A commune living in a multi-hundred-ton cylinder of concrete and steel floating a dozen miles offshore had better have some damn valuable product to overcome the huge costs of infrastructure and risk
Well, seeing as value is subjective, here are some potential ones for starters:
Hands-on research for future ventures into seasteading A place of business independent from international law -- this alone may be worth millions and millions Site for research into renewable energy Site for research into carbon sequestration
The other thing I think you're missing is that the amount of money being invested doesn't need to be compared to the fiscal return of the venture. In this case, the capital is a drp in the bucket, and failure means nothing (fiscally) to the investor. Any positive return (in research, even just in publicity, or even just if it makes the investor feel good) outweighs the relative benefit he derives from the cash.
In other words, the extremely wealthy can do things just for the sake of doing them -- there is no profit incentive.
They can't just write it off, that violates SOX and GAAP. Sure, it's not a big hit on the books, but all assets need to be tracked properly -- this is to prevent ocmpanies (and other orgs) from using fixed assets as cost sinks in order to reduce profitability (e.g. taxes) without affecting their cash position.
Plus, there is no guarantee that it had an NBV of 0 (or even $100,000) -- it's quite possible, that since this was considered a custom build or considered to have some kind of historical or other value, that it was not being depreciated. Or perhaps is was accounted as a non-financial asset, which does not depreciate.
At any rate, there are plenty of reasons why an asset of that magnitude needs to be tracked, and why losing it is bad. Plus, it helps to understand that if someone requests that it be written off, it looks really bad on the books if it's not part of the normal process. Whoever puts in the writeoff request is going to get lambasted, and might very probably be formally reprimanded or fired.
Keep in mind that bureaucratic systems punish deviation from process pretty harshly, since the process is what enable the system to continue in operation.
Either something is detrimental in solving environmental problems or it is helpful in solving them
No, it is not a dichotomy. I guess I was unclear about what the "misstatements" are detrimental to... they are detrimental to the usefulness of the statements... so while the statements would be more useful if they were not misleading, they are still useful to some extent.
I think (from the ton of responses I got all in the smae line of thought) that what I did not communicate clearly was that while the information is not useful, the press it gets and the focus it brings to environmental concerns is useful.
But, as I think I've either explicitly stated or hinted at in nearly every post in this thread, any information needs to be considered in the context of its source -- so people need to weigh how much they trust Greenpeace (or any other source). Either way, having information, as long as one knows to what degree one can trust it, is always beneficial.
Except that anyone who sees the headline and promptly dismisses it may then consider the issue next time they purchase a console. "Hey, maybe there is an environmental issue with this product... maybe I should look into it."
It doesn't matter if the source they go to for research is Greenpeace or not (and hopefully, it is not:))... but the point is that environmental concerns enter into the realm of possibilities for some buyers.
The ones we use that are able to triangulate (2-D with two readers, 3-D with 3 readers)
Huh? How does one triangulate in n dimensions without n+1 receivers?
For two dimensions, I understand it as follows... place one reader in the plane of the objects, and one outside the plane. The circle you get from combining the data from the two readers will intersect the plane in two points, so at best you can get a set of two possible locations for the object. If the readers are sufficiently accurate (and precise!), and the readers are placed close to each other, the circle can be small enough that the two points of intersection with the plane are within your margin of error... note that the margin of error will at any rate have its upper limit as the distance between the readers. I'd assume that cost goes up as accuracy does.
But how does one triangulate in three dimensions with only three receivers? At best you can get a set of possible locations... any mathematicians care to walk me through this one, since I seem to be geometrically challenged right now? Or is it just a matter, as with two dimensions, of highly accurate and precise readers placed very close to eachother?
There's bullshit on both ends of the spectrum, my friend, and labeling any of them terrorists is misleading, inaccurate, and harmful to your own point -- if you have one.
I understand the 'boy who cried wolf' phenomenon, but at the very least, Greenpeace calls attention to environmental issues, which are often overlooked. I realize that Greenpeace exaggerates, etc -- but just because they are an untrustworthy source doesn't mean that I should discount all environmental concerns during purchasing.
Whether one believes that Greenpeace is a self-promoting attention whore, or whether one believes that they are an environment-promoting attention whore, they are at least raising awareness of issues.
Considering that many people do not consider environmental issues at all when purchasing (unless there is direct benefit to them, such as with lower operating costs from electricity usage), I think any attention being called to these issues is valuable.
To get into it a little deeper, environmental damage caused by products is often an external cost to the producer company. If it's not factored into the purchase decision by the buyer, and the company is not forced by regulation to bear the cost, then it gets dropped from the equation, and the public at large bears the cost. This is inefficient from a market perspective, and irresponsible from a social perspective.
Anything that tilts the scales towards environmental awareness & consideration is a good thing in my book. As far as I'm concerned, there is a spectrum of BS on environmental issues, ranging from the pseudoscience of industry groups to the pseudoscience of some environmental organizations. It's up to the individual to determine what messenger(s) to trust, but Greenpeace is no less valid a messenger than industry groups (who often are worse, since they often mask who they are and who they work for).
To sum up, there are extremists on both ends, and better information sources somewhere in the middle -- but without a counterweight such as Greenpeace, the entire spectrum will shift towards the industry groups who are purely propaganda and serve only to publish propaganda.
No, I said what I did because of how & what he wrote. Calling people idiots is pretty trollish.
And if you bothered reading my post, and understanding the point I made, you would know exactly why I don't consider it useless.
Instead, you have made a half-cocked reply based upon one line in my email without considering the context or the points that I made.
One line taken out of context is as misleading as anything Greenpeace does.
So, to restate my point (in case it wasn't clear):
Greenpeace's antics, while flawed, are not useless, as they draw attention to environmental concerns which may otherwise be overlooked in the purchasing process.
This has nothing to do with Greenpeace being attention whores any more than companies are attention whores for promoting their product.
More useless propaganda, and the idiots that fall for it.
Nice troll-ish leadin, I'll bite.
Propaganda is not useless, and this particular propaganda is definitely not useless. Environmental concerns are very real, and bringing attention to them serves a useful purpose. By making consumers aware of environmental concerns with products, consumers may factor them into their purchase decisions. Without information about environmental practices, there is no way for purchasers to compare products along those lines.
So I ask you, why is it useless for purchasers to have more information when purchasing a product?
Note that this doesn't mean that Greenpeace doesn't use misleading information, which while not useless is detrimental. But Greenpeace uses publicity campaigns in order to affect the decisions made by consumers... and there is nothing wrong with that. In my opinion, it is a useful counter to the corporate propaganda (advertising/marketing) that runs practically unchecked.
All that said, one would be wise to take any information from an interested party with a grain of salt. Whether it's Greenpeace, industry organizations, or the producing company itself, critical analysis always helps... but dismissing information out-of-hand is probably the most useless act to take with regards to market choices.
Make the ballot display on a computer screen and let the user select the options he wants. When you are done, I punches a human readable card with the results.
Uh-oh, looks like VoteNet has become self-aware.
First off, I hope it can parse sentences well
Second, I hope it takes some grammar lessons.
Finally, note to self: Voting machines are self-aware and capable of fisticuffs. Do not kick the machine for recording the wrong vote next election day... if it wants to record a vote for $CANDIDATE, I'll damn well let it.
The mechanical elephant: Frustrated by a lack of decent tarmac in the jungle, DARPA sought to create a "mechanical elephant" during the Vietnam war. Its vision of high-tech Hannibal's piloting them through the forest never came true. It is alleged that when the director heard of the plan he scrapped the "damn fool" project immediately in the hope no one would hear about it.
Subsequent to the pulling of funding for the mechanical elephant, the head of the project suggested, "What if we build a large metal badger...?"
Seriously, tohugh, sounds to me like someone wanted to build an AT-AT.
Problem two is that the inventory system at Tech doesn't account for depreciation. At all.
All of a sudden, in 2005, this freaking thing shows up in our inventory, marked as "missing", with a value of negative $1.5 million
Problem three is that you don't have an understanding of how depreciation works on the books.
When you purchase an asset, you record the full value of the asset on your books. When you depreciate it, you DO NOT reduce the value of that asset on your gross block, or for inventory control. Instead you record an entry to depreciatoin expense, with an offset to accumulated depreciation.
For any asset, its net book value is cost less accumulated depreciation.
When you get rid of the asset, you wipe out the cost of the asset, and you also wipe out the accumulated depreciation on the asset, for a net ntransaction of zero (if the asset is fully depreciated).
Basically, the COST of an asset on your books (which is what was on your physical inventory list) does not match to the NET BOOK VALUE of an asset.
This is a really common misperception among IT folks, I think it's the third time in as many months that I've posted to clear it up...
I think your first statement is true for the time being, but I think it's changing. As the tech industry continues to mature, we'll see increased specialization -- and narrow roles are ideal for offshoring. I have a contact who runs a small offshorin company that specifically serves small businesses. What he has done is hired tech staff in India who perform narrow roles, but do so for multiple clients. So then, instead of paying local labor $120-$180 an hour (depending on the function), they pay his company $105/hr -- and his cost, including management, works out to about $90/ tech hour. Note that any work require on an urgent (same-day, not overnight) basis is billed out at $150/hr, so his clients can get urgent service when required.
Anyway, my point is that offshoring can work for small companies when done correctly -- the trick is to outsource the offshoring.
As for the current "shortage", I think that has more to do with the demographics of tech workers. There are plenty of experienced tech workers, but a shortage of young (inexpensive) IT professionals -- the floor-workers, so to speak. Some of this has to do with the offshoring scare, some of it has to do with the changing nature of the industry & the appeal to students, some of it is due to the dotcom bust... but I think the biggest factor is the growth of the industry. There is simply more demand for tech workers than there was 5 years ago because tech is becoming an unavoidable aspect of modern business.
I don't think it makes people's opinions irrelevant -- but I do think that opinions need to be considered in the context of who is expressing them, and what their background is. And I think that in order to have true understanding of a topic (for me, on a personal level) it's important to try to consider the source of my knowledge & feelings on the topic.
It's the phrase 'know thyself' applied to understanding of external concepts.
Oh, and the [1] was because the last paragraph was going to be a footnote, but I ended up getting rid if the content inbetween & forgot to get rid of the [1]... I realized that I was starting to get into a lengthy post about the philosophy of government, which is what I expressly wanted to avoid:)
It doesn't directly contradict it, why is why I wanted to bring up the point... yes, the Chinese want non-lethal crowd control... but your reasoning in saying that there is no problem with us providing it is based upon the statement that the Chinese seem to be content with their government. What I inferred is that because the Chinese people are OK with their government, then it can't be that bad -- and there is then no moral issue with supplying that government with tools to suppress dissent.
I believe this to be potentially false, because contentment with the current government may be predicated on ignorance of better (or different) government. Only if the Chinese public is content when they are
(1) Able to change their government (2) Aware that they can change their government, and (3) Aware of alternative government styles
should we allow their contentment to affect our approval/disapproval of the Chinese government.
Sure, it's pretty idealistic, but without ideals tp strive for there can be no progress.
The more concerning issue is the major bane of jet powered flight - bird hits. At the speed they are talking about, a bird hitting this guy in the head, even with a helmet, stands a good chance of knocking him out. Then you're going to have a dead bird as well as a dead wing-rider.
Meh... hook up some monitoring systems and have the parachute autodeploy. So he has to get some reconcstructive surgery... big whoop.
The bigger concern, I would think, would be avoiding the amorous attentions of Rodan. No amount of plastic surgery is going to help you cope with THAT.
Let me introduce you to the concepts of aerodynamics, lift, wing shape, etc... WHOA! What was that? I think that guy just flew right over my head... something did.
However, China is not Burma and by and large the population is content with their government.
Without getting into a big discussion about the philosophy of government, I just want to point out that China has a long cultural history of obedience to authority. My understanding is that the common perception is that there is nothing to be done about government, so the best thing to do is to either bend it to your needs (via bribe, etc) or just accept it as an immoveable constraint.
The reason I bring this up is that lack of protest is not necessarily a sign of contentment with government. And without access to specific kinds of foreign media, there is no way for the Chinese public to become aware that government is, in fact, a mutable thing.
IOW, most Chinese are content with their government because they know nothing different or because they have been indoctrinated with propaganda about their government. By the way, this applies to a lot of people all over the world, including Americans [1].
And here come the kneejerk flamebait mods. Sorry if I've offended some of the super-patriots haunting the halls of Slashdot, but we are all products of what is around us -- and being taught from age 5 that your country is the best is hard to overcome.
All the technical jobs are being offshored to India, Brazil, Argentina, etc. and anyone who keeps their job will likely get their pay continually cut.
Pay will not be cut. Instead, those with a knack for managing offsite teams will be promoted (with or without a nominal raise) and others will be laid off. However, those laid off and looking for a new job will find that pay for equivalent positions will climb more slowly than inflation.
So, in today's dollars, pay will shrink over time -- but cutting pay is a huge no-no in the business world. Wage freezes + inflation will create the same effect with much less impact on employee morale.
It is actually over 26,000 years old, we were just able to see in in the last 140 years.
Well, it's 26,000 years old from our perspective -- but from it's perspective, it's only 140 years old from the perspective of the evidence. Remember, it's traveling at the speed of light, so time has stopped.
Or something like that, I didn't bother to RTFToR either.
His performance metrics primarily include duration of uptime and average time need to recover from downtime. He has expanded the scope of his role to fill the requirements.
He is able to handle repetitive tasks well. He does not think outside the box. He is good at getting his workgroup to multitask. His staff responds well to stress. Work/life balance may be an issue -- he always makes his work come first.
Slashdot Mirror
17% of people approve of the job their elected officials are doing, and want them to wear lapel pins to stop bullets.
83% wouldn't mind so much if the bullets weren't stopped.
Hands-on research for future ventures into seasteading
A place of business independent from international law -- this alone may be worth millions and millions
Site for research into renewable energy
Site for research into carbon sequestration
The other thing I think you're missing is that the amount of money being invested doesn't need to be compared to the fiscal return of the venture. In this case, the capital is a drp in the bucket, and failure means nothing (fiscally) to the investor. Any positive return (in research, even just in publicity, or even just if it makes the investor feel good) outweighs the relative benefit he derives from the cash.
In other words, the extremely wealthy can do things just for the sake of doing them -- there is no profit incentive.
Sorry for delay in response.
They can't just write it off, that violates SOX and GAAP. Sure, it's not a big hit on the books, but all assets need to be tracked properly -- this is to prevent ocmpanies (and other orgs) from using fixed assets as cost sinks in order to reduce profitability (e.g. taxes) without affecting their cash position.
Plus, there is no guarantee that it had an NBV of 0 (or even $100,000) -- it's quite possible, that since this was considered a custom build or considered to have some kind of historical or other value, that it was not being depreciated. Or perhaps is was accounted as a non-financial asset, which does not depreciate.
At any rate, there are plenty of reasons why an asset of that magnitude needs to be tracked, and why losing it is bad. Plus, it helps to understand that if someone requests that it be written off, it looks really bad on the books if it's not part of the normal process. Whoever puts in the writeoff request is going to get lambasted, and might very probably be formally reprimanded or fired.
Keep in mind that bureaucratic systems punish deviation from process pretty harshly, since the process is what enable the system to continue in operation.
I think (from the ton of responses I got all in the smae line of thought) that what I did not communicate clearly was that while the information is not useful, the press it gets and the focus it brings to environmental concerns is useful.
But, as I think I've either explicitly stated or hinted at in nearly every post in this thread, any information needs to be considered in the context of its source -- so people need to weigh how much they trust Greenpeace (or any other source). Either way, having information, as long as one knows to what degree one can trust it, is always beneficial.
Except that anyone who sees the headline and promptly dismisses it may then consider the issue next time they purchase a console. "Hey, maybe there is an environmental issue with this product... maybe I should look into it."
:))... but the point is that environmental concerns enter into the realm of possibilities for some buyers.
It doesn't matter if the source they go to for research is Greenpeace or not (and hopefully, it is not
For two dimensions, I understand it as follows... place one reader in the plane of the objects, and one outside the plane. The circle you get from combining the data from the two readers will intersect the plane in two points, so at best you can get a set of two possible locations for the object. If the readers are sufficiently accurate (and precise!), and the readers are placed close to each other, the circle can be small enough that the two points of intersection with the plane are within your margin of error... note that the margin of error will at any rate have its upper limit as the distance between the readers. I'd assume that cost goes up as accuracy does.
But how does one triangulate in three dimensions with only three receivers? At best you can get a set of possible locations... any mathematicians care to walk me through this one, since I seem to be geometrically challenged right now? Or is it just a matter, as with two dimensions, of highly accurate and precise readers placed very close to eachother?
As opposed to listening to the corporaterrorists?
There's bullshit on both ends of the spectrum, my friend, and labeling any of them terrorists is misleading, inaccurate, and harmful to your own point -- if you have one.
I understand the 'boy who cried wolf' phenomenon, but at the very least, Greenpeace calls attention to environmental issues, which are often overlooked. I realize that Greenpeace exaggerates, etc -- but just because they are an untrustworthy source doesn't mean that I should discount all environmental concerns during purchasing.
Whether one believes that Greenpeace is a self-promoting attention whore, or whether one believes that they are an environment-promoting attention whore, they are at least raising awareness of issues.
Considering that many people do not consider environmental issues at all when purchasing (unless there is direct benefit to them, such as with lower operating costs from electricity usage), I think any attention being called to these issues is valuable.
To get into it a little deeper, environmental damage caused by products is often an external cost to the producer company. If it's not factored into the purchase decision by the buyer, and the company is not forced by regulation to bear the cost, then it gets dropped from the equation, and the public at large bears the cost. This is inefficient from a market perspective, and irresponsible from a social perspective.
Anything that tilts the scales towards environmental awareness & consideration is a good thing in my book. As far as I'm concerned, there is a spectrum of BS on environmental issues, ranging from the pseudoscience of industry groups to the pseudoscience of some environmental organizations. It's up to the individual to determine what messenger(s) to trust, but Greenpeace is no less valid a messenger than industry groups (who often are worse, since they often mask who they are and who they work for).
To sum up, there are extremists on both ends, and better information sources somewhere in the middle -- but without a counterweight such as Greenpeace, the entire spectrum will shift towards the industry groups who are purely propaganda and serve only to publish propaganda.
No, I said what I did because of how & what he wrote. Calling people idiots is pretty trollish.
And if you bothered reading my post, and understanding the point I made, you would know exactly why I don't consider it useless.
Instead, you have made a half-cocked reply based upon one line in my email without considering the context or the points that I made.
One line taken out of context is as misleading as anything Greenpeace does.
So, to restate my point (in case it wasn't clear):
Greenpeace's antics, while flawed, are not useless, as they draw attention to environmental concerns which may otherwise be overlooked in the purchasing process.
This has nothing to do with Greenpeace being attention whores any more than companies are attention whores for promoting their product.
Propaganda is not useless, and this particular propaganda is definitely not useless. Environmental concerns are very real, and bringing attention to them serves a useful purpose. By making consumers aware of environmental concerns with products, consumers may factor them into their purchase decisions. Without information about environmental practices, there is no way for purchasers to compare products along those lines.
So I ask you, why is it useless for purchasers to have more information when purchasing a product?
Note that this doesn't mean that Greenpeace doesn't use misleading information, which while not useless is detrimental. But Greenpeace uses publicity campaigns in order to affect the decisions made by consumers... and there is nothing wrong with that. In my opinion, it is a useful counter to the corporate propaganda (advertising/marketing) that runs practically unchecked.
All that said, one would be wise to take any information from an interested party with a grain of salt. Whether it's Greenpeace, industry organizations, or the producing company itself, critical analysis always helps... but dismissing information out-of-hand is probably the most useless act to take with regards to market choices.
First off, I hope it can parse sentences well
Second, I hope it takes some grammar lessons.
Finally, note to self: Voting machines are self-aware and capable of fisticuffs. Do not kick the machine for recording the wrong vote next election day... if it wants to record a vote for $CANDIDATE, I'll damn well let it.
Seriously, tohugh, sounds to me like someone wanted to build an AT-AT.
Sweet.
When you purchase an asset, you record the full value of the asset on your books. When you depreciate it, you DO NOT reduce the value of that asset on your gross block, or for inventory control. Instead you record an entry to depreciatoin expense, with an offset to accumulated depreciation.
For any asset, its net book value is cost less accumulated depreciation.
When you get rid of the asset, you wipe out the cost of the asset, and you also wipe out the accumulated depreciation on the asset, for a net ntransaction of zero (if the asset is fully depreciated).
Basically, the COST of an asset on your books (which is what was on your physical inventory list) does not match to the NET BOOK VALUE of an asset.
This is a really common misperception among IT folks, I think it's the third time in as many months that I've posted to clear it up...
I think your first statement is true for the time being, but I think it's changing. As the tech industry continues to mature, we'll see increased specialization -- and narrow roles are ideal for offshoring. I have a contact who runs a small offshorin company that specifically serves small businesses. What he has done is hired tech staff in India who perform narrow roles, but do so for multiple clients. So then, instead of paying local labor $120-$180 an hour (depending on the function), they pay his company $105/hr -- and his cost, including management, works out to about $90/ tech hour. Note that any work require on an urgent (same-day, not overnight) basis is billed out at $150/hr, so his clients can get urgent service when required.
Anyway, my point is that offshoring can work for small companies when done correctly -- the trick is to outsource the offshoring.
As for the current "shortage", I think that has more to do with the demographics of tech workers. There are plenty of experienced tech workers, but a shortage of young (inexpensive) IT professionals -- the floor-workers, so to speak. Some of this has to do with the offshoring scare, some of it has to do with the changing nature of the industry & the appeal to students, some of it is due to the dotcom bust... but I think the biggest factor is the growth of the industry. There is simply more demand for tech workers than there was 5 years ago because tech is becoming an unavoidable aspect of modern business.
I don't think it makes people's opinions irrelevant -- but I do think that opinions need to be considered in the context of who is expressing them, and what their background is. And I think that in order to have true understanding of a topic (for me, on a personal level) it's important to try to consider the source of my knowledge & feelings on the topic.
:)
It's the phrase 'know thyself' applied to understanding of external concepts.
Oh, and the [1] was because the last paragraph was going to be a footnote, but I ended up getting rid if the content inbetween & forgot to get rid of the [1]... I realized that I was starting to get into a lengthy post about the philosophy of government, which is what I expressly wanted to avoid
It doesn't directly contradict it, why is why I wanted to bring up the point... yes, the Chinese want non-lethal crowd control... but your reasoning in saying that there is no problem with us providing it is based upon the statement that the Chinese seem to be content with their government. What I inferred is that because the Chinese people are OK with their government, then it can't be that bad -- and there is then no moral issue with supplying that government with tools to suppress dissent.
I believe this to be potentially false, because contentment with the current government may be predicated on ignorance of better (or different) government. Only if the Chinese public is content when they are
(1) Able to change their government
(2) Aware that they can change their government, and
(3) Aware of alternative government styles
should we allow their contentment to affect our approval/disapproval of the Chinese government.
Sure, it's pretty idealistic, but without ideals tp strive for there can be no progress.
The bigger concern, I would think, would be avoiding the amorous attentions of Rodan. No amount of plastic surgery is going to help you cope with THAT.
Let me introduce you to the concepts of aerodynamics, lift, wing shape, etc...
WHOA! What was that? I think that guy just flew right over my head... something did.
The reason I bring this up is that lack of protest is not necessarily a sign of contentment with government. And without access to specific kinds of foreign media, there is no way for the Chinese public to become aware that government is, in fact, a mutable thing.
IOW, most Chinese are content with their government because they know nothing different or because they have been indoctrinated with propaganda about their government. By the way, this applies to a lot of people all over the world, including Americans [1].
And here come the kneejerk flamebait mods. Sorry if I've offended some of the super-patriots haunting the halls of Slashdot, but we are all products of what is around us -- and being taught from age 5 that your country is the best is hard to overcome.
So, in today's dollars, pay will shrink over time -- but cutting pay is a huge no-no in the business world. Wage freezes + inflation will create the same effect with much less impact on employee morale.
Well, it's 26,000 years old from our perspective -- but from it's perspective, it's only 140 years old from the perspective of the evidence. Remember, it's traveling at the speed of light, so time has stopped.
Or something like that, I didn't bother to RTFToR either.
Performance review:
His performance metrics primarily include duration of uptime and average time need to recover from downtime. He has expanded the scope of his role to fill the requirements.
He is able to handle repetitive tasks well.
He does not think outside the box.
He is good at getting his workgroup to multitask.
His staff responds well to stress.
Work/life balance may be an issue -- he always makes his work come first.
I think that's enough for now
I hear it's a temporary title, as he changes positions often.
I wonder if promotion to the position came with a raise.
I heard he reports to the VP for Internal Affairs.
His responsibilities include data massage, internal handling of customers, and staff management.
I could do this all day...
OT I know, but what airport is NJX?
Newark is EWR... Morristown is MMU, Trenton is TTN... is NJX a new one? I wasn't aware of a new airport in NJ...
Thanks.