Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 February 24

= February 24 =

Website to download Ramadhan series from past years
Is there a website where you can download Ramadhan series from the past years like 2010 to 2013 for free? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.247 (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What is a Ramadhan series? Do you want a list of dates translated into another calendar? —Tamfang (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This: http://thepiratebay.se/ It have everything, assuming it is a film series 202.137.25.53 (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty dopey suggestion. You don't even know what the OP is asking about, and you provide a link to a copyvio site that may or may not have it, depending on what it is.  Hats off, sir. --Viennese Waltz 08:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The month of Ramadan has the highest television watching numbers of the year in the Muslim world, as people tend to gather around the TV waiting for the sun to set and various prayer times to arrive. As a result, a number of Arab-language networks release their biggest and highest-budget productions during the period. They are usually daily fictional series designed to run over the 30 or so days of Ramadan. Every year, one or two of these series become huge hits and must-see viewing for those who like those sorts of programs (with satellite TV being widespread in the region, it doesn't matter whether the series originated on an Egyptian, Lebanese, Emirati or other network, the hits will be watched from Abu Dhabi to Tangiers). The OP is asking where one can find some of the series from past years. --Xuxl (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This story from the BBC has a little about this. Apparently Egyptian productions were dominant for many years, but the recent revolutions have enabled others to get a look in.  Apparently, a Turkish production was a big hit during 2013's Ramadan.  However, for actual figures and more information including possible download links, the OP might be better off asking at the Arabic Wikipedia.  Astronaut (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Business longevity
How many companies fail (percentage) before making it 75 years ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.196.81.118 (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how someone would find data for that but the job would likely be easier if you were to tell us if you were interested in a specific country or worldwide data. Dismas |(talk) 04:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I also depends on how you define "fail". Does an acquisition or merger count as a "failure"? A few years ago, Delta bought Northwest and the Northwest name went away. Did Northwest "fail"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Googling "of new businesses fail" suggests 80% fail in their first 18 months. but 56% fail in their first four years. As Bugs suggests, it probably is a question of definition.--Shantavira|feed me 10:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem here is that the mechanisms for formation of new businesses has changed dramatically over the last century - and so has the mechanisms for them dying. Since the rate of change of business practices is much faster than the timescale of the questioner's period of 75 years, it would be hard to come up with a statistically valid result.  For example, since probably the 1700's, a small "mom and pop" store would probably be handed down from one generation to the next - or sold on as a going concern to some new proprietor when the owners felt they no longer wanted to run it.   They didn't often go out of business.  But in the last 30 years, the likes of WalMart and other "big box" stores has taken out those small businesses in droves.  So you'd see a huge drop in the number of those businesses - but not in the last 75 years...only in the last 30 or so.


 * Aside from that, most businesses don't simply vanish when they fail financially. Generally, their assets and name are purchased by some other business that subsumes them.  Do we say that "Time Inc" failed when it was taken over by Warner Bros to make "Time Warner"?  Probably not - that was a merger of two reasonably successful businesses.  But I think it's well-understood that AOL was failing when Time Warner took them over to make AOL-Time-Warner - but is it fair to say that AOL was a failed business?   What about companies like Kodak - which dropped from being a truly gigantic company - to going through several waves of bankruptcy - to existing now as a relatively tiny niche-market company.  In 2004, it had 75,000 employees, now it has 13,000.  It's still there - and it makes a profit - but clearly it "failed", even though it didn't entirely vanish.


 * The exact threshold for failure is hard to determine. SteveBaker (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * One of these reverses what was understood and what happened. Tine-Warner didn't take over AOL, AOL took over Time-Warner. Because those leading Time-Warner thought that AOL's future was brighter than Time-Warner's, not that AOL was failing.John Z (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Another classic example: AT&T is not the Ma Bell you remember it. The modern AT&T is actually only one of the Baby Bells, it is essentially the old Southwestern Bell, which renamed itself SBC, which then purchased the old AT&T, and took its name for itself.  Also see the history of the Atari brand and associated companies for a similarly confusing history of companies.  -- Jayron  32  17:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Are these big mergers&acquisitions such common events that they matter to the original question? Out of the zillions of hair salons, cheese shops, one man web designer companies, etc, that try to make it, few are AT&T. 88.112.50.121 (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * AT&T was bought for a penny a share, with no physical assets. It was a name only.  Look at the failure of MCI as engineered by the felon Bernie Ebbers and abetted by the Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott for the reason the biggest tech corp in the US, and the sole savings of millions of investors, crashed and burned. μηδείς (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a larger point that these big mergers are representative of though. This merger/acquisition thing happens all the time with small companies too.  Often banks in an area will be gobbled up by larger banks or even national banks. (Ex: Chittenden Corporation)  Then there are the landscaping companies, general contractors, grocery stores, etc. that acquire a second location or operation which was a previous competitor.  The overtaken may not have been "failing".  The owner could have been retiring and decided that selling was more beneficial to both them and their employees than simply closing up shop.  Dismas |(talk) 23:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)