At any rate, it's been argued that the capitalism == freedom and small state fallacy is partly why the US was happy to encourage China to become so economically powerful- they assumed that they'd become more free, democratic and like the West.
You talk as if it's all over and written in the history books, but the story is ongoing. I see no reason why the people of China won't seize their liberty and self-determination from their authoritarian government like so many others have done. Even now, they advance it every day.
Are other governments crazy to use proprietary software from American companies, given that the US would be crazy not to use it to spy on them?
Yes and intended to be an unavoidable conclusion. If you think it's hard for the US to secure systems, imagine if you're another gov't. What would you install? All FOSS (and after you review it all)?
Slashdot now reposts Daily Caller propaganda? It's almost the quality of the 'FBI confirms aliens' post recently. I like this comment in the Daily Caller article; I'm glad/. helps drive their page views, and can follow instructions:
Be sure to leave comments on any website that makes this claim, and link to this and the Asian Correspondent website.
The article is a bit absurd. It looks for the 50 million refugees in the Bahamas, St. Lucia, Seychelles, and Solomon Islands. Safe to say, if you look for 50 million carbon-based humans there, you won't find them.
What is a 'climate refugee' and how many are there? Does this disprove AGW or point to some evil conspiracy? It's surprising to see/. wasting space and its reputation on this nonsense.
Maybe/. will become News of the World for geeks: Sensation for nerds but stuff that doesn't matter.
So you're saying you prefer the illusion of having control (ballot box) to being openly denied control (no ballot box)? The ballot box in the US - or any modern democratic country, really - is a sham. We do not have democracies, we have plutocracies.
If you mean, I can't personally chose the President, that's true, and probably a good thing. If you mean, Americans can't or don't chose leaders unpopular with the 'plutocrats', buy a history book or read a newspaper. As I said, it's not perfect, but it's a long way from the CCP.
China's leadership has brought about stellar changes to their country over the last few decades. So much so that even the US feels threatened by China. History will show whether they are doing it right or wrong, but maybe they are doing what is necessary for a nation in their particular position to progress.
To start in 1979 and credit the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) with everything that has gone well since is a more than a little disingenuous. Yes, the country has grown from nothing -- but that's after the CCP reduced it to nothing. I doubt any group of people have done more harm than the CCP from 1949 to 1975. Tens of millions dead, extreme poverty, purposely destroying the institutions society needs to survive advance (read about the Cultural Revolution). They burnt down the house; do they get credit for laying a new foundation from nothing? It's the citizens of China that have built it up, once the CCP took a little weight off the boots on their necks.
China has a ballot box. There are elections all the time. Granted, all choices come from the same party, but that's still 70 million people to choose from
It's simply not true that Chinese get to vote for their leaders, except on a low level with choices limited to Communist Party approved candidates. How many votes did President Hu Jintao get? Other Politburo members? Who did Tibetans elect to represent them in Beijing?
Yes, the U.S. is not perfect and I would like to see improvements. But neither is it remotely comparable to the Chinese government's ongoing campaigns of repression and censorship.
Let's just start with voting rights (i.e., self-determination): In the U.S., some groups' ballot box power is reduced by gerrymandering and polling place restrictions (IDs, etc.). In comparison, in China there is no ballot box.
The list of similarly absurd comparisons is long. I look forward to the day when the people of China control their own fate.
your average CS major needs to be able to quote Dante in his original language about as much as he needs an extra heavy bender prior to the big test.
Actually, Dante is very useful for understanding the Real World, in which the CS major must live and participate, and for which he might eventually design IT. It turns out that the Real World is harder to understand than CS, so our friend should study hard.
I've been using the beta for awhile, and from the moment I installed it it seemed significantly faster to me, and to most people: http://input.mozilla.com/en-US/release/
make sane choices regarding what privacies we are willing to sacrifice for our collective benefit.
Fine, as long as it's the choice of each individual, not something imposed on them by neighbors seeking profit or who are apathetic.
The best defense against invasion of privacy is to simply be aware and (re)act accordingly.
I disagree. At this point in time, there is nothing effective that a typical end-user can realistically do, unless they stop using the phone and the Internet.
Don't worry about it. As long as you don't do anything controversial, you don't have anything to hide. Examples of what is controversial really vary. Sometimes it's saying something that's politically wrong (e.g., supporting communists, socialists, any minor party, or the wrong major party), or religiously wrong (taking an interest in an unpopular religion, such as Islam currently, or Judaism historically or in some places), or socially wrong (e.g., sexual practices that your neighbors might disapprove of, even if they do it themselves; or humor or fiction that's politically 'incorrect'). It also depends on who is looking; for example, taking the wrong side of the health care debate might discourage some employers, or of the energy debate might discourage others; what if someone with authority has strong feelings about Guantanamo -- maybe it's better to avoid issues like that; and remember that what's politically incorrect can change -- what's ok today might be wrong tomorrow. What's unremarkable today might be a Congressional hearing tomorrow. When people ask, 'which side are you on?', just be sure you've chosen the right one. Also, make sure it's unambiguous; if someone can misinterpret it they probably will, especially if they don't like you.
Other than that, just do whatever you want online. As long as you do nothing wrong, there is no reason private companies can't log everything you do. In fact, use my computer last thing at night and first thing every morning, so the log is accurate about when I'm sleeping.
Putting the pressure, money, and focus on such a goal will be a complete waste. Focus on making them good *people* first and foremost (education in *real* history, philosophy [including religion], sociology) while also educating them in the various ways they can earn sufficient money to live their happy lives and the rest takes care of itself.
And for the sake of cutting off some argument at the pass, I'm not advocating the cutting of STEM funding-- I'm saying that STEM subjects should not be over-invested... particularly at the cost of the education that is there to create a better society. Maybe one that doesn't allow itself to get into the mess we're in right now.
Wow. I agree, but I'm surprised to see it on Slashdot. I agree completely: STEM is necessary for our economy and wonderful to learn, but critical thinking and an understanding of the world is essential to our society and civilization. I know too many STEM graduates who embarrass themselves in those areas (and many are too arrogant about their abilities to even consider that they might be missing something).
One point I'd nitpick about:
Education has two functions:
(1) Give children sufficient information to make them better (as people and citizens of communities, cities, states, nations, and the world) than the prior generation.
(2) Give children the information required to enter the job market.
IMHO, the primary function of education, at least through an undergraduate degree, is to learn these skills: Learning, critical thinking, and creating (new knowledge, art, etc.). Most of the info we learn over those 16 years is forgotten, but those skills stay with us. You know the old 'give a man a fish / teach a man to fish' saying...
Perhaps it would be constructive to ask why it bothers you so much that some people own guns and might use them under appropriate circumstances to defend their lives and property? Maybe I'm assuming something that isn't true in your case, but when people argue that gun ownership is not permissible they often follow that up by advocating for the confiscation of all guns in private ownership or some intermediate step towards that goal. Is it not possible, in your opinion, to possess a firearm without being a violent racist?
(I appreciate your comments in your other post; thanks.)
Yeah, assuming isn't such a good idea. I support gun ownership -- I'd strongly object if they were banned -- and I support people using them appropriately. Guns are obviously dangerous and like most dangerous things they should be regulated; their distribution controlled, licensing required, etc. Without knowing much about it, I'd probably consider banning weapons unnecessary for self-defense or hunting (e.g., assault weapons, large clips, automatic weapons, etc.), restricting distribution to stringently licensed sellers (including serious penalties for violating distribution rules), and make licensing and training owners much more stringent. Buying and owning one should be a serious matter.
But given the right to own one, is it a good idea? My judgement is that for the vast majority, it's so unlikely that they'll ever use the gun appropriately that mistakes are a bigger threat than attackers; i.e., on average the gun does much more harm than good. Appropriate use requires all of the following: A significant threat to life, limb, or arguably property; the owner's presence; the gun's presence; the police unavailable; shooting and risking killing someone is the best option (!); the opportunity to use the gun (maybe the attacker sees you first); the owner assesses the situation correctly (tired? drunk? bad mood? just not too bright? almost certainly terrified?); and they use it effectively (e.g., without getting shot first, without missing, without shooting the wrong person, etc.). How many times will that happen in your life? It almost certainly won't. An error (a kids steals it, an attacker steals it, the owner shoots their drunk neighbor, the owner is drunk and misjudges, someone uses it for suicide, etc.), is much more likely than appropriate use; it's a tragic mistake waiting to happen. I'll probably never own a gun and never miss it, just like I fly on planes without a parachute. Now your judgement may differ and that's fine -- buy a gun, but absolutely be sure to prevent those errors -- but my point is that the self-defense argument isn't cut and dried at all.
Certainly few gun owners are racist or violent; I have friends who are part of that silent, mature, and vast majority of gun owners. But the racist and violent ones sure like to rant on the Internet, and that's what I object to.
My post was an argument against the violence, irresponsibility, racism, and intimidation that permeate the debate (and the post I responded to). I'm well aware that it's trendy to get online and blow your top and I think it's very destructive to our society -- it prevents real discussion and creates a society that's permissive of hatred and violence. To let it go unchallenged creates the appearance of silent approval; I'm not willing to be permissive about it.
A very good point. Major companies that want to do business in a jurisdiction will be pressured to comply. Smaller websites local to the jurisdiction might not want to fall too far afoul of the public or the law (though how can we catch them?). Small websites outside the jurisdiction? I don't know that this solution applies to them. However, it doesn't need to be a perfect solution to be worthwhile.
This is a great idea. Other posters are right that website operators won't be technically forced to respect the Do Not Track request, but this is a political solution, not a technical solution, and politics is how this needs to be resolved.
Currently, users have no voice. They can't tell websites not to track them except by cumbersome means such as sending emails to the operators. Even then, it's only one email from one user. Website operators can assume that there's no desire for privacy -- in fact it's something they publicly argue.
But clicking the DNT checkbox is much easier. Now the websites are confronted with millions of users, maybe hundreds of millions, requesting 'Do Not Track me'. Ignoring their reasonable requests would be bad for business, for reputation, and most importantly, for politics. If the websites don't comply to a reasonable request from a large number of their constituents, legislators will pass laws to force them. If most websites do comply, then the few who don't will be the odd ones out and face even greater risks to their business.
Just as importantly, DNT raises awareness. I know of few typical end users who are aware of tracking or understand its importance and implications. DNT will at least make them aware that tracking is an issue and that it's important enough that somebody with authority someplace thought they should be able to opt out of it.
(I don't think there's a technical solution to tracking. The value of tracking the (1 billion?) people on the web is great enough that any security measure will be overcome.)
Ah, you're going to blow their heads off, I'm a coward, and you're going to break the law. Yet we should take seriously your ideas and judgement about life-and-death issues?
Aren't you the same person who, below, said he's above the law, called me a coward, and whose solution to high-risk difficult situations is to talk like John Wayne and recklessly shoot people (bragging about literally shooting someone's head off). It seems you can't tell the difference between action scenes in movies and reality.
Why should I take seriously anything you say? With your judgement, I really hope you don't have a firearm.
They are not my ideas, they are the very foundation of our country. Try reading them sometime. Don't like the rules here, get the hell out of my country. ( as if you don't agree with the constitution, its not your country and you don't deserve to be here )
Ha. I'm not sure if you're a troll, but just for the heck of it:
Yes, I'm a proud American. The foundation of the society is that we decide things democratically. Everyone likes to think their ideas are privileged for one reason or another, just like you do, and everyone gets as many votes as you get.
I note you didn't answer my question, you just responded with more threats and intimidation. It must be hard to live in a democracy if you can't respond better to disagreements. Tough luck.
you can go to hell if you think you can dictate what i can and cant do in order to prevent it
That's insight and deep thinking for you. Consider this: Can I dictate that you can't shoot someone on the street because you think he's threatening? That you can't use hand grenades?
The 'go to hell' comment is what I mean by political aggression. It's an attempt to intimidate anyone who would challenge your ideas. Almost like firing a political gun, I suppose... Well, welcome to democracy and society, where people can act and think in ways you don't like (and who made you God and your opinions godlike, that your dissenters are damned?) without going to hell.
criminals almost always want easy money, not conflict
Then they wouldn't enjoy robberies. Most violent criminals are sadists. You're welcome to trust in their kindness, but the rest of us don't enjoy taking a beating or begging for our lives as much as you might.
No idea what your basis is that criminals 'enjoy robberies' and are sadists. It doesn't match my sense of it, and I've never heard that. I'm sure some do and some don't, but I'd need to see some data or expertise that indicates that it's overhelmingly sadists (that's a lot of sadists).
obsessing over one legalistic issue, the Second Amendment of the Constitution
The USA is the Constitution. Saying it is a trivial matter that should weighed amongst other considerations is advocating something between anarchy and despotism.
I didn't say it was trivial at all, but it's just one issue, and one interpretation of one clause in the Constitution, among many. There's much more to our country than one legal document; while I agree it's very valuable and fundamental, our responsibilities don't end there (or start there) and most of what I do during the day is not related to it; most of the world functions without it.
People often use it to justify what they already want to do, just like many use the Bible. On one hand, they aren't really arguing for the authoritative document, but for their interpretation of it. Nowhere does the Constitution say, 'without regulation whatsoever, you have the right to own a handgun, as much ammo as you want, and to use it according to your judgement'. It says only, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.. You could argue that we're restricted owning and using arms as part of a militia.
But I don't think that's really the issue. When people reach for some higher authority to justify themselves, often it's because they can't come up with their own reason. Why should gun laws be so liberal? 'Because I want to use guns' isn't convincing, though it's the truth for many. 'Because the Constitution says so' (akin to the old, 'because the Bible says so') is more powerful.
Again, I'm not against gun ownership, but I think these arguments are weak.
gun rights arguments are rationalizations for people to follow their most base instincts, hatred and violence, without responsibility toward the people and society around them. They aren't serious ideas but more a demonstration of political aggression, to threaten anyone how disagrees.
Here on Earth human beings are animals. Society is created and maintained through violence, and there will always be someone pointing a gun at you, if only the political elite. Guns are as much a promise of peace as a threat of aggression.
You're justifying people turning to hatred and violence, and away from their greater responsibilities? Is that something you support?
I think your depiction of society is false. Societies are people interacting based on a variety of motivations, from altruism to enlightened self-interest to short-sighted greed; probably every person experiences all of them. Humans are naturally social and naturally want to further their communities. How do you explain all the good works and self-sacrifice in our society? In an ironic example, how do you explain police and soldiers, who take great risks for our society and gain very little personally?
The society you describe may exist in Mogidishu, but the great majority of humanity goes about their days without it. Violence is a necessary part of society, but only on rare situations. To explode that into the basis and operational means of our society is ridiculous.
(If people are so violent and selfish, how and why did the political elite write the Constitution in the first place?)
When seconds count, the Police are only minutes away.
I'm not against gun ownership, but I don't think this argument is so cut and dried.
The same could be said of medical care in the case of a heart attack, which you are probably thousands of times more likely to experience. Do you carry a defibrillator and, in case that doesn't work, a scalpel?
It's very unlikely that you'll ever be in a situation where you need police in seconds to save you from serious harm, where having a gun will help you, and where you will use it successfully. It's arguably more likely that you will misuse a gun.
Slashdot Mirror
At any rate, it's been argued that the capitalism == freedom and small state fallacy is partly why the US was happy to encourage China to become so economically powerful- they assumed that they'd become more free, democratic and like the West.
You talk as if it's all over and written in the history books, but the story is ongoing. I see no reason why the people of China won't seize their liberty and self-determination from their authoritarian government like so many others have done. Even now, they advance it every day.
Are other governments crazy to use proprietary software from American companies, given that the US would be crazy not to use it to spy on them?
Yes and intended to be an unavoidable conclusion. If you think it's hard for the US to secure systems, imagine if you're another gov't. What would you install? All FOSS (and after you review it all)?
Slashdot now reposts Daily Caller propaganda? It's almost the quality of the 'FBI confirms aliens' post recently. I like this comment in the Daily Caller article; I'm glad /. helps drive their page views, and can follow instructions:
Be sure to leave comments on any website that makes this claim, and link to this and the Asian Correspondent website.
The article is a bit absurd. It looks for the 50 million refugees in the Bahamas, St. Lucia, Seychelles, and Solomon Islands. Safe to say, if you look for 50 million carbon-based humans there, you won't find them.
What is a 'climate refugee' and how many are there? Does this disprove AGW or point to some evil conspiracy? It's surprising to see /. wasting space and its reputation on this nonsense.
Maybe /. will become News of the World for geeks: Sensation for nerds but stuff that doesn't matter.
So you're saying you prefer the illusion of having control (ballot box) to being openly denied control (no ballot box)? The ballot box in the US - or any modern democratic country, really - is a sham. We do not have democracies, we have plutocracies.
If you mean, I can't personally chose the President, that's true, and probably a good thing. If you mean, Americans can't or don't chose leaders unpopular with the 'plutocrats', buy a history book or read a newspaper. As I said, it's not perfect, but it's a long way from the CCP.
China's leadership has brought about stellar changes to their country over the last few decades. So much so that even the US feels threatened by China. History will show whether they are doing it right or wrong, but maybe they are doing what is necessary for a nation in their particular position to progress.
To start in 1979 and credit the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) with everything that has gone well since is a more than a little disingenuous. Yes, the country has grown from nothing -- but that's after the CCP reduced it to nothing. I doubt any group of people have done more harm than the CCP from 1949 to 1975. Tens of millions dead, extreme poverty, purposely destroying the institutions society needs to survive advance (read about the Cultural Revolution). They burnt down the house; do they get credit for laying a new foundation from nothing? It's the citizens of China that have built it up, once the CCP took a little weight off the boots on their necks.
China has a ballot box. There are elections all the time. Granted, all choices come from the same party, but that's still 70 million people to choose from
It's simply not true that Chinese get to vote for their leaders, except on a low level with choices limited to Communist Party approved candidates. How many votes did President Hu Jintao get? Other Politburo members? Who did Tibetans elect to represent them in Beijing?
Yes, the U.S. is not perfect and I would like to see improvements. But neither is it remotely comparable to the Chinese government's ongoing campaigns of repression and censorship.
Let's just start with voting rights (i.e., self-determination): In the U.S., some groups' ballot box power is reduced by gerrymandering and polling place restrictions (IDs, etc.). In comparison, in China there is no ballot box.
The list of similarly absurd comparisons is long. I look forward to the day when the people of China control their own fate.
your average CS major needs to be able to quote Dante in his original language about as much as he needs an extra heavy bender prior to the big test.
Actually, Dante is very useful for understanding the Real World, in which the CS major must live and participate, and for which he might eventually design IT. It turns out that the Real World is harder to understand than CS, so our friend should study hard.
You insensitive clod!
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/04/01/140213/Toshiba-Develops-3-D-Monocle
I've been using the beta for awhile, and from the moment I installed it it seemed significantly faster to me, and to most people:
http://input.mozilla.com/en-US/release/
And there is plenty of data to support it:
http://arewefastyet.com/?a=b&view=breakdown
make sane choices regarding what privacies we are willing to sacrifice for our collective benefit.
Fine, as long as it's the choice of each individual, not something imposed on them by neighbors seeking profit or who are apathetic.
The best defense against invasion of privacy is to simply be aware and (re)act accordingly.
I disagree. At this point in time, there is nothing effective that a typical end-user can realistically do, unless they stop using the phone and the Internet.
the corporate media
Why pick on them, and not the bloggers and commenters?
Don't worry about it. As long as you don't do anything controversial, you don't have anything to hide. Examples of what is controversial really vary. Sometimes it's saying something that's politically wrong (e.g., supporting communists, socialists, any minor party, or the wrong major party), or religiously wrong (taking an interest in an unpopular religion, such as Islam currently, or Judaism historically or in some places), or socially wrong (e.g., sexual practices that your neighbors might disapprove of, even if they do it themselves; or humor or fiction that's politically 'incorrect'). It also depends on who is looking; for example, taking the wrong side of the health care debate might discourage some employers, or of the energy debate might discourage others; what if someone with authority has strong feelings about Guantanamo -- maybe it's better to avoid issues like that; and remember that what's politically incorrect can change -- what's ok today might be wrong tomorrow. What's unremarkable today might be a Congressional hearing tomorrow. When people ask, 'which side are you on?', just be sure you've chosen the right one. Also, make sure it's unambiguous; if someone can misinterpret it they probably will, especially if they don't like you.
Other than that, just do whatever you want online. As long as you do nothing wrong, there is no reason private companies can't log everything you do. In fact, use my computer last thing at night and first thing every morning, so the log is accurate about when I'm sleeping.
If the website doesn't retain info on anonymous posters, then there's nothing for them to provide. Does Slashdot retain anything?
Putting the pressure, money, and focus on such a goal will be a complete waste. Focus on making them good *people* first and foremost (education in *real* history, philosophy [including religion], sociology) while also educating them in the various ways they can earn sufficient money to live their happy lives and the rest takes care of itself.
And for the sake of cutting off some argument at the pass, I'm not advocating the cutting of STEM funding-- I'm saying that STEM subjects should not be over-invested... particularly at the cost of the education that is there to create a better society. Maybe one that doesn't allow itself to get into the mess we're in right now.
Wow. I agree, but I'm surprised to see it on Slashdot. I agree completely: STEM is necessary for our economy and wonderful to learn, but critical thinking and an understanding of the world is essential to our society and civilization. I know too many STEM graduates who embarrass themselves in those areas (and many are too arrogant about their abilities to even consider that they might be missing something).
One point I'd nitpick about:
Education has two functions:
(1) Give children sufficient information to make them better (as people and citizens of communities, cities, states, nations, and the world) than the prior generation.
(2) Give children the information required to enter the job market.
IMHO, the primary function of education, at least through an undergraduate degree, is to learn these skills: Learning, critical thinking, and creating (new knowledge, art, etc.). Most of the info we learn over those 16 years is forgotten, but those skills stay with us. You know the old 'give a man a fish / teach a man to fish' saying ...
Perhaps it would be constructive to ask why it bothers you so much that some people own guns and might use them under appropriate circumstances to defend their lives and property? Maybe I'm assuming something that isn't true in your case, but when people argue that gun ownership is not permissible they often follow that up by advocating for the confiscation of all guns in private ownership or some intermediate step towards that goal. Is it not possible, in your opinion, to possess a firearm without being a violent racist?
(I appreciate your comments in your other post; thanks.)
Yeah, assuming isn't such a good idea. I support gun ownership -- I'd strongly object if they were banned -- and I support people using them appropriately. Guns are obviously dangerous and like most dangerous things they should be regulated; their distribution controlled, licensing required, etc. Without knowing much about it, I'd probably consider banning weapons unnecessary for self-defense or hunting (e.g., assault weapons, large clips, automatic weapons, etc.), restricting distribution to stringently licensed sellers (including serious penalties for violating distribution rules), and make licensing and training owners much more stringent. Buying and owning one should be a serious matter.
But given the right to own one, is it a good idea? My judgement is that for the vast majority, it's so unlikely that they'll ever use the gun appropriately that mistakes are a bigger threat than attackers; i.e., on average the gun does much more harm than good. Appropriate use requires all of the following: A significant threat to life, limb, or arguably property; the owner's presence; the gun's presence; the police unavailable; shooting and risking killing someone is the best option (!); the opportunity to use the gun (maybe the attacker sees you first); the owner assesses the situation correctly (tired? drunk? bad mood? just not too bright? almost certainly terrified?); and they use it effectively (e.g., without getting shot first, without missing, without shooting the wrong person, etc.). How many times will that happen in your life? It almost certainly won't. An error (a kids steals it, an attacker steals it, the owner shoots their drunk neighbor, the owner is drunk and misjudges, someone uses it for suicide, etc.), is much more likely than appropriate use; it's a tragic mistake waiting to happen. I'll probably never own a gun and never miss it, just like I fly on planes without a parachute. Now your judgement may differ and that's fine -- buy a gun, but absolutely be sure to prevent those errors -- but my point is that the self-defense argument isn't cut and dried at all.
Certainly few gun owners are racist or violent; I have friends who are part of that silent, mature, and vast majority of gun owners. But the racist and violent ones sure like to rant on the Internet, and that's what I object to.
My post was an argument against the violence, irresponsibility, racism, and intimidation that permeate the debate (and the post I responded to). I'm well aware that it's trendy to get online and blow your top and I think it's very destructive to our society -- it prevents real discussion and creates a society that's permissive of hatred and violence. To let it go unchallenged creates the appearance of silent approval; I'm not willing to be permissive about it.
IMHO, that shows character. Thanks. I'm not offended, I'm just not willing to spend my time discussing things on that level.
Where does the internet legislature live?
A very good point. Major companies that want to do business in a jurisdiction will be pressured to comply. Smaller websites local to the jurisdiction might not want to fall too far afoul of the public or the law (though how can we catch them?). Small websites outside the jurisdiction? I don't know that this solution applies to them. However, it doesn't need to be a perfect solution to be worthwhile.
This is a great idea. Other posters are right that website operators won't be technically forced to respect the Do Not Track request, but this is a political solution, not a technical solution, and politics is how this needs to be resolved.
Currently, users have no voice. They can't tell websites not to track them except by cumbersome means such as sending emails to the operators. Even then, it's only one email from one user. Website operators can assume that there's no desire for privacy -- in fact it's something they publicly argue.
But clicking the DNT checkbox is much easier. Now the websites are confronted with millions of users, maybe hundreds of millions, requesting 'Do Not Track me'. Ignoring their reasonable requests would be bad for business, for reputation, and most importantly, for politics. If the websites don't comply to a reasonable request from a large number of their constituents, legislators will pass laws to force them. If most websites do comply, then the few who don't will be the odd ones out and face even greater risks to their business.
Just as importantly, DNT raises awareness. I know of few typical end users who are aware of tracking or understand its importance and implications. DNT will at least make them aware that tracking is an issue and that it's important enough that somebody with authority someplace thought they should be able to opt out of it.
(I don't think there's a technical solution to tracking. The value of tracking the (1 billion?) people on the web is great enough that any security measure will be overcome.)
Ah, you're going to blow their heads off, I'm a coward, and you're going to break the law. Yet we should take seriously your ideas and judgement about life-and-death issues?
Aren't you the same person who, below, said he's above the law, called me a coward, and whose solution to high-risk difficult situations is to talk like John Wayne and recklessly shoot people (bragging about literally shooting someone's head off). It seems you can't tell the difference between action scenes in movies and reality.
Why should I take seriously anything you say? With your judgement, I really hope you don't have a firearm.
They are not my ideas, they are the very foundation of our country. Try reading them sometime. Don't like the rules here, get the hell out of my country. ( as if you don't agree with the constitution, its not your country and you don't deserve to be here )
Ha. I'm not sure if you're a troll, but just for the heck of it:
Yes, I'm a proud American. The foundation of the society is that we decide things democratically. Everyone likes to think their ideas are privileged for one reason or another, just like you do, and everyone gets as many votes as you get.
I note you didn't answer my question, you just responded with more threats and intimidation. It must be hard to live in a democracy if you can't respond better to disagreements. Tough luck.
you can go to hell if you think you can dictate what i can and cant do in order to prevent it
That's insight and deep thinking for you. Consider this: Can I dictate that you can't shoot someone on the street because you think he's threatening? That you can't use hand grenades?
The 'go to hell' comment is what I mean by political aggression. It's an attempt to intimidate anyone who would challenge your ideas. Almost like firing a political gun, I suppose ... Well, welcome to democracy and society, where people can act and think in ways you don't like (and who made you God and your opinions godlike, that your dissenters are damned?) without going to hell.
criminals almost always want easy money, not conflict
Then they wouldn't enjoy robberies. Most violent criminals are sadists. You're welcome to trust in their kindness, but the rest of us don't enjoy taking a beating or begging for our lives as much as you might.
No idea what your basis is that criminals 'enjoy robberies' and are sadists. It doesn't match my sense of it, and I've never heard that. I'm sure some do and some don't, but I'd need to see some data or expertise that indicates that it's overhelmingly sadists (that's a lot of sadists).
obsessing over one legalistic issue, the Second Amendment of the Constitution
The USA is the Constitution. Saying it is a trivial matter that should weighed amongst other considerations is advocating something between anarchy and despotism.
I didn't say it was trivial at all, but it's just one issue, and one interpretation of one clause in the Constitution, among many. There's much more to our country than one legal document; while I agree it's very valuable and fundamental, our responsibilities don't end there (or start there) and most of what I do during the day is not related to it; most of the world functions without it.
People often use it to justify what they already want to do, just like many use the Bible. On one hand, they aren't really arguing for the authoritative document, but for their interpretation of it. Nowhere does the Constitution say, 'without regulation whatsoever, you have the right to own a handgun, as much ammo as you want, and to use it according to your judgement'. It says only, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.. You could argue that we're restricted owning and using arms as part of a militia.
But I don't think that's really the issue. When people reach for some higher authority to justify themselves, often it's because they can't come up with their own reason. Why should gun laws be so liberal? 'Because I want to use guns' isn't convincing, though it's the truth for many. 'Because the Constitution says so' (akin to the old, 'because the Bible says so') is more powerful.
Again, I'm not against gun ownership, but I think these arguments are weak.
gun rights arguments are rationalizations for people to follow their most base instincts, hatred and violence, without responsibility toward the people and society around them. They aren't serious ideas but more a demonstration of political aggression, to threaten anyone how disagrees.
Here on Earth human beings are animals. Society is created and maintained through violence, and there will always be someone pointing a gun at you, if only the political elite. Guns are as much a promise of peace as a threat of aggression.
You're justifying people turning to hatred and violence, and away from their greater responsibilities? Is that something you support?
I think your depiction of society is false. Societies are people interacting based on a variety of motivations, from altruism to enlightened self-interest to short-sighted greed; probably every person experiences all of them. Humans are naturally social and naturally want to further their communities. How do you explain all the good works and self-sacrifice in our society? In an ironic example, how do you explain police and soldiers, who take great risks for our society and gain very little personally?
The society you describe may exist in Mogidishu, but the great majority of humanity goes about their days without it. Violence is a necessary part of society, but only on rare situations. To explode that into the basis and operational means of our society is ridiculous.
(If people are so violent and selfish, how and why did the political elite write the Constitution in the first place?)
When seconds count, the Police are only minutes away.
I'm not against gun ownership, but I don't think this argument is so cut and dried.
The same could be said of medical care in the case of a heart attack, which you are probably thousands of times more likely to experience. Do you carry a defibrillator and, in case that doesn't work, a scalpel?
It's very unlikely that you'll ever be in a situation where you need police in seconds to save you from serious harm, where having a gun will help you, and where you will use it successfully. It's arguably more likely that you will misuse a gun.
... they want your money and no witnesses.
An interesting theory, but not true in practice. Of all the property theft in the country, very little ends in murder.