Month: July 2015

Here’s a Facebook posting from a friend who is in Italy with his family:

As we approached the city, we stopped to get fuel at a normal rest area with an Esso station. It was expensive – 1.609 Euros per liter, (I had previously never paid over 1.2) but Italy seemed to be that way at every station. My wife filled up the van while I went inside to buy ice cream for me and the kids. I bought three Magnum bars that came to 6.9 Euros total. I started to hand my Amex card to the guy on the left. The guy on the right signaled for me to give the card to him. I did, and he handed me a receipt, and then the guy on the left handed me another receipt. I walked out to the van, and my phone popped up an Amex “foreign transaction” alert for 69 Euros. I looked at the first receipt and it said 69 Euros. I went back inside, took the photos of the guys, and then demanded my 69 Euros back. They acted surprised, and like it was a mistake. I waited for the money. They asked me if cash was ok, and handed me 69 Euros from the register. I left.

I then asked my wife how much the fuel came to. She said 130 Euros. That seemed like a lot, even for 1.609 per liter. I did the math and they would have needed to put in 80.8 liters to come to that. The van has an 80 liter tank, and it was almost 1/4 full when we pulled in. I estimated that he overcharged us by almost 30 Euros. It was odd that the receipt had no details on it. I went to the guy who ran the pump, and asked for 30 Euros. I don’t understand Italian, but he was pretending nothing was wrong. I then went inside and talked to the guy who had ripped me off for the iced-creams, and he went into the fuel computer and eventually pulled out a transaction for pump 21 that was for 130 Euros and 80 liters and claimed that was mine. I didn’t accept it, as it was not possible to put 80 liters into my tank, and asked for my 30 Euros again. He then pulled out a second transaction that was for 106 Euros and 65 liters. That was as expected. He then called over someone who may have been a manager, and I showed him the two receipts. I then went to the guy who ran the pump again and asked for my money again, and said I would call the Police. The manager-looking guy asked him to cough up the money, and he gave me 24 Euros from his own wallet. We learned to pay by cash in Naples.

We drove away, and then had to pay a toll when entering the city. It was over 56 Euros – the largest toll I have ever heard of. This time, we used cash and handed 70 Euros. The toll booth attendant shorted us 10 Euros of change. I would not leave or let other cars behind me go until he gave me 10 Euros. I then got his attention and took his photo. Lesson number two – use only exact change when you pay in cash.

——————

I’m wondering what the Italian translation for “That American from Hell” is….

Full post, including comments

For those interested in both tech and the legal system… “When Prosecutors Believe the Unbelievable” is a Slate article about a criminal rape prosecution and conviction that hinged on data from cell phones. “Woman staged ‘rape’ scene with knife, vodka, called 9-1-1, police say” is about the contradiction between a crime victim’s testimony and Fitbit data (how did the police get hold of the Fitbit data? This ABC story has some info).

Related:

• Harvard Law School professor Nancy Gertner, a former Federal judge, says “women feel so oppressed that they cannot consent willingly” (Yale Alumni Magazine)
• Domestic Violence chapter of Real World Divorce

Full post, including comments

My Facebook friends have been signing petitions demanding that women soccer players be paid as much as men (apparently they didn’t realize that FIFA executives are more likely to be persuaded by briefcases full of cash). A variety of articles (example) point out that men generate more spectators and therefore more revenue, so therefore Econ 101 says that the men should be paid more.

Why does Econ 101 apply here, though? FIFA seems to be an unregulated monopoly. Various other monopolies, such as Major League Baseball, have moved money from the most profitable teams to teams in smaller media markets. The goal, as I understand it, was to make the season more competitive. But given that market economics are not applicable, what would be wrong with FIFA moving money from uber-profitable men’s teams and giving the money to women’s teams?

Separately, could it be the case that simply paying women a lot more would increase the number of spectators? A lot of sports figures are celebrities partly because they are rich and do things that mostly rich people do and that the public gets excited about. If female soccer players get a 5X boost in pay, for example, they might show up in the media a lot more often and then people would want to go the the stadium or turn on the TV to watch them play.

What do readers think? Would be it be fair or unfair for FIFA to insist that male and female soccer players, on average, are paid the same?

Full post, including comments

Halfway through Digital Gold: Bitcoin and the Inside Story of the Misfits and Millionaires Trying to Reinvent Money and now comes news that the Ashley Madison customer database has been compromised. The company’s motto has been “Life is short. Have an affair.” I’m wondering if the new motto will be “Chinese and Russians are smarter than North Americans; Use Bitcoin.”

Correct me if I am wrong, but a site such as Ashley Madison doesn’t need to know the real names or addresses of any users other than to bill credit cards. If so, had the users paid with a dedicated Bitcoin wallet there would be no interesting data for hackers to steal? (If you keep your Bitcoin with a single public/private key pair anyone from whom you buy something can also see everything else that you’ve ever bought (bitcoin.org).) Or does Bitcoin actually make things worse because the people who sell Bitcoin need to keep a record of who bought what and therefore if the Bitcoin currency trader gets hacked, a la Mt. Gox, then the people who obtain that database can see everything that people have bought across a wide range of merchants?

What do readers think? Would a “Bitcoin-only” payment policy have resulted in more or less privacy? Will the publicity around this latest breach give Bitcoin a significant lift?

Full post, including comments

“Lockheed Martin to Buy Sikorsky for $9 Billion” is a Wall Street Journal story about how one defense contractor bought another. The actual cost to Lockheed Martin is only $7.1 billion due to some tax law complication. Sikorsky annual revenue is $6.5 billion per year. That makes the company worth 1.21 revenue.

Being a defense contractor is supposed to be crazy profitable, but 1.1X revenue is less than the 1.8X average for the S&P 500 (chart). Uber is trading for about 100X revenue (Fortune). Can it truly be the case that coordinating rides is worth seven times as much in aggregate as being a core member of the military-industrial complex?

This other WSJ article says that there are only $150 million in “annual synergies” from combining the two companies. It also notes that the new Lockheed/Boeing long-range bomber will cost $80 billion (why not buy Airbus A380s and toss bombs out the side?). An inset video features Lockheed CEO Marillyn Hewson talking about the challenges of running her enterprise. (It is too bad that there isn’t a comment section; Ellen Pao could log in and remind fellow readers that “If Marillyn Hewson had been a guy, she could have had a really successful career.”)

What do readers think? Is it truly possible that collecting tens of billions of tax dollars for decades-old designs, such as the Black Hawk, is not more profitable than the latest Silicon Valley fad?

Related:

• 2009 posting about Sikorsky’s Chinese factory, with a comment on a Teamsters strike against Sikorsky during an intense phase of the Iraq/Afghanistan war
• 2008 post about a twin-rotor experimental Sikorsky (still not commercialized)
• 2014 posting about a $1.24 billion budget for four Sikorsky helicopters
• New York’s Port Authority spends $15,500/hour to fly Sikorsky S-76s around

Full post, including comments

This from some researchers at Georgia Tech:

We are seeking pilots to volunteer for a study examining how meteorological information displays affect pilot weather decision-making. Fixed-wing licensed pilots and currently enrolled student pilots who are at least 18 years of age and live in the US are eligible to participate.

As you know, adverse weather conditions in aviation can lead to delays, deviations, and even accidents. As a result, Atmospheric Technology Services Company, LLC and the Georgia Institute of Technology are conducting a study on how different weather display technology influences pilot decision-making. As a participant in this study, you will be asked to complete an online demographics questionnaire regarding your flight experience, ratings, and other items. Following the demographic questionnaire, the participant pilots will be asked to evaluate various weather scenarios. The study will take no more than one hour to complete. We hope that you will consider participating and assisting us in learning more about weather display technology. Participation will assist us in learning more about weather display technologies with the goal of improving aviation safety.

If you would like to participate in this study, please type the web address (URL) shown below into the address bar of your Internet browser:

www.atscwx.com/met_info

For more information about this study, contact:

Dr. Rick Thomas
Georgia Institute of Technology
(404) 894-6066
dplflightstudy@psych.gatech.edu

Mr. Dan J. Rusk
Atmospheric Technology Services Company
(405) 325-0056, X24
met_info@atscwx.com

Full post, including comments

Our Museum of Fine Arts got hold of 50,000 “found” photographs and decided to display 300 of them in an exhibition titled “Unfinished Stories.” The curators decided to create a special ghetto area for snapshots depicting dark-skinned subjects and call it “African American Experience.” The rest of the exhibition featured light-skinned subjects.

Related:

• protests over loaner kimonos at the MFA (Boston Globe)
• don’t forget to see Hokusai before it closes August 9!

Full post, including comments

With women already serving as CEOs of some of our nation’s largest corporations, e.g., IBM and HP, and soon to be serving as CEO of the federal government, one might argue that the era of white male privilege is behind us. But on the other hand, Donald Trump seems to be getting a lot of press. Aside from the fact that he is a white guy, why would Americans care to hear about what he is doing/saying?

Trump is pretty rich, of course, but he would probably have been richer if he had taken the money he got from his successful dad and parked it in an S&P 500 index fund (analysis). And he has used the U.S. bankruptcy court system to skip out on paying back creditors four times (Forbes). We scold the Greeks for not paying their debts but we celebrate Trump despite his abuse of bondholders. We look for business tips from a guy who could have been richer by staying home, smoking dope, watching TV, and playing Xbox. Does Trump’s success prove the wisdom of the movie Being There?

Louise (the former housekeeper, watching Chance on television): It’s for sure a white man’s world in America. Look here: I raised that boy since he was the size of a piss-ant. And I’ll say right now, he never learned to read and write. No, sir. Had no brains at all. Was stuffed with rice pudding between th’ ears. Shortchanged by the Lord, and dumb as a jackass. Look at him now! Yes, sir, all you’ve gotta be is white in America, to get whatever you want. Gobbledy-gook!

Guide to estimating the fraud factor in whatever you hear about Trump:

• article from 2011 about how Donald Trump supposedly paid $100 million for a 20-year-old Boeing 757 (FAA registration; formerly belonged to Paul Allen)
• article from 2011 on how Fedex was buying 20-year-old 757s for $10 million
• article from 2014 on how you could buy “a used 757 already converted to VIP configuration … for as little as $20 million” or build one up with a fresh/custom interior for $28-35 million

[Separately, maybe Trump’s four bankruptcies support the idea that Greece shouldn’t keep begging for bailouts from the IMF and Europe. Stiff the fools who lent the cash, but keep the fun stuff that the cash paid for!]

Finally, could it be that Americans love watching Trump parade on TV because they say “That’s exactly what I would do if I had a rich dad”?

 

Full post, including comments

The latest AOPA Pilot magazine arrived today. Some interesting stuff…

The Icon A5 seaplane gets a good review as a flying machine. I want serial number 500!

An Atlanta-based doctor explains why he likes to fly a little airplane to Haiti and treat patients:

There are no insurance companies or hospital administrators to deal with, no reports to write, and no forms to fill out. There are only patients in need of care, and the focus is on healing. “This is what drew me to medicine in the first place,” Rizor said. “At home, it’s easy to forget that.”

Bell Helicopter is laying off 1,100 employees, “more than 15 percent of the workforce.” This announcement comes shortly after United Technologies said that they wanted to unload Sikorsky. Bell and Sikorsky got fat off U.S. military contracts while Airbus Helicopters, formerly “Eurocopter”, invested in new designs and is now the worldwide market leader (with a big recent push into China). If you want to stay competitive in the global economy, it is important to remember that the French and Germans do more than simply shovel cash into the Greek furnace!

Unlike Obamacare, where state and federal governments run web sites that have a monopoly on customers in particular states (at a cost of $2 billion/year?), the FAA has for decades had a system in which at least two private companies could interface to their computer systems and offer weather briefings and flight plan filing to pilots. The FAA would pay each company according to how many weather briefings it delivered because each one saved the Feds from answering a phone call. The contracts came up for renewal recently. When the dust settled, the FAA pulled the interface from the smallest company, Data Transformation Corporation, left the interface in place with the 70,000-employee Computer Sciences Corporation, and added an interface for Lockheed Martin, the 112,000-employee government contractor (Lockheed Martin previously won a contract to become the monopoly provider of telephone weather briefings, taking over work that had been done by civil servants). Lesson: Go Big or Go Home if you’re working with the federal government!

As is typical, a portion of the magazine is devoted to the “Charlie-Foxtrot” of getting planes converted to comply with ADS-B. The glorious plan is to have everyone in the system in 2020, almost exactly 25 years after it would have been technically feasible (GPS became “fully operational” in 1995). Personally I think the most exciting product in this area is the Lynx NGT-9000 transponder, about $10,000 installed. It has a little screen to show nearby traffic and weather, pulled from the ADS-B In feed. If this can fit in the same panel space as the standard Garmin transponders in older Cirrus aircraft then it seems as though it would be the best way to move into the 2020s.

Note: Oshkosh starts on Monday and that’s traditionally when a flood of product announcements occurs.

Full post, including comments

“Halle Berry faces ex-boyfriend Gabriel Aubry in secret trial over child support” is a potentially interesting family law case. The Toronto Sun notes:

In the filing, her lawyer stated, “There is no case, no law, no logic that says a healthy, active man gets to simply live off child support that the wealthier mother earns.”

The child currently yields $192,000 per year in tax-free profits for the father (nearly all of the child’s actual expenses are paid for directly by the mother), which would be $3.46 million over 18 years.

There are a few questions raised by this event:

• When this much cash is at stake, why is the trial secret? Shouldn’t young people have an opportunity to learn about this part of the law and how it works? (“When young people ask me about the law as a career,” said one litigator, “I tell them that in this country whom they choose to have sex with and where they have sex will have a bigger effect on their income than whether they attend college and what they choose as a career.” — Introduction chapter)
• Is being a man a bar to working as a child support profiteer? Lawyers we interviewed for the California chapter didn’t think that a woman would have any trouble collecting $192,000 per year after a one-night encounter with a high-income man. It was easy to find courthouse records in Massachusetts for similar outcomes where a “healthy, active woman” was collecting roughly the same amount (an Ivy League grad got about $144,000/year plus free housing and all child-related expenses paid)
• If the judge rules that the male child support profiteer can’t collect $3+ million tax-free, and it holds up through the inevitable appeal, will female child support profiteers in California be at risk?

Full post, including comments