The City of Philadelphia is proposing a Garbage Collection Fee. They want to charge residents $5.00 per week to have garbage collected. At the outset, this does not seem like much. Even if you do the math, it's $260 per year for an arguably necessary service. The city estimates it will raise one billion dollars in revenue with this new program, which will offset a similar deficit. It certainly sounds like a winning proposition.
But why the new charge? Haven't tax dollars funded this service for years? Truly they have. So why this new fee? After all, if a city provided service need more funding, shouldn't more tax dollars be allocated?
I don't have a problem with funding necessary services, but it seems to me this is just one way to limit a tax increase while still getting money from residents. But when a government collects money from it's constituents, isn't that a tax? If it were truly a for-fee service (like internet, telephone, etc) it would be provided by a variety of competing third party companies. Are residents going to be able to select the frequency of trash pickup? No, it will be once a week. Are residents being given a selection of service providers to choose from? Doubt it. Will residents be able to cart their own trash to the dump and forgo the new fee? Probably not. Sort of sounds like an imposed monopoly.
So let's just call it like it is. The city needs more money and is proposing an additional $5.00 per week Garbage Collection Tax. There ... isn't that better?
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Saturday, January 31, 2009
When Google shut off the world
It's Saturday morning, January 31, 2009. I need to drive my son to an event over in Philadelphia, so I woke a little early to get a few things done on the Internet and get directions to the event before leaving. So I hop on, check and respond to some e-mail, visit Facebook (more on that later), then, with minutes to spare, go to Google to look up the event.
I type in the name of the school and get the usual myriad of results. The top search results are exactly what I need. Good, because I have little time to spare.
This site may harm your computer
But wait ... the site is marked "This site may harm your computer." What? Never heard of it before. No way. This has to be wrong. I click on the link anyway and rather than proceeding to the site, I am presented with a Google screen that explains that the site is potentially dangerous, and will not let me visit the site. Well, that's a fine mess.
The Geek in me kicks in. I read the URL and copy-paste the web address into my browser bar. Up pops the correct website - safe and sound. I snag the directions and I'm off.
But not quite. What was that all about? I sat down for a little experiment. I searched for "philadelphia restaurants". What to my surprise, EVERY result listing was marked "This site may harm your computer". "Shoot" I thought ... "I'm infected. There's no way every site is dangerous". I went to another computer. Same result. Hu? And there's NO WAY Google has a problem ... right? Arghh. No time now ... got to go.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
OK, I'm back. And things seem to be all right. But what happened? I Googled "this site may harm your computer", and faithfully(?) Google responded with the answer. The first answer came from a Canadian post , ironically served from Google.com.
Turns out that Google put a protective browsing scheme in place to prevent people from visiting potentially dangerous sites. The warning is displayed whenever you visit a site so tagged.
Unfortunately, this morning between 9:30 AM & 10:25 AM Eastern Time, EVERY site in the engine was so tagged due to a Google hickup. From CNN.com to <shameless_plug id="SonsWebComic"> TrueVillains.com </shameless_plug>, every site was being (inadvertently) blocked by Google.
With Google handling 70-80% of all search traffic, this means that millions of websites were rendered unreachable.
Which begs a question. Do you rely on only one Search Engine? Are all your eggs in one basket? Could your business survive if Google simply - went away? Granted, this is not likely. But the events of the day should give us pause.
The lesson: Your Internet Marketing campaign should be well rounded and diverse, just like your financial portfolio. It needs to take advantage of the internet as a whole, not just a handful of resources.
I type in the name of the school and get the usual myriad of results. The top search results are exactly what I need. Good, because I have little time to spare.
This site may harm your computer
But wait ... the site is marked "This site may harm your computer." What? Never heard of it before. No way. This has to be wrong. I click on the link anyway and rather than proceeding to the site, I am presented with a Google screen that explains that the site is potentially dangerous, and will not let me visit the site. Well, that's a fine mess.
The Geek in me kicks in. I read the URL and copy-paste the web address into my browser bar. Up pops the correct website - safe and sound. I snag the directions and I'm off.
But not quite. What was that all about? I sat down for a little experiment. I searched for "philadelphia restaurants". What to my surprise, EVERY result listing was marked "This site may harm your computer". "Shoot" I thought ... "I'm infected. There's no way every site is dangerous". I went to another computer. Same result. Hu? And there's NO WAY Google has a problem ... right? Arghh. No time now ... got to go.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
OK, I'm back. And things seem to be all right. But what happened? I Googled "this site may harm your computer", and faithfully(?) Google responded with the answer. The first answer came from a Canadian post , ironically served from Google.com.
Turns out that Google put a protective browsing scheme in place to prevent people from visiting potentially dangerous sites. The warning is displayed whenever you visit a site so tagged.
Unfortunately, this morning between 9:30 AM & 10:25 AM Eastern Time, EVERY site in the engine was so tagged due to a Google hickup. From CNN.com to <shameless_plug id="SonsWebComic"> TrueVillains.com </shameless_plug>, every site was being (inadvertently) blocked by Google.
With Google handling 70-80% of all search traffic, this means that millions of websites were rendered unreachable.
Which begs a question. Do you rely on only one Search Engine? Are all your eggs in one basket? Could your business survive if Google simply - went away? Granted, this is not likely. But the events of the day should give us pause.
The lesson: Your Internet Marketing campaign should be well rounded and diverse, just like your financial portfolio. It needs to take advantage of the internet as a whole, not just a handful of resources.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
