Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
if thats the case.. definitively D:
and very rude as well!
I wonder if this person was terminated when she was found.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
A Spirited Perfect Ten
- Thread starter WDW1974
- Start date
and very rude as well!
I wonder if this person was terminated when she was found.
Nubs70
Well-Known Member
Excellent observation.
These item are made from very refined/pure cellulose known as fluff pulp. These will generally break down over time and are of chemical contruct that they will flow down pipes given enough motive force.
The real problem are the disposable wipes. Those things are so plugged full of wet strength (chemical additive used to retain strength when wet) that they replicate the lifespan of plastic sheets.
The main problem with clogging sewage pipes is the push for low flow everything. It gets to a point where there is insufficient water flow to keep the crap moving. You may save the environment but things are really going to stink.
Phil12
Well-Known Member
That's why we have vent stacks.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Precisely the reason that when I replaced my toilet last I had a very easy time chosing - because there were only like 2 models out of the 40 or so that I would even consider buying because the rest advertised as a "benefit" the "low flow" crap, so to speak. They were also the only ones that didn't make me feel like a Sasquatch...
Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
Tehnically wise... shouldn't it be the opposite? since the MK park seem fuller on the afternoon than mornings I mean..
Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
Sounds almost like politics in a country during election days
asianway
Well-Known Member
The parade dump clears a lot of people
flynnibus
Premium Member
Vent stacks don't create velocity or agitation. The sewers rely on VOLUME and gravity for that. Vent stacks are to prevent vacuum and backflow of gases... they would have no effect on a pipe that already has open space. The issue is pipes go horizonal.. and materials build up on the lower surface.. and with lower flows and volume.. there are harder to 'move along...'
flynnibus
Premium Member
Notice the contract part of the article is unsourced? And the rest of the article is basically just rehashing other reported stuff? The author is just a freelance writer who makes a living creating online content hoping someone will pick it up.
The rest is 'duh' - no president is going to go on record as 'We re screwed!' - You aren't going to get a direct, honest assesment from a PR managed interview... so all the nitpicking about what the demographics really are is pretty pointless.
The one comment from Skipper is true.. and what was said here before.. "We are still engaged in the most successful business model in the history of media" - they would be stupid to abandon it now.. that does not preclude them from evolving and preparing while still enjoying the free cash flow of the core cable packages. Again, pivots depend on TIMING, not just what the change is.
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
That's why they invented that pressure boosting device (Flushmate III) which led to 'exploding toilets' to increase the velocity of the inadequate volume of water used.
http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/01/there-recall-exploding-toilet-parts/357333/
ford91exploder
Resident Curmudgeon
Let's face it Linear TV is dead except for news and possibly live sporting events, But as I said before professionals work 50-80 hours in a week and on the other end low skill workers are working between 3-6 jobs. Where does this leave Linear TV?.
The problem with ESPN is Disney is depending upon profits from a dying business model unlike much of their competition who already realize their business model is obsolete and are working to cannibalize it themselves rather than let some upstart be the one to do so.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Linear TV dying does not mean Network TV dying.. or even ESPN. Its a bigger change on the advertising and release models than anything else. DVR vs Live is just another red herring in this discussion trying muddying up the waters and get some confused support.
The issue facing ESPN is the way people buy access to content.. ESPN has been able to stay in the core bundles and demand insane payouts per subscriber due to their dominance. Market pressures from upstart streams means the cable companies are having to adapt in how they sell their access.. and those changes are disrupting the classic 'core' bundle. The market is shifting in how its productized.. not that it's dying. The subscriber slide hits ESPN.. but we're talking about leakage, not the ship broke in half. They don't need to go and drop cable and the BILLIONS that brings in for a long long time. In ESPN's example, they've already been incredibly progressive in putting their content up in direct streaming setups.. they are an online juggernaut. When it comes time to start directly competing with terrestrial cable.. they have lots of experience. They'd be idiots to drop cable at this point.. its paying hand over fist. When the time is right to move away... they can still do so. Nothing in these pages of arguments have painted why ESPN can't or won't change when the time is right.
The market shakes are because the street sees subscriber shrinkage instead of growing - and they need something to talk about or point at. The issue isn't that ESPN can't become some online provider... the issue is ESPN is addicted to a revenue stream that eventually will be greatly reduced. Working out how to productize in a manner that gets the revenues you want is where they need to do their homework..
Not stupid stuff like worrying about DVRs, netflix, etc. It's all about trying to transition people to paying for something they are used to NOT paying for directly.
rael ramone
Well-Known Member
Based on 2014 numbers, the revenue breakdown of $DIS (got the #'s from the motleyfool)
43% media - tv and cable (including but not limited to ESPN)
31% parks & resorts
15% studio - all films (Disney,lucas,pixar,marvel)
8% consumer products
3% interactive
To try to break everything down:
ESPN still brings a lot of cash in. As of now, there are still plenty that pay that $8 a month for their 2 main channels. And they pay for other $DIS owned channels like the Disney Channel, Freeform, etc. But the future presents risks. Management will always focus on the present when it is superior to the future.
Cord cutting obviously (to me) tops the list. If 56% won't pay $8, and only 6% are willing to pay $20, how much can they make up for that?
The spin will be 'well since they are paying for it you KNOW they are watching it'. But you'll also get a better idea of WHO is watching - and they might not be happy with what they find out. The prized 'millennials' may not be among them in the amount they'd prefer. Ads for ESPN may mirror what you see on CNBC much more than now (investments, old age health enhancements, etc).
Costs for content are very unlikely to go down
http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/01/19/los-angeles-rams-nfl-ownership-meeting
The most interesting part of Peter King's article:
Doesn't sound like the NFL is going to help out ESPN with it's inflated rights fees.
But it college where ESPN has it's leverage - they have what many would consider the best content. But I suspect their ability to 'enhance' their revenue over this product significantly will face a rather large roadblock - the fact that only 17 FBS Football schools are private - the rest play at taxpayer funded centers of higher learning. Legislators might not care for a 'delay' of State College games to all but those who pay the highest carrier fees.
But a lot of the $DIS media properties are not ESPN related, and they cost less. But in an environment where cord cutting accelerates and/or a la carte becomes the norm (if not the LAW), everything seems so laser focused on a specific group that it can be said that far more DON'T watch a particular channel than do, then you pay potentially see Media shrink in revenue across the board.
Parks & Resorts
What we talk a lot about here. The battle of $DIS increasing margins - from both ends. Charge more while spend less. But I suspect a turning point is here. They have been shown that P&R isn't mature, that there's growth to be had, and you have to SPEND to achieve that growth. But increased spending presents problems - can you get the guest to continue to pay for that increased spending?
Some guest's CAN'T pay more, and will cease to be guests. But for others, just because they CAN doesn't mean they WILL.
I recall seeing somewhere (whether an article or on TV) saying that $DIS is seeking out 'Wall Street Dads'. Personally I don't believe a person for a living who seeks to pay less for more in their line of work will pay more for less on their vacation. If 'Steak & Potato' costs the same at both Ruth's Chris in Manhattan and Le Cellier, then they are going to expect it to taste the same. People who pay high prices often have high expectations. And I suspect if they approach a restaurant with empty tables during hours of operation they expect to be seated.
Increasing value to the guest only makes it better for us park guests. And in the end is better for business. Aggressively expanding margins at the expense of the guest is not. There is a ceiling - both individually, and eventually - collectively.
Studios
Big hits. Valuable franchises that print money. Yet as of 2014 only 15% of revenue. And this has a ceiling, too. (See SW7 vs The Good Dinosaur). Eventually you cannibalize your own product - product that almost exclusively these days files under 'Expensive Tentpole Film'. And not everything works financially even with high priced named talent like Depp (The Lone Ranger) and Clooney (Tomorrowland) on board.
But one think I think - if you own $DIS as an investment - and the Studio division ever becomes the honest to goodness best division in the company revenue wise - then it's time to sell with both hands.
No way it's going to double, never mind triple. If it becomes the lead division it means most likely Media and P&R both dropped like a rock.
My takeaway:
Media will come down, whether fast or slow. The ceiling will actually get lower.
Studio has a ceiling as well.
Parks & Resorts will eventually become the most important revenue driver of the company. And for it to continue to succeed the Park & Resort guest will need to be treated as the most valued consumer of $DIS product - not as a parasitic conduit of short term margin expansion but something that serves both the long term needs of the guest with the continued health of the business.
43% media - tv and cable (including but not limited to ESPN)
31% parks & resorts
15% studio - all films (Disney,lucas,pixar,marvel)
8% consumer products
3% interactive
To try to break everything down:
ESPN still brings a lot of cash in. As of now, there are still plenty that pay that $8 a month for their 2 main channels. And they pay for other $DIS owned channels like the Disney Channel, Freeform, etc. But the future presents risks. Management will always focus on the present when it is superior to the future.
Cord cutting obviously (to me) tops the list. If 56% won't pay $8, and only 6% are willing to pay $20, how much can they make up for that?
The spin will be 'well since they are paying for it you KNOW they are watching it'. But you'll also get a better idea of WHO is watching - and they might not be happy with what they find out. The prized 'millennials' may not be among them in the amount they'd prefer. Ads for ESPN may mirror what you see on CNBC much more than now (investments, old age health enhancements, etc).
Costs for content are very unlikely to go down
http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/01/19/los-angeles-rams-nfl-ownership-meeting
The most interesting part of Peter King's article:
Doesn't sound like the NFL is going to help out ESPN with it's inflated rights fees.
But it college where ESPN has it's leverage - they have what many would consider the best content. But I suspect their ability to 'enhance' their revenue over this product significantly will face a rather large roadblock - the fact that only 17 FBS Football schools are private - the rest play at taxpayer funded centers of higher learning. Legislators might not care for a 'delay' of State College games to all but those who pay the highest carrier fees.
But a lot of the $DIS media properties are not ESPN related, and they cost less. But in an environment where cord cutting accelerates and/or a la carte becomes the norm (if not the LAW), everything seems so laser focused on a specific group that it can be said that far more DON'T watch a particular channel than do, then you pay potentially see Media shrink in revenue across the board.
Parks & Resorts
What we talk a lot about here. The battle of $DIS increasing margins - from both ends. Charge more while spend less. But I suspect a turning point is here. They have been shown that P&R isn't mature, that there's growth to be had, and you have to SPEND to achieve that growth. But increased spending presents problems - can you get the guest to continue to pay for that increased spending?
Some guest's CAN'T pay more, and will cease to be guests. But for others, just because they CAN doesn't mean they WILL.
I recall seeing somewhere (whether an article or on TV) saying that $DIS is seeking out 'Wall Street Dads'. Personally I don't believe a person for a living who seeks to pay less for more in their line of work will pay more for less on their vacation. If 'Steak & Potato' costs the same at both Ruth's Chris in Manhattan and Le Cellier, then they are going to expect it to taste the same. People who pay high prices often have high expectations. And I suspect if they approach a restaurant with empty tables during hours of operation they expect to be seated.
Increasing value to the guest only makes it better for us park guests. And in the end is better for business. Aggressively expanding margins at the expense of the guest is not. There is a ceiling - both individually, and eventually - collectively.
Studios
Big hits. Valuable franchises that print money. Yet as of 2014 only 15% of revenue. And this has a ceiling, too. (See SW7 vs The Good Dinosaur). Eventually you cannibalize your own product - product that almost exclusively these days files under 'Expensive Tentpole Film'. And not everything works financially even with high priced named talent like Depp (The Lone Ranger) and Clooney (Tomorrowland) on board.
But one think I think - if you own $DIS as an investment - and the Studio division ever becomes the honest to goodness best division in the company revenue wise - then it's time to sell with both hands.
No way it's going to double, never mind triple. If it becomes the lead division it means most likely Media and P&R both dropped like a rock.
My takeaway:
Media will come down, whether fast or slow. The ceiling will actually get lower.
Studio has a ceiling as well.
Parks & Resorts will eventually become the most important revenue driver of the company. And for it to continue to succeed the Park & Resort guest will need to be treated as the most valued consumer of $DIS product - not as a parasitic conduit of short term margin expansion but something that serves both the long term needs of the guest with the continued health of the business.
Phil12
Well-Known Member
I replaced all of my toilets several years ago with Kohler Cimarron 6 Comfort Height elongated units. They use 1.6 gallons per flush with all contents going down the drain and they leave a clean bowl after the flush. No repeat flushing is needed. They do not use a flapper valve and the flush gasket seal is easy to replace when needed. http://www.us.kohler.com/us/Cimarro...d-trip-lever/productDetail/toilets/426436.htm
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
I see this thread has gone down the toilet.
Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
The whole article is hilarious!
next entertainment at Disney..bathroom "fountains".
Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
that's the flow of things, whatever the thread stinks or not.. thats another (t)issue.I see this thread has gone down the toilet.
Last edited:
willtravel
Well-Known Member
I see this thread has gone down the toilet.
Speaking of toilet's, I saw this on Nat Geo Tv this morning. It is the world's first toilet theme park in South Korea dedicated to toilet's and uh other thing's.
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
Speaking of toilet's, I saw this on Nat Geo Tv this morning. It is the world's first toilet theme park in South Korea dedicated to toilet's and uh other thing's.
Holy pooooooooooooooh.
gonzoWDW
Well-Known Member
If you let people in early, you don't know when they leave, so they could stay the whole time and add congestion to the crowds throughout the day; either that or Disney wants the ability to switch from a partial blackout date to a full blackout based on the actual attendance. For example, instead of guessing ahead of time which days the park will be full and abusing blackouts, Disney can make an announcement at, say, 1:00 PM whether or not the blackout will lift at 4 or extend throughout the day.
If the whole point is to use better information to make decisions, it sounds reasonable to me.
Edit: reasonable if it's used to improve the employee benefits, which appears to be the purpose.