Questions 2 and 4 pretend to be yes/no questions, but if you pay attention the answer to both is "sometimes." Yet the supposed test requires those questions to be answered yes or no.
Garbage in, garbage out.
If you think your site is being targeted by the NSA then you are doing people a disservice by not hosting your evidence of that targeting somewhere else where reading it won't get them on the NSA's shit list. Like including the full text here in the submission.
L:ol, I re-read what you wrote and you are an idiot.
You are complaining that "a number of former Carlyle Groupers had excised that from their background and history." But the only one you cited, Beschloss, did not. How do I know that? I used the link on her view history page that says, Revision history search to search for the word "Carlyle" and it was never in the article to be excised.
So, in a story about PR firms screwing with wikipedia you post a bunch of stupid blather about your own personal issues and then hang it all on a lack of evidence. That's classic conspiracy-theory schizophrenia.
He was just doing his job - checking their undercarriages for hidden bombs.
I became suspicious about this and noticed an extraordinary number of former Carlyle Groupers had excised that from their background and history.
Just how did you determine that they were former "Carlyle Groupers?" Is there some special IP address block allocated to former employees of the Carlyle group?
> I'd rather have ads than paywalls.
The end result of all this ad targeting is the same thing, maybe even worse than, paywalls.
If they could, advertisers would only pay for ads that hit their target market. RIght now some kid living on the street in Manila can get a hotmail account because hotmail doesn't really know if that kid has any money to spend or not. But if we ever achieve advertising nirvana that kid's access will be snuffed out like the light of a candle.
By releasing it, there would be a non-zero danger that it would be used for harm with little to no positive gain.
If it isn't public that severely limits the number of people who can work on finding an antidote. Even if they are making the information available to "qualified professionals" it still substantially increases the barrier to finding a fix. Hell, for all we know, someone else has already seen the same strain and been working on a cure but they only speak chinese and this extra friction to figuring out if they even have the same strain is enough to keep the two groups from collaborating.
Whether you agree or disagree with their decision, surely you must see the merit in this kind of evaluation?
When the day comes that we start seeing terrorists attacking people with obscure scientific journal data instead of simple bombs then the question might be a reasonable one to ask. Until then the question itself is hype and paranoia.
Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"