Why canXCHARXt we all grow 7 feet tall?

Lewis Brown

Lewis Brown

Répondu il y a 62w

Genetics. Most humans don't have the genetics to grow that tall and if they do it would be rare.

HeightBoard

HeightBoard, Height Enthusiast

Répondu il y a 62w

Evolution. If humans evolved to be that tall we would have serious problems with food production. A 7 foot tall man easily needs twice as much food as the average man does.

Suresh Gupta

Suresh Gupta, former Retired Scientist at Indian Institute of Integrative Medicine (1970-2004)

Répondu il y a 16w · L'auteur dispose de réponses 2.1k et de vues de réponses 621.1k

Height is determined 95% by genes and 5% by environment ie diet and exercise .You can exploit only environmental part , that is why all cannot grow 7ft tall.

Tuan Nguyen

Tuan Nguyen, Rice U, UTMB med, UTSW Intern, UTH/MD Anderson Rad, UT Law, U AZ neuro, UTMB IR

Répondu il y a 16w · L'auteur dispose de réponses 1.4k et de vues de réponses 3.9m

Q. Why can't we all grow 7 feet tall?

A. Humans increased in stature dramatically during the last 150 years, but we have now likely reached the upper limit. The average height of a human man will probably never exceed that of basketball player Shaquille O'Neal, who stands 7 feet and 1 inch tall. Most geneticists believe that the improvement in childhood nutrition has been the most important factor in allowing humans to increase so dramatically in stature. Although some of the variation in height can be put down to genetic differences, it is not thought to be a dominant factor. Tall people tend to have a longer life expectancy, with a reduced risk of heart disease, but there is some evidence that they are at greater risk of certain cancers, such as colorectal, postmenopausal breast and ovarian cancers.

Lead scientist Majid Ezzati, from Imperial College London, told nouvelles de la BBC: "About a third of the explanation could be genes, but that doesn't explain the change over time. Genes don't change that fast and they don't vary that much across the world. So changes over time and variations across the world are largely environmental.”

Good standards of healthcare, sanitation, and nutrition are thought to be key factors, along with the mother's health and nutrition during pregnancy.


Why canXCHARXt we all grow 7 feet tall?

Why canXCHARXt we all grow 7 feet tall?

THE SCIENCES

Why are we getting taller as a species?

This answer comes from Michael J. Dougherty, assistant director and senior staff biologist at Biological Sciences Curriculum Study in Colorado Springs, Col.

Why canXCHARXt we all grow 7 feet tall?

Image: SportsLine USA, Inc

TALLER THAN SHAQ? Humans increased in stature dramatically during the last 150 years, but we have now likely reached the upper limit. The average height of a human man will probably never exceed that of basketball player Shaquille O'Neal, who stands 7 feet and 1 inch tall.

Anyone who has ever visited a home built around the time of the Revolutionary War along the back alleys of Philadelphia or Boston has been struck, metaphorically if not literally, by the characteristically low ceilings and small door frames. Even houses built in the early 1800s can make a person of average height by today's standards wonder how the orignal occupants managed to stay conscious long enough to participate in an industrial revolution and a civil war.

For most people, contemporary buildings do not prompt similar claustrophobic concerns. The reason for this difference, as many people have correctly guessed, is that modern humans are taller than those from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In fact, over the last 150 years the average height of people in industrialized nations has increased approximately 10 centimeters (about four inches).

Why this relatively sudden growth? Are we evolving to greater heights, vertically speaking? Before answering these questions, we need to remember that evolution requires two things: variation in physical and/or behavioral traits among the individuals in a population; and a way of selecting some of those traits as adaptations, or advantages to reproduction.

For example, finches that have large, powerful beaks also have an advantage cracking large, tough seeds during periods when small, soft seeds are scarce. As a consequence, large-beaked birds are more likely to eat better, survive longer and reproduce than small-beaked birds. Because beak shape is an inherited trait (one that is substantially influenced by genes), more successful reproduction by large beaked birds means that the genes predisposing finches to large beaks are transmitted to the next generation in relatively larger numbers than those genes encoding small beaks. Thus, the population of finches in the next generation will tend to have larger beaks than finches in their parent's generation.

Let's use this basic operating principle of evolution to predict, retrospectively, the direction of change in human height if evolution were the cause of the change. We know from studies conducted in industrial England cette enfants born into lower socioeconomic classes were shorter, on average, than children born into wealthy families. Nous savons aussi que poorer families had larger numbers of children.

Given those initial conditions, what would evolution predict? The average population should have become shorter because le shorter individuals dans la population were, from an evolutionary fitness perspective, more successful in passing on their genes. Mais ça did not happen. Instead, all segments of the population--rich and poor, from small and large families--increased in height. Thus, natural selection, the process whereby differences in reproductive success account for changes in the traits of a population, does not explain why we are taller.

If evolution doesn't explain height increases, what does? Most geneticists believe que l' improvement in childhood nutrition cela a été le facteur le plus important in allowing les humains à augmenter so dramatically in stature. The evidence for this argument is threefold:

Tout d'abord, the observed augmenter in la taille a ne pas était continuous since le dawn of man; it began sometime around the milieu de le nineteenth century. In fact, examinations of skeletons show no significant differences in height from the stone age through the early 1800s. Also, during World Wars I and II, when hunger was a frequent companion of the German civilian population, the heights of the children actually declined. They only recovered during the post-war years.

Such data are consistent with recent research indicating that slow growth induced by temporary malnourishment can usually be reversed. Chronic underfeeding during childhood, however, permanently affects stature and other traits, including intelligence.

En second lieu, le trend toward increasing height has largely leveled off, suggesting that there is an upper limit to height beyond which our genes are not equipped to take us, regardless of environmental improvements. Interestingly, the age of menarche, which is also influenced by nutrition, has shown a corresponding decrease over this same time period. Some scientists believe that the increase in teenage and out-of-wedlock pregnancies in the developed world may be an unanticipated consequence of improved nutrition.

Troisièmement, les conditions de poor nutrition are well correlated to smaller stature. For example, the heights of all classes of people, from factory workers to the rich, increased as food quality, production and distribution became more reliable, although class differences still remain. Even more dramatic, the heights of vagrant London boys declined from 1780 to 1800 and then rose three inches in just 30 years--an increase that paralleled improving conditions for the poor. Even today, height is used in some countries as an indicator of socioeconomic division, and differences can reveal discrimination within social, ethnic, economic, occupational and geographic groups.

For those hoping that humans might someday shoot basketballs through 15-foot high hoops, the fact that the increase in human height is leveling off no doubt will be disappointing. For those who understand, however, that our genes are merely a blueprint that specifies what is possible given an optimal environment, a limit on height is just one of many limitations in life, and certainly not the most constraining.

With environmental variables perhaps near their optimum, what are the prospects for evolutionary increases in height as a consequence of changes to our genetic blueprints? Apply the methods of the thought experiment above and see.


Why canXCHARXt we all grow 7 feet tall?

Why canXCHARXt we all grow 7 feet tall?

Why are some people taller than others? Scientists finally have an answer

Researchers analysing more than 700,000 people's DNA find 83 genetic changes accounting for height difference.

By Andrew Gregory Political Editor 1 FEB 2017

LIFESTYLE

Why canXCHARXt we all grow 7 feet tall?

Some of the 83 genetic variations discovered affect height by as much as 2cm (Image: Getty)

by Taboola

Scientists have finally discovered why some people are taller than others. They found 83 genetic variants affect height after analysing the DNA of 700,000 people. The genetic changes account for height differences of up to two centimetres. Previously identified common variants linked to tallness are much weaker, each of them typically adjusting height by less than a millimetre.

The new international study, published in the journal Nature, is the largest investigation to date of genetic factors associated with height. A number of the variants - alterations in the chemical sequences making up DNA - flagged up previously unknown biological pathways involved in skeletal growth.

Why canXCHARXt we all grow 7 feet tall?

The world's tallest man, 8ft 1in Sultan Kosen poses with the world's shortest man, 2ft 5in He Pingping (Image: Getty)

One of the signposted genes, STC2, makes a protein that acts as a brake on human height. Scientists believe it could provide a target for new treatments for growth problems in children.

British researcher Professor Panos Deloukas, from Queen Mary, University of London, who co-led the study, said: “The new genetic variants we found are rare in the population but their large effects on human height have revealed important new insights into human skeletal growth. The identified genes will be helpful in predicting a person’s risk of developing certain growth disorders.

“There is also the hope that we may one day be able to use this knowledge to develop a precision medicine approach for dealing with growth disorders.” Colleague and co-author Dr Andrew Wood, from the University of Exeter, added: “Our latest discovery means that we can now explain over a quarter of the heritable factors involved in influencing a person’s height.

Why canXCHARXt we all grow 7 feet tall?

More than 700,000 people had their DNA analysed as part of the study (Image: Getty)

“How the body grows from a 40-50cm baby into a perfectly proportioned adult three to four times the size, and how this occurs such that some of us end up being over half a metre taller than others, is a fascinating but poorly understood aspect of biology.”

In 2014 scientists involved in the research project, known as Giant (Genetic Investigation of Anthropometric Traits), identified nearly 700 height variants after analysing the complete DNA of 250,000 people. However such genome-wide association studies that cast a net over the whole of a person’s genetic code are not good at capturing uncommon genetic variants having large effects.

For the new study, the researchers used a different method to test for a catalogue of nearly 200,000 less common genetic variants known to alter the function of protein-coding genes. Data from a total of 711,428 people highlighted 83 uncommon variants that exerted a strong influence on adult height. Of these, 51 were “low frequency” variants found in less than 5% of the population, and 32 were rare variants found in less than 0.5%.

Professor Guillaume Lettre, one of the chief investigators from the University of Montreal in Canada, said: “Of these 83 genetic variations, some influence adult height by more than two centimetres, which is enormous. “The genes affected by these genetic variations modulate, among other things, bone and cartilage development and growth hormone production and activation.”


Why canXCHARXt we all grow 7 feet tall?

Why canXCHARXt we all grow 7 feet tall?

Why some nationalities are getting shorter while the rest get taller

Why canXCHARXt we all grow 7 feet tall?

Variations of height across the world are largely environmental.

Image: REUTERS/Wolfgang Rattay 26 Jul 2016

Keith Breene

Both men and women have grown taller over the last century, with Dutch men and Latvian women now inching ahead of the rest of the world.

Growth spurt

La recherche, publiée dans le journal eLife by the NCD Risk Factor Collaboration, shows that back in 1914 it was the Swedes who were the tallest people in the world. Since then Dutch men have risen up the rankings from 12th place to 1st with an average height of 182.5cm.

Why canXCHARXt we all grow 7 feet tall?

Latvian women, meanwhile, rose from 28th place in 1914 to become the tallest in the world a century later, with an average height of 169.8cm.

Why canXCHARXt we all grow 7 feet tall?

Other notable increases are South Korea’s women who have shot up by more than 20cm on average, and Iranian men whose stature has increased by 16.5cm.

The study looked at the average height of 18 year old men and women in 200 countries between 1914 and 2014.

European countries dominate the height chart, but the data also suggests that growth trends in the West may be levelling out.

Lower down

At the other end of the chart, the smallest men on the planet are to be found in East Timor at an average 160cm.

The world's smallest women are in Guatemala, as they were in 1914. The average Guatemalan 18-year-old female is 150cm tall.

What’s behind the difference?

Although some of the variation in height can be put down to genetic differences, it is not thought to be a dominant factor.

Lead scientist Majid Ezzati, from Imperial College London, told nouvelles de la BBC: "About a third of the explanation could be genes, but that doesn't explain the change over time. Genes don't change that fast and they don't vary that much across the world. So changes over time and variations across the world are largely environmental.”

Good standards of healthcare, sanitation, and nutrition are thought to be key factors, along with the mother's health and nutrition during pregnancy.

What goes up, can come down

The role of nutrition is thought to be a key explanation for the fact that, although over the century there has been an increase in height in every country surveyed, in some places people are have been getting shorter again.

Why canXCHARXt we all grow 7 feet tall?

“One reason for these decrease in heights in Africa is the economic situation in the 1980s,” Alexander Moradi of the University of Sussex, told le gardien.

The scientist, who was involved in the study, believes that the nutritional and health crises that followed the policy of economic structural adjustment in many African countries, led to many children and teenagers failing to reach their full potential in terms of height.

Impact sur la santé

Research has shown that height is correlated with positive health outcomes as well as a few negative ones.

Tall people tend to have a longer life expectancy, with a reduced risk of heart disease, but there is some evidence that they are at greater risk of certain cancers, such as colorectal, postmenopausal breast and ovarian cancers.


Why canXCHARXt we all grow 7 feet tall?

Swedes outgrown as world's tallest people

Why canXCHARXt we all grow 7 feet tall?

How tiny they must look to a Dutch person! Photo: Henrik Montgomery/TT

[email protected]
@thelocalsweden

26 Juillet 2016

Forget the myth about the tall, blond, modern Viking. Swedes are not the world's tallest.

They may have been the tallest people in the world a century ago. But in the past 100 years, Swedish men and women alike have seen themselves outgrown by several of their European neighbours, according to new findings published in medical journal eLife mardi.

Some 800 researchers from global health science network NCD Risk Factor Collaboration, in association with the World Health Organization, mapped out the height of 18-year-olds in 187 countries and tracked their average growth curve between 1914 and 2014.

They found that Dutch men are today the tallest, towering over others at almost 183 centimetres. The most impressive women meanwhile, measuring on average 170cm, are to be found in Latvia. A hundred years ago the two countries were only 12th respectively 28th tallest in the world.

Swedes of both sexes, however, who measured more than 171cm respectively on average 160cm a century ago, have tumbled from first place to 15th for men and 17th for women.

Of course, they haven't so much tumbled as been outperformed by others. Swedish women have grown to 166cm today and men to around 180cm. Many other nationalities have simply grown faster.

While still shorter than Europeans, Iranian males have enjoyed the biggest height gain in 100 years, from 157cm to 174cm. For women, it's the South Koreans, up from 142 to 162cm.

The smallest men in the world are found in East Timor (160cm) and the smallest women in Guatemala (140cm a year ago, just below 150 today).

Researchers said the reasons were largely down to environmental factors – such as healthcare, nutrition and sanination – rather than DNA.

"About a third of the explanation could be genes, but that doesn't explain the change over time. Genes don't change that fast and they don't vary that much across the world. So changes over time and variations across the world are largely environmental. That's at the whole population level versus for any individual whose genes clearly matter a lot," lead scientist Majid Ezzati, from Imperial College London, told the BBC.

Tall people are said to enjoy longer life expectancy. But last year a study found that they are also at greater risk of developing cancer, so there appears to be some good news for the Swedes after all.

The world's tallest women in 2014 (1914 in brackets)
1. Latvia (28)
2. Netherlands (38)
3. Estonia (16)
4. République tchèque (69)
5. Serbie (93)
6. Slovakia (26)
7. Danemark (11)
8. Lituanie (41)
9. Belarus (42)
10. Ukraine (43)
17. Suède (1)

The world's tallest men in 2014 (1914 in brackets)
1. Netherlands (12)
2. Belgique (33)
3. Estonia (4)
4. Latvia (13)
5. Danemark (9)
6. Bosnie-Herzégovine (19)
7. Croatia (22)
8. Serbie (30)
9. Islande (6)
10. République tchèque (24)
15. Suède (1)


Why Are People So Much Taller Today Than Historically?


Why canXCHARXt we all grow 7 feet tall?

Why canXCHARXt we all grow 7 feet tall?

Cheese or genes; Why are the Dutch so tall? Four Possible Answers

By Ceren Spuyman 19 Février, 2018

We don’t know if you paid attention to this detail yet, but let us break the news: People from the Netherlands are tall, in fact, they are the tallest! (At least the Dutch men are -together with the Latvian women). The average height for Dutch men is 1.86 cm (over 6’) whereas an average American is 1.76 cm (5’9”). “Why are the Dutch so Tall?” you might ask. Well, we’re wondering the same thing and here are 4 possible answers to that question.

Why are the Dutch so Tall?

Reason 1: Natural Selection

To kick start our possible reasons to why the Dutchies are so tall, we have natural selection. The idea of natural selection is simple: with time, there were more and more Dutch with tall genes.

Scientists think that natural selection with good environmental conditions (such as surrounded by cheese we’d say- see Reason 4 for our full take on it) might help to give an idea. To say it with the words of Gert Stulp who is a specialist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine:

“Height is very heritable – taller parents tend to have somewhat taller children than shorter parents. Because taller individuals would have more offspring in the next generation who would be taller, the average height in that generation would a bit taller on average than the preceding generation, if all else is equal.”

Which brings us to our second season!

Reason 2: Sex

Why canXCHARXt we all grow 7 feet tall?

This is where things get steamy: one of the answers to our question “Why are the Dutch so Tall?” might be: sex!

Selon une étude réalisée par LifeLines, tall men (accompanied by an woman of average height) have the most children. For example, the men with the most number of kids were seven centimetres above the average height. To put it statistically, they had 0.24 more children on average than the least fertile men, who were about 14 cm below the average height.

LifeLines got to this conclusion by looking into the lives and health of more than 94,500 people who lived in the Northern parts of the Netherlands between 1935 and 1967.

Say what now? There you have it: Apart from being quiet satisfied with their sexy time, they are good at making babies as well! (wink)

Reason 3: Snooze time

Why canXCHARXt we all grow 7 feet tall?

We all love a good ol’ snooze time. Our hectic lives and busy schedules are making it impossible to get a good night’s rest sometimes but nothing beats a good sleep. That’s why some people think that this might be the reason why the Dutch are so freaking tall!

We can’t talk much about catching a snooze as an adult but we have

Quel est le moyen le moins cher d’envoyer de l’argent du Royaume-Uni vers l’Inde?

Aditya Mishra

Aditya Mishra, Chef de projet chez Goldman Sachs (2014-present)

Répondu il y a 43w

Tout dépend de vos besoins. J'utilise l'ensemble de services de transfert ci-dessous en fonction du taux de change, etc. Chacun des services ci-dessous est fiable et repose sur mon expérience et peut être essayé au moins une fois.

1. TRANSFERGO:

  • Fournit le premier transfert GRATUIT.
  • Charge un montant fixe de seulement 0.99P (UK GBP).
  • Donne un taux de change raisonnable.
  • Donne un bonus de référence 20 GBP pour chaque référence.

@@@ *** LIEN POUR TRANSFER GO ***

Quel est le moyen le moins cher d’envoyer de l’argent du Royaume-Uni vers l’Inde?

2. ORBITREMIT:

  • Fournit le premier transfert GRATUIT.
  • Bonus de référence MAXIMUM de 75 £ (équiv. pour les autres devises).
  • Livraison rapide des fonds.
  • Bien meilleur taux de change par rapport aux banques.
  • Nous recommandons définitivement OrbitRemit pour l'envoi d'argent à l'international.
  • Valable uniquement pour GBP, AUD et NZD.

@@@ *** LIEN VERS ORBITREMIT ***

Quel est le moyen le moins cher d’envoyer de l’argent du Royaume-Uni vers l’Inde?

3. TRANSFERT

  • Le plus souvent utilisé avec un transfert GRATUIT de jusqu’à 500 £ (équivalent pour d’autres monnaies).
  • Donne un bonus de référence de 50 £ (équivalent pour les autres devises) pour les parrainages 3.
  • Bon taux de change et FEE proportionnel au montant transféré.
  • Livraison rapide des fonds.

@@@ *** LIEN VERS TRANSFERTS ***

Quel est le moyen le moins cher d’envoyer de l’argent du Royaume-Uni vers l’Inde?

4. MONDE REMIT:

  • Offre une large gamme d'options de devise, de lieux de livraison et de méthodes de transfert.
  • 20 £ (équivalent pour les autres monnaies) bonus de parrainage pour le parrainage et l’arbitre si vous vous enregistrez.
  • Premier transfert GRATUIT avec code promo GRATUIT.
  • Un moyen très rapide et fiable de transférer des fonds à l'étranger.
  • Pas de problème et toujours garder le client à jour.

@@@ *** LIEN VERS WORLDREMIT ***

Quel est le moyen le moins cher d’envoyer de l’argent du Royaume-Uni vers l’Inde?

5. ARGENT LEBARA:

  • Fournit l'un des meilleurs taux de change.
  • Offre un bonus de référence dès le premier transfert (! 5 £ - (équiv. Pour les autres devises)).
  • Le tarif peut être verrouillé pour un maximum de jours 30.
  • Sûr, rapide et très fiable.

@@@ *** LIEN VERS LEBARA ***

Quel est le moyen le moins cher d’envoyer de l’argent du Royaume-Uni vers l’Inde?

6. XENDPAY:

  • Fournit un bon taux de change.
  • Offre un bonus de référence de 10 £ (équivalent pour les autres devises) aux deux.
  • Fournit un transfert GRATUIT jusqu'à 2500 £ (équivalent pour les autres devises).

@@@ *** LIEN VERS XENDPAY

Sunny Singh

Sunny Singh, Envoi d'argent à la maison des dernières années 10

Mise à jour il y a 3w

TransferWise est un service international de transfert d'argent fondé à 2011 par deux membres de la première équipe de skype. Elle est considérée comme la première licorne fintech de Londres et est soutenue par des investisseurs de premier plan, notamment des sociétés de capital-risque de premier plan, Max Levchin, cofondateur de Paypal, et Sir Richard Branson. La société fournit des services de transfert d'argent transfrontaliers via des plateformes en ligne et mobiles, sur lesquelles les clients peuvent facilement envoyer et recevoir de l'argent, tout en économisant considérablement sur les frais bancaires et les taux de change généralement défavorables.

Il est internationalement reconnu comme l’un des moyens les plus sûrs et les plus rentables de transférer de l’argent à l’étranger, en particulier pour des montants relativement moins importants. Les frais sont minimes et il n'y a pas de frais cachés. Il est relativement facile de vous inscrire, de financer votre compte et de transférer de l'argent à l'étranger. Comme il est entièrement sous licence et réglementé par de nombreux observateurs mondiaux, son utilisation est sûre et fiable.

Quel est le moyen le moins cher d’envoyer de l’argent du Royaume-Uni vers l’Inde?

TransferWise utilise le taux de change du marché moyen (chaque fois que des fonds sont envoyés à l'étranger via un virement bancaire, de nombreux frais cachés sont impliqués. Le taux de change réel (taux du marché moyen) est considéré comme le taux le plus juste de tous selon Reuters) et relativement faible. frais de transaction pour envoyer de l'argent à l'étranger, banque par banque. L'idée est que l'expéditeur envoie des fonds sur un compte bancaire local et que le destinataire les reçoive d'un compte bancaire local.

  • Transferts bon marché d'un compte bancaire à un autre
  • Pas de livraison le jour même ou le lendemain
  • Fonctionne dans les pays 58

Quel est le moyen le moins cher d’envoyer de l’argent du Royaume-Uni vers l’Inde?

En utilisant le site Web ou l'application mobile de TransferWise, vous pouvez envoyer de l'argent depuis les États-Unis vers les pays 58. Les transferts ont tendance à être bon marché, car les taux de change de la société sont parmi les meilleurs disponibles, mais les faibles vitesses de livraison peuvent être un frein.

Avantages

  • FCA réglementé
  • Rapide et facile à utiliser
  • Frais peu élevés et pas de frais cachés
  • Jusqu'à 300 devises routes prises en charge

Les inconvénients

  • La configuration du compte peut être difficile dans certains pays / juridictions
  • Le service client peut être émoussé parfois

La façon dont vous obtenez des transferts à faible coût est pratiquement la même que celle utilisée pour échanger votre premier code de coupon de transfert gratuit pour TransferWise.

Il suffit de cliquer sur 'ici ' bouton de droite qui vous mènera automatiquement à TransferWise pour commencer votre première remise.

Aller à TransferWise

Le code promo sera automatiquement appliqué UNIQUEMENT si vous n'êtes pas un client existant de TransferWise. Ne soyez pas déçu, cependant!

Bonus: lire plus encore sur d’autres services de transfert d’argent et comparez-les avant d’envoyer la prochaine fois.

Bhargavi Tripathi

Bhargavi Tripathi, MTS (membre du personnel technique) (2015-present)

Répondu il y a 76w

Réponse d'origine: Quel est le moyen le moins cher d’envoyer de l’argent en Inde depuis le Royaume-Uni (10k +)?

Acheter une propriété à l'étranger ou une maison de vacances à l'étranger, payer les frais de scolarité à l'étranger, réaliser des investissements à l'étranger, envoyer de l'argent à des amis ou à la famille vivant à l'étranger, soutenir un membre de la famille en voyage à l'étranger. Ce sont quelques-unes des raisons du transfert d’argent et vous devrez payer des frais si vous transférez une grosse somme d’argent ou si vous transférez régulièrement de petites sommes d’argent. Si vous tenez également compte des taux de change, les coûts peuvent vraiment s’additionner.

ExchangeRateIQ vous aide à trouver des moyens de réduire ces frais et d'obtenir des taux de change supérieurs pour vous faire économiser de l'argent.

Vous pouvez trouver la manière la moins chère avec des taux de change supérieurs et moyen le plus rapide d'envoyer de l'argent en Inde depuis le Royaume-Uni.

Il y a des entreprises spécialisées dans le transfert d'argent du Royaume-Uni vers l'Inde comme Azimo

Worldremit

Xendpay

Vraiment

ExchangeRateIQ vous aide à trouver les meilleures options de transfert d'argent avec des services uniques pour vous permettre d'obtenir des taux de change élevés en quelques clics.

  1. Extension Chrome d'ExchangeRateIQ
  2. Soyez averti du meilleur tarif

Économisez votre argent avec le meilleur service de transfert d'argent avec l'aide d'ExchangeRateIQ et réduisez le risque d'escroqueries par transfert d'argent.

Kirsty Lafrange

Kirsty Lafrangevoyageur

Répondu il y a 91w

La dernière étude de SendMoneyAbroad.how montre que 75% des personnes ayant besoin d’envoyer de l’argent cherchent l’alternative la moins chère.

Cela a du sens parce que transférer de l’argent doit être une marchandise et non une chose pour laquelle on fait confiance à une marque ou à une banque. Je crois sincèrement que nous allons vers les produits de base grâce à des sites de comparaison tels que moneytis.

Au cours des dernières années, j'ai voyagé d'un pays à l'autre. Tous les mois, je change. Je suis maintenant habitué à la banque pour les voyageurs et les expatriés. Ce que je peux dire, c'est que des solutions apparaissent partout. Chacun est plus efficace que le précédent. Il existe des solutions pour savoir quels sont les meilleurs moments en fonction des taux de change (Neomy ) et d’autres pour savoir quelle est la meilleure nouvelle alternative pour être la plus rentable (Moneytis ou d’autres sites de comparaison).

Je me suis rendu du Royaume-Uni en Inde parce que j'en avais le besoin la semaine dernière. J'ai découvert que l'opérateur le moins cher dépend de quelques points:

  1. les montants que nous envoyons
  2. la vitesse dont nous avons besoin
  3. le temps que nous demandons, les taux de cuz changent constamment

L’un des meilleurs moyens selon moi est d’abord de regarder ce que vous dépensez actuellement en utilisant votre banque. Les outils de suivi des frais cachés peuvent être utiles pour cela: HSuivi des frais idden

Quel est le moyen le moins cher d’envoyer de l’argent du Royaume-Uni vers l’Inde?

Ensuite, utilisez une solution différente de celle des banques et vous obtiendrez l’un des processus les plus efficaces. Le seul point à garder à l’esprit est que la prochaine fois, vous devrez comparer à nouveau car il y aura de nombreux nouveaux acteurs efficaces sur le marché.

Quel est le moyen le moins cher d’envoyer de l’argent du Royaume-Uni vers l’Inde?

Sunn Franc

Sunn Franc

Répondu il y a 17w

Vous trouverez ci-dessous certaines des options de transfert d’argent et de remise supplémentaire que vous pouvez obtenir lors du premier transfert d’argent (utilisez l’offre jusqu’à ce qu’elle dure)

1. Worldremit - donne habituellement un meilleur prix que Transferwise

  • Joindre TopCashback
  • s'inscrire sur Worldremit en utilisant le lien de parrainage: https://goo.gl/NLNLyD
  • Accédez à World remit from top cashback
  • une fois que vous aurez transféré 100GBP ou 125 euro ou 150 usd, vous obtiendrez le remboursement. Vérifier ici pour les autres pays (n'oubliez pas d'utiliser le code FREE pour la première transaction gratuite sur Worldremit)
  • Vous trouverez ci-dessous ce que vous gagnerez avec Worldremit et bonus topcashback. bonus jointif sur topcashback, c.-à-d. 10 gbp / euro / usd + 15 gbp / euro / usd sur topcashback pour naviguer dans le monde depuis le cashback le plus élevé Vous pouvez transférer cet argent à votre banque une fois la transaction «payable». Cela prend du temps mais en vaut la peine. En outre, topcashback est bon pour tout autre shopping. 20 gbp / euro / usd sur worldremit (vérifier ici pour les autres pays). Vous obtiendrez un coupon du montant mentionné et vous pourrez le transférer dans n’importe quel pays. Il n'y a pas de restriction minimale.

Quel est le moyen le moins cher d’envoyer de l’argent du Royaume-Uni vers l’Inde?

2. XendPay - donne habituellement un meilleur prix que Worldremit or TransferWise

  • Joindre XendPay utilisez ce lien et transférez plus de livres 100 / 125 Euros / 150 usd pour obtenir des frais de transaction gratuits et de bons taux de change.
  • Oui, vous recevez 10 £ / 10 Euro / 10 USD lors de votre adhésion.
  • AUCUN frais de transfert / payez ce que vous voulez, c’est-à-dire que vous contrôlez ce que vous voulez payer pour les frais de transfert

Quel est le moyen le moins cher d’envoyer de l’argent du Royaume-Uni vers l’Inde?

3. TransferWise

  • TransferWisePros:Taux de change actuel du marché intermédiaire, comme vous pouvez le voir sur XE .com
  • Les clients ont transféré 4.5bn $ à l'aide de la plateformePrice Match Price Guarantee
  • Disponible en tant qu'application sur iOS et Android. S'inscrire en utilisant le lien de parrainage vous permettra de recevoir le bonus promotionnel (aucun frais pour votre premier transfert, des limites s'appliquent)
  • Inconvénients:
  • Aucun transfert n'est gratuit.
  • Vous êtes toujours facturé un 0.9% du montant total de votre transfert, ce qui réduit le taux de transfert effectif.
  • Le transfert prend environ 13 jours 3. Pour certains nouveaux clients, il peut s’effectuer jusqu’à 3 jours 5. Toutefois, le taux engagé reste le même à la date de la transaction.
  • Vous avez une limite d'envoi quotidienne et semestrielle, qui peut être augmentée en fonction de l'utilisation (vous pouvez demander de l'augmenter en partageant la documentation requise, comme le requiert la loi américaine).
  • Remarque: TransferWise offre des avantages promotionnels aux nouveaux clients référés. Vos frais de premier transfert sont supprimés (des limites de transfert s’appliquent).

Quel est le moyen le moins cher d’envoyer de l’argent du Royaume-Uni vers l’Inde?

3. ORBIT REMIT :

  • Réservé aux résidents du Royaume-Uni, de l'Australie et de la Nouvelle-Zélande
  • C'est l'un des TRANSFERT D'ARGENT LE PLUS BÉNÉFIQUE Je suis tombé sur jusqu'à maintenant qui prend également un montant fixe de seulement 2 £ ou 2.3 .
  • Les avantages comprennent un faible coût, une livraison rapide des fonds, une facilité d'utilisation et tous les paiements garantis.
  • Vous obtenez beaucoup plus avec OrbitRemit.
  • Direct lien joindre ORBIT REMIT
  • Frais: Variable, Frais fixes de 2 GBP ou 2.3 € ou 2.5 USD quel que soit le montant.
  • Premier transfert GRATUIT Heure: 1 - Jours ouvrables 2.
  • Obtenez le bonus d'adhésion de 20 £ / $ / € après avoir effectué votre premier transfert

Quel est le moyen le moins cher d’envoyer de l’argent du Royaume-Uni vers l’Inde?

  • 4. Vraiment :
  • Offre un très bon tarif pour les premiers 800 £, 912 € ou 1000 usd avec transfert gratuit
  • Lien : Vraiment Tarifs spéciaux pour le transfert initial
  • Support globalOffres: 10 £ ou 12 € ou 12 usd Bon cadeau Amazone (peut en obtenir davantage en fonction de promotions - il s’agit actuellement d’un gbp 20 / 24 euros / 25 usd)
  • Heure: Dans la journée 1

Quel est le moyen le moins cher d’envoyer de l’argent du Royaume-Uni vers l’Inde?

5. Azimo -> Code d'invitation pour 10 £ bonus d'inscription

REMARQUE: vous recevez 10 £ en tant que bonus, MAIS n'utilisez pas le bonus lors de votre première transaction, car vous n'obtiendrez PAS de cashback en 21 GBP TopCashback si vous utilisez le code. Gardez-le pour votre prochaine transaction

  • Codes promo supplémentaires pour vos prochaines transactions sur Azimo: COMEBACK5, HAPPYBDAY

6. Transfergo s'inscrire avec code 61qQub

  • Transfer go a un montant fixe de £ 0.99 et les transferts sont également effectués en heures 24.
  • Le premier transfert est gratuit avec transfert aller.
  • En outre, ils ont une option de transfert rapide afin que vous puissiez obtenir de l'argent le jour même sur votre compte.
  • Obtenez 20 £ ou 23 € ou 25 $ pour le premier TRANSFERT
  • Pour obtenir une référence 20 £ ou 23 € ou 25 $ et premier transfert gratuit : transfergos'inscrire avec code 61qQub
  • Frais: Fixe 0.99 GBP / 1.99 GBP. Le premier transfert est GRATUIT
  • Heure: le lendemain pour 0.99 GBP,
  • Même jour pour 1.99 GBP.
  • SI VOUS naviguez vers transfergo avec TopCashback obtenez 12 GBP supplémentaire pour la première transaction.

7. WesternUnion: naviguer via Quidco pour un remboursement supplémentaire (VARIES)

8. . Remit2India

bons taux de transfert vers l'INDE seulement

  • Lien : Remit2India
  • Tarifs spéciaux pour le transfert initial
  • Offres: bonus d'adhésion aux 500R
  • Le soutien mondial
  • Heure: Dans la journée 1

9. Spécial pour les personnes au Royaume-Uni: remboursement supplémentaire lorsque vous vous inscrivez sur TopCashback , Quicdo et naviguer vers les sites énumérés ci-dessus via TopCashback. or Quicdo Assurez-vous que vous vous êtes inscrit en utilisant le lien ci-dessus avant de naviguer vers les sites Web respectifs pour un remboursement supplémentaire.

Quel est le moyen le moins cher d’envoyer de l’argent du Royaume-Uni vers l’Inde?

10. Lebara : Il offre également de bons taux de transfert et vous obtenez une réduction de 17 € sur votre premier transfert, ce qui améliore encore les taux. Essaie.

11. Western union: naviguer via Quidco pour un cashback supplémentaire de 20 £ crédité dans votre portefeuille quidco

Quel est le moyen le moins cher d’envoyer de l’argent du Royaume-Uni vers l’Inde?

12. MoneyGram: naviguer via TopCashback pour un remboursement supplémentaire de 15 £ à portefeuille topcashback

13. Remit2India

bons taux de transfert vers l'INDE seulement

  • Lien : https://goo.gl/HxrMsz
  • Tarifs spéciaux pour le transfert initial
  • Offres: bonus d'adhésion aux 500R
  • Le soutien mondial
  • Heure: Dans la journée 1

À la fin .. je vais dire ..

Voir et comparer est une bonne chose, mais assurez-vous qu’il n’ya pas de favoritisme pour un site ou un service particulier. Le moyen le plus simple de les attraper consiste à utiliser des taux de transfert surdimensionnés et à indiquer toujours les taux de conversion. Mon but est de ne pas hâter les choses et de voir patiemment. Il vaut mieux perdre quelques sous sur la recherche de temps que de perdre une grosse somme en paiement ou en conversion.

Les banques ne sont jamais une bonne option car elles facturent des coûts élevés en matière de transfert et de conversion. Leur service de fil est une arnaque totale. Pour quelques milliers de dollars, les services des banques de grandes marques vous pilleront complètement. Ils facturent généralement une «taxe de service» imposée par la régularité bancaire, qui correspond au minimum que vous devrez payer pour

Transfert d’argent sur le Forex (mais ce minimum s’avère être aujourd’hui maximum et vous finissez par perdre X% à 10 en commissions). De nombreux fournisseurs de services de transfert Forex ajouteront leurs propres frais de service à la transaction ou aux envois de fonds, mais en raison de la concurrence, le nombre de ces frais a été considérablement réduit.

De plus, dans ce monde d'applications, tous les services sont disponibles sur simple pression du doigt. L'application XOOM est facile et pratique à utiliser, essayez i

Pourquoi tant d’Américains ont-ils une opinion négative des Texans? Sont-ils jaloux que le Texas soit l'État le plus puissant (à supposer qu'il le soit)? et, par conséquent, les Texans sont les Américains les plus importants (à supposer qu'ils le soient)?

Ed Caruthers

Ed Caruthers, living with the results of US politics every day

Répondu il y a 175w · L'auteur dispose de réponses 9.6k et de vues de réponses 10.8m

Nope, it's not jealousy.

Nope, Texas is not the most important or most powerful state in the US.

Many Americans have a negative opinion of Texas because of the most famous politicians they've elected - George W. Bush (associated with the Iraq war), Lyndon Johnson (associated with the Vietnam war), and Rick Perry (associated with extreme -and dumb- campaigning for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2012). When non-Americans express disdain for Texas, this is probably the main reason.

But there's lots more recent stuff happening in Texas. I'm a native Texan and I'm embarrassed by armed Texans at the Mexican border, shouting their rage at small brown children fleeing to Texas to avoid drug gangs in their home countries.

Pourquoi tant d’Américains ont-ils une opinion négative des Texans? Sont-ils jaloux que le Texas soit l'État le plus puissant (à supposer qu'il le soit)? et, par conséquent, les Texans sont les Américains les plus importants (à supposer qu'ils le soient)?

And the Texas Legislature has just passed a law to prevent Texas city and local governments from regulating waste water from fracking. Oil to Texans: "Frack you. This is our state and don't you forget it."

General disclaimer: Yes, Texas is a big state and there are lots of people there. Yes, many of them are very good people. I'm even related to some of them. But at the state level, it's a pretty crazy place.

Will Franklin

Will Franklin, Texas is America's America

Répondu il y a 158w · L'auteur dispose de réponses 52 et de vues de réponses 476.8k

There are really only three states which could reasonably claim the title as the most powerful state. California, Texas, and New York.

California is larger, has better weather, has more celebrities and more media mogul influence. New York is smaller but has the most important city in the world (NYC), with America's financial center.

As far as the most important Americans, I could probably make the case that certain early primary states (in the presidential primary) have a proportionally outsized status. Or that a state with the highest number of millionaires/billionaires (California) or the highest number of movie/music/television/news headquarters (California, New York) might be the state with the most important Americans, if only because they have such an outsized impact on the culture. Texas would certainly lag a bit on that cultural impact, although the future belongs to those who still exist, and Texas will eventually have more Texans than California has Californians or New York has New Yorkers. I don't think many Texans, even Texans who are obsessed with loving everything about Texas, view themselves as the most important Americans. It's not about people being superior. They just view Texas as a great place. Even among the "Secede Now!" crowd (which, by the way, is half serious, half tongue-in-cheek), I don't think anyone would say Texans are more important than other Americans. It's not about that at all. It's all about the Texas Model. The Texas culture. Texas' unique history as its own independent nation and its history within the United States. Texas confidence. Texas success. Texas exceptionalism.

And here are some reasons why:

Texas is the only state with its own electric grid, and Texas produces more wind energy than any other state in the nation. If Texas were its own country, it would rank sixth in the world in wind power. Texas would also be one of the world's largest oil and gas producers, refiners, and exporters. By the way, California has incredible oil and gas reserves, but it chooses to curtail/prohibit production.

Pourquoi tant d’Américains ont-ils une opinion négative des Texans? Sont-ils jaloux que le Texas soit l'État le plus puissant (à supposer qu'il le soit)? et, par conséquent, les Texans sont les Américains les plus importants (à supposer qu'ils le soient)?

Texas has reduced carbon dioxide and the various NOx/SOx/ozone/particulate matter/etc. emissions faster than other states, without wrecking the economy. Look at which states have lots of cities in non-compliance for air quality. California, not Texas. Indeed, all five of America's dirtiest cities for ozone are all in California. All five of the dirtiest cities for both year-round and short-term particle pollution are in California.

Pourquoi tant d’Américains ont-ils une opinion négative des Texans? Sont-ils jaloux que le Texas soit l'État le plus puissant (à supposer qu'il le soit)? et, par conséquent, les Texans sont les Américains les plus importants (à supposer qu'ils le soient)?

Texas has just five cities among the three top-25 lists (in each case, near the bottom), while California has twenty-one cities in those three lists (usually near the top). Moreover, Texas has five cities listed among the cleanest, while California has only two.

Texas is America's number one exporting state, as well as the top technology exporting state. Even taking out oil-related exports, Texas still dominates America's export rankings. That's been the case for more than a dozen years now.

Texas' economy is now one of the most diverse in the country, with oil and gas accounting for mere single digits (back in the 1970s and 1980s, it was 20-30%).

Within each racial demographic (whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.) Texas has America's lowest or almost-lowest high school dropout rate. Even just clumping everyone together, Texas has nearly the very lowest dropout rate in the entire country, behind only demographically homogenous Iowa.

Pourquoi tant d’Américains ont-ils une opinion négative des Texans? Sont-ils jaloux que le Texas soit l'État le plus puissant (à supposer qu'il le soit)? et, par conséquent, les Texans sont les Américains les plus importants (à supposer qu'ils le soient)?

Within each racial demographic, Texas has either the highest or almost-highest NAEP science and math test scores for 4th and 8th graders. It's impressive to look at these numbers in depth.

Pourquoi tant d’Américains ont-ils une opinion négative des Texans? Sont-ils jaloux que le Texas soit l'État le plus puissant (à supposer qu'il le soit)? et, par conséquent, les Texans sont les Américains les plus importants (à supposer qu'ils le soient)?

From the time the Great Recession began through last year, Texas added more than a million new jobs while the other 49 states lost jobs. There are a hundred ways to slice and dice the job data, but Texas looks fairly amazing in just about any of those slices.

Interestingly, the labor force participation rate has fallen to all-time lows in the country as a whole, but they've remained steady in Texas.

Pourquoi tant d’Américains ont-ils une opinion négative des Texans? Sont-ils jaloux que le Texas soit l'État le plus puissant (à supposer qu'il le soit)? et, par conséquent, les Texans sont les Américains les plus importants (à supposer qu'ils le soient)?

New job creation in Texas is more more evenly distributed than in the rest of the country. Texas is creating jobs at every wage level. Indeed, Texas has created more high wage jobs than any other state, by far, in recent years. The nation as a whole has, on the net, added zero or negative middle wage jobs. Texas has added those at a robust clip. Texas has also added both more entry-level wage jobs and more high wage jobs than the rest of the country. More STEM jobs. More finance jobs. More construction jobs. There's a job for anyone here.

Pourquoi tant d’Américains ont-ils une opinion négative des Texans? Sont-ils jaloux que le Texas soit l'État le plus puissant (à supposer qu'il le soit)? et, par conséquent, les Texans sont les Américains les plus importants (à supposer qu'ils le soient)?

Texas is the top state in America for net domestic in-migration. More Americans are voting with their feet and moving to Texas than to any other state. Mostly, that's driven by the availability of jobs and the relatively low cost of living. By comparison, California (beautiful California!) has been losing people to net domestic migration. Same with New York.

The result of Texas growing is that Texas continues to add Congressional seats and Electoral College votes for President, while New York continues to lose seats and presidential clout. California remained flat in the most recent reapportionment for the first time since becoming a state, only due to continued foreign in-migration.

Pourquoi tant d’Américains ont-ils une opinion négative des Texans? Sont-ils jaloux que le Texas soit l'État le plus puissant (à supposer qu'il le soit)? et, par conséquent, les Texans sont les Américains les plus importants (à supposer qu'ils le soient)?

And let's quickly touch on foreign migration. Numerous studies have looked at results of foreign immigrants moving to Texas and California. Those moving to Texas have lower rates of poverty, higher employment rates, further and better educational outcomes, higher rates of home ownership, higher levels of entrepreneurial activity, and so forth and so on. Massive waves of non-English-speaking immigrants are a challenge, but in California, that challenge seems to have become a full-on problem, while in Texas, we've done a better job turning the challenge into more of a net opportunity and success story. Sure, the millions of recent (mostly poor) immigrants bring down the per capita income and proportion of the population with insurance and so forth, but if you're an immigrant moving to the United States, Texas is the place to go. The Texas model, while it's not as generous with the government spending, is actually better than the high-spending model California has been employing, at assimilating, providing opportunity for poor people, and otherwise giving people access to what is traditional thought of as an upwardly mobile American Dream. That's probably counterintuitive for many people, but it makes a lot of sense to Texans who value individual liberty, limited government, and personal responsibility.

Texas also still has a birth rate above "replacement" rate, while California and New York are more European/Japanese, in terms of that depopulation spiral that can happen with prolonged low birth rates. One could therefore argue that Texans are indeed very important, because without them, the nation as a whole would begin descending into that problem territory many parts of the highly developed world now find themselves in. It's literally an existential crisis without Texans and their higher fertility rates. Even with Texas, we're approaching that territory as a nation. And maybe some people think that's a good thing-- depopulation. Likely many Quorans would view depopulation as an unquestioned positive good value.

Texas is also the only state in the country with two metro areas in the top five in the country. Houston will within a decade surpass Chicago to be the nation's third largest city. Austin will soon be America's tenth largest city.

Texas has no income tax and despite high property taxes has one of the nation's lowest tax burdens in the country.

And despite lower spending, and despite Texas being 50th out of 50 states in terms of getting our highway tax dollars back from the federal government, Texas infrastructure actually ranks okay, and much better than California's or New York's. Texans certainly like to complain about our traffic, and it does seem to be getting worse as more and more people move here, but our cities are actually less congested than California's cities. Californians and New Yorkers waste more time stuck in traffic than Texans do.

Crime (both property and violent) is falling faster in Texas than in the rest of the nation, over the past several years. Meanwhile, Texas is closing prisons for the first time in its history. If you've not yet heard of the Texas "Right On Crime" model, you will soon. It involved decriminalization and deescalation, ending overcriminalization of various innocuous activities, diversion and treatment rather than incarceration for non-violent drug offenses, etc., etc.

Pourquoi tant d’Américains ont-ils une opinion négative des Texans? Sont-ils jaloux que le Texas soit l'État le plus puissant (à supposer qu'il le soit)? et, par conséquent, les Texans sont les Américains les plus importants (à supposer qu'ils le soient)?

Texas has the highest credit rating (Aaa, AAA, and AAA) from the three major crédit rating agencies. By comparison, California is a couple/few notches down on each agency's ranking. Same with New York.

Pourquoi tant d’Américains ont-ils une opinion négative des Texans? Sont-ils jaloux que le Texas soit l'État le plus puissant (à supposer qu'il le soit)? et, par conséquent, les Texans sont les Américains les plus importants (à supposer qu'ils le soient)?

Texas has one of the lowest costs of living in the country and average incomes near the middle. Do the math on that. Buying power is pretty great in Texas. You can still live the American dream here with a middle class job.

Pourquoi tant d’Américains ont-ils une opinion négative des Texans? Sont-ils jaloux que le Texas soit l'État le plus puissant (à supposer qu'il le soit)? et, par conséquent, les Texans sont les Américains les plus importants (à supposer qu'ils le soient)?

Texas also has a poverty rate, using the more descriptive and accurate supplemental poverty measure (SPM, from the Census Bureau), roughly equal to the nation's, despite demographics that are nearly identical to California's. California has the nation's highest poverty rate under that measure. Break out white poverty, Hispanic poverty, and black poverty, and Texas has poverty rates in each of those demographics significantly below national averages, while California has substantially higher rates in each category. Even among Asians. It just seems that California is good at fostering poverty.

Texas has one of the lowest rates of homelessness in the country, while California and New York have among the highest. Since the Great Recession began, Texas has actually reduced homelessness, while California and New York have seem their homelessness increase dramatically.

Pourquoi tant d’Américains ont-ils une opinion négative des Texans? Sont-ils jaloux que le Texas soit l'État le plus puissant (à supposer qu'il le soit)? et, par conséquent, les Texans sont les Américains les plus importants (à supposer qu'ils le soient)?

Meanwhile, Texas has lower than its proportional share of people on welfare, while California has far more than its proportional share of people on it.

Texas sends far more than its proportional share of young men and women into the U.S. military. California and New York are near the bottom, sending lower than their proportional shares. And if you've heard about these vigilante fighters from America fighting against ISIL/ISIS, the largest share by far are from Texas. This paragraph is either a positive or negative, depending on your worldview, but I'd suggest it shows that Texans are passionate about their beliefs and are more willing to literally fight and die for them than most other Americans. Again, maybe you are reading this and think of that as stupid or bellicose or whatever, but Texans are more likely to walk the walk than Californians, on a whole host of things, including defending their country from external threats.

Texas is one of America's most diverse states. Houston recently passed New York City to become the nation's most diverse city.

Culturally, if Texas were a stock, it would be undervalued and due for a big run. Houston has more theater seats than any U.S. city outside of New York City. Texas has a vibrant art scene. And music. And food.

Every other week or so, another list from CNBC, Forbes, Niche, WalletHub, Business Insider, etc. will show that 14 of the 18 fastest growing cities in America are Texas cities. Constantly. In terms of people growth. In terms of economic growth. Texas dominates these rankings. In terms of "best place to raise a family" and "best place to start a career" and "best place for first-time homebuyers" kinds of rankings.

In recent GDP figures released by the federal government, Texas grew nearly 6% in the past year, while the other 49 states grew just under 2%. From 2005-2014, Texas' economy grew 42.6%, versus 13.6% in the U.S. as a whole. Take out Texas, the USA grew just 11.2%. Those are incredible gaps.

Here's an important recent dichotomy: Texas and California have both faced droughts (as in, lack of rain) in recent years. It has reached more of a crisis level in California for various man-made reasons. Texas, meanwhile, decided to build more reservoirs and implement a multi-billion dollar strategic water plan we could actually afford, due to our strong bond rating and robust tax receipts. Texas voters approved the spending, and bam, it's happening. California politicians, meanwhile, delay and blame and otherwise get nothing done, despite being a one-party state. We're handling our drought crisis here in Texas much more smoothly than California. California is less proactive and much more reactive, flitting from crisis to crisis.

Texas is not the most powerful state in America. But it is certainly the only large right-of-center state in the entire country, which makes it incredibly important and powerful, given that the nation remains a (barely) right-of-center nation as a whole. In many ways, it is America's political ATM, providing an outsized amount of funds into the political system.

Texas also provides leadership in terms of suing the federal government on behalf of the 30+ red states on a variety of issues. Texans tends to take a lead role in litigation against Washington, DC's overreach, if not always in name. It was formerly the case that California would pass some law, and the rest of the states would inevitably follow. Now, Texas is providing an alternative model for the majority of right-of-center states to follow. Only Texas is in a position to do that. A lot of people in a lot of states count on Texas to stand up to the federal government on a host of issues. Some of the smaller states are simply not equipped to take on the goliath, and no other large state is willing to, due to their political and ideological inclinations. So Texas is indeed very important in terms of representing the (slight) majority of Americans living in the (large) majority of states.

Texans have a higher degree of both economic and personal freedom than residents of nearly any other state, according to Mercatus and others. Certainly of any other large state. By comparison, California and New York rank near the bottom in terms of overall freedom.

Texas is America's America. A place to go to start fresh, to make a life, to earn a living, to raise a family. The shining city on a hill. Texas is not immune to problems, statistically. Most of those statistical problems are related to demographics and our explosive growth. But many of our problems are not so bad when you actually examine the numbers in depth or compare Texas to other large states, especially California or New York.

Texas is also on track to become the nation's largest state, population-wise, within the next few decades, by around 2040 or 2050. That's a long time, sure, and trends can always shift away from that inevitability, but at that point in time, Texas will undeniably be the most powerful state in the nation. By that point, Texas will also have five of the nation's ten largest cities.

I also anticipate a decentralization of tv and movies and news and advertising and other media away from New York and California. I'm fairly sure it will not "re-centralize" in Texas. It just won't be so concentrated in just a couple of cities on the coasts.

So, again, Texas is not currently the most powerful state in the nation, but we do have a partial claim to that title, and it will be unequivocally true in the future, based on current economic and population projections. California probably has a stronger claim currently, based mostly on its higher population (and thus, larger economy), but that won't last forever. New York's already tenuous grip on a portion of the title just keeps slipping, as it continues losing population at a massive clip each year. Even NYC is being supplanted in financial circles by London and Hong Kong.

On a slightly related note, I think New York City and New York State could mutually benefit from a political split. Let upstate be upstate. Let the city be the city. Right now, that relationship has gone from mutually beneficial to highly dysfunctional.

But back to the headline question: why do America's not like Texans? I'm positive that's not true (and I have numbers), but to the extent it is true, Americans aren't really fond of Californians or New Yorkers, either. Less so, actually.

Actually, according to a recent YouGov poll, the only state that Americans clearly dislike is New Jersey. It's the only upside-down state in America, with a net favorable rating of -10%. The least liked states, after NJ, are Alabama (+8%), Illinois (+9%), Mississippi (+9%), and Indiana (+12%). Texas has a net favorable rating of +31%. New York is only +24%, and California is only +13%. As others have noted, this undercuts the premise of the headline question pretty severely.

Each year or so, Gallup asks people about whether they like their own states. Generally, Western states like Montana, Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming perform very well. Among that group: Texas.

Texans love Texas. Texans are the most likely Americans to say their own state is THE single best state in America. Almost no Texans say it is the worst state, or even a bad state, so some of the alleged anti-Texas responses by Texans here on Quora seem to be people from that tiny group of outliers. In the Gallup numbers, Illinoisans and Rhode Islanders and Connecticuters don't like their states.

As for California, only 51% of Californians say it's among the best places to live. Only 41% of New Yorkers say that. So the real question might be why people in some of these "great power" type states have such low views of where they live. Maybe some of it is that the taxes are too high, the cost of living is too high, there aren't enough jobs of any kind, nobody can afford homes or to have kids or to go on vacations or much of anything else, there are unsheltered homeless people everywhere in the cities, the schools are bad and getting worse, crime is not falling as fast as it is in the rest of the country (or, worse, it's actually rising), the neighbors keep moving to Texas, gas prices are too high, the state government keeps overregulating every little aspect of life, and so forth and so on. But, hey, the weather is nice. And there are beaches.

I'd say a lot of the Texas braggadocio is, objectively, well-earned. It ain't bragging if it's true, the saying goes.

And people totally get that.

Texas may not be the cool kid, but the cool kid, statistically, ends up poorly, according to various studies. Cool kids might also be fun to date or hang out with in high school or college, but they aren't good to settle down with. Texas is marriage material. Texas is the uncool kid from junior high who is steady and dependable and ends up the boss. Again, people get that.

Ultimately, people don't move by the (net) thousands each day to a failing/failed state described by some of the people here. Hundreds of businesses and entrepreneurs, including some Fortune 500 and Fortune 1,000 companies, don't uproot and move each year from a state that's just hunky dory (California, New York) to a state with such severe problems described here (Texas). But that's exactly what is happening. Texas keeps absorbing economic refugees from California, both on the entreprise owner and worker side of the ledger.

Every place has a legacy to either pull it along or drag it down. Texas has some ugly facets of its legacy that cause some lag, certainly. And California has some legacy features that are masking its deep problems and keeping it afloat. Same with New York.

A lot of the anti-Texas stats and stereotypes described here simply don't match the reality of Texas today. Some of the anti-Texas comments here seem to be entirely based on people not liking George W. Bush (get over yourselves, already). But the cherrypicked or flat out erroneous stats, bigoted stereotypes, and weird grudges certainly don't match the trajectories of Texas (generally, things going upward and getting better) or California (sliding, and in deep trouble).

Texas is undeniably America's future.

Hamp Skelton

Hamp Skelton, works at Skelton & Woody

Mise à jour il y a 121w

I have been a Texan for the last 37 years. I agree with one of the assumptions contained in the question: many Americans do have a negative opinion of Texans.

It is neither fair nor accurate to attribute this phenomenon to George W. Bush. His presidency merely tended to perpetuate a negative view of Texans that already existed. I moved to Texas in 1978, when George W. Bush was a newlywed in Midland, Texas. The future president was then losing his father's friends' money, drilling for oil but coming up with dry holes. He was almost 20 years away from being governor. Texans had a bad reputation then, for being loud, brash, bragging know-it-alls, long before George W. was unleashed on the world.

In the 1970s and 80s, Texans, or at least some well-off ones who traveled, were known for their boorish antics in Colorado ski towns, their arrogance in business meetings in New York and of course their often crude political posturing (in cowboy boots and sometimes stetsons) in Washington. Some travelling Texans were ambassadors of ill will. That does not apply to all Texans of course, but was a distinct impression created by some loud ones who ventured out of state, carrying an attitude that was less than welcome.

The unique history of the state, that many have recited here, has led to lore about Texas that many (mostly white) people have internalized and made a part of their personal narrative. This historical narrative is taught in all public schools, emphasizing how unique Texas is because it was once an independent Republic. Properly channeled and presented, this narrative can be evidence that Texans are just "characters" with an independent streak.

But when the attitude spills over into offending and even harming others, it is downright toxic. Unfortunately, the situation has been quite toxic recently. President Obama's election brought out all manner of racism (the internet is filled with the hate messages emanating from Texans) and irrational behavior (like Texas officials declining billions in federal dollars that could have provided health insurance coverage to millions of Texans who need it, all just to show how opposed the elected officials were to universal health insurance). Political junkies will recall former Governor Perry even musing about secession in response to Obama being elected president. Governor Abbott has continued the tradition of irrational reactions to Obama's election.

For a time, Texas balanced its braggart reputation with a string of successful political leaders, many of whom did some very good things for the country. LBJ, whose presidency was marred by his mistake in escalating the Vietnam War, nonetheless was a superb politician whose achievements, in my mind, overshadow his mistakes. He served as Majority Leader of the Senate, wielding power like no other. As president, he used his force of personality, powers of persuasion and deep knowledge of the levers of political power to pass the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act in the aftermath of JFK's assassination. He is a hero to many for his courage on civil rights issues. He will be remembered by historians for his ability to overcome the opposition of ardent segregationists to pass civil rights legislation, as well as his sponsorship of Medicare, programs to combat poverty and laws to protect the environment. He expanded the social safety net more than anyone since FDR.

Ann Richards was a good governor and a wonderful speaker; her keynote address was the one by which others are often measured. Barbara Jordan was a national treasure whose biography reads like a string of "firsts." If you don't know about her, by all means look her up. Lloyd Bentsen was also a well-regarded, four-term U.S. Senator and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee before serving as the vice-presidential nominee in 1988. His classic put-down of the hapless Dan Quayle in the vice-presidential debate is worth a revisit on Youtube. George H. W. Bush (41) was a statesman, a gentleman, and in retrospect not a bad president (except for some abysmal judicial appointments). He has been a wise and accomplished former president too.

As Texas changed from a mostly Democratic state to a vehemently Republican one, however, the image its politicians projected grew increasingly racist, intolerant, and frankly ignorant. Sadly, this change reflected the mood of the voting majority. The more extreme the positions that politicians took, the more Texas voters loved them. It is difficult to understand why Texas voters prefer ignorance and belligerence to wise policies, but it seems tied to the "we're different" narrative, coupled with the woeful public education in a low-tax, low-service state. Judging from the loudest haters I know, too much Fox "news," and overindulgence in Limbaugh radio, played a major role too in the dumbing down of the electorate. We are witnessing this phenomenon on a national scale now as Donald Trump soars in polls of likely Republican primaries, obviously a belligerent "bravo" by these misguided people in reaction to Trump's offensive statements about Mexico and immigrants from Mexico.

Positive responses from voters to the most belligerent of positions push the politicians to the crazier end of the extreme. After all, what politicians, of all stripes, really care about is staying in office. They must win primaries to do so. Primary voters are more partisan and zealous than general election voters. Gerrymandering also promotes extremists. By grouping similar-thinking people in a district -- be it almost all Republican or all Democrat -- you tend to get fewer centrists.

The Texas state legislature has become so crazy that in 2015, the real news about it reads like The Onion. The slavish devotion to anything the NRA wants led the state legislature to recently pass a law making it legal to have "open carry" of firearms on college campuses -- against the university system leaders' wishes. The head of the University of Texas system is the former commander of U.S. special forces, Admiral Wm. McRaven. He is hardly a dove, much less a person unfamiliar with firearms. McRaven adamantly opposed this campus carry bill, saying that (of course) he did not want firearms on his campuses and in classrooms. The Republican super-majority in the state legislature ignored him and passed the bill practically by acclamation. Our new governor, Greg Abbott, a former state attorney general and state supreme court justice (and, unlike his predecessor, clearly no dummy), eagerly signed the law. NRA: 1, Sanity: 0

Governor Abbott recently pandered to his most paranoid and ill-informed constituents by kowtowing to fringe extremists who thought the United States army was an invading force when it conducted training exercise in Texas called "Operation Jade Helm." Right wing fringe conspiracy groups put out the word that "Obama is coming for your guns!" Abbott went so far as to deploy the Texas National Guard to "keep an eye on" the U.S. army -- so it did not stage a "take over," confiscate guns and house "enemies of the state" in abandoned Wal-Mart

Why hasn't the United States switched to the metric system?

Ciro Pabon

Ciro Pabon, lives in Cali, Colombia (2008-present)

Mise à jour il y a 21w · L'auteur dispose de réponses 1.1k et de vues de réponses 1m

Réponse d'origine: Why hasn't the US attempted to go metric again if nearly the entire world uses it?

I think the assumption behind the question is not true. The popular tale goes like this:

  1. The US tried to move to the metric system in the 70’s and failed. Since then they have become an island in a metric sea.
  2. The imperial system makes no sense because dividing and multiplying by 10 is easier.

Let’s try to (almost) debunk those two things.

First, the US nowadays is metric except for consumers.

Here you have some samples of the trend in US:

  • Cars are made using metric tools.
  • Wine and spirits abandoned fifths for 750 ml.
  • Runners run 5K, not three miles.
  • Many if not most industries have gone metric.
  • The construction industry resists, a lonely bastion, but the current mismatch they have is not inherent to Americans. Actually Thomas Jefferson created the dollar, the first decimal money system in the world.

The main obstacle in the 70s were the labour syndicates which said that metrication would export jobs off-shore (which it did).

Secondly, the imperial system is easier to use for a machinist or person working in industry.

Few people realize that the imperial system works dividing by two. You have half an inch, a quarter of an inch, an eight of an inch. When you make a thread that is half the size of other in a screw, well, there is some sense to it.

It is easier for a manufacturer to cut something in half than to change from 7 to 8 mm. Actually, when you work in mm, measures tend to be more imprecise when you are doing things by yourself.

I do not deny that it is easier to use in class, but try to build a cabin using it… Usually, if you want to split a resource you are in trouble. That does not happens so easy with the imperial system.

For example, people that works in mills can tell you that when you split a wood beam, the measures take in account the space taken by the saw. This kind of practical, down to earth system of measures is completely absent in the metric system.

Today, the people immersed in the metric system, to me, are mostly people that learned (and repeat dutifully) that the metric system is easier to use, because they have not built anything with their own hands.

The metric system is, eminently, romantic and theoretic, as the people that devised it. It goes VERY well with science and mathematics, but not so well with engineering and builders.

Its convenience in science is sputtering nowadays: it was devised before we understood the real constants in nature: that’s why you have to memorize endless constants, from Avogadro’s number to Planck length.

I am all in for metric: I am an engineer.

But I want to have clear why I do it: because the metric system is a language that allows better communication, period.

It is the best ever possible system? I don’t think so.

The megabytes and kilobits that you use daily is a testimony to the fact that powers of two is also a good system.

Finally, the imperial system is not an arbitrary definition of things, as some people thinks.

The meter is one fourth of one tenth of one millionth of a terrestrial meridian. There is simply no way for you to check it on a hurry. It is eminently arbitrary and it is actually a definition chosen to be more or less one yard.

On the other hand, in the imperial system you carry with yourself your own measuring system:

Inch: Tip of thumb to first joint

Foot: Well, your foot. Who hasn't measured things on a playground in feet?

Yard: From your chest to your thumb. I've seen tailors and rope sellers measuring by taking the cloth or rope between their thumb and index and then stretching it with their other hand on their chest.

Fathom: your arms stretched or the height of a person.

Cubit: From your middle finger to your elbow

Mile: one thousand steps (roman steps, that is, double steps)

Where I live we are practical, down to Earth, romantic and theoretic Latins (yes, coherence is not our cup of tea) so we use a curious mix of measurements.

Car mileage, for example, is measured in kilometers per gallon, because the gas pumps come from ole’ US while roads are dutifully marked in kilometers because we administrate roads like the Romans did.

Ice cream and paint is sold also in gallons but soda and spirits is sold in liters.

We have no problems, we are adaptable and we consider our duty to know more and more of less and less until we know almost everything about almos nothing (the local definition of a specialist).

Craig Weiler

Craig Weiler, Just another American; one of 300 million

Mise à jour il y a 58w · L'auteur dispose de réponses 2.4k et de vues de réponses 13m

I’m going to speak to one small aspect of this answer based on my construction experience and especially all manner of woodworking. The US customary unit is ideally suited to my business. Anything else would be more difficult to use.

This is a tool I always have with me.

Why hasn't the United States switched to the metric system?

And this is what I’m looking at. This has both American and metric. (I don’t buy tape measures with metric, this is only for show and tell.)

Why hasn't the United States switched to the metric system?

In woodworking, 1/16″ is your basic tolerance limit. There is no need to cut any finer than that and it’s almost impossible to do anyway. You cannot mark for finer than 1/16″ with a standard construction pencil nor reliably cut to a stricter standard. Nothing you’re doing needs a cut down to 1/32nd of an inch.

Standard measurements are easy to read. As an example I can easily set a measurement for 31 1/2″ minus. (31 7/16″) That is as close as I need to measure.

Now you may say that you can read the metric just as easily. No you can’t. Once you get in poor light all those little hash marks blur together. And in construction you will have to read this in poor light. The metric unit of measurement is too small. Choosing between 79.7 and 79.8 is more difficult.

Using inches, feet and fractions is easier to keep in your head than a string of numbers. There are seven fractions. 1/8, 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8, 3/4, 7/8. This is a bit easier than remembering a number 3 or 4 digits long. There are no decimal points to screw up either.

The length of an inch is a perfect dividing point for hardware sizes.

The foot is a very practical measurement tool. When you buy by the foot you will have very little waste. Do you want to buy a 4′x8′ sheet of plywood or one that’s 2400mm x 1200mm? 3/4″ or 18mm?

When you need to measure a surface area and buy materials accordingly, using square feet works better than square meters. A square meter is about 9 times larger, so you have to break it down. 47 square feet for example is: 4.37 meters. Carpet for example, is ordered in square feet.

We have the yard, which is similar to the meter which is generally used as the square yard to measure larger volumes. Concrete for example is ordered in cubic yards.

It’s so much easier that Canada switches to standard and imperial respectively for construction. In Ireland and Britain they have a mix.

Metric is not a better system for my business.

Edit: hat tip to Christopher Simpson who directed me to his blog post: …because you think the metric system is logical

He made another point: The foot is divided into 12 inches. 12 is very easily divisible by 2,3,4 and 6. In construction, that’s really really helpful when you’re trying to get things to line up.

,Anonymous

Anonymous

Mise à jour il y a 157w

There would be a huge one-time cost to make the conversion and quite frankly most people/businesses do not want to bear it. Most Americans would be very angry to find out that a kilo weighs more than a pound but a centimetre is smaller than an inch. I can hear people complaining that the metric system should be consistent.

Someone once told me a story that at one point, Q&W introduced a 1/3 of a pound burger to compete with McDonald's quarter pounder The issue was that many Americans complained because they felt they were being ripped off, they couldn't tell that a 1/3 of a pound was more than 1/4 of a pound. I thought this was in jest, but then found this. The great third-pound burger ripoff

Most metric countries aren't very metric. Yes, Europe and especially continental Europe tends to be very metric. However, most still have a mixed system. In Canada when you buy bananas, you sometimes used to see two prices, the price per pound and the price per kilogram. The cash register receipts all stated the weight in kilograms. Today, most stores have consistent signs listing the price in pounds but the register gives you the weight in kilograms. Your weight, height is often in imperial but distances and speed are in metric. Temperature gets its own paragraph below.

Temperature in Canada is in Celsius and this is one area where I will admit that I have some confusion. Imperial measurement is "better" in that there is more of a range over "normal operating temperature", ie: 72 degrees Fahrenheit which is about 22.2222... degrees Celcius. Most doctors still measure temperature in Fahrenheit.

Math is easier in metric but there are certain things that for historic reasons used very old imperial measurements. If you buy gold or look at the price of precious metals, they're usually quoted in Troy ounces which is a whole other system of measurement, one troy ounce is slightly more than a standard imperial ounce. Contracts for oil are standardized set to a specific measurement, a "barrel" and even at a set temperature.

In the end for many things it won't take long for people to get used to things. Most businesses will post two prices one in metric and one in Imperial. The problem is that in many cases, there is a psychological point to pricing and there could be issues. This was brought out when Europe converted to the Euro. A law was passed stating that stores could only convert their prices, not change them. So businesses that were targeting price points like 9.99 in the old currency now had strange price points like 4.01, so something that looked like a bargain before now looked like a premium product At a very broad level, bargains end in .99 or .97, whereas premium/luxury is denoted by removing the decimals. To top it off, people usually only look at the numbers to the left of the decimal. So 4.99 seems closer to 4 than 5. In the case of businesses in Europe many tried to adjust and found that either they had to take a reduction in profit or deal with irate customers. Eventually businesses adjusted their pricing and things went back to normal.

Back to Canada. What you'll find is that many things are still sold in pounds or pound equivalents. So you'll often see a package of food and the weight will be listed at 454g (which is on pound.) I used to wonder why a cans of coke were 355ml but that 12 US fluid ounces. The metric system did win in some ways in that most Americans are familiar with a 2L bottle of Pepsi (which is about 67 ounces.) Or that a "cup" of water is defined as 250ml. Area house measurements are based on square feet.

The last point is that the US is an extremely litigious society and as such I'm sure there would be plenty of math lawsuits. Given the innumeracy of the average American, and I include US judges in that, it could be an extremely difficult and expensive change to make.

One last point. Most people do not know this but the French truly adopted the metric system after the French revolution. At the time there was a great shift towards decimalization and an attempt was made to do that for time as well. This did not work out because many people owned clocks, often it was their most expensive and prized possession. And any attempt to decimalize the clock would mean having to redo the old clocks or purchase new ones. There was push back and that's why we have 24 hours in a day and 60 minutes in an hour, 60 seconds in a minute but after that its powers of 10, ie: milliseconds (1/1000) etc.

Robert Maxwell

Robert Maxwell

Répondu il y a 117w · L'auteur dispose de réponses 398 et de vues de réponses 1m

Réponse d'origine: Why don’t Americans use the metric system? Is it a matter of patriotism? Or is the conversion prohibitively expensive? Or is it something else?

We do. The system is pounded into your skull every year in the first few weeks of the year in middle school science classes - all of your lab equipment is calibrated and numbered in metric units, anyway. And in technical professions such as science or engineering, everyone uses metric system. We know how to use it.

So why aren’t signs in kilometers per hour, and why don’t we ask for a length of wood eighty centimeters long? It’s because, unless you use it from the get-go, it’s harder to visualize. I can visualize what 12 inches are or what 18 inches are, it’s harder for me to guess what 40 centimeters look like. I figure out what 100 kilometers per hour is in terms of relative speed (how fast-ish am I going?), but to do so I’d have to convert it to miles per hour because I know how fast, say, 55 MPH is, how fast it sent. I can have a rough idea of what 29 and 15 degrees Celsius is, but I can ressentir 40F and 98F.

You see this all the time with people that have just switched over to the metric system or aren’t used to using it in their daily lives. Brits still use stone and fameusement mix the imperial and metric systems. I’ve seen Chinese in the market pause when asked for something in kilograms and then know instantly how much you want if you ask for it in catties.

The central issue is that it’s just far more convenient for us on a day-to-day basis to use miles, inches, feet, pounds, ounces, etc., and we have no real important reason to switch. Everything that desperately depends on measurements already uses metric in the US so that it’s in accordance with world standards, but there’s no clear rationale why 300 million people have to be forced to use kilometers per hour and Celsius in the everyday besides something nebulous like “but me and my friends don’t use it.”

Adam Lasnik

Adam Lasnik, Responsable de programme chez Google. Autrefois évangéliste de recherche de Google (qualité de la recherche). Avid lindy hopper et l ...

Répondu il y a 407w

There's also the political angle, too, believe it or not.

I clearly remember that when I was in junior high (early 80s), there was a push of some sort to accentuate the metric system over the imperial system -- emphasis on metric measurements in textbooks and teaching, even outside of science and math.

What I found interesting was that we kids at the time were pretty much fine with this; heck, multiplying and dividing by powers of ten was a lot easier than slogging through much-more-confusing conversions within the imperial system. But our parents and grandparents (in the aggregate) were apparently furious, even branding the new emphasis "un-American" and (I kid you not) "Communist!"

So while there were (and remain) substantial economic reasons holding back a U.S. movement towards the metric system, I believe we shouldn't overlook the strength of tradition and, yes, American pride in our stubborn adherence to what most would agree is a depressingly inferior measurement system.

John Cate

John Cate, U.S. citizen my whole life. Lived here for 41 of my 43 years (as of 2016).

Répondu il y a 113w · L'auteur dispose de réponses 6.8k et de vues de réponses 37.5m

Réponse d'origine: Why won't the USA change from imperial to metric?

Put simply, we don’t want to.

The United States tried to “officially” adopt the metric system back in the 1970s, and it was conclusively rejected by the general public. The only way that metrication could have been adopted was for the government to force it on the people, which was never going to happen, either then or now, for political reasons.

The metric system is widely used in the United States in certain scientific and manufacturing fields, but the Imperial system remains predominant in everyday life; we still purchase motor fuel in gallons, milk by the quart, and weights are still given in pounds and ounces. The system may sound strange to Europeans, who are raised on the metric system (or SI as it’s called now), since it tends to function in powers of two rather than 10, but if you’re raised on it, it’s perfectly fine. Schoolchildren in the United States learn to understand and use both the Imperial system and SI units, and we do it just fine—to this day, 25 years after I left high school, I still know an SI meter is 39.37 of our inches, aka just over three feet (1 yard). I still know one SI kilogram is about 2.2 of our pounds. Sometimes, I even prefer to see SI; if I’m working on a computer and trying to measure CPU temperature, I don’t want to see Fahrenheit, because all of the official specs are in Celsius. But in everyday use, today’s high temperature was 91 degrees, not 32.8. And that’s how we like it here.

It’s been that way in other places, too. The United Kingdom is more metricated than the U.S. is, but a lot of British citizens still prefer Imperial units and still use them.

It’s the rest of the world that seems more concerned with the United States’ refusal to adopt SI than anyone here is. We do a lot of things differently from the rest of the world, always have, and marching to the beat of our own drummer has served us well for 240 years. We learn your system, and we don’t expect you to learn ours, but we like it and we’ll keep using it ourselves, thank you very much.

Bill Spencer

Bill Spencer, États-Unis

Mise à jour il y a 47w · L'auteur dispose de réponses 543 et de vues de réponses 1.2m

I am a fan of the Metric System. But . . .

  1. POURQUOI. Um - POURQUOI would the US change?
    Seriously - what's in it for the US to change? Better integration with the rest of the world? 99.999% of US citizens don't integrate with the rest of the world. And if foreign companies are selling stuff to the US - then they can jolly well make it in the US's sizes.
    And if the US exports, it's more likely to be technology, or methods, or processes - which don't involve units.
    Change is hard. People need a good reason. Perhaps, NECESSITY, and no choice.
  2. HUMAN SCALE. The United States Customary System (USCS), like the Imperial system and the English systems before them, is designed on a human scale. The Metric System or SI is not.
    The inch (size of the last section of your thumb), the foot (literally), yards, rods, chains, furlongs, and miles, teaspoons, tablespoons, ounces, cups, pints, quarts, gallons, bushels, barrels, ounces, pounds, tons - all are based on units you can hold in your hand, that are actually used in daily life. All units relate to each other by simple multiples and fractions. (As long as you can do fractions!) For thousands of years, civilizations have done arithmetic and measurements with various multiples between convenient units (as USCS does), from Babylonian time and angles to (old) English money.
    The metric system is (on purpose!) not related like this. One standard is selected in each category, and all others are related on bases of 10 or, more commonly, 1000. There are litres, and there are millilitres. Though, technically, deciletres exist, in practice those are the only units of volume. The fact that a cup of tea or a pint of beer does not exist in any convenient unit does not perturb the metric system. You can have a 200 ml cuppa, or a 500 ml pint. But the USCS has a handy unit for each.
    Bread is a pound. Coffee is a pound.
    "A pint is a pound, the whole world round." (except for metric countries) (It's a little inconvenient that an ounce, a pint, and a gallon differ between US and UK. But if you're drinking a pint, it all seems about the same, after a while.)
    Fahrenheit temperature covers the usual temperature range for temperate climates from 0 to 100 (0 in the coldest day of winter, 100 in the hottest day of summer). (Of course, your temperature may vary.) Fahrenheit has about twice the resolution of Celsius or Centigrade (in integer degrees). (So do pounds compared with kg.) Celsius or Centigrade measures 0 to 100 for water, from freezing to boiling. If you aren't heating water, how is this useful? Fahrenheit is MUCH more useful for humans living in temperate climates, and not bad elsewhere.
  3. CONVERSION. The United States has legally converted several times to the metric system - but the conversion has never "stuck" and been favored and adopted widely. One reason is that the SI was not taught as a "new language" - but as something to be converted. We (I was a child in the 1960s and 1970s, learning loads of Metric Conversions) did thousands of unit conversions.
    Unit conversions are a lot of arithmetic. Not particularly useful, and lots of work. Uninviting. THIS is most US citizen's perspective of "The Metric System" - unit conversion arithmetic. They'd rather not.
    Now it COULD have been introduced like immersive language training - JUST DO IT! (To borrow a phrase from Nike.) The US could have "gone cold turkey" - converting all at once. There would have been great pain - but it would have passed, like a surgery. Rather than converting, the US could have just started using all new units. (Akin to being immersed in a foreign language, rather than translating every word and phrase.)
    But nothing other than part of the beverage industry actually changed. (2 liter sodas, liter water, etc. The alcohol industry changed over -- kind of. They changed units but not sizes. 1/5 gallon of liquor turned into 750 ml. 1/2 gallon of liquor turned into 1.75 liters. A 1-1/2 ounce shot turned into 50 ml. 750 ml and 1.75 l aren't used around the world - but it *IS* metric. And, of course, the classic 12 ounce can has NEVER changed.)
    So - for most of the US - the "metric system" was not a system of units, but a math problem, best avoided.
  4. STANDARDS. It isn't really about a system of measurement, as it is about standards. If the home building industry took the ubiquitous "2x4" lumber (which is 1-1/2" x 3-1/2" x 8') and measured it in centimeters (3.81 cm x 8.89 cm x 2.4384 m) - no one would notice. (As long as there was a simple name, like "2x4".)
    But if you change to a new standard, for example, nice round numbers 5 cm x 10 cm x 2.5 m, then every house has to be redesigned, ceilings will be a different height, walls will be a different thickness, studs will be spaced differently, repairs require adaptation of new parts to old designs, etc.
    The standards are NOT a part of the SI or metric system - but they ARE a part of fitting into a world-wide system of commerce. And they would require a MUCH larger change than merely using SI to measure existing standards.
    EVERY industry has dozens or hundreds of standards that all require at least unit conversion - and perhaps rethinking, redesign, and adoption of foreign standards.
  5. MOTIVATION. When French astronomers started to measure the Earth to establish the metre (1792-1799), there were more than 10,000 units of measure in use. Yes, there were common words, such as "pound". But a pound was different in every market town (and defined there). And a pound was different for different goods -- a pound of feathers did NOT weigh the same as a pound of lead. And a pound differed from year to year - if the wheat crop was good, a pound of bread was larger than in years when the wheat crop was poor. An acre represented the space an ox could plow in a day -- but an acre of poor, hard land was not the same size as an acre of rich land. A barrel of ale was a different volume than a barrel of beer, or of wine, or herring. Not to mention differences between French provinces, English counties, German principalities, etc.
    As trade expanded outside individual market towns, Europe NEEDED common measures, and the metric system was an answer.
    But the US has a nice, single, cohesive, non-decimal system of measurement. It doesn't have the motivation the French had in the 1790s.
    http://smile.amazon.com/gp/produ...
    (Ken Adler, "The Measure of All Things: The Seven-Year Odyssey and Hidden Error that Transformed the World")
  6. WHY METRIC? The Metric System isn't all that great.
    - Yes, you get to change unit magnitudes by shifting a decimal point. And you simultaneously lose other multiples than 10.
    (Divide 100 meters of rope into three parts. (33 meters, 333 millimeters, and 1/3 millimeter). Divide 100 yards of rope into three parts, and you get 100 feet each.)
    - But you get units less intuitive than USCS units. See Human Scale, above.
    - And metric units are just as arbitrary as USCS. What's special about a kilogram or meter? Nothing in particular. (See next)

    SI is not "better". It is certainly different. And some prefer it. It is ubiquitous in other parts of the world. But there is NO objective reason that it is "better".

  7. AND IT IS WRONG.
    Great argument was laid out between nations as to what should be a proper international unit -- for example, not the length of any one particular ruler's foot. So, the circumference of the Earth was chosen. (Specifically, 1 metre = 1/10,000,000 the quarter meridianal circumference of the Earth - the distance from Equator to North Pole.)
    (The 1-second pendulum was a counter-proposal, and easier to measure, but eventually the fraction of the Earth won out.)
    The distance couldn't be measured in the 1790s, but it could be inferred by the relationship between an angle of the Earth (e.g. 1 degree of latitude) and the distance of that angle along the Earth’s surface. But at what elevation? (Sea level?) Estimated at which latitude? (London? Paris? Madrid? Berlin? Washington D.C.?) And measured along which longitude?
    Eventually, 45 degrees latitude (midway) was chosen, as best averaging the Earth's equatorial circumference and polar circumference.
    Started by the French monarchy, but surviving the French Revolution, captivity in Spain, and myriad other hazards, two astronomers measured enough of France (Calais to Barcelona) to measure the Earth - and specify the metre.
    Except for one thing.
    Jean Baptiste Joseph Delambre successfully measured the northern half. Pierre François André Méchain measured the southern half.
    But Méchain made a grevious error just as he started - and then concealed the error. Delambre didn't learn of it until the "preliminary" metre had already been released to commercial use. And then he, too, concealed the error, lest the public support for this new measure be lost.
    To this very day, a meter is "a little short" of 1/10,000,000 of the quarter circumference. It should be about 0.2 mm longer (0.02%) in order to match the Earth's quarter circumference that Delambre and Méchain intended.
    As a result, the circumference of the Earth is not exactly 40,000 km - it takes more meters to go around. According to Space.com, it is 40,008 km along the meridians, and 40,075 along the equator.
  8. THOMAS JEFFERSON. Thomas Jefferson (as the first US Secretary of State) was the US scientist corresponding with others around the world to develop a common system of measures. The US had already decimalized its currency, and in 1790 he was assigned to investigate decimalizing the new country's weights and measures. As former ambassador to France (succeeding Franklin), he was quite familiar with proposals for a new system in France. When the French had not yet defined the meter, Jefferson drafted a decimalized system for the US - the FIRST decimal system IN THE WORLD, that integrated time, length, volume, and weight, and was scientifically based (on the length of a 1-second pendulum at 45 degrees latitude). That was the FIRST metric proposal debated by the US congress, and it was debated for several years.In 1795, when the Northwest Indian War was settled, the US need an immediate answer for how to survey the territory. But Jefferson had already left his work as Secretary of State to retire, and then in 1796 ran for President. (Becoming instead John Adams' Vice President.) Jefferson's successors were more interested in an immediate answer to survey the Northwest Territory, and less interested in scientific measurement systems, decimalization, and the integration of all systems of units. The English mile (based on Gunter's Chain) was formally ado

Quel est le problème avec Kingfisher Airlines? Après quoi (prêts d'un milliard de dollars 1.7), qu'attendent-ils? En étant obsolètes, ne perdent-ils pas leur valeur marchande?

Vedant Khandelwal

Vedant Khandelwal, Entrepreneur, directeur du marketing, blogueur, auteur

Répondu il y a 104w · L'auteur dispose de réponses 226 et de vues de réponses 125.4k

Quel est le problème avec Kingfisher Airlines? Après quoi (prêts d'un milliard de dollars 1.7), qu'attendent-ils? En étant obsolètes, ne perdent-ils pas leur valeur marchande?

Baron des alcools Vijay Mallya, Président et président de Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. Photo du dossier: K. Gopinathan | L'Hindou

Quel est le problème avec Kingfisher Airlines? Après quoi (prêts d'un milliard de dollars 1.7), qu'attendent-ils? En étant obsolètes, ne perdent-ils pas leur valeur marchande?

Kingfisher, la compagnie aérienne malade a bénéficié d’un soutien vital du secteur bancaire et a réussi à financer une grande partie des activités avec des fonds extérieurs. Photo du dossier: E. Lakshmi Narayanan | L'Hindou

Quel est le problème avec Kingfisher Airlines? Après quoi (prêts d'un milliard de dollars 1.7), qu'attendent-ils? En étant obsolètes, ne perdent-ils pas leur valeur marchande?

Les chiffres en Rs. crore. Source: ESB

Kingfisher Airlines a été créée sous 2003 mais n’a enregistré aucune année de bénéfices depuis son introduction en bourse sur 2006.

Voyons comment la compagnie aérienne a mis le baron de l'alcool Vijay Mallya avec des glaçons.

Mai 9, 2005: Kingfisher Airlines ' vol inaugural prend son envol. Alex Wilcox, PDG de Kingfisher, a déclaré que la compagnie aérienne n'adopterait pas le modèle low cost et sans fioritures, mais tracerait le juste milieu.

Juin 30, 2005: Devient le premier et le seul transporteur indiencommander l'Airbus A380. Commande cinq A380 (annulés par la suite), cinq A350-800 et cinq A330-200 pour un montant supérieur à 3 $.

Mai 8, 2007: Vijay Mallya les yeux se jouent dans Air Deccan.

Juin 2, 2007: Vijay Mallya achète Air Deccan, propriété du Capt Gopinath basée à 2007, sans prétention sur la crise. Le groupe fusionné prévoit d'économiser jusqu'à Rs. 300 crore sur les coûtsavec une flotte combinée d’avions 71. Suite à une fusion inversée, Kingfisher Airlines est devenue Air Deccan et, une fois l’acquisition achevée avec les autorisations nécessaires de la part du régulateur SEBI, M. Mallya a rapidement changé le nom de la compagnie aérienne en Kingfisher Airlines à 2008.

Août 31, 2009: Le conseil de Kingfisher approuve unrésolution de lever $ 100 (près de Rs 487.8 crore) par divers instruments, y compris les certificats de dépôt mondiaux (GDR). Cela s'ajoutait à la décision d'initier du capital d'un montant n'excédant pas Rs 500 par une émission de droits de souscription d'actions prise le 28 en juillet.

Novembre 4, 2009: Kingfisher rapporte une perte nette de crore de Xs 418.77 au cours du deuxième trimestre de l'exercice. Son bénéfice d’exploitation a également diminué de 13.6 pour cent au cours du trimestre par rapport à la même période de l’année précédente.

Compte tenu des pertes énormes et de la réduction de capacité, Kingfisher décide de Licencier près de pilotes 100. Le transporteur aérien plus tard suppléments carburant augmentés.

Mars 15, 2010: Malgré des pertes d’exploitation, Kingfisherannonce vol vers l'Europe.

Septembre 30, 2010: Kingfisher Airlines nomme Sanjay Aggarwal en tant que PDG. M. Aggarwal est l'ancien PDG de SpiceJet. M. Mallya a également annoncé que le personnel serait élagué.

Novembre 25, 2010: Conseil de Kingfisher Airlines approuve le programme de refonte de la dette. La dette de la compagnie aérienne s'élevait à plus de 1 000 000 roupies.

Septembre 15, 2011: La sociétéles auditeurs soumettent un rapport annuel pour 2010-11 qui a souligné que les pertes accumulées par le transporteur aérien déficitaire à la fin de l’exercice représentaient plus de 50 pour cent de sa valeur nette.

Septembre 28, 2011: Vijay Mallya décide de quitter une entreprise à faible coût.

Novembre 13, 2011: La compagnie aérienne, avec une dette d’environ 1 000 000 Rs 6,500, envisage de réduire les coûts et de prendre plusieurs mesures pour faire face à la crise. temps difficiles.

Novembre 15, 2011: Kingfisher Airlines perte double au crore de Rs.469 pour le trimestre 2011 de septembre.

Novembre 20, 2011: Vayalar Ravi dit que le centre aaucun plan pour aucun forfait sauver les compagnies aériennes.

Décembre 1, 2011: Aéroport international de Mumbai Pvt. Ltdenvoie un avis aux compagnies aériennes à court d’argent pour payer les arriérés de cotisations Rs.90-crore.

Décembre 9, 2011: Le service des taxes se figeComptes 11 de Kingfisher Airlines pour non-paiement du crore de Rs.70.

Décembre 14, 2011: Gouvernement débloque les comptes bancaires après paiement partiel des taxes de service.

Février 16, 2012: Kingfisher Airlines, rapporte un perte de crores Rs.444.26 aux résultats du troisième trimestre pour 2011-12.

Février 20, 2012: Kingfisher Airlines annule plusieurs de ses vols après que le Département de l’impôt sur le revenu ait gelé certains de ses comptes.

Février 23, 2012: Le transporteur exploite un calendrier tronqué et fait face à la perspective de perdre un certain nombre de machines à sous de premier ordre.

Mars 8, 2012: Un autre coup Kingfisher, avec l’Association du transport aérien international, demandant aux agents de voyages d’arrêter immédiatement de réserver des billets au nom de la compagnie aérienne privée pour non-paiement des cotisations depuis février.

Mars 12, 2012: Plus loin, comme les employés protestent contre les retards de paiement du salaire.

Mars 14, 2012: Vijay Amritraj démissionne du conseil d'administration de Kingfisher.

Mars 15, 2012: Kingfisher annonce réduction de ses opérations internationales.

Mars 17, 2012: Service des recettes menace de poursuivre Kingfisher Airlines en justice pour fraude présumée à la taxe sur les services, affirmant que la compagnie n’avait pas déposé les taxes perçues auprès des voyageurs.

Mars 19, 2012: Anil Kumar Ganguly, le seul administrateur indépendant du conseil d’administration de Kingfisher Airlines,quitte l'entreprise, le laissant avec seulement trois membres du conseil.

Mars 20, 2012: M. Mallya explique la position de la compagnie à la direction générale de l'aviation civile (DGCA) à la suite de sa convocation et dit qu'elle suspendre toutes ses opérations internationales.

Mars 27, 2012: Accablé par une dette de plus de Rs.7,000 crore, la compagnie aérienne suspend les opérations de Kolkata, Hyderabad, Patna, Lucknow, Thiruvananthapuram et Bhubaneshwar. La compagnie aérienne proposait des vols quotidiens 120 à cette date, contre plus de 400 auparavant.

Mars 28, 2012: Les compagnies aériennes intronisent trois administrateurs indépendants dans son conseil de se conformer aux normes d'inscription.

Avril 2, 2012: Le personnel de l'entreprise menacer de faire la grève, exigeant le paiement de la cotisation salariale.

Avril 3, 2012: Les impasse se termine avec les manifestants acceptant l’assurance donnée par Mallya.

Avril 9, 2012: Employés, y compris pilotes et ingénieurs,recevoir des salaires après un délai de près de quatre mois.

Mai 11, 2012: Vols avec Kingfisher annulé après que les pilotes se soient déclarés malades pour protester contre le non-paiement des salaires.

Juin 27, 2012: Kingfisher les actions dégringolent sur 13%rapports suivants selon lesquels des avions 34 ont été possédés en raison du non-paiement des loyers.

Juillet 5, 2012: A Heure 15 Les prêteurs de la société ont proposé un plan pour améliorer leurs opérations. Les compagnies aériennes avaient une dette totale en cours d’environ un demi-million de roubles vis-à-vis d’un consortium de banques 7,500 dirigé par la State Bank of India (SBI).

Juillet 14, 2012: Les pilotes faire la grève contre le non-paiement du salaire pendant près de cinq mois.

Juillet 18, 2012: Le ministre de l'aviation civile, Ajit Singh exclut le renflouement de Kingfisher Airlines.

Août 8, 2012: Une partie de ses employés en grève et Les vols 15 ont été annulés.

Août 18, 2012: Une section de pilotes des compagnies aériennes proches de la faillite continue grève, la deuxième fois en un mois, exigeant le paiement immédiat des salaires de mars, entraînant l’annulation de sept vols en provenance de Mumbai.

Septembre 4, 2012: Le président Vijay Mallya donnegaranties d'une valeur de Rs. 5,904 crore pour les prêts et autres engagements du transporteur dans 2011-12, mais n'a pas reçu de commission pour le même en raison de l'opposition des prêteurs.

Septembre 6, 2012: Une partie de l'entreprise les ingénieurs se mettent en grève exiger le paiement des salaires. Les compagnies aériennesles prêteurs demandent à Mallya définir le plan de relance de la compagnie aérienne d'ici la fin du mois.

Septembre 9, 2012: Des pilotes de Delhi et de Mumbaimenacer de faire grève du travail dans le cadre de l'agitation de masse pour le versement immédiat des salaires.

Septembre 26, 2012: M. Mallya annonce que le transporteur était en pourparlers avec des compagnies aériennes étrangères pour l'investissement.

Septembre 28, 2012: Refuser une demande de prêt de travail Rs.200-crore de Kingfisher, le consortium de prêteurs dirigé par la State Bank of India, demande à SBI Capitals d’élaborer un nouveau plan de relance de la compagnie aérienne à court d’argent au cours des prochaines semaines 2-3.

Octobre 1, 2012: Manifestation du personnel non rémunéré à Delhi, Mumbai et d’autres aéroports et la quasi-totalité des vols de Kingfisher en provenance de toutes les gares ont été annulés car les ingénieurs n’avaient pas certifié l’avion.

Octobre 2, 2012: Le transporteur lock-out partiel déclarésuite à une grève d'une partie de ses employés.

Octobre 4, 2012: L'incertitude continue sur Kingfisher reprenant ses opérations.

Octobre 5, 2012: Banques donner une bouée de sauvetage au transporteur, acceptant de libérer le crore de Rs.60 bloqué dans un compte séquestre pour payer les salaires des employés.

Octobre 6, 2012: DGCA publie un avis de justification Kingfisher demande pourquoi son permis de vol ne devrait pas être suspendu ou annulé.

Octobre 9, 2012: DGCA demande à Kingfisher d'arrêter la réservation de billets, à la suite d’informations selon lesquelles la compagnie aérienne envisageait de reprendre ses activités normales à partir d’octobre 13.

Octobre 12, 2012: Les banques commerciales qui avaient prêté aux compagnies aériennes plus de 1 000 000 rands sur la créature serrer la corde autour de son promoteur pour protéger leurs intérêts.

Les compagnies aériennes plus loin étend son lock-out partiel jusqu’en octobre, 20 n’ayant pu convaincre les employés en grève de reprendre leurs fonctions sans toucher de salaire.

A mandat d'arrêt non bailable émises à l'encontre de Vijay Mallya et de quatre autres administrateurs pour non comparution dans des affaires relatives à la reprise de chèques émis en faveur de GMR Aéroport international de Hyderabad (GHIAL) contre des frais d'utilisation.

Octobre 20, 2012: La compagnie aérienne permis obtenu suspendu et des experts ont déclaré que le groupe United Breweries de Vijay Mallya devait injecter plus de Rs. 3,000 crore la reprise des opérations de Kingfisher, aucun opérateur étranger ne souhaitant investir dans la compagnie aérienne dans son état actuel.

Octobre 24, 2012: Les employés rejettent la nouvelle offre de la direction et exiger le paiement d'un arriéré de quatre moisen masse avant octobre 26.

Octobre 25, 2012: Ingénieurs, techniciens et pilotes annuler leur grève de 26-day et a accepté de rejoindre le travail immédiatement en acceptant l'offre de la direction de verser trois mois de salaire.

Octobre 30, 2012: Vijay Mallya se rencontre Le secrétaire à l'Aviation civile, KN Srivastava, à propos du plan de relance des compagnies aériennes et de son intention de reprendre ses activités le plus rapidement possible.

Novembre 1, 2012: Les compagnies aériennes paient Salaire d'avril à ses employés et le salaire pour Mars a été versé au moment où les employés a annulé sa grève en octobre 25.

Novembre 9, 2012: De l'entreprise La perte Q2 augmente à Rs. 754 crore, comparé à une perte nette de crore de Rs.469 pour la période correspondante de l’année précédente.

Novembre 10, 2012: M. Mallya perd Royal Challenge lorsque le grand groupe international des alcools, Diageo, a annoncé sa décision d’acquérir 53.4 dans le capital de United Spirits Ltd. (USL), propriété de Vijay Mallya, pour la valeur du crore de Rs.11,166.50.

Novembre 16, 2012: La société commence à payer les salairesaux employés en lots et les employés à bas salaires ont reçu leur salaire de mai.

Décembre 5, 2012: Essayer d'aider à raviver Kingfisher, dit SBI, le principal banquier du consortium 17-bailleurs de fonds qui a consenti des prêts au transporteur, a annoncé que les banques essayaient de tout mettre en œuvre pour trouver une solution à l'amiable aux problèmes financiers du transporteur.

Haute Cour du Karnataka dirige Kingfisher déposera 50 pour cent du montant total de la crore de Rs.371 que la société est tenue de verser au service de l’impôt sur le revenu en tant qu’impôt déduit à la source de ses employés et des paiements effectués au titre des dépenses de la société.

Décembre 20, 2012: Kingfisher s'applique pour le renouvellement de sa licence expirant le 13 décembre 31.

Décembre 25, 2012: Les compagnies aériennes soumet un plan de relance provisoire à la DGAC, visant à obtenir l'autorisation de reprendre son envol après avoir été ancré pendant près de trois mois.

Décembre 31, 2012: Le transporteur perd sa licence de vol, la DGAC ayant refusé de renouveler son permis de transporteur aérien (AOP).

Janvier 9, 2013: La compagnie vole dans plus difficulté, avec ses employés prévoyant de se rendre au tribunal, une initiative qui a été prise après que la direction a tardé à payer les salaires en attente.

Janvier 10, 2013: Le président de la compagnie aérienne Vijay MallyaPourquoi recevez-vous une carte papier avec une bande noire à glisser lorsque vous souhaitez faire un tour dans le métro de New York? Kent Fung, a vécu ici pendant une décennie et demie. Répondu il y a 234w · L'auteur dispose de réponses...

  • Comment les modifications apportées à la stratégie du langage .NET de Microsoft affecteront-elles le développement de C # et de Visual Basic? Paul Lefebvre, Développeur de logiciels professionnel depuis plus de 20 ans. Répondu il y a 86w · L'auteur dispose de...
  • Quel est le meilleur logiciel de dropshipping? Melanie Brodsky, Marketing Coordinator at Inventory Source Répondu il y a 22w Salut! Determining the best dropshipping software unfortunately just...
  • Quel est le meilleur logiciel pour construire une grande plateforme communautaire avec un marché? Michal Faber, Spree Commerce Evangelist / COO chez Spark Solutions - Développeurs Spree Commerce Mise à jour il y a...
  • Existe-t-il des articles qui ne peuvent être achetés qu’avec Bitcoin (c’est-à-dire, pas uniquement pour des raisons d’anonymat)? Gokul Ravindran, Fondateur de Zibbit Labs (2015-present) Répondu il y a 67w · L'auteur dispose de réponses 372 et de...