I'm looking at the effects for his base. Oh, not the fake base like the poor people in Ferguson who expected him to stop white cops from shooting their children- but his true base, in New York and Chicago, who expect him to relieve them of certain costs of doing business.

That is to say, the base that will provide campaign funding for decades to come. Getting elected is a side job to the eternal campaign.

What you fail to gasp is that the Tyrant, in his Benevolence, has locked up everybody- and is slowly letting out the people who do NOT accept his Tyranny. You've fallen for the lie that Hell is a punishment, rather than a reward.

Would be by running for city council, mayor, and voting.

The idea that a black town would have a white mayor, a white police chief, and a mostly white police force is very strange indeed.

The real racists in Ferguson are the ones who see this case as being "a white officer shot a black suspect" rather than "a white police captain didn't know enough about racism to have black officers patrolling a black neighborhood" followed by "five shots are enough, if the suspect is on his knees, a sixth shot is not necessary" followed by "when black people are rioting, white people in Vietnam era camo is not going to be a solution" followed by "once trust is lost, not even a black State Police Captain is the answer" followed by "looters, reporters, cops, and the National Guard all invade a town trying to recover from a tragedy of stupidity".

A hand grenade doesn't eliminate witnesses, but a nuke does.

What you fail to see is that the NWO has already come to pass, in a way that guarantees the next guy will be worse.

What he has achieved, has all gone towards creating more political capital for the Democrats. He's failed on everything else.

Turns out they didn't define their business case properly. I had to add the time field in to achieve a unique logical key. And even then, I still had to rewrite my loader (tossing XML files in C# to call stored procedures) to report exceptions properly so that I could figure out when they lied to me once again.

Data integrity? We don't need no stinkin' data integrity!

Common sense will never come into style, and "they" will never hire people to think and actually produce useful/actionable insights. You see, it's a bit of a catch-22. No one will make good decisions until someone sensible is in charge, but we'll never put sensible people in charge until we've started making good decisions. It's ignorant sociopaths all the way down.

Did you not read the summary, even?

Yes, ultimately physical security is always an issue. They can try to make the devices difficult to access, but as you've pointed out, that's always going to be a problem.

But this is a different level of "insecure". These things are controlled through open, unencrypted wireless networking. There are no passwords. It's like the difference between saying, "Your home is never completely secure, since someone can always break a window or crowbar the door open," vs. "Let's just leave our valuables sitting out on the lawn, completely unattended."

I don't know. I my experience, a lot of poor security isn't caused by incompetence. It's caused by someone saying, "But that will cost more money..." or "That will take too much time..." or "But I want to buy from this supplier because the owner is my brother-in-law..."

I mean, they don't necessarily say those things out loud, but those are often the reasons. It's not necessarily that they're too dumb to understand that it's bad security. They just don't care. They're not thinking about the potential for problems down the road. They're not thinking about long-term maintenance. They're not really thinking about public safety. They're just thinking about, "I have to get this job done in a way that makes my life better/easier. I want to work less and make a big bonus."

Not that I work in a traffic-related industry. That's just been my general professional experience as to why security is usually terrible.

No, it's scary how much we still don't care about security. These things could definitely be fixed, we just don't care to fix them. We don't demand security in the first place, we aren't willing to pay for security, and we aren't really willing to fix security when it's broken. People will run around looking for blood for 5 minutes when it's discovered that there are huge security flaws, but nobody will fix them.

Remember all the news when it was discovered that a person could easily and untraceably hack voting machines? Do you think that was ever fixed? The way we use credit cards is insecure. Most email is unencrypted. We use Social Security Numbers as both an identifier and a form of authentication.

Most of what we do is completely insecure, and it's actually kind of amazing how rarely people take advantage of it. But it's really disturbing that we aren't remotely willing to secure things that would be relatively easy to secure, and would solve lots of problems.

"that taxpayer-funded projects are barriers to future infrastructure investment."
 
Yes everyone can compete in the free market,
except for groups of geographically related people cooperating with their tax dollars. Can't have them competing.
 
That's the last thing we want for our infrastructure. People cooperating with their votes and tax dollars.

It seems like it might work better to say, "San Francisco still sucks-- which might not be so bad, depending on which side of the glory hole you sit."