Slashdot Mirror

He's basically parroting George Soros. Now it makes sense.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news...

The tax policy stuff isn't really Trump though. It's people like Paul Ryan. Trump is the Steve Jobs of the party - nasty but charismatic. Paul Ryan is more like the Wozniak - geeky but politically not that astute.

In a odd sort of way the fundamentally corrupt nature of American politics works well for tax reform. If you have a bunch of lobbyists complaining all the time you can gain quite a bit of information from that. So if you know Apple and co have tonnes of money overseas, you can figure out what it would take to make them bring it back.

Which, to the Trump administration's credit, they actually did

https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

Apple Inc. said it will bring hundreds of billions of overseas dollars back to the U.S., pay about $38 billion in taxes on the money and spend tens of billions on domestic jobs, manufacturing and data centers in the coming years.

The iPhone maker plans capital expenditures of $30 billion in the U.S. over five years and will create 20,000 new jobs at existing sites and a new campus it intends to open. The Cupertino, California-based company's shares rose 1.7 percent to a record closing price of $179.10.

âoeWe are focusing our investments in areas where we can have a direct impact on job creation and job preparedness,â Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook said in a statement Wednesday, which also alluded to unspecified plans by the company to accelerate education programs.

You don't necessarily need to do what an individual lobbyist is lobbying for to make the companies they're lobbying for do what you want them to do.

A combination of tax cuts policy wonkish stuffs like this and good old fashioned Trumpian bullying and intimidation to get companies to create jobs in the US should do the job. And of course Trumpian praise for ones who comply.

Plus of course the Trumpian bullying and praise affects market cap

https://finance.yahoo.com/quot...

Apple's market cap is $886 billion. 1.7% of that is $15 billion. And they presumably reckon they'll make some more cash if public approval boosts their share price and on their business operations in the US.

All in all it's an interesting mixture of conventional and unconventional incentives.

Only a few people were convicted, but there were millions more of illegal votes. Liberal Detroit had more votes than voters https://www.yahoo.com/news/det...

No, this is incorrect. All you have to do is look at the periodic insider transactions. He had an option to sell at a set price, and it went as an automatic transaction. Yes, it was a much larger number of shares than his usual, but hardly "all of his stock". And if you scroll through these transactions, you'll see that all officers make frequent automatic transactions...it's part of their compensation package.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quot...

I guess you haven't been paying attention:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news...

Funny the changes hasn't even been in effect for a week yet the liberals want to declare failure. Yet they were willing to wait 8 years for Obama to accomplish something and he never did.

This is great. My Page My page

EU is just as capable as Turkey at controlling their border so if Turkey tried EU would just close the border to Turkey and then Turkey is fucked.

EU countries all signed up to the ECHR which says

1) They can't just shoot migrants arriving

2) They're not allowed to return them because that would violate the principle of 'non-refoulement'

https://eulawanalysis.blogspot...

Basically, the dogmatic point of departure is simple: the EU principle of non-refoulement is anchored in Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, which contains a prohibition to remove, expel or extradite any person to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Charter should govern the uniform interpretation of the principle of non-refoulement in Union law, both in the Treaties and in secondary legislation (like the Returns Directive and the Qualification Directive). As the prohibition of refoulement is absolute in the ECHR, it should universally be interpreted to be absolute regardless of the legal context of EU law in which it appears. Article 19(2) of the Charter corresponds to Article 3 ECHR, and so must be interpreted the same way (Article 52(3) of the Charter). See the ECtHR ruling in Chahal, and more case law in Kees Wouters, International Legal Standards for the Protection from Refoulement, Intersentia, 2009, p. 307 - 314. The Court of Justice has recognized the absolute nature of the rule in its judgment in Aranyosi (paras 85-87).

https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/eu-...

3) Inside the EU the migrants can claim asylum and even if they are refused they're unlikely to be deported

https://www.express.co.uk/news...

4) The numbers of asylum seekers who are likely to find work is minimal. Of the million plus migrants who arrived in 2016 only 54 found a job

http://www.breitbart.com/londo...

In a survey by the Frankfurter Allgemeiner Zeitung, however, most of the top 30 companies on the German stock exchange (DAX) said they were unable to employ any of the new arrivals. The companies said migrants lacked the necessary qualifications needed to fill any of their roles.

Although the companies surveyed employ four million workers, FAZ reported that between them, they had only hired 54 migrants.

Fifty of these are employed by the German post office, and the vast majority of top German companies hired none at all. Software giant SAP reported having two migrants working for them, and pharmaceutical manufacturer Merck also said they had hired two.

I.e. if Turkey or Libya open the floodgates then there's nothing the EU can do legally to stop large numbers of people being dependent on benefits in the EU indefinitely.

LOL, Delta: https://finance.yahoo.com/quot...

Cut the dude some slack. He was a terrible POTUS but to his credit he upped the use of drones and special forces against Islamists to keep the numbers down.

Not the sort of final solution to the ISIS problem that Trump and Mattis served up, but it was better than Bush's overly sparing use of drones.

I.e. Trump is better than Obama who was better than Bush when it comes to killing off Islamists. None of them are particularly visionary politicians but each could see a pragmatic way to improve the US's position and smite its opponents with minimal risk of US casualties.

ISIS have been wiped out in Iraq and is heading that way in Syria

https://www.yahoo.com/news/whe...

Both the Syrian and Iraqi governments have declared ISIS dead in their respective countries and have credited Iranian intervention. They differ, however, on the U.S.â(TM)s role, with the former considering the U.S. presence illegal and only recognizing Iranian and Russian support, and the latter having been a U.S. partner since being installed in the wake of the 2003 U.S. invasion and overthrow of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

As I'm sure you know, there are electric vehicle subsidies across Europe and Asia as well [wikipedia.org]. So I'm not sure of your point

Read what I was replying to. The person was talking about subsidies ending in the US. But China and the EU are just as important markets to Tesla, and their subsidies are unrelated to what the US does.

, why did Tesla's stock drop like a brick [latimes.com] when the U.S. Congress announced its intent to end the subsidies?)

Huh, funny, because two weeks later the drop was almost erased.

The subsidies are going away either way. It's only a matter of timing. If the subsidy is repealed, they disappear Q1 2018. Otherwise, they likely get halved Q2-Q3, quartered Q4-Q1, then disappear.

As to your broader thesis, were it really true that EVs are less expensive both off the lot and over their useful life, they would be selling like hotcakes

Perhaps the problem might be people dismissing them as, to quote, "rainbows and unicorns" and concern trolling about them. Naaaaah.

The most glaring issue seems to be your premise that the proper peer comparison is BMW rather than one of many other more cost-effective ICE vehicles

Yes, sure, let's compare a car that Motor Trend measures at 4,8s 0-60 and handling better than a BMW with, say, a Yaris. Because that's totally a realistic, fair comparison. Totally. You're totally being fair

Just taking as true your claim that Tesla comes out on top (while squeezing my eyes shut and trying to pretend I didn't notice that the Tesla base model you're comparing doesn't even have power seats

And the BMW doesn't even come with a nav standard - you have to buy a $2750 options package for it. Either you didn't look at the options comparison, or you're deliberately trying to skew the conversation by only mentioning one side (something I distinctly did not do - I compared stats on everything, whether EV friendly or not)

but is a purely theoretical advantage for someone who isn't shopping for that level of finish in the first place

The average new car in the US sells for $34k. Not everyone is looking for a used econobox.

And I'm going to take a wild guess that you can't use any other EV to make this kind of comparison since all the rest are sustainably priced rather than effectively a loss leader like the Model 3.

There is no such thing as a "500k per year loss leader" in the autom

Cancel service and roll your own internet.

We're nerds right?
Let's make it happen and beat the incumbents on both quality of service *and* price.

...or you can just sign up here and see if we can figure out creimer

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/g...

Meanwhile in Canada Loblaws (the largest groceries chain and drug store chain) ordered 25. Earlier this month (November 2017) they displayed the all-electric class 8 truck delivered from BYD. Seems like Walmart is behind and so is Tesla.

Though the truck from BYD doesn't have the range of the Tesla truck it seems to be aimed for local deliveries instead of the long-haul market.

It's a perfectly valid bet for Donald Trump's father to give a loan to his son, or to bequeath to him an inheritance; Donald Trump's father amassed the right to make such an allocation of capital, so why should it be frowned upon when he does indeed make such an allocation?

Because it shows poor decision making skills to give a $1 million loan to a person without remotely the collateral to cover that loan?

Society awarded him that decision-making power, and he's exercising that power according to voluntary interaction!

Ah, of course. So, now we're arguing society awarded him that decision-making power? I guess then society can remove it for being a moron? Or do we more just tolerate that it is what is is because society doesn't have the right to award or deny him from making stupid decisions?

Had Donald Trump wasted that loan, Trump's father would have been admonished with a loss, and Donald Trump would have had a much harder time securing another loan from him or anyone else.

So, like, you're one of those people who think it's okay to shoot a loaded gun into a crowd so long as no one gets hurt? Because obviously the intent of the "loan" was nepotism. And plenty of people like Trump have either broken under the press--like Trump's brother may have--or simply repeatedly squandered through many more "loans" until some success was reached. So long as Trump's father would bail him out, it's hard to imagine other people wouldn't continue to give Trump loans no matter how bad he was at business.

Of course, that didn't happen; Trump managed to multiply that loan into billions of dollars over the years—Donald proved himself capable of making productive allocations of capital.

Thanks to bankruptcy law. Oh, right, you mentioned the part about government collusion. Well, without government collusion, it's really unclear where Trump would be, let alone his father. This is a major obstacle with any claims of a "self made man" today when you can point out clear ways in which they weren't self made and plenty of points that they were supported by a system they so frequently decry.

Nothing needs to be resolved; capitalism is anti-fragile; capitalism engenders a self-reinforcing system; capitalism provides feedback loops (positive and negative) that are tied to real-world, objective resources, rather than tied to political whim or fantasy.

You should have a talk with a fellow named Adam Smith. Perhaps you don't realize that capitalism begets government collusion as much as the other way around? Even if you get rid of the name government, that's precisely the system you will have where people have the choice of "agree to our contract or be ran out of business" and the scale of it will make you realize that the giants of industry are happy to work together to squash the ants like you. No, some fantasy of anarcho-capitalism has been clearly proven as unworkable in the late 1800s, even though Adam Smith spelled it out clearly a century before that. We have a long history to know that as much as government collusion is horrible and needs worked on, it's not something that will ever disappear. The answer is to work harder to fix examples of it now, not to pontificate in fantasy land.

I'm curious about what's wrong with creimer. I've set up a little group to talk about him.

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/g...

> After 100 years. In a similar fashion businesses that are a 100 years old should also become public domain. That means the Hilton Hotel is now a public domain business.

Uhm, Hilton is less than 100 years old.

It is, however, publicly owned
https://finance.yahoo.com/quot...

> So feel free to book a free Hilton hotel room for yourself, friends and family.

You realize most hotels with a Hilton sign aren't owned by Hilton, right? Individual hotel owners pay the brands a monthly fee to use the sign and get booking referrals from hilton.com

I also believe that we will not run out of oil any time soon. One reason to believe this is because we are seeing more efficient uses of it worldwide. One example is not burning it for electricity when there are other sources of energy far more suited for it, saving the oil for transportation. Saudi Arabia has learned this.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/sau...

Saudi Arabia plans on building more than 17 GW of nuclear energy capacity by 2032. That's roughly 100 MW of nuclear power capacity built per month for a nation, from a nation with roughly 1/10th the population and economic output of the USA. For the USA to do this means 1 GW of nuclear power capacity built per month. If they can do that then we can do that.

The interesting thing about that 1 GW per month calculation is that this is also about the same electrical capacity we'd need to add to keep up with planned closures of current nuclear and coal power plants. That's not adding capacity, that's just (barely) keeping even.

Natural gas is cheap now, which is the primary source of added electrical capacity now in the USA. What happens when natural gas isn't so cheap any more? Are we going to start building nuclear power plants like Saudi Arabia?

I know someone is ready to come back with a reply that we can go to wind and solar for our electricity, and that we can use batteries to make these unreliable energy sources reliable. Then we just get back to the problem pointed out in the article, a shortage of materials for making batteries. What happens when batteries start to get expensive? Are we going to go to nuclear power then?

What materials do we need to build a nuclear power plant? Just about the same materials for coal or natural gas, or about 1/10 the materials needed for the same capacity of wind or solar. If we have the material to build enough wind and solar to meet future energy needs then we have enough material to meet our future energy needs 10 times over with nuclear power.

America won't run out of coal, oil, or natural gas because we will have moved a large part of our energy production to nuclear long before we run out of them. If we don't move to nuclear power then we will be buying oil from a nuclear powered Saudi Arabia, which is just saying we'll be using Saudi Arabian nuclear power to power the American economy. Of all the places on Earth to build solar power I'd think Saudi Arabia would be very high on that list. I'm sure they have been and still will use solar power, but they are jumping in big on nuclear power now. That should be a clue for Americans that think we should avoid nuclear power here.

There is a yahoo support group for people who interact with creimer.

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/g...

You vastly overstate their importance. Yes, they are a big company but as a percentage of all retail sales, they are a pimple on the butt of an elephant. Neither them nor Walmart represent anywhere near 10% of retail sales so it's hard to say they even "dominate" retail sales.

In 2016, total US retail sales were about $5 Trillion. For comparison, Amazon is around $135billion of gross revenue or about 2.7% of retail sales. The other 97.3% is done by others.

Your mistake is understandable as they receive a lot of press.

When I visit https://www.yahoo.com/news/ my miner blocker shows it is indeed blocking something. OK Yahoo money troubles but has it come to this?

I think it worked, the MSFT stock is soaring.

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/q...
(look at the 5-day chart)

If only he faced charges in Vietnam.

> Tech workers, you have no idea how precarious your world is. You may think you're on top of the whole capitalism game

Well Google just paid a billion dollars for what? For HTC's cooperation as Google hired tech workers who were working at HTC. When a good company is willing to pay a billion dollars to try to get you on their payroll, yeah things are looking pretty good.

When you say "feudalism ... everyone else who works for a living", it sounds like what you're eluding to is the manorial tradition in feudal Europe. The Lords owned the land, and the fiefs who worked the land paid rent. Because the fief could never own the productive land, he would always be a fief, a renter, a peasant. The principle that wealth comes from owning productive capacity is still true, of course. Over 90% of millionaires today are millionaires because they own businesses. Businesses such as Google.

I started buying Google ( https://finance.yahoo.com/quot... ) about seven years ago, for $280/share. It's now worth $930 / share. So my wealth, the wealth I put into Google rather than big screen TVs, has more than tripled. Owning is still how you build wealth, but unlike the feudal days in Europe, you can own the businesses (and thereby build wealth) any time you feel like it. This very morning you can decide - do you want to spend your resources buying a cup of coffee for $6.50 from Starbucks, or would you rather own Starbucks and let people pay YOU $6.50 for a cup of coffee? Your choice, my friend. Becoming an owner of Starbucks (Nasdaq:SBUX) will cost you $55.15, about the same as buying eight cups of coffee from them. Your choice.

The most important part of the video, the reason I linked to it, is the part where that notch is clearly obtrusive when watching photos or videos.

Actually, that's Apple deliberately showing the notch, the default is that you don't see it.

https://twitter.com/BenBajarin/status/908772648489967621

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/n...

In March 2017, Equifax announced "Equifax Ignite" "Equifax Ignite Marketplace - Solutions are delivered in the form of downloadable apps that can be leveraged for visualizing and digesting applicable data, benchmarks, and trends across multiple industries." "Equifax Ignite Direct - This high-speed solution allows users to conduct their own analytics using direct access to our data warehouse, our attributes, and analytical tools. Seamless integration enables teams to self-serve as they build, test and deploy models that suit their unique needs. This will appeal to clients who have sophisticated analytics shops in house where access to data and Equifax tools can significantly enhance their own capabilities." https://finance.yahoo.com/news...

nice info thanks https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/g...

very gooooooooooooooooooooooood https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/g...

Steve Jobs and Wozniak are praised as gods having created the computer! It's ridiculous you know, because they reused past knowledge. Even in the mini-computer front, there were people already doing it.

The way you put it sounds like you half-believe it yourself. It is not ridiculous because "they re-used past knowledge", it is ridulous because computers were in use before they were born. Actually, it is more common for people to belive that Gates invented the computer :
https://answers.yahoo.com/ques...

.... or at least the PC :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/new...

Give the guy a little credit for creating a working email _system_ in an era where email hadn't proliferated very far.

Sorry, you've already blown your own credit away (see above)

I think you start getting into a dangerous area when they claim to be doing "independent" reviews and there is an agenda driven influence. Monsanto came out and was pretty upset about the IARCs monograph. This firm has an article that brings up XtendiMax which is another issue Monsanto is facing with a different product that's receiving some heat as well. My guess is they will try to find away to sweep all this under the rug as fast as possible and get back to business as usual. Monsanto might think they are just too big to fail and they might be. They are a 51B market cap company.

From TFA:

Resigned from council

Elon Musk, Tesla
Ken Frazier, Merck & Co., Inc.
Kevin Plank, Under Armour
Brian Krzanich, Intel
Scott Paul, Alliance for American Manufacturing
On Tuesday, August 15th, Scott Paul announced on Twitter that he was leaving because it was the "right thing for me to do."
Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO

No longer CEOs (still listed on White House web site)

Klaus Kleinfeld, Arconic
Mark Fields, Ford Motor Company
Mario Longhi, U.S. Steel
Doug Oberhelman, Caterpillar

Currently on council

Andrew Liveris, The Dow Chemical Company
The Dow Chemical Company said Liveris would remain on the council.
Bill Brown, Harris Corporation
Harris declined to comment.
Michael Dell, Dell Technologies
Dell declined to say whether Michael Dell would leave the council.
John Ferriola, Nucor Corporation
Jeff Fettig, Whirlpool Corporation
"The company will continue on the Manufacturing Jobs Initiative to represent our industry, our 15,000 U.S. workers, and to provide input and advice on ways to create jobs and strengthen U.S. manufacturing competitiveness," a Whirlpool spokesperson told Yahoo Finance.
Alex Gorsky, Johnson & Johnson
Greg Hayes, United Technologies Corp.
Marillyn A. Hewson, Lockheed Martin Corporation
A Lockheed Martin spokesperson declined to comment.
Jeff Immelt, General Electric
GE said its non-executive chair Immelt will remain on the council.
Jim Kamsickas, Dana Inc.
Rich Kyle, The Timken Company
Thea Lee, AFL-CIO
Denise Morrison, Campbell Soup Company
The company strongly condemned the attack, but Morrison will stay on the council "to have a voice and provide input on matters that will affect our industry, our company and our employees in support of growth."
Dennis Muilenburg, Boeing
Michael Polk, Newell Brands
Mark Sutton, International Paper
According to Business Insider, the company will remain on the council.
Inge Thulin, 3M
Wendell Weeks, Corning

Except that he never said that. Nice try though.

He has said he would pick up th ebill for supporters who assault protesters. https://www.yahoo.com/news/tru...

Deal with it.

Care to provide a link to that, or is it another lame attempt at lame "progressive" humor?

Fuck progressives. I'm a Goldwater Republican, not the present day bought and paid for corporatists, turrning into white supremacist Republicans.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/tru...

Gotta admire a man who will stand up for assault and battery.

There is no such person on Trump's White House Manufacturing Council. Not even on the White House's page which still lists the people who have quit the council.

As for who's still on the council...

Resigned from council:

Elon Musk, Tesla
Ken Frazier, Merck & Co., Inc.
Kevin Plank, Under Armour
Brian Krzanich, Intel

No longer CEOs (still listed on White House web site):

Klaus Kleinfeld, Arconic
Mark Fields, Ford Motor Company
Mario Longhi, U.S. Steel
Doug Oberhelman, Caterpillar

Currently on council:

Andrew Liveris, The Dow Chemical Company
The Dow Chemical Company said Liveris would remain on the council.
Bill Brown, Harris Corporation
Michael Dell, Dell Technologies
Dell declined to say whether Michael Dell would leave the council.
John Ferriola, Nucor Corporation
Jeff Fettig, Whirlpool Corporation
Alex Gorsky, Johnson & Johnson
Greg Hayes, United Technologies Corp.
Marilynn Hewson, Lockheed Martin Corporation
Jeff Immelt, General Electric
GE said its non-executive chair Immelt will remain on the council.
Jim Kamsickas, Dana Inc.
Rich Kyle, The Timken Company
Thea Lee, AFL-CIO
Denise Morrison, Campbell Soup Company
Dennis Muilenburg, Boeing
Scott Paul, Alliance for American Manufacturing
Michael Polk, Newell Brands
Mark Sutton, International Paper
Inge Thulin, 3M
Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO
Wendell Weeks, Corning

The NFL has a contract with Microsoft to use their Surface tablets on the sidelines. They tout it as a way for the team to get almost real time information on play calling, whether offense or defense. Unfortunately, and directly related to this article, there are those, particularly coaches and quarterbacks, who bemoan the unpredictability of the Surface and its many malfunctions.

Even worse, people were initially calling them iPads or iPad-like which certainly didn't sit well with the marketing crew at Microsoft.

Microsoft can claim all they want their Surface is doing well, but from real world experiences, where timely information is invaluable, or in the case of Consumer Reports where Surface owners report the numerous problems they have, there is only so much spin which can be done to try and spackle over these poorly performing devices.

Update: Julian Assange offers job to ousted Googler

And I still say Monsanto is evil, because they've proved it over and over again.

Yeah, sooo evil. Must be why they keep getting this award. [eye-roll]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news...

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has once again named Monsanto as one of its “Best Places to Work for LGBT Equality.” This is the ninth year Monsanto has been honored by the civil rights organization. The distinction comes with the agriculture company earning a perfect score of 100 percent on the HRC’s annual Corporate Equality Index (CEI).

Buffett's secretary Bosanek pays a tax rate of 35.8 percent of income, while Buffett pays a rate at 17.4 percent on profit. http://news.yahoo.com/warren-b...

Well I read and I now understand what got into creamer!
https://finance.yahoo.com/vide...

And some other sources reporting the story:
the hill http://thehill.com/policy/nati...
zdnet http://www.zdnet.com/article/u...
Yahoo https://finance.yahoo.com/news...

Police in some parts of the United States do in fact "have bigger problems going on" with respect to their pursuit of free-range children on trumped-up charges of neglect.

• 5 Things Everyone Did Growing Up (That Now Get You Arrested) by Chan Teik Onn
• 5 Things Your Parents Did (They'd Be Arrested For Today) by C. Coville
• Neighbor calls cops, child services on Texas mom for letting son play outside by Philip Caulfield
• Mom Lets 4-Year-Old Play Outside, Faces Jail by Elizabeth Armstrong Moore
• When 'Stranger Danger' is actually the police and CPS by Katherine Martinko

In fact, it took a federal law in January 2016 to keep local authorities from harassing parents of children who walk to school.

Huh? I guess if you call losing $330 million last quarter, and $720 million over the last 4 quarters "in the green" - then you are verifiably color blind...

The DJIA took a big jump as soon as the election was over... Due mainly the belief the business climate and economy would improve...

Superstitious Woman Throws Coins Into Airplane's Engine For Good Luck:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/sup...

You really don't see anything odd in these results?

1. Google Maps
https://www.google.com/maps/

2. Maps - Navigation & Transit - Android Apps on Google Play
https://play.google.com/store/......

3. Official MapQuest - Maps, Driving Directions, Live Traffic
https://www.mapquest.com/

4. iOS - Maps - Apple
https://www.apple.com/ios/maps...

5. Google Maps - Navigation & Transit on the App Store - iTunes - Apple
https://itunes.apple.com/us/ap...?...

6. Yahoo Maps
https://maps.yahoo.com/

7. World and USA Maps for Sale - Buy Maps - Maps.com
https://www.maps.com/

8. New Night Lights Maps Open Up Possible Real-Time Applications ...
https://www.nasa.gov/.../new-n...

9. 'Duck Dynasty' vs. 'Modern Family': 50 Maps of the U.S. Cultural Divide ...
https://www.nytimes.com/.../12...

10. From Ptolemy to GPS, the Brief History of Maps | Innovation ...
www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/brief-history-maps-180963685/

11. Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies: MAPS
www.maps.org/

12. Bing Maps - Directions, trip planning, traffic cameras & more
https://www.bing.com/maps

Whatever you do, don't program on a Mac. The malware is compatible with everything. Even alien motherships.

Amazon is profitable, about on par with profitability for other large retail chains like Safeway and Walmart. About a 4% EBITDA.

Done.

You are confused about fabbing and who owns the products that the fab makes.

No I am not. I clearly said "manufacture". Qualcomm does not manufacture, but only licenses LTE modems.

That is like saying Foxconn makes the iPhone. Foxconn assembles it, but Apple definitely owns the output from that manufacturing line, not Foxconn.

I think the term you are not understanding is that Foxconn manufactures for Apple; however, Foxconn does not have to pay Apple a royalty for licenses. Anyone who makes Qualcomm chips has to pay Qualcomm a royalty for the design even if Qualcomm never had any input in any part of the manufacture of the chip. That's the difference.

You very confused. Foxconn does not pay Apple a royalty because they don't own the iPhones, Apple does.

AFAIK Qualcomm does not license chip IP (ie chip designs like ARM does). The article you quote is for a patent license, not a chip manufacturing license. AKAIK Qualcomm only contracts with Samsung and TMSC to make their chips and then take possession of those chips after they are made. Qualcomm then sells those chips. Qualcomm does not have any second source supplier agreements.

ARM is different. ARM licenses chip IP to a company like Qualcomm. Qualcomm then integrates that IP with their own and turns it into masks for chip production. Qualcomm then pays Samsung or TMSC to use those masks to make chips.

I think your confusion is that you are focusing ONLY on what Qualcomm does with ARM type processors. While Qualcomm might have that process for Snapdragons, in the context of the story, Qualcomm isn't going after Apple's vendors for Snapdragon chips. They are going after them for Qualcomm chips like 3G/4G/LTE modems. That process is entirely different in that Qualcomm sells the design and others make the mask, incorporate it into their SoCs, etc. Qualcomm has less involvement with those chips.

There are two other places to get cell modem IP - Intel and Mediatek. That cell modem design IP is not coming from Qualcomm. The fight here is over Qualcomm demanding a rumored $10 a chip royalty for patent licenses from OEM who use the Intel and Mediatek IP.

As far as I know Qualcomm does not license chip IP.

Yes they do for IP other than Snapdragon.

That is a patent license which is very different than the IP license to produce a piece of silicon.

You are confused about fabbing and who owns the products that the fab makes.

No I am not. I clearly said "manufacture". Qualcomm does not manufacture, but only licenses LTE modems.

That is like saying Foxconn makes the iPhone. Foxconn assembles it, but Apple definitely owns the output from that manufacturing line, not Foxconn.

I think the term you are not understanding is that Foxconn manufactures for Apple; however, Foxconn does not have to pay Apple a royalty for licenses. Anyone who makes Qualcomm chips has to pay Qualcomm a royalty for the design even if Qualcomm never had any input in any part of the manufacture of the chip. That's the difference.

ARM is different. ARM licenses chip IP to a company like Qualcomm. Qualcomm then integrates that IP with their own and turns it into masks for chip production. Qualcomm then pays Samsung or TMSC to use those masks to make chips.

I think your confusion is that you are focusing ONLY on what Qualcomm does with ARM type processors. While Qualcomm might have that process for Snapdragons, in the context of the story, Qualcomm isn't going after Apple's vendors for Snapdragon chips. They are going after them for Qualcomm chips like 3G/4G/LTE modems. That process is entirely different in that Qualcomm sells the design and others make the mask, incorporate it into their SoCs, etc. Qualcomm has less involvement with those chips.

As far as I know Qualcomm does not license chip IP.

Yes they do for IP other than Snapdragon.