Recent comments

Wahaha wrote

Reply to comment by !deleted261 in by !deleted152

Why shouldn't it, though? Privacy obviously isn't a huge concern for most people, else the "have nothing to hide crowd" wouldn't be the majority.

1

Wahaha wrote

Reply to comment by !deleted152 in by !deleted152

You find it reasonable for a paid actor to say that one movie they did ten years ago should now be forbidden because they feel like it? I find the notion ridiculous.

Pictures of you are only personal if taken in a personal space. If your picture is taken while you are at a train station, for example, that is not personal data of you. It's a picture of a public place that you happened to be in as part of the public.

If you decide to appear in a movie, the expectation should be for other people to see it. Otherwise, why do it in the first place? Isn't the entire point of doing so to share it with others? Even if those others are only expected to be a small, private audience. How could a difference in audience size lead to the experience to become haunting and traumatizing? Violation of privacy, sure, but that's a completely different issue.

This also reminds me of the hero buying nude pictures from sluts only to send those pictures to their parents. The sluts were probably 'haunted' and 'traumatized' by that, too, despite openly selling their own nudes.

1

not_bob wrote

I would also suggest that users add my hosts.txt file.

http://notbob.i2p/hosts.txt

Or if you are feeling brave I also have a list of every host I have ever found.

http://notbob.i2p/hosts-all.txt

Note that these are automaticity generated from ongoing scans of the network and only include alive hosts. If a host has been dead too long it gets removed from the list.

You can see the full details at http://notbob.i2p

3

Seidoken wrote

As long as the ATF are allowed to dictate law without congressional approval I wont consider this a win. The likely did this because they were worried that enough people would contact there congressmen or file law suits against them.

2

smooth_jazz wrote

I can import and export jpg files just fine on gimp 2.10.
If you're talking about not being able to "Save" or "Save As" a jpg, all you have to do is select "Export" or "Export As" (Ctrl+E and Ctrl+Shift+E) from the same menu or just replace the Ctrl+S for the same.

1

Rambler wrote

Hey /u/trw, thanks for stopping by. I still need to read up on federated sites more, it's certainly something I've seen mentioned often but not something I'm personally all too familiar with beyond the most basic gist.

I'll add that to the list of things I should know more about, haha.

1

Rambler OP wrote

If anyone is familiar with the ATF and their ever changing interpretations of their own damn rules, you'll understand that this is a big win. They will, seemingly on a whim, pass conflicting statements on gun parts that they previously approved without issue, and sometimes (as seen) reverse those opinions and interpretations again, later.

At least we don't have to worry about getting in trouble for shouldering a pistol brace anymore. I remember having to hold it away from me or cheek weld it anytime the range had some fudds there.

1

trw OP wrote

Hi rambler,

nice to see this new site, and the quite frequent use of it. Really like the site as such, as well as the cross network thing you have set up here. Should you ever think about federation, please give us a call at the rocksolid forums.

cheers

trw

1

Rambler OP wrote

I'm going to pin this for a little while just because it's a damn thorough read with good content.

I'm not affiliated with the creator in any way, just thought it was worth the extra attention that pinning it may bring.

1

Wahaha wrote

Reply to by !deleted152

If it's so haunting and traumatizing, they shouldn't have starred in a porn movie, shouldn't they? Whatever happened to personal responsibility for ones action?

2

Wahaha wrote

Since Gimp 2.8 the software refuses to let you open a jpg and save it as jpg. You have to use export instead and jump through some hoops. If you try to save, Gimp tells you no can do. In a really condescending way, too. Pissed me off so much the first time, I immediately rolled it back. Since then I've tried a few more times, but this weird workflow of opening jpgs and having to export them doesn't work for me.

It's an image editor as far as I'm concerned. It's supposed to edit images. Not create elaborate projects worth saving. I open, I edit, I save (to jpg) and I'm done. The stupid export thing will also sometimes keep a useless xfc file. Really aggravating. Like you're not supposed to use the thing as an image editor. Devs have also been extremely conceited when it was pointed out to them how stupid this change was and basically told everyone raising concerns they should use something else. Therefore, this project is pretty much dead to me.

1

Wahaha wrote

Heh,.. I never forgave them for the "I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you save as *jpg" bullshit, so I stuck with 2.6 and will continue to do so. Possibly I'm completely moving over to ImageMagick, though. Already use it for most of my image editing.

2

Rambler OP wrote

Thanks!

~$ torsocks curl -s https://check.torproject.org/ | grep Congratulations.
 Congratulations. This browser is configured to use Tor.
 Congratulations. This browser is configured to use Tor.

Still no go in Thunderbird with setting up the proxy. I'll dig into it more, because I think that's the ticket. The TorBirdy plugin is outdated and has been for a while, which is what seems to be used previously. I may boot up in Tails or something similar to see if the issue persists.

1