-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Justin Bieber and Diplo would like to splash back into your hearts with their latest collaboration, a pledge of eternal devotion titled "Cold Water."
The Major Lazer track was co-written with Ed Sheeran and Benny Blaco. "Cold Water" also features vocals from Danish singer MØ, who said in a statement that when Major Lazer approached her with the song, she "would jump into a volcano to be a part of that record."
Bieber also seems pretty pumped about the song.
Soon we might be sharing our sidewalks with these self-driving delivery robots, zipping around the streets to bring us takeout and packages.
Ahti Heinla, chief executive of Starship Technologies, takes us for a test delivery to a Silicon Valley resident in the video above. We see how the robot detects and navigates obstacles as it rolls on down the street.
The robot achieves 90 percent autonomy — only occasionally calling for help when it encounters something confusing. Not a bad shout.
Emergency physicians learn to be prepared for anything thrown at us in the clinical arena. Personal life is a different story. Last year a drunk driver with multiple prior offenses and no valid driver's license smashed a truck through the wall of my son's daycare.
Fortunately, the children and staff were in undamaged areas. But just minutes before, my son and I had walked through the exact spot in the art room where the truck came to rest in a pile of debris.
Having worked in the ER for years, I've seen the aftermath of drunk driving often enough before, but that was the first time I had seen an accident caused by a drunk driver up close.
Drunk driving is a major public health problem in the U.S. In 2014 nearly one-third of the nation's 32,675 traffic fatalities were alcohol-related. This means a completely preventable death happened every 53 minutes in this country.
My brush with a drunk driver made me wonder about what practices and policies can help prevent accidents and fatalities. Research suggests lower blood alcohol concentration limits and interventions like ignition interlocks can make a big difference.
When drunk drivers come to the ER they often express surprise, disbelief or denial about their blood alcohol concentration (BAC) or their level of impairment. They often are drunker than they think they are.
Higher blood alcohol levels, no matter how "sober" you feel, can have a real impact on your ability to perform tasks that require concentration, such as driving. While people who drink more often may feel the effects of alcohol less acutely than someone who does not, their reflexes and judgment can still be impaired. And the more you drink, the harder it is to judge how intoxicated you are.
At least one study involving college students has shown that higher BACs are associated with an underestimation of an individual's level of intoxication.
Studies have also shown that increasing BAC is also associated with a decreased reaction time.
For instance, one study pointed to an average decreased reaction time of 120 milliseconds, just over a tenth of a second, associated with a blood alcohol content (BAC) level of 0.08, the legal limit. Traveling at 70 miles per hour, a drunk driver would travel for an additional 12 feet before reacting to a roadway hazard.
In 2000 Congress passed legislation making 0.08 the national standard for impaired driving in the United States. Under the law, states that did not adopt 0.08 as the standard by 2004 faced cuts in federal highway funding. By the time the law was passed many states had already adopted the 0.08 standards, but some states used 0.10 as the standard.
The lowering of the limit was in response to a 1992 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report to Congress recommending this action as a way to reduce highway deaths. Implementation of these lower BAC laws has been associated with a decrease in alcohol-related highway fatalities. But 0.08 is still a fairly high BAC level compared to other developed countries.
Among the largest industrialized countries, only the U.S., United Kingdom and Canada permit BACs as high as 0.08. France, Germany, Italy and Australia currently set their BAC limit at 0.05. Japan has the lowest requirement of this group at 0.03. European countries in particular have sought lower BAC requirements in the past decades as part of an effort to decrease traffic deaths
When the European Commission, the executive body of the European Union, made its recommendations to change EU laws to recommend a BAC of 0.05 as the per se limit for impaired driving, they included supporting data, including fatality reductions, from countries with existing 0.05 BAC laws.
It might not take as many drinks as you think to slow your reaction time and make safe driving harder.
For the purposes of standardization, a drink is defined as 12 ounces of 5 percent alcohol beer, five ounces of 12 percent alcohol wine or one and a half ounces of 80 proof (40 percent alcohol) liquor. To account for an individual drinking over a longer period of time, subtract about 0.01 percent for each 40 minutes of drinking time.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in a 160-pound man, two alcoholic beverages can bring about some loss of judgment, decreased ability to rapidly track a moving target and result in decreased ability to multitask. Women generally weighing less than men, would see a higher BAC per drink.
Three alcoholic drinks will bring a person's blood alcohol level to a level of approximately 0.05 percent, which can impair the ability to rapidly focus vision, lower alertness, and decrease coordination to the point that steering becomes difficult and response to driving emergencies becomes blunted.
After approximately four alcoholic drinks, balance, vision and reaction time are often affected. It becomes harder to detect roadway dangers. Reasoning and information processing are often measurably impaired. This corresponds most closely to a BAC of 0.08 percent, the limit set by most states for legal operation of a vehicle.
A blood alcohol of 0.10 percent is generally associated with a clear loss of reaction time and control. There will be reduced ability to maintain proper lane position or brake appropriately.
Not surprisingly, as the BAC level climbs higher than 0.10 percent, it is associated with the progressively deteriorating ability to drive a vehicle safely.
Studies going back to the 1960s have demonstrated the correlation between BAC and accident risk. The relative risk of being in a crash is 1.38 times higher at a BAC of 0.05 than 0.00. At 0.08, the risk is 2.69 times higher. At 0.10, the crash risk climbs to five times higher.
When you consider the medical evidence, including the physiological effects, and the relative risk of crash, you can understand why some countries set the legal limit at 0.05 and why in 2013 the NTSB recommended that 0.05 become the new limit in the U.S.
Drunk driving is a tough problem to solve. One solution is to focus interventions on those who have a prior alcohol impaired driving arrest because they are at higher risk of doing it again. The reasons for this are not clear, but many drunk driving episodes are linked to binge drinking and not simply social drinking.
Ignition interlocks, which are essentially breathalyzers connected to the vehicle's ignition system, could also make a difference. These devices ensure that the vehicle can only be started by a sober driver. They've have been around for many years and modern versions have features to resist tampering, and require intermittent rechecks to ensure the driver doesn't drink after starting the vehicle.
All states use ignition interlocks to some degree, but as of January 2016, only 23 states require interlocks for all DUI offenders, which are sometimes called universal ignition interlock laws. The NTSB recommended the use of ignition interlocks for all first time offenders in 2012.
A 2015 study in the American Journal of Public Health, found that states with these laws have fewer alcohol involved crash deaths. Researchers compared data for 18 states which implemented universal ignition interlock laws to 32 states that had not. In those 18 states, universal interlock laws saved 918 lives, a 15 percent reduction in deaths related to drunk driving.
It is every driver's responsibility to understand that there is no "safe" BAC level. It's simple: The more you drink, the less you are able to drive safely, and the higher the likelihood of an accident. For those who ignore the evidence and the law, at least there is a technical solution that could help stop further loss of life to this preventable problem.
Brad J. Uren, Assistant Professor of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Unrest in Turkey, a Santa Claus competition in Denmark, virtual reality in Israel, kite running in Rio, the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, and much more.
Computerworld | Mars rover uses AI to decide what to zap with a laser Computerworld NASA's Mars rover Curiosity now has the ability to decide what targets it wants to capture with a camera or hit with its laser all on its own. No humans needed. The space agency announced this week that using artificial intelligence (A.I.) software ... Mars rover has a new bag of tricks: self-guided lasersChristian Science Monitor Mars Rover Curiosity Can Now Fire LaserSeeker NASA's Curiosity Rover now decides which Mars rocks to shoot all by itselfThe Verge SpaceFlight Insider -Forbes -Wired.co.uk -Mirror.co.uk all 30 news articles » |
Great first seasons aren't exactly common, but the last several weeks of TV have served as a reminder that great second seasons are even rarer. First, UnReal, one of 2015's most promising new shows, jumped the rails with series of ill-conceived episodes, and now Mr. Robot is threatening to follow it into the ditch. Last night's episode, “Kernel Panic,” wasn't a total disaster, but there were passages so cringe-inducingly bad I felt the urge to hide, as if I'd been confronted with an embarrassing grade-school photograph. (The line “Control is about as real as a one-legged unicorn taking a leak at the end of a double rainbow” made me want to run out of the room.) The USA network has thrown its weight behind the show, allowing creator Sam Esmail to direct every one of the season's episodes, but he's used that creative freedom to double down on Mr. Robot's worst tendencies.
Mr. Robot's first season ended, audaciously, with the suggestion that fsociety, the group of anarchist hackers led by Elliot Alderson (Rami Malek), had succeeded in erasing the world's debt records, effectively putting anyone with a bank account instantly in the black. Part of what was exciting about the show's second season was how the show would address what a post-debt world looks like, especially since there's no conceivable to way to wipe out the computerized records of what people owe without wiping out their virtual savings as well. In a medium where common practice is to restore the status quo at the end of every episode, it seemed like a radical, even thrilling idea.
Unfortunately, the primary way Mr. Robot's second season has dealt with the consequences of fsociety's hack is by not dealing with them at all. One of Elliot's hackers calls it “the crime of the century,” but apart from the fact that corporate fat cats now have to pay for their fancy dinners up front, precious little seems to have changed. People still hold jobs, Fox News and Bloomberg TV are still on the air, pickup basketball games continue uninterrupted. After tossing around a lot of second-semester wisdom about the evils of corporate control, it seemed like Mr. Robot was finally making its way into less familiar territory, but instead, Esmail's taken a giant step backward. The season's first episode featured an entry-level lecture on the workings of the stock market presented as a devious conspiracy theory, and in “Kernel Panic,” Elliot unleashes a long, sub-Richard Dawkins tirade about the evils of organized religion, concluding, “Fuck God.”
Or rather, “F*** God.” “Kernel Panic” included what might have been a record number of bleeped obscenities for a scripted drama; I lost count after half a dozen. Given that Email knew his F words would be obscured for broadcast, stacking up so many in a single hour of TV seems willfully perverse. (They're included, unbleeped, in the digital version available from iTunes.) It's a distraction every time the sound cuts out, and a needless one. Esmail seems like like a teenager dropping f-bombs in front of his parents just to see how they'll react, getting giddy pleasure from his insignificant rebellion.
On their own, “Kernel Panic's” string of bleeped profanities would be just a mild annoyance, but they're an extension of how hard Mr. Robot is trying to seem “edgy” while actually backing off the show's more radical aspects. Instead of considering how society could actually survive without credit, or adapt to its loss, we get Grace Gummer's FBI agent masturbating to X-rated (but blacked-out) online chats and Elliot scooping half-digested Adderall out of his own vomit. Even the length of the second season's episodes—83 minutes for the two-part premiere, 63 for “Kernel Panic”—feel like an attempt to assert the show's importance without backing it up with actual heft.
A show like Mr. Robot or UnReal can get by for a season on an intriguing concept and long-term promise; you overlook its flaws because it's new and exciting, and hope they'll work out some of the kinks next time around. But when those flaws persist, or even deepen, you have to be concerned that they're endemic, that Esmail really thinks Elliot's adolescent anti-establishment rhetoric is profound, and that there's something subversive about smuggling it onto a TV network owned by one of the world's largest media conglomerates. Mr. Robot's first season held such potential, but now it seems more and more like the show was writing checks it can't cash.
In a July 22 Politics, Rachael Larimore misspelled Reince Priebus' last name.
In a July 21 Brow Beat, Matthew Dessem misspelled Ally McBeal.
In a July 21 Slatest live blog, Josh Voorhees misspelled Fran Tarkenton's first name.
In a July 20 Brow Beat, Sam Adams misstated that in the TV show UnReal Rachel arranged for Ruby's father to show up on the set of Everlasting. Quinn invited Ruby's father.
In a July 20 Moneybox blog post, Jordan Weissmann misstated that Donald Trump Jr. and his father are Wharton MBAs. They both have undergraduate degrees from the business school.
In a July 20 Moneybox blog post, Jordan Weissmann misidentified Youngevity founder Joel Wallach as Ben Wallach.
In a July 20 Slatest, Josh Levin misstated the source of a passage in Donald Trump Jr.'s speech. It was from the American Conservative, not National Review.
In a July 20 Slatest, Ben Mathis-Lilley misspelled Slate writer Jordan Weissmann's last name.
In a July 20 Slatest, Seth Stevenson misstated the date of the BuzzFeed party. It was Tuesday night, not Wedneday night.
In a July 19 Foreigners, Hamna Zubair misspelled Fouzia Azeem's first name.
In a July 19, Moneybox blog post, Henry Grabar misstated that Gretchen Carlson had been the host of Fox & Friends until June. Her last job at Fox News was as the host of The Real Story With Gretchen Carlson.
In a July 19 Science, Mike VanHelder misstated that a robot was made from silicon. It was made from silicone.
In a July 19 Slatest, Catherine Piner mistakenly included a tweet by Washington Post reporter Ed O'Keefe in a roundup of conservative pundits' reactions Donald Trump's nomination. O'Keefe is a political reporter, not a conservative pundit.
In a July 18 Brow Beat, Matthew Dessem suggested that a fake Katy Perry tweet was real. He also misspelled Selena Gomez's first name.
In a July 18 Climate Desk, Ben Adler misstated that Rep. Bob Dold was likely going to the Republican National Convention. He is not.
In a July 18 Slatest, Ben Mathis-Lilley misstated that Young Republicans national chairman Dennis Cook has two children. Cook has at least three children.
In a July 17 Slatest, Emily Tamkin wrote that protesters in Baltimore were arrested after blocking traffic on Sunday. The episode took place on Saturday.
In a July 15 Science, Rosa Li misstated the number of shootings that occurred in Houston from 200015. It was 500, not 1,500. The story has also been updated to clarify that there is a federal database documenting shootings by U.S. law enforcement, but it is not comprehensive.
Slate strives to correct all errors of fact. If you've seen an error in our pages, let us know at corrections@slate.com. General comments should be posted in our Comments sections at the bottom of each article.
Dallas Morning News | El Centro moves on after shooting: 'We will not be defined by this at all' Dallas Morning News In the end, Johnson was holed up in an El Centro hallway when police used a robot armed with explosives to kill him and end the standoff. Adames was able to tour his campus ... “People could envision the future of that space rather than the past,” said ... and more » |
7/22/2016
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
Seattle, Washington, USA
47°26′56″N 122°18′34″W
I'll be heading to Seattle, Washington this morning for the State of the Map Conference! My flight to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport will be one of the roughly 380,000 aircraft movements that take place at the facility each year and I will be one of roughly 42 millions passengers that travel through the airport annually. The facility also contains a 13,000-car parking garage, the largest structure of its kind in North America, which is visible at the top of this Overview.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Be afraid. That was the clear message of the GOP nominating convention this week. Far from Reagan's morning in America, we're now living in night of the Purge. And GOP nominee Donald Trump, giving the longest acceptance speech in history, focused on the need for more "law and order." In his world, dangerous immigrants are waiting around every corner.
There are of course real dangers in the world, but are we worried about the right things? Yes and no. We're worried about a very many things these days. Gallup polls show that half of Americans say they are "very" or "somewhat" worried that "you or someone in your family will become a victim of terrorism." But at the same time, Gallup says, 64% of us are worried a "great deal" or "fair amount" about global warming.
But if you listened to this week's convention, we should only focus on terrorism, immigration, and home invasions. This general level of fear has seeped into the mainstream. A couple of days ago, a DJ on the popular New York radio station WPLJ (95.5) said that it seems anyone can get shot at any time. That's technically true, but random shootings are incredibly rare. Yes, it could happen to anyone, but you could also get hit by lightning, win the lottery, or die in a commercial plane crash (yes, I can get nervous when a plane bounces around...but I know it's irrational since the drive to the airport was much more dangerous).
There are well-documented reasons that we humans are fearful of the wrong things (from an odds perspective). One of the best known of the cognitive biases is something called the "availability heuristic." We reach into our brains to find readily available examples, and we consider those much more common than they are. So when the news covers basically every plane crash and every mass shooting in the world, we can easily picture how we'd be next.
Politicians have taken advantage of this natural bias forever. They give us vivid personal examples of a situation, even if they demonstrate a rare phenomenon. Presidents always bring citizens with compelling stories to their state of the union speeches. Look at that single mom over there that started a successful business because of my policies. Trump is no slouch on this front. Taking advantage of our biases, last night he talked the tragic story of a young woman killed by an illegal immigrant. He just left out the part about it not a violent crime, but a drunk driving accident.
But let's go back to our general fear of terrorism. It's a classic case of innumeracy - the lack of numbers sense where small, but emotionally vivid examples, well, trump reality. That Gallup poll is amazing - for 50% of us to think that terrorism will personally touch our families is truly bizarre.
The number of people killed by violent jihadists in the US since 2001 is roughly 100. But let's triple that if we think it's too low. Those 300 are roughly 0.0001% of more than 300 million Americans. But we are really not good with numbers so we inflate the scary extremes in our minds.
Of course terrorism and national security have some unique aspects as risks go. The risks can jump quickly if, say, unstable people get their hands on a weapon of mass destruction. That's also a remote possibility, but it is possible. So obviously we do have to be very vigilant.
But if we go off of emotions only, and not include numbers and risk, we will pursue bad policies and ignore other massive and much more likely risks. I'm no security expert, so perhaps my whole view on this is moot. But how about listening to General Colin Powell on the topic? A few months ago, I spoke at an energy conference that Powell keynoted as well. He spoke clearly about not "overreacting" to threats. A few hundred people have died from terrorism in 15 years, Powell said, while 30,000 people die annually from gun violence.
But clear-eyed, balanced voices seem to be on the wane, and fear is of course a powerful motivator. When you're afraid, the higher functions of your brain take a back seat turn off and you don't think rationally. That's good on some level if you need to fight a saber-tooth tiger by charging it against all reason. It sucks when electing a leader of the free world.
We need our leaders to focus on all the big and real that can impact many, many more people, such as: the economic repercussions from Brexit; tens of millions of refugees moving around the world; deep changes in technology that could eliminate millions of jobs; lack of water in many regions; and of course the existential threat of our time, climate change.
What are your odds of being impacted by climate change? Since it's already happening, how about 100%? Of course the impacts any individual faces can be hard to see clearly. When we pay higher prices for food as droughts affect agriculture, do we know it's climate change hitting our wallets? When diseases like malaria and Zika move north, do we register that it's a warming planet that make mosquitoes more comfortable where we live? When extreme weather swamps a coastline or riverbanks overflow into a town, destroying homes, does that register as a climate issue? Or do we shrug and say it's an "act of God."
Or, more to the point of the Trump fear tour, do we see how climate change has helped destabilize regions, leading to refugee crises and, yes, terrorism? The National Academy of Sciences, among others, has linked the Syrian unrest directly to drought and climate change. And the Pentagon has repeatedly tied climate change to national security.
But even without that "law and order" reason to worry, the impacts of a dangerously shifting climate are orders of magnitude more likely than a terrorist attack or random home invasion. I know we're fighting our lizard brains to get a handle on that reality, but we have to.
Oh, and by the way, building a cleaner economy is not only a risk-reduction strategy. It brings prosperity, resilience, and a healthier and safer world. The pursuit of a low-carbon world creates jobs in vast quantities also.
I've heard so little optimism this week. I only hope we can choose leaders who understand all the threats - and grasp the vast opportunities - that sit in front of us.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Pokemon's potential for precipitating the end of civilization has been starkly highlighted as the world's major religions begin to take up positions on the game which sees grownups wandering the planet in pursuit of non-existent entities.…
Pierre Lyonet Scientist of the Day
Pierre Lyonet, a French illustrator and microscopist, was born July 22, 1708.