You must have missed the part at the very beginning of the article where they stated they did not have the time or the budget to get results that are anywhere statistically significant.
What moron gives a standard deviation/standard error when they know their sample size is too small to be statistically significant anyway?
This was just an "I wonder" kind of test. They get some surprising results, but you cannot draw any conclusions from them. You can't even say whether UPS, FedEx, or USPS handle packages the most gently. There isn't enough information, and they admit that right up front if you were to, you know, read it.
This was called the single most financially irresponsible piece of legislation in history
In tribute the simpleminded wisdom of the great Homer Simpson:
It was the single most financially irresponsible piece of legislation so far.
Obamacare may yet beat it on that score, and if it doesn't there will be another further down the line.
Also don't downplay Social Security's role in this overmuch, it still accounts for nearly 1/3 of the national budget and is growing rapidly. Every couple of years the retirement age is increased in an attempt to reduce the demand on the system. My hope is that eventually the retirement age will hit 75 or 80 and we can just stop paying Social Security, and therefore stop taxing for it (not likely, but one can dream, no?).
You're doing it wrong, Lafont and Ciba Vision are different brands. She found Lafont frames on DecorMyEyes first, then decided to order the contacts at the same time.
DecorMyEyes is halfway down the list for both "Lafont Eyeglasses" and "Discount Designer Frames".
That should have been enough to explain it. If you still don't understand, go to www.google.com and type "Finland" in the search box. I'm sure you still won't be able to figure out why he's so white, but I'm not going to hold your hand. People need to learn to do things for themselves.
To be fair, it was the first time he'd ever gone that fast, he had never been on a roller coaster before, and the flight to the US was his first time on an airplane.
Given that history, 15 laps hitting corners at 100mph+ is not bad.
They said he was putting up respectable times, and it was his first time doing anything even remotely similar to racing a car.
He eventually had to quit because the g-forces literally beat him up. He certainly didn't give up after puking in his helmet, like most people would have.
They have no legal standing to sue, that's the motion that wins.
They are basically suing because this guy tells them to file three other motions in addition to the motion that USCG has no legal standing, and those three motions always fail.
So, basically, USCG has no right to sue these people in the first place, but they are suing this guy for advising people to file the three more motions than necessary to defeat the lawsuits. Filing multiple motions in the hopes that one will "stick" is common practice, and as far as I am aware there is no limit to the number of motions you can file.
In other words, USCG is suing this guy for telling people how to exercise their legal rights.
It's federal, so he can provide advice nation wide with no restrictions so long as he has passed the bar.
They are trying to say the motions he advises people to file (he personally files nothing and does not defend these people in court) are a waste of the court's time and resources, since each motion must be responded to.
Thing is, they teach you in law school to file motions even if you think they will probably fail. The judges know this, they see it every day, it's standard operating procedure. There are any number of motions that are always presented and almost always fail. This is not new.
To say someone who represents himself cannot use the same tactic is absolutely ludicrous.
If there is a case here for wasting the court's time, it's much stronger against USCG for their bulk copyright infringement suits, which are so often baseless.
Under English law, a lawyer merely provides advice which the client is free to make use of or to ignore, and there are plenty of legal self-help books.
The same is true in the US, however states have legal statutes to prevent a person from giving legal advice who is not a lawyer. Depending on how strict the statutes are, this can pose real problems for self-help legal products.
However, that isn't what this appears to be about. Copyright is a federal matter, and the lawyer is licensed to practice law in the US, so that's not where the complaint seems to be coming from.
Apparently several of the motions always fail, but USCG still must respond to them or they lose automatically. This costs USCG and, to a lesser extent, the courts, more money than is necessary. However, I don't see how a lawyer can be sued for advising clients to file a motion that is ultimately unsuccessful, even if he advises thousands of such clients to do so. He never filed any motions, he simply told the people how and suggested they do so. I can't see how he could possibly construed as responsible for the motions.
I would suggest the USCG's bulk litigation practices are the ones that are actually wasting the court's time and money, since the majority of them are completely frivolous and must be responded to by each individual involved.
They filed around 20 defenses or so, many of them contradictory (i.e. if one is true, two or three others cannot be).
It's the shotgun approach, and it works. It doesn't matter if the motions fail for 99% of people, it works for 1%, and there is no telling who it will work for before hand. They are also treated separately, so two motions can contradict each other without harming the motions. It simply indicates that one or more of the motions is no good, it doesn't tell you which.
Remember when Apple's stock plummeted because Jobs was sick? Or when Apple fans panicked when there was a rumor that Jobs would stop attending Apple events?
Don't tell me Apple fans don't know or care who Jobs is.
Consumers of Apple products recognize Jobs more than any CEO of a computer product company in recent history. Even Bill Gates never had that kind of recognition - his was solely limited to the tech and business communities.
I mean, there were two whole paragraphs there! With two sentences apiece! One can't be expected to read and understand all that information at once now, can they?
Except the slide clearly shows that Halliburton decided not to reevaluate the faulty cement slurry nor did they wait for the foam stability tests, which would have showed the foam was not stable enough.
Some good guys.
The extra centralizers were a "just to be safe" measure, it's the cement slurry that failed.
The real problem here, though, was Transocean. I imagine everything would have gone as intended (even with the bad cement and insufficient centralizers) had Transocean been watching the process as carefully as they should have been. Look at the last two items on the slide. They basically ran the job in such a way that they would have no idea if something went wrong. Hey guess what? Something went wrong, and the Transocean operators couldn't see it until it was too late.
It looks pretty bad for all parties. BP is responsible for less than safe procedures, Halliburton is responsible for the unstable cement, and Transocean is responsible for not running the operation itself safely. Damn them all.
Like all of these disasters, there were compounding factors that turned an ordinarily "safe enough but not the safest" decision into an unsafe decision. All three companies made decisions that look pretty damning, but the big ones that pop out to me in the slide are the last two. Transocean basically ran the operation in such a way that they would not know if there was a problem. Even if everything else is done the safest way possible, that's just asking for something to go horribly wrong. To run things like that when you've made compromises for expediency is just pure stupidity. It's strikingly similar to what happened at Texas City, and the result was about the same - lots of people died.
True that. The branded stations have to buy their brand's gas, but the big oil companies buy, sell, and trade oil between each other all the time. In fact, most oil ventures are partnerships among the big names, and a given gallon of gasoline is almost always owned by more than one company.
I.E. that refinery down the road may be BP owned, but the oil it is refining is probably 40% Exxon, 30% Shell, and 30% BP, or some variation in the percentages and ownership of the gas.
It's worse than that - there is a very high likelihood that any non-branded gas station is selling BP gas at any given time, and you have no way of knowing which are or aren't. Furthermore, less than half of BP's crude is sold as gasoline or diesel. The rest goes into other petroleum products, like plastic. Your water bottle or grocery bag may not say "BP" on the side, but chances are BP crude was used to make it.
It is virtually impossible to boycott BP. All you can do is put local small business owners out of business.
5% royalty fees on their profits. The stations typically only make about 5c per gallon (after credit card costs) on the gas, so say wholesale is $2.15 (the price last week), taxes are about 40c per gallon, which gives a final retail of about $2.60. Final price varies by location but this is average. So if a BP station is selling 100,000 gallons of gas a month (a little low, but nice and round), BP is pulling in $215,000 per month while the station owner is getting $5,000.
Best case scenario (assuming all gas stations are making $500k per year profit, which is not at all the case) if you shut down all BP franchise stores you've hurt BP's gasoline profits by about 1%.
They'd certainly notice, but the franchise money was gravy anyway. It was pure profit to begin with. They still get $2.15 for every gallon of gas they produce, and that is where the vast majority of their income comes from.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, they don't have time to give a shit.
You must have missed the part at the very beginning of the article where they stated they did not have the time or the budget to get results that are anywhere statistically significant.
What moron gives a standard deviation/standard error when they know their sample size is too small to be statistically significant anyway?
This was just an "I wonder" kind of test. They get some surprising results, but you cannot draw any conclusions from them. You can't even say whether UPS, FedEx, or USPS handle packages the most gently. There isn't enough information, and they admit that right up front if you were to, you know, read it.
This was called the single most financially irresponsible piece of legislation in history
In tribute the simpleminded wisdom of the great Homer Simpson:
It was the single most financially irresponsible piece of legislation so far.
Obamacare may yet beat it on that score, and if it doesn't there will be another further down the line.
Also don't downplay Social Security's role in this overmuch, it still accounts for nearly 1/3 of the national budget and is growing rapidly. Every couple of years the retirement age is increased in an attempt to reduce the demand on the system. My hope is that eventually the retirement age will hit 75 or 80 and we can just stop paying Social Security, and therefore stop taxing for it (not likely, but one can dream, no?).
You're doing it wrong, Lafont and Ciba Vision are different brands. She found Lafont frames on DecorMyEyes first, then decided to order the contacts at the same time.
DecorMyEyes is halfway down the list for both "Lafont Eyeglasses" and "Discount Designer Frames".
No longer #1, but still top 10 for both.
He's from Finland.
That should have been enough to explain it. If you still don't understand, go to www.google.com and type "Finland" in the search box. I'm sure you still won't be able to figure out why he's so white, but I'm not going to hold your hand. People need to learn to do things for themselves.
To be fair, it was the first time he'd ever gone that fast, he had never been on a roller coaster before, and the flight to the US was his first time on an airplane.
Given that history, 15 laps hitting corners at 100mph+ is not bad.
They said he was putting up respectable times, and it was his first time doing anything even remotely similar to racing a car.
He eventually had to quit because the g-forces literally beat him up. He certainly didn't give up after puking in his helmet, like most people would have.
They have no legal standing to sue, that's the motion that wins.
They are basically suing because this guy tells them to file three other motions in addition to the motion that USCG has no legal standing, and those three motions always fail.
So, basically, USCG has no right to sue these people in the first place, but they are suing this guy for advising people to file the three more motions than necessary to defeat the lawsuits. Filing multiple motions in the hopes that one will "stick" is common practice, and as far as I am aware there is no limit to the number of motions you can file.
In other words, USCG is suing this guy for telling people how to exercise their legal rights.
It's utter bullshit.
"Malicious prosecution" like "vexatious litigation" normally require more than one act.
Like, say, bringing thousands copyright infringement lawsuits when you have no legal standing (that's the motion that always wins in the USCG cases)?
It's federal, so he can provide advice nation wide with no restrictions so long as he has passed the bar.
They are trying to say the motions he advises people to file (he personally files nothing and does not defend these people in court) are a waste of the court's time and resources, since each motion must be responded to.
Thing is, they teach you in law school to file motions even if you think they will probably fail. The judges know this, they see it every day, it's standard operating procedure. There are any number of motions that are always presented and almost always fail. This is not new.
To say someone who represents himself cannot use the same tactic is absolutely ludicrous.
If there is a case here for wasting the court's time, it's much stronger against USCG for their bulk copyright infringement suits, which are so often baseless.
Under English law, a lawyer merely provides advice which the client is free to make use of or to ignore, and there are plenty of legal self-help books.
The same is true in the US, however states have legal statutes to prevent a person from giving legal advice who is not a lawyer. Depending on how strict the statutes are, this can pose real problems for self-help legal products.
However, that isn't what this appears to be about. Copyright is a federal matter, and the lawyer is licensed to practice law in the US, so that's not where the complaint seems to be coming from.
Apparently several of the motions always fail, but USCG still must respond to them or they lose automatically. This costs USCG and, to a lesser extent, the courts, more money than is necessary. However, I don't see how a lawyer can be sued for advising clients to file a motion that is ultimately unsuccessful, even if he advises thousands of such clients to do so. He never filed any motions, he simply told the people how and suggested they do so. I can't see how he could possibly construed as responsible for the motions.
I would suggest the USCG's bulk litigation practices are the ones that are actually wasting the court's time and money, since the majority of them are completely frivolous and must be responded to by each individual involved.
Exactly, look at the Oracle/Google case.
They filed around 20 defenses or so, many of them contradictory (i.e. if one is true, two or three others cannot be).
It's the shotgun approach, and it works. It doesn't matter if the motions fail for 99% of people, it works for 1%, and there is no telling who it will work for before hand. They are also treated separately, so two motions can contradict each other without harming the motions. It simply indicates that one or more of the motions is no good, it doesn't tell you which.
No, they could definitely care a lot less.
Remember when Apple's stock plummeted because Jobs was sick? Or when Apple fans panicked when there was a rumor that Jobs would stop attending Apple events?
Don't tell me Apple fans don't know or care who Jobs is.
Consumers of Apple products recognize Jobs more than any CEO of a computer product company in recent history. Even Bill Gates never had that kind of recognition - his was solely limited to the tech and business communities.
Of course he hasn't, how could he reasonably be expected to trash it if he knew anything about it?
Hearsay is where it's at man!
The inverse is also true:
Just because I use Linux on my phone doesn't mean I'll ever use it on my desktop.
LOTD sucks monkey taters.
It's an operating system, not a religion.
Linux is Wicca, OSX is Scientology, and Windows is Catholicism.
...and may have overreached on the torrent site.
Reading's a bitch aint it?
Some times it just gets so hard.
I mean, there were two whole paragraphs there! With two sentences apiece! One can't be expected to read and understand all that information at once now, can they?
I don't think they'll ever make it to market, they require gigawatts of power and they break down every few months.
You caught that but missed "European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN)"?
Wow.
Obviously something else is going on here. Duh.
Grandfathers are rocket scientists, of course they can understand it.
Duh.
Who cares about your an idiot? His an idiot is the only one that matters!
Except the slide clearly shows that Halliburton decided not to reevaluate the faulty cement slurry nor did they wait for the foam stability tests, which would have showed the foam was not stable enough.
Some good guys.
The extra centralizers were a "just to be safe" measure, it's the cement slurry that failed.
The real problem here, though, was Transocean. I imagine everything would have gone as intended (even with the bad cement and insufficient centralizers) had Transocean been watching the process as carefully as they should have been. Look at the last two items on the slide. They basically ran the job in such a way that they would have no idea if something went wrong. Hey guess what? Something went wrong, and the Transocean operators couldn't see it until it was too late.
It looks pretty bad for all parties. BP is responsible for less than safe procedures, Halliburton is responsible for the unstable cement, and Transocean is responsible for not running the operation itself safely. Damn them all.
Like all of these disasters, there were compounding factors that turned an ordinarily "safe enough but not the safest" decision into an unsafe decision. All three companies made decisions that look pretty damning, but the big ones that pop out to me in the slide are the last two. Transocean basically ran the operation in such a way that they would not know if there was a problem. Even if everything else is done the safest way possible, that's just asking for something to go horribly wrong. To run things like that when you've made compromises for expediency is just pure stupidity. It's strikingly similar to what happened at Texas City, and the result was about the same - lots of people died.
True that. The branded stations have to buy their brand's gas, but the big oil companies buy, sell, and trade oil between each other all the time. In fact, most oil ventures are partnerships among the big names, and a given gallon of gasoline is almost always owned by more than one company.
I.E. that refinery down the road may be BP owned, but the oil it is refining is probably 40% Exxon, 30% Shell, and 30% BP, or some variation in the percentages and ownership of the gas.
It's worse than that - there is a very high likelihood that any non-branded gas station is selling BP gas at any given time, and you have no way of knowing which are or aren't. Furthermore, less than half of BP's crude is sold as gasoline or diesel. The rest goes into other petroleum products, like plastic. Your water bottle or grocery bag may not say "BP" on the side, but chances are BP crude was used to make it.
It is virtually impossible to boycott BP. All you can do is put local small business owners out of business.
What a nice thing to do to your neighbor, eh?
5% royalty fees on their profits. The stations typically only make about 5c per gallon (after credit card costs) on the gas, so say wholesale is $2.15 (the price last week), taxes are about 40c per gallon, which gives a final retail of about $2.60. Final price varies by location but this is average. So if a BP station is selling 100,000 gallons of gas a month (a little low, but nice and round), BP is pulling in $215,000 per month while the station owner is getting $5,000.
Best case scenario (assuming all gas stations are making $500k per year profit, which is not at all the case) if you shut down all BP franchise stores you've hurt BP's gasoline profits by about 1%.
They'd certainly notice, but the franchise money was gravy anyway. It was pure profit to begin with. They still get $2.15 for every gallon of gas they produce, and that is where the vast majority of their income comes from.