Well, they really just assemble them there. China's share of the value-add of an iPhone is tiny (single-digit percentage of the manufacturing cost of the phone, even smaller percentage of the wholesale price).
If I can't find out what my ride will cost before I book the trip, and without downloading an app on my phone, I'm not going to use their service. As an additional bonus, I can pay cash for a taxi.
1. You can find out what the Uber rates are from their website. 2. If you want to pay cash, then taxis are the way to go.
$150 just to be at the table. $50 for temporary (48 hour) access to a movie. I know I wouldn't ever pay $50 for just me to watch a movie. And I'm probably not going to pay that much to "avoid" the theater with my family either. That pricing model seems flawed.
It's not universally appealing, by any means, but it could make sense for quite a few people. In my case, if my wife and I want to go to the movies, it's around $45-50 for tickets, a couple of sodas, and popcorn. Then, if we take a cab, that's another $20. The biggie is child care. It's another $80-100 for the nanny to stay late, plus $60 or so for a car to get her home. So, that's around $200 to go to the movies. $50 would be a bargain. I certainly recognize that we're not typical, but even if the pricing makes sense for only 5-10% of US households, and they only use it once every two months, that's a $2-3 billion annual business.
Assuming you want to use Facebook Messenger, why wouldn't you want to just use the app? I can certainly understand not wanting to use Facebook Messenger (or not wanting to use Facebook at all), but why a strong preference for using messenger through a mobile browser?
Did you read the articles? I don't know why I even bother with this because people are not looking for what this is all about, they're just out for blood like with that fucking gorilla that got killed.
The first article you post has nothing to do with Theranos using an unproven technology. It's essentially an internal letter (not an actual decision) citing issues with lab procedures for a specific incident. None of the R&D stuff at Theranos is related to Medicare coverage.
The second one is just a follow-up from the same bullshit WSJ article that keeps bashing the old prototype (that Edison machine) for things Theranos never claimed it did. It doesn,t bring up new facts at all.
I did read the articles. How you could honestly think that it's not a big deal if a company whose core purpose is doing blood tests has admitted that the tests they've done aren't reliable, and is facing being barred from doing work for the largest customer for blood test services in the country, then I really don't know what to tell you.
Theranos claimed that their Edison machine (the core of their business) accurately performs blood tests with less blood and at lower cost than competing devices. That's turning out not to be true, at least on the accuracy front. If you don't think accuracy is important, then I've got a ballpoint pen here on my desk. It can perform blood tests using no blood at all, and at trivial cost. Can't vouch that they'll be accurate, though...
After all, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services haven't proposed pulling Theranos's license (and hence qualification to do tests that can be reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid), and haven't proposed banning the Theranos founders from running a lab for two years. Oh, wait, they did. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04...
After all, the company didn't just throw out all the results done on their machines in 2014 and 2015. Oh, wait, they have. http://www.wsj.com/articles/th...
Same goes for a real, actual restaurant: I want a human chef creating my meal, and I want human waitstaff to deal with.
A big portion of the process is already automated - ever seen a point of sale system at a restaurant? Or do you think that bakeries knead dough by hand? Or wash each dish by hand?
Title should be "Genius's Web Annotations." "Genius'" would only be correct if "genius" were a plural. Singular nouns that end in s get an "apostrophe s" after them to indicate the possessive./pedant
It's one half ON TOP OF the unpaid taxes. So, if you're found to have evaded $1 million in taxes, you have to pay the $1 million, plus $500k in penalties.
Also, I'd highlight that, in the network business, you really only get noticed when (a) you screw up, or (b) people have to pay you. Nobody gets home, fires up Netflix, and thinks "thanks Comcast, for providing me this high speed broadband connection that's allowing me to watch Netflix!"
It's just bullshit and FUD to try to make investors and buyers to swing to the American side. As the years go on, the Americans will become more and more desperate to try to save their sinking Dollar.
You do know that it's CHINA that's most concerned about a sinking US dollar, right?
the US is perhaps the only company in the world that expects quarterly and yearly earnings to approach 15% in order for performance of a company to be assured. its asinine, and partly why the US was forced to gut their manufacturing sector.
Expected earnings depends hugely on what sector the business is in. If your market is growing 30% a year, then growing 15% is disappointing. If it's growing 5% a year, then 15% is pretty darn good.
As for the "gutted" US manufacturing sector, it's bigger than its ever been.
Usually, just donating the prize to charity is the simplest way to avoid it becoming a tax windfall for the government. The charity gets the full value of the donation, and you get a tax deduction for that value (even though you never actually received the value of the prize - another flaw in our tax code).
You only get a deduction to offset the income you had from the receipt of the prize. You don't end up any better off than if you'd never won the prize in the first place.
There's no loss of convenience - reasonable use of gov't email for personal use would be fine, and if the personal use isn't reasonable, the employee shouldn't be doing it at work at all.
Skirting FOIA should be a serious offense - if, for some reason, a gov't employee needs to use personal email for government work, then every email they send from that account should be required to be cc'd to their gov't account, so it gets archived.
Many people drive despite the difficulties involved in finding parking and the costs because they either need or simply enjoy the convenience. Many people don't take public transportation because it is inconvenient, and one of the big inconveniences is having to wait at a bus stop, sometimes for half an hour or more. (Our city bus system has some routes that are once an hour.) So no, waiting for your own car to show up, or waiting for the car service car to show up, are inconveniences which some people avoid by driving. That won't change in the brave new world of cars that are smarter than people.
Once the fleets get larger, this will be less and less of an issue. Think of how much time cars spend sitting in parking lots. If they were on the move the vast majority of the time, you would have much shorter wait times. Even now, with comparatively tiny fleets, I rarely wait more than 5 minutes for Uber.
You don't understand the GA marketplace, then. It's not just "a few enthusiasts" who use and own them. For some people they are a convenience -- just like having a car. For some people, they are a necessity. Yes, for some they are just a toy, but writing the entire fleet off as "a few enthusiasts" is silly.
OK, I'll rephrase: a few enthusiasts and a few niche applications. There are about 200k GA planes in the US. They completed about 18 million landings in 2012, total, or around 90 landings per plane. Even if we assume that each plane had four people aboard for every landing (a high assumption), that's 72M GA passengers, vs. well over 600M commercial passengers. Best case, GA is 12% of air passenger trips, and probably a lot lower than that.
Individual car ownership, like GA aircraft ownership, will certainly skew rural, where densities are so low that any sort of shared infrastructure transport system will be tough economically.
You can't stop them, but you can make it harder for them. There's no good reason to allow access to non-logged, non-archived private email accounts on government computers, and lots of reasons not to.
Except that fewer and fewer people will actually drive their own cars, they'll just subscribe to a car service. Owning your own car will become like owning your own light plane - something a few enthusiasts enjoy.
The security risk (which seems to be driving the Yahoo ban in the article) is one thing - the rationale for banning webmail is more extensive than just "somebody might click on a virus." It's also the fact that allowing its use leaves a major source of communication unreviewable and unarchived, which is a problem for FOIA or investigatory purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, they really just assemble them there. China's share of the value-add of an iPhone is tiny (single-digit percentage of the manufacturing cost of the phone, even smaller percentage of the wholesale price).
But I can (and do) run Windows 10 with absolutely no problem on a laptop from 2011.
my flight to Phoenix is now a flight to Scotland.
That would justify a thank you note to DHS, not a complaint.
Yup, they do. Just for the summer months, on a subscription basis, and on the Tuesdays.
If I can't find out what my ride will cost before I book the trip, and without downloading an app on my phone, I'm not going to use their service. As an additional bonus, I can pay cash for a taxi.
1. You can find out what the Uber rates are from their website.
2. If you want to pay cash, then taxis are the way to go.
$150 just to be at the table. $50 for temporary (48 hour) access to a movie. I know I wouldn't ever pay $50 for just me to watch a movie. And I'm probably not going to pay that much to "avoid" the theater with my family either. That pricing model seems flawed.
It's not universally appealing, by any means, but it could make sense for quite a few people. In my case, if my wife and I want to go to the movies, it's around $45-50 for tickets, a couple of sodas, and popcorn. Then, if we take a cab, that's another $20. The biggie is child care. It's another $80-100 for the nanny to stay late, plus $60 or so for a car to get her home. So, that's around $200 to go to the movies. $50 would be a bargain. I certainly recognize that we're not typical, but even if the pricing makes sense for only 5-10% of US households, and they only use it once every two months, that's a $2-3 billion annual business.
Interesting, thanks!
Assuming you want to use Facebook Messenger, why wouldn't you want to just use the app? I can certainly understand not wanting to use Facebook Messenger (or not wanting to use Facebook at all), but why a strong preference for using messenger through a mobile browser?
There's actually a proposal to do this, or something quite similar.
http://variety.com/2016/film/n...
Did you read the articles? I don't know why I even bother with this because people are not looking for what this is all about, they're just out for blood like with that fucking gorilla that got killed.
The first article you post has nothing to do with Theranos using an unproven technology. It's essentially an internal letter (not an actual decision) citing issues with lab procedures for a specific incident. None of the R&D stuff at Theranos is related to Medicare coverage.
The second one is just a follow-up from the same bullshit WSJ article that keeps bashing the old prototype (that Edison machine) for things Theranos never claimed it did. It doesn,t bring up new facts at all.
I did read the articles. How you could honestly think that it's not a big deal if a company whose core purpose is doing blood tests has admitted that the tests they've done aren't reliable, and is facing being barred from doing work for the largest customer for blood test services in the country, then I really don't know what to tell you.
Theranos claimed that their Edison machine (the core of their business) accurately performs blood tests with less blood and at lower cost than competing devices. That's turning out not to be true, at least on the accuracy front. If you don't think accuracy is important, then I've got a ballpoint pen here on my desk. It can perform blood tests using no blood at all, and at trivial cost. Can't vouch that they'll be accurate, though...
They never claimed that the lab tests they conducted on their own machines (that they've now thrown out and told doctors to disregard) were accurate?
Yeah total bullshit.
After all, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services haven't proposed pulling Theranos's license (and hence qualification to do tests that can be reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid), and haven't proposed banning the Theranos founders from running a lab for two years. Oh, wait, they did. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04...
After all, the company didn't just throw out all the results done on their machines in 2014 and 2015. Oh, wait, they have. http://www.wsj.com/articles/th...
Same goes for a real, actual restaurant: I want a human chef creating my meal, and I want human waitstaff to deal with.
A big portion of the process is already automated - ever seen a point of sale system at a restaurant? Or do you think that bakeries knead dough by hand? Or wash each dish by hand?
Title should be "Genius's Web Annotations." "Genius'" would only be correct if "genius" were a plural. Singular nouns that end in s get an "apostrophe s" after them to indicate the possessive. /pedant
It's one half ON TOP OF the unpaid taxes. So, if you're found to have evaded $1 million in taxes, you have to pay the $1 million, plus $500k in penalties.
Good points.
Also, I'd highlight that, in the network business, you really only get noticed when (a) you screw up, or (b) people have to pay you. Nobody gets home, fires up Netflix, and thinks "thanks Comcast, for providing me this high speed broadband connection that's allowing me to watch Netflix!"
It's just bullshit and FUD to try to make investors and buyers to swing to the American side. As the years go on, the Americans will become more and more desperate to try to save their sinking Dollar.
You do know that it's CHINA that's most concerned about a sinking US dollar, right?
the US is perhaps the only company in the world that expects quarterly and yearly earnings to approach 15% in order for performance of a company to be assured. its asinine, and partly why the US was forced to gut their manufacturing sector.
Expected earnings depends hugely on what sector the business is in. If your market is growing 30% a year, then growing 15% is disappointing. If it's growing 5% a year, then 15% is pretty darn good.
As for the "gutted" US manufacturing sector, it's bigger than its ever been.
Usually, just donating the prize to charity is the simplest way to avoid it becoming a tax windfall for the government. The charity gets the full value of the donation, and you get a tax deduction for that value (even though you never actually received the value of the prize - another flaw in our tax code).
You only get a deduction to offset the income you had from the receipt of the prize. You don't end up any better off than if you'd never won the prize in the first place.
There's no loss of convenience - reasonable use of gov't email for personal use would be fine, and if the personal use isn't reasonable, the employee shouldn't be doing it at work at all.
Skirting FOIA should be a serious offense - if, for some reason, a gov't employee needs to use personal email for government work, then every email they send from that account should be required to be cc'd to their gov't account, so it gets archived.
Many people drive despite the difficulties involved in finding parking and the costs because they either need or simply enjoy the convenience. Many people don't take public transportation because it is inconvenient, and one of the big inconveniences is having to wait at a bus stop, sometimes for half an hour or more. (Our city bus system has some routes that are once an hour.) So no, waiting for your own car to show up, or waiting for the car service car to show up, are inconveniences which some people avoid by driving. That won't change in the brave new world of cars that are smarter than people.
Once the fleets get larger, this will be less and less of an issue. Think of how much time cars spend sitting in parking lots. If they were on the move the vast majority of the time, you would have much shorter wait times. Even now, with comparatively tiny fleets, I rarely wait more than 5 minutes for Uber.
You don't understand the GA marketplace, then. It's not just "a few enthusiasts" who use and own them. For some people they are a convenience -- just like having a car. For some people, they are a necessity. Yes, for some they are just a toy, but writing the entire fleet off as "a few enthusiasts" is silly.
OK, I'll rephrase: a few enthusiasts and a few niche applications. There are about 200k GA planes in the US. They completed about 18 million landings in 2012, total, or around 90 landings per plane. Even if we assume that each plane had four people aboard for every landing (a high assumption), that's 72M GA passengers, vs. well over 600M commercial passengers. Best case, GA is 12% of air passenger trips, and probably a lot lower than that.
Individual car ownership, like GA aircraft ownership, will certainly skew rural, where densities are so low that any sort of shared infrastructure transport system will be tough economically.
You can't stop them, but you can make it harder for them. There's no good reason to allow access to non-logged, non-archived private email accounts on government computers, and lots of reasons not to.
But that doesn't extend to FOIA, at least not fully.
Except that fewer and fewer people will actually drive their own cars, they'll just subscribe to a car service. Owning your own car will become like owning your own light plane - something a few enthusiasts enjoy.
The security risk (which seems to be driving the Yahoo ban in the article) is one thing - the rationale for banning webmail is more extensive than just "somebody might click on a virus." It's also the fact that allowing its use leaves a major source of communication unreviewable and unarchived, which is a problem for FOIA or investigatory purposes.