Note, of course, that the "owners" are anyone who owns Disney stock. Which includes a large chunk of the 401k's and IRA's in the country. Certainly it includes mine...
What do you think of the long-term implications of this however?
The goal, such as it is is to continually maximize profit in all areas. This means a large portion of expenses are the labor costs.
So it only stands to reason that you want expenses as low as possible - American workers tend to be paid more than someone from a country with a much lower standard of living, therefore - American workers are an expense to be eliminated.
This makes perfect sense for a extremely short term outlook.
But from a long term outlook, it is deadly counter-productive to your interests.
How often is that person from the third world country going to fly his family over to Disney World, pay the 100 dollars a person entrance, the hotels and meals for the time, then fly them all back home?
Oh, that's right - he's not.
Then again, since the incidental end goal for Corporate America is to force most of it's citizens to be either unemployed, or to work for the wages that they can pay someone in a third world country - eventually, the Americans who used to go to DisneyWorld, or DisneyLand or Epcot, or stay at the multiple resorts or cruises, are not going to have the money.
And of all of the businesses that should know that their continued profitability comes from a healthy middle class, Disney should have that on the first sentence of their mission statement.
They rely on a lot of people, spending a fair amount of discretionary money to visit their venues. How much do you figure a third world America that saves the shareholders a lot of money on labor is going to spend on 100 percent discretionary things like a trip to Disneysomething, when we're all making the same wages as that guy in IndiaStan?
It's like saving money on skydiving by not spending money on that expensive parachute.
One thing I do know for certain is Windows users seldom take those long trips and wasted hours into account when they brag about how much money they save over those "expensive Macs".
This is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard against using Windows. This has nothing to do with the OS, and everything to do with your willingness to support someone's computer remotely. Don't want to drive? Remote in or ship the damn thing, or otherwise tell them to figure it out themselves. Don't knock a product just because you choose to be a martyr.
Bullshit - if you can't understand the simple argument I'm making, is that with an Apple, or even my wife's Linux happy, these things don't happen. I haven't had one update hosing on either OS.
I don't have to travel to fix a computer that shouldn't have been fucked up by an update in the first place.
Of course it's a stupid argument for you Coward - You can't see beyond your nose.
id rather buy a MacBook every 5 years for $1500 than buy a Windooz machine for $500 every two years.
Every Mac I've ever owned has lasted atleAst 6 years.
Pretty much this. Having owned and used both PC's and Macs since just about forever ago, My Macs have always lasted longer. It's difficult to argue with upfront prices, because most people can't see beyond their nose. But I not only prefer Macs, but they are less expensive in the long run.
I guy I used to sign off on his purches for was really big on how inexpensive PC's were compared to Macs. He was in yapping one day about why we didn't save money by going all Windows PC's. I showed him by brining out the receipts. He was spending alomst twice as much for roughly the same capability.
I think it must be a management decision. Get the adoption rate up by heavily "promoting" the update, not realizing or caring that it will screw up a lot of users who don't fully understand the consequences, or for whom the upgrade will simply fail.
To your point, cost is a big selling point for most Windows users, and with the larger installed user base, I'm surprised that W10 is only around the OSX level. Not that I care, it's like smoking famous cigarettes to me.
As well, I've already seen a lot of soundcard issues, where the users machines simply won't produce sound, and won't recognize any devices - well it sort of does - it sees the sound card, but refuses to utilize it in the programs.
The interesting part is when you try to help the users, a few of them get weirdly belligerant about it, claiming Windows says everything is good, so it must be good. I had one guy so pissed off about the fix, which is Windows thinking some outdated drivers are good, but actually aren't, that he refused to do the fix because I was a stupid bastard. Even lied about going to the soundcard support site to update the driver. Some people would rather be "right" than have their machine work.
A few weeks later, he very sheepishly sent email that he finally went to the site, did as told, and it magickly worked.
Another issue is whne a machine refuses to boot. Safe booting in Windows ten is an unholy mess if you've taken the online upgrade path. I had a machine get bitched up by a power surge/outagfe when a remote site lost it's neutral line. It survived, but won't boot to the Desktop. Standard Safeboot methods don't work, so I go online.
Step 1 of the safe boot process - Insert the Windows 10 disk........ oops!
I did have another machine I could make a USB recovery drive with, but we'll see how that works. Probably as good as my W10 disk.
That W10 machine I'm experimenting with? Almost pretty good. But the same old Windows update crapshoot as always. Now that most people have no choice in the update matter, your computer simply is going to be borked. Even the shills have to be getting tired of this.
Which o/c is bollocks. Had every machine, which you are implying, got borked there would be a bit more of an uproar than the angry nerds complaining MS are trying to give updated software for free.
You livin' in the future? Or just don't understand "is going to be borked", which is a prediction based on past experience. I've spent a lot of time after patch tuesdays, or whne IT rolled out the updates, fixing bitched up Windows machines.
So you're saying buying a POS that cost 1/10th of even a midrange Windows machine causes problems? No way!
.
So you are saying that cost, the raison de etre' of the Windows crowd - is not a metric? I saw a flame war erupt over 5 cents difference in the cost of memory once, and Winders fans are always blathering on about those expensive Mac, to the point that they compare top end macs with the bottom end PC's. My eep netbook is obviously superior to a loaded Mac Pro, right?
You cannot have it both ways. If those bottom end PC's are out there, you can't just go blaming the users for buying them after being conditioned to think they are the best thing since multiple orgasm.
Or you could you know look at the data. There is a lot more than just this study about this. Fact is the data is not nearly as clear cut as the summary claims. What is clear is how crops handle not using pesticide, they don't. You know organic crops use pesticide right? You think you can just ask all the insects to be nice to your crop just because you decided it organic?
So you are saying that an ihnsecticide won't harm bees? Or do we just give up and do like China is doing now, and have peopel pollinate crops?
And, you actually wrote"
What is clear is how crops handle not using pesticide, they don't./p>
SRSLY? Are you just trying to lull me into complacency, laughing, by posting the stupidest comment on the web ever?
So plants did not exist until we invented insecticide?
Not much point in arguing with someone who would post that.
The requirement to run an entire OS installation routine for a minor upgrade is ridiculous.
They should have handled this more like service packs.
Christian
What they should do is do an update to get rid of the damnable forced updates. They are getting closer and closer to the apocalypse predicted for the XP machines. One of these days, a sizable number of W10 users will wake up with their tailored Windows experience being a computer that won't boot.
That said, when my parents tried to update their aging laptop from Win7 to Win10, it locked the machine in an infinite reboot cycle, requiring me to make a 400 mile round-trip to fix it and (eventually) get it back to Win7.
I hear so many experiences like this from Windows users.
I used to deal with it myself when my sister-without telling me, bought my father a Vista Basic machine to replace the system I had set up in his house, and of course I got to maintain the POS. Much cgasoline used and many hours.
One thing I do know for certain is Windows users seldom take those long trips and wasted hours into account when they brag about how much money they save over those "expensive Macs".
Not necessarily ecstatic about the numbers, but the numbers say that Windows 10 is more relevant than OSX if you want to talk about by usage.
Why would I want to talk about the usage? I don't buy Toyota Corollas because of their installed user base. I buy a tool that will do what I need to do. It's Jeeps for me and my usage pattern. Not as many sold, so I should buy a Corrolla for off road use because it's more popular than Jeeps?
That's ridiculous of course, but no more so than trumpeting the installed user base of Windows.
More to real world situations - how do I run my OSX only programs on that more relevant W10 platform?
And Vice versa. I have exactly 1 program that I need to run Windows for, so I have bootcamp and W7 on my Mac, and a test Dell running W10. So I have that particular tool at my disposal. Now I have more tools than those who have to buy a computer based on popularity.
But if using a so-called more popular OS puts more money in your bank account, that's awesome, and don't ever leave that job.
The people who were "accidentally" forced to "upgrade" to Windows 10, for one. Thanks MS! Supporting my aging parents from 1200 miles away is fun!
You need modded up.
Can you imagine in your wildest dreams that 20 years after Microsoft introduced W95, that they are in the hand-cranked automobile/manual choke phase of computing?
There is just no way this kind of thing should still be going on. I'm on my third total OS upgrade on my iMac. All went seamlessly. My Wife's Linux Mint laptop is being administered by her, and has only required 1 reboot after a total OS update in the couple years since switching from W8.1.
That W10 machine I'm experimenting with? Almost pretty good. But the same old Windows update crapshoot as always. Now that most people have no choice in the update matter, your computer simply is going to be borked. Even the shills have to be getting tired of this.
Want proof that it is a good thing? He had some material for a prequel that would be (an I quote the master himself): "a family soap opera".
There are some people, who once they have enjoyed a measure of success, start to believe that any idea that pops out of their head will be a success. Enter Jar Jar Binks
Oh CIO - as the inexorable IoT takes over the intertoobz - you will fondly look back on the days when only 1/3rd of your time was spent on security.
Just wait until the CEO calls because his Android penis pump won't shut off because a rival company hacked it.
With the arrival of the Internet. Time was, almost everything you read had passed under the eyes of an English major somewhere in its trip to you. Repeated exposure to edited text reinforced what you'd learned in grammar school. There was only one place where semiliterate morons could transmit text to you...and the Internet is today's restroom wall.
About 30% of our food comes from crops, including fruits, nuts, seeds, and oils, that depend on insect pollinators, according to Dara A. Stanley of Royal Holloway, University of London, who led the new study. 'Basically,' she says, 'you can't have a balanced diet without insect pollination.'"
I see no hype or exaggeration here. Just rational and accurate communication.
If the pesticides are a problem, let's address it. There's no need to pretend we're in for a future "without insect pollination". If this phenomenon is a real problem that can be demonstrated, then why hype it up?.
Because I'm certain that we can find some scientist, probably paid by the industry making Neonicotinoid pesticides, who will deny a problem, and a whole lot of people will hop on that bandwagon, just like global warming deniers, vaccine deniers, evolution deniers, moon landing deniers, tobacco and lung cancer deniers, and all the other happy little deniers out there. In 21st century America, Opinion trumps science every time.
Yes, we could 'afford' 90% income taxes on some of the most productive people during that period, because the whole world economy was sort of loony.
Especially the most productive ones who inherited the money.
That argument is a little specious. A lot of today's most wealthy therefore most productive in your estimation, pay a smaller percentage of their taxes than I do.
Plus, I have a little trouble with the idea that if we will be poor if we don't adopt the 1 percenters and far right worldview that Americans make too much money now as it is. We have to believe completely contradictory things.
If you want to believe that you need to be poor so that these most productive people are more wealthy have at it.
The US is the only highly developed nation without national universal health coverage as a human right.
And we really do need to be careful how long we remain highly developed. We did not achieve development under the present system of governance. The United States at it's zenith, would be called a socialist quagmire by persent day politicians.
And the character wasn't intended to be important. Dr. Smith was only the star of the show because Johnathan Harris was so completely freaking awesome. "Oh the pain!" was such an awesome meme. He basically carried a completely bad show with his awesomeness alone, turning into the vehicle by which he got to the situations that he would react to.
Slashdot Mirror
Note, of course, that the "owners" are anyone who owns Disney stock. Which includes a large chunk of the 401k's and IRA's in the country. Certainly it includes mine...
What do you think of the long-term implications of this however?
The goal, such as it is is to continually maximize profit in all areas. This means a large portion of expenses are the labor costs.
So it only stands to reason that you want expenses as low as possible - American workers tend to be paid more than someone from a country with a much lower standard of living, therefore - American workers are an expense to be eliminated.
This makes perfect sense for a extremely short term outlook.
But from a long term outlook, it is deadly counter-productive to your interests.
How often is that person from the third world country going to fly his family over to Disney World, pay the 100 dollars a person entrance, the hotels and meals for the time, then fly them all back home?
Oh, that's right - he's not.
Then again, since the incidental end goal for Corporate America is to force most of it's citizens to be either unemployed, or to work for the wages that they can pay someone in a third world country - eventually, the Americans who used to go to DisneyWorld, or DisneyLand or Epcot, or stay at the multiple resorts or cruises, are not going to have the money.
And of all of the businesses that should know that their continued profitability comes from a healthy middle class, Disney should have that on the first sentence of their mission statement.
They rely on a lot of people, spending a fair amount of discretionary money to visit their venues. How much do you figure a third world America that saves the shareholders a lot of money on labor is going to spend on 100 percent discretionary things like a trip to Disneysomething, when we're all making the same wages as that guy in IndiaStan?
It's like saving money on skydiving by not spending money on that expensive parachute.
Sorry kiddo, guess you're a tween. Go back to Reddit then.
Actually an olde farte. Reddit? Nah, the limit of my social addiction is here.
A fraud which has contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands of people should be punished with way more than 10 years.
Using him as a one time mine detector?
One thing I do know for certain is Windows users seldom take those long trips and wasted hours into account when they brag about how much money they save over those "expensive Macs".
This is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard against using Windows. This has nothing to do with the OS, and everything to do with your willingness to support someone's computer remotely. Don't want to drive? Remote in or ship the damn thing, or otherwise tell them to figure it out themselves. Don't knock a product just because you choose to be a martyr.
Bullshit - if you can't understand the simple argument I'm making, is that with an Apple, or even my wife's Linux happy, these things don't happen. I haven't had one update hosing on either OS.
I don't have to travel to fix a computer that shouldn't have been fucked up by an update in the first place. Of course it's a stupid argument for you Coward - You can't see beyond your nose.
id rather buy a MacBook every 5 years for $1500 than buy a Windooz machine for $500 every two years.
Every Mac I've ever owned has lasted atleAst 6 years.
Pretty much this. Having owned and used both PC's and Macs since just about forever ago, My Macs have always lasted longer. It's difficult to argue with upfront prices, because most people can't see beyond their nose. But I not only prefer Macs, but they are less expensive in the long run.
I guy I used to sign off on his purches for was really big on how inexpensive PC's were compared to Macs. He was in yapping one day about why we didn't save money by going all Windows PC's. I showed him by brining out the receipts. He was spending alomst twice as much for roughly the same capability.
I think it must be a management decision. Get the adoption rate up by heavily "promoting" the update, not realizing or caring that it will screw up a lot of users who don't fully understand the consequences, or for whom the upgrade will simply fail.
To your point, cost is a big selling point for most Windows users, and with the larger installed user base, I'm surprised that W10 is only around the OSX level. Not that I care, it's like smoking famous cigarettes to me.
As well, I've already seen a lot of soundcard issues, where the users machines simply won't produce sound, and won't recognize any devices - well it sort of does - it sees the sound card, but refuses to utilize it in the programs.
The interesting part is when you try to help the users, a few of them get weirdly belligerant about it, claiming Windows says everything is good, so it must be good. I had one guy so pissed off about the fix, which is Windows thinking some outdated drivers are good, but actually aren't, that he refused to do the fix because I was a stupid bastard. Even lied about going to the soundcard support site to update the driver. Some people would rather be "right" than have their machine work.
A few weeks later, he very sheepishly sent email that he finally went to the site, did as told, and it magickly worked.
Another issue is whne a machine refuses to boot. Safe booting in Windows ten is an unholy mess if you've taken the online upgrade path. I had a machine get bitched up by a power surge/outagfe when a remote site lost it's neutral line. It survived, but won't boot to the Desktop. Standard Safeboot methods don't work, so I go online.
Step 1 of the safe boot process - Insert the Windows 10 disk........ oops!
I did have another machine I could make a USB recovery drive with, but we'll see how that works. Probably as good as my W10 disk.
That W10 machine I'm experimenting with? Almost pretty good. But the same old Windows update crapshoot as always. Now that most people have no choice in the update matter, your computer simply is going to be borked. Even the shills have to be getting tired of this.
Which o/c is bollocks. Had every machine, which you are implying, got borked there would be a bit more of an uproar than the angry nerds complaining MS are trying to give updated software for free.
You livin' in the future? Or just don't understand "is going to be borked", which is a prediction based on past experience. I've spent a lot of time after patch tuesdays, or whne IT rolled out the updates, fixing bitched up Windows machines.
So you're saying buying a POS that cost 1/10th of even a midrange Windows machine causes problems? No way!
.
So you are saying that cost, the raison de etre' of the Windows crowd - is not a metric? I saw a flame war erupt over 5 cents difference in the cost of memory once, and Winders fans are always blathering on about those expensive Mac, to the point that they compare top end macs with the bottom end PC's. My eep netbook is obviously superior to a loaded Mac Pro, right?
You cannot have it both ways. If those bottom end PC's are out there, you can't just go blaming the users for buying them after being conditioned to think they are the best thing since multiple orgasm.
You demand cheap, you get cheap.
Or you could you know look at the data. There is a lot more than just this study about this. Fact is the data is not nearly as clear cut as the summary claims. What is clear is how crops handle not using pesticide, they don't. You know organic crops use pesticide right? You think you can just ask all the insects to be nice to your crop just because you decided it organic?
So you are saying that an ihnsecticide won't harm bees? Or do we just give up and do like China is doing now, and have peopel pollinate crops?
And, you actually wrote"
What is clear is how crops handle not using pesticide, they don't. /p>
SRSLY? Are you just trying to lull me into complacency, laughing, by posting the stupidest comment on the web ever?
So plants did not exist until we invented insecticide?
Not much point in arguing with someone who would post that.
The requirement to run an entire OS installation routine for a minor upgrade is ridiculous. They should have handled this more like service packs.
Christian
What they should do is do an update to get rid of the damnable forced updates. They are getting closer and closer to the apocalypse predicted for the XP machines. One of these days, a sizable number of W10 users will wake up with their tailored Windows experience being a computer that won't boot.
That said, when my parents tried to update their aging laptop from Win7 to Win10, it locked the machine in an infinite reboot cycle, requiring me to make a 400 mile round-trip to fix it and (eventually) get it back to Win7.
I hear so many experiences like this from Windows users.
I used to deal with it myself when my sister-without telling me, bought my father a Vista Basic machine to replace the system I had set up in his house, and of course I got to maintain the POS. Much cgasoline used and many hours.
One thing I do know for certain is Windows users seldom take those long trips and wasted hours into account when they brag about how much money they save over those "expensive Macs".
Not necessarily ecstatic about the numbers, but the numbers say that Windows 10 is more relevant than OSX if you want to talk about by usage.
Why would I want to talk about the usage? I don't buy Toyota Corollas because of their installed user base. I buy a tool that will do what I need to do. It's Jeeps for me and my usage pattern. Not as many sold, so I should buy a Corrolla for off road use because it's more popular than Jeeps?
That's ridiculous of course, but no more so than trumpeting the installed user base of Windows. More to real world situations - how do I run my OSX only programs on that more relevant W10 platform?
And Vice versa. I have exactly 1 program that I need to run Windows for, so I have bootcamp and W7 on my Mac, and a test Dell running W10. So I have that particular tool at my disposal. Now I have more tools than those who have to buy a computer based on popularity.
But if using a so-called more popular OS puts more money in your bank account, that's awesome, and don't ever leave that job.
Who is using Windows10?
The people who were "accidentally" forced to "upgrade" to Windows 10, for one. Thanks MS! Supporting my aging parents from 1200 miles away is fun!
You need modded up.
Can you imagine in your wildest dreams that 20 years after Microsoft introduced W95, that they are in the hand-cranked automobile/manual choke phase of computing?
There is just no way this kind of thing should still be going on. I'm on my third total OS upgrade on my iMac. All went seamlessly. My Wife's Linux Mint laptop is being administered by her, and has only required 1 reboot after a total OS update in the couple years since switching from W8.1.
That W10 machine I'm experimenting with? Almost pretty good. But the same old Windows update crapshoot as always. Now that most people have no choice in the update matter, your computer simply is going to be borked. Even the shills have to be getting tired of this.
Want proof that it is a good thing? He had some material for a prequel that would be (an I quote the master himself): "a family soap opera".
There are some people, who once they have enjoyed a measure of success, start to believe that any idea that pops out of their head will be a success. Enter Jar Jar Binks
Oh CIO - as the inexorable IoT takes over the intertoobz - you will fondly look back on the days when only 1/3rd of your time was spent on security. Just wait until the CEO calls because his Android penis pump won't shut off because a rival company hacked it.
China's apple growers are hand pollinating apples
https://www.chinadialogue.net/...
Pears: http://thebeephotographer.phot...
Great Britians bee loss
http://www.collective-evolutio...
And on and on, and on.
I keep writing about it, but seriously, Humans cannot defy nature or physics just because we feel like it. Bee death denials
With the arrival of the Internet. Time was, almost everything you read had passed under the eyes of an English major somewhere in its trip to you. Repeated exposure to edited text reinforced what you'd learned in grammar school. There was only one place where semiliterate morons could transmit text to you...and the Internet is today's restroom wall.
What a bunch of loosers.
Would've. It's a contraction of "would have".
When did this new form of illiteracy take hold? And how did it ever get past Eighth Grade?
For all intensive porpoises, I hain't got a clue!
The World - "Great!"
About 30% of our food comes from crops, including fruits, nuts, seeds, and oils, that depend on insect pollinators, according to Dara A. Stanley of Royal Holloway, University of London, who led the new study. 'Basically,' she says, 'you can't have a balanced diet without insect pollination.'"
I see no hype or exaggeration here. Just rational and accurate communication.
Truth can be hype to some folks.
If the pesticides are a problem, let's address it. There's no need to pretend we're in for a future "without insect pollination". If this phenomenon is a real problem that can be demonstrated, then why hype it up? .
Because I'm certain that we can find some scientist, probably paid by the industry making Neonicotinoid pesticides, who will deny a problem, and a whole lot of people will hop on that bandwagon, just like global warming deniers, vaccine deniers, evolution deniers, moon landing deniers, tobacco and lung cancer deniers, and all the other happy little deniers out there. In 21st century America, Opinion trumps science every time.
Teach the controversy!
Google is your friend (as is Wikipedia):
Diver Dan
DucKDuckGo is my friend!
Yes, we could 'afford' 90% income taxes on some of the most productive people during that period, because the whole world economy was sort of loony.
Especially the most productive ones who inherited the money.
That argument is a little specious. A lot of today's most wealthy therefore most productive in your estimation, pay a smaller percentage of their taxes than I do.
Plus, I have a little trouble with the idea that if we will be poor if we don't adopt the 1 percenters and far right worldview that Americans make too much money now as it is. We have to believe completely contradictory things.
If you want to believe that you need to be poor so that these most productive people are more wealthy have at it.
The US is the only highly developed nation without national universal health coverage as a human right.
And we really do need to be careful how long we remain highly developed. We did not achieve development under the present system of governance. The United States at it's zenith, would be called a socialist quagmire by persent day politicians.
And the character wasn't intended to be important. Dr. Smith was only the star of the show because Johnathan Harris was so completely freaking awesome. "Oh the pain!" was such an awesome meme. He basically carried a completely bad show with his awesomeness alone, turning into the vehicle by which he got to the situations that he would react to.
Yes, he was definitely the highlight of the show.