opendais

26 ms·

211.
by opendais 12y ago
No, it isn't. If I don't have the ability to prevent 3rd parties from entering my house, it isn't a wild exaggeration.
212.
by opendais 12y ago
Well, I kinda view giving my keys to BigCorp as leaving the door unlocked. From a privacy standpoint, I think that is also how it works [e.g. 3rd party doctrine]
213.
by opendais 12y ago
Life. At least it'll continue to exist in some form.
214.
by opendais 12y ago
I try not to judge the past I suppose.
215.
by opendais 12y ago
> legally entitled to break into your house even if you don't want them to. You even admit I'm right yet claim I'm not. So I'm kinda confused. The key phrase there is "break in". As in, they acquire access
216.
by opendais 12y ago
Exactly. The FBI's argument is basically: "Leave your front door unlocked. Just in case we want to search you for drugs/obscene material/weapons/etc." I don't know about you, but I don't want to leave
217.
by opendais 12y ago
ROFLMAO. If you don't fix the policies, they just hire replacements. You even admit it is how it works. "The strategy seems to make a lot of TSA employees feel bad, so the turnover there is quite high, but enough people need any j
218.
by opendais 12y ago
That isn't relevant. If you don't fix the policies, they just hire replacements.
219.
by opendais 12y ago
One of which was stripped of their status. Of the targeted group, less than a third were Republicans. If you bothered to put any effort into researching it you'd turn up the keyword list that includes the keywords. I'm not sure wh
220.
by opendais 12y ago
Yes, that is the Republican spin. Do you feel "open source software" is the political enemy of the president? That received the same level of scrutiny along with "progressive". http://www.bloomberg.com/ne
221.
by opendais 12y ago
Because focusing on the IRS ignores the fact Congress can alter the IRS's mandate at-will to remove any of the policies of the IRS that is considered "bad". The President and his appointees can alter things within the mandate
222.
by opendais 12y ago
My point is, it tried and failed to make enough to pay for FTEs. Ello might have runway to try for awhile.
223.
by opendais 12y ago
I think you meant "Fuck you, US Congress". The IRS is the enforcer, not the source.
224.
by opendais 12y ago
Eh, http://blog.app.net/2014/05/06/app-net-state-of-the-union/ I'm not sure app.net can be considered a viable long term solution.
225.
by opendais 12y ago
Yes but honestly, Google's level of corruption is tolerable. Frankly, it is expected. No organization of Google's size can completely avoid the idea that "what is good for us == good for customers". I'm pretty sure
226.
by opendais 12y ago
Eh, I also included periods during the Gold Standard in the previous post: 1917 12.5 15.4 14.3 18.9 19.6 20.4 18.5 19.3 19.8 19.5 17.4 18.1 17.4 1918 19.7 17.5 16.7 12.7 13.3 13.1 18.0 18.5 18.0 18.5 20.7 20.4 18.0 1919 17.9 14.9 17.1 17.6
227.
by opendais 12y ago
Eh, just require all profits above $XX million to go to paying down the national debt. Its a government sponsored monopoly that he is suggesting, its reasonable to cap its profits.
228.
by opendais 12y ago
Many, many people use gas tumble dryers in the US. They are slightly more upfront but 50-75% cheaper in the long run to operate.
229.
by opendais 12y ago
So, basically, your argument is you ignore reality and substitute your own. The Gold Standard pegged the cost of one good [gold] to the price of the USD. It didn't magically make inflation disappear. RE: Bretton Woods Fixing the exchan
230.
by opendais 12y ago
> In 1971 the US ended the Bretton Woods system, finally freeing the dollar from any pegging. (Thanks for the wrong hint) Eh? You were complaining about inflation not foreign exchange rates. For reference you said: > In this sense, ta
231.
by opendais 12y ago
No, you have it backwards. The Gold Standard died in 1934 when the President was authorized to devalue the Dollar up to 40%. In the 70s, things were fine. It wasn't until the 80s when the "$30/hr" bit started to fall off
232.
by opendais 12y ago
So what? He should screw his business partners out of 2 billion so he could keep a promise from years ago when he had no clue how this would go? Especially a promise to a community that throws him under the bus whenever something happens th
233.
by opendais 12y ago
May I suggest you research that analogy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_light_control_and_coord... http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/videolog/ "The New Jersey Dep
234.
by opendais 12y ago
> Comcast doesn’t monitor our customer’s browser software, web surfing or online history. That implies in relation to browser/web surfing. In relation to that, it implies browser history to me.
235.
by opendais 12y ago
My point is they are logging some things aren't very open about what exactly they log. They use ambiguous wording.
236.
by opendais 12y ago
Eh? They stated they didn't monitor stuff via a browser. The thing is, a client connection to the TOR network wouldn't look like a HTTP request. So "No we don't monitor your browser traffic" is the equivalent of say
237.
by opendais 12y ago
"Comcast did not respond to our inquiries but has mentioned a 180 day retention policy for IP-addresses in BitTorrent-related court documents. On some occasions cases have been dismissed because logs were no longer available, meaning t
238.
by opendais 12y ago
I think you are ignoring the condition on that sentence. "Once sales start dying and a minimum time has passed, I will release the game source code as some kind of open source."
239.
by opendais 12y ago
Sorry, I thought the context was clear. I was talking about an end user as described in the OP. Yes, if its an exit node that is the case.
240.
by opendais 12y ago
Eh? https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2011-June/02... http://www.dailydot.com/politics/six-steps-nsa-attack-tor/ Yes they can tell if you use TOR. TOR is like a VPN, i

More ›