I see your point, but I disagree in part because Russia (and other governments) surely already knew all that stuff.
There is certainly a golden opportunity to leverage the publicity, and, indeed, even allies of the US have bitched and complained about snooping methods as applied to them.
The Snowden documents, like the Manning documents, are no surprise to anyone but the general population.
As for correlating Snowden's revelations and terrorist activities, good luck with that.
How in Sam Hill can anyone apply statistical analysis to the impact of secret spying methods on secret organizations?
My assertion comes from experience with crowd sourcing and what I've experienced assisting young lads and lasses in the mechanics of taking photographs with small cameras.
By way of what reasoning do you prejudge the value of art not yet produced?
How in the Sam Hill does your post make any sense?
Did you read that the OP only gets to visit them once a year? You still think they will wise up quickly? Then you disrespect them?
I disrespect you, for them, by proxy. I proxyspect you.
--
OK, so you're out. I have to do everything.
To the OP:
Modify their user account to make them a standard user (not admin) and set certain restrictions. Because their are several versions of Windows, I respectfully refer you to Google.
Slashdot Mirror
Cool. You go to two (2) web sites.
I think you'll agree that, as regards the Internet demographics, you don't actually use it.
Then adblock didn't achieve its goal if you are having to buy, right?
I am suggesting that you, which is not representative of any population greater than one, have no reason to be on the Internet,
If you haven't visited that site before, how can you predict that you don't NEED it?
As more ad servers deny access to content, your bookmark file will fill with dead links.
Then you will visit pay sites.
No.
YOU make it sound like a difficult problem.
No, that's not like what it's saying.
What it's like saying is, you have a choice:
1.) Don't block ad servers
2.) Block ad servers.
In the first case, you get to to see the web's content. In the second case, you don't.
You're not getting it.
It's not the sites that will block you. It's the ad servers that the site is throwing at you.
If you aren't alive to the ad servers, you're dead to the website.
Not when it's all of the sites.
You could just unplug the modem ...
Sorry. Your post isn't actually a webpage.
Wrong.
Right now, there are a few sites (majorgeeks) that ask you to please allow ads because that's what pays for the site and others simply refuse entry.
You will reconsider when sites tell you to disable all ad blockers and hosts files that block ad sites or you will not be able to view the content.
With what, Apple Talk?
How about "equal time" where studies show how the NSA has changed its operating procedures because it got caught with its pants down?
This "transgender," thing is confusing. That was Manning.
I see your point, but I disagree in part because Russia (and other governments) surely already knew all that stuff.
There is certainly a golden opportunity to leverage the publicity, and, indeed, even allies of the US have bitched and complained about snooping methods as applied to them.
The Snowden documents, like the Manning documents, are no surprise to anyone but the general population.
As for correlating Snowden's revelations and terrorist activities, good luck with that.
How in Sam Hill can anyone apply statistical analysis to the impact of secret spying methods on secret organizations?
Good point, but the whole, "Snowden, Snowden, Snowden," crap is a distraction.
The United States government is guilty of negligence in allowing the likes of Snowden to gain access to Super Secret Guy Stuff (SSGS).
They didn't learn much at all from the previous SSGS breach by Manning.
The best way for the government to avoid the real issue -- incompetence on their part -- is to repeat, "Snowden, Snowden, Snowden,"
My assertion comes from experience with crowd sourcing and what I've experienced assisting young lads and lasses in the mechanics of taking photographs with small cameras.
By way of what reasoning do you prejudge the value of art not yet produced?
Most people don't care for your hobby. They just want to use the goddamn computer.
They aren't going to fuck with the microwave to make it better, either.
I'll take the one I like the best.
That's kinda like choosing between two paintings only AFTER I determine what oils the artist used.
What does it matter?
... the radical, rabid, right wing Christian evangelists would eat this shit up in America.
Actually, it is sorta point and click. These are young people. Remember that age?
Old farts like us play by the rules.
Young people who don't know the difference between bullshit and wild honey can do things that you and I WISH we had thought of.
Hell. kids shoot first, and point later.
I think it's great.
Your post sorta confirms that, doesn't it?
Bulldust.
How in the Sam Hill does your post make any sense?
Did you read that the OP only gets to visit them once a year? You still think they will wise up quickly? Then you disrespect them?
I disrespect you, for them, by proxy. I proxyspect you.
--
OK, so you're out. I have to do everything.
To the OP:
Modify their user account to make them a standard user (not admin) and set certain restrictions. Because their are several versions of Windows, I respectfully refer you to Google.
That was easy.