The next-gen consoles being offered by Sony and MS hardly touch what's available for high-end PCs today. They are a modest improvement over the 360 and PS3. They aren't going to win back people who've jumped ship to high-end PCs. The main reason they can't compete with PCs is cost. No one's going to pay $2000 for a console with high-end specs. Even a $500 price point is viewed as too expensive by a lot of people.

In other words, Microsoft's problem over (at least) the past decade is that they're no longer a market leader. They no longer get to dictate which way the market goes. Used to be, whatever they put out the door--Windows, Office, etc.--people snapped it up and got on board. Now? Windows 8 sparked rebellion. Their mobile operating systems have been aborted and reborn so many times users are gun shy about giving them another try (to say nothing of how ultimately saturated the smartphone market is anyway.) And now they've managed to burn up much of the goodwill they built with the Xbox division by having such a disastrous showing at E3. Again, they were left following what a superior competitor put on the table, rather than anticipating what the market would want and offering it before anyone else did.

Admittedly, that's a very hard thing to do, but you'd think a company as large as MS, with so many talented people, and with such vast resources, could do a lot better than they have. But then vision and leadership come from the top. It's what made Apple work so well for so long. As noted elsewhere, Ballmer is not and never has been a visionary. I have no doubt he's a competent manager and salesman--he might even be great at those roles--but a CEO has to offer a clear, unifying vision to motivate everyone under him, and MS' vision has been so disjoint and erratic over the past decade or more as to be no vision at all. It's become a company of "me too"-ing.

I'm not aware of any, and it may not be something that is done except in some very fringe cases. I'd certainly want to see more evidence that this is a thing that happens, I'm just saying it's not totally outlandish that it could be done.

Normally, if you take a check to the bank that issued it, they will cash it at no charge. Banks that charge for this are scumbags.

Short of that, they may just offer "no fee" transactions at certain stores, while charging noticeable ($2-5) fees at any other location. They don't have to ban the cards from specific stores, just give you an incentive to shop at one specific store.

I don't know. I know people who get these cards who consider them a good thing (as they don't have bank accounts), but they are often not very cognizant of the fees that go with them, or view them as an unavoidable cost.

Quite true! Once you find yourself in ChexSystems (I think that's what they're called), you're blacklisted from all traditional banks.

But then, hardly anybody takes checks anymore, and those that do often process them electronically on the spot, eliminating much of the "benefit" of checks for poor people (namely, "floating" checks a few days before you get paid when you don't have the balance to cover it.)

I was young and poor once. Juggling checks so I could get by without bouncing any is an art all its own, and a much harder one to accomplish nowadays.

My point stands just as well whether the cards factor in or not. Many people cannot really afford to go that long without a paycheck--not getting paid for one or two weeks is a huge hardship.

These cards are usually given to people who are working paycheck-to-paycheck for not much money. Going an extra couple weeks (or even just one week) without getting paid can be the difference between eating and not eating.

Your setup where you withdraw from your mortgage is a luxury that I would say most people--especially those who are most likely to be offered payroll debit cards--are very unlikely to have access to.

These cards are usually issued to people who work in low-wage, low-skill jobs who may not have the means to acquire a traditional checking account. Many banks require you to keep a minimum balance in order to have a checking account, and we're talking about people who largely live paycheck-to-paycheck and would find it difficult to impossible to keep a few hundred dollars just lying around, untouched.

Payroll debit cards are seen as an advantage for people in this situation, because they can use it virtually anywhere and don't need a bank account.

That said, charging a bunch of fees is bullshit.

It's a commentary made at the expense of Indian workers who, you know, just want to make a living, too.

But hey, getting people who work for a living to distrust and tar each other is a great way to maintain the status quo.

Depends on whether they are offering severance. A lot of companies make your severance contingent on training your replacement. You want that 6 weeks of severance? You're going to train the new guy. Most people can't afford not to do that, and in this job market, you need everything you can get. I can't blame anyone for just swallowing their pride and doing it to make sure their family stays fed.

That said, I think it is a horrible and unethical practice.

Nice to see racist drivel getting modded up on Slashdot. Go fuck yourself.

He should have stuck around because the Obama administration's been just so lenient and favorable to whistleblowers, right? Get a grip.

What I've found to be truly bizarre is that a lot of the official documentation makes no sense, in and of itself. It's vague and difficult to interpret. You normally have to scroll down to the comments to see how people actually use it, and it's only at that point that the function in question begins to make any sense. The documentation itself is just too barebones to be adequate.

Python's practice of including simple examples with the documentation of virtually every command and function and feature is incredibly handy.