OCinBuffalo

Snowden appears in every way to be what I call a "4-star corporal". Lots of talk, knows enough to sound like he's the real thing, and has an incredible talent for hindsight, but, when it comes time to deliver, when they are on the spot to make the right call/come up with the killer approach that saves the day? They got nothing. So Snowden grabbed whatever he could get and runs. So the F what, low-level IT people do that every day. It STILL doesn't mean he had access to the entire system, which STILL means there's no way he can KNOW how it works, entirely. Talk all you want, when you get done? Snowden is low-level, period, which means he never had the big picture(unless again, if he had an accomplice with high level access). That is undeniable.

Dude, I know the gigs Snowden has had. His whole resume is out there for you to see. The trouble is, again, you don't know what you are looking at. He's a low-level dude, period. He has as much chance of understanding the overall design of the system as you do. First hand knowledge? The guy wasn't in those meetings, and never has been on any project. Look, on big corporate, never mind secret, projects we don't roll out our entire architecture and approach to all of our own people, certainly not to contract programmers, and we often keep things from client staff we don't trust. People steal, quit, and work for the competition every day, all the time. Non-competes are so useless nobody serious even bothers anymore. So, there is no way in hell given Snowden's position, that he had much first hand knowledge, if any, beyond his own small part. Especially not on a secret project where everything is annoyingly compartmentalized beyond all reason. I know this, because I've managed one of these projects. You have to have meetings, about meetings, which in turn will determine what you say in other meetings. There is no debate on credibility to be had. I'm telling you as an expert, with direct experience: the guy's position on the project means, unless somebody else gave him their high-level access, he didn't have the big picture == access to the full architecture, and certainly not access to the full DBMS or the complete DB schemas when he split. Without those things, he can't make a claim to KNOW what the system does. There is no debating this. I am telling you: unless you get qualified eyes onto the actual architecture(or, the new word for the same old thing: "ecosystem"), you will NEVER KNOW what it actually does.

Well, now that's trouble because it includes things like putting the Cross in a glass of piss, getting paid government tax dollars to do it, and worst of all: calling it art. I would gladly put lots of things in piss, and I don't need to be subsidized. Let's see: 1. Anything with a Patriots logo on it 2. Anything associated with Milan Lucic, and him as well. I would do it with cheap shots in public, like water balloons, and squirt guns to the pants. Golden Rule in reverse: treat him like he treats others. 3. Dan Rather 4. Brian Williams 5. Candy Crowley 6. Flo, the benighted hag from the Progressive commercials 7. Pink, because she makes Kmart music, and is the princess of Kmart culture. Since she sells planned idiocy as a way of life, I suppose repeated full urine immersion is the best choice here. 8. Everything Michael Bay 9. I'd love to hold a glass of piss like the Sword of Damacles over the head of every ESPN producer, so that if they decide "Hey, it's time for more Jets coverge" they know the consequences. 10. Leafs fans that demand I answer their political questions...while I am unrinating.

B-Man, thanks for ruining my day with this shameless, Microsoft crap. I am sorry, but there is no excuse for this, including using it to make fun of the Clintons. Although creative, and funny, and PPP worthy, you still deserve a beating. However, I will provide you with your saving grace, a link to another shameless, crap company, Amazon dot com, for this book. The reviews are hilarious("How to be the Best at Firewall Configuration (The Boy's Book)" ), and so is the "Customers Who Viewed This Item Also Viewed" section. My personal favorites: "My Parents Open Carry" and "The Night Daddy Went to Jail". We should write a children's Global Warming book. EDIT: Darn, somebody already wrote "Raising Boys Feminists Will Hate".

Until I see evidence of that, I have no reason to doubt the stated intention. But, that in and of itself is a problem: how do we see the evidence? In any event, you are speculating about its true purpose. Come on, you know you are. You have no idea what it does, and even if they showed you every last line of code, every table, and every web service, you still wouldn't know. You don't know it's "true purpose" and neither do any of the babbling idiots who don't know enough...to know that I left something out of my "list of things they showed you" last sentence. See? Why F about? Show somebody like me the architecture and they will tell you its purpose point blank. Code doesn't lie. Neither does a properly executed system test, with the oplogs and audits turned on, and fully operational, thank you. (I wonder if they would try that?)

I don't know. She seems to be listing to starboard a little, in hopes that the smell of the fart will be absobed by the chair cushion, and enogh so that it doesn't make a sound. Don't tell me you've never done that.

There's that word again: design. The troubles with design are either: it's a bad design, or, its a reasonable design, but executed poorly. Frankly, I would gladly volunteer, and I already have clearance, to serve on a board to review NSA architecture. Just pay my travel expenses. Let's face it: a lawyer, a politician, or an admiral are all amateurs. Amateurs can be fooled easily. I cannot. Unfortunately, lawyers, politicians and flag-officer military are the people both in charge of the design and also serving as oversight of it. This is intolerable. The "decision-makers" are incapable of making proper decisions, themselves, and definitely rely on mercenary IT people to "help" them. Why is this a problem? As a consulting group leader, if I plant your ass on a gig that bills $X00/hour, you damn well better be recommending things that keep you there. Competent, client-side management of consultants is the only thing that unplants asses. Where is the IT management competence amongst these decision makers? Or, if it is your permanent job to advise Senator X, you're about giving him whatever IT details he needs to suit his plans. Either agenda will cause tainted advice 100% of the time. Even if you play it straight up, there's always a step in between the knowledge and the decision. And, that's the root cause of your "system design working as intended", quite valid objection. How do we know it is? Designed...by whom? Whose intentions are we actually serving? What if sound IT advice is actively being filtered by either the ideology, personal agenda, or plain stupidity of the advisee? I think it would be smart to get a few real, independent, IT people involved. Libertarians especially. This way neither main party can influence them. I don't want to see the data, because I don't need to see it. All I need to see is the code/data model/integtration end points. Then, I can tell you "good" or "bad", without compromising anything or anybody. Hell we could use our own PPP rating scales, in 4 dimensions(security, success, intrusion(on liberty), and of course cost) with 3.5 being equivalent of a pH of 0.

Nah, cause then you'll piss off the carpenters who pre-fab houses. And, the metal workers, plumbers and welders. At least half of a Navy ship is fabricated. How about we call these people what they are: unprincipled, self-interested, phony demagogues. The mere use of the word "denier" defines them as such. Who else would try to conflate a real human horror story in the Holocaust, with perfectly reasonable, and generally accepted since the Enlightenment, scientific scrutiny and skepticism? That's right: if we apply the same approach we MUST with any scientific theory, to Global Warming, that makes us == to crazed neo-Nazis who deny the Holocaust. Again, the behavior tells us all we need to know. Why the conflation of 2 things that have nothing to do with each other? Why the auto-character assassination? Look at the debate going on in this thread. Other than the "What a dick" comment from GreggyT, this has been a reasoned argument about where to draw the line. That's because both "sides"(there really aren't sides, are there? Well, except for gator of course ) are being intellectually honest, are 100% focused on the stated purpose of the discussion, and are not looking to self-enrich personally or politically. There are no side agendas. Now, contrast that with Global Warming. Utter lack of intellectual honesty(need I remind us about the Professor of Scientific Ethics who forged documents yet again?), and an obvious ulterior motive to use Global Warming as a vehicle for a myriad of political/personal agendas, none of which have the planet's health in mind. These people get more shrill by the day: because they know they are busted, and they don't want to admit it.

Hey, instead of fine furniture, B-large could be pursuing his dream to put his identity studies degree to use: and be a community organizer, or an eternal student, or a dude that lives on government grants, whose purpose is to identify the need for more government grants, because, identity. I mean, we can always use another study on why capitalism causes black poverty, or gender pay, right? How about how smoking disproportionately effects minorities? /facepalm Um, one word: menthol. B-large: my brother is doing the same exact thing you are. In fact, he's developed his own process for bending wood, that a guy that's been in wood working for 40 years said is unlike anything he's ever seen . It has resulted in these beautiful(and expensive) tables, designed specifically for a Cuban card game whose name eludes me. When the first guy got one, all his buddies wanted one, and now dude's got a waiting list. He doesn't have to worry too much about the business stuff...because I help him with that. He went to college, did all the right things, but, ultimately he had an idea and ran with it. I have a friend who went to art school, who fell into making custom, wooden sail boats. He knew a guy who knew a guy, etc. He's a painter, so he started doing the detailing, but the owner wanted to retire, and essentially handed the business over to my buddy. He's buying him out over time. These boats are works of art, no doubt about it. The reason he, and not another employee, got the company, is because he's an artist. The owner felt he was the best person for the job. Thus, from my perspective, high end, functional art appears to be a pretty good gig, if you can do it. Like everything, much depends on talent.

Global Warming.

Yeah, I'm sitting here thinking "Wait, somebody is going to teach the leader of the Wall Street Jedi Council at PPP...economics, finance, banking, etc."? WTF? It's like he's completely unaware that the longest posts on this board are written, not by me, but by them, whenever a financial topic comes up. All you need is TPS vs. Magox, or TPS vs. GG, and that's when you see the real books being written here. Not that I mind it. I usually learn something, even from TPS. GG and Magox have learned me a lot too. Meazza hasn't teached me a damn thing, though. So, if JTSP is going to teach GG something, that ought to be a sight to see.

Hmm. I just noticed this. See the woman right in front of that video. Edit: Literally above the "See" in my last sentence? Anybody think she might be farting? Or, at least burping?

Dude, there is no such thing as too much data...today. Perhaps 5-10 years ago, maybe. Sometimes you need a lot, sometimes not. Thus "bulk" is not the issue. Design is. Good design == it doesn't matter if there's a billion records or 10k. If the system is designed poorly, we're screwed, period. IF the NSA truly thinks it needs every single phone call at all times, to do this right, that's incompetence, period. The only reason to use a system like this is for pattern recognition. You want the patterns you can't find on your own, to come to you. Thus, the only thing that matters is if patterns emerge. The volume of data is either irrelevant, or will change case by case. All the great analytic design in the world doesn't matter if the raw data collected is crap. You need the data...that you need. It comes down, as it always does, to database design. So, rather than pissing and moaning about what doesn't matter(volume/bulk of data), the right thing to do see the data model. Example: If there's no place in the model to store coversations, then they can't be recording them. Show somebody like me the system, all they need to say is "good" or "bad", and everybody lives. Bottom Line: I seriously doubt collecting the meta data on every phone call made in the USA the last 2 weeks is necessary for patterns to emerge. It's not a needle in stack of needles at all. Instead, it's better to see this as watching sand for snakes. You can't be looking at every grain of sand everywhere around you, all the time. But, in order to see movement, yeah, you have to look at the sand around the movement. Thus, the "bulk" == both the "grains"(phone meta data) of sand where the snake is, and the sand around him, need to be observed, otherwise, how can you see the snake? Now, does that mean that some of the sand we look at doesn't have a snake == some phone call meta data will be monitored in error? Yeah, but, as soon as we figure that out, the data is useless. A competent NSA guy will dump it, because it muddles things up. We don't need a Federal case to figure out that garbage goes in the trash, or that the NSA people who run this program know that. Technically speaking: there has to be more than just bulk meta data on phone calls in play here. There has to be other dimensions(additonal, classified data sets, like the call list of a terrorist's mother's phone we've compromised == CIA) that show us the "movement"/where to look, generally. Then, yeah, we need to collect a butload of records around that targeted area, which the method says has a high propensity to find the bad guy. How much "bulk" depends on the size/behavior of the snake. Therefore, arbitrarily restricting "bulk", for "bulk"'s sake alone, is stupid. RE: intelligence agencies, yeah, I agree, it's doubtful they have the staff/ability to do something like this. That doesn't mean Verizon doesn't, or some black agency doesn't exist solely to do this. Retired spies are more than willing to go on TV and throw one more hanging curve ball to the media, just to screw them over one more time. Remember that the "experts" on TV or in an article, whose word you are taking at face value, have spent the last 40 years lying, convincingly, for a living. It's more likely the whole thing is a patsy operation, which means Snowden is not a current employee of the NSA. Rather, he is a dope who got suckered into running off with planted intelligence. If the Russians have him, and they thought for 1 second he was a double, he'd be dead. Rather, it's likely the Russians figured that the best use of Snowden and his intel is propaganda. The last thing they want to do is buy a counter-intelligence scheme. It's better to use him as they have, and let the idiots rant and rave around the Snowden Maypole. It's highly doubtful they were able to develop anything actionable out of what Snowden has. He's wasn't placed high enough to know/see the big picture and understand the method, and frankly he lacks the skills necessary, given his body of work.

The real question here is about, you guessed it: wether proper analytics methodology has been applied, and whether it is getting results. Amazingly, given all their expertise , the real answer is not going to come from privacy activists. They never have, do not, and never will have the answer to whether correlation of phone meta data creates recognizable patterns that allow us to target specific phones, that have had contact with bad guy phones, for further investigation. That is exactly what the bulk meta collection is about. In fact, this: does NOT bear repeating. Not at all. Not if you understand how things really work in intelligence. The NSA would concede that they had a flying pig program, and wasted millions on it, if it meant keeping their people and methods safe. Or, more importantly, if it meant serving up false intelligence to the enemy. Denying that it works, could just as easily mean that it has stopped a terrorist attack. They will never, ever admit that it has worked, even if it has once, and doubly so if has worked multiple times. Not ever. That's the kind of ***** that gets declassified maybe 100 years from now, if and only if the same method can't be applied to the technology of that time. Get it? Once more: if it works, and they say it does, the enemy will change tactics, and now they lose the method. Thus, they will always deny: 1. They are doing it 2. That it works It's the same reason they say "torture doesn't work." You focus on that, and you stop focusing on whether they are doing it or not. So, enough with the nonsense. Snowden doesn't know jack schit about the effectiveness of the program, and he never did. The ONLY people who will ever be able to TRULY tell if what I described above works are the POTUS, the program managers, and whoever is "read in" to it. IF it works, the POTUS will do it, and tough schit if you don't like it. If it doesn't work, the NSA will leak that it does, and then publicy deny that it does. If for no other reason than to force our enemies into changing tactics...the ones we want them to employ. Thus, we will NEVER know if it works. That presents us with 3 logical cases: 1. It doesn't work, and they will deny they are doing it. 2. It does work, and they will deny they are doing it 3. They will find something that works better, do that, but continue to deny they are doing the old thing. Notice a pattern? Rand Paul is right when he says we have to watch government carefully. But, I am also right about those 3 being the only logical cases. Remember the Star Wars Program from the 80s? All complete BS. But, Gorbachev bought it whole: He demanded we shut down a pure fantasy, in return for his real nukes, as part of the negotiations. For all we know, this entire thing is an operation, and a very clever one. Send patsy Snowden out with half-ass info about a method we don't use, leak/deny, repeat, etc...to protect the methods we do use. Hell, for all we know they could have profiled Snowden and hired him purpose, knowing he would turn traitor. They could have easily manipulated a dumbass like Snowden into thinking he's being "the hero". Like it or not, that's how real intelligence/counter-intelligence works, and they do schit like this every day.

And again I ask: do you really expect us to focus on McCain, and not Obama, regarding Syria? Who created the "red line" in Syria? Who pulled our troops out of places like Fallujah and Ramadi, that they took from the enemy, directly due to The Surge, that clowns like you told us would never work? Why are we hearing the names of those towns on the news again? Is that McCain's fault, or Obama's? Are you ever going to answer for being completely wrong about The Surge? Or, is this your way of getting back at McCain for being the #1 supporter of The Surge, and therefore, the #1 propopent of making you into an assclown?

Don't worry, we're only at "the beginning" of those 1000 years. Baskin is only at the beginning of explaining why an 18-year pause, that doesn't exist, needs an explanation. And finally, we are only at the beginning of my plan to sell kayaks, for charity of course, at Battery Park next year. I'm thinking Paper Mache, using the New York Times. But I don't know. It may be more fun to use plastic bottles. Either way, goal #1 is to find a way to sucker MSNBC into putting us on their air, and for one of us to explain that the reason we need kayaks is the water..."don't you realize you're standing in 3 feet of water? It's just like Al Gore said it would be!".

Of course we know about the incoherent speech given by Obama to the Coast Guard(of all the services) in which he declares Global Warming to be their biggest enemy...as if their real enemies, drug/weapons smugglers, terrorists, hurricanes...aren't the actual enemies they will be facing next month. I heard that, and I figured "That's par for that idiot's course". Then, I had the wonderful experience of attending RIT's Convocation this past Friday. I got to see old friends, and see my cousin graduate, so 99% of this was great. However, the 1% that was not: the keynote speaker was the head of Nasa. He gave a mostly wonderful speech. However, it included a contextually awkward reference to Global Warming, in that it required every student, of every major, at an engineering school, to "solve Global Warmning" Later, it morphed for 2 minutes into a weird race thing, that tried to conflate the struggles of the deaf with the struggles of race, and of course included a story about something somebody did to him that was racist...back in 1960-something. And, after each, it was right back to positive, approaching Tony Robbins, material. It seemed to me that both sections were very awkwardly inserted into his speech, since both threw off his rythm, and sorta cut against the positive and uplifting grain. He was able to ad-lib off of some things the RIT president and others had said just before him, so it's not like the guy is a bad speaker. Thus, I can't help but wonder: did the WH put out "speeching points" to this guy and demanded he include these things at the last minute? Did anybody else attend a graduation where a high-level Obama Admin. person spoke, and did you hear the same weirdness I did? I don't believe in coincidence. And, while 2 is not a pattern, 3 is.

Oh WTF is this? Now we are at "the beginning" again? Hey Assclown: We were "at the beginning", depending on which (*^*&%^$^#made the claim, in 1996, 1999, 2001, and 2006(AL Gore saying NYC's current shores will be covered in 3 feet of water, which is why I will be selling kayaks in Battery Park this time next year). It was "settled" that we were at "the beginning", and headed towards "the end" at least 10 F'ing years ago. birdog: what in the Sam Hell is this? Don't you find it a little hilarious? I'll ask you the same thing I asked GreggyT. Is there a line that these clowns can cross for you, where you call BS on them? Does that line exist, or are you on board no matter how ridiculous this thing gets? Apparently eternally being at "the beginning" is how they explain this *****: Hey Baskin, I have a "puzzling"( using that word is the cherry, isn't it?) question for you: Why do we need yet another speculation about what is causing the "pause" in Global Warming? I mean, since you've decided that all of us are "science" illiterate, why do the supposedly enlightened High Priests of Global Warming need to explain what is "settled"? If there is no 18 year pause, why are they offering an explanation for it? Answer the question. You can look down your nose at whoever, that's fine, this is PPP...but...answer the F'ing question. There will be no peace for you here until you do. ---------- I love how instead of "The Ocean", in general, it's now: "The Indian Ocean". "Oh, yeah, well, see, now we've found the culprit, and we are being specific: It's the Indian Ocean! So of course we are right. The Pacific was being framed by the Indian Ocean all along. But now, we've got our man!" Why does this story sound exactly like corrupt cops killing an innocent witness to their crimes, and then planting a "throw away" weapon on him, so that they can claim self defense? The Indian Ocean == the black kid witness, who was gonna be a doctor, dies in the B cop movie, with the environtologists playing the corrupt cops. Now, if only Stephen Seagal or Jean Claude Van Damme is available...we'd have ourselves a movie. What did the Indian Ocean do to deserve such slander?

But what if he owns a hockey team in LA?

But, there's... Especially for the Organized Team type, ever since the "last post wins" and the first Obamacare thread were retired. Think of all the space we have on the hard disk now. It's making my head spin.

In other news, the Bills are not moving to LA.

The irony of that eludes you. How hilarious, for me.

A lawyer with reading comprehension problems? Read it again. The first question has an "or" in it, not an "and". Hint: "Or" doesn't mean "and". The second question distinguishes itself as a separate condition, because it starts with "And,". "Them" is intentionally not specific nor is it inclusive. Them is general, and "all at the same time" clearly refers to covering many players at once, and, due to the separate condition, and the use of "or" in the first sentence, cannot refer to all listed players being on the field at the same time. Either way your interpretation is wrong. You conflated the meaning of 2 separate and disctinct sentences, for reasons passing understanding. Nice work, counselor. Aren't language skills important in your job?

Why not do this? If the NFL as a whole is going to show us anything, why should it be the old extra point? Where's the entertainment value in it? What does it provide us now, other than extra time for a dopey announcer to trip over his words as he tries to describe the recent TD, but also tries to acknowledge the XP "action", at the same time?(Yes, I'm looking at you Rich Gannon) Hell, half the time they go from the highights, to the ball sailing through the uprights, and you don't even see the kick. Think of it this way: what's the Shout Song going to be like when we go for 2 and Shady/Fred/Karlos Williams gets it? Snoopy x2. We aren't doing it to tie late in the game. I bet Rex says we are doing it on the first TD of the game, and that gives us all, players and fans, momentum. Or think about the difference between going for 2 in Buffalo, vs., going for 2 in Miami?. If anything, the more teams go for 2, the bigger our home field advantage gets. We can demoralize a D by converting 2 pt trys, one after the next. Meanwhile on O, they are giving our crowd time to set up and bring the noise from the endzone, not allowing them to audible? That's home field advantage. We may very well end up winning more than a few games this way.

Pats Fans Report: I was in Boston this past weekend, and got to hear a lot of Patriot fan opinions. Most were garbage. Some don't even know that Rex Ryan is the Bills coach, or that Pegula bought the team. A few actually thought the "Bills to LA" thing was still in play. /facepalm 1. However, one interesting question was: "The refs spot the ball on every single play. Can't they tell if a ball is deflated by mere "feel"? The group I was with was divided: some said of course, refs have been doing this for years. Others said it was impossible to tell. Nobody could prove anything, and nobody wants to buy 2 NFL balls for the experiment. But, you would think somebody in the media would do that. 2. I have thought it was going to be 2 games since the beginning of this mess. 2 games, after the appeal, which is why they went 4 games initially. This, plus Goddell handling it himself, is all a way to make him look "judicious" after the Ray Rice mess. Some of the Pats fans were deluding themselves thinking that Brady was going to get off clean, but were corrected by others who essentially said the 1-2 games he will get on appeal are for "lying when you didn't have to"... whatever that means. I didn't say anything about "deflate gate". Why bother? I enjoyed the schadenfreude. As a deflection, some of the Pats fans initially tried scoffing at me regarding our team, and of course 1-2 were being real d!cks. However, I hit them with facts/tough questions, just like I do here: 1. "Who in your secondary can cover Watkins, Woods, Harvin, Goodwin, 7/11 or Shady/Fred out of the backfield...once, never mind the whole game? And, how do you cover them all at the same time? Even with average QB play, somebody is going to be open, every play." That question made me the real deflator! You should have seen their faces. I deflated an entire party of 60 people. One poor bastard's half-hearted reply: "We're going to play a lot of zone!" Yeah. He really said that. 2. One turd tells me "I don't want to be part of a family/connected with other fans and the players, I just want to win". I will see that guy when Brady/Belechick leave, his team sucks, and he's standing in Foxboro's parking lot by himself before/after the game. That was like the opposite of a humble brag. My response: "Why even say that at all...if not to acknowledge that what Bills fans have is better?" Man, you wanna talk about deflation? I thought he was gonna cry. Talk about "No reply at all" 3. "You keep tallking about the Bills offense, I notice you haven't said much about our D, whose last action against Brady saw him get chased. Then we knocked the crap out of Garrapolo after he came in cocky. You've lost key players on O, while we've gotten better on D, and now have Rex Ryan coaching. We're the consensus #1 Defense in football. Now what?". Capital D Deflation. Poor simpleton Pats fans. There's so much they know that isn't so. Finally, we have stick checks in lacrosse. The refs either randomly take a stick and check it when and if they want to, or depending on league rules, always check at least one stick every half/quarter. Same thing can be done with footballs.