rfctr

6 ms·

31.
by rfctr 13y ago
Suppose the US government is right, and it is totally OK to indiscriminately kill a bunch of bystanders and innocents to get to a single target who allegedly is an enemy. Isn't it OK then to selectively, cleanly, kill one alleged enemy
32.
by rfctr 13y ago
Sorry, got upset as I usually get when I hear "Russians did something we do not fully understand. Simple: vodka must be involved!". Zhukov couldn't drink Coke when others drink vodka. For one thing, vodka is not consumed from
33.
by rfctr 13y ago
[Edit] Updated it for better clarity. Sorry for imperfect English.
34.
by rfctr 13y ago
The goal was to make it NOT look as Coke, which was a well-known symbol of USA. The idea it should look like vodka is just ridiculous. In the conditions when it is OK to drink vodka, Russians drink vodka, not Coke. In the conditions when it
35.
by rfctr 13y ago
This is the typical BS. [Edit] Are you expecting Zhukov, the top Russian commander, to drink vodka where it is not appropriate? I couldn't stop be amused at how much Westerners' image of the world is distorted.
36.
by rfctr 13y ago
I strongly believe now Linus' mother had an affair in Russia ! (Its only 100 or so kilometers to the border) That kind of working environment: "I openly tell you when you do s--t but I do not hold grudge against you, it is for our
37.
by rfctr 13y ago
Moral laws are sooooo vastly different among people that an attempt to adhere to them will equal to general anarchy.
38.
by rfctr 13y ago
Yes, on HN is it public (for example) that a user with a nickname "abcdefg" made some statement about cryptography in general and some government projects in particular. What is not public is who is "abcdefg" in the real
39.
by rfctr 13y ago
> right now the evidence points towards Yahoo doing that better than most I see your point. Still, Yahoo may be just the first to win the right to disclose. Similar decisions may follow towards Google and MS, for example, and -- oh horro
40.
by rfctr 13y ago
> "The Government shall conduct a declassification review of this Court's Memorandum Opinion of [Yahoo's case] and the legal briefs submitted by the parties to this Court," the ruling read. What I don't get here:
41.
by rfctr 13y ago
As long as laws in particular jurisdiction remain the same, nothing could change much. May be gets a little less public, eh.
42.
by rfctr 13y ago
Yahoo won a right to demonstrate they did resist the government. They did resist, but have lost anyway. So... no. Yahoo is not a NSA-free land.
43.
by rfctr 13y ago
In USA Yahoo complies with US laws. In China Yahoo complies with Chinese laws. Dura lex sed lex.
44.
by rfctr 13y ago
I read it carefully. Name "Putin" is not mentioned anywhere in the Investigation section. Please stick to the facts.
45.
by rfctr 13y ago
You certainly have a court decision or at least an official accusation to support your claim? Just asking.
46.
by rfctr 13y ago
I'm sorry, but doesn't DANE RFC (DNS-based check of certs validity) solve the same problem and already implemented in Chrome and (via a plugin) Firefox? With DANE, one doesn't even need CA to issue the cert -- self-signed wil
47.
by rfctr 13y ago
The post is not against DDG. It is against the unreasonable expectations for privacy when using DDG.
48.
by rfctr 13y ago
As a Russian, I'm proud of good things my government does (including Snowden's case) and ashamed of bad things it does (those things are offtopic in this discussion though).