Some of that info seems bogus. 10,000 CNC mills? Unlikely. 10,000 CNC machines of all types across all of Apple manufacturing, maybe.

There's a nice video about how Apple machines a round can for their round desktop computer. They're going through a lot of steps to make a can, yet they're doing it in a low-volume way. Here's how soft drink cans are made. Same shape, but much higher production volume.

Apple is doing this to justify charging $2700 for an x86-64 machine with midrange specs.

There are amusing efforts to sell disk drives to Google. Near Google HQ there is a movie theater complex. I once saw an ad run before a movie. Two minutes of sales pitch for bulk purchases of enterprise hard drives, with lots of technical detail. Clearly this was addressed to a very specific audience.

you would be more expensive because you would not be manufacturing at the same scale. If you are making 10,000 widgets, and it costs $100K to set up and $10 to make, that is $20 a widget just to make. If you are manufacturing a million, that is $10.10, and probably much less due to other discounts.

We see this in other industries. The F150 is now aluminum, which required not only the entire production line to be redone, but also supplied of aluminum to be created. This is only profitable because Ford sells about 10,000 of these trucks a week, and that is a number that has been falling since a high in about 10 years ago, though in recent years the sales have increased.

To upgrade my phone to IOS 8 I had to free some space. This basically involved deleted some Apps that I never use that were taking a great deal of space. I don't buy apple movies because they can be only played on apple devices, so the majority of data is music, most of which is stored on the cloud, and photos. I know people have almost no music on their devices, but stream everything. To be honest, streaming has meant that many people do not have to deal with the hassle of local storage. Though we can get into a philosophical argument, the fact is that I do not store as much on my mobile devices as I once did. Even my laptop now has less stuff on it. As to why there is still a 16GB model, that is obvious. Apple needs an entry level device and is not willing to enter the cut rate phone market. Amazon has done this with a 99 cent 32GB model and at $99 64GB model. Obviously they are hoping customers buy the 64GB model even though what is essentially $100 for a 32GB upgrade is essentially highway robbery. Some will do it even though the pricing structure provides little value. Most cell phone companies do this. Apple, being a premium device, is just a little more aggressive.

See, you've just demonstrated perfectly why the 'yes' campaign failed: A personal attack on someone because they made a statement you disagreed with, while pretending the evidence that proves them correct doesn't exist - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

A pro-union newspaper claiming one unnamed person was attacked but the police have no record of the incident. That is not evidence.

The story is the owners want to maintain control, even if they do not maintain a controlling interest. They set up a shell company in the cayman islands which is nominally linked to the profits of the actual company, and as far as I can tell are in fact selling shares in that shell company. So the company that is being purchased in not in china, and the business model will probably be international.

As far as why this is allowed, it is a lot of money. The banks and firms who are managing the IPO are US and will make a lot of money. The persons and firms who are allowed to buy or are given the stocks will make a lot of money when they resell the stock, either immediately, or in a few months when principles are allowed to resell stock.

It seems that the sale is on shaky ground, given that the Chinese government can likely do any number of things to make the shell company worthless. I think what some may be hoping is that the Alibaba can quickly expand out of china and preserve value as a worldwide conglomerate type thing. At a basic level this is further indication that there is a lot of capital out there, and for some reason the people who have it think it is better to risk it on the occasional potential high return scheme than use it to build long term infrastructure. I guess no matter how much money one have, one always is susceptible to a get rich quick scheme,

Hooray, getting more plastic knockoff versions of things, produced by slaves (hint: Communism doesn't treat people kindly), with zero regard for the environment, and shipped halfway across the planet.

Yes we did see the ugly side of nationalism finally shine through but it was British nationalism, not Scottish. Just compare the peaceful crowds of "Yes" supporters in George Square on the eve of poll with the the terrorist supporting "No" thugs tonight. The militant yes voters physically attacking no campaigners are a figment of your imagination, unfortunately the assaults by "No" campaigners are real and several have been arrested and charged.

DoublcClick has such negative value that their servers should be blocked at firewalls, or at least "host.txt". Even if you have AdBlock, blocking them earlier saves bandwidth.

Just because you chose not to believe something does not make it untrue. There were plenty of experts who supported the SNP's position on EU membership and currency. The BBC have certainly not been fawning over him, they made plenty of attempts to savage him which often backfire as with his demolition of Nick Robinson earlier this week which they cut from the broadcast.

He merely repeated the Queen's official position, that she was happy with either result. There have been plenty of claims in the unionist media that the Queen opposed Scottish independence.

You missed the BBC editing out Alex Salmond spending 5 minutes answering their question then accusing him of not answering?

You didn't see the way they interviewed anyone who supported independence much more aggressively, continually interrupting anyone who supported independence but allowing others to speak freely?

The SNP has said that 16 is an appropriate voting age and supports keeping that age for all votes but it has no power to implement it as all other elections are covered by reserved powers.

The SNP has a long standing commitment to votes at 16 for all elections, this is the first time they have had the power to do so and they delivered on that promise. The lib dems officially support votes at 16 too but opposed it for this referendum as they tried to rig the game in their favour. The unionist parties blocked the minority SNP government from passing legislation to hold a vote which would have taken place 4 years ago. It was only when they were re-elected with a majority they could get it through parliament so the timing is the unionists fault.

Not really (at least in Scotland anyway). The Crown Estate owns a lot of land and the sea bed but that's not part of their personal property.

The numpty was one of the Sky reporters who claimed that the pile of unsorted ballot papers were 'No' votes.