Sentences with phrase «meant business as usual»

So any austerity imposed by the new stadium debt will, at most, mean business as usual.

«In weakness and panic, he made up a policy on energy which means business as usual for the energy companies and which is already falling apart.»

Though there haven't been any published crash test results at time of writing, the Infiniti Q50 sedan that shares a lot of the core mechanical bits with the Q60 was awarded the full five stars in its most recent NHTSA crash test, so the array of safety gear on the Infiniti Q60 should mean business as usual in this regard.

This means business as usual.»)

This means business as usual», said Ulrik Pilehave, PensoPay's CEO.

Not exact matches

For brands, this means rethinking business as usual.

But that doesn't mean it's back to business as usual.

And being part of the solution for Karissa means disrupting business - as - usual.

CRV's early stage focus means taking big risks is business as usual for us.»

It is appalling that seminaries and divinity schools continue their business as usual — analyzing so many interesting and irrelevant things — but ignoring the people who could help us to understand the meaning of black exploitation and rage in this society.

This earlier situation (in the India, Sri Lanka, and Kenya context at least) basically meant just certifying «business as usual» tea production areas with very little or no value - addition from a biodiversity point of view.

Teams that mean business are gearing up for the final push by winning matches, while we are traditionally slipping away (as usual) I wonder which team we can actually beat this remainder of the season.

Time for some brutal honesty... this team, as it stands, is in no better position to compete next season than they were 12 months ago, minus the fact that some fans have been easily snowed by the acquisition of Lacazette, the free transfer LB and the release of Sanogo... if you look at the facts carefully you will see a team that still has far more questions than answers... to better show what I mean by this statement I will briefly discuss the current state of affairs on a position - by - position basis... in goal we have 4 potential candidates, but in reality we have only 1 option with any real future and somehow he's the only one we have actively tried to get rid of for years because he and his father were a little too involved on social media and he got caught smoking (funny how people still defend Wiltshire under the same and far worse circumstances)... you would think we would want to keep any goaltender that Juventus had interest in, as they seem to have a pretty good history when it comes to that position... as far as the defenders on our current roster there are only a few individuals whom have the skill and / or youth worthy of our time and / or investment, as such we should get rid of anyone who doesn't meet those simple requirements, which means we should get rid of DeBouchy, Gibbs, Gabriel, Mertz and loan out Chambers to see if last seasons foray with Middlesborough was an anomaly or a prediction of things to come... some fans have lamented wildly about the return of Mertz to the starting lineup due to his FA Cup performance but these sort of pie in the sky meanderings are indicative of what's wrong with this club and it's wishy - washy fan - base... in addition to these moves the club should aggressively pursue the acquisition of dominant and mobile CB to stabilize an all too fragile defensive group that has self - destructed on numerous occasions over the past 5 seasons... moving forward and building on our need to re-establish our once dominant presence throughout the middle of the park we need to target a CDM then do whatever it takes to get that player into the fold without any of the usual nickel and diming we have become famous for (this kind of ruthless haggling has cost us numerous special players and certainly can't help make the player in question feel good about the way their future potential employer feels about them)... in order for us to become dominant again we need to be strong up the middle again from Goalkeeper to CB to DM to ACM to striker, like we did in our most glorious years before and during Wenger's reign... with this in mind, if we want Ozil to be that dominant attacking midfielder we can't keep leaving him exposed to constant ridicule about his lack of defensive prowess and provide him with the proper players in the final third... he was never a good defensive player in Real or with the German National squad and they certainly didn't suffer as a result of his presence on the pitch... as for the rest of the midfield the blame falls squarely in the hands of Wenger and Gazidis, the fact that Ramsey, Ox, Sanchez and even Ozil were allowed to regularly start when none of the aforementioned had more than a year left under contract is criminal for a club of this size and financial might... the fact that we could find money for Walcott and Xhaka, who weren't even guaranteed starters, means that our whole business model needs a complete overhaul... for me it's time to get rid of some serious deadweight, even if it means selling them below what you believe their market value is just to simply right this ship and change the stagnant culture that currently exists... this means saying goodbye to Wiltshire, Elneny, Carzola, Walcott and Ramsey... everyone, minus Elneny, have spent just as much time on the training table as on the field of play, which would be manageable if they weren't so inconsistent from a performance standpoint (excluding Carzola, who is like the recent version of Rosicky — too bad, both will be deeply missed)... in their places we need to bring in some proven performers with no history of injuries... up front, although I do like the possibilities that a player like Lacazette presents, the fact that we had to wait so many years to acquire some true quality at the striker position falls once again squarely at the feet of Wenger... this issue highlights the ultimate scam being perpetrated by this club since the arrival of Kroenke: pretend your a small market club when it comes to making purchases but milk your fans like a big market club when it comes to ticket prices and merchandising... I believe the reason why Wenger hasn't pursued someone of Henry's quality, minus a fairly inexpensive RVP, was that he knew that they would demand players of a similar ilk to be brought on board and that wasn't possible when the business model was that of a «selling» club... does it really make sense that we could only make a cheeky bid for Suarez, or that we couldn't get Higuain over the line when he was being offered up for half the price he eventually went to Juve for, or that we've only paid any interest to strikers who were clearly not going to press their current teams to let them go to Arsenal like Benzema or Cavani... just part of the facade that finally came crashing down when Sanchez finally called their bluff... the fact remains that no one wants to win more than Sanchez, including Wenger, and although I don't agree with everything that he has done off the field, I would much rather have Alexis front and center than a manager who has clearly bought into the Kroenke model in large part due to the fact that his enormous ego suggests that only he could accomplish great things without breaking the bank... unfortunately that isn't possible anymore as the game has changed quite dramatically in the last 15 years, which has left a largely complacent and complicit Wenger on the outside looking in... so don't blame those players who demanded more and were left wanting... don't blame those fans who have tried desperately to raise awareness for several years when cracks began to appear... place the blame at the feet of those who were well aware all along of the potential pitfalls of just such a plan but continued to follow it even when it was no longer a financial necessity, like it ever really was...

So for now it's business as usual in Sweden... which might mean still not getting very much business for your money.

Is the «business as usual» approach — subsidizing fossil - fuel supply and nuclear energy and large hydro projects, maintaining low energy prices to consumers by keeping environmental and political costs «external,» propping up oil supply by every available means — part of the solution or part of the problem?

For fertility clinics, ovulation induction cycles are business as usual, but for you it will mean quite a few visits to the clinic to be monitored and some significant money needing to change hands (although much cheaper than IVF).

Despite the impending takeover from Disney, it seems that its business as usual at 20th Century Fox for the time being, which also means the studio is pushing full steam ahead with its Marvel movie plans.

This is one of the many odd indie films that used to be «business as usual» for Depp, and he's perfect as the complete «blank slate» that everyone else ascribes some deeper meaning to.

Trailers are business as usual for any forthcoming release (in this case a September 30 wide rollout), but for Relativity it means the wheels are finally turning at at the troubled film company.

Transparency makes it easier for everyone to focus on doing «business as usual», without having to «interpret» what every management directive or communication means.

The meaning of the individual content standards within all six domains — Ratios and Proportional Relationships, the Number System, Expressions and Equations, Functions, Geometry, and Statistics and Probability — with an emphasis on areas that represent the most significant changes to business as usual.

Yet, while publishing may be thriving, many publishers seem not to grasp that business as usual may mean going out of business within a few years.

Many top dogs in various industries treat these accolades like «business as usual» without showing us how much it really means to receive it

Still, tache does mean «stain» or «blemish,» and he, too, is concerned for painting as process and as an affront to business as usual.

I think that people do not yet really understand that abandoning «business as usual» means abandoning the consumer economy for the time being.

# 86 warm Northern re-greetings Pat, Being of Scottish ancestry, I rather go down fighting the good fight, than sit down and watch the show go bad, complacency rules the world, even people in key science positions follow the business as usual flow, but it does not mean we all have to agree to do nothing.

This doesn't mean that the 4 billion is assessed by the experts as having a high probability — but it is more probable than the IPCC projection that Stern has adopted as «business - as - usual».

Business - as - usual means disaster.

For the «business - as - usual» scenario RCP8.5, the model - mean changes in 2090s (compared to 1990s) for sea surface temperature, sea surface pH, global O2 content and integrated primary productivity amount to +2.73 °C, − 0.33 pH unit, − 3.45 % and − 8.6 %, respectively.

The G - 77 ′ s position is that emissions from developed countries are already projected to peak in the next 10 years, so a global emissions peak in the same time period means the burden falls to developing countries, while for developed countries it'd be business as usual.

For example, countries can no longer promise to lower carbon pollution below a «business as usual» level without defining what a «business as usual» scenario means.

Using 1860 to 2005 as the historical period, this index has a global mean of 2069 (± 18 years s.d.) for near - surface air temperature under an emissions stabilization scenario and 2047 (± 14 years s.d.) under a «business - as - usual» scenario.

Yes, exactly, that's what the phrase «business as usual» means in climate jargon.

Under the IPCC Business As Usual emissions scenario, an average rate of global mean sea level rise of about 6 cm per decade over the next century (with an uncertainty range of 3 — 10 cm per decade).

By modeling the observed changes in drought recovery times with «business as usual» circumstances for future conditions, meaning assuming greenhouse gas emission trends continued as they have, the researchers were able to predict the future recovery times of droughts.

«It is great to see the GWPF accepting that business - as - usual means significant further warming is expected.

Choice 1: How much money do we want to spend today on reducing carbon dioxide emission without having a reasonable idea of: a) how much climate will change under business as usual, b) what the impacts of those changes will be, c) the cost of those impacts, d) how much it will cost to significantly change the future, e) whether that cost will exceed the benefits of reducing climate change, f) whether we can trust the scientists charged with developing answers to these questions, who have abandoned the ethic of telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but, with all the doubts, caveats, ifs, ands and buts; and who instead seek lots of publicity by telling scary stories, making simplified dramatic statements and making little mention of their doubts, g) whether other countries will negate our efforts, h) the meaning of the word hubris, when we think we are wise enough to predict what society will need a half - century or more in the future?

The IPCC takes the sensible position that establishing a «business - as - usual» (BAU) baseline for making long - term global climate projections is a pretty tricky endeavor because it means figuring out how the population and economy of the entire world is going to develop over the next century or more.

Theclimatebet.comtracks monthly data on global mean temperatures to show how our bet would have fared had Mr Gore been willing to bet the IPCC «business as usual» scenario against my bet on «no trend.»

Eyeballing Willis's graph, and ignoring the red line, it looks to me like the WWII records were dominated by engine - warmed intake data, perhaps because the chaos meant much of the bucket data did not get recorded, and after WWII it was business as usual with mostly bucket data resuming.

In other words, additionality means the project goes beyond business as usual and the carbon offsets represent incremental reductions in greenhouse gas pollution.

However, what did Hansen mean by «business as usual»?

They assume business as usual, which means that continued growth of industrial economies will result in continued increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

«Remarkably for a report published by the GWPF, the authors agree with mainstream climate scientists that significant further warming is expected... It is great to see the GWPF accepting that business - as - usual means significant further warming is expected.

Business as usual means CO2 levels will hit 500ppm in 25 to 30 years.

Based on a real world «business as usual» emissions scenario, with natural gas displacing oil at its current pace and no carbon tax, I come up with a CO2 right about inline with RCP 6.0, «a mitigation scenario, meaning it includes explicit steps to combat greenhouse gas emissions (in this case, through a carbon tax) ``.

Even if every environmentalist and climate campaigner agreed with me that we need a radical reappraisal of our present «growth at all costs» orthodoxy (hint: they don't), that still wouldn't mean the only alternative to business - as - usual is some anarcho - primitivist dystopia.

That means calculating, in tonnes, how much deviation below the global business as usual level for each year is required in order to achieve the required annual emissions budget.

The existence of a strong and positive water - vapor feedback means that projected business - as - usual greenhouse gas emissions over the next century are virtually guaranteed to produce warming of several degrees Celsius.

«Climate change means that business as usual in our food and farming systems is no longer an option.