I worked at a place that wanted to use a single recruiting firm, and asked us to try to hire positions through infosys. The candidates were consistently poor. Really, really poor. I met someone at a friend's house who had applied to my company for several open spots in the previous year. He was asking why he had never gotten a call back, and why we kept re-opening the reqs, or if the turnover was that high. When I saw his resume, it turned out to be exactly what we were looking for, and a price we were willing to pay. It turned out that Infosys was interested in trying to fill $80/hr spots with $30/hr talent, or worse. They were consistent, and I dont blame it on race, but on pure profits over good business. They lost our account.
The first problem is that the acts arent as illegal as you think, and it would be very difficult to even sure, let alone win. Now, it would make sense that these acts are illegal, but the guys taking the money are the same people that write the laws. And treason here is punishable by death, because we are freaking barbaric!
and the banks have fun with the float time. If they see a check come through for a high amount that can drain the account, it will go through fast. Instead of one bounced check, that big one magically finds its way to the front of the line so that all the little checks that had not cleared yet have insufficient balance.
this sounds a lot like the visit Kim Dotcom received. I keep thinking about him lately, and wondering if he just wasnt going to play ball, and had the perfect platform for "enemies of the state" to take advantage of.
maybe google just needs to talk about the compiled data, and mention how it may be on a somewhat "internal" server. And maybe screw up the robots.txt file, and maybe accidentally index it to a giant search engine. Or to step back further, they could just talk about having this information somewhere, and anonymous somehow finds it. Or maybe it is a random leak like the kind that illegally came from the white house before the election that never got pursued.
Asking permission is just the first step if they are serious.
I started thinking about this, and I think you are correct in the most hilarious of ways. You would need to have a business license, some sort of LLC or DBA, and then likely pay sales tax on that. As a small business, retained earnings would be the final profit, and that would be taxable. If this was a larger operation that is selling bulk to other dealers, then you may need to 1099 some of that money for proper records. No one ever asks what product was sold, only how many dollars worth were sold, and how much was profit and how much goes out as salary ( everything in a bank account) .
Now I do think doing this would be stupid, as the account would get shutdown easily upon suspicion, but the fact stands, simply paying taxes on illegal income would probably not be the thing that gets the operation shut down.
so maybe the rest of the world would start thinking that it isnt all the people that are so bad, that they really dont have the control over govt as advertised, and the elected (and unelected) officials are a bunch of dicks. If global politics were professional wrestling, the US would definitely be losing its spot as top heel.
ok, so you originally mention human decency, then you talk of what can stop abuses of human rights. It is obvious that certain types of people are drawn to power, and will abuse others rights to maintain their power. These people are not decent. The only way to enforce decency on those in power is to limit the rights of the government in regards to how it treats its governed. When the government reports to the people, as in the faded piece of parchment, then the people have a chance of forcing decency upon those in power. When the govenment decides that the people dont need to be informed, and that they should just leave the decisions to the grown ups, then even if they currentlhy arent being abusive and indecent, they have set the stage for someone who will be a complete shit and crack down on everyone they can.
I dont see the circular problems in my statement. the laws are descended from an original source. If you choose to dismiss any and all value from that source, then that is fine, but dont just expect anyone with any shred of power to be decent to you on their own will. This goes from the POTUS to the board of a neighborhood association.
I have a feeling he really meant what he said about a transparent and open government, and then a few people had some conversations with him after he got to the oval office, and some pragmatism set in. He could still be a leader if he would like to, use the power of the pulpit to try to lift up the rights of the people, but I am not going to hold my breath for that one.
this fucking AC troll from the NSA is pissing me off.
If the framework that allows the rules is irrelevant, then the rules are irrelevant. Even when the american public tries to stop this, they cant when the elected officials do what they please, or just avoid having a conversation based on secrets or burying unrelated "laws" into other bills. If something is unconstitutional, then it is illegal. If a law is illegal, then following it isnt legal. The option to challenge in court has been taken away, and now there is enough proof to make people angry, or at least question some things that had been previously dismissed as nonsense.
good, then lets have a trial. at least a really good examination of the policies. I dont care if a "tool" is compromised at this point. The enemy this tool works against is a bogeyman. As the govt likes to say, if they have done nothing wrong, then they should have no fear in letting us see the truth.
or even the people having an opportunity to say what they want. Or without knowing when the govt has been restricted. Or what they tried to do when they have been restricted. There is no concensus, and hopefully now there is information out there that will force a conversation and we can arrive at consensus. I have a guess that the people in charge know what the answer will be, which is why they have avoided askign the question.
well, if the crime is uncovering crime, then I call him a hero. It looks like he was stuck between upholding the constitution and following an obligation to protect classified material. If that classified material is completely counter to everything that the country is supposed to stand for, then it should be revealed. Tough choice, and a brave man.
this is exactly my point, it would become a crime. It would be very easy for years of law to twist things to the point that not answering a question would be a crime. We are protected from this because of the 5th. It may not be the detail, but it is the foundation
Whenever you see that Bennett name, be ready for something long and drawn out, and most likely full of himself. I skip ahead once it becomes obvious that there is no point beyond masturbating his own ego in public.
Slashdot Mirror
I worked at a place that wanted to use a single recruiting firm, and asked us to try to hire positions through infosys. The candidates were consistently poor. Really, really poor. I met someone at a friend's house who had applied to my company for several open spots in the previous year. He was asking why he had never gotten a call back, and why we kept re-opening the reqs, or if the turnover was that high. When I saw his resume, it turned out to be exactly what we were looking for, and a price we were willing to pay. It turned out that Infosys was interested in trying to fill $80/hr spots with $30/hr talent, or worse. They were consistent, and I dont blame it on race, but on pure profits over good business. They lost our account.
( it was a stupid joke ) ( notice that none of it really makes sense )
:)
YYYEEEEEEEHHHAAWWWW
The first problem is that the acts arent as illegal as you think, and it would be very difficult to even sure, let alone win. Now, it would make sense that these acts are illegal, but the guys taking the money are the same people that write the laws. And treason here is punishable by death, because we are freaking barbaric!
you mean actively supplying meta-data. i choose to keep quiet and protect my 5th amendment rights.
the ones that are founded, hired, funded, stocked, and armed by the FBI so they can make headlines.
where i am from that is called "yonder"
and the banks have fun with the float time. If they see a check come through for a high amount that can drain the account, it will go through fast. Instead of one bounced check, that big one magically finds its way to the front of the line so that all the little checks that had not cleared yet have insufficient balance.
re-education must have worked :)
this sounds a lot like the visit Kim Dotcom received. I keep thinking about him lately, and wondering if he just wasnt going to play ball, and had the perfect platform for "enemies of the state" to take advantage of.
maybe google just needs to talk about the compiled data, and mention how it may be on a somewhat "internal" server. And maybe screw up the robots.txt file, and maybe accidentally index it to a giant search engine. Or to step back further, they could just talk about having this information somewhere, and anonymous somehow finds it. Or maybe it is a random leak like the kind that illegally came from the white house before the election that never got pursued.
Asking permission is just the first step if they are serious.
i like how you think
I started thinking about this, and I think you are correct in the most hilarious of ways. You would need to have a business license, some sort of LLC or DBA, and then likely pay sales tax on that. As a small business, retained earnings would be the final profit, and that would be taxable. If this was a larger operation that is selling bulk to other dealers, then you may need to 1099 some of that money for proper records. No one ever asks what product was sold, only how many dollars worth were sold, and how much was profit and how much goes out as salary ( everything in a bank account) .
Now I do think doing this would be stupid, as the account would get shutdown easily upon suspicion, but the fact stands, simply paying taxes on illegal income would probably not be the thing that gets the operation shut down.
so maybe the rest of the world would start thinking that it isnt all the people that are so bad, that they really dont have the control over govt as advertised, and the elected (and unelected) officials are a bunch of dicks. If global politics were professional wrestling, the US would definitely be losing its spot as top heel.
this is my interest also. If he is lieing , then how has he done damage?
possibly, but the next big question after that is ... can Monsanto sue nature?
ok, so you originally mention human decency, then you talk of what can stop abuses of human rights. It is obvious that certain types of people are drawn to power, and will abuse others rights to maintain their power. These people are not decent. The only way to enforce decency on those in power is to limit the rights of the government in regards to how it treats its governed. When the government reports to the people, as in the faded piece of parchment, then the people have a chance of forcing decency upon those in power. When the govenment decides that the people dont need to be informed, and that they should just leave the decisions to the grown ups, then even if they currentlhy arent being abusive and indecent, they have set the stage for someone who will be a complete shit and crack down on everyone they can.
I dont see the circular problems in my statement. the laws are descended from an original source. If you choose to dismiss any and all value from that source, then that is fine, but dont just expect anyone with any shred of power to be decent to you on their own will. This goes from the POTUS to the board of a neighborhood association.
the people responsible should be tried for treason and executed, which is why they are going to be so aggressive in quashing these actions.
I have a feeling he really meant what he said about a transparent and open government, and then a few people had some conversations with him after he got to the oval office, and some pragmatism set in. He could still be a leader if he would like to, use the power of the pulpit to try to lift up the rights of the people, but I am not going to hold my breath for that one.
this fucking AC troll from the NSA is pissing me off.
If the framework that allows the rules is irrelevant, then the rules are irrelevant. Even when the american public tries to stop this, they cant when the elected officials do what they please, or just avoid having a conversation based on secrets or burying unrelated "laws" into other bills. If something is unconstitutional, then it is illegal. If a law is illegal, then following it isnt legal. The option to challenge in court has been taken away, and now there is enough proof to make people angry, or at least question some things that had been previously dismissed as nonsense.
good, then lets have a trial. at least a really good examination of the policies. I dont care if a "tool" is compromised at this point. The enemy this tool works against is a bogeyman. As the govt likes to say, if they have done nothing wrong, then they should have no fear in letting us see the truth.
exactly. there is a massive difference. In this case, there was an effort to avoid any personal risks, only policy was exposed.
or even the people having an opportunity to say what they want. Or without knowing when the govt has been restricted. Or what they tried to do when they have been restricted. There is no concensus, and hopefully now there is information out there that will force a conversation and we can arrive at consensus. I have a guess that the people in charge know what the answer will be, which is why they have avoided askign the question.
well, if the crime is uncovering crime, then I call him a hero. It looks like he was stuck between upholding the constitution and following an obligation to protect classified material. If that classified material is completely counter to everything that the country is supposed to stand for, then it should be revealed. Tough choice, and a brave man.
this is exactly my point, it would become a crime. It would be very easy for years of law to twist things to the point that not answering a question would be a crime. We are protected from this because of the 5th. It may not be the detail, but it is the foundation
Whenever you see that Bennett name, be ready for something long and drawn out, and most likely full of himself. I skip ahead once it becomes obvious that there is no point beyond masturbating his own ego in public.