I wouldn't blame Yahoo failing on this alone as it was already doing that before Marissa Mayer took over as CEO. Outside of some extreme brilliance, the best I expect out of anyone would be to drag out the death spiral for a few more years. Anyone with the kind of vision or capability to save Yahoo is probably far better off starting their own company and building it into something great rather than trying to salvage an industry behemoth that's circling the drain.
Mayer did nothing to help the company, but it's hard to say that she's blundered more than anyone else who might be doing the job instead of her.
Women show an in-group preference for other women and try to push out men.
Actually, this isn't entirely true. I recall reading one study where although that there was some statistical support for that statement in the general sense, women were incredibly biased against hiring other women they perceived as being more attractive than themselves. I'll have to see if I can find it again because it was pretty interesting as far as some of the results went.
Doesn't seem likely, at least not for a lot of movies. A big summer tent pole movie (e.g., Marvel superhero movie, etc.) is going to haul in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the studio. Netflix probably can't afford to buy more than one of those per year, and it's not clear if people would pay the additional cost necessary to support more than that. It's even more questionable if rentals would do near as well since even at $10 (even with most of it going to the studio) you'd have to rely on people only renting in groups of two, which also seems somewhat less likely, especially if it's something targeting a younger audience in which case you're probably trading 4-8 ticket sales for 1 rental.
The studios, theaters, and streaming companies are all making ideal moves and any other strategy is likely a losing proposition for them. Sure it would be better for the end consumer who watches the movies if anything changed, because it would certainly result in a better experience for them, but you're not likely to accept markedly lower wages for your job, so expecting companies to give up money for your sake is just as foolish.
How can you guarantee it's the account owner who is using the account though? It's entirely possible for someone else to take over an account or in other cases for a person to have someone else running and managing the account for them.
Just get the army involved. They can attach Mr. bin Fahd al-Ajmi's letter to a predator drone missile and air mail it to him.
At one point in time Google (Alphabet) would have rejected the idea of selling computers or software at all, because most people wouldn't be using them on a daily basis. Yet here we are, where computers are pervasive to the point that they're starting to creep into watches and glasses now and phones have been subsumed into the category for the most part.
If you could sell me a cheap robotic arm that could learn to do some simple* tasks, I'd probably get some for washing dishes and folding laundry. With a little more thinking I'm sure I'd have other uses for them as well if they were capable enough and even if I lack the imagination, someone else might find some good uses that I could emulate were I so inclined.
If you want to sell something that passes the toothbrush test you've limited your market to commodity items that already exist. At that point it becomes a question as to why you're spending R&D efforts as a company on things that you don't care about when you could be applying those resources to other areas that you are interested in. The company appears to have lost its direction and doesn't have clear leadership or vision, but doesn't really need any so long as their advertising monopoly can support everything else.
* Simple as in something most humans would consider tedious, mindless chores. I expect that building a robot that can learn how to do those simple tasks is itself no simple task.
I always vote third party now, whether I agree with the candidate or not. Dismantling the two party duopoly is a more important long-term interest than any short term damage that can be caused by the wrong lizard winning. Unfortunately the electoral system is such that even if one or both major U.S. parties were to fail, they would only be replaced by others until a new two-party equilibrium emerged, but neither are going to vote to change the system as long as they secure in their position.
That does make a good deal of sense from an evolutionary stand point, but up until modern civilization, how easy was it for someone to seriously damage their hearing outside of sustaining severe head injuries that would probably leave most people dead? Prior to metalworking or other activities that involved making a lot of noise like quarrying stone, I don't think there were enough naturally occurring loud noises to put selective pressure on humans to evolve a tendency to repair their hearing to any great degree. The loudest noise most early humans would have experienced is probably thunder during storms, but those aren't that frequent and people would be taking shelter anyways. Maybe some tribal groups got loud when making music, but I doubt they could compete with a speaker stack like you'd find at today's concerts.
To paraphrase a quote from Miyamoto, a delayed project is eventually good, but a rushed project is forever bad.
Not everyone who buys Apple products is some kind of crazed zealot, but they do have a small fan base that will give them a lot of slack while they iron out the kinks. I don't believe that Google really has anything like that, and if they ever did it's probably not as prominent after releasing half-baked products like Glass or killing off popular platforms like Google Reader so they can't afford to push a sloppy response out the door unless they want to be taken as seriously as Microsoft when it comes to future products.
The whole system and a large part of the government is corrupt to the point where nothing will be done. As much as the Republicans want to sling mud at Clinton so they can gain more power, they don't want to actually prosecute her, merely just destroy her reputation. They're not really any better than she is, and I would imagine that if she goes on trial, a lot of inconvenient information starts to come out and she nor her party are the only ones who wind up in serious trouble. At this point it's mutually assured destruction so nothing will ultimately come of it.
Makes a certain amount of sense that they would favor Trump, if only because he's far more likely to get into bed with them than Clinton, but they could be going after the Democrats out of spite for opposing them in Ukraine/Syria. You have to wonder how much they have, because as much as been leaked so far, it hasn't amounted to anything, so either they've used up everything and are trying to find more or they're just waiting for the right moment before dropping it all so that there's no possible way for the Democrats to respond in time.
I think the association comes for Trump supporters using the meme to shitpost on the internet and using it in conjunction with Trump talking points or Trump memes (e.g. building a wall, etc.) and eventually some of Trump's campaign starting to use it, though whether they really understood what it was or why people were using it is another question entirely. I can kind of see where the thinking came from, but it's pretty fucking stupid and I have to believe 4chan is probably responsible for trolling some reporter who doesn't have a clue, otherwise it's just some clickbait-level journalism that went viral itself and no one wants to back down because they think they'd look more stupid than if they just kept pushing it.
You should probably hope that those studies are correct as there's a lot of conflicting evidence, because if health trackers are at all beneficial other companies are going to start pushing them as well. You won't *have* to use one, but if you want the lower rates you will. The only nice thing about Apple is that they're generally not interested in selling your information to third parties, but I have a feeling that if their stock slides enough the share holders won't give a flying fuck about whatever culture or brand Apple had been trying to cultivate and they'll find a CEO who can do what it takes to get the numbers of next quarter to look good.
This assumes that the two populations produce an equal number of top tier basketball players, which is highly unlikely to be true so with the assumption being false, the rest of the argument doesn't logically follow. But me simply saying it's unlikely to be true isn't really much better in terms of logical reasoning so consider the following argument as well:
In a sport like basketball where there are only a few players on the court at any one time, a single star player can vastly improve a team's success. If white people were being unfairly excluded, one or two teams that weren't discriminating would have access to an immense amount of talent that should allow them to dominate the league simply because other teams wouldn't acquire those players.
That we don't see something like this happening suggests that your assumption is wrong, unless you'd like to claim some kind of mass conspiracy. Also, we already know that teams are willing to take the best players as we've seen from history that many sports leagues excluded black players in the past, but quickly started to hire black athletes when those rules changed because there was a lot of untapped talent available and the teams that continued to discriminate missed out on those players and likely faired less well than those teams who went for the most talented individuals regardless of race.
If valuable information wasn't being stored in plain-text or otherwise easily accessible it wouldn't matter. The ideal solution is to avoid storing sensitive user information that isn't needed whenever possible and encrypt if you absolutely must store something sensitive (medical records, etc.) because the reality is that no matter how much you spend on defense, it only takes one successful attack to render it all pointless. Further, even with exceptionally secure software, it's often a weakness in the humans maintaining it or overseeing it that leads to a successful attack.
It's safest to assume that no matter how good your security, someone will eventually break through. As such, any sensitive user data should be encrypted so that it's not feasible for it to be exploited or used nefariously by the hackers who broke in. Everything else is just mitigating risk or delaying attackers. A locked door or alarm system won't stop a truly dedicated burglar, but it will make most look for another target or make it easier for them to slip up during the process in some way that leads to finding them.
I always find it amusing when some of the biggest opponents of second amendment rights complain about the government infringing on their fourth amendment rights. I don't know what moral ground they claim to stand on, but even if they had one, what the fuck are they going to do about it.
3D printers make gun control legislation pointless. Unless you also ban 3D printers, you can't stop anyone from getting a gun. Rather than trying to fight the inevitable we should work to create a society where no one has cause or need to harm another with a gun or any other weapon. Of course the people who tend to be in favor of gun ownership are usually the same that think any government policies towards such a goal are evil.
The Drake equation vastly underestimated the propensity for civilizations to destroy themselves.
I think to a certain extent this is a response to existing TV networks or content creators souring on giving streaming deals to Netflix in preference of trying to build their own platforms or outright shunning the internet to keep their existing business model in place.
If the movie studios or television networks aren't willing to license their content to Netflix either because they don't want people to stop watching TV or because they want to sell ads through their own streaming platform, what choice does Netflix have at that point beyond only being able to provide older less popular TV shows and B movies that don't appear to most of their audience?
This leaves Netflix with the only real choice to start producing their own content so that they can sell subscriptions. In that way they're not that much different than HBO that started out as a movie channel and then got into making their own television series and a few original movies, only Netflix didn't start as a cable channel first. Now that HBO has done more to embrace internet streaming without requiring a cable subscription, they're almost in the same business.
If you thought Netflix was going to ever become a one stop shop for all shows and movies you're out of your mind. The film industry saw exactly what happened when iTunes became the far and away dominant platform and how it meant an end to DRM in order to break Apple's hold.
Sounds like a design patent, which as the name suggests is pretty much about the look and feel of a common item. I doubt the "8-stitch circular-knit pattern" or the 6.5mm handle gain any particular utility beyond anything else, but it's basically just a way of Apple saying if you make a bag that looks too much like theirs, they can successfully sue you. Similarly, having been granted a patent would be a good defense against anyone trying to sue them over their shopping bags.
Neglect for music and art has more to do with funding than any desire to cram more stuff in. There are schools where they can't even afford basic supplies like paper. How are they going to have instruments that students can use (as most can't afford a personal instrument) or art supplies such as canvas and paint if they can't afford even more basic supplies?
The educational system is fucked for a variety of reasons (far-off bureaucrats as you've alluded to) and it seems like no one is really interested in fixing it, more so just applying their own solutions that are at best unproven or just a way of selling something to be picked up at the expense of the tax payers.
It's not that there isn't anything worth saying in 140 characters or less, it's that most people don't have anything worth saying in any amount of characters. Twitter prevents bloviated diatribes, keeping the inanity down to digestible bite-sized chunks.
Let's just get rid of both the Republican and Democrat candidates this year. The Green and Libertarian parties are a good enough substitute for both and as much as you might disagree with some of their stances, their candidates aren't morally bankrupt idiots. Otherwise I think I'm just going to write in Caligula's horse this year.
I doubt they do anything to Manning at all. Isolation and deprivation of human contact is quite enough to drive a person absolutely mad on its own. I wouldn't be surprised if the guards are under strict orders not to talk to her at all. That she tried to commit suicide earlier this year doesn't surprise me at all. One of the former wardens of the United State's supermax prison which has similar isolation for all inmates described it as something like hell. About the only thing worse than that without physically assaulting a person is sleep deprivation for extended periods, which will get you to own-shit-as-crayon levels of crazy in under a week.
I imagine that some of them understand it perfectly, but that's going to be someone else's problem in the future. Meanwhile they get to act like they were tough on corporations to advance their own political career. It's the same kind of shortsighted thinking we see all too often from CEOs who want to hit performance numbers in order to get a payout before they get another payout from the golden parachute when the card house they've built comes toppling down.
The bill isn't going to come due for six years so anyone who can't get out a position of responsibility for dealing with the fallout before that hand grenade goes off isn't paying attention.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't blame Yahoo failing on this alone as it was already doing that before Marissa Mayer took over as CEO. Outside of some extreme brilliance, the best I expect out of anyone would be to drag out the death spiral for a few more years. Anyone with the kind of vision or capability to save Yahoo is probably far better off starting their own company and building it into something great rather than trying to salvage an industry behemoth that's circling the drain.
Mayer did nothing to help the company, but it's hard to say that she's blundered more than anyone else who might be doing the job instead of her.
Women show an in-group preference for other women and try to push out men.
Actually, this isn't entirely true. I recall reading one study where although that there was some statistical support for that statement in the general sense, women were incredibly biased against hiring other women they perceived as being more attractive than themselves. I'll have to see if I can find it again because it was pretty interesting as far as some of the results went.
Doesn't seem likely, at least not for a lot of movies. A big summer tent pole movie (e.g., Marvel superhero movie, etc.) is going to haul in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the studio. Netflix probably can't afford to buy more than one of those per year, and it's not clear if people would pay the additional cost necessary to support more than that. It's even more questionable if rentals would do near as well since even at $10 (even with most of it going to the studio) you'd have to rely on people only renting in groups of two, which also seems somewhat less likely, especially if it's something targeting a younger audience in which case you're probably trading 4-8 ticket sales for 1 rental.
The studios, theaters, and streaming companies are all making ideal moves and any other strategy is likely a losing proposition for them. Sure it would be better for the end consumer who watches the movies if anything changed, because it would certainly result in a better experience for them, but you're not likely to accept markedly lower wages for your job, so expecting companies to give up money for your sake is just as foolish.
How can you guarantee it's the account owner who is using the account though? It's entirely possible for someone else to take over an account or in other cases for a person to have someone else running and managing the account for them.
Just get the army involved. They can attach Mr. bin Fahd al-Ajmi's letter to a predator drone missile and air mail it to him.
Sexist? The poster was clearly commenting about the Jews.
At one point in time Google (Alphabet) would have rejected the idea of selling computers or software at all, because most people wouldn't be using them on a daily basis. Yet here we are, where computers are pervasive to the point that they're starting to creep into watches and glasses now and phones have been subsumed into the category for the most part.
If you could sell me a cheap robotic arm that could learn to do some simple* tasks, I'd probably get some for washing dishes and folding laundry. With a little more thinking I'm sure I'd have other uses for them as well if they were capable enough and even if I lack the imagination, someone else might find some good uses that I could emulate were I so inclined.
If you want to sell something that passes the toothbrush test you've limited your market to commodity items that already exist. At that point it becomes a question as to why you're spending R&D efforts as a company on things that you don't care about when you could be applying those resources to other areas that you are interested in. The company appears to have lost its direction and doesn't have clear leadership or vision, but doesn't really need any so long as their advertising monopoly can support everything else.
* Simple as in something most humans would consider tedious, mindless chores. I expect that building a robot that can learn how to do those simple tasks is itself no simple task.
I always vote third party now, whether I agree with the candidate or not. Dismantling the two party duopoly is a more important long-term interest than any short term damage that can be caused by the wrong lizard winning. Unfortunately the electoral system is such that even if one or both major U.S. parties were to fail, they would only be replaced by others until a new two-party equilibrium emerged, but neither are going to vote to change the system as long as they secure in their position.
That's why I want to go peacefully and in my sleep like my grandfather, and not screaming and frightened like the other passengers in his car.
That does make a good deal of sense from an evolutionary stand point, but up until modern civilization, how easy was it for someone to seriously damage their hearing outside of sustaining severe head injuries that would probably leave most people dead? Prior to metalworking or other activities that involved making a lot of noise like quarrying stone, I don't think there were enough naturally occurring loud noises to put selective pressure on humans to evolve a tendency to repair their hearing to any great degree. The loudest noise most early humans would have experienced is probably thunder during storms, but those aren't that frequent and people would be taking shelter anyways. Maybe some tribal groups got loud when making music, but I doubt they could compete with a speaker stack like you'd find at today's concerts.
To paraphrase a quote from Miyamoto, a delayed project is eventually good, but a rushed project is forever bad.
Not everyone who buys Apple products is some kind of crazed zealot, but they do have a small fan base that will give them a lot of slack while they iron out the kinks. I don't believe that Google really has anything like that, and if they ever did it's probably not as prominent after releasing half-baked products like Glass or killing off popular platforms like Google Reader so they can't afford to push a sloppy response out the door unless they want to be taken as seriously as Microsoft when it comes to future products.
The whole system and a large part of the government is corrupt to the point where nothing will be done. As much as the Republicans want to sling mud at Clinton so they can gain more power, they don't want to actually prosecute her, merely just destroy her reputation. They're not really any better than she is, and I would imagine that if she goes on trial, a lot of inconvenient information starts to come out and she nor her party are the only ones who wind up in serious trouble. At this point it's mutually assured destruction so nothing will ultimately come of it.
Makes a certain amount of sense that they would favor Trump, if only because he's far more likely to get into bed with them than Clinton, but they could be going after the Democrats out of spite for opposing them in Ukraine/Syria. You have to wonder how much they have, because as much as been leaked so far, it hasn't amounted to anything, so either they've used up everything and are trying to find more or they're just waiting for the right moment before dropping it all so that there's no possible way for the Democrats to respond in time.
I think the association comes for Trump supporters using the meme to shitpost on the internet and using it in conjunction with Trump talking points or Trump memes (e.g. building a wall, etc.) and eventually some of Trump's campaign starting to use it, though whether they really understood what it was or why people were using it is another question entirely. I can kind of see where the thinking came from, but it's pretty fucking stupid and I have to believe 4chan is probably responsible for trolling some reporter who doesn't have a clue, otherwise it's just some clickbait-level journalism that went viral itself and no one wants to back down because they think they'd look more stupid than if they just kept pushing it.
You should probably hope that those studies are correct as there's a lot of conflicting evidence, because if health trackers are at all beneficial other companies are going to start pushing them as well. You won't *have* to use one, but if you want the lower rates you will. The only nice thing about Apple is that they're generally not interested in selling your information to third parties, but I have a feeling that if their stock slides enough the share holders won't give a flying fuck about whatever culture or brand Apple had been trying to cultivate and they'll find a CEO who can do what it takes to get the numbers of next quarter to look good.
This assumes that the two populations produce an equal number of top tier basketball players, which is highly unlikely to be true so with the assumption being false, the rest of the argument doesn't logically follow. But me simply saying it's unlikely to be true isn't really much better in terms of logical reasoning so consider the following argument as well:
In a sport like basketball where there are only a few players on the court at any one time, a single star player can vastly improve a team's success. If white people were being unfairly excluded, one or two teams that weren't discriminating would have access to an immense amount of talent that should allow them to dominate the league simply because other teams wouldn't acquire those players.
That we don't see something like this happening suggests that your assumption is wrong, unless you'd like to claim some kind of mass conspiracy. Also, we already know that teams are willing to take the best players as we've seen from history that many sports leagues excluded black players in the past, but quickly started to hire black athletes when those rules changed because there was a lot of untapped talent available and the teams that continued to discriminate missed out on those players and likely faired less well than those teams who went for the most talented individuals regardless of race.
Maybe the recruiter at their agency was Australian. It seems to have been a problem at least once in the past.
If valuable information wasn't being stored in plain-text or otherwise easily accessible it wouldn't matter. The ideal solution is to avoid storing sensitive user information that isn't needed whenever possible and encrypt if you absolutely must store something sensitive (medical records, etc.) because the reality is that no matter how much you spend on defense, it only takes one successful attack to render it all pointless. Further, even with exceptionally secure software, it's often a weakness in the humans maintaining it or overseeing it that leads to a successful attack.
It's safest to assume that no matter how good your security, someone will eventually break through. As such, any sensitive user data should be encrypted so that it's not feasible for it to be exploited or used nefariously by the hackers who broke in. Everything else is just mitigating risk or delaying attackers. A locked door or alarm system won't stop a truly dedicated burglar, but it will make most look for another target or make it easier for them to slip up during the process in some way that leads to finding them.
I always find it amusing when some of the biggest opponents of second amendment rights complain about the government infringing on their fourth amendment rights. I don't know what moral ground they claim to stand on, but even if they had one, what the fuck are they going to do about it.
3D printers make gun control legislation pointless. Unless you also ban 3D printers, you can't stop anyone from getting a gun. Rather than trying to fight the inevitable we should work to create a society where no one has cause or need to harm another with a gun or any other weapon. Of course the people who tend to be in favor of gun ownership are usually the same that think any government policies towards such a goal are evil.
The Drake equation vastly underestimated the propensity for civilizations to destroy themselves.
I think to a certain extent this is a response to existing TV networks or content creators souring on giving streaming deals to Netflix in preference of trying to build their own platforms or outright shunning the internet to keep their existing business model in place.
If the movie studios or television networks aren't willing to license their content to Netflix either because they don't want people to stop watching TV or because they want to sell ads through their own streaming platform, what choice does Netflix have at that point beyond only being able to provide older less popular TV shows and B movies that don't appear to most of their audience?
This leaves Netflix with the only real choice to start producing their own content so that they can sell subscriptions. In that way they're not that much different than HBO that started out as a movie channel and then got into making their own television series and a few original movies, only Netflix didn't start as a cable channel first. Now that HBO has done more to embrace internet streaming without requiring a cable subscription, they're almost in the same business.
If you thought Netflix was going to ever become a one stop shop for all shows and movies you're out of your mind. The film industry saw exactly what happened when iTunes became the far and away dominant platform and how it meant an end to DRM in order to break Apple's hold.
Sounds like a design patent, which as the name suggests is pretty much about the look and feel of a common item. I doubt the "8-stitch circular-knit pattern" or the 6.5mm handle gain any particular utility beyond anything else, but it's basically just a way of Apple saying if you make a bag that looks too much like theirs, they can successfully sue you. Similarly, having been granted a patent would be a good defense against anyone trying to sue them over their shopping bags.
Neglect for music and art has more to do with funding than any desire to cram more stuff in. There are schools where they can't even afford basic supplies like paper. How are they going to have instruments that students can use (as most can't afford a personal instrument) or art supplies such as canvas and paint if they can't afford even more basic supplies?
The educational system is fucked for a variety of reasons (far-off bureaucrats as you've alluded to) and it seems like no one is really interested in fixing it, more so just applying their own solutions that are at best unproven or just a way of selling something to be picked up at the expense of the tax payers.
It's not that there isn't anything worth saying in 140 characters or less, it's that most people don't have anything worth saying in any amount of characters. Twitter prevents bloviated diatribes, keeping the inanity down to digestible bite-sized chunks.
Let's just get rid of both the Republican and Democrat candidates this year. The Green and Libertarian parties are a good enough substitute for both and as much as you might disagree with some of their stances, their candidates aren't morally bankrupt idiots. Otherwise I think I'm just going to write in Caligula's horse this year.
I doubt they do anything to Manning at all. Isolation and deprivation of human contact is quite enough to drive a person absolutely mad on its own. I wouldn't be surprised if the guards are under strict orders not to talk to her at all. That she tried to commit suicide earlier this year doesn't surprise me at all. One of the former wardens of the United State's supermax prison which has similar isolation for all inmates described it as something like hell. About the only thing worse than that without physically assaulting a person is sleep deprivation for extended periods, which will get you to own-shit-as-crayon levels of crazy in under a week.
I imagine that some of them understand it perfectly, but that's going to be someone else's problem in the future. Meanwhile they get to act like they were tough on corporations to advance their own political career. It's the same kind of shortsighted thinking we see all too often from CEOs who want to hit performance numbers in order to get a payout before they get another payout from the golden parachute when the card house they've built comes toppling down.
The bill isn't going to come due for six years so anyone who can't get out a position of responsibility for dealing with the fallout before that hand grenade goes off isn't paying attention.