Here's more about the Time-Warner merger: AOL/Time Warner Merger. Quote: "AOL Time Warner announced Wednesday it was reporting a $45.5 billion quarterly loss to account for the declining value of its flagship America Online property -- bringing the company to post an annual loss of nearly $100 billion, the largest annual loss ever in corporate history. (1/30/03)"
"... if you take the history of all buy-outs, the Net benefit for the firm doing the buying is roughly 0%."
Source: Wikipedia article about Mergers and Acquisitions. Quote: "Historically, mergers have often failed (Straub, 2007) to add significantly to the value of the acquiring firm's shares (King, et al., 2004)."
That idea is well-known, but I was unable to find another link quickly. (It's only a Slashdot comment, not the result of a research project.) For example, the merger of Time-Warner and AOL is the worst business decision of human history, and lowered the value of Time-Warner so much that employees lost much of their invested savings.
The basic point seems valid in this case, also. Microsoft has proven, over many
years, that it does not know how to run a search engine. Yahoo has proven,
over many years, that...
I'm guessing that Steve Ballmer is doing this because he wants an outlet for his anger. It's difficult to see how owning Yahoo can benefit Microsoft. One possibility is that Microsoft can try to get a partial monopoly over some kinds of internet traffic. Many people with little technical knowledge use whatever Microsoft pushes them towards.
Microsoft is NOT a successful company, in my opinion. If Microsoft didn't have one-time monopolies created during a time when people were ignorant about computers, it would not make much profit.
Also, the failure of Vista may indicate that Microsoft can no longer hire people intelligent enough to write working software.
[Symantec has] " done more to reduce internet security than most, with bloated, unusable virus checkers..."
Whenever I encounter a computer with Symantec software installed, I uninstall it before doing anything else. My experience with Symantec is that the company's software is VERY buggy.
"Furthermore, there is a pretty obvious marketing angle to all of this."
Having insecurity is profitable for Microsoft, anti-malware software companies, and weapons investors like Cheney and Bush. It's a simple business model:
I had MAJOR problems with NameCheap.com, and am still having problems. They pretend that they don't know how to refund my money, even though I am no longer hosting with them.
The don't answer trouble tickets except with irrelevant replies. It is possible to call them and leave a message, but they have NEVER called me back.
NOT NameCheap. You can only leave a message when you call them, and they NEVER called me back. They didn't answer ANY of my many support tickets, except with irrelevant replies. They are an eNom reseller, and eNom seems to me to have become abusive. Absolutely the worst I've seen, for many other reasons, too. For example, their system refused to allow me to renew my domains with them. NameCheap.com is an eNom.com reseller, and in my opinion eNom.com has become abusive.
I too want to find a good domain name registrar. I have had very bad experiences with
GoDaddy.com, NameCheap.com, and DomainSite.com.
A big problem with trying a new registrar is that they hide how they do
business until you have a domain with them. For example, DomainSite.com email forwarding uses an "aggressive" block
list that cannot be disabled. DomainSite.com also throws away all Catchall email.
ICANN is a TERRIBLY badly managed organization, in my opinion.
GoDaddy's reputation is not just one of a negative stories. In my
opinion, GoDaddy tries to confuse non-technical people by offering services
they don't need that are presented as valuable.
Here are some of the opinions of Bob Parsons, the owner of GoDaddy. He is pro-violence: Close Gitmo? No way!!
"What gutter demographic are they looking for with this?"
They want to attract people who habitually waste their money. Advertisers who sell junk will pay more to attract foolish people. Those advertisers can pay more because they have high profits; selling junk is very profitable.
Bill Gates: "Sometime in the next year or so we will have a new
version".
Quoting the parent comment: "Next year? they haven't even started
beta yet have they?"
You are forgetting what appears to be a core Microsoft philosophy:
"The whole world is our beta tester."
The problem with Vista is that buyers are becoming technically
knowledgeable enough that they don't want to be beta testers of a very
unfinished product that requires them to buy more powerful hardware. Remember
that Windows XP Service Pack 2 was released only 3 years ago. Before that was
3 years during which every Windows XP customer was a beta tester of a very
unfinished product that didn't even handle USB very well.
Sometimes it seems to me that Microsoft is not primarily a software
company that is abusive, but an abuse company that sells software as a method
of delivering abuse.
Remember that a "new version" can be as little as moving the menus
around and causing everyone a lot of annoyance, as Microsoft did with IE 7.
There should be a song, "50 ways to abuse the customer."
The end comes soon, and Microsoft is trying to delay the end. With XP,
most users have all the operating system they want. Except for the built-in
susceptibility to malware, Windows XP is acceptable. Customers just want to do
their work. They don't sit around all day dreaming about new features of an
OS.
For most of Microsoft's customers, there is no need for change,
especially when they realize that the Chief of Grief, software's Dr. Death,
will quickly declare the death of that version, too, as it tried to do with
Windows XP.
Another problem at Microsoft is apparently that the good people have
left, and the people who remain are not knowledgeable enough to do the work.
Microsoft's employees know the end is near, and the creative programmers have
already left. Only those who just want a job remain.
I understand the pancaking. What bothers me is that there was no evidence of the very strong inner metal columns. Everything fell to dust. Only a controlled demolition causes that kind of destruction.
"Are you saying you have pirated copies of Britney Spears?"
Yuck. Certainly not. And I'm not a pirate. I was saying that I didn't hear much that I felt was worth buying. The industry is experiencing a slump of creativity.
Off topic: Former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura said
yesterday that he thinks the complete, symmetrical destruction of the World Trade Center was a controlled demolition.
"It almost sounds as if they are considering treating their customers as *gasp* customers!"
Quote from the Slashdot story: "In the face of widespread, escalating online piracy, music sales dropped..."
To me, that sounds like the music industry saying, "If something bad happens, it must be someone else's fault."
I think the falling sales are the industry's fault. I was supposed to by a Britney Spears CD to hear her singing something about abusing men? If the music industry wants strong sales, it can be kind to the customer and produce something valuable.
Quote: "This man's problems were caused not by ID theft, but by suspicion of crime."
So many things have been happening like that, I wonder if there is an intent to overthrow the U.S. and U.K. governments. For example, former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura said yesterday that he thinks the attack on the World Trade Center was a controlled demolition.
Elaborate practical joke: You thought you were paying for a war to kill Iraqis... Surprise! It's just a way to steal taxpayer money, at more than $1,000,000 per Iraqi killed, and counting. The "war" is just a distraction from the real purpose.
People have strong opinions about technology without bothering to understand
it.
It's the same in politics. People call the U.S. government's action in
Iraq a war, but killing Iraqis is only a distraction from the real purpose.
The real purpose is stealing money from the U.S. taxpayer.
Obviously, at more than $1,000,000 per Iraqi killed, most of them very
poor, the "war" is mostly about money, and the killing is only required to
draw attention away from the real purpose.
How will the astounding ignorance of technology get resolved? Maybe we
will have to wait until all the old dinosaurs retire. When I say "old
dinosaurs", I am not talking about chronological age, I am talking about
mental age. Some 24-year-olds are old dinosaurs mentally.
"It's not that "Open Source" is unfriendly it's that most hardware vendors are."
I have no experience with it, but here is a hardware company that says they make a SIM that unlocks the iPhone: 2008 new turbosim unlock iphone. (The web site is written in Chinglish.)
I'm interested in the sociology of Apple. What does it say when a company
chooses to be sneaky? To me it says that the top management of the company
does not feel confident it can make money using honest methods. Apple's
sneakiness says Apple top management is not qualified and should not be
employed by Apple.
My best understanding is that abusiveness breeds abusiveness.
Computer professionals deal with Microsoft's abusiveness every day. The U.S. government has killed an estimated 1,000,000 Iraqis. The eventual cost of the war is estimated to be $3,000,000,000,000. It has cost more than $1 million to kill each Iraqi. I've never met even one American who hates Iraqis. The money is being spent only to make profits for weapons and oil investors.
One result of all the abusiveness is that some people become accustomed to being abused, and
hide the abuse from themselves.
There is only one healthy response: Don't accept abusiveness. Protest abusiveness. Demand that abusive executives be fired, impeached, or imprisoned. If you don't protest the U.S. government's war-making, then you are a murderer, too.
If you know an Apple employee, talk to that person about Apple's abusiveness. Each protest, however small, makes it just a little bit more difficult for abusers to do their mental illness to the rest of us.
I agree with Twitter. Quote: "If your electricity comes from coal, the
power saved by a CFB prevents a greater amount of heavy metals (including
mercury) from being dumped into the air, water and ground downwind of the coal
plant."
This is not the first time a Slashdot article has misled us about
mercury in compact fluorescent light bulbs. See this comment from a year ago:
Misleading article.
Quote from the second link in that comment: "China is also the world's
largest emitter of mercury..." China's coal-fired plants emit TONS of
mercury, and the mercury travels everywhere.
Is someone at Slashdot paid to post these articles, to sell LED or
other lights? Or is it just ignorance?
I'm a registered Democrat in Portland, Oregon. I have professional editing experience. I have advertising copywriting experience. Obviously, since I'm on Slashdot, I have plenty experience with computer technology. Other sciences, too. I'm comfortable meeting and talking with groups of people. If there is any interest in my helping, reply or write to my email address above.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's more about the Time-Warner merger: AOL/Time Warner Merger. Quote: "AOL Time Warner announced Wednesday it was reporting a $45.5 billion quarterly loss to account for the declining value of its flagship America Online property -- bringing the company to post an annual loss of nearly $100 billion, the largest annual loss ever in corporate history. (1/30/03)"
"... if you take the history of all buy-outs, the Net benefit for the firm doing the buying is roughly 0%."
Source: Wikipedia article about Mergers and Acquisitions. Quote: "Historically, mergers have often failed (Straub, 2007) to add significantly to the value of the acquiring firm's shares (King, et al., 2004)."
That idea is well-known, but I was unable to find another link quickly. (It's only a Slashdot comment, not the result of a research project.) For example, the merger of Time-Warner and AOL is the worst business decision of human history, and lowered the value of Time-Warner so much that employees lost much of their invested savings.
The basic point seems valid in this case, also. Microsoft has proven, over many years, that it does not know how to run a search engine. Yahoo has proven, over many years, that...
I'm guessing that Steve Ballmer is doing this because he wants an outlet for his anger. It's difficult to see how owning Yahoo can benefit Microsoft. One possibility is that Microsoft can try to get a partial monopoly over some kinds of internet traffic. Many people with little technical knowledge use whatever Microsoft pushes them towards.
Microsoft is NOT a successful company, in my opinion. If Microsoft didn't have one-time monopolies created during a time when people were ignorant about computers, it would not make much profit.
Also, the failure of Vista may indicate that Microsoft can no longer hire people intelligent enough to write working software.
[Symantec has] " done more to reduce internet security than most, with bloated, unusable virus checkers..."
Whenever I encounter a computer with Symantec software installed, I uninstall it before doing anything else. My experience with Symantec is that the company's software is VERY buggy.
"Furthermore, there is a pretty obvious marketing angle to all of this."
Having insecurity is profitable for Microsoft, anti-malware software companies, and weapons investors like Cheney and Bush. It's a simple business model:
1) Do evil.
2) Profit!
I had MAJOR problems with NameCheap.com, and am still having problems. They pretend that they don't know how to refund my money, even though I am no longer hosting with them.
The don't answer trouble tickets except with irrelevant replies. It is possible to call them and leave a message, but they have NEVER called me back.
MAJOR, major hassles.
NOT NameCheap. You can only leave a message when you call them, and they NEVER called me back. They didn't answer ANY of my many support tickets, except with irrelevant replies. They are an eNom reseller, and eNom seems to me to have become abusive. Absolutely the worst I've seen, for many other reasons, too. For example, their system refused to allow me to renew my domains with them. NameCheap.com is an eNom.com reseller, and in my opinion eNom.com has become abusive.
I too want to find a good domain name registrar. I have had very bad experiences with GoDaddy.com, NameCheap.com, and DomainSite.com.
A big problem with trying a new registrar is that they hide how they do business until you have a domain with them. For example, DomainSite.com email forwarding uses an "aggressive" block list that cannot be disabled. DomainSite.com also throws away all Catchall email.
ICANN is a TERRIBLY badly managed organization, in my opinion.
I'm keeping a list of stories about GoDaddy on Slashdot, in order by date:
Go Daddy Usurps Network Solutions (2005-05-04)
GoDaddy Serves Blank Pages to Safari & Opera (2005-12-08)
GoDaddy.com Dumps Linux for Microsoft (2006-03-23)
GoDaddy Holds Domains Hostage (2006-06-17)
GoDaddy Caves To Irish Legal Threat (2006-09-16)
MySpace and GoDaddy Shut Down Security Site (2007-01-26)
That incident prompted this web site:
Exposing the Many Reasons Not to Trust GoDaddy with Your Domain Names. According to this March 11, 2008 story in Wired, GoDaddy shut down an entire web site of 250,000 pages because of one archived mailing list comment: GoDaddy Silences Police-Watchdog Site RateMyCop.com. See below for Slashdot's story about RateMyCop.com.
Alternative Registrars to GoDaddy? (2007-02-03)
GoDaddy Bobbles DST Changeover? (2007-03-11)
850K RegisterFly Domains Moved To GoDaddy (2007-05-29)
GoDaddy Silences RateMyCop.com (2008-03-12)
ICANN Moves Against GoDaddy Domain Lockdowns (2008-04-08)
Any error or stories not included?
GoDaddy's reputation is not just one of a negative stories. In my opinion, GoDaddy tries to confuse non-technical people by offering services they don't need that are presented as valuable.
Here are some of the opinions of Bob Parsons, the owner of GoDaddy. He is pro-violence: Close Gitmo? No way!!
"What gutter demographic are they looking for with this?"
They want to attract people who habitually waste their money. Advertisers who sell junk will pay more to attract foolish people. Those advertisers can pay more because they have high profits; selling junk is very profitable.
Bill Gates: "Sometime in the next year or so we will have a new version".
Quoting the parent comment: "Next year? they haven't even started beta yet have they?"
You are forgetting what appears to be a core Microsoft philosophy: "The whole world is our beta tester."
The problem with Vista is that buyers are becoming technically knowledgeable enough that they don't want to be beta testers of a very unfinished product that requires them to buy more powerful hardware. Remember that Windows XP Service Pack 2 was released only 3 years ago. Before that was 3 years during which every Windows XP customer was a beta tester of a very unfinished product that didn't even handle USB very well.
Sometimes it seems to me that Microsoft is not primarily a software company that is abusive, but an abuse company that sells software as a method of delivering abuse.
Remember that a "new version" can be as little as moving the menus around and causing everyone a lot of annoyance, as Microsoft did with IE 7. There should be a song, "50 ways to abuse the customer."
The end comes soon, and Microsoft is trying to delay the end. With XP, most users have all the operating system they want. Except for the built-in susceptibility to malware, Windows XP is acceptable. Customers just want to do their work. They don't sit around all day dreaming about new features of an OS.
For most of Microsoft's customers, there is no need for change, especially when they realize that the Chief of Grief, software's Dr. Death, will quickly declare the death of that version, too, as it tried to do with Windows XP.
Another problem at Microsoft is apparently that the good people have left, and the people who remain are not knowledgeable enough to do the work. Microsoft's employees know the end is near, and the creative programmers have already left. Only those who just want a job remain.
I understand the pancaking. What bothers me is that there was no evidence of the very strong inner metal columns. Everything fell to dust. Only a controlled demolition causes that kind of destruction.
"Are you saying you have pirated copies of Britney Spears?"
Yuck. Certainly not. And I'm not a pirate. I was saying that I didn't hear much that I felt was worth buying. The industry is experiencing a slump of creativity.
Good point.
Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura was a Navy Seal, trained in demolition. If you listen to the interview, you will hear his reasons.
Off topic: Former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura said yesterday that he thinks the complete, symmetrical destruction of the World Trade Center was a controlled demolition.
"It almost sounds as if they are considering treating their customers as *gasp* customers!"
Quote from the Slashdot story: "In the face of widespread, escalating online piracy, music sales dropped..."
To me, that sounds like the music industry saying, "If something bad happens, it must be someone else's fault."
I think the falling sales are the industry's fault. I was supposed to by a Britney Spears CD to hear her singing something about abusing men? If the music industry wants strong sales, it can be kind to the customer and produce something valuable.
I should have said,
Quote: "This man's problems were caused not by ID theft, but by suspicion of crime."
This man's problems were caused by government corruption, which was the point of my parent post.
Quote: "This man's problems were caused not by ID theft, but by suspicion of crime."
So many things have been happening like that, I wonder if there is an intent to overthrow the U.S. and U.K. governments. For example, former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura said yesterday that he thinks the attack on the World Trade Center was a controlled demolition.
The U.S. Senate voted against Habeus Corpus, which provides legal protection from unlawful detention.
The U.S. government has been building prisons.
"Where is the April Fool's joke in all of this??"
Elaborate practical joke: You thought you were paying for a war to kill Iraqis... Surprise! It's just a way to steal taxpayer money, at more than $1,000,000 per Iraqi killed, and counting. The "war" is just a distraction from the real purpose.
I read an article that claimed that Singapore was trying to position itself as the new bank secrecy country.
People have strong opinions about technology without bothering to understand it.
It's the same in politics. People call the U.S. government's action in Iraq a war, but killing Iraqis is only a distraction from the real purpose. The real purpose is stealing money from the U.S. taxpayer.
Obviously, at more than $1,000,000 per Iraqi killed, most of them very poor, the "war" is mostly about money, and the killing is only required to draw attention away from the real purpose.
How will the astounding ignorance of technology get resolved? Maybe we will have to wait until all the old dinosaurs retire. When I say "old dinosaurs", I am not talking about chronological age, I am talking about mental age. Some 24-year-olds are old dinosaurs mentally.
"It's not that "Open Source" is unfriendly it's that most hardware vendors are."
I have no experience with it, but here is a hardware company that says they make a SIM that unlocks the iPhone: 2008 new turbosim unlock iphone. (The web site is written in Chinglish.)
Oh, well, here we go:
DOS is a new-fangled OS. Run CP/M. Completely malware free, since none of the malware is compatible.
I'm interested in the sociology of Apple. What does it say when a company chooses to be sneaky? To me it says that the top management of the company does not feel confident it can make money using honest methods. Apple's sneakiness says Apple top management is not qualified and should not be employed by Apple.
I'm not the only person disgusted by such behavior. See Apple's Sneakiness Did Not Start Today.
My best understanding is that abusiveness breeds abusiveness.
Computer professionals deal with Microsoft's abusiveness every day. The U.S. government has killed an estimated 1,000,000 Iraqis. The eventual cost of the war is estimated to be $3,000,000,000,000. It has cost more than $1 million to kill each Iraqi. I've never met even one American who hates Iraqis. The money is being spent only to make profits for weapons and oil investors.
One result of all the abusiveness is that some people become accustomed to being abused, and hide the abuse from themselves.
There is only one healthy response: Don't accept abusiveness. Protest abusiveness. Demand that abusive executives be fired, impeached, or imprisoned. If you don't protest the U.S. government's war-making, then you are a murderer, too.
If you know an Apple employee, talk to that person about Apple's abusiveness. Each protest, however small, makes it just a little bit more difficult for abusers to do their mental illness to the rest of us.
I agree with Twitter. Quote: "If your electricity comes from coal, the power saved by a CFB prevents a greater amount of heavy metals (including mercury) from being dumped into the air, water and ground downwind of the coal plant."
This is not the first time a Slashdot article has misled us about mercury in compact fluorescent light bulbs. See this comment from a year ago: Misleading article. Quote from the second link in that comment: "China is also the world's largest emitter of mercury..." China's coal-fired plants emit TONS of mercury, and the mercury travels everywhere.
Is someone at Slashdot paid to post these articles, to sell LED or other lights? Or is it just ignorance?
Colmore,
For an interesting set of theories, read the book, The Primal Scream.
My question: How can I help your campaign?
I'm a registered Democrat in Portland, Oregon. I have professional editing experience. I have advertising copywriting experience. Obviously, since I'm on Slashdot, I have plenty experience with computer technology. Other sciences, too. I'm comfortable meeting and talking with groups of people. If there is any interest in my helping, reply or write to my email address above.
Exactly. The sickness industry wants everything to be a disease, because they charge for diseases.