Explain your maths please, $20 - $50 is $40,000 - $100,000 for 40 hour weeks, so hows $40k at $50/hr work at 150 hours a month of whatever on top of flight time? Anyone can find random numbers on the Internet, but if they are not coherent...
I don't understand the question. The math is trivial.
$20 per flight hour, times the legal FAA maximum of 1000 flight hours per year, comes to $20,000/year. $50 per flight hour, times the legal maximum of 1000 flight hours per year, comes to $50,000/year.
Nah. Better to make the pilots we have work more hours for the same pay.
Can't. The FAA put a piloting limit of 1000 flight hours per year, to limit pilot fatigue.
that meddling government, always taking profit away from businesses just because "safety". People should be allowed to fly unsafe airlines if they want to save some dollars, it's their right.
Pay the pilots more and they will find they don't need pilots because nobody is flying on their airline as the tickets cost more.
What fraction of the price of an airline ticket is the price of paying the pilot? Quick back of the envelope calculation: somewhere around 1%. I'm guessing that a 1% change in ticket prices won't make much of a difference.
with the ability to have a contractually guaranteed minimum of 70-80 hours a month.
...and, as the very same page on my google search helpfully tells me, "The average airline pilot logs 75 hours a month in the air and sometimes up to 150 hours per month performing ground duties like simulator training, maintaining records, performing pre-flight inspections, flight planning and traveling to and from hotels and airports."
Well, roughly, they have spent the last two years building up manufacturing capability, and only the last month has their manufacturing been putting out a reasonable number of cars, so the upfront costs are spent, but the income stream produced by the investment has only started. The key question is to look at Tesla's balance sheet in six months.
In more nerd terms, the "income" part of "income-outgo = profit" is a time integral, while a large portion of the outgo is fixed, so the profitability rises with time.
Then the judges have failed to keep up with precedents from far before when celllphones and computers ever existed. It has never been the defendant’s responsibility to interpret evidence for the prosecution. They have all the individual bits that compose all of the data on the phone. It is up to the prosecution to make sense of them. It is no different than forcing a bookkeeper to testify to the meaning of coded entries in an accounting ledger. They cannot be forced to do so if it results in them being prosecuted for a crime in relation to the bookkeeping records.
Wow, cool legal argument. But, unfortunately, a cool legal argument isn't accepted until a judge somewhere accepts it as a valid legal argument.
Really, though, you should try it in court, see if it flies.
Wouldn't this be akin to a warrant for searching your house? You can't really say "I lost my house keys"
You wouldn't be held in contempt of court if you did,
Yes, you very well might.
(The situation is more like this: that they search your house, they find a safe in your house, and they ask for the key for the safe. You can't say "I won't give that to you, it would be self-incrimination."
It is an interesting interpretation of the law, by the way: they can compel you to give them the keys, but it's not clear you have to give them a combination: http://blogs.denverpost.com/cr...
It is not yet clear in the courts that requiring a person to unlock a phone is self incrimination. It is considered equivalent to requiring somebody to give the key to a safe in a physical search.
Unfortunately the Statue of Liberty is long out of copyright.
I would have said it is fortunate. Such an important cultural and politicalicon of that age should be out of copyright to allow people to freely use it in cultural and political ways.
Yes, indeed; it's the American way!
(1) Statue of Liberty goes out of copyright
(2) Plagiarize it
(3) take photo of plagiarized statue
(4) Profit!
The fact that it took four months before anybody actually NOTICED that it was the Davidson statue, not the original statue, is a powerful argument that the Davidson statue was so like the original that people don't notice.
This was not his original work, this was Davidson's copy of the Statue of Liberty. Yes, absolutely it is a derivative work.
It's a pity that the US can't countersue that sculptor Robert Davidson, since it's clear that HE was the one that did the copying.
Unfortunately the Statue of Liberty is long out of copyright. (Although there are those in the U.S. Congress, paid off by Disney, who want to change copyright to "pretty much forever".)
...If the atmosphere can hold more water vapor as the temperature increases, and more water will evaporate as the temperature increases, it seems we have a control mechanism for ocean levels.
No, it's too small an effect, I'm afraid. It would take a lot of water in the atmosphere to reduce ocean levels by an amount high enough to make a difference in sea level-- once you get to the runaway greenhouse effect (i.e. Venus), sure, but it's only a small effect on Earth. (And despite what you may think from what popular media sometimes says, Earth conditions remain far from thermal runaway. Anthropogenic emissions tweak the temperature enough to notice on human scales, but that's because we live in the narrow band between about 273K and 300K.)
Water vapor indeed is the main greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere. But it has a temperature-dependent equilibrium in the atmosphere. If you add more, it removes itself from the atmosphere quickly-- that's called "rain". The amount that the atmosphere can hold increases with temperature.
So, water vapor in the atmosphere is driven by planetary temperature. It's a feedback cycle.
Can we get off cars?
Sure Car pollution is a big problem. It is also what we feel the most, having to fuel up our cars.
But they are other problems too.
A good point.
Cars are one of the many systems in our culture producing carbon dioxide from fossil fuels. But there are many others.
Slashdot Mirror
Explain your maths please, $20 - $50 is $40,000 - $100,000 for 40 hour weeks, so hows $40k at $50/hr work at 150 hours a month of whatever on top of flight time? Anyone can find random numbers on the Internet, but if they are not coherent...
I don't understand the question. The math is trivial.
$20 per flight hour, times the legal FAA maximum of 1000 flight hours per year, comes to $20,000/year. $50 per flight hour, times the legal maximum of 1000 flight hours per year, comes to $50,000/year.
What part of that did you need to be explained?
Nah. Better to make the pilots we have work more hours for the same pay.
Can't. The FAA put a piloting limit of 1000 flight hours per year, to limit pilot fatigue.
that meddling government, always taking profit away from businesses just because "safety". People should be allowed to fly unsafe airlines if they want to save some dollars, it's their right.
Pay the pilots more and they will find they don't need pilots because nobody is flying on their airline as the tickets cost more.
What fraction of the price of an airline ticket is the price of paying the pilot? Quick back of the envelope calculation: somewhere around 1%. I'm guessing that a 1% change in ticket prices won't make much of a difference.
Here's a thought: they could try paying pilots decently, and giving them reasonable work schedules.
I know, that's crazy talk.
The starting wage for a pilot at a major carrier is $70-80 an hour with the ability to have a contractually guaranteed minimum of 70-80 hours a month.
So, why does the first hit on my google search for "starting pay for airline pilots" say "Starting Salaries. A regional airline pilots in the U.S. typically starts out making an hourly rate of $20 – $50 per hour, or about $20,000-$40,000 per year, depending on the airline, type of aircraft, and the pilot's experience level."
with the ability to have a contractually guaranteed minimum of 70-80 hours a month.
...and, as the very same page on my google search helpfully tells me, "The average airline pilot logs 75 hours a month in the air and sometimes up to 150 hours per month performing ground duties like simulator training, maintaining records, performing pre-flight inspections, flight planning and traveling to and from hotels and airports."
...
I know, that's crazy talk.
Then why isn't Tesla profitable?
Well, roughly, they have spent the last two years building up manufacturing capability, and only the last month has their manufacturing been putting out a reasonable number of cars, so the upfront costs are spent, but the income stream produced by the investment has only started. The key question is to look at Tesla's balance sheet in six months.
In more nerd terms, the "income" part of "income-outgo = profit" is a time integral, while a large portion of the outgo is fixed, so the profitability rises with time.
Will Tesla be profitable? Stay tuned.
Then the judges have failed to keep up with precedents from far before when celllphones and computers ever existed. It has never been the defendant’s responsibility to interpret evidence for the prosecution. They have all the individual bits that compose all of the data on the phone. It is up to the prosecution to make sense of them. It is no different than forcing a bookkeeper to testify to the meaning of coded entries in an accounting ledger. They cannot be forced to do so if it results in them being prosecuted for a crime in relation to the bookkeeping records.
Wow, cool legal argument. But, unfortunately, a cool legal argument isn't accepted until a judge somewhere accepts it as a valid legal argument.
Really, though, you should try it in court, see if it flies.
Wouldn't this be akin to a warrant for searching your house? You can't really say "I lost my house keys"
You wouldn't be held in contempt of court if you did,
Yes, you very well might.
(The situation is more like this: that they search your house, they find a safe in your house, and they ask for the key for the safe. You can't say "I won't give that to you, it would be self-incrimination."
It is an interesting interpretation of the law, by the way: they can compel you to give them the keys, but it's not clear you have to give them a combination: http://blogs.denverpost.com/cr...
So.... corruption.
"corruption" would mean that the police, or the judge, profited somehow from this. Nope.
the correct term is "police overreach".
This has happened before, of course: https://9to5mac.com/2017/06/01...
and the case law is unclear: http://www.leadingedgelaw.com/...
^^^ Yes, that was the one I was thinking of. Thanks.
I'm too lazy to scroll through back xkcd to find it, though.
Unfortunately the Statue of Liberty is long out of copyright.
I would have said it is fortunate. Such an important cultural and politicalicon of that age should be out of copyright to allow people to freely use it in cultural and political ways.
Yes, indeed; it's the American way!
(1) Statue of Liberty goes out of copyright
(2) Plagiarize it
(3) take photo of plagiarized statue
(4) Profit!
This was not his original work, this was Davidson's copy of the Statue of Liberty. Yes, absolutely it is a derivative work.
Unfortunately the Statue of Liberty is long out of copyright. (Although there are those in the U.S. Congress, paid off by Disney, who want to change copyright to "pretty much forever".)
The lowest cost option of the ones being made so far is $50K. That makes it a luxury car, not a car for the people.
The U.S. has no commitments to the Paris agreements; we withdrew from them in 2017.
World Cup is like a DDOS, but more so.
...If the atmosphere can hold more water vapor as the temperature increases, and more water will evaporate as the temperature increases, it seems we have a control mechanism for ocean levels.
No, it's too small an effect, I'm afraid. It would take a lot of water in the atmosphere to reduce ocean levels by an amount high enough to make a difference in sea level-- once you get to the runaway greenhouse effect (i.e. Venus), sure, but it's only a small effect on Earth. (And despite what you may think from what popular media sometimes says, Earth conditions remain far from thermal runaway. Anthropogenic emissions tweak the temperature enough to notice on human scales, but that's because we live in the narrow band between about 273K and 300K.)
A nice summary of water in the atmosphere here, if you're interested: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary....
Water vapor indeed is the main greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere. But it has a temperature-dependent equilibrium in the atmosphere. If you add more, it removes itself from the atmosphere quickly-- that's called "rain". The amount that the atmosphere can hold increases with temperature.
So, water vapor in the atmosphere is driven by planetary temperature. It's a feedback cycle.
There is no magic battery "tech" anyway.
That's only because once a tech becomes commercial, we no longer notice it's magical.
Compare batteries today with those of 30 years ago (or prices of photovoltaics of today with those of 30 years ago). They really are f'ing magic
Can we get off cars? Sure Car pollution is a big problem. It is also what we feel the most, having to fuel up our cars. But they are other problems too.
A good point.
Cars are one of the many systems in our culture producing carbon dioxide from fossil fuels. But there are many others.
It is time for you learn the difference between news and opinion. If you even look at the link you had sent it was under the opinion section of CNN.
Yes, exactly. And that word "may have" is not the same as "Earth is doomed".
Since Amazon already uses UPS and the post office today to deliver packages, how is this Amazon "avoiding" anything,
They are doing this in order to stop using UPS and the post office/
That's what makes slashdot great: self-proclaimed experts.