[ucodegen]

[quote=scaredyclassic]On Children
Kahlil Gibran

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer’s hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable.[/quote]

I really like the last line of that, something that some parents don’t really understand. Children don’t need their parents to be their friend, though the child may want it. It is better for the parent to be the rock that will weather a child’s storms and be there when the child needs someone to hold tight to when they have their own storms to weather. To be there without prejudice on the child’s decisions, giving honest opinion without derision, honest guidance without seeking control.

The first part almost seems to be similar in message to “The Desiderata”. ie.

You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here.

And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

And no, I am not referring to “Deteriorata”.

[ucodegen]

How easy is it to hold the foreign consulate to any damages that their tenant may cause?

You might want to ‘adapt’ your standard lease to be more representative because it looks almost like a sublet where you are actually leasing to the foreign consulate who is then sub-letting it to their person.

The other issue is the 30 days after next rent is due for notification period – which basically means no notice at all.

Don’t assume BAH annual increase – any increases should be written into contract.

[ucodegen]

[quote=no_such_reality]
I’m more curious what benefits FiH thinks is getting/coming from IoT?

CNET best smart home devices of 2017, Echo #1 and two color changing dimmable connect for remote management lightbulbs #2 & #3.

Seriously, a color changing lightbulb…[/quote]
A long time ago, I noticed that it was not worth arguing with FiH on personal benefits of certain things.

That said, I do see use in IoT devices like networked sprinkler controllers (considering fiddling with this), weather and precipitation sensors, and light controllers. Justification:

1) sprinkler controllers – depending upon what is at a house, it may be useful to water somethings once a week, others a small dribble every day, and others three times a week. It would also be useful to have the system be able to drop watering on a single day due to rain. Most residential systems today do something like ‘gang’ watering. All connections go through the cycle for the designated time.

2) Precipitation sensor – can be used to feed into the sprinkler controller

3) Light control – for when you go on vacation. You could really randomize the lights.

There are others – but this is some of what I see. I also see the IoT manufacturers try to do lock-ins as opposed to standardizing the communication. The other part that bothers me is the perceived need to have all of these things run an HTTP server.. really? For sprinkler controllers all that is needed is a simple datagram interface.

[ucodegen]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Interesting ucodegen. I take it you don’t trust IoT which is growing fast.
I’ll take my chances for the convenience.

Even the new LED street lamps are now connected. Maybe one day the Russians will hack us and shut down everything. Like Y2K but much worse.[/quote]
Its not IoT that I don’t trust, it is the current group of manufacturers that I don’t trust. As for hacking them, it might actually be the Chinese because many of the devices are made in China. China has been known to create backdoors in hardware.

https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/03/05/1828202/hidden-backdoor-discovered-in-chinese-iot-devices

http://www.information-age.com/security-backdoor-found-in-china-made-us-military-chip-2105468/

Lenovo PCs and Laptops seem to have a BIOS level backdoor

[ucodegen]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
About the antiquated “smart” home features that were only for the rich, required miles of cables, cost big bucks and required professional install…. well, they can now be replaced by wireless miniature devices that cost hundreds. Aren’t you amazed by innovation and the democratization of technology?[/quote]
The problem with these new wireless units is a burst at 2.5Ghz and 5Ghz can take them down – sometimes permanently. A leaky microwave can put them on the periodic fritz. A smart person with a yagi or small parabolic antenna and hacking tools can often crack them and take control (security on most of them is sorely lacking) without ever entering your property. The recent DDOS was done through just a small percentage of these ‘home automation’ devices. https://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/10/source-code-for-iot-botnet-mirai-released/

The other thing about home automation tools is that you generally want to run them on a separate net and you generally want to run them wired and encrypted (but most aren’t and can’t be). Firewall them between your main net and lower net and control what/who they talk to.

[ucodegen]

Well Done! Though the melody is from Tom Jones, the females in the background keep reminding me of Palmer’s “Addicted to Love”..

[ucodegen]

[quote=spdrun]Funnier parts:
(1) Chicago to Louisville is under 5 hr by car. They could have rented each bumped passenger a Lambo or limo and got them there the same day. For that matter, wet lease on a King Air is ~$1500/hr — could have stuck them on a private plane for less than vouchers + hotel.[/quote]
With vouchers, they still have the customer and their ‘markup’, so the vouchers don’t cost as much because that customer has to come back and the airline still gets there markup over costs. This is why the requirement is cash not voucher. It discourages egregious overbooking.

King Airs are very quick planes too.. a little small inside but nice and personal. ‘Took a Super King Air from SD to LV – 30 min flight time (flight was straight – shorter than driving). No booking hassle no landing hassle. Total time from cars to rental cars was somewhere around 1 hour. Maybe because this plane had the upgraded engines. ;P.

[ucodegen]

So how does Dao being convicted of paying for gay sex with drugs have anything to do with justifying United Airlines handling of the passenger? That conviction was 12 years ago.

The laws handing overbooking require that;
1) Cash not vouchers be offered before physical removal (up to about $1500 per passenger).
2) Written notification of rights be handed to the passenger(s) beforehand.
3) Open offers be given to all passengers – first come first serve for rebooking with compensation before physical removal.

None of these were done. That makes United’s and ‘associates’ act a very simple felony assault and battery – and this one is not 12 years ago.

I would also wonder if any stand-by passengers were boarded because usually they are the first to be denied. In many cases ‘deadhead’s are done as standby because they are costing the airline so they use open seats instead of bumping paying passengers.

I think the media should be concentrating on what the laws covering passenger rights are as well as how United and ‘associates’ violated these laws instead of bowing to the pressure of the corporate interests (corporatocracy) and trying a smear campaign to try to discredit and reduce any awards that Dr. Dao might get.

[ucodegen]

[quote=ltsdd][quote=spdrun]Also, can someone apply to a UC as a different prospective major, then change to engineering/CS? Nothing wrong with a bit of creative prevarication to get what one wants.[/quote]

That was difficult even 30+ years ago. UCSD’s engineering became an impacted major as early as the late 80s….and it looks like the official policy now is that a student can’t change to an impacted/capped major.

https://students.ucsd.edu/academics/advising/majors-minors/capped-majors.html%5B/quote%5D
There were impacted majors in the early 80s, ie Computer Science (I think it was set as impacted in ’81 or ’82). One of the problems has been that the UC System has done two things that have adversely affected availability of courses and admissions.

1) While the UC System can’t directly apply affirmative action, they can take action to make sure admissions are reflective of the population of California. This creates a partial racial profile. This creates a problem where not all admitted have the ability to complete the coursework due to weaker High School Education. This creates a situation where graduates may take longer than 4 years to complete their degree, or never complete.

2) The available courses do not reflect the actual market demand for the skills. We have a very large demand for EE, CE, CS people – yet the funding doesn’t necessarily reflect it. There is a perceived importance within the UC System, in making sure that there is a ‘diversity’ in education paths as well as having those paths supported. However, it ignores the need of the public and part of the real task of the UC System. Too many degrees are being supported that don’t lead to a employment opportunity that would pay off or support the costs of education. At the same time, California and the United States economy are crying for other degrees that are being left under-supplied. The UC System needs to recognize that part of their money comes from the State as well as the land they are on – and they have an implicit requirement to supply the education that the state needs.

Fixes?:
1) Drive the education requirements that are needed for college down the the High Schools. In part, this is being done through Common Core, however Common Core is being fought by the Teachers Unions and others, as well as being corrupted from within and through the Text Book Publishers.
2) Start increasing funding of impacted educational paths. They are obviously needed by the public and industries that end up funding the UC System. This may mean cutting back some of the other study paths to a degree. When I went through the UC System, there was one course EECS 163(A/B) that was a requirement for the EE/CE degree. This course was only taught by one Professor. During my time, there were only about 10 Professors that handled the upper division courses required for the EE, CE and CS degrees. Some of these Professors also handled some of the lower division requirements for the courses.
3) Get the UC System to understand that they need to serve the citizens of California, else they have no right to use the land they are on which came at a discount because it is a public University intended to serve the residents of California. Expose the UC System to the real costs involved in a student that is not a California resident, so that the University sees the real costs not just the increased tuition. The current arrangement distorts the actual costs and profits.

Sorry if I am a little disjoint here – I have been watching the online series called “Mostly Human” as I type(multi-tasking)
http://money.cnn.com/mostly-human/

[ucodegen]

[quote=DataAgent]I pay $35 every 2 weeks for mowing and general yard cleanup in NW Clairemont (Bay Ho). The owner and his friend do the work. They spend about 1.5 hours at my house. I’m probably overpaying but I like to overpay and overtip my vendors a little. A happy vendor does better work.[/quote]
That is probably a good deal. Over here, we had a gardener that my S.O. insisted on – paying him $100/mo, while the yard was virtually a postage stamp. It was 12 foot from house to back wall and about 30 feet of frontage. Front yard consisted of a little over 20 sq feet of grass – and a rock garden with just a few plants. The gardener would spend about 15min every week there. Very rarely over, more often less.

I pushed for them to be terminated after they chronically over watered two camellias and killing one, badly damaging another, spraying roundup in the basin of a potted lemon, lime and olive (instead of weeding), over watering bougainvilleas at the root, not noticing that the servo valve on the automatic watering system was not working (twice – two different valves not related to the camellias), slicing open the drip line in two places with a box cutter because he felt there should be more water at that location. – there’s more, but I think that just a few of these are enough.

[ucodegen]

[quote=no_such_reality]Poorer areas = lower attainment
more affluent = higher attainment.

The chart can be misleading. If you scroll the chart up to LA and look at the West side, you kind of think whoa, that’s a lot of blue for advanced degrees.

IF you check the census and compare Rancho Santa Fe, Irvine and Santa Monica you realize the Santa Monica is actually the lowest of the three for advance degree percentage. In fact, RSF, being low density, blows both out with full ten percentage points higher ratio of advance degrees.

The chart, IMHO, really needs to be corrected for population density.[/quote]
The study was supposed to represent population – looking at a distance you can see concentrations. This is why 1 dot is 25 people.
What got me was the amount of red in LA – Jefferson Park/Florence area. Compare the ratio to out in the boonies Victorville. The educational attainment in Las Vegas was better than those areas of LA, except for possibly a small area of North Las Vegas.

I find the results kind of disturbing. Even Billings, Montana looks better.

[ucodegen]

[quote=spdrun]Nah, by “making law” he meant that the Marbury decision was wrong and that the courts shouldn’t have the power of judicial review.[/quote]
So he was reaching that far back for his opinion? W/o Marbury, then what purpose would the Supreme Court really have? It was supposed to be a counter to the Legislative and Executive branches. The Supreme Court was only court mandated by the Constitution – and its purview was judicial review. I don’t think the intent of the founders was to have members of the Legislative and Executive branch to be above judicial review. After all, they had just fought a war with members of an entity who felt above both common law and review of their actions. Whose very actions contributed to the intent and wording of both the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Article III, section 2:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Don’t need to quote the rest… but if continues along these lines.

I don’t get your work colleague’s position.

What is also interesting about Marbury v. Madison, it that it also limited the scope of the Supreme Court – part of the decision also indicated that part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional – because it would have given the Supreme Court the ability to ‘compel’ (writ of mandamus) which did not exist in the Constitution.

I think your work colleague needs to be careful of complaining about Marbury v. Madison because with out it, the Supreme Court would actually have been more powerful due to the Judiciary Act of 1789.

[ucodegen]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Russia has been in the news a lot lately.

I listened to some Russian music this morning. Seems like a great country in many ways. but I think of Russia mostly as a frozen country of drunkards.

Will Russia ever be a prosperous free country of happy people?[/quote]
And they used to vote Democrat until they voted for Trump! It right there in the video.

[ucodegen]

[quote=spdrun]I know about the 1967 decision, in fact, it’s a very personal issue to me.
[/quote]
similar over here, though probably not the same.
[quote=spdrun]
A work colleague got off about how Supreme Court shouldn’t make law, and I gave him a bit of a speech recently.[/quote]
I actually tend to agree with the Supreme Court not being able to make laws. It disturbs the balance of power between the branches of government. The three branches of government would no longer be equal in power. Supreme Court would then contain the power of both President and Congress
(Legislative and Executive Branches). However the Supreme Court can determine what is NOT law or violates a higher law – namely Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendments.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Key words being “All persons born or naturalized” and “equal protection”. For a while, States and others tried to get around this by considering anyone who was not white, as a non-person. It is an awkward twist to try to attempt on law.

[ucodegen]

[quote=spdrun]Looks like this interesting thread got re-opened by a spammer. I wonder about Oregon — weren’t they historically racist to the point of having a law prohibiting Blacks from settling or buying land? This went on till the 20s or 30s.[/quote]
Actually it was a bit worse than that. Until 1967 laws against interracial marriage existed – as well as co-mingling of races (damn those miscegenated people https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3eTSbC3neA;t=1m20s ). 1967 US Supreme Court ruled Loving v Virginia – anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional.

Supreme Court of California ruled against bans on interracial marriages in 1948.

[Author]

Posts