Datasets:
Recag
/
C4_21

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
text
stringlengths
9
93k
Some resources are flowing in, including from the National Science Foundation.
Its funding coupled with industry money has created The Water Equipment and Policy Center.
Marquette University engineering professor Dan Zitomer says the Center has cultivated collaboration among Marquette, UW-Milwaukee and water industries. That collaboration has resulted in technology to instantly monitor water quality.
“Now we have 14 industry members and have been very successful - multiple licensing agreements and technologies that are being developed,” Zitomer says.
Masters student researcher Paige Peters (left), Dan Zitomer and Associate Professor Brooke Mayer work together on WEP-funded research to quickly treat very high wastewater flows during rainstorms.
“It’s getting people to talk that don’t usually talk and that really fosters new ideas and new products for the market place,” Zitomer says.
Scott Royer oversees R&D for the international company Veolia.
It recently handpicked three start-ups that will spend the next year at the Global Water Center to benefit from its ecosystem.
“I mean we could have a little office somewhere off by ourselves and do the same thing. The fact that there are other companies here, there are other entrepreneurs here, there’s a BREW class to teach people to be better entrepreneurs – all this networking available, and all these ideas getting thrown around. It’s a catalyst for helping us develop these opportunities,” Royer says.
He thinks Milwaukee is on track to become a hub of water technology innovation.
Linda Reid led UW-Whitewater's Institute for Water Business. She is now executive director of the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust.
Linda Reid led UW-Whitewater’s Institute for Water Business.
It opened an office in the Global Water Center and funneled students into Milwaukee’s water scene.
“I do have the sense that young people who are really interested in working in water might not be able to find their place because of budget cuts to state institutions,” Reid says.
A steady stream of financial support is vital to keeping innovators here, according to Greg Meier. He’s a software guy who’s helped mentor a number of start-ups.
“We’re competing with other states and every place around the world for this talent base. This is the most highly sought after talents base in the world. Innovative people and in particular people who have technology skills – engineering, software - everyone in the world wants these people,” Meier says.
He says water innovation talent is percolating here, but the city will have to compete aggressively to create the Milwaukee of the future.
The Water Council aims to fashion a global water technology hub in Milwaukee at the Reed Street Yards.
Project Milwaukee: What’s Stifling Entrepreneurship?
Study after study ranks Wisconsin poorly when it comes to the number of new startups. In fact, the Kauffman Foundation puts the state last on its list when it comes to the number of business start-ups.
When you think about a place to start a new tech business, Milwaukee might not be the city that comes to mind.
The Huffington Post had this on Friday, about Republican state Rep. Stephen LaRoque of Kinston hiring more unemployed workers $8 an hour to do yard work for him.
LaRoque had gotten a lot of attention a month ago last month for his angry response to a Goldsboro woman who pleaded with LaRoque to restore unemployment benefits for herself and thousands of other North Carolinians. She took him up on his offer to do yard work for him, but only did so for an hour because she said he was unreasonably expecting her to move large tree limbs and do work that was beyond her physical capabilities. LaRoque has refuted that, saying that he was having her do simple tasks like weeding and moving twigs, not large branches.
The HP article included an exchange between LaRoque and an Indiana woman who urged him to have sympathy for people struggling as a result of the nation’s economic woes.
LaRoque’s less-than-sympathetic response is below.
Abortion is not a privacy issue, it is a human life issue.
More than a generation ago, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman's “right to privacy” extended to abortion. The court's 7-2 majority decision did not consider the evolving fetus as a living, growing human being. Medical science has proven otherwise since the '70s with development of ultrasound, genetic fingerprinting and numerous other amazing medical advances. If the justices had been convinced that the fetus was a living being, it is highly unlikely that they would have included destroying the fetus as a “right to privacy.” Surely a “right to privacy” isn't a greater right than a “right to life.” If it were, I would have the moral right to take the life of everyone who invaded my privacy.
The latest Gallop Poll in 2018 revealed moderates in Virginia (37%) outnumbered both conservatives (33%) and liberals (24%). For decades, the majority of those individuals on the middle-ground of the abortion controversy have consistently voiced that they are morally against abortion but considered a woman's “right to choose” a personal, fundamental right. This freedom loving position is understandable. But should our personal freedoms ever override our moral responsibilities? Although this middle-ground pro-choice position may seem safe culturally...socially...ethically, it is not middle-ground on the legal front. Abortion-on-demand is legal in Virginia until the moment of birth.
Considering the high profile events which recently occurred in the Commonwealth, individuals who are conscientiously “pro-choice” middle-grounders must understand that they are in league with pro-abortion advocates and lawmakers. Abortion is not a privacy issue, it is a human life issue. We Virginians – individually and collectively – are responsible for the consequences of our choices. Let's embrace love for life over our own lives and stop shedding the innocent blood of our pre-born children. Let's give them a chance to live! God is God. Since mankind has been made in His image, then each person's life, including the unborn in the womb, is significant. We must treasure it.
A determined woman is on a mission to raise £10,000 for charity after her partner was diagnosed with a brain tumour.
Toni Bowie, 28, from Barwell, has raised £7,000 so far with the help of her partner, Jon Chadwick, for the Brain Tumour Charity.
She hopes to dwarf her £10,000 target by October.
Jon Chadwick, known to many as Chad, was told he had a brain tumour on September 19 2014, aged just 28.
He underwent brain surgery followed by a combination of six weeks of radiotherapy and chemotherapy at a centre in Nottingham.
Toni said: “It was a total shock at the time, as you can imagine, but he’s doing well, his tumour is currently being monitored.
“But I’m on a massive mission to raise £10,000 by October 11 and to raise awareness of brain tumours.
“They are the biggest cancer killers in children and adults under the age of 40, but only 2% of the money raised for Cancer Research each year goes to funding research into tumours, which I think is bonkers.
Toni and Jon have held a number of fundraising events, including a 10K sponsored walk, a wear grey day - the official colour for brain tumours - and a bingo bonanza which all raised nearly £6,000.
Toni also nominated The Brain Tumour Charity for Asda’s Green Token Scheme.
She will be taking part in a social media blackout for the whole of February.
She said: “I’m addicted to social media. From the minute I wake up in the morning, the first thing I do is check Twitter and Facebook.
“I’m going to give it all up for a month. I kid you not, I have never been longer than a few days without logging on.
Visit their fundraising Facebook page Grey Everyday for more information on upcoming events.
The Ethiopian Airlines crash has focused global scrutiny on safety features on the now-grounded Boeing 737 Max 8. Chris Clearfield, a pilot and expert on the aviation industry, says aviation is already so safe that adding more complex systems just creates opportunities for catastrophe.
The aviation industry is already so safe that adding new safety features, like the MCAS software on the grounded Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft, could inadvertently contribute to more accidents, according to a pilot and author.
"Adding a safety system is a good decision, but I think what we see is the sort of unanticipated consequences of that, that come from the fact that it's such a complex system," said Chris Clearfield, co-author of Meltdown: Why Our Systems Fail and What We Can Do About It.
"Complexity creates these opportunities for these unanticipated failures," he told The Current's guest host Piya Chattopadhyay.
The Boeing 737 Max 8 airplane has been grounded by more than 40 countries, following an Ethiopian Airlines crash that killed 157 people near Addis Ababa on Sunday. The disaster bears a resemblance to a Lion Air crash in October involving the same aircraft model.
The Max 8 went into commission in 2017, and is fitted with a flight-control system called the Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS).
Because of some design changes from previous models, the Max 8 has a tendency to nose up under certain flight conditions. The MCAS was designed to correct that flaw and push the nose of the plane back down.
"The safety feature that Boeing added was really driven by the design of the airplane, and … the new engines to make it more fuel efficient," Clearfield told Chattopadhyay.
"In this change, Boeing is actually adding complexity, in the way that this software works, by incorporating input from multiple sensors," he said.
Investigators found the Lion Air pilots struggled to control the plane as the MCAS repeatedly pushed the nose down, but safety experts have cautioned about linking the two tragedies before the black boxes from the Ethiopian flight are examined.
Clearfield argued the Max 8 is "ultimately still an incredibly safe airplane," and that air travel in general may be so safe that we may have reached a stage of "diminishing returns."
"Any change we make, you know, can only reduce safety, in some sense."
Following the Ethiopian Airlines crash, U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted that airplanes "are becoming far too complex to fly" and need "computer scientists from MIT" more than they need pilots.
The president was mocked on Twitter for his comments, but Clearfield characterized it as "a very nuanced tweet."
"Computer scientists from MIT are involved in these processes," he told Chattopadhyay.
Those scientists should be keeping our human limitations at the forefront of the design and engineering process, he added.
"We're imperfect creatures, we get startled and when we get startled our brains don't always work in this ... rational logical way," he said.
"We need to be building that into our designs."
He said that in the case of the Lion Air crash, "the pilots were out of the loop."
"They didn't understand enough of what was happening, they were startled and so they responded like humans do, which is to say, sort of imperfectly."
He pointed out that the same situation had arisen on the same route, but with a different flight crew, the day before. That crew turned off the MCAS system and took manual control of the plane.
"What we need is humans more in the loop, and engineers … being able to think more pilot-centrically."
Written by Padraig Moran. Produced by Howard Goldenthal, Danielle Carr and Jessica Linzey.
Podcast: Is the Boeing 737 Max 8 safe?
Before you trust a study, look at who is financing it.
Everywhere you look today, there is a reference to the Lookout Mobile Security report that claims Americans lost $30 billion worth of smartphones in 2011. In fact, this survey says, on average, every American loses his or her phone once a year.
Are you kidding me? This is complete rubbish and the media is lapping it up like a six-year-old devouring an ice cream sundae.
First of all, consider the source. Lookout is not a research company, but rather a company that sells phone-finding software. Do you think it has some interest in distributing more of these systems? Of course. And how does it do this? By making the problem larger than life. I'd advise potential customers to read some reviews in the App Store before even trying the product.
Lookout, the global leader in mobile security, today released findings from the first-ever phone loss study, which revealed that lost phones, if unrecovered, could cost U.S. consumers more than $30 billion this year.
Note the coy use of the wordage "if unrecovered." None of the news reports parsed this correctly but instead said we are losing $30 billion somehow.
People in Manchester, England have the highest likelihood of losing their phone out of any other population in the world. In the U.S. people lose a smartphone about once a year.
Of course, Lookout mentions England but omits any non-English speaking countries presumably because their residents cannot yet use the Lookout software. Red flag!
Let's just ask ourselves one simple question about one of the claims: Do you lose your phone once a year? (I won't even delve into the math surrounding the $30 billion assertion.) There are about 350,000,000 cell phones being used in the country. The survey asserts that every American loses his or her smartphone on average once a year. They thus must lose their cheap phones even more. So you are telling me that there are billions of lost cell phones floating around the country?
I have never lost a cell phone, ever. My wife has never lost a cell phone. In fact, only one person in my extended family has ever lost a cell phone and she lost it in her bedroom. If you are saying that misplacing a cell phone is part of the equation, then say so.
This is a publicity stunt, plain and simple. I'll give the company kudos for that. My real complaint is not with Lookout, though. It is with the lapdog media that cannot use common sense to discern scientific studies from sponsored swill. What a shame. This is our media at work.
England all-rounder Ben Stokes on Friday spoke of the “huge burden” he has felt since he was involved in a brawl outside a nightclub last year after learning he will not miss any more cricket.
Stokes was handed an eight-match England ban by the England and Wales Cricket Board’s (ECB’s) discipline commission but those games are deemed to have been served.
Teammate Alex Hales was given a six-match white-ball ban with two already served and four suspended.
Stokes was fined a total of £30,000 ($38,000) while Hales was fined £17,500, £10,000 of which is suspended.
Stokes, 27, was acquitted of a criminal charge of affray at a trial in August following the incident in Bristol, southwest England, in September 2017.
Hales, 29, was with Stokes during the altercation but did not face criminal charges.
After the fracas in Bristol, Stokes was stripped of his position as vice-captain of an England Test side skippered by close friend Joe Root and also missed England’s Ashes tour of Australia.
“The criminal charges and, subsequently, the disciplinary charges have made it difficult to make public comment about the issues,” Stokes said in the same statement.
Tom Harrison, chief executive officer of the ECB, said: “We accept the decisions made by the cricket discipline commission and the sanctions they have given to Alex Hales and Ben Stokes.
England’s next tour, in January, is to the West Indies, where they will play three Tests, five one-day internationals and three Twenty20 matches.
Catalyzed by the Trump presidency, roiled by flash points like Glenn Thrush, Bret Stephens, and Bari Weiss, a generational conflict not seen since the 60s is besetting the Times.
The entrance to the New York Times building in New York.By George Etheredge/The New York Times/Redux.
The most fractious convulsion along these lines has been the recent uproar over the Times’s op-ed section, specifically as it relates to a pair of new additions—conservative pundits Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss—who each possess certain contentious views. Stephens, for his part, is a fervent never-Trumper who wants to see the Second Amendment repealed, but he also has expressed skepticism about climate science. Weiss, herself a millennial, is a robust crusader for campus free speech, which puts her at odds with some swaths of the left, and she’s also challenged aspects of the #MeToo movement.
Inside the newsroom and departments that work closely with it, many legacy jobs have been eliminated over the past few years to make room for an entirely new class of employees. These newcomers include Web-trends reporters and community editors and social-media strategists; product people and visualization specialists and audience-engagement gurus; engineers and audio experts and data scientists and various other positions that didn’t used to exist. The Times also has been hiring more writers and editors from outside its traditional talent channels. (“Other relatively similar newspaper companies,” in Kahn’s words, “that did relatively similar things.”) That means the paper is now crawling with journalists who came from some of the same upstart digital publications the Times now counts as competitors. The result is an increasingly diverse and varied organization that suddenly encompasses lots of people who didn’t come up in old-school journalism environments like the Times, or people who are at least more inclined to challenge some of the newspaper’s entrenched customs in an era where it increasingly feels like the world has been turned on its head and the old rules no longer apply.
Indeed, there’s been a tide of grassroots advocacy within some precincts of 620 Eighth Avenue. The workplace messaging app Slack, where those heated discussions about Weiss played out, has become the go-to forum for Times employees to trade notes and vocalize their opinions around these issues. (“I will no longer remain silent about our hostile work environment just so that it will be pleasant for others,” someone wrote in that transcript published by HuffPost. “I don’t think there’s enough thought given to the way institutions/organizations/communities are structured to defacto silence people who are already most vulnerable to marginalization,” said another. “We are obsessed with poaching stars and nepotism,” vented a third.) Additionally, informal working groups are cropping up with goals such as retaining and advancing women, people of color, and queer people. The NewsGuild, a union that represents non-management Times journalists, is seeing increased activity from younger members, some of whom are spearheading an effort to get more of their colleagues engaged in conversations about things like workplace diversity and inclusion.
The Times' management is aware of the simmering discontent—and responding to it. They’ve been hosting open forums and town halls, such as those following the Thrush saga and another set of meetings in response to February’s op-ed uproar. James Bennet, the Opinion editor, is now holding office hours, as are Sulzberger and other members of the masthead. Senior staff have individually been reaching out to people, as well as taking part in Slack discussions. While all of this can, at times, feel like “lip service,” as one of my sources put it, there’s also a sense, said another, that “management has started to wake up” to the issues at hand.
That phrase is part of Pinterest's description of its planned dual-class stock structure, which gives 20 votes per share to select Class B shareholders - which will likely include the founding team and some of the company's earliest investors. When investors buy Pinterest's stock after the IPO, they will buy Class A shares, which have just one vote per share.
The clothing company Canada Goose, for example, which went public in 2017, also had a dual class structure. Zoom, which also filed its S-1 on Friday, also has a dual-class structure - to the benefit of founding CEO Eric S. Yuan, who owns 22% of the company.
Notably, if Silbermann were to sell more than 50% of his shares in Pinterest, he would be subject to the same provision - meaning that he, and his heirs, would lose the super-voting powers that come with his current stock.
Usually, when David hears Nathaniel Sr. speaking to him, it’s because he’s realizing his worst fears through his father. But “Untitled,” it brings about one of the more touching conversations between the two. David has just met with his attacker, and he still feels the pain that his attacker inflicted on him. But Nathaniel Sr. points out that he survived, that it’s useless to worry about the past and that, most importantly, he’s still got a future.
The fifth season of Six Feet Under begins with Nate and Brenda finally getting married, after being off and on for years. But the long-awaited day is filled with problems, from the happy couple losing their baby the day before, to family squabbles breaking out all over the place. But instead of matching Brenda’s frustrations like he normally would, Nate comes across as completely sweet for once, trying to make the best of a very difficult situation. Of course it’s a rare moment of tenderness, especially compared to how he’ll behave for the rest of the series, but it’s still a nice moment before all hell breaks loose for him.
Most of the time, it’s the Fisher family members who see dead people. But on the same day she joins the Fisher family, Brenda also engages in these meetings with the dead. While at her wedding, she talks to Lisa, who only exaggerates Brenda’s fears that she’ll never be good enough for someone else to want her. This is clearly about Brenda’s frustrations with herself more than anything else. However, as the rest of the fifth season will show, it’s Nate and not Brenda who will ruin the happily-ever-after they’re going for.