709 posts • joined Monday 10th March 2008 14:53 GMT
Nothing. It's still a dump although some Londoners believe it's a fashionable dump.
It's the sort of place where you can walk down a nice street with (relatively) expensive property only to turn the corner and you're back to a shit-hole.
The engineering and design team.
...are two that come to mind.
WP8 is definitely a liability. The problem is knowing how much it would cost to extinguish that liability (ie. terminate the contract).
The WP8 contract could be a Poison Pill to any acquiror.
eight-digit number strings
Surely ints, not strings.
"The public have told us that they are fed up with the constant bombardment of nuisance calls," said ICO director of operation Simon Entwisle.
Yet they only listened to the ICO when they were hit with the fine.
Agreed. It does look expensive compared with vapourware.
And it is going to be difficult to lure away iPad owners when they've already bought a tablet. Especially now with the iOS7 'Barbie' makeover. It's going to be tough for any competitor to go after the 'bulge bracket' Apple owners if, at the same time, they want to stay relevant to the male population.
Re: Waste of time and effort
It's political expediency at its worst.
You are right in that nothing will change.
Sure, there's lots of hot air and there'll be a lot more 'reports' like the one this article talks about. But nothing will get done. As soon as the global economy starts picking up (and it will - it always has) tax revenues will increase as company profits increase and everyone will forget about the crap tax legislation (that successive Governments on both sides of the House) have put out.
Ireland will still have its 12.5% tax rates and companies will still flock to Ireland where taxes are low and the labour force is well educated - thereby reducing unemployment in Ireland and forcing the welfare recipients onto the UK were Labour have created a gravy train for those that don't want to work.
Mind you, it won't stop the idealists saying 'we must do something' and 'it will happen' despite the fact that tax avoidance has been a feature of the free market ever since taxes were invented - just google the English law invention of the Trust (or 'Use' as it was first known).
Who cares? Go competition!
HTC's star is in the ascendancy and the HTC One is getting (paid for) rave reviews everywhere.
With the HTC One 'Mini' coming out (vastly superior specs to the S4 Mini), we're going to see some serious change in smartphone market share.
HTC is the only serious competitor to the Samsung.
Apple has made clear their strategy: Barbie phones for girls.
And with no other competitor on the horizon (BB have said they don't like making handsets and they proved that with the Z10) , it's a 2 horse race for your smartphone pounds.
Re: What happens
You'd have to check the laws of Equador and its territories. English law doesn't apply.
One of the guys in the office has an iPhone. If he changes to iOS7, I'm going to have to change desks and move away from him for fear of being turned gay.
Give the guy a break. He may come across as being very positive about himself, but that's the nature of someone in sales.
Look at all them from Dragons' Den. They're all shameless self-promoters - the guy who made his money from chocolates, the guy with the beard. They're all at it. Then there's the most shameless self-promoter of all: Alan Sugar.
Re: If the US spooks have done nothing wrong
Agreed. In this instance (the snooping of Medvedev), I see no problem with it. I expect everyone is up to it (the US, the UK, the Russians, the Chinese, etc.) whenever a foreign dignatory is in town irrespective of the location.
However, I disagree with the way the US (and the complicit UK) is going about hunting down whistleblowers.
One swallow doesn't make a summer
While these tests are ostensibly impressive, I think we need to see a few more independent trials before we can say Intel has cracked it.
As long as Intel don't get a monopoly in smartphone CPUs like they did with desktops, as a consumer, I'm glad both institutions (Intel and ARM) are trying to out-compete each other's technology.
The last thing we want is another couple of decades of a Microsoft-like era where real innovation was stifled by pure economic (monopolistic) power.
Article's title needs correcting
It should be
Move on...Nothing to see here. Move on. Move on.
I'm not sure who's being 'exclusive' - Nokia or the carriers.
The punters certainly are.
This is WinPho and the punters have spoken with their £££s: they don't want WinPho.
WP8 = WinPhail 8
"So, Windows 8.1 to give PC sales a shot in arm? BZZZZT, wrong answer."
Finally, El Reg are listening to EADON.
I can't remember any time my OpenBSD server needed a security patch.
"suggesting Bag2Go will give travellers more time for a coffee at the airport"
It may make things easier for the airline, but it just pushes the hassle on to the traveller.
The queues will just shift from the check-in counter to the bag-drop counter. That's 2 queues the traveller has to go in, now.
As to 'third party' shippers. Who's going to pay for that? The airline? I don't think so. They'll pass it on to the traveller (ie. they won't reduce their air ticket price) and so cost-conscious travellers will be found queueing up at the bag-drop counter. And then queueing up at check-in. Well done Airbus. You fuckwits.
A pound today has more value than a pound in 10 years' time. Deferring taxes for as long as you can adds value to a company's shares.
It is a truism that there are two certainties in life: death and taxes.
The question is how long can a company (which has an infinite life, in theory) defer its payment of taxes past the death of its owners?
Not so simple
What about those foreign subsidiaries that are economic activity (employ 100s/1000s of locals, occupy office space, etc.)? Do they get hit by your undistributed profits tax? What about a trading trust? It's not a company. It doesn't pay dividends. How would it be hit by your deeming provisions. Also, at what point does a company cease to be part of the US tax group? eg. when its management and control is offshore?
What about foreign losses? Can they be carried back and the US taxpayer gets a refund of previously paid taxes (on prior profits)?
Tax law is never simple.
I doubt he went into it with his eyes shut. He knew exactly what tax risks he was taking.
+1 to Computercenter
At law, there is no such thing as a 'squatter'. There is only a trespasser. A trespasser has no legal right to be on another persons property.
I'm glad the event ended without anyone getting hurt. I'm also glad that Computercenter personnel, in responding to a fire alarm, found property that had been discarded. They'll be able to sell it to re-coup the cost of investigating the fire alarm.
Re: "technical issues"
Because management insisted on offshoring to save costs. The same international bank was bought by a major UK clearer a year later, which the shareholders subsequently discovered was full of the crap like what I just described.
Where I used to work (a multi-national bank), the excuse "technical issue" was a euphamism for a fustercluck.
eg. a critical process was being run manually at 8:45am and the guy who ran it couldn't get into his PC because the previous night's Windows update had locked his AD account and IT support (in India) wasn't in until 9:30am to unlock it.
That sort of thing was always officially described as a 'technical problem'.
"hasn't had a recession since the early 1990s"
ie. it's due for one. China has stopped buying. The AUD is down from its highs against all the major currencies. The RBA has cut interest rates 4 times in the last 12 months.
"boasts an unemployment rate of just 5.6 per cent"
6 months ago it was 5.4.
12 months ago it was 5.1.
Just like southern Spain/France/Italy/Greece.
Just like southern Spain/France/Italy/Greece.
"shortage of tech workers"
Just like the 'shortage of tech workers' in London's Silicon Roundabout - it's about about price.
"That idea you've entertained to enjoy a year or two working in Australia" - it's just a dream. You should've gone in 1990. You've now missed the boat.
Preinstalled at no extra cost
That must mean you get it before it's installed, i.e. you install it yourself OR it's installed before it's installed.
Either way, the word makes no sense. Just like "Preorder".
"put into the system rather than take out"
"we will make a scream, we will make a scene and shout as much as we can until we can get these people to pay tax and put into the system rather than take out"
Next stop Scotland then?
Eddy, you've completely missed the point.
The ban means the ITC believes Samsung's argument has merit. The next step for Samsung is suing Apple for damages. That's right, every iPhone 3G, 3GS, 4 and iPad 1 & 2 that Apple ever sold will be brought in to the claim for damages.
And that will hit Apple hard.
This latest round of tit-for-tat which has resulted in Apple being foisted on their own petard, is the clearest indication that no-one wins a thermonuclear war. It's a shame Steve Jobs never watched WarGames.
The more competition the better
As long as it drives the price down for the end consumer.
There's really no reason to bash MS for not disclosing details
What planet are you on?
Are you a MSFT apologist?
Do they pay your salary?
Is your real name Florian Mueller?
MSFT made these allegations in the public domain. There is EVERY reason to call bullshit on them. The fact that they refuse to put any substance behind them (either providing any details, or initiating legal action) is a the clearest indication that the allegations are groundless.
MSFT's allegations that Linux infringes MSFT's patents is just another case of The Emperor's New Clothes.
Re: Microsoft *has* NOT won. AT ALL.
The WHOLE POINT is that because no-one (except MSFT) knows the details of the 235 (IIRC) patents any speculation about what may or may not infringe, and how easy or hard they may be fixed, is entirely that: SPECULATION.
To state in any way that MSFT's assertions have validity, has the same basis in fact as any statement that MSFT's assertions have no validity. Neither position can be proved or disproved until the substance of the claims are open to examination. Which they, currently, are not.
To write an opinion piece that gives undue prominence to one side of the argument is not right and that's why the article is a FAIL. EPIC for effect.
A black Doctor
Isn't it about time the BBC gave us a black female Doctor?
The role's been a white, caucasion male too many times.
Diamond Jackson gets my vote. She can act (I've seen her do it on the internet).
Re: New Dr.
Is John Hurt still alive?
Re: One thing I'd like...
Her on the right (ie. left of Shih).
Microsoft *has* NOT won. AT ALL.
The article is disappointing for its lack of balance. It's framed on the underlying assumption that MSFT's patents have some legal basis. This is fundamentally wrong. It is up to the patent holder to prove their patents, not for the accused to dissprove them.
The analysis should be one of "tell us which patents you allege have been infringed and then we can start talking about them".
It is an undisputable, historical fact that MSFT HAS NEVER
(a) publicly detailed the patents it alleges have been infringed; and
(b) never disclosed the terms of the so-called 'Patent Agreements' it has signed with Novel, et. al.
Defending a spurious claim involves costs - both in legal fees and management's required attention. It is an equally plausible argument that the reason by Novel, et. al. signed the agreements with MSFT is because the 'protection money' they pay to MSFT (if they do at all- we don't know as no-one has seen the agreements) is much less that the expensive US legal bill that would have to be carried through to settlement. With out knowing the content of these 'Patent Agreements' is CANNOT be said that they give support to MSFT's claims and it is a complicit media that does not point this out.
IT CAN ONLY BE DEDUCED that the reason MSFT has consistently failed to detail anything (other than the total number) about its patents is because even they do not believe they can be enforced - either because (a) they have no basis in law, or (b) they are trivial such that they can be side-stepped/worked around with some non-significant code adjustments.
The article fails to directly mention any of this. And for that reason it gets an....
... EPIC FAIL!
Re: Hey Microsoft
Agreed, but MSFT has enjoyed a desktop monopoly for so long that they still have the mindset that they're price-makers, not price-takers.
If anything the Surface fiasco is the clearest message to MSFT that the world has changed.
MSFT fails to kill ARM
MSFT successfully stemmed the tide of linux-based netbooks by offering XP without any real attempt to promote the form factor (they just wanted to kill off the threat from linux).
They've now tried to do the same thing with RT but it's backfired. RT has not been given any love by MSFT and they're only offering it to try and get people onto their Surface Pro. The problem is that no-one really wants a Surface Pro at the price MSFT is asking. Bring the Surface Pro within the realms of existing Android and iPad devices, put the form factor on a diet (ie. make it slimmer) and Surface Pro will start to gain some traction - at the expense of laptops and desktops.
Heads should roll
Another disgrace. Another reason to avoid tax.
hope the lass is OK
"but despite the fact she was 'bleeding heavily from the facial and head area', Briones tried to make good his escape"
from the looks of his mugshot, she was probably some skanky 'ho' he picked up on a street corner.
probably her bottle of vodka, as well.
the breeding ground of crazies and nutters
With a population of 315m vs. UK's of 63m - for every nutter in the UK you get 5 in the US.
Imagine 5 George Galloways running around. With guns.
I love this shit
1. CIOs say 43% of their users 'will' want iOS while 23% will want Android. Meanwhile market share stats from various sources suggest it's the other way around;
2. CIOs say 21% will want WinPho. Meanwhile market share stats from various sources suggest this is laughable.
There is something seriously wrong with Frost & Sullivan's analysis. It doesn't cut the mustard with other sources.
"A singe stock can have a cycle independent of the wider sector"
That's the whole point. Cock was talking about the 'market' being in cycles. AAPL has a Beta of 0.9 while its price performance has not at all tracked the S&P500, ie. it's not following the market cycles. It's on it's own 'cycle' - one that is driving the stock into the ground.
As to price fluctuations being based on 'pure sentiment and emotion' - Do you really think that the big money men (handling billions of funds) drive their investment decisions on 'pure sentiment and emotion'? Do stockbroker analysts all throw fundamentals out of the window and recommend to the firms' clients based on 'hype and despair'. WTF are you talking about?
'they are so incredibly profitable'... that their share price has tanked while the overall market has moved onwards and upwards.
That type of 'armchair' stock analysis has no place in reality and is the same sort of shyte you get from Tarot Cards, Chartists and Palmistry.
ARMCHAIR ANALYST MEGA FAIL
"It’s a challenge - a great technical problem I think. Our researchers love the problem"
Then tell them to get off their arses and do something. They've dragged their feet over a competitor to ARM and it's cost Intel in lost revenue.
Or is it that x86 simply cannot compete where ARM is appropriate?
On the subject of that pesky stock price, he said that the fall was "frustrating" for everyone at Apple, but put it down to "cycles" in the market.
LMAO. Since Nov 2012, AAPL and the S&P500 have been moving in entirely the opposite directions. This on top of AAPL having a Beta of 0.9 says the following:
1. Tim Cook is no fool. He knows 'cycles' have nothing to do with AAPL's share price performance.
2. His remarks were 'throw away' lines to non-finance-savvy journos. He knew they would lap it up, and they did.
This doesn't detract from the fact that the company under his leadership is in trouble. Investors have gotten a better return over the last 6-7 months from investing in the S&P500. He really does need to produce one of those 'several game changers' or he'll be out of a job. The company owners won't pay $$$ to a guy when they can do better themselves with a simple passive investment strategy.
The rule is: if you're going to be sick, don't be sick on a weekend or Bank holiday.
Certainly, that's been my experience of the NHS.
It's the elephant in the room. The doctors know it, bureaucrats know it, the Govenment knows it. They just don't want to do anything about it.
Whenever I hear someone ranting about how 'great' the NHS is, I always ask them if they've ever been sick on a weekend or bank holiday. The response is always the same: they haven't.
All that money from Labour - er, actually, the taxpayer under Labour - and it's the same lack-lustre service for general admissions.
You can go private - and 'pay twice' - if you can afford it but why should I? The NHS is an expensive service that all taxpayers pay for whether they use it or not. I'm not sure what the alternative is, but if I had my time over again, I'd have been a doctor. The pay is great and the hours are even better.
Taxes strangling the high street
1. Business Rates
2. Parking Fees
These are two of the biggest causes of retail business failure.
Business rates have exploded over the last 10 years as Labour continued its policy of taxing the productive economy to spend on the non-productive economy.
Parking fees have also ballooned as Local Councils have their funding cut by Central Government (again to give to the non-productive economy). Increased parking fees = less shoppers.
Successive Government policy FAIL.
- Review Samsung Galaxy Note 8: Proof the pen is mightier?
- Nuke plants to rely on PDP-11 code UNTIL 2050!
- Spin doctors brazenly fiddle with tiny bits in front of the neighbours
- Game Theory Out with a bang: The Last of Us lets PS3 exit with head held high
- Flash flaw potentially makes every webcam or laptop a PEEPHOLE