cutting salary and benefit costs while upping the CEO's year-end bonus
Companies generally don't look for excuses to throw more money at CEOs -- they pay what they think is required to retain them. Just like they do with you and me.
Any additional profits would much more likely ultimately reach the shareholders. Like the mutual funds in your retirement account, for example. Which most people, and I bet even you, expect to go up in value over time.
“Flooding is probably not quite the right word to use in this case,” says Cary Fowler, who helped create the seed vault. “In my experience, there’s been water intrusion at the front of the tunnel every single year.”
Fowler wasn't at the seed vault this year when the flooding (or 'flooding') in question took place, but has extensive knowledge of the project and facilities. He explains that a 100 meter long tunnel leads into the heart of the mountain where the seed vault is stored, running at a slight downward slope. At the base of the slope are two pumping stations to remove any water that might get in. Then there's a slight uphill section before you reach the doors to the vault itself, where the seeds are kept at 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit or -18 Celsius.
“The tunnel was never meant to be water tight at the front, because we didn’t think we would need that,” Fowler says. “What happens is, in the summer the permafrost melts, and some water comes in, and when it comes in, it freezes. It doesn’t typically go very far.”
I think this is an obvious error on the part of the Court of Appeal and I expect the ruling will be overturned.
Putting aside the question of whether the U.S. Supreme Court would find an issue like this interesting enough to burn one of its 60ish annual grants of certiorari, there's actually no error on which to base a cert petition in the issue you're raising. From the opinion (worth a read -- it's short):
Lest there be any doubt about whether the Registration Rule is a rule “regarding a model aircraft” for purposes of Section 336, the Registration Rule states that its “definition of ‘model aircraft’ is identical to the definition provided in section 336(c) of Public Law 112–95,” the FAA Modernization and Reform Act.
So there are no nits to pick here -- that which the FAA required to be registered is that which falls under the Section 336 definition, and the Court of Appeals held that registration requirement unlawful. Game over.
So have I. But OP was suggesting that car drivers should always be liable for collisions between cars and bikes. There are more than enough idiot cyclists out there to make that sort of system untenable. There's no reason liability shouldn't be allocated to the negligent parties, just like it is when two autos collide.
The 2012 law explicitly prohibited the FAA from doing exactly what it did. The court's opinion is only 10 pages and gets directly to the point:
In short, the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides that the FAA “may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft,” yet the FAA’s 2015 Registration Rule is a “rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.” Statutory interpretation does not get much simpler. The Registration Rule is unlawful as applied to model aircraft.
Yes, you were warned before that it was going to happen and now it is happening. It's a process that is taking decades
Of course, in the rest of my sentence you disingenuously snipped from your quote, my entire point was that there hasn't been a unified "it" over the years -- there's actually been a succession of factions saying "bad things, man... bad things" but claiming completely different causes. So no, I wasn't warned back in the 70s that civilization as we know it would implode because of the reasons that are now being peddled today.
Government grant money wouldn't have averted this problem, and would only be a band-aid now. The reason we reached this point is because the prices of the current crop of antibiotics externalized their true cost (i.e., the cost of developing new drugs due to the overuse and thus the increasing ineffectiveness of the existing ones). Just another act in the tragedy of the commons.
Without addressing the overuse problem, government grant money is at best only going to create the next generation of increasingly powerful and increasingly dangerous antibiotics out of an increasingly diminishing set of options, which the medical community will then have to burn through increasingly fast to stay ahead of the superbugs.
Oh and while we're at it: Educate and train new drivers to recognize and properly, safely deal with cyclists on public roads. There should never ever again be an excuse of "I didn't see him" when someone hits a cyclist.
Maybe, if that education and training goes both ways. Where I live, cyclists regularly swerve in and out of lanes, cut across multiple lanes of traffic without warning, run red lights, and generally act like self-entitled asses. I've more than once had to lock up my brakes to avoid hitting one of these idiots. You can't allocate all liability for accidents to auto drivers when the cyclists are flaunting the rules of the road.
green absorbs heat meaning the feedback loop is going to become increasingly stronger and thus harder to break
Well, crap -- after listening to decades of wailing from the tree huggers about how we were going to kill the planet by cutting all the green stuff down, now I'm fortunate enough to happen by your post and learn that the green stuff is actually the problem. So apparently that mountain of legislation and regulations we created in response to the tree huggers are actually counterproductive and need to be rolled back, stat. Are you with me?
The Earth's ecosystems are being destroyed and will being to collapse, so people should be afraid of what is happening. I do not believe you recognize the gravity of the situation. We are experiencing a mass extinction event in progress.
This message has essentially been the same my entire life -- folks just manufacture a new reason for it every couple of decades as the previous boogeyman either turned out not to be one or was addressed. Maslow is indeed a harsh mistress.
Friday is the day the current federal stopgap funding bill expires. The EPA apparently worried that Congress wouldn't pass a new continuing resolution to fund the government, and preemptively planned to end the Open Data service, according to the contractor managing the site, 3 Round Stones in Arlington, Virginia.
This sort of infantile behavior is the stock play we see over and over again from governmental agencies that are in danger of not getting as much money as they would prefer.
From the passengers point of view there is little difference in cost.
Of course there isn't -- Lyft has to price-match to remain competitive. The real question is whether it's able to sustain its operations over the long haul while charging fares similar to Uber's yet paying drivers more.
The tea leaves of both companies' 2016 financials confirm what should be obvious: Uber appears to be on track to lose ~$3 billion on close to $20 billion in revenue. Lyft, on the other hand, appears to have lost $600 million on $700 million in revenue. In other words, Uber spent somewhere around $1.25 for every $1 in revenue, while Lyft spent about $1.85 for every $1 in revenue.
Eventually Lyft's investors will get tired of shoveling cash down that kind of a bottomless pit, and they'll either have to raise prices (hastening their demise) or lower driver comp (putting them on par with Uber). There is no free lunch.
Hey, you're the one that got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
You being able to find conversions does not mean that is how the specs are written.
And you being able to Google random stuff and paste it in here doesn't mean that's how the industry works.
Try looking at a few actual airspeed indicators in real live planes (as opposed to "working around the industry," whatever that means -- perhaps your office was near an airport?) and report back what units you see printed on the vast majority of them. Next, take a look at airplane performance specifications and report back what units are typically used for, e.g., "cruise speed," "max speed," "stall speed," etc. For even more bonus points, try cracking open the FARs and see what default units they use for airspeed. Do be sure to get back to us with your findings.
But since blowhards like you are incapable of admitting when they're just flat out wrong, I won't be holding my breath.
People don't tend to yell at each other when they're sitting side-by-side, but a lot of people feel the need to speak at max-volume when they're on a phone.
My guess is that if the typical side-by-side conversation happened next to a white noise generator with a monkey randomly clapping its hands over the listener's ears, those conversations would tend toward max volume as well.
Aha -- some reflexive mod found the -1, TruthHurts option. That certainly makes up for the utter lack of ability for anyone to cogently articulate what they think the real endgame will be -- can be -- to trying to regulate the latest act in the tragedy of the commons.
Your quote has no bearing at all on my point, which was that credit card interest rates have skyrocketed in the same time frame that the prime rate has been at historic lows, after passing legislation that ostensibly was to benefit the little guy. Are you denying that, or are you just trying to distract?
I don't think wireless and wired carriers are really competing in the same market segment such that they could meaningfully affect each others' pricing. Metered wireless carriers charge in the neighborhood of $5/GB or more. At that rate, my home broadband bill would be northward of $1k/month.
If you rabid net-neut proponents don't watch it, we're going to end up with ISPs that bill by the byte.
This is an incredibly common result of touchy-feely regulations. Remember the days when if your credit was good enough you could get a prime-plus-a-point-or-two credit card, and even with just ok credit you could get 10% or less? The CARD Act sent that the way of the dodo bird -- average introductory rates are now pushing 20%. Remember how Dick Durban was going to stick it to the banks by forcing them to not charge "exorbitant" transaction fees? Banks just found other ways to make up the fees that disproportionately impacted lower-income people.
What in the world makes you think this latest moral crusade is going to end any differently?
STOP fucking rewarding the behavior that perpetuates this shit.
Figure out how to do that while retaining the vestiges of a free society, and the world will beat a path to your door. In the meantime, it seems like a good thing you still have the right to freely express yourself so we can have this conversation in a public forum.
Otherwise the proverbial global database of information will become worthless, tainted with lies and doubt.
I'm sure you've heard the saying that "history is written by the victors." That principle holds true in a lot of contexts. China, for example, probably considers their rendition of global events to be "accurate information" and thus is protecting its citizens from sources that are "tainted with lies and doubt." Actual accuracy is a slippery concept to start with, and (if our luck continues to hold) it's not static and is not determined by majority vote. Countries dispute land boundaries that generally have been globally recognized for centuries. Papers are declassified that shed a whole different light on events the populace was spoon-fed for decades. Even in the hard sciences people discover new information all the time, some of which supplants information we thought we "knew" and had universally taught for ages. In short, there is no unitary "global database of information." There certainly are trends and probabilities about any given information, and my job and yours is to weight that, certainly question it, and adopt it or not.
This cycle we're going through doesn't seem to me a whole lot different than the one Gutenberg went through several centuries ago (along with the reactionary scaremongering by the holders of "truth" at the time) -- the power to publish has simply been spread even wider. Yes, that requires more individual responsibility to evaluate and filter information. But I prefer that to living in a society where the dissemination of "truth" is limited to a few select sources (chosen, of course, by people who couldn't possibly have a shred of a vested interest) under the guise of protecting people who are supposedly incapable of thinking for themselves.
Saying the UK has no control over the EU is like saying the West Midlands or Greater Manchester have no control over the UK.
This seems like a distortion of the OP's proposition. I read it more like saying that the only control the two sheep have over what the three wolves have for dinner is to get out of the common pasture.
Slashdot Mirror
cutting salary and benefit costs while upping the CEO's year-end bonus
Companies generally don't look for excuses to throw more money at CEOs -- they pay what they think is required to retain them. Just like they do with you and me.
Any additional profits would much more likely ultimately reach the shareholders. Like the mutual funds in your retirement account, for example. Which most people, and I bet even you, expect to go up in value over time.
This is an annual occurrence , as explained by one of the creators of the vault:
“Flooding is probably not quite the right word to use in this case,” says Cary Fowler, who helped create the seed vault. “In my experience, there’s been water intrusion at the front of the tunnel every single year.”
Fowler wasn't at the seed vault this year when the flooding (or 'flooding') in question took place, but has extensive knowledge of the project and facilities. He explains that a 100 meter long tunnel leads into the heart of the mountain where the seed vault is stored, running at a slight downward slope. At the base of the slope are two pumping stations to remove any water that might get in. Then there's a slight uphill section before you reach the doors to the vault itself, where the seeds are kept at 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit or -18 Celsius.
“The tunnel was never meant to be water tight at the front, because we didn’t think we would need that,” Fowler says. “What happens is, in the summer the permafrost melts, and some water comes in, and when it comes in, it freezes. It doesn’t typically go very far.”
I think this is an obvious error on the part of the Court of Appeal and I expect the ruling will be overturned.
Putting aside the question of whether the U.S. Supreme Court would find an issue like this interesting enough to burn one of its 60ish annual grants of certiorari, there's actually no error on which to base a cert petition in the issue you're raising. From the opinion (worth a read -- it's short):
Lest there be any doubt about whether the Registration Rule is a rule “regarding a model aircraft” for purposes of Section 336, the Registration Rule states that its “definition of ‘model aircraft’ is identical to the definition provided in section 336(c) of Public Law 112–95,” the FAA Modernization and Reform Act.
So there are no nits to pick here -- that which the FAA required to be registered is that which falls under the Section 336 definition, and the Court of Appeals held that registration requirement unlawful. Game over.
So have I. But OP was suggesting that car drivers should always be liable for collisions between cars and bikes. There are more than enough idiot cyclists out there to make that sort of system untenable. There's no reason liability shouldn't be allocated to the negligent parties, just like it is when two autos collide.
The 2012 law explicitly prohibited the FAA from doing exactly what it did. The court's opinion is only 10 pages and gets directly to the point:
In short, the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides that the FAA “may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft,” yet the FAA’s 2015 Registration Rule is a “rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.” Statutory interpretation does not get much simpler. The Registration Rule is unlawful as applied to model aircraft.
Yes, you were warned before that it was going to happen and now it is happening. It's a process that is taking decades
Of course, in the rest of my sentence you disingenuously snipped from your quote, my entire point was that there hasn't been a unified "it" over the years -- there's actually been a succession of factions saying "bad things, man... bad things" but claiming completely different causes. So no, I wasn't warned back in the 70s that civilization as we know it would implode because of the reasons that are now being peddled today.
Government grant money wouldn't have averted this problem, and would only be a band-aid now. The reason we reached this point is because the prices of the current crop of antibiotics externalized their true cost (i.e., the cost of developing new drugs due to the overuse and thus the increasing ineffectiveness of the existing ones). Just another act in the tragedy of the commons.
Without addressing the overuse problem, government grant money is at best only going to create the next generation of increasingly powerful and increasingly dangerous antibiotics out of an increasingly diminishing set of options, which the medical community will then have to burn through increasingly fast to stay ahead of the superbugs.
Oh and while we're at it: Educate and train new drivers to recognize and properly, safely deal with cyclists on public roads. There should never ever again be an excuse of "I didn't see him" when someone hits a cyclist.
Maybe, if that education and training goes both ways. Where I live, cyclists regularly swerve in and out of lanes, cut across multiple lanes of traffic without warning, run red lights, and generally act like self-entitled asses. I've more than once had to lock up my brakes to avoid hitting one of these idiots. You can't allocate all liability for accidents to auto drivers when the cyclists are flaunting the rules of the road.
green absorbs heat meaning the feedback loop is going to become increasingly stronger and thus harder to break
Well, crap -- after listening to decades of wailing from the tree huggers about how we were going to kill the planet by cutting all the green stuff down, now I'm fortunate enough to happen by your post and learn that the green stuff is actually the problem. So apparently that mountain of legislation and regulations we created in response to the tree huggers are actually counterproductive and need to be rolled back, stat. Are you with me?
The Earth's ecosystems are being destroyed and will being to collapse, so people should be afraid of what is happening. I do not believe you recognize the gravity of the situation. We are experiencing a mass extinction event in progress.
This message has essentially been the same my entire life -- folks just manufacture a new reason for it every couple of decades as the previous boogeyman either turned out not to be one or was addressed. Maslow is indeed a harsh mistress.
Why do you need to take 200lbs of tools home every night?
Because (1) they're yours, and (2) that's the only way to guarantee they won't disappear before you return in the morning.
From TFA:
Friday is the day the current federal stopgap funding bill expires. The EPA apparently worried that Congress wouldn't pass a new continuing resolution to fund the government, and preemptively planned to end the Open Data service, according to the contractor managing the site, 3 Round Stones in Arlington, Virginia.
This sort of infantile behavior is the stock play we see over and over again from governmental agencies that are in danger of not getting as much money as they would prefer.
the data has always been public
That's laughably wrong. See, e.g., here.
Fine, but you only need a great model that's right more often than humans.
I don't know that I've ever heard of a human driver who ran a stop sign thinking it was a banana.
From the passengers point of view there is little difference in cost.
Of course there isn't -- Lyft has to price-match to remain competitive. The real question is whether it's able to sustain its operations over the long haul while charging fares similar to Uber's yet paying drivers more.
The tea leaves of both companies' 2016 financials confirm what should be obvious: Uber appears to be on track to lose ~$3 billion on close to $20 billion in revenue. Lyft, on the other hand, appears to have lost $600 million on $700 million in revenue. In other words, Uber spent somewhere around $1.25 for every $1 in revenue, while Lyft spent about $1.85 for every $1 in revenue.
Eventually Lyft's investors will get tired of shoveling cash down that kind of a bottomless pit, and they'll either have to raise prices (hastening their demise) or lower driver comp (putting them on par with Uber). There is no free lunch.
Liar.
Hey, you're the one that got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
You being able to find conversions does not mean that is how the specs are written.
And you being able to Google random stuff and paste it in here doesn't mean that's how the industry works.
Try looking at a few actual airspeed indicators in real live planes (as opposed to "working around the industry," whatever that means -- perhaps your office was near an airport?) and report back what units you see printed on the vast majority of them. Next, take a look at airplane performance specifications and report back what units are typically used for, e.g., "cruise speed," "max speed," "stall speed," etc. For even more bonus points, try cracking open the FARs and see what default units they use for airspeed. Do be sure to get back to us with your findings.
But since blowhards like you are incapable of admitting when they're just flat out wrong, I won't be holding my breath.
People don't tend to yell at each other when they're sitting side-by-side, but a lot of people feel the need to speak at max-volume when they're on a phone.
My guess is that if the typical side-by-side conversation happened next to a white noise generator with a monkey randomly clapping its hands over the listener's ears, those conversations would tend toward max volume as well.
I'm a private pilot, friend -- you picked a bad time to get cocky.
You're sadly wrong, and about 60 seconds of research will confirm that. Feel free to try that before sticking your foot in your mouth next time.
So that we know how that compares to a boat? (knots)
No, so that we know how that compares to other aircraft. Airspeed has been measured in knots since well before you were a gleam in your parents' eyes.
Aha -- some reflexive mod found the -1, TruthHurts option. That certainly makes up for the utter lack of ability for anyone to cogently articulate what they think the real endgame will be -- can be -- to trying to regulate the latest act in the tragedy of the commons.
Your quote has no bearing at all on my point, which was that credit card interest rates have skyrocketed in the same time frame that the prime rate has been at historic lows, after passing legislation that ostensibly was to benefit the little guy. Are you denying that, or are you just trying to distract?
I don't think wireless and wired carriers are really competing in the same market segment such that they could meaningfully affect each others' pricing. Metered wireless carriers charge in the neighborhood of $5/GB or more. At that rate, my home broadband bill would be northward of $1k/month.
If you rabid net-neut proponents don't watch it, we're going to end up with ISPs that bill by the byte.
This is an incredibly common result of touchy-feely regulations. Remember the days when if your credit was good enough you could get a prime-plus-a-point-or-two credit card, and even with just ok credit you could get 10% or less? The CARD Act sent that the way of the dodo bird -- average introductory rates are now pushing 20%. Remember how Dick Durban was going to stick it to the banks by forcing them to not charge "exorbitant" transaction fees? Banks just found other ways to make up the fees that disproportionately impacted lower-income people.
What in the world makes you think this latest moral crusade is going to end any differently?
Graphene is finally worth its salt?
STOP fucking rewarding the behavior that perpetuates this shit.
Figure out how to do that while retaining the vestiges of a free society, and the world will beat a path to your door. In the meantime, it seems like a good thing you still have the right to freely express yourself so we can have this conversation in a public forum.
Otherwise the proverbial global database of information will become worthless, tainted with lies and doubt.
I'm sure you've heard the saying that "history is written by the victors." That principle holds true in a lot of contexts. China, for example, probably considers their rendition of global events to be "accurate information" and thus is protecting its citizens from sources that are "tainted with lies and doubt." Actual accuracy is a slippery concept to start with, and (if our luck continues to hold) it's not static and is not determined by majority vote. Countries dispute land boundaries that generally have been globally recognized for centuries. Papers are declassified that shed a whole different light on events the populace was spoon-fed for decades. Even in the hard sciences people discover new information all the time, some of which supplants information we thought we "knew" and had universally taught for ages. In short, there is no unitary "global database of information." There certainly are trends and probabilities about any given information, and my job and yours is to weight that, certainly question it, and adopt it or not.
This cycle we're going through doesn't seem to me a whole lot different than the one Gutenberg went through several centuries ago (along with the reactionary scaremongering by the holders of "truth" at the time) -- the power to publish has simply been spread even wider. Yes, that requires more individual responsibility to evaluate and filter information. But I prefer that to living in a society where the dissemination of "truth" is limited to a few select sources (chosen, of course, by people who couldn't possibly have a shred of a vested interest) under the guise of protecting people who are supposedly incapable of thinking for themselves.
Saying the UK has no control over the EU is like saying the West Midlands or Greater Manchester have no control over the UK.
This seems like a distortion of the OP's proposition. I read it more like saying that the only control the two sheep have over what the three wolves have for dinner is to get out of the common pasture.