The biggest fish they've bragged about is some cabbie in LA and his friends who sent a whopping $8500 to some terrorist group in Africa. Are we willing to sell the Bill of Rights for that?
Yes, I would have thought that serious terrorists and crooks would be using long-key one-time-pad encryption with random transmission and reception locations and devices so that no amount of surveillance can tell who's talking to who about what.
Actually in many European countries by law advertising has to be truthful.
The truth, but not the whole truth. This is the sine qua non of advertising. Spin.
You know what else is great for discovering products? Asking knowledgable people with no financial interest in my decision.
The most knowledgeable people will usually be professionals. But the ranks of these will thin If enough people don't want to pay them, either directly, by looking at their annoying and distracting ads, or by turning them into salespeople by using their affiliate links.
Amateurs can be a good substitute, particularly now we have online forums. But often the information from amateurs is either wrong, anecdotal (only useful in aggregate), or is second-hand information from the above threatened professionals.
My resumes are honest, solicited, and submitted for positions where I believe I am the best candidate.
But, like all advertising, your resume doesn't tell the whole truth. Not many will comprehensively list their faults.
It's possible to conceive of a world without job ads: all potential employees are interrogated by an independent employment assessment organization who then provides employers with the most suitable single candidate or group of candidates.
Of course this is mostly a fantasy, just like a world without ads for products is a fantasy, where we would rely entirely on product assessment organizations. In practice, product makers, like job seekers, will never be able to resist tilting the playing field in their favour with spin.
So given that ads will always be with us, let's just get rid of the most intrusive types: door-to-door, on-street, telemarketing, and ads that distract us from our media consumption. And find other ways to pay media professionals.
What's next? "Unauthorized" headphones?
Decryptors epoxied with the speaker coils is the most effective way to plug the analog hole.
If you are trying to prove or disprove God (or some sort of creator) using science, then you have made a mistake.
"Prove" is a strong word, applicable only in mathematics. Prove or disprove beyond reasonable doubt, no. Evidence and likelihoods, yes.
0. For something to cause something it must exist before the other thing. Therefore the universe cannot have been caused because there is no time until the universe exists.
There was once no time in our universe. Or if you're talking about any universe, you need something "out of time".
1. The principle of causality doesn't hold true. There are uncaused events all the time. See: Bell inequality.
Isn't this spooky action at a distance a violation of General Relativity rather than causality?
2. The postulates the argument is based on set up an inconsistent system that could be in principle be used to prove anything.
As physics currently stands, that's right, the problem is under-constrained. So it can help to consider Occam's razor and religious literature that claims access to the supernatural.
3. Even if the postulates were fine there is a gap in the logic - there is no justification for saying that God is the original uncaused thing. It could be anything, like body odor or flying [insert food name here] monster.
Well unless physics comes up with something better, the first cause has to be eternal and powerfully instrumental. So God isn't B.O., but certainly an entity made of food could qualify.
2) Event the causality principle is not something that is 100% certain
Any hints to the nature of a non-causal existence?
3) Prolongating the reasoning, what caused the first-cause? What makes it exempt from the need for a cause ? Why does everything else need a cause ?
4) Assuming that first-cause exists, absolutely nothing says it would be the same thing as what religions call "god".
The most comprehensible way for something be exempt from causality is for it to be eternal and supernatural. Add sentient and you've arrived at Deism. That is, if you need a first cause, something like a god is a parsimonious explanation.
How does that supernatural entity explain anything? Where did *it* come from?
Supernatural = anything goes. That is, God needs to be something that doesn't need or have an explanation.