Here in the UK, pretty much every small shop (and a lot of the pubs!) that I use has a charity box or two on the counter - this is where my 1 and 2 pence pieces end up. My pocket stays free from nigh on useless coinage, the charity gets some money, and I get a tiny sense of satisfaction of making an infinitesimal difference.
I wonder have much revenue these charities get from customers throwing their change into collection boxes and, perhaps more importantly, how much they might lose out on if prices were rounded to the nearest pound/euro/dollar, or even the nearest 10p. I know that I would think twice about putting 10p in a charity box every time (explanation: I'm a student
Heck, I don't know. This is late-night rambling whilst I watch the general election results roll in. If the Conservatives win, I doubt I'll have any pennies left to spare...
There is one line in the post that intrigued me:
I ad-block sites that I've never been to before. If they look like a cool site or something that I'd use in the future, I turn off the ad-blocker on that site for any future visits. It's my way of saying "hmm, good job" to the site.
I realized then that most websites offer opt-out advertising. That is, you have to see it unless you pay, use an ad-blocking program, or contribute something that the owners deem worthy of removing adds (like that tempting "no ads for good karma" thing I keep seeing on
I agree with what this community manager said and I would dare ask the logical follow-up question: why don't websites ask you to opt-in to their advertising? The idea would be simple - you visit the site and after X page views, or some other evil metric, you are taken to a page that says: hey, you can help us out with $$$, view ads, or just be a leech. I firmly believe that you will find that the majority of people who become engaged with the content will select either the $$$ or advertising paths. Right then and there your advertising space is worth more than all of the traditional "opt-out" websites.
So, do any advertising market providers allow for this?
There might be a good point in there, but it's blinded by your arrogant entitled attitude.
A short container, I think 20' long. Enough to fit a small household of two people.
I think you are having a little bit white and black view of publishing of scientific data. The actual scientific peer-reviewed article is behind the paywall, that's true, but the information from that article bleeds into News and Views section of Nature (which is probably behind the paywall as well now, used to not to be), then it bleeds into popular science magazines without paywalls like New Scientist.
So there is a cascade of diminished scientific details combined with a cascade of increased accessibility which seems natural to me.
Wow. I've bashed my head up against use tax nexus issues before, but... wow. I had no idea some of the rules surrounding the holidays were nearly as complex as the base rules, and they only last a few days.
PS: I'm basing that on following New Mexico's (as a random example) detailed regs surrounding the tax holiday. The chart is a severe oversimplification, almost to the point of uselessness.
Frankly, I'm amazed any retailer IN the state can figure that mess out. And that's the regulations pertaining to an exception that lasts two days out of the damned year.
Use tax logic is almost fractal in nature. The closer you look, the more detail there is, ad infinitum.
Well, that's the thing: in my locale at least there's a couple journalists who would take this on. Your point is well made, though. It's going downhill fast.
So if Safari has this great performance, how can the FF figure out how Safari does it?
By heading over to WebKit.org and downloading the open source rendering engine it uses?
"Say yur prayers, yuh flea-pickin' varmint!" -- Yosemite Sam