Try bandcamp.

Here, I'll start you off with some premium grade-A smokey music. Nope, that's not marijuana (though if that's your thing, it should still work out for you). Inhale again and you'll realize it's mesquite. I suppose the two are similar, because smelling this music gives me the munchies, except I don't wanna settle for anything less than slow-fuckin'-cooked brisket.

Name one country that doesn't mind its military bases being photographed every couple of months and being published for anyone to look at.

If Google is photographing your bases and publishing it, the problem isn't that they published it. The problem is that Google was able to successfully photograph it.

If Google can photograph your base, then your adversary can too. And Google is almost certainly doing things in the nicest way possible, obeying laws, not generally willing to put up with planes being shot down as merely an inevitable cost of business, etc. A real adversary doesn't have those constraints.

Attempting to censor Google is symptom-treating, and really, it's to a comical degree. It's way out there; this isn't merely "slightly stupid." This totally reeks of closing barns doors after horses have gotten out... except that there will be an update in a few months and of course they'll want that blurred too,because they still haven't closed the barn door. It's more like they just don't want people talking about the barn door, that they have already decided they're never going to close.

YOUR HORSES ARE OUT, NUMBNUTS!!! WE ARE LOOKING AT YOUR BARN DOOR BECAUSE IT'S HYSTERICALLY FUNNY THAT YOU KEEP LEAVING IT OPEN, not because we want to steal your horses, which aren't in the barn anyway. If the horses were really still in the barn, then you would have shot down the photographer.

Hitler is already a proven election-winner. That's not a fair alternative to Trump. Put up a more hypothetical name, please.

And maybe what both parties need to get out of the trench warfare that they currently have as well.

Maybe, but maybe not.

The parties only hear two language: votes and money. Whatever they're doing, appears to be working for them (contrary to what you suggest, that they change). You write that it's bad, but on election day I think they are going to hear that what they did was good.

You're giving a treat to the dog (and saying "bad dog") every time he barks, and kicking him (and saying "good dog") whenever he sits and cutely wags his tail. Guess what kind of dog you're going to have.

The only good news I'm seeing in this election, is that somewhere around 10-15% of voters have finally decided to stop actively supporting and approving them, compared to single digits in previous years. But a strong majority still approves, applauds, and rewards.

I think the election night numbers are going to show: Clinton and Trump were excellent choices, America's top two favorites. Prove me wrong, America. I don't care what you say to me; I'm watching to see what you say to them and everyone else.

Seriously? I'll answer your question with a list:

• The murdered scientists at space station Regula
• The Enterprise crewmen killed in the battles
• Captain Terrell and Chekov both got Ceti-Eeled. While Chekov got out alive, I'd like to hear you explain to Terrell's widow how Khan didn't bear any responsibility for what happened.
• The taxpayers, for both the cost of Reliant, and the cost of Genesis, which was wasted in an uncontrolled "test."

If he'd focused his revenge on just Kirk, that'd be one thing, but as Kirk himself pointed out, there was a lot of totally senseless collateral damage.

Fuck Khan. This one asshole set sapiens-superior relations back decades.

Khan was an asshole. Granted.

But suppose, just hypothetically, Khan hadn't repaid Captian Kirk's hospitality by attempting to steal his ship and murder him. Would you hate him then?

in the end, security is a pain in someone's ass

Lack of security is a pain in someone's ass too. What we need, is to merge these two asses. One ass: all the pain. Then you can get the correct tradeoffs.

When they talk about the "user experience" they mean someone who is buying ads, not the person who is posting "Look what Hillary Trump said last night" every day. Think in terms of Facebook's customers.

Knowing who is talking to whom is an important part of Facebook's marketing. Look at how Facebook targets and consider item #19 in that article. It's not just about who you are, it's about who you know. Whether you think this is a good idea for Facebook or not, it is what they do.

User A and user B are friends in real life, use Whatsapp, and have Facebook accounts -- but they're not "friends" on Facebook (maybe they only use Facebook for work, or something like that). (Or maybe they don't have Facebook accounts, but Facebook has profiles on them gathered by "like" buttons, and has some way to deliver ads to at least one of them.) They communicate with each other using Whatsapp. This lets Facebook connect the two profiles, even though within Facebook alone, they are unconnected. The result: Now user A can see shopping ads for user B's upcoming birthday.

The advertiser has a good products experience.