Blackstone: this company should simply free all the killer whales. They are social animals, and it is a prison to be in a small tub of water, so to speak. It means millions of dollars for Seaworld. It is just dreadful to hear "experts" who say that the dead woman, Dawn Brancheau, would want the show to go on! A dog is domesticated, and is killed if it kills someone. The killer whale is a killer animal, period. The killer whale did not ask to be captured. Blackstone: Our alternative asset management businesses include the management of corporate private equity funds, real estate funds, hedge funds, funds of funds, debt funds, separately managed accounts, collateralized loan obligation vehicles (CLOs) and closed-end mutual funds. How is a killer whale a business? According to the Internet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_Assessment, with the current situation included. People have an inherent value. A risk that is impossible to manage is inherent risk. A killer whale is impossible to manage. A killer whale is an inherent risk. Quantitative risk assessment (public health risk assessment in this case - lives are involved) requires calculations of two components of risk: R, the magnitude of the potential loss L, and the probability p, that the loss will occur, both of which can be very difficult to measure. Pardonez-moi, s'il vous plait (excuse me). The magnitude of potential loss is the loss of a human life. The probability that loss will occur has been established 3 times, with the death of 3 people. For public health and environmental decisions, loss is simply a verbal description of the outcome, such as increased cancer incidence, incidence of birth defects, or a killer whale gone amok. The killer whale was viewed as possibly depressed, and some of the whales were not obeying instructions. The "risk" is expressed as: . If the risk estimate takes into account information on the number of individuals exposed (daily killer whale show) , it is termed a "population risk" and is in units of expected increased cases per a time period. If the risk estimate does not take into account the number of individuals exposed, it is termed an "individual risk" and is in units of incidence rate per a time period (3 dead people). Population risks are of more use for cost/benefit analysis; individual risks are of more use for evaluating whether risks to individuals are "acceptable"....WHOA!!!! Is it acceptable for people to die? How many people can die before it becomes unacceptable to keep the killer whale. The annualized loss expectancy (dead people) is a calculation of the single loss expectancy (one human life) multiplied the annual rate of occurrence (3 times), or how much an organization could estimate to lose from an asset (the killer whale) based on the risks, threats, and vulnerabilities. It then becomes possible from a financial perspective to justify expenditures (pay off the dead people, fines to government agencies, , etc.) to implement countermeasures (reaffirm SeaWorld image via ads) to protect the asset, the killer whale. I can imagine the discussion going on in the corporate board room regarding the issue of whether the killer whale is a liability or asset? Peace to Dawn.
Blackstone: Our alternative asset management businesses include the management of corporate private equity funds, real estate funds, hedge funds, funds of funds, debt funds, separately managed accounts, collateralized loan obligation vehicles (CLOs) and closed-end mutual funds.
How is a killer whale a business?
According to the Internet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_Assessment, with the current situation included.
People have an inherent value.
A risk that is impossible to manage is inherent risk. A killer whale is impossible to manage. A killer whale is an inherent risk. Quantitative risk assessment (public health risk assessment in this case - lives are involved) requires calculations of two components of risk: R, the magnitude of the potential loss L, and the probability p, that the loss will occur, both of which can be very difficult to measure. Pardonez-moi, s'il vous plait (excuse me). The magnitude of potential loss is the loss of a human life. The probability that loss will occur has been established 3 times, with the death of 3 people.
For public health and environmental decisions, loss is simply a verbal description of the outcome, such as increased cancer incidence, incidence of birth defects, or a killer whale gone amok. The killer whale was viewed as possibly depressed, and some of the whales were not obeying instructions. The "risk" is expressed as: .
If the risk estimate takes into account information on the number of individuals exposed (daily killer whale show) , it is termed a "population risk" and is in units of expected increased cases per a time period. If the risk estimate does not take into account the number of individuals exposed, it is termed an "individual risk" and is in units of incidence rate per a time period (3 dead people). Population risks are of more use for cost/benefit analysis; individual risks are of more use for evaluating whether risks to individuals are "acceptable"....WHOA!!!! Is it acceptable for people to die? How many people can die before it becomes unacceptable to keep the killer whale.
The annualized loss expectancy (dead people) is a calculation of the single loss expectancy (one human life) multiplied the annual rate of occurrence (3 times), or how much an organization could estimate to lose from an asset (the killer whale) based on the risks, threats, and vulnerabilities. It then becomes possible from a financial perspective to justify expenditures (pay off the dead people, fines to government agencies, , etc.) to implement countermeasures (reaffirm SeaWorld image via ads) to protect the asset, the killer whale.
I can imagine the discussion going on in the corporate board room regarding the issue of whether the killer whale is a liability or asset?
Peace to Dawn.