So a couple hit and runs counts as "nearly took over"?
And the links all indicate "secret" actions, there was no military invasion of the US even attempted, so "nearly took over" is 100% false, as I stated.
When was that? In WWII, the Germans didn't attack the US. Same as WWI. That the US attacked Germany and Germany fought back is quite different. For WWI, there were people calling for the US to enter the war on the side of the Germans. Had that happened, WWII would never have happened. Instead, the English racism in US won out, and we came to England's aid, not Germany's.
Alaska and Texas. Alaska had one and only one MLS, small and simple market. NTREIS is the one I dealt with in Texas, I should have assumed from the name (NT) that there were others, but they were outside my view, and they are all theoretically connectable in the back, though they often choose not to be.
And, while there may be a single MLS for the entire country (there are a handful, actually), they don't list every MLS-listed property; they list only those listed with them by their member brokers, and it costs a pretty penny to be able to list on most MLS providers.
That's why the people want a Zillow/Trulia. To have a single spot to go to to find all the properties for sale in a specific area. The single national real estate organization can't even provide that list for their members, which is why they are being beat by two guys in a garage.
They happened for Sandy, but they also happened for regular snowstorms weighing down over-stressed lines and trees taking out a line, then a cascade effect where a single local failure kills power for millions.
Even big businesses don't build power systems for that;
I've worked in Telco. They have plans to run off-grid indefinitely. The split second outages are handled in battery. Anything more than 30 seconds, and the generators kick in. When the generators kick in, an order for more fuel is automatically placed. If the power feed were to fail, they could operate indefinitely.
Businesses who don't do that don't care about uptime.
The US power system really isn't as bad as people make out here, in most places.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_power_outages The US has a number of entries in the top list. We are up there with India and Banglidesh. Go USA!
The only MLSs I've worked with were the only one in the state. That's why they were created, so the various unconnected real estate agencies could go to one central multiple listing service to look up listings. Every agency voluntarily joins the MLS and pays to be on it for the exposure.
I'll add to that, most MLS providers are so protective of their data they won't even let you look at their feeds unless you're a licensed agent or brokerage, and Zillow is not.
Most MLS providers provide a public feed to MLS for exposure. Zillow likely pays for a license. Zillow makes money with ads and referrals. The "true" MLS data is still private. But there's little on that that isn't "public", but mostly formatting, as Zillow reprints almost everything. https://www.inman.com/2016/05/... indicates there's a single MLS for the entire country.
More expensive to repair. Less reliable in earthquakes (don't use in earthquake regions). One contractor working on a new subdivision cut the phone lines over 1000 times on one construction project. He got a big bill from the telephone company for that. Buried lines get cut often. More expensive and harder to upgrade/extend.
And in comparisons, don't seem to be any more reliable than overhead wires. The overhead wires that fail do so from poor maintenance and improper installation, same as underground. If you eliminate those errors, there is no practical difference in reliability.
The US has outages lasting days, see the outages in the Northeast. One every few years. Cascading power failure. And CA had rolling brownouts that were more like short blackouts. Yes, they hit the news, but they still happen. And more often than people like to think about.
You are assuming Zillow doesn't have some manner of license from the MLS (usually one per state), and that part of that license is that they must protect the data/images because they are scraping 50 state listings, aggregating "free" stuff that can't otherwise be legally aggregated.
What's the difference between intent and motivation?
Intent is the desired outcome. Motivation is the reason for doing it. With some acts, they are the same. You kill them because you want them dead, so the intent is their death, and their motivation is rage/hate, though usually the motivation will drill down to the reasons behind the rage/hate. With hate crimes, the intent and the motivation are the same. Your intent is to scare all Blacks away from dating white women. Your motivation is to scare all Blacks away from dating white women. Your "intent" isn't to kill the Black man, but to send a message. The murder is the message. If it were possible to do so with less murder, they would. But lynchings don't have the same effect anymore.
Burning a cross isn't illegal, or hate speech. Doing so on a Black person's lawn is. It's already an illegal trespass and at least criminal mischief. Hate speech was given a name because the racist cops would protect the KKK, as they were often members. So the feds needed to pass laws, since the police refused to keep the people safe. If the states weren't such dicks all the time, there wouldn't be the issues with states rights we have now. Hate speech is a codename for feds enforcing local laws because the locals don't bother because the crime is against a member of an undesirable group.
A non-believer will not live forever in hell. Revelations indicates that in the end times, they will be cast into the lake of fire, for a final death. That would seem to be oblivion. Or is the Bible wrong when someone remembers a part you find inconvenient?
So all women want to be men, and everyone wants to be fat, but want to be male just a little more than fat?
I think your sorting is poor. #3 is rednecks, creationists and pro-life, and I don't know anyone not already one of those who wants to be any of the others in that group.
All the studies have shown that Shwanda will get fewer calls than Betty, even when the resumes are identical, aside from the name. Though the studies didn't compare ethnic names from various backgrounds, so we don't know how Bubba Joe compares to Dejuan, and how both do against Ritesh or Achmat. We just know that ethnic Black names are avoided by those that do hiring.
There's no need to rank them. "White males" and "everyone else" works fine. The pro-discrimination crowd does more to rank than the affected groups. Get the Black gay women mad at the White gay women, for not being as disadvantaged. Then neither group is fighting the Privileged White Male, and that's the goal, right?
The crimes are all separate. Illegal discharge of a firearm (local ordinance) isn't murder (state law), which isn't kidnapping across state lines (federal), so I have no problem with a kidnapper who kills the victim to be tried for the multiple various crimes.
By your logic, What do you do if a bank robber kills a teller? They left the getaway car parked illegally outside, so they get a parking ticket, but no trial for murder, or bank robbery? Your suggestion is insane.
That puts you in a situation where if the intent is undiscovered, then something that is presumably Unconstitutional would be found Constitutional.
Yes. And the courts have done so. The initial test is often on the stated intent, and presumed effect. Then the later tests are on actual effect. "Separate but equal" has never been overturned. It just had a corollary of "Separate is inherently unequal" added to it. If someone could prove a means of having separate be demonstrably equal, then we'd be right back to 1800s segregation, without violating any previous rulings.
Effectively, the first test of segregation was whether segregation was inherently illegal. It is not, not then, and still not now. Whether an institutional segregation could achieve equal results was tested later, and the implementation used at the time was greatly lacking.
The legality cannot be dependent on the motivation.
If I shoot (and kill) an intruder in my home after he has broken in and shot me first and is aiming for another shot, it's not "murder" anywhere in the US. If I shoot a stranger on the street who is no danger to me, it's murder everywhere in the US.
Circumstances, including motivation, do *ALWAYS* affect legality.
In this case, any restriction on freedom must come with a reason. If the president were to enact a 4 p.m. curfew because that would be a good economic stimulus for mass transit, that would be shot down because the reason does not justify the harm. Passing a travel ban requires balancing the goal with the harm. This necessarily requires looking at the motivation. If one could prove that the reason is invalid, then it would necessarily prove the harm to be unjustified. The goal is increased security, does the executive order do so in a well crafted manner? No. It fails because it exempts Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from and who funded 9/11. So the order is trivially illegal, as it doesn't meet its stated goal, so no harm could be justified.
Further, the stated goal in the Executive Order is a lie, as Trump has, in official statements, indicated that the order is a lie, and the real reason for the ban is to ban Muslims. Thus, the goal is de facto illegal, making the order illegal.
The reasons matter in such matters. Indonesia has more Muslims than any country in the ban. So why would they not be banned if the goal was banning Muslims? Again, even if the overtly racists reasons were legal, the courts should still find the order illegal as it doesn't conform to the stated goal.
So you gave a problem. Solved the problem in 2 seconds, then assumed the experts wouldn't have even considered the problem, let alone have solved it with a super-cap sitting in a smaller space than the mechanical gear used for a regular elevator.
The problem you found is known, and trivial. Regeneration down powers the trip back up.
We've had the computing power to track that for decades. Nobody cares. Elevators often return to the ground floor when not needed. But that's good only in the morning when more people are coming than leaving. At the end of the day, they should probably go 3/4th of the way up, to be closest to the next call button. "AI" could be used to record (thus predict) floor calls. This is simple probability, and isn't AI, and well within the capabilities of a 1960's elevator control system.
People expect to wait 10 seconds at an elevator. Having them open as you get there won't help. Also, most buildings have fewer shafts than demand requires, so there's little idle time in an elevator.
So "AI" has already fixed the problem, but nobody wanted it, and even if someone wanted it, it wouldn't matter, unless you broke the cardinal rule of elevators and moved people against the direction of travel (grabbing the guy on 95 after getting a pickup on 94 before heading to 1).
I don't think you'll find any honest traffic engineer
Correct. The closest you get is those that run the lights back to the control room. The lights, timings, and remote control are handled by then engineers with zero decision making powers. Those that cam make decisions have them made for them by the politicians. "speed kills" when you are much more likely to be going 35 mph when you die than 110 mph (misleading, as so few go 110 mph, but no more misleading than counting drunks literally asleep at the wheel as "speed related", no matter the speed). Almost all multi-car fatalities have the initial impact speed below the speed limit. The solo drunks, suicides and the like are common enough to skew the statistics, and NHTSA counts "too slow for conditions" as "speed related" and sells "speed related" as "too fast for conditions".
So everyone who lives in that bowl of lies is a liar. The ethical ones quit. I know lots of ex-traffic engineers. I don't know any current ones. The ethics are too twisted.
No, the camera system is connected to the Internet, through a C&C machine that is network connected. That they have a firewall-like server protecting them doesn't help when those that design and administer the system don't think of it that way.
Can you browse to www.google.com from the camera? No. So they aren't on the Internet. Can you edit their OS remotely from the Internet? Sure. Just RDP to the C&C and go for it. But since they can't get to Google, they are 110% safe.
Hey, if the people spending billions of dollars on tech were competent, I'd be out of a job. I make my money cleaning up after the incompetent. And business is good.
Slashdot Mirror
So a couple hit and runs counts as "nearly took over"?
And the links all indicate "secret" actions, there was no military invasion of the US even attempted, so "nearly took over" is 100% false, as I stated.
When was that? In WWII, the Germans didn't attack the US. Same as WWI. That the US attacked Germany and Germany fought back is quite different. For WWI, there were people calling for the US to enter the war on the side of the Germans. Had that happened, WWII would never have happened. Instead, the English racism in US won out, and we came to England's aid, not Germany's.
And, while there may be a single MLS for the entire country (there are a handful, actually), they don't list every MLS-listed property; they list only those listed with them by their member brokers, and it costs a pretty penny to be able to list on most MLS providers.
That's why the people want a Zillow/Trulia. To have a single spot to go to to find all the properties for sale in a specific area. The single national real estate organization can't even provide that list for their members, which is why they are being beat by two guys in a garage.
Even big businesses don't build power systems for that;
I've worked in Telco. They have plans to run off-grid indefinitely. The split second outages are handled in battery. Anything more than 30 seconds, and the generators kick in. When the generators kick in, an order for more fuel is automatically placed. If the power feed were to fail, they could operate indefinitely.
Businesses who don't do that don't care about uptime.
The US power system really isn't as bad as people make out here, in most places.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_power_outages The US has a number of entries in the top list. We are up there with India and Banglidesh. Go USA!
I'll add to that, most MLS providers are so protective of their data they won't even let you look at their feeds unless you're a licensed agent or brokerage, and Zillow is not.
Most MLS providers provide a public feed to MLS for exposure. Zillow likely pays for a license. Zillow makes money with ads and referrals. The "true" MLS data is still private. But there's little on that that isn't "public", but mostly formatting, as Zillow reprints almost everything. https://www.inman.com/2016/05/... indicates there's a single MLS for the entire country.
More expensive to repair. Less reliable in earthquakes (don't use in earthquake regions). One contractor working on a new subdivision cut the phone lines over 1000 times on one construction project. He got a big bill from the telephone company for that. Buried lines get cut often. More expensive and harder to upgrade/extend.
And in comparisons, don't seem to be any more reliable than overhead wires. The overhead wires that fail do so from poor maintenance and improper installation, same as underground. If you eliminate those errors, there is no practical difference in reliability.
The US has outages lasting days, see the outages in the Northeast. One every few years. Cascading power failure. And CA had rolling brownouts that were more like short blackouts. Yes, they hit the news, but they still happen. And more often than people like to think about.
What country are you in that's so reliable?
You are assuming Zillow doesn't have some manner of license from the MLS (usually one per state), and that part of that license is that they must protect the data/images because they are scraping 50 state listings, aggregating "free" stuff that can't otherwise be legally aggregated.
What's the difference between intent and motivation?
Intent is the desired outcome. Motivation is the reason for doing it. With some acts, they are the same. You kill them because you want them dead, so the intent is their death, and their motivation is rage/hate, though usually the motivation will drill down to the reasons behind the rage/hate. With hate crimes, the intent and the motivation are the same. Your intent is to scare all Blacks away from dating white women. Your motivation is to scare all Blacks away from dating white women. Your "intent" isn't to kill the Black man, but to send a message. The murder is the message. If it were possible to do so with less murder, they would. But lynchings don't have the same effect anymore.
Burning a cross isn't illegal, or hate speech. Doing so on a Black person's lawn is. It's already an illegal trespass and at least criminal mischief. Hate speech was given a name because the racist cops would protect the KKK, as they were often members. So the feds needed to pass laws, since the police refused to keep the people safe. If the states weren't such dicks all the time, there wouldn't be the issues with states rights we have now. Hate speech is a codename for feds enforcing local laws because the locals don't bother because the crime is against a member of an undesirable group.
A testable hypothesis is biased against the stupid. Oh, now I see why you are upset.
A non-believer will not live forever in hell. Revelations indicates that in the end times, they will be cast into the lake of fire, for a final death. That would seem to be oblivion. Or is the Bible wrong when someone remembers a part you find inconvenient?
So all women want to be men, and everyone wants to be fat, but want to be male just a little more than fat?
I think your sorting is poor. #3 is rednecks, creationists and pro-life, and I don't know anyone not already one of those who wants to be any of the others in that group.
All the studies have shown that Shwanda will get fewer calls than Betty, even when the resumes are identical, aside from the name. Though the studies didn't compare ethnic names from various backgrounds, so we don't know how Bubba Joe compares to Dejuan, and how both do against Ritesh or Achmat. We just know that ethnic Black names are avoided by those that do hiring.
There's no need to rank them. "White males" and "everyone else" works fine. The pro-discrimination crowd does more to rank than the affected groups. Get the Black gay women mad at the White gay women, for not being as disadvantaged. Then neither group is fighting the Privileged White Male, and that's the goal, right?
The crimes are all separate. Illegal discharge of a firearm (local ordinance) isn't murder (state law), which isn't kidnapping across state lines (federal), so I have no problem with a kidnapper who kills the victim to be tried for the multiple various crimes.
By your logic, What do you do if a bank robber kills a teller? They left the getaway car parked illegally outside, so they get a parking ticket, but no trial for murder, or bank robbery? Your suggestion is insane.
That puts you in a situation where if the intent is undiscovered, then something that is presumably Unconstitutional would be found Constitutional.
Yes. And the courts have done so. The initial test is often on the stated intent, and presumed effect. Then the later tests are on actual effect. "Separate but equal" has never been overturned. It just had a corollary of "Separate is inherently unequal" added to it. If someone could prove a means of having separate be demonstrably equal, then we'd be right back to 1800s segregation, without violating any previous rulings.
Effectively, the first test of segregation was whether segregation was inherently illegal. It is not, not then, and still not now. Whether an institutional segregation could achieve equal results was tested later, and the implementation used at the time was greatly lacking.
The legality cannot be dependent on the motivation.
If I shoot (and kill) an intruder in my home after he has broken in and shot me first and is aiming for another shot, it's not "murder" anywhere in the US. If I shoot a stranger on the street who is no danger to me, it's murder everywhere in the US.
Circumstances, including motivation, do *ALWAYS* affect legality.
In this case, any restriction on freedom must come with a reason. If the president were to enact a 4 p.m. curfew because that would be a good economic stimulus for mass transit, that would be shot down because the reason does not justify the harm. Passing a travel ban requires balancing the goal with the harm. This necessarily requires looking at the motivation. If one could prove that the reason is invalid, then it would necessarily prove the harm to be unjustified. The goal is increased security, does the executive order do so in a well crafted manner? No. It fails because it exempts Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from and who funded 9/11. So the order is trivially illegal, as it doesn't meet its stated goal, so no harm could be justified.
Further, the stated goal in the Executive Order is a lie, as Trump has, in official statements, indicated that the order is a lie, and the real reason for the ban is to ban Muslims. Thus, the goal is de facto illegal, making the order illegal.
The reasons matter in such matters. Indonesia has more Muslims than any country in the ban. So why would they not be banned if the goal was banning Muslims? Again, even if the overtly racists reasons were legal, the courts should still find the order illegal as it doesn't conform to the stated goal.
So you gave a problem. Solved the problem in 2 seconds, then assumed the experts wouldn't have even considered the problem, let alone have solved it with a super-cap sitting in a smaller space than the mechanical gear used for a regular elevator.
The problem you found is known, and trivial. Regeneration down powers the trip back up.
It's on a track. You clamp the track, same as all the other elevators out there.
The maglev uses tracks, so I fail to see how a track brake system would be difficult.
We've had the computing power to track that for decades. Nobody cares. Elevators often return to the ground floor when not needed. But that's good only in the morning when more people are coming than leaving. At the end of the day, they should probably go 3/4th of the way up, to be closest to the next call button. "AI" could be used to record (thus predict) floor calls. This is simple probability, and isn't AI, and well within the capabilities of a 1960's elevator control system.
People expect to wait 10 seconds at an elevator. Having them open as you get there won't help. Also, most buildings have fewer shafts than demand requires, so there's little idle time in an elevator.
So "AI" has already fixed the problem, but nobody wanted it, and even if someone wanted it, it wouldn't matter, unless you broke the cardinal rule of elevators and moved people against the direction of travel (grabbing the guy on 95 after getting a pickup on 94 before heading to 1).
Bad. Then you make traffic worse, with a longer time when nobody may enter legally. Traffic gets worse, more crashes happen.
Better is to have the pre-light. Have the red-amber (both) as the green. You may go, but if you go and hit someone that ran the red, it's your fault.
The greater the time of overlap, and the increased responsibility on the driver, the better the system will work.
I don't think you'll find any honest traffic engineer
Correct. The closest you get is those that run the lights back to the control room. The lights, timings, and remote control are handled by then engineers with zero decision making powers. Those that cam make decisions have them made for them by the politicians. "speed kills" when you are much more likely to be going 35 mph when you die than 110 mph (misleading, as so few go 110 mph, but no more misleading than counting drunks literally asleep at the wheel as "speed related", no matter the speed). Almost all multi-car fatalities have the initial impact speed below the speed limit. The solo drunks, suicides and the like are common enough to skew the statistics, and NHTSA counts "too slow for conditions" as "speed related" and sells "speed related" as "too fast for conditions".
So everyone who lives in that bowl of lies is a liar. The ethical ones quit. I know lots of ex-traffic engineers. I don't know any current ones. The ethics are too twisted.
No, the camera system is connected to the Internet, through a C&C machine that is network connected. That they have a firewall-like server protecting them doesn't help when those that design and administer the system don't think of it that way.
Can you browse to www.google.com from the camera? No. So they aren't on the Internet. Can you edit their OS remotely from the Internet? Sure. Just RDP to the C&C and go for it. But since they can't get to Google, they are 110% safe.
Hey, if the people spending billions of dollars on tech were competent, I'd be out of a job. I make my money cleaning up after the incompetent. And business is good.