"Matthew Walker's "Why We Sleep" Is Riddled with Scientific and Factual Errors"
Thanks for posting this (upvoted you).
I was just about to order that book, but I usually research critiques of the book before buying it. I found yours here just because I'm the original poster (OP) and was reading through comments.
I am not going to buy the book, at least for now. Thanks again.
Edit: There's also a HN thread about the blog post that you shared [0].
Of course lowering taxes would encourage companies to repatriate large overseas cash hoards, but if that's the only goal, why have a tax at all?
As a country the US has obligations to its current citizens and its future citizens and those obligations cost money. If we overly celebrate these windfalls every time the tax rate is lowered, we might not realize that what we owe the citizen is being forgot and allowed to erode because the means to pay for it just aren't available.
You yourself point out the reason to have a tax at all: because someone has to pay for the cost of the US government. Also, at least in the versions I heard about this was a very carrot-and-stick tax bill. It didn't just allow companies like Apple to repatriate their foreign cash hoards at a lower tax rate, it taxed that foreign cash at the same one-off rate whether they repatriated it or not. The whole point was to remove all incentives to not repatriate money, to make it futile to try and wait for some hypothetical opportunity to do so at an even more reduced tax rate.
We currently get $0 in tax revenue from the cash Apple is hoarding overseas. This tax “holiday” (a term I dislike because it incorrectly implies that no tax is being paid on the repatriation, when it is simply a reduced rate) is resulting in $38 billion that we would not have otherwise received.
If you or I decided we just didn't like the tax rate that applied to us and didn't pay our taxes for decades at a time on income we made overseas, what do you think would happen?
Corporations are treated as people only when it's convenient.
You and I don't have high-powered lawyers, lobbyists, loopholes, offshore accounts, subsidiaries, etc to hide behind.
This is an insult to every U.S. citizen...Apple wouldn't exist if it weren't for the U.S. and its tax-payers providing the environment that allowed Steve Jobs to create his company and become successful.
The rate they're being charged on this money is even lower than the new lower rate that they'll be charged on future income. Must be nice. Yay for corporate oligarchy.
True it seems we are getting the crumbs here falling between the cracks. But what is another realistic scenario? Tax them even more? Wouldn't they move to another tax haven. Why didn't that work so far, these tax tricks are not new.
The whole point is that earned income should not have to be repatriated to be taxed. If I as a citizen have a bank account in Switzerland that accepts my foreign income then I pay tax on that money in the year it was earned. The exact same rules should apply. Just because the bank account is outside of the US should not make a difference.
No other country taxes it's citizens this way. Do you think if a US citizen lives and works in Germany, they should still have to file and pay US income taxes even though they were living in Germany and earning a salary working in another country? That makes no sense to me.
If Apple pays double taxes on iPhones sold in Europe to European citizens, after Apple pays taxes to the EU, that's effectively a tax by America on citizens of the EU. The phones are made in China, shipped to Europe and sold to citizens of the EU for Euros, never having stopped on US soil, and being taxed in the EU. Why does it make sense for the US to apply a tax which effectively would amount to an increased tax on purchases by citizens of another country?
> The whole point is that earned income should not have to be repatriated to be taxed.
Agree. They used the double Irish paying basically no income tax there. Then were trying to move to Jersey (the island). This isn't new though and other companies were doing it. Is there any realistic short term hope that we'll finally close all the loopholes and the Apples and Googles of this country will start paying their fair share of taxes? Probably not.
But I don't see why not at least be happy with them paying some taxes and investing the money domestically? Yet everyone here is upset. It is not ideal, I'd rather have universal healthcare, basic income even, I'd rather these companies not be able to do these schemes and pay their fair share of taxes, but it is what it is, why not be happy for some positive thing happening.
My guess is that the path outside of the legislature doing anything is through the courts. Since corporations are citizens there must be some kind of constitutional law since human citizens don’t get the same benefit.
I haven't thought of the courts. It might be interesting to see what would happen. Fighting with a hundred billion dollar company in court is tough though. The have infinite legal resources basically.
And yeah, I see the point about it being considered a person but that is mostly what is called "legal fiction" (it is actually a technical term, not just me being silly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction). And that only goes so far. Mostly to benefit the corporate entity not the society. I'd like to put some companies in prison for life for destroying the environment or poisoning its workers but it just won't work. It would be nice to see how far it would go though.
Probably not that but they could keep that even when their "profitable on paper" subsidiaries were spread around tax havens just like before.
But another interesting thing here is the interplay with EU countries. EU recently started to pay closer attention to Apple. Even forced them to look for a new place (they found Jersey I think). From my armchair understanding if they pay taxes in one place, say EU they might not need to pay it in US and vice-versa. Because of double taxation. As long as Apple was hoarding the money quietly and nobody could do anything it all good. As soon as EU started going after the money, it would benefit US to try to get to it sooner.
Whether politicians considered that or not not sure. But if they did, I can see them wanting to capture those taxes before EU got to them.
I for one am happy the part of them investing more in US. Don't see the reason people are upset about it.
If they bring the money back then inevitably they'd spend it back into the US economy either through direct job creation or buying things. If they do create jobs, the US gets most of its money from income tax, which would increase from the more jobs/higher wages. It feels like double dipping if we expect them to pay taxes on repatriating the money and then also taxing the wages that the repatriated money allows them to pay.
> If they bring the money back then inevitably they'd spend it back into the US economy either through direct job creation or buying things.
That is a misconception. It's not like they are storing dollar bills in warehouses on foreign soil. The bulk of the 'overseas' money is already invested, for a large part in the US. See page 49 in Apple's yearly report [1], to see how that money is currently invested: at the end of 2016 almost $42 billion dollars were invested in US treasuries, $131 billion in corporate securities. It doesn't say how much of those corporate securities are US companies, but it's probably the bulk. It's an accounting/tax fiction that it is currently 'overseas'.
Boy are you in for a shock when you find out the money that you spend, which you've paid income tax on it, goes to someone who pays income tax on it again!
> It feels like double dipping if we expect them to pay taxes on repatriating the money and then also taxing the wages that the repatriated money allows them to pay.
That is how our federal government constantly engages in double taxation. A corporation makes money + pays taxes, then pays employees who pay taxes. Those employees buy goods and services as well as have their own companies, all of which pay taxes on their incomes.
After five layers of this double-dipping, an initial million dollars only has $327,000 left, with the other two thirds having been paid in taxes (at an average of only 20%). Many people pay far more than 20% in federal taxes. The federal government takes in taxes most of every dollar this way.
Most likely they will buy back stock or issue dividends. They have to do what the majority of shareholders want with the money. If they don't they will be sued.
I get your point. Only caveat is corporations also create jobs and pay their workers, but you and I as individuals do not.
I know lots of Apple workers (directly or indirectly) are in China, but I wanted to point out why it's inappropriate to compare personal and corporate taxes.
> I get your point. Only caveat is corporations also create jobs and pay their workers, but you and I as individuals do not.
That's like saying the wheat creates work for the mill to make flour.
You can't have one without the other. Can we just get rid of the ridiculous notion that corporations provide more than the workers doing the actual work?
I don't think it is. If the > workers DOING THE ACTUAL WORK are able to provide more value than the corporation, then why are they working for the corporation instead of providing more value than the corporation by themselves; and paying themselves more than the corporation pays them? I think OP's argument could be an example of reductio ad absurdum.
The balance of power remains at the management level of a corporation, despite the fact that management hardly "does the work" that workers hired would be doing.
The same arguments applied to the peasantry of the feudal age. There are many more peasants than lords, but through an imbalance of power (military in the feudal age, and monetary in the modern age), the higher ups gets to claim the profits of the workers.
"Corporations are people, too!" as in, the people who hold their wealth in the form of corporations and generate their income from capital. Realize that it's not just an inane phrase, they are talking about themselves. They want to escape being taxed and they always succeed. Everybody else can pay, please.
What's incredible is that there are many more of regular people than these "people," yet regular people do not act cohesively to form a political bloc so they bicker amongst themselves.
Regular people own wealth in the form of corporations, too. Half of all Americans own stocks. Public and private sector pension funds own large amounts of stock. University endowments include stock investments and private equity. Sovereign wealth funds, such as the Alaska Permanent Fund, own large amounts of stock.
If we want to tax the rich, let's tax the rich. Let's not tax straw men that intermediate wealth for everyone, because that's what corporations are.
Half (46% in 2013) of all Americans owned some financial wealth, that's already counting indirect investments -- I believe this number came from a study by Ed Wolff. In the same year (2013), the bottom 80% together owned about 5% of the financial wealth in the US, under the same definition counting indirect investments (80%-99% owned about 50%, 99%-100% owned about 45%). So no, "everyone" does not benefit in the same way from corporate wealth and "regular people" (the bottom 80% seems like a pretty good proxy) have basically nothing to do with it, even in aggregate -- forget about per capita.
As for not taxing corporations at all and instead fully taxing dividends and gains, that's a different discussion with its own merits.
That’s kind of like saying that because I have a house on a tiny plot of land and my rich neighbor owns half the land in town, that property taxes don’t affect me. It doesn’t really follow.
It certainly woudn't affect you as much as your rich neighbour. And if the additional tax on land brought in more community services, you would be all for it, whilst your neighbour would be against (since he'd be paying a majority of that cost to fund said community service).
My point is that if you want to punish the other half of all Americans (including poor grandmothers living on pensions) as a means of taxing “the rich”—which is exactly what high corporate taxes do—that an injustice has been done. Advocating for the interests of a diverse half of the population is many things, but “elitist” is not one of them.
Apple wasn't breaking the law. Lawmakers were split and the majority simply didn't want apple to pay taxes. You can also hide your income from taxes if you are a business owning capitalist and not a commie laborer.
While I agree with you to some degree, we have the system we have. It has somehow survived through both tax-and-spend Democratic and fiscally conservative Republican administrations. It had to be fixed. So what say what you will about the current administration, they managed to get something done that even some of the most tax-hungry politicians in the nation previously failed to do.
> So what say what you will about the current administration, they managed to get something done that even some of the most tax-hungry politicians in the nation previously failed to do.
This is not terribly unique. We had a very similar (slightly more generous) repatriation tax holiday during the Bush Administration, in 2004.
The Democrats are tax and spend and the Republicans are borrow and spend. If you borrow and spend then you need inflation to eat away at the interest you are paying on the money. But you can only borrow so much and quantitatively ease (inflate) so much.
Also unique because a simple repatriation holiday is a far cry from restructuring our corporate tax code to make us competitive with the rest of the world from a tax perspective.
Really? Have you investigated how many countries on the planet tax their citizens and corporations making money in other countries?
The US marginal corporate tax rate is 38.92% compared to the worldwide average 22.5%. Until this recent tax bill passed, the US has had the 3rd highest marginal corporate tax rate in the world, surpassed only by the UAE and Puerto Rico.
The US federal government is greedy for cash not business friendly.
A higher theoretical corporate rate is largely offset by lower income tax [1]. In the end, income taxes are basically a business cost for any company with employees. On top of that, actual tax rates after accounting for deductions are much lower [2], and then you have lower sales tax: in Europe VAT averages around 20%, whereas in the US sales tax averages well below 10% - which is why European tourists are notorious shoppers when going to North America.
You can argue whether your dollars are well spent or whether there are internal disparities, but overall the US is hardly a tax hell.
You make it sound like there was no alternative. You can also tax income when it's earned, instead of when it's repatriated. That's how individuals are taxed on their foreign income. There were also other variants proposed.
In any case, the reason that corporations lobbied so hard for this particular tax code change was that they actually needed to repatriate money ASAP. Interest rates are going up. Their operational tactic of borrowing low-interest money against their overseas cash to repurchase shares is ending and they needed their cash. They would have repatriated anyway. Now you can kiss that tax money goodbye, just like you can kiss goodbye to the tax money on the free stepped-up basis that large estates will be passing on for the eight years.
No. Apple has been waiting for the tax holiday because they've seen it before in precedent. The problem is that politicians like the tax holidays because it looks good on them (big capital inflows have an effect on the economy). But if the holiday was eliminated entirely and never expected, Apple would have to slowly repatriate these earnings as their chest grew too large.
That’s in effect what’s happened here - not only is there a one-time repatriation event, but the tax code has been changed so all future foreign cash holdings will be taxed whether or not hey are repatriated.
Not sure where you're getting your information, but that is simply incorrect. The repatriated cash is simply being taxed at a lower rate. Hence the $38 billion.
That makes no sense. Then the government would get nothing, plus give up future leverage, so obviously it will not do that. Comparing what happened to having no tax is a straw man.
What happened here is that the government finally set a rate that is agreeable to both parties, which is of course in its interest and long overdue.
How is it a straw man? Maybe it's the right way to go. I honestly don't know.
My point is that encouraging a behavior where the country sets a rate, then many celebrate the reduction because they get a short term gain, risks leading the US farther down a path that neglects its obligations.
Because the US is not going “down a path that neglects its obligations”. In fact quite the opposite since it just got a massive tax revenue increase. So comparing it to a situation where the US decided to just stop levying tax doesn’t make sense.
> In fact quite the opposite since it just got a massive tax revenue increase.
Nah, they capitulated and accepted a far lower rate than they should have received otherwise if Apple (and companies like them) weren't permitted to play these shifty legal games.
If the U.S. gov was really looking out for its own interests and the interests of its citizens, it would have closed these loopholes years ago and told Apple to go pound sand going forward.
Pay your taxes or get slammed with massive fines and be barred from selling product in the U.S. until your tax bill is paid.
Not many markets can afford their products, see how they like it when the country whose resources and laws allowed them to become so successful becomes off limits to them.
I find it odd that you start from a position that assumes that the federal government has a right to Apple's money. It was basically an attitude like that on the part of the British that led to the American revolution in the first place. If you want a health economy with strong labor demand and robust wage growth, we need to start from the opposite position - the federal government must avoid taxation for all but the most essential services and cut out everything else. If individual states wish to have more services, let them tax and spend for their local populations. At least that way if businesses and people don't like it, they can leave without leaving the country.
> a position that assumes that the federal government has a right to Apple's money
I'm starting from a position that assumes the government is entitled to the prevailing tax rate that was law at the time the income was earned.
A tax rate that existed during a time when Apple became the world's most valuable company. It wasn't a colony with no representation suffering under a tyrannical monarchy that was leeching it like a parasite for the enrichment of an elite class. They ARE the elite class.
In fact the opposite is true. Apple benefited from all the services paid for by other tax payers (security and military, infrastructure, legal system, etc) and avoided paying their fair share using legal tricks and loopholes.
The result wasn't "fix the loopholes" it was "give the finger to the American people and government until we get someone elected that will change the rules in our favor"
I'm not saying government is the answer to all problems. Far from it. But there's no question Apple exists and is as successful as it is in large part due to the favorable environment America provides to business...and part of that environment exists due to things paid for with taxes. Never mind the ridiculous wealth inequality that is only continuing to grow in the U.S...this road leads to oligarchy.
Whether or not Apple/whatever was being shifty or not is a matter of opinion. The fact is, though, that nearly every other country already had a territorial tax system.
And Apple used bullshit rationale to hide their money in a territory where they did not earn their money. They tell Europe that all the innovation is from California, then tell USA that all the IP is owned by an Irish company.
i already received 1,000$, to which I spent on a new energy efficient door, to which I paid a handyman to install it. there is a lot more winners than your dogma suggests.
I am interested in seeing where this goes. if we do see wage growth from it, it provides evidence to a lot of questions about how the cost of healthcare was squeezing out our wages. if it doesnt, then a lot of complaints about corporations will have a lot more evidence.
putting all that aside, this news about apple bringing over the cash is a huge win for everyone. having that money sit and do nothing was pretty much bad for everyone.
There are no cuts in healthcare spending offsetting these tax cuts.
Ending the individual mandate will likely reduce the number of people buying insurance from ACA marketplaces, but that isn't going to dramatically change the price of other insurance (to the extent it has an impact, it will probably push insurance prices up...).
The tax cuts are, at present, going to largely be paid for by borrowing money.
> I am interested in seeing where this goes. if we do see wage growth from it, it provides evidence to a lot of questions about how the cost of healthcare was squeezing out our wages. if it doesnt, then a lot of complaints about corporations will have a lot more evidence.
Spoiler alert: It's a remake. Trickle-down doesn't work.
Investing significant money in businesses doesn't create more work. Increasing demand creates more work. How do you do that? You put more money into the hands of consumers, which is the opposite of what this bill did.
from what I am told, my taxes were lowered - thus you would be factually wrong. but I'll wait and see if that is true when I fill out my taxes.
beyond that, I have seen me and many others see immediate returns. your position is already starting from a hole, but I am a wait and see kind of person.
I hope it works out, you should too, unless you are one of those people who just want to see the world burn types.
Are you in the bracket of a typical American taxpayer or the bracket of a typical HN-er?
> I am a wait and see kind of person.
We've been slashing taxes on corporations and the wealthy since the Reagan era under the trickle down philosophy, but we're still waiting for that money to actually trickle down: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
If 50 years isn't a long enough experiment for you, what is?
Some people make the (good? I don't know) argument that corporate taxes are distortionary anyways, and shuffling that tax burden over to income has the same effect with fewer side effects.
I think people like corporate taxes because people only have a vague idea of where the incidence actually falls. Clearly, at the end of the day, corporate taxes take money out of the pockets of business owners/shareholders, employees, and customers in some proportion, but no one's really sure what it is. Taxes that you're obviously paying are unpopular, whereas taxes it feels like "someone else" is paying are less unpopular.
You're of course right that owners/customers/employees/vendors/etc pay the corporate tax. But when you say "tax the corporations" it sounds an awful lot like "tax the rich people", and people imagine the Monopoly man with a monocle shelling out money from his tuxedo pockets.
Of cours, in the real world, you likely work for a corporation, and the retired Teachers in California are collectively one of the biggest owners of companies in the US [1].
My father, who is quite wise and right about many things, is very fond of stating that corporation's don't pay taxes - they just pass them on to other people. He owned a local redi-mix company until he retired, and they routinely adjusted wages and prices in response to local, state, and federal tax changes. It's a fact of life that the money corporations pay comes from somewhere, whether it's on the 'in' side or the 'out' side of the balance sheet.
One of those "out" sides of the balance sheet is the owners of the corporation. That's generally who people think of when they think of who "pays" corporate tax. Especially for taxes on profits, which go 100% to the owners.
I agree that that’s what people seem to think. But if the corporate taxes get too high, wouldn’t you think that at some point, business owners start saying “screw it, I want to be a W-2 worker,” which obviously would put downward pressure on employee wages? Conversely, now that the tax reform bill created all these tax advantages for passthrough income, isn’t it obvious more people are going to be starting businesses and trying to structure their income as business income?
Because there’d be more competition for W-2 jobs? Any situation where the average business owner can make more money by becoming a W-2 worker at someone else‘s business is not a stable equilibrium.
This is exactly the thing that renders me speechless every time this comes up in casual conversation. People generally agree that apple and other tech companies hoarding money in Ireland to avoid tax is Bad™. Then, in the next breath, they say that removing the tax burden to get them to move that money back into a US bank is somehow Good™. But what does it matter if the government can't take a cut? Why do people who don't profit off of apple care which bank it's in?
Nobody cares "which bank it's in" - but if a company has $1B in out-of-US cash not currently subject to US tax, and bringing it into the US will cost them 30% of it, they may (sensibly, in many cases) just elect to leave it sitting wherever it is.
As to "what does it matter if the government can't take a cut?" --- the government does take a cut, and the reason it matters is that the lower rate will, on the margin, encourage cash repatriation.
Remember too that firms know they will be taxed in the future at (unknown, but estimable) rates, and today's rate will be compared against firms' estimates of current rates.
So in terms of the government's cut I forget the numbers in the current plan but say the corporate tax rate goes from 30% to 20%, and Apple decides that 20% is As Good As It's Likely To Get, and decides therefore to bring $1B of cash into the US that at a 30% rate it would have left elsewhere -- the US gov now gets 200M, rather than the 0 it would have gotten if the tax rate had stayed where it was.
Also you seem to be under the incorrect assumption that capital will just sit in a warehouse as bricks of $100 bills collecting dust. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, one of a few things will happen:
1) Apple will spend it on capital investments (factories, campuses, data centers, etc.) in its business. Doesn't benefit the government, but benefits the country.
2) Apple will spend it on R&D / employees. Doesn't benefit the government directly, but benefits the country.
3) Apple will dump it into an American bank. That bank has a reserve ratio that is relatively low. It will lend several times the amount that Apple deposits to people or corporations who will do 1) or 2)
4) Apple will spend it on buybacks and dividends, which ultimately ends up in the hands of Apple's owners (you and me through our 401(k)'s, and probably a bunch of rich people as well), who will do 1), 2), or 3)
So, whether or not the government gets a cut, it benefits everyone who actually lives here.
You seem to be under the incorrect assumption that it is currently sitting in a foreign warehouse as bricks of $100 bills collecting dust. Nothing could be further from the truth. According to page 49 of Apple's yearly report [1] at the end of 2016 its cash and equivalents were invested as follows (amounts in millions):
* U.S. Treasury securities 41,697
* U.S. agency securities 7,543
* Non-U.S. government securities 7,609
* Certificates of deposit and time deposits 6,598
* Commercial paper 7,433
* Corporate securities 131,166
* Municipal securities 956
* Mortgage- and asset-backed securities 19,134
The repatriation is just a tax/accounting fiction. Yes, Apple now has more flexibility to do with that cash what it wants (mostly return capital to shareholders through dividends and buybacks), but on aggregate for the economy it doesn't make a huge difference.
I know this post is a few days old, but having that cash invested in treasuries, bonds, CDs, etc. is as close to a warehouse as it can possibly get. I strongly suspect that a good chunk of it will be spent on capital investments once it's repatriated.
I've recently started listening to Dan Carlin, specifically the Blueprint to Armageddon series about WWI, and I second this recommendation. Carlin's a wonderfully engaging storyteller, who helps you get into the mind of the soldiers, generals, and citizens affected by this awful world event while tying it all together to an overall narrative of events. A great listen.
Although he tries not to, the author seems to make the argument for fundamental analysis here. While he acknowledges that current drivers for the prices of social media companies are based on users and their level of engagement, he essentially concludes by saying that this is a fad.
Basically, some companies are "in fashion" the same way bellbottoms or baggy pants were, and the only way to explain why is to say, "because it's cool... for now."
Damodoran is known for his value investing analysis. He is an academic, and value investing is the only form of investing proven to work.
However, he does a good job of wearing hats of other types of investors, which is why I enjoy his analyses.
Bottom line is that social media companies will either have to sustain these valuations forever, or they will eventually fail. When times of turmoil hit, user base and engagement will not be enough save a company. Cashflow is the only surefire metric that indicates a company's success.
I took several of his classes. Brilliant professor and a very entertaining speaker. As an academic, he is a firm believer in fundamental analysis and DCF based valuation. He is level headed so he also understands that not everything can be explained with DCF.
Yes, I like him and have read much of what he has written, but I feel he missed the boat on this one.
Facebook did not buy this company to get users. Facebook bought this company because it was a threat. There is not much value in being #5 in social media. Facebook has to destroy or acquire every serious competitor that comes along, or they will start hemorrhaging users. You don't acquire a company to get new users so much as you acquire the company to keep from losing customers due to declining mind share and 'coolness', and thus to keep growing customers organically (because you are #1, not because you own FoobyAppInc). They paid $19B not because they put a dollar amount on each user, they paid that because that is what it took to get the other side to say 'yes' to acquisition. (All my own opinion, I claim no knowledge of what actually went down or what MZ actually thinks).
And that is the biggest reason I will never buy Facebook stock. You can take them out, or force their hand, with a few million dollars in VC and an idea. You don't need $50B, or what have you to challenge them, (whereas you would need at least that amount to challenge Ford, Coca Cola, and what have you).
The above is all from a value investor's perspective, of course, where you do not merely look at free cash flow valuation but also look at the company's moat (how easy is the company to defend from competitors).
edit: I hypothesize that Facebook and similar companies will find themselves in a very similar situation as Berkshire Hathaway when it was just a textile factory freshly purchased by Warren Buffett. They had to dump endless amounts of money just to break even. A competitor would buy a new loom that is 5% more efficient, and so BH would have to spend capital to get that same loom to remain competitive. It did not yield an advantage to either company. It may help the customer if prices can be lowered after the equipment is paid off, but the CEO's job is to reward stockholders, not customers. Buffett eventually shut it down as a money pit. It is not a foregone conclusion that this will happen to Facebook, but it seems likely, and is enough to have any rational value investor running away in terror.
Cool project, but at $99 for a console and controller they must be operating at a loss, right? Does anyone have any insight into production costs of something like this? It could change the way we think about the "amount raised".
The RaspberryPi is NOT selling at a loss for $35. Neither is the AppleTV at $100 (or $80, which you can find new every other week on eBay). Nor are the Roku boxes that sell at $50-$100 for 720p-1080p playback and many, many others. Neither, for that matter, is the Huawei Android 3G phone at $80.
It can even be profitable at $100, if (and that's a huge if) they know what they are doing.
No need to yell beagle (or was that a Borat impression). I am simply curious about how much a device like this would cost a small company to build per unit on a first run. AppleTV isn't a fair comparison given the efficiencies of scale and what not, nor is it running video games as far as I know. And while I don't know much about RaspberryPi, their website states that the "graphics capabilities are roughly equivalent to Xbox 1 level of performance" which I imagine Ouya is trying to exceed. Moreover, RaspberryPi doesn't come with a fancy shell or a controller.
We're missing the point I think. A site like this wouldn't be a way to combat lobbyist. It would be a way for citizens to become the lobbyists. If a site like this did pop up, it would eventually be dominated by a voice leaning a certain way. So, this is not a one-site-fixes-all type deal. This format could be a way for citizens to collaborate with other like-minded citizens and write legislation of their own.
The lack of social responsibility is what erks me the most about Saverin's decision. Saverin takes full advantage of the investments and sacrifices made by countless Americans and then when the country asks for him to uphold his obligation as a citizen, he leaves to save a few percentage points. This is a tactic for small thinkers.
I feel it's really unjust the way we treat our fellow citizens living abroad. I would hate to be taxed both by the US and the country I was living in. He's already paid very a very large amount of tax for the value he generated while living in the US. Why should he pay US tax for the value he generates while living in Singapore or elsewhere?
Relying on passengers to turn off their phones seems like the most ineffective approach no matter your desired outcome. Isn't it possible to insulate the cabin to prevent RF from exiting? This feels simplistic, but other than that is there a reason this wouldn't work?
Exactly, which is why the article spends most of its time discussing how location can be determined through other means, such as Google Images, to find photos with similar geographic features to narrow possible locations.
- Touching The Void (It's an older movie but maybe the most harrowing survival story I've ever heard).
- Meru
- Free Solo
- The Alpinist
- Valley Uprising