Re: how they adapt to the enormous risk of being called on their fabrications.
They repeat the lie and claim you can't prove otherwise.
Sadly, in a world that doesn't know you're a dog typing on a keyboard this often works.
7392 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
They repeat the lie and claim you can't prove otherwise.
Sadly, in a world that doesn't know you're a dog typing on a keyboard this often works.
It's easy. They accidentally shipped it to the warehouse with the Saturn V engines.
Well, if they couldn't untangle the spaghetti, they weren't bluffing about not being able to find a single mistake.
Well, that was the point at which Ballmer's brain cells gave their all at providing him with a coherent thought and he realized the joke was on him. Sadly it was the last time they ever did that.
It's already common. Like diamonds the only thing that kept prices high was the cartel. For diamonds it was de Beers, for oil it was OPEC. Fracking broke the stranglehold OPEC had on oil. Saudi Arabia can try as hard as they want to put the genie back in the bottle but it won't work. There will of course be a lot of collateral damage before it ends. First up Russia which even now is scrambling to fill huge gaps in it's government budget.
Only a crass and bigoted bumpkin would have missed the '!' at the end (particularly given El Reg's headlines on all articles related to the company), which clearly marks its inspiration as an exclamative of celebration.
Even if it were a rant, I don't think we could fault you for it.
In fact, after reading this article and making my first post, I'm going to seriously think about picking up an account I own again. I had one back in the days of dial up because it came with the dial up service. Maybe it's time for me to start breaking the Google chains.
The one we've all been avoiding: paying a reasonable rate for your email account.
There are some companies out there that sell them. Install Thunderbird and they'll offer you at least two choices.
I didn't notice. But then my Yahoo account is the one I use for "email address is required" whenever I'm completing one of those registration forms and I expect it will generate spam.
So I suppose you could say I'm part of their problem.
entertain "strategic alternative" offers, possibly the sale of the core business
This is one of those nonsense statements that always amazes me. How the hell do you make money for your shareholders by selling off the core business?
Yet we're expected to believe the brightest minds in the company came up with this idea.
If you're sending your customers away thinking they have clean machines, you're lying to them.
There's simply no way to know you've cleaned an infected machine these days.
Tell them the truth, then help them navigate to a solution.
Actually I have. Scanning in a set aside PC was deprecated as unworkable about 8 years ago.
These days the exploit kits are too available and too complex. Even using five different products to scan in such a detached system doesn't ensure there isn't anything left in the machine that will reinfect it. In the time you run those 3 or 5 or 7 scans, you can image a new system. Moving data is at your own risk.
The other thing to remember is that while they are now a security company, that's NOT how they started. It started as one guy who was automating some fixes he routinely applied for friends and family.
Yeah, they should have had time to clean it up into professional code. But given how much professional code is crap that needs cleaned up the same way....
Governments are proxies for the people. So it's really one group of powerful people leeching from another. But it's easier to blame it all on government than admit the fault is in ourselves.
As for me, economically I like the total sales tax model. But for purposes of keeping the progrards in check, I'm willing to forgo that in preference for a flat tax on ALL income with no tax on corporate profits. I might be willing to set a rate of collections exclusion such that if you are collecting taxes you are at least covering the cost of collecting them from that person. (In other words, if from start to finish it costs *25 to collect the taxes, if the government doesn't collect *25 you don't pay.)
*=your local currency sign
Here we get to the only point the freetards are actually correct about. Given all of the current special deals, it is possible to keep the money floating in International Space so that it never gets taxed. Apple in particular have been VERY good at that. Which isn't to say other multi-nationals have been slackers.
Now, that means the money isn't directly available to the shareholders either. In order to make it available to them, you'd have to bring it into the country and pay the tax on it. So far this has been okay with the shareholders because the stock value has appreciated based on the money held in international suspension.
This strikes me as a reasonably fair situation. So long as the freetards demand too much money from the actual producers, they don't get it. As soon as they set reasonable rates, the money will come home.
That wasn't nice. Using logic or facts damages their precious egos.
Businesses in trouble ought to be killed rapidly and replaced with ones that aren't. Much of our current economic malaise is attributable to the fact that progtards such as yourself have inhibited this process for far too long.
Simples. If there is an applicable import tax, that gets payed at the point of import. Otherwise, the guy in the UK who sells it collects the tax and pays it.
Yes that does mean you'll have to work through distributors and resellers. That's what they are there for. If you want to cut them out, you have to foot the bill for following the law.
You'll never get that one past the freetards.
Sales taxes put an effective limit of about 10% on how much those who like to spend other people's money can take. That's way too low to satisfy their envy.
"and hear the lamentations of their women."
Terminator icon because the one for Arnold is missing.
Morally, companies OUGHT to seek to minimize the amount the tax leeches take from the people working to make things. Sounds to me like Google's doing a good job of that.
Having had very, very tangential experiences dealing with this issue (I was effectively the CEO who authorized the VP to have the lawyer negotiate the license), no.
And I understand our experience was more satisfactory than most.
The card company skims a couple percent of the top regardless of type. YOU might not see it, but it still gets skimmed, and it gets passed to you in the form of a higher price.
With the appropriate smoke screens from the lawyers, you can do it all electronically in larger amounts and still have the IRS take their cut where applicable. Which reduces the risk you lose an election for being caught taking a little brown bag.
Those 30 day "free" advances are being paid for by the blokes who are making minimum payments and are periodically late with their payments by a day or two.
Now if you're the sort who thing the poor and the stupid should make life easier for you, you won't have a problem with that. But don't go blaming the greedy banks for stealing from the poor for your benefit.
It's a problem of quanta. It costs some amount of money to process any request, say $25. No matter how small the transaction you HAVE to recover the $25, even if its $100 for only a week. Yes, that leads to absurd percentage rates. That's why if you need $100 for a week you're best borrowing it from a mate, or better yet, just not buying whatever it was you THOUGHT you needed.
Full disclosure: my roomie routinely makes $1000 payday type loans to a friend at no interest.
As the vendor you should still have the receipts. And the receipts should be sufficient to sue council for payment.
The receipts you kept for each transaction.
I've never seen a festival system where the credit cards worked as quickly or robustly as cash. The first obstacle is frequently the connection itself. In a brick and mortar store this will be a fast wired connection that has probably been configured for months. Festival vendors usually wind up on wireless. Even if it isn't wireless, having just been set up there are likely to be connection issues. And that's before you get to potential power issues and training the temp staff to handle cards. In the US, you also get time for the signature.
No it's not. The key element of verifying the transactions is that the cash matches the receipts not that the double count matches. Cashless transactions still have the receipts, and should still retain enough of the account number to uniquely identify the missing transactions.
Where cashless loses businesses money is when the card holder claims the charge is bogus and the vendor no longer has the record to prove otherwise, or it simply isn't worth the cost to challenge it.
My weekly grocery bill is $200. With your plan, I'd need a full wallet just to pay my grocery bill.
Your plan sucks.
It costs banks money to store money, cash checks and process loans. They use to make this by making loans at a fair price above what they paid on deposits. Along came freetards like you who objected and the government set limits on what they could make. Then the governments forced the rates even lower with inflation. So now the only way for banks to cover those fees is to enact transaction charges to cover the cost.
Life is tough. It gets tougher when you're stupid. The rest of us wish people like you would keep your stupidity to yourselves instead of sharing it.
Best rate I've managed in the last 8 years is 1%, which given inflation is still a negative return for keeping my money in the bank. And these days the banks don't get their money from those accounts. They get it directly from the fed because it is cheaper.
Mostly, not always.
One of the other great data mining stories on this side of the pond is about the police and 7-11. It seems 7-11 was doing data analysis on things purchased in their store and grouping together things that were frequently purchased with each other. One day while wandering through the store a police officer noticed three perfectly legal things grouped together on a shelf. They were the sorts of things you and I mostly likely wouldn't associate with each other. IIRC it was alcohol, mothballs, and anti-histamines. At the time these happened to be a popular method for cooking meth. Conversations ensued and 7-11 showed the police the analytic data. Since there was no bad intent 7-11 wasn't prosecuted, and they stopped grouping the items together on the shelves.
They'll lose your account. Not because they want to, but because despite what you think, they simply DON'T have that kind of cash available to them. They will probably willing to write you a cashier's check or equivalent.
There was one occasion on which we needed a mere $17,000 in small bills (nothing larger than a $10) and coin to make change for our convention over the weekend. None of the three branches of our bank could supply it with less than a week of notice. Even trying to go to three different branches to get the total amount would have been difficult. No, it wasn't our fault. We called 3 months in advance and asked what lead time they needed. They said a week. When we gave the a week it was insufficient. Then to completely bollux things, when I arrived at the first location, we discovered that although I'd been making deposits for well over a year and the teller knew me, there were NO names authorized to make a withdrawal. I called the previous treasurer in another city who also happened to be a banker and she straightened it out.
I've redefined "dodgy" for those purposes.
I do generally swipe the plastic for my grocery purchases, and restaurants, but not fast food and definitely not any of the quickie places near work where I pick up my cold bottled water and snacks. Too many people have had credit card details stolen at one of them.
Bankruptcies are not the cause of bank runs.
"Not only would such a design be prohibitively expensive, it would also be unlikely to save any lives in all but a very few airline disasters."
But if it saved even one Life, it would be worth it!
Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I hear that line of crock every time some do-gooder wants to spend exorbitant amounts of money on something.
You almost had me there. But whereas b) will get you jailed, you're a liar.
If you have a clearance and you receive spillage, you are REQUIRED to report the spillage. This in turn kicks off an investigation to castigate the culprit.
Oh, and yes, if you through no cause of your own receive a classified email, and the government traces that email to your server, that server now BELONGS to the government (at least in the US, YMMV depending on international treaties if you aren't in the US). So long as no nefarious intent is determined you will be reimbursed for the cost of the hardware. Eventually. You know how long it sometimes takes them to process those payments. You might or might not get your data back. Yes, they will also take all backups which may contain the classified data. Also, you WILL be responsible for providing details about anyone else to whom you may have forwarded the email. If you fail to provide full details, when the forensic check on your mail server is completed, charges may be filed against you for failure to comply. If you forwarded the message, any recipients will likewise be subjected to the same process.
Yes, this is scary shit and hangs over the head of ANYONE handling classified materials at any level.
You start from a false premise. You start from the premise $Hrillary had no knowledge about what is and is not secret and its various gradations. In order to be read into the programs she had to be trained and sign legally binding agreements to protect such information REGARDLESS OF MARKINGS. As such, she had a POSITIVE duty to report violations of secret information when she saw them. If the email was sent to her it was sent to be read by her. She is therefore culpable for the message regardless of whether she read them or not.
a) Irrelevant. Even if as she claimed she only read them, she caused them to be sent to the server by circumventing normal Dept of State processes in the first place. As I've outlined repeatedly above, there is no way this server could EVER comply with ALL relevant federal law. That why you use Dept resources when you work for the government. It gives you actual plausible deniability when something goes wrong.
b) Again actually irrelevant. If she knew she broke the law. If she didn't know she broke the law because she was legally obligated to know as a result of being read into the programs authorizing her to see the intelligence information when she used the proper devices.
c) Because she regards herself as above the law. See item a) about the possibility of complying with all federal laws using one server/account.
While I emote the same way, when I pause to allow my brain to interject it rejects the idea.
That gives the executive branch of government effective veto power over any and all candidates. Indeed even without it, all too frequently in the last decade politicians have been brought down on thinly sourced allegations that have ultimately been found to be without basis and undertaken for purely partisan purposes.
Anyone paying attention know that question is irrelevant to the question at hand. There is in fact NO WAY TO MAINTAIN A PRIVATE SERVER WITH ONE EMAIL ACCOUNT AND OBEY ALL THE LAWS REGARDING USE OF EMAIL ACCOUNTS FOR GOVERNMENT PURPOSES. The very act of setting up such a server meant she was intentionally setting it up to break the law.
The most basic conflict is between the requirement to maintain all emails which are records, and never using a government account for partisan campaign fund raising. EVERY elected politician in the capital maintains at least TWO accounts and most maintain at least THREE:
1) Email account for official government business.
2) Email account for campaign fund raising.
3) Private email account for use with family and friends (this is the one the troglodytes who use phone and snail mail get to skip).
Only raving progtards regard that as a truism about classification.
Liar. It has been reported that the information was classified, much of it was born classified, and some of it is so sensitive we will not even get a REDACTED version of the email.
You obviously haven't been paying attention to our current mini-Mao.
Liar. They WERE classified at the time they were sent. $Hrillary explicitly instructed her minions to remove the classified headers and send it via unsecured channels.
You're thinking too small. She wasn't running the illegal mail server in order to commit one crime. By my count it was at least three types, with each message being a new violation of the law:
1) Handling Classified information
2) Ensuring a record of all Official Records
3) The Hatch Act, which prohibits Federal Officials from using their government email accounts for partisan fundraising.
4) Hide paper trail for selling access via the Clinton Foundation.
Note that merely trying to use her original excuse of only wanting one account (which somehow got convoluted to one device even though she's been seen with two cell phones) necessarily means she is violation of #3.
I'll name one. And he's the official who actually confirms you're point that $Hrillary should already be behind bars:
David Petraeus, (R) who barely missed spending the rest of his life breaking rocks for sharing a notebook with someone who had a clearance but wasn't actually authorized to see the data in the notebook. That is, the person had the necessary level of clearance, but hadn't been read into all the programs listed in the notebook.
No, the original statement is a flat out lie. We've been through this already. Much of the information being identified as classified was by its nature "born classified". As such it is ALWAYS classified regardless of markings, which was the first lie $Hrillary told with respect to THIS scandal.