza, you were paying for the delivery of the pizza.
How'd that "enforced separation" work out with Network Rail and the train services that replaced British Railways?
Comment is full of wrong.
Time Warner has not owned Time Warner Cable for several years. Time Warner is some ongoing licensing royalty from the "Roadrunner" intellectual property "beep beep", but otherwise they have no connection at all. Next month it will be 5 years since TWC was fully independent of Time Warner. Try to keep up.
In fact, "Time" likely won't be part of Time Warner before long either, in that they're looking to spin off that group. But the Cable Company is already long gone away from Time Warner (oh, and AOL isn't part of it either, in case you're still confused). Thus TWC, which Comcast wants to buy, does not own any cable program networks at all. No CNN, no TBS, no Cartoon Network, no HBO. That's all part of the "Warner" part of "Time Warner", not any part of the cable company.
You're equally ignorant about the scope of Comcast's fully-owned NBC Universal, which is ridiculously larger than "NBC/NHL/MLB". I assume that you meant NHL Network and MLB Network, not the actual sports leagues. MLB network is only partly-owned by NBC Universal's NBC Sports Group; Time Warner Cable (OK, that's Comcast too if this goes through), DirecTV, Cox Communications are the other minority owners, while Major League Baseball itself is the majority owner. NBC owns 5.44% per Wikipedia. On NHL Network (USA), NBC is the only minority owner, but has just 15.6% with the National Hockey League owning the rest.
Meanwhile you ignore: USA Network, MSNBC, CNBC, Bravo, NBC Sports Channel (formerly Universal Sports), Oxygen, E!, SyFy, Esquire Network, UniversalHD, and a bunch more networks that are both on -2, -3, etc. OTA digital subchannels and on cable like Chiller, Cloo, Sprout, etc. That's just the NBC Universal Cable Group. Don't forget all the OnO (Owned and Operated) NBC TV stations - far fewer than the overall NBC broadcast network total affiliates, but the big-market ones like LA, SF, NYC, and many more are owned by NBC itself. Which means owned by Comcast.
Plus, Universal Studios.
Oh, and Jay Leno just left NBC. Yes, again. Try to keep up.
Even more wrong, with your: "the fight has... been with... Viacom..." in that the big recurrent CBS fights are with CBS, which is way more than CBS old-people-TV network. Viacom and CBS split apart years ago, which means all those "Viacom" TV networks and properties? They belong to CBS (which also owns CNET, ZDNET and lots of online properties too). In fact, CBS now owns "Star Trek". Which is why my paragraph-opener sentence should be read Shatnerized. Yes, the network that turned down Star Trek in the 1960s, saying "We have one of our own we like better - Lost in Space", now is the owner of the "Star Trek" intellectual property. Paramount, which is part of Viacom, has absolutely nothing to do with "Star Trek" other than having some remaining rights to it as a motion-picture-only property. Many of those "Viacom" channels you're thinking about? They're now CBS. Such as the "Showtime Networks" group of channels. The MTV Group is still Viacom.
You really need to follow what is actually happening rather than that outdated Facebook "meme" infographic of "These Six Companies Own All Our Media".
That's why I have three "hot" bank accounts.
One for ATM transactions/meatspace debit card purchases, one for bill payment, and one for cyberspace debit card purchases.
If your bank doesn't make this easy to manage, switch banks.
Your plan is flawed. Sure, you have three accounts but your comment "If your bank doesn't make this easy to manage, switch banks" implies they are all at the same bank. Which subjects you to many other risks you're likely ignoring:
1. Person with stolen card may be able to social-engineer access to other accounts or online credentials and thus access the other accounts.
2. Your bank may choose to do a "courtesy overdraft transfer" from you other account, to cover thief's new laptop and vacation.
3. An "unusual transaction" on the one account, if unusual enough, may trigger the bank's fraud-bots to put a freeze on all your accounts, at least temporarily. Some stupid institutions do "freeze everything, no messages" as an attention-getting attempt at reaching you, and no, they don't disclose up front that they do that, so you can't "switch banks" based on looking out for that stupidity.
4. Some dispute with a big-enough jerk person, company, or organization may lead to a lawsuit or garnishment against you, and nowadays many banks have an immediate "fire the customer" response to that action. Again, not something they disclose up front. Condo Board (HOA) from Hell got me fired as a customer from a "good local bank". Luckily it wasn't my only bank/bank-alternative.
A much better idea, if you want segregation of accounts between physical world use, online use, and billpay use, is to use three different institutions entirely, picking carefully both for minimal Banksterism and for free external transfer services.
For example, I have (US-centric because that's the topic):
1. A Credit Union membership, in an institution that pays 4% interest (yes, four percent I didn't drop zeros or decimals) on the first $500 in checking and separately on the first $500 in savings. Has totally free 2-3 day ACH "push" to transfer money to any other bank or bank-like-thing (such as a prepaid debit card with a "bank account number" and "routing number" or to "pull" from any other bank-like account. Only if I initiate it. Overnight for a $2 fee. Both checking and savings there to maximize interest, have their Debit MasterCard, have their Bill-Pay but have no current payees set up, deliberately do not have any actual paper checks and never have on this account.
2. A "checking alternative" account with no minimum deposit, no minimum balance requirement, from an online discount brokerage firm (I don't have an investment account with them, just this cash management account.) Has a Visa debit card no added fees for foreign transactions over the Visa conversion fee, full rebate of any ATM-owner surcharge anywhere in the world, deposited back next banking day, no ATM-use fees of their own. Has free printed checks and free check refills. Has free BillPay, free external transfers by ACH. Pushes to my other bank-like institutions typically arrive next banking day despite their saying it is 2 days. Pulls from other accounts usually 2 days.
3. A high-interest (as US interests rates go) online-only savings account with no checking, no bill-pay, no nothing but can be the ACH target for direct deposit from Elance, PayPal, etc. for freelance work, is a transfer source and target for accounts 1) and 2) at those other institutions, has its own ACH external transfer capabilities (typically 2-3 days on pushes, out, a couple more days for funds availability on pulls into it - so I usually push from the other accounts which makes it instantly available when it gets there). Also tied to an online purchases rebates cashback program (Upromise.com - oriented towards savings for students but anybody can use it and get the cashback rebates, no matter what form of payment used, into their Upromise account and then transferred into this bank account.)
An action by an adversary (legal or illegal) against account 1) cannot cut off my access to accounts 2) or 3) directly. Access to the Debit MasterCard / Visa Debit of accounts 1) or 2) cannot access account 3 at all. Account 3) can push to a prepaid Visa from an entirely separate institution if I want to do spending in the real or online world that needs a card, with good funds on that card in 2 days.
Much safer. I'm obscured here, not anonymously nym'ed here anymore, and I've mentioned these in fully-disclosed locations like G+ previously, so I'll say what I have:
Account 1) BECU credit union in Washington State ("Boeing Employees Credit Union"). Anybody who lives in WA, works in WA, "worships in" WA or is a near relative of anybody who does or did, can join, and then keep the membership relationship after leaving. I think if you've just changed planes in Seattle-Tacoma International and stayed long enough to get Ivar's Clams, you're probably eligible. becu.org. Can mail or scan paper checks.
Account 2) Fidelity Investments Cash Management Account (used to be called "My smartCash" and is nothing like the "Cash Management Account" concept of a unified investment+cash single-account that the big wirehouses like Merrill use that name for.) fidelity.com, look for the Cash Management Account thing. Some of the other online brokerages also have similar accounts with comparable benefits, so check Schwab, etrade, etc. Obviously they are hoping to create a wider account relationship but other than the home page promoting other products, Fidelity does nothing in-your-face to get you to open other accounts beyond this way-better-than-bank-checking account. Only thing you can't do is deal in cash. If there's a Fidelity branch nearby you can deposit checks in person. Otherwise can mail or scan. There may be balance minimums to be able to scan checks.
Account 3) Sallie Mae Bank Upromise-linked High Yield Savings. banking.salliemae.com and upromise.com. You don't need to have a student, you don't need to set up a 529 plan.
If you don't want anything to do with any part of Wall Street (even its distant Boston relation which doesn't do its own underwriting or create its own deriviatives for the most part), then you won't want any type of account like Account 2. But I consider that self-defeating nose-cutting face-spiting. You can opt-out of the FDIC banks to which Fidelity sweeps your balance, getting rid of the worst of the banksters, using the less-evil smaller and regional banks on the "Program Bank List".
If you don't want anything to do with a bailed-out government-sponsored-enterprise (GSE) like Sallie Mae (or like Ally Bank as another example) then you won't want anything to do with Account 3. But again, why not take advantage. And however rapacious Sallie Mae may be, to at least some extent your deposit is helping provide student loan money. Meanwhile you're getting rebates from Lenovo, Dell, Newegg, Expedia, cheap hotel chains, and lots more, and every time $10 accrues, it sweeps into your Sallie Mae bank account.
I don't do the exact same type of account segregation as the AC to whom I'm replying. But I do some logical segregation and optimization. Funds sitting for a while, into Account 3) where they get almost a percent of interest in an account that there is no way out of that isn't directed, online, by me. No checks, no card, not even a checking account number. If I'm feeling at all flush in these transitional years between end-of-corporate-career (not by choice, by Banksterism) and early-social-security, and have an >4-figure balance, I pack Account 1) BECU with a full $1000 (considering the two accounts, savings and checking with 4% interest on $500 in each, as sub-accounts of one mental-aggregate-account). I move money in and out of Account 1) Fidelity with planning based on what I need to withdraw for free via their best-to-use ATM/Visa Debit. PayPal/Elance payments go into either 2 or 3. No frak-up in or about any one of those institutions can screw me over in the other two. The rare US billpays I need to do, I usually would do from one of the two bill-pay enabled accounts, and I wouldn't put all payees in one account, again for distribution of risk.
Three accounts, at the same place, give none of these benefits.