What word was that? We did have a problem of tens of thousands of unaccompanied children presenting themselves at the border. But they were not split from their parents with no idea how to reunite them by any part of the Obama administration, or indeed, any American.
Netflix has offered to colocate a cache box for various ISPs many times which would reduce their upstream traffic for popular movies to zero. Every time the ISP has demanded impractically massive payments for that rather than reducing their upstream costs. Apparently they only have congestion on their upstream when they want to use it as an excuse to demand more money or push their customers to a subsidiary.
No need for that, just go after the obvious frauds. We can find them by actually doing something about it when people tell police "This site is a fraud".
People have a hard time understanding street addresses. Lets just assign every address a single 12 digit number and pay a private corporation a zillion dollars to provide a lookup service.
According to TFA, they segmented the network in response to the hack. And yes, VLAN isn't perfect. That's why you want belt AND suspenders, not belt OR suspenders.
The short retention works for anything that happens BEFORE the lawsuit is filed. The written policy is just a way to show that anything destroyed more than 30 days before the lawsuit was just business as usual, not an attempt to destroy evidence. Once the suit is filed, the destruction must be suspended.
That's exactly why for the sake of belt and suspenders you should at least use a vlan to isolate the security traffic if not a physically separated network.
Many of those are connected by a serial protocol through their own physical wiring.
That goes back to one or more security panels that connect via serial to a PC that may or may not have a network connection.
Of course, for safety, many of those are fail open and the wiring isn't physically secured such that you can short the wires to the latch to open the door without leaving a record of access.
It is a well understood legal concept that at some point negligence becomes criminal. I'm pretty sure sending a small child away and not knowing where is a good example. This is compounded when you sent the child away after involuntary seperation from a presumptive parent or guardian. Doing it as a matter of policy even when the child is old enough to clearly state what their relation is to the adults is worse. Then further chalking it up as a deterrence (that is, a punishment) tips it right over the cliff into evil.
They were probably not yet legal adults when their guidance councilors guided them to start applying for those student loans. They were only quasi adults when they actually signed the loans, not yer considered responsible enough to buy a beer, never had a lease, probably not an auto loan. All that they've heard for the last few years is get a loan, go to a good school, and get that degree or be a bum.
Beyond that, when the failure rate is single digits it may be their fault. When it approaches 1/3 the problem more likely exists in the system.
Failing to even know where the kids end up is pure negligence in any event, I hope you can agree with that. Quite a few of the kids pretrty much disappeared into the system with no documentation, no plan to figure out if the adults they arrived with are relatives and no ability to even figure out if they might have adult relatives legally in this country.
That is black and white evil no matter what you think the kid's proper disposition might be.
Children may be fostered, but in the event the parent is found not guilty, there is no reason not to reunite them.
If we're going to repatriate the children (hint, wwe don't), then the parents can as well go with them.
Of course, in some cases per international treaties we owe the parents and their children a right to a hearing for asylum. At least some of them are NOT here illegally, their legality simply hasn't been determined yet.
You seem desperate to find some way that it is not gross negligence to remove a child from their parents without even documenting where the child ended up. Sorry, not buying it. There exists no theory where that is adequate to the duty of care.
Actually, no I don't. But even more, I don't want them incarcerated with no way to reunite them with their parents. But note they're still incarcerated now, it's just that they're in kiddie jail rather than a family oriented facility.
Slashdot Mirror
What word was that? We did have a problem of tens of thousands of unaccompanied children presenting themselves at the border. But they were not split from their parents with no idea how to reunite them by any part of the Obama administration, or indeed, any American.
It was not fine, but the U.S. didn't do it.
And that would harm the ISPs how? They would still be getting a break on the upstream that they claimed was oh so very expensive and congested.
Netflix has offered to colocate a cache box for various ISPs many times which would reduce their upstream traffic for popular movies to zero. Every time the ISP has demanded impractically massive payments for that rather than reducing their upstream costs. Apparently they only have congestion on their upstream when they want to use it as an excuse to demand more money or push their customers to a subsidiary.
Or youtube is being throttled and pornhub isn't.
You know how U.S. mail works, right?
Or the software you need to view them or the services you need to keep machines on your LAN running.
For that matter, even if you did argue against it and HE is the one that did it anyway, it's your fault for not being persuasive enough.
It is now "Office 364"
No need for that, just go after the obvious frauds. We can find them by actually doing something about it when people tell police "This site is a fraud".
People have a hard time understanding street addresses. Lets just assign every address a single 12 digit number and pay a private corporation a zillion dollars to provide a lookup service.
According to TFA, they segmented the network in response to the hack. And yes, VLAN isn't perfect. That's why you want belt AND suspenders, not belt OR suspenders.
The short retention works for anything that happens BEFORE the lawsuit is filed. The written policy is just a way to show that anything destroyed more than 30 days before the lawsuit was just business as usual, not an attempt to destroy evidence. Once the suit is filed, the destruction must be suspended.
That's exactly why for the sake of belt and suspenders you should at least use a vlan to isolate the security traffic if not a physically separated network.
Many of those are connected by a serial protocol through their own physical wiring.
That goes back to one or more security panels that connect via serial to a PC that may or may not have a network connection.
Of course, for safety, many of those are fail open and the wiring isn't physically secured such that you can short the wires to the latch to open the door without leaving a record of access.
It doesn't take criminal courts to choose not to associate with unsavory people. Only to impose criminal penalty.
But as far as I can tell, the facts at hand aren't contested.
It is a well understood legal concept that at some point negligence becomes criminal. I'm pretty sure sending a small child away and not knowing where is a good example. This is compounded when you sent the child away after involuntary seperation from a presumptive parent or guardian. Doing it as a matter of policy even when the child is old enough to clearly state what their relation is to the adults is worse. Then further chalking it up as a deterrence (that is, a punishment) tips it right over the cliff into evil.
There's really no room to talk around that.
They were probably not yet legal adults when their guidance councilors guided them to start applying for those student loans. They were only quasi adults when they actually signed the loans, not yer considered responsible enough to buy a beer, never had a lease, probably not an auto loan. All that they've heard for the last few years is get a loan, go to a good school, and get that degree or be a bum.
Beyond that, when the failure rate is single digits it may be their fault. When it approaches 1/3 the problem more likely exists in the system.
Failing to even know where the kids end up is pure negligence in any event, I hope you can agree with that. Quite a few of the kids pretrty much disappeared into the system with no documentation, no plan to figure out if the adults they arrived with are relatives and no ability to even figure out if they might have adult relatives legally in this country.
That is black and white evil no matter what you think the kid's proper disposition might be.
Let's see, either a bunch of people are dreaming or you are. Wonder which it could be.....
So detain the parents in a children's facility.
Children may be fostered, but in the event the parent is found not guilty, there is no reason not to reunite them.
If we're going to repatriate the children (hint, wwe don't), then the parents can as well go with them.
Of course, in some cases per international treaties we owe the parents and their children a right to a hearing for asylum. At least some of them are NOT here illegally, their legality simply hasn't been determined yet.
You seem desperate to find some way that it is not gross negligence to remove a child from their parents without even documenting where the child ended up. Sorry, not buying it. There exists no theory where that is adequate to the duty of care.
Looks like you're good to go on your stupid pills today. Might want to talk to your doctor about tapering the dose back.
Actually, no I don't. But even more, I don't want them incarcerated with no way to reunite them with their parents. But note they're still incarcerated now, it's just that they're in kiddie jail rather than a family oriented facility.
So you support American developers helping the Chinese government find and shoot American operatives?
It also wouldn't happen if ICE had put the slightest bit of effort into keeping track of whose child was whose and where they went.
You know, honoring a basic duty of care?