None of those jobs are executive jobs. Therefore "entry-level executive" is an accurate description.
Good point. Doubling down on a bad decision is a Microsoft trademark.
And Windows itself (NT, i.e., the good one) used to run on PowerPC, Alpha and MIPS.
Congrats, I think you've come up with more solid ideas than the MS marketing department has in the last 5 years.
No, _you_ came up with more solid ideas than the MS marketing department has in the last 5 years. The GP came up with more solid ideas than the MS marketing department has ever come up with.
I would argue that people buy Windows PCs because that's the only thing thing 99% of people are aware exists, except for Apple, which costs twice as much. Period. Legacy apps drive this somewhat, but the primary driving force is still that MS is a monopoly.
And as we've seen Microsoft simply cannot compete because everything they do is targeted towards their own goals regardless of what consumers wants, which is what really would allow them to do better. Regardless of the reasons (and good marketing plus the Jobs reality distortion field) people buy Apple because they want it. People buy Windows because that's the default.
When Jesse Jackson was running for President, a frequent (and valid) criticism was that the Presidency is not an entry-level position. It's a shame that 30 years later we elected an entry-level executive. It's shown since Day One.
Reminds me of the classic response I got from an Australian when I asked him what the benefit of being a Commonwealth of the Crown was.
His response was "It's worth 3/5 of Bugger Off".
I dunno... those campaign commercials from The Onion for Zombie Reagan a few years ago were mighty convincing...
That was originally a John Lennon song, BTW.
As I've been saying for about 10 years now, the Republicans usually talk a good game, but almost never live up to what they say they are going to do, and do stupid things instead. The Democrats simply promise to do stupid things, and then do them.
Both parties have lousy track records with respect to making the government actually be useful. Both are too beholden to the oligarchy and are too wedded to increasing government control and power, regardless of what the end result will be.
It's the Party of Big Government vs. the Party of A Little Bit Bigger Government. In the Republican Party, the actual "small-government" conservatives are a minority who are constantly marginalized by the party leadership. Yes, they made a big to-do with the government shutdown and everything, but the end result was never in doubt. It was purely a symbolic gesture, for better or worse. In the Democrat Party, they have been very effective in establishing much more unity in terms of policy goals and political principles. The end result however, is that whoever is in charge erodes our rights and increases government debt. It's only the rate of these things getting worse that changes.
Very pithy and insightful. Consider this comment an upmod.
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. A law isn't a person. The people who created the law, and brought it in into existence are the problem. Those people are the Democrats under the leadership of the President. If they make a broken law, then it's their fault if it doesn't work.
You can play Candy Crush without paying, but it's a hassle. I really don't have a problem with the game's monetization with the exception that some levels are poorly-designed (in terms of challenge and winnability, I suppose they are well-designed to make money) and require a lot of luck, not strategy to win.
I did pay to get past level 70 (IIRC) because it was just such as awful level and wasn't winnable without getting ridiculously lucky. However, I chose to pay because I'd enjoyed the game and didn't mind sending a couple bucks their way. If I had minded, I would have simply quit. If I run into a similar situation again, however, I don't plan on paying more. There are plenty of other games instead. Plus, I've got a big stack of books on my nightstand to read... I actually like the idea that it limits the number of times you can try a level by time because it keeps me from spending an inordinate amount of time with the game.
However, I do understand that a lot of companies are doing little more than selling "digital crack", but I don't think Candy Crush really falls into that category. I don't think it's the best monetization plan in the world, but I don't really find it morally objectionable. I'm happy to toss them a couple bucks for entertaining me. However, most of the Facebook games I tried definitely fell into that category. You weren't paying to have fun, but paying to avoid tedium, and in fact, the games are generally just exercises in grinding anyway. I haven't even looked at a FB game in years.
Agreed. It's not the 1970s any more. We can adopt a design that reflects this fact.
Didn't necessarily have to be conservationists though, as could also been tourists or 'pet hunters'.
Or Lindsay Lohan...