Re: Self service check outs
18 posts • joined 24 Aug 2010
Sorry that some people are so religiously fanatic that they resort to histrionics -- or take to "social media" -- at any hint of disagreement with their unreasoned views based on the divine revelation that is Twitter. Get those stakes and pyres ready! There is a Foreign Thought among us!
There is no mention here of Novell Envoy (1995), which I had, as part of PerfectOffice, and used. A free downloadable viewer (which no one had) and the ability to package the viewer together with the .ENV file as an .EXE, which was quickly to become an unacceptable attachment in several systems as did a similar emission from OmniForm.
Perhaps none of these competitors threatened -- or will ever threaten? -- the economic success of Adobe, but they must have had some influence.
Because of the time zone difference, no one ever reads my "late" contributions ...
For the nth time, there is no such thing as a bathroom without a bath, whether shower or tub. This is why bathrooms are exclusively found in private residences. The only exception is the real estate agentese "half bath," which in fact is a bathroom without a bath in a private residence.
Restrooms, which are public, sometimes do have long benches in them although I concede that I am doubtful as to whether that is the "rest" referred to.
A restroom is public and has no bath. A bathroom does and is therefore generally a domestic facility. Quite logical.
Now illogically, and I suppose mainly for the convenience of real estate agent databases, a domestic facility without a bath is generally referred to as a "half bath."
Er, no, the Tsarina invited my German ancestors to settle in Russia. Some years after the Bolshevik revolutionaries shot one soldier-aged youth on his doorstep for refusing to join, and thereupon successfully conscripted the one standing next to him to the front lines, where he did not last a month, Stalin starved the rest to death and plowed under their village. Only my great-grandparents escaped. The letters from Russia desperately pleading for help stopped when everyone ... well, when everyone was dead. So yeah, "pretty much the same."
Once again: Time Warner Cable was spun off from Time Warner a decade ago. Along with Charter, Time Warner Cable is now "Spectrum," which offers telephone, cable, and Internet services directly competitive to AT&T.
Time Warner, on the other hand, is a content company.
This has nothing to do with two companies in the same sector. If anything, it would be very similar to the old AOL Time Warner conglomerate.
But who cares about facts, right?
I suppose that everyone has an idea of who AT&T is. It seems that no one knows who Time Warner is.
Time Warner used to be a competitor of AT&T with its Time Warner Cable. TWC -- often colloquially referred to as "Time Warner" -- was sold off a few years ago, recently bought by Charter and is now Spectrum, which continues to be a competitor with AT&T, most notably in Internet, cable telephony, and cable television, which are now promoted at exactly the same "introductory" rates as AT&T's. How surprising.
Anyhow, Time Warner is now only a content company. It has nothing to do with "coverage," urban, rural, or otherwise. It is a large company, but it is NOT a competitor of AT&T. So the questions cited in the article -- "how coverage and reliability would improve – particularly in rural areas – and how the combined company would ensure that consumers have a choice in service providers and plans." -- are fairly stupid. Can the proposed bigger huger corporation be a good thing? Maybe, maybe not. But this merger is not antitrust material, especially if AOL Time Warner itself used to sell services and content at the same time and that was okay.
By the way, AOL was spun back off in 2009. And a proposal for 21st Century Fox in 2014 to buy Time Warner was cancelled due to worries about antitrust penalties. Content versus content: apples and apples I can understand.
"Lexmark has probably run out of ink today"
If you read further and follow the link, you will see that Lexmark is suing over TONER CARTRIDGES. Yes, Lexmark has some of the cheapest and worst INKJET printers and the most expensive INK CARTRIDGES in these United States, ... but that is not what the article is about.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020