You're right, I'm a criminal and I don't care. As soon as the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act passed, I completely ran out of fucks to give.
That entire parish is so corrupt and venal that it should be purged. From these DAs all the way to the coroner they all need to go.
Tom is not amused. No, not amused at all.
Annoying when you don't realize TS has logged you out.
Um, hate to break this to you, but you cannot necessarily trust such attestations. Hell, HENRY LEE was caught tampering with evidence!
Say goodbye to wiretaps and banking by phone. Etc...
And really Josh, you shouldn't call your mother that! We have you on her voicemail.
Quote from the NSA statement: "When incidents occur, we immediately report them to oversight bodies and develop appropriate solutions."
Huh, Sen. Wyden will be pleased to read this. Good thing he's not susceptible to apoplectic fits. And can recognize BS when he sees it.
It's not so much that they lie as part of their remit pretty means they have to lie. It's that they lie to Congress behind closed doors. That is what has wrecked their credibility. One too many verifiable lies to the people charged with their oversight.
They are past masters of obfuscation and sophistry, that is true. I'm always reminded of Bill Clinton and his line about what the definition of 'is' is. So now instead of a Glomar response we get this claptrap. I sort of miss the days of No Such Agency.
Or, as they have done before, they are simply lying.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130701/12494623683/james-clapper-admits-he-lied-to-congress-even-his-excuse-is-misleading.shtml
It makes sense. If your music isn't being pirated, you haven't make it worth pirating. Which means it isn't worth buying.
By the same logic, they should be working to prevent men from eating oysters as an aphrodisiac. Cuts into Cialis sales. Even Dali couldn't create something this surreal.
Your argument is invalid. Shiva is too busy being danced on by Kali to destroy anything.
Should have been anonymization and transparency in second to last paragraph. Dang lack of editing. (And not re-reading it a third time before posting.)
Thank you for the update.
I've always thought these perpetual restraints on speech are inherently unconstitutional. While I understand the underlying arguments, I find them extremely unpersuasive. The government entire argument boils down to: "Because I said so!" In that annoying parental unit tone. These gag orders are, in the long run, detrimental to society because they allow the government to hide too much from the citizens. All three branches have been very disappointing in how they have dealt with the surrounding issues so far. Hopefully the judiciary will finally find the backbone to do their jobs effectively.
Two things. Recent efforts have shown that very little data can actually be completely anonymized. And this fetish for transparency is corrosive when, again, events have shown that the big boys can then say: "See? We are perfectly transparent so quit yer bitching." Transparency, or full disclosure, leads to industries trying to get away with everything they can think of. And succeeding. Just look to the pharma industry for an example. We told you that this drug could kill ya, and it did, well that's you're problem. We told ya that your data wasn't safe with us (on page 57 of the EULA) so the fact it was stolen, and then your identity was, is your problem.
Instead of efforts to force de-anonymization and transparency, they should simply be banned from collecting anything but the most basic, and absolutely required, data.
(Well, that and ban contracts of adhesion, but that's a different ball of wax.)
The numbers are appalling. About 1 in 2 women involved with a cop are abused. Cops are almost never investigated or charged; indeed they almost always continue unscathed in their careers. So next time you see two cops together on the street, just ask yourself (or them if feeling ballsy) which one of them beats their wife?
See: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cops-beat-wives-girlfriends-double-national-rate-receive-promotions /
It's not about the ads per se. It is entirely about security at this point.
All text ads with no scripting, images etc are generally safe. Anything else is a security risk. Almost every day there are reports of another ad distribution network being compromised and serving up malware. Basically ALL of them serve up malware periodically.
As a non-business Internet user I will not allow ads like that on my computer. If I was a business? I would make sure that nothing from an ad network makes it through the firewalls. The risk is too high by far to take the risk. No matter how hard they try, malware makers come up with new tricks that allow them to distribute their wares. Even Google's Double-click serves it up regularly.
So yes on the adblocking, but I would say that until tested and verified, no on Googles implementation of it. Until then use Adblock Plus or uBlock Origin. Use Ghostery, Privacy Badger and NoScript. It is nonsensical that people will run antivirus software to protect themselves, but then allow malware in through the backdoor.
Someday cities will do the math and realize that it is far cheaper to run a clean police force then to keep paying millions for their dirty cops. Not going to hold my breath though.
It is not a cops duty to go home safe at the end of the day. His duty is to make sure everyone else makes it home safe, even if it costs him his life. If they cannot understand and accept that, they need to find a different line of work.