doesn't Twitter still need data (either mobile or broadband)? How is this going to help much if other forms of communication are down?
If you send data in under-100-byte chunks, it can go over the downed connection. Don't you know anything about the internet? Just don't use the entire 140 byte allotment and it will work.
(that's my best explanation, let's see if someone else has a better one)
LinkedIn required the members to provide an external e-mail address as their username on its site, then used the information to access their external e-mail accounts when they were left open, according to the complaint.
It kinda figures... but why pick Israel of all allies?
I am guessing it is because there is no evidence (or it has not yet been released) of NSA handing over data to other allies. It is quite likely that everyone who asks nicely will get our data.
Team Google, or anybody else with nontrivial US presence(or who we feel like bag-n'-dragging, which we do sometimes), can't resist legal force; but if they can resist covert surveillance, they force the spooks to go to congress
That may be, but it is pretty obvious that Google has no interest in fighting that battle. They are making some noises now that it became apparent that they handed over the data -- but I have little reason to believe they are going to invest in a real fight (and maybe it isn't their responsibility).
Based on the previous post on slashdot, tech companies are fighting furiously to report the "total number of NSA requests" they complied with. Once they win, all will be well in the world.
What reasons are there for federally funded postal services to be continued?
Plenty of rural areas will get no postal service (or once-a-week service at exorbitant prices by UPS/FedEx). That's reason enough. Oh, and USPS isn't federally funded, imagine that (self sufficient, according to wikipedia, anyway)
UPS and FedEx outsource to USPS for delivery on "unprofitable" destinations.
In July 2010, a U.S. spy agency intercepted electronic communications indicating that senior al-Qaeda leaders had distributed a "strategy guide" to operatives around the world
They may just be making this up to get more funding. Sometimes these "intercepted messages" or "chatter" look just so convenient (often well timed) and meaningless that one has to wonder.
But that's why we come to slashdot -- Two stories for the price of one!
The summary is usually different from the article and two separate discussion (one about summary another one about article) are carried out in the comments section. I assume this is intentional, because no editor would allow it otherwise, right?:)
A Google spokeswoman said via email the company does not provide encryption keys to any government and provides user data only in accordance with the law.
And once US starts to publicize their laws, that would maybe mean something
For now, "in accordance with the law" means nothing because of all the secret laws or secret law-interpretations that are out there.
It almost sounds like they are expanding operations... "occasional rejiggering of resources" would have to be my favorite
Maintaining profit levels, as well as a reallocation of resources to other areas such as security, mobility and the cloud,... were driving the decision for the layoffs
Additionally, the company will have more agility with smaller teams,
Last summer, Cisco announced it would eliminate 1,300 positions, or 2 percent of its workforce, as part of an ongoing restructuring.
And in March this year, Cisco axed 500 employees, as part of an occasional rejiggering of resources,
The layoffs come as Cisco anticipates a rocky economic environment and seeks to ensure its expenses remain in line with its revenues, said John Chambers, Cisco CEO
Does he not suspect that the revenues may drop as a result of a 5% workforce cut?
Also -- how much of a salary cut is the CEO taking (in those rocky economic times), anyway?
We knew this was an important issue. We had to balance the interests of consumers with the concerns of health plan sponsors and carriers, which told us that their computer systems were not set up to aggregate all of a person's out-of-pocket costs.
So what's on the other side of this "balanced" solution?
Fuckheads addicted to high volume piracy, plains and simple.. multiple order of magnitude more bandwidth than anything..
also, the brainwashed people who believe corporate announcements...
First of all, if they didn't want anyone using "orders of magnitude" more bandwidth, then the solution is simple: do not sell unlimited plans! Advertise it as X-GB plans and charge people extra for going over. But they prefer to advertise it as "unlimited" because the commercials have a better jingle to them (vs "200-GB a month plan").
Second, today anyone with active Netflix/Hulu/streaming accounts can easily use a lot of bandwidth without any pirating whatsoever. And these people will be targeted just as much as anyone else. Your average obnoxious webpage without flashblock/adblock will start playing 3-4 decent quality videos and blaring sound! I am sure that uses a lot of bandwidth
So bottom line, let them advertise exactly what they sell and life will be fair once again. But none of this "people who use too much bandwidth will be throttled/kicked-off, but won't tell you what 'too much' is, because that will ruin the surprise"
they've convinced the populace that anything labelled bipartisan is wonderful.
From what I hear, quite a few "bipartisan" bills involve one defector from the other side. There should be an understanding that some minimum (>1) must be required before it is allowed to count as "bipartisan".
unwillingness to admit that they were implementing features users did not like.
That's because with MS Office or Windows they never have to! They are too used to having users suck it up and deal with whatever unwanted features happened (or whatever wanted features did not happen).
Actually having to deal with customer demands is a relatively new experience for Microsoft.
This is called "oppression," when you live in fear of being the "next" target of government "scrutiny."
And what is the name for all of the businesses who just merrily went along with government requests? Apparently all of the big companies fought very little (if at all)
Slashdot Mirror
Stop thinking of Apple as American just because their headquarters are here.
But, but... Apple products say "Designed in USA" Surely that's almost the same as "Made in USA"?
(I don't know of any other product that tries that trick to counter the "Made in China" note.)
Yep, a whole $44,400 fine.
Good thing they did not download an mp3 file illegally. Because that could have cost much more!
doesn't Twitter still need data (either mobile or broadband)? How is this going to help much if other forms of communication are down?
If you send data in under-100-byte chunks, it can go over the downed connection. Don't you know anything about the internet? Just don't use the entire 140 byte allotment and it will work.
(that's my best explanation, let's see if someone else has a better one)
LinkedIn required the members to provide an external e-mail address as their username on its site, then used the information to access their external e-mail accounts when they were left open, according to the complaint.
Password = 'password'?
If MS believes enterprises and consumers want Win 8 by choice, they are deluded.
I am almost certain that MS does not care whether people buy Win 8 "by choice" or not. As long as they buy it.
It is good to be a monopoly.
It kinda figures... but why pick Israel of all allies?
I am guessing it is because there is no evidence (or it has not yet been released) of NSA handing over data to other allies. It is quite likely that everyone who asks nicely will get our data.
Team Google, or anybody else with nontrivial US presence(or who we feel like bag-n'-dragging, which we do sometimes), can't resist legal force; but if they can resist covert surveillance, they force the spooks to go to congress
That may be, but it is pretty obvious that Google has no interest in fighting that battle. They are making some noises now that it became apparent that they handed over the data -- but I have little reason to believe they are going to invest in a real fight (and maybe it isn't their responsibility).
Based on the previous post on slashdot, tech companies are fighting furiously to report the "total number of NSA requests" they complied with. Once they win, all will be well in the world.
That they are big enough to take the risk of standing up for our freedoms
They have petitioned the government to publish the number of requests they fully respond to. After the spying scandals have started (not before)
That is a far cry from "standing up for our freedoms". They are not contesting any of the requests yet, are they?
Yup, go for it and see if you can do better. Bandwidth costs money.
Based on the fact that there is never really any competitors, I think that's not it.
Physical access to customers is monopolized so that there is typically no competition.
Drown 'em in paperwork.
No, that's not it at all.
EFF has to battle in court to receive secret interpretation of the law. That's not "paperwork", that's the law itself.
What reasons are there for federally funded postal services to be continued?
Plenty of rural areas will get no postal service (or once-a-week service at exorbitant prices by UPS/FedEx). That's reason enough. Oh, and USPS isn't federally funded, imagine that (self sufficient, according to wikipedia, anyway)
UPS and FedEx outsource to USPS for delivery on "unprofitable" destinations.
Especially, one as cheap and effective as drones are.
Drones are far from cheap. Wikipedia puts MQ-1 Predator unit cost (as of 2010) at $4.03 million. How is that cheap?
In July 2010, a U.S. spy agency intercepted electronic communications indicating that senior al-Qaeda leaders had distributed a "strategy guide" to operatives around the world
They may just be making this up to get more funding. Sometimes these "intercepted messages" or "chatter" look just so convenient (often well timed) and meaningless that one has to wonder.
I will never stay at a hotel that responds to a complaint on the internet with a $95k lawsuit.
Ya, I agree, they lack imagination. He could just fight that. Should have sued him for $95M at least to really scare him
Also, I think the lesson here is that it is best to post reviews anonymously, as no good can come from identifying yourself.
Mod parent up. Article summary is wrong.
But that's why we come to slashdot -- Two stories for the price of one!
The summary is usually different from the article and two separate discussion (one about summary another one about article) are carried out in the comments section. I assume this is intentional, because no editor would allow it otherwise, right? :)
There is a legal limit on detaining suspects without charging them,
Not a lot of legal limits -- apparently when detained thusly one is not entitled to a lawyer or to being silent.
A Google spokeswoman said via email the company does not provide encryption keys to any government and provides user data only in accordance with the law.
And once US starts to publicize their laws, that would maybe mean something
For now, "in accordance with the law" means nothing because of all the secret laws or secret law-interpretations that are out there.
There was a time, believe it or not, when profitable companies would generally not layoff people because the company was, uh, profitable.
I can only assume that firing is the reason why the company is temporarily profitable. I understand it goes like this:
1. Notice falling revenues
2. Fire enough people to compensate by reducing expenses even more
3. (Show) Profit!
4. Suffer more revenue loss due to all this missing workforce and go to #1
Of course after a few cutting rounds, the CEO will be left alone in his office, but that's a long term view which is irrelevant.
Maintaining profit levels, as well as a reallocation of resources to other areas such as security, mobility and the cloud, ... were driving the decision for the layoffs
Additionally, the company will have more agility with smaller teams,
Last summer, Cisco announced it would eliminate 1,300 positions, or 2 percent of its workforce, as part of an ongoing restructuring.
And in March this year, Cisco axed 500 employees, as part of an occasional rejiggering of resources,
The layoffs come as Cisco anticipates a rocky economic environment and seeks to ensure its expenses remain in line with its revenues, said John Chambers, Cisco CEO
Does he not suspect that the revenues may drop as a result of a 5% workforce cut?
Also -- how much of a salary cut is the CEO taking (in those rocky economic times), anyway?
We knew this was an important issue. We had to balance the interests of consumers with the concerns of health plan sponsors and carriers, which told us that their computer systems were not set up to aggregate all of a person's out-of-pocket costs.
So what's on the other side of this "balanced" solution?
Fuckheads addicted to high volume piracy, plains and simple.. multiple order of magnitude more bandwidth than anything..
also, the brainwashed people who believe corporate announcements...
First of all, if they didn't want anyone using "orders of magnitude" more bandwidth, then the solution is simple: do not sell unlimited plans! Advertise it as X-GB plans and charge people extra for going over. But they prefer to advertise it as "unlimited" because the commercials have a better jingle to them (vs "200-GB a month plan").
Second, today anyone with active Netflix/Hulu/streaming accounts can easily use a lot of bandwidth without any pirating whatsoever. And these people will be targeted just as much as anyone else. Your average obnoxious webpage without flashblock/adblock will start playing 3-4 decent quality videos and blaring sound! I am sure that uses a lot of bandwidth
So bottom line, let them advertise exactly what they sell and life will be fair once again. But none of this "people who use too much bandwidth will be throttled/kicked-off, but won't tell you what 'too much' is, because that will ruin the surprise"
they've convinced the populace that anything labelled bipartisan is wonderful.
From what I hear, quite a few "bipartisan" bills involve one defector from the other side. There should be an understanding that some minimum (>1) must be required before it is allowed to count as "bipartisan".
unwillingness to admit that they were implementing features users did not like.
That's because with MS Office or Windows they never have to! They are too used to having users suck it up and deal with whatever unwanted features happened (or whatever wanted features did not happen).
Actually having to deal with customer demands is a relatively new experience for Microsoft.
This is called "oppression," when you live in fear of being the "next" target of government "scrutiny."
And what is the name for all of the businesses who just merrily went along with government requests? Apparently all of the big companies fought very little (if at all)