So horrible that hardly any of the European or American young IT workers are qualified.
Too bad there was not some way we could get around this problem. You know perhaps get around this and maybe save some money too hmm.
Just think about how horrible it would be if CIO's and MBAs wrote such an article and published in a well known magazine that they could give to EU politicians and senators on something that needs to be done RIGHT AWAY!
Wait. Did you just admit that he's being targeted improperly because he is the union rep . . . and then say that if we got rid of tenure and let them fire whoever they want for whatever reason it wouldn't be a problem anymore?
I sure did.
This guy prevented bad teachers from being fired. I know call the lawyers bla bla. But if he is the problem why LA school districts are failing he needs to have some leighway and let the administrators do the write ups and terminations. Yes some is political. Welcome to work. Most though needs to be documented and finished.
Walmart does this all the time to keep prices low.
The American Teachers Association needs to go back to it's roots to advance the career just like the state bar does with lawyers. Does the bar protect bad unethical lawyers? No they take away their bar license. The American Teachers Association needs to be de-certifying the bad apples and helping them succeed. Helping as in getting training needed and setting up licenses for professional teachers. Not protecting them.
I mentioned this already and as someone who worked at a school district I can vouch. If they get rid of tenure and go to what regular folks have a 3 write up and you are out this wouldn't happen.
Do you and I have the right to piss off management and our bosses? What makes them so special?
You don't seem to understand what tenure is. Tenure doesn't protect teachers from being fired if they act irresponsibly or do not do their job. Tenure only protects the teacher from being fired without just cause.
The case here is really the question of whether allowing a student to build a marshmallow gun powered by compressed air represents just cause. The administration says it is, but they have an axe to grind with the teacher in question because he's also a union representative, etc. (as detailed in other comments)
The suggest that the solution is to just give the administrators the right to fire all teachers without any justification for the firing is idiotic.
My exwife and I worked at school districts. Trust me if administrators want a 1 and 1 they get a stiff rebuke email from the union rep threatening job termination without the union there! What the hell?
Do I get this at my job? No. I am employed at will. So you are stumpy. It is in good taste and for fear of liability that we have an HR representative due the threatening and a humiliating letter 3 times in a row and then a box and boot out the door after time# 3.
Yes some may want to mod me down after reading the last paragraph or think I am being a dick, but I am just the messenger here. Remember at work it is always about the customer. Not you. Kids and parents are the customers.
This is what it is like everywhere and if principals had more authority our schools would be better. Yes I will concede teachers put up with a lot of crap and have big responsibilities. I understand that.
But understand the lack of firing people make them do batshit stuff like claiming "... not dressing appropriately " in their teaching certificate or making up stuff in science fairs. It is standard procedures in the teaching world when someone is tenured or the union rep says "NO! You may not put down such and such in this write up... etc" so this is a way around it.
You miss the point. You fire a teacher if he is not doing his job, teaching. You don't fire a teacher because he disagrees with your bullshit. Competent teachers don't need administrators to tell them how or what to teach, they need them to provide support (like functioning printers and paper) and disciplining students, if needed. Thin-skinned administrators who mistake themselves for "bosses" are always a problem. Dealing with classrooms full of children is more than enough work--who wants to have to worry about constantly kissing some insecure fool's ass.
Stop right there.
Yes, a boss has a right to complain if you do not perform your job a. what b, when and c. how it is done to his or her specifications. Do not like then go get another job. Dealing with a classroom full of children is part of the job and yes a teacher needs to worry about kissing ass because it is part of the job. The teacher agreed to it right?
This is no different than any other position out there. Doesn't matter if you feel the job sucks, easy, hard, whatever. You agree agree and a boss watches over to make sure things are moving smoothly. If not then the boss can't do the job and the customer looses. In this case the students and parents.
It is up to the teacher not the principal to discipline kids. Ask anyone in the teaching profession. If the principal has to do your job then you suck as a teacher and can't manage your classroom. It is part of the job description.
The courts typically back the schools. My exwife was a teacher and took education law class.
The problem is it costs money to prove you are innocent. Schools included spent as much money paying off bad parents and lawyers as budgets for freaking books in a given year! How is that for fair?
All to prove that the judge says, well gee the school has a right to create a learning environment based on such and such in 1934 bla bla. NEXT... oh the lawyer bill will be $380,000 etc.
As someone who has worked in the school district I can tell you administrators need to make up good reasons to get rid of bad teachers and this is one of them and yes lawsuits prevent both administrators and staff from doing their jobs.
If the teacher said you can use this as a weapon. Then yes that would be very bad and inappropriate. If it is used to teach expansion of gas in a chemical reaction then that is a different matter.
I guess we will find out. Administrators have a reputation of being clueless. More likely they are puppets of the lawyers of school districts and need to do things like this to get rid of a few tenured bad apples.
So you think that schools would be better if it was easy to fire teachers who had opinions that differed from the administrations, leaving only the mindlessly obedient ones to teach the nations children how to also be mindlessly obedient?
Lets turn the tables?
Do you and I have the right to piss off management and our bosses? What makes them so special? Do we need to be mindlessly obedient at work? Yes. Do not like the door is right there etc!
Yes this sucks in life, however it is setup that way for a reason. Shit needs to get done and bosses need to discipline and control their employees to make sure things are running smoothly. If not then their jobs are on the line. Sucks worse for them than it does for us if you think about it?
There are bad employees everywhere and teachers are not any different. If a teacher can not work with staff or perform their expectations to raise the test scores and teach they need to leave. Here is another table turning. Would you want your kids to be taught by an incompetent teacher? I think not and they take our money as tax payers.
I looked at this as the administrator was fine combing and looking for a reason to fire him/her.
It is hard to fire tenured teachers and many have resorted to doing things like complaining on their credential to professional boards as an example to find something to fire them etc.
Get rid of tenure and the problem goes away and they do not have to make up excuses. My exwife was a teacher and you wouldn't believe the crap they tried to pull to make her quit. Of course she is very opinion oriented which didn't help and caused the situation.
Lets burn the lawyers offices down. Everyone is so freaking terrified of a lawsuit that nothing happens. We have to give everyone a medal for participating, not discipline kids who tell teachers to go f**ck themselves, can't teach controversial subjects requiring critical thinking skills, can't flunk them, etc.
We are not doing them any favors when they get out in the real world afraid to take risks or wonder why their boss fired them instead of giving a raise for participation?
Many loyalists who came to your country came from the south believe it or not.
Massachusetts was not friendly to the crown because its earlier inhabitants were puritans and pilgrims who escaped the church of England from persecution. They hated the crown and were in Amsterdam and there. Maryland was catholic so it was in support of separation but not protestant like the rest of the colonies. Many in Pennsylvania too came from similar backgrounds of religious freedom and were happy to call to arms when redcoats came into their lands.
The southern colonies were filled with loyalists compared to the north and those who dealt trade and intermarried supported the separation only when the British came in and jailed relatives in the northern colonies.
The live free or die motto and government get off my back was a Yankees thing from the north. The south adopted it later during the civil war but they are a different country today with different values than the north even if not in name. But, yes the south did have an interest to rejoin the crown believe it or not and something early Canadians would have approved to curb American expansionism I would guess. Of course this point only Alaska was under contention and it was a very tiny sliver of land. British Columbia separated from Oregon quite successfully and things were well out west.
I guess it varies on whether the north was too weak to allow southern states to nullify laws or the south felt that had to nullify them because the federal government was too strong.
What is odd is the south today is solid republican and conservative and prides themselves on states rights. Oddly, they favored a strong government to enforce slavery on northern states who voted against them. Too many slaves went on the underground railroad to the northern states. But they nullified laws in a schizophrenic way claiming the constitution doesn't say no etc.
The confederation we were taught was to unite the Canadian maritime providences which were independently run with upper Canada and to make sure Quebec was under control.
But yes the south sent delegations to the UK in 1865 to join the crown again. So who knows where these solid republican states would have ended up in your neck of the woods if they won? Would they have joined Canada and made sure you guys wouldn't have healthcare:-) ? Or remained a separate common wealth? Who knows. I wish I had a time machine and could change history for fun.
THe American civil war was the opposite. The federal government was too strong for the south's liking.
South Carolina was the first state pre-civil war to nullify a federal law in the 1830s. It spread and caught on in the south afterwards and irritated the federal government. When territories wanted to become slave ones the southerns just nullified whatever the federal government wanted. Kansas had 2 different governments as a result as the south wanted it to be a slave one and anti slavery advocates colonized it out of revenge. People were killed!
Today states run by conservatives and Tea Party activists are doing just that again. Montana, Alaska, Colorado, and now Oklahoma has nullified laws concerning guns, pot, and even blocking minimum wage laws.
Canada took after the south after seeing this as the south was about to become a monarch again to seek British support right before it ended. It was possible relations with break away southern states would be more integrated with Canada in that alternative universe if the south won.
I was an anti MS zealout and linux fan boy back in 2000. Hence why I choose my name. I was trying to find a post where I rant about MS after the DOJ sided with MS where I threatened to quit IT if MS won!! etc
But today it is different. Mainly because I prefer 3 mobile players rather than 2. 2 search engines rather than 1. Yes it is still bad for competition but this hatred for Microsoft stealing and monopolizing everything is so 10 years ago.
It is like being afraid of IBM today. Weird.
Even if you Android and Linux full time a 30% marketshare for Windows Phone will ensure Google wont get too evil and incredibly lazy and wont' set W3C standards to its own version of IE6 in Chrome. Apple is pretty small outside the US and Canada. No one in China even knows about the iPhone and Android is like Windows of the 1990s in PC's over there with 95% marketshare in the smartphone market.
Many slashdotters are still mad at MS and refuse to touch a win based OS. Fine, I feel the same about Sony. However things change and any company whether it is IBM, Microsoft, or even Google can be evil. Remember when Apple was cool again a decade ago and Steve Jobs was a nice guy who could do no wrong with opensource? Gee look what happened when Apple got power? YIKES. Not so cool and hip anymore.
I think competition where no one can set the standards is what is needed. Another facebook may come along someday if it can do something people demand. Myspace was all the rage too you know. I still wonder how facebook beat myspace?
Google search... that is heard to beat. They are too powerful and the cost of entry is too great to compete. Google though in its current state is nimble and quick to update. Once it settles down to an ugly corporate behemonth with MBA's afraid of change where cost accountants run the show it will then become vulnerable if and only if someone can make a superior product with much much limited resources.
Yeah go ahead and vote the big R and then wonder how all these H1B1 Visas are taking your job away. Unless you are a CEO they are not on your side and do not care about you.
H1B1 Visa's are only because there are not enough applicants to fill a position. Just ask any republican and they will tell you and set the facts straight in interest of protecting the workers.
It is illegal not to pay an H1B1 Visa worker less than a qualified worker. It is stated so it must be true!
Short of a 2nd Steve Jobs type of CEO there is nothing left to do but sell.
I do not think Marrisa is bad. The fact is Yahoo was the leader in search, chat, groups, news, and media integration at the turn of the century. THey let it all go to shit soo bad that they can't recover.
1. Yahoo chat rooms rocked as well as AIM in 2000. THe porn spammers came in and ever 30 seconds even kids room got spammed. In 2009 I went back 9 freaking years later and all were porn BOTS!! No one did anything.
Seriously. I would have stopped this within days if I were Yang back then as people would leave and get freaked out and do not want RUssian porn spams every 30 seconds.
Skype now has audio, vidoe, calls, etc. Google Chat has this plus Google+ integration in it's own version.
2. They missed the mobile presence. DONE. THe market is made up of two. Apple and Android. No more no less. Windows Mobile is pretty nice and trying now but it is just too little too late and if Microsoft can't even get it you know you are in trouble being much smaller.
3. THe search sucked. Excite then lycos, and ultimately Google came in with intelligent data mining searches rather than just do a search for text like Yahoo did. When they got beat they shrugged their shoulders like they did with the porn spam bots for many many years and then act all shocked when everyone left?!
4. The site redesign is made for old people who do not like change or details. Old people rarely use the net more than looking at a news story or two and sending messages to their grandkids on facebook. Yeah lots of views there even if that is their demographic now.
5. They let websites like 4chan and drudge take over younger people's audiences.
6. THeir answer to livejournal and facebook was Yahoo360??! Please by 2006 it was too late.
Google deserves all of its fame. They delivered a supperior product and kept improving it at a rapid place and viewed complacency as an emeny. Google made sure they had a marketing. They also went into newer markets first before a threat could come in.Yahoo did the opposite.
I blame Yang the founder for its issues.
Yahoo needs to invent something out of this world now just to keep up. A new CEO can only do so much for places like Yahoo, Kmart, JCPenny, and other has been companies beaten out by nibble competitors. I guess like kmart you can't compete after a Walmart came in and even Target to a lesser extent.
When your value is worth less than your assets it is chapter 7 dissolution or sell time.
Time to throw in the towel and give back the money to the shareholders. I am sure the building and the brand name might mean something to someone at this point.
But the CEO will be giving quite a black eye from this and would look pretty bad for the resume so it is a give and take.
Slashdot Mirror
So horrible that hardly any of the European or American young IT workers are qualified.
Too bad there was not some way we could get around this problem. You know perhaps get around this and maybe save some money too hmm.
Just think about how horrible it would be if CIO's and MBAs wrote such an article and published in a well known magazine that they could give to EU politicians and senators on something that needs to be done RIGHT AWAY!
Wait. Did you just admit that he's being targeted improperly because he is the union rep . . . and then say that if we got rid of tenure and let them fire whoever they want for whatever reason it wouldn't be a problem anymore?
I sure did.
This guy prevented bad teachers from being fired. I know call the lawyers bla bla. But if he is the problem why LA school districts are failing he needs to have some leighway and let the administrators do the write ups and terminations. Yes some is political. Welcome to work. Most though needs to be documented and finished.
Walmart does this all the time to keep prices low.
The American Teachers Association needs to go back to it's roots to advance the career just like the state bar does with lawyers. Does the bar protect bad unethical lawyers? No they take away their bar license. The American Teachers Association needs to be de-certifying the bad apples and helping them succeed. Helping as in getting training needed and setting up licenses for professional teachers. Not protecting them.
The article mentioned he was a head of the union who prevented the firings of several teachers.
It was a political ploy
And which side does society stand on? Polls show they are agaisn't the teachers for failing our children.
It is why they call it work. You may have a passion to help kids but in the end only your results matter no different than any other job out there.
Mod parent up.
I mentioned this already and as someone who worked at a school district I can vouch. If they get rid of tenure and go to what regular folks have a 3 write up and you are out this wouldn't happen.
Do you and I have the right to piss off management and our bosses? What makes them so special?
You don't seem to understand what tenure is. Tenure doesn't protect teachers from being fired if they act irresponsibly or do not do their job. Tenure only protects the teacher from being fired without just cause.
The case here is really the question of whether allowing a student to build a marshmallow gun powered by compressed air represents just cause. The administration says it is, but they have an axe to grind with the teacher in question because he's also a union representative, etc. (as detailed in other comments)
The suggest that the solution is to just give the administrators the right to fire all teachers without any justification for the firing is idiotic.
My exwife and I worked at school districts. Trust me if administrators want a 1 and 1 they get a stiff rebuke email from the union rep threatening job termination without the union there! What the hell?
Do I get this at my job? No. I am employed at will. So you are stumpy. It is in good taste and for fear of liability that we have an HR representative due the threatening and a humiliating letter 3 times in a row and then a box and boot out the door after time# 3.
Yes some may want to mod me down after reading the last paragraph or think I am being a dick, but I am just the messenger here. Remember at work it is always about the customer. Not you. Kids and parents are the customers.
This is what it is like everywhere and if principals had more authority our schools would be better. Yes I will concede teachers put up with a lot of crap and have big responsibilities. I understand that.
But understand the lack of firing people make them do batshit stuff like claiming "... not dressing appropriately " in their teaching certificate or making up stuff in science fairs. It is standard procedures in the teaching world when someone is tenured or the union rep says "NO! You may not put down such and such in this write up ... etc" so this is a way around it.
I have seen this at 2 different school districts.
You miss the point. You fire a teacher if he is not doing his job, teaching. You don't fire a teacher because he disagrees with your bullshit. Competent teachers don't need administrators to tell them how or what to teach, they need them to provide support (like functioning printers and paper) and disciplining students, if needed. Thin-skinned administrators who mistake themselves for "bosses" are always a problem. Dealing with classrooms full of children is more than enough work--who wants to have to worry about constantly kissing some insecure fool's ass.
Stop right there.
Yes, a boss has a right to complain if you do not perform your job a. what b, when and c. how it is done to his or her specifications. Do not like then go get another job. Dealing with a classroom full of children is part of the job and yes a teacher needs to worry about kissing ass because it is part of the job. The teacher agreed to it right?
This is no different than any other position out there. Doesn't matter if you feel the job sucks, easy, hard, whatever. You agree agree and a boss watches over to make sure things are moving smoothly. If not then the boss can't do the job and the customer looses. In this case the students and parents.
It is up to the teacher not the principal to discipline kids. Ask anyone in the teaching profession. If the principal has to do your job then you suck as a teacher and can't manage your classroom. It is part of the job description.
The courts typically back the schools. My exwife was a teacher and took education law class.
The problem is it costs money to prove you are innocent. Schools included spent as much money paying off bad parents and lawyers as budgets for freaking books in a given year! How is that for fair?
All to prove that the judge says, well gee the school has a right to create a learning environment based on such and such in 1934 bla bla. NEXT ... oh the lawyer bill will be $380,000 etc.
Sigh do not bring politics in this.
As someone who has worked in the school district I can tell you administrators need to make up good reasons to get rid of bad teachers and this is one of them and yes lawsuits prevent both administrators and staff from doing their jobs.
If the teacher said you can use this as a weapon. Then yes that would be very bad and inappropriate. If it is used to teach expansion of gas in a chemical reaction then that is a different matter.
I guess we will find out. Administrators have a reputation of being clueless. More likely they are puppets of the lawyers of school districts and need to do things like this to get rid of a few tenured bad apples.
So you think that schools would be better if it was easy to fire teachers who had opinions that differed from the administrations, leaving only the mindlessly obedient ones to teach the nations children how to also be mindlessly obedient?
Lets turn the tables?
Do you and I have the right to piss off management and our bosses? What makes them so special? Do we need to be mindlessly obedient at work? Yes. Do not like the door is right there etc!
Yes this sucks in life, however it is setup that way for a reason. Shit needs to get done and bosses need to discipline and control their employees to make sure things are running smoothly. If not then their jobs are on the line. Sucks worse for them than it does for us if you think about it?
There are bad employees everywhere and teachers are not any different. If a teacher can not work with staff or perform their expectations to raise the test scores and teach they need to leave. Here is another table turning. Would you want your kids to be taught by an incompetent teacher? I think not and they take our money as tax payers.
I looked at this as the administrator was fine combing and looking for a reason to fire him/her.
It is hard to fire tenured teachers and many have resorted to doing things like complaining on their credential to professional boards as an example to find something to fire them etc.
Get rid of tenure and the problem goes away and they do not have to make up excuses. My exwife was a teacher and you wouldn't believe the crap they tried to pull to make her quit. Of course she is very opinion oriented which didn't help and caused the situation.
imitation weapons ... again fear of a lawsuit from a disgruntled ambulance parent.
Anything that can use force can be a weapon. Ban pencils next!
Then Chemistry labs.
Now this. Sigh.
Lets burn the lawyers offices down. Everyone is so freaking terrified of a lawsuit that nothing happens. We have to give everyone a medal for participating, not discipline kids who tell teachers to go f**ck themselves, can't teach controversial subjects requiring critical thinking skills, can't flunk them, etc.
We are not doing them any favors when they get out in the real world afraid to take risks or wonder why their boss fired them instead of giving a raise for participation?
Many loyalists who came to your country came from the south believe it or not.
Massachusetts was not friendly to the crown because its earlier inhabitants were puritans and pilgrims who escaped the church of England from persecution. They hated the crown and were in Amsterdam and there. Maryland was catholic so it was in support of separation but not protestant like the rest of the colonies. Many in Pennsylvania too came from similar backgrounds of religious freedom and were happy to call to arms when redcoats came into their lands.
The southern colonies were filled with loyalists compared to the north and those who dealt trade and intermarried supported the separation only when the British came in and jailed relatives in the northern colonies.
The live free or die motto and government get off my back was a Yankees thing from the north. The south adopted it later during the civil war but they are a different country today with different values than the north even if not in name. But, yes the south did have an interest to rejoin the crown believe it or not and something early Canadians would have approved to curb American expansionism I would guess. Of course this point only Alaska was under contention and it was a very tiny sliver of land. British Columbia separated from Oregon quite successfully and things were well out west.
Ignorant voters will fire anyone who is a member of the water board/district if it discovered they allowed piss to enter their facets.
Unlike the corrupt state and federal governments the local ones actually listen to their constituents.
I guess it varies on whether the north was too weak to allow southern states to nullify laws or the south felt that had to nullify them because the federal government was too strong.
What is odd is the south today is solid republican and conservative and prides themselves on states rights. Oddly, they favored a strong government to enforce slavery on northern states who voted against them. Too many slaves went on the underground railroad to the northern states. But they nullified laws in a schizophrenic way claiming the constitution doesn't say no etc.
The confederation we were taught was to unite the Canadian maritime providences which were independently run with upper Canada and to make sure Quebec was under control.
But yes the south sent delegations to the UK in 1865 to join the crown again. So who knows where these solid republican states would have ended up in your neck of the woods if they won? Would they have joined Canada and made sure you guys wouldn't have healthcare :-) ? Or remained a separate common wealth? Who knows. I wish I had a time machine and could change history for fun.
THe American civil war was the opposite. The federal government was too strong for the south's liking.
South Carolina was the first state pre-civil war to nullify a federal law in the 1830s. It spread and caught on in the south afterwards and irritated the federal government. When territories wanted to become slave ones the southerns just nullified whatever the federal government wanted. Kansas had 2 different governments as a result as the south wanted it to be a slave one and anti slavery advocates colonized it out of revenge. People were killed!
Today states run by conservatives and Tea Party activists are doing just that again. Montana, Alaska, Colorado, and now Oklahoma has nullified laws concerning guns, pot, and even blocking minimum wage laws.
Canada took after the south after seeing this as the south was about to become a monarch again to seek British support right before it ended. It was possible relations with break away southern states would be more integrated with Canada in that alternative universe if the south won.
They thrived when they were trust busted up. Not before
I was an anti MS zealout and linux fan boy back in 2000. Hence why I choose my name. I was trying to find a post where I rant about MS after the DOJ sided with MS where I threatened to quit IT if MS won!! etc
But today it is different. Mainly because I prefer 3 mobile players rather than 2. 2 search engines rather than 1. Yes it is still bad for competition but this hatred for Microsoft stealing and monopolizing everything is so 10 years ago.
It is like being afraid of IBM today. Weird.
Even if you Android and Linux full time a 30% marketshare for Windows Phone will ensure Google wont get too evil and incredibly lazy and wont' set W3C standards to its own version of IE6 in Chrome. Apple is pretty small outside the US and Canada. No one in China even knows about the iPhone and Android is like Windows of the 1990s in PC's over there with 95% marketshare in the smartphone market.
Many slashdotters are still mad at MS and refuse to touch a win based OS. Fine, I feel the same about Sony. However things change and any company whether it is IBM, Microsoft, or even Google can be evil. Remember when Apple was cool again a decade ago and Steve Jobs was a nice guy who could do no wrong with opensource? Gee look what happened when Apple got power? YIKES. Not so cool and hip anymore.
I think competition where no one can set the standards is what is needed. Another facebook may come along someday if it can do something people demand. Myspace was all the rage too you know. I still wonder how facebook beat myspace?
Google search ... that is heard to beat. They are too powerful and the cost of entry is too great to compete. Google though in its current state is nimble and quick to update. Once it settles down to an ugly corporate behemonth with MBA's afraid of change where cost accountants run the show it will then become vulnerable if and only if someone can make a superior product with much much limited resources.
The republicans will be the one screaming socialism if workers did this. The democrats wouldn't care
Yeah go ahead and vote the big R and then wonder how all these H1B1 Visas are taking your job away. Unless you are a CEO they are not on your side and do not care about you.
H1B1 Visa's are only because there are not enough applicants to fill a position. Just ask any republican and they will tell you and set the facts straight in interest of protecting the workers.
It is illegal not to pay an H1B1 Visa worker less than a qualified worker. It is stated so it must be true!
Can it be saved?
Short of a 2nd Steve Jobs type of CEO there is nothing left to do but sell.
I do not think Marrisa is bad. The fact is Yahoo was the leader in search, chat, groups, news, and media integration at the turn of the century. THey let it all go to shit soo bad that they can't recover.
1. Yahoo chat rooms rocked as well as AIM in 2000. THe porn spammers came in and ever 30 seconds even kids room got spammed. In 2009 I went back 9 freaking years later and all were porn BOTS!! No one did anything.
Seriously. I would have stopped this within days if I were Yang back then as people would leave and get freaked out and do not want RUssian porn spams every 30 seconds.
Skype now has audio, vidoe, calls, etc. Google Chat has this plus Google+ integration in it's own version.
2. They missed the mobile presence. DONE. THe market is made up of two. Apple and Android. No more no less. Windows Mobile is pretty nice and trying now but it is just too little too late and if Microsoft can't even get it you know you are in trouble being much smaller.
3. THe search sucked. Excite then lycos, and ultimately Google came in with intelligent data mining searches rather than just do a search for text like Yahoo did. When they got beat they shrugged their shoulders like they did with the porn spam bots for many many years and then act all shocked when everyone left?!
4. The site redesign is made for old people who do not like change or details. Old people rarely use the net more than looking at a news story or two and sending messages to their grandkids on facebook. Yeah lots of views there even if that is their demographic now.
5. They let websites like 4chan and drudge take over younger people's audiences.
6. THeir answer to livejournal and facebook was Yahoo360??! Please by 2006 it was too late.
Google deserves all of its fame. They delivered a supperior product and kept improving it at a rapid place and viewed complacency as an emeny. Google made sure they had a marketing. They also went into newer markets first before a threat could come in.Yahoo did the opposite.
I blame Yang the founder for its issues.
Yahoo needs to invent something out of this world now just to keep up. A new CEO can only do so much for places like Yahoo, Kmart, JCPenny, and other has been companies beaten out by nibble competitors. I guess like kmart you can't compete after a Walmart came in and even Target to a lesser extent.
It doesn't matter.
If the share price doesn't keep up and it has no shareholder value than the shareholders need to force a sell and a liquidation.
When your value is worth less than your assets it is chapter 7 dissolution or sell time.
Time to throw in the towel and give back the money to the shareholders. I am sure the building and the brand name might mean something to someone at this point.
But the CEO will be giving quite a black eye from this and would look pretty bad for the resume so it is a give and take.