Cost for me for Internet (Very Fast) + Cable TV == $270 a month, plus $22 cable box rental plus $15 for HBO + $15 for Showtime. == $322 per month.
Cost for me for Internet alone: $150. $10 Netflix. $12 Hulu. $15 HBO, $11 Showtime. $10 one time OTA antenna of 3-day delay for CBS Online (Which is fine for me ), and of course Amazon Prime, which costs me $8.25 a month and saves me hundreds a year in shipping fees. But yeah, folks who like to watch sports are screwed, with NFL games online starting at $50 a month for four months and then getting worse.
Mind you, the vast majority of the people I've done the math for get things cheaper online, but that's not everybody. There will always be some folks who have no choice but to get the TV service.
...could also get their completely non-hacked, normal phone implicated in a crime, knowing that stingrays will be deployed to track it, and then lead them into an ambush.
The reports were true.
No, the reports were false, as they said Uber would start at the end of August
Given their attitude, horrific user 'support', painful and extortionist pricing, repeatedly screwing over of entire platforms, and other customer indignities, I am Beyond caring about them. The world has moved on, no one cares about this dying platform any more.
While I was slightly interested in new updates, the fact that they removed the two features that would be useful to me on the builds I need shattered that faint hope. I should have known better than to expect functionality much less quality from Adobe. All this seems to be is that someone figured out it was less work, and therefore cheaper, to keep up with Linux builds than to update a years old code base that no one remembers how to patch. It isn't largesse, it is CYA on security
I would say I told you so, but when they announced a pullback on platforms ~4-5 years ago I did tell them so. All my friends there laughed and said I didn't have a clue. Within six months they had all quit. Within 2 years, Flash was walking dead, everyone with a stake in the market had solidified the alternatives and it was just a matter of time. Now they are trying to spin cost savings as a step in the right direction. The corpse is rotting but still managing to do PR, let it die the lonely death it deservers. Nothing to see here, move along.
This is an excellent point. Further, the subscription costs are nuts compared to what most people actually consume.
For example, if I had to pay, say, $4.99 a month for each site that I look at some things on from Google News, I'd be spending several hundred a month on news.
Let's take a look at the situation. If I don't block ads, I see about ten ads per page. Let's take a generous $10.00 CPM rate (I'll ignore any CPC because I'll be damned if I'm going to click any of that cruft). That means my viewing the article is worth "ten cents" to them. None when I block the ads. In a given month, I might look at five to ten articles from a given site, perhaps an average of seven from each site I view. Thus, if I'm paying more than $1 a month for their internet drivel, I'm spending way more than my eyes and private information would be giving them.
Since they won't deal with not accosting my eyes with ads in favor of a dime per article I view -at absolute most- (I'd be willing to toss in a nickle maybe honestly for most of this junk), they get adblocked instead and get diddly squat from me. Don't like my adblock? Too bad, I'll find the same article elsewhere, and when I post the link for people who don't block ads to look, it won't be yours. Chasing away my ad-blocking view means the loss of potentially hundreds of non-blocking views I'd drive their way.
I guess the real downside is that advertising is all about scamming everybody with their product anyway. The user's eyes are the product. The "articles" are just bait for the product, like we're fish. The advertisers pay for the product. The publishers then try to milk as much money out of the advertisers as they can with clickbait junk and a page crammed with dozens of ads. Then they complain that their bait is getting eaten off the line without hooking a fish as the fish are getting smarter. If they want the users to be their customers and the content to be their product, they're gonna have to have fish food, not bait, so to speak.
What's your point? That anyone you label a "troll" should not be allowed to participate? Before you answer, keep in mind that there are probably people who would blithely label you as a troll,just because they don't agree with you (or you with them).
No, that anyone that *twitter* labels a troll should be. It's their fucking site, they can do what they want, and personally I think it's a good move to have rules about not dropping turds all over their property.
Consider the postage stamp: its usefulness consists in the ability to stick to one thing till it gets there. -- Josh Billings