Time capsule from 1795 is opened

More than 200 years after Samuel Adams and Paul Revere first buried it in Boston, it took an hour to remove all the objects crammed inside a tiny time capsule.

Onlookers anxiously watched the unveiling Tuesday, worrying the items might not have weathered the years very well.

"Could we actually go through the whole box, or would things prove too fragile to take out?" said Malcolm Rogers, director of Boston's Museum of Fine Arts. "It was like brain surgery, with history looking down on us."

Piece by piece, Pam Hatchfield, head of objects conservation for the museum, removed each item, whispering "wow" as she first caught a glimpse of some of them.

Among the stash Hatchfield removed from the 1795 time capsule: Five folded newspapers, a Massachusetts commonwealth seal, a title page from Massachusetts colony records and at least 24 coins.

And at the bottom, an inscribed rectangular silver plate, "probably made by Paul Revere and engraved by him," Rogers said.

"That was the treasure at the end," he said.

But getting to it was a painstaking process.

It took seven hours to remove the time capsule from the Massachusetts State House, and more than four hours before Tuesday evening's ceremony for officials to loosen the screws that were holding it shut.

At the broadcast event, which took place at the museum in front of a painting of George Washington, Hatchfield used a porcupine quill and her grandfather's dental tool to help her safely remove the contents of the 10-pound box, which was uncovered during repairs for a water leak at the State House last month.

The box-shaped capsule was placed in the State House cornerstone in 1795 by Revere, the metalsmith, engraver and Revolutionary War hero; Adams, the brewer and governor of Massachusetts; and William Scollay, a local developer, when construction began. Revere was responsible for overlaying the State House dome with copper.

The time capsule measured 5.5 x 7.5 x 1.5 inches, officials said.

It's not the first time the box has been uncovered. In 1855, during some other repairs, the time capsule was removed and its contents cleaned, only to be put back in the cornerstone for almost 160 years. The box's materials were noted in reports of the time.

But this time, historians have had the opportunity to go through the contents with modern tools. After its removal December 11, the box was taken to the Museum of Fine Arts, X-rayed and given a thorough once-over.

Having an idea about what might be inside was nothing compared to actually seeing it, Rogers told CNN.

"Though we knew a little bit about what was in the box, it was a moment of extraordinary excitement as this brass container just the size of a cigar box was slowly opened with surgical precision, and you suddenly found yourself in the presence of history," he said.

Newspapers inside the box were in "amazingly good condition," Hatchfield said.

The large number of copper coins inside might have helped protect the artifacts, she said, since copper helps block the growth of fungus.

The collection of coins recovered from the time capsule included half-cent, one-cent, half-dime, 10-cent and 25-cent coins. Another set of coins included a pine tree shilling from 1652 and a copper medal showing George Washington.

"This is the most exciting project I've ever worked on," a beaming Hatchfield told the crowd after she finished pulling out all of the box's contents, describing how thrilling it was to be part of building a bridge between the past and the present.

"This is what we, as conservators, live for," she said.

Going forward, conservators at the museum will work on preserving items removed from the time capsule.

Then the objects will go on display at the museum. Eventually, the time capsule will be placed again in the cornerstone of the Massachusetts State House, said William F. Galvin, secretary of the commonwealth.

One question still remains, Galvin said: Will officials add anything new to the time capsule before they put it back?

"The governor has wisely suggested that we might," he said, "so we'll think about it."

U. S. Navy commander plead guilty to bribery

SAN DIEGO (AP) — A U.S. Navy commander pleaded guilty Tuesday in a massive bribery scheme involving a longtime military contractor in Asia who allegedly offered luxury travel, prostitutes and other bribes to Navy officers in exchange for confidential information.

Jose Luis Sanchez, 42, is the highest-ranking official to plead the guilty in the case, which rocked the Navy when the first charges were filed in 2013. He faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison when he is sentenced March 27.

Sanchez, who lives in San Diego and remains on active duty, was asked to silently read four passages of a 24-page plea agreement and say if the wrongdoing described was accurate.

"Yes, sir," he told U.S. Magistrate Judge David Bartick each time.

Robert Huie, an assistant U.S. attorney, told reporters that Sanchez admitted taking bribes of cash, prostitutes and hotel stays over four years.

Sanchez was charged with accepting bribes for steering Navy ships to Leonard Glenn Francis, chief executive of a Singapore-based company that provided services to vessels at ports.

Francis, known in military circles as "Fat Leonard," and his company Glenn Defense Marine Asia Ltd., or GDMA, serviced Navy ships for 25 years. Prosecutors say he bought information that allowed his company to overbill the Navy for port services in Asia by at least $20 million since 2009.

Francis was arrested in September 2013 and has pleaded not guilty.

Sanchez, one of four Navy members charged in the case, held key positions in Singapore and Japan before he was reassigned to Tampa, Fla., in 2013. Prosecutors alleged that he took $100,000 in cash, plane tickets and prostitution for information on Navy shipping schedules and other information, some of it classified.

The judge agreed to let Sanchez remove a GPS monitor while free on bond and allowed him to back the bond with assets of his mother and sister, instead of his own property.

Sanchez's attorney, Vincent Ward, said his client needed his own money to pay legal fees and assured the judge that Sanchez wouldn't betray his family by failing to appear for sentencing. His mother and sister sat in the front row.

"He's closer to his mom and sister than anyone," Ward said.

Sanchez and his attorney declined to speak with reporters as they left the courtroom.

He is the fifth person to plead guilty in the case and the second Navy official. Daniel Layug, a petty officer who admitted providing classified shipping schedules and other internal Navy information to Francis, pleaded guilty in May.

Navy Cmdr. Michael Vannak Khem Misiewicz has pleaded not guilty.

Taxpayers take hit if Rams pull out

ST. LOUIS (KTVI) – Taxpayers could take a hit if the Rams pull out and St. Louis is left without an NFL team.

Investigator Elliott Davis talked to Jim Shrewsbury the man appointed by Governor Nixon to head up the St. Louis Regional Sports Authority, the government agency that owns the Edward Jones Dome as well as Rams Park.

Shrewsbury says the City, State and County could end up forking over more dollars to help pay off the bonds if revenue from a loss of the Rams isn’t replace.

Right now the Rams pay $500,000 to use the Edward Jones Dome.

Right now the State pays $12 million a year, the City of St Louis $6 million, and St Louis County $6 Million to pay off the bonds sold to build and maintain the dome.

The bond pay off is over a 30 year period.

$129 million is still owed in bond payments that won’t be paid off till the year 2021.

The Rams also pay the Sports Authority $25,000 a year to rent Rams Park, the training facility in Earth City.

The Sports Authority would also have to make up that revenue if the Rams pulled out and we don’t get another team.

Shrewsbury says he’s confident they could eventually make up the losses saying they’d look for other tenants. But he admits that could take time.

Good eating in the burbs to the city

So W.O.T.S.M. is all about getting you the news but we have to eat too you know so we wanted to end the year and start the new one with a bang. So every week we will pick a place in the cook and surrounding counties including Wisconsin and Northwest Indiana only because our readers travel to these state to.

So this week we have our sites on 2 places. 1 is on 63rd street that we heard has good food but wasn't given a name so the sarge will get that too and the 2nd is a spot is alleged to be owned by a Chicago Police Officer possibly retired but the Sarge will find out when we send him to 19 PAUL.

Good eating in the burbs to the city

Well W.O.T.S.M. is doing a weekly thing were we go to a place and writer a review of the food.
Our first week takes us to Summit, Illinois to El Faro.
Bi lingual menu and speaking employees.
The food is terrific there parking isn't the greatest but well worth it if you wait for a spot to open up to dine in. It has pool tables and a jukebox.  TV.

The food is great
Fountain drinks and imported bottle drinks from Mexico.

There is homemade jordinar
All in all I give it 4.5 sears towers

Uber shits on drivers

We have been talking to Uber drivers and riders. While both love the service they have some concerns.  1 concern is a driver shows up to pick up a client and the client cancels the driver doesn't receive the any part of the cancelation fee. We are wondering why? 2 they don't allow any driver to use Frod Crown Victoria,  Mercury Grand marquis, and Lincoln Town car.  They say the city of Chicago regulations state that drivers can't.  We asked the city and they sent a letter stating that statement from Uber is untrue.  So what gives. 
Well this is what Forbes had to say about Uber. On June 3, news reports carried the story that multiple investors (including big name institutional investors like Wellington & Fidelity) had invested $1.2 billion into Uber, a technology company that matches consumers to car services in many cities around the globe. Based on the investment (and the percentage of ownership that these investors were getting in exchange), the imputed value for Uber (pre-money, i.e., prior to the influx of $1.2 billion) was $17 billion, a mind-boggling sum for a business that generates a few hundred million in revenues and has little to show in terms of operating income. That said, Uber has lots of company in this high-value space, with Airbnb and Dropbox being two other companies that in recent months have been valued at more than $10 billion by investors. With all these companies, the key selling point is disruption, the latest buzzword in strategy, with company owners arguing that they are upending existing ways of doing business (hailing a taxi, with Uber, and finding lodging, with Airbnb) and given the sizes of the businesses that they were disrupting, that the sky is the limit on value. If you are old enough to remember market fevers from past booms, you are probably inclined to dismiss both the claims and the valuations as fantasy. I do believe, however, that there is a kernel of truth to the disruption argument though I think investors are being far too casual in accepting it at face value. As I attempt to attach a value to Uber, I have to confess that I just downloaded the app and have not used it yet. I spend most of my of life either in the suburbs, where I can go for days without seeing a taxi, or in New York City, where I find that the subways are a vastly more time-efficient, cheaper and often safer mode of transportation than taxis. Uber is not in the taxi business, at least in the conventional sense, since it owns no cabs and has no cab drivers as employees. Instead, it plays the role of matchmaker, matching a driver/car with a customer looking for a ride and taking a slice of the fare for providing the service. Its value comes from the screening that it does of the drivers/cars (to ensure both safety and comfort), its pricing/payment system (where customers choose the level of service, ranging from a car to a SUV, are quoted a fare and pay Uber) and its convenience (where you can track the car that is coming to pick you up on your phone screen). The figure below captures the steps in the Uber business model, with comments on what it is that Uber offers at each stage and whether that offering is unique:
Uber business model
Uber has been able to grow at exponential rates since its founding in 2009 by Garrett Camp and Travis Kalanick, with the latter (who is new CEO) claiming that it is doubling its size every six months. While we have no access to the company’s financials, there have been periodic leaks of information about the company that allow us to get a sense of its growth. Here, for instance, was a picture that was widely dispersed in December 2013 of a five-week period in late 2013:

Uber historical numbers

While the company claimed to be outraged by the leak, it played nicely into the narrative of growth that it was selling to its investors. In fact, the December leaks suggested that the company generated gross receipts (the fares paid by customers for cab rides) of $1.1 billion, which would translate into revenues of $220 million (based on the 20% slice that Uber claims for itself). That was a few months ago and at the rates at which the company is growing, I would not be surprised if the updated values for both numbers are higher; I will be using $1.5 billion for the gross receipts and $300 million as revenues for Uber as base year numbers.

There was no information that I could find on the company’s expenses and income, but according to public sources, the company has 900 employees in its different locations and that it pays them reasonably well. Uber has been active in both marketing its service and offering deals to attract firms time customers and has an active technology department (doing the equivalent of R&D). In summary, these expenses are likely to have been much larger than the revenues (of $300 million) posted during the period. Since the company can legitimately argue that some of these expenses (such as the R&D and customer acquisition costs) are more in the nature of capital expenditures than operating expenses, I will assume (generously) that the company generated an operating income of $10 million in the most recent 12 months. (The effect on value of changing this number is relatively small).

The Washington post writes
The ride-sharing service Uber has, once again, been getting some bad press coverage over its surge pricing. The latest outrage occurred when Uber quadrupled its prices due to a surge in demand in central Sydney. The cause of that surge? A hostage siege was unfolding in a Lindt chocolate shop in Sydney’s central business district and people wanted to get out of there, fast.

Though Uber backed down when it realized that this was a mistake, once again, Uber’s surge pricing was called into question. Is it right for companies to engage in what some call “price gouging?”

Specifically, should CEO Travis Kalanick consider “fairness” when making Uber’s business decisions?

The answer is yes, but it’s complicated.

That’s because whereas policymakers look at their choices through two lenses, one that focuses on efficiency and one that focuses on fairness, businesses tend to have one goal in mind: Will the decision maximize profits?

Policymakers take a different approach.  First, they figure out whether there’s a reason for the government to intervene, such as to fix a market failure. Classic textbook examples of market failures are negative externalities, such as pollution and drunk driving, or positive externalities, such as education.

This analysis has nothing to do with fairness. The policy maker simply wants to get rid of the market failure in the most efficient way possible. It can do this with taxes, quotas, price ceilings, and so forth.

Would surge pricing qualify as a market failure calling for government intervention?

It depends, which brings fairness into play.

Fairness becomes an issue when the policy maker begins to take into consideration who will benefit and who will be hurt by the policy.

When Uber engages in surge pricing, it’s simply a response to an imbalance between supply and demand. As Uber explains, when demand suddenly increases, Uber raises the prices for a ride as a way to get more drivers, i.e., supply, on the road. No need for anyone to figure out what price will work because if prices are too high, demand will fall, whereas if prices are too low then supply will fall. At some point, the invisible hand of the market gets the prices just right so that there are enough Uber drivers to take riders where they want to go.

Economists might say there’s nothing wrong because that’s how markets work. Matthew Feeney at the Cato Institute, for example, recently wrote a vigorous defense of the economics of Uber’s surge pricing.

So our thing is Uber ripping off the driver and customer? Does Uber regulate what kind of cars people can drive? Why aren't the people getting a portion of the cancelation fee?  All of what we asked Uber. Stay tuned for their response.

Coward shoots himself after killing his girlfriend and two NYPD officers

From USA TODAY Biggest news you missed this weekend http://usat.ly/16GDEvf Get USA TODAY on your mobile device: http://www.usatoday.com/mobile-apps