if they manage to keep hanging onto existence by the skin of their teeth
I don't think that is a fair assessment. As of the last few quarters, T-Mobile is now the fastest growing carrier, and in spite of VERY heavy investment into their infrastructure, they're only operating at a small loss. A company with as much growth as them can continue operating that way for a very long time. Just to put things into perspective, Amazon operates at an even bigger loss. (Amazon lost 126 million last quarter, T-Mobile lost 92 million)
I tend to agree with John Legere's assessment over Deutch Telekom's.
T-Mobile has the best offering, but their network is too crap
Crap compared to what? Remember T-Mobile spans across most of the US. Meanwhile France is 25% smaller than Texas. T-mobile is also (as of June 2014) the fastest wireless data carrier in the US. The only thing T-Mobile can't offer at present is rural coverage in a lot of places that Verizon offers, but they're being very aggressive about expanding into those areas.
This also says a lot considering the fact that only 2 years ago T-Mobile couldn't even claim 4G in most cities.
Verizon also has seen their churn rate increase from it's really low 1.01 to 1.11, and that isn't because of AT&T or Sprint.
8 lines, fully unlimited with 2.5gb of 4G data (after that it's just 2.5g data, unlimited.)
My total bill never varies from $130 a month, after taxes and my 15% veteran discount, which comes out to about $16.25 per line. We all split the bill.
Converting that to Euro's, I pay exactly €14.17 per month. Plus I get to roam anywhere on the continent for free, and if I roam overseas I get free data as well. And unlimited music streaming.
There are countries out there in the world where the political landscape is very different, but for many decades now in the USA the fundamental difference between Republicans/Conservatives and Democrats/Liberals is rich versus poor.
No, not really. In fact the top 1% that are the frequent target of the left have a slight majority of democratic voters. And that isn't the conservative democrat type, rather it's the Warren Buffet-alikes.
progressive excludes conservatives almost by default
Honestly I've always hated the term progressive. It's just a label that somebody slaps on themselves when they unilaterally believe that their ideas and only their ideas are the true way forward. Groups that have called themselves progressive in the past not only include eugenicists, but also Nazis, prohibitionists, and anybody else who has a grand vision of a future their own little utopia that is good for themselves but not necessarily for anybody else.
That, and history very often looks dis-favorably upon progressives.
I've got a better, more practical line that successfully trolls both Republicans AND Democrats in one fell swoop. When you're in a chat room, any chat room, (especially chat rooms like trade chat in World of Warcraft) just say this simple line:
"I think abortion is ok so long as it's only for minorities."
So what does it take to implement that enforcement, which is probably needed? Money.
You as an individual can take anything you find off of the shelf to a food lab and have it analyzed. It costs anywhere from $60 to $120 depending on the lab, and chances are you can find one locally. That would easily tell you what's actually in it.
I were a lawyer out to make some bucks, I'd start grabbing stuff like this off of a shelf and start running some class actions (if punitive damages are granted, a good lawyer could get 10x the money back per client, minus a 30% cut) especially if it contains unlisted materials that the FDA recognizes as allergens (damages in addition to refund.) Some of these pills are quite pricey, so that would be a lot of money.
No, they don't have to follow suit to compete. The activity described in TFS is already illegal. The bottle just has to contain what they say it contains. I myself take fish oil because I've been told by 3 doctors (general practitioner, nephrologist, and cardiologist) to do exactly that. If it doesn't contain that, then that's fraud, and there are already laws against it. I don't see any need for new ones to make it harder or more expensive for me to continue taking what I already take.
The only "maybe's" I'd consider adding are this:
- No claims on the bottle about the effect of the supplement that haven't already been evaluated by the FDA. - Make it easier to bring civil action against TV/radio shows or TV/radio show personalities making unsubstantiated health-related claims that aren't even remotely true (make it easier for Dr. Oz's viewers to sue him for the false claims he makes about some of the pills on his show. "Doctor" Bob Martin as well.) - Make it easier to bring civil action against authors who publish books making unsubstantiated health-related claims (Kevin Trudeau.) - Make it easier to bring civil action against people who peddle pills via false claims on websites or to the general public via any other means (such as door to door sales, street hustling, etc.)
However I'd never endorse any restriction of what can be sold, and none of what I describe above would do that. Rather, if you make a claim, it either has to be true or it has to be backed up with some kind of peer-reviewed research. (Though it would probably completely obliterate the fields of both naturopathic and homeopathic medicine, which wouldn't bother me in the slightest.)
OLED would work well if it didn't have such a bad half-life (at least if the blue component didn't have a bad half-life) which causes the display to turn yellow as it ages. I haven't heard anybody discuss what the half-life of graphene is though, so it could be just as bad.
I think you don't understand the difference between "alkaline" and "alkalizing". If your body is to maintain a constant pH, how can it do that if you eat something with a lower pH?
Probably because the homogeneous liquid called "lemon juice" doesn't actually end up in your blood. Instead it ends up being broken down into its components, the divided sum of which doesn't have the same ph that it had when it came in. The same is true of any substance with a varying ph.
Your kidneys, lungs, and liver all play a vital role in determining the ph of your blood, and don't allow it to exceed a certain range (the blood itself is a buffered solution, which resists changes to ph anyways.)
Any diet book, website, or tv show you've seen that tells you to try to make your blood more alkaline should NOT be trusted. Your blood is kept slightly alkaline, and pushing it further in that direction can be deadly. Fortunately nobody dies from that because diet rarely impacts the ph level of your blood.
But it's still possible to adjust your blood's ph anyways. A common way of artificially doing that when somebody's organs aren't properly controlling CO2 levels (which affect the acidity) is to take sodium bicarbonate pills, because the sodium bicarb binds with the CO2 in the blood near the intestines, effectively sapping it from your blood, raising its ph.
Consumer TV's are not rated to be on for 12+ hours at a time
And yet it will work fine anyways. Remember that 9 year old LCD TV I mentioned? Yeah well it's been on practically 24/7, and it was a no-name generic bought refurbished at best buy.
- Digital Signage can lead to copyright problems (drawing a copyrighted character is a derivative work, copy/pasting becomes questionable)
The exact same thing applies to a chalk board. Honestly it sounds like you're arguing just to argue.
So it seems. I misread it as a standard deduction rather than a credit as stated. Though in my defense, regular citizens living abroad only get a standard deduction for foreign taxes paid, so I was thinking it would be a similar system. While regular citizens might put up with that, I can almost guarantee large companies would not.
That's exactly what they're proposing. Hell, that's basically how the taxes foreign income earned abroad by U.S. citizens already works.
No, it's not. Taxes paid to a foreign government are an expense, and thus is not considered income (just like a business expense for example.) You are then taxed based on that adjusted income figure. Although very rare, some people end up being double-taxed.
The big problem with this is not every multinational is doing that, and you're going to tax them extra hard just because you're assuming that they are anyways (they pay foreign taxes elsewhere AND US taxes on top of it) and it might make it easier for them to just offshore entirely by incorporating somewhere else and then own a US subsidiary for ONLY things they sell in the US.
If the Obama admin really insists on something like this, then it would probably be best to have a minimum effective tax rate system. I.e. the tax must be payed SOMEWHERE and there has to be proof of that sent to the IRS. If the effective tax rate is below the minimum (say 20%) then they pay the remainder to the IRS.
That would make transfer pricing (the general umbrella term for pushing earned income to other countries, including "double irish") basically pointless.
Umm...assuming 8 hours a day of running time, a TV like that would cost about $30 per year in electricity if it was a really shitty one. The average ones are about $20 a year, and the LED backlit ones would be about $13 a year. The computer could be either less or more, depending on chosen components.
Anyways the guy is already talking about spending money, and already bought a hikvision camera, which start at around $175 for JUST the camera, not even including the POE equipment and servers that it will send images to. I really doubt $800 is a big deal for such a project.
This is also a similar setup to what I've seen other restaurants do (although without the tablet, they use something like MS paint with a mouse, which can work well if you're good at it.)
Not only that but it isn't likely to fail. I've owned all of about 8 different LCD based TV's over the last decade, and not one of them has failed. Granted I've sold most of them, but the oldest one I have is 9 years old and still works fine.
If I were to guess, the menu changes daily and is written on something like a chalkboard or whiteboard. They could print it, but the handwriting gives it a homestyle artistic "flare" that the restaurant wants to maintain:
My thought then would be something like this: Get a tablet or smartphone with a wacom stylus (e.g. Galaxy Note 10) and a big TV (say 55", get a used one on CL for about $400 or so.)
Hand write the menu on the tablet (you can use different color writing and background as you desire) and save the image file to a place that uploads it to a computer that is connected to the TV at the restaurant (which is in portrait orientation) and to the website.
Has an added benefit of making it easily readable by the visually impaired, and it looks neat (you can also have it mounted up high somewhere, which might be impractical for a chalkboard/whiteboard.)
I'd imagine you could spend less than $800 on this total setup.
Incorrect. Goods are anything that can be used or consumed, but aren't necessarily capital (capital goods is also another term for it, by the way.) For it to be capital, it has to be capable of directly contributing to economic growth. (It can't be indirect, for example it can't be food to feed the workers or gas for the car.)
Then: tose goods got replaced by other goods, replacement cars. So arguable the economy grew, jobs got created or secured etc.
Very much incorrect. This is called the broken window fallacy.
Short version: Suppose you went around and broke all of the world's windows. In the process you've created jobs for window makers. Good thing, right? Wrong. The reason why it is wrong is because the economy has to redirect its effort to restoring things that we already had but then lost. So instead of having the labor resource available to build something like computers, we have to use that resource to build the same windows that we already had before.
Or even shorter: Having something of value, destroying it and then rebuilding it, provides a net loss rather than a net benefit and is therefore wasteful.
This is very basic high school economics by the way. I don't know where you went to school, but they obviously failed to give you a proper education.
Further: when and where got which cars destroyed and why? You still did not elaborate on that.
ALL of the cars that were traded in for the program were required to be destroyed. All of them, without exception. The theory being that they're now gone and new cars that produce less carbon waste replaced them.
Only the actual reduction in CO2 output after this program dropped by such a small amount that it wasn't anywhere near being worthy of the effort (some environmentalists even estimated that it was way more than offset by the "carbon cost" of producing new cars to replace ones that were already made and didn't need destroying.)
Would you rather have that or some rich dude who pays to get in front of the transplant queue to get someone else's liver
I think liver tastes better than toe jam, if that's what you're asking.
Though he didn't (and nobody can) do what you're suggesting. Instead he listed himself in multiple UNOS regions, which anybody can do. The tricky part is being able to make it there within a short window of time when a transplant is available, which is why most people only list themselves in their local region. Having a private jet helps with that significantly I'd imagine, though a smaller, less expensive plane (e.g. a $30,000 Cessna) would also suffice I imagine.
stop taking his medication hence making said transplant useless?
I'm on the transplant list right now for a kidney, but before I got on the list I had to personally meet with the transplant surgeon so that he could evaluate me to see if I was a good candidate (something everybody does.) He told me that two days out of the week he performs graft removals, and a third of everybody who is there for a removal is because they stopped taking their medication for whatever reason.
Anyways none of this is to say that I endorse anything Steve Jobs has done. Frankly I think he's quite overrated.
Even though I'm a libertarian and generally oppose this kind of thing, I understand why this is needed.
Over the last 20 years the landscape of warfare has changed dramatically, probably more so than any other period in history. The age of nation-states waging war against nation-states is largely over. Now we're basically seeing inter-state civil wars. That is, regular civilians picking up arms for a cause not tied to a given state, and declaring war against other civilians that aren't of any specific state.
By civilians I mean they don't wear a uniform and they don't fly a specific flag, meaning they don't fit any definition of a soldier according to any international laws.
Islamic terrorists are only one such belligerent, you've also got eco terrorists and the occasional (and pretty rare these days) communist who is still hell bent on violent liberation of the proletariat, and then the anti-abortion fanatics.
Which news? You mean cable news? Cable sucks period, it's an old business model carried over from the 80's/90's that badly needs to die a painful death and is in the process of doing exactly that.
Point is: capital is hard to destroy. It usually simply switches the owner... if you don't agree write more coherent and comprehensive:D
Ok now you're telling me that you're just dumb. Capital is easy to destroy. In this case, the cars' engine blocks were destroyed and the body was crushed. That's very much destroyed. If you dunk a computer in water, that's destroyed capital.
Since you don't know what capital means (in the context of economics,) I'll explain it: Capital means a manufactured good that provides an economic benefit. Tools are classic examples of that. Cars and computers are tools (one is a transportation tool, the other is a computational tool.)
Slashdot Mirror
if they manage to keep hanging onto existence by the skin of their teeth
I don't think that is a fair assessment. As of the last few quarters, T-Mobile is now the fastest growing carrier, and in spite of VERY heavy investment into their infrastructure, they're only operating at a small loss. A company with as much growth as them can continue operating that way for a very long time. Just to put things into perspective, Amazon operates at an even bigger loss. (Amazon lost 126 million last quarter, T-Mobile lost 92 million)
I tend to agree with John Legere's assessment over Deutch Telekom's.
T-Mobile has the best offering, but their network is too crap
Crap compared to what? Remember T-Mobile spans across most of the US. Meanwhile France is 25% smaller than Texas. T-mobile is also (as of June 2014) the fastest wireless data carrier in the US. The only thing T-Mobile can't offer at present is rural coverage in a lot of places that Verizon offers, but they're being very aggressive about expanding into those areas.
This also says a lot considering the fact that only 2 years ago T-Mobile couldn't even claim 4G in most cities.
Verizon also has seen their churn rate increase from it's really low 1.01 to 1.11, and that isn't because of AT&T or Sprint.
Well with T-Mobile I get this:
8 lines, fully unlimited with 2.5gb of 4G data (after that it's just 2.5g data, unlimited.)
My total bill never varies from $130 a month, after taxes and my 15% veteran discount, which comes out to about $16.25 per line. We all split the bill.
Converting that to Euro's, I pay exactly €14.17 per month. Plus I get to roam anywhere on the continent for free, and if I roam overseas I get free data as well. And unlimited music streaming.
I don't feel very ripped off.
Was it the CPU that improved or was it your northbridge speed and memory bandwidth that improved? Since you just mentioned the CPU, I thought I'd ask.
There are countries out there in the world where the political landscape is very different, but for many decades now in the USA the fundamental difference between Republicans/Conservatives and Democrats/Liberals is rich versus poor.
No, not really. In fact the top 1% that are the frequent target of the left have a slight majority of democratic voters. And that isn't the conservative democrat type, rather it's the Warren Buffet-alikes.
I'd prefer -rf. Why? Because recursive and THEN force is better than just forcing it to be recursive.
progressive excludes conservatives almost by default
Honestly I've always hated the term progressive. It's just a label that somebody slaps on themselves when they unilaterally believe that their ideas and only their ideas are the true way forward. Groups that have called themselves progressive in the past not only include eugenicists, but also Nazis, prohibitionists, and anybody else who has a grand vision of a future their own little utopia that is good for themselves but not necessarily for anybody else.
That, and history very often looks dis-favorably upon progressives.
I've got a better, more practical line that successfully trolls both Republicans AND Democrats in one fell swoop. When you're in a chat room, any chat room, (especially chat rooms like trade chat in World of Warcraft) just say this simple line:
"I think abortion is ok so long as it's only for minorities."
So what does it take to implement that enforcement, which is probably needed? Money.
You as an individual can take anything you find off of the shelf to a food lab and have it analyzed. It costs anywhere from $60 to $120 depending on the lab, and chances are you can find one locally. That would easily tell you what's actually in it.
I were a lawyer out to make some bucks, I'd start grabbing stuff like this off of a shelf and start running some class actions (if punitive damages are granted, a good lawyer could get 10x the money back per client, minus a 30% cut) especially if it contains unlisted materials that the FDA recognizes as allergens (damages in addition to refund.) Some of these pills are quite pricey, so that would be a lot of money.
No, they don't have to follow suit to compete. The activity described in TFS is already illegal. The bottle just has to contain what they say it contains. I myself take fish oil because I've been told by 3 doctors (general practitioner, nephrologist, and cardiologist) to do exactly that. If it doesn't contain that, then that's fraud, and there are already laws against it. I don't see any need for new ones to make it harder or more expensive for me to continue taking what I already take.
The only "maybe's" I'd consider adding are this:
- No claims on the bottle about the effect of the supplement that haven't already been evaluated by the FDA.
- Make it easier to bring civil action against TV/radio shows or TV/radio show personalities making unsubstantiated health-related claims that aren't even remotely true (make it easier for Dr. Oz's viewers to sue him for the false claims he makes about some of the pills on his show. "Doctor" Bob Martin as well.)
- Make it easier to bring civil action against authors who publish books making unsubstantiated health-related claims (Kevin Trudeau.)
- Make it easier to bring civil action against people who peddle pills via false claims on websites or to the general public via any other means (such as door to door sales, street hustling, etc.)
However I'd never endorse any restriction of what can be sold, and none of what I describe above would do that. Rather, if you make a claim, it either has to be true or it has to be backed up with some kind of peer-reviewed research. (Though it would probably completely obliterate the fields of both naturopathic and homeopathic medicine, which wouldn't bother me in the slightest.)
OLED would work well if it didn't have such a bad half-life (at least if the blue component didn't have a bad half-life) which causes the display to turn yellow as it ages. I haven't heard anybody discuss what the half-life of graphene is though, so it could be just as bad.
I think you don't understand the difference between "alkaline" and "alkalizing". If your body is to maintain a constant pH, how can it do that if you eat something with a lower pH?
Probably because the homogeneous liquid called "lemon juice" doesn't actually end up in your blood. Instead it ends up being broken down into its components, the divided sum of which doesn't have the same ph that it had when it came in. The same is true of any substance with a varying ph.
Your kidneys, lungs, and liver all play a vital role in determining the ph of your blood, and don't allow it to exceed a certain range (the blood itself is a buffered solution, which resists changes to ph anyways.)
Any diet book, website, or tv show you've seen that tells you to try to make your blood more alkaline should NOT be trusted. Your blood is kept slightly alkaline, and pushing it further in that direction can be deadly. Fortunately nobody dies from that because diet rarely impacts the ph level of your blood.
But it's still possible to adjust your blood's ph anyways. A common way of artificially doing that when somebody's organs aren't properly controlling CO2 levels (which affect the acidity) is to take sodium bicarbonate pills, because the sodium bicarb binds with the CO2 in the blood near the intestines, effectively sapping it from your blood, raising its ph.
Consumer TV's are not rated to be on for 12+ hours at a time
And yet it will work fine anyways. Remember that 9 year old LCD TV I mentioned? Yeah well it's been on practically 24/7, and it was a no-name generic bought refurbished at best buy.
- Digital Signage can lead to copyright problems (drawing a copyrighted character is a derivative work, copy/pasting becomes questionable)
The exact same thing applies to a chalk board. Honestly it sounds like you're arguing just to argue.
You're just hair splitter. Off with ya.
So it seems. I misread it as a standard deduction rather than a credit as stated. Though in my defense, regular citizens living abroad only get a standard deduction for foreign taxes paid, so I was thinking it would be a similar system. While regular citizens might put up with that, I can almost guarantee large companies would not.
That's exactly what they're proposing. Hell, that's basically how the taxes foreign income earned abroad by U.S. citizens already works.
No, it's not. Taxes paid to a foreign government are an expense, and thus is not considered income (just like a business expense for example.) You are then taxed based on that adjusted income figure. Although very rare, some people end up being double-taxed.
The big problem with this is not every multinational is doing that, and you're going to tax them extra hard just because you're assuming that they are anyways (they pay foreign taxes elsewhere AND US taxes on top of it) and it might make it easier for them to just offshore entirely by incorporating somewhere else and then own a US subsidiary for ONLY things they sell in the US.
If the Obama admin really insists on something like this, then it would probably be best to have a minimum effective tax rate system. I.e. the tax must be payed SOMEWHERE and there has to be proof of that sent to the IRS. If the effective tax rate is below the minimum (say 20%) then they pay the remainder to the IRS.
That would make transfer pricing (the general umbrella term for pushing earned income to other countries, including "double irish") basically pointless.
Umm...assuming 8 hours a day of running time, a TV like that would cost about $30 per year in electricity if it was a really shitty one. The average ones are about $20 a year, and the LED backlit ones would be about $13 a year. The computer could be either less or more, depending on chosen components.
Anyways the guy is already talking about spending money, and already bought a hikvision camera, which start at around $175 for JUST the camera, not even including the POE equipment and servers that it will send images to. I really doubt $800 is a big deal for such a project.
This is also a similar setup to what I've seen other restaurants do (although without the tablet, they use something like MS paint with a mouse, which can work well if you're good at it.)
Not only that but it isn't likely to fail. I've owned all of about 8 different LCD based TV's over the last decade, and not one of them has failed. Granted I've sold most of them, but the oldest one I have is 9 years old and still works fine.
If I were to guess, the menu changes daily and is written on something like a chalkboard or whiteboard. They could print it, but the handwriting gives it a homestyle artistic "flare" that the restaurant wants to maintain:
My thought then would be something like this: Get a tablet or smartphone with a wacom stylus (e.g. Galaxy Note 10) and a big TV (say 55", get a used one on CL for about $400 or so.)
Hand write the menu on the tablet (you can use different color writing and background as you desire) and save the image file to a place that uploads it to a computer that is connected to the TV at the restaurant (which is in portrait orientation) and to the website.
Has an added benefit of making it easily readable by the visually impaired, and it looks neat (you can also have it mounted up high somewhere, which might be impractical for a chalkboard/whiteboard.)
I'd imagine you could spend less than $800 on this total setup.
I don't think the broken window fallacy applies.
Anyway, you should perhaps read up the definition of the word "capital" or use a different word
What I said was correct. Sorry, I don't have the power to make up for your lifetime of bad education in just 5 minutes.
Again: that is not capital. It is goods.
Incorrect. Goods are anything that can be used or consumed, but aren't necessarily capital (capital goods is also another term for it, by the way.) For it to be capital, it has to be capable of directly contributing to economic growth. (It can't be indirect, for example it can't be food to feed the workers or gas for the car.)
Then: tose goods got replaced by other goods, replacement cars. So arguable the economy grew, jobs got created or secured etc.
Very much incorrect. This is called the broken window fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Short version: Suppose you went around and broke all of the world's windows. In the process you've created jobs for window makers. Good thing, right? Wrong. The reason why it is wrong is because the economy has to redirect its effort to restoring things that we already had but then lost. So instead of having the labor resource available to build something like computers, we have to use that resource to build the same windows that we already had before.
Or even shorter: Having something of value, destroying it and then rebuilding it, provides a net loss rather than a net benefit and is therefore wasteful.
This is very basic high school economics by the way. I don't know where you went to school, but they obviously failed to give you a proper education.
Further: when and where got which cars destroyed and why? You still did not elaborate on that.
ALL of the cars that were traded in for the program were required to be destroyed. All of them, without exception. The theory being that they're now gone and new cars that produce less carbon waste replaced them.
Only the actual reduction in CO2 output after this program dropped by such a small amount that it wasn't anywhere near being worthy of the effort (some environmentalists even estimated that it was way more than offset by the "carbon cost" of producing new cars to replace ones that were already made and didn't need destroying.)
Would you rather have that or some rich dude who pays to get in front of the transplant queue to get someone else's liver
I think liver tastes better than toe jam, if that's what you're asking.
Though he didn't (and nobody can) do what you're suggesting. Instead he listed himself in multiple UNOS regions, which anybody can do. The tricky part is being able to make it there within a short window of time when a transplant is available, which is why most people only list themselves in their local region. Having a private jet helps with that significantly I'd imagine, though a smaller, less expensive plane (e.g. a $30,000 Cessna) would also suffice I imagine.
stop taking his medication hence making said transplant useless?
I'm on the transplant list right now for a kidney, but before I got on the list I had to personally meet with the transplant surgeon so that he could evaluate me to see if I was a good candidate (something everybody does.) He told me that two days out of the week he performs graft removals, and a third of everybody who is there for a removal is because they stopped taking their medication for whatever reason.
Anyways none of this is to say that I endorse anything Steve Jobs has done. Frankly I think he's quite overrated.
Even though I'm a libertarian and generally oppose this kind of thing, I understand why this is needed.
Over the last 20 years the landscape of warfare has changed dramatically, probably more so than any other period in history. The age of nation-states waging war against nation-states is largely over. Now we're basically seeing inter-state civil wars. That is, regular civilians picking up arms for a cause not tied to a given state, and declaring war against other civilians that aren't of any specific state.
By civilians I mean they don't wear a uniform and they don't fly a specific flag, meaning they don't fit any definition of a soldier according to any international laws.
Islamic terrorists are only one such belligerent, you've also got eco terrorists and the occasional (and pretty rare these days) communist who is still hell bent on violent liberation of the proletariat, and then the anti-abortion fanatics.
Which news? You mean cable news? Cable sucks period, it's an old business model carried over from the 80's/90's that badly needs to die a painful death and is in the process of doing exactly that.
You mean this guy?
http://youtu.be/I25UeVXrEHQ?t=...
Although Nokia lost the top spot to Android in 2011, Apple was still ahead of Samsung until 2012.
Point is: capital is hard to destroy. It usually simply switches the owner ... if you don't agree write more coherent and comprehensive :D
Ok now you're telling me that you're just dumb. Capital is easy to destroy. In this case, the cars' engine blocks were destroyed and the body was crushed. That's very much destroyed. If you dunk a computer in water, that's destroyed capital.
Since you don't know what capital means (in the context of economics,) I'll explain it: Capital means a manufactured good that provides an economic benefit. Tools are classic examples of that. Cars and computers are tools (one is a transportation tool, the other is a computational tool.)