Posts by Someone Else 3405 publicly visible posts • joined 9 Dec 2009
If an "activist" investor thinks it can run the business it should take it over completely and prove it.
There is actually a precedent for that. Karl Ichan(fuckupanycompanyanywhere) thought he could do a better job running an airline than those who actually could, so he took over TWA and ran it (or tried to). It did not end well...TWA went bankrupt with 3 years, and is now a legendary "fallen flag" in that industry.
Get your cards ready, mates, for this toothsome morsel that could only come for the orifice of a practiced financial parasite:
"When combining the opportunity to rationalize certain Technology and Development expenses with other growth and margin improvement opportunities, we believe GoDaddy should commit to delivering a growth and profitability metric of at least 40 percent by the end of 2024. This goal would position GoDaddy to be in line with peers' targets on a similar timeframe."
Somebody call a Waaah-mbulance!
"Unfortunately, despite each of these opportunities remaining, over the last 18 months we have been disappointed by GoDaddy's operational, financial and stock price performance," the letter adds.
Take your "disappointment" and shove up your ass/arse, you parasite! Or better still, how about you be so disappointed that you sell your shares and leave your disappointment behind, so that adults can continue to run this company successfully.
"Starboard Blue", eh? Dumbasses, everybody who has even the slightest marine experience knows that starboard is green!
Microsoft had an opportunity to do a good thing with printing, but they chose not to. [...]
Not so much chose not to, but more like were incapable of doing so. The myth that Micros~1 was this engineering powerhouse has recently been exposed as the lie that it is, but it has been a myth for decades. The fact that printing is soooo messed up on Windows machines today is simply a reflection of the fact that those asshats simply don't know how to do it, and haven't know for basically forever.
I actually used this once at my daughter's house, which is connected via Alexa -- inadvertently of course, as I was explaining the comic. You should have seen the panicked look on daughter's and son-in-law's faces as they scrambled to tell Alexa to ignore last request. /me was all smiles....
Are you assuming that regulators are scared of companies they are supposed to regulate? They need to be "emboldened"? Oh...
Oh, stop it already! Meta's approach (as correctly pointed out above) is taken straight from the NRA playbook. And regulators do count on precedent before they make moves (if that were not the case, then the NRA scorched earth approach would be a dismal failure, and they would have been bankrupt fighting litigation on 51 fronts. (OK, 48...it's not likely that Alabama, Mississippi, or Montana would ever do anything to regulate firearms...but I digress).
So the never ending march toward the monopolist's Total Lock-in continues, unabated.
At least, the Marketing Dept. is still being funded, with the same assclowns running the asylum. Witness:
Microsoft would much rather developers used something a bit more modern instead – Microsoft Graph [...]
I guess, in a sense, lock-in is "modern".
Yeah, the quote came from the article, not from Micros~1 Marketing...directly. I doubt that Mr. Speed would make the determination of modern-ity without some...er, prompting.
Yes, and TL;DR, but how much are these fines different from the standard "cost of doing business"? From what I have read (mostly here on El Reg) for a given company, the fines are indistinguishable from CoDB.
"No officer's bonus or shareholder's dividend were harmed in the paying of this fine."
In countries with sensible consumer protection rules, [...]
I think those countries include Shangri-la, Atlantis (OK, that's a continent...but I'm sure there are countries within it somewhere), and of course, Absurdistan.
GDPR, that toothless, clawless bear I keep hearing references to.
Not sure which is better: A ghost law that purports to protect consumer privacy, but is unenforced (and likely unenforceable), or the Wild West approach of the States, where there isn't even the pretense of consumer privacy protection.
Well, except for the oh-so-earnest protestation that, "We take your privacy seriously", usually bleated out when some fatass corporation is caught with their hand in the privacy cookie jar...
"This concession by Microsoft shows that, whenfaced with regulatory pressurebeaten about the head and shoulders with the hammer of a credible and severe threat that will likely cost them money, it can be persuaded to do the right thing," Secretary General Francisco Mingorance said in a statement sent to The Register.
There, FTFY
Musk said over the weekend he considers LinkedIn's "cringe level … so high that I just can't bring myself to use it."
So, as to not be outdone, Muskrat intends to raise Xwatter's cringe level to a level higher than that of this potential competitor.
One could surmise, then, that there is a minimum "cringe level" that a site must maintain for Muskrat to be comfortable to use it.
But with obscure fault codes which remove agency from the user, the operator wouldn't know that solution was something like "Stirrer motor overheated, power down for 1 hour, then reset. If problem remains call maintenance" (and consider checking you're not blocking the vents) or "power supply overload. Do not use machine. Call maintenance"
But having a display capable of displaying that (as opposed to "EC402" in a 7-seglemt LED display) would probably add, say $2.00 to the build cost of the machine, and well, we can't have that, now can we? Won't somebody think of the margins?
There is NO reason governments should allow this. Governments should set the rules.
They are setting the rules. These rules implicitly (and in many cases, explicitly) allow for large, well-connected, fatass corporations to turn the repair of slipshod, crappy designs and implementations into a profit center.
Those that permit this behaviour are protecting big business profits rather than representing the people.
Well, DUH!! Can you say "Republican"? I knew you could...
The ones committing the violence in the name of politics is the far left.
Soooo many Lefties were found (and arrested) at the Jan 6 Capitol insurrection.
You know, just because you say a thing doesn't make it a fact. (Although doing that does appear to be a hallmark of fascists in general, and MAGAts in particular.)
Nope. In blind isolation to just this case would be ignorance of the lawfare effort against him.
OK, bring it on, junky. Where's the evidence of the newly neologized phrase "lawfare"? Per wikipedia, the term means the "use of legal systems and institutions to damage or delegitimize an opponent, or to deter individual's usage of their legal rights." Well, show me the money. For example, explain to the class where Florida Man's legal rights are being deterred? One could easily make the case that he is getting special treatment beyond that over which you and I would be afforded in similar, or even lesser, circumstances. (No travel restrictions, still got his passport, no ankle bracelet GPS tracker, no monetary bond, etc.). Or, perhaps you'd like to take a shot at the crux of your claim, that the shady "deep state conspiracy" (or, if you'd like bonus points, you could use proper names), is primarily out to "damage or delegitimize" Florida Man. To do that, you'd have to demonstrate that F.M. was not guilty of any of the things he's been charged with1, and that these were indeed trumped-up charges (see what I did there?). All the while ignoring the fact that he continues to poll very well with the MAGAts, and certainly has not been hobbled in his fund raising efforts, either.
So you'll pardon me if I'm not willing to believe your cry of "lawfare" on face value. Now if you could come up with some credible evidence of lawfare, we could have a conversation at a level that transcends the "Neener, neener" level that you seem to want to degrade this to. But in the absence of any such evidence, one can only perceive that your bumper-sticker responses are merely the bleatings of one whose hero has been shown to not be of the character and moral fiber that one so desperately insists his hero must have.
Looking forward to your response, junky. Will be interesting to see if you can indeed meet the challenge. (Popcorn is at the ready, incase you can't).
1But, of course, that is the job of a jury to determine. Do you not have faith in the American system of justice; that you would supplant it with your own dictums?
"How about...". "What about..." But didn't they...". Blah, Blah, Blah. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit!
This has nothing to do with Hunter, or Hillary, or Dianne, or Nancy, or Richard M., or (either) George, or whatever weak straw- or bogeyman you wish to present. It has to do with Donald, (a.k.a. Florida Man), period. A salient debate would be as to whether he did the things he was charged with, and what the evidence shows about this case, and no other. So you trolls could raise your game, and dig into that. That you won't, but insist on playing the "look over there...Squirrel!" game, tends to imply that you can't. Go ahead, prove me wrong by raising your game, and providing cogent debate. I'll hang up and listen for my answer.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
