To be fair, you do probably have to disconnect the wiring from the flooded generators as you don't want the electricity from the temporary generators shorting to ground through the flooded generators. And, you do need to connect the temporary generators somehow and, if that contingency was not considered in the existing wiring, you probably need to do some "rewiring".

So, some rewiring may consist of bolt cutters while some may consist of clamping existing cables to the cables of the temporary generators. Neither should be a big deal for on-site electricians though.

Of course, if the United States has nine or more nuclear power plants, nine of them will be "among nine of the poorest performing nuclear plants" -- even if those plants have a exemplary record and exceed every safety requirement. If the United States had exactly nine nuclear power plants, each of them would be "among nine of the poorest performing nuclear plants" AND "among nine of the best performing nuclear plants"

It might not hurt the industry much.

It might hurt Intel though because they would end up hiring less qualified people OR end up extra unqualified people to fill quota. If Intel hires less qualified people, it makes it harder for Intel to win and easier for others in the industry to win. If Intel just hires extra people who are 'diverse', but less qualified, these people will cost Intel money in salary, benefits, and other employee costs without sufficient return and Intel will need to figure out a way to keep them from distracting and/or interfering with the more qualified employees (perhaps Intel could open an entire campus for 'diversity hires' and isolate them to prevent this though).

"less white" might be correct -- maybe AC meant that darker complexioned, i.e. "less white", males should/would be hired.

To clarify - some of my friends and some of my acquaintances appear to watch Fox news at last sometimes.

Obviously I didn't see last night's talking heads examples.

However, too often in the past when I went back and found the complete interview or presentation from which Jon Stewart had extracted his talking heads segments, his editing had taken something way out of context to match his meme of the day. Sometimes, of course, they were funny, but the presentation certainly wasn't the work of a "newsman".

Indeed. And anyone considering performers on either to be "newsmen" are, IMHO, seriously misguided.

Where did I say all? And where did I say friends?

Some of my acquaintances seem to watch Fox news and believe it is balanced and accurate, some seem to watch The Daily Show and believe it is balanced and accurate, some listen to NPR/watch PBS news shows and believe they are balanced and accurate.

JS a newsman? That's funnier than JS on his funniest night -- you're quite a comedian, perhaps you should apply for Jon's job.

Even when Jon Stewart is telling the truth, he cherry picks facts that support both his worldview and that he can spin a gag around. And, for a political comedy show, that's completely appropriate. The problem is, too many people seem to think the Daily Show is a news show just as too many people think any 'fact' Rush Limbaugh states should be considered to be anything but fiction until carefully investigated.

The Daily Show is a comedy show built around a few selected memes that are floating around that day or week. Jon delivers them well and is funny if you can stomach the complete lack of balance and the lack of "truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".

I stopped watching him because I eventually got too annoyed by his complete misrepresentation (or, perhaps a misunderstanding on his part of the role of law, the role of judicial vs. legislative branches, and the US Constitution) of simple things like SCOTUS decisions of the day which I had already read within an hour or two of release.

The thing I miss the most about no longer investing time in watching the Daily Show is that I no longer instantly recognize the source of the balderdash I hear from friends and acquaintances the next day. It was fun already having formed a devastating counter argument and dismantling their arguments without a second thought. Sadly, sometimes these people live in such an echo chamber that I actually have to help them support parts of their own positions when Jon accidentally stumbled on a good point or two but didn't have the argument to support the point.

2 is also location limited to NIMBY

No. To pass the Turing test the program would have to respond to arbitrary questions and be compared to a human doing the same.

For example, given the starting point of this poem, as interrogator I might ask:

Your wrote:

        I tell you it is waiting for your branch that flows
 
Using the simplest language you can that a layperson with no literary training or inclination could understand, describe what "it" is and what events would trigger "it" to decide that the conditions being waited for were satisfied.

I'm pretty sure that by comparing this program's response (if it even had a way to ask it a question, it sounds like all it could do is spit out another random poem) and a typical human's (even a poet) response I could figure out fairly reliably which was human.

In some cases a buyer could deserve a bad rating for other than failing to follow through with payment.

If, for example, a buyer attempted a return on a "no return" item claiming it wasn't what was ordered - and the ebay dispute process concluded that it was as ordered, a negative buyer review would be in order as the buyer caused the seller to waste time responding to bogus claims.

Indeed, companies collect taxes from consumers, they don't pay taxes.

He's obviously a PHB.

How does Uber improve "the amount of car pooling we do" in a significantly useful way (i.e., one that furthers the goals for which car pooling is usually advocated)?

Consider if an individual leaves their home, drives 8 miles to their destination, and later returns home driving another 8 miles. Total miles of pollution and "road space" is 16 miles worth.

Suppose that same individual uses Uber using the same type of car. Obviously the same 16 miles would be traversed - but even then, the car weighs slightly more so would consume slightly more fuel and produce slightly more greenhouse gasses. But, in addition, an Uber driver will almost always have to drive from wherever they are TO the customer's location to pick them up and have no one else in the car during that time - and this scenario repeats on both the outbound and the inbound trip. Suppose that, on the average in that area, the Uber driver "deadheads" three miles on each trip. Now we an additional six miles of driving and associated environmental impact (including road congestion).

Sure, in the 'self driver' case, there's 0 miles of dual occupancy (a.k.a. carpooling) while in the Uber case there's 16 miles of dual occupancy (with slightly higher pollution due to the additional 150 or so pounds resulting from dual occupancy) -- but the cost is an additional six miles of single occupancy.

About the only "carpooling" type benefit is that less space needs to be devoted to parking at the destination if enough people take taxis, Uber, public transport, cycle etc...

If the goal is to increase average vehicle occupancy, why don't we just pay people to pile into cars and then drive the cars in circles?