I don't think that'd give you a fair result. If it was a book I was interested in I'd go for it at $1 with DRM, and just strip the DRM off it. I'd pass at $9.99 though, I see too many (nearly all) poorly edited/typeset eBooks and won't pay that much for one. I figure if they can't be bothered to put in the effort to make it a quality eBook, I can't be bothered to spend like it is one either.
Wait,this was a serious description about how digital books are published in 2014? This wasn't a joke?
I'm pretty sure it's the truth. I see OCR-type errors in eBooks I've bought regularly. One I was reading this week had a line with an I as 1. This applies even to books first published in the last couple of years.
Then again, eBook formatting/editing is regularly atrocious. I have yet to understand how the publishers can claim it costs them so much money to copy-edit them when, as a reader, it appears no one even spell-checked the damn thing.
Comcast is hardly an unbiased source on this, and I've never seen them provide anonymized data for others to verify their claims. They also like to switch between mean, median and average in their usage claims (they seem to use them almost interchangeably, which is incorrect, they're different things), so it's hard to really tell if they have increased over time at all, much less in sync with bandwidth usage (like the rise of streaming video).
So while it may be true that most people don't get near their cap, that link isn't proof of anything beyond "Comcast is using this to justify their data caps".
Actually, I do rent their modem (I've had to replace it so often, I'm scared to buy one of my own). So that wouldn't explain it either.
And in my case two months were off by over 100GB, of a 300GB quota. It was so bad, I was starting to wonder if someone had somehow spoofed my modem's MAC address and was stealing service. But I had to change modems in September, and the overages occurred before and after both, making that theory less likely.
Personally I still feel it's just making shit up.
Oh, and let's not forget the 2-3 months of the bandwidth meter failing to load data 99% of the time.
The fees for overages are an absolute joke too. Want to double your usage for a month, for 600GB total? That'll cost you an additional $60 ($10 per 50GB overage.) That's more than the base charge for the Internet portion of my bill is.
And their data meter is also a joke. I've had 40-50% discrepancies with my router, in Comcast's favor of course. Basically they'll charge you overages based on a magic number generator.
Why do they want to implement caps? So they can milk more money out of their customers.
It will also show them how to be kind to others as well. While they might be poor and in bad situations now, they could go on to be successful in life, maybe even become rich. Having seen generosity and kindness as kids will help make sure they do the same things for others when they can, helping make the world a better place in general.
This is really making Wheeler look like a tool of industry
I know when Wheeler was appointed a lot of people were concerned about his past being an industry lobbyist. His continuing to push these horrible rules forward, and now with two diametrically opposed commissioners asking him to slow the hell down, just makes him look like a totally bought and paid for tool of industry.
I doubt there's anything he can do to change people's opinions of him going forward either. The Internet community simply will not trust him on anything now.
Yeah, I can understand Mike's concern about potentially chilling others doing crowd funding, but this one looks like a flat-out fraud. Failing to do a bog-standard printing job in 2 years, and apparently it's now been over a year since the last update of any kind seems fishy as hell.
So I'm not at all surprised to see them getting sued.
So no. As long as a man who belongs six feet under, or at the very least in a jail cell, is running around free to corrupt my family, with the courts and justice system fully complicit in his acts, I will never believe that "fathers' rights" are somehow unfairly under-represented, any more than I will believe someone telling me that the sun is blue, and for the same reason: I have seen that this is not true with my own eyes.
I can't say I totally buy into the "father's rights" crowd, but when it comes to the problems with the family court system, they are absolutely correct. The only thing is, as you have seen happen first-hand, it's not always the father that gets shafted. The family court system basically picks a winner, and then refuses to back down from that position no matter what evidence is shown to the contrary. It is a serious problem that needs to be fixed, as it's destroying both adults' and children's lives.
Going by any individual experience and deciding that's the way the system works for everyone is not going to help fix the problem. Both sides need to admit that the problems exists and demand it be fixed.
Frankly from your story it sounds like her ex-husband was wealthy, powerful and connected. All recipes for making sure he'll come out the winner in the courts. That's not right either, but we see it in everything, even up to murder and child abuse. (Remember that story recently about a rich guy getting probation for child abuse because the judge decided jail wouldn't be "kind" to him? Same damn thing.) We really need to start demanding that shit stop too.
FWIW, I have a cousin that escaped an abusive marriage and the courts took her side totally. But then her ex vanished and they wouldn't do anything to try to hunt him down, leaving her without any child support for two kids. The system failed her too, just not as badly as it did your mom. I still think this guy got the same shaft though, and it's not right.
Most likely the mayor filed a complaint with Twitter that got the account suspended. If so, that wasn't good enough for him, and he went much, much further, making a much better fool of himself than the parody account ever could have.
They can't, customs won't release them as-is, so the only way to change them would be to ship them back to the plant in China to have it done, then ship them back to the US. But as the article notes, import taxes into China are so high as to make that option more expensive than just destroying them.
Not to mention that even if customs themselves could be persuaded to do this, they'd still charge $150 an hour to do it (same labor costs as for destroying them) and $150 a day for warehousing them during the change.
That won't stop the bullying and may make it worse
There's no way leaving it at home will actually stop the bullying. He took it to school before, was bullied about it, so you'll get bullies saying "Where's your sissy backpack loser?" (Actually the real bullies will probably say worse stuff.)
And add in that if he tells them the truth, now he'll get bullied for being forced to leave it at home! "So even the teachers/principal/etc. think you're backpack's too sissy for a boy!"
How stupid are these school officials to not realize this? Are they trying to drive the poor victim to suicide or something?
I can sympathize with site owners, I run a site myself and struggle to get enough ad income for it. But I also won't compromise my principles by running intrusive ads, and I don't get all bent out of shape when people use ad blocking, because they have very good reasons to do so.
First up, as you mention in this article, the advertisers are partly to blame. They want more obnoxious ads that people hate so people start blocking them. Secondly, and more important I think, is the fact that ads have repeatedly been used to inject malware to people. Even reputable ad networks have had problems with the occasional malware-laden ad getting through. Why wouldn't people block ads after several incidents of that?
Personally I not only use AdBlock, I'm also using NoScript simply to protect my own computer from attack. If any site wants to get mad at the lost income from this, get mad at the hackers and advertisers, since they drove me to this.
Did you read the article? The cops hid all that information from the judge. To the judge it appeared that her apartment was controlled by the drug dealer Stink. Especially since all the other apartments had resident information and details about surveillance included.
I agree judges should ask more questions before issuing warrants, but here the judge would have had to read the cops' minds to even know what to ask And given how carefully the cops hid her existence to get their warrant, do you really think they would have answered truthfully?