Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
batteries!
Aug 26, 2010

Mirthless posted:

it's happened more than once and made national news. I want to say it happened at Yahoo in 2009 or 2010 and again at Verizon Enterprise Services in 2013. Very senior engineer in both cases getting paid 250k+ and they were outsourcing all of their work to teams in china

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/17/business/us-outsource-job-china/

quote:

Bob was an "inoffensive and quiet" programmer in his mid-40's, according to his employee profile, with "a relatively long tenure with the company" and "someone you wouldn't look at twice in an elevator."
Those innocuous traits led investigators to initially believe the computer access from China using Bob's credentials was unauthorized -- and that some form of malware was sidestepping strong two-factor authentication that included a token RSA key fob under Bob's name.
Investigators then discovered Bob had "physically FedExed his RSA token to China so that the third-party contractor could log-in under his credentials during the workday," wrote Andrew Valentine, a senior forensic investigator for Verizon.
Bob had hired a programming firm in the northeastern Chinese city of Shenyang to do his work. His helpers half a world away worked overnight on a schedule imitating an average 9-to-5 workday in the United States. He paid them one-fifth of his six-figure salary, according to Verizon

Now that's capitalism.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

somethingawful bf
Jun 17, 2005

bag em and tag em posted:

We can only trust the tweets of dear leader. Only he knows truth. The news must be pushed aside. Heed the word of Trump.

Actually no, I think people themselves should go to the source if they want reliable information. Don't rely on other people to regurgitate how they understand something to have them explain it to you. That's how you end up with religion ;)

Mirthless
Mar 27, 2011

by the sex ghost

honestly I find it kind of funny that they fired him because he wasn't doing anything different than a team manager for an IT coding department does and he was making about the same amount of money, too

you'd think they'd have praised him for his ingenuity, really, if he was "the best developer in the building"

edit: half-jokes aside though I recall the reason they fired him was the RSA token, I used to work for VES (a few years before this) and they had an absurd number of government contracts, and they had to be handled in a very particular way. They did not gently caress around with network access.

Mirthless fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Feb 15, 2017

proof of concept
Mar 6, 2005

by FactsAreUseless

Poetic Justice posted:

Do you have a particular aspect of something that you are extremely knowledgeable about, more so than the general public? Like, lets take any of the sciences or even computer poo poo for example. Have you ever known any news source to reliably, intelligently, and consistently report on any science/computer information accurately without getting some important aspect of it wrong? The same thing applies to pretty much every category the news talks about.

this is a powerful amount of stupidity to pack into a single post I'm impressed in spite of myself

Thirsty Girl
Dec 5, 2015

Poetic Justice posted:

Do you have a particular aspect of something that you are extremely knowledgeable about, more so than the general public? Like, lets take any of the sciences for example. Have you ever known any news source to reliably, intelligently, and consistently report on any science information accurately without getting some important aspect of it wrong?

you are using this argument to suggest that the public should not be concerned with purported contents of classified information because they must rely on anonymous sources for that information and cannot access it in the same way that a national intelligence agency can

that is absurd.

somethingawful bf
Jun 17, 2005

Thirsty Girl posted:

you are using this argument to suggest that the public should not be concerned with purported contents of classified information because they must rely on anonymous sources for that information and cannot access it in the same way that a national intelligence agency can

that is absurd.

I'm saying it's important to be skeptical of all 2nd/3rd party sources and not to just believe something because it's what you want to hear or fits your preconceived notions.

Thirsty Girl
Dec 5, 2015

Poetic Justice posted:

I'm saying it's important to be skeptical and not to just believe something because it's what you want to hear or fits your preconceived notions.

maybe you have forgotten the part where we began this conversation with "investigate seriously and diligently" and you compared that to the overt charlatanism of the kenyan birth certificate

if anybody is clutching preconceived notions its you

FactsAreUseless
Feb 16, 2011

Poetic Justice posted:

I think people should go to the actual source of information and not rely on pre-edited, censored, and spun information, personally.
Sorry, you think every single person has the time, knowledge, and access necessary to rely on primary sources?

somethingawful bf
Jun 17, 2005

Thirsty Girl posted:

maybe you have forgotten the part where we began this conversation with "investigate seriously and diligently" and you compared that to the overt charlatanism of the kenyan birth certificate

if anybody is clutching preconceived notions its you

We began this conversation because according to you Trump didn't fire Flynn immediately and was just using him as some sort of plausible deniability chip. Perhaps Trump wanted some investigation done seriously and diligently before making that decision?

Mirthless
Mar 27, 2011

by the sex ghost

FactsAreUseless posted:

Sorry, you think every single person has the time, knowledge, and access necessary to rely on primary sources?

I don't understand why they don't just go to the white house and read the dossier like the rest of us :smug:

Poetic Justice posted:

We began this conversation because according to you Trump didn't fire Flynn immediately and was just using him as some sort of plausible deniability chip. Perhaps Trump wanted some investigation done seriously and diligently before making that decision?

this is a pretty big jump in logic to make about the guy who turned his country club into a situation room when a potential nuclear crisis was developing

FactsAreUseless
Feb 16, 2011

Poetic Justice posted:

We began this conversation because according to you Trump didn't fire Flynn immediately and was just using him as some sort of plausible deniability chip. Perhaps Trump wanted some investigation done seriously and diligently before making that decision?
You have no evidence there was any such investigation.

Mirthless
Mar 27, 2011

by the sex ghost
just a tip: if you think Donald Trump is thinking something through real carefully before he does it, think again

i would think this would be obvious after the last two years but somehow...

somethingawful bf
Jun 17, 2005

FactsAreUseless posted:

Sorry, you think every single person has the time, knowledge, and access necessary to rely on primary sources?

Apparently there are no jobs in America so what the hell else are they doing!?

Mirthless
Mar 27, 2011

by the sex ghost

Poetic Justice posted:

Apparently there are no jobs in America so what the hell else are they doing!?

with a straw man this big we're certain to please the harvest gods this year

somethingawful bf
Jun 17, 2005

FactsAreUseless posted:

You have no evidence there was any such investigation.

Yes. Thirsty Girl said Trump was briefed months ago about Flynn. My beginning point and first post that started this was we don't know what Trump was briefed with, and I personally won't judge Trump for not immediately firing Flynn because without knowing what sort of information was shown, it's not something I'd feel qualified making a judgement on.

Mirthless
Mar 27, 2011

by the sex ghost

Poetic Justice posted:

Yes. Thirsty Girl said Trump was briefed months ago about Flynn. My beginning point and first post that started this was we don't know what Trump was briefed with, and I personally won't judge Trump for not immediately firing Flynn because without knowing what sort of information was shown, it's not something I'd feel qualified making a judgement on.

get ready for the next four years, where half the country pretends to not know what inference is

"How can we make snap judgements about Trump if we aren't interacting with Donald Trump on a day to day basis, in person, in an advisory capacity? We don't have all the facts!!!!!!!"

FactsAreUseless
Feb 16, 2011

Poetic Justice posted:

Yes. Thirsty Girl said Trump was briefed months ago about Flynn. My beginning point and first post that started this was we don't know what Trump was briefed with, and I personally won't judge Trump for not immediately firing Flynn because without knowing what sort of information was shown, it's not something I'd feel qualified making a judgement on.
So what you're saying is that Trump was told months ago that Flynn did something illegal. In the intervening months, he could have been doing something that makes that okay, but we have no evidence of that whatsoever. So even though there's lots of evidence that Trump was aware Flynn acted wrong and ignored it, none of that counts, and instead we need to wait for... what, exactly?

FactsAreUseless
Feb 16, 2011

Obviously no decisions of any sort should be made over the next four to eight years, because we do not have telepathy, and therefore it is impossible to know, or look into, or find out, what anyone knows or what motivates their decisions.

feelix
Nov 27, 2016
THE ONLY EXERCISE I AM UNFAMILIAR WITH IS EXERCISING MY ABILITY TO MAKE A POST PEOPLE WANT TO READ
lol hillary lost

somethingawful bf
Jun 17, 2005

FactsAreUseless posted:

So what you're saying is that Trump was told months ago that Flynn did something illegal. In the intervening months, he could have been doing something that makes that okay, but we have no evidence of that whatsoever. So even though there's lots of evidence that Trump was aware Flynn acted wrong and ignored it, none of that counts, and instead we need to wait for... what, exactly?

I think we should wait for more information before jumping to conclusions, yes. And no, I'm not saying Trump was told months ago that Flynn did something illegal. We have no idea what was in the briefing. Was it perhaps "Flynn and the Russian ambassador where at the same coffee shop at the same time, while both were on trips to the same city." We have no idea what information was relayed.

Thirsty Girl
Dec 5, 2015

Also lol that having Pence go around unawares talking about how nothing happened was necessary and prudent of Trump because of some reason.

a bone to pick
Sep 14, 2011

by FactsAreUseless

feelix posted:

lol hillary lost

but it was her turn....

FactsAreUseless
Feb 16, 2011

Poetic Justice posted:

I think we should wait for more information before jumping to conclusions, yes.
But there is so much information. The Flynn resignation is the result of many, many investigative reports. It's not a single story. This is stuff that has been emerging for some time now. All you're doing is setting impossible standards in which you'll keep asking for new information until you like the information.

feelix
Nov 27, 2016
THE ONLY EXERCISE I AM UNFAMILIAR WITH IS EXERCISING MY ABILITY TO MAKE A POST PEOPLE WANT TO READ
anyone else here 3/3 voting for the winner in presidential elections or just me

FactsAreUseless
Feb 16, 2011

feelix posted:

lol hillary lost
She forgot to campaign lmao.

Mirthless
Mar 27, 2011

by the sex ghost

Poetic Justice posted:

I think we should wait for more information before jumping to conclusions, yes.

OK, but the information we already has looks very, very bad for the administration to the point where his own party are opening multiple investigations

What's going to have to happen to meet your demanding litmus test? Is he gonna have to get up on the podium and say "Yep, the Ruskies put me here and I didn't fire my buddy Flynn because Putin wanted him in office"?

proof of concept
Mar 6, 2005

by FactsAreUseless

Mirthless posted:

get ready for the next four years, where half the country pretends to not know what inference is

"How can we make snap judgements about Trump if we aren't interacting with Donald Trump on a day to day basis, in person, in an advisory capacity? We don't have all the facts!!!!!!!"

this always happen when a certain brand of idiot learns that the politician/movie celebrity/star athlete that they like did something reprehensible but it's going to be funny to see it on such a large scale for such a long period of time as it looks like we'll be seeing under this administration

vvvv lol

proof of concept fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Feb 15, 2017

somethingawful bf
Jun 17, 2005

FactsAreUseless posted:

But there is so much information. The Flynn resignation is the result of many, many investigative reports. It's not a single story. This is stuff that has been emerging for some time now. All you're doing is setting impossible standards in which you'll keep asking for new information until you like the information.

It's not about whether I like the information or not, I'm pretty indifferent. The whole point was people are somehow saying Trump knew or knows or has ties with Russia because Flynn resigned and that Trump has known for months that Flynn had ties to Russia because he was briefed. What I'm saying is we don't know what was in the briefing. Was it perhaps "Flynn and the Russian ambassador where at the same coffee shop at the same time, while both were on trips to the same city." We have no idea what information was relayed in that briefing and again, I, personally, won't judge Trump for not immediately firing him after that briefing.

FactsAreUseless
Feb 16, 2011

Poetic Justice posted:

It's not about whether I like the information or not, I'm pretty indifferent. The whole point was people are somehow saying Trump knew or knows or has ties with Russia because Flynn resigned and that Trump has known for months that Flynn had ties to Russia because he was briefed. What I'm saying is we don't know what was in the briefing. Was it perhaps "Flynn and the Russian ambassador where at the same coffee shop at the same time, while both were on trips to the same city." We have no idea what information was relayed in that briefing and again, I, personally, won't judge Trump for not immediately firing him after that briefing.
So you would support congressional investigations to find out what Trump knew and when he knew it?

somethingawful bf
Jun 17, 2005

FactsAreUseless posted:

So you would support congressional investigations to find out what Trump knew and when he knew it?

Absolutely. That's what I'm hoping happens. Until then it's just a lot of conjecture, assumptions, and inferences that may or may not be factual.

FactsAreUseless
Feb 16, 2011

Great, then you're on the same side as congressional Democrats who are being blocked by the Republican party. Welcome to the left, new friend.

Toadvine
Mar 16, 2009
Please disregard my advice w/r/t history.

feelix posted:

lol hillary lost

And badly! I hope hillfolk are embarrassed as hell that their queen has self exiled to Twitter

somethingawful bf
Jun 17, 2005

FactsAreUseless posted:

Great, then you're on the same side as congressional Democrats who are being blocked by the Republican party. Welcome to the left, new friend.

I've always leaned more left than right. I think some people get confused because I make fun of the left more now, but that's because it's currently a lot easier :)

Lumpy the Cook
Feb 4, 2011

Drippy-goo-yay, mother-gunker!

FactsAreUseless posted:

She forgot to campaign lmao.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORWM0ukT-Xw

Nuclearmonkee
Jun 10, 2009


Poetic Justice posted:

I've always leaned more left than right. I think some people get confused because I make fun of the left more now, but that's because it's currently a lot easier.

Democrats aren't loving left.

The left is a discordant mostly powerless ineffectual fringe. Just make fun of everyone while it burns imo.

Krustic
Mar 28, 2010

Everything I say draws controversy. It's kinda like the abortion issue.

Toadvine posted:

And badly! I hope hillfolk are embarrassed as hell that their queen has self exiled to Twitter

Don't blame me, I voted for Jeb!

Spunky Psycho Ho
Jan 26, 2007

by zen death robot

Poetic Justice posted:

I've always leaned more left than right. I think some people get confused because I make fun of the left more now, but that's because it's currently a lot easier :)

Yeah, same. I don't think people get that the Dems pushed a bunch of people right this election cycle

Toadvine
Mar 16, 2009
Please disregard my advice w/r/t history.

Poetic Justice posted:

I've always leaned more left than right. I think some people get confused because I make fun of the left more now, but that's because it's currently a lot easier :)

Same. MIsanthrope constantly calls me an alt right Nazi because I think the left is descending into inconsolable retardation

Unbelievably Fat Man
Jun 1, 2000

Innocent people. I could never hurt innocent people.


*jerkoff motion*

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Nuclearmonkee
Jun 10, 2009


Krustic posted:

Don't blame me, I voted for Jeb!

I voted for giant meteor and we'd all be better off if it had won.

  • Locked thread