FCC Classifies DSL as Information Service [fcc.gov]
That doesn't say what you seem to think it says. All that shows is the formalizing of the ways they already had been treating cable internet. This was largely due to lawsuits and their response to them. There was absolutely no switch in policy which is why there was absolutely no need to release the newly adopted paper- there was no change in policy or procedure- just a formalizing of it.
Stop looking only far enough back in time that you think you found something. Go back further with the computers and computers II paper and the interim report to congress in 98. You will see this clearly was no policy change.
In what respect do you believe is cable service different from DSL in this context? And while I do disagree with you in this assertion, I have a somewhat awkward assurance of your error that Kevin Martin also disagrees with you as can be seen in the link I supplied above.
This is like asking in what respect is a car different from a road when all you are thinking about is traveling. I'm not sure if I posses the patience or articulation to explain these difference clearly enough that you would grasp it. First, cable service is difference from DSL service because one delivers cable TV channels while the other is a technology primarily for delivering data or internet access over a system for communications. The question you need to ask is in what way is cable service different from POTS service. The answer to this gives the answer you seem to be missing. You see, telephone service is regulated differently than cable service and always has been. Telephone service even has it's delivery system regulated where cable service hasn't. With cable service, the regulations have largely been limited to content restrictions and timing of content, equal access for conflicting views, emergency signals, and rates to some degree. This difference is because cable service has never been considered a telecommunications service where POTS has always been considered one and the law requires different regulations for them.
Yes, that entire common carriage thing was such a nuisance what with those regulated utilities having to open up their networks to allow for competition. And we can all see exactly how well this decision has worked our given that most of us here in the US pay more for crappy service than most of the rest of the developed world. And while we're resting on our laurels, let's not forget Comcast, who has achieved the distinction of being recognized as having the worst customer service out of any corporation in our country.
Maybe you should grab a tissue and wait a minute before reading this. We both see there is a problem, I'm saying that we do not need to cut the baby in half in order to figure out the answer and you are saying the baby should never have been born so lets kill it already. I think you approach is wrong and historically has never worked. Breaking up the bells largely got us into this situation you just cried about and we need to not only be smarter about it this time, but we need actual laws passed instead of unconstitutional edicts by unelected persons who likely will lose in court when the issue is pushed because of the entire history of the FCC countering their current position.
Yes, seriously, read the evidence and citation lists in their court filing, it's pretty extensive and relies on the FCC itself quite a bit in their claim that they cannot be classified as title II by law.
Given that the internet, as we think of it today, hasn't been around for 47 years, what are you talking about? In fact, it was the common carriage rules which made it possible for all of those independent ISPs to exists.
lol.. Do you think the FCC started only caring about data crossing over communications lines when the internet as we know it today was realized? They have been d
I think it has something to do with the online records requirements of the ACA. If you live in Chicago and have an accident while vacationing in Florida, the doctors in Florida are supposed to be able to access your medical records from Chicago without much effort in order to treat you more effectively and timely. Encrypting it would somewhat end that and somehow this is all supposed to be controlled by the IRS who will share information with about 200 or more other government agencies between the state, local, and federal levels.
Yes, and it was Kevin Martin who classified Cable service as an information service to relieve them from having to open up their networks to all competitors as the telephone companies had been reluctantly doing.
I need a cite for this. BTW, you do realize the cable service is not the same as internet service right? So if you do understand this, I'm not sure we are in disagreement. If not, there is our problem.
I think you've got it backwards. This is infrastructure, critical infrastructure, and it needs to be regulated.
Not really. There could be a number of things that could change this for the better without regulating it. I would even suggest it isn't critical infrastructure too. Without it, all that would happen is a little inconvenience and a few companies would have to limit who they sell to or find another way to reach people.
in fact, it was regulated until an unelected official unilaterally enacted the changes this FCC Chair is trying to reverse. Truth be told, this was a horrific decision and screwed all of us. Now the question of why this isn't a case where we just "come into anything you own and make it for the better without your permission" is because all of these companies use publicly owned properties (rights of ways) to deliver these services.
No it was not_ever_ regulated. The FCC position on the internet was never a title II position and they even segregated it from information services. Provide a cite for this. The best you can find is where the Portland case said it was and the FCC attempted to take comments for rule making but failed to accomplish anything before a higher court overturned the ruling.
Except that the law is already in place and the FCC has been challenged before as to whether it did have the power to make these decision. That power was upheld by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion.
lol.. When there is 40 some years of the FCC itself saying it does not have regulatory powers, even after the last law passed by congress is on the books, you will find problems with any court upholding this power. You see, there are FCC documents that they specifically say congress never intended them to regulate the internet. One of these is the 1998 report to congress on the access thing. A good portion of evidence cited in the filing is pulled from FCC case laws, FCC reports, and FCC declarations made to congress. The FCC has basically ignored 47 years of precedence in order to enact some political agenda. Read the filing. It lists all it's supporting evidence near the beginning. It is huge.
A lot of the carriers have been doing the same. They did it with that money they collect from your phone bills designated to connect poor and rural areas. Instead of running land lines, they can build out towers for their cellular networks and claim compliance thereby getting their share of the cash.
Face it. They are telecommunications service providers. The jig is up they've been called on it. Congress delegated the authority to the FCC to make the call and even if it didn't and we call back on what congress decided, Congress decided 20 years ago that they were telecommunications service providers which is why they were up until the year 2002.
Who is telling you these lies?
Seriously, who is lieing to you about this 2002 crap? You are not the first person to bring it up, you are not the first person who has failed to investigate it, you are also not the first person to be completely wrong about this. The FCC has never taken the position that the internet was anything other than an enhanced service or information service. Before the 1996 telecommunications act, it was commonly referred to as enhanced services and distinguished from telecommunications since 1968 with the original computers paper published by the FCC. The entire terminology "information services" comes from the computers II paper and congress' attempt to codify it into law. Several FCC papers including reports to congress (during Clinton's administration) distinguish the internet as separate from telecommunications services.
Please look into it yourself. Whoever told you that everything all the sudden changed in 2002, told you a lie. What had happened was a court case ruled the internet provisions of a cable company were title II and it was overturned in 2002. The FCC did not change any position at all, they just had the opportunity to ignore a court ruling in the Portland case.
The same as they were after computer I and computers II and the interim reports to congress in 1996, 97, and 98.
The FCC has never taken the position that the internet was ever anything other than an information service. This is prominent and clear starting as early as 1968. The only thing that happened to differ was the Portland cable case temporarily said cable internet was title II but it was overturned on appeals in 2002. The FCC did not let anyone do anything other than what they maintained for the 34 years previous.
Believe it or not, the history on this goes back a lot further than 2002 or whenever you were born. Before 1996, the term used was enhanced services and the telecommunications act of 96 turned it into information services but it modeled it directly of the definition in the FCC paper computers II.
As memory serves, it was Kevin Martin who created the informational service distinction in as far as the current internet is concerned. I believe he did so thinkng that this would allow free enterprise the opportunity to build out our networks to which I would point out has been only partly successful.
I cannot find any reference to Kevin Martin outside of some basketball player for some team I frankly have never heard of before. I couldn't say if you are right or wrong about the creation of the term itself. I can however tell you that the terminology was placed in the telecommunications law (1996) to model after the computers II paper published by the FCC. Before that, it was largely refereed to as enhanced services. I don't know if that is connected or not.
At the same time, to suggest that the Internet isn't rapidly taking over telecommunication is patently absurd. Next year, the POTS network will likely be scrapped and we have seen times when portions of our telecommunications network has been taken down due to weather incidents leaving people without the ability to call for help when they needed to.
Here is the problem. Telecommunications and information services are legally defined. It is the type of communications not how it is delivered, transported, or imagined. You could have a line of people holding hands who twitched a finger in serious that relayed communications from one end of the state to the other in real time. That could make that communications service a communications service but it wouldn't make the infrastructural (1 million people holding hands) automatically under regulations of the FCC. Part of the law (pre title II change) was with what type of assurances and reliability communication services would be transported on. In that scenario, one person pausing for a bathroom break breaks the entire ordeal.
More to the point, we have seen what was once considered to be the gold standard in the world for telecommunications become an embarrassment where one of our larger carriers actually ran advertisements asking "Can you hear me know?" Is this the communications network you believe our country should have?
Lol.. You mean for a cell network? Of course I think it should be better. I travel a lot and am dropping calls all the time or having to ask people to repeat themselves because it sound like they stuck their head in a barrel every 5 words. But hey, should I be allowed to just come into anything you own and make it for the better without your permission or any specific act or law created by your elected officials?
Where we disagree (apparently) is that I believe the Internet is an infrastructure built for the common good and not as a cash delivery system for commerce.
No, we do not disagree with this.
And while I have no issues with people using the net for business (I do so myself) the idea that corporations should have the ability to do whatever their profit margins tell them to do with our net is past absurd as far as I'm concerned.
And we are not in disagreement here either. I guess if there is any disagreement, it would be in how to correct the situation. First, I think an actual law should be passed instead of unelected appointed officials reversing over 47 years of precedence (the first FCC reference that I know of about computer communications being an enhanced service and not telecommunications is circa 1968) and pushing their own agenda.
I do not have any problems with the goals involved, just the process in which they were implemented. It's like giving a murdering bank robber a pass because he donated all the money he stole in a bank robbery, where 5 customers suffocated after being locked in the vault all weekend, to charity looking for cures of childhood cancer. Well, no- it is not like that at all. But in the same, doing something wrong for the
The Portland case doesn't really say that. It basically says that information services use telecommunication services to develop and deliver the information services. It in essence says cable companies were telecommunication companies when they offer telecommunications services carrying information services over their infrastructure.
The news brief you linked to was about the FCC using this to develop and roll out broadband because it now has authority that can restrict or override local franchising boards.
I don't think it is a matter of being able to switch between the two rather that the lines between the two are getting blurred. For instance, you use a telecommunications service to transmit an information service but when it is IP telephony (like Vonage), you are transmitting a telecommunications service over a telecommunications service as if it was an information service.
Information service is defined by law separate from what you are describing as an information service. It is as apposed to the legal definition of a telecommunications service. When speaking of such in pertaining to the FCC actions, we need to consider the legal definition and not the common one.
No they did not. The internet was never Title II except for the attempt now and a brief lived stent coming from a ruling in the Portland cable case in which was overturned about a year later on appeals.
The FCC and congress behind them have repeatedly took the position that the internet and computer communications were information services and the variants signifying the same leading up to that terminology being created in the mid 1990s. There is a long and complete record of the FCC treating computer communications separate from telecommunications from about 1968 and on up until the Portland case (which the FCC argued against) and this FCC trying to change everything.
Speaking of gluten free - i tried it once. Turned out either i have a mild gluten allergy or consciously picking the food I ate based on nutritional values made a significant difference in my disposition. I was more pleasant to be around, more energetic, had less ailments, was more regular in bathroom breaks, and overall felt better.
Of course that was not a proper study and it just as well could have been a placebo effect moving in. I'm back to my old ways again with a few exceptions and do not see much of any reversal though.
There is no grasping at all here. If they permit you to hold an event in a park, i am not free to have a touch football game at that time in that same space where i could otherwise.
The line is clearly drawn at a fugitive speaking. A Polanski film wouldn't be the same unless it was Polanski himself making a speech. His music played by either recording or cover band would be the same.
What is at play here is whether or not government has the right to restrict fugitives from special uses of public property. Seeing how they can suspend a fugitive's license, It is clear that they can.
There is also nothing in the constitution that says any entity must allow you to use their property at the exclusion of others in order to express your speech. That's what this is. They want to have a concert on public grounds that will in essence restrict other from freely using the same said grounds and the city said no if a wanted criminal and fugitive from law would be a party of it.
It doesn't matter. You are trying to correct a political spouting BS to see if people will believe him.
Here is a couple of facts which you should know but got lost within the technical of the sequestration.
First, the Benghazi happened September 11, 2012. Second, the budget sequestration, while becoming law in 2011 under the Budget control act, did not sequester anything until March of 2013. It was supposed to kick in of a budget reconciliation was not passed by January 1 2013 but they extended it in the American Tax Payer Relief Act of 2012.
So while you are technically correct, you simply do not need to be. A fucking calendar and the ability to count is all you need to show how much of a clueless moron looking to justify itself the guy is. The sequestration could not have been the cause of something that happened 7 months before the sequestration. Even if you do not count the delay to march instead of January, we are looking at almost 4 months before the sequestration. Numerous requests for more security was supposedly requested and rejected. The rejection was not in any way due to Sequestration.
Libby was charged and convicted for crap surrounding the investigation not outing plame. That wa Richard Armatage and it was known from the start of the investigation.
FFS, it's all over the internet and any reference site you wish to pick. Wikipedia, for all it's worth, even cites references. I cannot understand how in this day and age anyone would get this so wrong when it's so easy to do a cursory investigation into the matter.
Were they open to the network or open to VPN into the network?
I've never trusted wireless access. Could never get the funding to really secure it. The answer for those places that just have to have it was a separate network in front of the firewall and VPN everything through. From a user perspective, It could be an open access point but they didn't have access to the company network.
Lol.. if you think this guy is a moron, you know nothing about securing a network. One of the most basic principles is to not allow devices and access you do not directly control. The fact that he was detecting a MAC address at all means he was using it with the company network.
You have basically three choices if he doesn't supply the phone. Either do without a phone, do with a different employer, or allow the insane policy.
Working somewhere else won't fix the policy because there will always be someone desperate for employment who would put up with it. But it is a pointless policy because you can copy everything from the comfort of home before it gets to the point of wiping the phone. About the only good use for something like this would be if the phone came up missing and you cannot trust it anymore. I think there are already services you can use to wipe phones (some may even brick them after the wipe) if they became lost or stolen. Not an unreasonable request in my opinion. That is if you are going to keep credentials that allow access to company resources like email or VPN services on it.
Is your google finger broken? No Dianne Feinstein does not have a CCW. She may still have the pistol but has publicly claimed she got rid of it too. She wasn't a big gun control champion when she had her CCW either. The only reason we know about it is that she admitted having previously had one when trying to institute an assault weapons ban.
But hey, as long as you can say someone else is wrong- amiright? Oh, and you may have failed the reading comprehension, I certainly did not. Try reading the rest of my post. Perhaps it is above your level and you should ask you mom to come into the basement and help you understand it or something?
There use to be software or a process with a human that would listen in on tech support calls while the person was on hold. It would try to detect key words like cussing and so on to determine the level of upset the user was. It would then transfer the calls a little sooner than if they stayed in original queue.
I used to just start spouting random swear words in hopes of going to the front of the line. Had an employer catch me doing it once and was about ready to fire me until he found out why. Sometimes it appears to work, most of the time it just relieves some stress.
Well, technically he has. There used to be an ice cream shop right on base. It sold burgers and shakes and stuff too. It was named Guantanamo. He shut it down and now the servicemen have to go into Cuba proper in order to get ice cream. That is why normalizing relations with Cuba was so damn important.
I think you are ignoring reality in order to press whatever ideology you want to be true.
With the exception of the democrat in California who was running guns and creating his own little market niche by championing and passing gun control laws, almost all prominent gun control advocates do in fact have armed security around them the majority of time they are in public. They do no arm themselves unless you consider hiring armed thugs or having armed police provided by the state to be arming yourself.
BTW, intelligence does enter into it. How else do you compensate for or explain the "I won't arm myself but pay others to arm themselves for me while actively trying to stop others from protecting their families" mentality and pretending it somehow makes them better than everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't say what you seem to think it says. All that shows is the formalizing of the ways they already had been treating cable internet. This was largely due to lawsuits and their response to them. There was absolutely no switch in policy which is why there was absolutely no need to release the newly adopted paper- there was no change in policy or procedure- just a formalizing of it.
Stop looking only far enough back in time that you think you found something. Go back further with the computers and computers II paper and the interim report to congress in 98. You will see this clearly was no policy change.
This is like asking in what respect is a car different from a road when all you are thinking about is traveling. I'm not sure if I posses the patience or articulation to explain these difference clearly enough that you would grasp it. First, cable service is difference from DSL service because one delivers cable TV channels while the other is a technology primarily for delivering data or internet access over a system for communications. The question you need to ask is in what way is cable service different from POTS service. The answer to this gives the answer you seem to be missing. You see, telephone service is regulated differently than cable service and always has been. Telephone service even has it's delivery system regulated where cable service hasn't. With cable service, the regulations have largely been limited to content restrictions and timing of content, equal access for conflicting views, emergency signals, and rates to some degree. This difference is because cable service has never been considered a telecommunications service where POTS has always been considered one and the law requires different regulations for them.
Maybe you should grab a tissue and wait a minute before reading this. We both see there is a problem, I'm saying that we do not need to cut the baby in half in order to figure out the answer and you are saying the baby should never have been born so lets kill it already. I think you approach is wrong and historically has never worked. Breaking up the bells largely got us into this situation you just cried about and we need to not only be smarter about it this time, but we need actual laws passed instead of unconstitutional edicts by unelected persons who likely will lose in court when the issue is pushed because of the entire history of the FCC countering their current position.
Yes, seriously, read the evidence and citation lists in their court filing, it's pretty extensive and relies on the FCC itself quite a bit in their claim that they cannot be classified as title II by law.
lol.. Do you think the FCC started only caring about data crossing over communications lines when the internet as we know it today was realized? They have been d
Ok, gross royalties is nothing to it is perpetual?
Make copyright like patents- for a limited time that is in all realistic measures, limited.
I think it has something to do with the online records requirements of the ACA. If you live in Chicago and have an accident while vacationing in Florida, the doctors in Florida are supposed to be able to access your medical records from Chicago without much effort in order to treat you more effectively and timely. Encrypting it would somewhat end that and somehow this is all supposed to be controlled by the IRS who will share information with about 200 or more other government agencies between the state, local, and federal levels.
I need a cite for this.
BTW, you do realize the cable service is not the same as internet service right? So if you do understand this, I'm not sure we are in disagreement. If not, there is our problem.
Not really. There could be a number of things that could change this for the better without regulating it. I would even suggest it isn't critical infrastructure too. Without it, all that would happen is a little inconvenience and a few companies would have to limit who they sell to or find another way to reach people.
No it was not_ever_ regulated. The FCC position on the internet was never a title II position and they even segregated it from information services. Provide a cite for this. The best you can find is where the Portland case said it was and the FCC attempted to take comments for rule making but failed to accomplish anything before a higher court overturned the ruling.
lol.. When there is 40 some years of the FCC itself saying it does not have regulatory powers, even after the last law passed by congress is on the books, you will find problems with any court upholding this power. You see, there are FCC documents that they specifically say congress never intended them to regulate the internet. One of these is the 1998 report to congress on the access thing. A good portion of evidence cited in the filing is pulled from FCC case laws, FCC reports, and FCC declarations made to congress. The FCC has basically ignored 47 years of precedence in order to enact some political agenda. Read the filing. It lists all it's supporting evidence near the beginning. It is huge.
A lot of the carriers have been doing the same. They did it with that money they collect from your phone bills designated to connect poor and rural areas. Instead of running land lines, they can build out towers for their cellular networks and claim compliance thereby getting their share of the cash.
Who is telling you these lies?
Seriously, who is lieing to you about this 2002 crap? You are not the first person to bring it up, you are not the first person who has failed to investigate it, you are also not the first person to be completely wrong about this. The FCC has never taken the position that the internet was anything other than an enhanced service or information service. Before the 1996 telecommunications act, it was commonly referred to as enhanced services and distinguished from telecommunications since 1968 with the original computers paper published by the FCC. The entire terminology "information services" comes from the computers II paper and congress' attempt to codify it into law. Several FCC papers including reports to congress (during Clinton's administration) distinguish the internet as separate from telecommunications services.
Please look into it yourself. Whoever told you that everything all the sudden changed in 2002, told you a lie. What had happened was a court case ruled the internet provisions of a cable company were title II and it was overturned in 2002. The FCC did not change any position at all, they just had the opportunity to ignore a court ruling in the Portland case.
The same as they were after computer I and computers II and the interim reports to congress in 1996, 97, and 98.
The FCC has never taken the position that the internet was ever anything other than an information service. This is prominent and clear starting as early as 1968. The only thing that happened to differ was the Portland cable case temporarily said cable internet was title II but it was overturned on appeals in 2002. The FCC did not let anyone do anything other than what they maintained for the 34 years previous.
Believe it or not, the history on this goes back a lot further than 2002 or whenever you were born. Before 1996, the term used was enhanced services and the telecommunications act of 96 turned it into information services but it modeled it directly of the definition in the FCC paper computers II.
I cannot find any reference to Kevin Martin outside of some basketball player for some team I frankly have never heard of before. I couldn't say if you are right or wrong about the creation of the term itself. I can however tell you that the terminology was placed in the telecommunications law (1996) to model after the computers II paper published by the FCC. Before that, it was largely refereed to as enhanced services. I don't know if that is connected or not.
Here is the problem. Telecommunications and information services are legally defined. It is the type of communications not how it is delivered, transported, or imagined. You could have a line of people holding hands who twitched a finger in serious that relayed communications from one end of the state to the other in real time. That could make that communications service a communications service but it wouldn't make the infrastructural (1 million people holding hands) automatically under regulations of the FCC. Part of the law
(pre title II change) was with what type of assurances and reliability communication services would be transported on. In that scenario, one person pausing for a bathroom break breaks the entire ordeal.
Lol.. You mean for a cell network? Of course I think it should be better. I travel a lot and am dropping calls all the time or having to ask people to repeat themselves because it sound like they stuck their head in a barrel every 5 words. But hey, should I be allowed to just come into anything you own and make it for the better without your permission or any specific act or law created by your elected officials?
No, we do not disagree with this.
And we are not in disagreement here either. I guess if there is any disagreement, it would be in how to correct the situation. First, I think an actual law should be passed instead of unelected appointed officials reversing over 47 years of precedence (the first FCC reference that I know of about computer communications being an enhanced service and not telecommunications is circa 1968) and pushing their own agenda.
I do not have any problems with the goals involved, just the process in which they were implemented. It's like giving a murdering bank robber a pass because he donated all the money he stole in a bank robbery, where 5 customers suffocated after being locked in the vault all weekend, to charity looking for cures of childhood cancer. Well, no- it is not like that at all. But in the same, doing something wrong for the
The Portland case doesn't really say that. It basically says that information services use telecommunication services to develop and deliver the information services. It in essence says cable companies were telecommunication companies when they offer telecommunications services carrying information services over their infrastructure.
http://www.techlawjournal.com/...
The news brief you linked to was about the FCC using this to develop and roll out broadband because it now has authority that can restrict or override local franchising boards.
I don't think it is a matter of being able to switch between the two rather that the lines between the two are getting blurred. For instance, you use a telecommunications service to transmit an information service but when it is IP telephony (like Vonage), you are transmitting a telecommunications service over a telecommunications service as if it was an information service.
Information service is defined by law separate from what you are describing as an information service. It is as apposed to the legal definition of a telecommunications service. When speaking of such in pertaining to the FCC actions, we need to consider the legal definition and not the common one.
No they did not. The internet was never Title II except for the attempt now and a brief lived stent coming from a ruling in the Portland cable case in which was overturned about a year later on appeals.
The FCC and congress behind them have repeatedly took the position that the internet and computer communications were information services and the variants signifying the same leading up to that terminology being created in the mid 1990s. There is a long and complete record of the FCC treating computer communications separate from telecommunications from about 1968 and on up until the Portland case (which the FCC argued against) and this FCC trying to change everything.
If you have free speech, yes you have that right.
Speaking of gluten free - i tried it once. Turned out either i have a mild gluten allergy or consciously picking the food I ate based on nutritional values made a significant difference in my disposition. I was more pleasant to be around, more energetic, had less ailments, was more regular in bathroom breaks, and overall felt better.
Of course that was not a proper study and it just as well could have been a placebo effect moving in. I'm back to my old ways again with a few exceptions and do not see much of any reversal though.
There is no grasping at all here. If they permit you to hold an event in a park, i am not free to have a touch football game at that time in that same space where i could otherwise.
The line is clearly drawn at a fugitive speaking. A Polanski film wouldn't be the same unless it was Polanski himself making a speech. His music played by either recording or cover band would be the same.
What is at play here is whether or not government has the right to restrict fugitives from special uses of public property. Seeing how they can suspend a fugitive's license, It is clear that they can.
You are correct.
There is also nothing in the constitution that says any entity must allow you to use their property at the exclusion of others in order to express your speech. That's what this is. They want to have a concert on public grounds that will in essence restrict other from freely using the same said grounds and the city said no if a wanted criminal and fugitive from law would be a party of it.
It doesn't matter. You are trying to correct a political spouting BS to see if people will believe him.
Here is a couple of facts which you should know but got lost within the technical of the sequestration.
First, the Benghazi happened September 11, 2012. Second, the budget sequestration, while becoming law in 2011 under the Budget control act, did not sequester anything until March of 2013. It was supposed to kick in of a budget reconciliation was not passed by January 1 2013 but they extended it in the American Tax Payer Relief Act of 2012.
So while you are technically correct, you simply do not need to be. A fucking calendar and the ability to count is all you need to show how much of a clueless moron looking to justify itself the guy is. The sequestration could not have been the cause of something that happened 7 months before the sequestration. Even if you do not count the delay to march instead of January, we are looking at almost 4 months before the sequestration. Numerous requests for more security was supposedly requested and rejected. The rejection was not in any way due to Sequestration.
No he didn''t..lol..
Libby was charged and convicted for crap surrounding the investigation not outing plame. That wa Richard Armatage and it was known from the start of the investigation.
FFS, it's all over the internet and any reference site you wish to pick. Wikipedia, for all it's worth, even cites references. I cannot understand how in this day and age anyone would get this so wrong when it's so easy to do a cursory investigation into the matter.
Were they open to the network or open to VPN into the network?
I've never trusted wireless access. Could never get the funding to really secure it. The answer for those places that just have to have it was a separate network in front of the firewall and VPN everything through. From a user perspective, It could be an open access point but they didn't have access to the company network.
Lol.. if you think this guy is a moron, you know nothing about securing a network. One of the most basic principles is to not allow devices and access you do not directly control. The fact that he was detecting a MAC address at all means he was using it with the company network.
You have basically three choices if he doesn't supply the phone. Either do without a phone, do with a different employer, or allow the insane policy.
Working somewhere else won't fix the policy because there will always be someone desperate for employment who would put up with it. But it is a pointless policy because you can copy everything from the comfort of home before it gets to the point of wiping the phone. About the only good use for something like this would be if the phone came up missing and you cannot trust it anymore. I think there are already services you can use to wipe phones (some may even brick them after the wipe) if they became lost or stolen. Not an unreasonable request in my opinion. That is if you are going to keep credentials that allow access to company resources like email or VPN services on it.
Lol.. a scenario that exists largely only in your head and you paint every person who thinks the constitution matters with your brush of ignorance.
Some people will never stop amazing me.
Is your google finger broken? No Dianne Feinstein does not have a CCW. She may still have the pistol but has publicly claimed she got rid of it too. She wasn't a big gun control champion when she had her CCW either. The only reason we know about it is that she admitted having previously had one when trying to institute an assault weapons ban.
But hey, as long as you can say someone else is wrong- amiright? Oh, and you may have failed the reading comprehension, I certainly did not. Try reading the rest of my post. Perhaps it is above your level and you should ask you mom to come into the basement and help you understand it or something?
There use to be software or a process with a human that would listen in on tech support calls while the person was on hold. It would try to detect key words like cussing and so on to determine the level of upset the user was. It would then transfer the calls a little sooner than if they stayed in original queue.
I used to just start spouting random swear words in hopes of going to the front of the line. Had an employer catch me doing it once and was about ready to fire me until he found out why. Sometimes it appears to work, most of the time it just relieves some stress.
Well, technically he has. There used to be an ice cream shop right on base. It sold burgers and shakes and stuff too. It was named Guantanamo. He shut it down and now the servicemen have to go into Cuba proper in order to get ice cream. That is why normalizing relations with Cuba was so damn important.
hmm.. the spiral stair case problem... I guess that is what we can call it.
I think you are ignoring reality in order to press whatever ideology you want to be true.
With the exception of the democrat in California who was running guns and creating his own little market niche by championing and passing gun control laws, almost all prominent gun control advocates do in fact have armed security around them the majority of time they are in public. They do no arm themselves unless you consider hiring armed thugs or having armed police provided by the state to be arming yourself.
BTW, intelligence does enter into it. How else do you compensate for or explain the "I won't arm myself but pay others to arm themselves for me while actively trying to stop others from protecting their families" mentality and pretending it somehow makes them better than everyone else.