well, what is (100%-99%) = 1% of Muslims? How many is that?

I agree, but while we're at it let's extend that to all the Muslim pervs as well.

Including those in positions of power.

Oh wait, that's not allowed...

Well, for starters let's check our friend Wikipedia.

Mossad's former motto, be-tachbūlōt ta`aseh lekhā milchāmāh (Hebrew: בתחבולות תעשה לך מלחמה‎) is a quote from the Bible (Proverbs 24:6): "For by wise guidance you can wage your war" (NRSV). The motto was later changed to another Proverbs passage: be-'éyn tachbūlōt yippol `ām; ū-teshū`āh be-rov yō'éts (Hebrew: באין תחבולות יפול עם, ותשועה ברוב יועץ‎, Proverbs 11:14). This is translated by NRSV as: "Where there is no guidance, a nation falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety."

Hmm....

Does not seem to agree with your assertions....

Actually you can find it in many books and places. Certainly in Muslim war methodology and Muslim terrorist methods. In Machiavelli. In The Art of War by Sun Tzu. Etc, etc, etc.

First would be attempting to correctly state the problem and the solutions as we have been doing here. Don't underestimate the importance of this simple requirement. Not saying that this is all 100% perfect construction of the issue...

It's useful to actually correctly understand the "medical privacy problem."

Medical privacy rules are covered in the USA by HIPAA rules. These make sharing data extremely simple for some, and extremely difficult for others.

Extremely simple - Government agency -- other agencies, law enforcement at all levels

Extremely hard - you to give / show your data to other individuals

You see? Blockchain is being actually proposed here as a way around stupid government regulations.

These are private companies which are crossing the line into the arena of public utilities, and regulation is probable...in those countries such as the USA where it has not already occurred. It already exists in many places.

What do I suggest? Open source is the only solution to this technical problem. Near monopolies come and go in the blink of an eye in the software world.

What if it was your bitcoin wallet, and some guys with closed source were making assertions about how great it was?

Maybe or maybe not, but you have not proved it with your illogic.

There is no equality where you placed it.

However, the underlying facts exist.

Religion is in fact based on belief, not fact in any sense. It's silly and ignorant to argue otherwise.

This is not bad but good.

These robot machines go places we cannot.

Some take a decade to reach their destination. Spacecraft which might be built in the future to go to other stars would take centuries, or thousands of years to reach their destination, and return their findings by light or radio,

What we accomplish in space certainly can be by way of our robots and remote sensors.

Here is the problem. When experiments and research in various fields such as psychology and medicine are done, blind and double-blind experimental protocols are used. This means for the blind protocol, that the test operators in contact with the subjects do not know what the purpose is. For the double blind those who supervise the test operators do not know.

These are used because the pervasive effects of bias make accurate findings impossible without the strictest of these protocols.

Now I could argue that your analysis is biased and imperfect. But that's not the point. The point is that the protocols used by the likes of Google and Facebook are biased and imperfect. In other words, you would defend with bias, biased protocols that are in turn the natural output product of biased individuals.

Yet these are the very projects which blind and double blind experimentation is well understood to handle.

There can be no in between. There is only a scientific approach or a biased approach.

There is no defense that can be made by Google without providing facts and algorithms, and that they (apparently) will not do.

We know from the history of cryptography that the algorithms held secret are the easiest to break, or to find flaws in. Those which are published and critiqued repeatedly, right out in the open, are the strongest security methods by far.

I'm inclined to the opinion that the algorithms of the likes of Google, Facebook and Twitter are crude and amateurish.

Sounds like we're in agreement on the basics.

I suspect if I suggested extending that list of persons not to be trusted to include other politicians  of your preference we'd still be in agreement.

Why exactly did you hold the view there was nothing interesting about the Google search that showed 0 hits for "crime" on Hillary, but numerous for Trump?

Somewhat related but certainly good for a laugh...

Even Cuba has admitted the need for a strong private sector.

https://www.local10.com/news/cuba/cubas-new-regulations-for-private-sector-faces-resistance

Sure, let's do it. But let's not be blinded by the horrible tragedy and have that cause us to stop thinking.

The Saudis and the Houthis have what exact quarrel over what, exactly?

Looks like more Muslim <--> Muslim nonsense with guns and ballistic missiles and fighter jets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_movement

The movement's expressed goals include combating economic underdevelopment and political marginalization in Yemen while seeking greater autonomy for Houthi-majority regions of the country.[37] They also claim to support a more democratic non-sectarian republic in Yemen.[38] The Houthis have made fighting corruption the centerpiece of their political program.[25]
The Houthis took part in the 2011 Yemeni Revolution by participating in street protests and by coordinating with other opposition groups. They joined the National Dialogue Conference in Yemen as part of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) initiative to broker peace following the unrest. However, the Houthis would later reject the November 2011 GCC deal's provisions stipulating formation of six federal regions in Yemen, claiming that the deal did not fundamentally reform governance and that the proposed federalization "divided Yemen into poor and wealthy regions". Houthis also feared the deal was a blatant attempt to weaken them by dividing areas under their control between separate regions.[37] In late 2014 Houthis repaired their relationship with the former president Ali Abdullah Saleh, and with his help, they took control of the capital and much of the north.[39]
In 2014–2015 Houthis took over the government in Sana'a with the help of the former president Ali Abdullah Saleh and announced the fall of the current government of Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi.[40][41] Houthis have gained control of most of the northern part of Yemen's territory and since 2015 have been resisting the Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen that claims to seek to restore the internationally recognized Yemeni government[42] to power.


Could anyone seriously imagine that the Saudis would want a neighboring country run by people that fire ballistic missiles at Saudi cities?

That's pretty funny.

I start out and say "Don't Trust Google" and you are saying "Don't trust people who tell you ... you shouldn't trust google..."

I just tried the auto complete test again.

Hillary cri = NOT ONE of ten about crimes
Trump cri = SIX of ten about crime

Really that's pretty simple, isn't it?

Doing exactly the same thing with Duck-Duck-go, both Trump and Hillary show four of eight responses with the phrase "crime."

Once the shooting starts, one of the consequences is imprecision and tragedy.

Are you going to simply continue to ignore the original cause or not?

Where did these Houthis get ballistic missiles and why are they firing them at Saudi cities?

Every day, we state facts briefly. You might say "That man is a criminal." You don't cite the cases and details.


Not an anecdote. Saying "That man is a criminal" is stating a fact.

It's true, another party might say "I don't believe it. Prove it." Then it's incumbent upon the first to state the underlying details.

Just go attend a chemistry class. Nothing but exposition of facts without underlying support. All of science is this way.

Except that you are wrong. In the example of the two kings discussion, each asserted the existence of a fact. "Can be proven with evidence" does not mean "was proven".

Every day, we state facts briefly. You might say "That man is a criminal." You don't cite the cases and details.

People that have studied this use scientific methods.

Example, for each search, use a clean computer cleared of cookies and a VPN.

Maybe Yemenis should not be targeting Saudis with missiles?