The markup you are describing ONLY considers the hardware costs.
You pay big bucks for running stores, paying the employees, doing warranty repairs, accepting returns when customers don't like their phones and so on.
Frankly, anyone comparing bill-of-parts and sale price is an idiot. You _can_ look at gross margin (which is a lot less, still quite high for Apple, but at least a meaningful number). "Gross margin" answers the question: "If I pick an iPhone XS from the shelf and walk to the checkout, how much is Apple better off if I take out my card and buy the phone, compared to me putting it back on the shelf". This includes every penny that Apple has to pay because I bought the phone, like warranty, support, but not advertisement which is paid whether I buy or not.
And then there is "net profit", a smaller number again, which subtracts _all_ the cost related to iPhones from the sales price.
Didn't you see that movie "Super Size Me"? First eating at a fast food place every day for two years is a bad idea, second upgrading fries every time is doubly so.
So it's healthier to buy an iPhone XS for $999 and small fries every day for three years, than a $200 phone and large fries every day.
But it's a city court. Should a ruling from just a city court affect an entire country this way?
Of course, that's absolutely normal. If you are a company in Little Rock, Arkansas, and illegally distribute materials all over the USA, you can be sued in the town court in Little Rock, Arkansas. They don't have to sue you in an Arkansas state court, or in a Federal court, or if you sold worldwide, take the case to the UN.
There was a study recently, where about 50 men and women each were asked to negotiate a salary (a) for themselves, (b) for a friend.
The highest salaries were achieved by women negotiating for a friend, followed closely by men negotiating for themselves, followed closely by men negotiating for themselves, and women negotiating for themselves far behind.
I'd say that there is some obvious psychological difference, and I suspect that women aware of this can counteract it.
It depends on whether a recording studio is a "workplace". Eminem dropped four F-bombs in four lines in his rap song "White America", and the album it was on (The Eminem Show) went 10x Platinum.
The first 33 words or so in "Four Weddings and a Funeral" were "fuck".
The guy accidentally created and then pushed a patch to change "fuck" to "hug"? Bullshit. It was deliberate trolling.
It was stupidity. He took comments that were on the rude side, but perfectly reasonable, and changed them into comments that made no sense. I wouldn't have minded at all if he had removed the f-words _while retaining what the comment said_.
For example, you could call PST tables "extraordinarily bad designed" instead of "f***ed up". No complaint. But "hugged up" is just stupid.
Besides, the police DO have an override- they did exactly that. They boxed in the car and forced it to stop.
They didn't even have to box it in. They just put one car in front of it and slowed down to a halt. If you were driving the car, you would have just changed lanes, but this car was on autopilot and doesn't change lanes on its own.
The reason it took so long is that you can't just stop a car on the motorway, because of the huge risk that others drive into it. One driver had to slow down traffic behind the car to create a huge gap for safety, that's what took the time.
Have a camera pointing at the driver as well. Shut down autopilot if eyes are closed or aren't looking at the road for longer than some predetermined amount of time. This is literally an undergrad-level deep learning project. If cost is a concern, this can be done without deep learning as well.
Shutting down the autopilot if the driver is sleeping? Are you mad? Quite the opposite, if the driver is asleep the autopilot should engage immediately if it wasn't engaged before.
And in a more advanced self driving car, the auto pilot should move carefully to the hard shoulder and stop there, while calling the police and an ambulance.
A more interesting current-news-inspired question might be how they will handle and react to things like the 7.0 earthquake in Anchorage. What would a Tesla or Waymo do if the road they were on collapsed and a wall of dirt suddenly appeared in front of it? Would it brake or ignore the input as impossible and strike the "wall"?
What would a human driver do? Would he or she brake or ignore the input as impossible and strike the "wall"?
I only have a problem with someone sitting in a control center and getting any car he wants to stop. A low-range signal that can be sent from a police car to a car they need to stop, however, is harder to argue against.
The problem is that you cannot just stop a car on the motorway, it's highly dangerous. You need to do exactly what these cops did: Someone has to create a huge traffic gap behind the car, and _then_ you can stop it safely.
The stopping itself was not the problem, just put your car in front of the sleeping driver's car, and slow down but not too hard until you are stopped. The autopiloted car will stop without problems.
I assume that he will go back to criminal court with new charges, any chances of early release for his 13 year term are gone, and for the new charges he will get the maximum sentence possible by law.
I would really like to know what are the total profits and losses of the whole bitcoin thing.
Take any person or company who invested in bitcoin by buying or by mining, take how many dollars they got by selling bitcoin, take the value of their bitcoins today, subtract their total cost of mining, fees, buying bitcoin. If they are ahead, count them under "profits". If they lost money, count them under "losses". So the guy who mortgaged his house to buy 10 bitcoins for $19,000 worth $4,000 today adds $150,000 to "losses".
But there must be people sitting on tons of bitcoins harvested when it was easy. I wonder if they have any chance ever to turn this into real money.
Huh? I don't get it. ALL app submissions and updates have to be reviewed and approved by Apple.
Imagine your app has a configuration file, which it can download from your company's website, and suddenly the app changes its behaviour. Without any review. That's what Apple is removing.
As long as you're ignoring the fact that Israel's neighbours intentionally refused to integrate any Palestinians to have some population that will continue to try to attack Israel, and ignoring the fact that Israel's neighbours wanted to exterminate everyone in Israel, and ignoring the fact that this land was given to them by European countries.
Let's just remember this the next time some politician screams that encryption keys should somehow be made available to the FBI: If the NSA cannot protect malware that it developed (for nefarious but presumably legal in the USA purposes) from being stolen and used for nefarious purposes that are illegal everywhere, then what chance does the FBI have to protect keys that would allow them to crack my phone from being stolen by some hacker?
If only there was some company that has root on all the boxes, that could delete and/or revoke these certificates.....
I am quite sure that Apple could remove root certificates during a software update on MacOS. There is a set of root certificates that are always installed by the system, that set is totally under Apple's control. Other root certificates are stored in the keychain. Storing and modifying items in the keychain requires some password, but deleting items doesn't. I would assume other operating systems can do the same. Not sure how revoking root certificates work.
Probably because of the GDPR. A lot of pages state that because of the GDPR, all people connecting have to agree to stuff (usually, no-sue arbitration, all data can be used however the website feels like, user gives up all rights, usual legal garbage) before they can access the page.
The problem of these sites is that they don't just need me to press a button, but to actually voluntarily consent. If the site only gives me the choice to either consent or not see the site, then they are in violation of the GDPR. (Source: Recent discussion on law.stackexchange.com with the relevant paragraphs of GDPR attached).
slashdot.com is probably also in violation of GDPR, asking users again and again, so that we can safely assume that a click on "I agree" is not agreement, but clicking the wrong button. Guys, I really recommend you don't make any assumption that European users have agreed to anything if you want to stay on the right side of EU law.
I'd rather live on welfare than let a company chip me.
In a place where a company could force you to have a chip implanted if you want a job, you wouldn't get welfare.
From my point of view, I'd rather have a talk with my favourite employment lawyer who would enjoy ripping them a new asshole instead of letting a company chip me.
I didn't read it either, but it took quite a while to scroll through it, so I think it's just a little bit more than "process voice locally without using the cloud".
In the UK, ALPR's will often lookup the license plate in some database to find out whether the car is insured, whether road tax is being paid and whether it has an MOT test, so the police can immediately stop a car that fails, and all motorists other than those stopped appreciate it very much.
This doesn't make sense. So you are saying that if I put the cache folder into my home directory, it is going to delete the contents of the home directory? I suppose if that happened Adobe would be without customers by now.
we see a lot of stories about how Amazon really doesn't care about people selling actual counterfeit goods on their platform.
Since this story is about Amazon and Apple... At one time, Apple reportedly purchased 100 "original Apple" chargers from Amazon. Out of 100, NOT ONE "original Apple" charger was an original Apple charger, and 80 out of 100 were dangerous (according to Apple, who took them apart).
Slashdot Mirror
The markup you are describing ONLY considers the hardware costs.
You pay big bucks for running stores, paying the employees, doing warranty repairs, accepting returns when customers don't like their phones and so on.
Frankly, anyone comparing bill-of-parts and sale price is an idiot. You _can_ look at gross margin (which is a lot less, still quite high for Apple, but at least a meaningful number). "Gross margin" answers the question: "If I pick an iPhone XS from the shelf and walk to the checkout, how much is Apple better off if I take out my card and buy the phone, compared to me putting it back on the shelf". This includes every penny that Apple has to pay because I bought the phone, like warranty, support, but not advertisement which is paid whether I buy or not.
And then there is "net profit", a smaller number again, which subtracts _all_ the cost related to iPhones from the sales price.
Didn't you see that movie "Super Size Me"? First eating at a fast food place every day for two years is a bad idea, second upgrading fries every time is doubly so.
So it's healthier to buy an iPhone XS for $999 and small fries every day for three years, than a $200 phone and large fries every day.
But it's a city court. Should a ruling from just a city court affect an entire country this way?
Of course, that's absolutely normal. If you are a company in Little Rock, Arkansas, and illegally distribute materials all over the USA, you can be sued in the town court in Little Rock, Arkansas. They don't have to sue you in an Arkansas state court, or in a Federal court, or if you sold worldwide, take the case to the UN.
This is basically an online variant of the old scam
Forsyte wrote a nice short story about this theme. With the added twist that the victim was an ex bomb disposal expert.
There was a study recently, where about 50 men and women each were asked to negotiate a salary (a) for themselves, (b) for a friend.
The highest salaries were achieved by women negotiating for a friend, followed closely by men negotiating for themselves, followed closely by men negotiating for themselves, and women negotiating for themselves far behind.
I'd say that there is some obvious psychological difference, and I suspect that women aware of this can counteract it.
It depends on whether a recording studio is a "workplace". Eminem dropped four F-bombs in four lines in his rap song "White America", and the album it was on (The Eminem Show) went 10x Platinum.
The first 33 words or so in "Four Weddings and a Funeral" were "fuck".
The guy accidentally created and then pushed a patch to change "fuck" to "hug"? Bullshit. It was deliberate trolling.
It was stupidity. He took comments that were on the rude side, but perfectly reasonable, and changed them into comments that made no sense. I wouldn't have minded at all if he had removed the f-words _while retaining what the comment said_.
For example, you could call PST tables "extraordinarily bad designed" instead of "f***ed up". No complaint. But "hugged up" is just stupid.
Besides, the police DO have an override- they did exactly that. They boxed in the car and forced it to stop.
They didn't even have to box it in. They just put one car in front of it and slowed down to a halt. If you were driving the car, you would have just changed lanes, but this car was on autopilot and doesn't change lanes on its own.
The reason it took so long is that you can't just stop a car on the motorway, because of the huge risk that others drive into it. One driver had to slow down traffic behind the car to create a huge gap for safety, that's what took the time.
Have a camera pointing at the driver as well. Shut down autopilot if eyes are closed or aren't looking at the road for longer than some predetermined amount of time. This is literally an undergrad-level deep learning project. If cost is a concern, this can be done without deep learning as well.
Shutting down the autopilot if the driver is sleeping? Are you mad? Quite the opposite, if the driver is asleep the autopilot should engage immediately if it wasn't engaged before.
And in a more advanced self driving car, the auto pilot should move carefully to the hard shoulder and stop there, while calling the police and an ambulance.
A more interesting current-news-inspired question might be how they will handle and react to things like the 7.0 earthquake in Anchorage. What would a Tesla or Waymo do if the road they were on collapsed and a wall of dirt suddenly appeared in front of it? Would it brake or ignore the input as impossible and strike the "wall"?
What would a human driver do? Would he or she brake or ignore the input as impossible and strike the "wall"?
I only have a problem with someone sitting in a control center and getting any car he wants to stop. A low-range signal that can be sent from a police car to a car they need to stop, however, is harder to argue against.
The problem is that you cannot just stop a car on the motorway, it's highly dangerous. You need to do exactly what these cops did: Someone has to create a huge traffic gap behind the car, and _then_ you can stop it safely.
The stopping itself was not the problem, just put your car in front of the sleeping driver's car, and slow down but not too hard until you are stopped. The autopiloted car will stop without problems.
I assume that he will go back to criminal court with new charges, any chances of early release for his 13 year term are gone, and for the new charges he will get the maximum sentence possible by law.
I would really like to know what are the total profits and losses of the whole bitcoin thing.
Take any person or company who invested in bitcoin by buying or by mining, take how many dollars they got by selling bitcoin, take the value of their bitcoins today, subtract their total cost of mining, fees, buying bitcoin. If they are ahead, count them under "profits". If they lost money, count them under "losses". So the guy who mortgaged his house to buy 10 bitcoins for $19,000 worth $4,000 today adds $150,000 to "losses".
But there must be people sitting on tons of bitcoins harvested when it was easy. I wonder if they have any chance ever to turn this into real money.
Huh? I don't get it. ALL app submissions and updates have to be reviewed and approved by Apple.
Imagine your app has a configuration file, which it can download from your company's website, and suddenly the app changes its behaviour. Without any review. That's what Apple is removing.
As long as you're ignoring the fact that Israel's neighbours intentionally refused to integrate any Palestinians to have some population that will continue to try to attack Israel, and ignoring the fact that Israel's neighbours wanted to exterminate everyone in Israel, and ignoring the fact that this land was given to them by European countries.
Let's just remember this the next time some politician screams that encryption keys should somehow be made available to the FBI: If the NSA cannot protect malware that it developed (for nefarious but presumably legal in the USA purposes) from being stolen and used for nefarious purposes that are illegal everywhere, then what chance does the FBI have to protect keys that would allow them to crack my phone from being stolen by some hacker?
If only there was some company that has root on all the boxes, that could delete and/or revoke these certificates.....
I am quite sure that Apple could remove root certificates during a software update on MacOS. There is a set of root certificates that are always installed by the system, that set is totally under Apple's control. Other root certificates are stored in the keychain. Storing and modifying items in the keychain requires some password, but deleting items doesn't. I would assume other operating systems can do the same. Not sure how revoking root certificates work.
Looks like the opt-out option is to leave the page...
This makes me wonder if this violates the GDPR's spirit.
It violates both the spirit, and the law. (According to law.stackexchange.com).
Probably because of the GDPR. A lot of pages state that because of the GDPR, all people connecting have to agree to stuff (usually, no-sue arbitration, all data can be used however the website feels like, user gives up all rights, usual legal garbage) before they can access the page.
The problem of these sites is that they don't just need me to press a button, but to actually voluntarily consent. If the site only gives me the choice to either consent or not see the site, then they are in violation of the GDPR. (Source: Recent discussion on law.stackexchange.com with the relevant paragraphs of GDPR attached).
slashdot.com is probably also in violation of GDPR, asking users again and again, so that we can safely assume that a click on "I agree" is not agreement, but clicking the wrong button. Guys, I really recommend you don't make any assumption that European users have agreed to anything if you want to stay on the right side of EU law.
I'd rather live on welfare than let a company chip me.
In a place where a company could force you to have a chip implanted if you want a job, you wouldn't get welfare.
From my point of view, I'd rather have a talk with my favourite employment lawyer who would enjoy ripping them a new asshole instead of letting a company chip me.
Disclaimer: I didn't read the patent.
I didn't read it either, but it took quite a while to scroll through it, so I think it's just a little bit more than "process voice locally without using the cloud".
In the UK, ALPR's will often lookup the license plate in some database to find out whether the car is insured, whether road tax is being paid and whether it has an MOT test, so the police can immediately stop a car that fails, and all motorists other than those stopped appreciate it very much.
This doesn't make sense. So you are saying that if I put the cache folder into my home directory, it is going to delete the contents of the home directory? I suppose if that happened Adobe would be without customers by now.
The cache folder was not _inside_ his video folder. The video folder _was_ his cache folder.
we see a lot of stories about how Amazon really doesn't care about people selling actual counterfeit goods on their platform.
Since this story is about Amazon and Apple... At one time, Apple reportedly purchased 100 "original Apple" chargers from Amazon. Out of 100, NOT ONE "original Apple" charger was an original Apple charger, and 80 out of 100 were dangerous (according to Apple, who took them apart).