The issue with any traffic engineer, is that there's actually no science supporting traffic engineering. It's voodoo. And if you say that to anyone who deals with traffic, they act like you dessicated their shrine. Sure, some individual parts have science (traffic flow). But when proven false (California flows better than stated, other places worse) they will persist on using the proven wrong models, rather than trying to solve for reality.

A human factors study into lights, and having the colors/flashing change to help improve flow/compliance isn't what they do. "Fuck you, red lights are read and solid" is the closest to a discussion they will have with you.

And when they do "fix" it, they'll charge the hacker with the cost of fixing systems they knew were insecure for 30 years.

The training and SOPs for new processes, at the very minimum. Perhaps new control systems for the "secure" interface, at the cost of billions.

Remember, if something is free you aren't the customer, you are the product and so long as they're not pissing off their advertisers these companies can do anything that doesn't significantly reduce their user counts.

Espionage can be science!

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov

Pretty sure the job description for junior programmer that the DOL uses doesn't qualify for an H1B slot...

Then your company is breaking the law and you should report them. Companies are required to pay above the prevailing wage for the position and region. We paid both of our H1B workers well above average for our staff and when they worked out sponsored their green cards (and boy is that process a cluster!), we're the kind of employer that the program was actually designed for, we were looking for extremely rare talent sets and had advertised the positions for months before looking abroad. I have to say that I have much bigger problems with the screwups in the green card program than I do with the H1B system, permanently bringing smart people from abroad raises the GDP of the US and brings diversity to the country.

For a proscriptive language, you are right. For a descriptive language, like English, you are wrong. The collective wrong definition is the correct one, and the two hold-outs to the "pure" or "original" definition are wrong. That's how language works.

Then I saw nobody post anything in the chain that indicated there were any such people. People who explain the law, as enforced, to you aren't "defending" it or asserting they think it's ok.

You should learn to make such distinctions, or you'll come off looking like the moron.

The capabilities you are describing are impossible in the kill-switches being implemented. They may be technically possible, but not related to the kill switch under discussion.

So, you've never read an MSDS for an insecticide, have you?

I never said it was toxic to humans because it was toxic to insects.

See the error in your logic?

They know. The dem commies are about to lose big. A GOP Senate can't wait to try these no filibuster rules.

Someone else posted the types being rejected. They are the ones where the rice generates its own insecticide. So it's food for humans, that's also poisonous to humans. What could possibly go wrong?

That's an assertion, but is it true? Bt [grain] produces poison. Perhaps the poison is still present in the edible rice, but not the edible corn? I don't know, but there may be other reasons, perhaps it's because corn is so low in production, and not a traditional crop with widespread domestic use, so it's not a "health issue"? Just because one is banned and the other not doesn't mean that safety must not be a reason.