I recall something like that being the case for the Manning data.

You're right -- I've confused the two. Snowden was the one who took it and leaked it all to the Russians, in addition to leaking several hundred times more than was necessary to prove his point.

Thus... my point stands, although a minor technical error did occur.

I note none of these fanboys admitted that he leaked all of it to the Russians.

Wonder why they "forgot"?

You're right, this guy is a liar.

I notice he tried to dodge the question of the validity of the survey with "Well we repeated it three times!" ...blatant dishonesty, or mental retardation, I can't tell.

Actually, the survey was repeated, three times over 18 months, with similar results.

Repeated survey isn't the same as a followup.

Are you going to post any more deceptive evasions?

It was released to the press and only to the press, notably The Guardian and the Washington Post.

You're denying he handed it over to the Russians? You lie.

So you simply order users of phones under the scheme to once a week mail the backup to a central database.

Also via the billing info it would be reasonably easy to see if someone has deleted messages.
Put some hefty penalties on non-compliance and you don't even need to call the NSA (or Snowden who might be less bureaucratic) for a copy.

And you blame Snowden for this?

You steal the docs, you're responsible for their provenance afterward. Not a hard concept.

Further: we all agree he handed them over to the Russians, right?

Not making shit up

I see I'm arguing with subhumans.

Debate over -- I win.

Never bring politics... to an electronic documentation of timeline fight with a database company.

The US is allegedly a rich country, that your government chooses not to help is the problem.

We choose not to have the government help much, because government is inherently wasteful.

Instead many Americans donate money to charitable organizations that waste far less of the money, so more people obtain help... America by far has the highest rate of donation to charity.

I've always wondered how god-fearing republicans can choose to not the help poor people

That's where you are utterly, terribly wrong - I am an independent, and do not attend church. But I know a lot of "god-fearing republicans" that donate a large amount of charity, plus every church I've every know has lots of missionary work they do to help the poor.

In fact if you look at statistics you'll find that Republicans donate quite a lot more (on average thousands more) than Democrats do - because like you they don't really care about helping the poor, they just want to feel like they are.

Almost all router bandwidth management is shit.

Bandwidth management schemes currently used by everything you mention are all base on rate limiting packet delivery based on some mythical QoS value, and they ignore the actual problem that the people who are using these things are attempting (and failing) to address.

The problem is that the point of a border routers is to hook a slower border uplink to a faster interior connection; on the other end of the slower uplink, you have a faster ISP data rate. In other words, you have a gigabit network in your house, and the ISP has a gigabit network at their DSLAM, but your DSL line sure as hell is *NOT* a gigabit link.

What that means is that software that attempts to "shape" packets ignores an upstream-downloads or a downstream-uploads ability to overwhelm the available packet buffers on the high speed side of the link when communicating to the low speed side of the link.

So you can start streaming a video down, and then start an FTP transfer, and your upstream router at the ISP is going to have its buffers full of untransmitted FTP download packets worth of data, instead of your streaming video data, and it doesn't matter how bitchy you are about letting those upstream FTP packets through your router on your downstream side of the link, it's not going to matter to the video stream, since all of the upstream router buffers that you want used for your video are already full of FTP data that you don't want to receive yet.

The correct thing to do is to have your border router lie about available TCP window size to the router on the other end, so that all intermediate routers between that router and the system transmitting the FTP packets in the first place also lie about how full the window is, and the intermediate routers don't end up with full input packet buffers with nowhere to send them in the first place.

Does your border router do this? No? Then your QoS software and AltQ and other "packet shaping" software is shit. Your upstream routers high speed input buffers are going to end up packed full of packets you want less, and you will be receiver live-locked and the packets that you *do* want won't get through to you because of that.

You can either believe this, or you can get a shitty router and not get the performance you expect as the QoS software fails to work.

Then you can read the Jeffrey Mogul paper from DEC Western Research Labs from 1997 here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v... ...after which, you should probably ask yourselves why CS students don't read research papers, and are still trying to solve problems which were understood 27 years ago, and more or less solved 17 years ago, but still have yet to make their way into a commercial operating system.

BTW: I also highly recommend the Peter Druschel/Guarav Banga paper from Rice University in 1996 on Lazy Receiver Processing, since most servers are still screwed by data buss bandwidth when it comes to getting more packets than they can deal with, either as a DOS technique against the server, or because they are simply overloaded. Most ethernet firmware is also shit unless it's been written to not transfer data unless you tell it it's OK, separately from the actual interrupt acknowledgement. If you're interested, that paper's here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v... and I expect that we will be discussing that problem in 2024 when someone decides it's actually a problem for them.

By consequence they are against any ruling by the government that would endanger this beautiful American Dream.

If you want to force down the price of any commodity you should limit or stop demand without directly affecting production.

For a cereal producer I would suggest to market a killer cereal, it would be squarely aimed at the intended consumer group and the chance of wasteful collateral damage would be limited.

"In short, every single point you made is precisely and exactly wrong."

You should learn what the words "precisely" and "exactly" mean. When you are hanging around with your fellow mentally retarded buddies at the law library throwing them around makes you sound intelligent, but here your use of them just amplifies your stupidity.