our little future daycare inc.

780 grand concourse - apt. 1g
bronx, new york 10451

NYS Entity Status
ACTIVE

NYS Filing Date
APRIL 04, 2014

NYS DOS ID#
4556568

County
BRONX

Jurisdiction
NEW YORK

Registered Agent
NONE

NYS Entity Type
DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION

Name History
2014 - OUR LITTLE FUTURE DAYCARE INC.









Buffer



submit to reddit

Telephone
n/a

Fax
n/a

Website
n/a

Email address
n/a

LinkedIn
n/a

Facebook
n/a

Google+
n/a

Twitter
n/a

Pinterest
n/a

Instagram
n/a



  • AROUND THE WEB

  • Pride 2017: New York’s L.G.B.T.Q. Story Began Well Before Stonewall
    By LIAM STACK - Monday Jun 19, 2017

    The gay bar’s 1969 patron-police battle, hailed as a starting point, actually followed many events in the city, now mapped in a sites project.

    Source: NYT > Home Page
  • Kirk Douglas on Surviving a Childhood Home With Little Food and No Heat
    Tuesday Jun 20, 2017

    The award-winning actor, now 100, lived in poverty in Amsterdam, N.Y.; then a friendship led him to Hollywood

    Source: The Wall Street Journal: Lifestyle
  • Little Games, Big Engagement
    Friday Sep 23, 2011

    One of the challenges brands often face when they look at getting into gaming is cost and time. Concepting a game people will actually play takes a great deal of time and specialized skills. Butsometimes, the simplest games can engage thousands of people if the right circumstances come together.

    Source: Media Post: Gaming Insider
  • The elusive millennials: are they worth chasing?
    Monday Dec 5, 2016

    Ah, millennials—they’re the constantly SnapChatting young people with attention spans that shorten every day. (I’m allowed to say this because I’m one of them!) As millennials make up more and more of the workforce and their buying power increases, organizations are obsessing about how to get them to care about their cause—and ultimately how to get them to give.

    This obsession has led to tons of research about the generation, and after doing a little digging, I noticed that the research doesn’t always match up. For instance, MobileCause said millennials give to causes, rather than specific organizations or brands, but Inc. 500 found millennials to be extremely brand loyal compared to other generations.

    So what’s the deal? Do millennials care about a specific organization or not? And how does that affect their likelihood to give? Big Duck’s new market research tool, the Brandraising Benchmark, also digs into questions like these, and our June survey returned some interesting results about young people:

    1. 18-34 year olds had some of the highest levels of awareness of participating organizations. This means they were more likely than other, older age groups to claim that they’d heard of a participating organization. This was true for nonprofits large and small, and across a variety of sectors.
    2. When asked about the importance of participating organizations’ mission statements, 18-34 year olds were more likely than any other age group to say the mission was very or extremely important. Again, true for nonprofits of all sizes and a variety of sectors.
    3. When asked about their likelihood to donate in the future, 18-34 year olds were more likely than all other age groups to say they probably or definitely would donate. Again, true for organizations large and small, and across sectors.

    So perhaps all the obsession over millennials is warranted: they’re aware of what’s going on in the nonprofit sector and excited about donating. What’s more, they seem to be aware of specific organizations (not just the issues behind them), so they may pay more attention to your brand than you might expect.

    My biggest takeaway about all of this is that developing a brand that inspires connection is more important than ever. Think Nike or Old Spice, and think fast because this age group has a lot of organizations vying for their attention.

    If you want to know what millennials (and other demographics) think of your organization specifically, sign up for our Brandraising Benchmark.

    Source: BigDuck smart communications for nonprofits
  • Apple Says Qualcomm Has Overcharged Billions of Dollars By 'Double-Dipping' on iPhone's Innovation
    By Joe Rossignol - Tuesday Jun 20, 2017

    Apple has expanded its lawsuit against Qualcomm, accusing the wireless chipmaker of "double-dipping" by way of unfair patent licensing agreements, according to an amended complaint filed with a United States federal court in San Diego today.


    The complaint broadens the claims Apple made in its original lawsuit against Qualcomm in January, when it sued the chipmaker for $1 billion in alleged unpaid royalty rebates. Apple also accused its longtime supplier of the iPhone's wireless chip of engaging in anticompetitive licensing practices.

    Since the original iPhone, Qualcomm has supplied Apple with modems that enable the smartphone to, for example, connect to a Wi-Fi or LTE network. But as the iPhone has gained more features, Apple argues that Qualcomm has been unfairly "levying its own tax" on those innovations through "exorbitant royalties."

    Apple said Qualcomm wrongly bases its royalties on a percentage of the entire iPhone's value, despite supplying just a single component of the device.

    As Apple innovates, Qualcomm demands more. Qualcomm had nothing to do with creating the revolutionary Touch ID, the world’s most popular camera, or the Retina display Apple’s customers love, yet Qualcomm wants to be paid as if these (and future) breakthroughs belong to it. Qualcomm insists in this Court that it should be entitled to rely on the same business model it applied over a decade ago to the flip phone but while that model may have been defensible when a phone was just a phone, today it amounts to a scheme of extortion that allows Qualcomm unfairly to maintain and entrench its existing monopoly.
    The licensing agreements are in addition to paying for the wireless chips themselves. Apple said Qualcomm's "double-dipping, extra-reward system" is precisely the kind that the U.S. Supreme Court recently forbade in a lawsuit between Lexmark and a small company reselling its printer cartridges.
    If that were not enough, the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent landmark decision in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., condemned Qualcomm’s business model as a violation of U.S. patent law. The Supreme Court flatly rejected Qualcomm’s business model, holding that a patent holder may demand only “one reward” for its patented products, and when it has secured the reward for its invention, it may not, under the patent laws, further restrict the use or enjoyment of the item. Qualcomm, by its own admission, will not sell chips to manufacturers who do not also pay separate royalties and enter Qualcomm licenses at usurious rates. This is precisely the kind of double-dipping, extra-reward system that the Court’s decision in Lexmark forbids.
    Apple said it has been "overcharged billions of dollars" due to Qualcomm's so-called "illegal scheme," including the $1 billion in unpaid royalty rebates that led Apple to sue Qualcomm in January.

    In its countersuit, Qualcomm accused Apple of failing to engage in good faith negotiations for a license to its 3G and 4G standard essential patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

    Apple, however, argues that Qualcomm's monopolistic licensing demands violate its FRAND obligations.
    By tying together the markets for chipsets and licenses to technology in cellular standards, Qualcomm illegally enhances and strengthens its monopoly in each market and eliminates competition. Then, Qualcomm leverages its market power to extract exorbitant royalties, later agreeing to reduce those somewhat only in exchange for additional anticompetitive advantages and restrictions on challenging Qualcomm’s power, further solidifying its stranglehold on the industry.
    Apple also claims that Qualcomm has never made it a worldwide offer on FRAND terms for a direct license to its patented technologies.

    Apple said Qualcomm subsequently filing lawsuits against iPhone manufacturers Foxconn, Pegatron, Wistron, and Compal reveals "its true bullying nature," calling it "a blatant attempt to exert pressure on Apple to acquiesce to" its "non-FRAND royalty demands" by attacking its smaller contract manufacturers.
    Qualcomm knows that these are companies who have been effectively coerced by its monopoly practices in the past. Qualcomm knows that these companies merely pass through the usuriously high royalty demanded by Qualcomm and so have little incentive to resist its monopolistic tactics.
    Apple has called for the court to declare Qualcomm's patents in the lawsuit unessential to 3G/4G standards used in the iPhone and its other products, and to prevent Qualcomm from taking any adverse or legal action against Apple's contract manufacturers related to the allegations in today's amended complaint.


    Discuss this article in our forums

    Source: MacRumors : Mac News and Rumors
  • Food & Wine Magazine Will Leave New York for Alabama
    By STEPHANIE STROM - Friday Jun 23, 2017

    The move reflects a changing business in which traditional food magazines, and a Manhattan address, are less important.

    Source: NYT > Home Page
  • Boot-Camp Prisons Aim to Prepare Inmates for a Brighter Future
    Sunday Jul 31, 2016

    The Moriah Shock Incarceration Correctional Facility in Mineville, N.Y., is one of a handful of boot-camp prisons nationwide that offer shorter sentences in exchange for participation in programs that aim to reduce recidivism. Photo: Claudio Papapietro for The Wall Street Journal

    Source: The Wall Street Journal: Greater New York
  • Is It So Bad If the World Gets A Little Hotter? Uh, Yeah
    By Peter Brannen - Friday Jun 16, 2017

    What wet socks can tell us about our capacity to survive climate change.

    Source: Webmonkey