I would say if the tenant is renting it out and able to make a profit it is only possible if the landlord is renting below market value. The tenant is merely exploiting the difference between his listed rental price and the market rental to make a profit. In a city with no rent control laws, landlords can always raise the rent to the market price.
The real issue here I suspect is the rent control laws, that force landlords to offer below market rates to tenants - and tenants savy enough to realize the bargain they are getting just sublet their units at the market rent for an easy profit.
I think you missed the part where this texan plumber's truck was featured in the Colbert Report, a segment which was rebroadcast primetime during the emmys, therefore making the subset of people who watched the video and and connected the truck to the business into the millions.
The article also mentions that Homeland Security and the FBI met with him and advised him to carry a gun due to the hundreds of daily calls and threats he was receiving. There is cause for him to be concerned with his safety here.
I've had the new edition trick pulled in most textbooks I was assigned in university. In my calculus classes, the new edition would essentially consist of swapping around the homework assignment numbers and shuffling sections around to make it difficult for students to follow using older editions.
Fortunately, I had a calculus teacher who was sympathetic to students and at the beggining of every class would release a table showing what the equivalent page numbers were for each edition for that day's material, and a table with equivalent homework assignment numbers per edition at the end of class. This allowed students to use older, cheaper editions if they wished
The irony was that that course had the highest percentage students buying new textbooks of all the courses I took in university, because students felt the book maintained value by being re-usable year over year through the teacher's equivalency tables for each edition, and so could easily resell them at the course's end.
So instead of having jobs, in Holacracy people have roles. Each role belongs to a circle rather than a department, and circles are guided not by managers but by lead links.
So it sounds like you still have the same hierarchical management structure as before, out of organizational necessity. Except you've renamed the roles and the managers / lead links have the same added responsibility but no extra pay
Business and practical considerations will mean that BMW's and other automakers gradual approach to automation will prevail. A gradual approach allows automakers to recoup their investment immediately, and allows automakers to fine tune their technology as each aspect of automation is rolled out. It is also important to note that regulatory agencies will react and set the rules for new autonomous vehicles on the road based on the technology that is on the road, so those carmakers rolling out the technology first - those with a gradual approach - will have a greater input on the regulatory nature of that technology. The risk for Google as that as the other automakers will end up defining that regulatory environment, their technology will be obsolete from a regulatory standpoint by the time it is rolled out.
As much as I like Google's approach from an engineering standpoint, the truth is Google is already being left behind in autonomous car technology. Other auto makers are already introducing various aspects of self driving - from automatic emergency braking, lane assist, adaptive cruise control - so that by the time Google has their self-driving vehicles ready for the market, the major automakers will already have a road-test, established and entrenched set of technology they're working with.
It could present a political conundrum of sorts for the Obama administration.
How naive... they will respond as they always do with almost all these petitions - with a generic form letter statement that will provide vague reassurances that they are "looking into the issue", give no concrete plan for addressing the core demands while mostly evading the question. Anybody who thinks these petitions are worth the paper they are signed on and that the White House actually pays attention to them is deluded.
Well, just like how conclusive carbon dating of the shroud of Turin to the medieval period completely eliminated the throngs of faithful who believed in its miraculous origins
Or how the discovery of the Tomb of Jesus, which would appear to completely invalidate the ressurection and divine origin of Jesus, caused Christian worldwide to renounce their faith.
The faithful will continue to believe, regardless of the scientific evidence. And in this case, as the summary itself mentions, there's a perfect reasonable explanation for the date - the parchment could have been an older parchment that was re-used, which happened often enough in that time period. This will change nothing.
Yes, obese passengers have caused air crashes before. The most infamous one I can think of was a Cessna Caravan 208 that crashed in Pelee, Ontario. The findings of the report showed that the average passenger weight was 240lbs in that flight, whereas the airline was using an average weight for men of 188lbs at the time, which contributed to the aircraft being over 500lbs than estimated. This is a bigger issue with small aircraft, where your weight margin is much tighter.
Also note that passenger weight doesn't only include his body weight - it also includes all his carry-on belongings and clothings. Which is another reason a party of hunters with heavy winter clothing and hunting gear can weigh significantly above average as in the above crash
If it was above his property and below 500ft, the drone was trespassing. You own the airspace above your property, up to where FAA regulated airspace begins. Which is why New York property owners are able to sell the air above their property through air rights for millions of dollars.
Perhaps the property owner was reckless with firing a shotgun, but the drone operator should in the very least be charged with trespassing.
Not to mention that most of the railway trackage that would have to be built, in both the Russian and the American sides, would be mostly going through permafrost. Permafrost is not the most stable foundation for a railway bed - when the Chinese built the Qinghai-Tibet railway they had to include passive cooling with ammonia refrigerant to keep the soil at a stable temperature, and avoid warping of the tracks. And even then, they are running the risks of having to reconstruct the permafrost section of the track due to unanticipated global warming effects. The chinese only had a short 500km section with which they had to contend with permafrost. The Russian-American railroad would have to contend with thousands of kilometers of permafrost.
And if there were really that much of a business case for a US to China railway connection, the same case could be argued for a China to Europe railway connection,which already exists. Yet despite being a more direct route to Europe than an ocean route, the existing Eurasian Land Bridge only carries 1% of the China-Europe trade. The vastly more expensive US to China connection would be an even more dubious business case.
The difference is that you own the property rights including air rights above your property up to 500ft, so any aircraft flying below that altitude above your property is trespassing. Ownership of air rights is an old and established concept from as far back as medieval roman law - "Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad caelum et ad inferos", or "For whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to Heaven and down to Hell". In modern times a practical limit of 500ft has been established by the US supreme court for air rights above your property, in urban areas extending to 1000ft. This has been sufficiently established that one's air rights above your property can be sold, and in places like New York City can command large sums of money.
So whether the drone was 50ft or 200ft is irrelevant - he was still trespassing on his property either way.
This was already decided by the US supreme court as 500ft above your property. See Griggs v. Allegheny County (1962).
Air rights over your property are a clearly defined and old concept - it was already established in medieval roman law. They're an established form of property rights, so much so that in many locales air rights over one's property can be sold for substantial sums. NYC developers in particular have been keen in acquiring property air rights.
I once assisted a university physics laboratory that was using a mechanical hydro-fluidics computer originally developed in the 1950s. Because it was used as a controller in a radiation environment which would have interfered with electronic computers, it was never replaced. To my knowledge, the computer is still used precisely because it fills such an important niche.
The synopsis reads like a poorly written press release from an illiterate goat herder trying to promote his personal blog. Slashdot should be ashamed of putting this in its front page.
The biggest problem is that there is large length of time between deciding on a degree and getting a job after graduation. A typical STEM degree will take 4-5 years, and another 2-3 to complete a master's degree, unfortunately a requirement for many positions. With the 7-year gap between entering a degree program and graduation, the employment market could fundamentally change. Degrees that pay well currently do so because there is a shortage of qualified people in those programs - if large number of people enter those programs, it is likely there will be a glut of people later on in those programs, and the wages will return to average levels.
True, but now you have to ensure that the drone won't accidentally veer off course and accidentally strike the aircraft, causing a very expensive repair job.
I would think that if you wanted to merely snap photos of the top of the aircraft, one could mount cameras at the top of the hangar looking down, to provide an overview of the aircraft. More reliable than a drone and no need for operator training.
1) They get a third of the number of foreign students that the United States attracts
2) German universities tend to be a "no-frill" affair, with large auditoriums, limited to no athletics programs, and none of the social life seen in American campuses, Most students tend to study locally, so generally there are no dorms. They are more comparable with American state colleges. This isn't a bad thing, in my opinion, but those who go to college hoping for the experience of the "college life" will be disappointed if they go to Germany.
The intention of the IMF is not to help those it gives money to. The intention is basically to control them.
If you accept money from someone, don't be surprised if they try to put conditions on how you spend the money. When you're begging for money in the international market because no private investor will give you a loan due to your reckless spending behaviour, don't be surprised that donors ask for conditions on how that money is spent. If the Greeks didn't want conditions, they could always radically cut expenses to meet tax revenues and not be dependent on any handouts to make the budget balance.
The summary makes it sound like all of the bills are AGAINST ride sharing... but that's not the case. For instance, in Massachusetts(which is highlighted in the summary) Uber is actively campaigning FOR the regulation bill.
Why?
Because the bill states once and for all that ride sharing is a legal activity. Yes, it puts some protections in place: but not much beyond what Uber already provides.
As someone that uses Uber quite a bit (2-3 times per month) I welcome the new legislation as long as it allows Uber to continue to operate. Regulation is not all bad, as long as it is fair and reasonable.
There already exists taxi regulations that cover Uber, which in every respect is taxi company. However, you're dead right as to why Uber is pushing for these changes - it allows them to operate and claim legitimacy, while providing a framework of regulation that is a "light" version of what real taxi companies have to deal with, addressing only the most egregious flouting of commercial taxi operations such as commercial insurance and background checks. These so-called ridesharing regulations appear to completely ignore allowable fare increases (Uber's surge pricing), who they can or cannot pick up, handicap access, amongst others. They are a way for Uber to legitimize into law their competitive advantage.
People have to live somewhere. As Seattle grows, if not from Amazon's expansion from other economic growth, the people moving in will need places to live. Placing those people in townhouses replacing low-rise bungalows is a good thing, in my opinion. The alternative is to expand the city ever outward, creating more suburbs. Instead what seems to be happening is that previously suburban neighbourhoods are becoming urbanized. Increased densification of these neighbourhoods makes public transport more viable, and will likely increase local commerce, making it a more walkable neighbourhood. I might have chosen a different architectural style for those townhouses, but overall I don't see how this is anything but a positive direction of urban development.
The current fascination with smart watches reminds me when I was in high school in the 80s and there was a brief fad of full feature electronic watches. Calculator watches were in the geek must have list, but there were also kids with watches featuring radios or mini-LCD screen games. There was even a rumour of a someone in school with a tv watch, which as it turns out wasn't so far from the truth.
None of these watches were very successful, for the simple reason that the watch as a form factor was never well suited for these tasks. Trying to use a calculator in a watch was slow and frustrating. It seems that the people trying to cram features into watches nowadays have forgotten how much of failure this was when it was attempted in the 80s
Would it not have been possible to have controlled the impact into the visible side of Mercury? I am assuming being able to witness the impact itself, and getting close-up photos of Mercury as Messenger was coming down, might have been valuable science to obtain.
So Turkish nationalists are buying Google adwords. What's the problem with that? It's an exercise of free speech (for a position that I disagree with)
Free speech applies to your interactions with the government - it does not apply to a private company. If Google did not wish to publish an ad that may damage their brand and business, that would be their own decision to make. Print publications already have policies on what is acceptable advertising, and will readily reject any ads seen as offensive and racist. Ad space is always limited - there is no reason they have to publish this ad over another less offensive ad.
When faced with incredible claims of medical cure, the Catholic Church has rigorous processes in place to verify that claim, which includes the testimonial of medical experts and independent confirmation.
When a medieval religious institution can be considered a model of fact-checking and skepticism compared to the media, the state of current journalism is in deep trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
I would say if the tenant is renting it out and able to make a profit it is only possible if the landlord is renting below market value. The tenant is merely exploiting the difference between his listed rental price and the market rental to make a profit. In a city with no rent control laws, landlords can always raise the rent to the market price.
The real issue here I suspect is the rent control laws, that force landlords to offer below market rates to tenants - and tenants savy enough to realize the bargain they are getting just sublet their units at the market rent for an easy profit.
I think you missed the part where this texan plumber's truck was featured in the Colbert Report, a segment which was rebroadcast primetime during the emmys, therefore making the subset of people who watched the video and and connected the truck to the business into the millions.
The article also mentions that Homeland Security and the FBI met with him and advised him to carry a gun due to the hundreds of daily calls and threats he was receiving. There is cause for him to be concerned with his safety here.
I've had the new edition trick pulled in most textbooks I was assigned in university. In my calculus classes, the new edition would essentially consist of swapping around the homework assignment numbers and shuffling sections around to make it difficult for students to follow using older editions.
Fortunately, I had a calculus teacher who was sympathetic to students and at the beggining of every class would release a table showing what the equivalent page numbers were for each edition for that day's material, and a table with equivalent homework assignment numbers per edition at the end of class. This allowed students to use older, cheaper editions if they wished
The irony was that that course had the highest percentage students buying new textbooks of all the courses I took in university, because students felt the book maintained value by being re-usable year over year through the teacher's equivalency tables for each edition, and so could easily resell them at the course's end.
So instead of having jobs, in Holacracy people have roles. Each role belongs to a circle rather than a department, and circles are guided not by managers but by lead links.
So it sounds like you still have the same hierarchical management structure as before, out of organizational necessity. Except you've renamed the roles and the managers / lead links have the same added responsibility but no extra pay
Business and practical considerations will mean that BMW's and other automakers gradual approach to automation will prevail. A gradual approach allows automakers to recoup their investment immediately, and allows automakers to fine tune their technology as each aspect of automation is rolled out. It is also important to note that regulatory agencies will react and set the rules for new autonomous vehicles on the road based on the technology that is on the road, so those carmakers rolling out the technology first - those with a gradual approach - will have a greater input on the regulatory nature of that technology. The risk for Google as that as the other automakers will end up defining that regulatory environment, their technology will be obsolete from a regulatory standpoint by the time it is rolled out.
As much as I like Google's approach from an engineering standpoint, the truth is Google is already being left behind in autonomous car technology. Other auto makers are already introducing various aspects of self driving - from automatic emergency braking, lane assist, adaptive cruise control - so that by the time Google has their self-driving vehicles ready for the market, the major automakers will already have a road-test, established and entrenched set of technology they're working with.
It could present a political conundrum of sorts for the Obama administration.
How naive... they will respond as they always do with almost all these petitions - with a generic form letter statement that will provide vague reassurances that they are "looking into the issue", give no concrete plan for addressing the core demands while mostly evading the question. Anybody who thinks these petitions are worth the paper they are signed on and that the White House actually pays attention to them is deluded.
Well, just like how conclusive carbon dating of the shroud of Turin to the medieval period completely eliminated the throngs of faithful who believed in its miraculous origins
Or how the discovery of the Tomb of Jesus, which would appear to completely invalidate the ressurection and divine origin of Jesus, caused Christian worldwide to renounce their faith.
The faithful will continue to believe, regardless of the scientific evidence. And in this case, as the summary itself mentions, there's a perfect reasonable explanation for the date - the parchment could have been an older parchment that was re-used, which happened often enough in that time period. This will change nothing.
Yes, obese passengers have caused air crashes before. The most infamous one I can think of was a Cessna Caravan 208 that crashed in Pelee, Ontario. The findings of the report showed that the average passenger weight was 240lbs in that flight, whereas the airline was using an average weight for men of 188lbs at the time, which contributed to the aircraft being over 500lbs than estimated. This is a bigger issue with small aircraft, where your weight margin is much tighter.
Also note that passenger weight doesn't only include his body weight - it also includes all his carry-on belongings and clothings. Which is another reason a party of hunters with heavy winter clothing and hunting gear can weigh significantly above average as in the above crash
If it was above his property and below 500ft, the drone was trespassing. You own the airspace above your property, up to where FAA regulated airspace begins. Which is why New York property owners are able to sell the air above their property through air rights for millions of dollars.
Perhaps the property owner was reckless with firing a shotgun, but the drone operator should in the very least be charged with trespassing.
Not to mention that most of the railway trackage that would have to be built, in both the Russian and the American sides, would be mostly going through permafrost. Permafrost is not the most stable foundation for a railway bed - when the Chinese built the Qinghai-Tibet railway they had to include passive cooling with ammonia refrigerant to keep the soil at a stable temperature, and avoid warping of the tracks. And even then, they are running the risks of having to reconstruct the permafrost section of the track due to unanticipated global warming effects. The chinese only had a short 500km section with which they had to contend with permafrost. The Russian-American railroad would have to contend with thousands of kilometers of permafrost.
And if there were really that much of a business case for a US to China railway connection, the same case could be argued for a China to Europe railway connection,which already exists. Yet despite being a more direct route to Europe than an ocean route, the existing Eurasian Land Bridge only carries 1% of the China-Europe trade. The vastly more expensive US to China connection would be an even more dubious business case.
The difference is that you own the property rights including air rights above your property up to 500ft, so any aircraft flying below that altitude above your property is trespassing. Ownership of air rights is an old and established concept from as far back as medieval roman law - "Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad caelum et ad inferos", or "For whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to Heaven and down to Hell". In modern times a practical limit of 500ft has been established by the US supreme court for air rights above your property, in urban areas extending to 1000ft. This has been sufficiently established that one's air rights above your property can be sold, and in places like New York City can command large sums of money.
So whether the drone was 50ft or 200ft is irrelevant - he was still trespassing on his property either way.
This was already decided by the US supreme court as 500ft above your property. See Griggs v. Allegheny County (1962). Air rights over your property are a clearly defined and old concept - it was already established in medieval roman law. They're an established form of property rights, so much so that in many locales air rights over one's property can be sold for substantial sums. NYC developers in particular have been keen in acquiring property air rights.
I once assisted a university physics laboratory that was using a mechanical hydro-fluidics computer originally developed in the 1950s. Because it was used as a controller in a radiation environment which would have interfered with electronic computers, it was never replaced. To my knowledge, the computer is still used precisely because it fills such an important niche.
The synopsis reads like a poorly written press release from an illiterate goat herder trying to promote his personal blog. Slashdot should be ashamed of putting this in its front page.
The biggest problem is that there is large length of time between deciding on a degree and getting a job after graduation. A typical STEM degree will take 4-5 years, and another 2-3 to complete a master's degree, unfortunately a requirement for many positions. With the 7-year gap between entering a degree program and graduation, the employment market could fundamentally change. Degrees that pay well currently do so because there is a shortage of qualified people in those programs - if large number of people enter those programs, it is likely there will be a glut of people later on in those programs, and the wages will return to average levels.
True, but now you have to ensure that the drone won't accidentally veer off course and accidentally strike the aircraft, causing a very expensive repair job. I would think that if you wanted to merely snap photos of the top of the aircraft, one could mount cameras at the top of the hangar looking down, to provide an overview of the aircraft. More reliable than a drone and no need for operator training.
They can afford it because:
1) They get a third of the number of foreign students that the United States attracts
2) German universities tend to be a "no-frill" affair, with large auditoriums, limited to no athletics programs, and none of the social life seen in American campuses, Most students tend to study locally, so generally there are no dorms. They are more comparable with American state colleges. This isn't a bad thing, in my opinion, but those who go to college hoping for the experience of the "college life" will be disappointed if they go to Germany.
The intention of the IMF is not to help those it gives money to. The intention is basically to control them.
If you accept money from someone, don't be surprised if they try to put conditions on how you spend the money. When you're begging for money in the international market because no private investor will give you a loan due to your reckless spending behaviour, don't be surprised that donors ask for conditions on how that money is spent. If the Greeks didn't want conditions, they could always radically cut expenses to meet tax revenues and not be dependent on any handouts to make the budget balance.
The summary makes it sound like all of the bills are AGAINST ride sharing... but that's not the case. For instance, in Massachusetts(which is highlighted in the summary) Uber is actively campaigning FOR the regulation bill.
Why?
Because the bill states once and for all that ride sharing is a legal activity. Yes, it puts some protections in place: but not much beyond what Uber already provides.
As someone that uses Uber quite a bit (2-3 times per month) I welcome the new legislation as long as it allows Uber to continue to operate. Regulation is not all bad, as long as it is fair and reasonable.
There already exists taxi regulations that cover Uber, which in every respect is taxi company. However, you're dead right as to why Uber is pushing for these changes - it allows them to operate and claim legitimacy, while providing a framework of regulation that is a "light" version of what real taxi companies have to deal with, addressing only the most egregious flouting of commercial taxi operations such as commercial insurance and background checks. These so-called ridesharing regulations appear to completely ignore allowable fare increases (Uber's surge pricing), who they can or cannot pick up, handicap access, amongst others. They are a way for Uber to legitimize into law their competitive advantage.
does having a single- or limited-purpose device make really make sense for consumables?
Fixed that for you. Single use devices never made sense for coffee either.
People have to live somewhere. As Seattle grows, if not from Amazon's expansion from other economic growth, the people moving in will need places to live. Placing those people in townhouses replacing low-rise bungalows is a good thing, in my opinion. The alternative is to expand the city ever outward, creating more suburbs. Instead what seems to be happening is that previously suburban neighbourhoods are becoming urbanized. Increased densification of these neighbourhoods makes public transport more viable, and will likely increase local commerce, making it a more walkable neighbourhood. I might have chosen a different architectural style for those townhouses, but overall I don't see how this is anything but a positive direction of urban development.
The current fascination with smart watches reminds me when I was in high school in the 80s and there was a brief fad of full feature electronic watches. Calculator watches were in the geek must have list, but there were also kids with watches featuring radios or mini-LCD screen games. There was even a rumour of a someone in school with a tv watch, which as it turns out wasn't so far from the truth.
None of these watches were very successful, for the simple reason that the watch as a form factor was never well suited for these tasks. Trying to use a calculator in a watch was slow and frustrating. It seems that the people trying to cram features into watches nowadays have forgotten how much of failure this was when it was attempted in the 80s
Would it not have been possible to have controlled the impact into the visible side of Mercury? I am assuming being able to witness the impact itself, and getting close-up photos of Mercury as Messenger was coming down, might have been valuable science to obtain.
So Turkish nationalists are buying Google adwords. What's the problem with that? It's an exercise of free speech (for a position that I disagree with)
Free speech applies to your interactions with the government - it does not apply to a private company. If Google did not wish to publish an ad that may damage their brand and business, that would be their own decision to make. Print publications already have policies on what is acceptable advertising, and will readily reject any ads seen as offensive and racist. Ad space is always limited - there is no reason they have to publish this ad over another less offensive ad.
When faced with incredible claims of medical cure, the Catholic Church has rigorous processes in place to verify that claim, which includes the testimonial of medical experts and independent confirmation.
When a medieval religious institution can be considered a model of fact-checking and skepticism compared to the media, the state of current journalism is in deep trouble.