Not only a piss-poor CEO but a Fascist to boot... no wonder the hard-line Repubs love her.
US presidential hopeful Carly Fiorina has boasted that HP sold the NSA servers that allowed the agency to build a system for mass surveillance. Servers originally earmarked for retail customers were shipped to the NSA instead, to power a warrantless surveillance programme codenamed “Stellar Wind”, approved by then-president …
@AC "Didn't Obama order the servers?
In 2001? Dude, Obama was a lifeguard in 2001."
You're missing a few upgrades, fella! Obama turns out to be responsible for everything. His birth and rise to world stompin' domination was planned for years even before he entered into the world and began pulling its strings in kindergarten. He didn't get to be a Christian Muslim Communist Fascist Democratic Dictator without some seriously evil genes flowing through his veins. As a foetus he even manipulated his own genetics so he could be born black with all the positive discrimination benefits that would allow him. The only thing he lacks is a cat to stroke. What a bastard!
New patch just in. Turns out the only reason Obama doesn't have a cat to stroke is that the little furry fiends can't stand being in his presence! The only cat that will sit still for his caress is a dead cat and sitting fondling a dead cat is a bit negative PR wise, so no cat fiddling. Makes sense. I seen a photo on the internet thing.
It was already of "gigantic" proportions long before Obama took office. Maybe it got more gigantic under him, but that's just a matter of degree since at that point it was a creature of its own that didn't need the president to micromanage it.
What matters is that he could have stopped it via executive order, and didn't. Maybe he doesn't really believe what he says (like 99.9% of politicians) or maybe he really wants to stop it, but is afraid of another 9/11 and getting the blame for stopping the surveillance (whether the surveillance could have actually stopped it is irrelevant to whether or not he'd get the blame)
No one will have the political will to stop or even limit it for that reason, other than those rare guys who put principle above politics, like Sanders and Ron & Rand Paul (though I'm not sure about Rand, since he's sold out to the establishment on defense, I wonder if he'd really limit the surveillance if he became president)
Well, the conspiracy theorists think that Obama was born in Nigeria and his birth certificate was faked to show he was born in Hawaii because even as a newborn he anticipated running for president and needing to be born on US soil, so maybe he was exerting some mind control influence over Bush & Cheney even in 2001!
Because even as an outsider in Washington the fact he's a Senator makes him in insider and republican primary voters' minds. That's why Trump, Carson and Fiorina are running 1, 2, 3. No stink of Washington on them, though it sounds like she was involved with Washington after HP so the right negative campaigning can tie her to that and sink her.
The question is whether this will persist through enough of the primary season to get more voters for those with no political experience than those with, and we'll end up with a brokered convention. At least that will make things interesting, though while I hate to admit it looking at those three I'd take another Bush any day.
Why is voting for Obama twice an indication that American politics are broken? Isn't voting for Bush II twice just as bad, or are you one of those "Obama is the worst president ever, just like Clinton was, and Carter before him, until the next democrat takes office and automatically wins that title by default" people?
If the U.S. President is meant to be a representative of the people to the outside world and also a leader isn't Trump the optimal candidate for the Anerican presidency? In my 40 years, I have never seen such a perfect fit for president. He is completely unqualified, makes shit up as he goes along, avoids applying any thought to what he says before saying it, speaks loudly, obnoxiously and spreads "patriotic" horse crap everywhere and blames everyone else for the average American's failure to achieve even mediocracy when compared to their peers elsewhere.
I have never seen or heard of a better presidential candidate to represent the people of a nation who rarely breeds anything of any interest but occasionally finds an outstanding immigrant to declare their greatness in association to simply for having been smart enough to be squeezed from a vagina in a way that secured their citizenship in the country where said immigrant achieved their greatness.
I intend to register to vote for the first time in my life so I ca vote Trump as I believe the system would be absolutely broken if he didn't represent my fellow countrymen. Four years of him should do so much damage that people might in the future be forced to think before voting or suffer the consequences. I have four years to spare (I hope).
Fiorina is known to be frugal with the truth... Especially when it is to her benefit. A perfect example of this is her boasting she increased HP's revenues (true, but...) she crashed HP's profits simultaneously. She also claimed Steve Jobs was her friend, but see https://medium.com/backchannel/how-steve-jobs-fleeced-carly-fiorina-79d1380663de
What a lovely piece of work she is!
She announced the use of water-boarding is fine and dandy by her.
Obama has continued waterboarding despite public statements to the contrary. Obama wants Snowden and Assange in a federal prison. In the past five years Obama has expanded wiretapping to an unprecedented level, and demands access to servers all over the world.
Is that "fine and dandy" with you?
"She announced the use of water-boarding is fine and dandy by her."
How awful! I don't care how many people might die if we don't get information out of those misunderstood terrorists, it cannot excuse basic courtesy towards them. If they choose not to reveal who they plan to execute next, we still have NO RIGHT to touch one hair on their heads! The survivors will just have to understand, that's all.
We could have an ethical discussion about the use of torture in obtaining information, but given it doesn't work it does seem to fall over at the pragmatic stage, rather than needing to convince people of the ethics acceptable to the civilised world.
Depressing how often the straw man ethics debate starting from the assumption it does work comes up.
"We could have an ethical discussion about the use of torture in obtaining information...." Unlikely as it obvious you position is not based on scientific facts but assumptions.
".....but given it doesn't work...." Says who? If it is so ineffective, why did the CIA continue to use it and continue to want to use it even in the face of such hyped opposition to the idea? I know people like you want to baaaaahlieve it is because the CIA was just a bunch of mindless bullies that liked to hurt people, but the truth is that the CIA actually employed a lot of professionals, including psychologists, surgeons and field doctors, in their teams that continually monitored and honed their techniques over decades. Please do supply the credentials you feel make you qualified to comment in just general medicine, let alone psychology, as I assume the "Doc" part of your handle is just as much whimsy as the argument you have advanced so far.
".....Depressing how often the straw man ethics debate starting from the assumption it does work comes up." Simply calling something you disagree with a straw man argument does not make you either clever nor answers the point, it simply suggests you cannot competently argue the point and are falling back on a generic soundbite. Please try harder.
I think I might start by saying that when Matt Bryant disagrees, it's obvious you're on the right track.
But seeing as he's answered my points, it's polite to answer his: ethics is dependent on values, not science. That's why it's debatable. Broadly we share the same values (human life is good, freedom is good) but the specifics are where people differ (is euthanasia a good thing? Well, it's debatable). These values create assumptions and interpretation of facts, not the other way around. Hence, an ethical debate is a good thing as it allows people to explain their values. They are also rare as usually there is a slanging match attacking others' assumptions and interpretations. See: US primaries at present.
It doesn't work: the US senate report says so. There are plenty of other examples from history of torture being ineffective. A rant doesn't make you right. I suspect you're right that the CIA believed that it was useful; this is not the same as it being useful. You are right that I'm not a psychologist but as a doctor of medicine I (like most of my colleagues) routinely use psychology to get patients better health so it is a daily part of my working life. This may also explain my values (see above) in opposition to torture.
I describe why I consider the argument a straw man. If you are so enraged you can't follow, I'm sorry I didn't make the sentence shorter and easier for you.
".... ethics is dependent on values, not science...." Summarising your post - Bla-bla-bla-bla, waffle-waffle-waffle, all leading to a big non-point.
"....That's why it's debatable....." You failed to debate anything, you even failed to start the debate as to why you considered "torture"/"enhanced interrogation techniques" (delete as your "ethics" prefer) to be unethical of ineffective. It is very obvious why you failed to do so - ethics are dependent on either analysis of a situation leading to an ethical position, or on unquestioning adoption of someone else's position. Since you have offered zero analysis, it looks like you merely took the position spoonfed to you.
"....It doesn't work: the US senate report says so...." Again, you are falling back on spoonfed soundbites rather than answering the question I posed. The soundbite is your assumption that the senate report could be anything other than politically-derived and that it somehow trumps independent thought and analysis. A simple bit of historical reading would have shown you that even unscientific torture was quite successful - the WW2 Allied intelligence agencies planned around the hope an agent captured by the Germans could hold out for 24 hours, meaning other agents had to scarper inside of those 24 hours to avoid also going into the bag. This was proven to be realistic, with whole resistance cells being uncovered by the Germans in quick order if they did not relocate within that 24 hour window after an agent's capture. Please do explain how German torture techniques, developed ad-hoc and without the benefit of another sixty-odd years of scientific research, could somehow be so massively more effective than modern day CIA techniques?
"..... If you are so enraged you can't follow....." LOL, you are confusing my laughing at your uninformed prattling with rage. Does it help you to think that anyone that dares to question your lack of analysis or perspective as "raging"? My question was if "torture"/"enhanced interrogation techniques" are so useless, why does the CIA continue to want to use them when the whole program was very expensive in time, money and resources? Since you seem to be having a problem considering that, let me try and help you with a simple argument that shows the error in your adopted position.
Every operation of the CIA since the Sixties has been subject to computational statistical analysis of both cost and effectiveness. Developments in information systems over the decades have only made that analysis the more thorough and detailed (thanks partly to Larry Ellison, who wrote the original Oracle relational database as a CIA project). It would seem obvious that the CIA have a far greater insight into the effectiveness of the program, built up from years of statistical analysis, than any senator or committee, regardless of what political decisions as to the outcome were likely made before the report you champion was even written.
".....I describe why I consider the argument a straw man....." No, you merely tried to insist it was a straw man as you seem unable to debate it. You failed to answer that question, I have even given you a simple argument to try and counter, please do try again (if only for the humour value).
So why increase military spending? Why not just encourage corporate America to donate computers & hardware to the military? Surely it will be good for their image as this demonstration of their red, white & blue blood will encourage many private businesses and patriotic citizens in America to buy their products. Right?
Or is it just like the way the republicans banned the US government from negotiating the price of drugs from pharma companies? Politicians forcing the government to spend big on their buddies.
"No, she said she prioritzied the NSA's server order over other customers' orders."
And why wouldn't she?
Units supposed to go to regular customers at...* say $15,00 apiece, get diverted to government contract at $500,000 apiece.
Probably only good decision she ever made for HP.
*Numbers are pulled out of my ass, but representative of difference between corporate and government pricing.
"Who in their right mind would vote for someone who got caught spying on their own employees."
I know several people who think she was a fantastic CEO, and would make an even better President. They are obviously not on my Christmas Card list.
I know several people who think she was a fantastic CEO, and would make an even better President.
Not to brag, but I know several people who think Timothy McVeigh was an all-around good guy.
I wonder if these are the same people....
Okay, lets collect all the alleged criminal acts (actual violations) of Nixon and the Clintons and see how they compare. I would be willing to bet that the accusation list for the Clintons (and Obama too) will be a lot longer than for Nixon. He served in an era where presidents could not dream of the crap our current Oval Occupant regularly pulls on us.
So bring it.
"He served in an era where presidents could not dream of the crap our current Oval Occupant regularly pulls on us."
Big Bohng it's pretty clear that you've missed the point of my post with respect to Nixon & Bill, but I doubt you would be willing or able to comprehend the fact that presidential campaigns have been become carnivals.
I'll let you go ahead and produce your Nixon vs Clinton score sheets, but I'd like to contribute one of Nixon's most cynical acts to help get you started...
It is now a matter of public record that Nixon's election campaign was under surveillance - and one of the tidbits the surveillance operation discovered was that Nixon was conspiring to sabotage LBJ's Vietnam peace negotiations in order to secure enough of a swing in the polls in order to become president.
You can argue about whether this actually had any net effect on the negotiations all you like, but ultimately Nixon cynically chose to stall the peace process (and get lots more people killed in the process) in order to secure the presidency. Interestingly LBJ was made aware of the sabotage, but he declined to use the evidence against Nixon, believing (correctly IMO) that it would destroy the election process.
Your opinion on the relative merits of Nixon & Clinton are irrelevant to the fact that both Nixon and Clinton weakened the credibility of the election process in the US. BTW I don't have a vote in the US so it doesn't actually matter what I think either. :)
Even the Gipper's head of OMB has something to say:
Carly Fiorina proved at least one thing last week. Namely, you don’t have to be a career GOP politician to come across as a war-mongering neocon and abortion-bashing statist demagogue. She took the stage fully formed as a frightul modern-day Torquemada, threatening to bring fire and brimstone down on anyone running afoul of her righteous indignation and crystal clear grasp of the Truth.
The truth is that Fiorina was a once and failed CEO only because she rode the Lucent Bubble to undeserved fame during the blow-off phase of the massive 1990s tech bubble. Its peak market cap of $250 billion at the time of her departure for Hewlett-Packard in 1999 was not due to her business prowess as head of its major division or that ATT’s gussied up maker of prosaic equipment like switchgear had invented anything new under the sun.
Lucent’s giant but fleeting market cap was entirely a product of the Greenspan Bubble and the fact that its leadership including Fiorina had no compunction about goosing its sales by lending billions to its customers, many of who were tech era start-ups rapidly burning off their VC supplied cash.
In any event, Lucent’s stock crashed and eventually plummeted to less than $10 billion after it took multi-billion write-offs for its bad debts, laid off more than 50,000 employees and confessed to the SEC that it had doctored its accounting. More importantly, Fiorina had gotten out of dodge just in the nick of time.
... But it was at HPQ that her immersion in the destructive financial engineering that has become endemic in the C-suite of corporate America went full frontal. Even Donald Trump called Fiorina on her phony claims about the company’s spectacular growth during her tenure—–claims which the company’s SEC filed financial results don’t remotely support.
"You can tell where someones political sympathies are when they describe criticism as ranting" LOL, go look at yourself in the mirror and see if you can honestly classify any of the ranting posts here as either well-defined or even slightly thoughtful "criticism" to yourself. If you can with a straight face then you are subject to your own criticism. Or you could try an actual response to the following.
As far as Carly's business record goes, it holds up a lot better than many so-called luminaries in the industry for the same period. Post-Y2K saw a lot of contraction in the market with an economic turn-down and a lot of customers simply having blown their wads on system refreshes in the run up to Y2K. There was also a pivot in the industry during the Nineties from the monolithic systems of old which put Compaq in the position of being bought by HP and eventually saw Sun destroyed, both those companies having been run by so-called industry-leading men with a lot more experience than Carly. Fujitsu happily announced that the HP-Compaq "merger" meant they were going to double their business and massively failed to do so, and IBM's gradual withdrawal from the x86 market can be traced back to poor business decisions and a failure to compete with HP during through the Noughties when Carly was at HP's helm (go read up on the blades wars, there are plenty of articles in the El Reg archives). Yes, Carly laid off a lot of workers, but to pretend she was the only one in the industry doing so is simply untrue. HP needed to change direction, that was clear even during Lew Platt's reign and long before Carly got the call to replace Lew, and Carly largely got the job done. To deny otherwise requires a lot of Trumpist misogynism or political blinkers.
The left is relentless, they have this need to feel superior than "the others" and gives them green light to engage in good old fashion fascism, they have become the thought police.
They can not tolerate dissent, everybody has to conform for they know better and have no doubts about it.
Pointing out why a person with different views is wrong in a civilized manner is not enough, the contrary is the "enemy" and should be taken down, venom spill and everything.
It is not enough to point that she's been a terrible CEO and based on that express concerns on her abilities, she has to be a whore and the worst thing since measles, less than a human being, and how she dares have a different view on abortion!!! how can she dare!!!
"Fiorina is pitching an increase in military spending"
There is literally no amount of military spending that will satisfy some parts of the Right, is there? Whatever the level today, the only answer is "more". Already outspending the next 20 nations combined? Not enough. Spending twice as much share of GDP as any other industrialized nation? Not enough. Tens of billions of dollars for next-gen fighters? Not enough.
Decent health care for returning veterans? Uh, we'll get back to you on that...
Carly just in inherited a old company that has be struggling for over thirty years for a new identity. As for NSA, the US Government buys large quantities of compute power from all the big boys, presumably to keep the dogs from dying.
Keep your ears open and your mouth shut. Someone's listening in.
As for the Rocket Rick , Another story.
Fiorina drives Lucent and HP into the ground and now brags that she could not get that tax payer funded dole to enabled Booz and others to abolish the 4th amendment fast enough. If HP and Fiorina knew what the servers were going to be used for she should be under indictment next to Hillary never mind nominated.
So, not only incompetent but evil. Defending the use of torture is evil. Diverting paying customers already-paid-for hardware to a third party (no matter who it is) is evil to a lesser extent. The actual diverting systems to the NSA -- well, who knows, Fiorina could have plausibly denied knowing the extent of the NSA's spying programs, and this may not have reflected on her too badly. Bragging about supplying hardware to what are now known to be illegal and unconstitutional spying programs? That's evil.
Also, the last thing the US needs is increased military spending.
This mass surveillance is not about protecting the people. It is about gaining power over them. I can only hope that the time is coming when those who have helped implement and support mass surveillance will be called out to answer for their crimes. I expect to see this one in the line up.
Or maybe "Decisions get a bit dodgy if asked to work more than 8 hours between reboots"?
I'm sure Putin would be enough of a gentleman to confine all potentially hostile moves to regular White House working hours.
The good news is that since they're HP servers, they're off-line half the time while the Feds are on the phone listening to an Indian farmer read through a useless tech support script.
The bad news is that when they're on-line, they're transmitting all your private emails back to the PRC ODM that actually designed and built them.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019