As we said, there aren’t readily available nationwide crime statistics broken down by immigration status. But the available research that estimates the relationship between illegal immigration and crime generally shows an association with lower crime rates.
As it is right now (pre-2019 BMWs and every other car that comes with CarPlay), CarPlay is a feature of the car, like a CD player. So, yes, the license for CarPlay transfers to subsequent owners (like the license to the software that controls the CD player).
In 2019+ BMWs, the subsequent owners would have to pay the yearly fee.
Itâ(TM)s only not part of the residual when the switch to the pay-per-year model (in the 2019 model year). Because the $80 per year fee is paid on top of the lease payment.
Thatâ(TM)s what makes the new, pay-per-year method more expensive than the $300 one-time-few method. And yet BMW is claiming the opposite.
They says that for leases, the 'pay per year' method is cheaper, but let's boil that down.
On a three year least, with the 'pay per year' method, you'll pay $0 for your first year and $80 for each of your next two years. So $160 total.
If you leased the car with the one-time $300 fee, you don't pay $300. You pay Sales Price minus Residual. And the residual on some of these cars is up to ~60% of sales price. So lets say that the residual on a BMW is 58%, that means Car Play would have cost you $300* 0.42 = $126! Still cheaper! You'd have to have a residual less than 47% for the new method to be worth it.
You are assuming that the CarPlay license is part of that residual. Is CarPlay transferable to the new owner? Are you sure the "remainder" of the CarPlay fee goes into the residual value? I expect CarPlay is outside that residual. The residual is supposed to be the wholesale value of the car. If CarPlay is not transferable it can not be part of that value.
Right now it absolute is part of the residual. Right now in BMWs, CarPlay is an optional feature (despite that on most other cars CarPlay is included as a standard feature). Think of it like an optional sunroof. The leasee pays part of that cost just like he pays for part of the car in general.
My current car has CarPlay. If I sell the car to someone else, she gets CarPlay, too. Just like she gets the sunroof I paid extra for. It's part of the car. CarPlay isn't a service (like satellite radio, for instance). No one is coming to lock the sunroof shut in my car when I sell it. BMW will lock CarPlay, though.
No one else charges a yearly fee for CarPlay. My wife's near-poverty-spec Honda came with CarPlay, and it'll work years down the road even though we don't pay Honda anything for it.
They says that for leases, the 'pay per year' method is cheaper, but let's boil that down.
On a three year least, with the 'pay per year' method, you'll pay $0 for your first year and $80 for each of your next two years. So $160 total.
If you leased the car with the one-time $300 fee, you don't pay $300. You pay Sales Price minus Residual. And the residual on some of these cars is up to ~60% of sales price. So lets say that the residual on a BMW is 58%, that means Car Play would have cost you $300* 0.42 = $126! Still cheaper! You'd have to have a residual less than 47% for the new method to be worth it.
Personally I like my iPhone and so far, unlike my Samsung 7 Edge, it hasn't gotten slower and slower with each update.
L O Fing L.
Apple JUST GOT caught intentionally slowing down iPhones with each update. Apple hasn't promised to stop doing it, instead hoping that selling batteries for 5 times what they're worth instead of 10 times what they're worth will trick customers into ignoring the fact that APPLE INTENTIONALLY SLOWS DOWN OLDER PHONES WITH UPDATES.
How do 'other phones' deal with the reality that battery output drops after a few years? Their solution is to simply stop providing updates after a year and a half after the phones first went on sale. After the 'other phone' starts misbehaving too much, the owners junk them and get a new phone.
That's a much worse solution than giving degraded performance during intensive tasks to ensure the phone doesn't randomly shut off.
$25k watches are definitely not mainstream though. iPhones are ending up in a lot more hands than other expensive lifestyle things.
Remember that I picked a '$25k watch' as an extreme example, not as some standard-bearer that should be upheld.
iPhones being more mainstream than luxury watches is to be expected, though. iPhones cost less than 4% of said watch, which puts them in the grasp of a lot more people. Also, iPhones (and phones in general) are a lot more conspicuous than or most expensive things. Can you really tell a $5k men's suit from a $700 suit? or high-end shoes? Maybe if you really look at them, or were already a fan of the brand.
There are enough people in the world to whom spending $25k on a watch is like a regular person spending $100 on a watch.
Also, luxury watches tend to last for decades and don't depreciate as much as a lot of other consumer goods do. It's not uncommon to wear a watch for 30 years and then pass it down to your children.
Personally, I'd never spend $25k on a watch unless I was super-loaded, but I wouldn't mind spending $5k-$10k on such a watch, if it was of sufficient quality and timelessness. Hell, the Omega Speedmaster Professional was first produced in the '50s and was the first watch worn on the moon. They are still made today (but with slightly different internals). To some people, it's pretty cool to own a piece of that heritage and be able to look at it every day.
Don't forget that the average cost of an engagement ring in the US is like $6,000. And those don't even tell the time!
The writer of the 'article' doesn't seem to understand a few things.
1) The entire 'luxury goods' industry exists. Long after $5 quartz watches were introduced, you can still buy yourself a $25k Rolex and enjoy it. Fancy plates and real silverware don't function any differently than Corning Ware and Oneida. Yet they still exist.
2) Think of how often a typical cell-phone using person uses his/her phone. How many times a day does said person interact with his/her phone? Two thousand?
Based on that, if you have the phone for two years and it's valueless after that (which is not the case), then to a lot of people it's worth spending extra money on a 'premium' device that works a lot lot better than cheaper devices that are slow and you have to reboot constantly. That's only $0.0004 (or 0.04 Cents) per touch different than a cheap cell phone. Or, $1 per DAY. For someone that uses his cell phone a lot, $1 per day to have a reliable device that will be quick and snappy and not need rebooting constantly, that's enough.
3) Some people just like having the latest and greatest gadgets. That's fine.
In short, the OP doesn't understand how anyone would live different than the way he is living now.
I look at it this way: Apple gives you a 2 year, 0% loan on a phone. At the end of a year (or anytime thereafter), you can turn in the the phone and get the next model.
I look at it this way: Apple marketing is certainly working to ensure you're a customer of exorbitantly-priced hardware for life.
Or you can just pay off the phone and enjoy using their money. It's just like a department store offering you their store credit card with 0% interest. If you don't have the will power to walk away when it's time, then it certainly isn't their fault. But, yes, Apple's plan with the iPhone Upgrade Program is to make it extremely easy for customers to come in and get the newest model phone. At any point you can just keep the phone you have and walk away. There's no mandatory lock-in, so I don't see what the problem is.
It's not 0% because someone else is lending you the money and no one stays in business lending at 0%. It's like the 0% car loans. In this case you pay back $649 or whatever the phone costs but the lender is paying Apple less than that per phone and keeping the difference
If the lender is paying Apple less than the phone, why would I (as the consumer) care? The loan is exactly 0%. I can either but the phone for $X right now or I can pay $(X/24) over the next 24 months. Either way, it's the same money out of my pocket and I can use my money on anything else (including investing it) in the meantime.
The guy I was responding to said that he always buys outright, so if he had the cash to pay for it outright, he could easily take the cash, put it in an interest-accruing savings account and pay for the 0% loan out of that account. And he would come out financially ahead. My sole point was that at 0% it is financially inefficient to use your own money instead of someone else's. He thinks always paying cash outright is the financially prudent thing to do - and it's not.
I'd assume that you'd want some sort of insurance on a large slab of glass and electronics that you remove from your pocket dozens of times a day and hold in one hand when using. But maybe that's just me.
I always buy outright. Never borrow money or rent. With leasing, someone is providing you with a service over and above the simple purchasing of a thing, and you'll pay for that service. Save money by buying.
Apple's iPhone Upgrade Plan is a 0% loan that you have the option of terminating after a year. Even if you never plan on upgrading, using a 0% loan is financially better than using your own cash.
My parents bought cheap, $100 Android smartphones. They are constantly having issues with them. They reboot, their slow, they run out of storage, you name it.
If you use your phone more than a few times a day, those kinds of issues get really old really quickly. Just think of how many times a typical modern adult checks/interacts with his/her phone over the course of the day. Spending and extra $500 on a phone that you'll have for 2 years (or more) is well worth the cost. Think of it. At a 2 year life, spending an extra $500 on a reliable smartphone is only $0.68 per day. I'd gladly pay that to not be constantly frustrated with my phone, which I touch dozens of times a day.
I look at it this way: Apple gives you a 2 year, 0% loan on a phone. At the end of a year (or anytime thereafter), you can turn in the the phone and get the next model.
Let's say you got last year's phone on the Apple Upgrade Plan. This year, you have a few options:
1) You like the new phone this year so you want to get it. You check what your current phone is selling for. 1a) Your current phone is selling for more than you owe on it (~50% its purchase price). But out the rest of the loan immediately, sell phone, make a profit. 1b) Your current phone is selling for less than you owe on it. Trade it in, let Apple take the depreciation it on it.
2) You don't like the new phone. Keep yours and be happy.
Seriously, it's a 0% lease with a buy option. There's tons of flexibility for the consumer, and you won't be stuck in a bad spot.
The only downside is that you pay the sales tax up front on the new phone, so that has to be taken into consideration when upgrading.
I grew up using an antenna for all of my TV needs. Now I have a TiVo Roamio OTA with a lifetime subscription (which I got a for a couple hundred dollars) for all of my DVR and app (Netflix, Hulu, etc) needs.
2.5 million rides x $0.20 per ride = $500,000 per year, not millions. Unless there are a whole lot of smaller ride-sharing businesses in MA with a combined multiple times the volume of Uber and Lyft, this the post fails as a troll.
Most (more than 90%) have power where they park. If you disagree with the facts, take them up with those that did the study, rather than raging all over those who are just pointing out the facts in the article. Shooting the messenger is more fun, because they are easier to find, and more likely to not bother to argue the point, as it's obviously not worth it.
It's a self fulfilling prophesy. 90% have power where they park because otherwise they wouldn't buy the electric car in the first place.
You probably don't remember but back in the 80s when you had no cellphone, you probably died 3 or 4 times per year because you couldn't call the emergency services.
You jest, but the people that did die in 80s because help couldn't get there soon enough aren't around to tell you their story.
Why does it have to be 'drones?' If they are tethered to the ground anyway, why wouldn't balloons be an easier and cheaper solution than a hovering quadcopter?
Slashdot Mirror
Immigrants, documented or not, tend to commit crimes at a smaller rate than native born Americans.
https://www.factcheck.org/2018...
As we said, there aren’t readily available nationwide crime statistics broken down by immigration status. But the available research that estimates the relationship between illegal immigration and crime generally shows an association with lower crime rates.
This may lead to Netflix buying/building its own cinemas just to show movies in.
As it is right now (pre-2019 BMWs and every other car that comes with CarPlay), CarPlay is a feature of the car, like a CD player. So, yes, the license for CarPlay transfers to subsequent owners (like the license to the software that controls the CD player).
In 2019+ BMWs, the subsequent owners would have to pay the yearly fee.
Itâ(TM)s only not part of the residual when the switch to the pay-per-year model (in the 2019 model year). Because the $80 per year fee is paid on top of the lease payment.
Thatâ(TM)s what makes the new, pay-per-year method more expensive than the $300 one-time-few method. And yet BMW is claiming the opposite.
They says that for leases, the 'pay per year' method is cheaper, but let's boil that down.
On a three year least, with the 'pay per year' method, you'll pay $0 for your first year and $80 for each of your next two years. So $160 total.
If you leased the car with the one-time $300 fee, you don't pay $300. You pay Sales Price minus Residual. And the residual on some of these cars is up to ~60% of sales price. So lets say that the residual on a BMW is 58%, that means Car Play would have cost you $300* 0.42 = $126! Still cheaper! You'd have to have a residual less than 47% for the new method to be worth it.
You are assuming that the CarPlay license is part of that residual. Is CarPlay transferable to the new owner? Are you sure the "remainder" of the CarPlay fee goes into the residual value? I expect CarPlay is outside that residual. The residual is supposed to be the wholesale value of the car. If CarPlay is not transferable it can not be part of that value.
Right now it absolute is part of the residual. Right now in BMWs, CarPlay is an optional feature (despite that on most other cars CarPlay is included as a standard feature). Think of it like an optional sunroof. The leasee pays part of that cost just like he pays for part of the car in general.
My current car has CarPlay. If I sell the car to someone else, she gets CarPlay, too. Just like she gets the sunroof I paid extra for. It's part of the car. CarPlay isn't a service (like satellite radio, for instance). No one is coming to lock the sunroof shut in my car when I sell it. BMW will lock CarPlay, though.
No one else charges a yearly fee for CarPlay. My wife's near-poverty-spec Honda came with CarPlay, and it'll work years down the road even though we don't pay Honda anything for it.
They says that for leases, the 'pay per year' method is cheaper, but let's boil that down.
On a three year least, with the 'pay per year' method, you'll pay $0 for your first year and $80 for each of your next two years. So $160 total.
If you leased the car with the one-time $300 fee, you don't pay $300. You pay Sales Price minus Residual. And the residual on some of these cars is up to ~60% of sales price. So lets say that the residual on a BMW is 58%, that means Car Play would have cost you $300* 0.42 = $126! Still cheaper! You'd have to have a residual less than 47% for the new method to be worth it.
Personally I like my iPhone and so far, unlike my Samsung 7 Edge, it hasn't gotten slower and slower with each update.
L O Fing L.
Apple JUST GOT caught intentionally slowing down iPhones with each update. Apple hasn't promised to stop doing it, instead hoping that selling batteries for 5 times what they're worth instead of 10 times what they're worth will trick customers into ignoring the fact that APPLE INTENTIONALLY SLOWS DOWN OLDER PHONES WITH UPDATES.
How do 'other phones' deal with the reality that battery output drops after a few years? Their solution is to simply stop providing updates after a year and a half after the phones first went on sale. After the 'other phone' starts misbehaving too much, the owners junk them and get a new phone.
That's a much worse solution than giving degraded performance during intensive tasks to ensure the phone doesn't randomly shut off.
$25k watches are definitely not mainstream though. iPhones are ending up in a lot more hands than other expensive lifestyle things.
Remember that I picked a '$25k watch' as an extreme example, not as some standard-bearer that should be upheld.
iPhones being more mainstream than luxury watches is to be expected, though. iPhones cost less than 4% of said watch, which puts them in the grasp of a lot more people. Also, iPhones (and phones in general) are a lot more conspicuous than or most expensive things. Can you really tell a $5k men's suit from a $700 suit? or high-end shoes? Maybe if you really look at them, or were already a fan of the brand.
There are enough people in the world to whom spending $25k on a watch is like a regular person spending $100 on a watch.
Also, luxury watches tend to last for decades and don't depreciate as much as a lot of other consumer goods do. It's not uncommon to wear a watch for 30 years and then pass it down to your children.
Personally, I'd never spend $25k on a watch unless I was super-loaded, but I wouldn't mind spending $5k-$10k on such a watch, if it was of sufficient quality and timelessness. Hell, the Omega Speedmaster Professional was first produced in the '50s and was the first watch worn on the moon. They are still made today (but with slightly different internals). To some people, it's pretty cool to own a piece of that heritage and be able to look at it every day.
Don't forget that the average cost of an engagement ring in the US is like $6,000. And those don't even tell the time!
The writer of the 'article' doesn't seem to understand a few things.
1) The entire 'luxury goods' industry exists. Long after $5 quartz watches were introduced, you can still buy yourself a $25k Rolex and enjoy it. Fancy plates and real silverware don't function any differently than Corning Ware and Oneida. Yet they still exist.
2) Think of how often a typical cell-phone using person uses his/her phone. How many times a day does said person interact with his/her phone? Two thousand?
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Based on that, if you have the phone for two years and it's valueless after that (which is not the case), then to a lot of people it's worth spending extra money on a 'premium' device that works a lot lot better than cheaper devices that are slow and you have to reboot constantly. That's only $0.0004 (or 0.04 Cents) per touch different than a cheap cell phone. Or, $1 per DAY. For someone that uses his cell phone a lot, $1 per day to have a reliable device that will be quick and snappy and not need rebooting constantly, that's enough.
3) Some people just like having the latest and greatest gadgets. That's fine.
In short, the OP doesn't understand how anyone would live different than the way he is living now.
If you're only buying $200-$300 phones, you can afford to get a new one every few months. Buying $700-$800 phones changes the equation a little bit.
I look at it this way: Apple gives you a 2 year, 0% loan on a phone. At the end of a year (or anytime thereafter), you can turn in the the phone and get the next model.
I look at it this way: Apple marketing is certainly working to ensure you're a customer of exorbitantly-priced hardware for life.
Or you can just pay off the phone and enjoy using their money. It's just like a department store offering you their store credit card with 0% interest. If you don't have the will power to walk away when it's time, then it certainly isn't their fault. But, yes, Apple's plan with the iPhone Upgrade Program is to make it extremely easy for customers to come in and get the newest model phone. At any point you can just keep the phone you have and walk away. There's no mandatory lock-in, so I don't see what the problem is.
It's not 0% because someone else is lending you the money and no one stays in business lending at 0%. It's like the 0% car loans. In this case you pay back $649 or whatever the phone costs but the lender is paying Apple less than that per phone and keeping the difference
If the lender is paying Apple less than the phone, why would I (as the consumer) care? The loan is exactly 0%. I can either but the phone for $X right now or I can pay $(X/24) over the next 24 months. Either way, it's the same money out of my pocket and I can use my money on anything else (including investing it) in the meantime.
The guy I was responding to said that he always buys outright, so if he had the cash to pay for it outright, he could easily take the cash, put it in an interest-accruing savings account and pay for the 0% loan out of that account. And he would come out financially ahead. My sole point was that at 0% it is financially inefficient to use your own money instead of someone else's. He thinks always paying cash outright is the financially prudent thing to do - and it's not.
I'd assume that you'd want some sort of insurance on a large slab of glass and electronics that you remove from your pocket dozens of times a day and hold in one hand when using. But maybe that's just me.
I always buy outright. Never borrow money or rent. With leasing, someone is providing you with a service over and above the simple purchasing of a thing, and you'll pay for that service. Save money by buying.
Apple's iPhone Upgrade Plan is a 0% loan that you have the option of terminating after a year. Even if you never plan on upgrading, using a 0% loan is financially better than using your own cash.
My parents bought cheap, $100 Android smartphones. They are constantly having issues with them. They reboot, their slow, they run out of storage, you name it.
If you use your phone more than a few times a day, those kinds of issues get really old really quickly. Just think of how many times a typical modern adult checks/interacts with his/her phone over the course of the day. Spending and extra $500 on a phone that you'll have for 2 years (or more) is well worth the cost. Think of it. At a 2 year life, spending an extra $500 on a reliable smartphone is only $0.68 per day. I'd gladly pay that to not be constantly frustrated with my phone, which I touch dozens of times a day.
I look at it this way: Apple gives you a 2 year, 0% loan on a phone. At the end of a year (or anytime thereafter), you can turn in the the phone and get the next model.
Let's say you got last year's phone on the Apple Upgrade Plan. This year, you have a few options:
1) You like the new phone this year so you want to get it. You check what your current phone is selling for.
1a) Your current phone is selling for more than you owe on it (~50% its purchase price). But out the rest of the loan immediately, sell phone, make a profit.
1b) Your current phone is selling for less than you owe on it. Trade it in, let Apple take the depreciation it on it.
2) You don't like the new phone. Keep yours and be happy.
Seriously, it's a 0% lease with a buy option. There's tons of flexibility for the consumer, and you won't be stuck in a bad spot.
The only downside is that you pay the sales tax up front on the new phone, so that has to be taken into consideration when upgrading.
Next up, Millennials will "discover" an amazing hack to reading the news -- buying a printed newspaper from a newspaper stand! More at 11!
"There's no batteries to run out!", they exclaimed.
Article is Paywalled. Alternate Source?
I grew up using an antenna for all of my TV needs. Now I have a TiVo Roamio OTA with a lifetime subscription (which I got a for a couple hundred dollars) for all of my DVR and app (Netflix, Hulu, etc) needs.
2.5 million rides x $0.20 per ride = $500,000 per year, not millions. Unless there are a whole lot of smaller ride-sharing businesses in MA with a combined multiple times the volume of Uber and Lyft, this the post fails as a troll.
2.5million rides per month
Most (more than 90%) have power where they park. If you disagree with the facts, take them up with those that did the study, rather than raging all over those who are just pointing out the facts in the article. Shooting the messenger is more fun, because they are easier to find, and more likely to not bother to argue the point, as it's obviously not worth it.
It's a self fulfilling prophesy. 90% have power where they park because otherwise they wouldn't buy the electric car in the first place.
Just count the responses right here that already spelled out the solution by blocking and white listing. Why is anybody even discussing this anymore??
Because white listing doesn't work when you don't know the number from which someone is calling you, even if it a legitimate call.
Because black listing doesn't work because the spammers are spoofing their CallerID to be any number they want.
Yes, you should avoid it completely.
You probably don't remember but back in the 80s when you had no cellphone, you probably died 3 or 4 times per year because you couldn't call the emergency services.
You jest, but the people that did die in 80s because help couldn't get there soon enough aren't around to tell you their story.
It's call Survivorship Bias.
Why does it have to be 'drones?' If they are tethered to the ground anyway, why wouldn't balloons be an easier and cheaper solution than a hovering quadcopter?