Article:
Roger Ebert, the popular film critic and television co-host who along with his fellow reviewer and sometime sparring partner Gene Siskel could lift or sink the fortunes of a movie with their trademark thumbs up or thumbs down, died on Thursday in Chicago. He was 70.

 His death was announced by The Chicago Sun-Times, where he had worked for more than 40 years. No cause was specified, but he had suffered from cancer and related health problems since 2002.

 It would not be a stretch to say that Mr. Ebert was the best-known film reviewer of his generation, and one of the most trusted. The force and grace of his opinions propelled film criticism into the mainstream of American culture. Not only did he advise moviegoers about what to see, but also how to think about what they saw.

 President Obama reacted to Mr. Ebert’s death with a statement that said, in part: “For a generation of Americans — especially Chicagoans — Roger was the movies. When he didn’t like a film, he was honest; when he did, he was effusive — capturing the unique power of the movies to take us somewhere magical.”

 Mr. Ebert’s struggle with cancer gave him an altogether different public image — as someone who refused to surrender to illness. Though he had operations for cancer of the thyroid, salivary glands and chin, lost his ability to eat, drink and speak (a prosthesis partly obscured the loss of much of his jaw, and he was fed through a tube for years) and became a gaunter version of his once-portly self, he continued to write reviews and commentary and published a cookbook on meals that could be made with a rice cooker.

 “When I am writing, my problems become invisible, and I am the same person I always was,” he told Esquire magazine in 2010. “All is well. I am as I should be.”

 In recent years, Mr. Ebert became a prolific presence on Facebook and Twitter, on which he had more than 800,000 followers, and was a blogger as well.

 He fired tweets with machine-gun rapidity, on topics both profound and prosaic. He commented on pro football, his captions for The New Yorker cartoon contest, an old pub he once frequented, James Joyce short stories and untold numbers of movies and television shows, to which he linked. “Pixar is the first studio that is a movie star,” went one tweet.

 He swore he would not become addicted to Twitter, but emphatically did. But Mr. Ebert — whose handle was @ebertchicago — never tweeted during a movie.

 Mr. Ebert liked to say his approach — dryly witty, occasionally sarcastic, sometimes quirky in his opinions — reflected the working newspaper reporter he had been, not a formal student of film. His tastes ran from the classics to boldly independent cinema to cartoons, and his put-downs could be withering.

 “I will one day be thin, but Vincent Gallo will always be the director of ‘The Brown Bunny,’ ” he wrote.

 His thumbs-up-or-down approach drew scorn from some critics, who said it trivialized film criticism. Speaking to Playboy magazine in 1991, Mr. Ebert agreed that his television program at the time was “not a high-level, in-depth film-criticism show.” But he argued that it demonstrated to younger viewers that one can bring standards of judgment to movies, that “it’s O.K. to have an opinion.”

 In 1975 he became the first film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize, for his Sun-Times reviews. His columns were syndicated to more than 200 newspapers in the United States and abroad, and he wrote more than 15 books, many by skillfully recycling his columns. In 2005 he became the first film critic to be honored with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

 “In the century or so that there has been such a thing as film criticism, no other critic has ever occupied the space held by Roger Ebert,” Mick LaSalle, movie critic for The San Francisco Chronicle, wrote in 2010. “Others as influential as Ebert have not been as esteemed. Others as esteemed as Ebert have not had the same direct and widespread influence. And no one, but no one, has enjoyed the same fame.”

 With Mr. Siskel, Mr. Ebert popularized television film criticism. Their collaboration began in 1975. Mr. Ebert was asked to appear on WTTW, the public broadcasting station in Chicago, as co-host of a new movie-review program. He was intrigued, but then taken aback when told that Mr. Siskel, the film critic of The Chicago Tribune, would be his partner.

 “The answer was at the tip of my tongue: no,” Mr. Ebert told Time magazine in 1987.

 As for Mr. Siskel, he said he initially had no desire to team up with “the most hated guy in my life.” ||||| I will always regret that I had only one direct exchange with Roger Ebert, and it took place via email. In that brief but (for me) significant correspondence, he proved as kind and gracious a soul as you would expect. Personally, I wish I’d behaved better.

 It was on March 6, 2006, the morning after “Crash” won the Oscar for best picture — an upset in every sense for those of us who were rooting for the presumptive favorite, “Brokeback Mountain.” The resulting online uproar was so intense that it spurred Ebert to write a vigorous defense of Paul Haggis’ film, decrying “the fury of the ‘Crash’-lash” and accusing the hardcore “Brokeback” fans of acting in bad faith. More or less proving him right, I lashed out. I fired off a crankily defensive email, lambasting someone I had read and respected for ages but never met, and whom I would have addressed on any other occasion with nothing less than stammering politeness.

 See Also: Roger Ebert Dies at 70 Photos

 To my surprise, Ebert saw fit not only to publish my letter in his Movie Answer Man column, but also to write me a personal reply, in which he thanked me for getting in touch, conceded some of my points while gently reasserting his own, and told me he respected my work. Shamed but not silenced, I sent back a bloated apology, which occasioned another polite response and an altogether friendlier, more harmonious back-and-forth. I may have started us off on the wrong foot, but Roger redeemed our encounter with his characteristic good nature and genuine delight in engaging with his readers — the very qualities that made him, for so many of us, an ideal companion at the movies.

 My takeaway lesson was that an act of grace, especially one coming from an elder and a superior, will always prevail over a difference of opinion. And it was the consummate grace of Ebert’s voice — that inimitable blend of wit, erudition, amiability and common sense — that made him our most important and indispensable film critic, someone you loved to read no matter how violently you disagreed with him. Like all great thinkers and writers, he rendered irrelevant the small-minded tyranny of right and wrong answers through his vivid, literate and unpretentious command of language. His thumbs may have changed the face of criticism, but it is Ebert’s writing for which he will be most fondly and significantly remembered.

 We all have our favorites — in my case, derived from hours spent not watching the various TV shows he made famous with Gene Siskel (although I did that, too), but poring over the review archives on the Chicago Sun-Times’ website. I remember watching “Dead Poets Society” in high school and feeling pretty much alone in despising it; I found a kindred spirit in Ebert, who memorably tore the film to shreds: “I was so moved, I wanted to throw up.” A few years later he nailed the beauty and heartache of “The Sweet Hereafter,” noting that Atom Egoyan’s intricate, time-shuffling film had been constructed “in the simplest possible way. It isn’t about the beginning and end of the plot, but about the beginning and end of the emotions.”

 See Also: Hollywood Reacts to Ebert’s Death on Twitter

 Ebert always looked for emotion. He could eviscerate a movie with the best of them, but in many ways his work offered precisely the opposite of the cruel cynicism that is assumed to be the critic’s stock-in-trade. In more recent years, he seemed to err increasingly on the side of charity, adopting a sometimes mystifyingly liberal hand with four-star reviews — a generosity that nonetheless went hand-in-hand with his essentially optimistic view of the medium.

 Stories of his support for younger critics are legion, but even as he was fostering aspiring talent, he never stopped showing us how it was done. Too often, when we talk about art, we do so in tones of overly hushed, self-serious reverence, placing it on a forbidding pedestal. As someone who can lapse into all manner of contorted academic language to explain why readers should care about Hou Hsiao-hsien or Nuri Bilge Ceylan, I envy the exquisite simplicity with which Ebert can nail a film like Bela Tarr’s “Werckmeister Harmonies”: “If you have not walked out after 20 or 30 minutes, you will thereafter not be able to move from your seat.” Without ever once deviating from a conversational tone, Ebert could make watching Welles, Bresson, Ozu and Mizoguchi sound like nothing less than the purest joy.

 VIDEO: Roger Ebert Through the Years

 In the hands of someone with an unprecedented command of our collective moviegoing minds, this is no small thing. I wanted to applaud when he made the bold decision to include a recent release, “The Tree of Life,” on his list of the 10 greatest films of all time for the decennial Sight & Sound poll. A critic of his age and stature may well have waited to see if Terrence Malick’s film stood the test of time, but Ebert was nothing if not a forward thinker. Before many of us knew Twitter from Facebook, he had already adapted his work to suit the demands of an online following that grew only more massive as time went on.

 It is impossible to quantify the influence that Roger Ebert has had on anyone who cares even remotely about movies and movie criticism. But why limit it to such a narrow range of interest? Inside or outside the often insular, self-protective ranks of film critics, I can think of no writer who has commanded as wide a readership, or been more deeply invested in fostering a dialogue with that readership — a dialogue that overflowed freely into matters of art, science, religion, morality and politics. There was nothing Ebert couldn’t write about, just as there was seemingly no medium through which his work could not be transmitted.

 It is one of the saddest ironies of Ebert’s long, courageous battle with cancer that he was robbed of one of the very things that defined him most: his voice. I speak, gratefully, of his voice in the physical sense, for his real voice never left us and never will. Tirelessly reviewing, blogging and tweeting until the bitter end, he came perhaps as close as anyone can claim to having triumphed over the physical onset of death and its cruelest deprivations. For anyone who ever longed to say something of value about the movies and the world they reflect, he is no less an inspiration in death than he was in life. ||||| Editorial: We were all better for knowing Roger Ebert

 Updated:

 Do you love what you do?

 Do you go to work every day and try to master your job and feel deeply that it matters? Do you believe that you can, through sheer excellence, make it matter even more?

 Roger Ebert did.

 He loved everything he ever did, and made it matter to all of us, perhaps because he chose wisely.

 Roger loved the movies and big ideas and great conversation and hard work. He loved the very idea of living a full and examined life, and he was an inspiration to millions of others. Movie fans adored Roger, of course, but so did all of us who at times can feel that electric surge that is life itself.

 Speaking of the vitality of youth, Dylan Thomas once wrote — and Roger would appreciate the literary allusion — “The force that through the green fuse drives the flower drives my green age.” That was Roger, a life force, and it did not fade as his green age grew grey.

 Roger grew up in Urbana, a pudgy only child, a questioning Catholic boy, in the thrall even then of movies and journalism and ideas, and blessed even then with a stunning work ethic. As a kid in high school, he would work all night covering sports for the local paper, then hit the bars — underage — with those glamorous local reporters he couldn’t get enough of.

 Roger moved on to the big city, Chicago, and could never get enough of that, either. He cranked out the smartest stories for the Sun-Times, always delivered in deceptively simple Midwestern prose. Then he’d schmooze into the wee hours with the likes of Nelson Algren and Mike Royko at Riccardo’s and the Billy Goat and, best of all, O’Rourke’s.

 But when the drinking got the best of him, Roger quit cold. He wanted to do so much more of everything else — he knew he had it in him — and the drinking got in the way.

 Roger was unafraid to try his hand. There was his great TV movie review show, “Sneak Previews,” with his unlikely friend and competitor, Gene Siskel. There was an awful screenplay. And a better novel. And an excellent blog that should have won him his second Pulitzer Prize.

 And we who were lucky to work with him, we who felt such intense pride in being Chicago Sun-Times journalists simply because Roger was one of us, we were all better for his example and friendship.

 Roger grew wiser with age. A bit less prideful. A good deal more forgiving. You could see it in his film reviews which, frankly, turned more thumbs up over time. Roger did not agree this was so — he was as tough as ever, he would insist. But he also once wrote, late in life, that while it is easy to find fault in a film or in any work of art, our obligation to each other is to see and appreciate that which is great.

 That was our Roger. To his dying day, he could grow as excited as a little boy at a carnival when he discovered something of true excellence. And then he would tell everybody — he just had to.

 In so doing, Roger Ebert achieved a rare greatness of his own. |||||Summary:

– Following Roger Ebert's passing, voices across the country are remembering his landmark contribution to film criticism—as well as his companionship. At Variety, Justin Chang reflects on Ebert's "characteristic good nature and genuine delight in engaging with his readers—the very qualities that made him, for so many of us, an ideal companion at the movies." He goes on to salute "the consummate grace of Ebert’s voice—that inimitable blend of wit, erudition, amiability, and common sense—that made him our most important and indispensable film critic." The New York Times calls Ebert likely "the best-known film reviewer of his generation, and one of the most trusted ... The force and grace of his opinions propelled film criticism into the mainstream of American culture," writes Douglas Martin. "Not only did he advise moviegoers about what to see, but also how to think about what they saw." The Chicago Sun-Times, his longtime stomping grounds, praises his "stunning work ethic," noting that "we who felt such intense pride in being Chicago Sun-Times journalists simply because Roger was one of us ... were all better for his example and friendship." His wife offers a poignant statement, per NPR, on "my husband, my friend, my confidante, and oh-so-brilliant partner of over 20 years." Their romance, Chaz Ebert says, was "more beautiful and epic than a movie." Though he was "happy," she notes, "he was also getting tired of his fight with cancer, and said if this takes him, he has lived a great and full life."


LONDON—Taxi drivers planned to turn a handful of European city centers into giant parking lots Wednesday, protesting the mobile car-hailing services of Uber Technologies Inc. and others.

 The demonstrations highlight some challenges facing Uber and its peers as they race to increase revenue and woo investors. But the scale of the planned protests across Europe also underscores the extent to which the technology has upended one of the... ||||| Uber Technologies Inc., the car-sharing service that’s rankling cabbies across the U.S., is fighting its biggest protest from European drivers who say the smartphone application threatens their livelihoods.

 Traffic snarled in cities from London to Madrid and Berlin to Paris as strikes and gatherings by more than 30,000 taxi and limo drivers blocked tourist centers and shopping districts. They are asking regulators to apply tougher rules on San Francisco-based Uber, whose software allows customers to order a ride from drivers who don’t need licenses that can cost 200,000 euros ($270,000) apiece.

 The biggest city-center protest was in London, where black-cab drivers were joined by private car services and trainees to protest what they saw as the government’s failure to hold Uber to the same standards as other car services and taxis. While similar demonstrations this year have led to smashed windshields and traffic chaos in Paris, a united front in Europe highlights the challenges for Uber’s expansion.

 Related:

 “A strike won’t work,” European Commission Vice President Neelie Kroes said in a statement today. “What we need is real dialogue where we talk about these disruptions caused by technology.”

 Photographer: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg London taxi drivers next to their parked cabs on The Mall, leading away from Buckingham Palace, during a protest against Uber Technologies Inc.'s car sharing service on June 11, 2014. Close London taxi drivers next to their parked cabs on The Mall, leading away from Buckingham... Read More Close Open Photographer: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg London taxi drivers next to their parked cabs on The Mall, leading away from Buckingham Palace, during a protest against Uber Technologies Inc.'s car sharing service on June 11, 2014.

 A funding round last week values the company at $17 billion, almost five times the figure in an earlier round. Out of some 128 cities it serves, 20 are in Europe, including Manchester, Lyon and Zurich.

 Tourist Hubs

 In London, thousands of black cabs and private hire cars descended on the tourist hubs of Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square, blocking some of the city’s busiest streets. Scooter and motorbike riders studying for the cab-driver exam joined in, honking their horns as the police tried to regulate traffic.

 London taxi drivers have said that the app’s fare calculator amounts to a meter, which aren’t allowed in hired cars that aren’t registered taxis. Last month, TFL asked the High Court to rule on whether the fare system was legal.

 “We have to have a license to own a cab, we have to have a driver’s license, a cab driver’s license,” said Mark Haslam, a 58-year-old black-cab driver, who took part in the protest. “For some reason they seem to be outside the law.”

 Another driver, John Maloney, 64, was standing on top of a black cab on the corner of Whitehall and Trafalgar Square with a sign saying “enforce the law.” He was dressed as a judge, wearing a white wig and black cape.

 Photographer: Angel Navarrete/Bloomberg Spanish flags fly from a taxi cab painted with graffiti reading "RIP Uber Taxi G$$gle" as it leads demonstrators along a city highway to protest against the Uber Technologies Inc. taxi app in central Madrid, today. Close Spanish flags fly from a taxi cab painted with graffiti reading "RIP Uber Taxi G$$gle"... Read More Close Open Photographer: Angel Navarrete/Bloomberg Spanish flags fly from a taxi cab painted with graffiti reading "RIP Uber Taxi G$$gle" as it leads demonstrators along a city highway to protest against the Uber Technologies Inc. taxi app in central Madrid, today.

 Arrest Warning

 No major accidents or clashes were reported. The London police, saying organizers hadn’t asked for proper permission to assemble, had threatened to arrest protesters if they arrived before 2 p.m. and didn’t leave by 3 p.m.

 London organizers had called on drivers to join the demonstrations with posters mimicking a World War I recruiting campaign, featuring military commander Horatio Kitchener and his characteristic handlebar mustache.

 In Paris, drivers blocked the Charles de Gaulle and Orly airports this morning and prevented private-car services from picking up passengers, said Nadine Annet, vice president at the FNAT taxi association. Cabbies also slowed down traffic the A1 highway that circles Paris, leading to a 200-kilometer (120-mile) jam, local TV reported. The vast majority of France’s 55,000 professional taxis and Paris’s 15,000 cabs are on strike today, Annet said.

 Kader Djielouli, a 44-year-old protester who’s been driving taxis in Paris for 15 years, said he’s lost 40 percent of his revenue since 2009 because of services like Uber.

 Paris, Madrid

 Private-car services “are taxis without being taxis,” he said at a cab stand near the Opera metro station in Paris. “We are against them. There need to be the same rules for all.”

 Taxis drivers block highway outside Paris, near Roissy, on June 11, 2014, as they take part in a demonstration to protest against mobile car-hailing services such as Uber, which have shaken up the industry. Photorgapher: Fred Dufour/AFP via Getty Images Close Taxis drivers block highway outside Paris, near Roissy, on June 11, 2014, as they take... Read More Close Open Taxis drivers block highway outside Paris, near Roissy, on June 11, 2014, as they take part in a demonstration to protest against mobile car-hailing services such as Uber, which have shaken up the industry. Photorgapher: Fred Dufour/AFP via Getty Images

 In Madrid, thousands of drivers marched to block the Paseo de la Castellana, one of the city’s main avenues, as police escorted the demonstration by cars, a helicopter and officers on foot. Protesters chanted insults targeted at Uber and chased taxis that weren’t taking part in the rally.

 In Berlin, more than 500 taxis lined up in columns of 20 in the plaza stretching out from the Olympic stadium. Four youth chanting “friends of Uber” were escorted away by security under shouts of a few enraged drivers.

 Berlin cabs earlier packed airports and the upscale Kurfuerstendamm shopping district. At the Tegel airport, one of the three starting locations for the Berlin demonstration, taxi driver Kubilay Sarikaya said this morning he was skeptical about the protests. While he’d been working since 3 a.m., he said he’ll go along if his friends do.

 “While we are demonstrating, the other guys are hauling people around,” said Sarikaya, 33. “There have to be other ways. Ultimately I think folks know that they can always count on the good old cab to get them where they need to be.”

 Berlin, Milan

 In Milan, no taxi was to be seen after about 5,000 drivers this morning went on a strike that is set to last until 10 p.m.

 Uber took the demonstrations as an opportunity to promote its service, saying in a statement its teams across Europe will keep the cities moving today.

 “While the taxi protests may seek to bring Europe to a standstill, we’ll be on hand to get our riders from A to B.”

 Uber also chose this morning to open its service in London to black-cab drivers, describing its 5 percent commission as the lowest of all booking systems in the city. Uber has thus far offered luxury cars and cheaper rides in London, while excluding licensed black cabs. Later in the day, Uber said signups in London to its service today were 850 percent higher than last Wednesday, declining to give the actual number.

 Internet Backlash

 The protests have a deeper significance beyond the taxi industry. They underscore the growing backlash against the likes of room-booking service Airbnb Inc. and video-streaming provider Aereo Inc. as they clash with traditional industries arguing the competitors should be subject to the same regulations.

 “European cities have tended to regulate taxi drivers much more than the U.S.,” said Charles Lichfield, an analyst at Eurasia Group in London. “I do think the protests have a better chance of succeeding.”

 In the U.S., local taxi groups have also lobbied against Uber and similar services in cities such as Seattle. In Europe, regulators and courts are struggling with the disconnect between the desire to protect a regulated industry and the need for more technological innovation.

 “For years the government has slapped new fees onto taxis and imposed more constraints -- everything from car colors to, now, GPS tracking,” FNAT’s Annet said. “The least we’re asking for is that our competitors get the same tough love.”

 French Court

 Following complaints by Paris cab drivers, France this year imposed a rule on private services, requiring a minimum 15-minute wait between the time a car is booked and the passenger is picked up. The decree was later struck down by the country’s constitutional court.

 Hamburg’s economy ministry on June 6 issued an order preventing Wundercar, a German peer of Uber, from operating in the city, saying that transporting people for profit and without a license is against the law. Berlin administrators are probing a similar move against Uber, spokeswoman Petra Rohland said. A Berlin court banned the Uber Black chauffeur service in April, although the injunction hasn’t been enforced.

 The Spanish region of Catalonia said yesterday it will ask Uber -- which is available in Barcelona -- to immediately stop its activities in the area. The regional government is also telling security forces to increase control and detection of illegal taxi services.

 European Regulation

 “Consumers want to have these services. I’ve personally never sat in a run-down Uber car, but I’ve definitely experienced a lot of run-down taxis,” said Arndt Ellinghorst, head of automotive research at ISI Group in London. “It is a bit scary how protectionist Europe can be.”

 Uber raised $1.2 billion in new financing led by Fidelity Investments last week, valuing the company at about $17 billion, before added investments. The company had earlier raised $307.5 million from investors including Google Ventures, TPG Capital and Menlo Ventures.

 The company’s assets may be worth just $5.9 billion, Aswath Damodaran, a finance professor at New York University, wrote on his blog this week. He said the figure was based on optimistic assumptions about the taxi industry’s growth and Uber’s market share and profitability.

 Lower Prices

 Chief Executive Officer Travis Kalanick -- who started Uber in 2009 after he and partner Garrett Camp couldn’t find a cab in Paris -- has pushed the company into 37 countries. He said the low prices and ease of use that their drivers can offer will lead to a base of support from consumers that regulators won’t be able to ignore.

 A typical journey from Finsbury Square, near London’s financial district, and Paddington Station takes between 20 and 30 minutes by car to travel approximately four miles. Uber estimates that that journey would cost between 14 pounds ($24) and 16 pounds. London’s transportation authority estimates that the trip could cost between 15 pounds and 22 pounds.

 The German market for taxis and rental cars was 4.3 billion euros last year, said Michael Mueller, the president of the German Association of Taxis and Rental Cars. It would shrink by 1 billion euros at the price levels Uber advocates, he said.

 Job Creation

 Uber said in its blog it’s responsible for 20,000 new jobs per month. The median income for drivers using the UberX platform, Uber’s low-cost service, is $90,000 per year in New York and more than $74,000 in San Francisco, the company said.

 Uber advertises itself to prospective drivers as a way to start your own business, drawing users who aren’t professional chauffeurs. That’s different from apps such as Hailo, which recruit from the industry. Uber customers can tap the app on their smartphone and see the locations of taxis in real time, pay via a stored credit card and rate their driver.

 “Citizens of these cities are getting around the cities much more cheaply,” Kalanick told Bloomberg TV in an interview this week. “How does a regulator or city official take that away from the population? Say that inexpensive transportation that’s high quality, you shouldn’t have?”

 To contact the reporters on this story: Amy Thomson in London at athomson6@bloomberg.net; Cornelius Rahn in Berlin at crahn2@bloomberg.net; Angelina Rascouet in London at arascouet1@bloomberg.net

 To contact the editors responsible for this story: Kenneth Wong at kwong11@bloomberg.net Ville Heiskanen, Mark Beech ||||| Transportation app Uber is seen on the iPhone of limousine driver Shuki Zanna, 49, in Beverly Hills, California, December 19, 2013.

 A taxi driver listens to speeches by his colleagues, during a Europe-wide protest of licensed taxi drivers denouncing taxi hailing apps that are feared to flush unregulated private drivers into the market, in front of the Olympic stadium in Berlin, June 11, 2014.

 LONDON/PARIS Taxi drivers sowed traffic chaos in Europe's top cities on Wednesday by mounting one of the biggest ever protests against Uber, a U.S. car service which allows people to summon rides at the touch of a button.

 Drivers of hundreds of London's black taxis snarled traffic in the streets around Trafalgar Square, hooting their horns as they passed Downing Street, the home of Prime Minister David Cameron, and the Houses of Parliament.

 In Paris, taxi drivers slowed traffic on major arteries into the city centre during the morning commute. In Berlin hundreds choked the main road to the city's historic centre while commuters juggled buses and trains, or simply walked, to get to work in Madrid and Barcelona.

 San Francisco-based Uber Technologies Inc., valued last week at $18.2 billion just four years since its 2010 launch, has touched a raw nerve by bringing home the threat of technological advances to one of the world's most visible trades.

 "This about an all out assault on our profession, our livelihoods," said Max Small, a driver of one of London's black taxis for 34 years. "These big companies are coming in, not playing by the rules."

 Taxi drivers across Europe level a variety of charges against Uber: that its applications break local taxi rules; that its drivers fail to comply with local insurance rules; and that it is therefore in breach of licensing and safety regulations.

 Uber, backed by investors such as Goldman Sachs and Google, refute all those allegations, a spokeswoman said. Uber said it, its applications and its drivers comply with local regulations.

 "What you are seeing today is an industry that has not faced competition for decades. Now finally we are seeing competition from companies such as Uber which is bringing choice to customers," said Pierre-Dimitri Gore-Coty, Uber Regional General Manager for Europe.

 "Across a number of different countries the taxi industry is very similar - an industry which is highly regulated and arranged in a way that is not pro-consumer but just promotes protectionism."

 UBER

 Uber has expanded rapidly since it was founded by two U.S. technology entrepreneurs, Travis Kalanick and Garrett Camp, and now operates in 128 cities across 37 countries.

 Uber Chief Executive Officer Kalanick last week announced $1.2 billion in new funding, valuing the company at $18.2 billion, one of the highest valuations ever for a Silicon Valley startup. [ID:nL1N0ON1G6] But it has faced a series of hurdles from the beaches of Miami to the piazzas of Rome. Ordinances keep it out of cities such as Las Vegas and Miami while in Chicago, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., Uber and similar companies have faced lawsuits from taxi companies hoping to keep the new competition out.

 In London, the European Union's biggest city by population, police helicopters monitored the traffic snarl around the seat of the British government as mopeds and cyclists tried to navigate the chaos and crowds of bemused tourists looked on.

 Uber says its fares are cheaper than black taxis in London. Other taxi drivers allege Uber's technology is effectively a taximeter and thus contravenes a 1998 British law reserving the right to use a meter for licensed black taxis. [ID:nL6N0OK2AA]

 They say the city's transport regulator, Transport for London, is failing to enforce the rules. The regulator says its provisional view is that smart phone applications do not constitute a taximeter but has asked the High Court for a view.

 After the disruptions, Uber hit back in Germany by emailing its clients offering a 50 percent discount on all shared rides for the duration of the day. In London the company offered new customers 20 pounds ($33.58) off their first journey.

 In Spain, the Ministry of Public Works has warned that companies or individuals offering Uber-type services faced fines of up to 6,000 euros, while users could be fined up to 600 euros. The ministry has not specifically named Uber.

 Neelie Kroes, the European Union commissioner in charge of digital and telecoms policy, said responding to companies like Uber with strikes was pointless. "We cannot address these challenges by ignoring them, by going on strike, or by trying to ban these innovations out of existence," she said in a blog published on Wednesday.

 It was an argument that failed to sway taxi drivers around Europe, however.

 "Yes this is chaos, its causing havoc in the very centre of London, but what other choice have we got?" said Ian Hay, a taxi driver with 14 years experience.

 ($1 = 0.5956 British Pounds)

 (Additional reporting by Sonya Dowsett and Paul Day in Madrid, Nicholas Vinocur in Paris, Robin Emmott in Brussels and Anja Nilsson in Berlin; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall) |||||
What is a one-paragraph summary of the above article?

– Today was a lousy one to be a tourist in Europe. Taxi cab drivers in Paris, London, Madrid, Berlin, Milan, and elsewhere clogged the streets in front of major attractions to protest what they see as unfair competition from the US ride-sharing service Uber, reports Bloomberg. Uber users can summon a taxi with their smartphones, and cabbies think drivers who participate should be subject to the same regulations they are—including pricey licenses. "This about an all-out assault on our profession, our livelihoods," a driver of one of London's "black taxis" tells Reuters. "These big companies are coming in, not playing by the rules." Uber has run into similar friction in various US cities, though nothing on the scale of today's coordinated protest in Europe. Executives for Uber, which last week announced $1.2 billion in new funding and a valuation of $18.2 billion, didn't seem fazed. "If anything, it's going to make Uber even more visible, and make a lot of people realize that they now have choices that they didn't have before," one tells the Wall Street Journal. (Of course, not all publicity is good publicity.)


Here is a news article: “I can’t wait to get back to our businesses, which I love, and the first order of business, the first priority, is getting down to Florida tomorrow, getting to that spring training camp and bringing the Mets back to the prominence our fans deserve,” a clearly relieved Mr. Wilpon said outside federal court in Manhattan .

 Mr. Picard was appointed by a bankruptcy judge in 2008 to recover money for Mr. Madoff’s victims. To date, he has secured some $9 billion — or about half his goal — much of it from Madoff investors he has asserted were unjust beneficiaries of “too good to be true” returns.

 In his lawsuit against Mr. Wilpon and Mr. Katz, Mr. Picard asserted that the men were sophisticated investors who were among those illegitimate beneficiaries. But Mr. Picard suffered a number of setbacks. The lawsuit was removed from bankruptcy court, and Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court, who took over the case, both reduced Mr. Picard’s financial claims and raised the legal bar he would have to clear in order to collect.

 Still, if Mr. Picard had prevailed at trial, he could have recouped as much as $303 million, in addition to the $83 million the Mets’ owners were already ordered to pay.

 His decision to settle for much less was regarded by a number of experts as a kind of surrender on the explosive assertions that were central to the case. Legal experts said the settlement would most likely embolden other defendants who are fighting accusations brought by the trustee. Mr. Picard has filed several large suits that have accused defendants of misconduct, including actions against some of Mr. Madoff’s relatives and one of his primary banks , JPMorgan Chase . The cases make similar bad-faith claims to the one brought against the Mets’ owners.

 “I certainly consider this a capitulation by the trustee,” said Bradley D. Simon, a former federal prosecutor who focuses on white-collar civil litigation for Simon & Partners. “It seems quite one-sided.”

 The Mets, as a baseball operation, still face significant financial trouble. The club has lost some $120 million over the past two years, has had to slash its payroll as attendance has fallen at Citi Field , and has had to put a portion of the team up for sale.

 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 But the resolution of the suit, and on such favorable terms, ends an enormous financial threat.

 “That decision removed the defendants from the sword of Damocles hanging over their lives,” Mario M. Cuomo , the former New York governor who was appointed as the mediator in the case in early 2011, said outside the courtroom. “And it will enable them to return to their work, their family and normalcy.”

 Photo

 Mr. Cuomo, who has been mediating high-profile disputes for decades, had not appeared to make much progress as the lawsuit, complete with acrimonious filings, ground on.

 But with the case headed for trial, Mr. Cuomo evidently finally made headway.

 About two weeks ago, he reached out to both sides, inviting Mr. Wilpon and Mr. Katz to his offices at the law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher. He suggested to Mr. Wilpon and Mr. Katz that a trial could be both embarrassing and damaging to their reputations, and in a separate conversations he lobbied the trustee to come to a settlement.

 Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters.

 “What you do in mediation is recite the realities,” Mr. Cuomo said later in the day during an interview, speaking of his role. “You don’t have to be brilliant. It’s called common sense.”

 The settlement itself underscores how complicated the Madoff bankruptcy has proved to be.

 Mr. Wilpon and Mr. Katz, as well as their business partners and family members, had hundreds of accounts with Mr. Madoff’s firm when he was arrested in December 2008.

 The trustee had identified many of those account as “net winners” — asserting that the owners of those accounts had over the years withdrawn more money from them than they had put in. He argued that, in fact, those profits were “other people’s money,” and had to be returned.

 Mr. Wilpon and Mr. Katz contended that they also had scores of accounts that were “net losers,” and they had applied to the very same trustee who was suing them to be reimbursed for those losses.

 The settlement announced Monday amounts to a swap: Mr. Picard dropped the claims that the men had ignored warnings about Mr. Madoff; Mr. Wilpon and Mr. Katz agreed that they were obligated to pay back $162 million in so-called fictitious profits they had reaped from the net winner accounts from 2002 to ’08. That figure includes the $83 million that Judge Rakoff had earlier ordered them to pay.

 How much of that $162 million the men will ultimately have to pay depends, oddly, on how successful Mr. Picard is in his efforts to recover money for Madoff victims. The Mets’ owners had applied to Mr. Picard to be reimbursed $178 million from their net loser accounts. If Mr. Picard’s recoveries do not yield $162 million after three years, Mr. Wilpon and Mr. Katz have guaranteed to pay as much as $29 million.

 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 What was clear was that Mr. Wilpon and Mr. Katz used the settlement as vindication of their character. “We acted in good faith and we’re very pleased that this settlement bears that out,” Mr. Wilpon said.

 For the trustee, the settlement appeared to be a business calculation: even if he could win a judgment that Mr. Wilpon and Mr. Katz were willfully blind to Mr. Madoff’s fraud — and have the verdict upheld on appeals that might take two or three years — he might not have received the $303 million he was seeking.

 “It isn’t whether we win or lose,” David J. Sheehan, chief counsel to the trustee, said. “It’s whether we enhance the fund and help the victims. That’s what we did today, and that’s why we did it.”

 Mr. Sheehan’s remarks Monday conflicted with much tougher ones made 13 months ago, when he said, “What we’re looking for is a billion dollars, and unless we settle for less than that, which we’re not inclined to do, where they get the money is of no moment to us.”

 Mr. Picard might also have had second thoughts about the strength of his case. Judge Rakoff had been skeptical that Mr. Picard could successfully rebut Mr. Wilpon and Mr. Katz’s claims that they acted in good faith in their investing with Mr. Madoff.

 Still, however strong Sheehan and Picard felt their case was, they could not be certain of victory.

 “Any lawyer who walks into court knows that you can win, you can lose, and you can have the strongest case possible but you don’t know how the evidence will come in or how the jury will perceive the credibility of the witnesses,” said Annemarie McAvoy, a former federal prosecutor who is an adjunct professor at Fordham Law School. She said Mr. Picard “did away with the risk of walking away with nothing at the end of the trial.”

 As he read aloud the terms of the settlement between two parties who had battled each other bitterly for more than a year, Judge Rakoff said, “All I say is love is wonderful.” ||||| WHAT HAPPENED: The owners of the New York Mets have settled with trustee Irving Picard for $162 million, their alleged profit from certain Ponzi scheme funds in the six years before Bernard Madoff's arrest.

 In reality, Fred Wilpon and family will be on the hook for only a fraction of that amount -- and will not be required to make any payments until 2016 and 2017.

 That's because, as part of the settlement, the Wilpons will be able to apply to the trustee to be reimbursed for $178 million in losses from certain funds. Obviously, like any victims of Madoff's Ponzi scheme, they won't recover every dollar. But they will get a certain percentage based on how much the trustee collects overall from net winners -- likely 50 percent or more.

 As a result, the Wilpons' actual payment to Picard -- once the Wilpons' loser funds are reimbursed like other victims -- should be a fraction of the actual $162 million settlement.

 Say if Picard pays to victims 50 cents on the dollars they lost. That means the Wilpons could be credited $89 million (half of $178 million) toward their $162 million owed as a result of the settlement. That's a net of only $73 million remaining to pay Picard to satisfy the settlement.

 Any disbursements owed by Picard to Wilpon loser funds over the next three years will be deducted from the $162 million owed by the Wilpons to Picard in the settlement. The Wilpons then will owe the remaining amount in equal installments in four and five years.

 The lawsuit sought to recover $386 million. Judge Jed S. Rakoff previously had decided that Picard likely was entitled to at least $83.3 million in profits from the two years before Madoff's arrest.

 The original suit was for $1 billion, but it was reduced by Rakoff, who decided that Picard could only recover money from the Wilpons from the immediate two years before Madoff's arrest, not the six years Picard advocated. The settlement, while not overturning Rakoff's decision, does establish for the trustee six years as an acceptable period to recover profits.

 The settlement talks were brokered by former New York governor Mario Cuomo.

 WHAT IT MEANS: It's unlikely the Wilpons would have settled unless they felt they could withstand that financial obligation without jeopardizing their ownership of the team.

 Still, the Wilpons are not out of the woods yet as owners.

 Remember, the Mets still have a ton of debt unrelated to the lawsuit. Among the more immediate obligations are a $40 million bridge loan from Bank of America and $25 million emergency loan from Major League Baseball. UPDATE: The Mets have paid those immediate loan obligations thanks for a $240 million equity infusion from minority investors, many of which had existing ties to the ballclub.

 You can read about the extent of the debt in Part 1 and Part 2 of the financial series from ESPNNewYork.com from late January.

 WHAT'S NEXT: Back to baseball, hopefully.

 Actually, it's going to still be the Mets on austerity for a while, because of the financial obligations mentioned above. That means the Wilpons will be utterly dependent upon fan attendance revenue in order to maintain ownership.

 The Mets eventually hope to sell 10 to 12 minority shares of the team at $20 million apiece, although a good deal of that appears to be shifting around money among Mets-related entities. For instance, two of those shares are going to Jeff Wilpon and Saul Katz, who is Fred Wilpon's brother-in-law and Mets president. Another four will go to SportsNet New York, the regional sports channel primarily owned by the Wilpons/Mets.

 There is only one known minority buyer without direct connection to the Wilpons or Mets. And that's Steve Cohen, who reportedly is the front-runner for majority ownership of the Los Angeles Dodgers, which would eliminate him as a Mets candidate.

 Read the ESPNNewYork.com news story here. |||||
A summary of this is?

– The New York Mets' owners have avoided a trial over what they knew about Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme by settling today with the trustee for Madoff victims for $162 million, the New York Times reports. Trustee Irving Picard had sued Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz for $1 billion (later knocked down to $386 million), saying they disregarded warnings about Madoff's dealings; they claimed ignorance. Much of the $162 million will be balanced by money Katz and Wilpon will receive as "net losers" from the scheme themselves. Katz and Wilpon say they're due $178 million as Madoff victims; they'll get a percentage of whatever Picard can obtain from the beneficiaries of the scheme—money that will include the cash from their own settlement. So what does all this mean for the Mets? Wilpon and Katz probably wouldn't have settled had it put their team ownership at risk, ESPN notes. But the team is still tens of millions of dollars in debt to Bank of America and Major League Baseball, among others. The upshot: For Wilpon and Katz to maintain ownership of the team, they'll be counting on fans' attendance.


– Two Northwestern University freshmen were arrested Saturday for allegedly spray-painting offensive graffiti in the school chapel—including racist and homophobic messages and the word "Trump," NBC Chicago reports. Anthony Morales, 19, and Matthew Kafker, 18, took a tongue-lashing from Judge Peggy Chiampas when they appeared at a bond hearing in Chicago on Saturday in jeans and T-shirts. "These allegations are disgusting to me," she said, per the Chicago Tribune. "I don't know if any of you know how lucky you are to be at Northwestern University." When Morales' mother broke into tears, Chiampas added, "I don't mean to upset you. I mean to upset them." Police, who saw surveillance video of the alleged incident, say Morales and Kafker spray-painted a slur and expletive against blacks, a swastika, an anti-gay term, several penises, and lines over photos of Muslims students. University chaplain Tim Stevens tells the New York Daily News that he discovered the graffiti, which has mostly been removed. "It's disturbing to think that someone who’s been in this space would be venting some sort of rage that way," he says. About the word "Trump," he adds, "I can’t speculate whatever it was inside them that needed to be expressed through that." The teens were charged with hate crime to a place of worship, institutional vandalism, and criminal damage to property, and held in lieu of $50,000 bail.

Expand this summary.

Donald Trump must be proud.

 Two Northwestern University freshmen allegedly vandalized a campus chapel by spray-painting slurs, penises, a swastika — and to top it off, the word “Trump.”

 “It’s disturbing to think that someone who’s been in this space would be venting some sort of rage that way,” university chaplain Tim Stevens, who said he discovered the defacement, told the Daily News on Sunday.

 DONALD TRUMP MIGHT PAY LEGAL FEES OF VIOLENT N.C. SUPPORTER

 “I feel bad for them that they can’t handle it in a more productive way.”

 Anthony Morales, 19, and Matthew Kafker, 18, are each being held on $50,000 bail for charges of criminal damage to property, institutional vandalism and hate crime in a place of worship.

 A Cook County judge raised her voice at the freshmen and denounced their alleged antics during a Saturday bonding hearing, according to the Chicago Tribune.

 “These allegations are disgusting to me,” Judge Peggy Chiampas told the teens.

 QUIZ: WHO SAID IT? TRUMP, HITLER, MUSSOLINI OR STALIN?

 New York Daily News front pages on the presidential election

 “I don't know if any of you know how lucky you are to be at Northwestern University.”

 The freshmen appeared in court wearing T-shirts and jeans, and never spoke, according to the Tribune. Morales’ mother cried during the hearing.

 Morales and Kafker allegedly entered the nondenominational Alice Millar Chapel on the school’s Evanston campus around 12:45 a.m. Friday.

 According to police, the freshmen blemished one hallway with a slur for African-Americans and a swastika. In another part of the chapel, they wrote a slur for homosexuals and spray-painted lines over photos of Muslim students. They drew penises on an organ and over the word “God” in a hallway.

 BREITBART STAFFERS QUIT IN RESPONSE TO TRUMP RALLY ASSAULT

 Last but not least, they allegedly wrote the GOP presidential front-runner’s surname in a stairwell.

 Stevens said he discovered the vandalism later that morning and reported it to administration.

 University President Morton Schapiro called it “an abhorrent act of vandalism” in an email to students Friday, according to the Daily Northwestern.

 What, me racist? (Nati Harnik/AP) Northwestern University's Alice Millar Chapel was vandalized after hours Friday. (Google Maps) Donald Trump's surname was mixed in with slurs and a swastika that were spray-painted inside Northwestern University's Alice Millar Chapel Friday.

 “This disgusting act of hatred violates the deepest values and core commitments of our University and is an affront to us all,” he wrote.

 Prosecutors have not said why the students allegedly targeted the chapel, or how they accessed it hours after it closed. Stevens told the News there was “no sign of forced entry.”

 DONALD TRUMPS ANTICS HAVE GONE FROM AMUSING TO ALARMING

 He said he did not believe either student had any ties to the chapel.

 Workers wiped away most of the graffiti over the weekend — including the “Trump,” Stevens said. That detail was one of the most baffling from the crime, he said.

 “I can’t speculate whatever it was inside them that needed to be expressed through that,” he said.

 The chapel went on with its usual Sunday service, he said.

 University police could not immediately be reached for comment.

 Sign up for BREAKING NEWS Emails privacy policy Thanks for subscribing! ||||| A Cook County judge on Saturday lashed out at two Northwestern University freshmen accused of spray-painting racist and homophobic messages along with the name of Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump inside a nondenominational chapel on the university's campus.

 “These allegations are disgusting to me,” Judge Peggy Chiampas said as she eyeballed Anthony Morales, 19, and Matthew Kafker, 18, her voice rising several times during a bond hearing at the Leighton Criminal Court Building.

 The judge ordered both men held in lieu of $50,000 bail for charges of institutional vandalism, hate crime to a place of worship, and criminal damage to property for several spray-painted messages at the Alice Millar Chapel earlier this week.

 Both defendants, each dressed in T-shirts and jeans, said nothing during the court hearing.

 The mother of one of the defendants cried as the judge laid into the young men, whom authorities said were captured on surveillance video going without permission into the chapel, located at 1870 Sheridan Road in Evanston, with spray cans at about 12:45 a.m. Friday.

 “I don't know if any of you know how lucky you are to be at Northwestern University," the judge said. As Morales' mother cried in the gallery, Chiampas said to the woman, “I don't mean to upset you. I mean to upset them.”

 Once inside the chapel, the pair spray-painted an expletive and a slur against African-Americans with a swastika on the chapel hallway, Assistant Cook County State's Attorney Brooke Shupe told the court. In a separate area, they spray-painted a derogatory word for homosexuals on a wall, along with lines spray-painted over photos of Muslim students.

 The young men also spray-painted penises in several places around the church, including on a piano in the chapel, above the word “God” in a hallway, and in a stairwell where they also painted the word “Trump,” authorities said, Shupe said.

 Prosecutors did not say what they think sparked this act of vandalism.

 Church officials discovered the damage later that morning and alerted a dean. The surveillance video was used to identify the suspects, authorities said.

 Both men admitted their roles in the vandalism, giving handwritten and recorded statements to university police, Shupe said.

 University officials estimated the damage to be more than $300. |||||


Article:

Tweet with a location

 You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more ||||| These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites. ||||| Earlier this month, I announced that I was considering taking Tesla private. As part of the process, it was important to understand whether our current investors believed this would be a good strategic move and whether they would want to participate in a private Tesla.

 Our investors are extremely important to me. Almost all have stuck with us from the time we went public in 2010 when we had no cars in production and only a vision of what we wanted to be. They believe strongly in our mission to advance sustainable energy and care deeply about our success.

 I worked with Silver Lake, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, who have world-class expertise in these matters, to consider the many factors that would come into play in taking Tesla private, and to process all the incoming interest that we received from investors to fund a go-private transaction. I also spent considerable time listening to current shareholders, large and small, to understand what they think would be in the best long-term interests of Tesla.

 Based on all the discussions that have taken place over the last couple of weeks and a thorough consideration of what is best for the company, a few things are clear to me:

 Given the feedback I’ve received, it’s apparent that most of Tesla’s existing shareholders believe we are better off as a public company. Additionally, a number of institutional shareholders have explained that they have internal compliance issues that limit how much they can invest in a private company. There is also no proven path for most retail investors to own shares if we were private. Although the majority of shareholders I spoke to said they would remain with Tesla if we went private, the sentiment, in a nutshell, was “please don’t do this.”

 I knew the process of going private would be challenging, but it’s clear that it would be even more time-consuming and distracting than initially anticipated. This is a problem because we absolutely must stay focused on ramping Model 3 and becoming profitable. We will not achieve our mission of advancing sustainable energy unless we are also financially sustainable.

 That said, my belief that there is more than enough funding to take Tesla private was reinforced during this process.

 After considering all of these factors, I met with Tesla’s Board of Directors yesterday and let them know that I believe the better path is for Tesla to remain public. The Board indicated that they agree.

 Moving forward, we will continue to focus on what matters most: building products that people love and that make a difference to the shared future of life on Earth. We’ve shown that we can make great sustainable energy products, and we now need to show that we can be sustainably profitable. With all the progress we’ve made on Model 3, we’re positioned to do this, and that’s what the team and I are going to be putting all of our efforts toward.

 Thank you to all of our investors, customers and employees for the support you’ve given our company. I’m incredibly excited to continue leading Tesla as a public company. It is a privilege. ||||| Tesla isn’t going private after all.

 In a statement late Friday night, Elon Musk, the electric-car maker’s chief executive, said he and the company’s board had concluded that they would not turn Tesla into a privately owned company.

 The move halts a process set in motion by Mr. Musk in a Twitter post on Aug. 7. The reversal is the latest upheaval for the company, which has struggled with production challenges for its first mass-market car, the Model 3.

 “I knew the process of going private would be challenging, but it’s clear that it would be even more time-consuming and distracting than initially anticipated,” Mr. Musk wrote in a statement that Tesla posted on the company’s blog shortly after 11 p.m.

 “After considering all these factors, I met with Tesla’s board of directors yesterday and let them know that I believe the better path is for Tesla to remain public,” he said. |||||
What is a summary?

– What started on Twitter has ended on the Tesla company blog. Elon Musk announced in a statement posted there late Friday night that the electric car maker would not in fact be going private. He writes, "I knew the process of going private would be challenging, but it’s clear that it would be even more time-consuming and distracting than initially anticipated." And "although the majority of shareholders I spoke to said they would remain with Tesla if we went private, the sentiment, in a nutshell, was 'please don’t do this.'" The statement elaborates on his meetings with investment firms Silver Lake, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley, and Musk says his initial assertion that the funding was there was "reinforced." But "after considering all these factors"—including institutional investors, who said internal rules limit how much they can put into a private company—"I met with Tesla’s board of directors yesterday and let them know that I believe the better path is for Tesla to remain public." The New York Times reports a very brief second statement issued by six of Tesla's directors says the special committee established to look into the feasibility of going private has now been dissolved; the statement also voices the board's "[full] support" for Musk. As for what Musk had to say on Twitter, he simply retweeted the company's tweet of his statement, adding the words, "Staying Public."


Summarize this article:

Focused crawls are collections of frequently-updated webcrawl data from narrow (as opposed to broad or wide) web crawls, often focused on a single domain or subdomain. ||||| In a statement from six physician groups, including the American Academy of Family Physicians, the doctors predicted that “allowing insurers to sell narrow, low-cost health plans likely will cause significant economic harm to women and older, sicker Americans who stand to face higher-cost and fewer insurance options.”

 While many health insurers remained silent about the executive order, some voiced concern that it could destabilize the market. The Trump proposal “would draw younger and healthier people away from the exchanges and drive additional plans out of the market,” warned Ceci Connolly, the chief executive of the Alliance of Community Health Plans.

 Administration officials said they had not yet decided which federal and state rules would apply to the new products. Without changing the law, they said, they can rewrite federal regulations so that more health plans would be exempt from some of its requirements.

 The Affordable Care Act has expanded private insurance to millions of people through the creation of marketplaces, also known as exchanges, where people can purchase plans, in many cases using government subsidies to offset the cost. It also required that plans offered on the exchanges include a specific set of benefits, including hospital care, maternity care and mental health services, and it prohibited insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions.

 The executive order’s quickest effect on the marketplaces would be the potential expansion of short-term plans, which are exempt from Affordable Care Act requirements. Many health policy experts worry that if large numbers of healthy people move into such plans, it would drive up premiums for those left in Affordable Care Act plans because the risk pool would have sicker people.

 “If the short-term plans are able to siphon off the healthiest people, then the more highly regulated marketplaces may not be sustainable,” said Larry Levitt, a senior vice president for the Kaiser Family Foundation. “These plans follow no rules.”

 Mr. Trump’s order would also eventually make it easier for small businesses to band together and buy insurance through entities known as association health plans, which could be created by business and professional groups. A White House official said these health plans “could potentially allow American employers to form groups across state lines” — a goal championed by Mr. Trump and many other Republicans — allowing more options and the formation of larger risk pools. ||||| The decision to end the payments, worth an estimated $7 billion this year, marks President Donald Trump's most aggressive move yet to dismantle Obamacare. | Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images Trump will scrap critical Obamacare subsidies Cutting off the payments to insurers, which could happen almost immediately, is likely to provide another jolt to Obamacare markets.

 President Donald Trump plans to cut off subsidy payments to insurers selling Obamacare coverage in his most aggressive move yet to undermine his predecessor's health care law.

 The subsidies, which are worth an estimated $7 billion this year and are paid out in monthly installments, may stop almost immediately, since Congress hasn’t appropriated funding for the program.

 Story Continued Below

 The decision — which leaked out only hours after Trump signed an executive order calling for new regulations to encourage cheap, loosely regulated health plans — delivered a double whammy to Obamacare after months of failed GOP efforts to repeal the law. With open enrollment for the 2018 plan year set to launch in two weeks, the moves seem aimed at dismantling the law through executive actions.

 Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed the decision in a statement emailed to reporters Thursday night.

 “Based on guidance from the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that there is no appropriation for cost-sharing reduction payments to insurance companies under Obamacare,” she said. “In light of this analysis, the Government cannot lawfully make the cost-sharing reduction payments. … The bailout of insurance companies through these unlawful payments is yet another example of how the previous administration abused taxpayer dollars and skirted the law to prop up a broken system.”

 Trump's move to scrap the subsidy payments, which was first reported by POLITICO, is likely to jolt already fragile Obamacare markets — although the impact might be less severe than it would have been a few months back.

 “Certainly problematic markets are going to become more unstable," said Greg Scott, who oversees Deloitte’s health plans consulting practice.

 Adding to the uncertainty, Trump on Friday morning appeared to express hope that his decision to cut off the subsidies would help him cut a legislative deal, possibly with Democrats. "The Democrats ObamaCare is imploding. Massive subsidy payments to their pet insurance companies has stopped. Dems should call me to fix!" Trump tweeted.

 The president has made overtures in the past to Democrats on health care, tweeting last Saturday that he had talked with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer about potential negotiations. But Schumer separately said Trump had suggested another Obamacare repeal-and-replace effort, which the New York Democrat said was a nonstarter.

 On Thursday night, Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) issued a joint statement calling Trump's latest move "sabotage."

 “It is a spiteful act of vast, pointless sabotage leveled at working families and the middle class in every corner of America," they said in a joint statement. "Make no mistake about it, Trump will try to blame the Affordable Care Act, but this will fall on his back and he will pay the price for it."

 But many insurers had priced next year's plans higher than they otherwise would have, fearing this outcome after months of threats from the White House. Others have already fled the Obamacare markets, which are set to begin open enrollment in Nov. 1 for the 2018 plan year.

 “What it adds up to me is a gross dereliction of duty,” John Baackes, CEO of L.A. Care Health plan, said of the decision. “The Affordable Care Act is still the law of the land and the cost-reduction subsidies are part of that. … Even if there’s a lawsuit about it, it should still be honored until the last appeal is exhausted. I thought they took oaths to uphold the law of the land. They’re just flaunting it now.”

 Trump has threatened for months to cut off the payments, deriding them as a “bailout” for insurers. California, the country’s most successful Obamacare marketplace, added a 12.5 percent surcharge this week on silver plans as a hedge against the possibility the subsidies would be pulled. By loading them on silver plans, taxpayers will pick up the cost.

 While Republican lawmakers complained the subsidies were never properly appropriated by Congress, many were wary of ending them suddenly.

 Failed Obamacare repeal packages considered by the House and Senate included near-term funding for the program, which had been paid out through the executive branch each month.

 Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Friday on Fox News that the subsidies were not on solid legal ground to begin with because Congress did not appropriate them. He said it's up to Congress to step in.

 "It's time for Congress to fix this bill. That's what needs to happen. Congress has got to get together," Sessions said. "Republicans and the Democrats, they've got to come on board and they've got to develop a plan that will actually work. It can not continue in this fashion. It's in a death spiral it seems to me."

 In the near term, the announcement is expected to put more pressure on a bipartisan effort in the Senate's health committee to preserve the subsidies to shore up Obamacare marketplaces.

 “While I’m sure initial reactions will be negative, this might be the spark Congress needs to act on this issue," said an insurance lobbyist who declined to be named. "There was no pressure before … That might actually be the silver lining.”

 As the White House reached out to lawmakers to inform them of its decision Thursday night, even some Republican lawmakers expressed consternation.

 "Cutting health care subsidies will mean more uninsured in my district," tweeted Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican late Thursday. "@potus promised more access, affordable coverage. This does opposite."

 New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who led a group of Democratic attorneys general to defend the subsidies in court this past spring, said they would sue to stop the administration from acting.

 "I will not allow President Trump to once again use New York families as political pawns in his dangerous, partisan campaign to eviscerate the Affordable Care Act at any cost," he said in a prepared statement.

 Some insurers are also likely to sue the Trump administration over the failure to make payments that they believe they’re entitled to under the Affordable Care Act.

 Insurers will have the option to try to adjust their rates or pull out of the markets immediately when the subsidy payments end. That's because the contracts insurance companies signed to offer Obamacare plans have an "out" if the payments stop.

 But it’s far from certain whether insurers would try to leave markets. They would have to go through an extensive back-and-forth with state regulators on changes, a process that could be lengthy and could vary by state.

 Trump has argued that Democrats will take the blame if the markets implode, but polling strongly suggests the public will point the finger at Republicans for Obamacare problems under Trump's watch.

 Dan Diamond, Jennifer Haberkorn, Renuka Rayasam and Victoria Colliver contributed to this report. ||||| The Trump administration will end billions of dollars in payments to insurers under the Affordable Care Act program, but President Donald Trump has privately told at least one lawmaker that the payments may continue if a bipartisan deal is reached on heath care, according to people familiar with the matter on Capitol Hill and in the health-care industry.

 The White House in a statement Thursday night said that based on guidance from the Justice Department, the Department of Health and Human Services has determined there is... |||||

– In a move that analysts say could be a devastating blow to ObamaCare, President Trump is ending one of the health care bill's crucial subsidies. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed Thursday night that the federal government will stop "cost-sharing reduction" payments to health insurers, which help millions of people afford insurance they get through ObamaCare's exchanges, Politico reports. Sanders called the payments a "bailout of insurance companies" and "another example of how the previous administration abused taxpayer dollars and skirted the law to prop up a broken system." Related coverage: The impact: The Washington Post likens the decision to "throwing a bomb into the marketplaces" created by ObamaCare. Insurers have said this is the strongest step Trump could take to undermine the law, because rising costs would force them to bail without the promise of getting reimbursed. The alternative could be to remain, but to raise premiums to levels most couldn't afford. The New York Times also calls the subsidies "essential" to the Affordable Care Act. Trump's possible offer: "The Democrats ObamaCare is imploding," the president tweeted Friday morning. "Massive subsidy payments to their pet insurance companies has stopped. Dems should call me to fix!" The last part might be the most telling. The Wall Street Journal reports that Trump has told at least one lawmaker that he's open to preserving the payments if a bipartisan deal is struck on health care. All eyes on this: Trump is referring to a deal being negotiated by GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander and Democratic Sen. Patty Murray. Under the broad strokes, the subsidies would be continued, a win for Democrats, but states would get more flexibility to avoid ObamaCare rules, a win for Republicans, per the Journal. Big deadline: Open enrollment for the ObamaCare exchanges begins in less than three weeks, raising pressure for a quick resolution. Background: A federal court declared the subsidies illegal last year, though the decision is being appealed. The subsidies add up to around $7 billion this year, a figure expected to steadily rise in coming years. The attorneys general of California and New York vowed Thursday night that they would challenge the latest move in court, while Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer called it "a spiteful act of vast, pointless sabotage leveled at working families and the middle class in every corner of America." Second move: Earlier Thursday, Trump signed an executive order that's expected to undermine ObamaCare in a different way.


Article:

PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — The Oregon Legislature is considering a new bill that would add a tax on coffee beans and ground coffee, officials say.

 But the chair of the Committee on Revenue said it’s not going anywhere.

 House Bill 2875 would impose a tax of five cents per pound on wholesale coffee. It’s sponsored by the Oregon House Committee on Revenue.

 Funds raised from this new tax would go toward establishing the “Alternative Education Sustainability Fund.” Half of those funds would go toward the Oregon Military Department to be used in the Oregon National Guard Youth Challenge Program. The other half would fund grants for Oregon school districts that operate alternative high school programs, as well as primary schools.

 Schools that operate alternative high school programs and primary schools would be able to apply for those grants from the Oregon Department of Education. If awarded, the grant money could be used for “cost of operations and capital construction” of alternative high school programs and primary school reading programs.

 If passed, the bill would go into effect on July 1, 2018. The bill did not mention an estimate of how much revenue this new tax would provide, but Oregon is facing a $1.8 billion budget gap.

 This new tax would require a three-fifths majority from both the Oregon House of Representatives and Senate in order to pass.

 A spokesman for House Republicans released the following statement on the proposal:

 “I’ll say this about House Democrats; they never seem to run out of ideas for new tax increases. A tax on coffee is clearly not a proposal Oregonians would support, and we hope Democrats will disavow it just as quickly as they introduced it.”

 On Friday, Scott Moore of the Oregon House Democrats told KOIN 6 News the bill is not going to even get out of committee. Lindsey O’Brien, the director of communications for House Speaker Tina Kotek, told KOIN 6 News there are “more than a 100 bills introduced to the Revenue committee alone, most of which will not move forward.”

 Read the entire bill below. ||||| That's insignificant in the context of a gap between what lawmakers want to spend and available revenues for the next two years of $1.8 billion. It's common early in a legislative session for lawmakers to propose a wide variety of ideas to see what might get traction, and with this year's budget gap, all sorts of new tax ideas are on the table. ||||| These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites. ||||| PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — With the Oregon Legislature set to convene on February 1, Republicans and Democrats will gather in Salem to decide how best to deal with the state’s $1.8 billion budget gap, whether to ditch the statewide ban on rent control and other pressing issues.

 Oregon’s Budget

 A budget framework for the 2017-2019 biennium was released on January 19 by the Co-Chairs of the Joint Ways and Means Committee, and it detailed how Oregon’s incoming revenue is 8% lower than what’s needed at current levels.

 The framework listed a number of spending categories where cuts would need to take place, including education and health care. Needless to say, the cuts would have a large impact on several departments and would lead to layoffs in schools, declining health insurance coverage for Oregonians covered by the Oregon Health Plan, declining state funding for TANF and more. Furthermore, cuts to state funding could trigger a reduction in federal funding, creating a much greater loss to programs.

 After the framework was released, House Republican Caucus Budget Chair Greg Smith, R-Heppner, issued the following statement:

 “Like many Oregonians, I am deeply frustrated by the financial situation our state finds itself in. It is difficult to comprehend that at the same time our state is taking in record tax revenues, we are being told we do not have enough money to pay our bills.”

 Smith went on to say House Republicans “stand ready” to work with Democrats in order to deliver on a budget that’ll acknowledge the need for spending reform.

 Gov. Kate Brown unveiled her budget in December 2016, focusing on education, health care and job growth.

 She proposed closing a loophole in so-called pass-through taxes, increasing a tobacco tax and discarding the customary increases in budgets for state universities and community colleges. Her budget will also look for inefficiencies, including keeping vacant state jobs open for 60 days and eliminating non-mandatory travel for state employees. Together, cuts and revenue increases are expected to address the current $1.8 billion gap.

 Statewide Ban on Rent Control

 With rent prices in Portland continuing to climb, many in the Rose City (like Commissioner Chloe Eudaly) are calling for quick action to protect renters. In November 2016, Eudaly called for a rent freeze and an end to no-cause evictions. A poll in September 2016 found 52% of Oregonians support repealing the statewide ban on rent control.

 In response to these calls for action, House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, filed House Bill 2001 to repeal Oregon’s ban on city and county ordinances regulating rents. Her bill also aims to allow cities and counties to adopt rent stabilization programs (with certain restrictions) and impose a temporary moratorium on rent increases greater than 5% for residential tenancies (with some exceptions).

 The House Speaker announced that she supported a state limit on rent increases and banning no-cause evictions at the state level back in September 2016.

 A similar bill, sponsored by multiple representatives, also seeks to allow cities and counties to create ordinances regulating rent. Like Kotek’s legislation, House Bill 2003 would also repeal ORS 91.225 (the legislation prohibiting local rent control). House Bill 2003 differs, in that it doesn’t contain a cap on rent increases.

 Both bills will face opposition from House Republicans.

 A spokesman for House Republicans told KOIN 6 News more government intrusion into the marketplace wasn’t the answer to high rent prices. House Republicans said although rent control is potentially beneficial in the very short-term, it has proven to have negative impacts in the long-term. They cite a consensus among economists that rent control doesn’t produce the results it aims to achieve.

 House Republicans believe that high rent prices are a result of a “basic breakdown in the laws of supply and demand” and suggest relieving pressure by incentivizing the development and construction of affordable units, to increase supply and lower demand.

 Rural Communities

 House Republicans said they want to prioritize rural Oregon during this legislative session by “forcing the majority party to be mindful of the impact of new laws on rural communities” and “advocating for policies that will help incentivize economic growth in rural Oregon.”

 Despite the Portland-metro area having recovered from the depths of the great recession, some rural communities have not yet bounced back.

 Rural Oregon still has a high unemployment rate, lower annual incomes for its workforce and downward demographic trends, according to the State of Oregon Employment Department.

 Kotek also mentioned rural communities in her opening day remarks, saying “Despite these successes, we have more work to do to build an economy that creates equal opportunity for all. We cannot leave our rural communities behind as the state’s economy grows.”

 She went on to speak on equal pay for women and supporting working families through affordable child care and policies that’ll allow workers to care for family members.

 Justice and Ethics

 In 2015, Oregon outlawed profiling by law enforcement based on race, ethnicity or other characteristics.

 Kotek said she wants to “take the next steps” down that road, including setting up data collection, policies and training necessary to further cut down on profiling.

 She also wants the legislature to consider reforms to how people are charged for certain drug offenses, how grand juries operate and to adequately fund public defense and increase support for legal assistance in civil cases.

 Meanwhile, House Republicans are drafting legislation to limit the number of Salem employees that move from influential government positions to eventually turning into lobbyists that interact with the government, as well as the reverse.

 The legislature will also have a number of other important issues to tackle, and it all begins in just over a week. ||||| In Boston Harbor, a group of Massachusetts colonists disguised as Mohawk Indians board three British tea ships and dump 342 chests of tea into the harbor.

 The midnight raid, popularly known as the “Boston Tea Party,” was in protest of the British Parliament’s Tea Act of 1773, a bill designed to save the faltering East India Company by greatly lowering its tea tax and granting it a virtual monopoly on the American tea trade. The low tax allowed the East India Company to undercut even tea smuggled into America by Dutch traders, and many colonists viewed the act as another example of taxation tyranny.

 When three tea ships, the Dartmouth, the Eleanor, and the Beaver, arrived in Boston Harbor, the colonists demanded that the tea be returned to England. After Massachusetts Governor Thomas Hutchinson refused, Patriot leader Samuel Adams organized the “tea party” with about 60 members of the Sons of Liberty, his underground resistance group. The British tea dumped in Boston Harbor on the night of December 16 was valued at some $18,000.

 ADVERTISEMENT Thanks for watching! Visit Website

 Parliament, outraged by the blatant destruction of British property, enacted the Coercive Acts, also known as the Intolerable Acts, in 1774. The Coercive Acts closed Boston to merchant shipping, established formal British military rule in Massachusetts, made British officials immune to criminal prosecution in America, and required colonists to quarter British troops. The colonists subsequently called the first Continental Congress to consider a united American resistance to the British.

 ADVERTISEMENT Thanks for watching! Visit Website |||||
What is a summary?

– Nearly 250 years after the Boston Tea Party, we could have a Salem Coffee Party on our hands. The Oregon Legislature is weighing a tax of 5 cents per pound on wholesale coffee, including coffee beans and ground coffee. KOIN reports that no revenue projection was given in House Bill 2875, but the Willamette Week's math suggests it could bring in about $2 million a year. (The state's budget gap stands at $1.8 billion.) The money would be earmarked for the Oregon National Guard Youth Challenge Program, alternative high school programs, and primary school reading programs. Willamette Week sees a disconnect there, reporting that lawmakers typically try to "establish a clear connection" between the tax and what the revenue will do, like property taxes paid by homeowners covering fire services. "The relationship between coffee consumption and alternative education is less clear," it writes. That said, the bill will go into effect on July 1, 2018, if it receives a three-fifths majority in the state House and Senate. A rep for House Republicans says "a tax on coffee is clearly not a proposal Oregonians would support, and we hope Democrats will disavow it just as quickly as they introduced it."


Media caption Passenger John Wildey: "I hadn't a clue what to do to get down"

 A pilot who fell ill at the controls of his plane forcing his passenger to land the light aircraft has died, police have said.

 The man collapsed in the cockpit of the plane after taking off, leaving the "inexperienced" passenger to make an emergency landing.

 The plane landed at Humberside Airport under the guidance of instructors called in by air traffic controllers.

 Police said they were unable to confirm the cause of death.

 A spokesman for Humberside Police said: "A post mortem is to be undertaken following the sad death of the pilot of a light aircraft which landed safely at Humberside Airport yesterday evening.

 "The post mortem is likely to take place tomorrow afternoon. The results of the examination will determine whether it is necessary to prepare a file for reference to the coroner."

 Image caption The plane was landed at Humberside Airport by a passenger under the guidance of two flying instructors

 He added the death was not being treated as suspicious and said: "In accordance with the wishes of the family of the deceased, police will not be confirming the identity of the pilot nor releasing any video footage of the incident."

 Police, fire and ambulance crews were called to the North Lincolnshire airport after a distress call was made from the light aircraft at about 18:25 BST.

 Eyewitness saw sparks

 Two flying instructors were called in to advise the passenger, named only as "John", on how to bring the plane down and a RAF Sea King helicopter was scrambled to provide assistance.

 The man is nothing short of a hero Richard Tomlinson, Friend of the pilot and passenger

 One of them, Roy Murray, said: "I think without any sort of talk-down he would have just gone into the ground and that would have been the end of it."

 The passenger and pilot were the only people on board the Cessna 172 aircraft, which had taken off from Sandtoft Airfield 25 miles (40km) away.

 It is believed the two men had flown to Skegness and were returning to Sandtoft when the pilot collapsed.

 Speaking at a press conference earlier, Mr Murray said the novice flyer did four circuits of the airport before landing at about 19:30.

 He said: "The gentleman was called John, that's all I knew.

 Media caption Deborah Zost, operations director at Humberside Airport, describes what happened

 "We had to get him to do two to three circuits. The last one was not very good so we told him to go round again and on the fourth one he managed it.

 "He did a beautiful landing in my opinion.

 "He was calm. He was answering the calls I made to him quite professionally.

 "I would not be frightened to fly with him."

 Eyewitnesses described seeing sparks as the plane landed.

 Stuart Sykes, who saw the aircraft land, said: "It came down with a bump, a bump, a bump, hit the front end down, I heard some crashing and it's come to a halt."

 Two incoming flights were delayed while the aircraft was removed from the runway.

 'Nothing short of phenomenal'

 Richard Tomlinson, a friend of the pilot and his passenger, told BBC Radio Sheffield the passenger was "nothing short of a hero".

 Media caption Flying instructor Roy Murray describing what he said to the passenger

 He said: "For somebody who is not a pilot but has been around airfields and been a passenger on several occasions to take control is nothing short of phenomenal.

 "The man is nothing short of a hero."

 Mr Tomlinson, himself an amateur pilot, said of the man who died: was a "very experienced pilot".

 He added: "He had been flying for many years.

 "Only this week I was sat having a cup of tea and airfield banter [with both men].

 "They were both very funny gentlemen to have a conversation with.

 "It is very, very sad news." ||||| A passenger has been forced to land a plane at Humberside Airport because its pilot fell ill, according to reports.

 A passenger, who was on board the light aircraft when the pilot became ill at the controls, took over and landed the plane.

 It's thought the passenger was helped with instructions given by two flying instructors.

 The condition of the pilot is not known.

 TOGETHER, WE CAN PUNCH OUT BREAST CANCER! Curves View details Print voucher At Curves it takes just 30 minutes to improve your health! Complete 10 WORKOUTS in honour of woman who have battled breast cancer and you can join for free with a donation to Breast Cancer Care UK! Terms: Not valid with any other offer, no cash value and for new fitness members only. Valid at participating locations. 10 visits must be completed by 15th November 2013. Based on first visit enrolment. Contact: 01522 303191 Valid until: Thursday, October 31 2013

 A Humberside pilot is understood to have seen the landing while he moved his aircraft to make way.

 Under the name 'Mike B', he posted on social media afterwards: "Just watched and listened to the most amazing brave passenger who landed at Humberside at night with a blacked out Cockpit and cross wind.

 "The boy done well, never landed a plane before and sounded calm as a cucumber on the radio."

 Humberside Police posted this, also on social media, after the incident: "Police and fire have been at humb airport tonight following a distress call from a pilot who became unable to fly while heading back to land.

 "Thankfully the passenger landed the aircraft safely and without major incident. Condition of pilot is not known at this stage."

 Roads around the airport were initially closed after the incident, but have now been re-opened.

 It is understood flights are now landing again at the airport. |||||
What is a one-paragraph summary of the above article?

– After the pilot of a small plane fell ill at the controls, two flight instructors were called in to the airport to give his only passenger a crash course in not crashing. The passenger—who had no flying experience—managed to bring the plane in for a safe, though somewhat bumpy, landing at England's Humberside Airport. "He made quite a good landing actually," one of the flight instructors tells the BBC. "He didn't know the layout of the airplane, he didn't have lights on so he was absolutely flying blind as well," he says. "I think he'd flown once before as a passenger but never flown an airplane before." There were cheers in the control room as the passenger made a successful landing on his fourth attempt, says the instructor, who did his best to keep the man calm. "I think without any sort of talk-down he would have just gone into the ground and that would have been the end of it," he says. A pilot who witnessed the landing praised the "most amazing brave passenger who landed at Humberside at night with a blacked out cockpit and cross wind," the Lincolnshire Echo reports. "The boy done well, never landed a plane before and sounded calm as a cucumber on the radio," he said. Sadly, the BBC reports that the pilot died; the cause of death has not been given. (In another recent emergency landing, a plane was forced to come down ... on a California highway.)