Some climb with commercial sponsorship, but most are doing it for their own purposes. "Today roughly 90 percent of the climbers on Everest are guided clients, many without basic climbing skills. Having paid $30,000 to $120,000 to be on the mountain, too many callowly expect to reach the summit. A significant number do, but under appalling conditions." Don't see a lot of logos in this picture of the summit: http://ngm.nationalgeographic....
According to TFA, the software monitors the twitter feeds of people you follow, not people who follow you.
Not clear what's viewed as so oppressive about this - it doesn't gather any information you're not already getting, it just highlights certain tweets that you might otherwise miss.
The linked article makes the claim that a stalker could use it to identify when someone is vulnerable, and push them over the edge. I suppose that's a risk, but I'd imagine that someone who's focused enough on someone to actually want them dead would be willing to actually watch their tweets manually...
Actually, that's just the enterprise business of Motorola Solutions. Motorola Solutions continues to run the public safety business (i.e. police radios).
Not quite. There are two separate businesses. The business that made cable TV equipment was sold to Arris. The police radios business is still called Motorola Solutions, and it's a standalone company (ticker MSI).
His district is the third-highest-income in the city (he represents the less classy half of the upper east side, from Lex to the river), although that may have come down a bit, with the redistricting. Also, it's worth noting that, with the proposed redistricting, he's had three sizable public housing projects added to his district (Lexington, Isaacs, and Holmes).
Large apartment buildings are (all else equal) lower cost to serve on a per-residence basis than suburban neighborhoods, but you have to look at the revenue side of the equation as well. Low-income households are less likely to take bundles, less likely to take premium services, more likely to not pay their bills, less likely to return equipment if their service is cut off, etc. etc. Not all high-rises are created equal: there's a big difference between a condo building on the upper east side and a public housing project in the Bronx.
"One Mandarin speaker rates Zuckerberg's language skills at a seventh grader's speech:"
The linked article is headlined "Mark Zuckerberg Speaks Mandarin Like a Seven Year Old." Significant difference between seven years old and a seventh grader.
In order for entrapment by estoppel to take place, then the entrapee needs to know that the person is a government agent, and be told that the conduct won't be prosecuted. As an example, if you're at a red light, and a traffic cop waves you forward through the intersection, and you proceed, only to be ticketed for running a red light, that's entrapment by estoppel (i.e. you were instructed by a law enforcement officer, who you knew to be one, to break the law, and then prosecuted anyway). That's a subset of entrapment, however.
Entrapment can still occur even if the "entrapee" doesn't know/believe that the person doing the entrapping is a government agent. Look at Jacobson v. US. The Supreme Court overturned a man's conviction for receiving child porn, as the evidence indicated that he wouldn't have ordered the material, had it not been for repeated efforts by undercover agents to get him to do so. The key element here is predisposition to commit the crime - if a person wouldn't have been inclined to do something, absent the agents' efforts, it constitutes entrapment. There's no requirement for an entrapment defense that the person know that the persons pressuring him are gov't agents. Quite the contrary.
I do think the goal should be zero revenue, since if everybody's following the speed limit and not running red lights, then there's no revenue (i.e. the deterrence has been successful).
I agree on the "different pot." At the very least, the companies that provide the cameras shouldn't be compensated on a revenue share arrangement - it creates all the wrong incentives. I can see why cities go for it ("We get the cameras, but don't have to pay for them out of pocket? Great!"), but that's no excuse.
I'm a big fan of both red light and speed cameras, so long as it's clear that the goal, and the only goal, is to improve traffic safety by getting people to abide by speed limits* and obey traffic lights. The ideal scenario would be one in which the cameras generated zero revenue at all, because everybody was following the law.
*I'll be the first to say that speed limits on highways are too low, I'm talking about areas where cars have to share the road with pedestrians and bicyclists.
I was looking at the Wiki page, which had the Maersk EEE (i.e. the Majestic, the Mary, the Marie, etc.) at 18270 TEU, with the next biggest (the most recent of CMA CGM's Explorer class) at 16020. So, 14% bigger. The Maersk single E class is at 15500 TEU.
Agreed. They are substantially higher capacity (14% more containers) than the biggest container ships, but they're not some sort of order of magnitude improvement.
The Maersk E class is the largest currently in service, and the largest container ships ever built, but they're definitely not the largest ships ever built. On either length, or gross tonnage, there have been a number of tankers which are quite a bit bigger, although none are still in service.
1. Their autopilot does look great, but it's quite a way from actually self-driving. Personally, I'd be worried about getting one of those systems - get used to it, and the next time I travel and rent a car, I'd then proceed to rear-end somebody on the highway! Certainly not Telsa's fault, not sure if I trust myself enough.:)
2. Got it, reread your post, and realize what you meant. At least as much my misreading as your misphrasing.
1. Any car can be self-driving. SUCCESSFULLY self-driving is something entirely different. Does the Telsa have the full suite of sensors (including LIDAR) that the Google self-driving vehicles have?
2. The new "autopilot" feature will NOT be available on the existing base - it's just for cars being built now and in the future:
"Every single Model S now rolling out of the factory includes a forward radar, 12 long range ultrasonic sensors positioned to sense 16 feet around the car in every direction at all speeds, a forward looking camera, and a high precision, digitally controlled electric assist braking system."
Slashdot Mirror
Some climb with commercial sponsorship, but most are doing it for their own purposes. "Today roughly 90 percent of the climbers on Everest are guided clients, many without basic climbing skills. Having paid $30,000 to $120,000 to be on the mountain, too many callowly expect to reach the summit. A significant number do, but under appalling conditions." Don't see a lot of logos in this picture of the summit: http://ngm.nationalgeographic....
People die every year climbing Everest, and yet every year, people climb Everest.
Either we want absolute liberty and privacy, OR we want a nanny-state, where we're watched, coddled, and protected from all possible harm.
Slippery slope fallacy FTW!
According to TFA, the software monitors the twitter feeds of people you follow, not people who follow you.
Not clear what's viewed as so oppressive about this - it doesn't gather any information you're not already getting, it just highlights certain tweets that you might otherwise miss.
The linked article makes the claim that a stalker could use it to identify when someone is vulnerable, and push them over the edge. I suppose that's a risk, but I'd imagine that someone who's focused enough on someone to actually want them dead would be willing to actually watch their tweets manually...
Actually, that's just the enterprise business of Motorola Solutions. Motorola Solutions continues to run the public safety business (i.e. police radios).
Not quite. There are two separate businesses. The business that made cable TV equipment was sold to Arris. The police radios business is still called Motorola Solutions, and it's a standalone company (ticker MSI).
His district is the third-highest-income in the city (he represents the less classy half of the upper east side, from Lex to the river), although that may have come down a bit, with the redistricting. Also, it's worth noting that, with the proposed redistricting, he's had three sizable public housing projects added to his district (Lexington, Isaacs, and Holmes).
Large apartment buildings are (all else equal) lower cost to serve on a per-residence basis than suburban neighborhoods, but you have to look at the revenue side of the equation as well. Low-income households are less likely to take bundles, less likely to take premium services, more likely to not pay their bills, less likely to return equipment if their service is cut off, etc. etc. Not all high-rises are created equal: there's a big difference between a condo building on the upper east side and a public housing project in the Bronx.
I wish Hulu offered something similar - I'd happily pay a higher monthly fee not to have the ads.
Overrreaction? Yes.
Really dumb SSID name choice? Yes.
She's well known for her anti-vax "reporting," so she's got more than a smidge of a credibility deficit.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicin...
"One Mandarin speaker rates Zuckerberg's language skills at a seventh grader's speech:"
The linked article is headlined "Mark Zuckerberg Speaks Mandarin Like a Seven Year Old." Significant difference between seven years old and a seventh grader.
1. I think you mean 0.9:1, not 90:1.
2. Canada's murder rate is 1.6/100k people, not 0.5. The US is 4.7/100k. So, the US is 3x Canada, not 6x.
While I agree with your underlying point, your numbers are all wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You're right, that's definitely a better example.
In order for entrapment by estoppel to take place, then the entrapee needs to know that the person is a government agent, and be told that the conduct won't be prosecuted. As an example, if you're at a red light, and a traffic cop waves you forward through the intersection, and you proceed, only to be ticketed for running a red light, that's entrapment by estoppel (i.e. you were instructed by a law enforcement officer, who you knew to be one, to break the law, and then prosecuted anyway). That's a subset of entrapment, however.
Entrapment can still occur even if the "entrapee" doesn't know/believe that the person doing the entrapping is a government agent. Look at Jacobson v. US. The Supreme Court overturned a man's conviction for receiving child porn, as the evidence indicated that he wouldn't have ordered the material, had it not been for repeated efforts by undercover agents to get him to do so. The key element here is predisposition to commit the crime - if a person wouldn't have been inclined to do something, absent the agents' efforts, it constitutes entrapment. There's no requirement for an entrapment defense that the person know that the persons pressuring him are gov't agents. Quite the contrary.
I do think the goal should be zero revenue, since if everybody's following the speed limit and not running red lights, then there's no revenue (i.e. the deterrence has been successful).
I agree on the "different pot." At the very least, the companies that provide the cameras shouldn't be compensated on a revenue share arrangement - it creates all the wrong incentives. I can see why cities go for it ("We get the cameras, but don't have to pay for them out of pocket? Great!"), but that's no excuse.
I'm a big fan of both red light and speed cameras, so long as it's clear that the goal, and the only goal, is to improve traffic safety by getting people to abide by speed limits* and obey traffic lights. The ideal scenario would be one in which the cameras generated zero revenue at all, because everybody was following the law.
*I'll be the first to say that speed limits on highways are too low, I'm talking about areas where cars have to share the road with pedestrians and bicyclists.
Or, they could just look them up in the Index File...if they had an Index File.
I was looking at the Wiki page, which had the Maersk EEE (i.e. the Majestic, the Mary, the Marie, etc.) at 18270 TEU, with the next biggest (the most recent of CMA CGM's Explorer class) at 16020. So, 14% bigger. The Maersk single E class is at 15500 TEU.
Agreed. They are substantially higher capacity (14% more containers) than the biggest container ships, but they're not some sort of order of magnitude improvement.
Well, you CAN, but when some Danish guy shows up, hands you a package, and demands you drive it to its destination, don't complain to me.
The Maersk E class is the largest currently in service, and the largest container ships ever built, but they're definitely not the largest ships ever built. On either length, or gross tonnage, there have been a number of tankers which are quite a bit bigger, although none are still in service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
1. Their autopilot does look great, but it's quite a way from actually self-driving. Personally, I'd be worried about getting one of those systems - get used to it, and the next time I travel and rent a car, I'd then proceed to rear-end somebody on the highway! Certainly not Telsa's fault, not sure if I trust myself enough. :)
2. Got it, reread your post, and realize what you meant. At least as much my misreading as your misphrasing.
1. Any car can be self-driving. SUCCESSFULLY self-driving is something entirely different. Does the Telsa have the full suite of sensors (including LIDAR) that the Google self-driving vehicles have?
2. The new "autopilot" feature will NOT be available on the existing base - it's just for cars being built now and in the future:
"Every single Model S now rolling out of the factory includes a forward radar, 12 long range ultrasonic sensors positioned to sense 16 feet around the car in every direction at all speeds, a forward looking camera, and a high precision, digitally controlled electric assist braking system."
http://www.teslamotors.com/blo...
84.222% of made up statistics have excessive numbers of significant figures.