Anonymous Anonymous Coward’s Techdirt Profile


About Anonymous Anonymous CowardTechdirt Insider

Anonymous Anonymous Coward’s Comments comment rss

  • Dec 12th, 2017 @ 12:00pm

    Re: Might 1-800-LAW-FIRM represent me.

    It appears that if you pay, they play. On the other hand, it might piss off their other paying customers. So, maybe yes, maybe no.

  • Dec 10th, 2017 @ 5:19pm


    It's been played: -lake-comic-con?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashd ot+%28Slashdot%29

  • Dec 1st, 2017 @ 12:24pm

    Re: Sheesh, minion. Internets full of scandal, and you run this?

    Try these:

  • Dec 1st, 2017 @ 12:00pm

    Re: Probably your assumption wrong: looks like Trump wants it out.

    To some degree I do think the 'Star Chamber' exists. However, I do not believe Trump is a member. I believe that when when someone nominated him due to his wealth, the others laughed him down citing his television shows, bad business deals, and general moral and intellectual incompetence. Admission denied.

  • Nov 29th, 2017 @ 7:51pm

    When confronting witnesses Whoof is OK

    U.S. Constitution - Amendment 6

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    There should be a test in each and every court case where a drug dog is a part of the probable cause where the dog in question is, without the presence of their normal handler, given the opportunity to sniff a variety of objects, some of which are negligible, and other which contain samples of the same 'evidence' the accused is charged with. Samples set up by some non-partisan law enforcement obscured third party.

    This might be the best way to verify the dogs are acting without 'handler bias', and at the same time give the accused an opportunity to 'confront' their accuser.

    Less than that is a Sixth Amendment violation and the 'perpetrator' goes free. Full Stop.

  • Nov 28th, 2017 @ 12:57pm

    Re: Re:

    Marriott Corporation used to own all the land and buildings where their hotels and restaurants existed. Then a new generation of Marriott graduated from business school and sold the land and buildings to banks and insurance companies with guaranteed renewable 20 year management contracts. Raised a whole lot of capital which fueled a huge expansion.

    I don't know about McDonald's, but most of their operations are franchised, and the individual franchisee would be making those decisions, rather than the corporation.

    How any of that applies to Uber who are building what are essentially only durable (maybe, maybe they will last 10 years) rather than more permanent assets such as land or buildings is another question.

  • Nov 22nd, 2017 @ 5:51pm

    Re: Re: No one has proven the allegations, but your fired anyway

    Sorry about the delay, I have been busy. I will admit that my post is not entirely on target with reference to the post.

    On the other hand, I have to wonder how much time you may or may not have spent in front of administrative law judges arguing unemployment cases. I have had my share, and lost only once, early in my career. I had supervisory responsibility over some 4000 people, and had multiple occasions to terminate employment. I have never been sued.

    My point is, that termination, or more properly stated, wrongful termination of an employee is most certainly a legal action, if for no other reason than one may wind up either in front of an administrative law judge arguing rights to unemployment claims or a civil judge arguing a wrongful termination lawsuit. No, employment issues do not go in front of a district or even a local judge on a regular basis, but to say that there are no legal consequences to terminating employees is not quite accurate.

  • Nov 21st, 2017 @ 5:49pm

    No one has proven the allegations, but your fired anyway

    There is something to be said about the accusations. None of them are more than accusations, none of them have been proven in a court of law. That link is to a Simple Justice post where this is discussed in more detail.

    I am not suggesting that the accusations are wrong, I am suggesting that they are being taken as true, and as yet nothing other than statements have been proffered. Where's the proof?

    Now I do tend to believe at least some of these allegations, there are so many for some alleged perpetrators, but to take legal action, such as job termination, based solely on the statement of someone does not seem right. Let the process proceed, and then don't just fire someone, put them in jail.

  • Nov 20th, 2017 @ 4:27pm

    Isn't this bait and switch?

    Offer made, bug bounty, bug found, terms change. Any US court should find that the bait and switch overcomes the CFAA charges. The loss is to Finisterre, who not only looses the bounty, but must then spend money to defend the spurious CFAA charges. Seems like bounty plus should be the correct determination.

    Though the proposer of the bounty is a Chinese company and Finisterre appears to be American, the challenge can only be made in a US court. While it may be difficult to get financial satisfaction from a Chinese company in the US, given the circumstances (many emails between proponents prior to the charges), there seems to be some illegal activity on the part of the Chinese company.

    Is it shame or an unwillingness to part with the $30,000 bounty that is precluding them from paying up? Or both?

    Denial is such a pernicious position.

  • Nov 16th, 2017 @ 6:31pm

    Which bed to hide under as they come for all of us

    I suspect that the FBI and or other minions of the Gobmint will have an assessment that anyone who does not step to the tune the Gobmint plays will be considered extremist, with a high level of confidence. The only way to escape this assessment will be to show your 'loyalty' via your political party donation receipts, a copy of your voting ballot, a membership AND participation in some organization 'approved' by the Gobmint, or your position as CEO or high level executive of some company that does not participate in democratic politics. Or, of course your employment by some law enforcement agency. Other government positions would be assessed by the position's ability to leak...anything.

    If your not white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant or some other limited form of Christian (don't belong to some all 'ethnic' church) and born in the US of A, look out.

    Duck, but don't expect any cover to be effective.

    This is a very sad assessment of our Government's behavior, and it is sadly more accurate than it should be. It is also very illegal, though getting these actions to stop through the courts will take longer than the remaining term of the current administration.

    Oh, and public opinion will be refuted via Twitter, no recourse there as we will all be blocked from responding...that is if we even use Twitter. And if we don't, it does not matter as the response to responses will be some sharp words from The Donald via Twitter and that will be the end of the conversation.

  • Nov 16th, 2017 @ 5:37pm

    Wall, what wall?

    For every barrier created ever, there is, or will be a way through. This wall might change things a little (there will be economic impact from the building, but at the same time they will reduce some of the border protection as 'not needed' anymore, as if it was in any way effective now) but the ingenuity of people, those who want to get through, will find a way around. Then they will have to build that wall around the whole country.

    Wait till you hear from the beachfront property owners, or users, about that.

  • Nov 16th, 2017 @ 5:30pm

    Re: The bigger picture here

    See, the Streisand Effect has positive implications as well. some aspects.

  • Nov 13th, 2017 @ 8:13am

    The best of the best of the bestest

    Isn't it interesting how those with law enforcement jobs consider everyone without law enforcement jobs to be bad?

    Then the is the phenomenon whereby a happy go lucking person (or maybe a depressed psychopath) gets hired by a law enforcement agency and is moved from the 'bad' column to the 'good' column. Presto magico!

    And, in today's training standards, these new hires are taught to obsess over digital information rather than how to obtain witnesses and follow up on leads, you know, actual investigative work? Digital isn't easier, but it can be done without leaving the office. Oh, and let's not forget shoot first, make excuses later.

  • Nov 10th, 2017 @ 10:20am

    The power corruption engine

    Perhaps a better way to manage ones reputation is to not do dastardly things in the first place. Entitlements felt by the rich, who then think they are therefore powerful (and in some ways they are) do not have the power to reverse the release of the bad things they do.

    The best way to keep a secret is to tell no one. If, however ones behavior involves others, the secret is already out.

  • Nov 10th, 2017 @ 6:18am

    Just Curious

    Wouldn't something like Wireshark have detected any network traffic from the network stack/web server mentioned in the article? Wouldn't some questions have come up about traffic coming from a computer with disabled NIC's?

    Or is the usage of these components so minimal that that it goes undetected?

    I seem to remember an issue with the Intel ME system a few months back. The fix that came from Intel required a reboot in my Windows systems (Dual booting here) but never got mentioned in my Linux system. Hmm.....

  • Nov 8th, 2017 @ 6:52pm

    When will...

    ...the age of the Internet actually reach politics? When will children who grew up with technology no longer be able to act as if they do not understand technology, believably? (And by understand, I mean in only the most visceral sense, as technology is actually complex, and many 'experts' don't actually understand it is that complex).

    Then, when that age is accomplished, when will we be be able to believe anything politicians have to say, unless they act contrary to the rest of the politicians and say something that actually makes sense?

    Kinda like Wyden does now.

  • Nov 8th, 2017 @ 6:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What is your solution to dealing with spent nuclear fuel? I don't have an answer and it seems that no one else has an answer that works for everyone.

    Solar and wind seem to work (as do some other technologies), but those technologies are actually young and we don't know, as yet what the potential problems are. In the meantime I support those concepts. What do we do with dead batteries in a way that does not cause other types of pollution, or dead solar cells for that matter? How about wind turbines changing the climate in their area, is this bad, or not so bad? Etc..

    Eventually we will figure these things out, but continuing to contribute to the cycles of global climate change (which are natural to some degree) seems a poor solution. Creating potentially greater problems to solve another problem does not seem to be a positive change either.

    The question comes down to what do we know about what we 'know' and how dangerous is what we know, and in the light of not knowing everything, how dangerous is what we don't know yet? The answers do not exist today, nor will they tomorrow. In time, answers will come.

    Will those answers be too late? Will there be sufficient political capital to recognize those answers and act on them? Will the political capital be aligned with the actual answers or the answers some industry desires? How do we go about differentiating that difference?

  • Nov 8th, 2017 @ 5:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Being a non spiritualist I would agree. Then again anyone, scientist or not, saying that they actually understood everything that exists in this universe would also be wrong.

    For example, please tell us, definitively, how many universes there are. At the same time, tell us how many dimensions there are. I have heard a number of discussions from learned persons that have significantly diverse answers to these questions.

    To say that one knows x about what we know today with the caveat that they understand that there are things we do not yet know, gains my respect. To say that one knows everything about some subject, gets my derision.

    Scientist know what can be proven today, until a different proof is provided. History tells us about many instances of 'known' things that are later disproved. I long for the day that science actually knows, but I do not expect it in what remains of my lifetime, which isn't that long, and wouldn't be even if I was young.

  • Nov 8th, 2017 @ 12:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Spiritualists would say they have it all over the rest of that group, and are way, way, way to the right (over the horizon, so to speak) on that chart. :-)

  • Nov 8th, 2017 @ 10:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    We know that gravity exists, the theories are about the how and why of its existence. That we don't know enough, yet, to say conclusively what the answers are is something that really badly pisses off people who think they know something.

    The problem with this is that it is belief rather than proof.

    This lends credence to the AC below who states that the argument about the causes of climate change is a smokescreen for the argument about who will pay for whatever solutions are attempted.

More comments from Anonymous Anonymous Coward >>