1. In the US, at least, we do. It's called Yucca Mountain. it wasn't politically acceptable to the previous Administration for #UNKNOWNREASON, but the current Administration would probably be fine to use this purpose-built facility for what it was built for - long-term storage of nuclear waste.
Sure, they'd all love to pay less! I'd love not to have to pay a $4 "license fee" to Apple to build with the Lightning connector (that's in addition to buying the MFi chip and the Lightning connector, and using an Apple-approved manufacturer). But is Apple paying anything different than the others? If not - then it's fair (they signed it up front), reasonable (no more than what Apple and others charge for their IP), and non-discriminatory (it's the same as everyone else).
I haven't heard otherwise - Apple's never complained they are getting a different deal, just that they "pay too much". They've never asserted they are paying terms more than others - and the onus is on the accuser.
Is it the same deal that other phone makers get? Then it's fair (Apple agreed to it right up front), reasonable (all others - dozens of them - pay it), and non-discriminatory (all others pay the same basic rate).
Apple does it with MFi and any audio device designed to directly enumerate as such over the Lightning connector. Not only must you buy their MFi chips and connectors, you must buy their Lightning Audio Module. And then you must use one of their chosen contract manufacturers to build your product. And then you must also pay a license fee for each product built. Quite a bit more restrictive than what Qualcomm is doing...
So... Has any other phone maker complained about the payment to Qualcomm to the point of withholding payment? If not - then what Qualcomm is asking would be considered "fair and reasonable" since 99% of the market agrees. And if they're asking the same thing of everyone - it's non-discriminatory. Why should Apple get preferential treatment?
Note that I can buy Lightning connectors and MFi chips from lots of sources. But I still have to pay Apple to use them as well; and in fact I must only use factories approved by Apple (forcing me to "associate" at Apple's behest, not mine). Kind of like Qualcomm is accused of doing...
I believe a patent, by its very nature a limited Government-granted monopoly, waives the issue about exclusive distribution. And coercive licensing and predatory pricing is very much "in the eye of the beholder". As it is based on a singular item (the patent - the Government-acknowledged-and-granted monopoly), the company can charge whatever they want with near impunity. It's only when it becomes part of a standard that things get squishy...
Weight is a huge issue. The buoyancy of the helium is really the only lifting source they have. It takes a LOT of helium to raise a ton; it's why this airship is rated for just 10 tons of cargo (sadly very little - less than the towing capacity of a Ford F450 pickup truck).
Here's an interesting survey, the popular things (like education for women) are the types of things that would get you killed by the Taliban. and there is a big drop in "country going right/wrong" right around the time that President Obama started the draw-down of troops. Mean that - contrary to what you often hear - the Afghans, by and large, prefer to have US troops around rather than Taliban.
To be honest, it was our prior President who did that. I don't think the current President would do that. He seems to play a lot closer to the Constitution...
And in California, riding bicycles on sidewalks is left to the cities. It's illegal in San Francisco, and many of the LA suburbs - you have to use the street. Additionally it is illegal to turn without signalling. And per the link provided above, electric scooters are bundled with motorized bicycles/mopeds - and are thus prohibited from use on the sidewalk. This isn't about utility, this is about legal operation of a vehicle. Riding an electric scooter without an M2 endorsement, without a helmet, or on a sidewalk is illegal.
OK - point to one since my GoogleFu isn't strong enough, apparently. As far as ownership - it's not a publicly traded company, so ownership is not disclosed. Like in the US - private companies do not have to disclose ownership.
I followed the link - it didn't say what you hope it says. And as far as foreign automakers in China think - of course they come to their conclusion. For them, they cannot be an investment project. An investment project is pretty much limited to Government owned ventures - like car makers. If you're a WFOE, you're out of luck - but if you're China-Government owned, you can make ICEs.
Hmmm... Seems to amend for pedal-driven bicycles, but that's it. Scooters are mentioned as far as requiring an M2 to operate but that's it (there are 3 references to scooter on that page). I don't think that makes them legal to operate on sidewalks, nor does it free you from the requirement to have a driver's license.
Those WFOE rule changes for automotive don't kick in until 2022 - if ever (China is famous for slow-walking regulatory changes). Current rules ban WFOE status for automotive factories. Since this factory is breaking ground, the controlling entity already exists - and that means it is majority owned by Chinese entities. By law.
As far as the ICE rules - read it yourself. There is an exemption for investment projects. Guess what - nearly every large Chinese company is considered an investment project, and the local Government (as well as the Provincial, usually) invest cash into the project and benefit from employment. Pretty much any company that would get Provincial level-or-higher investment would be considered an investment project - and exempt from the rule.
The proper term would be "Lao Wai"; only a slovenly Cantonese speaker would use the "Gwai Lo" term. Real Chinese - the Han - use Mandarin and that would be Lao Wai (literally means old foreign). If you're going to troll, at least educate yourself first so you don't look so ignorant.
There is no Tesla factory in China. It is a Chinese factory with a Tesla name. Automotive factories in China must have a majority ownership of Chinese entities (individuals and companies). And in China, 51% ownership means 100% control of the factory. It is a Chinese factory, owned and run by the Chinese, and Elon's just hanging the big "T" in front of it.
Slashdot Mirror
1. In the US, at least, we do. It's called Yucca Mountain. it wasn't politically acceptable to the previous Administration for #UNKNOWNREASON, but the current Administration would probably be fine to use this purpose-built facility for what it was built for - long-term storage of nuclear waste.
2. Done. All nuclear plants already pay into a decommissioning fund that is controlled and overseen by the NRC.
3. Every nuclear power plant buy insurance from the Government to cover people and property.
So, we're where you want to be (at least in the US); what's the hold-up to rolling out more nuclear?
Sure, they'd all love to pay less! I'd love not to have to pay a $4 "license fee" to Apple to build with the Lightning connector (that's in addition to buying the MFi chip and the Lightning connector, and using an Apple-approved manufacturer). But is Apple paying anything different than the others? If not - then it's fair (they signed it up front), reasonable (no more than what Apple and others charge for their IP), and non-discriminatory (it's the same as everyone else).
I haven't heard otherwise - Apple's never complained they are getting a different deal, just that they "pay too much". They've never asserted they are paying terms more than others - and the onus is on the accuser.
You've evidently never been to Northern Alaska in the summer, when night is quite bright. Irritatingly so...
Is it the same deal that other phone makers get? Then it's fair (Apple agreed to it right up front), reasonable (all others - dozens of them - pay it), and non-discriminatory (all others pay the same basic rate).
Apple does it with MFi and any audio device designed to directly enumerate as such over the Lightning connector. Not only must you buy their MFi chips and connectors, you must buy their Lightning Audio Module. And then you must use one of their chosen contract manufacturers to build your product. And then you must also pay a license fee for each product built. Quite a bit more restrictive than what Qualcomm is doing...
So... Has any other phone maker complained about the payment to Qualcomm to the point of withholding payment? If not - then what Qualcomm is asking would be considered "fair and reasonable" since 99% of the market agrees. And if they're asking the same thing of everyone - it's non-discriminatory. Why should Apple get preferential treatment?
Note that I can buy Lightning connectors and MFi chips from lots of sources. But I still have to pay Apple to use them as well; and in fact I must only use factories approved by Apple (forcing me to "associate" at Apple's behest, not mine). Kind of like Qualcomm is accused of doing...
I believe a patent, by its very nature a limited Government-granted monopoly, waives the issue about exclusive distribution. And coercive licensing and predatory pricing is very much "in the eye of the beholder". As it is based on a singular item (the patent - the Government-acknowledged-and-granted monopoly), the company can charge whatever they want with near impunity. It's only when it becomes part of a standard that things get squishy...
Weight is a huge issue. The buoyancy of the helium is really the only lifting source they have. It takes a LOT of helium to raise a ton; it's why this airship is rated for just 10 tons of cargo (sadly very little - less than the towing capacity of a Ford F450 pickup truck).
Use the hyphens as a signal to do a "Captain Kirk dramatic pause" and the-sentences read-more interesting.
Here's an interesting survey, the popular things (like education for women) are the types of things that would get you killed by the Taliban. and there is a big drop in "country going right/wrong" right around the time that President Obama started the draw-down of troops. Mean that - contrary to what you often hear - the Afghans, by and large, prefer to have US troops around rather than Taliban.
Not sure of that... I think when a single person accumulates enough stupidity, they win a Darwin Award. So it's kind of self-limiting...
To be honest, it was our prior President who did that. I don't think the current President would do that. He seems to play a lot closer to the Constitution...
False. He actually referenced "a hundred thousand acres or so of trees". If you're going to attribute a quote, you need to get it right.
And in California, riding bicycles on sidewalks is left to the cities. It's illegal in San Francisco, and many of the LA suburbs - you have to use the street. Additionally it is illegal to turn without signalling. And per the link provided above, electric scooters are bundled with motorized bicycles/mopeds - and are thus prohibited from use on the sidewalk. This isn't about utility, this is about legal operation of a vehicle. Riding an electric scooter without an M2 endorsement, without a helmet, or on a sidewalk is illegal.
OK - point to one since my GoogleFu isn't strong enough, apparently. As far as ownership - it's not a publicly traded company, so ownership is not disclosed. Like in the US - private companies do not have to disclose ownership.
I followed the link - it didn't say what you hope it says. And as far as foreign automakers in China think - of course they come to their conclusion. For them, they cannot be an investment project. An investment project is pretty much limited to Government owned ventures - like car makers. If you're a WFOE, you're out of luck - but if you're China-Government owned, you can make ICEs.
Why are you so racist? How was the rally at your local KKK chapter - did you get your sheet properly bleached and pressed?
I'm surprised he accepted the position! He lost 5 out of 1000 votes - a travesty!
Hmmm... Seems to amend for pedal-driven bicycles, but that's it. Scooters are mentioned as far as requiring an M2 to operate but that's it (there are 3 references to scooter on that page). I don't think that makes them legal to operate on sidewalks, nor does it free you from the requirement to have a driver's license.
Those WFOE rule changes for automotive don't kick in until 2022 - if ever (China is famous for slow-walking regulatory changes). Current rules ban WFOE status for automotive factories. Since this factory is breaking ground, the controlling entity already exists - and that means it is majority owned by Chinese entities. By law.
As far as the ICE rules - read it yourself. There is an exemption for investment projects. Guess what - nearly every large Chinese company is considered an investment project, and the local Government (as well as the Provincial, usually) invest cash into the project and benefit from employment. Pretty much any company that would get Provincial level-or-higher investment would be considered an investment project - and exempt from the rule.
The proper term would be "Lao Wai"; only a slovenly Cantonese speaker would use the "Gwai Lo" term. Real Chinese - the Han - use Mandarin and that would be Lao Wai (literally means old foreign). If you're going to troll, at least educate yourself first so you don't look so ignorant.
You're welcome.
They got laws passed to treat e-scooters like a human-powered bicycle, not a motorized vehicle.
Citation needed.
There is no Tesla factory in China. It is a Chinese factory with a Tesla name. Automotive factories in China must have a majority ownership of Chinese entities (individuals and companies). And in China, 51% ownership means 100% control of the factory. It is a Chinese factory, owned and run by the Chinese, and Elon's just hanging the big "T" in front of it.