Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Demand segmentation 101 (Score 2) 378

Actually, airlines in the USA are generally running almost all their flights at full capacity right now. Especially the major carriers. Competition has made them run with nearly 100% load factors nearly every day of the week.

Business travelers dominate Sunday, Monday, Friday and Saturday leaving Tuesday - Thursday for non-business travelers. Middle of the week is where the deals are now, but because they have reduced capacity so much, business travel is being squished into these days as well.

The 2015 domestic load factor is 83.68% right now - which is indeed extremely high. Many flights are full at such a high load factor, but not all of them are. There are still "red-eyes" and other off-peak flights that have loads well below 50%, and the fact that they don't charge high fares (to cover the full cost of flying the plane) for those flights - the rates are discounted in fact - shows that the principle of some flights subsidizing others is still in place.

Comment Re:Demand segmentation 101 (Score 1) 378

It's entirely likely that the airlines are losing money on some flights, and making that money up during peak demand times, so that they can keep their entire fleet going all year.

It is not "likely" - it is a simple fact that this is the case.

Consider the cost of flying an aircraft. The cost of operation does go up when the flight is full compared to nearly empty due to the increased fuel consumption, but the weight difference between a fully fueled airliner with no passengers and baggage, and one with a full passenger/baggage load is only about 25% of added weight. Fuel consumption is close to a linear function of aircraft weight. So the empty airliner has only a 25% fuel savings over a full one, and all other costs are equal (amortization of the plane, flight crew costs, gate fees, etc.).

If they charged the actual cost of operation per passenger for each flight then nearly empty airliner ticket prices would be fantastically expensive while full flights would be very cheap. Yet the empty flights are empty due to low demand, and the full ones are full due to high demand. This is obviously a topsy-turvy pricing model that would mean the demise of the airline, or airline industry if followed. And canceling scheduled flights simply due to low numbers of passengers does not, shall we say, "fly" - people expect scheduled flights to actually be there if they choose to buy a ticket at the last minute.

So nearly empty flight seat prices are low (and the fares come no where near paying for the cost of flying the plane) since they want to get some people on the plane to reduce losses on the flight, while full flights with higher seat prices pay the bills and make all of the profits.

Comment Re:It's Entirely Feasible (Score 1) 147

Mars One is a not for profit foundation.

"Non profits" are perfectly capable of paying their officers huge salaries for doing nothing. All "not for profit" means is that there are no share holders and they can collect money with many tax exemptions. "Non profits" that are run for the profit of the founder and his/her cronies is one of the oldest scams in the book.

Comment Re:Moon Zero? (Score 1) 147

It really doesn't make any sense. The high desert is where they should go. It's dramatically more similar to either planet than is Antarctica, which has a crapload of solid water flying about.

What is "crapload" in metric terms? Antarctica has very little precipitation: "It is also extremely dry (technically a desert), averaging 166mm (6.5 in) of precipitation per year". All of the ice in Antarctica may confuse you, but the reason why there is so much is that it is extremely cold ("The Climate of Antarctica is the coldest on Earth.") so that the little water that falls does not melt and run off.

Comment Re:Did they make more than $750K profit by blockin (Score 1) 188

even after you've been busted the fine will be less than your profits.

Violating a consent decree means go straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200, no trial. What business is worth that?

No one who is caught the first time with a violation like this is party to any consent decree. Only the party that 'consents' to it is.

The point of the poster above is that this sets a (very low) price for stealing public bandwidth until after you are caught the first time. A light fee for first time burglary convictions as the only punishment makes burglary very attractive until that first conviction. Not much of a deterrent to all the other burglar wannabes.

Comment Re:Could be argued differently... (Score 4, Insightful) 188

The argument can be raised that it is their hotel, and their rules.

If I went to a pub and brought my own booze, I'd be tossed out. Same rule can be argued to apply with Wi-Fi.

Only if you had absolutely no idea what you were talking about. Wireless transmissions take place on publicly owned airwaves. Jamming these airwaves is theft of publicly owned bandwidth.

Comment Re:Burkas as future privacy fashion? (Score 1) 110

In the old days, people would fight and die for freedom and liberties. But now societies are willing to sacrifice these to prevent one person from being harmed from terrorists even though the odds are insignigant compared to other threats we accept such as traffic accidents...

People are still willing to fight and die for freedom and liberties, once they are alerted and organized to the threat. The reason societies seem willing to surrender freedom and liberty is due to a combination of stealth, deception and hard-sell from the top ("you're either with us or with the terrorists", and " Because 9-11!" as the answer to all questions and criticisms).

This didn't even start with terrorism. First it was the "Reds!", though this got some push-back in the 1970s. But just in time to provide a new excuse for the surveillance society (but government and commercial surveillance) there was "Drugs!". And now it is "Terrorists!". The common thread is that all of these "reasons" for mass surveillance give more power to those who already wield it. What powerful person is not in favor of getting ever more?

Comment Re:Mickey Mouse copyright extenstions... (Score 1) 183

Extending it won't encourage the dead author to produce more work, but it can (theoretically) encourage people who are alive now to create works they wouldn't otherwise have done because they'll be able to better provide for their descendants.

Are the laws designed to fulfill this theoretical justification? Do they say that copyrights are extended for extremely long terms on the condition that the copyright remain with descendants, and pays them revenue?

No, they do not. If a corporation acquires a copyright then they receive any revenue, not descendants who may exist. Laws must be designed to fulfill the purpose that is used to justify them, otherwise you are just pulling arguments out of a hat.

Comment Re: Mickey Mouse copyirght extenstions... (Score 0) 183

Because copyright law only affects this one cartoon?

I am surprised you published such a foolish, shillish argument under your username "jones_supa". Usually only ACs post such lameness.

(And the "ignore this issue, cause there are other (unspecified) more important issues" is a meaningless, all-purpose bit of demagoguery, as it can be thrown out at any time on any issue with no investment of thought. Weak, weak, stuff.)

Comment Re:Mickey Mouse copyirght extenstions... (Score 0) 183

Accepting the very notion that an intangible intellectual creation should be owned by an immortal corporation forever shows that decades of corporate propagandizing has had its effect. Why should the government provide the service of locking up our culture forever to a private interest? Accepting the very notion is perverse, quibbling about the terms is nothing but surrendering to a corrupt arrangement.

This is what people mean by "rent seeking" - using the law to secure perpetual control of revenue for which you do nothing. "Intellectual property" has become a gold mine of rent seeking by corporations, "creating" wealth out of thin air* by getting legislation passed that awards it to them.

*It is not really out of thin air, laws extending copyrights retroactively are producing it by stealing it from the rest of society.

Comment Re:Whistle blower (Score 1) 608

A shame that you did not name Smedley Butler, nor expand upon his relevance to this situation.

A man of unquestionable honor and valor who served his nation in all that it asked of him - he also blew the whistle on the (likely hare-brained) "business plot" to replace a democratically elected administration that threatened big business interests. The result was that the (big business owned) newspaper chains ridiculed what he had to say, even though Congressional investigation found there was substance to it. But of course no action was taken against the conspirators.

"Going to the press" would have served Snowden no better. No American media outlet would have touched his revelations, and in this case the perpetrators were the government itself.

Comment Re:Because titan has ice, pluto isn't even a plane (Score 2) 98

Technically the Pluto-Charon system is not a primary with a satellite, but a double system. The center of mass of the system is not within either body, but in the space between them. .

As I love to point out, the problem with this definition is that it also applies to the Sun-Jupiter system.

This is true and will remain true for another billion and a half years at which point the Sun will have expanded enough to put the barycenter under the surface of the photosphere. The barycentric point (as it is known) if at 1.068 solar radii.

The location of the barycentric point is of some interest, but isn't really very meaningful in defining the properties of two body systems.

"Ignorance is the soil in which belief in miracles grows." -- Robert G. Ingersoll