@The other Don: Third, pipes would not burst. ....
Unfortunately, pipes DO burst. Thankfully, this is rare, but it can and does happen from time to time.
That said, many cities have older sewer systems that have bricked in channels, not concrete pipes. These will obviously be a weak point in the unlikely case that everyone flush their toilets at the same time.
the real problem would be treatment plant capacity. It would probably accept and discharge all of the inflows, but it would not have adequate time to treat the waste.
In case of too much intake, the system wouldn't even try to feed it to the treatment plants - the dirty water will just be shunted to sea untreated.
I don't think that water will just flow faster and faster through the pipe. There is an upper limit there, before the "entrance" to the pipe would overflow as the liquid inside can't move fast enough to accommodate new liquid entering the pipe.
Let me respond to a few points raised by Nonimus #22, c-dub #23, and ryan #24. I'll try to get to every point raised, though I may miss something.
Re: The writers’ strike is not about “suffering.”
I re-watched the videoclip "Why We Fight," which I posted before on Neatorama. The clip stressed that the Guild is fighting for the economic survival of the families of writers (48% unemployed at a given time, others depend on residuals to pay mortgages, etc.), thus the strike is about "suffering."
Darren Barefoot dug up a WGA document which dictated the minimum pay for writers. These are VERY well-paying jobs! Most people in the US don't make this kind of money... No wonder there is not much sympathy for the writers: regular folks view this as the fight between the rich writers and the super-rich studios.
Re: The writers strike is about fairness.
Perhaps my understanding of fair is different than yours, but in my mind fair is sharing the upside and sharing the downside.
A writer is paid (and paid well) for his script: payment is made for work done - that is fair. I don't see why residuals MUST be included. Again, my position has always been that if a writer can get the studio to give him residuals, then great! But there is no a priori reason why it must be so.
The video clip pointed out that novelists get residuals (royalties, but same difference). Musicians also get residuals. True, but they don't get salaries.
The video clip failed to note that there are other types of writers who get salaries don't get residuals: advertising writers, as well as those who write for magazines and newspapers.
[Aside] There is another big difference between a book author and a TV show writer, and that's interchangeability. A book author is the primary creator of the book. You can't change the author of a book without changing the book itself, but that's not true of most TV show writers. Although you need writers for a show, WHO they are is of less importance - thus they are more analogous to factory workers than to book authors.
Re: Back-end deals don't work because of creative accounting of studios.
Would the writers agree on the principle that they should pay up for a flop, if they can agree on a fair and equitable accounting practice with the studio?
Obviously there is a problem with "Hollywood accounting" but other big businesses (like music and the book industry) have tackled this problem, so there is no a priori reason why back-end deals won't work.
Re: bloggers on Neatorama
Neatorama's authors don't get paid for their work (sorry, guys!), but other blogs that do pay their authors do it on two main models: the first is pay per post ("salary but no residual") or profit-sharing ("residual but no salary").
There is also no union in the blogosphere: anyone can write a blog, not just Guild members.
Re: It happens that Hollywood can support good salaries. Anyone can break in, if they know the terrain and play the game.
and
Re: And you consistently describe the guild as some onerous construct that’s being inflicted on the writers – but the guild IS the writers.
Not so: ONLY Guild members can write for the studios. If you're an independent writer and you sell a script to the studios during the writers strike, then you'll be barred for future membership from the Guild (meaning once the strike is over, you can never write for the studio).
I find it odd that all writers must belong to the Guild - independent writer can't get a job without joining the Guild. It's like saying in order to vote you have to belong to a political party.
Re: I say “studios structure themselves and consolidate resources in order to exert their control,” and you say, “No.”
What I meant by no is that studios do not consolidate resources into a single hand. They compete for talents, including actors and writers, otherwise they'd be a monopoly (like the Guild). A writer can shop his script to Sony and to Paramount or to whomever. The reverse is not true: all major studios have to hire ONLY Guild members.
Re: The writers obviously can’t assume liability for a studio’s failure to promote a project / It isn’t the writers responsibility to make a show successful / f the show fails, it’s definitely not the responsibility of the writers.
Writers claimed credit for success of a movie! They claim that without the story, they'd be no movie/show - their contribution is CENTRAL to the success of the project. (Actors? Grrr! They're just pretty faces with no talent!) But if a show fail then writers definitely aren't responsible? You can't have it both ways.
Re: i hate people who get nasty just because they think people make or spend too much money. Wealth is always relative. If you can’t handle it, maybe you should consider a socialist country.
Writers deserve to get as much money they can make. And so does the studios - that's capitalism. Restricting independent writers? Blacklisting those who cross the picket line? Those are socialistic practices.
Lastly, my thanks to Lee for the links. The John August's piece on Why Writers Get Residuals is very enlightening.
And yes, it did take me longer to pick the winner of this caption (mea culpa). I got really busy with work/life....
I think this is a trend: does anyone remember the British woman that married a dolphin?
Unfortunately, pipes DO burst. Thankfully, this is rare, but it can and does happen from time to time.
That said, many cities have older sewer systems that have bricked in channels, not concrete pipes. These will obviously be a weak point in the unlikely case that everyone flush their toilets at the same time.
the real problem would be treatment plant capacity. It would probably accept and discharge all of the inflows, but it would not have adequate time to treat the waste.
In case of too much intake, the system wouldn't even try to feed it to the treatment plants - the dirty water will just be shunted to sea untreated.
Re: The writers’ strike is not about “suffering.”
I re-watched the videoclip "Why We Fight," which I posted before on Neatorama. The clip stressed that the Guild is fighting for the economic survival of the families of writers (48% unemployed at a given time, others depend on residuals to pay mortgages, etc.), thus the strike is about "suffering."
Darren Barefoot dug up a WGA document which dictated the minimum pay for writers. These are VERY well-paying jobs! Most people in the US don't make this kind of money... No wonder there is not much sympathy for the writers: regular folks view this as the fight between the rich writers and the super-rich studios.
Re: The writers strike is about fairness.
Perhaps my understanding of fair is different than yours, but in my mind fair is sharing the upside and sharing the downside.
A writer is paid (and paid well) for his script: payment is made for work done - that is fair. I don't see why residuals MUST be included. Again, my position has always been that if a writer can get the studio to give him residuals, then great! But there is no a priori reason why it must be so.
The video clip pointed out that novelists get residuals (royalties, but same difference). Musicians also get residuals. True, but they don't get salaries.
The video clip failed to note that there are other types of writers who get salaries don't get residuals: advertising writers, as well as those who write for magazines and newspapers.
[Aside] There is another big difference between a book author and a TV show writer, and that's interchangeability. A book author is the primary creator of the book. You can't change the author of a book without changing the book itself, but that's not true of most TV show writers. Although you need writers for a show, WHO they are is of less importance - thus they are more analogous to factory workers than to book authors.
Re: Back-end deals don't work because of creative accounting of studios.
Would the writers agree on the principle that they should pay up for a flop, if they can agree on a fair and equitable accounting practice with the studio?
Obviously there is a problem with "Hollywood accounting" but other big businesses (like music and the book industry) have tackled this problem, so there is no a priori reason why back-end deals won't work.
Re: bloggers on Neatorama
Neatorama's authors don't get paid for their work (sorry, guys!), but other blogs that do pay their authors do it on two main models: the first is pay per post ("salary but no residual") or profit-sharing ("residual but no salary").
There is also no union in the blogosphere: anyone can write a blog, not just Guild members.
Re: It happens that Hollywood can support good salaries. Anyone can break in, if they know the terrain and play the game.
and
Re: And you consistently describe the guild as some onerous construct that’s being inflicted on the writers – but the guild IS the writers.
Not so: ONLY Guild members can write for the studios. If you're an independent writer and you sell a script to the studios during the writers strike, then you'll be barred for future membership from the Guild (meaning once the strike is over, you can never write for the studio).
I find it odd that all writers must belong to the Guild - independent writer can't get a job without joining the Guild. It's like saying in order to vote you have to belong to a political party.
Re: I say “studios structure themselves and consolidate resources in order to exert their control,” and you say, “No.”
What I meant by no is that studios do not consolidate resources into a single hand. They compete for talents, including actors and writers, otherwise they'd be a monopoly (like the Guild). A writer can shop his script to Sony and to Paramount or to whomever. The reverse is not true: all major studios have to hire ONLY Guild members.
Re: The writers obviously can’t assume liability for a studio’s failure to promote a project / It isn’t the writers responsibility to make a show successful / f the show fails, it’s definitely not the responsibility of the writers.
Writers claimed credit for success of a movie! They claim that without the story, they'd be no movie/show - their contribution is CENTRAL to the success of the project. (Actors? Grrr! They're just pretty faces with no talent!) But if a show fail then writers definitely aren't responsible? You can't have it both ways.
Re: i hate people who get nasty just because they think people make or spend too much money. Wealth is always relative. If you can’t handle it, maybe you should consider a socialist country.
Writers deserve to get as much money they can make. And so does the studios - that's capitalism. Restricting independent writers? Blacklisting those who cross the picket line? Those are socialistic practices.
Lastly, my thanks to Lee for the links. The John August's piece on Why Writers Get Residuals is very enlightening.