No, it was $800, a hotel for the night, and a seat on the next available airplane, which was at 3PM the next day. You accept the deal, you're not getting your money for the ticket back.
.
And no-one took that? That's an even crazier story.
It's a good thing too. If they didn't, tickets would cost a lot more. You basically accept a very small chance of being bumped for a consistently cheaper ticket.
TFS says the actual number of overbookings is 0.008%. I'd be happy to pay 0.008% more to not be denied a seat on a flight I've already paid for.
Of course, no-one does, but we all are. It's natural to break things down into bite sized chunks, and height, weight, skin colour, type of hat, are easy delimiters.
So it's less of a question is Trump appealing to racists, but is he appealing to the slightly more racist voters than other candidates. His comments on Mexicans and Muslims seems to say yes.
I do see him as nationalistic...US citizens to be served by the US government above all other interests, and I do agree largely with that, seems common sense.
Again, everyone is nationalistic to some degree, but it's whether it to a level that is actually detrimental to your nation so as to be an overall net loss
It's a hard one to measure, but building walls and imposing tarriffs has already been done and proven not to work. So I guess we'll have to see how that plays out this time around.
I can keep going but There are many companies who just happens to get their version at the right time and market to the right group of people to make their obvious copy the more successful product.
So how do you know which will succeed and which will fail?
I only have a sample size of two teenagers (plus their friends), and it's Snapchat 2, FB 0 here. So it appears to be a fail from where I sit.
No, that's what I believe based on looking at the data. Oh, and the fossil fuel industry doesn't care; when the government starts pouring billions into "new energy", they simply become "new energy companies", like "BP = Beyond Petrol".
Oh that explains why the Forbes 100 has been completely static for the last 200 years. Oh wait...
It's brilliant, really.
Economies allow your government to enslave you (via debt and consumerist treadmills of dopamine loops).
Crash it, and you become free.
Not sure what your definition of free is, but we have examples of 'crashed' governments right now eg Syria and Iraq. Given the choice, I think being 'enslaved' in Canada beats being free in Syria. How about you? If you love government-less freedom, why haven't you voted with your feet and moved to Iraq?
We can't stop China from creating man made islands in the South China Sea, which again has far bigger impact on the climate (loss of ocean habitat, destruction of ecosystems, etc..)
A lot of the ocean is not much use to living things, too much sand, not enough light etc. But things like shipwrecks and man made islands, and even dumped cars actually promote more undersea life but creating a surface to find a home in.
No, there is no difference at all. It's lunacy to think that the rightwingnuts are going anywhere any time soon, and in fact, we just elected them into power here in the US.
This could actually be the death rattle though. Prior to the election, when Trump looked like losing the Republicans were all asking themselves how they ended up in such bad shape. Just because they won, doesn't make the organisation any healthier, if anything it promotes the nutbags which will send the ship to the bottom faster than any Democrat strategy could.
Short of completely wrecking the global economy or starting a major nuclear war, no government policy is going to have an appreciable effect on climate.
Wrecking the economy? That is what the fossil fuel industry would have you believe, becausr they have the most to lose. But every great economic advancement was kicked off by some new technological discovery, so it follows that if government policy was to invest in new technology to lmit the impact of climate change, it would actually stimulate the economy. It would be a net gain (as we're already seeing with some energy segments, there is much more job creation in new energy than old).
And if you don't believe is new energy, then invest in climate control technology, or technology that can make arid land more usable. There are solutions, and they all involve R&D, and some of them will require and government incentives. Simply throwing your hands in the air isn't a solution.
That means the 150KWH that you have to spend on-ferry means you have to draw 210KWH from the grid. YMMV, but here in the US that's gonna run $35-40, much more than "a cup of coffee and a waffle".
The important thing to know about this company is that there is no prototype yet. The news is that they are "Working with FAA", but given that they don't actually have an airplane,
even one worthy of the "Experimental" designation, there hardly seems a point in working with the FAA.
There's no point designing a new type of aircraft only to have the FAA kibosh the idea after you've invested millions in R&D.
Working with the FAA to ensure your idea is viable is exactly how this should be done.
Or a robotic electric tug that can autonomously find and attach to the airplane, then be controlled wirelessly by the pilot, then be released from the plane and autonomously (and safely) leave the runway and return for a charge.
Why would the pilot need to control it? All airport movements are controlled by the tower, a robotic tug/launch platform would simply be controlled by the same people.
What if the battery and the wheels stay on the runway? ie the plane only has landing wheels, takeoff is handled by runway infrastructure?
2) An induction-powered motor drawing power from cables just beneath the runway surface. That would eliminate the need for batteries.
Doesn't even need to be induction, using the launch system described above you simply move the responsibility of taking off from the plane to the runway.
While it might work during cruise and landing, will the extra fuel need for takeoff and possibly to support flight at cruise altitude, and thus extra fuel burn and the need to carry such fuel, outweigh the benefits in reduced fuel consumption.
Depends on how you design it. As a back of a napkin exercise I can think of some ideas worth exploring, one of which is track launch. ie the plane launches from a powered rail which gives it the energy required to take off, so it only needs to carry energy to cruise (landing requires require no energy as with the case of the space shuttle). I'd even experiment with keeping the plane connected to the ground via electrical cable somehow for the first 200-300m since that is when most power is required.
No idea of practicality of this, but if we're reinventing transport we'll have to think outside the box a little.
The idea is that if you're stuck in a code, only by explaining line by line your reasoning to someone (or even a rubber duck), it'll help you to find the solution yourself.
Ah that's what they call that!
I discovered this technique because when I was stuck I'd always try to explain in detail my problem in an email to a colleague or support desk. Most of the time I'd get half way through then get the light bulb moment and figure out the problem myself. And now I have a name for this process. Thanks!
"view... for 24 hours," "...a limited time," "...view it once..," "...no longer visible..."
OK, but nowhere does it ever actually say DELETED.
Given that there is likely going to be sexual and personally sensitive (black-mail?) content here, isn't this a big deal?
Exactly, which is why more people should pull out the needle and walk away from this evil. I have no problems with Snapchat. Regardless of the silly shit kids will get up to on it (we all should be allowed to make mistakes and move on), at least it won't be on file somewhere to be held against them later in life.
Teens crave attention more than anything else, and that's the easiest and most effective way to get it.
But teens also are required to distance themselves from their parents as much as possible. So if their parents use product A, they will use product B. By this standard, Facebook can never succeed.
Slashdot Mirror
For 4000 dollars, they could have put all 4 employees on a chartered turboprop and had them in Louisville in 90 minutes.
For the amount of the resulting lawsuit or settlement they could have bought a Gulfstream to fly the 4 employees to anywhere.
For the drop in share price United wore the day after, they could have bought each employee a Gulfstream and still finished ahead...
No, it was $800, a hotel for the night, and a seat on the next available airplane, which was at 3PM the next day. You accept the deal, you're not getting your money for the ticket back.
And no-one took that? That's an even crazier story.
A lot? How much. Do they overbook by as much as 20%? If so it's only 20% extra on the ticket.
TFS says they overbook by 0.008%. So a price increase of 1 cent in every $100 would cover it.
It's a good thing too. If they didn't, tickets would cost a lot more. You basically accept a very small chance of being bumped for a consistently cheaper ticket.
TFS says the actual number of overbookings is 0.008%. I'd be happy to pay 0.008% more to not be denied a seat on a flight I've already paid for.
But I don't consider myself racist,
Of course, no-one does, but we all are. It's natural to break things down into bite sized chunks, and height, weight, skin colour, type of hat, are easy delimiters.
So it's less of a question is Trump appealing to racists, but is he appealing to the slightly more racist voters than other candidates. His comments on Mexicans and Muslims seems to say yes.
I do see him as nationalistic...US citizens to be served by the US government above all other interests, and I do agree largely with that, seems common sense.
Again, everyone is nationalistic to some degree, but it's whether it to a level that is actually detrimental to your nation so as to be an overall net loss
It's a hard one to measure, but building walls and imposing tarriffs has already been done and proven not to work. So I guess we'll have to see how that plays out this time around.
So delete your account and use something else. Your continued use is a message to FB that what they are doing is ok.
I can keep going but There are many companies who just happens to get their version at the right time and market to the right group of people to make their obvious copy the more successful product.
So how do you know which will succeed and which will fail?
I only have a sample size of two teenagers (plus their friends), and it's Snapchat 2, FB 0 here. So it appears to be a fail from where I sit.
In any case, use your head: companies constantly reinvent themselves in response to technological changes. It's the norm, not the exception.
Exactly my point. Some succeed, some fail, others replace them, and all this activity stimulates the economy, rather than wrecking it.
Monkeysphere. Google it.
No, that's what I believe based on looking at the data. Oh, and the fossil fuel industry doesn't care; when the government starts pouring billions into "new energy", they simply become "new energy companies", like "BP = Beyond Petrol".
Oh that explains why the Forbes 100 has been completely static for the last 200 years. Oh wait...
It's brilliant, really. Economies allow your government to enslave you (via debt and consumerist treadmills of dopamine loops). Crash it, and you become free.
Not sure what your definition of free is, but we have examples of 'crashed' governments right now eg Syria and Iraq. Given the choice, I think being 'enslaved' in Canada beats being free in Syria. How about you? If you love government-less freedom, why haven't you voted with your feet and moved to Iraq?
We can't stop China from creating man made islands in the South China Sea, which again has far bigger impact on the climate (loss of ocean habitat, destruction of ecosystems, etc..)
A lot of the ocean is not much use to living things, too much sand, not enough light etc. But things like shipwrecks and man made islands, and even dumped cars actually promote more undersea life but creating a surface to find a home in.
No, there is no difference at all. It's lunacy to think that the rightwingnuts are going anywhere any time soon, and in fact, we just elected them into power here in the US.
This could actually be the death rattle though. Prior to the election, when Trump looked like losing the Republicans were all asking themselves how they ended up in such bad shape. Just because they won, doesn't make the organisation any healthier, if anything it promotes the nutbags which will send the ship to the bottom faster than any Democrat strategy could.
Short of completely wrecking the global economy or starting a major nuclear war, no government policy is going to have an appreciable effect on climate.
Wrecking the economy? That is what the fossil fuel industry would have you believe, becausr they have the most to lose. But every great economic advancement was kicked off by some new technological discovery, so it follows that if government policy was to invest in new technology to lmit the impact of climate change, it would actually stimulate the economy. It would be a net gain (as we're already seeing with some energy segments, there is much more job creation in new energy than old).
And if you don't believe is new energy, then invest in climate control technology, or technology that can make arid land more usable. There are solutions, and they all involve R&D, and some of them will require and government incentives. Simply throwing your hands in the air isn't a solution.
Absolute Fucking Bullshit.
What do un-degree'd and H-1B people have in common? They are cheap labor
Neither Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs have degrees. How does that fit in with your hypothesis?
That means the 150KWH that you have to spend on-ferry means you have to draw 210KWH from the grid. YMMV, but here in the US that's gonna run $35-40, much more than "a cup of coffee and a waffle".
$40 to fuel a ferry run for 200+ people?
The important thing to know about this company is that there is no prototype yet. The news is that they are "Working with FAA", but given that they don't actually have an airplane,
even one worthy of the "Experimental" designation, there hardly seems a point in working with the FAA.
There's no point designing a new type of aircraft only to have the FAA kibosh the idea after you've invested millions in R&D.
Working with the FAA to ensure your idea is viable is exactly how this should be done.
Two possibilities; either that's wingspan,
A ten foot wingspan isn't going to lift a man off the ground let alone 10.
Or a robotic electric tug that can autonomously find and attach to the airplane, then be controlled wirelessly by the pilot, then be released from the plane and autonomously (and safely) leave the runway and return for a charge.
Why would the pilot need to control it? All airport movements are controlled by the tower, a robotic tug/launch platform would simply be controlled by the same people.
1) A battery. That would be the heavier solution.
What if the battery and the wheels stay on the runway? ie the plane only has landing wheels, takeoff is handled by runway infrastructure?
2) An induction-powered motor drawing power from cables just beneath the runway surface. That would eliminate the need for batteries.
Doesn't even need to be induction, using the launch system described above you simply move the responsibility of taking off from the plane to the runway.
While it might work during cruise and landing, will the extra fuel need for takeoff and possibly to support flight at cruise altitude, and thus extra fuel burn and the need to carry such fuel, outweigh the benefits in reduced fuel consumption.
Depends on how you design it. As a back of a napkin exercise I can think of some ideas worth exploring, one of which is track launch. ie the plane launches from a powered rail which gives it the energy required to take off, so it only needs to carry energy to cruise (landing requires require no energy as with the case of the space shuttle). I'd even experiment with keeping the plane connected to the ground via electrical cable somehow for the first 200-300m since that is when most power is required.
No idea of practicality of this, but if we're reinventing transport we'll have to think outside the box a little.
But Trump does the same thing and he's "starting another war in the Middle East!!!"
Trump campaigned on not getting involved, then he got involved. What Obama eats for breakfast matters not.
Ever heard of Duck Debugging?
I hadn't until now..
The idea is that if you're stuck in a code, only by explaining line by line your reasoning to someone (or even a rubber duck), it'll help you to find the solution yourself.
Ah that's what they call that!
I discovered this technique because when I was stuck I'd always try to explain in detail my problem in an email to a colleague or support desk. Most of the time I'd get half way through then get the light bulb moment and figure out the problem myself. And now I have a name for this process. Thanks!
"view ... for 24 hours," "...a limited time," "...view it once..," "...no longer visible..."
OK, but nowhere does it ever actually say DELETED.
Given that there is likely going to be sexual and personally sensitive (black-mail?) content here, isn't this a big deal?
Exactly, which is why more people should pull out the needle and walk away from this evil. I have no problems with Snapchat. Regardless of the silly shit kids will get up to on it (we all should be allowed to make mistakes and move on), at least it won't be on file somewhere to be held against them later in life.
Teens crave attention more than anything else, and that's the easiest and most effective way to get it.
But teens also are required to distance themselves from their parents as much as possible. So if their parents use product A, they will use product B. By this standard, Facebook can never succeed.