Why would they even bother with H1Bs if it is that expensive. Import them illegally and pay them as illegals. It's what is happening with the low education jobs and the government- outside of a few angry republicans do not really care. Some of them actually encourage it. Hell, look at the kids crossing entire third party countries to come into the US because it's known that no one will make them leave.
You can't be liable for having knowledge of information that people couldn't be bothered to encrypt. Executives can be lazy with their data and you can't be expected to do special efforts when they didn't do any to begin with.
I completely disagree. It is in fact your job to assist in this if you are IT. You are in a trusted position and if you gain access to something due to that trust, it is a duty to keep that trust (unless it reveals something so unconscionable that you have to remove yourself from that position of trust).
The rest, I agree with. An example was not something that happened to me but to a lawyer in a firm I administrated. The IT for another law firm for the plaintiffs in a lawsuit was having drinks bragging about some things he saw. He was making the statements as if in idolization of a couple of the lawyers at the firm. Turns out, one of the defendants of the same suit was there also and over heard some of the conversations. This led to finding evidence that completely nullified the lawsuit as the contract had been essentially broken but not officially broken by the plaintiffs before the breach in question they were suing over. In essence, the plaintiffs wanted out of a contract and were taking steps to void it before those steps ended up causing a failure in another party to the contract from delivering. Their steps to secure resources when they voided the contract removed the availability of resources from the market making the defendant in default of the contract obligations. Instead of voiding the contract, they decided to sue for the breach to recover expenses of setting up their in house facilities to do the contract work themselves- which they planned to do all along.
So even just telling friends outside of the job can cause things to come back at awkward moments. You have to forget you even noticed the information.
He's making the distinction between phones you can purchase which were never part of a contract compared to those that were part of a contract at one time. It's not a contradiction as it's more redundant on itself if you insist on viewing it that way.
For instance, even if you purchase your phone from the carrier, you can purchase it outright without it ever being under a contract. That would be one not tied to a contract. Of course you can also purchase it under a contract in which it is tied to a contract.
What is this trollfest lately with all the bashing on republicans about shit taken completely out of context. I know there is an election coming up in which they are expected to cream the democrats but It's getting pretty idiotic when it is obvious that the bash is completely contrived, contorted, and shoehorned into the topic under discussion in ways that make reality itself blush for being so stupid.
So lets ride your example and stretch reality a little more.. except this won't be a stretch.
Yes, when those damn republicans insist you are free to do whatever you want with your life, you are able to move around freely without government control, you are able to eat, drink, relax, and participate in recreation at your own volition instead of the scheduled direction of the government, you have the ability to trade effort and value for compensation, you are second class to prisoners. So everyone vote democrat where the government will tell you exactly how to live your life- no large soft drinks for you fatty-, where the government will tell you when to work or where to live, what kind of car you can actually purchase if you are even allowed to get one.
Yes, this will be a triumphant day when there is no distinction between the current treatment of prisoners and wards of the state and the general populace at large. Everyone vote against those damn republicans who according to the GP are the only things holding this reality back.
See, I can pretend to be stupid too.
This is not about political parties, it is about direct responsibility of those in your care. It's why parents are required to provide health insurance and child support for their children after divorce and so on. Except when it is the government, the government is responsible.
Anyone paying attention enough to know congress is a do nothing would have had to pick up on how legislation works in order for that to mean anything to make it worth repeating.
Putan ran for office and was elected on the promise of protecting Russia from its enemies foreign or within. This was rigjt after those protests in Russia that was blamed on Hillary starting.
There has been a fear or mindset in Russia for a while now that outside influences are trying to undermine its economy and stability.
Anytime a person is in the custody of the state, the state is responsible for their well being.
This is true if you are in a county detention center, federal prison, state prison, border detention center, or gitmo. There is no somehow about it. It is the same reasoning behind postponing the execution of convicted murderers in order to nurse them back to health before killing them when they become ill on death row.
If the Soviet's constitution gave the people just one right, it gave more than the US constitution does. That is because the US constiitution does not give or grant rights. It bars government from taking away some of the rights peolle already posess.
There has never been anonminity on the internet even without the NSA. There has only been hassles impeading the ability to find true identities leading to the appearance of it unless you hack a third party system and leave the blame with them.
This law and the NSA only remove some of the hassles for power hungry governments.
This no true scottsman argument is getting tiresome. It seems that whenever someone points to the flaws in communist regimes, someone has to point out how it isn't really communism.
Well here is the problem with that. Whenever is implimented, it fails to follow pure theory and runs into some authoritarian nightmare because it has to be forced onto people who do not want to settle wigh the less that the theory allows or do extra with no extra reward to make it work.
Communism simply does not scale outside micro groups dedicated to making it work.it has nothing to do with leaders wrapling themselves up in pretty cloths or hero worship. It has to do with forcing people to accept it. Like it or not, all attempts have snd will continue to devolve into some brutal fascist reality that you can clsim is not communism snd suggest it be tried again.
What? What he said, while crude , was nothing like that.
He is saying that those in control of the data if subject to the jurisdiction of law can be compelled to deliver access to it even if it resides outside the country or jurisdiction else bad things could happen.
I agree with that premise to. In this situation, it is a product of MS shifting revenue around in order to take advantage of Ireland's low taxes. It demonstrates MS' level of control over that operation.
I agree with you in principle but if shoe horned into a big/small argument, it appears that big would win hands down.
Think about it. A government department so big that the guy in charge doesn't know what is going on under him until a special audit brings it to his attention not only after the fact but after he assured congress that it was not and did not happen.
Odley enough, i'm in agreement with TapeCuter also which is rare. I'm mentioning it here only because i don't want his head to swell or think something is wrong with me.
By this logic, a kid with paper and pencil passing notes secretly could be an organization of war and if he passed a secret note to a politicians, he would be levying war with his methods and tools of war. Why don't you try to stretch it a bit more and shoe horn something really silly into it.
Well, that and lying would require you knowing what you said was not the truth at the time you said it.
Incorrect facts is not lying. Your friend who thinks the game starts at 8pm only to find it was 7:30pm did not lie, he got his facts wrong. Now if you said that knowing the correct time, it would be a lie. Here it seems that the facts were corrected as soon as he was aware of it. I do not see lying coming from him (his staff and employees on the other hand).
I do not exactly see how an all powerful and intrusive spying regime is less government.
This story is the epitome of big government through and through. But not, the small government politicians do not seem to want to cut this down just like the big government politicians. Your argument seems frivolous on it's head.
They have it, and you helped them remove the things that prevented them from getting it before.
I know not RTFA is a badge of honor here, but you could at least have read the article summery. No one removed anything legally. Employees ignored a separation of limits or a firewall as the summery put it and even knowing they were not supposed to, they did anyways. No politician or political ideology allowed or helped in this. If anything, it would be the leading from behind and phoning it in that our leadership in government seems to be doing any more.
Umm.. if you would have watched that charlie rose interview with Iran's last president "imadinnerjacket" or whatever his name was, you would know that Iran has no gays. That is a western thing.
This was on the "Bush is teh satan" tour to the UN if you want to look it up. He hit quite a few of the news shows on thst tour.
They likely sold your debt to another company who packaged it and sold it yet again. The debt is probably so far down the line that they probably sell it as soon as they figure they won't collect.
If they take you to small claims court, counter sue them for the amount. Someone will show up, or you will win by default and can pay them with their own money.
Also, send request for a validation of the debt in writing. Your state may have other solutions, but I believe federal law requires them to validate the debt once you do this. If they do not, they lose the right to try and collect it.
I don't think you understand what he was talking about.
It isn't a matter of no insurance or inability to pay that he describes, it is a matter of something not being billed correctly or coming in later and being missed by the insurance payments (as well as you needing to pay your portion too). So you go through life thinking everything has been taken care of and review your credit report because you are thinking of some major purchase (car, home, RV- whatever) and discover that you have a bill in collections.
You see, this would be in spite of having insurance.
Minor correction, it is perfectly legal under US law and constitution to spy on other nations and their citizens (provided they are not in US controlled territories). It may be highly illegal under their laws and system of government.
But yes, I otherwise completely agree. The people in charge of our system of law don't seem to think the same laws apply at all when they do not agree with them. For instance, instead of removing Marijuana from a schedule 1 drug and creating a law leaving it to the states, we are ignoring federal law and making provisions in other laws. Instead of enforcing immigration laws and securing our borders, we seem to be encouraging people to come to the country completely ignoring our immigration laws processes and so on.
People may or may not like the idea of enforcing those laws, but it specifically leads to and enables a concept where some don't seem to think the same laws apply to them.
Sure I do.. I mean the police would never accuse someone of something that wasn't true, they are the police after all. They fight crime and the bad guys so why wouldn't I believe that the legitimate site isn't piracy site or otherwise involved in illegal activities when I see their banner adds on it. Why wouldn't I close my browser window and never purchase anything from them or view their content again. Why wouldn't I tell all my friends that the site is illegal and the cops are busting people going to it?
All sarcasm aside, its entire purpose is to assassinate the character of the site and scare users into leaving it. If the police didn't think it would have any impact, they wouldn't be bothering with it. Instead, they know it will so when they get the wrong site involved, how is it not slander and libel- you know defamation of character?
lol.. that could be part of it but the biggest part is that the ISP over sells it's bandwidth because not all customers will be online at the same time. If they were, their service would come to a crawl if it was still available. If you host servers or resell bandwidth, you (potentially) use up the cushion of bandwidth they maintain and effectively end the not all users will be online at the same time by introducing outside users and uses taking up more time.
So yes, it is for price discrimination but not exactly in the sense you describe. If your servers are not hogging all the bandwidth, they likely won't bother you (except for blocking mail ports and common infection ports). When they do use up the extra bandwidth, they will cut you and send you a bill for the difference between residential and commercial rates while insisting you pay the commercial rate going forward.
The claim is that the information belongs to a third party so it isn't a search on you but a regulation on business. This would fit the liberal mindset that businesses are not people and have no rights but the effect is the same as a search on you.
This is why the US constitution is not a living document. Outside of reporting requirements about the business itself, any government mandate for information about others is and always will be a search without a warrant. It would be different if the information was publicly available but it isn't and there is a severe expectation of privacy involved.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would they even bother with H1Bs if it is that expensive. Import them illegally and pay them as illegals. It's what is happening with the low education jobs and the government- outside of a few angry republicans do not really care. Some of them actually encourage it. Hell, look at the kids crossing entire third party countries to come into the US because it's known that no one will make them leave.
I completely disagree. It is in fact your job to assist in this if you are IT. You are in a trusted position and if you gain access to something due to that trust, it is a duty to keep that trust (unless it reveals something so unconscionable that you have to remove yourself from that position of trust).
The rest, I agree with. An example was not something that happened to me but to a lawyer in a firm I administrated. The IT for another law firm for the plaintiffs in a lawsuit was having drinks bragging about some things he saw. He was making the statements as if in idolization of a couple of the lawyers at the firm. Turns out, one of the defendants of the same suit was there also and over heard some of the conversations. This led to finding evidence that completely nullified the lawsuit as the contract had been essentially broken but not officially broken by the plaintiffs before the breach in question they were suing over. In essence, the plaintiffs wanted out of a contract and were taking steps to void it before those steps ended up causing a failure in another party to the contract from delivering. Their steps to secure resources when they voided the contract removed the availability of resources from the market making the defendant in default of the contract obligations. Instead of voiding the contract, they decided to sue for the breach to recover expenses of setting up their in house facilities to do the contract work themselves- which they planned to do all along.
So even just telling friends outside of the job can cause things to come back at awkward moments. You have to forget you even noticed the information.
He's making the distinction between phones you can purchase which were never part of a contract compared to those that were part of a contract at one time. It's not a contradiction as it's more redundant on itself if you insist on viewing it that way.
For instance, even if you purchase your phone from the carrier, you can purchase it outright without it ever being under a contract. That would be one not tied to a contract. Of course you can also purchase it under a contract in which it is tied to a contract.
What is this trollfest lately with all the bashing on republicans about shit taken completely out of context. I know there is an election coming up in which they are expected to cream the democrats but It's getting pretty idiotic when it is obvious that the bash is completely contrived, contorted, and shoehorned into the topic under discussion in ways that make reality itself blush for being so stupid.
So lets ride your example and stretch reality a little more.. except this won't be a stretch.
Yes, when those damn republicans insist you are free to do whatever you want with your life, you are able to move around freely without government control, you are able to eat, drink, relax, and participate in recreation at your own volition instead of the scheduled direction of the government, you have the ability to trade effort and value for compensation, you are second class to prisoners. So everyone vote democrat where the government will tell you exactly how to live your life- no large soft drinks for you fatty-, where the government will tell you when to work or where to live, what kind of car you can actually purchase if you are even allowed to get one.
Yes, this will be a triumphant day when there is no distinction between the current treatment of prisoners and wards of the state and the general populace at large. Everyone vote against those damn republicans who according to the GP are the only things holding this reality back.
See, I can pretend to be stupid too.
This is not about political parties, it is about direct responsibility of those in your care. It's why parents are required to provide health insurance and child support for their children after divorce and so on. Except when it is the government, the government is responsible.
I think he was being facetious.
Anyone paying attention enough to know congress is a do nothing would have had to pick up on how legislation works in order for that to mean anything to make it worth repeating.
It has nothing to do with 1% or 99%.
Putan ran for office and was elected on the promise of protecting Russia from its enemies foreign or within. This was rigjt after those protests in Russia that was blamed on Hillary starting.
There has been a fear or mindset in Russia for a while now that outside influences are trying to undermine its economy and stability.
Anytime a person is in the custody of the state, the state is responsible for their well being.
This is true if you are in a county detention center, federal prison, state prison, border detention center, or gitmo. There is no somehow about it. It is the same reasoning behind postponing the execution of convicted murderers in order to nurse them back to health before killing them when they become ill on death row.
If the Soviet's constitution gave the people just one right, it gave more than the US constitution does. That is because the US constiitution does not give or grant rights. It bars government from taking away some of the rights peolle already posess.
This is a pretty important difference.
There has never been anonminity on the internet even without the NSA. There has only been hassles impeading the ability to find true identities leading to the appearance of it unless you hack a third party system and leave the blame with them.
This law and the NSA only remove some of the hassles for power hungry governments.
This no true scottsman argument is getting tiresome. It seems that whenever someone points to the flaws in communist regimes, someone has to point out how it isn't really communism.
Well here is the problem with that. Whenever is implimented, it fails to follow pure theory and runs into some authoritarian nightmare because it has to be forced onto people who do not want to settle wigh the less that the theory allows or do extra with no extra reward to make it work.
Communism simply does not scale outside micro groups dedicated to making it work.it has nothing to do with leaders wrapling themselves up in pretty cloths or hero worship. It has to do with forcing people to accept it. Like it or not, all attempts have snd will continue to devolve into some brutal fascist reality that you can clsim is not communism snd suggest it be tried again.
What? What he said, while crude , was nothing like that.
He is saying that those in control of the data if subject to the jurisdiction of law can be compelled to deliver access to it even if it resides outside the country or jurisdiction else bad things could happen.
I agree with that premise to. In this situation, it is a product of MS shifting revenue around in order to take advantage of Ireland's low taxes. It demonstrates MS' level of control over that operation.
I agree with you in principle but if shoe horned into a big/small argument, it appears that big would win hands down.
Think about it. A government department so big that the guy in charge doesn't know what is going on under him until a special audit brings it to his attention not only after the fact but after he assured congress that it was not and did not happen.
Odley enough, i'm in agreement with TapeCuter also which is rare. I'm mentioning it here only because i don't want his head to swell or think something is wrong with me.
This thing sort of sounds like a medis pc or s chrome cast with a monthly fee and a spiffy UI. Am i missing something?
http://xkcd.com/327/
I wonder if little bobby tables applied for a passport while this was going on?
By this logic, a kid with paper and pencil passing notes secretly could be an organization of war and if he passed a secret note to a politicians, he would be levying war with his methods and tools of war. Why don't you try to stretch it a bit more and shoe horn something really silly into it.
Well, that and lying would require you knowing what you said was not the truth at the time you said it.
Incorrect facts is not lying. Your friend who thinks the game starts at 8pm only to find it was 7:30pm did not lie, he got his facts wrong. Now if you said that knowing the correct time, it would be a lie. Here it seems that the facts were corrected as soon as he was aware of it. I do not see lying coming from him (his staff and employees on the other hand).
I do not exactly see how an all powerful and intrusive spying regime is less government.
This story is the epitome of big government through and through. But not, the small government politicians do not seem to want to cut this down just like the big government politicians. Your argument seems frivolous on it's head.
I know not RTFA is a badge of honor here, but you could at least have read the article summery. No one removed anything legally. Employees ignored a separation of limits or a firewall as the summery put it and even knowing they were not supposed to, they did anyways. No politician or political ideology allowed or helped in this. If anything, it would be the leading from behind and phoning it in that our leadership in government seems to be doing any more.
Umm.. if you would have watched that charlie rose interview with Iran's last president "imadinnerjacket" or whatever his name was, you would know that Iran has no gays. That is a western thing.
This was on the "Bush is teh satan" tour to the UN if you want to look it up. He hit quite a few of the news shows on thst tour.
They likely sold your debt to another company who packaged it and sold it yet again. The debt is probably so far down the line that they probably sell it as soon as they figure they won't collect.
If they take you to small claims court, counter sue them for the amount. Someone will show up, or you will win by default and can pay them with their own money.
Also, send request for a validation of the debt in writing. Your state may have other solutions, but I believe federal law requires them to validate the debt once you do this. If they do not, they lose the right to try and collect it.
I don't think you understand what he was talking about.
It isn't a matter of no insurance or inability to pay that he describes, it is a matter of something not being billed correctly or coming in later and being missed by the insurance payments (as well as you needing to pay your portion too). So you go through life thinking everything has been taken care of and review your credit report because you are thinking of some major purchase (car, home, RV- whatever) and discover that you have a bill in collections.
You see, this would be in spite of having insurance.
Revolving Tuition? Is that where you pay to learn a trade and they give you a job after you graduate?
No one is going to start a revolution. For all the ills, too many people are too comfortable for it to be seriously considered.
Minor correction, it is perfectly legal under US law and constitution to spy on other nations and their citizens (provided they are not in US controlled territories). It may be highly illegal under their laws and system of government.
But yes, I otherwise completely agree. The people in charge of our system of law don't seem to think the same laws apply at all when they do not agree with them. For instance, instead of removing Marijuana from a schedule 1 drug and creating a law leaving it to the states, we are ignoring federal law and making provisions in other laws. Instead of enforcing immigration laws and securing our borders, we seem to be encouraging people to come to the country completely ignoring our immigration laws processes and so on.
People may or may not like the idea of enforcing those laws, but it specifically leads to and enables a concept where some don't seem to think the same laws apply to them.
Sure I do.. I mean the police would never accuse someone of something that wasn't true, they are the police after all. They fight crime and the bad guys so why wouldn't I believe that the legitimate site isn't piracy site or otherwise involved in illegal activities when I see their banner adds on it. Why wouldn't I close my browser window and never purchase anything from them or view their content again. Why wouldn't I tell all my friends that the site is illegal and the cops are busting people going to it?
All sarcasm aside, its entire purpose is to assassinate the character of the site and scare users into leaving it. If the police didn't think it would have any impact, they wouldn't be bothering with it. Instead, they know it will so when they get the wrong site involved, how is it not slander and libel- you know defamation of character?
lol.. that could be part of it but the biggest part is that the ISP over sells it's bandwidth because not all customers will be online at the same time. If they were, their service would come to a crawl if it was still available. If you host servers or resell bandwidth, you (potentially) use up the cushion of bandwidth they maintain and effectively end the not all users will be online at the same time by introducing outside users and uses taking up more time.
So yes, it is for price discrimination but not exactly in the sense you describe. If your servers are not hogging all the bandwidth, they likely won't bother you
(except for blocking mail ports and common infection ports). When they do use up the extra bandwidth, they will cut you and send you a bill for the difference between residential and commercial rates while insisting you pay the commercial rate going forward.
The claim is that the information belongs to a third party so it isn't a search on you but a regulation on business. This would fit the liberal mindset that businesses are not people and have no rights but the effect is the same as a search on you.
This is why the US constitution is not a living document. Outside of reporting requirements about the business itself, any government mandate for information about others is and always will be a search without a warrant. It would be different if the information was publicly available but it isn't and there is a severe expectation of privacy involved.