The same applies to Cellphones.
And yet Apple takes about 90% of the profits.
Selling at a loss and making up for it in volume does not seem to have worked for all the other phone manufacturers. And Apple is selling at a premium.
Tell that to Samsung... they're doing just fine. And LG, and Motorola, and Lenovo, etc... Only HTC is hurting, and even they just turned a profit for the first time in awhile.
I agree... we don't really know what his demeanor was. If he was loud, abusive, or threatening, he should have been kicked off the flight for that, not for a tweet about rude service. If he stayed calm and complied with the airline employees' instructions, then only the gate agent was in the wrong.
Nowhere in TFA did it say he had a "temper tantrum" nor did it say he yelled at the agent. True it only tells one side of the story, but you're applying your own imagination as to how things really went down.
And the slashdot summary states the children were age 6 and 9.
Southwest allows families with children aged 4 or under to board between the 'A' and 'B' groups, or during the 'A' group if the parent is in the 'A' group.
They're aren't rude and irrational people in the 3rd world?
Calling someone "rude" is neither intimidating nor harassment.
Their policy says it extends to children aged 4 and under, his kids are older than 4.
She said he'd be arrested if he didn't delete the tweet. The arrest would violate the 1st amendment.
The gate agent was correct in telling him he could move back in the line to join his kids, but they couldn't cut in line and move up to join him. That's the policy and they tell you this when asking you to line up. The guy was in the wrong and then whined on twitter about how they didn't bend over to kiss his ass. His tweet naming the person could be construed as harassment or slander.
Calling someone "rude" is neither harassment nor slander. Slander requires a lie of fact, calling someone rude is purely opinion. Harassment involves repeated or persistant attacks, a single tweet doesn't cut it.
If the review only contains truth and opinion you have nothing to worry about. If you lie, on the other hand, you can be sued. Defamation, libel, and slander cases are nothing new.
If he left the tweet online and walked out of the airport he wouldn't get arrested. The tweet isn't the issue, his persistent demands that he's let onto the plane would be the issue.
He wasn't given the choice to walk out of the airport. He told to a) delete the tweet and reboard, or b) go to jail. There no was option c to leave, and he even if he had, he wouldn't have been refunded for the unused tickets.
Arresting someone based on something they said or tweeted (that wasn't in any any threatening) *is* a first amendment violation. I'm sure you're right, though, they would have called it a public disturbance or some such. How complaining calmly about poor service is a disturbance or threating is another question. In general, airline employees are given too much latitude to be a*holes in the name of protecting safety.
What part of "we don't think Eich is the right person to run Mozilla" equates to a "hate compaign"?
Depends what exactly Bloomberg and Case were supporting (I don't know the real stories here). If they were trying to repeal the 2nd amendment entirely, then yes I would support them (the employees). If they were trying to take 2nd amendment rights away from a specific class of people (other than the mentally ill and ex-cons), then yes I would support them (the employees). If they were just supporting background checks and/or banning ridiculous weapons and cartridges, then no. It's moot point anyways, as no one at Bloomberg or AOL publically called for them to step down.
That for-profit corporation (Mozilla Corporation) is wholly-owned by a non-profit (Mozilla Foundation). Mozilla Corp has to bend to the will of Mozilla Foundation, whatever will that might be.
They're *asking* him to step down, not *forcing* him to step down. Employees of Bloomberg or AOL could have asked Michael Bloomberg or Steve Case to step down if they wished to. They didn't and it likely wouldn't have made a difference if they had tried.
Also bare in mind, Mozilla Corp is wholly owned to Mozilla Foundation (a non-profit). The goals for Mozilla Corp are whatever Mozilla Foundation wants. If Mozilla decides they don't want this guy to be their CEO, that's their perogative. Bloomberg and AOL are/were public-traded for-profit corporations. Their goals are/were to make as much money as possible for their shareholders. If their shareholders wanted to get rid of Bloomberg or Case based on politics rather than profits, it's their perogative as well.
Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.
