You really think they'll go bankrupt over this?
Not a hope.
a) they made US$5B in just *3 months*
b) they have huge cash reserves
c) if they need to they do some "company restructuring" which just so happens to leave one "company" with all the liabilty and none of the assets.
It also depends on ones culinary skills. My leftovers are generally far superior to the average work lunch fair and I save money to boot (plus I never get bored with the menu because I make it). Seriously, learn how to fucking cook. Not only do I eat lunches on a daily bases that are both nutritious and tailored exactly to my tastes (delicious) but I also save a shit ton of money. I did the math a bit ago and I pretty much fund a trip abroad once a year with the money I save by doing my own lunch most days. While I completely get the laziness factor for the occasional lunch out, eating out every day is just cheating yourself out of the vast array of other opportunities money offers you. Learning how to cook takes time but it pays off both in terms of quality of life and in terms of cash on hand.
We get videos embedded in a web page, instead of in their own window
Because most people don't want that. Yes, perhaps you do, and perhaps even I do. But many end users want the experience -- they like favoriting videos, they like to leave comments, and they want it all to be integrated so that it all fits together and looks nice. And, most importantly, pretty much NO content servers want that either. When bandwidth is expensive and the ad revenue has to flow in somehow, advertising is necessary, either in the video itself or on the associated webpage.
No, that is not what they are doing. All they are doing is saying 'if you want a license to make commercial works, it will cost you x, if you want to make non-commercial works, it will cost you y'. They are not putting limitations on YOUR product, they are putting limitations on your use of THEIR product. And this is a perfectly valid and normal way of doing business. For instance, look at the difference in cost between leasing space for commercial use, and leasing space for residential use. If you rent residential space and put a business in it, you are going to wind up in court.
The alternative is that everyone, commercial and consumer, pays the same price. Is there any reason why that is any better? Keep in mind that that will most certainly result in an increased price to consumers.
This is coming from a man taking time off admiring his nazi gold to mis-educate Africans on condoms. If I was going to censor the internet, he'd be the first on my list, through my criteria of "not publishing mis-information" but since I'm against censorship, I'll allow the paedophile-hugging homophobic cunt to speak, sadly in the knowledge that some people will actually listen to him.
The fact that he's speaking at all about anything other than the fact that his entire institution is rampant with child buggery which they have shown no interest in doing anything about disgusts me. Last time I heard, they were trying to blame paedophilia on homosexuality in spite of huge evidence to the contrary.
Next this guy whose closest contact with sex is having his bollocks felt by a congregation of yes-men will be telling me that Jesus actually existed... Oi,Benedict.. you realise that you are NOT holy, right?
Nice house you had there. Too bad you abandoned it to go to work. And leaving your car abandoned out in that parking lot...
Not having to have an armed militia to defend your property in your absence is considered moving forward in regards to civilization.
This is why you should never ask Slashdotters for legal advice. Not only are they not lawyers, they overestimate their psychic abilities, and are willing to interpret a law based on a third-hand summary.
That's harsh. You almost make them sound like journalists.
Actually cash makes it far *harder* to track spending
Nope, wrong. The problem is you don't know how to do it properly.
The trick is to set aside fixed pools of cash for specific classes of discretionary spending (eg, groceries, etc), and to fill those pools on fixed intervals (say, twice a month). You can then *only* spend from those pools. This controls spending because, obviously, you can spend any more than you've allocated, which turns those variable, discretionary expenses into fixed, well-understood expenses that can be incorporated into a controlled, predictable monthly budget.
With plastic, it's so trivial to simply spend spend spend, without really thinking about it, which is why so many people go into fantastic debt, while simultaneously being extremely inefficient with the money they do make.
When you can watch your savings dwindling month after month it's a pretty good motivator for controlling spending.
ROFL, wow. That's so wrong it's hilarious. The whole point is that most people *don't* monitor their expenditures, so they don't notice their savings dwindling. Worse, many people work out of credit cards, which means it's not their savings that dwindles, it's that their debt climbs, and most people just don't handle that well.
No, sorry, for many many people out there, cash is a *far* better idea (assuming it's done right). Is that a universal rule? No. But if your goal is to tightly control spending, a well-managed, cash-based budget is hands down the best way to go.
I've seen the church help the homeless, the down on their luck. I've seen them talk people through the most difficult times in their life.
I've seen that too, and the goal generally seems to be to bring those people to the church, helping them is marketing. I'll be more impressed when I find out about a church that goes out and just sets up a stand that says "Free food for the homeless" and doesn't mention their religion, or even that they're a church, and just helps people for the sake of helping them.
Maybe your step-father actually does this, I don't know, but if he does that makes him an exception, not the rule.
The decision doesn't have to be logical; it was unanimous.