No, it's a LARGE part of the operation. The only way to get the reactors out is to slice through the flight deck down to the eight reactors and lift them out. Since the reactors are set very low in the carrier, that effectively means ripping apart the entire carrier.
Because we're not fighting China or Russia, so the carriers are not obsolete. They are 5 acres of sovereign American territory that can be parked nearly anywhere on 70% of the Earth's surface.
and when it turns out they don't, they sue. Gamblers deserve their fate. They already gambled when they bought stock, then they gambled again by short selling. No sympathy.
"Whatever the Navy ends up doing, this will only be the first of many nuclear-powered carrier disposals."
And this one will be unique. The Enterprise is the ONLY nuclear carrier in its class, with EIGHT nuclear reactors. Every carrier built since then, both Nimitz and Ford class, has TWO reactors. Taking apart these will be much less onerous.
What will this phone do that an S4 won't? If I had it to do over again I would get more memory, I admit, but does this new phone actually have abilities that the old phone does not? I know it has better cameras and all that, but what is the killer app that would make me want this new phone?
The average user does NOT play games. The average user surfs the Net and does a little word processing and that's about it. This quest for "more power" is irrelevant to most users. The user who actually plays games pays attention to the specs and doesn't try to run them on a wimpy thin laptop.
This is how unemployment works. There may be variations between the states, but this is the basic idea.
1. Unemployment is funded by a tax on worker salaries, typically a percentage (like 3.5%) EVERY worker is taxed whether they get unemployment or not. The amout of tax is tied t an EXPERENCE RATING, so that an employer who frequently lays off people has a higher rate than an employer that has been very stable for years. An alternative to the tax FOR SOME EMPLOYERS (typically government) is on a reimbursable basis, i.e.: Dollar for dollar. If you get dollars from unemployment, your previous employer pays the full amount.
2. Unemployment is calculated on a BASE YEAR which is the previous year, minus a LAG QUARTER, not including the quarter in which you filed. So if you file today, July 20, quarter THREE is your FILING QUARTER, and quarter TWO (April, May, June) is your LAG QUARTER, therefore your BASE YEAR is April, 2017 until March 31, 2018. Pay Attention because this is crucial. If you filed for unemployment three weeks ago, on June 30th, your BASE YEAR would be all of 2017. A few days can make a big difference.
3. Unemployment is intended for people who are LAID OFF. If you are not laid off because of âoelack of work,â the onus is on the person performing the action. If you are FIRED, the onus is on the employer to prove you were fired for good cause. If you QUIT, the onus is upon you to prove you quit for good cause. âoeGood causeâ is not just because you think it is, but it can be for things you might not think. For example, if you âoefollow spouse out of areaâ because he or she got a better job or one is in the military, both which require a move, that counts as âoegood cause.â If you just stop working because you donâ(TM)t like your boss or donâ(TM)t like the hours, thatâ(TM)s not âoegood cause.â This is a bit of a murky area and you can appeal any decision. But so can an employer.
So for a court to just say âoeUber employees get unemploymentâ is not âoegood lawâ at all. In fact, it shows ignorance of how unemployment works and ignorance on how Uber works. They typically do not âoelay offâ people; people just decide to not take any hours. Uber has NOT been paying a percentage into the unemployment fund, so the infrastructure does not exist and since Uber is not a âoereimbursable employer.â i.e.: a government entity like a library or city, they fall into a category that basically does not exist. And you can bet if Uber has any balls, they will fight this. In any case, itâ(TM)s not quite as easy as it looks.
Sure, but the point is that the work doesn't go away just because you do. You can't just milk the cows more efficiently because you feel better about your 'work/life' balance. The cows don't understand that. SOMEBODY has to be there to milk the damn cows. Paperwork, on the other hand, doesn't care.
For you it IS pointless. Bully for you. If you live in the city in an apartment stack, down the block from a grocery store, across the street from a bus stop, I'm sure you could get to a place where owning a car was simply not necessary.
But I don't want to live in an apartment in the city. To me, your life completely sucks. I don't want to commute in a bus, even if everyone else is the same color as me and meticulously dressed and perfectly behaved. I want to be "in public" as little as possible. And I don't want to "take an Uber" for basically the same reasons on a smaller scale. The fact is, I like to drive, and I like to drive in a car of my choosing.
Lots of people here are saying "I can dig it!" for whatever scenario they are picking and implicitly suggesting that if they can dig it, everyone else should, too, because their way is "superior," whether it is for economics or social engineering or some other reason they champion. I don't have a problem with you doing it your way. What I do have a problem with is you coercing me into doing it your way and I feel very sorry for people who are basically forced into this kind of life because they have no other choices. And that sucks.
and the fellow from Harvard were in the lavatory and both used the urinal. The fellow from Yale zipped up and prepared to leave. The fellow from Harvard proceeded to wash his hands and said, "At Harvard they teach is to wash our hands after urinating." The fellow from Yale replied, "At Yale they teach us not to urinate on our hands."
It's about Dick's Drive In, wholesale warehouses with thin margins, and regular businesses who would literally be driven out of town. Amazon is just a convenient target everyone loves to hate so tat was the PR campaign: "Tax Amazon" and never mind that Dick's Drive In would get hit, too. This repeal happened because of a grass roots movement of people largely not at all associated with Amazon who were headed for the ballot with a repeal initiative. The more money Seattle spends on the homeless, the worse the problem becomes. Once you start providing "services" to the homeless, the more convenient homelessness is. Seattle already spends millions on the homeless, which is why it has become a Homeless Mecca. Walk down the streets blocked by tents from REI and smell the urine while avoiding the needles. Seattle had no plans at all for how to spend this head tax. They just said it would go "towards the homeless." If the past is any indication, what this means is more civil service positions for bureaucrats who don't actually DO anything. Seattle is now a place to be avoided for any pedestrian. Never go there.
Of course. If Seattle gets to choose, it will pass for sure. If the rest of the state gets a vote, maybe it won't. Seattle has never meant a tax it didn't like.
I stand by my original statement. Please don't pretend to tell me my business. I've been a librarian for 44 years. How many of you have books over 100 years old? Oh, you have one, or two? Hey, that's great! Where are the others? In a landfill. So mildewed that they are unusable because you stored them in a garage or basement. Pulped. Gone. Only the finest books are published on acid-free paper. And you know what? They won't last either, not because they can't last, but because they will be mistreated, discarded, thrown away, sold for fifty cents at a yard sale, given to the Rotary auction, devalued completely, unwanted. Pick up a random book from 1950 that has "lasted" a whopping 70 years or so. Is that on your reading list? I didn't think so. And if you think your current mass market paperback will last hundreds of years, you're completely delusional. Sure, you may have a beautiful Currier & Ives from 1860 that you rarely look at, but that's not normal. Keep it. It might be valuable.
I'm associated with an active "Friends of the Library" group. We make $90,000 per year selling old books for 50 cents to $4.00 a book at weekly book sales. They are all donated by area residents or discarded by the public library. We milk those books for everything they are worth, selling the most valuable on Amazon before they get to the local sales. And you know what? You know those old post office canvas mail bins on two wheels? We fill a couple of those a week that go directly to pulp and another bin of books so mildewed that they won't even take them for pulp so they go to the dumpster. . You guys have a couple of old books and come to the conclusion that "they will last forever," but you completely lack the scope of the issue because you do not deal in thousands of books at once. You've never dealt with the issue in bulk. 99% of books will NEVER get saved for posterity. In the Real World, they get tossed.
Now what about the digital book being obsolete? You think because I don't have a 5.25" disk drive that somehow makes a digital book obsolete? I have had digital books since their infancy. Anybody remember the Rocket Book? Well, it's true, that's obsolete, but the Kindle isn't. In fact, I don't need a KIndle to read a Kindle book, just an app for my PC, any PC, or my phone, or any phone, and the book itself is stored in the cloud. I can get to my "library" from anywhere, or even keep it on a thumb drive. It doesn't matter what the "reader" is made of or what OS it uses.
The fact is, paper-based books are not cost-effective in the long run. As the cost of paper and transportation continues to go up, the gap between e-books and paper books will grow ever wider. And when it costs you $25 for an ebook, but $75 for a hardback, guess which one you are going to buy? And for that matter, when is the last time you used a card catalog in the library? Probably about 30 years ago. We have adults now who have never seen one. And what were they made of? Paper. Nostalgia is going to be worth only so much to you, and if you can't bring yourself to do it, your kids will without a care in the world.
Contrast the physical book made of paper and glue, ink and cardboard, made mostly from trees, and transported by diesel truck all over the place. Anybody want to claim that is a cost-effective and efficient way to transport words? Yeah, one book feels good in your hand. Try lifting 50 pound boxes of books every day and see how soon you tire of them. The paper-based book is a dead man walking. It's just a matter of time.
Well, no, books rarely last hundreds of years. The acid in the paper makes them too brittle to read after a few dozen years and by that time no one wants to read them anyway. Most books these days are some form of paperback, which are not meant to last. On a good day they wind up pulped and recycled, and on a bad day just wind up in a landfill. I don't know of a valid study comparing books to bytes as far as reading is concerned, but hauling that paper across the country in diesel trucks can't be good, nor can cutting the trees to make the paper or making ink that is toxic. I'm a librarian with 2500 books of my own, so you can't say I'm anti-book, but it is inevitable that bytes will win over paper. The infrastructure required to handle paper is just too vast. It's not the paper books that are a 'cornerstone of modern society.' It's the words that fill them, which can be rendered in bytes just as well as ink on paper.
If you get to 200K subscribers you are making an INCREDIBLE amount of money. A million is so far out there to make the 1% seem like the minimum wage. If you are burning out, you are just getting greedy. YouTube does not owe you anything.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's a LARGE part of the operation. The only way to get the reactors out is to slice through the flight deck down to the eight reactors and lift them out. Since the reactors are set very low in the carrier, that effectively means ripping apart the entire carrier.
Because we're not fighting China or Russia, so the carriers are not obsolete. They are 5 acres of sovereign American territory that can be parked nearly anywhere on 70% of the Earth's surface.
"There are two of them, btw"
Wrong. There are EIGHT of them. All US nuke carriers SINCE the Enterprise have two reactors.
To downtown Seattle, no. To Hanford, yes. But it didn't happen that way. He went South. So much for your what-if worries.
and when it turns out they don't, they sue. Gamblers deserve their fate. They already gambled when they bought stock, then they gambled again by short selling. No sympathy.
"Whatever the Navy ends up doing, this will only be the first of many nuclear-powered carrier disposals."
And this one will be unique. The Enterprise is the ONLY nuclear carrier in its class, with EIGHT nuclear reactors. Every carrier built since then, both Nimitz and Ford class, has TWO reactors. Taking apart these will be much less onerous.
What will this phone do that an S4 won't? If I had it to do over again I would get more memory, I admit, but does this new phone actually have abilities that the old phone does not? I know it has better cameras and all that, but what is the killer app that would make me want this new phone?
The average user does NOT play games. The average user surfs the Net and does a little word processing and that's about it. This quest for "more power" is irrelevant to most users. The user who actually plays games pays attention to the specs and doesn't try to run them on a wimpy thin laptop.
This is how unemployment works. There may be variations between the states, but this is the basic idea.
1. Unemployment is funded by a tax on worker salaries, typically a percentage (like 3.5%) EVERY worker is taxed whether they get unemployment or not. The amout of tax is tied t an EXPERENCE RATING, so that an employer who frequently lays off people has a higher rate than an employer that has been very stable for years. An alternative to the tax FOR SOME EMPLOYERS (typically government) is on a reimbursable basis, i.e.: Dollar for dollar. If you get dollars from unemployment, your previous employer pays the full amount.
2. Unemployment is calculated on a BASE YEAR which is the previous year, minus a LAG QUARTER, not including the quarter in which you filed. So if you file today, July 20, quarter THREE is your FILING QUARTER, and quarter TWO (April, May, June) is your LAG QUARTER, therefore your BASE YEAR is April, 2017 until March 31, 2018. Pay Attention because this is crucial. If you filed for unemployment three weeks ago, on June 30th, your BASE YEAR would be all of 2017. A few days can make a big difference.
3. Unemployment is intended for people who are LAID OFF. If you are not laid off because of âoelack of work,â the onus is on the person performing the action. If you are FIRED, the onus is on the employer to prove you were fired for good cause. If you QUIT, the onus is upon you to prove you quit for good cause. âoeGood causeâ is not just because you think it is, but it can be for things you might not think. For example, if you âoefollow spouse out of areaâ because he or she got a better job or one is in the military, both which require a move, that counts as âoegood cause.â If you just stop working because you donâ(TM)t like your boss or donâ(TM)t like the hours, thatâ(TM)s not âoegood cause.â This is a bit of a murky area and you can appeal any decision. But so can an employer.
So for a court to just say âoeUber employees get unemploymentâ is not âoegood lawâ at all. In fact, it shows ignorance of how unemployment works and ignorance on how Uber works. They typically do not âoelay offâ people; people just decide to not take any hours. Uber has NOT been paying a percentage into the unemployment fund, so the infrastructure does not exist and since Uber is not a âoereimbursable employer.â i.e.: a government entity like a library or city, they fall into a category that basically does not exist. And you can bet if Uber has any balls, they will fight this. In any case, itâ(TM)s not quite as easy as it looks.
Sure, but the point is that the work doesn't go away just because you do. You can't just milk the cows more efficiently because you feel better about your 'work/life' balance. The cows don't understand that. SOMEBODY has to be there to milk the damn cows. Paperwork, on the other hand, doesn't care.
Maybe in a couple of years Blue Origin will actually put something useful into orbit. You know, like SpaceX has done about 60 some odd times so far.
You are an excellent candidate for my sig.
Only the White Man would cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it on the bottom, and proclaim he had a longer blanket.
And 61% don't. It's not that your coastal city world is any less real, it's just that for the vast majority, your big city solutions don't work.
"That most be why I just paid $120 for oil change and service," --You got ripped off. Too bad
"$1,100 for new tires," which took you what? 50,000 miles minimum over several years?
"$600 to replace a broken windshield." - shpuld be zero covered by insurance.
"And paid $200 for parking at work," Too bad. I park free.
"and just filled up my tank of gas ($45)," which takes you about 500 miles, right? How does 10 cents a mile compare to an uber charge?
"and just sent $400 to my insurance agent." for how long, a year? For your protection and mine.
Amortize those costs fairly and it's not such a bad deal.
For you it IS pointless. Bully for you. If you live in the city in an apartment stack, down the block from a grocery store, across the street from a bus stop, I'm sure you could get to a place where owning a car was simply not necessary.
But I don't want to live in an apartment in the city. To me, your life completely sucks. I don't want to commute in a bus, even if everyone else is the same color as me and meticulously dressed and perfectly behaved. I want to be "in public" as little as possible. And I don't want to "take an Uber" for basically the same reasons on a smaller scale. The fact is, I like to drive, and I like to drive in a car of my choosing.
Lots of people here are saying "I can dig it!" for whatever scenario they are picking and implicitly suggesting that if they can dig it, everyone else should, too, because their way is "superior," whether it is for economics or social engineering or some other reason they champion. I don't have a problem with you doing it your way. What I do have a problem with is you coercing me into doing it your way and I feel very sorry for people who are basically forced into this kind of life because they have no other choices. And that sucks.
and the fellow from Harvard were in the lavatory and both used the urinal. The fellow from Yale zipped up and prepared to leave. The fellow from Harvard proceeded to wash his hands and said, "At Harvard they teach is to wash our hands after urinating." The fellow from Yale replied, "At Yale they teach us not to urinate on our hands."
Regulations add significantly to the cost. A UW study showed that regulations added $200K to the cost of a house in Seattle.
Right. They fly to climate change conferences to complain about excessive CO2 emissions.
It's about Dick's Drive In, wholesale warehouses with thin margins, and regular businesses who would literally be driven out of town. Amazon is just a convenient target everyone loves to hate so tat was the PR campaign: "Tax Amazon" and never mind that Dick's Drive In would get hit, too. This repeal happened because of a grass roots movement of people largely not at all associated with Amazon who were headed for the ballot with a repeal initiative. The more money Seattle spends on the homeless, the worse the problem becomes. Once you start providing "services" to the homeless, the more convenient homelessness is. Seattle already spends millions on the homeless, which is why it has become a Homeless Mecca. Walk down the streets blocked by tents from REI and smell the urine while avoiding the needles. Seattle had no plans at all for how to spend this head tax. They just said it would go "towards the homeless." If the past is any indication, what this means is more civil service positions for bureaucrats who don't actually DO anything. Seattle is now a place to be avoided for any pedestrian. Never go there.
Are you daft?
Trick Two: SpaceX
Trick Three: The Boring Company
Trick Four: PayPal
Trick Five:Solar City
Trick Six: Hyperloop
Trick Seven: Neuralink
etc.
Of course. If Seattle gets to choose, it will pass for sure. If the rest of the state gets a vote, maybe it won't. Seattle has never meant a tax it didn't like.
I stand by my original statement. Please don't pretend to tell me my business. I've been a librarian for 44 years. How many of you have books over 100 years old? Oh, you have one, or two? Hey, that's great! Where are the others? In a landfill. So mildewed that they are unusable because you stored them in a garage or basement. Pulped. Gone. Only the finest books are published on acid-free paper. And you know what? They won't last either, not because they can't last, but because they will be mistreated, discarded, thrown away, sold for fifty cents at a yard sale, given to the Rotary auction, devalued completely, unwanted. Pick up a random book from 1950 that has "lasted" a whopping 70 years or so. Is that on your reading list? I didn't think so. And if you think your current mass market paperback will last hundreds of years, you're completely delusional. Sure, you may have a beautiful Currier & Ives from 1860 that you rarely look at, but that's not normal. Keep it. It might be valuable.
I'm associated with an active "Friends of the Library" group. We make $90,000 per year selling old books for 50 cents to $4.00 a book at weekly book sales. They are all donated by area residents or discarded by the public library. We milk those books for everything they are worth, selling the most valuable on Amazon before they get to the local sales. And you know what? You know those old post office canvas mail bins on two wheels? We fill a couple of those a week that go directly to pulp and another bin of books so mildewed that they won't even take them for pulp so they go to the dumpster. . You guys have a couple of old books and come to the conclusion that "they will last forever," but you completely lack the scope of the issue because you do not deal in thousands of books at once. You've never dealt with the issue in bulk. 99% of books will NEVER get saved for posterity. In the Real World, they get tossed.
Now what about the digital book being obsolete? You think because I don't have a 5.25" disk drive that somehow makes a digital book obsolete? I have had digital books since their infancy. Anybody remember the Rocket Book? Well, it's true, that's obsolete, but the Kindle isn't. In fact, I don't need a KIndle to read a Kindle book, just an app for my PC, any PC, or my phone, or any phone, and the book itself is stored in the cloud. I can get to my "library" from anywhere, or even keep it on a thumb drive. It doesn't matter what the "reader" is made of or what OS it uses.
The fact is, paper-based books are not cost-effective in the long run. As the cost of paper and transportation continues to go up, the gap between e-books and paper books will grow ever wider. And when it costs you $25 for an ebook, but $75 for a hardback, guess which one you are going to buy? And for that matter, when is the last time you used a card catalog in the library? Probably about 30 years ago. We have adults now who have never seen one. And what were they made of? Paper. Nostalgia is going to be worth only so much to you, and if you can't bring yourself to do it, your kids will without a care in the world.
Contrast the physical book made of paper and glue, ink and cardboard, made mostly from trees, and transported by diesel truck all over the place. Anybody want to claim that is a cost-effective and efficient way to transport words? Yeah, one book feels good in your hand. Try lifting 50 pound boxes of books every day and see how soon you tire of them. The paper-based book is a dead man walking. It's just a matter of time.
Well, no, books rarely last hundreds of years. The acid in the paper makes them too brittle to read after a few dozen years and by that time no one wants to read them anyway. Most books these days are some form of paperback, which are not meant to last. On a good day they wind up pulped and recycled, and on a bad day just wind up in a landfill. I don't know of a valid study comparing books to bytes as far as reading is concerned, but hauling that paper across the country in diesel trucks can't be good, nor can cutting the trees to make the paper or making ink that is toxic. I'm a librarian with 2500 books of my own, so you can't say I'm anti-book, but it is inevitable that bytes will win over paper. The infrastructure required to handle paper is just too vast. It's not the paper books that are a 'cornerstone of modern society.' It's the words that fill them, which can be rendered in bytes just as well as ink on paper.
If you get to 200K subscribers you are making an INCREDIBLE amount of money. A million is so far out there to make the 1% seem like the minimum wage. If you are burning out, you are just getting greedy. YouTube does not owe you anything.