Not at all. I think it's humorous (or would be, if it didn't contribute to a large body of evidence about the Clinton way of doing things) to think that one of Obama's would-be (at the time) cabinet secretaries, the moment she was named for the job, ran out and paid cash to have a personal mail server set up under a false registrant's name, specifically so that nobody could ever know which or her emails was, or wasn't part of her official legacy in that job - despite the law requiring her to make all such communication part of her ongoing records at State. That she did this under the table, and never even set up an official mailbox at State, and was magically able, for years, to avoid FOIA requests for her official communications, is just fantastically corrupt. The parallels with some IT guy in Mexico being asked to set up a shadow communications platform for a corrupt cartel there aren't imaginary, they're actually interesting.

It's topical because new of Clinton's furtive behavior along these lines is breaking right now, and it's a related topic. The main point of interest for this audience is the notion of being asked (or forced, in the example of TFA) to set up systems under dubious conditions (legality-wise), and keeping mum to avoid the sort of heat that can come down on them from the people who want the work done.

He wants to belieber him.

I wonder if that's the same guy who worked under a fictitious name, for cash, to set up the private e-mail server and domain that Hillary Clinton used for HER back-channel communications, in lieu of an official mailbox, throughout her entire tenure as Secretary of State. It has to be odd to be an IT consultant with a high profile customer like that and be unable to mention the gig on your CV. We've all worked under NDAs, but I guess working for a well-funded person or group that insists you actually use a fake name with the registrars and take cash (if you're lucky!) for the job would certainly take on a different flavor.

snowden has a lot of options, he could wipe his mind clean and then be completely a vegitable. for one. i'm sure there are bugs that would love to infest his brain too... or he could just learn how to spontaneously combust. he could try to grow plants inside his body that use fusion to power their growth and petrify his heart while he still lives. he could use an array of abacus to start number crunching the full length string of pi. he could lock his brain in a infinite loop of forkbombs... even if they dd his brain the password file is probably eroded from the acid rain. so only guest accounts with no passwords can log in...

they are using an hp calculator which is based off an array of abacus, so it only has -200 beads to +200 beads.

i would use Moble payments but i live too far from alabama.

because when she said 'zfs has DEduplication' she though that meant sending the whole ball of wax to be duplicated in DE(germany)

"One set of algorithms, good for the lifetime of the device..."

well the easy way to do that is set the device lifetime to 5 seconds. it takes 6 seconds to look up a rainbow table.

then bride of godzilla can finally be made!

"I'm always amazed that they were able to build a civilization in such a thick jungle."

have you ever heard of Wraith bioelectronics? how about Zerg bio-infestation? what about the orc former ally the undead serving nazul?

a zero-point-module can sustain a sufficently large jungle if it gets one the above applied to it.

packet injection for dummies.
1. user initiates comms
2. MITM detects comms
3. MITM rewrited packet headers and sends falsified packets AS user
4. Computer reads funny joke
5. computer spits coffee into keyboard
6. device is fried, user is blamed.
7. government sells broken device to user
8. user can't push device sold to them
9. user wishes it never happened
10. quantum paradox occurs
11. server reboots
12. ???
13. nuked from orbit
14. goto step 1.
15. bitch complains about tight loop.

OK, and digging loose change out of your couch cushions is you making use of a banking platform.

Everybody involved here knows that "investment" means something very specific when you're handing money to a company to use in the formation and growth of their business. What happens when you funnel money towards a favored project through Kickstarter is no more an investment than losing some change in your couch is you making a bank deposit.

There's nothing wrong with Kickstarter or with people on both ends of the gift-giving making use of it. But it's not an investment. If you're one of these people that thinks you've just "invested" money when you go to see a movie, then the term - to you - is so absurdly broad as to have no meaning, especially not in the context of an actual discussion about business finance and project funding.

That is one thing that it absolutely is NOT. It's a donation platform, and some people asking for donations offer some incentives in exchange for your generosity. That's it. There is no investment. People who've given money are not vested in any way, except perhaps emotionally.

More than a quarter of British Muslims recently polled said they support militant Islamists who attack westerners they consider out of line with jihaddi sensibilities. That's 27% who applaud the slaughter of magazine publishers by ISIS-associated Muslim fanboys/girls. Those people think that ISIS is very Muslim, and is in fact a better example of practicing Islam than the more "moderate" groups who don't practice or support such violence. What is it, exactly, that you think Obama is demonstrating to those millions of people who simply laugh at his assessment of the Muslim-ness of one group or the next?

With whom are you having that debate? Bombs aren't supposed to make distinctions between innocent people and medieval-minded wackadoos following the Koran's guidance and lopping heads off of the local insufficiently-Islmaic villagers. It's human intel, targeting, and decisions that make that distinction.

No, you're just annoyed that someone actually paid attention to the words someone said.