You mean Chinese Government funding, seeking to completely corner the market on solar panels and wind turbines (they've accomplished the former, and are working on the latter - although they do have the market on neo magnets completely sewn up). It was done not as an egalitarian move, but a purely capitalistic/monetary move - corner a market, own the market, increase your own GDP.
Burn the coal locally, you get all the BTUs out of it for heat. Burn it at a power plant, you lose a good chunk of those BTUs, then more when you turn a turbine, then more with you convert the voltage, then more to transport the power over power lines, then more when you step it back down, then more when it's locally regulated - before you start heat the element. I thought the "green team" loved distributed power for this very reason?
Take a gander at the total number of blacks, then the total number of murders, manslaughters, and robberies.
Here's the data you asked for. Blacks commit more than half of all murder/manslaugher, and robberies. Assuming race is not the motive for shootings by police, we would expect about half of all police shootings to be of black suspects. So when we see statistics that blacks are twice as likely as whites to be shot by police, that would actually indicate police restraint, since whites are about 5 times more populous than blacks.
Here are some facts. If you are a shooting victim, you are twice as likely to be white and shot by a black versus being black and shot by a white. Overwhelmingly people are shot by their own race, but cross shootings between whites and blacks, it's about a 2:1 of black-on-white shootings.
Got it. Rather than face facts and look at the actual statistics, you rather hurl invectives. In other words - you're useless. Thank you admitting you are on the wrong side of the argument.
I live in Ventura. I consult in lots of places, but nearly every week finds me heading down to Cypress. Right by (and sometimes, depending upon traffic, through) the deadliest ZIP codes on the West Coast - Compton and Lynwood. However, the State of California refuses to recognize 2A rights and thus I am prohibited from carrying a firearm for protection. I carried in Seattle and Edmonds for 10 years, with nary an issue; but CA deems it dangerous (even though their anti-carry stance has done nothing for gun violence).
Where I live, gun violence is incredibly rare; where I commute and work can be the exact opposite.
Black officers tend to shoot black suspects as often as white officers shoot black suspects. Meaning it's not "racism" that is driving the police shootings (unless your position is that all black officers are "uncle Toms" or "oreos" like Justice Thomas is often called). Perhaps it's the fact that blacks account for the majority of murders, manslaughter, and robberies?
You are so full of shit it is mind-blowing. Whites commit just as many crimes.
Yes indeed! And there happens to be about four times as many whites as blacks. Meaning - the crime rate for blacks is higher. Source of statistics. Half of all murders were committed by blacks; about 45% by whites. Yet whites outnumber blacks by 4:1. Does that mean all blacks are thugs and killers? Of course not! But it does mean, if there is a murder or robbery, chances are it was commited by a black criminal. Facts are facts - even if you don't like them.
DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago pretty much settles it - the right is an individual right, and being part of a militia is not a requirement. Restrictions on the right to possess and carry firearms is a complete violation of your individual 2A rights.
They will answer that flying is not a public right nor service; they are private airlines. And you can fly on other private airlines (like JetSuite X or Surf Air) where you do not have TSA checks.
Qualcomm will give you the firmware image, work with you to develop it (just like CSR, ADI, TI, and others). Then you're supposed to PAY for it for each installation - and Apple isn't. And yes, each of those patents cover devices that are ICs AND have firmware inside them. Nothing in the patents specifically say "only implemented in hardware" - and many chips from Qualcomm related to power control are software configurable (registers that you load with settings) - meaning, firmware.
No the patents in question are listed for the world to see. They all relate to ICs and firmware. Apple - like all other vendors - can of course develop their own firmware to load on the ICs, but given it would take man-decades, most people just license up for the firmware and options they want. Except Apple. And thus the lawsuit. Only one of us is talking out our ass...
At any rate, we're both just talking out our asses right now. Since it looks like Apple intends to take this to court, though, we'll get to see soon enough which of us was right.
You may be, but I am not. I've done this kind of licensing of chips before, several times, with the exact same IC but different sets of firmware for different prices. In fact, vendors like it because it's hard to discount chips in volume beyond a certain point, but firmware licensing? That can be cut much more aggressively. So you may see a 20% cut on costs on an IC when you move from 1K to 1MM production, but you'll see a 75% cut in licensing over that same increase in volume.
What's even better, it was quite common for published numbers to later be revised DOWN, when Obama was President. Now that Trump is President, past numbers are being revised UP and that's ignored... Can't say anything good about the man, after all!
You realize it's perfectly possible to show a loss on your financials and still be making money, right? Especially when your sinking money into a new factory. That's why you ALSO need to look at the balance sheet.
Not when you follow GAAP. It's highly defined, and you cannot "ignore" capital costs - that's why they are amortized over time. The only way that Tesla is "making money" is when you use non-GAAP accounting and ignore expenses that other car companies do not ignore. You may increase your net worth by "investing" more than you actually make (meaning - you take loans to invest, or in the case of Tesla you sell more shares of stock, getting loans from shareholders), but your income is still negative. Net worth may increase, but income is negative. Flat out,
full stop.
Hey, my net income would look a LOT better if I didn't have to actually "recognize" my mortgage payments or my health care insurance premiums! A solid $3K per month change in my stated monthly cash flow! Of course, I can't do that - that's not accepted. Even if most of it is going to build total "net worth", my cash flow still takes that $3K/month hit. Hey, why don't I go get a $50K/month mortgage - well beyond my monthly income - and claim I still have the same income, I'm still cash-flow positive (no loss - profit!) whilst building more net asset value? Can't do that... That's called fraud.
Tesla was slapped by the SEC for it's non-GAAP shenanigans, and now reports GAAP numbers. All of which show Tesla losing money. As is correct. Corporate value - net assets - may be increasing as cash flow is spent on factories, but that does not change the fact: they are spending more money than they are bringing in, they have a negative earnings per share.
No, they haven't. They may have paid for the chips - but what about the firmware inside? You can buy an IAP2 chip from Apple - but you still have to pay additionally for the firmware inside it. You can buy a Cirrus 8281 DSP, but you still have to pay additionally for any firmware you want to run inside it. You can buy a CSR8670 Bluetooth controller, but you still have to pay for the AptX firmware you want to run inside it. This more than just a chip - it is also the firmware inside that needs to be licensed, and is pretty common throughout the chip industry.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean Chinese Government funding, seeking to completely corner the market on solar panels and wind turbines (they've accomplished the former, and are working on the latter - although they do have the market on neo magnets completely sewn up). It was done not as an egalitarian move, but a purely capitalistic/monetary move - corner a market, own the market, increase your own GDP.
And the installation costs? A good ground heat exchange system is around $40,000... That buys a LOT of coal...
Burn the coal locally, you get all the BTUs out of it for heat. Burn it at a power plant, you lose a good chunk of those BTUs, then more when you turn a turbine, then more with you convert the voltage, then more to transport the power over power lines, then more when you step it back down, then more when it's locally regulated - before you start heat the element. I thought the "green team" loved distributed power for this very reason?
So your complaint is they get to deduct the entire costs in one year, rather than spread it over 5?
Other companies (like Tesla) get tax breaks for buying/building capital equipment; why shouldn't energy companies?
So - nothing other than your opinion. No facts, no statistics, no reports. Just your opinion. Got it...
How am I wrong? I posted FBI statistics. Where is the error? What offends you about actual, reports from the FBI?
Take a gander at the total number of blacks, then the total number of murders, manslaughters, and robberies.
Here's the data you asked for. Blacks commit more than half of all murder/manslaugher, and robberies. Assuming race is not the motive for shootings by police, we would expect about half of all police shootings to be of black suspects. So when we see statistics that blacks are twice as likely as whites to be shot by police, that would actually indicate police restraint, since whites are about 5 times more populous than blacks.
And blacks make up over half of all murders, an even higher rate (blacks account for about 52% of all murders, and about 60% of all robberies).
Here are some facts. If you are a shooting victim, you are twice as likely to be white and shot by a black versus being black and shot by a white. Overwhelmingly people are shot by their own race, but cross shootings between whites and blacks, it's about a 2:1 of black-on-white shootings.
Got it. Rather than face facts and look at the actual statistics, you rather hurl invectives. In other words - you're useless. Thank you admitting you are on the wrong side of the argument.
I live in Ventura. I consult in lots of places, but nearly every week finds me heading down to Cypress. Right by (and sometimes, depending upon traffic, through) the deadliest ZIP codes on the West Coast - Compton and Lynwood. However, the State of California refuses to recognize 2A rights and thus I am prohibited from carrying a firearm for protection. I carried in Seattle and Edmonds for 10 years, with nary an issue; but CA deems it dangerous (even though their anti-carry stance has done nothing for gun violence).
Where I live, gun violence is incredibly rare; where I commute and work can be the exact opposite.
Statistically, you are more likely to be killed by a black man. Is that statement correct or not?
In 2015, The Washington Post launched a real-time database to track fatal police shootings, and the project continues this year. As of Sunday, 1,502 people have been shot and killed by on-duty police officers since Jan. 1, 2015. Of them, 732 were white, and 381 were black (and 382 were of another or unknown race). More whites are shot and killed by police than blacks.
Black officers tend to shoot black suspects as often as white officers shoot black suspects. Meaning it's not "racism" that is driving the police shootings (unless your position is that all black officers are "uncle Toms" or "oreos" like Justice Thomas is often called). Perhaps it's the fact that blacks account for the majority of murders, manslaughter, and robberies?
You are so full of shit it is mind-blowing. Whites commit just as many crimes.
Yes indeed! And there happens to be about four times as many whites as blacks. Meaning - the crime rate for blacks is higher. Source of statistics. Half of all murders were committed by blacks; about 45% by whites. Yet whites outnumber blacks by 4:1. Does that mean all blacks are thugs and killers? Of course not! But it does mean, if there is a murder or robbery, chances are it was commited by a black criminal. Facts are facts - even if you don't like them.
The Dalai Lama once said that if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.
DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago pretty much settles it - the right is an individual right, and being part of a militia is not a requirement. Restrictions on the right to possess and carry firearms is a complete violation of your individual 2A rights.
They will answer that flying is not a public right nor service; they are private airlines. And you can fly on other private airlines (like JetSuite X or Surf Air) where you do not have TSA checks.
Qualcomm will give you the firmware image, work with you to develop it (just like CSR, ADI, TI, and others). Then you're supposed to PAY for it for each installation - and Apple isn't. And yes, each of those patents cover devices that are ICs AND have firmware inside them. Nothing in the patents specifically say "only implemented in hardware" - and many chips from Qualcomm related to power control are software configurable (registers that you load with settings) - meaning, firmware.
No the patents in question are listed for the world to see. They all relate to ICs and firmware. Apple - like all other vendors - can of course develop their own firmware to load on the ICs, but given it would take man-decades, most people just license up for the firmware and options they want. Except Apple. And thus the lawsuit. Only one of us is talking out our ass...
At any rate, we're both just talking out our asses right now. Since it looks like Apple intends to take this to court, though, we'll get to see soon enough which of us was right.
You may be, but I am not. I've done this kind of licensing of chips before, several times, with the exact same IC but different sets of firmware for different prices. In fact, vendors like it because it's hard to discount chips in volume beyond a certain point, but firmware licensing? That can be cut much more aggressively. So you may see a 20% cut on costs on an IC when you move from 1K to 1MM production, but you'll see a 75% cut in licensing over that same increase in volume.
What's even better, it was quite common for published numbers to later be revised DOWN, when Obama was President. Now that Trump is President, past numbers are being revised UP and that's ignored... Can't say anything good about the man, after all!
You realize it's perfectly possible to show a loss on your financials and still be making money, right? Especially when your sinking money into a new factory. That's why you ALSO need to look at the balance sheet.
Not when you follow GAAP. It's highly defined, and you cannot "ignore" capital costs - that's why they are amortized over time. The only way that Tesla is "making money" is when you use non-GAAP accounting and ignore expenses that other car companies do not ignore. You may increase your net worth by "investing" more than you actually make (meaning - you take loans to invest, or in the case of Tesla you sell more shares of stock, getting loans from shareholders), but your income is still negative. Net worth may increase, but income is negative. Flat out, full stop.
Hey, my net income would look a LOT better if I didn't have to actually "recognize" my mortgage payments or my health care insurance premiums! A solid $3K per month change in my stated monthly cash flow! Of course, I can't do that - that's not accepted. Even if most of it is going to build total "net worth", my cash flow still takes that $3K/month hit. Hey, why don't I go get a $50K/month mortgage - well beyond my monthly income - and claim I still have the same income, I'm still cash-flow positive (no loss - profit!) whilst building more net asset value? Can't do that... That's called fraud.
Tesla was slapped by the SEC for it's non-GAAP shenanigans, and now reports GAAP numbers. All of which show Tesla losing money. As is correct. Corporate value - net assets - may be increasing as cash flow is spent on factories, but that does not change the fact: they are spending more money than they are bringing in, they have a negative earnings per share.
No, they haven't. They may have paid for the chips - but what about the firmware inside? You can buy an IAP2 chip from Apple - but you still have to pay additionally for the firmware inside it. You can buy a Cirrus 8281 DSP, but you still have to pay additionally for any firmware you want to run inside it. You can buy a CSR8670 Bluetooth controller, but you still have to pay for the AptX firmware you want to run inside it. This more than just a chip - it is also the firmware inside that needs to be licensed, and is pretty common throughout the chip industry.