The United States will cut off its connections with Chinese telecom operators

bdl

@Not_Oles said:
Hello @TimboJones from the LET Mod Team. The Team discussed the first two of the following posts in connection with your past history of severe warnings over several years for using extreme language. The decision was made to suspend your account so as to give you a week off to calm down.

@TimboJones said: Official disagreement. In my experience, the people who whine about other people's language have fucked up ethics themselves (e.g. religious fucks).

@TimboJones said: I'm afraid you're less technically skilled as I thought.

@TimboJones said: What are you talking about? Can't be talking about the US and the last 80+ years.

We look forward to seeing you again after your week off! When you return, please try to take it easy! Thanks very much for your careful consideration. Best wishes!

complete side question, but if @TimboJones has been suspended, how could they see this post? Or does a suspension mean that the account is put into read-only "look but don't touch" mode? I've never been suspended hence curious how it works.

Maounique

@bdl said: complete side question, but if @TimboJones has been suspended, how could they see this post? Or does a suspension mean that the account is put into read-only "look but don't touch" mode? I've never been suspended hence curious how it works.

Everyone can read without being logged in except some sections. So he doesnt need to login to read.

For example, when Jarland banned me he proceeded to spread lies about me in the "cest pit" which was one of those areas I could not read.
I don't recall which are the areas no longer accessible to regular members (of course, besides those available to specific groups), but I believe the off-topic areas are not accessible.

Maounique

@TimboJones said: I don't think you read the article or understand the issue (as others have demonstrated). And if you claim you do, I'm afraid you're less technically skilled as I thought.

I did read (the reuters one) and understood what it meant, but I was actually discussing some hypothesis someone put up here (and correctly quoted that bit).

I basically said that IF that was the goal, then it was a huge failure.
Also, the next comments were expanding a bit saying that, if they wanted to stop the hackers from using that infrastructure, then you don't need a Chinese company to offer retail service tot he americans, they only need one individual to buy such services and either deliberately put a vulnerable system online OR (and this does not need ANY kind of infrastructure owned or otherwise controlled by the CCP) simply FIND one vulnerable system out of the probably millions "available".

stefeman

Lol this thread is a ban magnet.