Comment Exclusivity, not unfounded "privacy" concerns (Score 1) 76
The exclusivity is what really turned people off about it, not the "privacy" concerns that came up.
The exclusivity is what really turned people off about it, not the "privacy" concerns that came up.
Stop asking the H1-b candidates and start asking US citizens. There are plenty of good engineers in the US, much more if you become less picky.
Do you sincerely think that the Russians would house Snowden if he had no intelligence to hand over to them? Housing such an individual has substantial costs, especially with the gated communities they have to use and the people that have to be paid.
Until every "journalist" and source that had any connection to Snowden is unmasked, the answer to your question is indeterminate. It is a non-zero number sufficient enough for the Russian government to house him, but not precise enough to say whether the New York Times received more or less.
It would be amusing to see the Russians in such a dire economic state that they either hand Snowden to the US (in exchange for aid) or that the US makes short work of the Russians left to mind him.
The New York Times is run by Russians?
While the New York Times has gone on leftward slants, it's not run by Russians.
On the other hand, the Russian government (which has received such information from Snowden) is run by Russians.
The Russians won't block it if you've paid them the right amount.
Given that Snowden traded US intelligence information for his life, he will only be subject to the law when he can no longer pay off the Russians.
you'd be required to finish the code BEFORE the job is even posted!
If only that part weren't true, since that's the way guest worker fraud works - itself being a close relative to freelancers.
Al Gore, the Sierra Club, and various other interests that push global warming and environmentalism where belief takes precedence over facts and science.
The US government has the responsibility to mitigate and litigate leaks. Snowden could have used the whistle-blower route. He says he has good reason for not doing that. Whether he is guilty of treason or other crimes has yet to be determined. Until such time, he is presumed to be innocent.
The evidence against him (which grows with each unauthorized disclosure) assures his guilt in all but name.
He's in Russia and they will not give him up. That's Russia's call. Snowden's documents are still being released and that's expected.
A fugitive from justice in the most criminal-friendly country. Turn up the heat against Russia and they'll crack - especially with their bad economy.
If you're wondering about traitors in the UK, one might look at the abuses at Rotherham and who enabled them. Then look at all the no-go zones and the general lack of courage to stand up to militant Islam.
On the other hand, a GCHQ intelligence swap with the NSA would serve to ensure no safe haven for any terrorist. The UK would benefit from the effectively world-wide reach of the US while the US would get detailed coverage.
Snowden did nothing whatsoever to "damage" the USA
The facts betray you. No amount of modpoints can change that.
He provided intelligence to known-hostile countries such as Russia and China. In addition, various anti-American groups (such as ISIS and others inspired by them) have adjusted their actions to account for the unauthorized disclosures.
Snowden's proper place is a secure corrections facility in Florence, Colorado - after the evidence is used to convict him in a US court of law. The NSA's proper place is to exist as they are now and adapt to threats - whether they are internal (such as Snowden and his sympathizers) or external (Russia/China/other threats to the US).
If you think Snowden's different:
The NSA's existence survived the 1970's and grew under the Reagan era. It will respond similarly to Snowden - it will survive him and expand under a defense-favored administration. Reality will not be changed simply because you think he's a hero and that he should be lionized.
Snowden did the right thing for all the enemies of America and we all benefited from it, so we all owe him a favor.
He only helped the enemies of the US, such as Russia, China, and entities like ISIS. The sooner he/his helpers can face justice in a US court (and convicted with the Mt. Everest of evidence), the sooner America is done a favor.
Your original words can only be spoken in the context of the Russian/Chinese governments or the various groups that stand against the US and its allies, such as ISIS.
Lenovo is doing very well. IBM employees that have years of experience are finding new opportunities
Where both employees and customers are second-class citizens if in the US.
It looks like good science can be thrown out the window if it doesn't fit the Church of Environmentalism.
Would this mean that they would be willing to oppose harassment by certain groups/individuals that accuse others of harassment (such as Chelsea van Valkenberg and Randi Harper, which only have harassed others into silence)?
Of course, that makes the faulty assumption that it is unquestionably true. The only source is someone that cannot be trusted.
On the other hand, such unauthorized releases of material, including everything from the Intercept, has only served to cause harm.
Through their actions, they are indirectly complicit in aiding/abetting groups like ISIS, in addition to directly being complicit in aiding hostile countries like Russia and China. The blood is on all of their hands - nothing short of turning themselves in to face justice will wash it off.
Of course, you'd rather modbomb the Painful Truth than acknowledge their transgressions.
It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
