First off, no-one needs to be beware of anything in this way. There's this little thing called informed consent, which means these patients will have gone through every aspect of these operations with their doctors, including all the risks.
Secondly, how you know the failure rate for an operation that's being reported here for the first time is beyond me.
No, the lamp-posts are public chargers available on a first-come, first-served basis. Same as street parking -- and like street parking, no-one in London has an expectation of being able to park outside their house. You often have to park a few minutes walk away. So no negotiation required.
My calculations already included a 100% over-capacity margin. I said demand would be about 5% of households per night (actually, it would be lower as London average mileage won't be as high as 150 miles per week, and EV range is going to improve further) and I suggested 1 lamp post per ten households. But you could easily go to say 1 in 3 on a street to build in substantial overcapacity, the marginal costs will be pretty low. That's the whole point of the Ubitricity model: using existing infrastructure to take out a big chunk of costs.
1. You seem not to be familiar with the idea of averages. It's a shame, because it would be very helpful to you. Your approach to charging an EV is not the average approach. 2. You seem not to be familiar with London. The notion that a car is anyone's "only means to getting around a city in the case of an emergency" is ludicrous to a Londoner. We have the tube, the bus, AddLee, Uber, black cabs, etc. 3. You seem to be *really* unfamiliar with London. Only 20% of London car journeys are to do with work. Commuting will only be a fraction of that 20%.
You would only need a lamp post per address, if the *average* requirement was that every address needs to charge an EV every night. That is just nowhere near the truth: 1. Only about 50% of London households have a car 2. About 25% of London households have off-street parking 3. Given average British mileage of 150 miles per week, most EVs will only need recharging once per week (today, a Zoe, Leaf, Tesla can all manage that). That's a substantial over-estimate, given London driving distances are much shorter than average British which includes rural drivers covering much longer distances
So the average percentage of EVs that would need charging overnight on any one night is: 50% * 75% * 14% = about 5%. If you could get 1 lamp post per 10 households done with Ubitricity, you'd be more than fine with a hefty margin of error built in.
I can think of two things more hilarious: 1. Your inability to read. I didn't say what my view was. I talked about the consensus view. 2. Your inability to write. Even dunces tend to know how to use a full stop and a comma. But not you, apparently.
I can think of a couple of big reasons: unexpected wins for Trump and Brexit.
Sure, it's possible they provided analytics that didn't help. But it's also possible they provided analytics that did help, and given the unexpected nature of the victories, that seems like a good place to start.
Note: by unexpected, I don't mean "no-one thought Trump or Brexit would win". I mean "the consensus view in advance among the majority of pollsters and media and others with some stake in analysing the game was that Trump and Brexit would lose". The consensus is hardly always right, but it's typically correct, and if it's wrong in an unexpected way -- victories that come out of nowhere -- it's worth analysing why.
This is bang on target. The entire spectrum of political leadership has chosen to look the other way in almost every Western state. They have lost the ability to be hard nosed in their assessments, and specifically have lost the ability to speak politely but non-comittally in public while fighting hard behind the scenes. The last thing along those lines was Stuxnet. The West should be doing their best to strategically weaken Putin -- and if this is their best, it's pretty weak.
It's not the information per se, it's the inferences. If people knew what could be *done* with the information, they'd be horrified. As it stands, the reason people give permission is because 99% of folks aren't aware of just how much can be inferred by a group of immoral clever bastards. Same way that people aren't aware of just how much damage can be done by a failure to follow GMP standards for drug manufacture. And here's the point -- they shouldn't have to be aware -- drug manufacturers are obliged to follow GMP and regulations exist to protect us all without us all having to know complex details of stuff that takes a working lifetime to learn. Same should be true here.
The GDPR hasn't come into effect yet, although everyone is preparing for it (including UK organisations).
Instead, the UK has the Data Protection Act 1998, which was explicitly designed to be compliant with the requirements of EU data protection law at the time. That included, for example, not transferring PII outside the EEA without adequate protection. So the OP is completely wrong, and you are not only wrong, you are wrong while you think you are right.
Incidentally, the Brexit vote makes no difference. As the article you yourself linked to says: "the UK will still be classed as a Member State when the GDPR compliance deadline is reached on 25 May 2018." So the UK will have to comply with GDPR. It may negotiate some changes post-Brexit, but it doesn't really have the bandwidth to do so, so I kinda doubt it.
GDPR is a new set of requirements, and every EU member state is having to create new law to comply. That's how the EU operates: member states agree new principles for the single market through discussion, they write down the requirements centrally, and then each EU member state goes and creates new laws in their own country that are compliant with the new principles. If you read that without getting all defensive, congratulations, you now know more about how the EU operates that Liam Fox, Jacob Rees-Arsehole, Boris Fuckface and David the British Brexit Bulldog. But then you probably knew more than them to start with, they're so fucking ignorant.
1. If you don't want to spend every weekend at Walmart, I'm not sure spending every other weekend is a massive improvement. 2. Unless your family is really gigantic (in both senses), I don't see what you could possibly be buying that wouldn't fit into a normal car's trunk and back seats.
If FB and Chad couldn't spot this a mile off...I mean, the same problem is obviously going to happen with half a dozen other policy rulings. Racism, incitement to violence, terrorism, swatting. If that's how FB thought they'd resolve this, that was pretty fucking dumb
How on earth do you know that a "very high percentage of women like to play with the penis of male babies when they change a nappy"??
I mean, I can't even see where you would get this idea, much less where you'd get the evidence from. And I sure as shit ain't searching for *that* online.
Oh, you are too cute. "Reason is separate from desire" in the same post as "leftists... playing semantics warrior".
You seem to be unaware of the astonishing idea that words have more than one meaning. To pluck an example out of the air, "reason" may mean "a cause, explanation or justification for an event" or it may mean "the power of the mind to think, understand and form judgements logically". I'm sure there's a term for someone who uses the word "reason" in the sense of definition A in a sentence and then hides behind the sense of definition B in their follow-up defensopost. What would that term be? Oh yes, that's right: "semantics warrior".
There's another term, of course. Berk. A berk is a fabulous British term. It encompasses the silly rage, the sense of "your arse is hanging out and everyone is laughing and once you know it's happening you're going to feel humiliated, you're going to get angry and upset and have to go home for a rage-wank while your ears burn" that it is your current pleasure to experience, if you have the wit to see what's happened (yeah, right). It also encompasses that complete inability to accurately identify other people's thoughts and emotions coupled with complete assurance that you're excellent at that task which you so ably demonstrated by writing "glad it stung".
This isn't accurate. You've described a problem for the GOP -- all your examples are Republican. The GOP has been shameless for at least three decades in promising and fighting for hard-right policies (like scrapping health coverage, isolationist no-war, fiscal hawks) when they're out of power, and then delivering something completely different in government (Rx expansion, overseas wars, spend like crazy albeit often without the tax income that makes the sums add up).
you use "special" words for no reason to try to distinguish yourself.
You know what's special about the new breed of rightists? Your extraordinary ability to contradict yourself in the same sentence. And you're always too fucking dumb to realise you've done it.
Hint: you either need to argue that "leftists...use "special" words for no reason" *or* you need to argue "leftists...use "special" words... to try to distinguish yourself [sic, obviously it should be 'yourselves', but you have bigger challenges than your inability to match plural with plural]". But arguing both at the same time just makes you look fabulously stupid. Because, and here's the tricky bit "to try to distinguish yourself" *is a reason*.
Here, I'll help you squirm out of this. What you probably meant to say was "leftists use "special words" for no good reason. You just use those words to try to distinguish yourselves and skip the substance". To which the appropriate reply is: "Is that what you think? Oh, that's too adorable. Honey, if that makes you feel better about having to look up Quixotic on Conservapedia because you'd never heard the term before, that's OK. We know your ego is both gigantic and terribly fragile. So you do what you need to. So long as it doesn't involve a fucking AR15."
If only there were articles describing the other efforts being funded by the $100m. Like "HIDOE’s heat abatement efforts also consist of installing ceiling fans, using nighttime ventilation, painting roofs with heat-reflective coating and extending shade."
+ HIDOE’s heat abatement efforts also consist of installing ceiling fans, using nighttime ventilation, painting roofs with heat-reflective coating and extending shade + Solar-powered weather stations mounted on these schools transmit data to a receiver in the school office, which is then posted to the new HIDOE Thermal Comfort website. Indoor classroom temperatures are monitored by the use of 737 data loggers that record the temperature and humidity every 30 minutes
A source for this claim about Singaporean classroom temperatures? Because it would be very unlike the Singaporean government to not put AC in classrooms.
Slashdot Mirror
More London-ish than London. Can't see that happening in West Hampstead or even Kennington. But horrible nonetheless.
First off, no-one needs to be beware of anything in this way. There's this little thing called informed consent, which means these patients will have gone through every aspect of these operations with their doctors, including all the risks.
Secondly, how you know the failure rate for an operation that's being reported here for the first time is beyond me.
"No-one" was hyperbolic on my part. But seriously, who the fuck does that in London? Where on earth were you?
No, the lamp-posts are public chargers available on a first-come, first-served basis. Same as street parking -- and like street parking, no-one in London has an expectation of being able to park outside their house. You often have to park a few minutes walk away. So no negotiation required.
My calculations already included a 100% over-capacity margin. I said demand would be about 5% of households per night (actually, it would be lower as London average mileage won't be as high as 150 miles per week, and EV range is going to improve further) and I suggested 1 lamp post per ten households. But you could easily go to say 1 in 3 on a street to build in substantial overcapacity, the marginal costs will be pretty low. That's the whole point of the Ubitricity model: using existing infrastructure to take out a big chunk of costs.
1. You seem not to be familiar with the idea of averages. It's a shame, because it would be very helpful to you. Your approach to charging an EV is not the average approach.
2. You seem not to be familiar with London. The notion that a car is anyone's "only means to getting around a city in the case of an emergency" is ludicrous to a Londoner. We have the tube, the bus, AddLee, Uber, black cabs, etc.
3. You seem to be *really* unfamiliar with London. Only 20% of London car journeys are to do with work. Commuting will only be a fraction of that 20%.
Who else saw this and immediately remembered the line about "but because everyone else was also trying to push forwards through the crowd"?
You would only need a lamp post per address, if the *average* requirement was that every address needs to charge an EV every night. That is just nowhere near the truth:
1. Only about 50% of London households have a car
2. About 25% of London households have off-street parking
3. Given average British mileage of 150 miles per week, most EVs will only need recharging once per week (today, a Zoe, Leaf, Tesla can all manage that). That's a substantial over-estimate, given London driving distances are much shorter than average British which includes rural drivers covering much longer distances
So the average percentage of EVs that would need charging overnight on any one night is: 50% * 75% * 14% = about 5%. If you could get 1 lamp post per 10 households done with Ubitricity, you'd be more than fine with a hefty margin of error built in.
You think you're describing renewables, but you're actually describing petrochemicals. And nuclear.
London? You mean the city where three boroughs are trialling lamp-post charging to address on-street charging?
I can think of two things more hilarious:
1. Your inability to read. I didn't say what my view was. I talked about the consensus view.
2. Your inability to write. Even dunces tend to know how to use a full stop and a comma. But not you, apparently.
Russia runs right through this story, both explicitly (Kogan's funding) and implicitly (bankrolling other buyers).
I can think of a couple of big reasons: unexpected wins for Trump and Brexit.
Sure, it's possible they provided analytics that didn't help. But it's also possible they provided analytics that did help, and given the unexpected nature of the victories, that seems like a good place to start.
Note: by unexpected, I don't mean "no-one thought Trump or Brexit would win". I mean "the consensus view in advance among the majority of pollsters and media and others with some stake in analysing the game was that Trump and Brexit would lose". The consensus is hardly always right, but it's typically correct, and if it's wrong in an unexpected way -- victories that come out of nowhere -- it's worth analysing why.
This is bang on target. The entire spectrum of political leadership has chosen to look the other way in almost every Western state. They have lost the ability to be hard nosed in their assessments, and specifically have lost the ability to speak politely but non-comittally in public while fighting hard behind the scenes. The last thing along those lines was Stuxnet. The West should be doing their best to strategically weaken Putin -- and if this is their best, it's pretty weak.
It's not the information per se, it's the inferences. If people knew what could be *done* with the information, they'd be horrified. As it stands, the reason people give permission is because 99% of folks aren't aware of just how much can be inferred by a group of immoral clever bastards. Same way that people aren't aware of just how much damage can be done by a failure to follow GMP standards for drug manufacture. And here's the point -- they shouldn't have to be aware -- drug manufacturers are obliged to follow GMP and regulations exist to protect us all without us all having to know complex details of stuff that takes a working lifetime to learn. Same should be true here.
Ddi you feel all clever when you wrote that?
You shouldn't have.
The GDPR hasn't come into effect yet, although everyone is preparing for it (including UK organisations).
Instead, the UK has the Data Protection Act 1998, which was explicitly designed to be compliant with the requirements of EU data protection law at the time. That included, for example, not transferring PII outside the EEA without adequate protection. So the OP is completely wrong, and you are not only wrong, you are wrong while you think you are right.
Incidentally, the Brexit vote makes no difference. As the article you yourself linked to says: "the UK will still be classed as a Member State when the GDPR compliance deadline is reached on 25 May 2018." So the UK will have to comply with GDPR. It may negotiate some changes post-Brexit, but it doesn't really have the bandwidth to do so, so I kinda doubt it.
GDPR is a new set of requirements, and every EU member state is having to create new law to comply. That's how the EU operates: member states agree new principles for the single market through discussion, they write down the requirements centrally, and then each EU member state goes and creates new laws in their own country that are compliant with the new principles. If you read that without getting all defensive, congratulations, you now know more about how the EU operates that Liam Fox, Jacob Rees-Arsehole, Boris Fuckface and David the British Brexit Bulldog. But then you probably knew more than them to start with, they're so fucking ignorant.
1. If you don't want to spend every weekend at Walmart, I'm not sure spending every other weekend is a massive improvement.
2. Unless your family is really gigantic (in both senses), I don't see what you could possibly be buying that wouldn't fit into a normal car's trunk and back seats.
If FB and Chad couldn't spot this a mile off...I mean, the same problem is obviously going to happen with half a dozen other policy rulings. Racism, incitement to violence, terrorism, swatting. If that's how FB thought they'd resolve this, that was pretty fucking dumb
How on earth do you know that a "very high percentage of women like to play with the penis of male babies when they change a nappy"??
I mean, I can't even see where you would get this idea, much less where you'd get the evidence from. And I sure as shit ain't searching for *that* online.
TouchID is 1:50k. FaceID is 1:1m
Oh, you are too cute. "Reason is separate from desire" in the same post as "leftists... playing semantics warrior".
You seem to be unaware of the astonishing idea that words have more than one meaning. To pluck an example out of the air, "reason" may mean "a cause, explanation or justification for an event" or it may mean "the power of the mind to think, understand and form judgements logically". I'm sure there's a term for someone who uses the word "reason" in the sense of definition A in a sentence and then hides behind the sense of definition B in their follow-up defensopost. What would that term be? Oh yes, that's right: "semantics warrior".
There's another term, of course. Berk. A berk is a fabulous British term. It encompasses the silly rage, the sense of "your arse is hanging out and everyone is laughing and once you know it's happening you're going to feel humiliated, you're going to get angry and upset and have to go home for a rage-wank while your ears burn" that it is your current pleasure to experience, if you have the wit to see what's happened (yeah, right). It also encompasses that complete inability to accurately identify other people's thoughts and emotions coupled with complete assurance that you're excellent at that task which you so ably demonstrated by writing "glad it stung".
This isn't accurate. You've described a problem for the GOP -- all your examples are Republican. The GOP has been shameless for at least three decades in promising and fighting for hard-right policies (like scrapping health coverage, isolationist no-war, fiscal hawks) when they're out of power, and then delivering something completely different in government (Rx expansion, overseas wars, spend like crazy albeit often without the tax income that makes the sums add up).
you use "special" words for no reason to try to distinguish yourself.
You know what's special about the new breed of rightists? Your extraordinary ability to contradict yourself in the same sentence. And you're always too fucking dumb to realise you've done it.
Hint: you either need to argue that "leftists...use "special" words for no reason" *or* you need to argue "leftists...use "special" words ... to try to distinguish yourself [sic, obviously it should be 'yourselves', but you have bigger challenges than your inability to match plural with plural]". But arguing both at the same time just makes you look fabulously stupid. Because, and here's the tricky bit "to try to distinguish yourself" *is a reason*.
Here, I'll help you squirm out of this. What you probably meant to say was "leftists use "special words" for no good reason. You just use those words to try to distinguish yourselves and skip the substance". To which the appropriate reply is: "Is that what you think? Oh, that's too adorable. Honey, if that makes you feel better about having to look up Quixotic on Conservapedia because you'd never heard the term before, that's OK. We know your ego is both gigantic and terribly fragile. So you do what you need to. So long as it doesn't involve a fucking AR15."
If only there were articles describing the other efforts being funded by the $100m. Like "HIDOE’s heat abatement efforts also consist of installing ceiling fans, using nighttime ventilation, painting roofs with heat-reflective coating and extending shade."
+ HIDOE’s heat abatement efforts also consist of installing ceiling fans, using nighttime ventilation, painting roofs with heat-reflective coating and extending shade + Solar-powered weather stations mounted on these schools transmit data to a receiver in the school office, which is then posted to the new HIDOE Thermal Comfort website. Indoor classroom temperatures are monitored by the use of 737 data loggers that record the temperature and humidity every 30 minutes
A source for this claim about Singaporean classroom temperatures? Because it would be very unlike the Singaporean government to not put AC in classrooms.