[quote]The likelihood that any ISP is going to agree to hijack their subscribers' browsing experience because some piddly company wants to start cashing more checks is... pretty low.[/quote]
Particularly since ISP subscribers are likely to not pay their ISP fees because the ISP isn't providing the service they paid for. Subscribers aren't paying to have their browsers hijacked by some troll.
[quote] You could, perhaps, make an argument that a site that uses SSL is more likely to be a high quality site, but Google doesn't even appear to be making that argument. [/quote]
Could you though? I've seen a lot of very bad websites created of entirely scraped contents that use SSL. That Google would even consider these as being able to rank even slightly higher in search results due to the use of SSL would be ludicrous.
A bad website is a bad website, whether it uses SSL or not. That being true, then one would hope that Google is smart enough to rank a higher quality site that doesn't use SSL higher than it would rank a bad site that does use SSL.
If their algorithm doesn't do that, then using SSL as even a very minor ranking factor would be a very bad step in my opinion. It needs to be and and/if situation as opposed to "oh, they use SSL so they get a better rank".
I'd assume there is more to it than that, but assumptions often get one in a place they don't want to be.
[quote]“That trip cost me about £2,000 for that monkey shot. Not to mention the £5,000 of equipment I carried, the insurance, the computer stuff I used to process the images. Photography is an expensive profession that’s being encroached upon. They’re taking our livelihoods away,” he said.[/quote]
Well ... perhaps he should have considered that before he gave his equipment to the monkey.
We pay about $36 for a box of 80 at Costco. Works out to .45 cents or so a cup. Not starbucks (hate their coffee), but usually Folgers.
I don't find that particularly expensive. McGregor's was selling boxes of coffee cups that fit in Keurig in a 4-pack. Cost $1 for 4 = .25 ea. Last time I bought McGregor's it was a 12 pack for $5
You pay for the convenience when you need a coffee asap, but I refuse to buy at the cost Keurig wants for the size K-cup. Whatever is on sale at a good price, unless the coffee really sucks (found some brands that are just baaad).
It'd be nice if someone made another coffee brewer that takes the k-cups. There is already an entire market out there of people who will eventually need a new one, and won't buy Keurig's DRM model (I won't - I'll never buy another Keurig brand pot, or recommend them the way I was doing).
What for? To make my friends and family mad at me? pffft. No thanks.
First manufacturer that produces a pot that works with all the Keurig accessories gets my business.
But what seems to have expired was the patent on the K-cups which isn't that big of a deal.
There have been a multitude of mfg. making permanent filter type baskets that fit in Keurig. Melita makes one that comes in a 2-pack (got that), some off brand makes another that comes in a 2-pack (got that), and yesterday at Walmart, I saw different mfg. that has a 4-pack. Probably get that too. You can re-use k-cups (have been able to for some time) and purchase lids for them. They all work (cause I use them).
I just fill them up with my own coffee, and store them in plastic zipper bags.
[And when participants were offered $1 per hour, that figure rose to 43%.]
Nope, not even for $1 an hour.
Maybe, (just maybe) if they offered more like $10/hr, I'd set up my old desktop with nothing but the OS on it and set it up there, making sure my other computers blocked all access to that one.
Cause, well ... why not? Nothing on the computer but a bare OS and no personal information. Hook up my old wired router to our old (still active internet service) and let them have their fun while I pocket a little free change.
But not for any amount of money would I install something like that on any current system I'm using.
Neri SOLD the artwork to the homeowner. The homeowner can do as she sees fit with it (unless she actually made some weird stipulations in the contract ... like she (Neri) retained the copyright to the actual work). Whether she (the homeowner) allows it to be photographed, or has someone take a video of herself smashing it to bits, the artwork now belongs to the homeowner, and not to Neri.
She has no claim at all on it, or what's done with it. Including the photographing of the artwork or displaying it on the web.
The invasion of privacy stuff is ... actually, I'm not sure I can even find a word to describe it. Ridiculous is too mild.