On 08/06/2011 02:36 PM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> OK, fair enough. But given that they were once a big name that everybody
>> knew and talked about, and now nobody ever mentions their name, it's not
>> surprising that I got the impression that they weren't doing so well.
>
>    A change in domain (from desktop computers to servers and other such
> more "hidden" technological services) doesn't mean they are dying. It just
> means they are less visible on shop selves and people's desktops.

OK, that's fair enough. But I also heard a lot of stuff about how they 
weren't doing so well. That combined with a gradual lack of visibility 
certainly doesn't /look/ very healthy. (As evidenced here, it's not 
conclusive though.)

>> One of the worst, most infamous ecological catastrophes in human
>> history, and it's a "mere footnote"?? How did it not end their
>> existence?
>
>    Accidents happen. Why should it end the existence of a multi-billion dollar
> company?

The way I remember it, it wasn't just an accident. There were serious 
questions of negligence involved.

>    Suing someone for an accident seldom has any significant effect on
> anything.

I guess if people thought that, nobody would get sued...

Post a reply to this message