In about 390 years you're going to have a really bad time.

Right there with you, but that isn't the kind of drug testing TFA is talking about. This is referring to "clinical trial" tests as part of the approval process for new-to-market pharmaceuticals.

Adblock Edge works on a case-by-case basis, with Element Hiding Helper's aid in suppressing the whole-page darkening overlay, but I haven't found a reliable filter formula to work universally across sites. The other problem is that some sites make legitimate use of modal elements for "lightbox" photo viewers (though it seems to me that links to .jpg files would work just fine) or even login dialogs in the case of Spiceworks, and so a universal blocking expression would have to allow for these. It could perhaps be coded like popup blockers to detect user-requested overlays but there would be some wailing and gnashing of teeth before it was perfected. I recently resorted to the low-tech solution, which was sending a scathing E-mail to the customer-relations department of a site I was browsing (GelPro kitchen floor mats) stating that their modal overlay lost them my business. And yes, I did follow through by buying from their competitor. Not sure if I'm vindictive enough to scan and E-mail them the receipt, though part of me says it's the only logical way to conclude the interaction.

I think what a lot of people want to know is whether 7.1a is still reliable and, if not, how many versions back one must go to get a release that's still feature-complete but not questionable in security.

In the meantime, if you need to encrypt a file, you can use GPG and Cryptophane if you want a GUI. Nowhere near as elegant as TC but it should get the job done.

But TrueCrypt doesn't have master keys as I understand it. It's not like Dropbox. There's nothing an NSL (plague be upon whoever got the idea to legalize that) could discover that would do NSA/DHS/USA any good.

A FOSS project shutters itself and, rather than linking to a fork or posting tarballs of a few versions' worth of source, recommends commercial alternatives? If this isn't a hacked site then I'm thinking Lavabit - someone pressured someone else and in order to spill without spilling, they made the most absurd possible kind of announcement that they were closing.

This is it, right here. Mod parent up. If we have no other question answered in this discussion, I'd be fine with it as long as we get an answer to this.

Scope-n-grope is the most disgusting betrayal a government agency has perpetrated against the American people in recent memory (I consider it worse than the Snowden revelations). There is no excuse for what is being done to innocent air travelers and it is unconscionable that I would have no guarantee of being free from unwanted forced physical contact with government clerks (remember, they're not officers of anything) if I were to go to an airport with the intention of boarding a plane.

How can we guarantee that we will not be touched? Going through a nude-o-scope isn't enough, as they've been shown to alarm on sweat or rumpled clothing. Medical exemptions aren't enough as there's the risk of a TSA clerk overstepping their (barely existent) authority and demanding a grope anyway. Pre-(CHECK! LOOK AT HOW CUTE OUR TRADEMARK IS!) isn't enough as the T&C explicitly state that nobody is guaranteed expedited screening.

I'm happy to keep giving Amtrak my money - I don't care about speed and the experience is much nicer. However, I can't ignore principle. A US citizen should have the right to be free from unreasonable searches, and even if one does have to clear some kind of Checkpoint Charlie at airports, they absolutely must have the right not to be touched against their will.

How do we effect this?

I've heard of the practice of "hand swabbing" - randomly selecting passengers to have a cotton swab coated in some chemical run over their hands and tested for explosive residue. I do NOT consent to any contact with my skin (or any physical contact from strangers at all, excepting lifesaving medical procedures) - how would I go about refusing this and what would happen afterward?

Note that this question is academic - I refuse to set foot in airports and have done since the introduction of the Reign of Molestation in 2010, and will continue to do so until the RoM is stopped and (hopefully) John Pistole is sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole, the entirety of his sentence to be spent in solitary confinement with the cell door permanently welded shut.

What happens if I flat-out refuse this? I'm already in the (not-actually-)"sterile"(-at-all) area, what can they do?

As best I'm able to tell, there is no answer. I stopped flying 3 years ago (well, more now - October 2010) when they started with their policy of sexual assault because I realized that there is no way to guarantee I won't be touched. Strangers do not have my permission to place their hands on me for any reason, ever, and it was clear that there was a long list of secret reasons why these pig-thugs would take it upon themselves to force physical contact on a traveler. I've been taking Amtrak for all my long-distance trips (except for one in which my wife and I drove) and not only are there no security checkpoints (DHS poisonous-snake teams notwithstanding but I haven't run across those scum myself), the onboard experience is vastly superior to that of a plane. Definitely worth the tradeoff in speed.

The only winning move is not to play.

This is the reason I (grudgingly) have a Facebook account. I'd have loved to refuse to ever sign up, but the only way to control other people's tagging of me was to have an account so I could forcibly remove the tags.

The twist: He's already kidnapped yours, too.

It helps for Beowulf clusters to be involved as well.

On my car (2008 Subaru Legacy 2.5i SE, USDM) it actually does. There's a keyhole by the trunk-release lever that can be toggled with the "master" key but not the valet key. It will lock out the lever and prevent the trunk from being opened.

There are keyholes by the rear-seatback-release buttons as well to prevent access to the trunk via folding the rear seats down.

The problem with that is that they can "presume" all they want, but they still have less money coming in. Granted, it doesn't address the aforementioned issue of needing a critical mass of participants for the boycott to be successful, but the mere act of assuming a given cause for a reduced revenue stream doesn't magically restore the revenue stream to previous levels.