Thursday, 5 May 2016

Stupid comments on Elon Musk being a Crony

" If Elon Musk’s various projects are so fabulous, why do they all need government “help”?"
 Because there are much more subsidies given to gas guzzlers that continue to pullute and poison the world. Without any protection, Elon Musk can still make money, but at a slower pace, thus allowing the gas guzzlers to continue polluting the world even longer.

It has never been a question of Electricity taking over Gas Guzzlers. It is just a matter of time. It is just that we need to speed up the process by subsidising the electric and other clean energy sources of energy.

It is not actually subsidising, we actually just has to pay for the effects of allowing the gas guzzlers to continue dumping poison into our atmosphere without any restriction at all. Just imagine a scenario where everybody is allowed to throw rubbish all over the places without any restriction at all and without any cost.

There are two ways of solving the problems. One way is just to pay to clean the rubbish which we already do. By cleaning the rubbish, we prevent diseases such as cholera from becoming prevalent. We do not do that with the gas guzzlers. As a result we suffer from chronic respiratory diseases that are known as well as unknown. The medical costs are subsidies that we all pay in order to allow the gas guzzlers to operate without any restriction in dumping poison to the atmosphere. This line of argument is used by Elon Musk and it does make sense. For less crowded places like Sabah, the costs are negligible but for crowded places like Beijing, the gas guzzlers are making life unbearable to the point that clean air bottles are bought at high prices in Beijing.

This author is also dishonest. He did not explain the subsidies that SpaceX competitors had. Boeing and NASA had subsidies that are 1000 times more than what SpaceX had. Read Elon Musk's comments about this. As to SpaceX, despite being so innovative in delivering loads to space much more cheaply than NASA and its contractors, be told to compete with NASA that had subsidies from the US tax payers amounting to trillions of $. Is it fair? Can SpaceX or any other innovative startup space technology companies compete against such highly subsidised companies and survive? Absolute nonsense if you think they still can without any single help from the tax payers.

The subsidies to these other companies may not be so obvious but just look at the subsidies that GM got from tax payers in order to save it from bankrupcy and later on continue producing gas guzzlers. Also imagine the subsidies that were doled out to banks that had created the worst financial disaster the world has even seen. What is 4.5 billion US $ compared to the trillions of US $ spend on worthless and more damaging causes. As damaging as the subsidies given to the US military that destroy the world without solving much of anything. We can always use arguments that justify the subsidies but why should we ignore the more valid and worthwhile causes of Elon Musk companies that need to be supported in the wake of worst and more substantial subsidies dole to his competitors that are more keen on destroying the world by keeping existing and outdated practises.

"GM is happy to accept government “help” when offered, but it is not necessary for taxpayers to bankroll the production of Corvettes — nor provide thousands of dollars in cash incentives to each prospective buyer in order to “stimulate” sales."

GM can also get similar subsidies as Tesla but why does it want them? Of course. GM prefers the easy subsidies without much string attached. Continue producing vehicles that can pollute the world while heavily subsidised by the tax payers.

"The real difference between Elon Musk’s operations and those of say General Motors is that General Motors’ products are fundamentally viable while Tesla’s are not."
This is a blatant lie and illogical. If it were viable, why does it need government help? It was not viable in the face of competition from more efficient car manufacturers such as Toyota, Honda and Nissan, that produce less polluting cars compared to GM.

To say that Tesla is not viable is just an accusation without any basis. The amount of subsidy is small compared to the price. Similar subsidies are also available for competing car manufacturers that produce the same type of vehicles, i.e. electric cars.

The typical Tesla “buyer” also has an annual income in excess of 1,006,300.00 MYR ( $250,000).
Why are taxpayers — the majority of them not earning 1,006.30 MYR ( $250)k annually — being taxed to support the “purchase” of electric exotic cars by extremely affluent people?

Ask them also if they are happy about the trillion $ subsidies doled to banks and GM? Certainly not, but the unhappiness is much less for the Tesla than for GM. Just because there are some happiness does not mean that the project is useless. It is a question of the lesser evil. We just cannot please everyone, and just because Tesla annoys a little of the tax payers does not mean that it is as useless as the other much much bigger recipients of subsidies. And yet, they author seem to think tha GM is justified in taking the much bigger and worthless subsidies compared to Tesla, a made and designed in USA product that is innovative and competitive compared to foreign cars such as BMW and Toyota. Absolutely nonsense and idiotic. 4.5 billion $ is a small price to support a promising company that will make US more competitive again instead of the trillion $ spent on GM and others that continue the provenly wrong and uncompetitive practises.

Elon Musk, Tesla, SolarCity, SpaceX CEO.. And Crony Capitalist King?
If Elon Musk’s various projects are so fabulous, why do they all need government “help”?
Shouldn’t Tesla — and Solar City and SpaceX — be able to stand on their merits … if they actually have merit?
That is, economic merit.
Elon Musk
Tesla fanbois — and Musk himself — will tell you all about the virtues of his electric cars. They are sleek and speedy. This is true. But they are also very expensive (the least expensive model, the pending Model X, will reportedly start around 140.88 MYR ( $35)k, about the same price as a luxury sedan like the Lexus ES350) and have a number of significant functional deficits such as a best-case range about half that of most conventional cars and recharge times at least four to five times as long as it takes to refuel a conventional car.
That’s if you can find a Tesla “supercharger” station. If not, then the recharge time becomes hours rather than half an hour.
But the real problem with Tesla cars is that no one actually buys them.
Well, not directly.
Their manufacture is heavily subsidized — and their sale is heavily subsidized.
Either way, the taxpayer (rather than the “buyer”) is the one who gets the bill.
On the manufacturing end, Tesla got 5.23 MYR ($1.3) billion in special crony-capitalist “incentives” from the state of Nevada to build its battery factory in Nevada. This includes an exemption from having to pay any property taxes (unlike you and I) for the next 20 years. Another inducement was 784.91 MYR ( $195) million in transferable tax credits, which Tesla could sell for cash.
California provides similar inducements — including 60.38 MYR ($15) million from the state of California to “create jobs” in the state.
Tesla does not make money by selling cars, either. It makes money by selling “carbon credits” to real car companies that make functionally and economically viable vehicles that can and do sell on the merits — but which are not “zero emissions” vehicles, as the electric Tesla is claimed to be (but isn’t, actually, unless you don’t count the emissions produced by the utility plants that provide the electricity they run on, or the emissions produced mining the materials necessary to make the hundreds of pounds of batteries needed by each car).
Laws in nine states (including California) require each car company selling cars in the state to sell a certain number of “zero emissions” vehicles, else be fined. Since only electric cars qualify under the law as “zero emissions” vehicles — and the majority of cars made by the real car companies are not electric cars — they end up having to “purchase” (quotes for the same reason that you are a “customer” of the IRS’s) these “carbon credits” from Tesla, subsidizing Tesla’s operations and adding to the expense of manufacturing their own functionally and economically viable cars.
The amount Tesla has “earned” this way is in the neighborhood of 2,081.03 MYR ( $517) million.
In effect, Tesla is a newfangled taken on the welfare queen. Or more accurately, the EBT card — which is designed to look like a credit card. To have the appearance of a legitimate transaction … as opposed to a welfare payment.
Underneath the glitz and showmanship, that’s what all of Elon Musk’s “businesses” are about. They all depend entirely on government — that is, on taxpayer “help” — in order to survive.
Without that “help,” none of Musk’s Teslas could survive.

" He “succeeds” only because of his ability to game the system, not by offering products that people are willing to pay for (using their own money, that is)."
The author seem to forget that Tesla cars are also best sellers in countries that offer little or no subsidies to Tesla.
These buyers are willing to pay the full price but getting subsidies is just a bonus to them so that they can buy some more eco friendly cars for their daily use. Instead of buying gas guzzlers that will pollute the environment, they will spend less time on poisoning. That is a worthwhile investment for all tax payers. These rich people are the worst offenders of the environment because they have more disposable income compared to the poor people or countries.

Elon Musk – the businessman

It is estimated that Musk’s various ventures — including his new SolarCity solar panel operation and SpaceX — have cost taxpayers at least 19.72 MYR ($4.9) billion, with Tesla accounting for about half of that dole.
Elon Musk fanbois will counter by pointing out that other businesses — including the car business — also get “help” from the government (that is, from taxpayers), which is perfectly true. But that’s not much of a defense — much less a refutation of the charge that Musk is a crony capitalist.
Which is all he is.
The real difference between Elon Musk’s operations and those of say General Motors is that General Motors’ products are fundamentally viable while Tesla’s are not. GM is happy to accept government “help” when offered, but it is not necessary for taxpayers to bankroll the production of Corvettes — nor provide thousands of dollars in cash incentives to each prospective buyer in order to “stimulate” sales.
Tesla could not build a single car without the government’s help. Or rather, the actual cost would be so prohibitive that virtually no one would buy a Tesla.
As it is — even with massive subsidies at the manufacturing level and then again at the retail level — each Tesla still “sells” at a loss of several thousand dollars per car … and still carries an exotic car’s price tag.
The typical Tesla “buyer” also has an annual income in excess of 1,006,300.00 MYR ( $250,000).
Why are taxpayers — the majority of them not earning 1,006.30 MYR ( $250)k annually — being taxed to support the “purchase” of electric exotic cars by extremely affluent people?
Why should taxpayers be made to subsidize any of Elon Musk’s “businesses”?
He’s a billionaire. And — we’re constantly told — a really smart guy. Surely he could fund (or find) the private capital necessary to fund his various projects. The fact that he could not find private — that is, willing — investors but instead has to rely on the coercive power of the government to fund his projects speaks volumes about the fundamental worth of his projects.
He “succeeds” only because of his ability to game the system, not by offering products that people are willing to pay for (using their own money, that is).
The heroic real-life Tony Stark image notwithstanding, Elon Musk is an operator — not a creator of value.
Elon Musk has more in common with the vulture capitalist oligarchs of the former Soviet Union than with the namesake of his electric car company.

Elon Musk, Tesla, SolarCity, SpaceX CEO.. And Crony Capitalist King?

Eric Peters has been covering the automobile industry since the ’90s and is the author of Automotive Atrocities and Road Hogs. His new book, Doomed, is scheduled for release next spring.

Sunday, 24 April 2016

Unblocking MCMC

  1. Open up the Chrome browser. Look for this logo.
  2. Open up the Settings screen
  3. Screenshot settings chrome sarawak report 2
  4. Go to Advanced, and look for Data Saver option, and turn it ON!
For Android phones, just use Chrome with Data Saver on.

More tips from the above site:

A lot of them appear to be to change DNS to the google DNS: and
I already use them because they appear to be more reliable.

Thursday, 21 April 2016

Custom Duties in Malaysia

How to Avoid from Custom Duties in Malaysia

Recently I received a “Notis Tahanan & Perlatikan Agen (PK1)” (refer figure1) from EMS to asked me go to collect my parcel from Custom Department. The parcel is sent by my vendor from USA.
Figure1: Sample of Notis Tahanan & Perlantikan Agen (PK1)
Why My Parcel Onhold at Custom Department?
Ans: The AWB [USPS-United States Postal Service] on top of the parcel show the Total Value of 1,159.95 MYR ( 1,159.95 MYR ( $300))USD++ (Approximately RM1K++) in which exceeded RM500 (will be taxable). The parcel shown as “High-value goods” when I check through the EMS tracking shipment page.
Others reason may due to the customs needs proof of the parcel exact value rather than based on the value written on your AWB. In this case, you need to present the official or commercial invoice to make the declaration for your parcel.
The others methods will be, asked your sender to put the invoice in between or beneath the AWB to show the value of your parcel without sending it personally to you.
How much I will be charged on top of that?
Ans: According to custom officer, sanitary cloth pads (HS Code: 6307.90.100) required 20% import duty + 10% sales tax + RM49.80 (EMS delivery charges??!!). Total up, cost me nearly RM450. Woww !!! I get shocked because I didn’t expected it will be so expensive.
What action I had took?
Ans: I returned back the parcel to my vendor instead let the custom department suck my blood! The custom officer allowed me to return it back to my vendor by written “Return to Sender” + Signature + written down my IC in the custom printout form. The custom officer told me they will sent it back using the same method as the vendor shipped to me and the shipping cost will revert back to my vendor. I am not able to shipped the parcel back to my vendor using my own PosLaju account because the parcel did not release to me and still held in custom department.
What I had learned from this incident?
1) There are import rate + sales tax applied on top of the imported parcel / merchandise which exceeded RM500. Check properly for the import item categories as taxable or non-taxable items.[customs tariff]
2) Custom officer required the official invoice for custom declaration. As an additional proof, they also need you to provide them with your payment receipt to show them the exact amount you pay to your vendor/sender in case they do not believed the value/amount stated inside the invoice [I faced this issue as 1 middle aged lady from the custom threaten me that I will be compound by showing the make up invoice with no concrete proof {*speechless*}, that is why I returned back the parcel back to my sender]. They encourage the user to make the payment via credit card through paypal so that to show them the email by paypal as proof.
3) You may request your shipper/sender provides you with a commercial invoice as a proof to the custom department for the value of the parcel. You may refer or download the SAMPLE OF COMMERCIAL INVOICE HERE. It is advisable to place your commercial invoice together with your AWB so that custom officer easy to find it.
Useful Information Sourced from []
Tarif Bercukai dan Pengecualian.
[Taxable Customs Tariff and Exemption]
Penghantaran Melalui EMS[shipped through EMS]
Nilai Barang[Goods/Parcel Value] + Kos Pengeposan[Shipping Cost] = < RM 500 (Dikecualikan cukai)[non-taxable]
Nilai Barang + Kos Pengeposan = > Rm 500 (Dikenakan cukai sekiranya barang ditaksir bercukai)[taxable if goods declare as taxable items]
Nilai Barang + Kos Pengeposan = > RM 1000 (Jika Bercukai, akan dikenakan Borang Ikrar Kastam K1 dan dicukai)[if taxable item, required customs K1 form and taxable]
Nilai Barang + Kos Pengeposan = > RM 1000 (Tidak Bercukai, tidak dikenakan borang ikrar)[non-taxable item, not required customs declaration form]
Nilai Barang + Kos Pengeposan = > RM 2000 (Tidak Bercukai, Dikenakan Borang Ikrar Kastam K1)[non-taxable item, required customs K1 form]
Nilai Barang + Kos Pengeposan = > RM 10000 (Cukai atau tidak, Akan Kena borang K1A)[either taxable or non-taxable, required customs K1A form]
Penghantaran Melalui Udara (Airmail)
Nilai Barang + Kos Pengeposan = < RM 500 (Dikecualikan cukai)
Nilai Barang + Kos Pengeposan = > Rm 500 (Dikenakan cukai sekiranya barang ditaksir bercukai)
Nilai Barang + Kos Pengeposan = > RM 1000 (Jika Bercukai, akan dikenakan Borang Ikrar Kastam K1 dan dicukai)
Nilai Barang + Kos Pengeposan = > RM 1000 (Tidak Bercukai, tidak dikenakan borang ikrar)
Nilai Barang + Kos Pengeposan = > RM 2000 (Tidak Bercukai, Dikenakan Borang Ikrar Kastam K1)
Nilai Barang + Kos Pengeposan = > RM 10000 (Cukai atau tidak, Akan Kena borang Ikrar Kastam K1A)
Penghantaran Melalui Laut (Seamail)
Nilai Barang + Kos Pengeposan = < RM 200 (Dikenakan cukai sekiranya ditaksir bercukai)
Nilai Barang + Kos Pengeposan = > Rm 200 (Bercukai atau tidak, akan dikenakan Borang Ikrar Kastam K1)
Borang Ikrar Kastam K1 tersebut turut memerlukan dokumen sokongan seperti kebenaran atau Permit dalam kes-kes tertentu seperti import handphone dan lain-lain berkaitan.[Customs K1 form required supportive documents (eg: permit) for certain specific cases for example imports hand-phones and etc.]
Alternatives Solution To Avoid from Custom Duties:-
1) Request your vendor/shipper to shipped out the parcel with value less than RM500 (~$ 579.98 MYR ( 579.98 MYR (150USD))).
2) Request the vendor/shipper separated your parcel into few shipments instead shipped all at 1time.
3) Normally, proforma invoice prepared by vendor/shipper with rather lower value than official invoice for custom clearance purpose.
4) Buy me a coffee and I will teach you how *Personally*. Ha~~

*** UPDATED BY 13 FEB 2012 ***
Will it still taxable if I labeled the parcel as gift, sample, used (second hand) or personal used?

Depends on:-
i) Customs Officers
ii) Your luck
iii) Parcel’s content
iv) Parcel’s declare value (including shipping cost)
Below are some of the experienced I collected online:-
“It has nothing to do whether you label it gift, personal, used or so on. Custom can tax whatever they want even if it is a gift, personal or used item.”
“Customs officers told me that it is by chance. If they opened your package and see that there a tags, they will impose tax based on the value that your seller declare.”
“Actually, duty tax depend on the custom officer who evaluate your parcel. It is up to him to accept or denied your explanation and dispute, and it is up to him to believe you or not. Custom officer have the rights to tax you base on the price that they believe (NOT by the price your seller declared).”
“…to dispute the duty tax, you need to go to custom office. This is not available if your seller using courier service, because for courier service, if any LOW duty tax (for Malaysia, it is RM500), the custom will clear it first and bill it to the courier company, the courier company will then bill it to you when you get the item. Then it is not negotiable/disputable anymore.”
“…get the sender to sent separately in envelopes instead of one huge box. Customs are alerted when there is a box especially a huge box. Sending in envelopes or small boxes are usually passed without tax. I don’t know about large boxes of many items but for one item, customs charge 10% on declared value + shipping.”
Any golden rules or possibilities to avoid or escape from duty tax in legal way?
1. Break the shipment into a few small shipments, said one piece per shipment that not more than 0.5kg.
2. Ship via normal mail instead of parcel or courier.
3. If you do not want to be taxed, go under the less-than-RM500 rule.
4. If its value is high, split the items to the said price tab and get them shipped weekly.

*Find it helpful?! Please buy me a coffee*

My sincere apologise if this article makes you misunderstood that I am the custom expert. Please be informed that this is just for sharing purposed.

Duty Calculator

Monday, 18 April 2016


Why Would Apple Buy Displays From Samsung?

About: Apple Inc. (AAPL), Includes: SSNLF, TSM


The Korea Herald has reported that Apple has selected Samsung OLED displays for use in the 2017 iPhone.
Apple may have found a better screen technology in its new 9.7 in iPad Pro.
Business considerations probably weigh against a partnership with Samsung in any case.
Recent reports out of Korea that Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) plans to use Samsung (OTC:SSNLF) OLED displays for iPhone starting in 2017 ignore a number of technical and business considerations. The common belief that OLED displays are superior to LCD is debatable. Furthermore, the fierce competition between Apple and Samsung argues against a supplier relationship that would make Apple once again dependent on Samsung for a critical iPhone component.
Source: Apple
Consider the Source
Since Samsung and many other Apple competitors started using Active Matrix Organic LED displays (AMOLED), it's become a common criticism of Apple that its displays were inferior. This was pointed to by Apple critics as yet another area where poor old clumsy Apple was falling behind the times.
Apple has often been an early adopter of technologies such as AMOLED. In fact, one criticism I've heard is that Apple is merely an early adopter, and doesn't originate technology development of its own. Why then has Apple not jumped on the AMOLED bandwagon?
The usual explanation is that Apple is just defending its margins, and LCD offers lower cost compared to LCD. That might be true, but I'm not convinced that would restrain Apple significantly. Also, AMOLED manufacturers are arguing, with justification, that the bill of materials is smaller. AMOLED displays are simpler, requiring no backlight. If AMOLED really offered a superior display, Apple would probably be attracted to it by virtue of being simpler, lighter and thinner.
In fact, the claim that AMOLED displays are superior ignores many of the problems with them, and these problems are largely ignored by the media. The most important problems with AMOLED are the limited display lifetime, especially of blue pixels, and color and intensity non-uniformity across the display.
The limited lifetime of blue OLED materials is well known and is the subject of ongoing research. Dr. Steve Forrest, a researcher on the subject at the University of Michigan last year summarized the state of the art. Blue pixels typically last less than 1% as long as the green and red pixels.
To help blue pixels last longer, AMOLED screen makers typically make them bigger, as can be seen in this magnified image of the Samsung display layout used for the Galaxy S6 and S7.
OLED pixels don't die a sudden death, but decline gradually in light output from day one, depending on the amount of use and operating brightness. For that reason, OLED displays are subject to burn in, which isn't a problem with LCDs at all. What's burn in? If you need to ask, you're too young to remember the olden times of pre-LCD televisions.
Burn in is where a very bright image leaves a permanent after-image in the screen. Screen savers were devised to reduce this effect by continually changing the content of the screen. Screen savers stopped being necessary once LCD displays became prevalent.
In addition to burn in, AMOLED displays are subject to considerable response non-uniformity, which can produce a grainy image when displaying a uniform color. This problem is hardly ever treated in reviews of AMOLED display. I've only seen one review that even broached the subject, Ron Amadeo's review of the Blackberry (NASDAQ:BBRY) Priv in Ars Technica, which suffered from particularly severe non-uniformity.
Even though reviewers tend to ignore the problem, one can find plenty of anecdotal evidence that it's still an issue in various Android discussion forums. Even Samsung's latest Galaxy S7 has received complaints. Complaints are not confined to the S7. One can find similar complaints about almost any phone that uses an AMOLED display, including the Nexus 6P, and the One Plus. In the the Galaxy S6: The Ugly Truth About Its Screen, one unhappy owner posted a series of photos detailing the problem, as shown below.
In his recent review of the S7's display, Dr. Raymond Soneira (Displaymate) alludes to the improvement in uniformity of the display, but offers no quantitative measurements. Dr. Soneira provides excellent, comprehensive technical reviews, and I wish he would address this issue. All displays, including LCD, suffer from some non-uniformity artifacts of various types, and it would be interesting to get a better feel for how Samsung's AMOLED displays compare to other AMOLED and LCD displays.
Perhaps the biggest drawback of OLED is that it's less power efficient than LCD when the background of the display is mostly white. This is not an uncommon scenario. When reading an ebook, or visiting most web sites, the background is predominantly white.
Pointing to the Near Future
Dr. Soneira has generally favored OLED screens for having better color and contrast, but his recent review of the screen 9.7 inch iPad Pro probably indicates where Apple is going for the next few years. The Pro set new standards for LCD screens in terms of color gamut and brightness. Color gamut pertains to the saturation and richness of the color as seen by the human eye. Most displays don't achieve the full range of color that the eye can perceive. The iPad Pro comes very close to the gamut of the S7, which has been a key area of superiority for AMOLED.
The Pro also is brighter than the S7 when displaying an all white background. Although AMOLED has higher contrast ratio (when viewed in the dark), the Pro's contrast ratio when viewed in bright light conditions was actually better than the S7. Under typical usage scenarios, the Pro provides a better experience, and uses less power.
The reader is probably wondering why Apple chose AMOLED for Apple Watch. Here, the difference is usage scenario. Most of the time, the background of the Watch is kept dark. In this scenario, AMOLED is more efficient, and this would be a key consideration for Watch battery life. Most of the time, users aren't reading a lot of text, such as an ebook, and messages can be displayed with white characters on a black or dark background.
The improvements in the 9.7 inch Pro display are so substantial that they probably cancel any perceived advantage that AMOLED might offer in terms of color accuracy and contrast. The sole advantage that AMOLED might have is in being lighter and thinner. But this is offset by the need for a larger battery to support use of the screen for light backgrounds. For instance, the battery of the S7 is 3000 mAh vs. the 2750 mAh battery of the larger iPhone 6s Plus.
Business Considerations
While the technical considerations for AMOLED are debatable, business considerations will probably have the final say. Apple and Samsung are locked in a fierce and acrimonious competition. Apple has waged a legal battle against Samsung's violations of Apple's patents. Apple is shifting its processor production to TSMC (NYSE:TSM), even though it used Samsung for part of the production of the A9 processor for the iPhone 6s.
When Apple signs up a supplier, it is in effect agreeing to share profit with that supplier. Why would Apple want to share profit with Samsung? The rumor really doesn't take into account the bad blood that must exist between the managements of the two companies.
The rumor also doesn't take into account the recent purchase of Sharp by Foxconn (OTC:FXCOF), in which Apple may have played a part. Sharp was reported to be the supplier of the screen for the larger iPad Pro, and I think it's likely that Sharp is the supplier of the 9.7 inch Pro display as well. Regardless of Apple's involvement with the Sharp purchase, I doubt Foxconn would have bothered with Sharp if it didn't have a ready customer in Apple for Sharp's display output.
This says at the very least, Sharp/Foxconn will be the preferred supplier for Mac and iPad displays for the next few years. Since volume is really in iPhone, probably Sharp/Foxconn will be the preferred supplier for iPhone as well. I consider this probable by virtue of the excellent display performance achieved in the 9.7 inch iPad Pro.
Even if Apple were to elect to use AMOLED for iPhone, it would probably prefer to stay clear of Samsung and use its current supplier of AMOLED displays for the Apple Watch, LG. LG was reported to be expanding its OLED production capacity, and this might have been in anticipation of increased demand for OLED for a future iPhone.
Investor Takeaway
The rumor, coming as it does out of Korea, really amounts to a not very subtle putdown of Apple. It's a statement that Samsung's display technology is so superior that Apple will elect to use it despite all that has transpired between the two companies.
I seriously doubt it. I think it's possible that Apple may skip AMOLED altogether in favor of an emerging technology, the quantum dot OLED or QLED. The advantage of QLEDs would be that the blue pixel would be as efficient and long-lived as the red and green pixels, thereby solving one of the major problems of current AMOLED displays. Quantum dot technology is already in use to improve the color gamut of LCD backlights, and may even be used in the 9.7 inch iPad Pro.
Apple doesn't have much to gain from using AMOLED, but it has a lot to lose in terms of market credibility by turning to Samsung as a display source. I believe Apple management fully realizes this and will steer clear of Samsung. I remain long Apple and recommend it as a buy.
Disclosure: I am/we are long AAPL.
I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
Editor's Note: This article discusses one or more securities that do not trade on a major U.S. exchange. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.

Friday, 25 March 2016

Using XBOX360 Wireless Controllers on a PC/Windows 7

My son complained that playing games on a PC is not as good as playing on a console such as XBOX360 or PS4. I persuaded them to use Steam to play games instead of paying exhorbitant prices for PS3/4 games. Much cheaper in Steam especially when there is a sale.

You need a PC Wireless Gaming Receiver. I ordered mine from Aliexpress.

22.37 MYR (US $5.54)

 Install the drivers using this youtube instruction.
Install your device and it will tell that no device drive is found.
Go to device drivers by searching for Device Manager.
Look for unknow devices, right click it,  Update Device Driver, Browse my computer for driver software, Let me pick from a list of device drivers, Microsoft Common Controller for
Windows Class, Xbox 360 Wireless Receiver for Windows.

Connect your wireless Xbox360 wireless controller to the gaming receiver. Use the following link.

It involved pressing the setup button for a long time. A few seconds. Too short a time, it will not work.

You can test it by going to the Devices  and right clicking Gaming controllers, left clicking Game controller settings then properties.

Monday, 21 March 2016

Booking flights cheaply using Expedia allows you to search for the cheapest flights across all types of airlines.

Better do the search using Expedia. It will tell you all the avilable options. After that you may book directly using the original airlines. One problem with Expedia is that it cannot pay for children under the age of 18. Make sure you book from Kota Kinabalu. Do not try to book from KL first. I found out that KK - Istanbul is the same price as KL - Istanbul, using Expedia and Qatar Airways.

I ended up booking using Qatar Airways from KK. Qatar Airways has joint venture with MAS for the flight to Istanbul. At RM2000 is almost the same price as to Seoul which costs RM1500 via KL. Direct flights to Seoul cost RM2300.