Well, their model effectively has the infrastructure already. Their distribution centers require less double-handling that FedEx or UPS, and they can hire independent contractors to actually perform delivery, externalizing most costs.
I would guess their end-game is to minimize shipping costs, and their only way left to do it now is by internalizing it, or at least as much of it near their distribution centers as possible.
In fairness, yahoo was almost a lost cause when she came on board, while Carly...
Not quite sure if anything could have been done to save them. They lacked meaningful sources of profit, and improving efficiency would not be enough. I think Mayer realized that the spinoff was the only hope when they unveiled the new logo. Just took too long to execute.
No, it is about mutual benefit. Even if n journalists are competing for the limited cell signal, they will saturate 2.5 and 5ghz with hotspots, eliminating wifi as a useful tool.
Using your phone as a camera or whatever would be fine... fight for cell signal. Everyone else benefits with more reliable wifi...
No, that isn't a realistic way to look at things. When you order a specific amount of bandwidth it is to support a need. What percentage is to cover peaks vs average loads should be disclosed, but it isn't really material. What is material is that an ISP has adequate bandwidth to support its users needs collectively.
So, how does the ISP deal with customers that have a disproportionate usage profile? Options I see are: pass costs on to other customers, drop subscriber, charge subscriber more, or throttle subscriber to be closer to normative usage. Make less profit is not one of the options.
What regulators (or someone) need to ensure is that changing average needs are not treated the same way-- that the ISP does not simply stagnate because they do not wish to invest. That is the obligation of a monopoly/duopoly.
Now, what percentile constitutes abusive customer is a valid question. I would imagine it is something on the order of the top 0.1-0.03%, but I don't have data to justify that.
You are going to need DPI of the IoT devices to get the granularity needed. You might also want to rate limit both inbound and outbound connections from your IoT vlans.
But, for a home user, you still don't have an easy way to know if your router firmware is compromised by either the factory or a malicious actor.
Personally, I find the victim blaming to be neutral. Employers (myself included) have a stigma against these for-profit schools. We also have a stigma against community colleges for the first few years of school, which is borderline illegal and technically baseless.
There has to be a better way, for the students, their eventual employers, and society as a whole.
Companies choose to outsource based on two (often realtors) issues: talent availability and cost. Some jobs have a rational pay ceiling; when you exceed this they are ripe for outsourcing.
Suppressing pay is not a noble goal, but if an employer can reduce the education debt that an employee has then maybe the salaries can be kept closer to the break-even point for outsourcing. Maybe we can increase the talent pool as well...
Yes, it is victim blaming. People are told to go to university to be successful, so they do. Without a plan. Or, with a plan that they don't realize won't work until it is too late.
I have real sympathy for people in nursing programs that get ripped off: education is required, and it can be a well paying position. People waste their money going to DeVry or ITT to learn CAD and the like; we need to do a better job creating internships for people to learn job skills, and focus university on expanding general knowledge.
It amazes me how high tuition has gone. $12k for top tier state schools, and $5-10k for "second tier" universities. Out of state $30k+, private higher still. $30-70k per year with housing.
Bottom line is that it simply is not worth the cost for most careers.
Most of the reason companies avoid the joint-trench projects unless they are forced into it is that they cannot control schedule and funding. There is no means to accelerate or decelerate the project once it is given the go-ahead, unless all parties agree. Unless a single party is responsible for the joint-trench and sells capacity back, it is very hard to make it work.
It worked well in the 00's with metro fiber because you literally had four competitors trying to install conduits and manholes at the same time to many of the exact same places, as quickly as possible, and with investor money that was quickly lost.
Now, you have AT&T reacting to a project by Time Warner reacting to getting lapped by Level 3... and the happy clanking of trenchplate for a generation...
That is what Google wants us to believe, but it isn't necessarily true. The problem is when something is damaged or incurs latent damage which cannot easily be detected.
Back in the 80's, many cities allowed cable franchises to "clean up" the telephone poles in order to be able to install their cables and amplifiers. Many of them made a mess of it. Best practices are to have consistent leased zones on the poles and clear spacing/buffer requirements. When that isn't your existing condition and service loops are inadequate to easily move things around, you run into problems.
Add to that the fact that there is a lot of 3rd and 4th party cables on poles, and you have problems.
All that said, a competent contractor should be able to move cables around a little while conforming to each company's standards and having all inspections completed without too much pain, where things didn't start off as a jumble.
The music business will be dead again soon enough. They effectively have six (or so) customers now: Apple, Amazon, Google, Spotify and a handful of other companies. Half are Giants, and half don't make a profit. How long will the labels really be able to make a profit given the pressure that will naturally crush a commodity product?
I don't read anything wrong with what was done personally. Council member engages stakeholders not represented by original proposal to draft alternate resolution.
The question really lies in how the two competing resolutions are reconciled.
This is reality. Everyone wants things the easy way, and it is the city's job in this case to mediate these competing interests.
Highlight is 500SF stores. They are basically going to destroy any mall they move into, as they reinforce their brand and the only things they actually sell are their own branded products (used to push you into more online sales). Say you were looking at buying a watch, found one you liked, but remember that reinforcement of Amazon as you entered the mall, so you check the price on Amazon. That simple action has likely compromised the retailer's margin, if they keep any chance at the sale at all. (Women's) Clothes might be an exception, but pretty much everything else is up for grabs.
For Amazon, it is likely less than $3.5MM/year in rent plus ~$20MM/year in direct and indirect wages.
Much lower cost/risk than their own "airline" they have started, but likely similar benefits.
Corporations owning other corporations is a necessity at least at some level. Once you get extra-national, there is no way to avoid it.
The problem as I see it is that the EU does not have a truly harmonized tax code, and even if it did, it would only be in the best interests for the low tax jurisdictions.
What would happen if Greece declared a 1% corporate income tax (and actually enforced it)? They would increase their revenue, and all kinds of companies would move their tax domicile to Greece. It would not increase tax revenues for any other country, but it would fix their debt quickly.
The tax spirit does not seem to be well harmonized in the EU.
In the US, most people own houses, and are encouraged to do so for the tax benefit. Most people also contribute to a retirement account as well... for the same reason. Many people buy things in a state with a lower sales tax rate to save money. (Europeans buy things at Duty Free stores.) Many people, especially if they make over $150k, own a home, business, or something else in a state without income tax to save on taxes...
Businesses have taken it too far, and it makes sense for the pushback to finally come around. That said, the retroactive nature of it, especially going back more than a few years, is equally unbalanced. Arguably, Ireland should be penalized for harming the other EU nations, and arguably other tax avoiders should be forced to pay a fine-- but it stinks that the EU dictates the amount in my mind. It would seem much more reasonable for the other countries to come to a settlement (via the EU), and impose the cost on the companies in a single pass...
Yes, that should go withough saying. It can still be annoying though in another room.
One trick my wife was pretty proud of me for was placing one of those projector clocks across the room and increasing the distance it projects to drop the brightness. I do love the fact that I can shut off LEDs via the gui on some products, but the ones that don't (especially home automation products) are a pain.
I think you might be under-estimating how much money goes into price tags on stores. I would like to see it as a solution though-- far too many blue LEDs in my home.
Slashdot Mirror
Less possibilities than that, since the third number would need to account for parity.
Well, their model effectively has the infrastructure already. Their distribution centers require less double-handling that FedEx or UPS, and they can hire independent contractors to actually perform delivery, externalizing most costs.
I would guess their end-game is to minimize shipping costs, and their only way left to do it now is by internalizing it, or at least as much of it near their distribution centers as possible.
In fairness, yahoo was almost a lost cause when she came on board, while Carly...
Not quite sure if anything could have been done to save them. They lacked meaningful sources of profit, and improving efficiency would not be enough. I think Mayer realized that the spinoff was the only hope when they unveiled the new logo. Just took too long to execute.
No, it is about mutual benefit. Even if n journalists are competing for the limited cell signal, they will saturate 2.5 and 5ghz with hotspots, eliminating wifi as a useful tool.
Using your phone as a camera or whatever would be fine... fight for cell signal. Everyone else benefits with more reliable wifi...
No, that isn't a realistic way to look at things. When you order a specific amount of bandwidth it is to support a need. What percentage is to cover peaks vs average loads should be disclosed, but it isn't really material. What is material is that an ISP has adequate bandwidth to support its users needs collectively.
So, how does the ISP deal with customers that have a disproportionate usage profile? Options I see are: pass costs on to other customers, drop subscriber, charge subscriber more, or throttle subscriber to be closer to normative usage. Make less profit is not one of the options.
What regulators (or someone) need to ensure is that changing average needs are not treated the same way-- that the ISP does not simply stagnate because they do not wish to invest. That is the obligation of a monopoly/duopoly.
Now, what percentile constitutes abusive customer is a valid question. I would imagine it is something on the order of the top 0.1-0.03%, but I don't have data to justify that.
...and your Roku is an IoT device with the very same issues and concerns.
You are going to need DPI of the IoT devices to get the granularity needed. You might also want to rate limit both inbound and outbound connections from your IoT vlans.
But, for a home user, you still don't have an easy way to know if your router firmware is compromised by either the factory or a malicious actor.
There are one or two data centers in Texas...
There is no way of knowing if these statistics are a sampling error due to enforcement issue, or some "inherent" factor (namely socioeconomic).
Maybe they need a tool to identify racial bias in all of their enforcement strategies. Self fulfilling prophecy and all that...
Personally, I find the victim blaming to be neutral. Employers (myself included) have a stigma against these for-profit schools. We also have a stigma against community colleges for the first few years of school, which is borderline illegal and technically baseless.
There has to be a better way, for the students, their eventual employers, and society as a whole.
Companies choose to outsource based on two (often realtors) issues: talent availability and cost. Some jobs have a rational pay ceiling; when you exceed this they are ripe for outsourcing.
Suppressing pay is not a noble goal, but if an employer can reduce the education debt that an employee has then maybe the salaries can be kept closer to the break-even point for outsourcing. Maybe we can increase the talent pool as well...
Yes, it is victim blaming. People are told to go to university to be successful, so they do. Without a plan. Or, with a plan that they don't realize won't work until it is too late.
I have real sympathy for people in nursing programs that get ripped off: education is required, and it can be a well paying position. People waste their money going to DeVry or ITT to learn CAD and the like; we need to do a better job creating internships for people to learn job skills, and focus university on expanding general knowledge.
It amazes me how high tuition has gone. $12k for top tier state schools, and $5-10k for "second tier" universities. Out of state $30k+, private higher still. $30-70k per year with housing.
Bottom line is that it simply is not worth the cost for most careers.
We complain about lobbyists... but this is so much worse
Most of the reason companies avoid the joint-trench projects unless they are forced into it is that they cannot control schedule and funding. There is no means to accelerate or decelerate the project once it is given the go-ahead, unless all parties agree. Unless a single party is responsible for the joint-trench and sells capacity back, it is very hard to make it work.
It worked well in the 00's with metro fiber because you literally had four competitors trying to install conduits and manholes at the same time to many of the exact same places, as quickly as possible, and with investor money that was quickly lost.
Now, you have AT&T reacting to a project by Time Warner reacting to getting lapped by Level 3... and the happy clanking of trenchplate for a generation...
That is what Google wants us to believe, but it isn't necessarily true. The problem is when something is damaged or incurs latent damage which cannot easily be detected.
Back in the 80's, many cities allowed cable franchises to "clean up" the telephone poles in order to be able to install their cables and amplifiers. Many of them made a mess of it. Best practices are to have consistent leased zones on the poles and clear spacing/buffer requirements. When that isn't your existing condition and service loops are inadequate to easily move things around, you run into problems.
Add to that the fact that there is a lot of 3rd and 4th party cables on poles, and you have problems.
All that said, a competent contractor should be able to move cables around a little while conforming to each company's standards and having all inspections completed without too much pain, where things didn't start off as a jumble.
The music business will be dead again soon enough. They effectively have six (or so) customers now: Apple, Amazon, Google, Spotify and a handful of other companies. Half are Giants, and half don't make a profit. How long will the labels really be able to make a profit given the pressure that will naturally crush a commodity product?
I don't read anything wrong with what was done personally. Council member engages stakeholders not represented by original proposal to draft alternate resolution.
The question really lies in how the two competing resolutions are reconciled.
This is reality. Everyone wants things the easy way, and it is the city's job in this case to mediate these competing interests.
Be careful what you wish for.
Highlight is 500SF stores. They are basically going to destroy any mall they move into, as they reinforce their brand and the only things they actually sell are their own branded products (used to push you into more online sales). Say you were looking at buying a watch, found one you liked, but remember that reinforcement of Amazon as you entered the mall, so you check the price on Amazon. That simple action has likely compromised the retailer's margin, if they keep any chance at the sale at all. (Women's) Clothes might be an exception, but pretty much everything else is up for grabs.
For Amazon, it is likely less than $3.5MM/year in rent plus ~$20MM/year in direct and indirect wages.
Much lower cost/risk than their own "airline" they have started, but likely similar benefits.
Corporations owning other corporations is a necessity at least at some level. Once you get extra-national, there is no way to avoid it.
The problem as I see it is that the EU does not have a truly harmonized tax code, and even if it did, it would only be in the best interests for the low tax jurisdictions.
What would happen if Greece declared a 1% corporate income tax (and actually enforced it)? They would increase their revenue, and all kinds of companies would move their tax domicile to Greece. It would not increase tax revenues for any other country, but it would fix their debt quickly.
The tax spirit does not seem to be well harmonized in the EU.
Well, that makes you pretty ignorant.
In the US, most people own houses, and are encouraged to do so for the tax benefit. Most people also contribute to a retirement account as well... for the same reason. Many people buy things in a state with a lower sales tax rate to save money. (Europeans buy things at Duty Free stores.) Many people, especially if they make over $150k, own a home, business, or something else in a state without income tax to save on taxes...
Businesses have taken it too far, and it makes sense for the pushback to finally come around. That said, the retroactive nature of it, especially going back more than a few years, is equally unbalanced. Arguably, Ireland should be penalized for harming the other EU nations, and arguably other tax avoiders should be forced to pay a fine-- but it stinks that the EU dictates the amount in my mind. It would seem much more reasonable for the other countries to come to a settlement (via the EU), and impose the cost on the companies in a single pass...
Yes, that should go withough saying. It can still be annoying though in another room.
One trick my wife was pretty proud of me for was placing one of those projector clocks across the room and increasing the distance it projects to drop the brightness. I do love the fact that I can shut off LEDs via the gui on some products, but the ones that don't (especially home automation products) are a pain.
I think you might be under-estimating how much money goes into price tags on stores. I would like to see it as a solution though-- far too many blue LEDs in my home.