iRandomize

They did not make a profit of £7bn. They had revenues of £7bn. Big difference. Most of their profit was taxed in Luxembourg. The European union allows this, and it is one of the core principles of the EU.

For one, tax is not based on revenue but on profit. Many European corporations are paying a 0.1% tax in relation to their revenue. Those turning a negative profit is effectively receiving tax in comparison with their revenue. I work in a very low-margin business, and some quick back-of-the-envolope math puts our tax at 0.7% of revenue (which just so happens to be 21% of profit). Secondly, that is simply not true. Amazon is based in Luxembourg (hence the Sarl in their name). I believe they pay tax of approximately 30% of their income, which is clearly stated in their annual report. Moving income across borders does not mean that the income is not taxed. Join taxation rules ensure that this is not the case. The reason for Amazon to be based in Luxembourg has to do with the rules regarding deductable costs, that vary greatly between countries. This calculation quickly becomes very complicated, but these rules are also the reason that Amazon added "fulfillment" to a lot of their marketing back in 2006.

No reason to upgrade then! Yes - FHD is significantly higher resolution than your current monitor, and your performance will most likely drop. But it's hard to say by how much, we would need full system specs to make an educated guess. Ahh! I get what you were saying now! That we can agree on! Basicly - if your CPU is the bottleneck in your current system, the framerate will stay roughly the same. But if the gpu is the limiting factor, the performance will decrease as you up the resolution.

No need to triple-post. The first one is sufficient. Please, for the love of god, get rid of that 5:4 monitor and get a 1080p monitor! You will not regret it. The 1050ti should be able to handle 1080p fairly well. You may need medium settings on the most recent triple-a games. But then again, you need 16:9 on those games as well! If performance becomes a problem, you could drop the resolution to 720p (which is easier to drive than 1280x1024) and have no problems with performance whatsoever. To me, a 1080p display is a no-brainer. If the CPU is not a bottleneck now, it definitely won't be when he upgrades his monitor. I think it's safe to ignore CPU constraints for this discussion.

My Mac agrees (and btw, 50g is a better choice than 32g):

It's the same machine. A 2015 MacBook Pro so the SSD is about as fast as they get. But the story is the same when comparing to my W10 desktop. On macOS, Firefox really doesen't perform as great as on my Windows installs. I think it may have gotten a bit better with the latest patch, but still far from the smooth performance i get on W10.

I've been using Firefox 57 (Quantum) exclusively since launch. On both Windows and macOS. Long story short, on Windows its amazing. I see no perceivable difference between Chrome and Firefox, except for much less ram usage in Firefox. I do not switching back to Chrome or Edge. And on top of that, i really like being on an independent browser. However, on macOS it really sucks. It may be really snappy at times, but sometimes it really bogs down. And i have no idea why. I had to switch back to Chrome which just seems to perform much more consistently. I'm probably the only one on these forums finding myself on a mac at times (and btw, i prefer Windows 10, and spend like 80-90% on Windows!), but if anyone else have any experience with sluggish performance on a mac, please let me know! I would really love to switch to Firefox, and completely leave Chrome behind! Also. I like the look of Firefox 57 better On the entire 1080p vs 4k discussion: I do see a difference between 4k, 1440p and 1080p Youtube content, and i have nowhere near perfect eyesight. Someone should make a poll on this, and when it turns out 99% to 1%, it has to be more than just placebo...

In Denmark the phone operators stopped sim-locking phones by themselves. One operator did it for a competitive advantage, and soon after the remaining competitors had to follow suit to avoid bad press. To be honest, it baffles me that American operators are still sim-locking phones. It's such a big deal amongst customers, that it's an actual competitive advantage to stop doing it.

50/50. Kind of a cliché with Russian crime - but at the same time very believable!

I see that i have been burried in the booring, inactive subforum that is "Phones and Some-device-that-was-popular-for-a-few-short-years". I thought theft related to general discussion rather than this subforum. I am sorry for my wrong choice of forum. With 0 warning points, I suppose it was borderline anyways :). DO NOT FOLLOW THE LINKS POSTED IN THIS COMMENT, UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING! The links posted below is merely kept in for educational purposes. I accessed them though a virtual machine without access to the rest of my system. There does not appear to be any vira or similar attached to the website, but be careful! I take no responsibility for the contents of the websites! A little update. I just received a text message on my alternative phone number (after adding it to the Locked Phone message along with a finders reward) with the following text: And a few minutes later (notice the exact same link...): In my curiosity i had to follow the link. From looking at the url (vtf1.pw) it is obviously phishing, but my account has 2-factor authentication enabled, and Apple shows the location of 2-factor authentication attempts, so i thought i might just try to see what happened. And sure enough, instantly this popped up on my Mac: And it seems that bigjohnthescot was right when he said: Someone in Moscow is already attempting to unlock my phone. Of course i did not allow him to, but i found it interesting that in less than 24 hours, it has already been sold off and someone is trying to access it. I wonder how many people falls into this trap. The website is an exact replica of the real iCloud website, and it appears to be secure and properly signed. Unfortunately my phone still doesen't show up in iCloud. Impressively enough they managed to turn it off and access the internet long enough for my contact information to show up, without allowing it to get its current location. I guess they were indoor in some kind of insulated room, preventing the GPS signal from working.

Yeah. I guessed parts as well. Don't think my boss will be too happy to learn that my 2 week old 800 EUR phone is being sold for parts. Shitty world we live in. I feel really sorry for those who have their personal phones stolen. That must really suck.

So, as the title says, I've just had a brand new iPhone 8 stolen. I'm currently on a business trip in Barcelona, and while at a coffee shop, it was grabbed off my table while I wasn't paying attention. I know I'm stupid and it is entirely my own fault, so don't event bother telling me I'm an idiot - I know. The thing is, I don't really care that I lost it. It was a company phone, so I will just get a new one when I get back. What annoys me is that I don't get why they would steal it. The lengths apple go through to make sure the phone has no value, means that they will never be able to use it. So my question is; why do they steal it? Will it be disassembled for parts, since apple still refuses to sell replacement parts to third parties? Or did they just steal it because they are envious of my phone? What is the market value of an iPhone 8 shaped paper weight? And yes, I tried find my iPhone. But the thief was clever enough to turn off the phone. Less than 24 hours since it's been stolen, someone is trying to access it from Moscow, see my latest reply:

When money was bound to gold, it had value because it could always be exchanged for gold at a known rate. Back when the gold standard was still used, there weren’t that many practical uses for gold - except for it being pretty. So gold mainly got it value because it was a limited resource. As gold fluctuated in value, so would money. Not a great attribute. Today, regular currencies are valuable because everyone agrees that it has value. The fluctuation in the value of regular currencies are (mainly) controlled by the interest rates and thus controlled by central banks / governments. Bitcoin has value because it is a limited resource in much the same way gold was. And in the same way gold did, bitcoin can fluctuate in value as the demand for bitcoin changes. I am very fond of the principle of a limited-resource based currency. I think there are some significant shortcomings of the current central bank system (the Austrian School raises some very valid concerns in my opinion) and think the potential for alternative measures of value is interesting - and the apparent interest in bitcoin/etherum would suggest I’m not the only one. I do however not believe that bitcoin is a perfect solution. The power usage and significant transaction time are reasons why bitcoin will never be a viable alternative to cash for everyday transactions. Not to mention the huge fluctuations (increases) in price. But as a proof of concept that currency/money does not have to be run by a government I think bitcoin is very fascinating, and opens some very interesting possibilities for future currencies.

Cost of electricity was related to the availability of used graphics cards. Low cost of electricity -> many miners -> high supply of used hardware.