The iPhone 6 Is Coming In September And It Will Be In Two Sizes With A Higher-Resolution Screen

The iPhone 6 Is Coming In September And It Will Be In Two Sizes With A Higher-Resolution Screen

Jay Yarow

iPhone 6

Screenshot

Apple will release the iPhone 6 in September, according to a report in the Nikkei Asian Review.

It said suppliers of the iPhone’s screens are set to ramp up production to hit the September release.

Nikkei said the iPhone would come in two screen sizes, 4.7-inch and 5.5-inch.

Right now Apple’s iPhone 5 and iPhone 5S have four-inch screens. Apple is the only major phone manufacturer with a screen that small.

The latest flagship Android phones from Samsung and HTC have five-inch screens.

As a result, the iPhone’s screen feels small and cramped relative to its Android competition.

In addition to enlarging the screen, Apple will make the resolution of the new iPhones significantly higher, said Nikkei.

For Apple, this has the potential to be massive.

Brian Marshall at ISI said this would be the “mother lode” of upgrade cycles for Apple. The new iPhones, with their larger screens, will be significantly different from older models, and as a result Marshall expects big sales to existing customers.

Advertisements

The Only Explanation Of Facebook Buying Oculus For $2 Billion That Makes Any Sense

The Only Explanation Of Facebook Buying Oculus For $2 Billion That Makes Any Sense Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-mark-zuckerberg-bought-oculus-for-2-billion-2014-3#ixzz2x4tF4Ex2

The Only Explanation Of Facebook Buying Oculus For $2 Billion That Makes Any Sense

 

Mark Zuckerberg

Getty Images/David Ramos

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

FBMar 26 09:56AM
64.26
Change

-0.63

% Change

-0.97%

 

Facebook shocked the world yet again with an unexpected acquisition last night.

 

It announced that it was paying $2 billion for Oculus Rift, a virtual-reality gaming company. Oculus makes a headset that delivers an immersive experience. It blows away the people who use it.

Unlike other recent acquisitions in technology, this one doesn’t immediately make sense.

When Facebook bought Instagram for $1 billion, it was a perfect fit. Facebook is all about photo sharing. Instagram was eating into Facebook’s business as the primary social network for sharing photos.

When Google paid $3.2 billion for Nest, it made sense. Google is working on home automation and the Internet of Things.

When Facebook bought WhatsApp for $19 billion, it was getting a messaging service that was on pace to have 1 billion users. WhatsApp was a social network of its own, and as such it posed a threat to Facebook, which has its own messaging service.

But Oculus Rift? It’s not a social platform. It is no threat to Facebook in the near term, and probably not in the long term.

So why did Facebook buy the company? There are two, intertwined reasons to explain this deal.

The first and most straightforward explanation is just what Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said last night. He believes virtual reality could be the next major computing platform. First there was desktop computer, then there was mobile, and he believes virtual reality is next.

“We’re going to make Oculus a platform for many other experiences,” said Zuckerberg while announcing the deal. “Imagine enjoying a courtside seat at a game, studying in a classroom of students and teachers all over the world or consulting with a doctor face-to-face — just by putting on goggles in your home. This is really a new communication platform.”

Some people are skeptical about Zuckerberg’s vision. In general, people don’t like to wear goggles or glasses in their homes. It’s one of the reasons 3-D televisions have never taken off. The immersive experience of an Oculus is mind-blowing, according to pretty much anyone who’s tried it, but it’s also isolating, which could limit its mainstream appeal.

But if Zuckerberg is wrong — and Oculus is not the next major platform — it’s not a big deal.

Sure, $2 billion makes it sound like a big deal, but the deal terms are good for Facebook. It is spending $400 million in cash and using 23.1 million shares to buy Oculus. There’s an additional $300 million in earnout bonuses. 

This is the second reason for Zuckerberg buying Oculus. Zuckerberg looks at his stock price, which is quite high right now and thinks, “Great! I can spend this buying cool stuff!”

Facebook had $11.45 billion in cash at the end of last year. It spent $4 billion in cash on WhatsApp. Spending a further $400 million of the cash on a company that might be pioneering the next major computing platform is a no-brainer — it’s loose change.

As for spending stock, it’s basically monopoly money to Zuckerberg right now. Facebook won’t be judged on the performance of Oculus for three years, at least. For now, it’s all about the success of the core business, Instagram, and, to a lesser extent, WhatsApp.

Besides, investors are rewarding technology companies for aggressively investing in the future. Facebook’s stock hit a high in the days following its WhatsApp acquisition. (Normally, acquiring companies see their stock go down as they lose cash.) Google has been on a tear as it announces all sorts of technology experiments. Amazon has been rewarded for pursuing investment over profits.

By contrast, Apple’s shares have been pretty lifeless as it works behind closed doors on whatever its developing.

(And, by the way, Facebook’s stock is flat in pre-market trading.)

Zuckerberg looks at this landscape and figures, why not spend some of Facebook’s equity?

Is there a downside to this deal? Not really. If Oculus turns out to be a bust, then Zuckerberg is mostly just embarrassed for getting it wrong.

It’s not going to sink Facebook, and Zuckerberg spent only $400 million in cash. If Oculus turns out to be a good gaming platform, like Xbox, but not a major computing platform, that’s not the end of the world either. Xbox is a strong business on its own.

If Zuckerberg is right, he bought the next iPhone-like product for just $4oo million in cash.

How To Get Huge Portions At Chipotle

How To Get Huge Portions At Chipotle

How To Get Huge Portions At Chipotle

Ashley Lutz

Chipotle is known for its generous portions and affordable cuisine. 

 

But with a few simple tips, you can get even more food from the popular burrito chain. 

Quora user James Pan explained a few of his tips for getting the best burrito possible: 

  • Smile at your server. “Seriously, this is important,” Pan says. 
  • Get a burrito bowl. Business Insider’s analysis confirms that you get substantially more food by ordering the bowl instead of a traditional burrito. 
  • Ask for a tortilla on the side. This is free. 
  • Ask for extra rice at no extra cost. 
  • Order both pinto and black beans for free. 
  • Get free fajita vegetables. 
  • Ask for two different proteins, for example, half chicken and half steak. “Many places give you 3/4 a scoop of each protein, essentially giving you double protein,” Pan said. 
  • Ask for salad dressing, which is also free. 
  • While you’ll always pay more for guacamole, Pan says to order it on the side. “You’ll usually get more,” he says. 
  • Finally, timing is important. “Go late at night, about an hour within closing time,” Pan says. “They’ll just keep shoving the burrito until it explodes. Then they double-wrap it.”

Every 25-Year-Old In America Should See This Chart

Every 25-Year-Old In America Should See This Chart

In the good ol’ days, young Americans went to work for an employer who would promise a comfortable retirement in the form of a pension plan — that is, a defined benefit plan.

Today, it’s increasingly become the responsibility of the worker to put money away for retirement in the form of a 401(k) plan or an IRA — that is, a defined contribution plan.

The goal of this post is not to explain the mechanics of retirement plans. Rather, we want to show you the importance of saving sooner than later.

It all comes down to one elementary mathematical principle: compound interest.compound interest

Compound interest occurs when the interest that accrues to an amount of money in turn accrues interest itself. It’s the deceivingly simple force that causes wealth to rapidly snowball. This is why it’s the concept that is at the core of all finance.

The folks at JP Morgan Asset Management demonstrate the true power of compound interest in their 2014 “Guide to Retirement.”

Their example consists of three people who experience the same annual return on their retirement funds:

  • Susan, who invests $5,000 per year only from ages 25 to 35 (10 years)
  • Bill, who also invests $5,000 per year, from ages 35 to 65 (30 years)
  • And Chris, who also invests $5,000 per year, but from ages 25 to 65 (40 years)

Intuitively, it makes sense that Chris would end up with the most money. But the amount he has saved is astronomically largely than the amounts saved by Susan or Bill.

Interestingly, Susan, who saved for just 10 years, has more wealth than Bill, who saved for 30 years.

That discrepancy is explained by compound interest.

You see, all of the investment returns that Susan earned in her 10 years of saving is snowballing — big time. It’s to the point that Bill can’t catch up, even if he saves for an additional 20 years.

Of course, if Susan saved like Chris … well, if you haven’t noticed, Chris’ savings are just the savings of Bill and Susan combined.

The longer you wait to start saving for retirement, the more you miss out on the benefits of the incredible power of compound interest.

Here’s the chart, in slide form, from JP Morgan Asset Management.

retirement

Mar. 21, 2014, 9:18 AM

777 PILOT: I’m Sorry, But I’m Just Not Buying The Smoke-In-The-Cockpit Theory

777 PILOT: I’m Sorry, But I’m Just Not Buying The Smoke-In-The-Cockpit Theory

Malaysia flightAPA student from the Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino High School looks at a mural depicting the missing Malaysia Airlines plane.

It has been 11 days since Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappeared, and investigators still appear to be mystified about what happened.

The prevailing hypothesis is that the plane was stolen or hijacked and then flown for seven hours on either a bizarre suicide mission or to a secret destination somewhere, perhaps to be used on a future mission.

But given the level of planning and execution required to carry out such a plan, as well as the lack of any obvious motives, other theories also have to be considered.

Yesterday, we described one such theory — a fire on the plane that overwhelmed and incapacitated the pilots. This theory fits many of the facts, and it is a much simpler explanation than the “intentional commandeering” hypothesis. But this theory, too, doesn’t fit all the facts, especially now that it is being reported that the plane’s course changed before the co-pilot said “Good night” to Malaysia air traffic control, a routine call that made it sound as though everything was fine.

The smoke-in-the-cockpit theory also isn’t sitting well with some pilots we have talked to, including one who has flown the same type of plane as the one that disappeared, the 777-200ER.

These pilots point out that smoke in the cockpit is one of the most common emergencies that pilots train for and that 777s are equipped with full-face oxygen masks that the pilots would have put on before they did anything else. They also say that, unless the pilots ignored their training, they would then have run through a checklist of tasks that would have included descending rapidly and making an emergency radio call.

We wrote about the impressions of these pilots here.

And here’s another, more detailed reaction that we received from a pilot who has flown the 777 (the pilot asked us to keep his employer and his name anonymous):

As a former B777 pilot, I find the “plausible” theory you published is not in line with the facts as they have been reported. I am a professional pilot with type ratings in the DC-9 (MD88, MD90), B757, 767 and 777 and I served as a Captain at a major US international airline. I feel I have some insight to add to the discussion about MH370.

First off, the idea that a wheel-well fire could have burned unnoticed for over an hour after takeoff is not plausible. The B777 has wheel-well overheat/fire-detection systems that would have sounded an alarm for the cockpit crew soon after takeoff, were that an issue. Additionally, the cockpit is equipped with full-face O2 masks that provide a safe breathing atmosphere to every pilot. At the first sign of ANY smoke, the pilots are trained to drop everything and immediately, without hesitation, don those rapid-don masks that are designed to be easily donned with one hand and immediately secure themselves to the face. After that, the Captain will delegate duties … one pilot flies the plane and handles communications, while the other works the problem, using checklists designed to narrow the issue down and address it.

While the pilot working the problem is busy, the pilot flying will turn the aircraft toward the nearest appropriate airport, begin a descent, and communicate with ATC and/or any airplanes in the area. While it is true that the checklists may, in the event of an electrical fire, have the pilots de-power certain systems or circuits, these steps are down the list; the pilots would have already declared the emergency and turned toward the nearest appropriate airport.

I can think of no plausible reason why the crew never made any attempt to contact ATC during the event, except that whoever was in control of the cockpit did not wish to communicate.

In the case of MH370, a turn was made, but no descent was initiated at that time, nor was any communication with ATC made.

Additionally, the aircraft has been reported to have climbed to FL450, and descended to FL250 later in the flight. If the flight crew had been incapacitated, this could not have occurred.

Finally, a fire that incapacitated everyone onboard would have, in every scenario I can logically come up with, destroyed the aircraft soon thereafter. I reference the Swissair Flight 111, an MD11 that crashed off the coast of Halifax, Nova Scotia, on Sept. 2, 1998. From the time of initial cockpit indication of smoke until the crew was completely incapacitated was 14 minutes; the aircraft crashed soon thereafter. In this incident, the crew had ample time to communicate with ATC, and was running checklists until the very end. Indeed, the crew elected to stay airborne and continue running checklists while dumping fuel, instead of landing immediately; this decision has been credited with the loss of all passengers and crew, and is exactly why landing immediately is the primary goal in an airborne fire.

For a fire to have been burning from the wheel well for over an hour before detection is not within the realm of realistic possibilities, in my opinion.

While I agree that finding accurate information has been difficult with the Malaysian government’s recalcitrance and affection for misinformation, everything I’ve read points to a takeover event that was planned and executed by persons unknown. And while some of the facts can point toward the [smoke in the cockpit scenario], to believe that this scenario is correct in the face of all the information would indicate a gross negligence on the part of the cockpit crew, and a refusal to follow basic emergency procedures.

While we all have our own biases and hopes concerning this tragic event, as a pilot who flies in this theater of the world often, I am truly concerned at the Malaysian government’s reluctance to disseminate information, include other governments, or address their lax security procedures. Why were two passengers allowed to board the aircraft using stolen passports? Why did the first officer have a history of allowing passengers to ride in the cockpit of his aircraft while in flight? Where is the journalistic outcry for these obvious and dangerous breaches in security, and why aren’t you, as a journalist, using your voice to call attention to it? Regardless of what is finally determined to be the proximate cause of this tragedy (which I readily admit could still be an accident) the big story should be that the Malaysian government is putting the lives of its passengers in extreme danger by not enforcing universal rules for security and flight safety.

In a second email, this pilot expanded on how he is thinking about what might have happened:

I don’t know what happened to MH370 any more than anyone else who wasn’t aboard. But here’s how my head works with this. I try to find the simplest, least complex explanation that works with ALL THE AVAILABLE FACTS/INFORMATION, and that doesn’t need “added” leaps or assertions or events to have happened that we do not have any info about.

For instance, several things point to an “event,” not an “accident.” The lack of communication, the programmed turn, the climb to FL450 and descent to FL250, and the continuation of the aircraft’s existence as a whole object, powered and uncrashed, for about seven-plus hours after the disappearance.

The plane’s ACARS and transponder were physically shut off, by some accounts before the last radio communication from the crew. We know that the aircraft remained powered and in controlled flight for many hours after this point. The aircraft’s route of flight in the FMS was changed by someone in the cockpit, as was its altitude, both up and down. There was no Mayday issued, and the aircraft did not answer repeated radio calls from ATC.

Let’s look at a smoke or fire “accident.” I do not believe, based on what we know now, that there was smoke or a fire. Why? Because there is no indication of fire, or smoke in the cockpit, during the time the aircraft was still in contact, and there is no indication of “fire” behavior in the aircraft’s flight path. Additionally, normal emergency protocols train the crew to immediately don and wear full-face O2 masks (the B777 is equipped with them), and designate one pilot to fly and talk to everyone (aviate and communicate) while the other pilot runs the checklist and fights the problem. The plane made a sharp left turn, toward land, soon after ATC communication was lost. This was shown to have been pre-programmed into the FMS by the pilots.

The flying pilot’s job in an emergency such as this would be to point the airplane at the closest acceptable runway, announce to the world the nature of the emergency (ATC) and request help, and begin a descent so that at some point during the process, an attempt to vent the smoke from the cabin could be done.

Basically, none of this was done. This leads me to believe that there was no emergency of this type. For this type of emergency to be in play, it indicates that the cockpit crew would have had to willfully refuse to follow their training and checklists to combat the emergency.

Airborne smoke and fire emergencies are extremely serious, and are trained for by every airline crew in the world. In the wake of Swissair 111, which crashed off the coast of Nova Scotia, we know that a flight crew has a very limited period of time in which they must land the plane before disaster … only 14 minutes in the Swissair tragedy … yet MH370 continued to fly for more than seven hours after contact was lost. This is yet another clue that points away from an in-flight physical, mechanical, or other type of emergency.

There is evidence that Malaysia Airlines crews often allowed passengers onto the flight deck during flight, which is an indication both of lax safety and security procedures to my western way of thinking, but may be totally permissible at Malaysia Airlines. The FO had allowed some pretty girls to sit in the cockpit during a flight last year. His captain did not protest. This anecdotal info could lend credence to the idea of hijackers gaining access to the flight deck after takeoff.

To my eye, a fire/smoke emergency does not fit what we currently know.

Neither does a missile, engine failure, structural failure, loss of pressurization or any other kind of “accidental” failure. This looks and sounds like a “planned event,” not an “unforeseen emergency.” Mistakes can occur, and the sad truth is that we don’t know what we don’t know … but until something comes to light that supports an “emergency” situation, the simplest and most logical explanation is that someone took control of that airplane and diverted it from it’s planned course and destination.

54 minutes ago
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/malaysia-smoke-in-cockpit-2014-3#ixzz2wQUs2xMP

“Gravity’s Edge” Exhibit at Smithsonian

“Gravity’s Edge” Exhibition Checklist

Installation view of Gravity’s Edge at the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, 2014. Left to right: works by Paul Jenkins, Lynda Benglis, Anne Truitt, Sam Francis, and Morris Louis. Photo: Cathy Carver
Installation view of Gravity’s Edge at the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, 2014. Left to right: works by Paul Jenkins, Lynda Benglis, Anne Truitt, Sam Francis, and Morris Louis. Photo: Cathy Carver

INSTALLED ON THE LOWER LEVEL:

Lynda Benglis American, b. Lake Charles, Louisiana, 1941

Corner Piece
1969
Latex

Sam Francis American, b. San Mateo, California, 1923–1994

Untitled
1967
Acrylic on canvas

Blue Balls
1962
Oil on canvas

Untitled (Mako’s Rain)
1965
Gouache and watercolor on paper

Helen Frankenthaler American, b. New York City, 1928–2011

Indian Summer
1967
Acrylic on canvas

Paul Jenkins American, b. Kansas City, Missouri, 1923–2012

Phenomena Reverse Spell
1963
Synthetic polymer on canvas

Phenomena Tibetan Banner
1973
Acrylic on canvas

Phenomena Voyager
1972
Watercolor on paper

Phenomena Heart Of The Matter
1972
Watercolor on paper

Morris Louis American, b. Baltimore, Maryland, 1912–1962

Gamma Pi
1960
Magna on canvas

Buskin
1959
Magna on canvas

Delta Theta
1961
Magna on canvas

Kenneth Noland American, b. Asheville, North Carolina, 1924–2010

Dusk
1963
Acrylic on canvas

Rich Rhythm
1978
Acrylic on linen

Anne Truitt American, b. Baltimore, Maryland, 1921–2004

Night Naiad
1977
Acrylic on wood

“Gravity’s Edge” Exhibit at Smithsonian

From Left to right:
“Blue Balls” 1962, Sam Francis, Oil on canvas, 72 x 60 1/8 in. (182.7 x 152.5 cm)

“Phenomena Reverse Spell” 1963, Paul Jenkins, American, Synthetic polymer on canvas

“Phenomena Tibetan Banner,” 1973, Paul Jenkins, American, Acrylic on canvas