- monthly subscription or
- one time payment
- cancelable any time
"Tell the chef, the beer is on me."
From the inbox:
I just noticed that the EVISE system, Elsevier has recently introduced as a new online editorial system for [journal], has sent you about 6 automated reminders to complete your review for [journal].
I deeply apologize for this technical mistake that I immediately reported to our technical support staff at Elsevier.
In addition, we have been asking Elsevier to stop threatening reviewers of denying access to the submission if review time exceeds a certain time limit. We are very sorry that the EVISE technical staff has still not succeeded in stopping this practice as requested by the [journal] Editorial team, so please ignore the content of these reminders.
I very much hope you can accept my sincere apologies and that we can still count on you having a look at the relevant manuscript as your time allows!
Sure, no problem. I ignore the reminders anyway ;->
Here is the 2/17 reminder:
Dear Prof. Whitehead,
You kindly agreed to review the above-referenced manuscript on 03/Jan/2016. We sent a reminder that your review was overdue on 16/Feb/2016 but have not yet received your review.
Please let us know as soon as possible if you cannot complete your review at this time.
If we do not hear from you within the next 85 days then we will process the submission without your input, and you will no longer be able to access the submission to review.
I was hoping they weren't going to send me a reminder each day for the next 85 days.
App State has become quick to cancel classes with the buses won't run. When that happens we are asked to "winterize" our courses. In other words, we're supposed to keep the students busy while they are enjoying no class time. My go to assignment has been Veconlab's supply and opportunity cost experiment. Here is the abstract from Mandell et al. (2009):
This paper describes an individual choice experiment that can be used to teach students how to correctly account for opportunity costs in production decisions. Students play the role of producers who require a fuel input and an emissions permit for production. Given fixed market prices, they make production quantity decisions on the basis of their costs. Permits have a constant price throughout the experiment. In one treatment, students have to purchase both a fuel input and an emissions permit for each production unit. In a second treatment, they receive permits for free, and any unused permits are sold on their behalf at the permit price. If students correctly incorporate opportunity costs, they will have the same supply function in both treatments. This experiment motivates classroom discussion of opportunity costs and emissions permit allocation under cap-and-trade schemes. The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme provides a relevant example for classroom discussion, as industry earned significant windfall profits from free allocation of emissions allowances in the early phases of the program.
Mandell, Svante, Chrles Holt, Erica Myers, Dallas Burtraw, and Markus Wråke. Teaching Opportunity Cost in an Emissions Permit Experiment. RFF-DP-09-22, 2009.
My MBA managerial economics class missed last wednesday and monday and so I fielded and debriefed the experiment on those days.
If students recognize the opportunity cost of free permits then the cap-and-trade and emissions tax regimes should result in the same supply curve. This doesn't happen for all of the students so the supply curve is too high for profit maximization when permits are freely distributed. Here is the estimated supply curve (OLS with random effects, n = 23, t = 16), quantity ranges from 0 to 3, price ranges from 1 to 10 and tax is equal to 0 for cap-and-trade and 1 for the tax regime:
Here is my pre-experiment video:
And here is my post-experiment video:
And just so you know, the Watauga County kids are going to school today for the first time in 8 days.
On February 9, just days before the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay freezing President Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan (CPP).
While many articles have speculated on what Scalia's death means as it relates to the future of the CPP — and the Court's voting balance tipping from a 5-4 conservative majority to a potential 5-4 liberal majority — there's been less attention paid to the corporate-funded network that launched a slew of lawsuits against the government to add legal muscle to the state Attorneys General attacks on the CPP.
A DeSmog investigation of the dozens of legal challenges filed just before the holidays at the federal Appeals Court level reveals that big corporate interests sit at the center of a coordinated attack against the Obama administration's regulatory attempt to curb emissions for coal-fired power plants.
By Nick Surgey, originally published by the Center for Media and Democracy
Ford Motor Company confirmed to the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) that it is cutting ties with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an organization that has drawn heavy criticism for promoting climate change denial and for opposing the development of renewable energy sources.
“As part of our annual budget review, we have adjusted our participation in several groups. We will not be participating in ALEC in 2016,” wrote Christin Baker, a Ford spokesperson in an email to CMD.
Its products might be “Ford Tough,” but in making the decision to stop funding ALEC, Ford executives are responding to consumer concern over its membership in the controversial, Koch-funded ALEC, which has both an extreme anti-worker agenda as well as an anti-environmental agenda.
The departure makes Ford the 108th identified company to cut ties with ALEC in recent years.
"Tell the chef, the beer is on me."
"Basically the price of a night on the town!"
"I'd love to help kickstart continued development! And 0 EUR/month really does make fiscal sense too... maybe I'll even get a shirt?" (there will be limited edition shirts for two and other goodies for each supporter as soon as we sold the 200)