It sounds like some beancounter figured out that cell phones were more profitable per unit than anything else they were selling, so they decided to focus all efforts on being a cellphone store. What they didn't study was the sustainability of that market amidst all the competition. As the parent poster said, they had no vision for the future at all. Just look at most of their stores; they're a time warp. The beancounters will manage them straight into liquidation as the cellphone margins continue to decrease.
Did Radio Shack's (mis)management really think that they could sustain, let alone grow, their national chain just by being a cellphone reseller? Every cellphone provider has company stores now, and soon every town will have one. Which means they have every incentive to cut resellers and their commissions out of the picture. Once Radio Shack has nothing to fall back on besides substandard and overpriced electronics, its liquidation time.
I still have my HP inkjet from 1997 (722C). I'm keeping the damn thing until it dies, which will hopefully be a long time *knock on wood*. I paid $350 for it and it was built SO much better than any of the ink cartridge holding containers that they sell now. Oh how I wish they would go back to making printers like this. I used to recommened HP to everyone I knew, since they were much better than shitty Canon which was the #2 seller at the time. Now I'd probably either buy a laser or just get the cheapest Lexmark and be ready to throw it away in 6 months.
If you have so little ambition in life that you just want to be paid for showing up for the next 50 years, there's always a "career" in government for you.
Cubie, where have you been all summer? I've missed your consistantly negative drumbeat of ideas. There have been tons of career related forums that were just begging for you to post about your love of middle management.
Remember, the poster you're replying to works in a call center, which means the logic processor in his brain has been replaced with the "anti-logic" processor used by people in customer service. This is particularly true in retail, call center, or airline jobs. Whatever makes the most sense to an average person, they do the opposite. Whatever would take the longest to do and frustrate the customer most, they do. I wish someone could post a scientific explaination to this phenomenon, which has been observed and confirmed on multiple occaisions.
You'd probably be better off shorting these stocks a few days after the spam is sent, since the price will certainly fall. That being said, shorting is very risky and should only be done by experienced investors. But if a stock price is being hyped by spam, you know it will be falling soon.
The internet is supposed to give people more information, so they can AVOID seeing crap movies. In this case, people allowed themselves to be marketed to just like TV viewers and fell for the same old tricks in a different medium. Me, I just used the common sense test and determined the movie would suck since there was no real plot or story line. The title gives away everything about the movie, so what's there to see other than some lame special effects and overhyped brand name actors? Please people, don't let this happen again. Use the internet for information, find out which movies are destined to suck, and DON'T SEE THEM!
You're talking about violations that contribute to the accident. I never disputed that someone could be found partially responsible for an accident if they did something that contributed to it. However, if you're going through a green light at 10 MPH over the speed limit and I come through the other side of the intersection on a red light but driving at the speed limit, the accident is 100% my fault. The fact that you were speeding did not contribute to the accident and thus could not be used against you to find you partially at fault.
Yep, that's what I was thinking when I read about that "venture capital" they received. Someone is investing in the soon to be filed lawsuit against myspace. Friendster's schysters will argue that myspace "stole their IP" and now they want a bunch of money from the myspace owners. Like they say: those that can, do, and those that can't, sue.
Somebody is violating a traffic law in just about every accident. If this were grounds for insurance denial, they would never have to pay a claim. If you believe otherwise, please cite a relevant law or perhaps copy and paste the fine print of an insurance policy. It's sure as hell not in my policy, or any other that I've seen.
Grow up kid. When you move out of mommy and daddy's house, you'll see how the world works. People do not owe you something just because you want it. The sooner you get that through your thick skull, the easier things will be for you. But I suspect that will take a very long time.
Not that I'm defending this practice, but speeding does not automatically result in an insurance claim being denied. Driving 2 MPH over the limit would never be seen as a reason to assign fault for an accident or deny a claim.
If the artist cares enough about the fans to make an album worth listening to, such as most Pink Floyd albums, I'll buy the entire thing. Afterall, who would want just "Another Brick in the Wall" without the entire album? If they just record an album with 2 good songs and mostly filler, I'm cutting out the filler. I suspect most fans will decide if an album is worth buying and if so, buy the whole thing. If artists want people to buy the entire album, they should make the album worth buying on its merits.
Agred. Sony has been living off their name for the better part of 20 years now. What successful and truly innovative product have they really had since the CD? Charging more money while steadily degrading quality and useability is a recipe for short term success but long term failure. In fact I am surprised they're still doing as well as they are.
Once the PS3 ends up being the disaster that everyone thinks it will be, they will file Chpt. 11, or whatever they call that kind of Bankruptcy in Japan.
What sort of backlash would that be? Nobody ever buying a CD again? The record industry could require that you give them a key to your house for every CD purchase, so they can enter any time to check for copyright violations, and there would be a lot of people who would go along with it. Sure, some would object, but they would sell plenty of music anyway. Remember we are, afterall, dealing with an American public who thinks Jessica Simpson has some sort of musical talent.
I've seen more machines screwed up by Norton than by any official "virus". You don't need Consumer Reports to tell you that. Why people keep paying money for this crap is beyond me.
I fully agree. And I think AOL should not put the landscaping back the way it was: leave the spammer's yard with big piles of dirt. Let the spamming scumbags sue to recover the cost of re-landscaping and drag the suit out as long as possible. I never thought I'd be on AOL's side for anything, but this is one exception.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds like some beancounter figured out that cell phones were more profitable per unit than anything else they were selling, so they decided to focus all efforts on being a cellphone store. What they didn't study was the sustainability of that market amidst all the competition. As the parent poster said, they had no vision for the future at all. Just look at most of their stores; they're a time warp. The beancounters will manage them straight into liquidation as the cellphone margins continue to decrease.
Did Radio Shack's (mis)management really think that they could sustain, let alone grow, their national chain just by being a cellphone reseller? Every cellphone provider has company stores now, and soon every town will have one. Which means they have every incentive to cut resellers and their commissions out of the picture. Once Radio Shack has nothing to fall back on besides substandard and overpriced electronics, its liquidation time.
I still have my HP inkjet from 1997 (722C). I'm keeping the damn thing until it dies, which will hopefully be a long time *knock on wood*. I paid $350 for it and it was built SO much better than any of the ink cartridge holding containers that they sell now. Oh how I wish they would go back to making printers like this. I used to recommened HP to everyone I knew, since they were much better than shitty Canon which was the #2 seller at the time. Now I'd probably either buy a laser or just get the cheapest Lexmark and be ready to throw it away in 6 months.
If you have so little ambition in life that you just want to be paid for showing up for the next 50 years, there's always a "career" in government for you.
Cubie, where have you been all summer? I've missed your consistantly negative drumbeat of ideas. There have been tons of career related forums that were just begging for you to post about your love of middle management.
What does AOL provide that you can't get elsewhere, other than a uniquely horrible internet experience?
Remember, the poster you're replying to works in a call center, which means the logic processor in his brain has been replaced with the "anti-logic" processor used by people in customer service. This is particularly true in retail, call center, or airline jobs. Whatever makes the most sense to an average person, they do the opposite. Whatever would take the longest to do and frustrate the customer most, they do. I wish someone could post a scientific explaination to this phenomenon, which has been observed and confirmed on multiple occaisions.
Amtrak was pretty much designed from the start to be a complete failure, so I'd say its working exactly as its supposed to.
You'd probably be better off shorting these stocks a few days after the spam is sent, since the price will certainly fall. That being said, shorting is very risky and should only be done by experienced investors. But if a stock price is being hyped by spam, you know it will be falling soon.
You of course are completely productive 100% of your workday, right? And your shit smells like roses, too?
I have a better idea: we quickly and publicly cut off the balls of anal-retentive assholes that make everyone else's life suck.
The internet is supposed to give people more information, so they can AVOID seeing crap movies. In this case, people allowed themselves to be marketed to just like TV viewers and fell for the same old tricks in a different medium. Me, I just used the common sense test and determined the movie would suck since there was no real plot or story line. The title gives away everything about the movie, so what's there to see other than some lame special effects and overhyped brand name actors? Please people, don't let this happen again. Use the internet for information, find out which movies are destined to suck, and DON'T SEE THEM!
You're talking about violations that contribute to the accident. I never disputed that someone could be found partially responsible for an accident if they did something that contributed to it. However, if you're going through a green light at 10 MPH over the speed limit and I come through the other side of the intersection on a red light but driving at the speed limit, the accident is 100% my fault. The fact that you were speeding did not contribute to the accident and thus could not be used against you to find you partially at fault.
Yep, that's what I was thinking when I read about that "venture capital" they received. Someone is investing in the soon to be filed lawsuit against myspace. Friendster's schysters will argue that myspace "stole their IP" and now they want a bunch of money from the myspace owners. Like they say: those that can, do, and those that can't, sue.
Somebody is violating a traffic law in just about every accident. If this were grounds for insurance denial, they would never have to pay a claim. If you believe otherwise, please cite a relevant law or perhaps copy and paste the fine print of an insurance policy. It's sure as hell not in my policy, or any other that I've seen.
Grow up kid. When you move out of mommy and daddy's house, you'll see how the world works. People do not owe you something just because you want it. The sooner you get that through your thick skull, the easier things will be for you. But I suspect that will take a very long time.
Have you ever challenged a traffic ticket in court? Did they require the state to prove their case? How else would you get out of the ticket?
Not that I'm defending this practice, but speeding does not automatically result in an insurance claim being denied. Driving 2 MPH over the limit would never be seen as a reason to assign fault for an accident or deny a claim.
If the artist cares enough about the fans to make an album worth listening to, such as most Pink Floyd albums, I'll buy the entire thing. Afterall, who would want just "Another Brick in the Wall" without the entire album? If they just record an album with 2 good songs and mostly filler, I'm cutting out the filler. I suspect most fans will decide if an album is worth buying and if so, buy the whole thing. If artists want people to buy the entire album, they should make the album worth buying on its merits.
Agred. Sony has been living off their name for the better part of 20 years now. What successful and truly innovative product have they really had since the CD? Charging more money while steadily degrading quality and useability is a recipe for short term success but long term failure. In fact I am surprised they're still doing as well as they are.
Once the PS3 ends up being the disaster that everyone thinks it will be, they will file Chpt. 11, or whatever they call that kind of Bankruptcy in Japan.
What sort of backlash would that be? Nobody ever buying a CD again? The record industry could require that you give them a key to your house for every CD purchase, so they can enter any time to check for copyright violations, and there would be a lot of people who would go along with it. Sure, some would object, but they would sell plenty of music anyway. Remember we are, afterall, dealing with an American public who thinks Jessica Simpson has some sort of musical talent.
I've seen more machines screwed up by Norton than by any official "virus". You don't need Consumer Reports to tell you that. Why people keep paying money for this crap is beyond me.
Nah, they'll just ban these devices from the office, thinking that will keep the network secure.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
I fully agree. And I think AOL should not put the landscaping back the way it was: leave the spammer's yard with big piles of dirt. Let the spamming scumbags sue to recover the cost of re-landscaping and drag the suit out as long as possible. I never thought I'd be on AOL's side for anything, but this is one exception.