"If you take a look at the two parties, they differ on a lot of issues, including health care, abortion, equal rights for people with nonstandard sexuality, social programs, and the role of government in the US. They agree on many issues, including some I disagree with, but that's how it's going to be with the two-party system our election processes implicitly mandate."
You seem to have this odd idea that what they say to you to get elected and/or divide you is what they care about/stand for/etc. Stating two positions and pretending to be competitors means the things they want can pass while the things they don't but said they did can fail and be blamed on "the other guy" who is really just part of the same team.
Look at the illegal NSA domestic wiretapping. Whose interest did it serve for some to pretend outrage, some to claim support, then pass a bill to "reform" that actually just gave congressional blessing to unconstitutional and illegal actions? Whatever congress had the authority to legalize was legalized by the bill and the bill has language legalizing all sorts of things congress doesn't have the authority to legalize. Somehow both parties were on board with "reforming" by blessing in reality and lying to the public indicating they were putting a stop to the illegal activity on the other?
That is a failed analogy. T-Mobile did tell him he could come in.
This is more akin to you unlocking the door of your house, giving me permission to go in and use the phone and me using the bathroom while there.
Second, T-Mobile might have intended speedtests built for that purpose but one could argue loading non-optimized content gives a better indication of performance and therefore his proxy IS a speed test. At least one could argue it if the idiot hadn't posted about hacking free data publically.
"Like it or not, theft of services is a thing, and this kid would be guaranteed to have been found guilty of it regardless of how desperately you may wish to try and mis-read the law in your favour."
First this is an American website, the correct spelling is favor. Second, this kid probably would be found guilty of theft of services but that is only because judges have been misreading the law in corporations favor.. not just in these cases but pretty much across the board.
I don't see exploitation here, this is a whitelist not a bug. T-Mobile intentionally opened this door, doing something T-Mobile didn't anticipate when you walk through it is beside the point, you are using your own device but one T-Mobile created to access their network and you are using it through a T-Mobile created hole.
My strategy was social engineering. I used a small local isp that also sold parts and had a few pc service clients. I came in a couple times and bought parts when I needed them and chatted up the guy. He was fully convinced I was a freelancer with lots of clients. I then told him I had a move planned and couldn't guarantee what they would choose but that I'd recommend him to all my clients as their new guy if he'd hook me up with a free dialup account that didn't expire.
"In the US, there are two parties that differ significantly from each other, and both frequently win elections."
The US has one party with two flavors of spin designed to carefully divide the population in order to keep them from uniting and looking too closely while they strip the Constitution and the people of power. It can be argued the Constitution was never really more than something to rally people behind and ignore when inconvenient. The president hands over all power every 10 years to prevent the president from having much power. The people who are actually in charge aren't politicians at all, the nation is run by the wealthy elite and the unelected military/intelligence complex which does not give up power.
When it comes to language correct has nothing to do with better or worse. It is correct to communicate using the protocol best understood by the party you are trying to communicate with to the best of your ability, this insures the highest degree of fidelity in your communicatation. Ultimately fidelity of information exchange is the point and language is nothing more than a tool used to accomplish it.
The patriot act itself isn't legal. Just because someone makes a "law" doesn't actually make something legal, the someone had to have the authority to back that law in the first place and all federal and state authority comes from the Constitution, the highest law in the land. Anything they do that isn't within that authority or is counter to it, is illegal and police enforcing it are nothing more criminal scum traitors to the only authority which do not derive their authority from law, the people.
Once you start looking for it, you will see a pattern that persists across parties over time of taking on greater federal power and weakening the people's innate power. It comes on many fronts ranging from weakening force of arms to weakening force of juries to psychological warfare convincing the people they are powerless. This is a CIA psychological warfare tactic developed during the cold war, they feared sci-fi writers were doing this very thing about the unwinnability of world war 3 aka nuclear war. It's like how cheaters suspect the actions of their partners because they know the way they themselves lie and hide actions.
"because his disclosures were NOT evidence of any criminal activity"
Every aspect of NSA/intelligence activity revealed by Snowden was/is illegal. It even prompted congress to quickly pass an act trying to legalize some of it under the false guise of limiting the activity but of course congress along with the rest of the federal government lacks constitutional authority to do or bless the actions being engaged in.
"Loose lips still sink ships, and it's entirely likely that people were killed as a result."
That seems highly suspect since there is plenty of evidence that intelligence have caused deaths, broken the law, and terrorized our own populace there is zero evidence that they've ever saved a life they didn't imperil in the first place. Not a single terrorist act has been shown to have been stopped. It's like that moment when you realize that if Indiana Jones had not been present at all the outcome of Raiders of the Lost Ark would have been the same but less damage getting there since it was the Ark and not Jones that defeated the Nazi's. The same with the Last Crusade, without Jones either the Germans don't find the grail or they do and would have killed themselves in exactly the same way trying to take it.
He committed treason against the united states government in order to reveal treason against the people of the united states, a yet higher authority. Breaking the law in order to prevent a greater miscarriage of justice is an affirmative defense and a valid argument under the law.
Punishing this man would send a message discouraging other whistle blowers from doing what he did. That would be a very terrible thing.
Known but not to the general public and not proven. Not that it did much good. The congressional reform just gave congressional blessing to most of this illegal activity, I say illegal because congress lacks the Federal government lacks the constitutional authority to legalize these behaviors.
"It was not created to chase a few "terrists" around the desert, even if squashing them became the cause celebre after the failures to identify and stop the 9-11 crew, and the infringements on our privacy (yeah, privacy demands from people addicted to facebook postings, what a load) should be weighed against the threat of a WW2 or larger conflict which the system was designed to stop."
Sure, just as soon as there is some kind of reason to believe it has in any way done anything even remotely like stop WWIII. Or the deaths of anyone. Nothing that has been declassified since WWII has done so. The intelligence community is almost certainly directly responsible for emnities behind 9/11 and many many more deaths, the number domestically are dwarfed by the numbers abroad, even if you count everyone who has died as a consequence of introducing crack cocaine into domestic poor neighborhoods to create a market that could be used to fund slush funds and black arms trade, with no indication it has saved lives it didn't imperil in the first place.
It depends on whether or not the punctuation is part of the quote. If a piece of punctuation belongs to what you quoted (such as a complete sentence) then it logically belongs in the quote. You don't go shifting part of a string outside the quotes.
That wouldn't make it optional, that would make it correct when using American English, such as on an American website like this one or other writing for an American audience. If you are commenting on the BBC it is correct to spell it colour, if you are commenting here it would be a spelling error. If writing for no audience in particular correct is probably whatever way you originally learned and if writing for youself correct is whatever you say it is at any given moment.
At the end of the day it doesn't actually matter. That is the point people miss in all this. The results have been everything the government could have ever dreamed of getting from having committed such an act, which is terrible for the people. If those in power did not engage in a conspiracy that doesn't mean they wouldn't have if they'd thought of it, thought they could get away with it, and knew what kind of outcome it would have brought. The government has been caught out in enough conspiracies at this point, arms running, mind control experiments, secret prisons, introducing crack to poor minor neighborhoods in our cities to fund arms running, the Clinton primary election rigging, wave on wave of disclosures about the wars and the NSA.
It isn't like having planned 9/11 would establish the government as being more dirty or not having planned 9/11 means the government doesn't engage in that level of conspiracy. We don't need to be divided over whether the government did this particular shady thing when most everyone can agree at this point that those in power are shady and need tossed out. But there are enough people who DO believe the government did this shady thing, that statistically it might well have been a valid trending news item on FB.
I've tuned algorithms like this and results of this kind are pretty normal. After all, being able to come up with relevant results without crap like this is what made Google the massive giant it is. Especially given that computers haven't been trained to have a bias against conspiracies like humans have for the past several decades.
This could be Facebook doing just what you suggest. I am not biased against conspiracies and actually believe people acting shitty in pursuit of self interest is never unlikely. It could also just be growing pains of an algorithm that wasn't designed to be fully automated. If it's the latter FB should probably look toward building a component that weights sources either in a google/academia fashion of how many other sources cite them or in a feedback driven historical mechanism.
Section 8 housing assistance requires a waiting period ranging from months to years. You don't qualify for free healthcare on that amount, in fact you are unlikely to qualify at all without a dependant child and in most cases only the child qualifies. All those benefits actually scale down as you approach the number as well with every dollar you get ahead actually counting against you.
How do I know? I was the son of a poor single mother. Back then the housing situation wasn't quite as bad, they had "low income housing" and while there was still a waiting list it wasn't as bad as it became when they cut benefits and created the section 8 program. Of course the money counting against you thing was still a big factor. My mother was a hair dresser, her income varied but was never more than $500 every two weeks. Even so, if it was more she had to pay more in rent. Some months we qualified for a medical card and some months not. Every several months we might qualify for help with utilities. However, many of these benefits would then be counted as income for the other benefits and result in those getting cut.
Since the total combined benefits and income is limited right about that mark, yes, someone expects you can live reasonably (for a single person with no dependents takes about five fold that in most of the country). Comfortably isn't even a factor in this discussion.
"Whether you take the money and train your replacement or not doesn't matter."
Stocks don't go up in response to losing money.
"If these people were so indispensable they wouldn't be laid off."
Anyone can be replaced but there is a difference between being able to replace someone and being able to afford a major chunk of your operations roles sitting effectively unoccupied or even negatively occupied for 6-12months. The imports don't just not know the company. They generally are completely unskilled workers. It's like bringing in a building full of recent high school graduates and training on the job. People who swear by degrees would be suprised at how little difference a degree makes, either way you are basically starting from zero when they get to the real job.
Other than having a tough to follow accent that just sounds like a large bumble bee on the phone they do about as well as unskilled americans coming into these positions. And as time goes on it's our accent that is the disadvantage. There are far more H1B's/fomer H1B's than americans in US tech companies.
Slashdot Mirror
"If you take a look at the two parties, they differ on a lot of issues, including health care, abortion, equal rights for people with nonstandard sexuality, social programs, and the role of government in the US. They agree on many issues, including some I disagree with, but that's how it's going to be with the two-party system our election processes implicitly mandate."
You seem to have this odd idea that what they say to you to get elected and/or divide you is what they care about/stand for/etc. Stating two positions and pretending to be competitors means the things they want can pass while the things they don't but said they did can fail and be blamed on "the other guy" who is really just part of the same team.
Look at the illegal NSA domestic wiretapping. Whose interest did it serve for some to pretend outrage, some to claim support, then pass a bill to "reform" that actually just gave congressional blessing to unconstitutional and illegal actions? Whatever congress had the authority to legalize was legalized by the bill and the bill has language legalizing all sorts of things congress doesn't have the authority to legalize. Somehow both parties were on board with "reforming" by blessing in reality and lying to the public indicating they were putting a stop to the illegal activity on the other?
That is a failed analogy. T-Mobile did tell him he could come in.
This is more akin to you unlocking the door of your house, giving me permission to go in and use the phone and me using the bathroom while there.
Second, T-Mobile might have intended speedtests built for that purpose but one could argue loading non-optimized content gives a better indication of performance and therefore his proxy IS a speed test. At least one could argue it if the idiot hadn't posted about hacking free data publically.
"Like it or not, theft of services is a thing, and this kid would be guaranteed to have been found guilty of it regardless of how desperately you may wish to try and mis-read the law in your favour."
First this is an American website, the correct spelling is favor. Second, this kid probably would be found guilty of theft of services but that is only because judges have been misreading the law in corporations favor.. not just in these cases but pretty much across the board.
I don't see exploitation here, this is a whitelist not a bug. T-Mobile intentionally opened this door, doing something T-Mobile didn't anticipate when you walk through it is beside the point, you are using your own device but one T-Mobile created to access their network and you are using it through a T-Mobile created hole.
My strategy was social engineering. I used a small local isp that also sold parts and had a few pc service clients. I came in a couple times and bought parts when I needed them and chatted up the guy. He was fully convinced I was a freelancer with lots of clients. I then told him I had a move planned and couldn't guarantee what they would choose but that I'd recommend him to all my clients as their new guy if he'd hook me up with a free dialup account that didn't expire.
Account worked for several years.
"In the US, there are two parties that differ significantly from each other, and both frequently win elections."
The US has one party with two flavors of spin designed to carefully divide the population in order to keep them from uniting and looking too closely while they strip the Constitution and the people of power. It can be argued the Constitution was never really more than something to rally people behind and ignore when inconvenient. The president hands over all power every 10 years to prevent the president from having much power. The people who are actually in charge aren't politicians at all, the nation is run by the wealthy elite and the unelected military/intelligence complex which does not give up power.
Let's not forget, this same military/intelligence apparatus created the animosity in the middle east that lead to 9/11 in the first place.
When it comes to language correct has nothing to do with better or worse. It is correct to communicate using the protocol best understood by the party you are trying to communicate with to the best of your ability, this insures the highest degree of fidelity in your communicatation. Ultimately fidelity of information exchange is the point and language is nothing more than a tool used to accomplish it.
The patriot act itself isn't legal. Just because someone makes a "law" doesn't actually make something legal, the someone had to have the authority to back that law in the first place and all federal and state authority comes from the Constitution, the highest law in the land. Anything they do that isn't within that authority or is counter to it, is illegal and police enforcing it are nothing more criminal scum traitors to the only authority which do not derive their authority from law, the people.
Once you start looking for it, you will see a pattern that persists across parties over time of taking on greater federal power and weakening the people's innate power. It comes on many fronts ranging from weakening force of arms to weakening force of juries to psychological warfare convincing the people they are powerless. This is a CIA psychological warfare tactic developed during the cold war, they feared sci-fi writers were doing this very thing about the unwinnability of world war 3 aka nuclear war. It's like how cheaters suspect the actions of their partners because they know the way they themselves lie and hide actions.
That doesn't sound much different than the United States.
Actually you are the naive one, you think the US somehow stands apart from Russia, North Korea, and China?
There is no shortage of attack that you've listed above and frankly I believe his statement still stands.
"because his disclosures were NOT evidence of any criminal activity"
Every aspect of NSA/intelligence activity revealed by Snowden was/is illegal. It even prompted congress to quickly pass an act trying to legalize some of it under the false guise of limiting the activity but of course congress along with the rest of the federal government lacks constitutional authority to do or bless the actions being engaged in.
"Loose lips still sink ships, and it's entirely likely that people were killed as a result."
That seems highly suspect since there is plenty of evidence that intelligence have caused deaths, broken the law, and terrorized our own populace there is zero evidence that they've ever saved a life they didn't imperil in the first place. Not a single terrorist act has been shown to have been stopped. It's like that moment when you realize that if Indiana Jones had not been present at all the outcome of Raiders of the Lost Ark would have been the same but less damage getting there since it was the Ark and not Jones that defeated the Nazi's. The same with the Last Crusade, without Jones either the Germans don't find the grail or they do and would have killed themselves in exactly the same way trying to take it.
He committed treason against the united states government in order to reveal treason against the people of the united states, a yet higher authority. Breaking the law in order to prevent a greater miscarriage of justice is an affirmative defense and a valid argument under the law.
Punishing this man would send a message discouraging other whistle blowers from doing what he did. That would be a very terrible thing.
They do by such an overwealming majority that the tiny few who don't are a statistical blip.
Known but not to the general public and not proven. Not that it did much good. The congressional reform just gave congressional blessing to most of this illegal activity, I say illegal because congress lacks the Federal government lacks the constitutional authority to legalize these behaviors.
"It was not created to chase a few "terrists" around the desert, even if squashing them became the cause celebre after the failures to identify and stop the 9-11 crew, and the infringements on our privacy (yeah, privacy demands from people addicted to facebook postings, what a load) should be weighed against the threat of a WW2 or larger conflict which the system was designed to stop."
Sure, just as soon as there is some kind of reason to believe it has in any way done anything even remotely like stop WWIII. Or the deaths of anyone. Nothing that has been declassified since WWII has done so. The intelligence community is almost certainly directly responsible for emnities behind 9/11 and many many more deaths, the number domestically are dwarfed by the numbers abroad, even if you count everyone who has died as a consequence of introducing crack cocaine into domestic poor neighborhoods to create a market that could be used to fund slush funds and black arms trade, with no indication it has saved lives it didn't imperil in the first place.
It depends on whether or not the punctuation is part of the quote. If a piece of punctuation belongs to what you quoted (such as a complete sentence) then it logically belongs in the quote. You don't go shifting part of a string outside the quotes.
Obviously, what is the question?
That wouldn't make it optional, that would make it correct when using American English, such as on an American website like this one or other writing for an American audience. If you are commenting on the BBC it is correct to spell it colour, if you are commenting here it would be a spelling error. If writing for no audience in particular correct is probably whatever way you originally learned and if writing for youself correct is whatever you say it is at any given moment.
At the end of the day it doesn't actually matter. That is the point people miss in all this. The results have been everything the government could have ever dreamed of getting from having committed such an act, which is terrible for the people. If those in power did not engage in a conspiracy that doesn't mean they wouldn't have if they'd thought of it, thought they could get away with it, and knew what kind of outcome it would have brought. The government has been caught out in enough conspiracies at this point, arms running, mind control experiments, secret prisons, introducing crack to poor minor neighborhoods in our cities to fund arms running, the Clinton primary election rigging, wave on wave of disclosures about the wars and the NSA.
It isn't like having planned 9/11 would establish the government as being more dirty or not having planned 9/11 means the government doesn't engage in that level of conspiracy. We don't need to be divided over whether the government did this particular shady thing when most everyone can agree at this point that those in power are shady and need tossed out. But there are enough people who DO believe the government did this shady thing, that statistically it might well have been a valid trending news item on FB.
I've tuned algorithms like this and results of this kind are pretty normal. After all, being able to come up with relevant results without crap like this is what made Google the massive giant it is. Especially given that computers haven't been trained to have a bias against conspiracies like humans have for the past several decades.
This could be Facebook doing just what you suggest. I am not biased against conspiracies and actually believe people acting shitty in pursuit of self interest is never unlikely. It could also just be growing pains of an algorithm that wasn't designed to be fully automated. If it's the latter FB should probably look toward building a component that weights sources either in a google/academia fashion of how many other sources cite them or in a feedback driven historical mechanism.
Section 8 housing assistance requires a waiting period ranging from months to years. You don't qualify for free healthcare on that amount, in fact you are unlikely to qualify at all without a dependant child and in most cases only the child qualifies. All those benefits actually scale down as you approach the number as well with every dollar you get ahead actually counting against you.
How do I know? I was the son of a poor single mother. Back then the housing situation wasn't quite as bad, they had "low income housing" and while there was still a waiting list it wasn't as bad as it became when they cut benefits and created the section 8 program. Of course the money counting against you thing was still a big factor. My mother was a hair dresser, her income varied but was never more than $500 every two weeks. Even so, if it was more she had to pay more in rent. Some months we qualified for a medical card and some months not. Every several months we might qualify for help with utilities. However, many of these benefits would then be counted as income for the other benefits and result in those getting cut.
Since the total combined benefits and income is limited right about that mark, yes, someone expects you can live reasonably (for a single person with no dependents takes about five fold that in most of the country). Comfortably isn't even a factor in this discussion.
Either we want them to filter and judge or we want them to put what is actually trending which is a purely algorithmic assessment.
"Whether you take the money and train your replacement or not doesn't matter."
Stocks don't go up in response to losing money.
"If these people were so indispensable they wouldn't be laid off."
Anyone can be replaced but there is a difference between being able to replace someone and being able to afford a major chunk of your operations roles sitting effectively unoccupied or even negatively occupied for 6-12months. The imports don't just not know the company. They generally are completely unskilled workers. It's like bringing in a building full of recent high school graduates and training on the job. People who swear by degrees would be suprised at how little difference a degree makes, either way you are basically starting from zero when they get to the real job.
Other than having a tough to follow accent that just sounds like a large bumble bee on the phone they do about as well as unskilled americans coming into these positions. And as time goes on it's our accent that is the disadvantage. There are far more H1B's/fomer H1B's than americans in US tech companies.