You know what ALWAYS comes after a merger? Massive lay-offs. There's no reason to merge two companies if they have just as high costs as when they were operating separately, so eliminating now-redundant jobs is the key reason mergers happen. Approving that is going to make Trump look very, very bad.
The merger was always an idiotic idea... Sprint and T-Mobile have no technology in common, nor do their services complement each other in ANY way... Nearly all the company's towers are deployed in proximity to the other's, so they're redundant and most would just have to go. At best, it would be like the MetroPCS buyout... T-Mobile would be buying the brand, stores, and customers, telling them all they need to replace their phones in short order, and shutting off the foreign network they don't want or need to bother maintaining. It really only serves as a legal way to kill-off a competitor.
Of course Sprint just LOVES idiotic ideas. Nextel, WiMax, Clearwire, Tidal, etc. The more obviously idiot the idea, the quicker Sprint is going to jump at it, so they can start burning money even faster.
They clearly think a merger with T-Mobile is a foregone conclusion, because they've completely given-up on improving their network. They announce upgrades, then cut the budget to not just a fraction of what they need to catch-up, but a fraction of what is needed to just maintain parity and avoid falling further behind their competitors. So Sprint's network keeps getting slower and slower.
Some people have been saying it looks like SoftBank is spinning all their valuable assets off to subsidiaries that they control, but which aren't under Sprint, so as the company fails from the lack of investment, the other investors will get nothing, while SoftBank gets to keep or sell-off everything of value. But I believe it's just more of a delaying strategy... Keep Sprint limping along, but perpetually on the edge of failure, in hopes regulators will fear a (too big to fail) bankruptcy, and go along with a merger no matter how bad it looks for every one of the stakeholders involved.
SoftBank made an idiotic investment. Sprint is worth rescuing, but they aren't interested or particularly capable of doing it. They deserve to lose their shirt. Then sell the company to somebody who's actually going to try to build it back up into a viable and competitive cellular carrier again.
Except he's 100% correct that such an order would exceed the authority of the FCC. Congress could do it, but the FCC cannot. And you should be THANKFUL for that fact, otherwise ATSC/HDTV tuners would all implement the "broadcast flag" and DVRs would be all but illegal. How soon we forget.
Neonicotinoids are not particularly persistent. They are already banned in much of Europe.
Right. And yet Europe is experiencing colony collapse disorder as well. The evidence that neonicotinoids have any contributing effect to CCD is... very weak, at best.
Stop naming them after defunct politicians and overambitious military blowhards. The Royal Navy knows how to do it.
They HAVE TO. There's just too many ridiculous British names...
Let's hear it for the HMS Ridgewell Hancock
Yes indeed, I've been using the basic HTML GMail interface for years now, never liking their slow JS version that blocks every time you click on anything.
I've posted instructions to do so before:
Mozilla refused to support h.264 for years - even after it was clear that standard had won the web streaming format war.
H.264 won because Apple belligerently refuse to even ALLOW WebM add-ons in its products. Having Firefox as a stubborn opponent, rather than pragmatically giving-in every time there's the slightest pressure to do so, is immensely useful, and simply the right thing for the public, even if users are briefly inconvenienced.
What..the fuck kind of news for nerds is this gossipy whining?
This site hasn't called itself "News for Nerds" in quite a few years now. Just look around and try to find that tag-line... It's long gone.
It's been one non-stop decline ever since the "Politics" section was created. First Sourceforge, then Dice, and now BizX have had no interest in the site's origins or credibility, and are only interested in the large audience they can abuse to drive-up ad impressions. Even clicking through to complain about what a shithole this place has become, is PROFIT for them, so they will keep it up. The trolls are profit, the paid shills are profit, the flood of crap on the front-page that has people yelling at their screen is profit for them. And that's the only thing they care about.
Sure the audience has continued declining, sure this place is a joke, sure in the long-term it's an increasingly less valuable property for the change, but they're going to cash-out as much as they can, as soon as they can, and not worry one bit about the smoldering ruin that's left.
The ribbon really isn't the same thing as a flat look. The two are totally independent of one another. Take a look at this screenshot, for example: Windows 7 with visual styles turned off—no doubt familiar to anyone who's managed a recent Windows Server or used RDP. It's still full of the newfangled conveniences you loathe, despite being cast in traditional 90s bezels.
This is the point where the holier-than-thou crowd says you should know all the hotkey combinations for everything if you want to be efficient. Those never changed, creating a nightmare for anyone who wants to learn them in the post-ribbon Word.
People like you are EXACTLY why I refuse to disclose my salary.
Just because you're paying $10k more than my current position, you think I'll jump at the chance, even though it's twice as much work, in a much higher-rent area, etc, etc. So much so, that many companies won't be bothered even spending five minutes explaining the job better than the vague listing.
Or because you're paying $10k less, you think there's no way I'll take the job, and not bother explaining how nice a work environment it is, how many perks there are, opportunities for personal and professional growth, etc.
There's no reason I should have to explain my last salary to you. It has no affect on how valuable I will be to your company. You're a fool to believe it gives you useful information in the first place. If I was less honest, I'd just lie about it, since you can't reliably verify it (and I've never seen anybody even try). That's what many companies are doing, ensuring you only ever hire liars for all positions. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
Even worse are the companies who cap annual raises at 3%. That ensures even the best performers only break-even vs inflation, while everyone else is getting annual pay cuts... A great way to send turnover through the roof, and your company into a sinking ship.
Specifically, Google Fiber is not a loss. Accountants put it on the books as a loss, but it's not. It's just an expensive investment in physical plant with a long payoff period. It may takes years, even decades, but it's not like people are going to stop using this new-fangled thing called the Internet.
I've canceled my cable internet and switched to cellular. I have FIOS in my area, too, but there's more competition in cellular, so us lighter users (not streaming Netflix) can get a better deal. It shouldn't be this way... DSL used to be dirt cheap, and some cable companies even had $15/mo plans, but reduced regulation in the US over many years has eliminated those cheaper options across most of the country. They've held the line better on cellular competition, but I'm concerned that won't last much longer, either.
In any case, Google Fiber isn't an internet monopoly ANYWHERE it operates. Saying it's guaranteed to profit is idiotic... There are always a half dozen competitors around who can undercut Google and steal their fiber customers. Your underpants gnome understanding of economics falls short. When you've got a few million to waste, build your own ISP and get back to us.
Even while people are cord cutting their cable TV, a smaller number are cutting their internet service, too:
So what this stat means is that it takes 110x more people to generate each kWh of electricity with solar than with fossil fuels. If anything, this is an excellent argument for not using solar to generate electricity.
Not at all. You're only ASSUMING that the additional jobs equates to significantly more expense. But you don't have to make that logical leap... we have actual price figures allowing direct comparison, which show that not to be the case.
So we have cheap electricity that generates many more jobs. That might mean less profit for the investors, but a net positive for society.