Japan was unable to generate new war resources. They were almost out of fuel, and cut off from mainland resources. But they were working on surrendering to the USSR for more favorable terms than they'd expect from the USA. Part of the reason for the timing of the bombs was to force a more immediate surrender before the Soviets could intervene. Though, there was no indication that the Soviets were actually interested in talking. They invaded Japanese held area on the mainland between Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That everyone had surrendered but Japan made it clear Japan couldn't hold out. But they weren't surrendering either. Rather than an invasion, conventional munitions would have been used to reduce the entire island to rubble before an invasion. The death toll was much lower for the Japanese with the A-bomb. Even after the first, generals were quoted as having said they were still willing to fight to the last person.
Japan wouldn't surrender unless they were leveled, and it was hoped that The Bomb would shake them of that resolve.
The blind alley was the walkway between Twin Trees and Retreat View Circle.
It's a good thing he wasn't lost, then.
So you are saying Zimmerman was lying? He stated he got out of the car after his 911 call to walk down an alley to get to another street to read the street sign because he didn't know where the was.
I'm thinking you don't have any idea what Zimmerman said.
Cops much prefer to be told where to look for possible burglars via as much vague, imprecise blather as possible. They HATE it when you tell them things like which street you saw someone walking on, heading which direction, that sort of thing. Their jobs are much easier if you make it take as long as possible to figure out where someone is.
So they like it when you hang up on them because they tell you to stay in your car, because you really want to go hunt some Nigger? Because that's what Zimmerman did. They told him to stay, and the police would call his cell when they got there. He didn't. He got out and hunted Nigger. Why?
You mean, the sort of 911 tapes that NBC edited to change their entire context? Because that seems to be the sort of thing that has established your narrative, here.
What's wrong with that one there? Changed to make it look different? How? Go on, use a fact. You may have heard of them, even if you've never used one yourself.
That's why you make sure to kill the witnesses. Maybe Zimmerman waived it at him trying to scare him off. You can't know he didn't know. Zimmerman hunted and killed him, ensuring he'll never testify against him.
Why is bribery a bad thing? It gets good results. Money is speech, and it makes sure the actions of the government is representative of the will of those governed. Just make sure they properly declare the income.
A $30k satellite won't be much good in GEO. They are about $500M each for a modern GEO satellite (launched, including insurance). You can get the cost down to $400M or so, but once you have $400M of funding, another $100M isn't that hard. About 180 GEO slots, about 20 year life, that's about $10B per year just to sustain the GEO services early failures, backups, and other actions make it a higher number. LEO covers the rest. MEO rounds to zero for now. Some funding raised, but nobody actually doing much.
Japan was warned of Nagasaki. You should be thanking the Japanese leaders for those deaths. They were given plenty of time to surrender or evacuate. They did neither, hoping to call the American bluff, but it wasn't a bluff. A weeks warning was much better than Japan gave the people killed at Pearl Harbor.
it was clear to many at the top of the government that the war was already lost.
So clear that they had to be nuked twice before the penny dropped.
And even then, the equivelent of the cabinet was divided on the issue, and the military planned a coup so that they could continue to fight. There was a minor civil war while the generals refused to acknowledge the surrender, but it didn't amount to much.
Both the Japanese and Americans were operating under the assumption that Tokyo would be the next target in about 2 weeks, when the Emperor ordered the surrender, and the government followed, even if begrudgingly.
And don't forget Truman warned the Japanese of the Nagasaki bombing. But the Japanese refused to act. The blood on the hands of people was more on the Japanese military generals than the top leaders or the Americans. There was ample time to surrender, evacuate, or otherwise respond. Japan was happy to sacrifice everyone to lose the war with honor. There are quotes by Japanese generals to that effect.
Some at the end belived there should be only one Japanese person left alive when the Americans marched into Tokyo would be the Emperor, everyone else should have died fighting, or at least wasted a bullet from the Allies.
Given that one wiped out a city, and a government official flew over, saw the damage and verified the radiation levels indicating it was a single nuclear bomb, and the government refused to surrender (well, technically they offered surrender then, but with conditions that were close to what winners demand). It wasn't until the ability and will to nuke one a week until there was nobody left on the island was demonstrated when the Japanese offered reasonable terms (but still not an unconditional surrender).
Even then, there was a short civil war from the hardliners objecting to the surrender. And you think that waiting without any violence would have triggered a surrender? That seems like wishful thinking. Might as well wait for the emperor for life to get voted out.
Head pounded into a sidewalk after calling in a dangerous/suspicious person, then following that dangerous person and cornering them in a blind alley. Zimmerman was hunting, and bagged himself one of the most dangerous game. A few scrapes come with the territory. He's lucky he had them, or the murder-1 would have stuck. When you kill all the witnesses, nobody seems to care that your story is contradictory (he contradicted the 911 tapes multiple times, among other inconsistencies). And why did he get out of his car to look for a street sign on a different street to tell the 911 operator where to find him after he hung up and help was already on the way? It's not like telling them the name of the wrong street would help anyway. Oh, and the head of the neighborhood watch getting "lost" one block from home on streets he patrols daily doesn't sound very likely. Especially in a gated community with only a few streets in the first place.
To eliminate the murky you mention, the application of mens rea currently in the US was whether one consciously decided to do the precipitating event. It's unrelated to the desires, goals, or mind of the person acting, nor their ability to predict the outcome.
Eggshell skull appears more in torts than criminal law, but applies in criminal law as well. An unpredictably bad result is still 100% the "fault" (criminally, in torts you can share responsibility, for criminal law, you are either 100 or 0, with no "half-murder" charges i've ever heard of, short of completely different charges that don't actually mean the same thing). So, if your act results in a death, and you intended the act, the law (unless specified otherwise), acts as if you acted to cause death. A light nudge that results in someone improbably falling down stairs to their death is a crime with mens rea if you intended to nudge them, and not if you didn't intend the nudge.
That's the application today. Your description is closer to the law-book description, and not the courtroom application.
Define "publish". If publishing them is illegal, why aren't they arresting the editors of the papers printing them? Seems the law is selectively being used against whistle blowers. That alone proves unequal application of the law, thus a constitutional violation.
The problem is that most of the USians (I am not going to use the noun "Americans" here because using it would degrade the dignity of other citizens of the American Continent such as the Canadians, the Mexicans, the Brazilians, and so on...)
So you refuse to use the correct term because you are bigot. That invalidates everything else you have to say.
Just in case you have been hiding inside a cave for a long time, the US of A hasn't passed the 'free country' test, for the past 2 decades or so
2? Try 6. When Washington warned that parties would be the downfall of the US, he meant it as a warning. He didn't belong to a party and didn't believe in the divisiveness they created. When Eisenhower "warned" us about the miitary-industrial complex, it wasn't a warning. It was an apology. He was a part of the M-I complex, and helped found it. So his farewell address wasn't a warning, but an apology. And we've been paying for his mistake ever since.
Many of the problems we are left with today are because of his actions. Rather than picking a fight and starting the Vietnam war, as his M-I handlers requested, if he had disbanded the standing army, we'd have no deficit, and have many more freedoms than we have now. Though the lack of a Vietnam for all the protests of the '60s would have changed the nation's development greatly, the lack of trillions being spent harassing the rest of the world would have left us much better off than we are now. Aside from going back to the Treaty of Versailles and getting them to not issue reparations to Germany (or conversely, getting the US to enter WWI on Germany's side), that's the one thing that would have the greatest effect on today's life. Though, publicly backing the white army (while providing no actual support) was another massive mistake that echoed for 70+ years, shaping the planet.
That degree depends a lot on what you know when doing so. It has to do with the "mens rea" or state of mind. For instance, donations to a "feed the children" charity or a legal defense fund for someone when used to render such aid would likely not show intent and couldn't be prosecuted outside of who misused the funding.
You don't know what mens rea means, so you should stop describing it wrongly to people. The act must have been deliberate (conscious). Not the intent, but the act. So giving $1 to "save the children" thinking it was UNICEF and having it be an IRA front is a crime that meets all the requirements of mens rea. You intended to do the act that someone else later thought illegal.
You needn't have any intent to break the law (ignorance of the law is no defense), nor do you need to have any intent to have the outcome. You must only have intended the precipitating event.
Example: you are cleaning a gun, and you accidentally snag the cleaning cloth on the trigger and the gun discharges, killing someone, there is no mens rea, because you didn't intend to pull the trigger. If you are cleaning the gun, and you want to clean the hammer, so you cock it, then later attempt to dry fire it, but there was one in the chamber, you meet the mens rea requirement because you intended to pull the trigger. That you didn't intend to fire a bullet, or strike a person with it is irrelevant. You intended the action that lead to an illegal result.
That may not be the Latin definition, nor the original or non-US definition, but in the US currently, mens rea is tied solely to the intent to commit an action, not any intent to commit a crime, nor any act after the last conscious one. It's a low standard, and the way it's applied now, is useless, aside from being the basis for insanity pleas, though those are rare, as they last longer than the penalty for the crime, and are generally served in worse conditions, unless the rare "temporary" condition can be argued. But that happens more in TV shows than real life.
Yes, he's a traitor, yet nobody can name the enemy of the US he helped, and what help they got from him.
Nope, for the most outlandish claims, both the law and the facts are on his side. Likely, they'd torture him with threats of 153 consecutive life sentences in a water-boarding cell, when the convictions they could get would be for nothing other than mishandling classified documents.
Beyond factless accusations of treason, I've not seen anything concrete against him. They don't seem to talk about the "minor" things he actually did, and instead make it sound like he personally delivered the nuclear launch codes to Iran and North Korea.
You have the opinion that petty embezzlement (250 bucks is petty) is the same thing as kidnapping ans slavery?
Who did embezzlement? This guy did 10,000+ separate blackmails, doxing (with intent to harm), and 10,000 copyright violations. That the prosecutors went for the easy convictions and thought 18 years was enough, so the provable convictions were only for the ones where the people harmed were ones willing to testify doesn't diminish what he did.
Seriously, you don't believe it better for this guy to repay everyone he took money from illegally and work community service after?
Yeah, and if you rape a woman and steal her purse, your punishment is to pay back the contents of the purse.
Do you think the blackmail profits are the only harm from this crime,?
The times I've put in easter eggs, there were more like Hot Coffee. A management idea that was 90%+ done that was axed. It was put back in, or left trivially accessible. Some popular easter eggs are like the Siri ones, testing code lest in for amusement.
Face the facts here, the courts wanted to make an "example" of this guy. That is called retribution, it is not called Justice.
The fact that there is no justice in the justice system doesn't mean that this case of thousands of extortions was improperly sentenced.
Yeah, I agree that the guy did some slimy crap just to make a few bucks. That said, this sentence ensures the he will never be rehabilitated, ever. This is a demonstration of a failed system of justice, nothing more.
Yeah, some guy that does slimy stuff for a few bucks. I could see someone who kidnaps 8 year olds and sells them into slavery having the same thing said about them. Just because you don't find it a problem doesn't mean that others share your opinion.
He got about 1 year per charge. For someone with no remorse and a likelihood of re-offending, that's not excessive. If they had separate trials in sequence, the 3rd felony conviction would likely have landed him a life sentence for 3-strikes. So they went easier on him than the worse-case.
As with many words, it has more than one meaning, depending on the subject you're discussing. When you're talking about nationality -- which was clearly the case -- "Americans" means people who live in the United States. If you're talking about geography, it means people who live in either North or South America. Since there are far more topics of discussion that apply to everybody in the US than apply to everybody living on both continents (time zones, maybe? plate tectonics?), the former is used.
Not in American English, nor to most native speakers of British English. Only the areas which have a false cognate with a single-continent definition of North and South America have any confusion.
It's unambiguous. North America and South America are *never* called "America" in American English, and only incorrectly in British English. The correct term for the two referred to as one is "The Americas".
proven liar? I did a quick search, and most of what I could find is opinion stated as fact that Glen Beck and other right-wing extremists objected to, calling opinions lies.
Given that you claim you aren't in the US, I'd recommend that you follow fewer conservative blogs for your "news".
I am not a USian. I am not familiar with your kind of politics
Are the USian voters so damn stupid?
You don't know anything about Americans (including the proper term for them), yet are an expert in stupidity. Is that because it takes one to know one?
Dallas is easy for 4G. It's flat, and laid out in a grid pattern with a few ring roads. No hills in the way, and the only thing casting shadows are buildings, and you put towers on them anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Japan was unable to generate new war resources. They were almost out of fuel, and cut off from mainland resources. But they were working on surrendering to the USSR for more favorable terms than they'd expect from the USA. Part of the reason for the timing of the bombs was to force a more immediate surrender before the Soviets could intervene. Though, there was no indication that the Soviets were actually interested in talking. They invaded Japanese held area on the mainland between Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That everyone had surrendered but Japan made it clear Japan couldn't hold out. But they weren't surrendering either. Rather than an invasion, conventional munitions would have been used to reduce the entire island to rubble before an invasion. The death toll was much lower for the Japanese with the A-bomb. Even after the first, generals were quoted as having said they were still willing to fight to the last person.
Japan wouldn't surrender unless they were leveled, and it was hoped that The Bomb would shake them of that resolve.
There was no blind alley, you're making that up.
The blind alley was the walkway between Twin Trees and Retreat View Circle.
It's a good thing he wasn't lost, then.
So you are saying Zimmerman was lying? He stated he got out of the car after his 911 call to walk down an alley to get to another street to read the street sign because he didn't know where the was.
I'm thinking you don't have any idea what Zimmerman said.
Cops much prefer to be told where to look for possible burglars via as much vague, imprecise blather as possible. They HATE it when you tell them things like which street you saw someone walking on, heading which direction, that sort of thing. Their jobs are much easier if you make it take as long as possible to figure out where someone is.
So they like it when you hang up on them because they tell you to stay in your car, because you really want to go hunt some Nigger? Because that's what Zimmerman did. They told him to stay, and the police would call his cell when they got there. He didn't. He got out and hunted Nigger. Why?
You mean, the sort of 911 tapes that NBC edited to change their entire context? Because that seems to be the sort of thing that has established your narrative, here.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html
What's wrong with that one there? Changed to make it look different? How? Go on, use a fact. You may have heard of them, even if you've never used one yourself.
With liberty and justice for all (white male landowners).
That's why you make sure to kill the witnesses. Maybe Zimmerman waived it at him trying to scare him off. You can't know he didn't know. Zimmerman hunted and killed him, ensuring he'll never testify against him.
You realize you are talking about the US right? That's by design.
Why is bribery a bad thing? It gets good results. Money is speech, and it makes sure the actions of the government is representative of the will of those governed. Just make sure they properly declare the income.
A $30k satellite won't be much good in GEO. They are about $500M each for a modern GEO satellite (launched, including insurance). You can get the cost down to $400M or so, but once you have $400M of funding, another $100M isn't that hard. About 180 GEO slots, about 20 year life, that's about $10B per year just to sustain the GEO services early failures, backups, and other actions make it a higher number. LEO covers the rest. MEO rounds to zero for now. Some funding raised, but nobody actually doing much.
Japan was warned of Nagasaki. You should be thanking the Japanese leaders for those deaths. They were given plenty of time to surrender or evacuate. They did neither, hoping to call the American bluff, but it wasn't a bluff. A weeks warning was much better than Japan gave the people killed at Pearl Harbor.
it was clear to many at the top of the government that the war was already lost.
So clear that they had to be nuked twice before the penny dropped.
And even then, the equivelent of the cabinet was divided on the issue, and the military planned a coup so that they could continue to fight. There was a minor civil war while the generals refused to acknowledge the surrender, but it didn't amount to much.
Both the Japanese and Americans were operating under the assumption that Tokyo would be the next target in about 2 weeks, when the Emperor ordered the surrender, and the government followed, even if begrudgingly.
And don't forget Truman warned the Japanese of the Nagasaki bombing. But the Japanese refused to act. The blood on the hands of people was more on the Japanese military generals than the top leaders or the Americans. There was ample time to surrender, evacuate, or otherwise respond. Japan was happy to sacrifice everyone to lose the war with honor. There are quotes by Japanese generals to that effect.
Some at the end belived there should be only one Japanese person left alive when the Americans marched into Tokyo would be the Emperor, everyone else should have died fighting, or at least wasted a bullet from the Allies.
Given that one wiped out a city, and a government official flew over, saw the damage and verified the radiation levels indicating it was a single nuclear bomb, and the government refused to surrender (well, technically they offered surrender then, but with conditions that were close to what winners demand). It wasn't until the ability and will to nuke one a week until there was nobody left on the island was demonstrated when the Japanese offered reasonable terms (but still not an unconditional surrender).
Even then, there was a short civil war from the hardliners objecting to the surrender. And you think that waiting without any violence would have triggered a surrender? That seems like wishful thinking. Might as well wait for the emperor for life to get voted out.
He was stalking someone, and the person being stalked by an armed man feared for his life and tried to defend himself. The aggressor was Zimmerman.
Head pounded into a sidewalk after calling in a dangerous/suspicious person, then following that dangerous person and cornering them in a blind alley. Zimmerman was hunting, and bagged himself one of the most dangerous game. A few scrapes come with the territory. He's lucky he had them, or the murder-1 would have stuck. When you kill all the witnesses, nobody seems to care that your story is contradictory (he contradicted the 911 tapes multiple times, among other inconsistencies). And why did he get out of his car to look for a street sign on a different street to tell the 911 operator where to find him after he hung up and help was already on the way? It's not like telling them the name of the wrong street would help anyway. Oh, and the head of the neighborhood watch getting "lost" one block from home on streets he patrols daily doesn't sound very likely. Especially in a gated community with only a few streets in the first place.
To eliminate the murky you mention, the application of mens rea currently in the US was whether one consciously decided to do the precipitating event. It's unrelated to the desires, goals, or mind of the person acting, nor their ability to predict the outcome.
Eggshell skull appears more in torts than criminal law, but applies in criminal law as well. An unpredictably bad result is still 100% the "fault" (criminally, in torts you can share responsibility, for criminal law, you are either 100 or 0, with no "half-murder" charges i've ever heard of, short of completely different charges that don't actually mean the same thing). So, if your act results in a death, and you intended the act, the law (unless specified otherwise), acts as if you acted to cause death. A light nudge that results in someone improbably falling down stairs to their death is a crime with mens rea if you intended to nudge them, and not if you didn't intend the nudge.
That's the application today. Your description is closer to the law-book description, and not the courtroom application.
Define "publish". If publishing them is illegal, why aren't they arresting the editors of the papers printing them? Seems the law is selectively being used against whistle blowers. That alone proves unequal application of the law, thus a constitutional violation.
So, 700 MHz 4G is absorbed by water in the air more than 2100 3G?
I think you know just enough to be dangerous, but not enough to understand the issues.
The problem is that most of the USians (I am not going to use the noun "Americans" here because using it would degrade the dignity of other citizens of the American Continent such as the Canadians, the Mexicans, the Brazilians, and so on ...)
So you refuse to use the correct term because you are bigot. That invalidates everything else you have to say.
Just in case you have been hiding inside a cave for a long time, the US of A hasn't passed the 'free country' test, for the past 2 decades or so
2? Try 6. When Washington warned that parties would be the downfall of the US, he meant it as a warning. He didn't belong to a party and didn't believe in the divisiveness they created. When Eisenhower "warned" us about the miitary-industrial complex, it wasn't a warning. It was an apology. He was a part of the M-I complex, and helped found it. So his farewell address wasn't a warning, but an apology. And we've been paying for his mistake ever since.
Many of the problems we are left with today are because of his actions. Rather than picking a fight and starting the Vietnam war, as his M-I handlers requested, if he had disbanded the standing army, we'd have no deficit, and have many more freedoms than we have now. Though the lack of a Vietnam for all the protests of the '60s would have changed the nation's development greatly, the lack of trillions being spent harassing the rest of the world would have left us much better off than we are now. Aside from going back to the Treaty of Versailles and getting them to not issue reparations to Germany (or conversely, getting the US to enter WWI on Germany's side), that's the one thing that would have the greatest effect on today's life. Though, publicly backing the white army (while providing no actual support) was another massive mistake that echoed for 70+ years, shaping the planet.
That degree depends a lot on what you know when doing so. It has to do with the "mens rea" or state of mind. For instance, donations to a "feed the children" charity or a legal defense fund for someone when used to render such aid would likely not show intent and couldn't be prosecuted outside of who misused the funding.
You don't know what mens rea means, so you should stop describing it wrongly to people. The act must have been deliberate (conscious). Not the intent, but the act. So giving $1 to "save the children" thinking it was UNICEF and having it be an IRA front is a crime that meets all the requirements of mens rea. You intended to do the act that someone else later thought illegal.
You needn't have any intent to break the law (ignorance of the law is no defense), nor do you need to have any intent to have the outcome. You must only have intended the precipitating event.
Example: you are cleaning a gun, and you accidentally snag the cleaning cloth on the trigger and the gun discharges, killing someone, there is no mens rea, because you didn't intend to pull the trigger. If you are cleaning the gun, and you want to clean the hammer, so you cock it, then later attempt to dry fire it, but there was one in the chamber, you meet the mens rea requirement because you intended to pull the trigger. That you didn't intend to fire a bullet, or strike a person with it is irrelevant. You intended the action that lead to an illegal result.
That may not be the Latin definition, nor the original or non-US definition, but in the US currently, mens rea is tied solely to the intent to commit an action, not any intent to commit a crime, nor any act after the last conscious one. It's a low standard, and the way it's applied now, is useless, aside from being the basis for insanity pleas, though those are rare, as they last longer than the penalty for the crime, and are generally served in worse conditions, unless the rare "temporary" condition can be argued. But that happens more in TV shows than real life.
Yes, he's a traitor, yet nobody can name the enemy of the US he helped, and what help they got from him.
Nope, for the most outlandish claims, both the law and the facts are on his side. Likely, they'd torture him with threats of 153 consecutive life sentences in a water-boarding cell, when the convictions they could get would be for nothing other than mishandling classified documents.
Beyond factless accusations of treason, I've not seen anything concrete against him. They don't seem to talk about the "minor" things he actually did, and instead make it sound like he personally delivered the nuclear launch codes to Iran and North Korea.
You have the opinion that petty embezzlement (250 bucks is petty) is the same thing as kidnapping ans slavery?
Who did embezzlement? This guy did 10,000+ separate blackmails, doxing (with intent to harm), and 10,000 copyright violations. That the prosecutors went for the easy convictions and thought 18 years was enough, so the provable convictions were only for the ones where the people harmed were ones willing to testify doesn't diminish what he did.
Seriously, you don't believe it better for this guy to repay everyone he took money from illegally and work community service after?
Yeah, and if you rape a woman and steal her purse, your punishment is to pay back the contents of the purse.
Do you think the blackmail profits are the only harm from this crime,?
The times I've put in easter eggs, there were more like Hot Coffee. A management idea that was 90%+ done that was axed. It was put back in, or left trivially accessible. Some popular easter eggs are like the Siri ones, testing code lest in for amusement.
Face the facts here, the courts wanted to make an "example" of this guy. That is called retribution, it is not called Justice.
The fact that there is no justice in the justice system doesn't mean that this case of thousands of extortions was improperly sentenced.
Yeah, I agree that the guy did some slimy crap just to make a few bucks. That said, this sentence ensures the he will never be rehabilitated, ever. This is a demonstration of a failed system of justice, nothing more.
Yeah, some guy that does slimy stuff for a few bucks. I could see someone who kidnaps 8 year olds and sells them into slavery having the same thing said about them. Just because you don't find it a problem doesn't mean that others share your opinion.
He got about 1 year per charge. For someone with no remorse and a likelihood of re-offending, that's not excessive. If they had separate trials in sequence, the 3rd felony conviction would likely have landed him a life sentence for 3-strikes. So they went easier on him than the worse-case.
As with many words, it has more than one meaning, depending on the subject you're discussing. When you're talking about nationality -- which was clearly the case -- "Americans" means people who live in the United States. If you're talking about geography, it means people who live in either North or South America. Since there are far more topics of discussion that apply to everybody in the US than apply to everybody living on both continents (time zones, maybe? plate tectonics?), the former is used.
Not in American English, nor to most native speakers of British English. Only the areas which have a false cognate with a single-continent definition of North and South America have any confusion.
It's unambiguous. North America and South America are *never* called "America" in American English, and only incorrectly in British English. The correct term for the two referred to as one is "The Americas".
How come proven liars such as Pelosi
proven liar? I did a quick search, and most of what I could find is opinion stated as fact that Glen Beck and other right-wing extremists objected to, calling opinions lies.
Given that you claim you aren't in the US, I'd recommend that you follow fewer conservative blogs for your "news".
I am not a USian. I am not familiar with your kind of politics
Are the USian voters so damn stupid?
You don't know anything about Americans (including the proper term for them), yet are an expert in stupidity. Is that because it takes one to know one?
Dallas is easy for 4G. It's flat, and laid out in a grid pattern with a few ring roads. No hills in the way, and the only thing casting shadows are buildings, and you put towers on them anyway.