Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: The problem with your explanation (Score 1) 301

If you look in the FEMA site, they say that they provide gramts to perform repairs not covered by insurance. And no, they don't do a needs test. Now, the typical rich person does not let their insurance lapse just so that they can get a FEMA grant. Because such a grant is no sure thing. They also point out that SBA loans are the main source of assistance following a disaster. You get a break on interest, but you have to pay them back.

Comment Re: The problem with your explanation (Score 1) 301

I understand your point about view land being desirable even though it's a flood risk. I live a mile or so from the Hayward fault. But I have California's risk pool earthquake insurance. The government wouldn't be paying me except from a fund that I've already paid into. I imagine that the government does pay some rich people in similar situations, but as far as I'm aware disaster funds go to the States from the federal government and should not in general become a form of rich people's welfare. Maybe you can find some direct evidence to show me that would make the situation more clear.

Comment Re:The problem with your explanation (Score 1) 301

What you are observing is economics. As a city or town population grows, the best land becomes unavailable and those who arrive later or have less funds available must settle for less desirable land. Thus many cities have been extended using landfill which liquifies as the San Francisco Marina District did in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, or floods. Risks may not be disclosed by developers, or may be discounted by authorities as the risks of global warming are today.

Efforts to protect people who might otherwise buy such land or to mitigate the risks are often labeled as government over-reach or nanny state.

Comment Re:The problem with your explanation (Score 1) 301

Oh, of course they were caused by misguided engineering efforts. Everything from the Army Corps of Engineers to Smoky Bear goes under that heading. The most basic problem is the fact that we locate cities next to resources and transportation, which means water, without realizing where the 400-year flood plane is. Etc. We have learned something since then.

Our problem, today, is fixing these things. Which is blocked by folks who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, or even cause and effect at all. They don't, for the most part, register Democratic.

Comment The problem with your explanation (Score 5, Insightful) 301

The problem with your explanation is that it's fact-based, and stands on good science. This is the post-truth era. Thus, the counter to your argument will be:

  • Evidence for a human cause of erosion is thin and controversial, and is being pushed by loony liberals.
  • We need those oil and shipping jobs, and jobs building and maintaining levees, not more regulation that stifles them!
  • Cause and effect is not a real thing, except for one cause, God is behind everything.
  • This is part of God's plan for us. The end time is coming, and when the Rapture arrives it will not matter that Louisiana's coast has eroded. Cease your pursuit of unholy science and pray to save your soul!

Comment Re:So... (Score 1) 323

so far hasn't done anything irreversible.

I think the first victims have been farmers who can't bring in their crops. Just the people who voted for him in California's central valley and wherever else we depend on guest workers. I don't see citizens lining up to pick those crops. The small family farmers, what's left of them, will feel this worse, the large corporate ones have the lawyers necessary to help them break the rules and truck people in from South of the border.

The second group of victims will be the ones who need health care that doesn't come from a big company. It's a lot more difficult to start a small business when there is no affordable way to get health care. And that is the case for my own small business - I'd be in bad shape if my wife left the University. I think that's the real goal - to keep people from leaving employment in larger companies and going off on their own.

Comment Re:Why do airlines overbook? (Score 1) 575

It is clear you just aren't representative of the bulk of the US market.

I think I admit that when I say that for some reason Americans are willing to accept shitty service.

Meanwhile, you should realize your view on this differs from the majority of US customers

I realize that the majority of US customers suffer from a form of Stockholm Syndrome that they confuse with brand loyalty. I think you're one of them.

I would hesitate before asserting that I am wrong about US customers wanting airlines to overbook

I'm just trying to suggest that if people knew what they were missing, they would demand better service. The only reason you might be right about your assertion is if people think that's the way it has to be. It doesn't have to be that way, but it stays that way because people don't demand a change in their relationships with service companies. Again, airlines aren't the only ones who get away with treating their customers unfairly. And, again, major industries like these simply don't have an actor which treats their customers substantially better, so people don't even have an opportunity to choose that company and vote with their wallet.

especially since every airline does it

That's simply not true, not even among major domestic carriers. JetBlue, for example, doesn't overbook. People still get bumped if flights get canceled or things change, but they don't overbook. Even so, if you told me that everyone beats their wife that doesn't mean I'm going to go home and beat my wife, or that I should beat my wife, or that my wife wants me to beat her.

innovation in the US airline industry is almost exclusively focused on price

You have correctly identified the root cause of the problem. I'm glad that you're understanding what I'm saying.

Comment Re:So... (Score 4, Interesting) 323

Donald Trump, unfortunately, satisfies a common desire among the populance to right things by means that won't actually right them. It's a desire to rid Washington of inaction by cleaning it out of the current folks who don't seem to get anything done: and then you find that the things they were working on are harder than you understood. It's the feeling that you can get things going right by having a manager who lights a fire under the responsible people: just the way that bank managers pressured employees to increase revenue or be fired until those employees started opening accounts fraudulently for customers who hadn't asked for them.

What I am having a hard time with is how our country gets back out of this. I fear Humpty has had such a great fall that there is no peaceful recovery.

Comment Re:Why do airlines overbook? (Score 1) 575

Literally every experience I've had as a coach passenger on a foreign airline has also been wonderful. Even coach on Hawaiian, it was just fine. It's stupid that Americans are willing to accept shit service from the 8 major US airlines if they fly coach. Again, it is not that way in the rest of the world, for some reason people accept it here, and each of the 8 major airlines has profit margins of around 20 - 30%. It is a profitable business and they could very well spend additional money to hire good people and train them (and fire them if needed), but they don't feel like they need to do that because people like you don't blame them when they treat you like shit, and will actually *defend* them. "Their customers WANT THEM TO OVERBOOK." No, we don't. A fair price and fair service shouldn't be mutually exclusive.

Comment Re:/. won't either (Score 1) 447

Why should I buy Benneton based on any pictures?

"Oh look at that high fructose syrup filled cereal. It has nice pictures, so I trust it to be healthy" Really?

Ads lie! Sorry I have to break that to you, but putting ANY trust in ads is naive. Advertisers have their own agenda. Ever had and ever will.

No idea who is the zombie now...

Slashdot Top Deals

We warn the reader in advance that the proof presented here depends on a clever but highly unmotivated trick. -- Howard Anton, "Elementary Linear Algebra"

Working...