It's sad that he has gained so much traction on those two issues.
Fortunately for Romney, he has time to perfect his stances and put them out. For Obama, they are already out for everyone to see (unless he is willing to admit that last for years was a mistake and claim he will get it right this time). I guess the true mark will be if Romney can tune his positions and explain them in an understandable way that makes sense beyond what is already not working.
Palin is not and was not as stupid as she was depicted to be and probably never was as stupid as you think she is in her adult life. You like many others are probably referring to the Tina Fey character who perpetuated this myth very well on Saturday Night Live.
McCain did the damage to the GOP, no one liked him. He was a big disappointment who was always bucking the party trends and who ended up putting Palin center stage in front of him in order to come back. McCain ran as a maverick flaunting his unwillingness to hold conservative values or his all about me attitude in going against the party whenever he thought it was politically expedient for him. If it wasn't for Palin, McCain would have lost by a larger margin then Carter did against Reagan.
This would be a bit different then television or radio ads as the pay per click model implies those not interested would not be viewing it anyways because they would not be clicking it. But i agree, it is something they need to evaluate and determine if it is worth the money/ It appears to be exactly what had happened- except during this evaluation they found some disturbing information that shouldn't have been there.
How about evaluating claims based on the content of the claims and not on the associations or connections of people involved or how they disseminate the information?
Seriously, I just wrote on a cocktail napkin that the world is round. Does that mean my claim is invalid? And to the point of round verses flat or even the heliocentric orbit, This wasn't peer reviewed in the sense you are insisting it needs to be now. In fact, when it was discovered, it was self publishing much like putting it on a website (had the wen existed at the time) which circulated the concept and other read and built on. There was no journals to submit to at the time, just your ability to communicate thoughts to others which generally meant paying a printer to print books or booklets and passing them out. Nicolaus Copernicus certainly took this route.
If no one but scientists can comment on science, then perhaps scientists should keep their science in the lab and stop making political masturbation's about them.
Anytime anything is brought to a political conclusion, anyone with or without a political interest is more then legit in commenting on it. This could be science, your religious beliefs, your favorite color or anything else in your imagination. If you do not like it, then stop pushing it into the political arena
Whats wrong with shades of the truth. In the 1992 presidential election Bill Clinton won with less then half of the country's registered voters voting for him. He also won by one of the largest margin of votes in a long time. This trend repeated itself in 1996 with even larger margins. It is both true to say that the majority of the country did not vote for Clinton to be president and Clinton won the presidency by one of the largest amount of votes in a while (except Reagan Carter).
So they are claiming that a simple mistake has been made that has the effect of overestimated warming by three times, and that everyone doing this research previously has made this same mistake, and that, despite all of the arguments surrounding climate science and the instrumental temperature record, nobody noticed it yet? It is certainly not impossible, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I'm not sure what is unbelievable about this. Remember the,a href=http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm >y2k bug that had nothing to do with the year 2000 except for showing a point where something was obviously wrong? It went unnoticed for better then 15 years.
It is entirely possible that mistakes happen. It is also entirely possible that mistakes aren't obvious for long lengths of time.
Everyone who doesn't believe as I do or attempts to disprove the words of the great people I believe in have an agenda. Even if I can't prove the connection, the blaspheme being spouted is enough proof..
I have an uninformed comment also. It doesn't matter if 80% of the clicks were by bots or users with the ability to not see the adds, their point remains the same, they were being billed for advertisements not reaching real people, Whether this is by bot or some geek wannabe out there constantly clicking the adds wondering why it isn't showing up is trivial to the overall claim.
I'm just curious, to wonder what size their selection pool was. I mean 80 out of 100 is one thing, 800,000 out of 1,000,000 is quite another while both being 80%.
Vagina is very popular around here. It just seams like it isn't because most users wouldn't know what to do with one if it was staring them in the face.
It could be illegal if the rootkit is not represented as such.
In other words, you would have to disclose the nature of the software in a way that accurately describes it before installation. Think of it this way, suppose I fix your virus riddled computer and install software to prevent it from being infected again. You agree to that. Now suppose in that software, I installed a back door (rootkit) allowing me to turn the webcam on at any time and do so when you, your girlfriend, your mom, your kids, whatever comes out of the shower naked and drying off. Does your consent to me installing software on your computer to keep it virus free include this stuff? Of course the answer is no just like my consent for the local repair shop to change the battery in my car does not allow the to pull the engine and replace it with a smaller one.
It is a difficult issue here because the jurisdiction doesn't fully overlap.
The law allows the government to seize assets from criminal operations that impact US citizens and commerce. Dot Com is arguing that the US doesn't have jurisdiction to prosecute him because he never stepped foot in the US during the time it is claimed he acted criminally. The government is saying even if that is true, the long arm principle holds true giving jurisdiction. If the judge agrees with Kim Dot Com, it doesn't settle the problem of asset seizure.
We have been doing this since the war on drugs. There are quite a few drug lords who have rather large bank accounts being kept safe for them by the US government. The big difference is that newer drug laws allow the forfeiture of property before convictions through a stripped down civil process and this is still just a seizure so it technically is dot com's still. This won't change until there is a conviction or he is exonerated. A simple dismissal doesn't address the issue of seizure or the eventual adverse possession. .
ha.. I'm arguing that your fallacy about the will of the people is ridiculous. The connection simply isn't there. The consumer product safety commission is not like the state department or the justice department and so on.
the alternatives are not much better either. the constitutional party wants a government run in such a way that the constitution is a religious document free from error and supersedes new law, the exact opposite of what it was intended to be. a living document to be amended and brought up to date when needed.
A constitution is supposed to supersede new law. It is supposed to spell out the authority and limits to it that a government has. Congress cannot just make a law that runs foul of it and claim its a living document meant to change as needs of society changes. If you do not like something in the constitution, it needs to be amended but not just ignored.
That is exactly how it was intended to be. The living document idiots think rationalizing it can negate provisions in it without amending it. They want to claim words mean something different now as if redefining person to mean dog somehow changes the constitution so that only canines can be president. These are the jackasses that think the second amendment is there to ensure you can go hunting and that you only need certain types of arms to hunt with. These are the assclowns who think indefinite detention of citizens are justified because somehow calling them an enemy of the nation invokes some other power to defend the country despite the 9th amendment saying that rights in the constitution shall not be construed to remove or deprive other rights held by the people. These are the same dipshits that think because telephones and computers weren't around when the constitution was created, government searches of them don't need a warrant.
What is the real difference between this happening before elections verses after the elections when they have to get together and give up core principles to get something done?
Also, your example suffers a fatal flaw of expecting an even distribution of the voting populace. More often then not, a large section of the voting population agreeing with each other tend to be in large population areas. The 30 and 15 percent populations can easily be more then half within any district.
The only way for a third party to be a competitor on the national stage is to invest in the local stage. The dems and reps only got as powerful as they are by assimilation of third parties under a common ground and dominating the local and state politics. A third party cannot expect to do much more then influence the major parties without that home spun support. A third party president will be worse then Jimmy Carter was as president. At least his party controlled congress so he was able to get thing they wanted to do done. But his failure of a presidency is a clear indicator of what will happen with a third party president without party support in congress.
I assume that was intended as an analogy but I can't come up with any link between that and what we are talking about...
There was plenty of other stuff in my post for you to dwell on. The point was, it isn't your crap, it is owned by someone else, You do not get to decide when or how what is done unless the employer/owner gives you permission first.
That sounds like a very poorly structured work place data infrastructure. There shouldn't be any important data on desktops and workstations in the first place.
Or a very poor employee and perhaps a dishonest employee who is making deals to take with him or even taking the client lists or trade secrets. No one has cleared this employee and designated them uber honorable or anything. Wanting to destroy any traces of his computer usage definitely has a different sound to it then "I don't want them knowing my log on to to site X that they could have found out at any time if they wanted over the last 10 years".
Employee issued systems can't be trusted with any data of significance and as such it shouldn't be significant if one is lost.
If the employee is competent and trust worthy.
Systems get corrupted and wiped routinely in normal operations so it shouldn't matter if an employee wipes a system.
Your right, it shouldn't if it is done at the direction of the owner of the computer. However, an ex employee is not the owner of the computer or the data on it.
Your security policy should work from the assumption that employee systems are untrusted and implement infrastructure level controls that don't depend on software on that system or preventing local administrative access to the employee.
In an ideal world, but the world is far from ideal. What should be done is often replaced with how much is it going to cost and you simply cannot get around that in a lot of situations. It doesn't matter because in the real world, data does sit in a lot of places and it as well as the computer belongs to the employer not the employee.
But hey, don't just take my word for it, here are some links where people who believe like you ended up believing like me after a costly and painful experience.
Well, I was referring to this one police entity, the Washington DC metro police department, as it was the one who got sued and had to implement a policy that clarified the law and was supposed to be binding on the police officers. It actually spelled out in the policy that they are supposed to ask for the recording device and then call a superior if the person refuses.
I understand the "blue wall" and police operating outside the law. I too have had issues with them in a different area. One such issue was where I was accosted by several police when leaving a night club. I was talking to some girl and another got all pissy with me because of it. I asked the girl I was talking with if she wanted me to leave and she told me to stay. It later turned out to be the pissy girl was one of the cops brothers and her friend I was talking to just broke up with that cop.
Most cops are self serving and corrupted scum. There are a few in there that are honest but they are definitely overshadowed by the assclowns.
All the information on the computer belongs to the employer not the employee. Try walking down the street and picking random cars then start changing their tires.
It doesn't matter if the employer is going to delete anything or everything anyways, It's the employers right to pick the time and the place for it to happen. I actually create new imaged of every workstation for reference to prove communications and the work that went into contracts and so on when an employee leaves. Missing that information 2 years down the road could be the difference in defaulting on a contract or being accused of billing incorrectly verses knowing where you stand with proof to back it up. Ever try to go back and prove what work you did on a case file from several years ago when all references of your work outside of time tracking is missing?
No, you are the one trying to claim the actions of an independent government agency has to be at the direction of elected political figures despite not indication of such which somehow means it is "the will of the people" when we have a constitutional republic and elect leaders to make decisions for us because determining the will of the people is ridiculously difficult. And you are not even bothering with any evidence of that either outside of lines you can connect within your head.
You are either delusional, confused, trolling, or plain stupid.
That may be true if the police actually police the police. The problem seems to be that the watchers are watching themselves and no one is doing anything when they become the criminals outside of complaining about it.
The problem is probably more likely associated with overall enforcement then political leadership. We a cop puts 7 months into tracking down the criminal behind a crime just to find they got sentenced to 2 months community service or off free on a technicality, they tend to start thinking justice isn't being served and perhaps adopt a mentality of dishing it out on their own when making the arrest.
This might not be true in all situations, but it sort of became extremely obvious when cops would repeatedly tazer suspects of misdemeanor violations more casually then grabbing something for dinner.
The state policy issues actually allows for that. If the police think there is something of evidence value on the recording device, they are supposed to ask you for it. If you refuse, they are supposed to get the watch commander or sergeant or duty officer to come down, determine the extent and nature of the evidence and make the decision whether or not it needs confiscated. At that point, they are only allowed to contact their electronic crimes division who will copy information pertaining only to the evidence claimed to be on the recording device and return the device in tact to the owner. So not only what you said sounds like a good idea, it should be the standard operating procedure for law enforcement- at least in this area.
I do not think it is practical to expect a commanding officer to discipline their subordinates in plain view of the public. You might see an officer behave radically different after their arrival but the Cover You Ass mentality is so ingrained within the system that I seriously doubt they would do anything that could possible encourage a lawsuit.
Slashdot Mirror
It's sad that he has gained so much traction on those two issues.
Fortunately for Romney, he has time to perfect his stances and put them out. For Obama, they are already out for everyone to see (unless he is willing to admit that last for years was a mistake and claim he will get it right this time). I guess the true mark will be if Romney can tune his positions and explain them in an understandable way that makes sense beyond what is already not working.
Palin is not and was not as stupid as she was depicted to be and probably never was as stupid as you think she is in her adult life. You like many others are probably referring to the Tina Fey character who perpetuated this myth very well on Saturday Night Live.
McCain did the damage to the GOP, no one liked him. He was a big disappointment who was always bucking the party trends and who ended up putting Palin center stage in front of him in order to come back. McCain ran as a maverick flaunting his unwillingness to hold conservative values or his all about me attitude in going against the party whenever he thought it was politically expedient for him. If it wasn't for Palin, McCain would have lost by a larger margin then Carter did against Reagan.
This would be a bit different then television or radio ads as the pay per click model implies those not interested would not be viewing it anyways because they would not be clicking it. But i agree, it is something they need to evaluate and determine if it is worth the money/ It appears to be exactly what had happened- except during this evaluation they found some disturbing information that shouldn't have been there.
How about evaluating claims based on the content of the claims and not on the associations or connections of people involved or how they disseminate the information?
Seriously, I just wrote on a cocktail napkin that the world is round. Does that mean my claim is invalid? And to the point of round verses flat or even the heliocentric orbit, This wasn't peer reviewed in the sense you are insisting it needs to be now. In fact, when it was discovered, it was self publishing much like putting it on a website (had the wen existed at the time) which circulated the concept and other read and built on. There was no journals to submit to at the time, just your ability to communicate thoughts to others which generally meant paying a printer to print books or booklets and passing them out. Nicolaus Copernicus certainly took this route.
If no one but scientists can comment on science, then perhaps scientists should keep their science in the lab and stop making political masturbation's about them.
Anytime anything is brought to a political conclusion, anyone with or without a political interest is more then legit in commenting on it. This could be science, your religious beliefs, your favorite color or anything else in your imagination. If you do not like it, then stop pushing it into the political arena
Whats wrong with shades of the truth. In the 1992 presidential election Bill Clinton won with less then half of the country's registered voters voting for him. He also won by one of the largest margin of votes in a long time. This trend repeated itself in 1996 with even larger margins. It is both true to say that the majority of the country did not vote for Clinton to be president and Clinton won the presidency by one of the largest amount of votes in a while (except Reagan Carter).
That's just one example.
I'm not sure what is unbelievable about this. Remember the ,a href=http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm >y2k bug that had nothing to do with the year 2000 except for showing a point where something was obviously wrong? It went unnoticed for better then 15 years.
It is entirely possible that mistakes happen. It is also entirely possible that mistakes aren't obvious for long lengths of time.
Everyone who doesn't believe as I do or attempts to disprove the words of the great people I believe in have an agenda. Even if I can't prove the connection, the blaspheme being spouted is enough proof..
Fuck, how do I turn off the sarcasm switch?
I have an uninformed comment also. It doesn't matter if 80% of the clicks were by bots or users with the ability to not see the adds, their point remains the same, they were being billed for advertisements not reaching real people, Whether this is by bot or some geek wannabe out there constantly clicking the adds wondering why it isn't showing up is trivial to the overall claim.
I'm just curious, to wonder what size their selection pool was. I mean 80 out of 100 is one thing, 800,000 out of 1,000,000 is quite another while both being 80%.
Vagina is very popular around here. It just seams like it isn't because most users wouldn't know what to do with one if it was staring them in the face.
It could be illegal if the rootkit is not represented as such.
In other words, you would have to disclose the nature of the software in a way that accurately describes it before installation. Think of it this way, suppose I fix your virus riddled computer and install software to prevent it from being infected again. You agree to that. Now suppose in that software, I installed a back door (rootkit) allowing me to turn the webcam on at any time and do so when you, your girlfriend, your mom, your kids, whatever comes out of the shower naked and drying off. Does your consent to me installing software on your computer to keep it virus free include this stuff? Of course the answer is no just like my consent for the local repair shop to change the battery in my car does not allow the to pull the engine and replace it with a smaller one.
It is a difficult issue here because the jurisdiction doesn't fully overlap.
The law allows the government to seize assets from criminal operations that impact US citizens and commerce. Dot Com is arguing that the US doesn't have jurisdiction to prosecute him because he never stepped foot in the US during the time it is claimed he acted criminally. The government is saying even if that is true, the long arm principle holds true giving jurisdiction. If the judge agrees with Kim Dot Com, it doesn't settle the problem of asset seizure.
We have been doing this since the war on drugs. There are quite a few drug lords who have rather large bank accounts being kept safe for them by the US government. The big difference is that newer drug laws allow the forfeiture of property before convictions through a stripped down civil process and this is still just a seizure so it technically is dot com's still. This won't change until there is a conviction or he is exonerated. A simple dismissal doesn't address the issue of seizure or the eventual adverse possession. .
ha.. I'm arguing that your fallacy about the will of the people is ridiculous. The connection simply isn't there. The consumer product safety commission is not like the state department or the justice department and so on.
A constitution is supposed to supersede new law. It is supposed to spell out the authority and limits to it that a government has. Congress cannot just make a law that runs foul of it and claim its a living document meant to change as needs of society changes. If you do not like something in the constitution, it needs to be amended but not just ignored.
That is exactly how it was intended to be. The living document idiots think rationalizing it can negate provisions in it without amending it. They want to claim words mean something different now as if redefining person to mean dog somehow changes the constitution so that only canines can be president. These are the jackasses that think the second amendment is there to ensure you can go hunting and that you only need certain types of arms to hunt with. These are the assclowns who think indefinite detention of citizens are justified because somehow calling them an enemy of the nation invokes some other power to defend the country despite the 9th amendment saying that rights in the constitution shall not be construed to remove or deprive other rights held by the people. These are the same dipshits that think because telephones and computers weren't around when the constitution was created, government searches of them don't need a warrant.
What is the real difference between this happening before elections verses after the elections when they have to get together and give up core principles to get something done?
Also, your example suffers a fatal flaw of expecting an even distribution of the voting populace. More often then not, a large section of the voting population agreeing with each other tend to be in large population areas. The 30 and 15 percent populations can easily be more then half within any district.
The only way for a third party to be a competitor on the national stage is to invest in the local stage. The dems and reps only got as powerful as they are by assimilation of third parties under a common ground and dominating the local and state politics. A third party cannot expect to do much more then influence the major parties without that home spun support. A third party president will be worse then Jimmy Carter was as president. At least his party controlled congress so he was able to get thing they wanted to do done. But his failure of a presidency is a clear indicator of what will happen with a third party president without party support in congress.
Shh.. do not get in the way of hope for a change.
There was plenty of other stuff in my post for you to dwell on. The point was, it isn't your crap, it is owned by someone else, You do not get to decide when or how what is done unless the employer/owner gives you permission first.
Or a very poor employee and perhaps a dishonest employee who is making deals to take with him or even taking the client lists or trade secrets. No one has cleared this employee and designated them uber honorable or anything. Wanting to destroy any traces of his computer usage definitely has a different sound to it then "I don't want them knowing my log on to to site X that they could have found out at any time if they wanted over the last 10 years".
If the employee is competent and trust worthy.
Your right, it shouldn't if it is done at the direction of the owner of the computer. However, an ex employee is not the owner of the computer or the data on it.
In an ideal world, but the world is far from ideal. What should be done is often replaced with how much is it going to cost and you simply cannot get around that in a lot of situations. It doesn't matter because in the real world, data does sit in a lot of places and it as well as the computer belongs to the employer not the employee.
But hey, don't just take my word for it, here are some links where people who believe like you ended up believing like me after a costly and painful experience.
http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Ex-employee-sued-for-deleting-files/2100-7348_3-6171274.html
http://computerfraud.us/recent-updates/california-court-holds-that-an-employee-can-be-sued-under-the-cfaa-for-deleting-company-files
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/top-10-lawsuits-2006,1884-3.html
http://www.sgrlaw.com/resources/trust_the_leaders/leaders_issues/ttl17/827/
Well, I was referring to this one police entity, the Washington DC metro police department, as it was the one who got sued and had to implement a policy that clarified the law and was supposed to be binding on the police officers. It actually spelled out in the policy that they are supposed to ask for the recording device and then call a superior if the person refuses.
I understand the "blue wall" and police operating outside the law. I too have had issues with them in a different area. One such issue was where I was accosted by several police when leaving a night club. I was talking to some girl and another got all pissy with me because of it. I asked the girl I was talking with if she wanted me to leave and she told me to stay. It later turned out to be the pissy girl was one of the cops brothers and her friend I was talking to just broke up with that cop.
Most cops are self serving and corrupted scum. There are a few in there that are honest but they are definitely overshadowed by the assclowns.
All the information on the computer belongs to the employer not the employee. Try walking down the street and picking random cars then start changing their tires.
It doesn't matter if the employer is going to delete anything or everything anyways, It's the employers right to pick the time and the place for it to happen. I actually create new imaged of every workstation for reference to prove communications and the work that went into contracts and so on when an employee leaves. Missing that information 2 years down the road could be the difference in defaulting on a contract or being accused of billing incorrectly verses knowing where you stand with proof to back it up. Ever try to go back and prove what work you did on a case file from several years ago when all references of your work outside of time tracking is missing?
It is more then a 20 minute fix too.
No, you are the one trying to claim the actions of an independent government agency has to be at the direction of elected political figures despite not indication of such which somehow means it is "the will of the people" when we have a constitutional republic and elect leaders to make decisions for us because determining the will of the people is ridiculously difficult. And you are not even bothering with any evidence of that either outside of lines you can connect within your head.
You are either delusional, confused, trolling, or plain stupid.
That may be true if the police actually police the police. The problem seems to be that the watchers are watching themselves and no one is doing anything when they become the criminals outside of complaining about it.
Small business server defaults to roaming profiles. Even if you do not run the backups, there is at least one copy on the server.
The point is, it isn't just your desktop that needs to be worried about if you are concerned.
The problem is probably more likely associated with overall enforcement then political leadership. We a cop puts 7 months into tracking down the criminal behind a crime just to find they got sentenced to 2 months community service or off free on a technicality, they tend to start thinking justice isn't being served and perhaps adopt a mentality of dishing it out on their own when making the arrest.
This might not be true in all situations, but it sort of became extremely obvious when cops would repeatedly tazer suspects of misdemeanor violations more casually then grabbing something for dinner.
The state policy issues actually allows for that. If the police think there is something of evidence value on the recording device, they are supposed to ask you for it. If you refuse, they are supposed to get the watch commander or sergeant or duty officer to come down, determine the extent and nature of the evidence and make the decision whether or not it needs confiscated. At that point, they are only allowed to contact their electronic crimes division who will copy information pertaining only to the evidence claimed to be on the recording device and return the device in tact to the owner. So not only what you said sounds like a good idea, it should be the standard operating procedure for law enforcement- at least in this area.
I do not think it is practical to expect a commanding officer to discipline their subordinates in plain view of the public. You might see an officer behave radically different after their arrival but the Cover You Ass mentality is so ingrained within the system that I seriously doubt they would do anything that could possible encourage a lawsuit.