As it stands now, there are two people who can be President, Clinton and Trump. Trump is the less sucky choice, so there you go. There are no other options. (the R and D work hard to keep it that way)
Funny how anonymity and Trump go together so nicely. Sort of like secret ballots... Trump is the first presidential candidate willing to say what the silent majority is thinking. That's why he does so poorly in opinion polls, yet seems to do so well in elections: many more people support what the guy says than are willing to admit.
I'll admit it...
He is a pig, a male walking ego thing...
But I'll still vote for him, because the other option is Clinton, and she is just dirty and evil... I'll vote for him holding my nose, but I'll do it...
He does shoot himself in the foot needlessly, the spat today over the wives thing. It is stupid and needless, but he has no filter so this is what you get. He says the sort of crap you'd expect two guys going at it in a bar to say. Normally people running for President will THINK it, but not actually SAY it. He says it.
The difference is, I don't so delude myself into thinking the other guys aren't thinking it and just filtering what they say.
And yes, what he said was stupid, but not really a big deal.
---
Side note: As stupid as it sounds, he is right about one thing... he could shoot someone in broad daylight on 5th avenue and yes, I'd still vote for him. I hate Clinton THAT much. Maybe it is less a vote of support for him and more ANYONE but that evil bitch. The irony is that while Bernie Sanders is completely off his rocker and his numbers don't add up, I'd actually consider voting for him, mostly because I believe he means what he says. I don't agree with half of it, but I believe he is earnest and sincere. NOTHING Clinton says is honest, I don't think she even knows what she thinks anymore.
Evidence for that? Because cities that have that already implemented 15/hr wages have not seen a rush to automate.
I don't mean to be rude, but please, put on the critical thinking hat.
When one or two cities raise the min wage, there isn't enough of a reason to invest the billions of dollars required to replace half the workers in McDonalds with robots.
When it happens NATIONALLY, then there is now reason to do it.
It is far easier to just raise prices a bit in those areas where the wages went up, than to spend billions to replace a few thousand people. Make min wage $15/hr nationally, and that changes. This is why it hasn't happened in Australia, where min wage is already over $15/hr, because with only 22 million people, the market isn't big enough. But it is starting down that road.
Dominos in Australia is testing robot delivery today with the goal of rolling it out nationally in 2-3 years. It is getting too expensive to hire people to do this.
Would you rather have a large segment of adults (more adults make min. wage than 18-20 year olds by far) earning 7 dollars an hour, supplemented by food stamps and other government handouts, or would you rather have the 'bottom' wage be liveable, and people able to support themselves without government assistance?
You left out option 3: Would you rather have large segment of adults out of work completely and needing all $15/hr in the form of government assistance?
You don't think that can happen, but it can.
I'm kinda sick of my tax dollars subsidizing Walmart's workforce.
Would you prefer they lay off half the workforce and replace them with robots?
Seriously, it isn't THAT far off... Atlas now works without a tether and on rough ground... Another few years and that robot may well stock shelves in a Walmart better than humans do.
And the real nail in the coffin, so to speak, is that goods and services do become that much more expensive even when doubling wages. Last time I saw the numbers run, a Big Mac would cost 50 cents more. That is way worth it to me if 90% of people could live without government handouts.
I don't disagree, you're right, it won't double prices to do it...
But consider that if Atlas up there can make your Big Mac and the price went DOWN 50 cents rather than UP 50 cents, you might like that even more.
BTW, why do you want people making burgers anyway? It is a stupid job, let robots do it.
If I could teleport to the year 2150, I'd be shocked if we didn't have a basic income at that point with robots making everything anyway. I just don't think it will be pretty getting there, the current people in power will fight tooth and nail along the way.
Really? Then all those organizations for "black people" must be racist too
What, like the NAACP? Yes, they are extremely racist...
Imagine if I started a group called the NAAWP (National Association for the Advancement of White People).
Oh my lord the double standard is thick.
If they want respect, how about changing the name to NAAAP...
National Association for the Advancement of All People.
Black, white, yellow, all are welcome, lets make life better for all of us.
But by putting their race right into their name, they just ensure that it NEVER ends.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was totally correct when he said:
"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood."
That is a beautiful thing, but as long as you have something called NAACP and a TV station called BET, that will NEVER happen. Black people, in my experience, are far more racist than white people.
I fully agree that it didn't USED to be that way. In King's time, yes, it was still a problem. But times have changed and they need to let it go.
Chant "All lives matter" and you may well find a wonderful collection of all colors, all lives, standing together as one. But you have to drop the barriers.
No, it isn't. You don't get to decide what racism is.
I have no problem with equal rights for all. I fully support black people's right to vote, the right to be President. I don't dislike Obama because he is black, I dislike him because he sucks as a President.
Collin Powell make a wonderful president and if he ran, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, over anyone else running today.
It is not racism to call out the black community for having more than 50% of the violent crime while having less than 20% of the population. That is a culture problem.
If Al Sharpton would come out and denounce black-on-black violence, I would have at least some respect for him, as it stands, every single problem is white man from his point of view.
Losing money every quarter, like Amazon did for years, along with many other companies, is fine IF you're hitting the numbers in your five-year plan, and that plan has a path to profitability eventually.
You make an interesting point, but also point out how little discipline most investors really have.
Amazon was supposed to long ago be profitable, they have moved the goal posts so many times, I'd really have to do some research to find the original plan.
Amazon STILL doesn't make any money, long after that date, but for some reason, investors love it.
I love Amazon as a customer, but as a business, they are a mess. All the bad stuff of a huge retailer without the good stuff, and very little barrier to entry to competition.
But that IS the job of the CEO; to delegate the working of the company and to keep the heat off of those people from higher ups (the board/the investors) so that they can do their job in peace.
No, it really isn't...
That is part of Tim Cook's problem, he lacks Steve Jobs's vision...
Steve Jobs famously told investors "shut up and enjoy the ride, or sell your stock and go away".
Tim Cook is more of an operations person than a vision person. The CEO needs to be vision. This is the same problem Steve Balmer had trying to replace Bill Gates. Another operations person.
Now perhaps Marissa Mayer isn't cut out to be CEO, not everyone is. That's fine. But without a real vision and the ability to articulate it, you just have an operations person.
What is Marissa Mayer's vision for Yahoo? Besides earning a crap load of money for herself of course.:)
You referred to what "black people" should do, and what their current problems are. That's racism.
Nonsense, it isn't remotely racism. Calling it that dilutes the term.
The fact is black people make up less than 20% of the US population but are responsible for more than 50% of the violent crime.
That isn't racism, it is a fact. The black culture of gangster rap, the "hood", sticking it to "the man", and having the highest percentage of single parents is the problem.
If they want "Black Lives to Matter", then perhaps they should listen to people who point this out, but they don't want to. Why do you think Bill Cosby has been turned into an "evil person" by a bunch of nonsense? He actually DID go around to black groups and tell them to clean their own house, and in return, has been treated like crap.
that's not the responsibility of black people in general to stop
It is, actually... If white people were going around and doing all that stuff, then white leaders would need to be denouncing it from the roof tops. What are black leaders doing?
It isn't the color of their skin that is the problem, it is the culture that is the problem.
And what else are they supposed to do if they do not want to see Yahoo destroyed by bad leadership?
Sell their stock and go invest in something else?
Meyer wants to sell off ALL the assets that are actually worth anything and could be used to help revitalize the company and replace them with....not a fucking thing actually.
Sometimes the best thing you can do is sell everything off and return the money to shareholders. I don't think the company could be revitalized no matter who was running it. I don't see any young people using Yahoo, it is mostly people my age and older.
At this point an investor revolt is pretty much the last option available as its obvious to anybody with eyes that she simply has no idea what to do with the company, no direction, and the longer she stays at the helm the worse its gonna get.
Are you sure she has no idea what she's doing? She gets $158 million if the core business gets sold. She might be smarter than you think.:)
Try installing Windows 8.1 that has been out a few years by this point.
Windows 8.1 reinstalls fine on hardware that was current when Windows 8.1 was current.
But if you're trying to install Windows 8.1 on brand new stuff, it will slowly get worse at that over time.
---
But after a year or two that windows release is still shipping with the same, now two-year old drivers.
Two points:
1. Windows Update has updated drivers for awhile now.
2. Windows 10 now provides an updated image to do clean installs with. You no longer have to do a clean install with Win 10 RTM, the Fall Update is the new image, and we'll get another new one soon enough.
If MS keeps that up, then clean installs will not be the headache they used to be.
It also helps that a lot of tech is far more standard than it used to be. I remember Windows XP installs that needed all kinds of help on newer hardware, but the pace of motherboards and add ons in the 2000s was faster than today. Today, the chipset does more or less everything and if you have either a RealTek or Intel Ethernet adapter, then Windows supports it out of the box, and a quick Windows Update fixes almost everything else.
The next up to be fired are the idiots who force people to give up their phone number to make an account. It doesn't do anything for security or prevent spammers from generating accounts. All it does is annoy people.
Really? I personally have no issues with that.
Yahoo and Google can both have my number, to make an account with an e-mail address, that strikes me as quite reasonable.
But I'm 40, so perhaps I'm the wrong person to ask. I grew up with only landlines.:) I wonder what 20 year old's think about it.
And they are doing it by going around to people who control larger blocks and convincing them that something needs to be done.
I didn't read that, but perhaps I overlooked it somewhere in the article.
In any case, why would the person owning 1.7% doing the visible fighting, shouldn't the people who own larger blocks do that?
Finally, it is one thing to say "we don't like you" or "we don't think you're the right person for the job", but then the question is, "who would be right for it?"
I'm not at all convinced that anyone could do it, why you would invest in Yahoo is beyond me, so perhaps I'm the wrong person to ask.:)
Frankly, Marissa Mayer faced a nearly impossible job, turn around Yahoo!, a company that by 2012 was largely pointless in the Internet space and had failed to move into new spaces and allowed new companies to run right over it.
Ten years before, in 2002, it was a household name, however it largely has lost that due to not keeping up with the times.
It might well not have mattered who became CEO in 2012, the company was probably already past the point of no return. My mother uses Yahoo, as does my older brother. Our friends who have teenagers? They likely don't even know what Yahoo is.
One of the problems of public companies is this sort of thing...
Someone who owns less than 2% of the company is drawing massive attention towards something that will keep the leadership from doing what the company needs long term.
I would not be shocked if Marissa Mayer has had to devote a lot of time and energy to this sort of thing over the past 4 years, and probably has a much greater awareness of how hard the big chair is. Not because running a company is so hard, but because she has to deal with thousands of investors who all want to give their 2 cents.
This is one of the reasons that Dell went private, it was the only way to plan longer than 3 months in advance. Wall Street is so focused on quarterly numbers, it is really hard to make 5 year plans. If a company doesn't post impressive results quickly, the CEO gets tossed out and someone new brought it.
Because only idiots respond to "Black Lives Matter" with "All Lives Matter". Black Lives Matter is short for 'Black Lives Matter, too", not "Only Black Lives Matter".
Sorry, but after watching the protests and rants, I'm afraid that a whole lot of "BLM" people really don't mean what you think they mean.
Black people should clean up their own house, before they start making demands of others. I think much of their current problems are self-inflicted, what with gang violence and culture being what they are.
If I, as a business owner, can save 28% salary costs on my employees by exclusively hiring women, why would I *ever* hire a man? If women are equal in performance and skill, there is no reason for me to hire men.
Quoted for truth...
I have a job posting out right now, looking to hire someone in the next few weeks.
Man, woman, whatever... I'll hire whoever will do the job for the least money. If a woman will do it for 28% less than a man, sold!
Except, they won't. In my experience of having hundreds of people work for me for the past 20 years, it just isn't true. Pay is about equal between the two genders.
DC raised the min wage already and is planning to raise it again.
The conditions under which the deal with the City was made no longer exist. You can't expect Walmart not to redo the math after the terms change.
This is why the city probably won't sue, the lawyers will say "yea, you can probably force the issue, but only if you grant an exception so Walmart doesn't have to pay the new higher wages or pay into the family leave fund."
4 years is a long time? For a device of this price?
Depends on what you're buying... Phones have been advancing quickly over the past few years. A 4 year old phone today is fine as a phone, but slow for a computer.
Compare this to a desktop computer, for your average computer user, a 4 year old desktop is just fine still. Rewind to the 90s and that was not true.
That is an excellent point. You could argue that Nintendo even attempted to force users to move to WiiU by shutting down certain features from the original Wii (it's now been almost two years since online multiplayer was shut down by Nintendo, along with other features). A lot of Wii owners weren't bothered enough by that to care.
I bought a Wii when it first came out and our family had a TON of fun with it... until the novelty wore off and we discovered that the WiiMote really wasn't all that accurate and beyond a few basic games, wasn't good for much.
I didn't even know it had online multi-player, and no, I wouldn't have cared either way.
I'm surprised by the notion that Sony and Microsoft both need to survive.
They do, in the sense that Ford and Chevy need each other and Coke and Pepsi need each other. With only one company, they would get fat and lazy and stupid. A company needs competition, or it stops moving forward.
In fact, if we look at at console sales the WiiU has sold more consoles than the latest XBox - and Nintendo has actually made money selling the WiiU while Microsoft has lost money on the latest XBox - yet people are so sure that Nintendo is the company that will be going away.
That is a fair point, and one worth looking at. Nintendo has perhaps made money on the physical WiiU units, but overall they are not making money. DS sales are down, and attach rates for games for WiiU aren't where they need to be.
Consider this: Nintendo has to make money with their console and games, it is their only income source. Microsoft can afford to lose a billion dollars on XBox and shrug it off, because it provides benefits to them beyond just the sales and profit of the console. It gets MS into more homes, it brands them with consumers, it drives forward game development on the Windows platform, and so on.
It is not easy to compete with a company that can afford to lose a billion dollars and shrug, while you have to make money.
Second point is that the PS4 has comfortably outsold both XBox One and WiiU combined. Why? I think several reasons. First, the initial plans to be DRM harsh on-line always really hurt the XBox One imagine, many people vowed then to never buy one. Second, XBox One is well known to have inferior hardware to PS4, so if they have the same games, why not get the one that runs at 1080p vs 900p?
Another point that Nintendo failed to market well is the fact that out of the three current consoles, theirs is the only one that did not break backwards compatibility.
While this is true, keep in mind the WiiU doesn't come with a WiiMote, so if you didn't have a Wii, you have to buy one. You can't just buy a WiiU without anything prior, then go out and buy Wii games, and play them.
Also keep in mind that due to the completely different control scheme (moving from a WiiMote to a Gamepad with LCD), the experience of switching between the two modes is jarring. At least a XBox 360 and XBox One mostly feel like the same basic concept.
I suspect a lot of people just did what I did. Kept the PS3 and bought a PS4. The PS3 went into the kids game room, the PS4 is on the main TV, no problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, but in our First Past The Post election system, a vote for a third party is a vote against your own party...
It sounds great in theory, but it doesn't work.
Allow me to share CGP Grey's wonderful video on the subject:
https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo
Then a solution to the problem (or at least part of one):
https://youtu.be/3Y3jE3B8HsE
As it stands now, there are two people who can be President, Clinton and Trump. Trump is the less sucky choice, so there you go. There are no other options. (the R and D work hard to keep it that way)
Hey, don't get me wrong, I'd be happy to have other choices. What is so sad is that THIS is the best we have, and that is perhaps the greatest crime.
Can Trump do even half of the things he claims? Maybe, maybe not. But I know for sure Clinton can't.
So why not give him a try?
:) In fairness, I did pick on that part, but I will admit that you are not being unreasonable in your original post re: Yahoo.
I would agree that she hasn't done much for Yahoo, or so it appears. I just don't know that anyone could have.
Will she survive? Meh, thankfully not my problem and she is wealthy enough that she won't be going hungry over it. :)
Funny how anonymity and Trump go together so nicely. Sort of like secret ballots... Trump is the first presidential candidate willing to say what the silent majority is thinking. That's why he does so poorly in opinion polls, yet seems to do so well in elections: many more people support what the guy says than are willing to admit.
I'll admit it...
He is a pig, a male walking ego thing...
But I'll still vote for him, because the other option is Clinton, and she is just dirty and evil... I'll vote for him holding my nose, but I'll do it...
He does shoot himself in the foot needlessly, the spat today over the wives thing. It is stupid and needless, but he has no filter so this is what you get. He says the sort of crap you'd expect two guys going at it in a bar to say. Normally people running for President will THINK it, but not actually SAY it. He says it.
The difference is, I don't so delude myself into thinking the other guys aren't thinking it and just filtering what they say.
And yes, what he said was stupid, but not really a big deal.
---
Side note: As stupid as it sounds, he is right about one thing... he could shoot someone in broad daylight on 5th avenue and yes, I'd still vote for him. I hate Clinton THAT much. Maybe it is less a vote of support for him and more ANYONE but that evil bitch. The irony is that while Bernie Sanders is completely off his rocker and his numbers don't add up, I'd actually consider voting for him, mostly because I believe he means what he says. I don't agree with half of it, but I believe he is earnest and sincere. NOTHING Clinton says is honest, I don't think she even knows what she thinks anymore.
Evidence for that? Because cities that have that already implemented 15/hr wages have not seen a rush to automate.
I don't mean to be rude, but please, put on the critical thinking hat.
When one or two cities raise the min wage, there isn't enough of a reason to invest the billions of dollars required to replace half the workers in McDonalds with robots.
When it happens NATIONALLY, then there is now reason to do it.
It is far easier to just raise prices a bit in those areas where the wages went up, than to spend billions to replace a few thousand people. Make min wage $15/hr nationally, and that changes. This is why it hasn't happened in Australia, where min wage is already over $15/hr, because with only 22 million people, the market isn't big enough. But it is starting down that road.
http://fortune.com/2016/03/23/...
Dominos in Australia is testing robot delivery today with the goal of rolling it out nationally in 2-3 years. It is getting too expensive to hire people to do this.
Would you rather have a large segment of adults (more adults make min. wage than 18-20 year olds by far) earning 7 dollars an hour, supplemented by food stamps and other government handouts, or would you rather have the 'bottom' wage be liveable, and people able to support themselves without government assistance?
You left out option 3: Would you rather have large segment of adults out of work completely and needing all $15/hr in the form of government assistance?
You don't think that can happen, but it can.
I'm kinda sick of my tax dollars subsidizing Walmart's workforce.
Would you prefer they lay off half the workforce and replace them with robots?
https://youtu.be/rVlhMGQgDkY
Seriously, it isn't THAT far off... Atlas now works without a tether and on rough ground... Another few years and that robot may well stock shelves in a Walmart better than humans do.
And the real nail in the coffin, so to speak, is that goods and services do become that much more expensive even when doubling wages. Last time I saw the numbers run, a Big Mac would cost 50 cents more. That is way worth it to me if 90% of people could live without government handouts.
I don't disagree, you're right, it won't double prices to do it...
But consider that if Atlas up there can make your Big Mac and the price went DOWN 50 cents rather than UP 50 cents, you might like that even more.
BTW, why do you want people making burgers anyway? It is a stupid job, let robots do it.
If I could teleport to the year 2150, I'd be shocked if we didn't have a basic income at that point with robots making everything anyway. I just don't think it will be pretty getting there, the current people in power will fight tooth and nail along the way.
No, "bloody entertainment" would be Billary vs Fiorina with bladed weapons.
I would pay good money to see that! :)
Fair point, but IBM had something Yahoo does not... long term large customers who had limited choices for alternates...
You really can't compare IBM to Yahoo, by any stretch... Yahoo is a consumer company, IBM is a B-to-B company.
Really? Then all those organizations for "black people" must be racist too
What, like the NAACP? Yes, they are extremely racist...
Imagine if I started a group called the NAAWP (National Association for the Advancement of White People).
Oh my lord the double standard is thick.
If they want respect, how about changing the name to NAAAP...
National Association for the Advancement of All People.
Black, white, yellow, all are welcome, lets make life better for all of us.
But by putting their race right into their name, they just ensure that it NEVER ends.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was totally correct when he said:
"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood."
That is a beautiful thing, but as long as you have something called NAACP and a TV station called BET, that will NEVER happen. Black people, in my experience, are far more racist than white people.
I fully agree that it didn't USED to be that way. In King's time, yes, it was still a problem. But times have changed and they need to let it go.
Chant "All lives matter" and you may well find a wonderful collection of all colors, all lives, standing together as one. But you have to drop the barriers.
It's exactly racism.
No, it isn't. You don't get to decide what racism is.
I have no problem with equal rights for all. I fully support black people's right to vote, the right to be President. I don't dislike Obama because he is black, I dislike him because he sucks as a President.
Collin Powell make a wonderful president and if he ran, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, over anyone else running today.
It is not racism to call out the black community for having more than 50% of the violent crime while having less than 20% of the population. That is a culture problem.
If Al Sharpton would come out and denounce black-on-black violence, I would have at least some respect for him, as it stands, every single problem is white man from his point of view.
I'm not the racist, he is.
Losing money every quarter, like Amazon did for years, along with many other companies, is fine IF you're hitting the numbers in your five-year plan, and that plan has a path to profitability eventually.
You make an interesting point, but also point out how little discipline most investors really have.
Amazon was supposed to long ago be profitable, they have moved the goal posts so many times, I'd really have to do some research to find the original plan.
Amazon STILL doesn't make any money, long after that date, but for some reason, investors love it.
I love Amazon as a customer, but as a business, they are a mess. All the bad stuff of a huge retailer without the good stuff, and very little barrier to entry to competition.
Part of the reason to have a phone number is for security.
If you log into my GMail account from a computer that is "new", it texts a 6 digit code to my phone to enter.
I like that aspect of security.
But that IS the job of the CEO; to delegate the working of the company and to keep the heat off of those people from higher ups (the board/the investors) so that they can do their job in peace.
No, it really isn't...
That is part of Tim Cook's problem, he lacks Steve Jobs's vision...
Steve Jobs famously told investors "shut up and enjoy the ride, or sell your stock and go away".
Tim Cook is more of an operations person than a vision person. The CEO needs to be vision. This is the same problem Steve Balmer had trying to replace Bill Gates. Another operations person.
Now perhaps Marissa Mayer isn't cut out to be CEO, not everyone is. That's fine. But without a real vision and the ability to articulate it, you just have an operations person.
What is Marissa Mayer's vision for Yahoo? Besides earning a crap load of money for herself of course. :)
You referred to what "black people" should do, and what their current problems are. That's racism.
Nonsense, it isn't remotely racism. Calling it that dilutes the term.
The fact is black people make up less than 20% of the US population but are responsible for more than 50% of the violent crime.
That isn't racism, it is a fact. The black culture of gangster rap, the "hood", sticking it to "the man", and having the highest percentage of single parents is the problem.
If they want "Black Lives to Matter", then perhaps they should listen to people who point this out, but they don't want to. Why do you think Bill Cosby has been turned into an "evil person" by a bunch of nonsense? He actually DID go around to black groups and tell them to clean their own house, and in return, has been treated like crap.
that's not the responsibility of black people in general to stop
It is, actually... If white people were going around and doing all that stuff, then white leaders would need to be denouncing it from the roof tops. What are black leaders doing?
It isn't the color of their skin that is the problem, it is the culture that is the problem.
And what else are they supposed to do if they do not want to see Yahoo destroyed by bad leadership?
Sell their stock and go invest in something else?
Meyer wants to sell off ALL the assets that are actually worth anything and could be used to help revitalize the company and replace them with....not a fucking thing actually.
Sometimes the best thing you can do is sell everything off and return the money to shareholders. I don't think the company could be revitalized no matter who was running it. I don't see any young people using Yahoo, it is mostly people my age and older.
At this point an investor revolt is pretty much the last option available as its obvious to anybody with eyes that she simply has no idea what to do with the company, no direction, and the longer she stays at the helm the worse its gonna get.
Are you sure she has no idea what she's doing? She gets $158 million if the core business gets sold. She might be smarter than you think. :)
Try installing Windows 8.1 that has been out a few years by this point.
Windows 8.1 reinstalls fine on hardware that was current when Windows 8.1 was current.
But if you're trying to install Windows 8.1 on brand new stuff, it will slowly get worse at that over time.
---
But after a year or two that windows release is still shipping with the same, now two-year old drivers.
Two points:
1. Windows Update has updated drivers for awhile now.
2. Windows 10 now provides an updated image to do clean installs with. You no longer have to do a clean install with Win 10 RTM, the Fall Update is the new image, and we'll get another new one soon enough.
If MS keeps that up, then clean installs will not be the headache they used to be.
It also helps that a lot of tech is far more standard than it used to be. I remember Windows XP installs that needed all kinds of help on newer hardware, but the pace of motherboards and add ons in the 2000s was faster than today. Today, the chipset does more or less everything and if you have either a RealTek or Intel Ethernet adapter, then Windows supports it out of the box, and a quick Windows Update fixes almost everything else.
The next up to be fired are the idiots who force people to give up their phone number to make an account. It doesn't do anything for security or prevent spammers from generating accounts. All it does is annoy people.
Really? I personally have no issues with that.
Yahoo and Google can both have my number, to make an account with an e-mail address, that strikes me as quite reasonable.
But I'm 40, so perhaps I'm the wrong person to ask. I grew up with only landlines. :) I wonder what 20 year old's think about it.
And they are doing it by going around to people who control larger blocks and convincing them that something needs to be done.
I didn't read that, but perhaps I overlooked it somewhere in the article.
In any case, why would the person owning 1.7% doing the visible fighting, shouldn't the people who own larger blocks do that?
Finally, it is one thing to say "we don't like you" or "we don't think you're the right person for the job", but then the question is, "who would be right for it?"
I'm not at all convinced that anyone could do it, why you would invest in Yahoo is beyond me, so perhaps I'm the wrong person to ask. :)
Frankly, Marissa Mayer faced a nearly impossible job, turn around Yahoo!, a company that by 2012 was largely pointless in the Internet space and had failed to move into new spaces and allowed new companies to run right over it.
Ten years before, in 2002, it was a household name, however it largely has lost that due to not keeping up with the times.
It might well not have mattered who became CEO in 2012, the company was probably already past the point of no return. My mother uses Yahoo, as does my older brother. Our friends who have teenagers? They likely don't even know what Yahoo is.
One of the problems of public companies is this sort of thing...
Someone who owns less than 2% of the company is drawing massive attention towards something that will keep the leadership from doing what the company needs long term.
I would not be shocked if Marissa Mayer has had to devote a lot of time and energy to this sort of thing over the past 4 years, and probably has a much greater awareness of how hard the big chair is. Not because running a company is so hard, but because she has to deal with thousands of investors who all want to give their 2 cents.
This is one of the reasons that Dell went private, it was the only way to plan longer than 3 months in advance. Wall Street is so focused on quarterly numbers, it is really hard to make 5 year plans. If a company doesn't post impressive results quickly, the CEO gets tossed out and someone new brought it.
Because only idiots respond to "Black Lives Matter" with "All Lives Matter". Black Lives Matter is short for 'Black Lives Matter, too", not "Only Black Lives Matter".
Sorry, but after watching the protests and rants, I'm afraid that a whole lot of "BLM" people really don't mean what you think they mean.
Black people should clean up their own house, before they start making demands of others. I think much of their current problems are self-inflicted, what with gang violence and culture being what they are.
Conversely, if you built your Windows computer yourself, you'd equally have to fuck around with installing drivers manually.
Except, you largely don't...
I have installed Windows 10 on new and old computers alike, and with very rare exceptions, never had to install a driver.
Yes, the newest AMD and NVidia drivers are usually (but not always) better than what Windows installs, but what Windows installs is serviceable.
If I, as a business owner, can save 28% salary costs on my employees by exclusively hiring women, why would I *ever* hire a man? If women are equal in performance and skill, there is no reason for me to hire men.
Quoted for truth...
I have a job posting out right now, looking to hire someone in the next few weeks.
Man, woman, whatever... I'll hire whoever will do the job for the least money. If a woman will do it for 28% less than a man, sold!
Except, they won't. In my experience of having hundreds of people work for me for the past 20 years, it just isn't true. Pay is about equal between the two genders.
What a one sided article...
DC raised the min wage already and is planning to raise it again.
The conditions under which the deal with the City was made no longer exist. You can't expect Walmart not to redo the math after the terms change.
This is why the city probably won't sue, the lawyers will say "yea, you can probably force the issue, but only if you grant an exception so Walmart doesn't have to pay the new higher wages or pay into the family leave fund."
4 years is a long time? For a device of this price?
Depends on what you're buying... Phones have been advancing quickly over the past few years. A 4 year old phone today is fine as a phone, but slow for a computer.
Compare this to a desktop computer, for your average computer user, a 4 year old desktop is just fine still. Rewind to the 90s and that was not true.
That is an excellent point. You could argue that Nintendo even attempted to force users to move to WiiU by shutting down certain features from the original Wii (it's now been almost two years since online multiplayer was shut down by Nintendo, along with other features). A lot of Wii owners weren't bothered enough by that to care.
I bought a Wii when it first came out and our family had a TON of fun with it... until the novelty wore off and we discovered that the WiiMote really wasn't all that accurate and beyond a few basic games, wasn't good for much.
I didn't even know it had online multi-player, and no, I wouldn't have cared either way.
I'm surprised by the notion that Sony and Microsoft both need to survive.
They do, in the sense that Ford and Chevy need each other and Coke and Pepsi need each other. With only one company, they would get fat and lazy and stupid. A company needs competition, or it stops moving forward.
In fact, if we look at at console sales the WiiU has sold more consoles than the latest XBox - and Nintendo has actually made money selling the WiiU while Microsoft has lost money on the latest XBox - yet people are so sure that Nintendo is the company that will be going away.
That is a fair point, and one worth looking at. Nintendo has perhaps made money on the physical WiiU units, but overall they are not making money. DS sales are down, and attach rates for games for WiiU aren't where they need to be.
Consider this: Nintendo has to make money with their console and games, it is their only income source. Microsoft can afford to lose a billion dollars on XBox and shrug it off, because it provides benefits to them beyond just the sales and profit of the console. It gets MS into more homes, it brands them with consumers, it drives forward game development on the Windows platform, and so on.
It is not easy to compete with a company that can afford to lose a billion dollars and shrug, while you have to make money.
Second point is that the PS4 has comfortably outsold both XBox One and WiiU combined. Why? I think several reasons. First, the initial plans to be DRM harsh on-line always really hurt the XBox One imagine, many people vowed then to never buy one. Second, XBox One is well known to have inferior hardware to PS4, so if they have the same games, why not get the one that runs at 1080p vs 900p?
Another point that Nintendo failed to market well is the fact that out of the three current consoles, theirs is the only one that did not break backwards compatibility.
While this is true, keep in mind the WiiU doesn't come with a WiiMote, so if you didn't have a Wii, you have to buy one. You can't just buy a WiiU without anything prior, then go out and buy Wii games, and play them.
Also keep in mind that due to the completely different control scheme (moving from a WiiMote to a Gamepad with LCD), the experience of switching between the two modes is jarring. At least a XBox 360 and XBox One mostly feel like the same basic concept.
I suspect a lot of people just did what I did. Kept the PS3 and bought a PS4. The PS3 went into the kids game room, the PS4 is on the main TV, no problem.