That shooting occurred October 2017. Doesn't meet the past year criteria from the AC. It's kind of significant because if you talk about concert killings the two big significant ones are the Vegas shooting and the Manchester bombing which happened in May 2017. The article starts by talking about Swift using the technology for stalkers then pivots to talking about the technology being used because of shooting incidents. It's a pretty dumb pivot and a bit of a stretch because it's making the implication that facial recognition is going to be what stops another incident but why would it? If there's enough social media presence to suggest that the individual would be conducting such an attack then there's sufficient evidence and probable for police to obtain a search warrant.
Trucks are not held to the same gas mileage requirements as cars. The classification of a vehicle as truck is based on its GVWR and towing capacity which SUVs usually have a hefty enough engine and chassis combination to push their GVWR up to truck classification.
SUVs may have truck engine/chassis but they have SUV bodies, not truck bodies. When you look at trucks you will find that the manufacturers divide the truck into the cab and body portions of the vehicle. The cab is usually divided into regular, extended, or crew. The only type of truck body that you typically get from an OEM is the pickup body. You can order trucks as "cab & chassis" without a body which you can tend put a flatbed, dump body, utility body, ambulance body, or any of a myriad of body types on the truck. If you got a truck from the factory with a pickup body you can also have it taken off without affecting the cab or chassis and have a new body put on. In addition, you can get truck chassis/cab where the back of the cab is cutoff and that almost always means that vehicle is going to get a van body and in some rare cases it might get an ambulance body. Some SUVs could be made via that method.
Classification of a vehicle as a truck is primarily based on its GVWR and its towing capacity to an extent. This is why SUVs and vans are both trucks.
They're giant sized because the OEMs know that a significant portion of the truck culture base are buying a truck because they have delusions that they are going to use it like a work truck. That's they're a farmer. They'll use it to haul RVs, or trailers with a lot of weight and so need the larger, stronger chassis/engine, or they are going to be dumping a lot of stuff into the bed like broken up concrete. Thus, people delude themselves, spend way more on a truck, when their actual usage would see them save money if they just bought a car and paid delivery fees or rented a truck if they actually need it.
The summary even says that the reason for it is to use the credit score to judge whether a legal residence applicant is "likely to become a "public charge" -- that is, a person primarily dependent on government assistance for food, housing, or medical care." This is appropriate because Citizenship & Immigration Services reports up to DHS.
Get a credit card with a $500 limit. Use it. Set auto-pay from your bank account so you never miss a payment and never pay a cent in interest.
If that's all the limit you can get, that's fine, but you probably don't want to have much more than $150 on that card if your goal is to build your credit rating.
That tanker is 250m long and 44m wide and has a displacement of 112k tons. That frigate is 134m long, 17m wide, and has a displacement of 5.3k tons. That frigate stands no chance of stopping that tanker in a collision. The tanker may have been where it shouldn't have been but the frigate should have been able to get out of the way unless it was crowded or low visibility conditions.
In this case, the idea that Adobe software might nuke files in within some directory under its "control" is something people might accept. But that it can nuke files somewhere else or "nearby" is not.
That is certainly reasonable and the reasonable directories to which Adobe would have authorization would/could be the installation directory, any temporary directories created by the software, and any directories the user explicitly instructed Adobe to utilize in its operation.
That doesn't mean anything. He will have to have water rights to the river to draw from it and if the Truckee River is fully appropriated he will have to purchase rights to that water. If he lacks rights and pulls the water anyone and everyone that is downstream with rights to the water will have plenty of standing to sue.
In fact, you will probably find the opposite where laws indicate that it is illegal for a pedestrian to walk on a roadway outside of a marked crosswalk.
I would draw the opposite conclusion. Self-driving school buses seem like what is needed. The vehicle drives itself while the "driver" can spend his full attention on the passengers rather than having to potentially split it.
An A340 has a takeoff speed of 180mph. Some larger planes might have a high speed but a lot of smaller planes will have a lower speed (737 is 150mph) and the plane they used has a takeoff speed of 70 mph. Landing speeds are lower than takeoff speeds. The Phantom has a max speed of 56mph.They fired the mass at an empty wing rather than one that was filled with fuel.
It should be abundantly clear as to why the test results really aren't that useful.
IEDs are typically set and forget mines, which is highly advantageous for guerilla forces which have less manpower available to them to conduct a proper convoy ambush. The lead vehicle is the one that typically triggers the IEDs. Thus, it is sensible for them to make the lead vehicle a MRAP. If it triggers the IED then there's a high probability it will be able to just continue on driving and the convoy keeps on rollin'. Further, since you don't have to have drivers in the supply trucks you don't have the worry risk of being is a low armored cab driving a vehicle.
If the guerillas shift their tactics so they start attempting to take convoys, which can't be adequately defended by a single soldier, then they'll adapt the convoy and add more soldiers/control MRAPs or look to convert MRAPs into supply trucks, which would probably lower the weight/volume of supplies they could carry to some extent.
It takes 37 years of Earth's current population submitting a video for every second of those 37 years to reach the number in question. My numbers may be an underestimate which is fine since the underestimate is already absurd on its face. Even if they're an overestimate, it's because I missed a few hundred million people here or set an arbitrary age there, and it's still fine and still absurd.
Re:One upload too many
on
YouTube is Down
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Amusing thought but unlikely. That's equivalent to each human on Earth having posted about 1.5 billion videos to YouTube. If the average age of video poster on Youtube is 27 then that's nearly two videos for every second that person has been alive.
In that case, your post was a bit unclear. Not sure why you're assuming a 1$ raise would somehow cost $1.50 since the raise doesn't increase the overhead for employing someone. It would cost $1.07 due to matching SS contribution.
$0.50 is a figure I'm using based on what I have heard from payroll accountants. There's more than just social security that needs to be paid in. There's unemployment as well as other government mandated benefits. It's a fairly well researched topic but suffice it to say, each $1 of wages corresponds to roughly at least $0.40 of additional costs for that employee and it can go higher. If you want to read up on it you can view this Pew link.
Stake should be vaguely familiar with the location of the grill but otherwise still mooing.
I generally don't put stakes on a grill. In fact, I can't conceive of any reason why stakes would be near a grill unless the grill is near the pavilion the stakes are securing.
Indeed. Too bad every one of those tornado alerts I got were hundreds of miles away from me and always at some insane time, and with an EXTREMELY loud and frightening alarm. And so I turned that portion off. Don't even get me started about "amber alerts"...
There is at least some logic to events that occur within a few hundred miles being notified to you. Here's a few off the top of my head although I'm not saying they are good reasons.
1. Tornados can travel over a hundred miles. It's uncommon but it can happen. I don't know how they determine the notification area but I would probably be pretty okay with these alerts if they were doing them based on possible paths for tornados that show no signs of letting up. 2. Most people live within a few hundred miles of where they grew up. You may know people in the affected area that may not get the notification but have a way to notify them. 3. Amber alerts do have a lag time such that an abductee may be over 100 miles away before the amber alert is issued. This is a structural problem for amber alerts. They have to have a vetting process to ensure it's a legitimate risk to the child so that they control the total number of alerts that go out. Too many and people shut them off for being too annoying making them less valuable to help rescue the child. Unfortunately, this typically means that more time passes which increases the max distance the abductor could travel increasing the area which the alert goes out to...
And yet we are not "allowed" to turn off "Presidential Alerts"
The real issue here is one of principle. I don't think the government- ANY BRANCH OR ANY ONE in the government should have the "right" to force message me on my personal mobile phone.
I am quite aware of the different between profit and revenue and costs. You appear to be missing that raising costs necessarily lowers profit unless you offset those costs. No company should be borrowing money to make payroll, so while you are technically correct that the raise doesn't come from profits, the current profit serves as a reasonable absolute upper limit by the fact that the company will probably need to be profitable in order to reasonably drive innovation and growth. Raising employee wages by $1/hr will cost the company roughly an additional $500m per year in direct payroll. However, raising wages by $1 typically turns into $1.50 so a $1/hr wage increase is closer to $750m in additional costs per year for Amazon. That will lower profit, since costs increased, unless that $750m is offset by other cost-cutting measures. Across the board, the average is probably closer to a $3/hr increase for most employees making the total increase in cost closer to $2.25bn or more than a quarter of their current annual profit.
Amazon's annual net income is a little under $8bn iirc.
I'm just going to make some assumptions... the 250k regular employees are 40hr employees and the 150k seasonal employees are equivalent to 1/12th of a full time employee (12500). Splitting $8bn profit 262,500 ways is roughly $30.5k per employee per year. $30.5k per employee per year (revenue) divided by 2080 hours (40hrs per week) works out to $14.65/hr. That's the theoretical upper limit, ignoring other costs like payroll taxes or overtime, on how much Amazon could raise wages by without running losses every quarter. What are these employees currently paid? $10/hr? That's effectively cutting Amazon's profit by a third. Federal minimum wage? They're cutting Amazon's profit in half. Even raising wages by just $1 increases annual payroll by half a billion and that's assuming those 150k seasonal workers are working 20hr weeks for 8 weeks. These are not insignificant knocks to profitability and it almost certainly means that Amazon has some strategic plans in place that are going to eliminate this cost or increase revenue in the next five years or so.
Combine this with their desire to campaign for increasing the Federal minimum wage to $15/hr and it's highly probable they are aiming for a goal of significant automation (cutting labor force) in combination with running competitors out of business by making their labor costs too burdensome to be profitable.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot the rich.
That shooting occurred October 2017. Doesn't meet the past year criteria from the AC. It's kind of significant because if you talk about concert killings the two big significant ones are the Vegas shooting and the Manchester bombing which happened in May 2017. The article starts by talking about Swift using the technology for stalkers then pivots to talking about the technology being used because of shooting incidents. It's a pretty dumb pivot and a bit of a stretch because it's making the implication that facial recognition is going to be what stops another incident but why would it? If there's enough social media presence to suggest that the individual would be conducting such an attack then there's sufficient evidence and probable for police to obtain a search warrant.
Trucks are not held to the same gas mileage requirements as cars. The classification of a vehicle as truck is based on its GVWR and towing capacity which SUVs usually have a hefty enough engine and chassis combination to push their GVWR up to truck classification.
SUVs may have truck engine/chassis but they have SUV bodies, not truck bodies. When you look at trucks you will find that the manufacturers divide the truck into the cab and body portions of the vehicle. The cab is usually divided into regular, extended, or crew. The only type of truck body that you typically get from an OEM is the pickup body. You can order trucks as "cab & chassis" without a body which you can tend put a flatbed, dump body, utility body, ambulance body, or any of a myriad of body types on the truck. If you got a truck from the factory with a pickup body you can also have it taken off without affecting the cab or chassis and have a new body put on. In addition, you can get truck chassis/cab where the back of the cab is cutoff and that almost always means that vehicle is going to get a van body and in some rare cases it might get an ambulance body. Some SUVs could be made via that method.
Classification of a vehicle as a truck is primarily based on its GVWR and its towing capacity to an extent. This is why SUVs and vans are both trucks.
They're giant sized because the OEMs know that a significant portion of the truck culture base are buying a truck because they have delusions that they are going to use it like a work truck. That's they're a farmer. They'll use it to haul RVs, or trailers with a lot of weight and so need the larger, stronger chassis/engine, or they are going to be dumping a lot of stuff into the bed like broken up concrete. Thus, people delude themselves, spend way more on a truck, when their actual usage would see them save money if they just bought a car and paid delivery fees or rented a truck if they actually need it.
The summary even says that the reason for it is to use the credit score to judge whether a legal residence applicant is "likely to become a "public charge" -- that is, a person primarily dependent on government assistance for food, housing, or medical care." This is appropriate because Citizenship & Immigration Services reports up to DHS.
Get a credit card with a $500 limit. Use it. Set auto-pay from your bank account so you never miss a payment and never pay a cent in interest.
If that's all the limit you can get, that's fine, but you probably don't want to have much more than $150 on that card if your goal is to build your credit rating.
That tanker is 250m long and 44m wide and has a displacement of 112k tons. That frigate is 134m long, 17m wide, and has a displacement of 5.3k tons. That frigate stands no chance of stopping that tanker in a collision. The tanker may have been where it shouldn't have been but the frigate should have been able to get out of the way unless it was crowded or low visibility conditions.
In this case, the idea that Adobe software might nuke files in within some directory under its "control" is something people might accept. But that it can nuke files somewhere else or "nearby" is not.
That is certainly reasonable and the reasonable directories to which Adobe would have authorization would/could be the installation directory, any temporary directories created by the software, and any directories the user explicitly instructed Adobe to utilize in its operation.
That doesn't mean anything. He will have to have water rights to the river to draw from it and if the Truckee River is fully appropriated he will have to purchase rights to that water. If he lacks rights and pulls the water anyone and everyone that is downstream with rights to the water will have plenty of standing to sue.
As a series of five 0s and 1s.
In fact, you will probably find the opposite where laws indicate that it is illegal for a pedestrian to walk on a roadway outside of a marked crosswalk.
I would draw the opposite conclusion. Self-driving school buses seem like what is needed. The vehicle drives itself while the "driver" can spend his full attention on the passengers rather than having to potentially split it.
There's a Mad Max movie in there somewhere...
Hopefully it's Road Warrior or Fury Road and not the original or Thunderdome.
An A340 has a takeoff speed of 180mph. Some larger planes might have a high speed but a lot of smaller planes will have a lower speed (737 is 150mph) and the plane they used has a takeoff speed of 70 mph. Landing speeds are lower than takeoff speeds. The Phantom has a max speed of 56mph.They fired the mass at an empty wing rather than one that was filled with fuel.
It should be abundantly clear as to why the test results really aren't that useful.
And they can just do the same thing the next day and the next.
In that case you just revert to the basics. Any officer continuing to send in supplies like that would get shitcanned fast.
IEDs are typically set and forget mines, which is highly advantageous for guerilla forces which have less manpower available to them to conduct a proper convoy ambush. The lead vehicle is the one that typically triggers the IEDs. Thus, it is sensible for them to make the lead vehicle a MRAP. If it triggers the IED then there's a high probability it will be able to just continue on driving and the convoy keeps on rollin'. Further, since you don't have to have drivers in the supply trucks you don't have the worry risk of being is a low armored cab driving a vehicle.
If the guerillas shift their tactics so they start attempting to take convoys, which can't be adequately defended by a single soldier, then they'll adapt the convoy and add more soldiers/control MRAPs or look to convert MRAPs into supply trucks, which would probably lower the weight/volume of supplies they could carry to some extent.
It takes 37 years of Earth's current population submitting a video for every second of those 37 years to reach the number in question. My numbers may be an underestimate which is fine since the underestimate is already absurd on its face. Even if they're an overestimate, it's because I missed a few hundred million people here or set an arbitrary age there, and it's still fine and still absurd.
Amusing thought but unlikely. That's equivalent to each human on Earth having posted about 1.5 billion videos to YouTube. If the average age of video poster on Youtube is 27 then that's nearly two videos for every second that person has been alive.
Bullshit. There are 7 companies on the planet that can pull $230m out of their liquid assets and not notice it
Inquiring minds wish to know. Which seven?
In that case, your post was a bit unclear. Not sure why you're assuming a 1$ raise would somehow cost $1.50 since the raise doesn't increase the overhead for employing someone. It would cost $1.07 due to matching SS contribution.
$0.50 is a figure I'm using based on what I have heard from payroll accountants. There's more than just social security that needs to be paid in. There's unemployment as well as other government mandated benefits. It's a fairly well researched topic but suffice it to say, each $1 of wages corresponds to roughly at least $0.40 of additional costs for that employee and it can go higher. If you want to read up on it you can view this Pew link.
Stake should be vaguely familiar with the location of the grill but otherwise still mooing.
I generally don't put stakes on a grill. In fact, I can't conceive of any reason why stakes would be near a grill unless the grill is near the pavilion the stakes are securing.
Indeed. Too bad every one of those tornado alerts I got were hundreds of miles away from me and always at some insane time, and with an EXTREMELY loud and frightening alarm. And so I turned that portion off. Don't even get me started about "amber alerts"...
There is at least some logic to events that occur within a few hundred miles being notified to you. Here's a few off the top of my head although I'm not saying they are good reasons.
1. Tornados can travel over a hundred miles. It's uncommon but it can happen. I don't know how they determine the notification area but I would probably be pretty okay with these alerts if they were doing them based on possible paths for tornados that show no signs of letting up.
2. Most people live within a few hundred miles of where they grew up. You may know people in the affected area that may not get the notification but have a way to notify them.
3. Amber alerts do have a lag time such that an abductee may be over 100 miles away before the amber alert is issued. This is a structural problem for amber alerts. They have to have a vetting process to ensure it's a legitimate risk to the child so that they control the total number of alerts that go out. Too many and people shut them off for being too annoying making them less valuable to help rescue the child. Unfortunately, this typically means that more time passes which increases the max distance the abductor could travel increasing the area which the alert goes out to...
And yet we are not "allowed" to turn off "Presidential Alerts"
The real issue here is one of principle. I don't think the government- ANY BRANCH OR ANY ONE in the government should have the "right" to force message me on my personal mobile phone.
I agree with you on this.
I am quite aware of the different between profit and revenue and costs. You appear to be missing that raising costs necessarily lowers profit unless you offset those costs. No company should be borrowing money to make payroll, so while you are technically correct that the raise doesn't come from profits, the current profit serves as a reasonable absolute upper limit by the fact that the company will probably need to be profitable in order to reasonably drive innovation and growth. Raising employee wages by $1/hr will cost the company roughly an additional $500m per year in direct payroll. However, raising wages by $1 typically turns into $1.50 so a $1/hr wage increase is closer to $750m in additional costs per year for Amazon. That will lower profit, since costs increased, unless that $750m is offset by other cost-cutting measures. Across the board, the average is probably closer to a $3/hr increase for most employees making the total increase in cost closer to $2.25bn or more than a quarter of their current annual profit.
Amazon's annual net income is a little under $8bn iirc.
I'm just going to make some assumptions... the 250k regular employees are 40hr employees and the 150k seasonal employees are equivalent to 1/12th of a full time employee (12500). Splitting $8bn profit 262,500 ways is roughly $30.5k per employee per year. $30.5k per employee per year (revenue) divided by 2080 hours (40hrs per week) works out to $14.65/hr. That's the theoretical upper limit, ignoring other costs like payroll taxes or overtime, on how much Amazon could raise wages by without running losses every quarter. What are these employees currently paid? $10/hr? That's effectively cutting Amazon's profit by a third. Federal minimum wage? They're cutting Amazon's profit in half. Even raising wages by just $1 increases annual payroll by half a billion and that's assuming those 150k seasonal workers are working 20hr weeks for 8 weeks. These are not insignificant knocks to profitability and it almost certainly means that Amazon has some strategic plans in place that are going to eliminate this cost or increase revenue in the next five years or so.
Combine this with their desire to campaign for increasing the Federal minimum wage to $15/hr and it's highly probable they are aiming for a goal of significant automation (cutting labor force) in combination with running competitors out of business by making their labor costs too burdensome to be profitable.