The treaty literally puts hurdles in the way of his business competition. I am sure he is taking a principled stand which has nothing to do with making billions from it.
three months before leaving office, Obama was pretty sure it wasn't going to be an opposing political party running the incoming administration.
You got me there. My memory was failing me. 12333 was signed by Clapper on Dec 15 (according to NYT). So Obama had to sign it even later. Dec 15th would have been 3 weeks rather than 3 months before the end of Obama's tenure.
Could it be, just maybe, that the former president, like W. before him, [wikipedia.org] thought that when different intelligence agencies share info, they can come up with better assessments?
And he thought that right before his term expired? He didn't want better assessments for the duration of his term? He just figured he would need it with no time left in his tenure? Ok. Sure. Everything is possible, of course. But the more likely scenario is usually presumed to be the causal link. And it's more likely that he wanted to de-compartmentalize secret information in order to make it more difficult to manage during the opposition's initial months in the WH. Especially, given that the opposition was running on the promise to dismantle what Obama considered his legacy.
You can put your hyperbole gun down. No one seriously believes she was going to start WWIII or build death camps.
Uhm... I do. She sacrificed her dignity on the alter to power. People who are miserable look either for salvation or for revenge. Since she didn't find religion nor tried to piece her life together to gain some measure of happiness, I am going under the assumption that salvation was not what she picked. So I am pretty sure that we dodged a bullet by not getting a bitter ex-wife who couldn't even get a divorce and who called a quarter of the voting public deplorable even before getting into office. You can hope that she is calculating all you want, but I think a good number of people (and I do count myself among them) considered the election-time Hillary scary. Not that she has to cope with the loss, she might finally settle for something to be at peace with (after the first 4 stages of grief are through).
rump won, and now every moronic thing he does is down to him
Yeah, his lack of clarity is disconcerting. But, then again, that's what he promised. As for why I attacking Hillary, I really wasn't per se. It was a general point. A competent villain is not better than an incompetent bumpkin. I wasn't saying that Trump is a bumpkin or that Hillary was competent. I was only saying that the more competent she turned out to be, the harsher world she would have created. Whereas Trump can, at worse, mock things up (which is not as bad as setting the world on fire in a competent and methodical way of someone on a long revenge spree).
Or that she would be one if she were given a chance. I also added that this was my opinion. Since your head hurts, I'll make it simpler. It's my judgement of her character rather than an a posteriori statement about facts.
Are you sure you're not Trump himself, typing writing under a synonym?
I am just assuming that you are going under the assumption that Trump is lacking in intelligence and are using his name as a derogatory. For the sake of clarity, I'll mention that I don't share that assumption.
O_o Seriously? Did you miss the whole "grab her by the pussy" thing?
Those were just words. Clinton protected her serial rapist of a husband after multiple deeds. Oh, and unlike Clinton, when Trump decided that his marriage was over, he actually bothered to get a divorce. He also married the women he slept with (again unlike Clinton). Hillary was an enabler of a her husband's misogyny. Someone who is willing to sacrifice their dignity for the sake of power will sacrifice other people's lives on the way to achieving their goals. I'd say you were a fool, but I am willing to give you some leeway since you mentioned you had a headache.
And who and where is *anyone* defending Clinton?
Well, I was responding to this statement:
Hillary is a manipulative dishonest cunt in her own right, but she at least has *some* measure of competence.
I don't know if it were a defense of Clinton, but it was certainly a defense of voting for Clinton.
Setting aside the hilarity of calling Trump a misogynist while trying to defend Clinton, I haven't said that Clinton was a mass murder. I just said that I am of the opinion that she would become one if given the chance.
Leaks are an essential part of how the US government works
No, not all of them. Plenty of leaks are legal. Specifically, those which are protected as whistle blowing and those which are authorized. Illegal leaks are, by definition, not part of the normal functioning of the government.
Hillary is a manipulative dishonest cunt in her own right, but she at least has *some* measure of competence.
A competent mass murder is not a better choice than an incompetent well-meaning bumpkin. Hillary's complete disregard of the law despite her knowledge of the law is an indication that she would, without giving it a second thought, put people in death camps if it suited her agenda. And given how mean-spirited she was, I find the idea of her coming that close to having that kind of power more than a little scary.
They didn't miss the Russian infiltration of Crimea. It was widely reported. They just couldn't do anything about it. Russia violated a treaty it had with Ukraine. US wasn't about to go to war with Russia over it.
I am not even kidding. I know it sounds like trolling, but Obama's administration did set up this time bomb. They issued an executive order forcing all 17 agencies to share information. Since it's much more difficult to track who has access to the information, it's much more difficult to prevent leaks. And Obama only issued this order 3 months before leaving office. Trump can't rescind the order just yet because of all the spurious accusations of Russian connections. The idea that information was always leaked is preposterous. It was always compartmentalized. So the leaks were limited in nature and they much easier to track. This de-compartmentalization was done specifically with the purpose of undermining the incoming administration of an opposing political party. It was never about any principles other than hurting the incoming administration. This goes well-beyond removing all the furniture from the White House that the Clinton administration did to troll the incoming Bush administration. This was actually a policy implemented to hurt the incoming administration. There will always be some people, who work in DC in professional capacity, who oppose the President politically. They just couldn't do quite so much damage before.
Yeah, sorry, not sorry. Science is a meritocracy. The biggest show of diversity of cultures, looks and opinions that I've seen was when I was in grad school (not all that long ago). And yet people rose up or fell out based on their ability to produce results. Scientific establishment has a number of problems with its methods. Keeping people out based on their immutable characteristics is not one of them. If the result is a population less diverse than the general population, then it's cause is 100% without-a-doubt not prejudice. It's not that glamorous a life, btw. So it could simply be lack of interest.
it's pretty easy to check shibboleth. you can study a culture all you want, but if you don't live it, you won't know it. For example, you can see every Hollywood movie you want, but if you try to sound like jersey based on Kevin Smith's movies, you'll sound like you are off your rocker. I suppose the slashdot editors failed the shibboleth right there. They mistook Time magazine for a news source. Oh, and before anyone tries to defend them, do tell why subverting resources of the Democratic party to favor one primary candidate over another, all the while claiming to follow the will of the primary voters, was not newsworthy? Because that's exactly what the Clinton emails revealed. And if it was newsworthy, then why was referencing this information "propaganda"?
How is this something that Google+ wouldn't be used for if people really wanted to use it? Are they just planning to buy out some resume mill, slap whatever reputation is left after they burned it with the Android brand and hope to collect more personal info that they can correlate with geo-location data? Oh, how's that project Ara doing, btw? Seriously, Sergei, come back. I think I would rather have someone stepping out on his wife with one of his subordinates running the company than a starry-eyed child with no vision. At least bring Larry back. No one cares how many cats your AI can recognize from all the youtube videos. Fix the core business. And fire the guy who loosened the screws to the point where anything anything goes now. You've spent your time in the desert. You can't claim that you are the good guys, anymore. But, at least, you can salvage the smart-guys' company. And that ain't bad.
Well, you can look for yourself at the number of bank-holding corporations here: https://www5.fdic.gov/idasp/ad....
This article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... puts the number of FDIC-insured commercial banks at ~6800. I am guessing their customers are the ones "still using banks".
"Never get into a word fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel"... I might be paraphrasing, but it's from "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington". Well, never get into an economic fight with those who control how the money is printed. They have the power to restructure the social system so that less and less money goes into efforts to obviate them. Spreadsheets could have replaced most big banks and financial advisers a long time ago. All they had to do was create a diversionary tactic to scatter the attention of those who would do that, but do it without working for them. Before making predictions who will survive and who will not, it's useful to realize that the struggle to survive is a war and then learn how wars are fought. FUD is nothing compared to full-force assault. Most of anti-bank messaging is sponsored by banks. Most of anti-muslim sentiment is sponsored by majority-muslim countries. The list goes on. Why? To control the message. If AI will run finance, then AI will become the banks' method -- not their downfall. Remember... it's war... which means splitting enemy forces into adversarial entities and then carefully crafting alliances; all the while sabotaging those who stand against you by convincing them to adapt less-than-perfect strategies in the long run and self-destructive tactics in the short run.
Russia (or even the confederation to which it used to belong -- USSR) has never attacked a NATO member. This is a double-edged sword, by the way. Because, technically, it means that the commitment to the alliance has never been tested. The fact that Russia engaged in military operations outside of NATO territories is not really telling much about whether they would risk mounting a credible cyber attack on a nuclear-capable NATO member. Until there is any evidence whatsoever, and I mean concrete evidence, further claims of the "don't you believe the security agencies"-kind are nothing but new McCarthyism. Joe McCarthy operated exactly in this manner. He made empty claims and demanded actions in order to score political points. Until there is proof that Russia attempted cyberattacks on any election systems of NATO members, these are nothing but extraordinary claims that lack not only extraordinary evidence, but even any shred of evidence.
What did they show as proof that Russian hackers were involved? If ever there was a good target for a false attack, it was the French election. RF openly (as in without hiding or backchannels) lent money to Le Pen's campaign. So if anyone wanted to throw shade on Russia to make them seem nefarious, planting evidence of Russian hacking of Macron's campaign would be an obvious move. What's the definitive evidence that it was RF? And if France has it, can they, for f's sake give it to the FBI? I am tired of "it's an ongoing investigation". When it comes to electronic evidence, sorting through logs doesn't take 6 months to a year. Let's ask this question: would they investigate this long to figure out who stole a nuke if the only evidence they had was electronic, but they claimed that it was definitive? If they can prove anything, they should. If they can't, well, I guess our NATO ally can help us prove it now? Seriously.
This has never been challenged in court (as far as I know), but I am fairly sure (and I a am not a lawyer) that the standard is going to be that if it is legal for you to see the bill, it is legal for you to tap the phone. The phone bill is a protected postal communication. It cannot be legally examined without a warrant by anyone to whom it is not addressed (once it's been delivered, anyway.. not sure about misdelivered mail). And if you can see the bill, you can see the list of all phone calls, so privacy is already breached. Can you record all the calls on the phone if the phone's bill is addressed to you? Can you do it without warning anyone who uses this phone? Well, privacy is, generally speaking, only something one can expect on their property. This remains the case even if one is not aware of this concept. If you two criminals coordinate their stories inside a police car while the cops are out of the car and the conversation is recorded, it's not a violation of their privacy even if the cops had no wiretapping warrant. The same goes for a teenager using a phone which their parents are paying for. Ignorance of their lack of certain rights is not enough for them to gain, by default, those rights.
Why shouldn't this invite a flurry of law suits from anyone who gets filmed by such a camera in California? It has some of the strictest copyright laws in the country. Seems like anyone in California should be able to sue Axon for using their video for financial gain without their consent.
Do the editors think CIA doesn't read slashdot or something? Or that it never heard of Linux or LibreOffice. Why would the beacons be limited to MS-products reading MS Office documents? They are not morons, you know.
Or maybe this is admitting they can't train their own graduates well enough to work for them?
But HCL hires Americans in the US. The university is just not doing its own infrastructure work. It's hiring an outside company to do it. If HCL (as it seems to often do) hires US residents to work in its US operations, then it might hire this university's grads. The university also doesn't run it's own electric power station to generate all of its power. It doesn't mean that it can't train electrical engineers. I am not too familiar with the HCL internal operations, but from what I"ve seen and heard they are not a backdoor way of replacing US workers with foreign counterparts. They just operate globally. And like I said, it will all depend on who the laid off workers will be training. If they are forced to train non-resident (those without Green Cards or US citizenship), then there might be a case. But if they are training US-based employees of HCL, then it's just restructuring of HCL's business.
Didn't PG&E which is also in California just do the same thing?
That's entirely possible. I don't know. It's also entirely possible that HCL learned their lesson and started hiring americans for its american operations after a public scandal. I am not saying that they are above board in their operations, but I am saying that they seem to have all the infrastructure in place to be above board on this. Whether or not they are doing what you'd want them to do with that infrastructure is the proverbial devil in the details. I don't know.
Or is this just anti-Microsoft fodder by trying to associate their names together?
How do you figure? HCL has 3 main locations here: https://www.hcltech.com/career.... And the one in Redmond is in the middle
of MS campus. I don't see anything smearing about this. They are hiring in the US to do work in the US for a US company. What's the "fodder" part of it?
Just saw that they were also going for age discrimination. This should be a much easier to prove. I am not sure why IT workers don't sue for age discrimination more often, actually. It's rampant.
Slashdot Mirror
The treaty literally puts hurdles in the way of his business competition. I am sure he is taking a principled stand which has nothing to do with making billions from it.
How many people are defending Bill Clinton from accusations of misogyny?
That would be essentially everyone who is now accusing Trump of misogyny. At least everyone with a public voice.
three months before leaving office, Obama was pretty sure it wasn't going to be an opposing political party running the incoming administration.
You got me there. My memory was failing me. 12333 was signed by Clapper on Dec 15 (according to NYT). So Obama had to sign it even later. Dec 15th would have been 3 weeks rather than 3 months before the end of Obama's tenure.
Could it be, just maybe, that the former president, like W. before him, [wikipedia.org] thought that when different intelligence agencies share info, they can come up with better assessments?
And he thought that right before his term expired? He didn't want better assessments for the duration of his term? He just figured he would need it with no time left in his tenure? Ok. Sure. Everything is possible, of course. But the more likely scenario is usually presumed to be the causal link. And it's more likely that he wanted to de-compartmentalize secret information in order to make it more difficult to manage during the opposition's initial months in the WH. Especially, given that the opposition was running on the promise to dismantle what Obama considered his legacy.
You can put your hyperbole gun down. No one seriously believes she was going to start WWIII or build death camps.
Uhm... I do. She sacrificed her dignity on the alter to power. People who are miserable look either for salvation or for revenge. Since she didn't find religion nor tried to piece her life together to gain some measure of happiness, I am going under the assumption that salvation was not what she picked. So I am pretty sure that we dodged a bullet by not getting a bitter ex-wife who couldn't even get a divorce and who called a quarter of the voting public deplorable even before getting into office. You can hope that she is calculating all you want, but I think a good number of people (and I do count myself among them) considered the election-time Hillary scary. Not that she has to cope with the loss, she might finally settle for something to be at peace with (after the first 4 stages of grief are through).
rump won, and now every moronic thing he does is down to him
Yeah, his lack of clarity is disconcerting. But, then again, that's what he promised. As for why I attacking Hillary, I really wasn't per se. It was a general point. A competent villain is not better than an incompetent bumpkin. I wasn't saying that Trump is a bumpkin or that Hillary was competent. I was only saying that the more competent she turned out to be, the harsher world she would have created. Whereas Trump can, at worse, mock things up (which is not as bad as setting the world on fire in a competent and methodical way of someone on a long revenge spree).
You in fact DID say she was a mass murderer.
Or that she would be one if she were given a chance. I also added that this was my opinion. Since your head hurts, I'll make it simpler. It's my judgement of her character rather than an a posteriori statement about facts.
Are you sure you're not Trump himself, typing writing under a synonym?
I am just assuming that you are going under the assumption that Trump is lacking in intelligence and are using his name as a derogatory. For the sake of clarity, I'll mention that I don't share that assumption.
O_o Seriously? Did you miss the whole "grab her by the pussy" thing?
Those were just words. Clinton protected her serial rapist of a husband after multiple deeds. Oh, and unlike Clinton, when Trump decided that his marriage was over, he actually bothered to get a divorce. He also married the women he slept with (again unlike Clinton). Hillary was an enabler of a her husband's misogyny. Someone who is willing to sacrifice their dignity for the sake of power will sacrifice other people's lives on the way to achieving their goals. I'd say you were a fool, but I am willing to give you some leeway since you mentioned you had a headache.
And who and where is *anyone* defending Clinton?
Well, I was responding to this statement:
Hillary is a manipulative dishonest cunt in her own right, but she at least has *some* measure of competence.
I don't know if it were a defense of Clinton, but it was certainly a defense of voting for Clinton.
Setting aside the hilarity of calling Trump a misogynist while trying to defend Clinton, I haven't said that Clinton was a mass murder. I just said that I am of the opinion that she would become one if given the chance.
Leaks are an essential part of how the US government works
No, not all of them. Plenty of leaks are legal. Specifically, those which are protected as whistle blowing and those which are authorized. Illegal leaks are, by definition, not part of the normal functioning of the government.
Hillary is a manipulative dishonest cunt in her own right, but she at least has *some* measure of competence.
A competent mass murder is not a better choice than an incompetent well-meaning bumpkin. Hillary's complete disregard of the law despite her knowledge of the law is an indication that she would, without giving it a second thought, put people in death camps if it suited her agenda. And given how mean-spirited she was, I find the idea of her coming that close to having that kind of power more than a little scary.
They didn't miss the Russian infiltration of Crimea. It was widely reported. They just couldn't do anything about it. Russia violated a treaty it had with Ukraine. US wasn't about to go to war with Russia over it.
I am not even kidding. I know it sounds like trolling, but Obama's administration did set up this time bomb. They issued an executive order forcing all 17 agencies to share information. Since it's much more difficult to track who has access to the information, it's much more difficult to prevent leaks. And Obama only issued this order 3 months before leaving office. Trump can't rescind the order just yet because of all the spurious accusations of Russian connections. The idea that information was always leaked is preposterous. It was always compartmentalized. So the leaks were limited in nature and they much easier to track. This de-compartmentalization was done specifically with the purpose of undermining the incoming administration of an opposing political party. It was never about any principles other than hurting the incoming administration. This goes well-beyond removing all the furniture from the White House that the Clinton administration did to troll the incoming Bush administration. This was actually a policy implemented to hurt the incoming administration. There will always be some people, who work in DC in professional capacity, who oppose the President politically. They just couldn't do quite so much damage before.
Yeah, sorry, not sorry. Science is a meritocracy. The biggest show of diversity of cultures, looks and opinions that I've seen was when I was in grad school (not all that long ago). And yet people rose up or fell out based on their ability to produce results. Scientific establishment has a number of problems with its methods. Keeping people out based on their immutable characteristics is not one of them. If the result is a population less diverse than the general population, then it's cause is 100% without-a-doubt not prejudice. It's not that glamorous a life, btw. So it could simply be lack of interest.
it's pretty easy to check shibboleth. you can study a culture all you want, but if you don't live it, you won't know it. For example, you can see every Hollywood movie you want, but if you try to sound like jersey based on Kevin Smith's movies, you'll sound like you are off your rocker. I suppose the slashdot editors failed the shibboleth right there. They mistook Time magazine for a news source. Oh, and before anyone tries to defend them, do tell why subverting resources of the Democratic party to favor one primary candidate over another, all the while claiming to follow the will of the primary voters, was not newsworthy? Because that's exactly what the Clinton emails revealed. And if it was newsworthy, then why was referencing this information "propaganda"?
How is this something that Google+ wouldn't be used for if people really wanted to use it? Are they just planning to buy out some resume mill, slap whatever reputation is left after they burned it with the Android brand and hope to collect more personal info that they can correlate with geo-location data? Oh, how's that project Ara doing, btw? Seriously, Sergei, come back. I think I would rather have someone stepping out on his wife with one of his subordinates running the company than a starry-eyed child with no vision. At least bring Larry back. No one cares how many cats your AI can recognize from all the youtube videos. Fix the core business. And fire the guy who loosened the screws to the point where anything anything goes now. You've spent your time in the desert. You can't claim that you are the good guys, anymore. But, at least, you can salvage the smart-guys' company. And that ain't bad.
it's not limited to their website. they can't read at all. or write.
Well, you can look for yourself at the number of bank-holding corporations here: https://www5.fdic.gov/idasp/ad.... This article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... puts the number of FDIC-insured commercial banks at ~6800. I am guessing their customers are the ones "still using banks".
"Never get into a word fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel"... I might be paraphrasing, but it's from "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington". Well, never get into an economic fight with those who control how the money is printed. They have the power to restructure the social system so that less and less money goes into efforts to obviate them. Spreadsheets could have replaced most big banks and financial advisers a long time ago. All they had to do was create a diversionary tactic to scatter the attention of those who would do that, but do it without working for them. Before making predictions who will survive and who will not, it's useful to realize that the struggle to survive is a war and then learn how wars are fought. FUD is nothing compared to full-force assault. Most of anti-bank messaging is sponsored by banks. Most of anti-muslim sentiment is sponsored by majority-muslim countries. The list goes on. Why? To control the message. If AI will run finance, then AI will become the banks' method -- not their downfall. Remember... it's war... which means splitting enemy forces into adversarial entities and then carefully crafting alliances; all the while sabotaging those who stand against you by convincing them to adapt less-than-perfect strategies in the long run and self-destructive tactics in the short run.
Russia (or even the confederation to which it used to belong -- USSR) has never attacked a NATO member. This is a double-edged sword, by the way. Because, technically, it means that the commitment to the alliance has never been tested. The fact that Russia engaged in military operations outside of NATO territories is not really telling much about whether they would risk mounting a credible cyber attack on a nuclear-capable NATO member. Until there is any evidence whatsoever, and I mean concrete evidence, further claims of the "don't you believe the security agencies"-kind are nothing but new McCarthyism. Joe McCarthy operated exactly in this manner. He made empty claims and demanded actions in order to score political points. Until there is proof that Russia attempted cyberattacks on any election systems of NATO members, these are nothing but extraordinary claims that lack not only extraordinary evidence, but even any shred of evidence.
What did they show as proof that Russian hackers were involved? If ever there was a good target for a false attack, it was the French election. RF openly (as in without hiding or backchannels) lent money to Le Pen's campaign. So if anyone wanted to throw shade on Russia to make them seem nefarious, planting evidence of Russian hacking of Macron's campaign would be an obvious move. What's the definitive evidence that it was RF? And if France has it, can they, for f's sake give it to the FBI? I am tired of "it's an ongoing investigation". When it comes to electronic evidence, sorting through logs doesn't take 6 months to a year. Let's ask this question: would they investigate this long to figure out who stole a nuke if the only evidence they had was electronic, but they claimed that it was definitive? If they can prove anything, they should. If they can't, well, I guess our NATO ally can help us prove it now? Seriously.
This has never been challenged in court (as far as I know), but I am fairly sure (and I a am not a lawyer) that the standard is going to be that if it is legal for you to see the bill, it is legal for you to tap the phone. The phone bill is a protected postal communication. It cannot be legally examined without a warrant by anyone to whom it is not addressed (once it's been delivered, anyway.. not sure about misdelivered mail). And if you can see the bill, you can see the list of all phone calls, so privacy is already breached. Can you record all the calls on the phone if the phone's bill is addressed to you? Can you do it without warning anyone who uses this phone? Well, privacy is, generally speaking, only something one can expect on their property. This remains the case even if one is not aware of this concept. If you two criminals coordinate their stories inside a police car while the cops are out of the car and the conversation is recorded, it's not a violation of their privacy even if the cops had no wiretapping warrant. The same goes for a teenager using a phone which their parents are paying for. Ignorance of their lack of certain rights is not enough for them to gain, by default, those rights.
I would love to be able to work with people who don't text. This would automatically filter out places with those people.
Why shouldn't this invite a flurry of law suits from anyone who gets filmed by such a camera in California? It has some of the strictest copyright laws in the country. Seems like anyone in California should be able to sue Axon for using their video for financial gain without their consent.
Do the editors think CIA doesn't read slashdot or something? Or that it never heard of Linux or LibreOffice. Why would the beacons be limited to MS-products reading MS Office documents? They are not morons, you know.
Or maybe this is admitting they can't train their own graduates well enough to work for them?
But HCL hires Americans in the US. The university is just not doing its own infrastructure work. It's hiring an outside company to do it. If HCL (as it seems to often do) hires US residents to work in its US operations, then it might hire this university's grads. The university also doesn't run it's own electric power station to generate all of its power. It doesn't mean that it can't train electrical engineers. I am not too familiar with the HCL internal operations, but from what I"ve seen and heard they are not a backdoor way of replacing US workers with foreign counterparts. They just operate globally. And like I said, it will all depend on who the laid off workers will be training. If they are forced to train non-resident (those without Green Cards or US citizenship), then there might be a case. But if they are training US-based employees of HCL, then it's just restructuring of HCL's business.
Didn't PG&E which is also in California just do the same thing?
That's entirely possible. I don't know. It's also entirely possible that HCL learned their lesson and started hiring americans for its american operations after a public scandal. I am not saying that they are above board in their operations, but I am saying that they seem to have all the infrastructure in place to be above board on this. Whether or not they are doing what you'd want them to do with that infrastructure is the proverbial devil in the details. I don't know.
Or is this just anti-Microsoft fodder by trying to associate their names together?
How do you figure? HCL has 3 main locations here: https://www.hcltech.com/career.... And the one in Redmond is in the middle of MS campus. I don't see anything smearing about this. They are hiring in the US to do work in the US for a US company. What's the "fodder" part of it?
Just saw that they were also going for age discrimination. This should be a much easier to prove. I am not sure why IT workers don't sue for age discrimination more often, actually. It's rampant.