Here is what it says: "...parents say that while they would prefer to do more activities away from devices, outings are far too expensive. A typical weekend family getaway with all things factored in, could average $2,328."
Do you understand that? They are saying they CAN NOT do more activities away from home because it is TOO EXPENSIVE, and the only number they give is that the AVERAGE 'typical weekend getaway' costs $2328.
And what everyone but you is saying is: that is bullshit. There are MANY 'outings' you can do, including weekend getaways, for FAR less than $2328. Not every experience has to be 'the best experience possible'. You should be doing something with your kids EVERY WEEKEND. Obviously, you can not go to Universal every weekend, but you sure as hell can do other things very cheaply.
It sounds, from your posts, like the ONLY things you do with your kids is these extravagant trips and now they are spoiled and won't accept anything less. That is entirely on you
You are an idiot. Copyright exists to protect the author FROM the publishers. The publishers do not receive copyright protection. Your idiotic statement is basically 'now that it is easy to publish, there is no reason to protect the author from unauthorized publishing'. How does that make any sense? You might as well say 'back when the only way to kill someone was hand-to-hand, murder laws KINDA made sense, but now that anyone can shoot a gun there is no reason for those laws'.
Only if the retelling is a parody of the original. For instance, Weird Al creates parodies of songs, and that is not infringement. But if you copied Weird Al, that would be infringement because you are not creating a parody, you are just copying an existing work. Of course, if you parodied Weird Al, then you would be in the clear.
Recipes can't be copyrighted because they are just a statement of facts, and statements of facts can not be copyrighted. Jokes are not statments of facts, they are creative works.
Recipes can be patented. But with thousands of years of cooking behind us, it will be very difficult to show that any given recipe is both novel and not obvious. This is why recipes are protected with trade secrets instead of patents.
You contradict yourself. First you say "Quallcomm does not manufacture, but only licenses LTE modems". Then you say "Yes they do (license) for IP other than Snapdragon".
So if Snapdragon is not licensed, but all they do is license, then what the hell is Snapdragon?
They don't FAB. But they do everything else, and their name is on the product. They are the only ones who can sell said product. They are the ones who warrantee said product.
Licensing IP and contract manufacturing are not the same thing at all. If you license the IP, then a manufacturer can use that IP to make his OWN products, with his name on them. The manufacturer pays you to use your IP. On the other hand, if you contract out your manufacturing, you pay the manufacturer for the use of his facilities. Probably the only IP involvement is in the form of NDAs that say the manufacturer can't use your IP for anything EXCEPT manufacturing YOUR chips.
How naive can you get? Do you actually believe that Apple would lower the price to consumers if they didn't have to pay the royalty? Of course not, they would just keep the money for themselves. So the price to the consumer will go UP, not down, under your plan.
That onerous $10 you are talking about represents about 1.5% of the cheapest iPhone price. That is not 'excessive' for the technology that actually makes the phone usable. The reason that Qualcomm gets so much money is because their product is popular, not because the fees are excessive.
This is purely about Apples greed. They think they should be the only ones allowed to make money.
It is called courtesy, which even 'the help' deserve. Also respect, as your professor is no doubt superior to you in knowledge (or you made a really bad choice in who you decided to pay), and probably older than you as well. You are probably one of those obnoxious asses who snaps his fingers at waiters, just to show who is paying who.
From TFA:
Alsup said he intends to issue a decision publicly after both sides provide input on which portions should be redacted because they contain sensitive company information.
It says a DOCUMENT was found on the internet. It does not say the sensitive system DESCRIBED by the document was connected to the internet. Here is a document about a bag of cement. By your logic, all bags of cement are now connected to the internet.
Doesn't say one word about a 'sensitive system' being connected to the internet. It says someone found a document on a backup server connected to the internet.
Well it does say that the driver is looking for things like mute/unmute and other hotkeys, so I guess if you are debugging those functions you may want to log the keystrokes you see.
As I said, it depends on what expectations you set for your investors. If you set the expectation that you will have a profit this year, then yes, you better deliver on that promise. Why should it be any different than that? What makes you think that is any different in private companies? Private companies DO go out of business you know. You know why that happens? Because the business was not making the profit the owner expected, so he closed the business.
No, you do NOT get delisted because you didn't make some minimum profit. You gave two valid reasons for delisting, neither of which involve minimum profit. No revenue basically means the business is not operating. That is far different than operating but not making a profit. Not having a minimum capital value is exactly what I said - your company is worthless because nobody will buy the stock. Again, no profit may be a CAUSE of that, but no profit by itself does not mean the company is worthless.
No, I am not confusing gross with net. Gross profiit is nothing more than the difference between the price you paid for an object and the price you sold it for. It discounts ALL the expenses of actually running the business. Net is the difference between how much revenue you made and how many expenses you had. Operating at a loss (which Amazon did for those 7 years) means they were spending MORE money than they were making. That is not 'aggressive reinvestment', it is 'going into debt'. Not only did they make NO money during time, they LOST money. And there is nothing 'ridiculous' about it, that was their business plan.
It appears you have absolutely no idea what capital expenditures are if you think capital gains tax would ever apply.
A capital expenditure is any money spent purchasing an item that is expected to be useful to the business for more than one year. For an ISP this would include things like: fiber, coax, servers, routers, modems for rent, fiber to coax converters, test equipment, tools, bucket trucks, service vans, office computers, and so on. NONE of those things will ever appreciate in value. In fact, they will all DEPRECIATE until their value becomes basically zero.
So when you make a brilliant statement like 'if they didn't spend all that money on capital and interest (on debt used to fund previous captial purchases) they would have a ton a profit' what you are really saying is 'if they didn't build or maintain their network they would have a ton of profit'. Of course, then they wouldn't have a business, but hey you're the financial wizard who knows how to make a ton of profit without having a business.
Wow, what a financial genius! If you want to claim a company is making massive profits, all you need to do is hand-wave away all the costs of running the business. Brilliant!
Read the reports. That one quarter you hilited had a $3.5B income tax benefit as result of reversing some previous over valuations. That was the only reason they were profitable that quarter. Prior to that quarter, going all the way back to 2004, they operated at a loss in every quarter except 2.
The stock increase is because of the merger with TWC.
What on earth are you talking about? Every grocery store I have ever been in has at the very least 'weekly sales'. That is sawtooth pricing. Likewise department stores and hardware stores and auto parts stores and everywhere else. The prices in those places don't vary as frequently as gas prices, but that is most likely just due to the sheer number of products. They do larger swings (10-25%) less often rather than small swings (2-5%) more often.
9/11 had a small effect on gas prices, no more than other events (in the 70s and 80s, for example). Do you 'remember' the gas shortages of the 70s and 80s?
Slashdot Mirror
Here is what it says: "...parents say that while they would prefer to do more activities away from devices, outings are far too expensive. A typical weekend family getaway with all things factored in, could average $2,328."
Do you understand that? They are saying they CAN NOT do more activities away from home because it is TOO EXPENSIVE, and the only number they give is that the AVERAGE 'typical weekend getaway' costs $2328.
And what everyone but you is saying is: that is bullshit. There are MANY 'outings' you can do, including weekend getaways, for FAR less than $2328. Not every experience has to be 'the best experience possible'. You should be doing something with your kids EVERY WEEKEND. Obviously, you can not go to Universal every weekend, but you sure as hell can do other things very cheaply.
It sounds, from your posts, like the ONLY things you do with your kids is these extravagant trips and now they are spoiled and won't accept anything less. That is entirely on you
Do you understand that these are LTE Snapdragon modems, not ARM processors? And that they are a Qualcomm product?
You are an idiot. Copyright exists to protect the author FROM the publishers. The publishers do not receive copyright protection. Your idiotic statement is basically 'now that it is easy to publish, there is no reason to protect the author from unauthorized publishing'. How does that make any sense? You might as well say 'back when the only way to kill someone was hand-to-hand, murder laws KINDA made sense, but now that anyone can shoot a gun there is no reason for those laws'.
Only if the retelling is a parody of the original. For instance, Weird Al creates parodies of songs, and that is not infringement. But if you copied Weird Al, that would be infringement because you are not creating a parody, you are just copying an existing work. Of course, if you parodied Weird Al, then you would be in the clear.
Except we are not talking about patenting jokes, we are talking about copyright.
Recipes can't be copyrighted because they are just a statement of facts, and statements of facts can not be copyrighted. Jokes are not statments of facts, they are creative works.
Recipes can be patented. But with thousands of years of cooking behind us, it will be very difficult to show that any given recipe is both novel and not obvious. This is why recipes are protected with trade secrets instead of patents.
You contradict yourself. First you say "Quallcomm does not manufacture, but only licenses LTE modems". Then you say "Yes they do (license) for IP other than Snapdragon".
So if Snapdragon is not licensed, but all they do is license, then what the hell is Snapdragon?
They don't FAB. But they do everything else, and their name is on the product. They are the only ones who can sell said product. They are the ones who warrantee said product.
Other than 'I don't like people making money off the things I wish to purchase', what POSSIBLE reason could there be for capping profits?
Licensing IP and contract manufacturing are not the same thing at all. If you license the IP, then a manufacturer can use that IP to make his OWN products, with his name on them. The manufacturer pays you to use your IP. On the other hand, if you contract out your manufacturing, you pay the manufacturer for the use of his facilities. Probably the only IP involvement is in the form of NDAs that say the manufacturer can't use your IP for anything EXCEPT manufacturing YOUR chips.
How naive can you get? Do you actually believe that Apple would lower the price to consumers if they didn't have to pay the royalty? Of course not, they would just keep the money for themselves. So the price to the consumer will go UP, not down, under your plan. That onerous $10 you are talking about represents about 1.5% of the cheapest iPhone price. That is not 'excessive' for the technology that actually makes the phone usable. The reason that Qualcomm gets so much money is because their product is popular, not because the fees are excessive. This is purely about Apples greed. They think they should be the only ones allowed to make money.
It is called courtesy, which even 'the help' deserve. Also respect, as your professor is no doubt superior to you in knowledge (or you made a really bad choice in who you decided to pay), and probably older than you as well. You are probably one of those obnoxious asses who snaps his fingers at waiters, just to show who is paying who.
From TFA: Alsup said he intends to issue a decision publicly after both sides provide input on which portions should be redacted because they contain sensitive company information.
Probably more understanding of natural language
It says a DOCUMENT was found on the internet. It does not say the sensitive system DESCRIBED by the document was connected to the internet. Here is a document about a bag of cement. By your logic, all bags of cement are now connected to the internet.
Doesn't say one word about a 'sensitive system' being connected to the internet. It says someone found a document on a backup server connected to the internet.
Well it does say that the driver is looking for things like mute/unmute and other hotkeys, so I guess if you are debugging those functions you may want to log the keystrokes you see.
As I said, it depends on what expectations you set for your investors. If you set the expectation that you will have a profit this year, then yes, you better deliver on that promise. Why should it be any different than that? What makes you think that is any different in private companies? Private companies DO go out of business you know. You know why that happens? Because the business was not making the profit the owner expected, so he closed the business.
No, you do NOT get delisted because you didn't make some minimum profit. You gave two valid reasons for delisting, neither of which involve minimum profit. No revenue basically means the business is not operating. That is far different than operating but not making a profit. Not having a minimum capital value is exactly what I said - your company is worthless because nobody will buy the stock. Again, no profit may be a CAUSE of that, but no profit by itself does not mean the company is worthless.
No, I am not confusing gross with net. Gross profiit is nothing more than the difference between the price you paid for an object and the price you sold it for. It discounts ALL the expenses of actually running the business. Net is the difference between how much revenue you made and how many expenses you had. Operating at a loss (which Amazon did for those 7 years) means they were spending MORE money than they were making. That is not 'aggressive reinvestment', it is 'going into debt'. Not only did they make NO money during time, they LOST money. And there is nothing 'ridiculous' about it, that was their business plan.
It appears you have absolutely no idea what capital expenditures are if you think capital gains tax would ever apply.
A capital expenditure is any money spent purchasing an item that is expected to be useful to the business for more than one year. For an ISP this would include things like: fiber, coax, servers, routers, modems for rent, fiber to coax converters, test equipment, tools, bucket trucks, service vans, office computers, and so on. NONE of those things will ever appreciate in value. In fact, they will all DEPRECIATE until their value becomes basically zero.
So when you make a brilliant statement like 'if they didn't spend all that money on capital and interest (on debt used to fund previous captial purchases) they would have a ton a profit' what you are really saying is 'if they didn't build or maintain their network they would have a ton of profit'. Of course, then they wouldn't have a business, but hey you're the financial wizard who knows how to make a ton of profit without having a business.
Wow, what a financial genius! If you want to claim a company is making massive profits, all you need to do is hand-wave away all the costs of running the business. Brilliant!
Read the reports. That one quarter you hilited had a $3.5B income tax benefit as result of reversing some previous over valuations. That was the only reason they were profitable that quarter. Prior to that quarter, going all the way back to 2004, they operated at a loss in every quarter except 2.
The stock increase is because of the merger with TWC.
Do you have any idea what a profit margin is, or what the actual profit margins are?
Comcast average profit margin - 11%
Charter average profit margin - 0.57%
On the other hand
Google - 28%
Apple - 25%
All averages were over 4 years (2013-2016)
Where does it say anything about that being her home?
And cigarettes. Lots and lots of cigarettes.
What on earth are you talking about? Every grocery store I have ever been in has at the very least 'weekly sales'. That is sawtooth pricing. Likewise department stores and hardware stores and auto parts stores and everywhere else. The prices in those places don't vary as frequently as gas prices, but that is most likely just due to the sheer number of products. They do larger swings (10-25%) less often rather than small swings (2-5%) more often.
9/11 had a small effect on gas prices, no more than other events (in the 70s and 80s, for example). Do you 'remember' the gas shortages of the 70s and 80s?