Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:customer-centric (Score 1) 406

by whoever57 (#47793839) Attached to: Microsoft Defies Court Order, Will Not Give Emails To US Government
Imagine that a future Iraqi government indicts George W. Bush's cabinet for war crimes. They claim that payments to military contractors involved bribery. Do you think that the Iraqi court should get access (via a local office in Iraq) to the bank records held by US banks of the cabinet members?

Comment: Re:customer-centric (Score 1) 406

by whoever57 (#47793795) Attached to: Microsoft Defies Court Order, Will Not Give Emails To US Government

Actually, this same scenario happened with the banking industry and what the judge is proposing actually follows the international law and treaties that came out of it. In short, it doesn't matter where the assets are stored as to who has jurisdiction, but as to who has control over them

So there is a treaty convering funds in accounts held by international banks. Tell us why a company should be obligated by a treaty that doesn't apply to the industry in which it operates?

Comment: Re:I don't understand the injunction (Score 1) 30

by whoever57 (#47781673) Attached to: Judge Lucy Koh Rejects Apple's Quest For Anti-Samsung Injunction

This is one case where I enjoy seeing the lawyers rake in the money at the expense of their asshole clients (both sides). Why Apple and Samsung don't settle this pissing match is beyond me. This can't possibly benefit either company.

Remember the tale of the the scorpion and the frog? . You identified what their nature is already.

Comment: Please RTFA (Score 4, Informative) 180

by whoever57 (#47780687) Attached to: The Executive Order That Led To Mass Spying, As Told By NSA Alumni
Read the FA. THe summary doesn't explain exactly what is happening. EO 12333 originally allowed for collection of data abroad, but today, the collection happens in the USA -- in domestic Internet hubs. Naturally, the vast majority of the data scooped up this way is purely domestic and concerns US citizens, but the NSA claims that this is purely incidental. That's right -- the majority of the collection is "incidental". Yeah, right.

FISA? That rubber stamp is bypassed while collecting masses of data on US citizens.

"This program was started at least back in 2001 and has expanded to between 80 and 100 tap points on the fiber optic lines in the lower 48 states," he said by e-mail. "Most of these fiber optic tap points are not on the East or West coast. This means that the primary target of this collection is domestic... Most collection of US domestic communications and data is done under EO 12333, section 2.3 paragraph C in the Upstream program. They claim, near as I can tell, that all domestic collection is incidental. That's, of course, the vast majority of data."

Comment: Re:Abandoning Desktop was a BIG Mistake for RedHat (Score 1) 232

by whoever57 (#47768981) Attached to: How Red Hat Can Recapture Developer Interest

More than a decade ago, when they abandoned desktop and regular users and only focused on enterprise, they made their biggest mistake. Where do you think Ubuntu Server users come from?


Absolutely true. RedHat desktop was awful (in comparison to other distros) for a while. Unfortunately, it's going that way again (Gnome 3). I only hope that someone will create a MATE repository for RHEL/CentOS 7.

What this implies is that the execs at RedHat don't eat their own dogfood, which is terrible for any software company. They should run RHEL on their personal desktops/laptops, etc..

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 335

by whoever57 (#47768885) Attached to: Comcast Tells Government That Its Data Caps Aren't Actually "Data Caps"

After Citizens United, they can fund Super PACs.

Incorrect. You could have at least tried to check Wikipedia before posting ignorant comments. This is directly from their page (check the link if you want source references).

Pot, kettle, much? I specifically referenced Super PACs. From that very page:

Super PACs[edit]
Super PACs, officially known as "independent-expenditure only committees," may not make contributions to candidate campaigns or parties, but may engage in unlimited political spending independently of the campaigns. Unlike traditional PACs, they can raise funds from individuals, corporations, unions, and other groups without any legal limit on donation size.[19]

Comment: Re:I like... (Score 1) 622

by whoever57 (#47767723) Attached to: U.S. Senator: All Cops Should Wear Cameras

it's only a bad idea if the police have control over the recordings ... then you would see incriminating footage getting lost or deleted (and blamed on "equipment failure" )

Even if the police have control, after some time, ordinary people would see a pattern: "no recording == suspicious behaviour by the police". Then, turning off the camera isn't going to provide much protection to a police officer.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 335

by whoever57 (#47767229) Attached to: Comcast Tells Government That Its Data Caps Aren't Actually "Data Caps"

Corporations can create PACs, but cannot contribute to them.

After Citizens United, they can fund Super PACs.

They can (after the SCOTUS decision) fund media information about candidates but cannot endorse for or against any candidates

In other words, corporations can put unlimited money towards echoing a candidate's talking points, as long as they don't coordinate with with candidate. However, as Stephen Colbert [I think] pointed out, Super PACs can apparently have an office next door to a candidate, have staff who work for both, but still not be coordinating with that candidate.

As far as I can tell, the banned activities are:
Give money either directly or indirectly (via a PAC) to a candidate.
Directly endorse/oppose a candidate

But, as I have pointed out above, they can use their own money to promote the same message as a candidate.

Comment: Re:DNS? (Score 0) 133

by whoever57 (#47764899) Attached to: Time Warner Cable Experiences Nationwide Internet Outage

When I subscribed to Comcast a while back, there was a 4 day outage. By the second day, I found out that it was due to an attack on the DNS servers.

Comcast runs DNS servers? Wow, perhaps I did not need to run my own for all these years! On the other hand, I have not had any problems at my home LAN due to DNS going down.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 335

That's exactly what I said, but in different language.

Umm, no, it isn't. You quoted a statement that companies are banned from "spending money to influence federal elections.", whereas the quote I provided shows that companies can spend money on "electioneering communications", which I think includes spending money to influence federal elections.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 2) 335

I think that you missed the note at the beginning of that page:

Note: Portions of this publication may be affected by the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Essentially, the Court's ruling permits corporations and labor organizations to use treasury funds to make independent expenditures in connection with federal elections and to fund electioneering communications.

Repel them. Repel them. Induce them to relinquish the spheroid. - Indiana University fans' chant for their perennially bad football team