To quote the link, "to ensure that what you get is cheese, and not some waxy substance scraped off a factory floor." Mmm, yummy. Is that what the products that, by law, must be labeled as "cheese food" are? I've always called the so-called American Cheese "alleged cheese," but at least I know I'm exaggerating.

(Sadly) How true. We've all seen instances of wishful thinking with this, or, how should I put it, the use of the wrong app.

Turnover may be good if capable, experienced people are chosen to begin with, and they are able to add something positive during their tenure before being let go. Turnover is not good if the personnel are let go within a short period of time - Scaramucci lasted only nine days. This is a sign of failure in the original choices of these individuals. If turnover is common, then the original plan was ill conceived and executed. It is a sign of failure, not an acceptable process in the function of a business or governmental position.

He has gone bankrupt six times. No one who is a wiz at business goes bankrupt six times. Once, maybe twice, if the circumstances were bad, but six times is a sign of failure, not success. This shows that he is really a bad businessman. He has survived these bankruptcies by stiffing his subcontractors. He used the money he should have paid them for his own extravagant needs, enabling his survival. And he has been sued 100s of times, mostly by these subcontractors. He is/was an unethical businessman. Survival is not the same as being good in business. His business history is not a reason to hold him in high regard.

His inability to run a "tight ship" as a business, carries over as President. He does not know how to gather necessary information and personnel for his Presidential duties, nor does he seem capable of thinking carefully about what he is about to do or say. That's how he doesn't know how to be a good President either.

Thank you for supporting my wording. And your reasoning sounds very applicable to the development of many businesses.

Were you thinking clearly when you wrote this? To say that the BLM group is more racist than Neo-Nazis and white supremacists is a racist comment. You claim to know more, and that you are not a racist, but your statement is a declaration that you do not know more, and that you are racist. One of the arguments people who believe in degrading or suppressing other people make is that they are the victim. I apologize if I am incorrect in this assessment, and I await your response.

Perhaps naive was not the best choice of words. Delusional would be more accurate. Delusional that some large companies think their abusive and/or unfair policies won't be eventually exposed. Many of them probably actually believe that they are doing things the right way for all involved. Or at least they keep telling themselves that. After all, most people who do evil would not describe their actions as being evil. They may even use the word "good." Our Congress is a good example. They don't have such a low approval rating for nothing.

I have a problem I just assumed everyone else has. When I click on the daily email, I cannot click on the link with the blue type, because all the text below it is also included as part of the UHH link, and obviously doesn't go anywhere. I have to do the "copy" and the "paste and go" thing in the address bar to get to UHH. Does anyone else have this irritating problem?

[quote=larryepage]
Group 4: Snapshooters
This group is the largest of all.

One thing I've never seen or heard discussed is the number of cell phone photographers who initially had no interest in photography, but through their experience with the no-thought-needed cell phone photos they took, became interested in photography, and then decided to learn more about it, buy equipment, etc. I imagine that there is no way we could ever hear of any statistics about this. Before cell phones, and before the cheap disposable cameras, anyone interested in taking photos had to buy a camera of some kind, whether a cheap one or not, which inhibited many people from pursuing the craft. Since just about everyone has a cell phone capable of taking pictures, taking pictures is now ubiquitous. Some of these people are graduating into photography on a more sophisticated level. We never hear about this. No one ever talks about it (that I know about). Those are the people to encourage.

You have to watch out for those money-grubbing lawyers. I worked for a single mother as a carpenter 30 years ago. She got a divorce from her abusive husband and got a $25,000 settlement as her part. The lawyer stretched out the case, and when it was finally over, guess how much his fee was? $25,000. She was left destitute, and when, two years later, it appeared that there was something wrong with his part of the divorce, he wouldn't correct his own mistake, but insisted that she'd have to come up with another $15,000. She had no money and was left with a compromised situation. Scumbag of the highest order. There are some good attorneys, but it seems that you have to look far and wide to find one.

They need a hiring consultant, because they have been naive about hiring practices and fair treatment in the past, and perhaps a little bit on the stupid side when it comes to the legalities. The hiring consultant as part of the settlement is just to ensure that everything goes smoothly. Perhaps B&H has done its homework and won't need his or her services, but "just in case."

I agree completely. Neo-Nazis and white supremacists are hard-core, life-long, racists. I can't imagine any loyal B&H customers having any kind of rabid loyalty that negates rational thought on that level. Sure, B&H will lose some customers, but I personally feel encouraged by this change of events. Whatever we felt before, we now know for sure that they have an equitable employee policy. We probably make purchases from other favorite companies that we have no idea of their employment practices, but we still buy in gleeful ignorance. Now we actually know that B&H is an improved product, so to speak. It's not going to change my purchasing attitude toward them.

It's a good thing that, except for mentioning the two photos in the same breath, the rest of my comments were about the jet over Times Square. I glad you were able to show that such a shot is possible in at least one place.

I googled "jets flying over Times Square" and only came up with one image - the one we all saw here. The rest of the images were jets flying over other parts of NY (shot from above, only one from below), kinds of jets, jets flying in other parts of the country and the world, photos of Times Square, and other irrelevant images. The text part of what I googled made no mention of overhead flights. So I'm still waiting for evidence of jets flying over Times Square.

I certainly haven't seen many photos of Times Square, so I can make no definitive statement about this. Perhaps flights over Times Square just started a short while ago, so there wouldn't have been much time for such a photo to be taken, but I find that hard to believe. Flight routes over major cities were established long ago. As I said, so many photos would have been taken of flights over Times Square, that we would've seen them somewhere, somehow. They would have tantalized most anyone with a camera in hand, and isn't Times Square a mecca for tourists? A good shot like this would've been considered one of their luckiest shots, so we would have seen many of them. And a lot of them with the jet not in the "best" position, as well.

Also, it wasn't clear what you meant about the Point in Pittsburgh showing meteors. And what does the date mentioned have to do with that?

Yes, but these aren't "some buildings." The buildings have only a hundred feet or so width between them. Other buildings that stand alone - jets flying overhead would be considerably easier to predict and plan. As for predictable flight paths - flight paths are not exact within a foot-of-center for the entire distance of takeoff or landing. Even if they sometimes flew over those buildings (which is conceivable to people who don't know jet traffic there - the photographer depends on this belief), their actual flight path could easily vary up to a hundred feet from one side to the other, depending on how close to the runway they are - thereby negating the possibility of a dependable shot with any flight in particular. The perfect placement of the jet makes it suspect for these reasons. Also, if jet flew over Times Square with any regularity, capturing them overhead would be a dream for many pros and amateurs alike, and we would have seen many photos of exactly that event.