Because if I can get him alone in a room I can get all of that money with no proof I have it. With banks involved it gets much more difficult to get away with stealing $500 million.
You've have to liquidate it and engage in some pretty serious money laundering through the banks to actually make use of the bitcoins in any meaningful way. Furthermore even if he does have 800K bitcoins he doesn't have $500M. To convert that many bitcoins to dollars would crash the market. When you hold that large a percentage of a market you can't sell without moving the market. The price would plummet if any significant amount was sold so while we can't tell exactly what it is worth you can be sure it is a LOT less than $500M.
He holds and estimated 800,000 BTC, assuming he is Satoshi. That's $525 600 000.00 Reason enough?
First, if he has that much and hasn't liquidated a big portion of it then he is an idiot. 800K bitcoins are a good approximation of worthless as bitcoins and only a fool wouldn't diversify. Second, if he actually did try to sell that many he'd crash the market so there is absolutely no way in hell they are worth that much money in dollars. When you hold huge amounts of some asset you move the market when you try to sell. Flood the market with that much supply and the price will plummet.
it's a bit naive to claim that Apple has a moral obligation to pay taxes if they have a legal way to avoid it.
It's not naive at all. They can have both a (perceived) moral obligation to pay and a legal way to avoid paying. The one does not preclude the other. The ability to do something about it is a separate issue. The question is whether their duty to society trumps their duty to their shareholders.
The way to fix this is legislation, not a moral appeal.
Bingo. Exactly correct. And the fact that such legislation has not been passed says everything you need to know about our elected officials and their priorities.
You should trying asking that to Tim Cook at a shareholders meeting and see what kind of response you get. Last time he was described as "visibly angry".
Whatever. This is the same guy that bluntly told congress they were wrong to try to collect more tax from Apple. He talks about social responsibility but he only means it if someone else has to pay for it.
Their duty to shareholders comes after acting ethically.
I agree in principle but the problem with that argument is that it is easy to disagree about what is ethical. Many people see no ethical problem whatsoever with polluting or discrimination or tax avoidance or all sorts of other damaging/problematic behavior. Hell, a lot of people think it is downright heroic to stick it to the tax man. The usual argument for allowing pollution is that it is more ethical to allow pollution than to lose jobs. It might be a poor argument but many people honestly believe that it is the most ethical thing to do. Heck, sometimes there are bigger issues than ethics. I can say all sorts of hateful, wrong and unethical things but my right to free speech is considered more important. Ethics alone (too) often aren't enough of an argument.
Now you and I probably agree that Apple's tax avoidance is probably unethical as far as most of us are concerned and certainly in violation of the spirit of the law if not the letter. On the other hand if the government really wants to collect that revenue they can easily do so with some legislation. The fact that the government allows these loopholes to remain open speaks volumes about the priorities of those in power.
I imagine that he will now have to move and hire round-the-clock security for his own protection.
Protection from what? Bitcoin is not that big of a deal and I cannot conceive of a reason why anyone would care if he invented it or not other than idle curiosity.
Because he owned like 30% of the stock and was a cofounder of the company and a personal friend of bill gates who owns 40% of the company.
Balmer never owned more than about 8% of Microsoft. Gates owned about 45% of the company at the IPO but now is down to around 6.5% last I checked which still makes him the largest private shareholder.
You'd think so but I've got a career of evidence that says otherwise. Most of my career has been spent as an industrial engineer designing efficient and effective production systems. I couldn't begin to tell you the number of times I've made changes that were undeniably for the better but people fought me the entire way. In fact I've had people who freely acknowledged that the changes were for the better and STILL didn't want to change even so. Now that doesn't describe everyone. Some people are more than willing to try new things but a huge portion won't change except at (figurative) gunpoint even if later on they love the changes.
Already have that. Don't need Comcast to get it. Perhaps you haven't noticed that free wifi base stations are ridiculously common these days.
Are you suggesting that bandwidth capacity is free? Naive.
I'm an accountant. The difference in cost to Comcast to provide faster bandwidth one the equipment is installed to allow it is minimal and certainly FAR less than the difference in price they are charging.
Don't worry, I don't think anyone wants to be closer to you than they need to be.
It's a perfectly valid reason to not buy a car, but it's an utterly stupid reason to say that the car, as a whole, is horrible - which is what people are saying about Windows 8 when most of the complaints are just about the UI.
The UI? You mean the only part of the OS that you actually see and interact with? Gee, wonder why people would be upset if they didn't like that part.
A lot of the complaints are simply "it doesn't work exactly the same as it did before" variety which isn't the same thing as being objectively worse. People don't like change even when the change is for the better. In this case the changes Microsoft have made are not clearly objectively better AND the interface is different. Unsurprisingly a lot of people don't like it.
and apple needs a real desktop even at $900-$1300 base that is not an AIO and has slots at least one X16 for a full size desktop video card and an X4 one.
Ok, I'll bite. Why does Apple "need" this? The vast majority people never touch the internals of their machines after they buy them so I'm curious what your financial argument for Apple "needing" to do this is. You need to prove that the marginal revenue from making such a machine would exceed the marginal cost. Good luck!
What you are actually saying is that YOU want a machine like that. Given the number of machines Apple sells and the fact that laptops and tablets far outsell desktop machines I think you'll find that not too many people actually agree with you. The market for people who actually swap components in their desktop machines is the very definition of a niche market. Most people just buy a new computer when the only one no longer suits their needs. Hell I've built machines from scratch myself before but I can't really think of a reason why I would need what you are describing nor can I think of anyone I know who needs what you are describing.
XP is over 12 years old, that's one hell of a *free* long term support package.
"Free"? Have you looked at Microsoft's balance sheet recently? Microsoft has $83 Billion in cash and equivalents and the number is rising by about $1 Billion per month. We've paid them plenty. Now they have every right to terminate support if they want to but let's not pretend that Microsoft is about to go broke if they continued to support XP. This is about maximizing profit for Microsoft and has virtually nothing to do with the relatively modest costs involved in continuing to patch XP.
So what this means is that there's at least 75 Mbits of available bandwidth that's not being utilized. Since I'm not using it, why not make it available to a paying neighbor?
I can think of a variety of reasons. Off the top of my head:
* I see no reason to let Comcast profit additionally unless I get something in return like extra bandwidth or a discount on my bill. * The neighbor isn't paying for any any service calls that get made should the equipment fail. * The neighbor nor Comcast is compensating me for vacation time in the event of a service call * The neighbor may be involved in illegal activities I want no part of given that law enforcement is going to come to me first if there is a problem. * There is a non-zero probability that the neighbor's use of spectrum may interfere with my use of that spectrum and I'd rather not facilitate that. * It offends me that Comcast could provide extra bandwidth to me for close to zero marginal cost but instead chooses to charge me for it. * I don't really care to give people any reason to hang around closer to my home than necessary * It's unclear if my bandwidth is protected and given priority access (my guess is that it is not) * Comcast charges absurd rental rates for their equipment so I should get full access to the capabilities of the equipment if I'm renting
This *could* change quite rapidly with a buyout by someone who knows the trade.
My guess is that the stock will drop for a while and then they'll get bought out, probably by a private equity firm. I seriously doubt the current management will be able to right the ship and I can't really think of another retail company that would be a good fit for a buyout.
Right now, the people who run it are numbers people with no passion for they do.. just like the MBA types who take over a lot of businesses.
In addition to being an engineer I have a MBA and I have plenty of passion for what I do as do most of the people I went to school with. Honestly it's hard to find a more motivated and passionate group than MBA students. They want very much to build successful businesses and more than a few of them are actually quite good at it. In fact in my experience most business students are more passionate about the businesses they are involved with than the engineers. I find too many engineers who only give a crap about their product and doing engineering and not the business as a whole. But a MBA is a academic degree, nothing more. It's not shorthand for clueless business - if anything it has a reputation for exactly the opposite out in the real world for some very good reasons. Running a business is HARD and don't mock until you've actually tried to do it. You're unfairly stereotyping people you know little about. Would you think it fair if I used the term engineer as shorthand for clueless about money and/or bad hygiene? I could and it would be just as ill informed and unfair and I'm an engineer myself so I would know.
Furthermore the people who run Radio Shack today clearly lack passion and vision. At this point they may be nearing the point where the only value in the company is to liquidate it. Hard to be real passionate about a business that to all appearances is in a death spiral.
It may take decades to build up a loyal following and brand name recognition, however destroying that image can be done in a year or so, as to where kids brought up thinking your store is the place to go for something begin looking other places because the store executive eyes were on a margin instead of their customer.
You talk about watching margin versus serving customers as if it is an either/or thing. You have to do BOTH. Customer service without a ROI will kill the business just as fast as just as fat margins and big bonuses that sacrifice future opportunities. I assure you that even companies like Zappos with reputations for being customer focused are paying a lot of attention to their margins too.
I have already seen way too many formerly successful businesses destroyed by investors buying up the place then bringing in management types that have no passion at all for what the business did
We've all seen that. However I've seen just as many where passion for the business blinded the owners/management to the financial realities of their business. You can run a successful business without great passion for it but you cannot run a successful business without good judgement.
Its ironic you mentioned externalization, but then neglected to list emissions/environment in your assessment of Bitcoin costs and downsides.
I consider myself something of an environmentalist and I honestly think that is the least significant downside to bitcoin but sure, add it to the pile of deficiencies.
Except good luck trying to find semi rare or exotic adapters, converters, or cables at Walmart.
You won't find many of those at Radio Shack either most likely. Have you been into a Radio Shack lately? To say their selection is lacking is putting it nicely. They don't have the square footage to stock too much. Sure they carry some stuff you won't find at Walmart but nothing that you need to buy on impulse.
If I need to go into a store for more exotic computer stuff I go to someplace like Microcenter (lucky enough to have one nearby) or I order it online. If it falls into the common electronics category odds are I can get it from Lowes or Home Depot or Staples or OfficeMax. If I need a cell phone there are about 5 million options within a 5 mile radius of me no matter where I am. Batteries? I have 3 specialty battery shops on my daily commute and of course online is an option too. Soldering iron or the like? Local hardware store. Wire? Home Depot carries plenty.
The only thing Radio Shack carries that most people aren't easily going to find in a nearby retail store is a small supply of fairly common electronics kit stuff like resistors and d-sub style connectors. All of which is available online for MUCH better prices.
Could be but it's quite the fixer upper. I could see a private equity company buying it, slashing costs and then selling it. Maybe. Maybe they just liquidate it and sell the brand name. Really the only thing worth saving in my opinion.
I could see these as Google or Samsung storefronts easily. Apple store competition overnight.
Too many locations with too little traffic. Google is an advertising company, not a retailer. They really aren't set up to compete in that sort of space. Samsung already has highly effective distribution channels so I can't really see why they'd want way to many stores with expensive rent. Apple stores work for Apple but that doesn't mean it is the right strategy for Apple's competitors. You don't beat Apple by trying to be Apple. You beat them by doing something else.
That being said - stocking last minute items could provide a niche. Sometimes you need a new keyboard, battery, or PSU stat, and even next day shipping isn't an option. The question is - is that a frequent enough occurrence to sustain a store?
Absolutely not. Walmart stocks enough of that stuff to fill that need. Radio Shack simply straddling multiple strategies and not doing any of them well. They are simultaneously trying to supply batteries, electrical components, cell phones, toys, and a few other niche items from small and expensive stores where it is relatively expensive and inconvenient for their customers to visit them. I honestly cannot think of anything Radio Shack sells where they would be my preferred shopping destination.
The big question is, in order to ensure their survival, would Radio Shack be better off continuing to phase out their brick and mortar presence while making substantial efforts to expand as an exclusively online retailer?"
Not likely. They have no particular advantage in the online space aside from a recognizable (if tarnished) brand name. What they really should have done was to expand their catalog sales back in the day and become a distributor like Digikey or Mouser. I suppose they still could though they are behind the curve. They've gotten into cell phones but no one really thinks Radio Shack when they think cell phones. They sell batteries but there now are specialty battery stores that usually have a better selection and better prices. They don't have the scale or the expertise to compete with Amazon online and they are too unfocused to have profitable retail space. I can't really think of anything where Radio Shack would be my preferred shopping destination.
Radio shack has been trying to be all things to all people and when you do that you don't serve any of them well. They have expensive real estate, small square footage, small selections of products, high prices and unclear strategy. Their advantages are that they are fairly well known and have a lot of storefronts. That's a pretty thin advantage these days. I'm thinking Radio Shack might be a pretty good stock to think about short selling.
They'd love a way to be able to brick cell phones of protesters and stop videos from getting out into the world.
Last time I checked regular digital cameras still worked and the internet was still a thing. Might be less efficient but if they shut down the internet the cell phones wouldn't be any help either.
This is a piece of legislation dangerous to our freedom. During peaceful demonstrations cellphones could be id'ed can be gathered and be deactivated at will.
And what exactly is to prevent said people from using someone else's phone? Furthermore people managed to protest successfully long before cell phones existed. Cell phones are helpful but hardly vital.
If we are ever in a war in the mainland, an invading army could deactivate our cellphones, thereby compromising our infrastructure.
I think you are grossly underestimating the difficulty of actually doing that. An invading army could simply bomb the cell towers and accomplish substantially the same goal if we're going to talk about unlikely hypothetical situations. That said, exactly what army are you worried about given the size and strength of the US military? Do you think anyone really wants to tangle with the USA in an actual combat operation? Add in the number of citizens that own firearms, the size of the country, physical geography and I can't think of any country less likely to be invaded. You think Canada or Mexico is going to suddenly get all uppity?
A better piece of legislation would be to require a 3-day delay and used cellphones to be checked against a national database to check for theft.
Why is this suddenly sounding like a gun control argument?
place an order in bitcoins amount of "product" equal to $X. Sell on streets in cash for $X + markup. Watch bitcoin value "conveniently" fall and pay back promised amount bitcoins, now valued much below $X
That's called a short sale. It requires someone to sell you something before you buy it. You'll make money if the value of the asset being bought falls relative to the currency between the time you sell and the time you buy. However since there is no guarantee that the currency will fall you have theoretically unlimited downside risk if the currency rises and the best you can do on the upside is to double your money.
Frankly anyone who agrees to be a counterparty to a short sale in bitcoins is a moron who deserves to lose their money.
I don't think it's possible to make something "illegal tender", at least in the US. If I want to trade you one thing for another thing, it's hard to see the government saying we can't do that
Go ahead and try to trade some schedule I drugs for anything else. Let me know how that works out for you.
The government can and does outlaw all sorts of transactions. Bitcoin is not immune.
Slashdot Mirror
Because if I can get him alone in a room I can get all of that money with no proof I have it. With banks involved it gets much more difficult to get away with stealing $500 million.
You've have to liquidate it and engage in some pretty serious money laundering through the banks to actually make use of the bitcoins in any meaningful way. Furthermore even if he does have 800K bitcoins he doesn't have $500M. To convert that many bitcoins to dollars would crash the market. When you hold that large a percentage of a market you can't sell without moving the market. The price would plummet if any significant amount was sold so while we can't tell exactly what it is worth you can be sure it is a LOT less than $500M.
He holds and estimated 800,000 BTC, assuming he is Satoshi. That's $525 600 000.00 Reason enough?
First, if he has that much and hasn't liquidated a big portion of it then he is an idiot. 800K bitcoins are a good approximation of worthless as bitcoins and only a fool wouldn't diversify. Second, if he actually did try to sell that many he'd crash the market so there is absolutely no way in hell they are worth that much money in dollars. When you hold huge amounts of some asset you move the market when you try to sell. Flood the market with that much supply and the price will plummet.
it's a bit naive to claim that Apple has a moral obligation to pay taxes if they have a legal way to avoid it.
It's not naive at all. They can have both a (perceived) moral obligation to pay and a legal way to avoid paying. The one does not preclude the other. The ability to do something about it is a separate issue. The question is whether their duty to society trumps their duty to their shareholders.
The way to fix this is legislation, not a moral appeal.
Bingo. Exactly correct. And the fact that such legislation has not been passed says everything you need to know about our elected officials and their priorities.
You should trying asking that to Tim Cook at a shareholders meeting and see what kind of response you get. Last time he was described as "visibly angry".
Whatever. This is the same guy that bluntly told congress they were wrong to try to collect more tax from Apple. He talks about social responsibility but he only means it if someone else has to pay for it.
Their duty to shareholders comes after acting ethically.
I agree in principle but the problem with that argument is that it is easy to disagree about what is ethical. Many people see no ethical problem whatsoever with polluting or discrimination or tax avoidance or all sorts of other damaging/problematic behavior. Hell, a lot of people think it is downright heroic to stick it to the tax man. The usual argument for allowing pollution is that it is more ethical to allow pollution than to lose jobs. It might be a poor argument but many people honestly believe that it is the most ethical thing to do. Heck, sometimes there are bigger issues than ethics. I can say all sorts of hateful, wrong and unethical things but my right to free speech is considered more important. Ethics alone (too) often aren't enough of an argument.
Now you and I probably agree that Apple's tax avoidance is probably unethical as far as most of us are concerned and certainly in violation of the spirit of the law if not the letter. On the other hand if the government really wants to collect that revenue they can easily do so with some legislation. The fact that the government allows these loopholes to remain open speaks volumes about the priorities of those in power.
I imagine that he will now have to move and hire round-the-clock security for his own protection.
Protection from what? Bitcoin is not that big of a deal and I cannot conceive of a reason why anyone would care if he invented it or not other than idle curiosity.
Because he owned like 30% of the stock and was a cofounder of the company and a personal friend of bill gates who owns 40% of the company.
Balmer never owned more than about 8% of Microsoft. Gates owned about 45% of the company at the IPO but now is down to around 6.5% last I checked which still makes him the largest private shareholder.
People LOVE change that makes things better.
You'd think so but I've got a career of evidence that says otherwise. Most of my career has been spent as an industrial engineer designing efficient and effective production systems. I couldn't begin to tell you the number of times I've made changes that were undeniably for the better but people fought me the entire way. In fact I've had people who freely acknowledged that the changes were for the better and STILL didn't want to change even so. Now that doesn't describe everyone. Some people are more than willing to try new things but a huge portion won't change except at (figurative) gunpoint even if later on they love the changes.
Like access to wifi when you are away from home?
Already have that. Don't need Comcast to get it. Perhaps you haven't noticed that free wifi base stations are ridiculously common these days.
Are you suggesting that bandwidth capacity is free? Naive.
I'm an accountant. The difference in cost to Comcast to provide faster bandwidth one the equipment is installed to allow it is minimal and certainly FAR less than the difference in price they are charging.
Don't worry, I don't think anyone wants to be closer to you than they need to be.
Kiss my ass.
Then buy your own.
I did. Thanks for your unhelpful suggestion.
It's a perfectly valid reason to not buy a car, but it's an utterly stupid reason to say that the car, as a whole, is horrible - which is what people are saying about Windows 8 when most of the complaints are just about the UI.
The UI? You mean the only part of the OS that you actually see and interact with? Gee, wonder why people would be upset if they didn't like that part.
A lot of the complaints are simply "it doesn't work exactly the same as it did before" variety which isn't the same thing as being objectively worse. People don't like change even when the change is for the better. In this case the changes Microsoft have made are not clearly objectively better AND the interface is different. Unsurprisingly a lot of people don't like it.
and apple needs a real desktop even at $900-$1300 base that is not an AIO and has slots at least one X16 for a full size desktop video card and an X4 one.
Ok, I'll bite. Why does Apple "need" this? The vast majority people never touch the internals of their machines after they buy them so I'm curious what your financial argument for Apple "needing" to do this is. You need to prove that the marginal revenue from making such a machine would exceed the marginal cost. Good luck!
What you are actually saying is that YOU want a machine like that. Given the number of machines Apple sells and the fact that laptops and tablets far outsell desktop machines I think you'll find that not too many people actually agree with you. The market for people who actually swap components in their desktop machines is the very definition of a niche market. Most people just buy a new computer when the only one no longer suits their needs. Hell I've built machines from scratch myself before but I can't really think of a reason why I would need what you are describing nor can I think of anyone I know who needs what you are describing.
XP is over 12 years old, that's one hell of a *free* long term support package.
"Free"? Have you looked at Microsoft's balance sheet recently? Microsoft has $83 Billion in cash and equivalents and the number is rising by about $1 Billion per month. We've paid them plenty. Now they have every right to terminate support if they want to but let's not pretend that Microsoft is about to go broke if they continued to support XP. This is about maximizing profit for Microsoft and has virtually nothing to do with the relatively modest costs involved in continuing to patch XP.
Tired of all the hit pieces on Microsoft.
You must be new here. [/sarcasm]
So what this means is that there's at least 75 Mbits of available bandwidth that's not being utilized. Since I'm not using it, why not make it available to a paying neighbor?
I can think of a variety of reasons. Off the top of my head:
* I see no reason to let Comcast profit additionally unless I get something in return like extra bandwidth or a discount on my bill.
* The neighbor isn't paying for any any service calls that get made should the equipment fail.
* The neighbor nor Comcast is compensating me for vacation time in the event of a service call
* The neighbor may be involved in illegal activities I want no part of given that law enforcement is going to come to me first if there is a problem.
* There is a non-zero probability that the neighbor's use of spectrum may interfere with my use of that spectrum and I'd rather not facilitate that.
* It offends me that Comcast could provide extra bandwidth to me for close to zero marginal cost but instead chooses to charge me for it.
* I don't really care to give people any reason to hang around closer to my home than necessary
* It's unclear if my bandwidth is protected and given priority access (my guess is that it is not)
* Comcast charges absurd rental rates for their equipment so I should get full access to the capabilities of the equipment if I'm renting
This *could* change quite rapidly with a buyout by someone who knows the trade.
My guess is that the stock will drop for a while and then they'll get bought out, probably by a private equity firm. I seriously doubt the current management will be able to right the ship and I can't really think of another retail company that would be a good fit for a buyout.
Right now, the people who run it are numbers people with no passion for they do.. just like the MBA types who take over a lot of businesses.
In addition to being an engineer I have a MBA and I have plenty of passion for what I do as do most of the people I went to school with. Honestly it's hard to find a more motivated and passionate group than MBA students. They want very much to build successful businesses and more than a few of them are actually quite good at it. In fact in my experience most business students are more passionate about the businesses they are involved with than the engineers. I find too many engineers who only give a crap about their product and doing engineering and not the business as a whole. But a MBA is a academic degree, nothing more. It's not shorthand for clueless business - if anything it has a reputation for exactly the opposite out in the real world for some very good reasons. Running a business is HARD and don't mock until you've actually tried to do it. You're unfairly stereotyping people you know little about. Would you think it fair if I used the term engineer as shorthand for clueless about money and/or bad hygiene? I could and it would be just as ill informed and unfair and I'm an engineer myself so I would know.
Furthermore the people who run Radio Shack today clearly lack passion and vision. At this point they may be nearing the point where the only value in the company is to liquidate it. Hard to be real passionate about a business that to all appearances is in a death spiral.
It may take decades to build up a loyal following and brand name recognition, however destroying that image can be done in a year or so, as to where kids brought up thinking your store is the place to go for something begin looking other places because the store executive eyes were on a margin instead of their customer.
You talk about watching margin versus serving customers as if it is an either/or thing. You have to do BOTH. Customer service without a ROI will kill the business just as fast as just as fat margins and big bonuses that sacrifice future opportunities. I assure you that even companies like Zappos with reputations for being customer focused are paying a lot of attention to their margins too.
I have already seen way too many formerly successful businesses destroyed by investors buying up the place then bringing in management types that have no passion at all for what the business did
We've all seen that. However I've seen just as many where passion for the business blinded the owners/management to the financial realities of their business. You can run a successful business without great passion for it but you cannot run a successful business without good judgement.
Its ironic you mentioned externalization, but then neglected to list emissions/environment in your assessment of Bitcoin costs and downsides.
I consider myself something of an environmentalist and I honestly think that is the least significant downside to bitcoin but sure, add it to the pile of deficiencies.
Except good luck trying to find semi rare or exotic adapters, converters, or cables at Walmart.
You won't find many of those at Radio Shack either most likely. Have you been into a Radio Shack lately? To say their selection is lacking is putting it nicely. They don't have the square footage to stock too much. Sure they carry some stuff you won't find at Walmart but nothing that you need to buy on impulse.
If I need to go into a store for more exotic computer stuff I go to someplace like Microcenter (lucky enough to have one nearby) or I order it online. If it falls into the common electronics category odds are I can get it from Lowes or Home Depot or Staples or OfficeMax. If I need a cell phone there are about 5 million options within a 5 mile radius of me no matter where I am. Batteries? I have 3 specialty battery shops on my daily commute and of course online is an option too. Soldering iron or the like? Local hardware store. Wire? Home Depot carries plenty.
The only thing Radio Shack carries that most people aren't easily going to find in a nearby retail store is a small supply of fairly common electronics kit stuff like resistors and d-sub style connectors. All of which is available online for MUCH better prices.
a soldering iron and solder?
Almost certainly available at your local hardware store.
Sounds like they are ripe to be bought.
Could be but it's quite the fixer upper. I could see a private equity company buying it, slashing costs and then selling it. Maybe. Maybe they just liquidate it and sell the brand name. Really the only thing worth saving in my opinion.
I could see these as Google or Samsung storefronts easily. Apple store competition overnight.
Too many locations with too little traffic. Google is an advertising company, not a retailer. They really aren't set up to compete in that sort of space. Samsung already has highly effective distribution channels so I can't really see why they'd want way to many stores with expensive rent. Apple stores work for Apple but that doesn't mean it is the right strategy for Apple's competitors. You don't beat Apple by trying to be Apple. You beat them by doing something else.
That being said - stocking last minute items could provide a niche. Sometimes you need a new keyboard, battery, or PSU stat, and even next day shipping isn't an option. The question is - is that a frequent enough occurrence to sustain a store?
Absolutely not. Walmart stocks enough of that stuff to fill that need. Radio Shack simply straddling multiple strategies and not doing any of them well. They are simultaneously trying to supply batteries, electrical components, cell phones, toys, and a few other niche items from small and expensive stores where it is relatively expensive and inconvenient for their customers to visit them. I honestly cannot think of anything Radio Shack sells where they would be my preferred shopping destination.
The big question is, in order to ensure their survival, would Radio Shack be better off continuing to phase out their brick and mortar presence while making substantial efforts to expand as an exclusively online retailer?"
Not likely. They have no particular advantage in the online space aside from a recognizable (if tarnished) brand name. What they really should have done was to expand their catalog sales back in the day and become a distributor like Digikey or Mouser. I suppose they still could though they are behind the curve. They've gotten into cell phones but no one really thinks Radio Shack when they think cell phones. They sell batteries but there now are specialty battery stores that usually have a better selection and better prices. They don't have the scale or the expertise to compete with Amazon online and they are too unfocused to have profitable retail space. I can't really think of anything where Radio Shack would be my preferred shopping destination.
Radio shack has been trying to be all things to all people and when you do that you don't serve any of them well. They have expensive real estate, small square footage, small selections of products, high prices and unclear strategy. Their advantages are that they are fairly well known and have a lot of storefronts. That's a pretty thin advantage these days. I'm thinking Radio Shack might be a pretty good stock to think about short selling.
They'd love a way to be able to brick cell phones of protesters and stop videos from getting out into the world.
Last time I checked regular digital cameras still worked and the internet was still a thing. Might be less efficient but if they shut down the internet the cell phones wouldn't be any help either.
This is a piece of legislation dangerous to our freedom. During peaceful demonstrations cellphones could be id'ed can be gathered and be deactivated at will.
And what exactly is to prevent said people from using someone else's phone? Furthermore people managed to protest successfully long before cell phones existed. Cell phones are helpful but hardly vital.
If we are ever in a war in the mainland, an invading army could deactivate our cellphones, thereby compromising our infrastructure.
I think you are grossly underestimating the difficulty of actually doing that. An invading army could simply bomb the cell towers and accomplish substantially the same goal if we're going to talk about unlikely hypothetical situations. That said, exactly what army are you worried about given the size and strength of the US military? Do you think anyone really wants to tangle with the USA in an actual combat operation? Add in the number of citizens that own firearms, the size of the country, physical geography and I can't think of any country less likely to be invaded. You think Canada or Mexico is going to suddenly get all uppity?
A better piece of legislation would be to require a 3-day delay and used cellphones to be checked against a national database to check for theft.
Why is this suddenly sounding like a gun control argument?
place an order in bitcoins amount of "product" equal to $X. Sell on streets in cash for $X + markup. Watch bitcoin value "conveniently" fall and pay back promised amount bitcoins, now valued much below $X
That's called a short sale. It requires someone to sell you something before you buy it. You'll make money if the value of the asset being bought falls relative to the currency between the time you sell and the time you buy. However since there is no guarantee that the currency will fall you have theoretically unlimited downside risk if the currency rises and the best you can do on the upside is to double your money.
Frankly anyone who agrees to be a counterparty to a short sale in bitcoins is a moron who deserves to lose their money.
I don't think it's possible to make something "illegal tender", at least in the US. If I want to trade you one thing for another thing, it's hard to see the government saying we can't do that
Go ahead and try to trade some schedule I drugs for anything else. Let me know how that works out for you.
The government can and does outlaw all sorts of transactions. Bitcoin is not immune.