A place were I can write...

My simple blog of pictures of travel, friends, activities and the Universe we live in as we go slowly around the Sun.



December 02, 2013

Pirating............

The U.S. Army got caught pirating $180 million in software. It’s settling for $50 million.

 By Brian Fung

For the Army to function, it needs to keep track of where its soldiers are deployed. So in 2004, it hired a software company to help locate its units down to their exact positions, even if they were in a moving transport vehicle. The Army allegedly liked the solution so much that it wound up installing the program thousands of times more than it was supposed to — and didn't pay for it. Oops.

Now the government is handing Apptricity $50 million to settle the developer's copyright infringement case, a fraction of what the government would actually owe based on the number of missing licenses. The government initially bought a handful of server and device licenses for $4.5 million in 2004. That was followed by another purchase about five years later.

But according to Apptricity's complaint, the U.S. Army then installed the software on another 100 servers and 9,000 devices and didn't come clean until June 2011, after a series of inventory reports revealed the inconsistency. Not only did the Army stall in telling Apptricity about the infringement, the complaint alleges, but the Army also tried to get out of paying by tampering with the software.
"During fiscal year 2010 if not earlier," the complaint reads, "the Army had engaged another contractor, Future Research Corporation of Huntsville, Alabama, to reverse engineer a portion of Apptricity's software application suite ... to replace certain infringed intellectual property rather than pay for the license shortfall."

Apptricity demanded $225 million in damages. Based on the rates Apptricity was charging the government — $1.35 million per server license, $5,000 per device license — the army owed $180 million for the extra software alone, not including maintenance and labor. By pirating the program, the Army effectively got a 73 percent discount.

Wages....

The Minimum We Can Do


During most of the 20th century, wages in the United States were set not just by employers but by a mix of market and institutional mechanisms. Supply and demand were important factors; collective bargaining and minimum wage laws also played a key role. Under Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Richard M. Nixon, we even implemented more direct forms of wage controls.

These direct interventions, however, were temporary, and unions have become rare in most parts of the United States — virtually disappearing from the private sector. This leaves minimum wage policies as one of the few institutional levers for setting a wage standard. But while we can set a wage floor using policy, should we? Or should we leave it to the market and deal with any adverse consequences, like poverty and inequality, using other policies, like tax credits and transfers? These longstanding questions take on a particular urgency as wage inequality continues to grow, and as we consider specific proposals to raise the federal minimum wage — currently near a record low — and to index future increases to the cost of living.

The idea of fairness has been at the heart of wage standards since their inception. This is evident in the very name of the legislation that established the minimum wage in 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act. When Roosevelt sent the bill to Congress, he sent along a message declaring that America should be able to provide its working men and women “a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.” And he tapped into a popular sentiment years earlier when he declared, “No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.”

This type of concern for fairness actually runs deep in the human psyche. There is a widespread sense that it is unfair of employers to take advantage of workers who may have little recourse but to work at very low wages. For example, the economists Colin F. Camerer and Ernst Fehr have documented in numerous experimental studies that the preference for fairness in transactions is strong: individuals are often willing to sacrifice their own payoffs to punish those who are seen as acting unfairly, and such punishments activate reward-related neural circuits. People also strongly support banning transactions they see as exploitative of others — even if they think such a ban would entail some economic costs.

Of course, if most minimum wage workers were middle-class teenagers, many of us might shrug off concerns about their wages, since they are taken care of in other ways. But in reality, the low-wage work force has become older and more educated over time. In 1979, among low-wage workers earning no more than $10 an hour (adjusted for inflation), 26 percent were teenagers between 16 and 19, and 25 percent had at least some college experience. By 2011, the teenage composition had fallen to 12 percent, while over 43 percent of low-wage workers had spent at least some time in college. Even among those earning no more than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 in 2011, less than a quarter were teenagers.

Support for increasing the minimum wage stretches across the political spectrum. As Larry M. Bartels, a political scientist at Vanderbilt, shows in his book “Unequal Democracy,” support in surveys for increasing the minimum wage averaged between 60 and 70 percent between 1965 and 1975. As the minimum wage eroded relative to other wages and the cost of living, and inequality soared, Mr. Bartels found that the level of support rose to about 80 percent. He also demonstrates that reminding the respondents about possible negative consequences like job losses or price increases does not substantially diminish their support.

These patterns show up in recent survey data as well, as over three-quarters of Americans, including a solid majority of Republicans, say they support raising the minimum wage to either $9 or $10.10 an hour. It is therefore not a surprise that when they have been given a choice, voters in red and blue states alike have consistently supported, by wide margins, initiatives to raise the minimum wage. In 2004, 71 percent of Florida voters opted to raise and inflation-index the minimum wage, which today stands at $7.79 per hour. That same year, 68 percent of Nevadans voted to raise and index their minimum wage, which is now $8.25 for employees without health benefits. Since 1998, 10 states have put minimum wage increases on the ballot; voters have approved them every time.

But the popularity of minimum wages has not translated into legislative success on the federal level. Interest group pressure — especially from the restaurant lobby — has been one factor. Ironically, the very popularity of minimum wages may also have contributed to the failure to automatically index the minimum wage to inflation: Democratic legislators often prefer to increase the wage themselves since it allows them to win more political points. While 11 states currently index the minimum wage, only one, Vermont, did so legislatively; the rest were through ballot measures.

As a result of legislative inaction, inflation-adjusted minimum wages in the United States have declined in both absolute and relative terms for most of the past four decades. The high-water mark for the minimum wage was 1968, when it stood at $10.60 an hour in today’s dollars, or 55 percent of the median full-time wage. In contrast, the current federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, constituting 37 percent of the median full-time wage. In other words, if we want to get the minimum wage back to 55 percent of the median full-time wage, we would need to raise it to $10.78 an hour.

International comparisons also show how out of line our current policy is: the United States has the third lowest minimum wage relative to the median of all Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. This erosion of the minimum wage has been an important contributor to wage inequality, especially for women. While there is some disagreement about exact magnitudes, the evidence suggests that around half of the increase in inequality in the bottom half of the wage distribution since 1979 was a result of falling real minimum wages. And unlike inequality that stems from factors like technological change, this growth in inequality was clearly avoidable. All we had to do to prevent it was index the minimum wage to the cost of living.

The social benefits of minimum wages from reduced inequality have to be weighed against possible costs. When it comes to minimum wages, the primary concern is about jobs. The worry comes from basic supply and demand: When labor is made more costly, employers will hire less of it. It’s a valid concern, but what does the evidence show?

For the type of minimum wage increases we have implemented in the United States, the best evidence shows that the impact on jobs is small, although there is still a debate in the literature. There are estimates that do suggest job losses — most prominently associated with work by the economists David Neumark and William Wascher. Since the early 1990s, they have consistently argued that minimum wage increases lead to substantial job losses for low-wage workers: a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage can be expected to reduce jobs among a group like teenagers by between 1 and 3 percent. The methodology pioneered by Mr. Neumark and Mr. Wascher has a critical problem, however: it does not properly account for differences between high- and low-minimum-wage states. Essentially, they make the unrealistic assumption that low-wage employment trajectories are similar in states as diverse as Texas and Massachusetts.

As my colleagues and I show in our research, the states raising minimum wages have had very different trajectories when it comes to trends in demand conditions and business cycle variability. In fact, low-wage employment was often already falling (or growing more slowly) in the states raising the minimum wage — sometimes years before the actual wage increase. Such divergence in trends between the “treatment” and “control” groups is a telltale sign that the control group is being constructed improperly — a major issue for evaluating policies using nonexperimental evidence, otherwise known as real life.

The good news is that today we have much better tools in our toolbox. A particularly reliable methodology compares adjacent counties that are right across the state border but that experience different minimum wage shocks. Originally performed for a single case study of Pennsylvania and New Jersey by the economists David Card and Alan B. Krueger in 1994 and then again in 2000, this methodology has been substantially refined and expanded.

In my work with T. William Lester and Michael Reich, we use nearly two decades’ worth of data and compare all bordering areas in the United States to show that while higher minimum wages raise earnings of low-wage workers, they do not have a detectable impact on employment. Our estimates — published in 2010 in the Review of Economics and Statistics — suggest that a hypothetical 10 percent increase in the minimum wage affects employment in the restaurant or retail industries, by much less than 1 percent; the change is in fact statistically indistinguishable from zero.

In my most recent work with Sylvia Allegretto, Ben Zipperer and Michael Reich, we confirm these results using four data sets covering over two decades, other low-wage groups like teenagers, and five different statistical techniques, including an increasingly popular method that uses past economic trends to construct a “synthetic” control group. And other researchers have independently reached the same conclusion: minimum wage effects on employment are small.

While the evidence may not convince the most strident of critics, it has shifted views among economists. A panel of 41 leading economists was asked recently by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business to weigh in on President Obama’s proposal to increase the minimum wage and automatically index it to inflation. A plurality, 47 percent, supported the policy, and only 11 percent opposed it, while the rest were uncertain or had no opinion. Only a third thought that the raise “would make it noticeably harder for low-skilled workers to find employment.”

But how can minimum wages rise without causing job losses? For starters, if the demand for burgers is not price sensitive, some of the cost increase can be passed on to customers without substantially reducing demand or jobs. Existing research suggests that if you raise the minimum wage by 10 percent, you can expect the price of a $3 burger to rise by a few cents, which is enough to absorb a sizable part of the wage increase.

Going beyond simple supply and demand, economic models are getting better at incorporating frictions caused by the costs of finding jobs and filling vacancies, which turn out to be quite important when analyzing labor markets. There are good jobs and bad jobs at the low end of the labor market, and movements between these lead to vacancies and turnover. If McDonald’s is required to pay a higher wage, fewer of its workers will leave to take other jobs. This means fewer vacancies at McDonald’s, and it means other employers are more likely to fill their job openings from the ranks of the unemployed — both of which can help keep unemployment down. So while higher costs may dissuade some employers from creating new positions, it also helps other employers recruit and retain workers. Moderate increases in the minimum wage, in other words, can reduce vacancies and turnover instead of killing jobs. In a follow-up study using our bordering areas methodology, we provide empirical evidence for this argument: while overall employment in low-wage sectors does not change much following a minimum-wage increase, worker turnover falls sharply as workers stay with their jobs longer.

But even if minimum wage policies reduce inequality and improve the functioning of low-wage labor markets, are there better alternatives when it comes to helping low-income families?

In a forthcoming study commissioned by the Department of Labor, I review the evidence using data from the past two decades and find clear evidence that minimum wage raises have helped lift family incomes at the bottom: a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage reduces poverty by around 2 percent.

The minimum wage can also increase the efficacy of a policy that is sometimes pushed as a substitute: the earned-income tax credit. This encourages more people to seek work, but can push wages down; a minimum wage ameliorates this. Of course, many families under the poverty line simply have no workers, making any work-based policy of limited help. This is why raising and indexing the minimum wage is just a part of the portfolio of policies we need to enact to ensure a decent living standard.

What are actual policy options when it comes to raising the minimum wage? At the federal level, the legislation proposed by Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, and Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, would raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, and index it to future cost of living increases. This is a sensible target that would be likely to put the minimum wage right around 50 percent of the median wage for full-time workers — close to the international standard and our own norm during the 1960s and ’70s. Indexation is critical — it replaces politics with economics as the adjustment mechanism and makes changes predictable. This is why even economists opposed to higher minimum wages support indexation.

Other policies can complement the federal minimum wage in building higher wage standards. City and state minimum wages play an important role in ensuring that places with higher costs of living have similarly higher wage standards. A number of cities have instituted “living wage” ordinances covering public sector workers and private city contractors. The most expansive of these ordinances cover major airports, like in the metropolitan areas of San Francisco, Los Angeles and most recently Seattle. Fast food workers in urban centers are beginning to organize and push for substantially higher voluntary wage standards at major chains. Together with a sensible federal minimum wage, these local initiatives can help rebuild wage standards and reduce inequality in a way that reflects our internal sense of fairness.

Life on $7.25 an Hour

Older Workers Are Increasingly Entering Fast-Food Industry


By ALAN FEUER

On a recent Friday evening, Eduardo Shoy left work at 6 p.m. Mr. Shoy, a deliveryman for KFC and Pizza Hut, was coming off an eight-hour shift of driving three-cheese pies and crispy chicken fingers, in an automotive blur, to private homes and businesses in central Queens.

Now it was the weekend and he was headed home. He parked his car in the little alley lot behind his house and, passing through the door, he kicked his shoes off, donned a pair of slippers and prepared a mug of tea. He sat down with his television set and ate the box of chicken he had brought back from the restaurant. Within an hour, remote control beside him, still dressed in his uniform, he had drifted off to sleep.
      
If Mr. Shoy were differently employed, he might have remained that way till morning. But as a fast-food worker paid the minimum wage — $7.25 an hour in New York — he didn’t have the luxury. At 10 p.m., he was up again and back in his car, this time driving to his second job, as a forklift operator at Kennedy International Airport, where he makes $13 an hour. Having worked all day, he was about to work all night: from 11 p.m. until 7:30 a.m. At 3 that afternoon, he would return to his deliveries at the restaurant. Then, at 11, he would once again drive to the airport.
      
Altogether, on the weekend before Thanksgiving, Mr. Shoy would sleep for 13 hours and work for 44. “Tired?” he asked, sounding puzzled by the question. “I’m too busy to be tired.”
      
THERE ARE 55,000 fast-food workers in New York — more than the entire population of Harrisburg, Pa. — and most, like Mr. Shoy, are struggling to stitch together a living in an industry where the median wage is $8.90 an hour. Last year, fast-food workers in Manhattan earned average pay of $19,000 — or about the cost of Mr. Shoy’s Honda. In Brooklyn, it was $15,500; on Staten Island, less.
      
Since 2000, the number of fast-food jobs in New York City has increased by more than 50 percent — 10 times as fast as in any other type of private job. But the conspicuous increase has not received the attention given, say, to the city’s high-tech industry, nor has it lessened the financial insecurities of this growing work force.
      
According to a study released in October, only 13 percent of fast-food workers get health-insurance benefits at work. In New York State, three in five have received some form of government assistance in the last five years. Meanwhile, executive pay and profits in the industry are on the rise. Last winter, Bloomberg News determined that it would take a Chicago McDonald’s worker who earns $8.25 an hour more than a century on the clock to match the $8.75 million that the company’s chief executive made in 2011.
      
The classic image of the high-school student flipping Big Macs after class is sorely out of date. Because of lingering unemployment and a relative abundance of fast-food jobs, older workers are increasingly entering the industry. These days, according to the National Employment Law Project, the average age of fast-food workers is 29. Forty percent are 25 or older; 31 percent have at least attempted college; more than 26 percent are parents raising children. Union organizers say that one-third to one-half of them have more than one job — like Mr. Shoy, who is 58 and supports a wife and children.
      
The fast-food industry says that what is going on here is a structural anomaly: that its wages were not intended to sustain a permanent work force — especially adults supporting families — and that it is happening because of larger economic forces. “The minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage,” said Steve Caldeira, the president of the International Franchise Association, a trade group for restaurants and other franchised firms. “It was meant, from the start, for entry-level workers and for those with lower skills.”
      
Traditionally, the fast-food industry has proved resistant to unionization. There is no one central employer against whom to strike, because most of the restaurants are franchised. McDonald’s and Burger King alone have tens of thousands of locations across the country. And until very recently, the demographic nature of the workers themselves was also a problem: many, as the industry said, were youthful transients and proved difficult to organize at job sites they were likely to leave.
      
But a year ago last week, the largest series of strikes against the fast-food industry in American history began in New York City. The protests started at a McDonald’s at Madison Avenue and 40th Street, where scores of angry workers stood in front of the familiar golden arches, waving signs and chanting rhyming slogans. By the end of the day, workers at dozens of franchised restaurants — Burger Kings, Taco Bells, Wendy’s and the like — had walked off the job, in an action that concluded with a rally outside a McDonald’s in Times Square.
      
Working under the name Fast Food Forward and funded by a giant labor group, the Service Employees International Union, the organizers set a pair of goals — to unionize the industry and to make demands for a $15 minimum wage — and began an unusual campaign of one-day flash strikes. The strategy caught on. Last April, five months after the first strike in New York, the fast-food actions — now with the umbrella name Fight for 15 (for the $15 wage demand) — spread to cities such as Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Seattle and Kansas City. Over the summer, thousands more fast-food workers took to the streets in nearly 50 municipalities, including Memphis and Raleigh, N.C., in the traditionally union-resistant South.
      
In New York, the recent elections resulted in the city’s three top positions — mayor, public advocate and comptroller — all being filled by supporters of the campaign, while the incoming City Council could be among the most union-friendly in decades, said Jonathan Westin, an organizer of the movement here. Mr. Westin also said support for a higher minimum wage was slowly growing among state lawmakers in Albany.
      
There was another sign of the movement’s growth — small, but not insignificant — that went unnoticed in the noisy play of politics.
      
Eduardo Shoy, a man too busy to sleep for more than four hours a night, made time this summer to attend his first strike.
 
MR. SHOY IS NOT what one would call a radical man. Quiet, industrious and unyieldingly easygoing, he joined the fast-food movement only after watching himself and his family descend from what seemed like a once-secure position in the middle class.     
  
In 2008, when he was 53, Mr. Shoy lost his job driving forklifts at a warehouse on Long Island owned by the Waldbaum’s grocery-store chain. His salary at the job, which he had had for more than 20 years, was $22 an hour, and came with overtime and benefits, he said. His wife, Elana, worked as a waitress until three years ago, when she tore a ligament in her knee and had to quit. In 2003, before any of that had happened, the couple bought a house for more than $500,000 — a comfortable three-bedroom on a quiet street in Middle Village, Queens.
      
Now the house is almost empty, devoid of furniture except for a couch, a table and the bed wedged between them in the basement, where Mr. Shoy sleeps these days, alone. Two months ago, his wife and children — Eduardo Jr., 22, and Leslie, 19 — moved to Pennsylvania, where Leslie plans to enter college next year (with the help of financial aid) and where Eduardo Jr. works in a warehouse for Amazon.com. Mr. Shoy has remained behind, doing what he calls “the bachelor thing — working,” until he manages to sell the house that he can no longer afford.
      
“I thought I’d spend my life here,” he said the other day, standing in the vacancy that used to be his living room. “The way I had it planned, I’d be retired by now: full pension, Social Security. But things turned out a little different in the end. You do the best you can.”
      
Working more than 70 hours a week between his two jobs, Mr. Shoy makes a quasi-livable income: about $43,000 a year. But out of that, he has to pay his mortgage, his utilities, his car lease, his car insurance premiums and his children’s car insurance premiums, and then write a check each month to help them with their rent.
      
“Whatever comes first, I pay first,” he said.
      
Just two weeks ago, in an effort to accentuate the challenges of fast-food jobs, labor-union organizers published several screen grabs taken off a McDonald’s corporate website, McResourceline.com. The site, which is now unavailable, was designed to offer financial tips to a cash-poor work force. Despite its good intentions, it read like a Dickensian satire, counseling employees to break their meals into pieces (which “results in eating less and still feeling full”); to take two vacations a year (“can cut heart attack risk by 50%”); and to sell “unwanted possessions on eBay or Craigslist” for extra income.
      
In a statement, McDonald’s said, “This is an attempt by an outside organization to undermine a well-intended employee-assistance website by taking isolated portions out of context.”
      
The union organizers’ publishing of the website details came only four months after a sample McBudget that McDonald’s had prepared for its employees went viral on the Internet. The budget, which the company eventually amended, at first failed to include basic staples, like food and clothing, and earmarked only $20 a month for health-insurance payments.
      
Tellingly, there were two separate entries in the column labeled “Monthly Net Income”: one was for a first job (presumably at McDonald’s); the other was for an evidently necessary second.
      
Mr. Shoy found his fast-food job five years ago when someone mentioned having seen a help-wanted sign in the window of a KFC/Pizza Hut on Fresh Pond Road. Two years later, after his wife had to leave her own job and the couple realized that they could not survive on the minimum wage, and the occasional tip, Mr. Shoy started moonlighting at the airport.
      
“People ask me how I do it,” he said one morning, leaving Kennedy with a few hours to spare before he had to report to his delivery job. “But you do what you have to do. Otherwise I’d be living under the Williamsburg Bridge.”
      
It was troubles like these that he discussed with the organizer who initially persuaded him to join the union movement, Gregory Reynoso, a former worker at a Domino’s Pizza in Brooklyn who joined Fast Food Forward last spring. The movement itself started in late 2011, when activists from a group called New York Communities for Change — a spinoff of the defunct Acorn organization, started to receive complaints about the fast-food business from residents of Flatbush, Brownsville and Crown Heights, Brooklyn, while working there to stop a series of highly contentious public school closings.
The group, which had already organized workers at carwashes and supermarkets, repeatedly heard that the fast-food industry was a larger problem than either of those, said Mr. Westin, the executive director. Fast food not only employed more people in the neighborhoods, the residents said, but its pay and workplace conditions were arguably worse.
      
According to Mr. Westin, it was no accident that the effort started in New York.
      
“I think New York got the worst of the recession,” he said. “Folks here not only lost their jobs, and not only were the jobs created in their place low-wage jobs. In the city, rent and real estate prices — unlike in other places — kept going up.
      
“People were unhappy, they were struggling,” Mr. Westin went on. “Some weren’t eating multiple meals a day; others were sleeping in their cars. We understood that if we wanted to create real change, we had to look at the bigger picture — and the bigger picture was fast food.”
      
Within a matter of months, New York Communities for Change had assembled several partners for its organizing effort: UnitedNY.org, the Black Institute and, perhaps most important, the S.E.I.U.
Conscious of its predecessors’ failures, the coalition rejected the typical approach of filing federal grievances, calling news conferences and gathering on the steps of City Hall, and instead chose a more aggressive tactic: the roaming one-day strike. The strategy was influenced by Occupy Wall Street’s success in inserting the trope of the 1 percent into the national conversation, said Mr. Westin, a former Occupier himself. “Confronting power more openly and publicly and directly,” he added, “that came straight from Occupy.”
 
Melissa Autilio Fleischut, the chief executive of the New York State Restaurant Association, which supports the industry, including fast-food establishments, said that fast food was “an opportunity industry” where young workers could learn skills and advance. If the minimum wage were indeed raised to $15, Ms. Fleischut, said the result would be more automation, fewer workers hired and increased costs at the counter. “McDonald’s dollar meal would be $1.25,” she said.
 
At the end of August, the movement scored a success when Thomas Perez, the United States secretary of labor, mentioned the strikes in an interview with The Associated Press, calling them a reason to raise the minimum wage. That wasn’t long after Mr. Reynoso persuaded Mr. Shoy to go to Union Square, in Manhattan, for one of the campaign’s public protests. Mr. Shoy returned to his day job energized by the event. “We let them know how we were feeling,” he said. “The restaurants are making all the money. The worker isn’t getting no money at all.”
      
Though he didn’t make it to the other protests over the summer, he is planning to attend Fast Food Forward’s next action.
 
“We’ll see,” Mr. Reynoso said. “He’s busy.”
      
IN THE LAST TWO years, Mr. Shoy has put 30,000 miles on his Civic — most of them in repetitious five-to-10-mile spurts. His delivery job takes him on an endless circuit of strip clubs, auto-body shops and brick-faced apartment buildings in Ridgewood, Maspeth and Middle Village. He is paid $1.20 for each delivery to help defray his fuel costs. Despite the pine-tree air freshener dangling from its door, his car is stained with an abiding stench of grease.
      
A couple of weeks ago, during the lunch rush, Mr. Shoy hurried from the Petro Gas Company on 58th Street to the loading bays of a Western Beef grocery store in a clankingly surreal industrial park near the Kosciuszko Bridge. Then it was on to a series of row homes and apartments. On a good day, Mr. Shoy can make up to $75 in tips. Friday was not a good day.
      
Thursday is the one day he has off, and so, on Thanksgiving, Mr. Shoy was planning to get into his car again and drive the two hours to Pennsylvania to see his family. There would be hugs and conversation; his usual favorite dinner — baked chicken — would be replaced by turkey. Normally, in between the business of reunion on these trips, he manages to sneak away for an hour or so to nap.
      
He needs it. Work comes early — and, of course, stays late — Friday morning.

Minimum wage.....

Wage Strikes Planned at Fast-Food Outlets

Seeking to increase pressure on McDonald’s, Wendy’s and other fast-food restaurants, organizers of a movement demanding a $15-an-hour wage for fast-food workers say they will sponsor one-day strikes in 100 cities on Thursday and protest activities in 100 additional cities.

As the movement struggles to find pressure points in its quest for substantially higher wages for workers, organizers said strikes were planned for the first time in cities like Charleston, S.C.; Providence, R.I.; and Pittsburgh.
      
The protests have expanded greatly since November 2012, when 200 fast-food workers engaged in a one-day strike at more than 20 restaurants in New York City, the first such walkout in the history of the nation’s fast-food industry.
      
“There’s been pretty huge growth in one year,” said Kendall Fells, one of the movement’s main organizers. “People understand that a one-day strike is not going to get them there. They understand that this needs to continue to grow.”
      
The movement, which includes the groups Fast Food Forward and Fight for 15, is part of a growing union-backed effort by low-paid workers — including many Walmart workers and workers for federal contractors — that seeks to focus attention on what the groups say are inadequate wages.
The fast-food effort is backed by the Service Employees International Union and is also demanding that restaurants allow workers to unionize without the threat of retaliation.
      
Officials with the National Restaurant Association have said the one-day strikes are publicity stunts. They warn that increasing pay to $15 an hour when the federal minimum wage is $7.25 would cause restaurants to rely more on automation and hire fewer workers.
      
Industry officials say that only a small percentage of fast-food jobs pay the minimum wage and that those are largely entry-level jobs for workers under 25.
      
Backers of the movement for higher pay point to studies saying that the average age of fast-food workers is 29 and that more than one-fourth are parents raising children.
      
Simon Rojas, who earns $8.07 an hour working at a McDonald’s in South Central Los Angeles, said he would join Thursday’s one-day strike.
      
“It’s very difficult to live off $8.07 an hour,” said Mr. Rojas, 23, noting that he is often assigned just 20 or 25 hours of work a week. “I have to live with my parents. I would like to be able to afford a car and an apartment.”
      
Mr. Rojas said he had studied for a pharmacy technician’s certificate, but he had been unable to save the $100 needed to apply for a license.
      
On Aug. 29, fast-food strikes took place in more than 50 cities. This week’s expanded protests will be joined by numerous community, faith and student groups, including USAction and United Students against Sweatshops.

SpaceX

Engineers and safety specialists from NASA and Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) met in late October to review the safety of the Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 rocket being developed to launch humans into low-Earth orbit later this decade.

The detailed overview of safety practices the company is implementing was a major milestone for SpaceX under a funded Space Act Agreement with NASA's Commercial Crew Program (CCP).

SpaceX is one of NASA's commercial partners working to develop a new generation of U.S. spacecraft and rockets capable of transporting humans to and from low-Earth orbit from American soil. NASA intends to use new commercial systems to fly U.S. astronauts to and from the International Space Station within the next four years.


The Dragon mock-up that will be used for upcoming parachute drop tests is on display at SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, Calif.
A team of NASA engineers went to SpaceX headquarters for two days of detailed presentations and question-and-answer sessions that reviewed the company's safety practices.

"The milestone is not the end of the safety discussion, it's really the beginning," said Jon Cowart, deputy manager of the NASA Partnership Integration Team for CCP. "Because we've been doing this for so long, we all have a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't and how safety processes can be strengthened to increase our confidence in the system."

Teams from NASA and SpaceX are working closely together to make sure the innovative technologies employed meet the rigorous requirements that come with flying crews in space.

“We greatly appreciate NASA’s support and feedback throughout this process,” said Garrett Reisman, commercial crew project manager at SpaceX and a former astronaut. "Together we are taking all the necessary steps to make Dragon the safest, most reliable spacecraft ever flown."

SpaceX already has flown several cargo missions to the space station using its Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 rocket, but those spacecraft have not yet transported astronauts. Through NASA's Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative, the company is deep into the design process of the integrated crew-capable Falcon 9 and Dragon spacecraft.

SpaceX plans to test its launch abort system next year at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. Two flight tests will demonstrate the ability of the Dragon spacecraft abort system to lift an uncrewed spacecraft clear of a simulated emergency.

The first test will simulate an abort from the pad prior to launch in the second quarter of 2014. The second test, targeted for the third quarter of 2014, calls for the spacecraft to separate from a Falcon 9 booster in flight and parachute safely into the Atlantic Ocean. The company is building the spacecraft for the flight tests, and manufacturing of the rocket is expected to begin shortly.

This safety review was the ninth milestone for SpaceX under CCiCap. The company is on track to complete all 15 of its CCiCap milestones by the third quarter of 2014. All of NASA's industry partners, including SpaceX, continue to meet their established milestones in developing commercial crew transportation capabilities.

Earth from space

Clouds throw long shadows in this image from the ISS. Morning comes many times per day so a chance to see the effects of light with clouds is a common occurrence, but sometimes the view is really interesting.

Comet Lovejoy

Comet Lovejoy was captured last week passing well in front of spiral galaxy M63. Discovered only three months ago and currently near its maximum brightness, Comet Lovejoy can be seen near the Big Dipper from dark northerly locations before dawn with the unaided eye. An unexpected rival to Comet ISON, C/2013 R1 (Lovejoy), pictured above, is currently sporting a large green coma and a beautifully textured ion tail. Comet Lovejoy is now headed back to the outer Solar System but should remain a good site in binoculars for another few weeks. Conversely, spiral galaxy M63, lies far in the distance and is expected to remain stationary on the sky and hold its relative brightness for at least the next few million years.

Titan's south polar vortex

The sunlit edge of Titan's south polar vortex stands out distinctly against the darkness of the moon's unilluminated hazy atmosphere. The Cassini spacecraft images of the vortex led scientists to conclude that its clouds form at a much higher altitude -- where sunlight can still reach -- than the surrounding haze.

Titan (3,200 miles, or 5,150 kilometers across) is Saturn's largest moon. This view looks toward the trailing hemisphere of Titan. North on Titan is up and rotated 32 degrees to the left. The image was taken with the Cassini spacecraft narrow-angle camera on July 14, 2013 using a spectral filter sensitive to wavelengths of near-infrared light centered at 938 nanometers.

The view was obtained at a distance of approximately 808,000 miles (1.3 million kilometers) from Titan and at a Sun-Titan-spacecraft, or phase, angle of 82 degrees. Image scale is 5 miles (8 kilometers) per pixel.

The passing of a legend

Carl Eichenlaub passed away early this morning. In a sport full of iconic figures, he stands with the best and most unique. Few people in the sport have the breadth and depth of his talent.
Any one of his many accomplishments would have made him worthy of inclusion in a list of greats. Champion sailor in the Snipe, Lightning, while also sailing in the Star, Soling, FD’s and IOR classes. As a builder of those boats, a few of which helped to change the face of the sport, perhaps most notably Doug Peterson’s “Ganbare”. Friend and mentor to literally thousands of people around the world.

Carl’s boat building skills were legendary. “In many ways Carl is a genius,” says Lowell North, a sailmaker who has three times sailed himself to a world championship in Eichenlaub Sta
rs. “Although some sailors on the East Coast may not agree, we on the West Coast know that he is the best.” This quote was from an extensive Sports Illustrated article in 1965, the entirety of which is well worth reading, because it captures the essence of the man, which almost literally never changed. Anyone remember the slogan “Any slob can win in an Eichenlaub”?

Away from the sport he played classical music on a bassoon and contrabassoon with several different local orchestras. He loved the San Diego Chargers and NASCAR and in recent years had taken to traveling to what he called “Dog Regattas”, otherwise known to the rest of us as dog shows, with his wife Jean and their herd of dogs. A graduate of San Diego State in ’53, Carl is a member of the Intercollegiate Sailing Hall of Fame and is an SDSU Distinguished Alumni. He was 83 years old. He passed away quietly with Jean and his children Betty Sue Sherman and Brian close by.

While winning races and building great boats for customers is interesting, of far greater importance is the esteem with which he was held in the sport. Carl was the shipwright for the US Sailing team for decades. He always took care of the US team first every day, but after that work was done he would help sailors from other countries fix their boats. For the sort of service he gave to the sport in 2000 he was awarded US Sailing’s highest honor, the Herreshoff Award.

Many people will have words of tribute for Carl, and we thought it appropriate to start off with what Dennis Conner had to say about him this morning:

Carl Eichenlaub was truly a genius. He could sail a bath tub down the San Diego river with a sheet as a sail. He built championship boat after champion boat for the Snipe, Lightning and Star class He could play in the orchestra, build a railroad, invent a cedar core spruce star mast, go to the Olympics and not only repair the damaged US boats but help the entire fleet, He could build, paint and launch an ocean racing boat capable of winning the SORC “STINGER”, in 30 days from start to finish! All this as well a being a great sailor, winning Championships from Sabot to Snipes to Lightnings. He inspired some of our very best sailors, Lowell North, Pete Bennett, Malin Burnham, Earl Elms in San Diego.. He will be remembered as being one of our greatest sailing talents, along with Lowell, Buddy and Bill Buchan.There will never be another Carl, he was simply the BEST!”

From Sailing Anarchy

60′ Carkeek and MOD 70’s

The brand new 60′ Carkeek-designed Ichi Ban goes sailing. Looks pretty nice.
 
MOD 70’s
The smallest fleet in the TJV this year, as expected, was the MOD 70’s. The class has been a flop due to hard economic times in France, lack of promotion and piss-poor management, but the boats that it has created are awe-inspiring and the racing top notch. The TJV was the first shorthanded race, and longest course, that the MOD 70’s have ever campaigned and was therefore as much of an experiment as a yacht race. Despite just two boats actually taking to the start, the experiment was an overwhelming success.
Though there wasn’t the excitement of constant lead changes, tons of boats, passing lanes and drama, the racing was actually very close. In a drag race to Cape Finisterre, Seb Josse’s Edmond de Rothschild pulled out to a 50-mile lead after what Oman Air-Musandam skipper Sidney Gavignet called “the toughest conditions i’ve seen on this boat”, including gusts of 40-50 knots and sustained breeze in the mid-30’s with “a huge seaway”. The Omani boat was more deeply reefed, slower and generally more conservative in the rough stuff, allowing EdR to gain this crucial advantage.
With Edmond de Rothschild maintaining their fragile 50 mile lead, the two MOD’s were barely even slowed by the doldrums, averaging 16 knots across the dreaded light-air zone. The pair of 70-foot tri’s continued their match race towards the Brazilian coast at breakneck speed with the Omani boat reaching up slightly higher to try and catch their competitors on Edmond de Rothschild, and nearly succeeding at that, before falling off the back of a cold front and getting trapped in the light air behind it. Mix in a few technical challenges, a hydraulic failure and the aforementioned slowing at Finisterre and it’s amazing that the race came down to just 5 hours. But that’s the beauty of one-design; close racing.
Josse and co-skipper Charles Caudrellier on EdR collaborated to create something incredible, masterfully sailing the course at an average of more than 22 knots. Establishing a new course reference time of 11 days, 5 hours and 3 minutes from Le Havre to Itajal, the duo came in well quicker than the expected 12-14 days. A phenomenal performance by both teams. After this TJV, we can only hope that Virbac-Paprec 70, Spindrift and the others in the MOD fleet will engage in next year’s Krys Ocean Race!