We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
"ISIL could pose threat to US, Europe, officials say
So could anybody, but those ragheads do not scare me"
So, that descriptive naming could lead to a visit by them to you. OK with that? -- Similar ill conceived ignorance led to 9/11. ISIL are no dummies. Anyone can see the largely defenseless targets in the US. -- And, it's interesting to see that you consider yourself more expert and informed than the nation's top intelligence persons. They are sometimes spectacularly wrong, which gets trumpeted, but more often correct, which goes unnoticed or unknown.
Utter, and ill-informed, presumptiveness is contained in your bravado comment.
We've been boxing under Marquis of Queensbury rules while our very real opponent is sending his brothers and uncles to rape, torture, blow up, and kill our foreign Christian brothers and sisters.
We need to acknowledge to this very real threat that cannot not attack us in our malls, bowling alleys, or perhaps even churches.
Pope Urban II called for Islam to be eliminated and the Holy Land restored to Christianity. Still makes sense as far as I can tell. This will not end until people realize Islam for what it is, which is evil masquerading as a religion.
The ragheads scare me. The problem during the 90's with all the terrorism we more or less ignored and after 9/11 where we spent more time and money rebuilding Iraq then killing terrorists is that we don't get it. For a few brief months after 9/11 we were more or less unified in fighting back. But then politics and more mundane things took over and we stepped back from the fight. When I went to school in the 40's and 50's it was generally accepted that FDR had some advance warning about Pearl Harbor. He knew we needed to enter the war and believed that a "Pearl Harbor" would unify us and we could whip the Axis powers. I don't know if FDR knew about it or not but I do know that Pearl harbor unified a nation and forced us to take the threat seriously before we had to fight in our homeland. With radical islam the problem is the same. That is until their attack on us is taken seriously enough that we are willing to commit to winning at any cost radical Islam will win. So there will be another attack and it will be much bigger then 9/11 was. That is what must happen. We must endure something unimaginable before we will turn away from Dancing with the Stars or crony politics or whatever it is that seems more important then the USA surviving.
"Of course it is. Climate change causes everything including foot fungus."
yup. Without warm stuffy shoes and ditto socks there is no foot fungus...
And people tend to wear those mostly in cold weather (unless you're a European soldier thinking it's smart to wear boots designed for northern Europe in a jungle war of course).
Knowing more than a little about advertising, it's worth noting most of the 'recommendations' made by Ceglowski and the author (Zuckerman) are actually being worked on, or utilized by premium publishers.
The problem isn't big corporations. They have actually gone out of their way to improve their data controls and protect internet users.
The problem is the very openness of the internet, and the expectation by so many users that it is 'free'.
As a result, advertisers have realized they an aggregate disparate sources of data from shoppers off-line, TV viewing habits from smart TVs and set-top boxes, credit card companies, and online visitors to their own sites. They can further use this aggregated information to target, and collect additional information, from the very ads you see on premiere sites such as the NYTimes, ESPN, CBS, Yahoo, etc.
This allows them to further target their audience to buy ads more cheaply on lowest common denominator sites like Joe's Sports, Suzy's News and other sites that do little to protect your privacy by purchasing them through what are known as "Ad Networks". These ad networks power bloggers around the world, keeping them in business by paying them to post opinions and stories all day, every day.
It's a battle, but the premium publishers are starting to push back and win, however slowly. Over time, they have begun to create and implement data policies to protect their users and their user data better.
It's not perfect yet, and it never will be. But there is a balance which must be understood.
As much as publishers are trying to keep their users' data safe and as 'private' as possible, there is no way for the internet to exist on a non-advertising basis. Having that advertising means that some information about your behavior will always be known and out there. The question is how much, and how is that being handled?
Sadly, the last place to seek assistance is the government. While they voice their support for 'privacy rules', every politician uses some kind of database to target users in their district - so they carve out special loopholes for themselves and their friends who pay lots of money to keep data targeting alive.
The best hope, and one which is gaining great momentum, are premium sites themselves, who have realized the more advertisers know about their users, the less money they can make from advertising.
As a result, these sites are making slow but steady progress to REDUCE the amount of advertising, make it more beneficial by only allowing data to be utilized at a cost to the advertiser themselves, limiting the data that can be collected, and putting restrictions on how long that data can be held or used.
It's foolish to think paying for something via subscriber fee is a means of avoiding advertising. Over time, subscriber fees flatline - you can only raise them so much before you lose subscribers. In addition, a subscription base is an automatic qualifying piece of data. Every subscription company in the world, at some point, will realize they can use that subscription base as a means of targeting efficiently and getting a new revenue stream via advertising.
Except Consumer Reports. But they are a very special case.