GHFigs

8 ms·

31.
by GHFigs 12y ago
It's subtly transphobic that you limited the discussion to men and women.
32.
by GHFigs 12y ago
I'm not clear on what you think I made up or what viewpoint you think I'm standing by.
33.
by GHFigs 12y ago
It's terrible that you think reflexively apologizing is the same thing as politeness.
34.
by GHFigs 12y ago
You also said that "members of US/UK Government may believe that if one provides "incidental help" to the current ideological enemies of the US you are a terrorist/extremist", which you haven't shown at al
35.
by GHFigs 12y ago
Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000 does not require a person to be a "terrorist" or imply that anybody detained under its authority is thought to be one. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11&#
36.
by GHFigs 12y ago
I'm telling you because you're the one that thinks you're a target.
37.
by GHFigs 12y ago
Because that's what this leak seems to be implying. Are you looking at the evidence or the articles written about it? Because the evidence is simply that there exists a method to select Tor-related traffic out of a stream. That alone
38.
by GHFigs 12y ago
You're right, they just monitor and log everything and everyone on Linux Journals forums. That's a contradiction. If you believe the latter, you don't think I'm right.
39.
by GHFigs 12y ago
You're nuts if you think there's significant overlap between yours and the activities of the people responsible for things like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_20...
40.
by GHFigs 12y ago
Nowhere in the evidence is there any indication that the NSA classifies Linux Journal as an extremist forum, or that it considers the readers extremists.
41.
by GHFigs 12y ago
I say this because that was my first impression, which seemed off, leading me to google, then to wikipedia, and then back here in a huff. I'm not sure I understand why you think an NSA analyst (who, inexplicably, is editing an XKEYSC
42.
by GHFigs 12y ago
There's no indication that there is such a rating exists, or that any such decisions are made based on automated rules. It's a tool for selecting some traffic out of all traffic, not for replacing human analysis or decision-making
43.
by GHFigs 12y ago
I think those assumptions are not supported by the available evidence[1], and that the authors they know this. Who cares what the NSA says? I'm looking at the same thing the authors are presenting and drawing different conclusions. [1]
44.
by GHFigs 12y ago
Yes, I read it, and I stand by what I said. The article explains a set of rules used to filter a set of information out of another set, but it does not support claims about what is done with that set of information. There is a lot of insinu
45.
by GHFigs 12y ago
My point is that they (the authors of the article) don't have that context. They're just covering up the lack of information with FUD.
46.
by GHFigs 12y ago
We have no context for what "flagged" or "monitoring" means, though. There's no indication that these rules are taken to mean anything in isolation beyond what is frankly common sense. The idea that just Googling Ta
47.
by GHFigs 12y ago
That doesn't make sense to me. It's a definition that relates to the people they're looking for. That it's explicitly more specific than "all Tails users" really doesn't seem disheartening to me. That Ta
48.
by GHFigs 12y ago
The article commented has the whole context. It really doesn't. In spite of repeatedly claiming things like that people searching for Tor are "monitored" or users are "tracked", it's completely vague about wh
49.
by GHFigs 12y ago
Nobody said that.
50.
by GHFigs 12y ago
4chan : intelligent individuals :: Mos Eisley : Han Solo & Chewbacca
51.
by GHFigs 12y ago
The definition that searching google gives is "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims", which drone attacks certainly fit into. I think the point is that drone strikes (targeting angry people with
52.
by GHFigs 12y ago
Assuming you know the frequency a drone is flying on, it is trivial to jam. Hence they make it hard to know the frequency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_hopping
53.
by GHFigs 12y ago
Apparently, USAF pilots aren't trained to watch out for mountains descending from above them.
54.
by GHFigs 12y ago
this great comic strip Talking points from this great book: "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman, from 1985: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_ourselves_to_death
55.
by GHFigs 12y ago
I guess it suggests the character assassination attempts against him worked. Plenty of people thought Assange was full of him self well-before the rape accusation (that pionar didn't even mention) or any other supposed character assa
56.
by GHFigs 12y ago
I had a convoluted method using gifsicle to extract the frames and then encode as a stream of frames, but then sometime in the past year or so ffmpeg improved native gif support. This is what I use (the options are both for compatibility):
57.
by GHFigs 12y ago
Or do they do striaghtforward police work, provide a detail of officers at protests and counterprotests just in case anything gets out of hand, and generally behave reasonably? According to the documents Naomi Wolf (your link!) cites , t
58.
by GHFigs 12y ago
You may find this book interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer
59.
by GHFigs 12y ago
What are you even talking about? "Wrong" people? Aaron Swartz? I'm just saying the documents mentioned above[1] don't back up your claims, and that what they do describe is mundane, expected behavior. (I know this beca
60.
by GHFigs 12y ago
All I can speak to is that I've never had a problem reading. I didn't even realize the recent versions support forms until this thread.

More ›