Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Finally! (Score 1) 432

by sumdumass (#47586537) Attached to: Judge: US Search Warrants Apply To Overseas Computers

What? What he said, while crude , was nothing like that.

He is saying that those in control of the data if subject to the jurisdiction of law can be compelled to deliver access to it even if it resides outside the country or jurisdiction else bad things could happen.

I agree with that premise to. In this situation, it is a product of MS shifting revenue around in order to take advantage of Ireland's low taxes. It demonstrates MS' level of control over that operation.

Comment: Re:When will we... (Score 1) 253

I agree with you in principle but if shoe horned into a big/small argument, it appears that big would win hands down.

Think about it. A government department so big that the guy in charge doesn't know what is going on under him until a special audit brings it to his attention not only after the fact but after he assured congress that it was not and did not happen.

Odley enough, i'm in agreement with TapeCuter also which is rare. I'm mentioning it here only because i don't want his head to swell or think something is wrong with me.

Comment: Re:And no one will go to jail (Score 1) 253

By this logic, a kid with paper and pencil passing notes secretly could be an organization of war and if he passed a secret note to a politicians, he would be levying war with his methods and tools of war. Why don't you try to stretch it a bit more and shoe horn something really silly into it.

Comment: Re:And no one will go to jail (Score 1) 253

Well, that and lying would require you knowing what you said was not the truth at the time you said it.

Incorrect facts is not lying. Your friend who thinks the game starts at 8pm only to find it was 7:30pm did not lie, he got his facts wrong. Now if you said that knowing the correct time, it would be a lie. Here it seems that the facts were corrected as soon as he was aware of it. I do not see lying coming from him (his staff and employees on the other hand).

Comment: Re:When will we... (Score 2, Insightful) 253

I do not exactly see how an all powerful and intrusive spying regime is less government.

This story is the epitome of big government through and through. But not, the small government politicians do not seem to want to cut this down just like the big government politicians. Your argument seems frivolous on it's head.

They have it, and you helped them remove the things that prevented them from getting it before.

I know not RTFA is a badge of honor here, but you could at least have read the article summery. No one removed anything legally. Employees ignored a separation of limits or a firewall as the summery put it and even knowing they were not supposed to, they did anyways. No politician or political ideology allowed or helped in this. If anything, it would be the leading from behind and phoning it in that our leadership in government seems to be doing any more.

Comment: Re:Radicalization (Score 1) 846

by sumdumass (#47562815) Attached to: Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline

Umm.. if you would have watched that charlie rose interview with Iran's last president "imadinnerjacket" or whatever his name was, you would know that Iran has no gays. That is a western thing.

This was on the "Bush is teh satan" tour to the UN if you want to look it up. He hit quite a few of the news shows on thst tour.

Comment: Re:Not surprised. (Score 2) 565

by sumdumass (#47562297) Attached to: 35% of American Adults Have Debt 'In Collections'

They likely sold your debt to another company who packaged it and sold it yet again. The debt is probably so far down the line that they probably sell it as soon as they figure they won't collect.

If they take you to small claims court, counter sue them for the amount. Someone will show up, or you will win by default and can pay them with their own money.

Also, send request for a validation of the debt in writing. Your state may have other solutions, but I believe federal law requires them to validate the debt once you do this. If they do not, they lose the right to try and collect it.

Comment: Re:Lies and statistics... (Score 1) 565

by sumdumass (#47562225) Attached to: 35% of American Adults Have Debt 'In Collections'

I don't think you understand what he was talking about.

It isn't a matter of no insurance or inability to pay that he describes, it is a matter of something not being billed correctly or coming in later and being missed by the insurance payments (as well as you needing to pay your portion too). So you go through life thinking everything has been taken care of and review your credit report because you are thinking of some major purchase (car, home, RV- whatever) and discover that you have a bill in collections.

You see, this would be in spite of having insurance.

Comment: Re:For domestic use only (Score 1) 176

by sumdumass (#47561611) Attached to: Senate Bill Would Ban Most Bulk Surveillance

Minor correction, it is perfectly legal under US law and constitution to spy on other nations and their citizens (provided they are not in US controlled territories). It may be highly illegal under their laws and system of government.

But yes, I otherwise completely agree. The people in charge of our system of law don't seem to think the same laws apply at all when they do not agree with them. For instance, instead of removing Marijuana from a schedule 1 drug and creating a law leaving it to the states, we are ignoring federal law and making provisions in other laws. Instead of enforcing immigration laws and securing our borders, we seem to be encouraging people to come to the country completely ignoring our immigration laws processes and so on.

People may or may not like the idea of enforcing those laws, but it specifically leads to and enables a concept where some don't seem to think the same laws apply to them.

Comment: Re:Hilarious (Score 1) 159

by sumdumass (#47561413) Attached to: London Police Placing Anti-Piracy Warning Ads On Illegal Sites

Sure I do.. I mean the police would never accuse someone of something that wasn't true, they are the police after all. They fight crime and the bad guys so why wouldn't I believe that the legitimate site isn't piracy site or otherwise involved in illegal activities when I see their banner adds on it. Why wouldn't I close my browser window and never purchase anything from them or view their content again. Why wouldn't I tell all my friends that the site is illegal and the cops are busting people going to it?

All sarcasm aside, its entire purpose is to assassinate the character of the site and scare users into leaving it. If the police didn't think it would have any impact, they wouldn't be bothering with it. Instead, they know it will so when they get the wrong site involved, how is it not slander and libel- you know defamation of character?

Comment: Re:For domestic use only (Score 1) 176

by sumdumass (#47561351) Attached to: Senate Bill Would Ban Most Bulk Surveillance

lol.. that could be part of it but the biggest part is that the ISP over sells it's bandwidth because not all customers will be online at the same time. If they were, their service would come to a crawl if it was still available. If you host servers or resell bandwidth, you (potentially) use up the cushion of bandwidth they maintain and effectively end the not all users will be online at the same time by introducing outside users and uses taking up more time.

So yes, it is for price discrimination but not exactly in the sense you describe. If your servers are not hogging all the bandwidth, they likely won't bother you
(except for blocking mail ports and common infection ports). When they do use up the extra bandwidth, they will cut you and send you a bill for the difference between residential and commercial rates while insisting you pay the commercial rate going forward.

Comment: Re:Alright! Go Senate bill (Score 0) 176

by sumdumass (#47561069) Attached to: Senate Bill Would Ban Most Bulk Surveillance

The claim is that the information belongs to a third party so it isn't a search on you but a regulation on business. This would fit the liberal mindset that businesses are not people and have no rights but the effect is the same as a search on you.

This is why the US constitution is not a living document. Outside of reporting requirements about the business itself, any government mandate for information about others is and always will be a search without a warrant. It would be different if the information was publicly available but it isn't and there is a severe expectation of privacy involved.

The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst

Working...