I have never noticed a correlation between anonymity and propensity for trolling in any forum I've paid attention to. I've never noticed non-anonymous trolls being worse than anonymous ones, either, though.
But then, it's hard to see how this could be effectively measured since it's impossible to know if a commenter is using their real name or just a pseudonym name that sounds real.
I suspect that the real underlying correlation isn't anonymity but the fact that nobody has to look anyone in the face while they speak.
"World's healthiest grocery store"?
Ignoring that this isn't even remotely true, I think they're speaking in code. by "healthiest", I think they meant "most overpriced".
Did the Geek Squad ever actually do tech support?
Oh, BS. Not only are IT professionals not required to be arrogant asses, being an arrogant ass is a good indication that the IT professional isn't very good.
"Confident is is a requirement to go places with this job."
Confidence is helpful to advance in any field, but confidence is a very different thing than arrogance.
Well, yes, short of wearing a body cam yourself, there's no way to prove anything.
But, as you say, it's worth withholding consent anyway. Also, everyone should be aware that if they give consent, they can also revoke that consent (by affirmatively declaring so) at any moment, and the cops have to immediately stop their search (with the exceptions of airport screenings, prison visitation searches, or once an x-ray screening has begun).
Trump will tech you so hard that you'll be sick of being teched.
It's not so misleading.
There are others running, but it is the next best thing to absolutely certain that the next President will be a Democrat or Republican.
I disagree.
Step 1 is to stop using electronic voting machines anywhere.
Step 2 is to look into developing a voting system that can be remotely trusted.
Where are all these "dead people voting"? This has been intensively investigated for years, and the highest figures I could find indicate that 270 dead people "voted" since 200.
That's hardly a number that even matters.
This.
PETA's interest in this particular case is they're taking a long-shot chance that they can get human rights for animals. They've been very vocal about that long-term goal for years.
Or, you could stick with the recommended way of doing it. "I do not consent to any search."
"The amazing part is that anyone would believe any of her backpedaling enough to take the risk of voting for her against the opposition. "
It's not so amazing, really. As far as trustworthiness goes, the opposition is no better.
I mistrust any change of stance that any candidate makes during an election campaign. They are rarely more than posturing.
So, in my opinion, the safest thing is to assume that Clinton's real position now is exactly what it was before she started campaigning: she's very much in favor of the terms of the TPP.
Why are you so sure that Trump wouldn't happily take us to war?
Even if the dentist wasn't intending to reveal HIPAA protected records, it was still a losing proposition for him to make.
Herd immunity is the fact that if you want to make an epidemic impossible, you don't need to have every member of a population be immune to the disease -- just a certain minimum percentage. What that percentage is depends on the pathogen and the animal.
It was discovered in the 1930s, when it was noticed that if a sufficient number of people got immunized for smallpox, the number of new infections decreased in the unimmunized population as well.
This is important because not everyone can get immunized against important diseases, making it more important (from a public health perspective) for people who can get immunized to do so.
For example, you can't immunize infants against pertussis, but pertussis is most catastrophic to infants. But vaccinating a sufficient number of adults against pertussis also provides protection for the infants.
It costs $35, and is pretty painless. The legal advantages it gives are great enough so that if you're even a little worried about the issue, it's the only way to go.
I run a VPN on my own server even when not traveling. It's just the most convenient way to protect the internet traffic to/from my cell phone.
Re:
I used to play Ingress (the predecessor of Pokemon Go), and it's very interesting to me that Niantic put a great deal of effort into arranging the game to make incursions like this less likely.
One of those things was that "portals" (what you were seeking in Ingress) were never knowingly placed in areas that were obviously not accessible to the public. And when the inevitable mistake happened, there was a mechanism by which players could flag inappropriate placements. When that happened, the offending portals would get removed. (Eventually -- Niantic was notoriously slow about this, but they were also overwhelmed at the popularity of the game, so some slack was cut.)
I wonder how (or if) they messed this up with Pokemon Go.