Business majors know this.;)
Starting in the very first courses, we learn that salary actually has very little to do with job satisfaction and employee performance
Yes, and apparently when they become managers they cling to the fact that salary is not the primary motivator, while failing to provide any other motivations.
Hopefully we won't have to hunt down filesharers as they are hopefully just basically nonviolent people who happen to illegally facilitate the distribution of prerelease movies. Hopefully the threat of a harsh punishment will stop these people from illegally doing this.
I know how people hate to hear this, but if you don't commit the crime, you won't be hunted down. I know a lot of people think that you should be able to commit crimes that they happen to think are not that bad without the government breathing down your neck about it. But that's really kind of a silly position to take.
I reguarly go 5 MPH over the speed limit. If they started having 3 year sentences for it, I'd stop doing it. I wouldn't complain that the punishment is too harsh for such a small crime. They can set the punishment however they want. It is up to us to respect the law or not.
Oh, and when I say "they", I of course mean the subset of "us" that "we" elect to look out for our best interests.
The kid may have the letter of the law on his side, but I think he is morally wrong. I think the very goal he stated is just plain wrong. He set out to find a domain name that looked like it might belong to Wal-mart, then fill it with images which he took from their website (which is wrong in the internet community) and then made the text look absurd. If you want to make a site against Wal-mart, get one similar to walmartsucks.org. If you just want to do a classroom project, then don't publish it on the web. Do it on an internal server.
I wonder if he would mind if walmart found his personal website, ripped off all his images and spouted a bunch of crap on a similarly named website?
I'm 6'1". I don't care for the fact that they design airline seating arrangements such that the "average" person will be comfortable. Since I am in the top 15% or so in terms of height, that does little to help me. I guess they figure that if you are not statistically average, your experience only needs to be survivable (at least un til the Deep Vein Thrombosis sets in), and not comfortable. Of course, they base the average on world statistics, where as people from the U.S., although prone to being overwieght, are also, on average, taller than Asians, Europeans, and even Latin and South Americans.
I'm not a pilot or an engineer, but even if you ignore pilot behaviour, it sounds more like an input design issue than a structural strength problem for the vertical stabilizer
I am a pilot, and I believe that the fault is shared. Airbus should have provided more feedback on what the pilot was doing to the poor rudder, and the pilot should not have been fully deflecting the rudder back and forth.
Boeing likes to pretend that large planes are not going to be needed. This is a really bizarre hypothesis considering the ever increasing number of passengers and the difficulty in building new airports.
Maybe that's because Boeing is a United States company. In the U.S. people would rather have the freedom of a car than to have to depend on the bus schedule. As far as air travellers in the U.S., Boeing is probably correct. Maybe the rest of the world prefers waiting for a bus than driving. I wouldn't know.
I am 6'1". I find it bearable to do up to maybe two hours in a flight before the back of the seat or the armrest or whatever I wind up pressed up against begins to get really unbearable. I have been on longer flights to Europe, but I was fortunate in that they were empty enough where I was able to get an empty seat next to me and stretch out. Otherwise I would have probably had to get up and walk around for most of the flight to avoid the pain from things poking me in the legs.
An airport can add the designation "International" to their name without the need for any regularly scheduled international flight, or in fact without any regularly scheduled flights at all. All that is required is that the airport have available to it a acustoms agent, even if that customs agent is only available by appointment.
The 777 may be certified for overseas flights but it isnt certified for all routes - as I said in my post, see ETOPS (Extended-Range Twin-engine Operations Performance Standards) which governs howfar a twin engine aircraft may be from a diversionary airport at any one time. Certain routes place aircraft outside the 180 minutes that twin engine aircraft can venture, and thus place that route out of bounds for anything with less than 3 engines.
I believe it is 208 minutes for the 777. Also, 777 and 767 received permission to operate on these routes because of strict maintenance requirements and the statistical hours between failure of the engines. There is some recommendation for 3 and four engine aircraft to meet these same criteria, which could mean increased maintenance cost for the Airbus routes, if indeed they can meet the statistical requirements. As I said, these are only suggestions that have been put before the FAA and ICAO, and have not been implemented.
Landing is not the issue. Plenty of planes can land in places where they will never be able to take off from. I found a document showing takeoff distance for an A380 was 9350 feet. For the 787, I found Boeing claims 4280 feet.
there are thousands of 747s out there being used right now
There have been 1381 built as of May 2004. I don't have figures on how many are still in use.
they insist that there's no demand for jumbo jets (not even on routes like mainland to Hawaii)
Aloha airlines flies 737s from the mainland to Hawaii. I've flown a DC-10 out there many many years ago. People don't want to wait for a flight that leaves once a day with 800 people on it. They want one that leaves right now.
I checked Expedia for NY to LA flights and the ones that came up as shortest duration were 737s and A320s and one was a 767. (I believ the 767 DOES qualify as widebody). Personally, I think it's stupid for airports to charge for takeoffs by weight (should be charging by passenger or cargo load)
I don't think they do usually charge by weight. They usually do by passenger or a flat fee. The flat fee, of course, is discriminatory against smaller planes, as they have fewer passengers to divide it amongst. It also sucks for your little Cessna to have to pay $150, the same as a 747 with 400 people on it.
At most the A380 may be used for crossing coasts (i.e. NY-LA, Miami - LA type flights)
I don't know how to even find this out anymore, but are there even ANY 747 flights within the continental United States anymore? I would think they would all be done more cheaply with 767s or 777s. If that is the case, I doubt that they would utilize an A380.
Of course, according to every airline disaster movie ever made, 747s are the only type of plane that ever experiences inflight emergencies, even on a flight from Kansas City to Saint Louis.
it's also more efficient than a 747 More efficent than a 40 year old design. Wow, that's impressive. Boeing have been sitting on their backsides for a couple of decades now with the assumption that they would be the king of the airways forever. Today, Airbus handed them their arse.
No, today Airbus introduced a larger plane. Regional jets are what is going to kill Boeing AND Airbus. Today's passenger demands to pay a low fare and travel when they want, dammit, and that means smaller planes with more flight cycles. This is what causes congestion at hub airports, but it will be easier to build more reliever airports than to change the mindset of the consumer.
Actually, it's more like ignorance of what they are riding on, because americans are climbing onto non-American and non-European airplanes every day by the thousands, altho i'm sure very few of them realize it. Between Embraer and Bombardier, a lot more airframes are being delivered to US airlines than Boeing and Airbus are providing.
You're probably right. Even seasoned travellers mostly can't tell the difference between a 737 and an A320 by sight. And of course, despite having the manufacturer in big letters on the safety card, most people probably don't know where the plane they are on was built.
Even if they did, its not easy to make a choice with your wallet, because it's not like most routes are going to give you the choice between a Boeing and an Embraer. If it did, it would be on another airline. Most people, given the choice, probably WOULD fly a Boeing, simply because it is larger than a regional jet, and people seem to fear small planes. this trend can be traced directly back to the product liability lawsuit which halted production at the cessna plants, it was a HUGE wakeup call for the industry, and started the wheels moving in earnest for aircraft manufacturing to get out of the usa.
True. But the lawsuits mostly affected general aviation, not commercial. Commercial aviation in the U.S. has suffered because everyone was trying to build large planes, and there wasn't enough room in the market. Lockheed, Rockwell, Northrop Grumman, and McDonnell-Douglas all realized that there was more money in military aircraft.
The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 did wonders for the GA community by limiting liability to the warranty period. This meant that manufacturers weren't being sued by people who crashed their 50 year old plane anymore (well, they could still be sued, but it was not as likely to be successful). Since then Cessna has rebounded, Piper has become New Piper, Commander unfortunately still went bankrupt, Mooney has changed hands a few times, but keeps building airplanes, Raytheon Beech is still doing well, and what is more interesting is that new companies such as Adam Aircraft, Cirrus Aircraft, Eclipse, Lancair and Liberty have entered the market. In fact, many flight training facilites are buying Cirrus over Cessna for their trainers. Moreover, after years of very little advancement in GA technology, the revitalization act allowed third parties such as avionics manufacturers and so forth to make investments such that most new GA planes now come with glass panels.
Cessna, Lear and Gulfstream still dominate corporate aviation in the United States. Lear is owned by Bombardier now, but still manufactured in Wichita, Kansas. do you buy a cessna 180, or a cessna 185. Today, it's still simple, you go to canada and buy from Found Brothers, they are the only ones left making that category of airplane.
Cessna makes the Grand Caravan, which can be fitted with a belly pod capable of hauling 4X8 sheets of plywood. There is also the Maule which can be used in rugged terrain. I've always wondered, is there another industry where the silliness of the us courts have cost the american economy so many trillions of dollars in the long term.
Just about any industry with the word insurance in it, healthcare, etc. Any industry that lets people sue for large settlements, really. The lawyers take their cut, and the extra costs are passed along to us, the consumers. If we won't pay it, the companies go out of business. No industry can prosper in an environment where people are allowed to sue and win even in cases where common sense or proper use would have prevented injury.
I have never flown on a 747. I have flown overseas on 767s and 777s. I have flown internationally from North America to South America on 757s. I have flow to Hawaii on a DC-10 (obviously been a while).
It seems to me that airlines that can't justify multiple large plane flights per day choose instead to fly a single very large flight. Korean Airlines uses a 747 for most of their flights that are once or less per day to the United States. I could see how it could be cheaper to do that than to buy two 777s. In fact, older 747s are probably CHEAPER than a new 777. But a 747 is more expensive to operate.
Over the last couple years, I've noticed a large number of web projects being run & maintained by people who don't understand computer security or system administration.
Well, what do you expect? ACTUAL system administrators cost money. It's far cheaper to find the most computer savvy person in the steno pool and make them the system administrator, and give them a raise up to $28k USD.
You know the person I'm talking about. The one who knows how make cross sheet references in Excel? He'd make a GREAT system administrator! He's a computer GURU!
I can't count the number of times that someone has told me that HIPAA requires encryption (when it specifically states that it does not require encryption).
Well, I can show you 164.312 Technical safeguards.
A covered entity must, in accordance with
164.306:... (iv) Encryption and decryption
(Addressable). Implement a mechanism to
encrypt and decrypt electronic protected
health information. in the OCR/HIPAA Privacy/Security/Enforcement Regulation Text. That's the unofficial version. Maybe the official version retracts that. I don't have a copy of the official version.
Wow, the strawmen are out today. Are you implying that the delivery company is really a company that steals data, is known for stealing data, and is merely masquerading as a legitimate delivery company? Where is your evidence of this?
You have it backwards. Cheap Bulk mail subsidizes first class mail. It's bulk, remember. It may be cheaper, but they send out thousands of them. Bulk rate minimum is 12 cents. It is usually more like 18 cents and can go up to almost 30 cents.
In your situation, the mailman must come to your box, which takes time. In most cases, he must merely stop at the street. In many communities, regulations will not allow a house mounted mailbox on new construction. It must be on the street. The Postal service does not charge based on the "worst case" of having to go to the box, but on the average case which is a mix of the two. Apartments are even better because they can get hundreds of peoples mail sorted out in maybe five minutes thanks to centralized mail facilities.
The Post office must take into consideration good situations like an apartment building, with bad situations, such as rural routes with one house every mile. Unlike many other delivery companies, they offer the same rate for any mail delivery anywhere in the United States. Great if you like to send mail from New York to California, not so great if you are inviting people to a block party.
The USPS makes money. The billions of peices of bulk mail they send every year helps us to enjoy reasonable first class stamp prices.
Dear Black Pot,
HIPAA doesn't have Special Agents. However, if you bring a complaint to the Department of Health and Human Services, I'm sure you will see some action. Nice strawman, though.
Paul
I imagine they use some statistics to find out that on average the clickthrough to purchase ratio is X percent, but perhaps on your website it was more like X*LargeNumber percent.
The fact that you took them for a couple of checks means that you got some seriously large number of clicks on google ads. I get about 8,000 hits on my server per day, and only about 7 or 8 clicks on google ads per day, resulting in maybe $15 a month. They won't even issue checks unless you have $100, if I remember right.
If you got that many clicks and no one bought anything, that would be cause for some alarm, to be sure. How do you know no one purchased anything. My google reports don't tell me anything about people buying things, just that someone clicked, and what the pay rate of that click is.
Perhaps Google suspected you of telling slashdotters to come to your site and click on Google ads (not saying you did). Such a thing would be in violation of their contract.
Slashdot Mirror
Business majors know this. ;)
Starting in the very first courses, we learn that salary actually has very little to do with job satisfaction and employee performance
Yes, and apparently when they become managers they cling to the fact that salary is not the primary motivator, while failing to provide any other motivations.
Hopefully we won't have to hunt down filesharers as they are hopefully just basically nonviolent people who happen to illegally facilitate the distribution of prerelease movies. Hopefully the threat of a harsh punishment will stop these people from illegally doing this.
I know how people hate to hear this, but if you don't commit the crime, you won't be hunted down. I know a lot of people think that you should be able to commit crimes that they happen to think are not that bad without the government breathing down your neck about it. But that's really kind of a silly position to take.
I reguarly go 5 MPH over the speed limit. If they started having 3 year sentences for it, I'd stop doing it. I wouldn't complain that the punishment is too harsh for such a small crime. They can set the punishment however they want. It is up to us to respect the law or not.
Oh, and when I say "they", I of course mean the subset of "us" that "we" elect to look out for our best interests.
The kid may have the letter of the law on his side, but I think he is morally wrong. I think the very goal he stated is just plain wrong. He set out to find a domain name that looked like it might belong to Wal-mart, then fill it with images which he took from their website (which is wrong in the internet community) and then made the text look absurd. If you want to make a site against Wal-mart, get one similar to walmartsucks.org. If you just want to do a classroom project, then don't publish it on the web. Do it on an internal server.
I wonder if he would mind if walmart found his personal website, ripped off all his images and spouted a bunch of crap on a similarly named website?
And not only that, they have TWO different computers developed by 2 different teams
One metric, and one imperial?
I'm 6'1". I don't care for the fact that they design airline seating arrangements such that the "average" person will be comfortable. Since I am in the top 15% or so in terms of height, that does little to help me. I guess they figure that if you are not statistically average, your experience only needs to be survivable (at least un til the Deep Vein Thrombosis sets in), and not comfortable. Of course, they base the average on world statistics, where as people from the U.S., although prone to being overwieght, are also, on average, taller than Asians, Europeans, and even Latin and South Americans.
I'm not a pilot or an engineer, but even if you ignore pilot behaviour, it sounds more like an input design issue than a structural strength problem for the vertical stabilizer
I am a pilot, and I believe that the fault is shared. Airbus should have provided more feedback on what the pilot was doing to the poor rudder, and the pilot should not have been fully deflecting the rudder back and forth.
Boeing likes to pretend that large planes are not going to be needed. This is a really bizarre hypothesis considering the ever increasing number of passengers and the difficulty in building new airports.
Maybe that's because Boeing is a United States company. In the U.S. people would rather have the freedom of a car than to have to depend on the bus schedule. As far as air travellers in the U.S., Boeing is probably correct. Maybe the rest of the world prefers waiting for a bus than driving. I wouldn't know.
I am 6'1". I find it bearable to do up to maybe two hours in a flight before the back of the seat or the armrest or whatever I wind up pressed up against begins to get really unbearable. I have been on longer flights to Europe, but I was fortunate in that they were empty enough where I was able to get an empty seat next to me and stretch out. Otherwise I would have probably had to get up and walk around for most of the flight to avoid the pain from things poking me in the legs.
An airport can add the designation "International" to their name without the need for any regularly scheduled international flight, or in fact without any regularly scheduled flights at all. All that is required is that the airport have available to it a acustoms agent, even if that customs agent is only available by appointment.
The 777 may be certified for overseas flights but it isnt certified for all routes - as I said in my post, see ETOPS (Extended-Range Twin-engine Operations Performance Standards) which governs howfar a twin engine aircraft may be from a diversionary airport at any one time. Certain routes place aircraft outside the 180 minutes that twin engine aircraft can venture, and thus place that route out of bounds for anything with less than 3 engines.
I believe it is 208 minutes for the 777. Also, 777 and 767 received permission to operate on these routes because of strict maintenance requirements and the statistical hours between failure of the engines. There is some recommendation for 3 and four engine aircraft to meet these same criteria, which could mean increased maintenance cost for the Airbus routes, if indeed they can meet the statistical requirements. As I said, these are only suggestions that have been put before the FAA and ICAO, and have not been implemented.
Landing is not the issue. Plenty of planes can land in places where they will never be able to take off from. I found a document showing takeoff distance for an A380 was 9350 feet. For the 787, I found Boeing claims 4280 feet.
there are thousands of 747s out there being used right now
There have been 1381 built as of May 2004. I don't have figures on how many are still in use.
they insist that there's no demand for jumbo jets (not even on routes like mainland to Hawaii)
Aloha airlines flies 737s from the mainland to Hawaii. I've flown a DC-10 out there many many years ago. People don't want to wait for a flight that leaves once a day with 800 people on it. They want one that leaves right now.
I checked Expedia for NY to LA flights and the ones that came up as shortest duration were 737s and A320s and one was a 767. (I believ the 767 DOES qualify as widebody).
Personally, I think it's stupid for airports to charge for takeoffs by weight (should be charging by passenger or cargo load)
I don't think they do usually charge by weight. They usually do by passenger or a flat fee. The flat fee, of course, is discriminatory against smaller planes, as they have fewer passengers to divide it amongst. It also sucks for your little Cessna to have to pay $150, the same as a 747 with 400 people on it.
I've hopped over oceans and it has been on 767s and 777s. I've never even been on a 747, and I doubt I will ever be on an A380.
At most the A380 may be used for crossing coasts (i.e. NY-LA, Miami - LA type flights)
I don't know how to even find this out anymore, but are there even ANY 747 flights within the continental United States anymore? I would think they would all be done more cheaply with 767s or 777s. If that is the case, I doubt that they would utilize an A380.
Of course, according to every airline disaster movie ever made, 747s are the only type of plane that ever experiences inflight emergencies, even on a flight from Kansas City to Saint Louis.
it's also more efficient than a 747 More efficent than a 40 year old design. Wow, that's impressive.
Boeing have been sitting on their backsides for a couple of decades now with the assumption that they would be the king of the airways forever. Today, Airbus handed them their arse. No, today Airbus introduced a larger plane. Regional jets are what is going to kill Boeing AND Airbus. Today's passenger demands to pay a low fare and travel when they want, dammit, and that means smaller planes with more flight cycles. This is what causes congestion at hub airports, but it will be easier to build more reliever airports than to change the mindset of the consumer.
Actually, it's more like ignorance of what they are riding on, because americans are climbing onto non-American and non-European airplanes every day by the thousands, altho i'm sure very few of them realize it. Between Embraer and Bombardier, a lot more airframes are being delivered to US airlines than Boeing and Airbus are providing.
You're probably right. Even seasoned travellers mostly can't tell the difference between a 737 and an A320 by sight. And of course, despite having the manufacturer in big letters on the safety card, most people probably don't know where the plane they are on was built.
Even if they did, its not easy to make a choice with your wallet, because it's not like most routes are going to give you the choice between a Boeing and an Embraer. If it did, it would be on another airline. Most people, given the choice, probably WOULD fly a Boeing, simply because it is larger than a regional jet, and people seem to fear small planes.
this trend can be traced directly back to the product liability lawsuit which halted production at the cessna plants, it was a HUGE wakeup call for the industry, and started the wheels moving in earnest for aircraft manufacturing to get out of the usa.
True. But the lawsuits mostly affected general aviation, not commercial. Commercial aviation in the U.S. has suffered because everyone was trying to build large planes, and there wasn't enough room in the market. Lockheed, Rockwell, Northrop Grumman, and McDonnell-Douglas all realized that there was more money in military aircraft.
The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 did wonders for the GA community by limiting liability to the warranty period. This meant that manufacturers weren't being sued by people who crashed their 50 year old plane anymore (well, they could still be sued, but it was not as likely to be successful). Since then Cessna has rebounded, Piper has become New Piper, Commander unfortunately still went bankrupt, Mooney has changed hands a few times, but keeps building airplanes, Raytheon Beech is still doing well, and what is more interesting is that new companies such as Adam Aircraft, Cirrus Aircraft, Eclipse, Lancair and Liberty have entered the market. In fact, many flight training facilites are buying Cirrus over Cessna for their trainers. Moreover, after years of very little advancement in GA technology, the revitalization act allowed third parties such as avionics manufacturers and so forth to make investments such that most new GA planes now come with glass panels.
Cessna, Lear and Gulfstream still dominate corporate aviation in the United States. Lear is owned by Bombardier now, but still manufactured in Wichita, Kansas.
do you buy a cessna 180, or a cessna 185. Today, it's still simple, you go to canada and buy from Found Brothers, they are the only ones left making that category of airplane.
Cessna makes the Grand Caravan, which can be fitted with a belly pod capable of hauling 4X8 sheets of plywood. There is also the Maule which can be used in rugged terrain.
I've always wondered, is there another industry where the silliness of the us courts have cost the american economy so many trillions of dollars in the long term.
Just about any industry with the word insurance in it, healthcare, etc. Any industry that lets people sue for large settlements, really. The lawyers take their cut, and the extra costs are passed along to us, the consumers. If we won't pay it, the companies go out of business. No industry can prosper in an environment where people are allowed to sue and win even in cases where common sense or proper use would have prevented injury.
I have never flown on a 747. I have flown overseas on 767s and 777s. I have flown internationally from North America to South America on 757s. I have flow to Hawaii on a DC-10 (obviously been a while).
It seems to me that airlines that can't justify multiple large plane flights per day choose instead to fly a single very large flight. Korean Airlines uses a 747 for most of their flights that are once or less per day to the United States. I could see how it could be cheaper to do that than to buy two 777s. In fact, older 747s are probably CHEAPER than a new 777. But a 747 is more expensive to operate.
Over the last couple years, I've noticed a large number of web projects being run & maintained by people who don't understand computer security or system administration.
Well, what do you expect? ACTUAL system administrators cost money. It's far cheaper to find the most computer savvy person in the steno pool and make them the system administrator, and give them a raise up to $28k USD.
You know the person I'm talking about. The one who knows how make cross sheet references in Excel? He'd make a GREAT system administrator! He's a computer GURU!
Yes, and people should be held responsible if a thief steals their car and uses it to run over pedestrians.
I can't count the number of times that someone has told me that HIPAA requires encryption (when it specifically states that it does not require encryption). ... (iv) Encryption and decryption
(Addressable). Implement a mechanism to
encrypt and decrypt electronic protected
health information. in the OCR/HIPAA Privacy/Security/Enforcement Regulation Text. That's the unofficial version. Maybe the official version retracts that. I don't have a copy of the official version.
Well, I can show you 164.312 Technical safeguards. A covered entity must, in accordance with 164.306:
Wow, the strawmen are out today. Are you implying that the delivery company is really a company that steals data, is known for stealing data, and is merely masquerading as a legitimate delivery company? Where is your evidence of this?
You have it backwards. Cheap Bulk mail subsidizes first class mail. It's bulk, remember. It may be cheaper, but they send out thousands of them. Bulk rate minimum is 12 cents. It is usually more like 18 cents and can go up to almost 30 cents.
In your situation, the mailman must come to your box, which takes time. In most cases, he must merely stop at the street. In many communities, regulations will not allow a house mounted mailbox on new construction. It must be on the street. The Postal service does not charge based on the "worst case" of having to go to the box, but on the average case which is a mix of the two. Apartments are even better because they can get hundreds of peoples mail sorted out in maybe five minutes thanks to centralized mail facilities.
The Post office must take into consideration good situations like an apartment building, with bad situations, such as rural routes with one house every mile. Unlike many other delivery companies, they offer the same rate for any mail delivery anywhere in the United States. Great if you like to send mail from New York to California, not so great if you are inviting people to a block party.
The USPS makes money. The billions of peices of bulk mail they send every year helps us to enjoy reasonable first class stamp prices.
Dear Black Pot,
HIPAA doesn't have Special Agents. However, if you bring a complaint to the Department of Health and Human Services, I'm sure you will see some action. Nice strawman, though.
Paul
I imagine they use some statistics to find out that on average the clickthrough to purchase ratio is X percent, but perhaps on your website it was more like X*LargeNumber percent.
The fact that you took them for a couple of checks means that you got some seriously large number of clicks on google ads. I get about 8,000 hits on my server per day, and only about 7 or 8 clicks on google ads per day, resulting in maybe $15 a month. They won't even issue checks unless you have $100, if I remember right.
If you got that many clicks and no one bought anything, that would be cause for some alarm, to be sure. How do you know no one purchased anything. My google reports don't tell me anything about people buying things, just that someone clicked, and what the pay rate of that click is.
Perhaps Google suspected you of telling slashdotters to come to your site and click on Google ads (not saying you did). Such a thing would be in violation of their contract.