You [Americans]n (assuming you are), are always proud of your system.
Your whole post relies on this incorrect generalization. While it may be true for some, it's not true for the whole. While some Americans shed blood attempting to export our political system, others protested both the shedding of blood and the political system itself.
Yes, it's a giant finger given to the people who wanted to use climate change concerns as a way to make countries like the US fork over a bunch of cash to other countries with no obligation on their part to spend it on anything in particular, while also leaving "developing" countries like China completely off the hook.
1. I wasn't aware the treaty required us to fork over a bunch of cash to other countries.
2. China is leading the way in green technology investment.
Politicians are necessary to change the world as well. It was Obama's policies that gave nerds the money—both directly and by incentivizing investors—to accelerate the pace of these technologies and allow them to become competitive in the market. It's like Al Gore and the internet. He didn't invent it, but he did push through the necessary funding to make it happen.
Market forces can lead to all sorts of improvements but if you leave everything up to market forces much is left to chance. Government has the ability to nudge market forces in one direction or the other, and certain technological/social advances won't happen without government intervention. Look at the space race, for example. There's a reason the Russians made it to space first. When we matched, and then exceeded them, it was through a government agency.
Nerds don't save the world alone. Most nerdy endeavors aren't initially profitable and their major investor is the government in the form of grants, not venture capitalists.
It makes you wonder who paid L.E.K. Consulting to do this study. I guess this is a case of "Lies, damned lies, and statistics." The assertion that professional sports "have a millennial problem" seemed suspicious to me. While it may be true that millennials view and attend less sporting events than previous generations, this study doesn't sound like it necessarily provides evidence of that. Furthermore, it fails to demonstrate that if in fact traditional sports are in some kind of decline, "e-sports" have anything to do with it.
Hey, those Native Americans got here by crossing the Bering Strait. We're all from Africa, so I guess according to his logic we need to all go back there.
I'm not saying the far-left view is that people should not be demeaned. I think it's normal decency and would like to believe that most of us think that way. The far left view is that Trump in particular is demeaning people, a view which is not shared with many outside of that group.
You genuinely don't believe Trump demeans people? He had a reality show in which all he did was demean people. He described Mexican immigrants, as a group, as a bunch of rapists and killers. Just this week he publicly called Comey "crazy." The guy runs beauty pageants, which are their own special brand of demeaning. He comes up with demeaning nick-names for all of his political opponents—"Lyin' Ted Cruz," for example. He claimed—with no evidence—that the former president wasn't eligible for office. He admitted to using his wealth/power to get away with sexually assaulting women. The sad thing is, I could keep on coming up with examples of how he regularly demeans people, but I think this list is sufficient to make my point.
Aside from all the clear evidence that Trump regularly demeans people, what's with the whole "far-left view" bullshit? Stop viewing the world in binary terms where all of your political opponents have some homogenous mindset. It's academically lazy to say, "everyone on the left views the world this way," or "the right-wing view is. .."
Hate speech isn't speech that carries the threat of imminent physical harm (one of the few categories of speech not protected). Hate speech is hateful and usually has an explicit desire for people to be harmed, but isn't necessarily threatening. That's why I feel like hate speech should be protected: in order to ensure free speech we must place the fewest restrictions on it as possible, even if it means dealing with loud assholes.
Hypocrisy in my view comes from the Colbert-adopted far left view that Trump is demeaning people
This is what annoys me about politics. Your characterization of this "far left view" is completely detached from political policy. Colbert has made a career out of demeaning people (not just Trump) so I don't know where you got the impression that he pretended to be against such a practice. In the piece with the controversial joke, the whole point of the joke was that he was hurling ad hominem attacks at Trump in retaliation for Trumps berating of an NBC journalist. He was underscoring that, when Trump resorts to petty ad hominem attacks (as he is wont to do), he's throwing stones in glass houses because eventually someone will stoop to his level. While you may see that as hypocritical, most will see it as a comical. And that's why there's a distinct difference between Trump's ad hominem attacks and Colbert's—Colbert's making a joke to illustrate the moral failings of the president whereas the president just engages in ad hominem attacks because he seems to genuinely believe that's the proper way to argue. Left and right has nothing to do with it.
While I think the statistics here are pretty dubious, if we take them at face value I think another likely reason shrooms would have less hospitalizations is because you'll throw up if you take too many. Really, though, the difference between shrooms and acid is barely discernible and neurologically they do pretty much the same thing (serotonin/dopamine agonists).
Concerning pot, I knew someone who was allergic to it and it made his throat swell up the first and only time he smoked it. He had to go to the ER. That could contribute to some hospitalizations, but I'm sure most are, as you suggest, people who took a large dose and got scared.
Why should hate speech be punishable? Do you mean just on network television or in general? If you mean on network television, you have a case but I do find the FCC's claim to be able so censor the airwaves to be dubious. If you mean in general then I would argue that hate speech is unequivocally protected by the Constitution.
Also, why is Colbert a hypocrite? I don't understand that comment. Is it because he criticizes the president for being crass while being crass himself? I don't buy that as hypocrisy because they occupy extremely different roles. If Colbert were to excuse crassness on the part of Obama and then be critical of Trump's crassness, then he would be a hypocrite. Or do you think Colbert's a hypocrite for some other reason? I'm genuinely curious about this one.
This is the horrible result of extreme partisanship. When it becomes more about your team winning than what's best for the country, morals and class become irrelevant. It's like Pittsburgh Steelers fans—they know their quarterback is a rapist but they defend him anyway because he's their quarterback and he wins.
Your post also makes me think of how terrible our education system is. We think of education purely as job training. That's why being a "geek" doesn't mean you're smart or read awesome Douglas Adams books. There are people who learn to code, or learn to monkey around in IT, or do whatever type of thing that's stereotypically nerdy but they never took an ethics class or studied foreign cultures or immersed themselves for just a small time in any form of liberal arts.
In college I would always hear people complain if they had to take anything outside the purview of their specific major. "Why do I have to learn this? When am I ever going to use this?" they would say. I guess my answer is: because you have the power to vote and you'll use this knowledge when you cast your ballot. Now we've elected President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.
I went to pull away from a stop sign onto a main highway and couldn't because I had it in third gear. Multiple tries to find first resulted in reverse or third. When I finally got it in first I almost pulled out without looking for traffic again.
I pray that I'll never be your passenger.
Seriously, though, his experience sounds extremely atypical. Regardless, you're a clear example of the majority. Most products are available in multiple tiers and the highest volume of sales will likely go to the lower tiers. Wal-Mart probably sells more screwdrivers than Snap-On, for example, but people who really care about their tools tend to buy Snap-On. People who just want a screwdriver that works at the lowest price will likely go to Wal-Mart (and then, of course, there's people who want something in the middle such as Craftsman, Kobalt, etc.). Most people don't drive Beamers just like most people don't use Macs.
It's just unfortunate that in the computer market there are only two major options. I mean, using Windows is like driving a Kia. Focuses are pretty nice—I'm actually considering getting an ST or RS—but that tier doesn't exist in the computer market. Sure, you can make PCs go real fast and take you wherever you need to go, but they always handle like shit and are no fun to drive.
Well, that's not entirely true. If you want to work on your own Beamer, be prepared to either buy a lot of custom BMW tools or make some yourself. A normal socket won't fit most of their bolt, as they're in places where the thickness of the socket won't allow your to get in there. You can either find super thin sockets, maybe buy something from a BMW dealer, or take a regular socket set to a grinding wheel. There're not easy to work on. They expect you to go to the dealer for even the little things like oil changes and wiper blades. Mine is just an older one so it provides me with a tad more flexibility.
As for Exchange. ..I'm glad I don't currently work in an environment that shackles me to it. Even if I did, I'd still use a Mac at home. Just like if I were a trucker I'd still drive my BMW for personal use, not the semi.
BMW is a better car analogy. Porches are nice little sports cars but BMWs are amazing everyday drivers. They're perhaps the only daily driver built completely with the driver in mind—the way the shift, handle, the engine harmonics, the cabin design. Everything is tweaked for an optimal driving experience.
When I bought my BMW my wife was skeptical. She didn't want me to get it because she didn't want people to think we're snobby. It only took one ride for her to realize there's a reason people get attached to them. Sure, there are lots of people who drive BMWs because it's fashionable and they want to be seen in an expensive car. But the reason most BMW owners consistently buy BMWs is because almost everyone has to drive a lot. When spend a lot of your time doing something you want to enjoy it.
Guys who like to work on cars don't like BMWs. A mechanic looks underneath and wonders, "Why the hell are there two control arms and a giant ass trailing arm on the rear end? Changing those bushings would be a nightmare." An engineer looks underneath and thinks, "Damn that's the most symmetrical undercarriage I've ever seen."
Macs aren't designed for those who tinker under the hood. They're not designed for cheapskates who value money more than experience. They're designed for those who want to do work (or whatever) on their computer rather than work on their computer.
That's a dangerous way of thinking. The problem is that making microchip implants ordinary opens the door for these type of things to be abused. First it's just voluntary for those who want to work for a particular company, then it's just ordinary for those who work for particular industries, then it's just your driver's license. At first all it does is open doors, and then later iterations will monitor your location and health and who you interact with.
Sure, it's a slippery slope argument but slippery slope arguments aren't necessarily fallacious. This has already happened with cell phones. They started as a niche device and now it's difficult to function in society without one. And they collect all your information and make privacy obsolete. It doesn't take a ridiculous amount of foresight to see the dangers of certain technologies. George Orwell predicted the danger of televisions with cameras/microphones connected to the internet in 1949 yet we still allow these things in our home without demanding legislative protections to our privacy.
I think he's talking about PS1, N64, etc. To the best of my knowledge, Gamestop never carried used PC games.
Of course, carrying those vintage cartridge/disc games would be difficult in its own way. All the Gamestop stories I've been in were fairly small and just didn't have the room to stock all those vintage games.
Posts criticizing global warming are downvoted because this is a site for science geeks. A post criticizing natural selection will also get downvoted. Just because there isn't a (-1 dumb) option doesn't mean mods won't act like there is.
You do know that the global economy is doing quite well, right? Furthermore, the economy is actually in danger of getting overheated, which is why Yellen is raising interest rates. This has been a concern of hers for the past two years, it's nothing new. There are so many nuances regarding the state of the economy I won't pretend to understand it all but I sincerely doubt that two months of an erratic president could cause a great boom to the economy, especially when the economy has been doing well the last 6-7 years and this is in line with a global trend. In fact, I'm worried that Trump will cause too great of booms in the future with his absurd "pro-business" policies. The thing about "pro-business" policy is that it benefits business in the short term, which is fine with CEOs because they only have to have a short term success to acquire massive amounts of wealth. If Trump replaces Yellen in two years with someone who won't responsibly raise interest rates when the danger of inflation hangs over the economy, we could see another crisis similar to the housing crisis at the end of Bush's second term. That's the danger of deregulation. You create a boom-bust economy. Reagan did it in the 80s, Clinton did it in the 90s, Bush in the 00s. Obama was the first president in my lifetime that didn't fall for the laissez-faire bullshit and it was the first period of steady, gradual growth. The boom-bust works out great for those who acquire millions during the boom. For everyone else, it's a rollercoaster you're not strapped into.
Your generalizations about optimism and taking risks are exactly what has caused all the busts in the past. Optimism is fine but that's not what happens during a boom. What happens is irrational overconfidence and that leads to horrible consequences.
The fact of the matter is that the main reason the government is turning into Big Brother is because unlike most of the people on this site, the typical American believes that all of those things are ridiculous conspiracy theories. Hence politicians who find a surveillance state to be reprehensible are few and far between. I can think of Ron Wyden and Rand Paul off the top of my head and they're treated like whackos.
To flippantly dismiss it at "that's spying and that's how it's been for the last 2-3 decades" is the type of submissive attitude that has allowed this to happen in the first place. The generations of our time exist at a crucial moment in history when the very notion of liberty is in jeopardy. If we allow an Orwellian government to take hold—which all of these actions by the CIA are precursors for—then it may be impossible to reverse.
I may sound hyperbolic but the extreme nature of the changes our society currently face only sound ridiculous to people because most don't want to believe that horrible things are happening (or at least, they don't want to believe they'll happen in their own lifetime). It's the same with climate change. People just hope that when the shit hits the fan they'll be long dead.
And how many of those Linux devices pay royalties to Microsoft for unnamed or obscure patents? Microsoft didn't give up on the smartphone market, they just found a way to tax the entire market and ensure that Linux is no longer really free.
While I agree the election process must be reformed, I think the big problem with the Constitution is the structure of our government as a whole. We need a new type of legislature (the Senate doesn't exist for any reason in its current form and the House is full of dunces beholden to various interests). We also need to accept that we live in a unitary and take education expenses to the national level. It's not right that the quality of education receives is dependent on where they live.
Overall, though, I'd want for a new constitution to be as limited in scope as possible. To account for the unaccountable, though, there should probably be some provision for drafting a new constitution every one hundred years.
Slashdot Mirror
You [Americans]n (assuming you are), are always proud of your system.
Your whole post relies on this incorrect generalization. While it may be true for some, it's not true for the whole. While some Americans shed blood attempting to export our political system, others protested both the shedding of blood and the political system itself.
the generous people of the USA
Based on this comment, I assume you've never been to the U.S., as generosity is far from being a common quality here.
Yes, it's a giant finger given to the people who wanted to use climate change concerns as a way to make countries like the US fork over a bunch of cash to other countries with no obligation on their part to spend it on anything in particular, while also leaving "developing" countries like China completely off the hook.
1. I wasn't aware the treaty required us to fork over a bunch of cash to other countries.
2. China is leading the way in green technology investment.
Politicians are necessary to change the world as well. It was Obama's policies that gave nerds the money—both directly and by incentivizing investors—to accelerate the pace of these technologies and allow them to become competitive in the market. It's like Al Gore and the internet. He didn't invent it, but he did push through the necessary funding to make it happen.
Market forces can lead to all sorts of improvements but if you leave everything up to market forces much is left to chance. Government has the ability to nudge market forces in one direction or the other, and certain technological/social advances won't happen without government intervention. Look at the space race, for example. There's a reason the Russians made it to space first. When we matched, and then exceeded them, it was through a government agency.
Nerds don't save the world alone. Most nerdy endeavors aren't initially profitable and their major investor is the government in the form of grants, not venture capitalists.
It makes you wonder who paid L.E.K. Consulting to do this study. I guess this is a case of "Lies, damned lies, and statistics." The assertion that professional sports "have a millennial problem" seemed suspicious to me. While it may be true that millennials view and attend less sporting events than previous generations, this study doesn't sound like it necessarily provides evidence of that. Furthermore, it fails to demonstrate that if in fact traditional sports are in some kind of decline, "e-sports" have anything to do with it.
Hey, those Native Americans got here by crossing the Bering Strait. We're all from Africa, so I guess according to his logic we need to all go back there.
especially if they look like criminals
What, exactly, does a criminal look like? I suspect you posted AC because you were aware of the racist implications and overt xenophobia of your post.
I'm not saying the far-left view is that people should not be demeaned. I think it's normal decency and would like to believe that most of us think that way. The far left view is that Trump in particular is demeaning people, a view which is not shared with many outside of that group.
You genuinely don't believe Trump demeans people? He had a reality show in which all he did was demean people. He described Mexican immigrants, as a group, as a bunch of rapists and killers. Just this week he publicly called Comey "crazy." The guy runs beauty pageants, which are their own special brand of demeaning. He comes up with demeaning nick-names for all of his political opponents—"Lyin' Ted Cruz," for example. He claimed—with no evidence—that the former president wasn't eligible for office. He admitted to using his wealth/power to get away with sexually assaulting women. The sad thing is, I could keep on coming up with examples of how he regularly demeans people, but I think this list is sufficient to make my point.
Aside from all the clear evidence that Trump regularly demeans people, what's with the whole "far-left view" bullshit? Stop viewing the world in binary terms where all of your political opponents have some homogenous mindset. It's academically lazy to say, "everyone on the left views the world this way," or "the right-wing view is. . ."
Hate speech isn't speech that carries the threat of imminent physical harm (one of the few categories of speech not protected). Hate speech is hateful and usually has an explicit desire for people to be harmed, but isn't necessarily threatening. That's why I feel like hate speech should be protected: in order to ensure free speech we must place the fewest restrictions on it as possible, even if it means dealing with loud assholes.
Hypocrisy in my view comes from the Colbert-adopted far left view that Trump is demeaning people
This is what annoys me about politics. Your characterization of this "far left view" is completely detached from political policy. Colbert has made a career out of demeaning people (not just Trump) so I don't know where you got the impression that he pretended to be against such a practice. In the piece with the controversial joke, the whole point of the joke was that he was hurling ad hominem attacks at Trump in retaliation for Trumps berating of an NBC journalist. He was underscoring that, when Trump resorts to petty ad hominem attacks (as he is wont to do), he's throwing stones in glass houses because eventually someone will stoop to his level. While you may see that as hypocritical, most will see it as a comical. And that's why there's a distinct difference between Trump's ad hominem attacks and Colbert's—Colbert's making a joke to illustrate the moral failings of the president whereas the president just engages in ad hominem attacks because he seems to genuinely believe that's the proper way to argue. Left and right has nothing to do with it.
While I think the statistics here are pretty dubious, if we take them at face value I think another likely reason shrooms would have less hospitalizations is because you'll throw up if you take too many. Really, though, the difference between shrooms and acid is barely discernible and neurologically they do pretty much the same thing (serotonin/dopamine agonists).
Concerning pot, I knew someone who was allergic to it and it made his throat swell up the first and only time he smoked it. He had to go to the ER. That could contribute to some hospitalizations, but I'm sure most are, as you suggest, people who took a large dose and got scared.
Why should hate speech be punishable? Do you mean just on network television or in general? If you mean on network television, you have a case but I do find the FCC's claim to be able so censor the airwaves to be dubious. If you mean in general then I would argue that hate speech is unequivocally protected by the Constitution.
Also, why is Colbert a hypocrite? I don't understand that comment. Is it because he criticizes the president for being crass while being crass himself? I don't buy that as hypocrisy because they occupy extremely different roles. If Colbert were to excuse crassness on the part of Obama and then be critical of Trump's crassness, then he would be a hypocrite. Or do you think Colbert's a hypocrite for some other reason? I'm genuinely curious about this one.
This is the horrible result of extreme partisanship. When it becomes more about your team winning than what's best for the country, morals and class become irrelevant. It's like Pittsburgh Steelers fans—they know their quarterback is a rapist but they defend him anyway because he's their quarterback and he wins.
Your post also makes me think of how terrible our education system is. We think of education purely as job training. That's why being a "geek" doesn't mean you're smart or read awesome Douglas Adams books. There are people who learn to code, or learn to monkey around in IT, or do whatever type of thing that's stereotypically nerdy but they never took an ethics class or studied foreign cultures or immersed themselves for just a small time in any form of liberal arts.
In college I would always hear people complain if they had to take anything outside the purview of their specific major. "Why do I have to learn this? When am I ever going to use this?" they would say. I guess my answer is: because you have the power to vote and you'll use this knowledge when you cast your ballot. Now we've elected President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.
I went to pull away from a stop sign onto a main highway and couldn't because I had it in third gear. Multiple tries to find first resulted in reverse or third. When I finally got it in first I almost pulled out without looking for traffic again.
I pray that I'll never be your passenger.
Seriously, though, his experience sounds extremely atypical. Regardless, you're a clear example of the majority. Most products are available in multiple tiers and the highest volume of sales will likely go to the lower tiers. Wal-Mart probably sells more screwdrivers than Snap-On, for example, but people who really care about their tools tend to buy Snap-On. People who just want a screwdriver that works at the lowest price will likely go to Wal-Mart (and then, of course, there's people who want something in the middle such as Craftsman, Kobalt, etc.). Most people don't drive Beamers just like most people don't use Macs.
It's just unfortunate that in the computer market there are only two major options. I mean, using Windows is like driving a Kia. Focuses are pretty nice—I'm actually considering getting an ST or RS—but that tier doesn't exist in the computer market. Sure, you can make PCs go real fast and take you wherever you need to go, but they always handle like shit and are no fun to drive.
Well, that's not entirely true. If you want to work on your own Beamer, be prepared to either buy a lot of custom BMW tools or make some yourself. A normal socket won't fit most of their bolt, as they're in places where the thickness of the socket won't allow your to get in there. You can either find super thin sockets, maybe buy something from a BMW dealer, or take a regular socket set to a grinding wheel. There're not easy to work on. They expect you to go to the dealer for even the little things like oil changes and wiper blades. Mine is just an older one so it provides me with a tad more flexibility.
As for Exchange. . .I'm glad I don't currently work in an environment that shackles me to it. Even if I did, I'd still use a Mac at home. Just like if I were a trucker I'd still drive my BMW for personal use, not the semi.
BMW is a better car analogy. Porches are nice little sports cars but BMWs are amazing everyday drivers. They're perhaps the only daily driver built completely with the driver in mind—the way the shift, handle, the engine harmonics, the cabin design. Everything is tweaked for an optimal driving experience.
When I bought my BMW my wife was skeptical. She didn't want me to get it because she didn't want people to think we're snobby. It only took one ride for her to realize there's a reason people get attached to them. Sure, there are lots of people who drive BMWs because it's fashionable and they want to be seen in an expensive car. But the reason most BMW owners consistently buy BMWs is because almost everyone has to drive a lot. When spend a lot of your time doing something you want to enjoy it.
Guys who like to work on cars don't like BMWs. A mechanic looks underneath and wonders, "Why the hell are there two control arms and a giant ass trailing arm on the rear end? Changing those bushings would be a nightmare." An engineer looks underneath and thinks, "Damn that's the most symmetrical undercarriage I've ever seen."
Macs aren't designed for those who tinker under the hood. They're not designed for cheapskates who value money more than experience. They're designed for those who want to do work (or whatever) on their computer rather than work on their computer.
Sometimes I think that corporations watch Black Mirror for ideas.
That's a dangerous way of thinking. The problem is that making microchip implants ordinary opens the door for these type of things to be abused. First it's just voluntary for those who want to work for a particular company, then it's just ordinary for those who work for particular industries, then it's just your driver's license. At first all it does is open doors, and then later iterations will monitor your location and health and who you interact with.
Sure, it's a slippery slope argument but slippery slope arguments aren't necessarily fallacious. This has already happened with cell phones. They started as a niche device and now it's difficult to function in society without one. And they collect all your information and make privacy obsolete. It doesn't take a ridiculous amount of foresight to see the dangers of certain technologies. George Orwell predicted the danger of televisions with cameras/microphones connected to the internet in 1949 yet we still allow these things in our home without demanding legislative protections to our privacy.
I see a problem here.
I think he's talking about PS1, N64, etc. To the best of my knowledge, Gamestop never carried used PC games.
Of course, carrying those vintage cartridge/disc games would be difficult in its own way. All the Gamestop stories I've been in were fairly small and just didn't have the room to stock all those vintage games.
Posts criticizing global warming are downvoted because this is a site for science geeks. A post criticizing natural selection will also get downvoted. Just because there isn't a (-1 dumb) option doesn't mean mods won't act like there is.
You do know that the global economy is doing quite well, right? Furthermore, the economy is actually in danger of getting overheated, which is why Yellen is raising interest rates. This has been a concern of hers for the past two years, it's nothing new. There are so many nuances regarding the state of the economy I won't pretend to understand it all but I sincerely doubt that two months of an erratic president could cause a great boom to the economy, especially when the economy has been doing well the last 6-7 years and this is in line with a global trend. In fact, I'm worried that Trump will cause too great of booms in the future with his absurd "pro-business" policies. The thing about "pro-business" policy is that it benefits business in the short term, which is fine with CEOs because they only have to have a short term success to acquire massive amounts of wealth. If Trump replaces Yellen in two years with someone who won't responsibly raise interest rates when the danger of inflation hangs over the economy, we could see another crisis similar to the housing crisis at the end of Bush's second term. That's the danger of deregulation. You create a boom-bust economy. Reagan did it in the 80s, Clinton did it in the 90s, Bush in the 00s. Obama was the first president in my lifetime that didn't fall for the laissez-faire bullshit and it was the first period of steady, gradual growth. The boom-bust works out great for those who acquire millions during the boom. For everyone else, it's a rollercoaster you're not strapped into.
Your generalizations about optimism and taking risks are exactly what has caused all the busts in the past. Optimism is fine but that's not what happens during a boom. What happens is irrational overconfidence and that leads to horrible consequences.
The fact of the matter is that the main reason the government is turning into Big Brother is because unlike most of the people on this site, the typical American believes that all of those things are ridiculous conspiracy theories. Hence politicians who find a surveillance state to be reprehensible are few and far between. I can think of Ron Wyden and Rand Paul off the top of my head and they're treated like whackos.
To flippantly dismiss it at "that's spying and that's how it's been for the last 2-3 decades" is the type of submissive attitude that has allowed this to happen in the first place. The generations of our time exist at a crucial moment in history when the very notion of liberty is in jeopardy. If we allow an Orwellian government to take hold—which all of these actions by the CIA are precursors for—then it may be impossible to reverse.
I may sound hyperbolic but the extreme nature of the changes our society currently face only sound ridiculous to people because most don't want to believe that horrible things are happening (or at least, they don't want to believe they'll happen in their own lifetime). It's the same with climate change. People just hope that when the shit hits the fan they'll be long dead.
And how many of those Linux devices pay royalties to Microsoft for unnamed or obscure patents? Microsoft didn't give up on the smartphone market, they just found a way to tax the entire market and ensure that Linux is no longer really free.
It sounds like you really miss the days of good old Senator McCarthy.
That was troll-tastic.
While I agree the election process must be reformed, I think the big problem with the Constitution is the structure of our government as a whole. We need a new type of legislature (the Senate doesn't exist for any reason in its current form and the House is full of dunces beholden to various interests). We also need to accept that we live in a unitary and take education expenses to the national level. It's not right that the quality of education receives is dependent on where they live.
Overall, though, I'd want for a new constitution to be as limited in scope as possible. To account for the unaccountable, though, there should probably be some provision for drafting a new constitution every one hundred years.