web site: "We didn't find any XXXX but here are some other options you might be interested in."
IMHO - if the above is all it takes to steer clear of any "initial interest confusion" and not, as someone mentioned above, as a bunch of almost but not quite relevant "clickbait" results, which they are, at least in part, then where's the actual issue?
I only see it this way because on several occasions I've been served initial query results that were initially presented as successful matches - which they were most certainly not. Yes, I can see that these things are not the things that I'm looking for but, sometimes, there is actually the gem you're looking for buried within the crap you weren't looking for but that sort of depends upon the sites you're frequenting. A clear indicator that what you're looking for does not exist is not too much to ask and, also IMHO, Amazon knows exactly when there is not a direct match for your query..
I'd call it a fucking courtesy, actually (and I'm very fond of courtesy fucks) and it's one of the reasons I try to avoid Amazon when I know exactly what I'm looking for, that and they absolutely crush (emphasis *crush*) my browser experience.
Perhaps because the whistle blower said so? But if you'll pay attention you might see that leaders, in general, aren't quite taking this tube thing altogether seriously. The efforts to preserve the global power structures are only going to get more interesting. And when you need to take a break from watching leaders rip apart their own insides you can watch a MAFIAA cartoon sideshow.
From this angle Russia seems to be led by a bunch of thieves and murderous villain types, at the moment. Israel? Sheesh, if God wrote down that's their land well I guess that gives them the right to, you know, kick shit over and plant a ranch. Great Britain? The "ban encryption" great britain? Snooper's paradise great britain? Fuck those guys.
They're all pissing in the pot that, by right of our own existence, belongs to all of us, and then some. Just ask one of the seven guys that practically own the planet, they'll tell you, power is intoxicating, even for idiots that figure out how to charm crowds and countries.
I think that the electorate chose to use a system, the legal system, to deal with these overwhelmingly(imho) unconstitutional intrusions. If that system is failing us then, reasonably, that failure falls squarely on the lawyers. It is when complete failure is realized that the electorate must face the question of whether or not they are willing to "back them up" - when the legal system fails (the real one and not this hokey-shit made up secret one) then "we", those that believe our liberties are dear, have no choice other than to fight or succumb to a New World Order, on that has been freed from the shackles designed by the Founders.
erhm, how about we count the number of active federal terrorism sting operations that were taking place at the time of the Boston event and then sit and continue to wonder how previously flagged individuals did not merit active observations and investigations?
Oh, and an investigation is not really a sting, is it? where the latter is a much more comfortable and controllable situation for those involved.. i.e. a setup, thus making your seemingly fear based comment somewhat irrelevant and fuddy in my eyes.
*I* would rather see the feds slip anonymous tips to these "vulnerable" folks tipping them off to the fact that they're being "watched" thereby helping to filter the fuckers from the idiots - but I like daydreaming too. I always think we're too hell-bent on catching a perp than protecting people, potential perp or not, fabricated or not, but I'm aware the entire structure is formed around "the crime" so it is what it is. Besides, a life free from risk sounds a lot like death so fuck any natsec that successfully drives a stake through the middle of why we have a nation in the first place.
And Feinstein..? just. wow. - time's well past up for that resident rep I'd have to say
Indeed. I'm going to investigate and see what's up because, to me, this sounds very attractive.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the premise that "they don't know what the internet is" because, well, internet. It doesn't take a genius to pop a tab and research along side what has piqued your interest.
I try to maintain a "verify thrice" approach to most things especially anything internet and just because one site doesn't attempt to lead me through my world on their leash for the rest of the hour or day doesn't make their position one of denial, it makes it refreshing, sort of like headphones when my mom is talking at me.
The internet, like the earth, is built with everything required to support everyone. Funny that, also like the earth, there are groups of people hell-bent on containing, controlling or otherwise destroying the very thing that supports all of us without prejudice.
China's had a good run. I can appreciate the efforts.
The Internet is free speech for the planet, one way or another. We're all going to have to step it up a notch to protect these things.
Weird. If it's an armed and dangerous three letter agency it's the citizen that needs to be concerned and if it's an unarmed agency then it's a corporation that heavily lobbies (read: sponsors) *our* government representatives so they can be a little less concerned. How fucked is that? And now this agency can tell *us* not only what news is relevant but who's allowed to report on it when they "permit" relevancy? Check.
Not too mention every XYZ bunch runs on our taxes and most of their existence is spent in justifying their existence - via any means necessary. What's the condition of the state e of education in this country again? Right.
Fuck you, ICE, answer the request. It's high time you over-armed and over-equipped fascists start abiding by the law of the land. Look it up.
The public needs to know whether or not these systems, among others, are being used legally and pass constitutional muster. Mass surveillance (a.k.a. "bulk collections") is a pretty bold concept to press (nay, insist) legality.
Or perhaps you would like to submit that we are kept man that can be tapped and tracked at will by a government that has twisted your best interests to serve its own?
Our new Technological Tools of Tyranny are not under the proper lock and key. Trust no one.
A killing? You mean like the type of killing audio and visual arts folks stand to make if fair use actually is allowed to thrive and prosper without the constant barrage of mind-numbingly greed and control based assertions and attacks?
I'm reminded of a good quote I heard the voices in my head say one day: "With nothing but a vote in one hand and a gun in the other how much longer do you think it'll be until you force the other hand?"
.. but I seem to maybe distinctly remember looking around and not having any guns to hold so I started sharpening my chopsticks. .. if you can't get hold of any guns then save your takeout sticks. That's all I have to say.
I came across similar big-government vitriol where I'd read Wheeler's remarks. Your fear of a huge boogey-man government is already here. Ever heard of the list of undeclared wars? Are you aware of the prison population? Those are things your taxes pay for. Are you aware of the large tax money awards that these large providers have taken? Do you know what a utility even is? Common carrier? Broadcast Service? Now if you folks would kindly be so vociferous about the very real, very large and very powerful entities within the already too big government then I'd be obliged. Perhaps stop being afraid that someone is going to take something from you that they haven't earned because it's already happening and you seem to have nary a clue. I do admire the collective enthusiasm though but do hope that future focus groups can better evaluate their respective positions with regards to reality.