My bad, typo - plus I should have included the percentages to make it clearer.
Gin cost per measure: £0.50
Tonic cost per measure: £0.05
Fixed costs per drink: £0.50
Selling cost of single: £2
Gross profit on single: £1.45 (72%)
Net profit on single: £0.95 (47.5%)
Selling cost of double: £3
GP on double: £1.95 (65%) [corrected from £0.95)
NP on double: £1.45 (48.3%)
GP drops in % terms but the NP increases with the larger measure, despite that second shot being cheaper for the customer than the first. Basically, my point is that if Apple can pass on a fraction of the price rise they've been hit with and still make higher profits per unit.
More to the point, give the police a way to say "This complaint isn't for us to decide, let the courts deal with it" without anyone having to be arrested.
Gin cost per measure: £0.50
Tonic cost per measure: £0.05
Fixed costs per drink: £0.50
Selling cost of single: £2
Gross profit on single: £1.45
Net profit on single: £0.95
Selling cost of double: £3
GP on double: £0.95
NP on double: £1.45
Hence the net profit can be higher even if the gross profit drops (ie chip cost goes up) as long as you can pass on some of this cost (doesn't need to be all of it) and if your fixed costs aren't affected.
The thing is, companies often raise prices to "offset higher costs" but it's a fairly convoluted area. Take a pub as an example: imagine a pub sells a gin & tonic at £2, £1.50 for the gin and 50p for the tonic. If they give the option to get a double gin and tonic for £3 are they making a smaller profit margin compared to the single? It certainly looks like it.
However, the cost of the drink isn't the only thing to take into account. When the drink is served the pub also has to factor in the fixed costs: the wages, electricity, glass cleaning etc etc, and this figure does not change when serving a double (OK, maybe slightly on the wages by a second or two), so the margin on the double can actually be higher than on the single.
So if Apple were to raise the price of an iPhone by £5 and the chip costs them £5 more per unit then Apple will make more money on each unit. Even if they subsidise the new cost to the tune of 50% they'll probably still make more money in the long run.
We need some reductio ad absurdem on the part of the courts here. Side with the lawyer, outlaw all uses of SSL without a license from him, and have all companies using SSL remove the facility for one day. He's after a little bit of money but he's claiming to want to protect the patent. OK, call his bluff, no money and a protected patent, then let's see how the rest of the world responds when they see what's happening. No more internet banking? No more online trading? No more secure internet sessions? Go on, call his bluff, let's open Pandora's Box Of Patents, it's the only way to bring this nonsense down once and for all.
That doesn't match the UK system. Discounts are given on the license for the elderly, the blind (they used to get a pointless £1 discount, but I think that has improved), certain student accommodations, black and white TVs for those who have the technical knowledge to keep them running and so on. If you only want to go with the extensive radio selection then you pay nothing.
Those paying full residential license fees subsidise those who get a discount, and the reasoning is this: the BBC is not a commercial TV broadcaster, it's an information service. It provides news, public safety broadcasts, educational programmes for the Open University, one of the first news websites on the planet, the (recently turned off and much missed) Ceefax service which was "internet-services-on-the-TV" back in the 1970s. They are legally obliged to host "party political broadcasts" during elections for all relevant parties including the far-right British National Party. They have to be prepared to have themselves turned into an emergency broadcast system at a moments notice. They also make Doctor Who.
This all carries far higher obligations and costs than just being a commercial TV channel, and the idea behind the BBC when it was set up was very close to the current idea of access to the internet being a fundamental human right.
Agreed entirely - yes, you could try competing with Facebook, but let's face it, the odds are massively stacked against him - the world contains one Zuckerberg and several million people in debt through trying to be Zuckerberg. Unless he's holding patents which are incredibly likely to change the face of the internet he's best selling and using the money to fund a lifetime of coming up with new ideas.
Good on him for doing so well at 19, he's got a bright future ahead of him - once a person is "rich" it's very easy to become "stupidly rich" if they keep coming up with more of the same, but first you have to do the rich thing, which in this case means selling the last few years work to fund the next twenty.
Indeed - from an outsider's view the US seems to be entirely geared to generating money for lawyers. "Think life's unfair? Hey, just sue! Chances are we can scare your chosen victim with a very big number and a dollar sign, so they'll just give you some money! (And give us a lot more, and if they refuse you have to make up the difference."
It really is depressing, I've found myself wondering whether the smart move is to ensure I have no real assets, so if I am taken to court over something I can just laugh at them, go bankrupt and spend the rest of my life in prison for inability to pay a fine (OK, there are downsides to prison, but you can teach yourself a lot of theoretical physics as long as you have a crayon and paper).
Being too poor to sue does seem to be the only deterrent.
Yup, it's still entirely possible, it's a case of the law making a bit of an effort, but not bothering to take the 'hacker' point of view and presume it's going to be gamed.
There's already a fair bit of fuss because the current Conservative/LibDem government are currently privatizing the National Health Service and the BBC are, for some reason, giving the issue virtually zero coverage.
Because (and this is very intentional) the BBC is legally obliged to be completely impartial when it comes to politics. If they were funded by a tax then there would be potential leverage for whichever party is in power. By using an independently defined license fee instead means there is (in theory) less chance of undue political influence over one of the biggest media providers in the UK (and beyond).
In the UK all BBC programmes are freeview and contain no commercials. This is paid for via a TV license fee of around £145 (~US$230) per-property per-year, which personally I think is worth it for the programmes the BBC put out.
You don't need a license if you're not watching live or if you only watch DVDs etc, but to "receive live television" you have to buy one.
Because (in theory at least) UK stores are legally obliged to ask for an address when selling you a TV.
To AC above: In the first flat I mentioned, no, we didn't have a TV. When they came to the door we would refuse to let them in, as is our right, and suggested they came back with a court warrant. In the second flat (where they refused to sell us a residential licence) we did have a TV, hence we were trying to buy a licence.
The US government (and, in fact, any government, political organisation etc) have the right to be part of Anonymous if they want to. It's the single biggest problem with any "anarchy", if all people are free to do what they want then this must include setting up a governmental system of whichever type they choose, be it dictatorship, democracy, or a dictatorship dressed up as a democracy. In this case the "anarchists" may well be assisting the political aims of their "enemy" who, for all Anonymous know, are also part of Anonymous.
With great anonymity comes great confusion as to which side is which.
They do. As do laser printers and rotting seaweed. It's well established that ozone isn't particularly good for humans (unless it happens to be sitting in the upper atmosphere blocking UV). The "sea air is good for you" thing, before you ask, is probably because a bit of sunshine and fresh air happens to be better for you than a little ozone exposure is bad.
A picture won't do it, the whole point of the kinect is that it builds a 3D model of the environment in front of it, otherwise it would simply be a "camera", an invention that has been around substantially longer (and can also devour your soul).
You'd actually need to act out the crime scene in some way.
Although try convincing the UK TV licensing authorities that - it's very common to get repeated threatening letters and people knocking at the door if you don't own a TV license. What if you don't own a TV? Well they don't believe that, they keep sending the threatening letters as long as you don't own the license, because (their reasoning) everybody owns a TV.
Ironically, I also lived in a flat which did have a TV, but shared an address with a University office block. We were told we had to buy the commercial version of the license and they wouldn't sell us the household version. We stopped even trying to buy a license and heard no more on the matter.
The thing is, these buildings are being constructed for people who utterly rely on society - the waiters, the banks, the nanny, the tailor, the doctors. Sure, they'll last 30 days, but have they remembered to pack a big first aid kit and learned some medical basics? Do they know how to darn socks? Fix boots? Forage for and preserve food? Fix a car engine?
This is a classic example of a man who needs fish and buys a freezer instead of a net.
I'd imagine insurance companies would be quite happy with it. Try insuring a cheap little car versus a Veyron, you'll soon find out which they consider to be the greater financial risk to them. Imagine if everyone in New Orleans lived in tents, albeit fairly luxurious ones...they'd all be back to normal by now (probably within weeks of Katrina in fact), instead there are still whole areas of condemned buildings which can't be economically repaired or rebuilt, years later.
Alternatively, build your house with a waterproofed cellar which can hold all your valuables, then build the above-ground section Japanese style - light and cheap. If a hurricane comes along it trashes the top section which you then rebuild for £20k, repeat until you've reached the cost of a fortified bunker (probably several times your lifespan).
So what if the hosting company goes bust? They're not going to give you the server or even the hard drive, they'll be taken by the administration company and sold off to cover any debts. If they're particularly nice about it (or if the hosts are being sensible) then you'll get a chance to take a final backup before your site disappears, but you do not own the physical location of the 1s and 0s, and have virtually no control over what happens to it.
Slashdot Mirror
My bad, typo - plus I should have included the percentages to make it clearer.
Gin cost per measure: £0.50
Tonic cost per measure: £0.05
Fixed costs per drink: £0.50
Selling cost of single: £2
Gross profit on single: £1.45 (72%)
Net profit on single: £0.95 (47.5%)
Selling cost of double: £3
GP on double: £1.95 (65%) [corrected from £0.95)
NP on double: £1.45 (48.3%)
GP drops in % terms but the NP increases with the larger measure, despite that second shot being cheaper for the customer than the first. Basically, my point is that if Apple can pass on a fraction of the price rise they've been hit with and still make higher profits per unit.
More to the point, give the police a way to say "This complaint isn't for us to decide, let the courts deal with it" without anyone having to be arrested.
Gin cost per measure: £0.50
Tonic cost per measure: £0.05
Fixed costs per drink: £0.50
Selling cost of single: £2
Gross profit on single: £1.45
Net profit on single: £0.95
Selling cost of double: £3
GP on double: £0.95
NP on double: £1.45
Hence the net profit can be higher even if the gross profit drops (ie chip cost goes up) as long as you can pass on some of this cost (doesn't need to be all of it) and if your fixed costs aren't affected.
20% of $200 is $40, unless I've misunderstood your comment?
The thing is, companies often raise prices to "offset higher costs" but it's a fairly convoluted area. Take a pub as an example: imagine a pub sells a gin & tonic at £2, £1.50 for the gin and 50p for the tonic. If they give the option to get a double gin and tonic for £3 are they making a smaller profit margin compared to the single? It certainly looks like it.
However, the cost of the drink isn't the only thing to take into account. When the drink is served the pub also has to factor in the fixed costs: the wages, electricity, glass cleaning etc etc, and this figure does not change when serving a double (OK, maybe slightly on the wages by a second or two), so the margin on the double can actually be higher than on the single.
So if Apple were to raise the price of an iPhone by £5 and the chip costs them £5 more per unit then Apple will make more money on each unit. Even if they subsidise the new cost to the tune of 50% they'll probably still make more money in the long run.
We need some reductio ad absurdem on the part of the courts here. Side with the lawyer, outlaw all uses of SSL without a license from him, and have all companies using SSL remove the facility for one day. He's after a little bit of money but he's claiming to want to protect the patent. OK, call his bluff, no money and a protected patent, then let's see how the rest of the world responds when they see what's happening. No more internet banking? No more online trading? No more secure internet sessions? Go on, call his bluff, let's open Pandora's Box Of Patents, it's the only way to bring this nonsense down once and for all.
What 1st Amendment? This is a business in a UK court over a UK matter, US law has nothing to do with it.
That doesn't match the UK system. Discounts are given on the license for the elderly, the blind (they used to get a pointless £1 discount, but I think that has improved), certain student accommodations, black and white TVs for those who have the technical knowledge to keep them running and so on. If you only want to go with the extensive radio selection then you pay nothing.
Those paying full residential license fees subsidise those who get a discount, and the reasoning is this: the BBC is not a commercial TV broadcaster, it's an information service. It provides news, public safety broadcasts, educational programmes for the Open University, one of the first news websites on the planet, the (recently turned off and much missed) Ceefax service which was "internet-services-on-the-TV" back in the 1970s. They are legally obliged to host "party political broadcasts" during elections for all relevant parties including the far-right British National Party. They have to be prepared to have themselves turned into an emergency broadcast system at a moments notice. They also make Doctor Who.
This all carries far higher obligations and costs than just being a commercial TV channel, and the idea behind the BBC when it was set up was very close to the current idea of access to the internet being a fundamental human right.
Agreed entirely - yes, you could try competing with Facebook, but let's face it, the odds are massively stacked against him - the world contains one Zuckerberg and several million people in debt through trying to be Zuckerberg. Unless he's holding patents which are incredibly likely to change the face of the internet he's best selling and using the money to fund a lifetime of coming up with new ideas.
Good on him for doing so well at 19, he's got a bright future ahead of him - once a person is "rich" it's very easy to become "stupidly rich" if they keep coming up with more of the same, but first you have to do the rich thing, which in this case means selling the last few years work to fund the next twenty.
Actually, I suffer from CDOP. It's like OCPD but the letters are in the RIGHT DAMN ORDER!
Indeed - from an outsider's view the US seems to be entirely geared to generating money for lawyers. "Think life's unfair? Hey, just sue! Chances are we can scare your chosen victim with a very big number and a dollar sign, so they'll just give you some money! (And give us a lot more, and if they refuse you have to make up the difference."
It really is depressing, I've found myself wondering whether the smart move is to ensure I have no real assets, so if I am taken to court over something I can just laugh at them, go bankrupt and spend the rest of my life in prison for inability to pay a fine (OK, there are downsides to prison, but you can teach yourself a lot of theoretical physics as long as you have a crayon and paper).
Being too poor to sue does seem to be the only deterrent.
Yup, it's still entirely possible, it's a case of the law making a bit of an effort, but not bothering to take the 'hacker' point of view and presume it's going to be gamed.
There's already a fair bit of fuss because the current Conservative/LibDem government are currently privatizing the National Health Service and the BBC are, for some reason, giving the issue virtually zero coverage.
Because (and this is very intentional) the BBC is legally obliged to be completely impartial when it comes to politics. If they were funded by a tax then there would be potential leverage for whichever party is in power. By using an independently defined license fee instead means there is (in theory) less chance of undue political influence over one of the biggest media providers in the UK (and beyond).
In the UK all BBC programmes are freeview and contain no commercials. This is paid for via a TV license fee of around £145 (~US$230) per-property per-year, which personally I think is worth it for the programmes the BBC put out.
You don't need a license if you're not watching live or if you only watch DVDs etc, but to "receive live television" you have to buy one.
Because (in theory at least) UK stores are legally obliged to ask for an address when selling you a TV.
To AC above: In the first flat I mentioned, no, we didn't have a TV. When they came to the door we would refuse to let them in, as is our right, and suggested they came back with a court warrant. In the second flat (where they refused to sell us a residential licence) we did have a TV, hence we were trying to buy a licence.
The US government (and, in fact, any government, political organisation etc) have the right to be part of Anonymous if they want to. It's the single biggest problem with any "anarchy", if all people are free to do what they want then this must include setting up a governmental system of whichever type they choose, be it dictatorship, democracy, or a dictatorship dressed up as a democracy. In this case the "anarchists" may well be assisting the political aims of their "enemy" who, for all Anonymous know, are also part of Anonymous.
With great anonymity comes great confusion as to which side is which.
They do. As do laser printers and rotting seaweed. It's well established that ozone isn't particularly good for humans (unless it happens to be sitting in the upper atmosphere blocking UV). The "sea air is good for you" thing, before you ask, is probably because a bit of sunshine and fresh air happens to be better for you than a little ozone exposure is bad.
A picture won't do it, the whole point of the kinect is that it builds a 3D model of the environment in front of it, otherwise it would simply be a "camera", an invention that has been around substantially longer (and can also devour your soul).
You'd actually need to act out the crime scene in some way.
Although try convincing the UK TV licensing authorities that - it's very common to get repeated threatening letters and people knocking at the door if you don't own a TV license. What if you don't own a TV? Well they don't believe that, they keep sending the threatening letters as long as you don't own the license, because (their reasoning) everybody owns a TV.
Ironically, I also lived in a flat which did have a TV, but shared an address with a University office block. We were told we had to buy the commercial version of the license and they wouldn't sell us the household version. We stopped even trying to buy a license and heard no more on the matter.
Really? FOUR links in the summary and not a single one to the actual web page in question? Good grief.
Apple and Samsung, at Tanagra.
Your 2ft thick reinforced concrete door?
The thing is, these buildings are being constructed for people who utterly rely on society - the waiters, the banks, the nanny, the tailor, the doctors. Sure, they'll last 30 days, but have they remembered to pack a big first aid kit and learned some medical basics? Do they know how to darn socks? Fix boots? Forage for and preserve food? Fix a car engine?
This is a classic example of a man who needs fish and buys a freezer instead of a net.
I'd imagine insurance companies would be quite happy with it. Try insuring a cheap little car versus a Veyron, you'll soon find out which they consider to be the greater financial risk to them. Imagine if everyone in New Orleans lived in tents, albeit fairly luxurious ones...they'd all be back to normal by now (probably within weeks of Katrina in fact), instead there are still whole areas of condemned buildings which can't be economically repaired or rebuilt, years later.
Alternatively, build your house with a waterproofed cellar which can hold all your valuables, then build the above-ground section Japanese style - light and cheap. If a hurricane comes along it trashes the top section which you then rebuild for £20k, repeat until you've reached the cost of a fortified bunker (probably several times your lifespan).
So what if the hosting company goes bust? They're not going to give you the server or even the hard drive, they'll be taken by the administration company and sold off to cover any debts. If they're particularly nice about it (or if the hosts are being sensible) then you'll get a chance to take a final backup before your site disappears, but you do not own the physical location of the 1s and 0s, and have virtually no control over what happens to it.