The main cable will not be in tension any more. The sum of vertical suspenders was equal to the weight of the road. After the break, rather than pulling up, they'll pull to the tower mounting point of the main cable. This will increase the load on all the vertical suspenders, as well as change the loading on the road surface. Whether it will stand will depend on the engineering. If it was wastefully over-engineered, it may stand, but if properly engineered, it should fall with that much unexpected damage.
Then why bother to have all the characters walk in fantasy? Why have the moth go get the eagles, rather than have the moth fly everyone out? Because there's "realism" in the fantasy. Violating what realism there is in fantasy is as bad as violating the realism in realism.
They are in some places, but in NYC, they already separated out Taxi as the only service that could respond to a hail, and a private car service that can't respond by hail, but can respond to a call, email, letter, or anything else that's not a wave-down in the street. I've been told that taxis are the only ones that can have taxi ranks, but the hotel I stayed at in NYC had two separate ranks for taxis and private cars. But to book the private car, you walked inside the lobby and requested one from the concierge, and he wrote it down on a piece of paper and walked you out to the private car rank.
What you think makes sense has nothing to do with the law. Because of the shortage of taxi medallions in NYC, there are more limousines in NYC than taxis. Call them all taxis and require medallions from all of them, and you'll collapse the economy of the largest city in the US. NYC is happy with how it is, and changing it so an outsider can understand it better is not high on their list.
In NYC, Uber does follow the law. That's why the Taxis are pissed. They essentially want to sue NYC to change the law to outlaw the currently legal Uber.
It does seem somewhat unfair to me that the existing taxis have a government mandated "monopoly",
Yes. It's *impossible* for a new entrant to become a taxi, without buying government permission from a private party (at a profit to that private party). That's quite unfair, and a horrible monopoly model. That's why people applaud Uber. It's not that they like Uber, but that it's breaking the broken regulations.
Either get rid of some of the regulations for the taxis or make these other taxi-like services ("if it quacks like a duck") meet the same requirements.
In NYC, "private car" service is explicitly not a taxi. They don't have medallions, and don't follow the same rules. Uber, being a dispatch-only service, is explicitly not a taxi in NYC. Uber is banned by law from responding to on-street hails. So they aren't quacking like a duck.
I do think the line can get somewhat blurrier regarding AirbnB (which I've never used) vs. hotels, though I admit I can't explain why. (In other words, the analogy in this case would seem to be the same, but Joe Schmoe's extra room shouldn't be held to exactly the same requirements that a real hotel room is.)
I've stayed at AirBnBs where the host built a separate building for AirBnB guests. They had a separate reception area, and operated it very hotel like (with the magnetic keys you see in all the hotels these days, and such). Of course, when you AirBnB through Europe, you'll find that many places, like in Italy, are registered hotels.
I've been stranded waiting for a taxi. The taxi that was sent never made it. This happens about 50% of the time for a pickup where hailing is common, and never in locations where hailing isn't common. Taxis are allowed to take a hail while going to a dispatched call. If the dispatched call is too short of a distance, they'll try to get out of it. An airport fare is much better than a shorter in town fare.
That you think it shouldn't happen isn't proof that it doesn't.
Uber doesn't steal from taxis. People hail taxis. People dispatch Uber. Dispatched cars in NYC don't need medallions. They are private cars.
He can deny it before he's accepted it. But once he's accepted it, denying it will likely result in a very poor review, hurting his ability to get more rides.
Nobody dispatches a taxi, unless it's raining and they want to wait inside a restaurant while a taxi shows up, and even then, you have someone from the restaurant go hail you one. Private cars are cheaper and nicer than taxis and 100% legal.
You are thinking too literally. "block traffic to/from China" I don't care whether the server is in China, but whether the control of the networking gear is not from my management systems. Typical Slashdot style, someone implies that the correct solution is wrong because the correct solution wasn't specified to an irrelevant level of detail, and the idiot Slashdotter assumes incompetent implementation.
Not everyone is as dumb as you. You don't blacklist your management system. You white list it. When you learn the basics of network management, come back and give it another try.
The point was, if you use Allot, Cisco and Huawei, chances are that Israeli, American, and Chinese boxes won't all be compromised in the same way by the same people.
Apple cannot provide access to messages that have been sent previously, because there's no mechanism for telling existing devices to send a copy of their messages to a new device.
Oh, I figured Apple could update the iMessage app to send the private key, in addition to the public key, to Apple servers. Then Apple could decode all future messages without new key generation, but also decrypt all previous messages. Or pull the private keys out of a cloud backup, or something.
Use only Huawei in the core and Cisco on the edge, with a firewall rule to block traffic to/from China to block the Huawei back doors. Or vice versa. You can't trust either, but hopefully both aren't compromised by the same group.
I read it as "reporter mistakes all Cisco devices in the program sum to 30 million lines of code for a router has 30 million lines of code" If you had multiple different classes of switch, they may have very little code reuse. The old PIX ran of a standard Intel CPU (not sure about the newer ASA), ASICs differ between even different models in the same router line, so lots of code around those. Sum up all the different devices that they are opening up, and 30M lines of code sounds about right, though 30M lines of code for a single router seems a bit much.
Though, if you don't trust Cisco, how does opening the source code in such controlled circumstances help? Unless you can compile it yourself with a compiler you brought, you can never be sure there isn't a backdoor. There could be code swap between display and deployment, or a backdoor programmed into the compilers, to ensure no code review would ever find it. Or it's only in ASIC based systems, hidden in the chip, and the chip schematics aren't on display.
So the show is merely symbolic, so let's see how it goes.
I'm full of shit because why? You think I'd lie about it if I were given training in how to bribe? Or are you claiming the situation where government employees demand bribes to do their job is impossible?
When Security Aware is illegal, only criminals will be Security Aware. Isn't that one of the goals?
The liberals take the guns, the conservative all the other rights, and the fight over which rights we lose first distracts from the fact that both are working together to take all our rights.
You start a charity. You fly support from Berlin to ISIS affected areas. Only you fly out nothing, and fly back 200 people. Repeat 5 times. Regular flights from a relief organization won't be that suspicious, and you might even get some anti ISIS people donating to your cause.
It's easy to move 1000 people.
The refugees would be the dumbest way to move them. They will be watched, suspected, and scrutinized. Smuggled in a relief plane or commercial boat will not get noticed.
Citizenship is almost meaningless as a determining factor in affinity for the host society. We could rubber stamp all of our illegal immigrants and call them US citizens, and at the end of the day their loyalties would rightfully be primarily with the countries they came from and continue to send remittances to support.
So US born US citizens should be rounded up in concentration camps? We did that in WWII.
Look at the attackers. None of them were native-born French whose ancestors were French for centuries. They're all the sons of recent arrivals or actual refugees by way of Greece. You can't pull this shit and expect it to fool anyone who is paying attention.
They were native born French, and I've not seen anyone detail their lineage back to Greece. Are you lying to support your personal views, or have you actually seen something about it? I suspected native born French before the first identifications came back. French Algerians (only "French" for 200 years or so, probably longer than you've been American) are always the go-to terrorists in France.
The big issue is that the media had lots of early claims (or speculation) that the terrorists were new to Europe. But all of them so far were citizens born in Europe. Letting in the current wave of immigrants is irrelevant to this and similar acts.
A handful of men did this attack in Europe. How many more "handfuls" of similarly capable men got through?
Got through what? The terrorists I've seen identified so far were born French citizens. They weren't ISIS migrants to France. They were born French. How do the facts work for your narrative?
The NYT is not going to call these policies what they are: bordering on treason for the level that they endanger the host societies.
The treason is what? Pointing out that citizens with guns don't stop gun violence? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... It's not like shooting up a military base is unheard of. And the military has access to arms. In that case, the incident was stopped by civilian cops. I remember at the time, Islamic terrorists were suspected by the media, but in the end, it was a lone gunman who was a US citizen.
I'd bet that 99% of terrorist traffic is unencrypted and in plain language. The issue is that it's "The shipment is in, meet at the usual place" or "Cafe on 6th at noon". You have to have context to make meaning from it. THey don't print up documents with timelines, goals, and schedules and send those via electronic means. It doesn't matter what you use, that hasn't worked since before Bletchley Park.
If I were running a terrorist organization, I'd order everyone to communicate everything. "Go to the place for the thing at 3 p.m." would be sent to everyone when you want someone to pick up your dry cleaning. The wheat can't be plucked from the chaff when all there is is chaff. When you want something done right, and a bit more secret, you do it in person. They can record 100% of your electronic communications and still have nothing.
Not controlling immigration will be looked back upon as a profound strategic blunder, even though (as I disagree with you) there is no conscious invasion motivation on the part of the immigrants.
So far, every terrorist I've seen identified was born a French Citizen (well the first 2 were, I don't follow such things in super-great detail. I can wait until they know something to read reports with more detail). Though, there was one "mastermind" suspected who was born a Belgian citizen.
So this isn't about immigration unless we are talking about the French Algerians, oppressed for 200 years. But is unrelated to today's immigration issues.
Slashdot Mirror
The main cable will not be in tension any more. The sum of vertical suspenders was equal to the weight of the road. After the break, rather than pulling up, they'll pull to the tower mounting point of the main cable. This will increase the load on all the vertical suspenders, as well as change the loading on the road surface. Whether it will stand will depend on the engineering. If it was wastefully over-engineered, it may stand, but if properly engineered, it should fall with that much unexpected damage.
And Michael Bay still believes in this today.
Then why bother to have all the characters walk in fantasy? Why have the moth go get the eagles, rather than have the moth fly everyone out? Because there's "realism" in the fantasy. Violating what realism there is in fantasy is as bad as violating the realism in realism.
They have to make a noise. So why not "rrrrrrrrrrrrrraaaaaararrarrr"?
They are in some places, but in NYC, they already separated out Taxi as the only service that could respond to a hail, and a private car service that can't respond by hail, but can respond to a call, email, letter, or anything else that's not a wave-down in the street. I've been told that taxis are the only ones that can have taxi ranks, but the hotel I stayed at in NYC had two separate ranks for taxis and private cars. But to book the private car, you walked inside the lobby and requested one from the concierge, and he wrote it down on a piece of paper and walked you out to the private car rank.
What you think makes sense has nothing to do with the law. Because of the shortage of taxi medallions in NYC, there are more limousines in NYC than taxis. Call them all taxis and require medallions from all of them, and you'll collapse the economy of the largest city in the US. NYC is happy with how it is, and changing it so an outsider can understand it better is not high on their list.
Sadly, Al Jazeera is one of the best sources of international news.
In NYC, Uber does follow the law. That's why the Taxis are pissed. They essentially want to sue NYC to change the law to outlaw the currently legal Uber.
It does seem somewhat unfair to me that the existing taxis have a government mandated "monopoly",
Yes. It's *impossible* for a new entrant to become a taxi, without buying government permission from a private party (at a profit to that private party). That's quite unfair, and a horrible monopoly model. That's why people applaud Uber. It's not that they like Uber, but that it's breaking the broken regulations.
Either get rid of some of the regulations for the taxis or make these other taxi-like services ("if it quacks like a duck") meet the same requirements.
In NYC, "private car" service is explicitly not a taxi. They don't have medallions, and don't follow the same rules. Uber, being a dispatch-only service, is explicitly not a taxi in NYC. Uber is banned by law from responding to on-street hails. So they aren't quacking like a duck.
I do think the line can get somewhat blurrier regarding AirbnB (which I've never used) vs. hotels, though I admit I can't explain why. (In other words, the analogy in this case would seem to be the same, but Joe Schmoe's extra room shouldn't be held to exactly the same requirements that a real hotel room is.)
I've stayed at AirBnBs where the host built a separate building for AirBnB guests. They had a separate reception area, and operated it very hotel like (with the magnetic keys you see in all the hotels these days, and such). Of course, when you AirBnB through Europe, you'll find that many places, like in Italy, are registered hotels.
I've been stranded waiting for a taxi. The taxi that was sent never made it. This happens about 50% of the time for a pickup where hailing is common, and never in locations where hailing isn't common. Taxis are allowed to take a hail while going to a dispatched call. If the dispatched call is too short of a distance, they'll try to get out of it. An airport fare is much better than a shorter in town fare.
That you think it shouldn't happen isn't proof that it doesn't.
Uber doesn't steal from taxis. People hail taxis. People dispatch Uber. Dispatched cars in NYC don't need medallions. They are private cars.
He can deny it before he's accepted it. But once he's accepted it, denying it will likely result in a very poor review, hurting his ability to get more rides.
The "hard" option is to compete, and taxis can't do that. That'd be hard.
Nobody dispatches a taxi, unless it's raining and they want to wait inside a restaurant while a taxi shows up, and even then, you have someone from the restaurant go hail you one. Private cars are cheaper and nicer than taxis and 100% legal.
Yeah, but when the firewall is made by Cisco, how do you trust the firewall if you don't trust Cisco?
You are thinking too literally. "block traffic to/from China" I don't care whether the server is in China, but whether the control of the networking gear is not from my management systems. Typical Slashdot style, someone implies that the correct solution is wrong because the correct solution wasn't specified to an irrelevant level of detail, and the idiot Slashdotter assumes incompetent implementation.
Not everyone is as dumb as you. You don't blacklist your management system. You white list it. When you learn the basics of network management, come back and give it another try.
The point was, if you use Allot, Cisco and Huawei, chances are that Israeli, American, and Chinese boxes won't all be compromised in the same way by the same people.
Apple cannot provide access to messages that have been sent previously, because there's no mechanism for telling existing devices to send a copy of their messages to a new device.
Oh, I figured Apple could update the iMessage app to send the private key, in addition to the public key, to Apple servers. Then Apple could decode all future messages without new key generation, but also decrypt all previous messages. Or pull the private keys out of a cloud backup, or something.
Use only Huawei in the core and Cisco on the edge, with a firewall rule to block traffic to/from China to block the Huawei back doors. Or vice versa. You can't trust either, but hopefully both aren't compromised by the same group.
I read it as "reporter mistakes all Cisco devices in the program sum to 30 million lines of code for a router has 30 million lines of code" If you had multiple different classes of switch, they may have very little code reuse. The old PIX ran of a standard Intel CPU (not sure about the newer ASA), ASICs differ between even different models in the same router line, so lots of code around those. Sum up all the different devices that they are opening up, and 30M lines of code sounds about right, though 30M lines of code for a single router seems a bit much.
Though, if you don't trust Cisco, how does opening the source code in such controlled circumstances help? Unless you can compile it yourself with a compiler you brought, you can never be sure there isn't a backdoor. There could be code swap between display and deployment, or a backdoor programmed into the compilers, to ensure no code review would ever find it. Or it's only in ASIC based systems, hidden in the chip, and the chip schematics aren't on display.
So the show is merely symbolic, so let's see how it goes.
I'm full of shit because why? You think I'd lie about it if I were given training in how to bribe? Or are you claiming the situation where government employees demand bribes to do their job is impossible?
Oh, so when I traveled around Europe and they checked my passport and such, I should have refused to identify myself and demand my welfare check?
When Security Aware is illegal, only criminals will be Security Aware. Isn't that one of the goals?
The liberals take the guns, the conservative all the other rights, and the fight over which rights we lose first distracts from the fact that both are working together to take all our rights.
You start a charity. You fly support from Berlin to ISIS affected areas. Only you fly out nothing, and fly back 200 people. Repeat 5 times. Regular flights from a relief organization won't be that suspicious, and you might even get some anti ISIS people donating to your cause.
It's easy to move 1000 people.
The refugees would be the dumbest way to move them. They will be watched, suspected, and scrutinized. Smuggled in a relief plane or commercial boat will not get noticed.
Citizenship is almost meaningless as a determining factor in affinity for the host society. We could rubber stamp all of our illegal immigrants and call them US citizens, and at the end of the day their loyalties would rightfully be primarily with the countries they came from and continue to send remittances to support.
So US born US citizens should be rounded up in concentration camps? We did that in WWII.
Look at the attackers. None of them were native-born French whose ancestors were French for centuries. They're all the sons of recent arrivals or actual refugees by way of Greece. You can't pull this shit and expect it to fool anyone who is paying attention.
They were native born French, and I've not seen anyone detail their lineage back to Greece. Are you lying to support your personal views, or have you actually seen something about it? I suspected native born French before the first identifications came back. French Algerians (only "French" for 200 years or so, probably longer than you've been American) are always the go-to terrorists in France.
The big issue is that the media had lots of early claims (or speculation) that the terrorists were new to Europe. But all of them so far were citizens born in Europe. Letting in the current wave of immigrants is irrelevant to this and similar acts.
A handful of men did this attack in Europe. How many more "handfuls" of similarly capable men got through?
Got through what? The terrorists I've seen identified so far were born French citizens. They weren't ISIS migrants to France. They were born French. How do the facts work for your narrative?
The NYT is not going to call these policies what they are: bordering on treason for the level that they endanger the host societies.
The treason is what? Pointing out that citizens with guns don't stop gun violence? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... It's not like shooting up a military base is unheard of. And the military has access to arms. In that case, the incident was stopped by civilian cops. I remember at the time, Islamic terrorists were suspected by the media, but in the end, it was a lone gunman who was a US citizen.
If I were running a terrorist organization, I'd order everyone to communicate everything. "Go to the place for the thing at 3 p.m." would be sent to everyone when you want someone to pick up your dry cleaning. The wheat can't be plucked from the chaff when all there is is chaff. When you want something done right, and a bit more secret, you do it in person. They can record 100% of your electronic communications and still have nothing.
Not controlling immigration will be looked back upon as a profound strategic blunder, even though (as I disagree with you) there is no conscious invasion motivation on the part of the immigrants.
So far, every terrorist I've seen identified was born a French Citizen (well the first 2 were, I don't follow such things in super-great detail. I can wait until they know something to read reports with more detail). Though, there was one "mastermind" suspected who was born a Belgian citizen.
So this isn't about immigration unless we are talking about the French Algerians, oppressed for 200 years. But is unrelated to today's immigration issues.
Since all that's so complicated, let's just call it a former soviet republic.