Quite a few, Germany is one. And then there are the places where though illegal it is the norm to drive those speeds. Italy for example.

No, because this has been applied to everyone, not just the US.

China changed it's rules to say that it would not import contaminated recycling waste as the environmental costs were too high. It had a massive impact on the recycling schemes in Australia as well. We solved it by putting the price up, because people had a massive meltdown when one city (Ipswich) said they were stopping recycling.

Not really.

Apple is trying to have its cake and eat it too.

Apple can either be the gateway to ios or it can be the music provider. But being both is anticompetitive.

If apples service can compete with a 1.3 multiplier then ok. But not ok without.

A close friend of mine owns a specialist telco. The hoops that they have to jump through for hardware compliance are significant.

The concern is less about whether a foreign country can snoop on data than a foreign country could bring down the network by changing settings in the core networking equipment. While it is possible to isolate an internal network device, a core switch has to have its management interface accessible, and it is there that the risk is perceived.

If your country is part of the 5 eyes group then no, no you won't get that hardware in telecos.

See TPG in Australia. They have pulled out of the 5g rollout here because huawei hardware was blocked on security grounds.

No I don't think so. My reading is that it ONLY works if the process that triggers it is already privileged. It won't work on an unprivileged process at all.

Reading the bulletin though it only works when the process that triggers it is privileged in the first place. So there is no privilege escalation. So there isn't a way that this exploit could root a phone.

I'm sure there are things that this could be used for. But it can't get out of the particular sandbox the application that views the PNG is sitting it.

That is different to a tax break to which I was replying.

Tax credits are a different thing entirely, though usually you would expect them to be a non-refunding tax credit. It would allow them to be carried forward and for them to sit as an asset on a balance sheet, but not normally claim as cash.

If it is a refundable tax credit then whoever negotiated that deal from the government side is almost criminally negligent.

Except that a decrease in apple sales = less money at foxconn = less money available to invest = reconsidering capital investments, irrespective of whether they are dependent on apple or not.

Tax breaks are a reduction in expenses. It is not income received.

While it may result in a higher net profit for the company at the end it doesn't offset the reduction in free capital that investing in plant requires.

I am aware of this.

I'm not suggesting the plant was for producing items for apple. My suggestion is that they are forecasting a significant reduction in revenue as a result of less orders from Apple. This reduction in revenue in one part of the business now means that capital investments will be reviewed across the whole business. If you have less money coming in you are going to be less bullish about expanding.

I'm sure.....

Because if my biggest customer had a ~20% decrease in sales of an item I am a primary supplier for I sure as hell wouldn't re-evaluate major capital investment plans.... Nope not at all.

No not really.

The board had previously announced that it was seriously looking at private equity options and to change that without reason would cause serious questions in the boards judgement.

Announcing that the sale would not go ahead due to inability of a buyer to secure acceptable financing though is a genuine, rational reason not to proceed.

I also strongly suspect that a large part of the share price drop would be through speculators exiting the stock now that a sale is not happening. Looking at the historical share price it looks like the correction to ~$12 is very close the the june shareprice when the buyout noise started.

The cameras should still be on their own network and firewalled from the outside world.

With core networking gear the concern is exploits through the control network which can't be firewalled.

For core network devices the restriction on Huawei makes sense as there is the side band maintenance network that core network infrastructure has. It's not so much them reading the data passing through the network as it is the ability for them to bring the network down.

That said you would be crazy to think the US doesn't have exactly the same capabilities in the Cisco and other US brand equipment that is installed around the world.