The fly in your partisan soup here is that BOTH sides accept money from the corporate world. And just to make the bowl murky enough so you cannot see the bottom, Trump, being a filthy rich SOB, really doesn't need, nor did he take, all that much money from corporate America. Politics is awash with corporate money from the left to the right and as far as the eye can see. Trump is wading in the pool of course, but most politicians from both sides are ankle deep (head first) trying to tread water.
In short, you are the pot calling the recently cleaned, but not spotless kettle black, which smacks of a double standard.
We need to recon with the corporate money issue and stop denying it doesn't exist on OUR side of the isle. Everybody has to be honest here, acknowledge the truth hits both sides on this question, or they are just being partisan hacks.
The current state of political debate doesn't distinguish between types of radiation, much less the exposure levels.
How many reporters don't understand the difference between a microwave's radiation and inhaling cesium dust or radon exposure? I'd say most. I commonly see warnings about cell phone radiation exposure like it's the same as fallout from a nuclear blast.
To explain the above subject line: If it were up to me, my philosophy with regards to public health would be to consider something to be potentially harmful until proven, through fact- and scientific method-based reasoning, that it's not harmful. Highly irresponsible otherwise.
I agree, but we will be greeted with the clown car from the election circus getting cranked up a ta a precinct near you.... The accusations of "You want dirty air, dirty water and dead starving kids!" simply have to be heard..
lol. Fair enough. But forgive some of us for being skeptical upon hearing "toxins are actually beneficial, so we're going to let companies do whatever the hell they want."
Some things are toxic AND necessary for life. Salt is absolutely necessary for your health, but it will kill you if you drink sea water only.
Credibility of a punter who doesn't know loose from lose is low. No offense, you probably got a piss-poor education.
So, do you have a salient point to make or are you simply going to correct my grammar?
I think you are just trying to make yourself feel good because you lack a positive self image, but my college degree is in engineering so I'm obviously not qualified to judge your addled state of mind.
Apple Inc in 1997 had money losing ugly computers. It was close to bankruptcy and Steve Jobs' personality made Donald Trump look like a saint. The con artist Jobs convinced stupid Bill Gates to give him money. If you shorted $50,000 of Apple in 1997 you would now need about $22,500,000 to buy it back. I've loved driving my Tesla for the past 3 years. It has not had any significant issues and has been a total joy.
Glad you like your Tesla, but the previous poster, while rude and somewhat based on the wrong things, is correct in his analysis. Tesla is rapidly falling deeper and deeper into trouble and has a lot of reasons it's not going to make it and very few reasons to think it will. Shorting Tesla is a good plan in my view and if the original poster is telling the truth about his trades, he's got results to prove it.
Your example of Apple, fits the model, their stock price took a beating. Funny you should pick 97, clearly that was it's low point. Had you shorted Apple back in 95, you could have made money covering in 97. Again, in 2000 you could have shorted at $4/share and make $3/share within a year. But hindsight is 20/20. Personally, I think we are in a similar cycle with Tesla, It's on the way down, until they can meet their performance numbers and get their Model 3 production rolling, if they ever can. Maybe if they survive the coming dark days it will be a value buy and hold play, but right now, It's a high risk volatile stock suitable for day traders and "true believers" who want to ride out the storm.
It's not that I'm opposed to other's investing in Tesla. Just understand that it's way overpriced P/E wise (it's loosing money still, even if you add back in the R&D costs) and there is absolutely zero reason to support a $300+ stock price beyond the personality cult of Musk. If they miss their next Q's numbers again, it's going to be bloody, but if they meet their numbers, I don't see much in the way of an upturn in price. They are going to need to show a profit here and soon, or it doesn't seem to be much that can push the price up.
It's how the MBA's make the world go round, rob Peter to pay Paul if you have to, but keep the stock price up... It's manage to quarter and bail out of a company just before Peter runs out of money.
Airlines have done that for as long as I can remember and I grew up with two parents who worked for a major carrier all their lives.
So, you may be right, but pushing IT services off shore is the least of their concerns and I'm sure they have performance and availability clauses in their IT supplier contracts. There are just some things you simply cannot offshore as an airline and they have run out of cost reduction options for many years. Now days, airline management is watching load factors, dispatch percentages of their equipment, and are gladly spending billions on aircraft to get 20% reductions in per passenger mile fuel costs. Profit margins are razor thin and ticket prices are hotly contested. So it may be worth it, at least in the short term to do all sorts of things that don't look good long term.
LOX costs considerably less than gasoline. Kerosene or Methane is comparable to gasoline prices.
Now, getting enough rocket fuel into orbit for interplanetary work is expensive....
LOL, It may be cheaper by the pound or gallon, but when you need more then ten million pounds of the stuff to fill the tank for another launch, it gets pretty expensive. Maybe they get a volume discount?
Sounds great, but the problem is how much it will cost. Even Space X launches cost money. Rocket fuel is expensive as is the hardware that burns it. Reuse helps, but you still have to pay the fuel bill and for refurbishing the first stages.
Flow batteries are pretty heavy, given they are filled with liquids and the higher you drive the capacity, the bigger and heaver they are. 500W/Kg is pretty heavy for power storage, and that is for the really dangerous liquid kind. The water based stuff is 1/10th that.
The problem with battery storage is efficiency, price and scale.
No, it's efficiency and PRICE.
If you lose half your input energy, it doesn't matter what you paid for your storage capacity, it's not worth it. If you get 90% back, it might be worth paying a lot more for your storage capacity.
Ok, so any time you take a solar panel and add some kind of energy storage device, that's a story now? There are a lot of ways you can store the energy - many different battery types, pumped water storage, molten salt I suppose. This is just silly.
You know, you are right. It's not like Lead acid batteries haven't been used in remote places with Solar Cells for decades..
Flow batteries are pretty large and heavy things to land on Mars. You might get a bit of help using local resources (like water), but I seriously doubt that will be easy.
And my point is you don't have much idea what the issues are when running an airline.
It's about strictly managing costs per passenger mile and cash flow because such businesses are heavily leveraged and have huge amounts of money flowing around, with very little of it actually profit. Where I'm sure they don't like the fact that their IT systems went down and I'm confident they are in the process of showing who ever ends up being found "responsible" the door, the sad truth here is that such cost cutting is absolutely necessary. And YES if they can eek out a few pennies per passenger by offshoring their IT department, you can bet they will do it.
As you correctly point out, they MUST maintain the aircraft pre FAA standards, and they simply cannot skimp on the mandated airworthiness of the aircraft they use, they also must comply with Crew training and qualification regulations or get fined in a big way. Airlines though MUST control costs any and every way they possibly can, which is why many contract out anything more than line maintenance and "A" checks. And if they are willing to have their aircraft inspected by some foreign country, you can bet they'd jump at offshoring IT services.
After all, the successful airlines have been in the business of cutting labor and services costs to the bone for decades. Why would you think IT isn't or shouldn't be on that list? Mission critical is kind of a funny thing, and if they've already saved more than the two hour delay cost them (which in the grand scheme of things wasn't all that much considering they suffer such delays for weather issues at their primary hubs all the time) those IT service outages don't look so bad to management.
"Yes, sir, that outage was bad and cost us $10 million, but we've saved $500 million in costs the last fiscal year alone doing this." (assuming one had the documentation to prove this) would be a trade ANY airline executive would take.
Not saying that happened, but it's clearly the trade off being made here. If they are making more money with the trade, that's a good thing.
I'm not surprised, although I keep thinking that the massive amounts of money Delta loses due to IT failures would be enough incentive to bring their IT infrastructure back under their control. Since 2016, Delta's CIO, Rahul Samant, has been working to move IT employees out of Delta into Indian IT consultancies (see http://www.fox9.com/news/delta...).
It seems to me that airlines basically have four things of real value: aircraft, ground crews to maintain the aircraft, flight crews to operate the aircraft, and an IT system that allows them to schedule and dispatch the aircraft. When an airline talks about its "core competencies," I feel like their IT system should definitely be one, because if it fails, the planes don't fly. That seems like enough reason to not offshore that part of the business.
How cute that you think airlines actually OWN the airplanes they fly or actually have the necessary people to fully maintain them. Many aircraft are leased and most of the maintenance work is done by contractors and many times on foreign soil. Also, the airline business is one of managing debt and cash flow, often it's a race to cut costs faster than your competition to keep fares low and profit margins up.
If you are actually seeking knowledge and not just trolling to start a confrontation from the expected answer, I am not the person to educate you about the banking industry. That history is well documented. Go read, since you've managed to grow to adulthood without paying attention.
Actually, instead of assuming something, I was asking to be sure what issues where being alluded to. I may not interpret history the same way as you, so it was an effort to stay focused and relevant in the discussion.
My perspective on the banking industry is similar to my perspective on oil refineries. They have their bad points and can be messy, but we'd be in bad shape as a society without them.
However, reading between the lines of your two posts, I'm guessing you are just wanting to bash the banking system, and not really discuss the specifics of why you want to do that. I further figure you really don't have any specifics about your issues, at least ones you can defend. So I'll leave you to bash that which you don't understand in peace.
Simply knowing COBOL isn't the deciding factor. Could I stomach being employed in the banking industry and facilitating the awful shit they pull? No. So whether I know COBOL or not is irrelevant.
I'm curious.. What stuff do they pull that you don't like?
DEC went belly up a couple of decades ago... PDP-8 went out of favor for the PDP-11, then the VAX-11 did that in with the thumb switches on the thing.
I'm with you though, I wonder if my DEC VAX Administrator training certificates are worth anything more than for starting a bonfire, or my demonstrated ability to adjust the boot loader for the Harris H100 to use the correct CDC 300 Megabyte 8 platter Drive to boot Vulcan is a marketable skill. Somehow, I'm guessing not.
Unless you brick your car by flashing bad firmware which doesn't support updates but seems to boot properly. Then it's a tow to the dealer to dig out the JTAG connections to fix it..
Don't laugh... I *could* happen, given the quality of software/firmware deliveries these days.
Where were the system integration tests that where supposed to catch such things?
Seems to me that this kind of system interaction would be the subject of a series of integration tests which would be fully validated BEFORE they where allowed to sell these vehicles. Guess I was wrong.. Silly me.
Makes you wonder how much other garbage is slipping by. I guess they will discover that finding system bugs is cheaper the sooner in the development cycle you catch them. Enjoy paying the dealers to do this work and don't forget to consider the bad PR costs this will have.
I could live with that, if folks where actually keeping score.
Personally, I'd give points for coming up with a theory and trying to prove it correct without resorting to deception, even if you are eventually shown to be wrong. Such things happen, folks propose ideas which turn out to be bad all the time; it's part of the process. My issue is when folks propose bad ideas, then insist they must be true and resort to lying and deception to gain notoriety. If you are honestly trying, great, if you are not being honest about the idea's problems, then that's bad.
So, being credited with coming up with a theory that proves true is good for positive points based on the importance of the theory. If you propose a theory that turns out to be false, then that's neither good or bad. If you propose a theory and make grandiose claims in the press then use your notoriety to bury competing theories or those who are pointing out flaws in your theory, THEN I'm likely to be done with believing your claims until independently verified.
Slashdot Mirror
Bezos just wants to be ready for the first Amazon Prime shipment to the moon. 2 day shipping will be a bit of a challenge.
He will just subcontract the delivery to Space X..
The fly in your partisan soup here is that BOTH sides accept money from the corporate world. And just to make the bowl murky enough so you cannot see the bottom, Trump, being a filthy rich SOB, really doesn't need, nor did he take, all that much money from corporate America. Politics is awash with corporate money from the left to the right and as far as the eye can see. Trump is wading in the pool of course, but most politicians from both sides are ankle deep (head first) trying to tread water.
In short, you are the pot calling the recently cleaned, but not spotless kettle black, which smacks of a double standard.
We need to recon with the corporate money issue and stop denying it doesn't exist on OUR side of the isle. Everybody has to be honest here, acknowledge the truth hits both sides on this question, or they are just being partisan hacks.
The current state of political debate doesn't distinguish between types of radiation, much less the exposure levels.
How many reporters don't understand the difference between a microwave's radiation and inhaling cesium dust or radon exposure? I'd say most. I commonly see warnings about cell phone radiation exposure like it's the same as fallout from a nuclear blast.
To explain the above subject line: If it were up to me, my philosophy with regards to public health would be to consider something to be potentially harmful until proven, through fact- and scientific method-based reasoning, that it's not harmful. Highly irresponsible otherwise.
I agree, but we will be greeted with the clown car from the election circus getting cranked up a ta a precinct near you.... The accusations of "You want dirty air, dirty water and dead starving kids!" simply have to be heard..
It's an election cycle thing..
lol. Fair enough. But forgive some of us for being skeptical upon hearing "toxins are actually beneficial, so we're going to let companies do whatever the hell they want."
Some things are toxic AND necessary for life. Salt is absolutely necessary for your health, but it will kill you if you drink sea water only.
So it's not as stupid as you seem to think.
Credibility of a punter who doesn't know loose from lose is low. No offense, you probably got a piss-poor education.
So, do you have a salient point to make or are you simply going to correct my grammar?
I think you are just trying to make yourself feel good because you lack a positive self image, but my college degree is in engineering so I'm obviously not qualified to judge your addled state of mind.
Apple Inc in 1997 had money losing ugly computers. It was close to bankruptcy and Steve Jobs' personality made Donald Trump look like a saint. The con artist Jobs convinced stupid Bill Gates to give him money. If you shorted $50,000 of Apple in 1997 you would now need about $22,500,000 to buy it back. I've loved driving my Tesla for the past 3 years. It has not had any significant issues and has been a total joy.
Glad you like your Tesla, but the previous poster, while rude and somewhat based on the wrong things, is correct in his analysis. Tesla is rapidly falling deeper and deeper into trouble and has a lot of reasons it's not going to make it and very few reasons to think it will. Shorting Tesla is a good plan in my view and if the original poster is telling the truth about his trades, he's got results to prove it.
Your example of Apple, fits the model, their stock price took a beating. Funny you should pick 97, clearly that was it's low point. Had you shorted Apple back in 95, you could have made money covering in 97. Again, in 2000 you could have shorted at $4/share and make $3/share within a year. But hindsight is 20/20. Personally, I think we are in a similar cycle with Tesla, It's on the way down, until they can meet their performance numbers and get their Model 3 production rolling, if they ever can. Maybe if they survive the coming dark days it will be a value buy and hold play, but right now, It's a high risk volatile stock suitable for day traders and "true believers" who want to ride out the storm.
It's not that I'm opposed to other's investing in Tesla. Just understand that it's way overpriced P/E wise (it's loosing money still, even if you add back in the R&D costs) and there is absolutely zero reason to support a $300+ stock price beyond the personality cult of Musk. If they miss their next Q's numbers again, it's going to be bloody, but if they meet their numbers, I don't see much in the way of an upturn in price. They are going to need to show a profit here and soon, or it doesn't seem to be much that can push the price up.
It's how the MBA's make the world go round, rob Peter to pay Paul if you have to, but keep the stock price up... It's manage to quarter and bail out of a company just before Peter runs out of money.
Airlines have done that for as long as I can remember and I grew up with two parents who worked for a major carrier all their lives.
So, you may be right, but pushing IT services off shore is the least of their concerns and I'm sure they have performance and availability clauses in their IT supplier contracts. There are just some things you simply cannot offshore as an airline and they have run out of cost reduction options for many years. Now days, airline management is watching load factors, dispatch percentages of their equipment, and are gladly spending billions on aircraft to get 20% reductions in per passenger mile fuel costs. Profit margins are razor thin and ticket prices are hotly contested. So it may be worth it, at least in the short term to do all sorts of things that don't look good long term.
Umm, no. Rocket fuel is dirt cheap.
LOX costs considerably less than gasoline. Kerosene or Methane is comparable to gasoline prices.
Now, getting enough rocket fuel into orbit for interplanetary work is expensive....
LOL, It may be cheaper by the pound or gallon, but when you need more then ten million pounds of the stuff to fill the tank for another launch, it gets pretty expensive. Maybe they get a volume discount?
Sounds great, but the problem is how much it will cost. Even Space X launches cost money. Rocket fuel is expensive as is the hardware that burns it. Reuse helps, but you still have to pay the fuel bill and for refurbishing the first stages.
Flow batteries are pretty heavy, given they are filled with liquids and the higher you drive the capacity, the bigger and heaver they are. 500W/Kg is pretty heavy for power storage, and that is for the really dangerous liquid kind. The water based stuff is 1/10th that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The problem with battery storage is efficiency, price and scale.
No, it's efficiency and PRICE.
If you lose half your input energy, it doesn't matter what you paid for your storage capacity, it's not worth it. If you get 90% back, it might be worth paying a lot more for your storage capacity.
Ok, so any time you take a solar panel and add some kind of energy storage device, that's a story now? There are a lot of ways you can store the energy - many different battery types, pumped water storage, molten salt I suppose. This is just silly.
You know, you are right. It's not like Lead acid batteries haven't been used in remote places with Solar Cells for decades..
Flow batteries are pretty large and heavy things to land on Mars. You might get a bit of help using local resources (like water), but I seriously doubt that will be easy.
"the magnetic fields were generated using a technique called electromagnetic flux-compression. "
They didn't have a flux-compensator.
I would say they probably used too big of a flux capacitor. They're lucky they didn't get sent back in time.
Lucky for them, they didn't reach 86 Miles Per hour.... Maybe the Delorian didn't start?
And my point is you don't have much idea what the issues are when running an airline.
It's about strictly managing costs per passenger mile and cash flow because such businesses are heavily leveraged and have huge amounts of money flowing around, with very little of it actually profit. Where I'm sure they don't like the fact that their IT systems went down and I'm confident they are in the process of showing who ever ends up being found "responsible" the door, the sad truth here is that such cost cutting is absolutely necessary. And YES if they can eek out a few pennies per passenger by offshoring their IT department, you can bet they will do it.
As you correctly point out, they MUST maintain the aircraft pre FAA standards, and they simply cannot skimp on the mandated airworthiness of the aircraft they use, they also must comply with Crew training and qualification regulations or get fined in a big way. Airlines though MUST control costs any and every way they possibly can, which is why many contract out anything more than line maintenance and "A" checks. And if they are willing to have their aircraft inspected by some foreign country, you can bet they'd jump at offshoring IT services.
After all, the successful airlines have been in the business of cutting labor and services costs to the bone for decades. Why would you think IT isn't or shouldn't be on that list? Mission critical is kind of a funny thing, and if they've already saved more than the two hour delay cost them (which in the grand scheme of things wasn't all that much considering they suffer such delays for weather issues at their primary hubs all the time) those IT service outages don't look so bad to management.
"Yes, sir, that outage was bad and cost us $10 million, but we've saved $500 million in costs the last fiscal year alone doing this." (assuming one had the documentation to prove this) would be a trade ANY airline executive would take.
Not saying that happened, but it's clearly the trade off being made here. If they are making more money with the trade, that's a good thing.
I'm not surprised, although I keep thinking that the massive amounts of money Delta loses due to IT failures would be enough incentive to bring their IT infrastructure back under their control. Since 2016, Delta's CIO, Rahul Samant, has been working to move IT employees out of Delta into Indian IT consultancies (see http://www.fox9.com/news/delta...).
It seems to me that airlines basically have four things of real value: aircraft, ground crews to maintain the aircraft, flight crews to operate the aircraft, and an IT system that allows them to schedule and dispatch the aircraft. When an airline talks about its "core competencies," I feel like their IT system should definitely be one, because if it fails, the planes don't fly. That seems like enough reason to not offshore that part of the business.
How cute that you think airlines actually OWN the airplanes they fly or actually have the necessary people to fully maintain them. Many aircraft are leased and most of the maintenance work is done by contractors and many times on foreign soil. Also, the airline business is one of managing debt and cash flow, often it's a race to cut costs faster than your competition to keep fares low and profit margins up.
Well, he can always get a pardon from Trump. He just have to become a rapist first, Trump only pardons rapists.
Trump Pardons:
Dwight and Steven Hammond - Both where convicted of Arson.
Alice Marie Johnson - non-violent drug offenses.
Dinesh D'Souza - Campaign finance violations.
Jack Johnson - posthumous, Mann Act Violations
Lewis "Scooter" Libby - Lying to the FBI.
Kristian Saucier - For taking photos of classified equipment.
Sholom Rubashkin - Bank Fraud, commuted sentence, conviction remains.
Joe Arpaio - Civil rights violations, as Sherriff.
I'm not seeing even one rapist here.. Did I miss somebody?
If you are actually seeking knowledge and not just trolling to start a confrontation from the expected answer, I am not the person to educate you about the banking industry. That history is well documented. Go read, since you've managed to grow to adulthood without paying attention.
Actually, instead of assuming something, I was asking to be sure what issues where being alluded to. I may not interpret history the same way as you, so it was an effort to stay focused and relevant in the discussion.
My perspective on the banking industry is similar to my perspective on oil refineries. They have their bad points and can be messy, but we'd be in bad shape as a society without them.
However, reading between the lines of your two posts, I'm guessing you are just wanting to bash the banking system, and not really discuss the specifics of why you want to do that. I further figure you really don't have any specifics about your issues, at least ones you can defend. So I'll leave you to bash that which you don't understand in peace.
Simply knowing COBOL isn't the deciding factor. Could I stomach being employed in the banking industry and facilitating the awful shit they pull? No. So whether I know COBOL or not is irrelevant.
I'm curious.. What stuff do they pull that you don't like?
DEC went belly up a couple of decades ago... PDP-8 went out of favor for the PDP-11, then the VAX-11 did that in with the thumb switches on the thing.
I'm with you though, I wonder if my DEC VAX Administrator training certificates are worth anything more than for starting a bonfire, or my demonstrated ability to adjust the boot loader for the Harris H100 to use the correct CDC 300 Megabyte 8 platter Drive to boot Vulcan is a marketable skill. Somehow, I'm guessing not.
Leisure Suit Larry...
Yea, it didn't have the graphics interface of Myst, but it sure had the story line, puzzles and sleaze...
Larry was the beginning of the end for the PC console game genre
(/sarcasm off)
No dealership visit, no IoT.
Unless you brick your car by flashing bad firmware which doesn't support updates but seems to boot properly. Then it's a tow to the dealer to dig out the JTAG connections to fix it..
Don't laugh... I *could* happen, given the quality of software/firmware deliveries these days.
Yes I screwed up!
Not as badly as Mitsubishi did...
Where were the system integration tests that where supposed to catch such things?
Seems to me that this kind of system interaction would be the subject of a series of integration tests which would be fully validated BEFORE they where allowed to sell these vehicles. Guess I was wrong.. Silly me.
Makes you wonder how much other garbage is slipping by. I guess they will discover that finding system bugs is cheaper the sooner in the development cycle you catch them. Enjoy paying the dealers to do this work and don't forget to consider the bad PR costs this will have.
I could live with that, if folks where actually keeping score.
Personally, I'd give points for coming up with a theory and trying to prove it correct without resorting to deception, even if you are eventually shown to be wrong. Such things happen, folks propose ideas which turn out to be bad all the time; it's part of the process. My issue is when folks propose bad ideas, then insist they must be true and resort to lying and deception to gain notoriety. If you are honestly trying, great, if you are not being honest about the idea's problems, then that's bad.
So, being credited with coming up with a theory that proves true is good for positive points based on the importance of the theory. If you propose a theory that turns out to be false, then that's neither good or bad. If you propose a theory and make grandiose claims in the press then use your notoriety to bury competing theories or those who are pointing out flaws in your theory, THEN I'm likely to be done with believing your claims until independently verified.