Oh it's the same jackasses claiming the PC is dead. They have this micro world view and an expansive ego and can't help but think they know everything.
And all they know is apple sold more IOS devices than there were PC's sold last year and their sales have been going up every year. Ergo everything will be an IOS device in a few years. Because every trend continues forever.
Before the passing of the 17th the senate was a den of corruption that made things like the Mexican federal police seem downright uncorruptable. There is not a large and growing school of thought that the 17th was a mistake. There is a campaign being waged by Rupert Murdoch and his media properties to rewrite history and convince people the 17th was a bad idea. Afterall, if the Senate is appointed Republicans would have control (more red states than blue) and being appointees they would be much easier for large commercial interests to control.
I'll never cease to be amazed at how many people take a propaganda campaign waged by a media conglomerate in cooperation with a political party as a grass roots "school of thought".
Don't worry, you'll be completely ignored just like every other thread. People will continue to say it's not rape, it's not a crime in the UK, there is no victim willing to prosecute, the charges were dropped, it's just questioning there are no charges.
Everyone of these statements is a lie and it doesn't matter what evidence there is such as DIRECT quotes from the UK judicial finding contradicting them people will still continue to quote the lies. It's sad people are so convinced there is evil intentions at work that they are willing to let him have a pass on something I at least consider a serious violation of a woman's rights. He should be a man and face the charges in Sweden.
Intel isn't going to buy or license nVidia stuff. They already have a license to use all their patents through a cross license deal that excluded a large chunk of Intel patents and IP. Intel is 100% focused on power consumption at this point and nVidia tech would do nothing but hurt them on this front. Haswell includes a GPU that's almost as good at the nVidia 650 and uses less power than Icy Bridge. It's also cheaper for the OEM/ODM's and provides better total power use.
It's trivially easy for Intel to just keep advancing the GPU with each processor generation. As people have been saying for years nVidia's biggest problem is that as Intel keeps raising the low end with integrated processors that don't suck they erode significant revenue from nVidia. The reason prices for top end nVidia parts keep going up is because they are continuing to lose margin on the middle end and have lost the low end. Better than half the computers sold no longer even include a discrete GPU. As Intel continues it's slow advance they will continue to eat more and more of the discrete market place. Considering the newest consoles are going to be only marginally better than the current consoles we're probably looking at another 7 years of gaming stagnation which in the long run will damage nVidia more as fewer games require more resources than integrated GPUs. I seriously doubt nVidia can go much higher than the current $1100 Titan and expect to sell anything at all. I expect over the next two years for nVidia to see consecutive quarterly declines in revenue. They've already eroded margin and they can't push price much higher.
They bet their lunch on HPC, and didn't even come close to their projections on sales. Then they bet the farm on Tegra, they sold none of Tegra1, had just short of no sales on Tegra2, did ok but only with tablets for Tegra3 and have announced not a single win for Tegra4. Project Denver was supposed to be the long term break with Intel that would provide the company the opportunity to move forward as a total service SOC company. Denver is supposed to be a custom designed 64bit ARM processor with integrated nVidia GPU. It was projected for the end of 2012. After missing 2012 they claimed end of 2013, this announcement makes be personally believe project denver has been canceled. Things haven't looked good for nVidia ever since Intel integrated GPU's and blocked them from the chipset market. They won't be selling to Intel because Intel doesn't want them. The other SOC vendors appear to be satisfied with PowerVR products (which focus on power use) except for qualacom which has the old AMD mobile cores to work with. I can't help but believe that this is as other have said, an attempt to go total IP and try to litigate a profit. This is probably the begining of a long slow slide into oblivion. nVidia's CEO has already sold most of his holdings (except for unexecuted options, also a very bad sign).
Either Nvidia commits to building SoCs that are all things to all people
That is what Project Denver was supposed to be. This announcement probably confirms that Project Denver is a failure that will never see the light of day. Denver was supposed to be the companies salvation after HPC, Tegra and everything else failed to meet the projections they set with wall street.
I agree and the thing that struck me about the quote that he believed free speech meant tolerating other speech. Free speech means prohibiting government from retaliating. It absolutely has nothing to do with people "tolerating" speech of others. As you said the Nazi's can (in my words) go fuck themselves. I'm not going to listen to them and I'm NOT going to tolerate their speech. That doesn't mean I support government censorship or physical violence but I'm NOT going to give their comments equal weight, I'm NOT going to allow them to speak hatred from my property and I'm not going to listen to them spouting hatred in public.
Free speech doesn't mean tolerating speech you find offensive. It is strictly about government trying to restrict speech. I'm entirely confused by this idea that's arisen in the last decade or two (primarily with Millennials in my experience) that free speech means tolerating speech. It doesn't. Being forced to "tolerate" speech you find offensive is IMO abusive and completely against the intent of free speech.
If you think I'm wearing tinfoil you should look at the history of gold investments. Spot gold investments that involve playing the market can make money, but any long term investment in gold is always negative. Gold can't even beat inflation long term. It's the worst commodity in the world to invest in. Other than some small industrial uses it's basis is 90% emotion and 10% jewelry. Emotion decreases and the price rockets to match what people are willing to pay to wear it.
Not only that but none of it is EVER lost. Even the industrial uses of gold are recovered. Total lost metal since humans have been mining it is probably less than a ton. So you've got an eternal supply and constant increases in supply from mining (several hundred tons a year). Frankly if the world governments weren't hoarding 90% of the worlds gold supply the price would be near worthless (though industrial use would skyrocket).
And the one most important rule of gold investing is that no matter what, the small investor gets killed. The only people making money on gold are those selling or holding gold for small investors. Oh there is the occasional gambling win with short term investing but no long term investment in gold has ever even beat inflation and we have almost 100 years of trading to prove it. Gold was $200 in the $90's and once people put their money back into the market it will crash back to the inflation adjusted $200 again. It's the worst investment for a small investor you could ever make. You're better off investing in almost anything else. Hell, no small investor without accurate inside information should be investing in any commodity, they are as unpredictable as futures.
Do you know what the problem is with your analogy?
That you think Jim and Jon are in the same room, they aren't. See before HFT made it's appearance stocks weren't sold by buyers and sellers coming together. Both groups submitted orders to a guy called "market maker" who was a broker that traded in the stock. He made his money arbitrating the value between the buyer and seller and making a profit on the spread, JUST like you are saying flash does, just in slower time frames. Typical spreads from a market maker were in the range of 1-3% of the value depending on how widely the stock is traded. Widely traded stocks carried by multiple market makers made very little per transaction but those with only one market maker, well I think you can imagine what the profit margins were to the dealer.
HFT has essentially eliminated the market makers, the more HFT the more the arbitrage decreases and the more the price between buyer and seller normalizes. In fact as they HFT companies race to zero that percentage is approaching zero.
Since HFT has matured it's actually easier to get better pricing than it was under the old market maker model. You are argue to go back to that, I think you are insane and don't buy/sell stocks.
I don't like HFT, and I think it's a danger that needs to be regulated in some fashion but at the same time I don't want it to go away because what we had before cost the small investor far more than the current system.
Yes this article is garbage IMO. Pozzolans are the basis of concrete. That's what concrete powder is, an artificially produced pozzolan. Fly Ash is also a Pozzolan, we've been using in PCC for decades. Volcanic ash is also a Pozzolan, and in a sense it is "green" to use volcanic ash instead of modern cement powder because you don't have the input energy to make the cement powder. But Volcanic fly ash is NOT an unlimited supply and mining and transporting it may use just as much energy as cement powder.
Second, Modern Portland Cement does NOT deteriorate after 50 years. Properly placed concrete has no known lifespan. (if concrete only lasted 50 years there would be a LOT of buildings failing every year) What does fail, as has been noted, is the reinforcing steel used to give the concrete tensile strength (concrete has no tensile strength) and wear and tear. There are ways around the rusting rebar that are being used, galvanized rebar, epoxy coated and stainless steel are just a few of the techniques being used to increase the lifespan of the rebar to give equal lifespan to the steel and concrete.
Finally, we can make concrete better than the Romans, we just have to use the equivalent amount of Pozzolans they were using. When the Europeans (after the dark age) tried to duplicate the Roman mix they found it far to wet to be usable, the missing knowledge was that one of the mix ingredients was all that volcanic ash which meant the amount of pozzolan in the mix was far higher and in fact comprised a significant percentage of the mix. In fact the measurements made recently have shown that modern concrete isn't using near the equivalent amount of cement powder. Stronger concrete can easily be produced by increasing the amount of cement powder, the problem is the cost that adds. We don't use concrete of that strength generally because of two reasons, cost and failure mode. Standard reinforced portland cement concrete fails in a manner that provides warning of imminent collapse, high strength reinforced concrete does not provide that warning, it fails explosively.
So in summary that is the WORST cement article I've ever read, but what can you expect from Businessweek I guess. It reads like a scam article to get someone to invest money in an idea that isn't revolutionary. Caveat Emptor.
The chip is designed and that design is paid for. The cost of the part is the cost to manufacture plus a 1-3% margin. That probably puts the cost of the chip at 1/2 or 1/4 of A9 chips.
Absent a large shareholder making a major move in position you can't know what is driving the market on any day. It's an irrational and unpredictable well of emotion. Anyone that tells you differently is an idiot or trying to sell you something. The market and what drives it is a black box of emotion, those news stories that claim that X event is driving Y change are complete speculation.
Absent direct polling of all players in the market no one has any idea what is driving the market. That isn't to say you can't identify some things affecting prices but you can never know them all nor their percentage of effect. The only major events I've ever seen where you can broadly claim X caused pricing to change Y is major political events like presidential elections, war, terrorist attacks, etc and these are generally limited to broad market changes not specific stocks. Everything else varies from educated speculation to "pull out of your ass" causation.
The court is not "fairly divided". Something like 80% of their decisions are unanimous. You only hear press about the 5-4 decisions which are an extremely small proportion (about 10%).
Myriad was claiming ownership of the entire Gene, any new tests to identify it using different methods or cDNA would be, according to Myriad, covered by the patent. What the supreme court decisions does is says that Myriad owns the specific cDNA they came up with. It may be even possible that different cDNA that accomplishes the same purpose would not run afoul of the patent and tests that didn't rely on the cDNA would be immune as well. This was an important decision because Myriad's claims had basically shut down research on this genetic sequence. The ruling opens that research back up and restricts Myriad's patent only to the specific test they have created.
This does two things, research can continue while allowing research to continue and it preserves the billions being pushed into Genetic research by providing payoffs for patentable tests using human created testing sequences. (I know it's not quite that simple). The thing here is a decision that had been all one side would have damaged the industry regardless of what direction it went. A decision invalidating any patents would have devastated independent research and a decision allowing Myriad to patent genes would have devastated competition and significant amounts of new research on existing identified genes. This is a good middle of the road decision which preserves the open access, lays down a precedent that you can't patent natural creations while preserving investment streams in a very important area of the biological sciences.
Right, Left or Center everyone has to admit Clapper lied. In recent interviews he's playing the "definition of is" game that Clinton played and he's a liar just like Clinton was. He lied to Congress and half the leadership is defending him! We're in an appalling state, hell recent polls indicate 56% of the populous supports this! That's damn near a super majority. I'm appalled by my country, but make no mistake there are paid attacks by journalists happening against Snowden, they are almost trivial to spot because of how transparent they are.
Yet they have separate passports and can't apply for or receive a passport at a Chinese embassy. I was told this about 4 months ago by a Hong Kong resident with a US greencard.
You don't have your own passports if you aren't autonomous at an international level. Now if you are arguing they don't provide their own defense or execute trade agreements independent of China you might be right.
One of the interesting consequences of the "lock everyone up" (or more conveniently "lock up all the poor people") policy is that crime in the US is at record lows (as in recorded history). America is safer than it's ever been since industrialization.
There have been several arrested in China. The Chinese tend to limit these arrests to those you speak and write in a Chinese dialect though which is frequently expat's. I believe there is an American expat doing 10 years in hard labor right now for comments he posted while in America.
There is a funny story about when the Panamanians took over the Canal they had a meeting with the Army to discuss revenue and in that meeting discovered that the tolls on the Canal barely covered the cost of operating the canal and that the entire military presence that maintained and administered the canal was supported by US taxpayers.
To this date it is my understanding that even with the toll increases Panama makes very little money on the canal. The increases in tolls are to pay for the canal expansion. $6 billion is a lot of money and I have no doubt it will cost significantly more when complete, including that a larger canal will cost more to operate. Canals aren't cheap, either to build or operate. Lots of labor and lots of equipment that needs constant repair.
Yes, Chinese colonialism is in full steam and just like European colonialism the locals are loving it, at first. See the Chinese aren't giving money away for free, just like colonialism in the past they expect to get something for their "gifts". The concessions they are demanding are far more than the money invested.
But like all corrupt regimes they are willing to placate the higher ups of the colonial countries, the bribes and kickbacks ensure that the local government keeps their populace in control. That's how the Europeans used to do it too, then they passed laws banning it and you saw the local politicians turn against the colonial invaders. At some point you will see something similar with China, there are mines in Africa with 80% Chinese employment that the local public is beginning to turn against even though the local politicians have been bribed (ironically partly due to twitter and facebook).
That's exactly what Apple wanted to kill. Amazon was willing to sell eBooks with 5% profit margin because it cost them nearly nothing to sell them. Apple wanted 30% and they saw an opportunity to raise the prices and get more profit for Apple and the publishers. The 5 Publishers that have settled with the government all had record profits after they colluded with Apple to fix prices.
The funny thing is this is ALL in the emails, the intent to raise prices marketwide. The intent to limit competition so Apple could gain marketshare without price competition. The intent to raise prices more than the 30% margin so the publishers could rake in even more money than they do on paper books. It's all there, the government has all the evidence and that's the reason the Publishers all settled after denying they would. The publishers lawyers took one look at all the information the government has and told the publisher to settle or they would get killed in court.
Price fixing is illegal and if the government has the evidence to prove it you will get nailed. The reason you see so few prosecutions is the government rarely has good documentation, the collusion is often done orally behind closed doors with no notes or records of the conversation. Job's probably believed he had enough chutzpah to avoid a prosecution or he believed he was above the law. He was an egotistical asshole that didn't give a rats ass about ordinary people.
Cutting down trees, pulping them, bleaching the pulp, processing the pulp into paper, shipping this paper across the country, typesetting, printing, assembly, packaging, shipping, stocking, clearance of unused stock, returns, retail markup.
Just to name a few. There's millions of dollars in those items, yes spread across lots of books, but the fact remains that millions in cost is negated. Distribution costs falls to pennies rather than multiple dollars. Producing new copies of the book is essentially free, your only fixed costs are the editors and very little in the way of marketing (in comparison to paper books) along with the writers advance and any royalty per book (which is deducted from the advance).
No one pays the authors living expenses while they are writing other than the author. Advances to authors are deducted from future royalties, even for the biggest of authors. Advances are calculated and paid based on projected sales such that most authors will never see future royalties and the publisher will get back the advance plus interest from the deducted royalties and that's the good authors. Advances for unknowns are small fixed fees with little or no royalties.
On top of this the massive used book market is completely eliminated by digital publishing. Every single sale is an original sale, this increases sales significantly. The lack of used book market probably adds 50% additional sales. The lack of libraries being able to loan copies means there are no loaners either.
You're argument is garbage and you know it. It's the reason the justification for the higher prices keeps jumping around, because there is NO justification for higher prices. You have to be utterly brain dead to think the cost of a digital copy which costs nothing to duplicate costs more than printing and shipping dead trees around. The only thing the publishers have EVER argued is that editing and marketing still costs the same and the royalties are essentially unchanged but they've never said what percentage of the cost of a paperback that is. The biggest hints they've given point to 30% of the price of the paperback.
Even if you factor in the lost opportunities with hardbacks and don't take into account the additional sales due to no libraries or used books and you still have a product that should be in the range of 50% of the cost. And amazingly that's about how much cheaper eBooks were than paperbacks before Apple destabilized the market in cahoots with the publishers. That's also the reason publishers saw record revenues in the years after Apple doubled the prices. These are all cold hard facts.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh it's the same jackasses claiming the PC is dead. They have this micro world view and an expansive ego and can't help but think they know everything.
And all they know is apple sold more IOS devices than there were PC's sold last year and their sales have been going up every year. Ergo everything will be an IOS device in a few years. Because every trend continues forever.
Before the passing of the 17th the senate was a den of corruption that made things like the Mexican federal police seem downright uncorruptable. There is not a large and growing school of thought that the 17th was a mistake. There is a campaign being waged by Rupert Murdoch and his media properties to rewrite history and convince people the 17th was a bad idea. Afterall, if the Senate is appointed Republicans would have control (more red states than blue) and being appointees they would be much easier for large commercial interests to control.
I'll never cease to be amazed at how many people take a propaganda campaign waged by a media conglomerate in cooperation with a political party as a grass roots "school of thought".
Don't worry, you'll be completely ignored just like every other thread. People will continue to say it's not rape, it's not a crime in the UK, there is no victim willing to prosecute, the charges were dropped, it's just questioning there are no charges.
Everyone of these statements is a lie and it doesn't matter what evidence there is such as DIRECT quotes from the UK judicial finding contradicting them people will still continue to quote the lies. It's sad people are so convinced there is evil intentions at work that they are willing to let him have a pass on something I at least consider a serious violation of a woman's rights. He should be a man and face the charges in Sweden.
Many peoples sarcasm detectors are broken!
Intel isn't going to buy or license nVidia stuff. They already have a license to use all their patents through a cross license deal that excluded a large chunk of Intel patents and IP. Intel is 100% focused on power consumption at this point and nVidia tech would do nothing but hurt them on this front. Haswell includes a GPU that's almost as good at the nVidia 650 and uses less power than Icy Bridge. It's also cheaper for the OEM/ODM's and provides better total power use.
It's trivially easy for Intel to just keep advancing the GPU with each processor generation. As people have been saying for years nVidia's biggest problem is that as Intel keeps raising the low end with integrated processors that don't suck they erode significant revenue from nVidia. The reason prices for top end nVidia parts keep going up is because they are continuing to lose margin on the middle end and have lost the low end. Better than half the computers sold no longer even include a discrete GPU. As Intel continues it's slow advance they will continue to eat more and more of the discrete market place. Considering the newest consoles are going to be only marginally better than the current consoles we're probably looking at another 7 years of gaming stagnation which in the long run will damage nVidia more as fewer games require more resources than integrated GPUs. I seriously doubt nVidia can go much higher than the current $1100 Titan and expect to sell anything at all. I expect over the next two years for nVidia to see consecutive quarterly declines in revenue. They've already eroded margin and they can't push price much higher.
They bet their lunch on HPC, and didn't even come close to their projections on sales. Then they bet the farm on Tegra, they sold none of Tegra1, had just short of no sales on Tegra2, did ok but only with tablets for Tegra3 and have announced not a single win for Tegra4. Project Denver was supposed to be the long term break with Intel that would provide the company the opportunity to move forward as a total service SOC company. Denver is supposed to be a custom designed 64bit ARM processor with integrated nVidia GPU. It was projected for the end of 2012. After missing 2012 they claimed end of 2013, this announcement makes be personally believe project denver has been canceled. Things haven't looked good for nVidia ever since Intel integrated GPU's and blocked them from the chipset market. They won't be selling to Intel because Intel doesn't want them. The other SOC vendors appear to be satisfied with PowerVR products (which focus on power use) except for qualacom which has the old AMD mobile cores to work with. I can't help but believe that this is as other have said, an attempt to go total IP and try to litigate a profit. This is probably the begining of a long slow slide into oblivion. nVidia's CEO has already sold most of his holdings (except for unexecuted options, also a very bad sign).
That is what Project Denver was supposed to be. This announcement probably confirms that Project Denver is a failure that will never see the light of day. Denver was supposed to be the companies salvation after HPC, Tegra and everything else failed to meet the projections they set with wall street.
I agree and the thing that struck me about the quote that he believed free speech meant tolerating other speech. Free speech means prohibiting government from retaliating. It absolutely has nothing to do with people "tolerating" speech of others. As you said the Nazi's can (in my words) go fuck themselves. I'm not going to listen to them and I'm NOT going to tolerate their speech. That doesn't mean I support government censorship or physical violence but I'm NOT going to give their comments equal weight, I'm NOT going to allow them to speak hatred from my property and I'm not going to listen to them spouting hatred in public.
Free speech doesn't mean tolerating speech you find offensive. It is strictly about government trying to restrict speech. I'm entirely confused by this idea that's arisen in the last decade or two (primarily with Millennials in my experience) that free speech means tolerating speech. It doesn't. Being forced to "tolerate" speech you find offensive is IMO abusive and completely against the intent of free speech.
It's a tried and true practice of Commercial software to charge extra for documentation. I'm willing to bet this is completely intentional.
If you think I'm wearing tinfoil you should look at the history of gold investments. Spot gold investments that involve playing the market can make money, but any long term investment in gold is always negative. Gold can't even beat inflation long term. It's the worst commodity in the world to invest in. Other than some small industrial uses it's basis is 90% emotion and 10% jewelry. Emotion decreases and the price rockets to match what people are willing to pay to wear it.
Not only that but none of it is EVER lost. Even the industrial uses of gold are recovered. Total lost metal since humans have been mining it is probably less than a ton. So you've got an eternal supply and constant increases in supply from mining (several hundred tons a year). Frankly if the world governments weren't hoarding 90% of the worlds gold supply the price would be near worthless (though industrial use would skyrocket).
And the one most important rule of gold investing is that no matter what, the small investor gets killed. The only people making money on gold are those selling or holding gold for small investors. Oh there is the occasional gambling win with short term investing but no long term investment in gold has ever even beat inflation and we have almost 100 years of trading to prove it. Gold was $200 in the $90's and once people put their money back into the market it will crash back to the inflation adjusted $200 again. It's the worst investment for a small investor you could ever make. You're better off investing in almost anything else. Hell, no small investor without accurate inside information should be investing in any commodity, they are as unpredictable as futures.
Do you know what the problem is with your analogy?
That you think Jim and Jon are in the same room, they aren't. See before HFT made it's appearance stocks weren't sold by buyers and sellers coming together. Both groups submitted orders to a guy called "market maker" who was a broker that traded in the stock. He made his money arbitrating the value between the buyer and seller and making a profit on the spread, JUST like you are saying flash does, just in slower time frames. Typical spreads from a market maker were in the range of 1-3% of the value depending on how widely the stock is traded. Widely traded stocks carried by multiple market makers made very little per transaction but those with only one market maker, well I think you can imagine what the profit margins were to the dealer.
HFT has essentially eliminated the market makers, the more HFT the more the arbitrage decreases and the more the price between buyer and seller normalizes. In fact as they HFT companies race to zero that percentage is approaching zero.
Since HFT has matured it's actually easier to get better pricing than it was under the old market maker model. You are argue to go back to that, I think you are insane and don't buy/sell stocks.
I don't like HFT, and I think it's a danger that needs to be regulated in some fashion but at the same time I don't want it to go away because what we had before cost the small investor far more than the current system.
There are 4 things.
Death, taxes, bitcoin crash and gold crash.
Gold will crash and it's going to happen very unexpectedly for all you people foolish enough to invest in commodities.
Yes this article is garbage IMO. Pozzolans are the basis of concrete. That's what concrete powder is, an artificially produced pozzolan. Fly Ash is also a Pozzolan, we've been using in PCC for decades. Volcanic ash is also a Pozzolan, and in a sense it is "green" to use volcanic ash instead of modern cement powder because you don't have the input energy to make the cement powder. But Volcanic fly ash is NOT an unlimited supply and mining and transporting it may use just as much energy as cement powder.
Second, Modern Portland Cement does NOT deteriorate after 50 years. Properly placed concrete has no known lifespan. (if concrete only lasted 50 years there would be a LOT of buildings failing every year) What does fail, as has been noted, is the reinforcing steel used to give the concrete tensile strength (concrete has no tensile strength) and wear and tear. There are ways around the rusting rebar that are being used, galvanized rebar, epoxy coated and stainless steel are just a few of the techniques being used to increase the lifespan of the rebar to give equal lifespan to the steel and concrete.
Finally, we can make concrete better than the Romans, we just have to use the equivalent amount of Pozzolans they were using. When the Europeans (after the dark age) tried to duplicate the Roman mix they found it far to wet to be usable, the missing knowledge was that one of the mix ingredients was all that volcanic ash which meant the amount of pozzolan in the mix was far higher and in fact comprised a significant percentage of the mix. In fact the measurements made recently have shown that modern concrete isn't using near the equivalent amount of cement powder. Stronger concrete can easily be produced by increasing the amount of cement powder, the problem is the cost that adds. We don't use concrete of that strength generally because of two reasons, cost and failure mode. Standard reinforced portland cement concrete fails in a manner that provides warning of imminent collapse, high strength reinforced concrete does not provide that warning, it fails explosively.
So in summary that is the WORST cement article I've ever read, but what can you expect from Businessweek I guess. It reads like a scam article to get someone to invest money in an idea that isn't revolutionary. Caveat Emptor.
COST. Duh.
The chip is designed and that design is paid for. The cost of the part is the cost to manufacture plus a 1-3% margin. That probably puts the cost of the chip at 1/2 or 1/4 of A9 chips.
Absent a large shareholder making a major move in position you can't know what is driving the market on any day. It's an irrational and unpredictable well of emotion. Anyone that tells you differently is an idiot or trying to sell you something. The market and what drives it is a black box of emotion, those news stories that claim that X event is driving Y change are complete speculation.
Absent direct polling of all players in the market no one has any idea what is driving the market. That isn't to say you can't identify some things affecting prices but you can never know them all nor their percentage of effect. The only major events I've ever seen where you can broadly claim X caused pricing to change Y is major political events like presidential elections, war, terrorist attacks, etc and these are generally limited to broad market changes not specific stocks. Everything else varies from educated speculation to "pull out of your ass" causation.
The court is not "fairly divided". Something like 80% of their decisions are unanimous. You only hear press about the 5-4 decisions which are an extremely small proportion (about 10%).
Myriad was claiming ownership of the entire Gene, any new tests to identify it using different methods or cDNA would be, according to Myriad, covered by the patent. What the supreme court decisions does is says that Myriad owns the specific cDNA they came up with. It may be even possible that different cDNA that accomplishes the same purpose would not run afoul of the patent and tests that didn't rely on the cDNA would be immune as well. This was an important decision because Myriad's claims had basically shut down research on this genetic sequence. The ruling opens that research back up and restricts Myriad's patent only to the specific test they have created.
This does two things, research can continue while allowing research to continue and it preserves the billions being pushed into Genetic research by providing payoffs for patentable tests using human created testing sequences. (I know it's not quite that simple). The thing here is a decision that had been all one side would have damaged the industry regardless of what direction it went. A decision invalidating any patents would have devastated independent research and a decision allowing Myriad to patent genes would have devastated competition and significant amounts of new research on existing identified genes. This is a good middle of the road decision which preserves the open access, lays down a precedent that you can't patent natural creations while preserving investment streams in a very important area of the biological sciences.
Right, Left or Center everyone has to admit Clapper lied. In recent interviews he's playing the "definition of is" game that Clinton played and he's a liar just like Clinton was. He lied to Congress and half the leadership is defending him! We're in an appalling state, hell recent polls indicate 56% of the populous supports this! That's damn near a super majority. I'm appalled by my country, but make no mistake there are paid attacks by journalists happening against Snowden, they are almost trivial to spot because of how transparent they are.
Yet they have separate passports and can't apply for or receive a passport at a Chinese embassy. I was told this about 4 months ago by a Hong Kong resident with a US greencard.
You don't have your own passports if you aren't autonomous at an international level. Now if you are arguing they don't provide their own defense or execute trade agreements independent of China you might be right.
No. Welcome to the internet. You might find you have no idea when you are having a discussion with a know it all 12 year old.
One of the interesting consequences of the "lock everyone up" (or more conveniently "lock up all the poor people") policy is that crime in the US is at record lows (as in recorded history). America is safer than it's ever been since industrialization.
There have been several arrested in China. The Chinese tend to limit these arrests to those you speak and write in a Chinese dialect though which is frequently expat's. I believe there is an American expat doing 10 years in hard labor right now for comments he posted while in America.
There is a funny story about when the Panamanians took over the Canal they had a meeting with the Army to discuss revenue and in that meeting discovered that the tolls on the Canal barely covered the cost of operating the canal and that the entire military presence that maintained and administered the canal was supported by US taxpayers.
To this date it is my understanding that even with the toll increases Panama makes very little money on the canal. The increases in tolls are to pay for the canal expansion. $6 billion is a lot of money and I have no doubt it will cost significantly more when complete, including that a larger canal will cost more to operate. Canals aren't cheap, either to build or operate. Lots of labor and lots of equipment that needs constant repair.
Yes, Chinese colonialism is in full steam and just like European colonialism the locals are loving it, at first. See the Chinese aren't giving money away for free, just like colonialism in the past they expect to get something for their "gifts". The concessions they are demanding are far more than the money invested.
But like all corrupt regimes they are willing to placate the higher ups of the colonial countries, the bribes and kickbacks ensure that the local government keeps their populace in control. That's how the Europeans used to do it too, then they passed laws banning it and you saw the local politicians turn against the colonial invaders. At some point you will see something similar with China, there are mines in Africa with 80% Chinese employment that the local public is beginning to turn against even though the local politicians have been bribed (ironically partly due to twitter and facebook).
That's exactly what Apple wanted to kill. Amazon was willing to sell eBooks with 5% profit margin because it cost them nearly nothing to sell them. Apple wanted 30% and they saw an opportunity to raise the prices and get more profit for Apple and the publishers. The 5 Publishers that have settled with the government all had record profits after they colluded with Apple to fix prices.
The funny thing is this is ALL in the emails, the intent to raise prices marketwide. The intent to limit competition so Apple could gain marketshare without price competition. The intent to raise prices more than the 30% margin so the publishers could rake in even more money than they do on paper books. It's all there, the government has all the evidence and that's the reason the Publishers all settled after denying they would. The publishers lawyers took one look at all the information the government has and told the publisher to settle or they would get killed in court.
Price fixing is illegal and if the government has the evidence to prove it you will get nailed. The reason you see so few prosecutions is the government rarely has good documentation, the collusion is often done orally behind closed doors with no notes or records of the conversation. Job's probably believed he had enough chutzpah to avoid a prosecution or he believed he was above the law. He was an egotistical asshole that didn't give a rats ass about ordinary people.
Cutting down trees, pulping them, bleaching the pulp, processing the pulp into paper, shipping this paper across the country, typesetting, printing, assembly, packaging, shipping, stocking, clearance of unused stock, returns, retail markup.
Just to name a few. There's millions of dollars in those items, yes spread across lots of books, but the fact remains that millions in cost is negated. Distribution costs falls to pennies rather than multiple dollars. Producing new copies of the book is essentially free, your only fixed costs are the editors and very little in the way of marketing (in comparison to paper books) along with the writers advance and any royalty per book (which is deducted from the advance).
No one pays the authors living expenses while they are writing other than the author. Advances to authors are deducted from future royalties, even for the biggest of authors. Advances are calculated and paid based on projected sales such that most authors will never see future royalties and the publisher will get back the advance plus interest from the deducted royalties and that's the good authors. Advances for unknowns are small fixed fees with little or no royalties.
On top of this the massive used book market is completely eliminated by digital publishing. Every single sale is an original sale, this increases sales significantly. The lack of used book market probably adds 50% additional sales. The lack of libraries being able to loan copies means there are no loaners either.
You're argument is garbage and you know it. It's the reason the justification for the higher prices keeps jumping around, because there is NO justification for higher prices. You have to be utterly brain dead to think the cost of a digital copy which costs nothing to duplicate costs more than printing and shipping dead trees around. The only thing the publishers have EVER argued is that editing and marketing still costs the same and the royalties are essentially unchanged but they've never said what percentage of the cost of a paperback that is. The biggest hints they've given point to 30% of the price of the paperback.
Even if you factor in the lost opportunities with hardbacks and don't take into account the additional sales due to no libraries or used books and you still have a product that should be in the range of 50% of the cost. And amazingly that's about how much cheaper eBooks were than paperbacks before Apple destabilized the market in cahoots with the publishers. That's also the reason publishers saw record revenues in the years after Apple doubled the prices. These are all cold hard facts.