Just an old retired girl from Ontario (though sometimes, I'm just tired). Retired photographer, doing freelance and stuff for fun now. Not very politically motivated, but there are some things that can get me riled up some...
The problem with that is the members of the jihad.
Even if "the other" side (US/Canada, the rest of the world) decided to quit, the jihad would not.
The root cause is their ideals. As far as they're concerned, the entire world needs to live under their regime.
Thank you, but no.
Frankly, I'm on the side who just wants to nuke them. That's problematic too, since they aren't all in one place, and they aren't all able to be identified visibly. Because one dresses like a muslim does not make one a member of the terrorist group.
I won't pretend to know the answer, but unless individuals fight back, I see no real way out. These people kill if you refuse to join.
I put my home address, since it is already posted on my website.
On the other hand, I rather do know that it's public, so complaining if someone uses it does seem a little silly.
I knew it would be public when I registered it, but also knew it would be pointless to "privatize" it.
Why people don't realize that information is public is something I can't explain. If the information for registration lists your name, then all someone has to do is Google your name, and registration information that's public shows up.
...some people shouldn't use the internet. It's kind of like someone who has only rode a horse their entire life suddenly getting a car. Everyone else needs protection.
I tend to agree. My photography site is not https, and really has no reason to be. I don't use advertising, I don't allow direct emails, and only have image galleries for view. People decide whether to call me for an estimate or not.
I see no reason to use https (no reason not to except being stubborn enough to not want to fart my my site, yet again, just to suit Google), and I see no reason to consider it "bad" or "dangerous".
[But who decides whether an ad is "acceptable" or not]
I do. At least for myself. Other people can decide for themselves too.
[and thus qualified for a spot on the software's whitelist)? Well, the company does]
Only if the user allows it to. The "sofware's" whitelist is just that - belongs to the software developer. It doesn't belong to me, and I can negate that by choosing myself what to block and what not to block.
I don't choose to block by "acceptable advertising". I block by website - in it's entirety.
If a website warrants me turning on my adblocker it's because the ads have overtaken the content (ie: more ads than content) or nearly all of the ads "move" in some way, or the page has multiple popups and popunders (which also warrant a blocker) or too many trackers that I can't opt out of.
Just because I use adsense on my site, doesn't mean I'm going to whitelist them. Publishers abuse the numbers of ads frequently. If I have to turn on my adblocker, it's for the site, and not because of specific ads.
And no, I don't have an issue with people using adblockers when visiting my site. I don't find one or two ads annoying, but others might, and that's within their right to choose.
I'm not going to block visitors because of it (the phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind here). Why exchange one ill for another?
The French can, IMO, "aller sucer un cornichon" (excusez mon français) ... highschool was a long time ago.