Microsoft needs twenty more Halo-sized hits for Xbox to go profitable. They're not going to make a hundred billion in the game console business, that's just wishful thinking. They're not even going to make back what they spent developing it. Xbox is a failure.
-jcr
Re:Bidding for Yahoo was a tactic to cause chaos
on
Does Ballmer Need To Go?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Who do you think the biggest shareholders of microsoft are?
MSFT has been underperforming the exchange indices for as long as Ballmer's been in charge. Now that MSFT is not, and will never again be a growth stock, it should be a dividend stock. Every billion dollars that MSFT pisses away on failures like the zune or the Xbox, is shareholders' money being wasted on Ballmer's ego trips.
Any money managers who still have MSFT in their portfolio should be dismissed by their own shareholders. There's no excuse for holding shares of a company that's been underperforming the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ indexes for the last five years.
I don't hate their OS at all. I wouldn't use it voluntarily, but to really hate it I think I'd have to be one of the unfortunate people who has to suffer with it on a daily basis.
Well, they got rich by being all about the status quo, didn't they? IBM made an attempt to move the legacy customers to OS/2, and MS was 100% on board for that, but when the drones said "just rev windows again", MS complied.
If you have some scientific arguments supporting your skepticism,
You seem to be confused about where the burden of proof lies. The fanatic I was prodding took an absolutist position, and I continued to tweak him for my amusement. Sorry if that pisses you off, but I'm not here for your approval, either.
This isn't a first amendment issue, it's a property rights issue. The spammer's got a right to say whatever he wants to say, but that right doesn't include a right to use other people's property to do so.
Basically, he got sent up the river for a hell of a lot of instances of extremely petty theft, which is as it should be. Let the fucker rot.
I don't know what kind of package deal you're trying to make here, but I was talking about access to property which had belonged to the deceased, and NOW belongs to his heirs. I have no idea where you came up with the rest of the things you're trying to bundle up with it.
You stated that it was moral to help the family simply because they asked.
Reading comprehension isn't your long suit, is it?
I said that the deceased no longer owns the property in question, his heirs do. The question is whether it's moral to help the owners of the property to gain access to that property, which it obviously is.
Slashdot Mirror
I would say that iPod/iTunes actually saved Apple
No, Apple was already back on its feet financially by the time the iPod shipped.
-jcr
Microsoft needs twenty more Halo-sized hits for Xbox to go profitable. They're not going to make a hundred billion in the game console business, that's just wishful thinking. They're not even going to make back what they spent developing it. Xbox is a failure.
-jcr
Who do you think the biggest shareholders of microsoft are?
Banks, pensions and mutual funds, why?
-jcr
MSFT has been underperforming the exchange indices for as long as Ballmer's been in charge. Now that MSFT is not, and will never again be a growth stock, it should be a dividend stock. Every billion dollars that MSFT pisses away on failures like the zune or the Xbox, is shareholders' money being wasted on Ballmer's ego trips.
-jcr
Any money managers who still have MSFT in their portfolio should be dismissed by their own shareholders. There's no excuse for holding shares of a company that's been underperforming the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ indexes for the last five years.
-jcr
Im sure MS hate their OS as much as we do,
I don't hate their OS at all. I wouldn't use it voluntarily, but to really hate it I think I'd have to be one of the unfortunate people who has to suffer with it on a daily basis.
-jcr
I'm not surprised that someone misspelled "bumcombe."
Change that first "m" to an "n".
-jcr
Well, they got rich by being all about the status quo, didn't they? IBM made an attempt to move the legacy customers to OS/2, and MS was 100% on board for that, but when the drones said "just rev windows again", MS complied.
-jcr
Doesn't anybody read H. L. Mencken anymore?
-jcr
If you have some scientific arguments supporting your skepticism,
You seem to be confused about where the burden of proof lies. The fanatic I was prodding took an absolutist position, and I continued to tweak him for my amusement. Sorry if that pisses you off, but I'm not here for your approval, either.
-jcr
Someone sending spam *entirely* with their own equipment (NOT using botnets, hacked servers, open relays, etc.) is within their rights.
Once it gets to my router, they're not using their own equipment.
-jcr
How do you "steal" bandwidth anyway?
Look up "theft of services" in a legal dictionary.
-jcr
This isn't a first amendment issue, it's a property rights issue. The spammer's got a right to say whatever he wants to say, but that right doesn't include a right to use other people's property to do so.
Basically, he got sent up the river for a hell of a lot of instances of extremely petty theft, which is as it should be. Let the fucker rot.
-jcr
Any IBM shareholder has a fiscal interest in deterring lawsuits like SCO filed against IBM, so yes: I think they would care.
-jcr
Would have been great if Novell's counsel had doubled up in laughter at that question.
-jcr
You don't think that IBM has any number of shareholders who are richer and more powerful than Darl McBride?
-jcr
They have no problem with politicians driving drunk, but they want to bitch about pretending to drive drunk in a video game?
-jcr
No way for windows users to reboot
;-)
They could still re-install.
-jcr
The issue is muddled, not clear.
The issue is perfectly clear. The property rights of the deceased pass to his heirs.
-jcr
all moral issues regarding the deceased
I don't know what kind of package deal you're trying to make here, but I was talking about access to property which had belonged to the deceased, and NOW belongs to his heirs. I have no idea where you came up with the rest of the things you're trying to bundle up with it.
-jcr
You stated that it was moral to help the family simply because they asked.
Reading comprehension isn't your long suit, is it?
I said that the deceased no longer owns the property in question, his heirs do. The question is whether it's moral to help the owners of the property to gain access to that property, which it obviously is.
-jcr
If someone pays you to murder someone,
WTF?
What does this have to do with the question at hand?
-jcr
The deceased no longer owns anything, his heirs do. If his heirs want your help, there's no moral issue at all in doing so.
-jcr
MS washed their hands of Xenix a long time ago. They sold its rotting corpse to SCO.
-jcr
Come to think of it, with the way things are going in this country, I'm not sure how much longer we'll be able to count on having jury trials.
-jcr