Because the franchises are selling everybody's gas, not just BP's. The price of wholesale will be unaffected, and that's what BP gets for its gas, no matter who buys it. If the price goes down it means the gas stations had to sell at a loss - they paid one price to BP and now have to sell for a lower price. BP has already received its money and is completely unaffected. If BP stations never bought a drop of BP gas again, BP still wouldn't lose a dime, because all the other non-BP stations would be buying it instead.
It basically all goes into the same pool*, and additives are only added just before local distribution. If BP stations go bust, Shell, Exxon, or any of the other stations will simply be selling slightly more BP gas. BP gets wholesale prices for every drop of their gas. The people left out in the cold are the station owners who paid for the gas but can't sell it.
The franchise revenues themselves are a very minor, added bonus for BP and losing them does not impact their budget all that much.
It's just like what happened with Exxon in Alaska after the their spill. Exxon basically just pulled the name off their office buildings and continued business as usual. They are not allowed to drill for a single drop of their own oil, yet they still own and sell more than 1/3 of Alaska's oil. The only difference is now nobody knows it's Exxon's oil in those tankers because now their name isn't on the buildings and ships any more (the buildings and ships haven't gone anywhere). Other companies drill and distribute their oil for them, and Exxon simply takes its (significant) cut.
I'll finish with this. It pretty well sums up the problems with attempting to boycott BP gas.
*That's not really accurate, but it's a good enough way to look at it. The point is that if BP gas stations don't buy it at wholesale because they can't sell what they have, other stations will simply buy all the BP gas at wholesale and add their own additives. Demand for gas is huge, it costs more than milk per gallon for crying out loud. There is no difference between the raw products, and the distributors don't really give a rats ass where the gas came from (they prefer their own, because they pay less for it, but they can't supply demand on their own). BP's bottom line is practically unaffected by a BP boycott.
That's because Commission co-chair William Riley has a name to make for himself. It's funny that he contradicts the commission a day after the official report comes out, is it not?
You are seriously underestimating what gets noticed and how far it goes up the chain. If they send 50 recruitment letters to a school and 15 of them come back saying "Not after you screwed Sun in the poop-hole, no way", they will definitely notice, and it will more than likely get pretty close to the CEO's desk.
That said, it won't change anything, and thinking it will is pretty naive of the GP. They've got money to offer, and 9 times out of 10 money wins out over slight moral quibbles.
Oracle legitimately owns patent rights or copyrights to Object A.
Oracle's licensing terms for Object A include a requirement to also license Object B, which nobody wants and Oracle doesn't own any legitimate rights to.
It's like being required to purchase a copy of OSX from Microsoft in order to purchase a copy of Windows.
The scientists didn't think it prudent, and when asked about it after the fact said they definitely would not have recommended it.
It makes sense, too.
If you just had a oil well explode in a failed capping operation, what kind of idiot would order 60 more just like it, just in case it happens again? That's like accidentally cutting your finger off with a butcher knife, and then seeing if you can miss each of your other 9 fingers, just in case.
I'll tell you what kind of idiot would do that: someone more concerned about their political goals more than they cared about the immediate safety of those involved in drilling or the environment itself.
Hell, I bet they could get all oil rigs shut down if 100 people died and 80 million barrels of oil pumped into the Gulf!
The costs are just being paid for by someone else.
Ultimately they are being paid by the people who have always paid them: the people at the bottom who have no say in the matter.
I have to admit, I was thoroughly impressed by Obama's speech at the beginning of the health care BS. I figured if he could keep half of those promises he made we'd be in pretty good shape.
Unfortunately, he broke pretty much all the promises I remember him making during the speech. During the whole procession he cared less about what was in the bill and more about just getting something passed. The speaker of the house publicly basically proved that he was nothing more than the Democratic Party's mouthpiece.
In any case, some of the premises were ludicrous, and when they forced the CBO to base the cost estimates on them, of course it was going to come out to budget-neutral. Bring it back to reality, and we'll never break even on the monstrosity that is the health care bill.
anything but - except for preventing a depression, providing jobs for millions of americans, and giving tax breaks to small businesses to help them weather the recession.
The trouble with this particular argument is it's impossible to prove false. It's like proving there is no God. Meanwhile we are deeper in debt than at any point in our nation's entire history, other countries are so leery of investing in the US that the US government is being forced to monetize more than half a trillion dollars, and we're still at just barely under 10% unemployment. In fact, the unemployment rate has sat unchanged since May. Big freaking improvement.
The economy hasn't met any of the expectations which were set out as justifications for the bailout and stimulus packages, and yet we're expected to believe things are better off now than they would have been without these bills, even though not a single promise has been fulfilled?
The fact is, it is very likely we are setting ourselves for complete economic collapse. Look at what happened to the USSR before its collapse, the similarities are striking. In a lot of ways their structure before the collapse created the self-reliance needed to survive such a thing. We have nothing similar here, and if we can't manage to straighten things out it could well be our doom.
I can get behind that. Wikipedia really is shit for anything political or otherwise controversial. It's really only useful for shit no one cares about.
they have to do something highly illegal to actually get sued for firing you.
You mean like firing you for participating in a collaborative discussion about your employment conditions? Yeah, that's protected under federal law. You may want to actually read the story and all that. If you were talking shit about your boss with other employees and they are trying to fire you, you can sue them.
The only things that are covered by federal law are race, sex, pregnancy, religion, national origin, age (if over 40, they can discriminate all they like under that.), military service (but can discriminate based on anything other than an honourable discharge), bankruptcy or bad debts, genetics, or citizenship status. Anything else is fair game barring state laws, which are pretty patchy.
What the hell is left to discriminate against? Ears that are too big?
Slashdot Mirror
Because the franchises are selling everybody's gas, not just BP's. The price of wholesale will be unaffected, and that's what BP gets for its gas, no matter who buys it. If the price goes down it means the gas stations had to sell at a loss - they paid one price to BP and now have to sell for a lower price. BP has already received its money and is completely unaffected. If BP stations never bought a drop of BP gas again, BP still wouldn't lose a dime, because all the other non-BP stations would be buying it instead.
It basically all goes into the same pool*, and additives are only added just before local distribution. If BP stations go bust, Shell, Exxon, or any of the other stations will simply be selling slightly more BP gas. BP gets wholesale prices for every drop of their gas. The people left out in the cold are the station owners who paid for the gas but can't sell it.
The franchise revenues themselves are a very minor, added bonus for BP and losing them does not impact their budget all that much.
It's just like what happened with Exxon in Alaska after the their spill. Exxon basically just pulled the name off their office buildings and continued business as usual. They are not allowed to drill for a single drop of their own oil, yet they still own and sell more than 1/3 of Alaska's oil. The only difference is now nobody knows it's Exxon's oil in those tankers because now their name isn't on the buildings and ships any more (the buildings and ships haven't gone anywhere). Other companies drill and distribute their oil for them, and Exxon simply takes its (significant) cut.
I'll finish with this. It pretty well sums up the problems with attempting to boycott BP gas.
*That's not really accurate, but it's a good enough way to look at it. The point is that if BP gas stations don't buy it at wholesale because they can't sell what they have, other stations will simply buy all the BP gas at wholesale and add their own additives. Demand for gas is huge, it costs more than milk per gallon for crying out loud. There is no difference between the raw products, and the distributors don't really give a rats ass where the gas came from (they prefer their own, because they pay less for it, but they can't supply demand on their own). BP's bottom line is practically unaffected by a BP boycott.
That's because Commission co-chair William Riley has a name to make for himself. It's funny that he contradicts the commission a day after the official report comes out, is it not?
I say you go with it, it should be pronounced similar to "pardigm".
You can make up whatever meaning you want, too (as long as it is at least related to "anything") since it is your word!
This is a persistent that myth has been shot down time and time again in real-world benchmarks.
Except that it is, in fact, slower than a real compiled language like C/C++ by a wide margin in those benchmarks.
It's a lot faster than a scripting language (Python, Perl, etc) but it's slow compared to native compiled languages.
Sorry charlie.
You mean like the fact that Oracle currently has a lawsuit in progress against Google over their implementation of the JVM?
Oh yeah, nothing to worry about there. They won't touch the little guys, right?
Blind fools.
The reason you don't need a citation when someone says their favorite color is blue is because blue is clearly superior to every other color.
If you don't agree with me, well, you're wrong.
What's the point of a GUI if it looks like shit?
Uh, you realize Mono and the patents it depends on are licensed under several open source licenses, right?
Your whole post is completely irrelevant.
You are seriously underestimating what gets noticed and how far it goes up the chain. If they send 50 recruitment letters to a school and 15 of them come back saying "Not after you screwed Sun in the poop-hole, no way", they will definitely notice, and it will more than likely get pretty close to the CEO's desk.
That said, it won't change anything, and thinking it will is pretty naive of the GP. They've got money to offer, and 9 times out of 10 money wins out over slight moral quibbles.
Nah, he's just saying all of this will happen again.
It's called satire, and it does have a history of being censored, since it is so effective.
Satire is pretty much out the window in the UK.
Satire is exactly what that politician's tweet was.
Under current UK laws, Johnathan Swift more than likely would have been arrested for A Modest Proposal.
It's complete bullshit.
The problem is the system does no longer allow for a further assessment of the situation.
Why do you think toner cartridges are banned from airplanes now?
Obviously the TSA doesn't believe the terrorists will be able to think of any other objects to hide explosive material inside.
Fuck I hate the TSA, someone should stone them. I shan't tell Amnesty if you don't.
What the hell are you babbling about?
No no no, it boils down to this:
Oracle legitimately owns patent rights or copyrights to Object A.
Oracle's licensing terms for Object A include a requirement to also license Object B, which nobody wants and Oracle doesn't own any legitimate rights to.
It's like being required to purchase a copy of OSX from Microsoft in order to purchase a copy of Windows.
The scientists didn't think it prudent, and when asked about it after the fact said they definitely would not have recommended it.
It makes sense, too.
If you just had a oil well explode in a failed capping operation, what kind of idiot would order 60 more just like it, just in case it happens again? That's like accidentally cutting your finger off with a butcher knife, and then seeing if you can miss each of your other 9 fingers, just in case.
I'll tell you what kind of idiot would do that: someone more concerned about their political goals more than they cared about the immediate safety of those involved in drilling or the environment itself.
Hell, I bet they could get all oil rigs shut down if 100 people died and 80 million barrels of oil pumped into the Gulf!
The costs are just being paid for by someone else.
Ultimately they are being paid by the people who have always paid them: the people at the bottom who have no say in the matter.
I have to admit, I was thoroughly impressed by Obama's speech at the beginning of the health care BS. I figured if he could keep half of those promises he made we'd be in pretty good shape.
Unfortunately, he broke pretty much all the promises I remember him making during the speech. During the whole procession he cared less about what was in the bill and more about just getting something passed. The speaker of the house publicly basically proved that he was nothing more than the Democratic Party's mouthpiece.
In any case, some of the premises were ludicrous, and when they forced the CBO to base the cost estimates on them, of course it was going to come out to budget-neutral. Bring it back to reality, and we'll never break even on the monstrosity that is the health care bill.
I've got one word for you:
Nuclear.
That middle picture is creepy.
Would that be Georack Obamush?
anything but - except for preventing a depression, providing jobs for millions of americans, and giving tax breaks to small businesses to help them weather the recession.
The trouble with this particular argument is it's impossible to prove false. It's like proving there is no God. Meanwhile we are deeper in debt than at any point in our nation's entire history, other countries are so leery of investing in the US that the US government is being forced to monetize more than half a trillion dollars, and we're still at just barely under 10% unemployment. In fact, the unemployment rate has sat unchanged since May. Big freaking improvement.
The economy hasn't met any of the expectations which were set out as justifications for the bailout and stimulus packages, and yet we're expected to believe things are better off now than they would have been without these bills, even though not a single promise has been fulfilled?
The fact is, it is very likely we are setting ourselves for complete economic collapse. Look at what happened to the USSR before its collapse, the similarities are striking. In a lot of ways their structure before the collapse created the self-reliance needed to survive such a thing. We have nothing similar here, and if we can't manage to straighten things out it could well be our doom.
This administration hasn't been around long enough to even come close to surpassing the lies of the previous administration.
And hopefully they'll be out of the White House before they can accomplish that particular goal.
They sure are trying though.
I can get behind that. Wikipedia really is shit for anything political or otherwise controversial. It's really only useful for shit no one cares about.
Yeah you are. It's just expensive to replace you, that's all.
they have to do something highly illegal to actually get sued for firing you.
You mean like firing you for participating in a collaborative discussion about your employment conditions? Yeah, that's protected under federal law. You may want to actually read the story and all that. If you were talking shit about your boss with other employees and they are trying to fire you, you can sue them.
The only things that are covered by federal law are race, sex, pregnancy, religion, national origin, age (if over 40, they can discriminate all they like under that.), military service (but can discriminate based on anything other than an honourable discharge), bankruptcy or bad debts, genetics, or citizenship status. Anything else is fair game barring state laws, which are pretty patchy.
What the hell is left to discriminate against? Ears that are too big?