I didn't make any assumptions. I told you what what the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act says. No, this story did not rewrite the Act. It did not change the law in any way.
Perhaps you are assuming that the law says whatever you think it should say (that's a common error), so hearing this story has changed what you assume might be in the law. It did not in fact change a single word of the law, though. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act says the same thing today as it said last week.
It says a manufacturer cannot say that using third-party parts *voids your warranty* with respect to unrelated issues not caused by the third-party parts. It does not say that all devices must continue to work right now matter what parts you try to put in. It didn't say that last week and it doesn't say that this week. *Even if you want it to*.
Where do you see anything about "Apple has to make it work again. Now whether you replaced the keyboard because it broke due to your mistake, or you simply like some other keyboard on your laptop."
Hint - it's not there. If you step on your laptop and break it, Apple doesn't have to do shit. If you decide you want a Trump-orange keyboard, Apple doesn't have to do shit. In fact, you won't fix anything in the law about the company has to do *anything* regarding third-party repairs, or randomly swapping parts. Rather, the law says there is one thing they must NOT do.
What the law says (read it above if you don't believe me) is that there is something the manufacturer is not allowed to do. What they can't do is refuse to cover other, unrelated defects, which are not caused by your attempted third-party repair. They can't refuse to fix a defective LCD, saying "your warranty is void because you used a non-Apple keyboard" - unless they can show that the non-Apple keyboard actually caused the LCD to break.
You might *wish* Apple would fix your mistakes, or somehow magically make your rainbow-colored parts work, but those things aren't in the law.
It's fairly trivial to exfiltrate data *slowly* from a server. For example, TCP sequence numbers are supposed to be random, as are emphereal ports. Nobody is expecting those to follow certain rules. Nobody stick your data in the third bit of any of those random numbers and nobody will ever know. You can exfiltrate one bit per connection. On a busy server, that's like having a dial up ssh connection with root access to the machine.
You may have heard about the network-based Spectre variant that was recently released. Like all Spectre variants, it's based on detecting tiny changes in the average time something takes - the average response time to a network request, in that case.
With server grade gigabit and ten gigabit Ethernet cards having TCP offload on board, an attacker with BMC access can manipulate the existing TCP traffic in ways that the machine's own kernel can't even see.
You don't want to download gigabytes of data this way (unless you can hide it in thousands of gigabytes of legitimate traffic), but you only need 2048 bits to exfiltrate the private key that gives you everything.
My thoughts exactly. Supermicro boards are normally used in servers, so their customers have certain expectations. Here is one list of Spectre patches for a bunch of Supermicro motherboards:
If anyone missed the news, just recently it was discovered that the Chinese manufacturer added a very suspicious chip to a small number of Supermicro boards. That's obviously very bad news.
EUI-64 is typically used for the link-local address in IPv6. The link-local address is, as it's name implies, valid only on the local link. Routers will not route it.
So in order to be exposed to the EUI-64 link-local address, you'd have to be on the same switched Ethernet link - which means you'd also see the Ethernet frames and the Mac addresses in the Ethernet header.
I just posted my theory that perhaps 17yo Kavanaugh was really drunk and he doesn't remember what happened 30+ years ago while very drunk. When Ford says "I was scared because I thought he might...", maybe she was scared, maybe she did think. That's all activity in her own head. Here's another plausible theory, though.
Two men have spoken up saying THEY are the ones who put their hands on Ford. One of the two doesn't seem very reliable. The other one may well be telling the truth - he did it, just like he says. Ford testified that she didn't know Kavanaugh well, and after a beer or two she may well have confused him for the other guy.
That word doesn't mean what you think it does. Ms. Ford named three people whom she said were at the party, and could therefore *corroborate* that she was at a party where Kavanaugh also was. All three said that never happened, as far they know.
"Corroborate" means confirm, validate, support, back up. All of the witnesses instead did the opposite. They contradicted, discredited, or repudiated her story(ies) when they said they were NOT at any party with Ford and Kavanaugh as she claims.
Nobody knows for sure, but here is what I think happened. (Even Ford has told at least three contradictory stories, so clearly she's unsure). I think 17 year old Brett Kavanaugh got sloppy drunk. I think Ford had a couple drinks. I think Kavanaugh probably made an awkward, drunk, idiotic pass at her. I think she was a little scared. I think Kavanaugh doesn't remember what happened.
The warranty applies if the machine stops working due to a manufacturing defect, not if the customer broke it.
There are basically three scenarios.
--- Scenario A You have a device that is under warranty. It failed in a way that is covered by warranty. You'd get it fixed under warranty. There's no third-party repair with knock-off / non-original parts, and no issue. ---
Scenario B It's under warranty and you step on it, breaking the keyboard. Now it's broken and the warranty doesn't apply. You get a non-Apple keyboard to try to fix the damage you caused. If it doesn't work, that sucks for you. The damage you did doesn't magically come under warranty because you tried to fix it after you broke it.
Note that the warranty does NOT guarantee that a Ford engine will work just fine in a Toyota car, and doesn't guarantee that a ChongKey keyboard will work in an Apple laptop.
It says only that if the keyboard stops working, and you didn't break it, Apple will repair or replace it. If you broke it, Apple has no warranty responsibility related to the damage from breaking it.
--
Scenario C
Suppose it's under warranty and you step on it, breaking the keyboard. Now it's broken and the warranty doesn't apply to this problem. You get a non-Apple keyboard to try to fix the damage you caused. The keyboard works fine. You're happy.
Three weeks later, the LCD screen goes out due to a manufacturing defect. Apple can't refuse to replace the LCD just because you replaced the keyboard. The two problems are unrelated and it would be illegal for Apple to tie warranty work (the LCD) to unrelated third-party parts.
There are about 200 standard PIDs. Newer cars do have a lot of stuff on the CAN bus, and different cars have different equipment and sensors, therefore they'll have additional PIDs in addition to the standardized stuff. Some of the extra ones may be handy to have sometimes. I believe the question was about needing a proprietary tool to clear trouble codes. Service 04, clear codes, is part of the SAE J1979 standard.
Newer cars do have a lot of stuff on the CAN bus, and different cars have different equipment and sensors, therefore they'll have additional PIDs in addition to the standardized stuff. I believe the question was about needing a proprietary tool to clear trouble codes. I believe Service 04, clear codes, is part of the SAE J1979 standard.
Prior to 1995 different vehicles had different systems. This didn't violate the the Warranty Act. In 1990, the Bush administration required that all cars use a standard system, known as OBD-II. Some 1994 model cars have OBD-II, most 1995 models, and it was required on all 1996 models (mostly manufacturered in 1995).
> SpaceX does it so much cheaper than the "socialist" option, that they are literally pissing the entire launch industry around the world off.
Yeah and we know one group *around the world* who has felt threatened by competing with the US in space travel, and their strategy for competing has been to sow discord and disharmony in the US with secret media campaigns. The more we're busy arguing with each other, the less we are able to beat them, they figure.
The drafters of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act wouldn't like this at all. They did not, however, make illegal. The Act, in 15 USC 2302 (C), says that the WARRANTY may not be conditioned on using Apple-branded parts. They can't (and don't) void the warranty if you use unauthorized parts. Here's the text of the statute:
The people who wrote that might wish that they had written "also, you can't arrange for the product to stop working when unauthorized parts are installed", but they didn't write that. Maybe a lawmaker should write that now.
It's possibly unlawful under other laws. There are quite a few different unfair competition laws and some may apply.
I think the feds should be attuned to the way marijuana is still used as a gateway drug and how the drug cartels from Latin America use marijuana to get footholds in states. --
Some factors increase the risk of substance abuse in those years deserve emphasis. Casual attitudes toward marijuana and minorsâ(TM) access to cigarettes raise the likelihood that teenagers will make a sad progression from cigarettes to marijuana to more serious drug use and earlier sexual activity --
I donâ(TM)t think that you can legalize small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped. They canâ(TM)t be given an even easier road to take, because they will then find it in their interest to addict even more young people. Mexico didnâ(TM)t have much of a drug problem before the last 10 years, and you want to keep it that way. So you donâ(TM)t want to give any excuse to the drug traffickers to be able legally to addict young people.
--
I don't think we should decriminalize it. --
Those are some of Hillary Clinton's comments on federal marijuana laws. Like Ms. Clinton, most Republicans do understood that drugs, especially crack and meth, have major negative impacts on entire communities, so it's factually not an issue which affects only the person who decides to do drugs.
If you read the Republican and Democrat party platforms, they say almost the same things about drugs, including marijuana, but say them in a different order. For example, both support drug courts, which are specialized programs to encourage drug offenders, especially hard core addicts, to get treatment. The Republican phrasing says the courts should order drug addicts to get treatment, the Democrat phrasing says addicts should get treatment, ordered by the courts. Mostly the same policies, phrased with a tone for those who aren't so concerned about the actual policies.
> Would it not be more efficient to put the excess electricity into the grid
The demand on the electric grid peaks in the evening, after work (and when everyone turns on lights). Solar-electric produces virtually no electricity in the evening. So no, direct to the grid solar electric doesn't work at scale. It can work of 1% of your electricity comes from solar, and you're using other sources for when you need a lot of electricity. It can "work" for one company if the taxpayers are paying them to produce and waste electricity at noon. It doesn't work for powering a city, because a city needs electricity at times other than noon-ish, and on cloudy days too.
I did a project on hydrogen fuel cells back in fifth grade because the basic concept seems so cool. Unfortunately, once you get past 5th-grade level, you find out that actual HFC cars have a range of less than 100 miles, and since the hydrogen is at 10,000 PSI refueling is a BITCH. It's a significant service process that as to be done every 100 miles. Also figuring 800 square inches of tank surface, that's 8 million pounds of explosive pressure in your car, waiting to divide you and the car into tiny pieces when there is a failure. You do NOT want to get into a major accident with a hydrogen tank in your car! Fortunately there is a really good solution to all of the problems.
Most of the problems with hydrogen go away with a little carbonation. Just mix in some CO2 and suddenly things work a LOT better. LPG vehicles have been proven in real commercial use for a long time. This company is making carbon-neutral LPG by capturing CO2 from the air and re-using it. If they can do that with noon-time solar electric (which would otherwise go to waste) and be within two orders of magnitude of reasonable efficiency, that's a huge win.
The party thinks, basically, that Washington politicians too often force people do things, or make things illegal. Republicans generally would oppose a federal law making it a federal crime to hit your thumb with a hammer.
Most Republicans would suggest that hitting your thumb is a bad idea, and would say you shouldn't do that. I think you should avoid doing that != we should make it a federal crime.
I think this is a good idea != the federal government should force everybody to do this.
Pence said Google shouldn't help with human rights abuseses in China. He did not propose a federal law making it illegal to provide services in China.
This is as opposed to Democrats, who don't so much make that distinction. Democrats are more keen on the government forcing you to do whatever Nancy Pelosi wants you to do.
Eyler's strategy to fix their "running out of money" problem was - spend a ton more money. He had come from FAO Swhartz, which went bankrupt twice. He would have been a good choice if you wanted someone to show you how to go bankrupt.
> Amazon, Wal-Mart, and Target were all competitors, and yet they still managed
Amazon, Walmart, and Target operate toy specialty stores? You know the actual competitors are in that space? KB Toys, FAO Swhartz, all the toy store chains are gone, because that model doesn't work.
Yes, when you get a loan to buy a house, the house is collateral - the bank will take the house if you don't make the payments. When you get a loan to buy a car, the car is collateral - the bank will take the car if you don't make the payments. When you get a loan to buy a struggling specialty retailer...
Again, you can spend $50,000 if you want to, or you can keep working at 7 Eleven if you choose. I'm getting my masters in a high-paying field for $5,000. What you do is your choice.
That article acts as though the problems started ten to fifteen years later than they really did.
For a long time, Toys R Us was the #1 toy retailer in the US. It was the first big box toy store, and the only one in many cities. They "kept doing what has been successful" (rested on their laurels) as other competitors emerged. In the early 1990s Target and especially Walmart starting taking a big chunk of that market. The aging Toys R Us stores didn't attract customers, who could get the same toys at Walmart while doing their weekly shopping.
By 1998, Walmart sold more toys than Toys R Us. The internet was also eating a growing chunk of the market.
In 2000, the company hired CEO John Eyler to reinvigorate the company. Eyler decided the way forward was to remodel all the stores and open new, bigger stores. They spent and borrowed a lot of money to do that. They had already been having financial difficulties in the 1990s, then Eyler added more debt, which mean lahe debt payments. The company started losing money faster.
By 2005, the strategies were very obviously not working. Yet they did have a very recognizable brand. Some private investors thought they could salvage the company by more effective management. That's where the LA Times article picks up the story. Unfortunately for the private investors, 2005 was a very bad time to invest in struggling brick and mortar retailer with no signifocant online presence. That's the year Amazon introduced Amazon Prime, with free two-day shipping. The next year, Amazon launched Fulfillment by Amazon, which had thousands of retailers selling through Amazon.com. Amazon beat Toys R Us handily.
At my last job, my predecessor spent most of his time on menial work and running around like crazy putting out fires. I automated tbe menial stuff and put processes in place to PREVENT fires. That left me with lots of time on my hands to be much more productive than the last guy.
My bosses saw that I was productive, without too much supervision from them. That meant I could tell them how long a task would take do do - and do it right, without starting any fires. I continued to be productive without being stressed.
So is your excuse that you're bad at math, or you think your Business Adminstration degree is going to earn hundreds or thousands more than my masters in Comp Sci?
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't make any assumptions. I told you what what the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act says. No, this story did not rewrite the Act. It did not change the law in any way.
Perhaps you are assuming that the law says whatever you think it should say (that's a common error), so hearing this story has changed what you assume might be in the law. It did not in fact change a single word of the law, though. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act says the same thing today as it said last week.
It says a manufacturer cannot say that using third-party parts *voids your warranty* with respect to unrelated issues not caused by the third-party parts. It does not say that all devices must continue to work right now matter what parts you try to put in. It didn't say that last week and it doesn't say that this week. *Even if you want it to*.
Word of the day: erstwhile
Today I looked that word up.
Tomorrow, erstwhile will be the erstwhile word of the day.
Here's the Warranty Act
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Where do you see anything about "Apple has to make it work again. Now whether you replaced the keyboard because it broke due to your mistake, or you simply like some other keyboard on your laptop."
Hint - it's not there. If you step on your laptop and break it, Apple doesn't have to do shit. If you decide you want a Trump-orange keyboard, Apple doesn't have to do shit. In fact, you won't fix anything in the law about the company has to do *anything* regarding third-party repairs, or randomly swapping parts. Rather, the law says there is one thing they must NOT do.
What the law says (read it above if you don't believe me) is that there is something the manufacturer is not allowed to do. What they can't do is refuse to cover other, unrelated defects, which are not caused by your attempted third-party repair. They can't refuse to fix a defective LCD, saying "your warranty is void because you used a non-Apple keyboard" - unless they can show that the non-Apple keyboard actually caused the LCD to break.
You might *wish* Apple would fix your mistakes, or somehow magically make your rainbow-colored parts work, but those things aren't in the law.
At the time I wrote that, I hadn't seen anyone question whether it happened. Thanks for mentioning that.
It's fairly trivial to exfiltrate data *slowly* from a server.
For example, TCP sequence numbers are supposed to be random, as are emphereal ports. Nobody is expecting those to follow certain rules. Nobody stick your data in the third bit of any of those random numbers and nobody will ever know. You can exfiltrate one bit per connection. On a busy server, that's like having a dial up ssh connection with root access to the machine.
You may have heard about the network-based Spectre variant that was recently released. Like all Spectre variants, it's based on detecting tiny changes in the average time something takes - the average response time to a network request, in that case.
With server grade gigabit and ten gigabit Ethernet cards having TCP offload on board, an attacker with BMC access can manipulate the existing TCP traffic in ways that the machine's own kernel can't even see.
You don't want to download gigabytes of data this way (unless you can hide it in thousands of gigabytes of legitimate traffic), but you only need 2048 bits to exfiltrate the private key that gives you everything.
My thoughts exactly. Supermicro boards are normally used in servers, so their customers have certain expectations. Here is one list of Spectre patches for a bunch of Supermicro motherboards:
https://www.supermicro.com/sup...
If anyone missed the news, just recently it was discovered that the Chinese manufacturer added a very suspicious chip to a small number of Supermicro boards. That's obviously very bad news.
It can be. As you mentioned, it's typically not.
EUI-64 is typically used for the link-local address in IPv6.
The link-local address is, as it's name implies, valid only on the local link. Routers will not route it.
So in order to be exposed to the EUI-64 link-local address, you'd have to be on the same switched Ethernet link - which means you'd also see the Ethernet frames and the Mac addresses in the Ethernet header.
I just posted my theory that perhaps 17yo Kavanaugh was really drunk and he doesn't remember what happened 30+ years ago while very drunk. When Ford says "I was scared because I thought he might ...", maybe she was scared, maybe she did think. That's all activity in her own head. Here's another plausible theory, though.
Two men have spoken up saying THEY are the ones who put their hands on Ford. One of the two doesn't seem very reliable. The other one may well be telling the truth - he did it, just like he says. Ford testified that she didn't know Kavanaugh well, and after a beer or two she may well have confused him for the other guy.
Are you maybe looking for the word repudiate?
> that several people are corroborating
That word doesn't mean what you think it does.
Ms. Ford named three people whom she said were at the party, and could therefore *corroborate* that she was at a party where Kavanaugh also was. All three said that never happened, as far they know.
"Corroborate" means confirm, validate, support, back up.
All of the witnesses instead did the opposite. They contradicted, discredited, or repudiated her story(ies) when they said they were NOT at any party with Ford and Kavanaugh as she claims.
Nobody knows for sure, but here is what I think happened. (Even Ford has told at least three contradictory stories, so clearly she's unsure).
I think 17 year old Brett Kavanaugh got sloppy drunk.
I think Ford had a couple drinks.
I think Kavanaugh probably made an awkward, drunk, idiotic pass at her.
I think she was a little scared.
I think Kavanaugh doesn't remember what happened.
The warranty applies if the machine stops working due to a manufacturing defect, not if the customer broke it.
There are basically three scenarios.
---
Scenario A
You have a device that is under warranty.
It failed in a way that is covered by warranty.
You'd get it fixed under warranty. There's no third-party repair with knock-off / non-original parts, and no issue.
---
Scenario B
It's under warranty and you step on it, breaking the keyboard.
Now it's broken and the warranty doesn't apply.
You get a non-Apple keyboard to try to fix the damage you caused. If it doesn't work, that sucks for you. The damage you did doesn't magically come under warranty because you tried to fix it after you broke it.
Note that the warranty does NOT guarantee that a Ford engine will work just fine in a Toyota car, and doesn't guarantee that a ChongKey keyboard will work in an Apple laptop.
It says only that if the keyboard stops working, and you didn't break it, Apple will repair or replace it. If you broke it, Apple has no warranty responsibility related to the damage from breaking it.
--
Scenario C
Suppose it's under warranty and you step on it, breaking the keyboard.
Now it's broken and the warranty doesn't apply to this problem.
You get a non-Apple keyboard to try to fix the damage you caused. The keyboard works fine. You're happy.
Three weeks later, the LCD screen goes out due to a manufacturing defect.
Apple can't refuse to replace the LCD just because you replaced the keyboard. The two problems are unrelated and it would be illegal for Apple to tie warranty work (the LCD) to unrelated third-party parts.
There are about 200 standard PIDs. Newer cars do have a lot of stuff on the CAN bus, and different cars have different equipment and sensors, therefore they'll have additional PIDs in addition to the standardized stuff. Some of the extra ones may be handy to have sometimes. I believe the question was about needing a proprietary tool to clear trouble codes. Service 04, clear codes, is part of the SAE J1979 standard.
Newer cars do have a lot of stuff on the CAN bus, and different cars have different equipment and sensors, therefore they'll have additional PIDs in addition to the standardized stuff. I believe the question was about needing a proprietary tool to clear trouble codes. I believe Service 04, clear codes, is part of the SAE J1979 standard.
Prior to 1995 different vehicles had different systems. This didn't violate the the Warranty Act. In 1990, the Bush administration required that all cars use a standard system, known as OBD-II. Some 1994 model cars have OBD-II, most 1995 models, and it was required on all 1996 models (mostly manufacturered in 1995).
> SpaceX does it so much cheaper than the "socialist" option, that they are literally pissing the entire launch industry around the world off.
Yeah and we know one group *around the world* who has felt threatened by competing with the US in space travel, and their strategy for competing has been to sow discord and disharmony in the US with secret media campaigns. The more we're busy arguing with each other, the less we are able to beat them, they figure.
The drafters of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act wouldn't like this at all. They did not, however, make illegal. The Act, in 15 USC 2302 (C), says that the WARRANTY may not be conditioned on using Apple-branded parts. They can't (and don't) void the warranty if you use unauthorized parts. Here's the text of the statute:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
The people who wrote that might wish that they had written "also, you can't arrange for the product to stop working when unauthorized parts are installed", but they didn't write that. Maybe a lawmaker should write that now.
It's possibly unlawful under other laws. There are quite a few different unfair competition laws and some may apply.
I think the feds should be attuned to the way marijuana is still used as a gateway drug and how the drug cartels from Latin America use marijuana to get footholds in states.
--
Some factors increase the risk of substance abuse in those years deserve emphasis. Casual attitudes toward marijuana and minorsâ(TM) access to cigarettes raise the likelihood that teenagers will make a sad progression from cigarettes to marijuana to more serious drug use and earlier sexual activity
--
I donâ(TM)t think that you can legalize small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped. They canâ(TM)t be given an even easier road to take, because they will then find it in their interest to addict even more young people. Mexico didnâ(TM)t have much of a drug problem before the last 10 years, and you want to keep it that way. So you donâ(TM)t want to give any excuse to the drug traffickers to be able legally to addict young people.
--
I don't think we should decriminalize it.
--
Those are some of Hillary Clinton's comments on federal marijuana laws. Like Ms. Clinton, most Republicans do understood that drugs, especially crack and meth, have major negative impacts on entire communities, so it's factually not an issue which affects only the person who decides to do drugs.
If you read the Republican and Democrat party platforms, they say almost the same things about drugs, including marijuana, but say them in a different order. For example, both support drug courts, which are specialized programs to encourage drug offenders, especially hard core addicts, to get treatment. The Republican phrasing says the courts should order drug addicts to get treatment, the Democrat phrasing says addicts should get treatment, ordered by the courts. Mostly the same policies, phrased with a tone for those who aren't so concerned about the actual policies.
> Would it not be more efficient to put the excess electricity into the grid
The demand on the electric grid peaks in the evening, after work (and when everyone turns on lights). Solar-electric produces virtually no electricity in the evening. So no, direct to the grid solar electric doesn't work at scale. It can work of 1% of your electricity comes from solar, and you're using other sources for when you need a lot of electricity. It can "work" for one company if the taxpayers are paying them to produce and waste electricity at noon. It doesn't work for powering a city, because a city needs electricity at times other than noon-ish, and on cloudy days too.
I did a project on hydrogen fuel cells back in fifth grade because the basic concept seems so cool. Unfortunately, once you get past 5th-grade level, you find out that actual HFC cars have a range of less than 100 miles, and since the hydrogen is at 10,000 PSI refueling is a BITCH. It's a significant service process that as to be done every 100 miles. Also figuring 800 square inches of tank surface, that's 8 million pounds of explosive pressure in your car, waiting to divide you and the car into tiny pieces when there is a failure. You do NOT want to get into a major accident with a hydrogen tank in your car! Fortunately there is a really good solution to all of the problems.
Most of the problems with hydrogen go away with a little carbonation. Just mix in some CO2 and suddenly things work a LOT better. LPG vehicles have been proven in real commercial use for a long time. This company is making carbon-neutral LPG by capturing CO2 from the air and re-using it. If they can do that with noon-time solar electric (which would otherwise go to waste) and be within two orders of magnitude of reasonable efficiency, that's a huge win.
The party thinks, basically, that Washington politicians too often force people do things, or make things illegal. Republicans generally would oppose a federal law making it a federal crime to hit your thumb with a hammer.
Most Republicans would suggest that hitting your thumb is a bad idea, and would say you shouldn't do that. I think you should avoid doing that != we should make it a federal crime.
I think this is a good idea != the federal government should force everybody to do this.
Pence said Google shouldn't help with human rights abuseses in China. He did not propose a federal law making it illegal to provide services in China.
This is as opposed to Democrats, who don't so much make that distinction. Democrats are more keen on the government forcing you to do whatever Nancy Pelosi wants you to do.
There's the political narrative, and then there's history.
Here's an article about the failure of Toys R Us from 2004
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...
Eyler's strategy to fix their "running out of money" problem was - spend a ton more money. He had come from FAO Swhartz, which went bankrupt twice. He would have been a good choice if you wanted someone to show you how to go bankrupt.
> Amazon, Wal-Mart, and Target were all competitors, and yet they still managed
Amazon, Walmart, and Target operate toy specialty stores? You know the actual competitors are in that space? KB Toys, FAO Swhartz, all the toy store chains are gone, because that model doesn't work.
Yes, when you get a loan to buy a house, the house is collateral - the bank will take the house if you don't make the payments. When you get a loan to buy a car, the car is collateral - the bank will take the car if you don't make the payments. When you get a loan to buy a struggling specialty retailer ...
http://www.omscs.gatech.edu/pr...
"You gonna put down the shovel, or do you want to keep digging"
https://www.omscs.gatech.edu/p...
Again, you can spend $50,000 if you want to, or you can keep working at 7 Eleven if you choose. I'm getting my masters in a high-paying field for $5,000. What you do is your choice.
That article acts as though the problems started ten to fifteen years later than they really did.
For a long time, Toys R Us was the #1 toy retailer in the US. It was the first big box toy store, and the only one in many cities. They "kept doing what has been successful" (rested on their laurels) as other competitors emerged. In the early 1990s Target and especially Walmart starting taking a big chunk of that market. The aging Toys R Us stores didn't attract customers, who could get the same toys at Walmart while doing their weekly shopping.
By 1998, Walmart sold more toys than Toys R Us. The internet was also eating a growing chunk of the market.
In 2000, the company hired CEO John Eyler to reinvigorate the company. Eyler decided the way forward was to remodel all the stores and open new, bigger stores. They spent and borrowed a lot of money to do that. They had already been having financial difficulties in the 1990s, then Eyler added more debt, which mean lahe debt payments. The company started losing money faster.
By 2005, the strategies were very obviously not working. Yet they did have a very recognizable brand. Some private investors thought they could salvage the company by more effective management. That's where the LA Times article picks up the story. Unfortunately for the private investors, 2005 was a very bad time to invest in struggling brick and mortar retailer with no signifocant online presence. That's the year Amazon introduced Amazon Prime, with free two-day shipping. The next year, Amazon launched Fulfillment by Amazon, which had thousands of retailers selling through Amazon.com. Amazon beat Toys R Us handily.
At my last job, my predecessor spent most of his time on menial work and running around like crazy putting out fires. I automated tbe menial stuff and put processes in place to PREVENT fires. That left me with lots of time on my hands to be much more productive than the last guy.
My bosses saw that I was productive, without too much supervision from them. That meant I could tell them how long a task would take do do - and do it right, without starting any fires. I continued to be productive without being stressed.
So is your excuse that you're bad at math, or you think your Business Adminstration degree is going to earn hundreds or thousands more than my masters in Comp Sci?