That's an OK opinion. But the courts haven't ruled that way.
Yes they have. I even referenced it. Katz vs United States. Try to get a little bit educated please.
What law?
You do know the constitution is law, right? In fact it's the fundamental law.
The executive and the judicial are co-equal branches of government. Neither is above or beneath the other.
Exactly. So checks and balances are good. Neither has unchecked power.
There's no "checks and balances" article, clause, or section in the constitution though.
In this case the 4th amendment applies. Again, check Katz vs United States.
Which part of it says anything about spying at all? Which part of it makes it clear that it applies to conversations that cross borders? Which part of it makes it clear that this listening is "unreasonable"?
The case law supports the NSA policy, though there hasn't been a ruling on this precise question.
No, case law is very specifically against NSA policy. Please get educated, and at least cite cases if you're going to pretend that you've looked through it rather than just listened to soundbites.
Telephone conversations are protected under the 4th amendment. This is tried and settled case law. In fact, it was unanimous in the Supreme Court. If you don't like it, then I don't believe the US has restrictions on people emigrating because they prefer government control over freedom.
What is that supposed to mean? You're the one advocating powers the constitution says the government should not have, not me. The fact is, the constitution says that the government cannot do this - you don't like it then work on changing the constitution to something less free, but don't pretend to be either patriotic or pro-American when you're doing it.
Say a terrorist calls a guy in the US. Let's just say his name is Khalid. But who is Khalid? You don't have a warrant to listen to his part of the conversation. And you can't get a warrant without knowing who he is (see 4th amendment). So you never hear what he says, and he goes on to help kill 3000 Americans.
So what you are saying is people's lives are more important that freedom? Congratulations - you've just defined a totalitarian society, because the most safety you can get is from a system where the government controls and monitors the movements of every citizen.
Personally, unlike you I'm a believer in freedom. I believe that government should be limited. I believe that if that makes the country a little less "safe" but a little more free then so be it because I'm not a wimp who runs screaming to big brother every time a big bad terrorists kills a few people. You wanna be a wimp, fine but make sure you admit it to yourself first.
It constantly bitches at you (pops up a message box) when you try to do something that requires root privileges. At least that should cut down on the number of stupid tech support calls I get from my family.
Aside from the fact that modern hard discs are supposedly faster than USB 2.0
Well, that's assuming you get contiguous blocks. This isn't likely to happen when you consider relocatable libs that need loading etc. In any case, Superfetch measures the IO performance before using the device because most USB drives are pretty dog-slow.
isn't paging out part of the VM to a hot swappable device just dope-assed? Shurley shome mishtake!
Yep - you misunderstood what it is. Basically it's just a disk cache that is marginally more intelligent than regular LRU caching. It remembers application usage patterns and preloads the expected pages off disk before you request them. Because it's just a cache if you pull the removable storage then it makes no difference to the OS except it loses some cache memory.
Fancy name. Makes a difference if you have buckets of memory and don't leave your computer running 24/7, but not much more. Really, really good for demos and marketing.
Are you saying that this clearly puts the courts in charge of each action in military signals intelligence operations?
What I am saying is that the courts have determined that telephone conversations are protected under the 4th amendment (refer Katz v. United States) and so judicial review is required for these to occur. What I am saying is that the military may not spy on US Citizens without judicial review, not that they can't spy at all.
If the military is spying on US Citizens without judicial supervision then they are breaking the law. The military is not above the constitution and are certainly not above the Supreme Court. The President is not above the constitution and is also not above the Supreme Court. The United States has a concept of "checks and balances" which are somewhat alien to those people who do not understand the concept of "freedom" and like to run at the first sign of trouble.
Which part of the fourth amendment was unclear to you that made you think it said "except if the military is doing the spying"?
How is it unreasonable to have had your phone call listened to if you're calling some islamofacist nutjob?
It isn't, so getting the required judicial approval should be no problem. The fact they didn't and admitted publicly that judicial approval would have been a problem tells you very clearly that what they were doing was contrary to the 4th amendment.
The problem is they weren't just monitoring people calling "islamofacist [sic] nutjobs". They were going on a fishing expedition to find people calling those nutjobs. That is by definition unreasonable, just as a cop looking through your house to try to determine if you are holding a jihadist just to be sure is unreasonable.
If you want to relinquish your freedoms and run for the protection of the government every time someone a little scary comes along then you deserve neither the freedoms you so happily relinquish or the protection you desire. Stand up like a man and stop trying to hide behind "big brother".
The NSA isn't spying on nerds, it's spying on terrorists and the people they contact.
No, they aren't. They are spying in everyone and then trying to figure out who are the terrorists from that information. Don't believe the watered down version the White House is pushing, it's not the whole story when you look deeper.
Is there a new right to be free from surveillance in wartime when you associate with the enemy?
Read the fourth amendment. It's actually pretty clear in what it says. You'll also note that there's no "except in times of war" clause. In fact, you'll notice that the constitution itself has no "except in times of war" clause, despite many administrations asserting differently.
Without a visual difference, casual computer users (ie- not us) would unlikely notice any benefit of Vista over XP.
Well, except Vista looks very different from XP even without the "Glass" high end interface. In fact, there's really no way to make it look like XP at all - it either looks like Win2000, it looks like Glass or it looks like a flat, opaque version of Glass.
How is this different to Sony only releasing their newest games on their newest console? There's no technical reason they can't do some sort of back-port, they just want to drive sales.
Re:What was wrong with Azureus?
on
GCC 4.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
However, The major point here is that GCC provides the source code. Sun does not. You really need to check your facts before posting this stuff. Sun does provide the source code.
Microsoft want's people to use their X-Boxes as more than just gaming rigs to increase sales. "Buy an X-Box 360 and watch High Def Movies!" But if they lose the format war then that's a major loss to the X-Box, as it goes from Home multimedia system to gaming system that can maybe play mp3s.
Except MS isn't committed to either format at the moment while Sony is. If Blu-Ray wins then MS just ships their next rev of the XBox 360 with Blu-Ray. If HD-DVD wins then they ship with HD-DVD (and software to allow playback from a PC equipped with HD-DVD, which is not possible with Blu-Ray).
Bottom line - MS doesn't lose out either way and the XBox 360 will ship with whatever the winning format is. Sony on the other hand stands to lose a *lot* more if HD-DVD wins but frankly I'd much rather see Sony and their MPAA buddies get kicked in the teeth than Microsoft.
I'd say that the impact will be to let people in the industry know that you can buck Microsoft and not suffer immediate penalty. I'm sorry, but you need to get over your MS-hate and see what's really going on here.
If you thought MS was bad, wait until the xxAA comes along. The only reason MS preferred the HD-DVD format to Blu-Ray was the god-awful copy restriction stuff that Blu-Ray mandates which would prevent MS using their XBox 360 as a remote player for a PC with a Blu-Ray drive. In any case, it's Toshiba pushing HD-DVD, not MS. MS wins either way.
Fact is, MS gets "bucked" all the time. Hell, the entire Internet was bucking Microsoft and I don't see any penalty there. All MS does when they get "bucked" is buy the 2nd place player in the new field and throw cash at turning the company around with a "this was our strategy all along" marketing line. If you really have a short memory, Google "Microsoft Blackbird".
Now, what's really happening here is the entertainment industry is jumping behind the format with the most copy restrictions. This isn't saying HD-DVD isn't similarly encumbered, but the fact is parroting Blu-Ray as a "good thing" for anyone with an open software mindset is either ignorance or hypocrisy. Take your pick.
I don't buy it for one very big reason - the cells are functionally independant and Manhattan has a *lot* of cells. That means you could shut down a single cell with text messages if you targetted a single phone but a simple throttle on the number of messages to a single phone number would prevent that.
Now if you could figure out how to send messages to a bunch of different phones all in the same cell then you may be able to take that one cell out of business for a while, but DoS all of Manhattan? I think not.
Actually the single "coolest" thing I saw at PDC on Office 12 was the ability for Excel to use the new clustering stuff MS is bringing out to do recalcs. That's gotta get some leverage in the finance industry...
As a legally-declared monopolist... You misunderstand the law. Microsoft has been declared to have a monopoly in the x86 desktop market. They haven't been declared to have a monopoly in the virtual machine market, the conference market, the server market or any other market I could imagine relavent to a.NET/Mono discussion.
The whole "declared monopolist" thing is silly. All they are not permitted to do in the US is leverage their desktop monopoly to gain competitive advantage in other spaces.
Re:How can you vouche for the security of this?
on
Flash, Meet Sparkle
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You know, Microsoft definitely deserves it's share of criticism, but when people are idiots about it then it just rubs me the wrong way:
They have to be kicked and dragged into continuing to provide security fixes for NT, claiming "sorry, its 5 years old - we don't support it any more".
I challenge you to find any OS manufacturer that doesn't end of life their products after 9 years (NT 4.0 was released in 1996). Would you still support a 1996 version of Linux? How about OS/2? Maybe MacOS? Stop being a retard. Of course they don't have to support NT.
Computer software isn't a "car", "fridge" or "toilet". Name any one of those things that doubles in power every 18 months. Oh yeah - you can't.
7 versions of Vista? Fucking idiots - they can't even maintain what they've got now
Probably the most retarded thing I've heard. They all share the same code base, dumbass. The only thing releasing 7 versions does is confuse the market, not reduce security issues, which tend to be confined to a relatively small number of apps, especially now the default login isn't Administrator and IE drops privs while running.
How many versions of Linux are there?
So, criticize away on MS, but don't make yourself a bigger idiot than their marketing team when you do it.
Basically I want the option of being able to do absoloutely everything I can do with the Windows GUI admin tools but over a lousy GPRS connection via a remote text based shell.
If it's all configured through XML files, I don't see the difficulty here.
In addition, MS is saying they are going to layer their management tools on top of monad so everything will be command line scriptable, but take it with a grain of salt as to when/if that all comes to fruition.
ls and cp are no different from an ActiveX
on
Do You Code Sign?
·
· Score: 1
Again, this is aside the point: when you for example give shell access to students at university machines, all the binaries they run are part of a secure base. cp and ls are *the* tried and true binaries from every distribution. An administrator *knows* that they can trust that code.
Now, let's say an administrator installs a signed ActiveX plugin. Let's say it's even the Flash player. What we cannot know, and what makes this mechanism extremely dangerous (by means of perceived safety), is that the player might have a security hole in it. So you might go to a web page, and an action script loaded into the player could cause the player to execute random code. This is a big no-no. And not because the player is flawed, but rather because you've decided to integrate this piece of code into your trusted base OS.
You're being hypocritical here. The obvious flaw in your argument is "how did the Administrator know that cp and ls were tried and true?" The correct answer is "by code signing" and trusting the distribution agent that signed them (and the implied chain of trust with the certificates).
Now, cp, ls or more likely sendmail can have flaws in them just like any ActiveX component can have flaws. They are all the same thing - binaries that you install which are signed by some developer that you trust. It's up to the Administrator to draw the line on where their level of trust is and that question is wholly independant of code signing.
It's very educational to replace "ActiveX" with "the ls binary" in any "OMG Code Signing is teh dev1L" arguments because it handily illustrates that it's not code signing but the level of trust Administrators do or don't have that is the real security problem.
"Why couldn't you pair with subversion for all that?"
I take it you've never used Office's version tracking and collaboration features?
svn will store versions of the files, sure. It might even be able to diff things (depending on the file format you choose to save in). What it won't do is give you the "at a glace and as you type" version change information that Word does a fantastic job of, especially the later versions that use margin callouts to show you exactly where, how and who changed things, right down to the formatting.
Chip on your shoulder much? I don't correct people's spelling, I just don't bother with anyone who doesn't show the common courtesy to their fellow person to make it less work to read their message. If they don't respect me enough to make their post legible, why should I respect them enough to put the work in to decipher their gobbeldygook?
In any case, neither the article or my response was about picking on spelling or grammar. It was about being "strict on send and liberal on receive" - something any good technical person should know all about. If you are upset about having to show respect for others then perhaps introspection would be better than random aggression?
I've said it before, but it's not the diction that matters, but the message.
The diction matters because it distorts the message. That's the whole point of diction - it defines the parameters for getting the message through.
Reading a post, a report or an email from someone who you know is technically adept but suffers from poor English skills is like watching a flickering television set. You know the message is there but you have to view it several times before you get through the static to what it actually means.
In addition, poor diction from someone that you are sure actually knows better is simply a matter of their being inconsiderate. It takes very little time and effort to get spelling and grammar correct and to not make at least an effort is just being contemptuous of the reader.
If anyone is "missing something", it's those that defend bad English usage. It's not acceptable, it's lazy and frankly if you can't even try communicate properly then you probably don't deserve to be heard. THAT is basic people skills, and I rarely have good humor for those that express contempt towards their readers.
And what VISA are they going to use to gain enterance to the US? A regular visitor's visa like every other tourist that visits the US? They're valid for 3 months (for the most part) and renewable as often as you want so long as you leave the country to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
That's an OK opinion. But the courts haven't ruled that way.
Yes they have. I even referenced it. Katz vs United States. Try to get a little bit educated please.
What law?
You do know the constitution is law, right? In fact it's the fundamental law.
The executive and the judicial are co-equal branches of government. Neither is above or beneath the other.
Exactly. So checks and balances are good. Neither has unchecked power.
There's no "checks and balances" article, clause, or section in the constitution though.
In this case the 4th amendment applies. Again, check Katz vs United States.
Which part of it says anything about spying at all? Which part of it makes it clear that it applies to conversations that cross borders? Which part of it makes it clear that this listening is "unreasonable"?
The case law supports the NSA policy, though there hasn't been a ruling on this precise question.
No, case law is very specifically against NSA policy. Please get educated, and at least cite cases if you're going to pretend that you've looked through it rather than just listened to soundbites.
Telephone conversations are protected under the 4th amendment. This is tried and settled case law. In fact, it was unanimous in the Supreme Court. If you don't like it, then I don't believe the US has restrictions on people emigrating because they prefer government control over freedom.
Now YOU read the 4th amendment.
What is that supposed to mean? You're the one advocating powers the constitution says the government should not have, not me. The fact is, the constitution says that the government cannot do this - you don't like it then work on changing the constitution to something less free, but don't pretend to be either patriotic or pro-American when you're doing it.
Say a terrorist calls a guy in the US. Let's just say his name is Khalid. But who is Khalid? You don't have a warrant to listen to his part of the conversation. And you can't get a warrant without knowing who he is (see 4th amendment). So you never hear what he says, and he goes on to help kill 3000 Americans.
So what you are saying is people's lives are more important that freedom? Congratulations - you've just defined a totalitarian society, because the most safety you can get is from a system where the government controls and monitors the movements of every citizen.
Personally, unlike you I'm a believer in freedom. I believe that government should be limited. I believe that if that makes the country a little less "safe" but a little more free then so be it because I'm not a wimp who runs screaming to big brother every time a big bad terrorists kills a few people. You wanna be a wimp, fine but make sure you admit it to yourself first.
It constantly bitches at you (pops up a message box) when you try to do something that requires root privileges. At least that should cut down on the number of stupid tech support calls I get from my family.
Aside from the fact that modern hard discs are supposedly faster than USB 2.0
Well, that's assuming you get contiguous blocks. This isn't likely to happen when you consider relocatable libs that need loading etc. In any case, Superfetch measures the IO performance before using the device because most USB drives are pretty dog-slow.
isn't paging out part of the VM to a hot swappable device just dope-assed? Shurley shome mishtake!
Yep - you misunderstood what it is. Basically it's just a disk cache that is marginally more intelligent than regular LRU caching. It remembers application usage patterns and preloads the expected pages off disk before you request them. Because it's just a cache if you pull the removable storage then it makes no difference to the OS except it loses some cache memory.
Fancy name. Makes a difference if you have buckets of memory and don't leave your computer running 24/7, but not much more. Really, really good for demos and marketing.
Are you saying that this clearly puts the courts in charge of each action in military signals intelligence operations?
What I am saying is that the courts have determined that telephone conversations are protected under the 4th amendment (refer Katz v. United States) and so judicial review is required for these to occur. What I am saying is that the military may not spy on US Citizens without judicial review, not that they can't spy at all.
If the military is spying on US Citizens without judicial supervision then they are breaking the law. The military is not above the constitution and are certainly not above the Supreme Court. The President is not above the constitution and is also not above the Supreme Court. The United States has a concept of "checks and balances" which are somewhat alien to those people who do not understand the concept of "freedom" and like to run at the first sign of trouble.
Which part of the fourth amendment was unclear to you that made you think it said "except if the military is doing the spying"?
How is it unreasonable to have had your phone call listened to if you're calling some islamofacist nutjob?
It isn't, so getting the required judicial approval should be no problem. The fact they didn't and admitted publicly that judicial approval would have been a problem tells you very clearly that what they were doing was contrary to the 4th amendment.
The problem is they weren't just monitoring people calling "islamofacist [sic] nutjobs". They were going on a fishing expedition to find people calling those nutjobs. That is by definition unreasonable, just as a cop looking through your house to try to determine if you are holding a jihadist just to be sure is unreasonable.
If you want to relinquish your freedoms and run for the protection of the government every time someone a little scary comes along then you deserve neither the freedoms you so happily relinquish or the protection you desire. Stand up like a man and stop trying to hide behind "big brother".
The NSA isn't spying on nerds, it's spying on terrorists and the people they contact.
No, they aren't. They are spying in everyone and then trying to figure out who are the terrorists from that information. Don't believe the watered down version the White House is pushing, it's not the whole story when you look deeper.
Is there a new right to be free from surveillance in wartime when you associate with the enemy?
Read the fourth amendment. It's actually pretty clear in what it says. You'll also note that there's no "except in times of war" clause. In fact, you'll notice that the constitution itself has no "except in times of war" clause, despite many administrations asserting differently.
Well, except Vista looks very different from XP even without the "Glass" high end interface. In fact, there's really no way to make it look like XP at all - it either looks like Win2000, it looks like Glass or it looks like a flat, opaque version of Glass.
How is this different to Sony only releasing their newest games on their newest console? There's no technical reason they can't do some sort of back-port, they just want to drive sales.
However, The major point here is that GCC provides the source code. Sun does not.
You really need to check your facts before posting this stuff. Sun does provide the source code.
Microsoft want's people to use their X-Boxes as more than just gaming rigs to increase sales. "Buy an X-Box 360 and watch High Def Movies!" But if they lose the format war then that's a major loss to the X-Box, as it goes from Home multimedia system to gaming system that can maybe play mp3s.
Except MS isn't committed to either format at the moment while Sony is. If Blu-Ray wins then MS just ships their next rev of the XBox 360 with Blu-Ray. If HD-DVD wins then they ship with HD-DVD (and software to allow playback from a PC equipped with HD-DVD, which is not possible with Blu-Ray).
Bottom line - MS doesn't lose out either way and the XBox 360 will ship with whatever the winning format is. Sony on the other hand stands to lose a *lot* more if HD-DVD wins but frankly I'd much rather see Sony and their MPAA buddies get kicked in the teeth than Microsoft.
I'd say that the impact will be to let people in the industry know that you can buck Microsoft and not suffer immediate penalty.
I'm sorry, but you need to get over your MS-hate and see what's really going on here.
If you thought MS was bad, wait until the xxAA comes along. The only reason MS preferred the HD-DVD format to Blu-Ray was the god-awful copy restriction stuff that Blu-Ray mandates which would prevent MS using their XBox 360 as a remote player for a PC with a Blu-Ray drive. In any case, it's Toshiba pushing HD-DVD, not MS. MS wins either way.
Fact is, MS gets "bucked" all the time. Hell, the entire Internet was bucking Microsoft and I don't see any penalty there. All MS does when they get "bucked" is buy the 2nd place player in the new field and throw cash at turning the company around with a "this was our strategy all along" marketing line. If you really have a short memory, Google "Microsoft Blackbird".
Now, what's really happening here is the entertainment industry is jumping behind the format with the most copy restrictions. This isn't saying HD-DVD isn't similarly encumbered, but the fact is parroting Blu-Ray as a "good thing" for anyone with an open software mindset is either ignorance or hypocrisy. Take your pick.
I don't buy it for one very big reason - the cells are functionally independant and Manhattan has a *lot* of cells. That means you could shut down a single cell with text messages if you targetted a single phone but a simple throttle on the number of messages to a single phone number would prevent that.
Now if you could figure out how to send messages to a bunch of different phones all in the same cell then you may be able to take that one cell out of business for a while, but DoS all of Manhattan? I think not.
there are 65535 other ports
You know, you really should try to stop using port 0. You've been told before it's a bad thing!
Actually the single "coolest" thing I saw at PDC on Office 12 was the ability for Excel to use the new clustering stuff MS is bringing out to do recalcs. That's gotta get some leverage in the finance industry...
As a legally-declared monopolist... .NET/Mono discussion.
You misunderstand the law. Microsoft has been declared to have a monopoly in the x86 desktop market. They haven't been declared to have a monopoly in the virtual machine market, the conference market, the server market or any other market I could imagine relavent to a
The whole "declared monopolist" thing is silly. All they are not permitted to do in the US is leverage their desktop monopoly to gain competitive advantage in other spaces.
You know, Microsoft definitely deserves it's share of criticism, but when people are idiots about it then it just rubs me the wrong way:
They have to be kicked and dragged into continuing to provide security fixes for NT, claiming "sorry, its 5 years old - we don't support it any more".
I challenge you to find any OS manufacturer that doesn't end of life their products after 9 years (NT 4.0 was released in 1996). Would you still support a 1996 version of Linux? How about OS/2? Maybe MacOS? Stop being a retard. Of course they don't have to support NT.
Computer software isn't a "car", "fridge" or "toilet". Name any one of those things that doubles in power every 18 months. Oh yeah - you can't.
7 versions of Vista? Fucking idiots - they can't even maintain what they've got now
Probably the most retarded thing I've heard. They all share the same code base, dumbass. The only thing releasing 7 versions does is confuse the market, not reduce security issues, which tend to be confined to a relatively small number of apps, especially now the default login isn't Administrator and IE drops privs while running.
How many versions of Linux are there?
So, criticize away on MS, but don't make yourself a bigger idiot than their marketing team when you do it.
Basically I want the option of being able to do absoloutely everything I can do with the Windows GUI admin tools but over a lousy GPRS connection via a remote text based shell.
If it's all configured through XML files, I don't see the difficulty here.
In addition, MS is saying they are going to layer their management tools on top of monad so everything will be command line scriptable, but take it with a grain of salt as to when/if that all comes to fruition.
Again, this is aside the point: when you for example give shell access to students at university machines, all the binaries they run are part of a secure base. cp and ls are *the* tried and true binaries from every distribution. An administrator *knows* that they can trust that code.
Now, let's say an administrator installs a signed ActiveX plugin. Let's say it's even the Flash player. What we cannot know, and what makes this mechanism extremely dangerous (by means of perceived safety), is that the player might have a security hole in it. So you might go to a web page, and an action script loaded into the player could cause the player to execute random code. This is a big no-no. And not because the player is flawed, but rather because you've decided to integrate this piece of code into your trusted base OS.
You're being hypocritical here. The obvious flaw in your argument is "how did the Administrator know that cp and ls were tried and true?" The correct answer is "by code signing" and trusting the distribution agent that signed them (and the implied chain of trust with the certificates).
Now, cp, ls or more likely sendmail can have flaws in them just like any ActiveX component can have flaws. They are all the same thing - binaries that you install which are signed by some developer that you trust. It's up to the Administrator to draw the line on where their level of trust is and that question is wholly independant of code signing.
It's very educational to replace "ActiveX" with "the ls binary" in any "OMG Code Signing is teh dev1L" arguments because it handily illustrates that it's not code signing but the level of trust Administrators do or don't have that is the real security problem.
"Why couldn't you pair with subversion for all that?"
I take it you've never used Office's version tracking and collaboration features?
svn will store versions of the files, sure. It might even be able to diff things (depending on the file format you choose to save in). What it won't do is give you the "at a glace and as you type" version change information that Word does a fantastic job of, especially the later versions that use margin callouts to show you exactly where, how and who changed things, right down to the formatting.
OO+svn won't hold a candle to that.
Chip on your shoulder much? I don't correct people's spelling, I just don't bother with anyone who doesn't show the common courtesy to their fellow person to make it less work to read their message. If they don't respect me enough to make their post legible, why should I respect them enough to put the work in to decipher their gobbeldygook?
In any case, neither the article or my response was about picking on spelling or grammar. It was about being "strict on send and liberal on receive" - something any good technical person should know all about. If you are upset about having to show respect for others then perhaps introspection would be better than random aggression?
Cheers.
I've said it before, but it's not the diction that matters, but the message.
The diction matters because it distorts the message. That's the whole point of diction - it defines the parameters for getting the message through.
Reading a post, a report or an email from someone who you know is technically adept but suffers from poor English skills is like watching a flickering television set. You know the message is there but you have to view it several times before you get through the static to what it actually means.
In addition, poor diction from someone that you are sure actually knows better is simply a matter of their being inconsiderate. It takes very little time and effort to get spelling and grammar correct and to not make at least an effort is just being contemptuous of the reader.
If anyone is "missing something", it's those that defend bad English usage. It's not acceptable, it's lazy and frankly if you can't even try communicate properly then you probably don't deserve to be heard. THAT is basic people skills, and I rarely have good humor for those that express contempt towards their readers.
Throx
And what VISA are they going to use to gain enterance to the US?
A regular visitor's visa like every other tourist that visits the US? They're valid for 3 months (for the most part) and renewable as often as you want so long as you leave the country to do it.
You know what? I give up. Mod parents down cause they're old and not "better" at all.
/me mourns karma.
Perhaps one day I'll think before I type.
And of course if I wasn't a moron by assuming slashcode wouldn't butcher the text, here's a clickable one:
DIRECT LINK