"Email is not considered an envelope. It's considered a postcard, where the contents are visible to any and all who handle the mail."
How is is considered a postcard. who made that distinction? A postcard is something that at any moment can be read without any effort to extract the content. It is writing on paper with no protection from being seen.
An email is a digital stream of data that can only be read though the use of a program. During its transit from send to receive, only the header is read for delivery purposes, then content (by routing systems) is not read, but is treated as bytes being passed through the system. The only way to read an email is to open it up using a program. The operative phrase being OPEN.
I have a postcard and an envelope on a desk. Which one requires an active action to read its contents. I have a postcard and a computer on my desk that have in local storage data in the form of a an email. Which one requires an active action to read its contents.
Please don't tell me an email is a postcard. That an email can be read by spying programs does not mean it is a postcard. Letters can be opened just as well.
If I send a piece of paper with writing on it stored in a company memo holder I would not expect privacy for it is a company container and there is no expectation of privacy. If I write, place ion an envelope, sealed with a stamp and mail it from a company then that letter does carry privacy.
Thus when I send email through a company email service I would not expect privacy for I gave up that "right" in using their tools though the email is still not a postcard. The company has to actively "open" the email to get to its content. When I send an email from a personal mail manager or I use a web-based mail manager (google, yahoo, hotmail etc) then I accept that I give limited exposure to those companies to read my mail for their specific use (ad placement), but not for passing content along to other sources or to use against me. The email needs the same privacy protection as that letter as it becomes more the mainstay for communication and that premise that is it not a postcard, available for reading by anyone with no action on their part.
My point is that when I mail a letter I have an expectation of privacy, outside of encryption, because that letter is in an envelope that is protected by law, not Mathematics. The average (meaning most) humans are not going to encrypt every letter they write so they depend on the law to provide protection. To actively read my mail a person has to open the envelope.
When I send an email, the "data" may be plain text, but routing servers and mail managing program do not actively read content. Their programming is delivery. That header is my envelope (which is why the icon does make sense). The only way to read that email is either through a mail manager program under my control, a server based mail manager program under my control (webmail programs), programs like gmail which add programming to read my mail with my permission, or the last which is programs that actively open my mail without my permission. The data is not just "sitting around", at some point there has to be a human action to view the contents *with intent*.
The law says you can't steal or open my mail in route, or sitting in the post office, sitting in my mailbox, or sitting in my house. I feel the law should be extended to include email for there are similar mechanisms in place to differentiate between an active intent to view the contents and the act of delivery which does not. An postcard is public simply because if left in the open it can be read. An email is not a postcard in that it still takes an action, even the effort open a program to read it. That is my expectation or privacy.
"What is certain, say Yang and his colleagues, is that synthetic gas production will be carbon intensive relative to conventional gas. Burning conventional natural gas to produce power releases two to three times less carbon into the atmosphere than when burning coal, but burning synthetic gas will be 36 to 82 percent dirtier than coal-fired plants." Quoted from this article
So while other countries even attempt to limit fossil fuel emissions, China is hell bent on cranking it up. That is not sane.
true. All life on the planet will die, just not at the same time. How about we simplify it. Do nothing, die. Do something, die. I'd rather do something then nothing.
I commented on this in another post, but the postcard analogy does not completely work here. When I mail a postcard it is true that the postal worker (assuming a human at this point0 can easily read my postcard because the only "equipment" needed to do so is his/her eyes. From hand to hand, it is the eyes that interpret the words and thus make it public. Per your comments I could send postcards with encrypted text which would stop the casual reader, but not one dedicated to seeing my communication.
So I'm lazy and decide to put the postcard in an envelope but not encrypt it. Doing so means I not have an expectation of privacy. For a letter carrier (or nefarious person) to read the contents they would need to actually open the envelope which requires an active act, fingers tearing, knife slicing, steam unbinding. That active act is the step that break the law and it is only the threat of arrest that stops people from perform such an act.
When I send an email, even in open text there is a level of privacy that still can be established. Programs that read headers (like automated postal sorters) are not looking at content thus are not breaking my privacy. However, programs that actively read content are like the fingers, knives, or steamers; tools used by people to spy on my letter. Just as a I don't encrypt all my snail mail letters for I would expect the envelope to not be breached by law, I would expect the same for email. Routers that read headers are passive processes meant to route. Programs that actively read content (without my permission) should be deemed to be invading my privacy.
In the issue with gmail, I accepted that a program will review my content and display ads, independent of human intervention. If I sent a letter to acountry that knowingly opens letters I would accept that the contents will be read so I don't say anything of note, I encrypt (which brings about suspicion, and/or I don't send a letter to that country.
What you state has merit, but what stops a postman from opening a letter, reading it, and perhaps acting upon the contents. Sure the envelope provides a modicum of protect from casual reading, but it does not take much for a person to use a letter opener on someone else's mail. What stops them (for the most part) is that mail is protected under the Constition, under the law and as such can bring legal trouble to said letter opener.
As a computer or tech person, you may see an email as "open" like a postcard, but most of the population that uses email does not see it that way. They type a letter, hit send, and the binary is routed through the "internet" to the recipient. That it may pass through servers, routers, program analyzers is not in the mind set of the sender; just like they really don't know how many hands touch that envelope.
I am a software developer, I do understand that my email can be "read" in route, but what bothers me is that that email is not accorded the same protections as my hand delivered envelope, Some reads my letter by steaming open the envelope, bad; someone reading my email because they can catch it in route; okay. That is not how it should be. If someone reads my email (without my permission) they should be held to the same level of privacy invasion as one who reads my snail mail. If I give gmail permission to scan my mail so be it, but that does not mean I abdicate my privacy for anyone else to read it. At least that is how email should be viewed today.
This is why I love/. That was a great article. Thank you for posting it. Back (way back) in high school I wanted to by a physicist. Going into my freshman year of physics I quickly discovered two things. One, physics is damn hard and what the hell is calculus. Two, I was introduced to computers by my calculus professor and it was love at first sight. I dumped physics (clearly she moved on to better things) and have been with computers ever since. Still I love keeping in touch with the general world of physics and articles like this is a sweet morsel to enjoy.
Now I RTFA and the other and my question still stands.
""If you take a cubic foot of that soil you can basically get two pints of water out it -- a couple of water bottles like you'd take to the gym, worth of water,""
A cubic foot (or should I convert to metric (sigh)) can be measured a varying number of ways from 1x1x1 to 1x2x.5 where depth can 1 foot to a few inches. To obtain water from such a shallow surface area would preclude the need for a large land source. I think it is grand that water could be that plentiful, but it would kind of suck that the major way to have a continuing water supply is to keep harvesting further and further out from base.
I look forward to when they drill to see if they can find some organics and perhaps to establish how deep the water may go down into the substrate. Obviously not in my lifetime, but a green Mars would be something to see.
What I'm curious about is how deep would this layer of water go. If it is just the surface then colonists would be ranging pretty far in short order for water.
Power corrupts. I switched to Mint after Unity gummed up my home Linux Server. There was time when Linux was the go to OS for older systems, Ubuntu (and by extension Mint) changed that equation. On the positive side, as Linux is not a primary system for my work I can get back to playing/experimenting with other options to see what will fit my needs.
Ubuntu pulled me into the Linux World after years of dabbling. It is something that Ubuntu is now the one to push me away to other options.
"Are we cool yet?"
Not yet. You make an interesting proposition, very fanciful and not really practical in today's world, but interesting. In your example, how would you view the 2nd Amendment as written in Latin? How would Latin clear up the "confusion"? Along those lines, how do we define a "Right" and a "Law". The amendment you cite is read as a Right. From that right laws are created (as I see it), so would both need to Latin scope statement?
Another questions relates to translation. Latin may have been taught at some public and private schools in the past, but then and now, it mainly does not exist. Creating a law written initially in Latin precludes a vast majority of the population from understanding the base scope. They would have to rely on the interpreted English (assuming an English speaking country like the US) which could be much different. I feel this is where our approach falls flat for it creates a two tiered application of the law. Granted, we are not that far now with the newspeak that our US Government is prone to use when writing laws.
I feel that is a judgement call. Who is to say wings would be more efficient? With the spider's method the energy output is in just creating the thread, whilst wings would require much more energy output on a continuous basis. Like comparing a balloon to a fixed wing airplane. Both move you from point A to point B, but one does so with a lot less energy involved. Seems like a pretty good solution for the spider.
I'll take it. The second sentence is just nonsensical since Congress would never really investigate the NSA. They would hold hearings of course. The stoog....the CL/P officer would dance around the questions and all would go home with the knowledge that the USofA is still safe from evil doers (and we know who you are).
What amazes me in regards to the "position" is that if the existing personally just subscribe to existing laws (ZOMG) there would be no need for such a lackey reporting to the director. The CL/P should be Congress. The CL/P should be the President. Yet somehow a government agency needs another body to tell them they are acting against the law of the land and "they better darn well stop that or else"...what?
So to the NSA (who I knopw regularly reads/.), let me know who to send my resume to for review. I can work from home, I can read, and with a minor bump in pay (or a new tractor) I can parrot anything you want me to say. (Oh wait, that sounds like I'm running for office)
Think this this is the most salient point in the whole presentation:
The act of breaking into a computer system has to have the same social stigma as breaking into a neighbor's house. It should not matter that the neighbor's door is unlocked.
Time and time again I hear the old argument "Why not,I got nothing to hide" as it relates to computer access and spying. Present the same person with evidence that their house was accessed while they were out, their car was accessed without their permission and watch the reaction (most likely some variation of anger). People need to be taught that their digital world is just as tangible, just as important as their physical world.
Two questions that would great to put in front of world citizens today,
1 - How would you feel if the government went into your home every day without permission and looked through all your personal property, making copies of all your personal information
2 - How would you feel if the government accessed your personal computer, phone calls, emails, chats, and texts every day, making copies of everything you express and saving it for an unknown length of time?
When outrage is balanced between both is when the people will be able to make a change..
(That was a great read and while just a lowly Programmer, I was fascinated by what Mr. Thompson presented even as I realized there would be no way for me to ever know or change such a situation.)
Finally, after a few hundred posts someone raises the underlying point from a management view.
"the point in installing the FP is to make sure the workers aren't paid if they aren't detected as present on the job (isn't this the very purpose of clocking-in?)."
Talk about a lazy and expensive solution to a minor problem. The workers can argue invasion of liberties and what not, but the point would that management is themselves lazy. Installing a high tech time clock only ensure that workers come and go, but does it do anything to validate the standard of work, to elevate the moral or pride of an employee? No. It just ensures human x arrived on time and left on time. How nice.
I feel that business would be better served if they did away with the hourly work process and hired everyone as salary. Now what is required of management is the actual job of managing "projects" even it is cleaning bathrooms or washing floors. A standard is applied and a worker assigned to that project is assessed, just like an engineer or programmer, on the quality of the job, not the time put in. Take it one step further and begin to open up a reward system. Finish early and meet or exceed the standards, feel free to go home, want to do more assign more work and consider a person like that more viable for promotion in the future.
Hourly work rewards mediocrity. It asks someone to work to the lowest common denominator, time without a care for quality. Salary can be abused, but a Union that actively monitored project requirement and assignment could help reduce that abuse. Lazy management breeds a lazy work force and the thread that ties them together is a time clock.
A true./ poster. You really didn't read the article. Take a moment, read the article, then read your response and then re-read your puffed up ego statement.
Wow..There is A LOT of talk on the whole treason thing and I get it, she's really blowing it out her ass, but the other thing the struck me was... if that is her view, why use Yahoo? (Sorry for the rhyme).
I mean, the best way to show her view is lame is to not use her product. She wants to give over data to the Governmet, fine, I wont use her product. She feels I have no rights as a customer? I wont use her product.
Until the day something like Yahoo is the only access to the Internet (Web) I have a choice and I would not choose Yahoo (thanks to her). Let me be a customer of companies that still attempt to protect ones rights and let Marissa wrap her self in a flag of rightiousness and failure.
b) we have documented safeguards to restrict that data to intel on NON-U.S. Persons.
Funny thing, we have another set of documented safeguards, I think the fourth would the salient safeguard. Time and time again we've seen documentation showing the NSA has violated that safeguard, so why would I take it on trust that they would follow some internal memorandum. That they share intel with Israel would be understood. What is not acceptable is when there are indications they share more then they are allowed by our own laws which are in place to "protect data on U.S. Citizens".
The rest I'll leave, but the comment about his supposed "stay" at the Russian Embassy was round hailed as unsubstantiated rumors with little to no corroborating evidence. You talk about naive yet repeat a story that was viewed as mis-information like it was fact. Don't feed machine meant to discredit someone not in a position to easily defend himself.
Thank you. Now I at least understand the view of some posts. It also confirms my own thought that this is another spin article (getting at least once a day) that seems to come out to refute Snowden with little substance...That which is scary, the media is just running out this offal without any true means test of basic validation. What happened to verifying sources, what happened to investigating claims before print. Your few minutes of response did more to show the stupidity of the "officials" comments then almost anything else I've read.
"You just have to hire ones that will be loyal enough not to abuse the positions they hold. If you find yourself doing things where people you hire start to become more inclined to betray you than not, perhaps it's time to re-think direction."
Thus to define an organization build on fear and istrust more the loyalty. Most crime organizations fall (fro what I read), but someone in the organization turning states evidence on their own (moment of consciousness), turning states evidence by getting caught and trading it for a better deal, or selling out to a competitor for a better offer. The NSA is starting to come across, both in action and word, like a organization the rules by fear and you'll never hire loyalty that way.
"I'm sure Snowden's Russian handlers are having quite a good laugh."
This is a crude line that makes me wonder if your just not a shill for the NSA. There is no concrete evidence he acted as a spy. HE felt he saw illegal actions being performed by a government agency, he eflt he had no other path then to go to the press and he knew that he would be hunted down so he want to the one place the hunter could not easily go. That does not make him a spy being "handled", it makes him smart enough to stay alive and tell his side of the story.
"P.S. I'm with others that knowing how to "su" as admin is not brilliant, but basic..."
Sure, typing SU maybe easy, but then please spell out how easy it was to spoof another user and not get caught.. I'm not a SysAdmin so please explain how he was able to use another users profile? Are not the password encrypted such that he cannot see what it is? Are there not security measures in place that if you change a password it cannot get reset back? Until one of you brilliant people out there explain exactly how he did such a act I figure it took more then just being smart enough to type SU.
Slashdot Mirror
"Email is not considered an envelope. It's considered a postcard, where the contents are visible to any and all who handle the mail."
How is is considered a postcard. who made that distinction? A postcard is something that at any moment can be read without any effort to extract the content. It is writing on paper with no protection from being seen.
An email is a digital stream of data that can only be read though the use of a program. During its transit from send to receive, only the header is read for delivery purposes, then content (by routing systems) is not read, but is treated as bytes being passed through the system. The only way to read an email is to open it up using a program. The operative phrase being OPEN.
I have a postcard and an envelope on a desk. Which one requires an active action to read its contents.
I have a postcard and a computer on my desk that have in local storage data in the form of a an email. Which one requires an active action to read its contents.
Please don't tell me an email is a postcard. That an email can be read by spying programs does not mean it is a postcard. Letters can be opened just as well.
If I send a piece of paper with writing on it stored in a company memo holder I would not expect privacy for it is a company container and there is no expectation of privacy.
If I write, place ion an envelope, sealed with a stamp and mail it from a company then that letter does carry privacy.
Thus when I send email through a company email service I would not expect privacy for I gave up that "right" in using their tools though the email is still not a postcard. The company has to actively "open" the email to get to its content.
When I send an email from a personal mail manager or I use a web-based mail manager (google, yahoo, hotmail etc) then I accept that I give limited exposure to those companies to read my mail for their specific use (ad placement), but not for passing content along to other sources or to use against me. The email needs the same privacy protection as that letter as it becomes more the mainstay for communication and that premise that is it not a postcard, available for reading by anyone with no action on their part.
My point is that when I mail a letter I have an expectation of privacy, outside of encryption, because that letter is in an envelope that is protected by law, not Mathematics. The average (meaning most) humans are not going to encrypt every letter they write so they depend on the law to provide protection. To actively read my mail a person has to open the envelope.
When I send an email, the "data" may be plain text, but routing servers and mail managing program do not actively read content. Their programming is delivery. That header is my envelope (which is why the icon does make sense). The only way to read that email is either through a mail manager program under my control, a server based mail manager program under my control (webmail programs), programs like gmail which add programming to read my mail with my permission, or the last which is programs that actively open my mail without my permission. The data is not just "sitting around", at some point there has to be a human action to view the contents *with intent*.
The law says you can't steal or open my mail in route, or sitting in the post office, sitting in my mailbox, or sitting in my house. I feel the law should be extended to include email for there are similar mechanisms in place to differentiate between an active intent to view the contents and the act of delivery which does not. An postcard is public simply because if left in the open it can be read. An email is not a postcard in that it still takes an action, even the effort open a program to read it. That is my expectation or privacy.
China is not sane. I just heard this week on npr
"What is certain, say Yang and his colleagues, is that synthetic gas production will be carbon intensive relative to conventional gas. Burning conventional natural gas to produce power releases two to three times less carbon into the atmosphere than when burning coal, but burning synthetic gas will be 36 to 82 percent dirtier than coal-fired plants." Quoted from this article
So while other countries even attempt to limit fossil fuel emissions, China is hell bent on cranking it up. That is not sane.
true. All life on the planet will die, just not at the same time. How about we simplify it. Do nothing, die. Do something, die. I'd rather do something then nothing.
I commented on this in another post, but the postcard analogy does not completely work here. When I mail a postcard it is true that the postal worker (assuming a human at this point0 can easily read my postcard because the only "equipment" needed to do so is his/her eyes. From hand to hand, it is the eyes that interpret the words and thus make it public. Per your comments I could send postcards with encrypted text which would stop the casual reader, but not one dedicated to seeing my communication.
So I'm lazy and decide to put the postcard in an envelope but not encrypt it. Doing so means I not have an expectation of privacy. For a letter carrier (or nefarious person) to read the contents they would need to actually open the envelope which requires an active act, fingers tearing, knife slicing, steam unbinding. That active act is the step that break the law and it is only the threat of arrest that stops people from perform such an act.
When I send an email, even in open text there is a level of privacy that still can be established. Programs that read headers (like automated postal sorters) are not looking at content thus are not breaking my privacy. However, programs that actively read content are like the fingers, knives, or steamers; tools used by people to spy on my letter. Just as a I don't encrypt all my snail mail letters for I would expect the envelope to not be breached by law, I would expect the same for email. Routers that read headers are passive processes meant to route. Programs that actively read content (without my permission) should be deemed to be invading my privacy.
In the issue with gmail, I accepted that a program will review my content and display ads, independent of human intervention. If I sent a letter to acountry that knowingly opens letters I would accept that the contents will be read so I don't say anything of note, I encrypt (which brings about suspicion, and/or I don't send a letter to that country.
What you state has merit, but what stops a postman from opening a letter, reading it, and perhaps acting upon the contents. Sure the envelope provides a modicum of protect from casual reading, but it does not take much for a person to use a letter opener on someone else's mail. What stops them (for the most part) is that mail is protected under the Constition, under the law and as such can bring legal trouble to said letter opener.
As a computer or tech person, you may see an email as "open" like a postcard, but most of the population that uses email does not see it that way. They type a letter, hit send, and the binary is routed through the "internet" to the recipient. That it may pass through servers, routers, program analyzers is not in the mind set of the sender; just like they really don't know how many hands touch that envelope.
I am a software developer, I do understand that my email can be "read" in route, but what bothers me is that that email is not accorded the same protections as my hand delivered envelope, Some reads my letter by steaming open the envelope, bad; someone reading my email because they can catch it in route; okay. That is not how it should be. If someone reads my email (without my permission) they should be held to the same level of privacy invasion as one who reads my snail mail. If I give gmail permission to scan my mail so be it, but that does not mean I abdicate my privacy for anyone else to read it. At least that is how email should be viewed today.
This is why I love /. That was a great article. Thank you for posting it. Back (way back) in high school I wanted to by a physicist. Going into my freshman year of physics I quickly discovered two things. One, physics is damn hard and what the hell is calculus. Two, I was introduced to computers by my calculus professor and it was love at first sight. I dumped physics (clearly she moved on to better things) and have been with computers ever since. Still I love keeping in touch with the general world of physics and articles like this is a sweet morsel to enjoy.
Photons have mass...go figure.
Now I RTFA and the other and my question still stands.
""If you take a cubic foot of that soil you can basically get two pints of water out it -- a couple of water bottles like you'd take to the gym, worth of water,""
A cubic foot (or should I convert to metric (sigh)) can be measured a varying number of ways from 1x1x1 to 1x2x.5 where depth can 1 foot to a few inches. To obtain water from such a shallow surface area would preclude the need for a large land source. I think it is grand that water could be that plentiful, but it would kind of suck that the major way to have a continuing water supply is to keep harvesting further and further out from base.
I look forward to when they drill to see if they can find some organics and perhaps to establish how deep the water may go down into the substrate. Obviously not in my lifetime, but a green Mars would be something to see.
What I'm curious about is how deep would this layer of water go. If it is just the surface then colonists would be ranging pretty far in short order for water.
Power corrupts. I switched to Mint after Unity gummed up my home Linux Server. There was time when Linux was the go to OS for older systems, Ubuntu (and by extension Mint) changed that equation. On the positive side, as Linux is not a primary system for my work I can get back to playing/experimenting with other options to see what will fit my needs.
Ubuntu pulled me into the Linux World after years of dabbling. It is something that Ubuntu is now the one to push me away to other options.
"Are we cool yet?"
Not yet. You make an interesting proposition, very fanciful and not really practical in today's world, but interesting. In your example, how would you view the 2nd Amendment as written in Latin? How would Latin clear up the "confusion"? Along those lines, how do we define a "Right" and a "Law". The amendment you cite is read as a Right. From that right laws are created (as I see it), so would both need to Latin scope statement?
Another questions relates to translation. Latin may have been taught at some public and private schools in the past, but then and now, it mainly does not exist. Creating a law written initially in Latin precludes a vast majority of the population from understanding the base scope. They would have to rely on the interpreted English (assuming an English speaking country like the US) which could be much different. I feel this is where our approach falls flat for it creates a two tiered application of the law. Granted, we are not that far now with the newspeak that our US Government is prone to use when writing laws.
I feel that is a judgement call. Who is to say wings would be more efficient? With the spider's method the energy output is in just creating the thread, whilst wings would require much more energy output on a continuous basis. Like comparing a balloon to a fixed wing airplane. Both move you from point A to point B, but one does so with a lot less energy involved. Seems like a pretty good solution for the spider.
You forgot
- Spokesman for the White House
I'll take it. The second sentence is just nonsensical since Congress would never really investigate the NSA. They would hold hearings of course. The stoog....the CL/P officer would dance around the questions and all would go home with the knowledge that the USofA is still safe from evil doers (and we know who you are). What amazes me in regards to the "position" is that if the existing personally just subscribe to existing laws (ZOMG) there would be no need for such a lackey reporting to the director. The CL/P should be Congress. The CL/P should be the President. Yet somehow a government agency needs another body to tell them they are acting against the law of the land and "they better darn well stop that or else"...what? So to the NSA (who I knopw regularly reads /.), let me know who to send my resume to for review. I can work from home, I can read, and with a minor bump in pay (or a new tractor) I can parrot anything you want me to say. (Oh wait, that sounds like I'm running for office)
Think this this is the most salient point in the whole presentation:
The act of breaking into a computer system has to have the same social stigma as breaking into a neighbor's house. It should not matter that the neighbor's door is unlocked.
Time and time again I hear the old argument "Why not,I got nothing to hide" as it relates to computer access and spying. Present the same person with evidence that their house was accessed while they were out, their car was accessed without their permission and watch the reaction (most likely some variation of anger). People need to be taught that their digital world is just as tangible, just as important as their physical world.
Two questions that would great to put in front of world citizens today,
1 - How would you feel if the government went into your home every day without permission and looked through all your personal property, making copies of all your personal information
2 - How would you feel if the government accessed your personal computer, phone calls, emails, chats, and texts every day, making copies of everything you express and saving it for an unknown length of time?
When outrage is balanced between both is when the people will be able to make a change..
(That was a great read and while just a lowly Programmer, I was fascinated by what Mr. Thompson presented even as I realized there would be no way for me to ever know or change such a situation.)
The banker initiation involves kicking the old lady's puppy and stealing the little old lady's pension check. (ftfy)
Finally, after a few hundred posts someone raises the underlying point from a management view.
"the point in installing the FP is to make sure the workers aren't paid if they aren't detected as present on the job (isn't this the very purpose of clocking-in?)."
Talk about a lazy and expensive solution to a minor problem. The workers can argue invasion of liberties and what not, but the point would that management is themselves lazy. Installing a high tech time clock only ensure that workers come and go, but does it do anything to validate the standard of work, to elevate the moral or pride of an employee? No. It just ensures human x arrived on time and left on time. How nice.
I feel that business would be better served if they did away with the hourly work process and hired everyone as salary. Now what is required of management is the actual job of managing "projects" even it is cleaning bathrooms or washing floors. A standard is applied and a worker assigned to that project is assessed, just like an engineer or programmer, on the quality of the job, not the time put in. Take it one step further and begin to open up a reward system. Finish early and meet or exceed the standards, feel free to go home, want to do more assign more work and consider a person like that more viable for promotion in the future.
Hourly work rewards mediocrity. It asks someone to work to the lowest common denominator, time without a care for quality. Salary can be abused, but a Union that actively monitored project requirement and assignment could help reduce that abuse. Lazy management breeds a lazy work force and the thread that ties them together is a time clock.
A true ./ poster. You really didn't read the article. Take a moment, read the article, then read your response and then re-read your puffed up ego statement.
Wow..There is A LOT of talk on the whole treason thing and I get it, she's really blowing it out her ass, but the other thing the struck me was...
if that is her view,
why use Yahoo? (Sorry for the rhyme).
I mean, the best way to show her view is lame is to not use her product. She wants to give over data to the Governmet, fine, I wont use her product. She feels I have no rights as a customer? I wont use her product.
Until the day something like Yahoo is the only access to the Internet (Web) I have a choice and I would not choose Yahoo (thanks to her). Let me be a customer of companies that still attempt to protect ones rights and let Marissa wrap her self in a flag of rightiousness and failure.
b) we have documented safeguards to restrict that data to intel on NON-U.S. Persons.
Funny thing, we have another set of documented safeguards, I think the fourth would the salient safeguard. Time and time again we've seen documentation showing the NSA has violated that safeguard, so why would I take it on trust that they would follow some internal memorandum. That they share intel with Israel would be understood. What is not acceptable is when there are indications they share more then they are allowed by our own laws which are in place to "protect data on U.S. Citizens".
maybe to provide you more outraged verbiage for yet another cause....ftfy.
The English was twisting my brain and I am not even close to a grammer nazi.
The rest I'll leave, but the comment about his supposed "stay" at the Russian Embassy was round hailed as unsubstantiated rumors with little to no corroborating evidence. You talk about naive yet repeat a story that was viewed as mis-information like it was fact. Don't feed machine meant to discredit someone not in a position to easily defend himself.
Thank you. Now I at least understand the view of some posts. It also confirms my own thought that this is another spin article (getting at least once a day) that seems to come out to refute Snowden with little substance...That which is scary, the media is just running out this offal without any true means test of basic validation. What happened to verifying sources, what happened to investigating claims before print. Your few minutes of response did more to show the stupidity of the "officials" comments then almost anything else I've read.
Amazing!
Let me fix my own line (/., can you please give an edit function)
Thus to define an organization build on fear and istrust more the loyalty should be
Thus you define an organization built on fear and distrust more then loyalty.
"You just have to hire ones that will be loyal enough not to abuse the positions they hold.
If you find yourself doing things where people you hire start to become more inclined to betray you than not, perhaps it's time to re-think direction."
Thus to define an organization build on fear and istrust more the loyalty. Most crime organizations fall (fro what I read), but someone in the organization turning states evidence on their own (moment of consciousness), turning states evidence by getting caught and trading it for a better deal, or selling out to a competitor for a better offer. The NSA is starting to come across, both in action and word, like a organization the rules by fear and you'll never hire loyalty that way.
"I'm sure Snowden's Russian handlers are having quite a good laugh."
This is a crude line that makes me wonder if your just not a shill for the NSA. There is no concrete evidence he acted as a spy. HE felt he saw illegal actions being performed by a government agency, he eflt he had no other path then to go to the press and he knew that he would be hunted down so he want to the one place the hunter could not easily go. That does not make him a spy being "handled", it makes him smart enough to stay alive and tell his side of the story.
"P.S. I'm with others that knowing how to "su" as admin is not brilliant, but basic..."
Sure, typing SU maybe easy, but then please spell out how easy it was to spoof another user and not get caught.. I'm not a SysAdmin so please explain how he was able to use another users profile? Are not the password encrypted such that he cannot see what it is? Are there not security measures in place that if you change a password it cannot get reset back? Until one of you brilliant people out there explain exactly how he did such a act I figure it took more then just being smart enough to type SU.