That is so very odd... I'm wondering if you're on to something with the JS? Mainly, multiple attempts to reload it? I followed your footprints, through Ars, and got just the two cookies again and I'm pretty familiar with uMatrix and how it works - it doesn't let anything past without permission, it's whitelist based and an ogre about it. That's why I use it.
Oh - I had a second conversation in this thread with a user. RequestPolicy is just an add-on to fill in where it seems NoScript lags. When I moved over to Firefox for a while, I grew fond of NoScript. I returned to my Opera and found no such animal existed. So, I found this little known extension (at the time, it's still pretty rare as I seem to be about the only advocate though a few people have now picked up on it and do so as well) called uMatrix.
Now, coming from NoScript, I didn't really like it... But then, I figured out what all the buttons do and just started curating my list as I went. It's all whitelist approach and very, very refined. You can really dig in to what is an isn't allowed to access your browser. If you get bored or curious, give it a shot. There's now a Firefox version too.
Also, checking the page with Firefox indicates the same thing here. As in, I'm seeing what I see both on Opera and on Firefox. I do have VMs but I'm not sure they'd help. Hmm... I guess, I could probably set it up so that you can access one but I think that'd be going a bit far to figure out a cookie issue. Meh, it might be fun.
I've no idea how it currently works in Windows. But, last I knew, it was not impossible, just hidden from normal users as power users will use Google to find it. I'm going to speculate that people who can't Google should probably be automatically updating to get their security updates.
That said, and it has been a while, edit shortcut to append this switch: --disable-update (note, that works for Chrome, Chromium, et al as far as I know - but it has been a while)
If you want added protection (the above doesn't work unless you open Opera from that particular shortcut so opening a new browser session from an email link would mean you'd get updates, just rename "opera_autoupdate.exe" to "opera_autoupdate.bak" and that should work and you should still be able to update by normal method.
The service can be stopped like any other service or startup application. Hmm... Run msconfig.exe from the run dialogue if you don't already have a handy app to do it for you like CCleaner.
But yes, pushing updates on users is a choice they made but I do believe it's fairly trivial to bypass. I'm not sure why you'd think that protecting the average user (while not actually disabling the possibility) is a reason to lose faith but to each their own? I grab every update offered and it's done by my package manager. I'd prefer to be using the version with the most recent security fixes but that is indeed a preference. If you absolutely want to disable updates, you can do that. It's probably not that complicated - the above is from memory so might not be right, use Google. I'm pretty sure you can still disable it, if you want. However, Firefox might be the browser you prefer.
you need to read closely, the claim is that abortion should be outlawed if and only if, the state outlawing abortion can (without risking the life of the pregnant woman), remove the fetus. Once the fetus is removed, it is then becomes the duty of the state to maintain and grow the fetus using whatever incubator technology they have available.
Sorry, I missed the science fiction premise. I will try harder to remember that this is Slashdot, and not a place to get serious about discussing real solutions to real problems.
Third, it's possible to push a woman into sex without actually raping her.
For this purpose, I'll go ahead and lump coercion in with rape. But not just empty promises. If you want promises, get a marriage contract. Ideally the state would piss off out of marriage per se and instead there would just be child responsibility contracts. So, barring rape or coercion, what's wrong with the plan is that women are abused by the court system. That's a problem we need to fix anyway. Let's also fix that problem.
I think that's a bit unfair. Person 1 indicated a willingness to actual learn and change their mind. You seemingly opted to ignore that. Tone counts, no?
Then again, maybe you're right? Maybe I'm misreading it. To me, it looks like a legit request for more information - by someone who's actually willing to take new information and process it and make new choices. That's a rarity.
Add to that the two of 'em are discussing things that are largely opinion based... So, yeah, it looks like a legit question and not even attempt to argue or debate.
But, if we're gonna do that then obviously LXDE is superior in all ways simply because I say so! Err... Except I do actually prefer LXDE and will enumerate a few reasons if asked. Still, even when I reread it, I see what appears to be a legit request for more information but that might be because of how I interact with people by default.
Edited to add: This is damned long but might be worth the read. I cheated and skimmed it, even though I said I'd not proofread it, and it's not my best but it should help you (and others!) understand. Seriously folks, if you think you know what a Libertarian is, read this. You might be surprised. I didn't proofread it. I know, I saw a few errors. I just don't have the mental fortitude to give this the justice it deserves.
I'll be the first to admit that we have some straight up idiots in our party. I'd also agree that it's a *very* broad scope and capable of being a rather vague term. It had, at one time, connotations of being the loony left. Then Ayn Rand became popular and those folks decided they were Libertarians. I'd also like to point out that those people are vocal and not actually (as near as I can tell) in the majority. Further, it'd be a bit antithetical for us to take away their microphone, which means anyone gets to speak on behalf of the party.
Needless to say, this has lead to some confusion. I do not have time, nor inclination, to clear all of it up but I do make stabs at it and see if I can do a little to help clear the air. Sometimes it helps, other times it is not so successful. I've noticed a few people who will get my full attention, indicate that they understand, proceed to then stop replying, and follow it up with repeating the same exact thing in a thread a few days later. I might be crazy but I think I might have found a few people who are remaining intentionally ignorant (or pretending to do so) and intentionally spreading misinformation.
I really don't want to do this because I know you can tear me to shreds but I am going to do it... Just because there's a No True Scotsman Fallacy does not mean that I can call myself a Scot and claim to represent them.
I'd go so far as to say, with a firmness usually reserved for more important things, that these people using the moniker can not, in effect, be Libertarians. Suffice to say, the emphasis is in the title. That root word, "liberty," is actually rather important. Liberty isn't just for the rich, the empowered, or the likes. Liberty is for everyone.
Let's establish three definitions - liberty, freedom, and rights. Sound good? We're just gonna agree to use these definitions for now but you're free to keep using them. I find that helps and, as you can guess, I've had this conversation many, many times. (You'd think that I'd automate it!) Anyhow...
You are free to kill me. You do not have the liberty to do so. If I try to take your life, you have a right to kill me in self-defense.
Sound good? Okay... Note, we'll touch on rights but I'm concerned with the liberty aspect as it is the root of the word and I'm getting to that.
Let's establish a few things. Freedom is taken by force and force alone. Liberties are similar to rights but rights are a bit more specific (for simplicity sake). I have a decent enough bit about rights but I'm going to skip that. I do think it's important but I lack time and it's not truly important for this conversation - but can be added to a reply. If you want to hear/read it, it's simply my story of the communal soup pot. It works well for children of all ages - and that includes being simple enough for me to understand.
Now, we have freedom. So long as they're not infringing on that, you're doing alright. Note, I'm not dumbing it down for you. I know you're smart. I'm just keeping it simple to avoid needless complexity. Where were we? Oh yes... You're free to go about your day and what not. Now, what should be maximized is our liberties. We use our liberties (and rights) to truly make best use of our freedoms. I am at liberty to own a firearm, I enjoy my freedom when I go shooting. That sort of thing.
Now, equality (in opportunity and not necessarily in results) is important. You deserve to enjoy your freedom as much as possible. The reality is, it takes some wealth to make better use of your liberties. The goal is for *everyone* to be empowered to enjoy their freedom to the best of their ability. The goal is to ensure the rights of the commons are maintained while working to maximize the amount of liberty an individual has to enjoy their freedom without infringing on the rights of others. (Note the verbiage.)
In other words, abusive free marketing is right out. Abusive capitalism is right out. No State is completely out of the question. Anarchy is borderline retarded. Ayn Rand was an idiot. Rand Paul is not actually a Libertarian. All of those things emphasis the individual at the expense of another individual. Extremism, of any type, is pretty much not an option. In other words, no one pure political ideology or economic model, by itself and without protections, ensures the protections of the commons while affording the greatest opportunity to enable the individual to use their liberties to maximize their ability to appreciate their freedom.
That makes me a little bit socialist, a little bit capitalist, wanting least government intrusion WHILE protecting the commons, and a fucking business has not one god damned thing to do with it. Do businesses have rights? Err... Yes? However, rights are handed down in order of value and the commons, the individual, the future, and probably even the preservation of the State all come before the rights of the business.
Libertarianism is a political ideology, not an economic model. I reiterate, Ayn Rand was an idiot - and completely opposite of Libertarianism. Though people have been trying to wedge that bullshit in for years. It's like the one ideology you can't really stuff into Libertarianism and yet that's where they try to squish it in. The idea is that EVERYONE gets to use their liberties to their best abilities. No, not just the wealthy and the enabled. Yes, they get to enjoy their freedom more but that's okay - because the next person in line gets to do what they can (within reason) to maximize their appreciation as well.
Economics? Oh, heh... That'll confuse some but I've faith in you, in particular, so I'm going to just pull out my usual response...
I want you (generic you) healthy, fed, and educated. Why? It helps you to better make use of your liberties (there's that word again) to maximize your appreciation for your freedom. Oh, I'm not entirely altruistic... Not at all. I am a human, after all. I support things like single payer health care, inexpensive but high quality education, and a strong social safety net that enables you to take risks. No, it's not because I like you. I support those things because they're cheaper and possible to do without onerous intrusions and burdens from the government. See, it's cheaper for me to keep you housed, clothed, happy, productive, educated, and upwardly mobile than it is for me to incarcerate you, hire goons to protect my stuff, repair the damage after you've broken in and stolen my stuff, and pay for your abandoned family.
I *like* a police force. It's cheaper for me to pay for a police force than it is for me to hire goons to stop hordes of hungry from stealing my shit. I like my shit. That's why I bought it.
I want you healthy, educated, and fed. Why? It's cheaper to keep you healthy, you make more money if you're educated (and able to appreciate that liberty we've been talking about), and easier to feed you than it is to clean up after your mess when you get hungry and start stealing food. I don't want hordes of unwashed, disenfranchised, destitute, angry mobs. I want them HAPPY and productive. I want you to be productive, as productive as can be, because that makes you wealthier. If you're wealthier than I can acquire some of your wealth. If you're wealthier (and this is the important part) you can have things like a hobby, free time, and the means to buy things for your hobby. I want you to enjoy your freedom as much as you can and that's done through means of utilizing your liberties.
That's what a damned Libertarian is. A Randian, Anarcho-Capitalist, and (probably not) a Free Market, Free Hand, deity worshiping, authoritarian, etc are not Libertarians. They're so far from Libertarian that they're pretty much the exact opposite of what a Libertarian is. You can take almost any political ideology on the planet and it will fit, somewhere, as a Libertarian - but not those. Yet, for some damned reason, someone decided to cram 'em in there like they're stuffing breadcrumbs up a turkey's ass. We're FULL. Get out!!!
*sighs* That feels better. I'm so not gonna proofread that. But that's the gist of it. Those jackasses are Libertarian in name only. Yes, I know... RINO, Southern Democrat, etc... No True Scotsman... I know... I know... But, it's so tiring, Dave. It really is. I can't give up. I'm not a coward and if I give up, they win. I've been at this for 40 voting years. It's our fault. I don't deny it. We let the people in, happy to have the attention and numbers. We let them speak for us and didn't counter their speech with good speech. This mess? It's my fault. Not really and not entirely but I accept my share of the blame. I type this because I also accept my share of the responsibility to clean up, educate, and work at restoration.
I did keep it relatively simple. There's a whole lot more to explain. Properly laid out, properly explained, you'd have to be a damned fool to not be a Libertarian.
It has reached the point where I often just skip it and call myself a "Socialist Libertarian." Then I throw 'em a link to the (surprisingly not bad) Wikipedia article. It's definitely true that we have a whole bunch of idiots and crazy people in the party - that's not something I'm going to deny. What I will say is that they might be in the party, they might even be party reps, they sure as shit aren't Libertarians.
Dave, I'm old and tired. I'm out of answers and running low on empathy. It's not only possible but it's trivial for me to just pack my shit and move or just climb into my own isolated world and enjoy myself. I've got money, family, friends, assets, and my own little utopia. I have no idea why I keep sticking my head out and doing this. I can just keep myself under a rock and be fine. There's literally no chance at any political changes being made that will impact my life one bit. I am insulated to the point where the US economy could completely crash and I'll be just fine. Hell, my home (I'm missing it a bit tonight) is so far off the beaten trail, I don't even need to worry about the zombie apocalypse. I've got a fine girlfriend, a great dog, and enough toys to keep me occupied forever but here I am ranting about politics to the smartest guy in the room.
I've got family, friend, wine, women, and song yet here I am on Slashdot investing energy and empathy (both in short supply) talking about politics that are, in no way, actually going to impact me. See, I guess, I don't really give a shit about me as much as it might appear. Me? No. I'll be fine. I'm a Libertarian because it makes sense to be one. I'm a Libertarian, not for my liberties (I'll be all set) but for yours.
It's kind of like how I say to people that they should vote for Bernie Sanders. He won't really do a hell of a lot to help me out. He might even arrange it so that I pay a bit more money in taxes. I'm okay with that - so long as they're spent wisely. No, I don't suggest people vote for Bernie because he's the best choice for me personally. I suggest people vote for him because he's the best shot they've got for them and their children. As a Real Libertarian©®, I support Sanders and the majority of Libertarians do too. We're just not the vocal ones. I'm not even sure if we're in the majority any more.
Also, I'm so not proofreading that. You're on your own, bud. Hopefully that clears a few things up for you. We've had part of this conversation in the past, might as well keep it going. If you've got something specific, I'll do what I can to answer. Like always...
You can bring any calculator you like to the midterm, as long as it doesn't dim the lights when you turn it on. -- Hepler, Systems Design 182