You don't have to destroy B&M, you only have to squeeze profits enough to make it unattractive to investors. The major B&Ms will be at each other's throats, one will die (Target), the other will live on profitably in a Microsoft kind of way.
Amazon has been using all extra cash for investment. So, yes, profits are low. It is a vigorous, growing company unlike the others you cite. The retailers are making profits now and paying down equity. You can't do that and prepare for the future at the same time. The world is changing at a blurring rate of speed, and that fact escapes those who are rich. They want things to stay the same, not going to happen. Amazon is spending crazy cash to build distribution centers close to your home so you can order at 10pm and have stuff on your doorstep before you get home. Online retailers already accomplish this without these aggregated logistics facilities. Wal-Mart is standing still compared to Amazon. It is going to be fun watching them skate where the puck has been. Target executives took a sneering attitude towards Amazon because their customers were using them as a showroom for a lot of products sold on Amazon. Their answer was to put up barriers for customers. The truth is, Target and Walmart would have to spend all of their cash (profit) to begin competing with Amazon in the long run. That would upset the status-quo and make for a lot of unsettling infighting and work--so instead, management opts for the path of least resistance because they are already rich. Bezos is rich, but he is on a personal mission--get out of the way.
Yes, Amazon is extremely efficient. Walking into a store is a crap-shoot that usually results in horrible customer service, wasted time, and a negation of other random benefits. The world is moving very fast, wasting an hour fucking around in Wal-Mart is not a smart economic decision--unless your time is only worth $9 a hour. I still have to shop for groceries--this takes enough time as it is. In an hour I can become acquainted with a new technology or gain more insight into my industry.
These channels are diverging. People need things immediately, but in the future the price for this convenience is going to increase by several factors.
All of these reasons defy logic, but I can see your reasoning. Just as much trouble to take it back to the store, Amazon is a much better experience. Don't know what you're saying about the gift card. I can save more than 5% at Amazon--include gas and my time and there is no comparison.
Yawn, bullshit, who cares. After two decades building games do you really end up this stupid about economics? His social impact investing has been going on for two decades and now. The best way to help people is to make jobs. What is "making jobs?" Generating, collecting, and organizing money so as to perpetuate the process. That is social impact investing.
I was watching a C# video series on Pluralsight conducted by Scott Allen and he laid down his top ten rules of coding at the end. To my surprise, and much delight, he said not to use comments. I was delighted because of his reasoning. He insisted that your methods, classes, variables have names that convey their meaning or action. When you follow this throughout your code these is no need for comments. You will have a rare comment of course, and I'm sure that rare comment will catch someone's eye. I'm done with comments--I now make sure all of my methods, classes, and variables are completely meaningful so that my code logic can easily be followed. If someone is sloppy, I doubt their comments are going to add much to the mess.
I bought an iPod Nano years ago and found it very difficult to work with. It was difficult because I expected to be able to transfer music onto it through the file system. No go. I sold it immediately. When someone purchases a license/copy of music they should be able to put it on as many devices as they wish. I don't agree with giving it to other people, but the act has no barriers when the music is stored in a file that it ultimately proliferates in this way (illegally). Anyone who doesn't think this is a problem is lacking in intellect. Nonetheless, as a person who is not trying to distribute music, and just make it available on all of my devices, this is a real slap in the face. I don't see an answer to the problem other than DRM. But how do you maintain DRM without punishing the legal users? Computers were designed for the ultimate in information freedom, and while they excel at playing, editing, and transferring musics and other media there is a domain mismatch when it comes to maintaining rights. No one has a right to music unless they pay for it.
If the group is aimed at the same task then they will each subconsciously reduce their own labor. It's like when I'm driving with my wife in the car, I don't pay attention because I know she will.
It's getting to the point where you're not even allow to dope with your own blood anymore. If I want to keep some of my own blood back and transfuse it in before an event that is my business!
I watched YouTube for the first time on my TV the other night for an hour, resulting from one search: "PBS." I didn't even scratch the surface, it's free, and the family had a great time. When you sit down in front of YouTube it may be mostly crap, it doesn't hold true for me. I have watched hours of videos from eminent professors, Feynman, Friedman, Sowell, etc... in recent weeks on YouTube for free.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to destroy B&M, you only have to squeeze profits enough to make it unattractive to investors. The major B&Ms will be at each other's throats, one will die (Target), the other will live on profitably in a Microsoft kind of way.
Amazon has been using all extra cash for investment. So, yes, profits are low. It is a vigorous, growing company unlike the others you cite. The retailers are making profits now and paying down equity. You can't do that and prepare for the future at the same time. The world is changing at a blurring rate of speed, and that fact escapes those who are rich. They want things to stay the same, not going to happen. Amazon is spending crazy cash to build distribution centers close to your home so you can order at 10pm and have stuff on your doorstep before you get home. Online retailers already accomplish this without these aggregated logistics facilities. Wal-Mart is standing still compared to Amazon. It is going to be fun watching them skate where the puck has been. Target executives took a sneering attitude towards Amazon because their customers were using them as a showroom for a lot of products sold on Amazon. Their answer was to put up barriers for customers. The truth is, Target and Walmart would have to spend all of their cash (profit) to begin competing with Amazon in the long run. That would upset the status-quo and make for a lot of unsettling infighting and work--so instead, management opts for the path of least resistance because they are already rich. Bezos is rich, but he is on a personal mission--get out of the way.
Because raw numbers lined up always tell the whole story.
AND, often if you bring something in to costco even after the warranty period they'll replace it just to keep you happy.
The essence of retail service. This used to be the norm.
Edge case. Sounds like the argument of an OCD pedant.
Yes, Amazon is extremely efficient. Walking into a store is a crap-shoot that usually results in horrible customer service, wasted time, and a negation of other random benefits. The world is moving very fast, wasting an hour fucking around in Wal-Mart is not a smart economic decision--unless your time is only worth $9 a hour. I still have to shop for groceries--this takes enough time as it is. In an hour I can become acquainted with a new technology or gain more insight into my industry.
These channels are diverging. People need things immediately, but in the future the price for this convenience is going to increase by several factors.
All of these reasons defy logic, but I can see your reasoning. Just as much trouble to take it back to the store, Amazon is a much better experience. Don't know what you're saying about the gift card. I can save more than 5% at Amazon--include gas and my time and there is no comparison.
I keep telling my son (9yrs old, don't know if he believes me) that building games much more fun than playing them.
Yawn, bullshit, who cares. After two decades building games do you really end up this stupid about economics? His social impact investing has been going on for two decades and now. The best way to help people is to make jobs. What is "making jobs?" Generating, collecting, and organizing money so as to perpetuate the process. That is social impact investing.
This is embarrassing to our industry. Maybe we should just keep this quiet.
global actuation?
You are scaring the shit out of me.
I was watching a C# video series on Pluralsight conducted by Scott Allen and he laid down his top ten rules of coding at the end. To my surprise, and much delight, he said not to use comments. I was delighted because of his reasoning. He insisted that your methods, classes, variables have names that convey their meaning or action. When you follow this throughout your code these is no need for comments. You will have a rare comment of course, and I'm sure that rare comment will catch someone's eye. I'm done with comments--I now make sure all of my methods, classes, and variables are completely meaningful so that my code logic can easily be followed. If someone is sloppy, I doubt their comments are going to add much to the mess.
Yellowstone is steaming, it's overdue. [Puts on some dubstep.]
Fucked is everyone when Yellowstone pops.
Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction:
Yeah, believing in anything makes you an asshole.
I bought an iPod Nano years ago and found it very difficult to work with. It was difficult because I expected to be able to transfer music onto it through the file system. No go. I sold it immediately. When someone purchases a license/copy of music they should be able to put it on as many devices as they wish. I don't agree with giving it to other people, but the act has no barriers when the music is stored in a file that it ultimately proliferates in this way (illegally). Anyone who doesn't think this is a problem is lacking in intellect. Nonetheless, as a person who is not trying to distribute music, and just make it available on all of my devices, this is a real slap in the face. I don't see an answer to the problem other than DRM. But how do you maintain DRM without punishing the legal users? Computers were designed for the ultimate in information freedom, and while they excel at playing, editing, and transferring musics and other media there is a domain mismatch when it comes to maintaining rights. No one has a right to music unless they pay for it.
You sir, are an idiot.
This case is ultimately not going to be decided by a jury. Tune in next week...
If the group is aimed at the same task then they will each subconsciously reduce their own labor. It's like when I'm driving with my wife in the car, I don't pay attention because I know she will.
let's make the transition and focus on deliverables!
It's getting to the point where you're not even allow to dope with your own blood anymore. If I want to keep some of my own blood back and transfuse it in before an event that is my business!
I watched YouTube for the first time on my TV the other night for an hour, resulting from one search: "PBS." I didn't even scratch the surface, it's free, and the family had a great time. When you sit down in front of YouTube it may be mostly crap, it doesn't hold true for me. I have watched hours of videos from eminent professors, Feynman, Friedman, Sowell, etc... in recent weeks on YouTube for free.
Agreed, they want their hands on him, period. After that, a whole bevy of charges will be unleashed and the sex charges will fade away.