Never take a class in government or civics? The preamble is just a statement that says "We accept this constitution". It was ratified by the various states.
Ask yourself this: How long would slavery have gone on in the americas if we didn't come together as a single republic?
The anti-slavery delegates made decisions and compromises during the CC (1787) based on the idea that slavery was already starting to become economically unsustainable. They believed maybe another 25 years and they made compromises to insure the security of the states and there peoples respective liberties. No-one saw the cotton-gin pushing that out decades. We went to war with ourselves committing mass slaughter to stop it. In the real world -- sometimes pragmatism is the best approach.
Hell, even Ben Franklin (one of the most vocal anti-slavery advocates) encouraged compromise.
There's an excellent and fairly short book written by (IIRC) Jeffry St. John called Constitutional Convention Journal (I think it was written 30 years ago?). It's a great format to understand how we got our constitution for someone who has difficulty reading through the many letters, notes and documents left by our framers. I cant recommend it highly enough and strongly suggest you read it.
I've spent over 30 years actually reading the hand written documents of our founders -- not just works of historians. I've held many originals in my hands. I've assisted doctoral candidates in locating material that may not be in a computer database anywhere. I am not ignorant on this topic.
Who wrote the preamble? The words on the document? If you need to look it up you can feel confident you don't know what you think you 'KNOW". Hint: He had a wooden leg (but didn't chase moby dick).
"Plato, for example, wanted to limit voting to the educated. I tend to agree,"
In the US, once upon a time, there was a layer of separation between the people and the federal government (the exception being the House of Representatives). Senators were mostly appointed by state legislatures and states would select who they wanted to be President by a popular vote and electors would actually VOTE but their votes were weighted by the number of representatives they had in congress (not quite, but close to populations).
We've been moving away from that and more towards direct democracy. Senators are now popularly elected. Some states are toying with the idea of splitting electors. Supreme court justices are now appointed based on their views rather than their understanding of the constitution and their qualifications as jurists. Few people seem to understand that democracy doesn't exist in the US to promote freedom and liberty -- it exists as a safeguard against the tyranny of a government that over extends power beyond what the Constitution allows.
To our founders, democracy was just as if not more scary than monarchy. Democracy, as scary as it was, was reined in and used as a tool to give the people a chance to "undo" or "fix" a government that went too far. The Constitution not only defines the governments powers, but by design, limited the damage the "mob" could do by limiting their voice -- the Constitution, which SHOULD be protecting our rights, liberties and freedoms has been nibbled away by rulings not based on reason and the constitution but by passions.
I honestly don't know if this snowball can be stopped. One of our nations rally crys at birth was "no taxation without representation". We have countless examples of the opposite (which I believe to be equally bad) -- representation without taxation. With both the Senate and House being elected by the people directly and the constitution being "interpreted" based on things other than it's intent and a senate (directly elected by the people) it makes it impossible to get a Justice appointed who doesn't fit the majority parties "group think". There is very little to counter the will of the people who have no skin in the game to ask for more as they don't need to pay for it.
We can focus all we want on the 1% -- but the fact is if you seize all their wealth in the US, you wouldn't even be able to cover a few years of deficit spending (never mind paying the debt) -- and in the meantime you've wreaked the economy.
Yeah... and Iraq's open and transparent inspection process showed they were lost and misplaced right? Not that they were hidden.
As far as old and unusable... Read up on how many of our guys have been injured due to exposure while destroying them.
You claim they were unusable, lost or misplaced. I call bullshit. Iraq spent the better part of 20 years hiding what they had. They probably were only "lost" or "misplaced" after Iraq fell and anyone in the government or military who KNEW about them were either killed or went in to hiding.
Wow. Re-write history much? I'm not going to argue that going in to Iraq wasn't a mistake -- it was. But that's based on hindsight. We went back in to Iraq in 2003. After nearly 20 years of trying to get Iraq to fulfill it's obligations which it AGREED to after the first Iraq war.
Old, yes -- Iraq, violating the UN and the agreements they signed to end the 1991 war, held on to what he had and maintained the ability to ramp up production the moment the world gave up playing inspection games.
The ONLY thing 911 did was make the US (and not JUST the US) say 'enough is enough'.
With regards to the 'visitors', that is almost ALL due to the mis handling of the middle east in the last 15 years -- and in particular the last 6. Seriously? Destabilize Iraq? Ok. But Egypt, Lebanon AND Syria all at the same time? That's just stupid.
"A lot of the examples you quote are just plugging numbers into formulas that other people have already worked out."
I'm sorry but I just don't understand your point. I drive a car -- which is basically a solution to the problem that somebody already worked out (how to move mass across space quickly). It is a skill I need to have to function in life (living in California, anyway). Just because someone already figured out a "formula" to a given problem doesn't mean that the knowledge hasn't become almost required to survive and thrive.
I lack a skill that most people posses -- I find it difficult to "read between the lines" when I'm talking to people. I miss subtext and "unspoken" bits of info. I don't lack that skill when READING.
You pointed out the exact example (in a different way) that the parent provided (you with compounding interest and the parent with compounding growth). While % itself is exactly what you describe, it is also exactly what the parent described over time which makes sense given the context of his post.
Basically, the parent left out just two words at the end of his second sentence -- "over time". But that is made abundantly clear by the second sentence.
So... our solution to increasing drop out rates is to make the curriculum simpler? Idiocy! (That should be pronounced 'Idiocracy') Its true that I'm not calculating trajectories or finding the surface area of unusual shaped solids defined by funky formulas -- most of that knowledge has been lost to me over the years. I've retained maybe 1/3 of my leet-math-skills(tm). If all we teach is basic algebra and some statistics and there is a SIMILAR loss of retention in students then what will they have left 10-20 years later? I fear maybe barely enough to balance a checkbook. Hell, basic cashiers don't even have to do basic math any more -- they just need to know how to push buttons and read numbers.
"Do the crime, do the time, that should be the end of it."
I question if this is the "best" way for society to handle criminals. Particularly with sex-crimes.
With regards to crimes against children in particular, I'm of the mind that they should be stripped of all human rights, tattoo'd green and let loose naked on the streets. If someone wants to take them in and protect them, bully for them. Otherwise it's open season and free taxidermy for trophies.
(note: Yes I'm extra harsh on child-crimes. One of my children was the victim of such crimes -- our monster gets to spend the rest of his life (14 life sentences, to be precise) behind bars. He became our monster because of California's AB109 and an overuse (abuse) of "pleading down" on past offenses).
" Sorry, because someone doesn't enable your delusion, or fall for your con-job, doesn't mean people pointing out your mental illness or fraud s a bad thing.... it simply means they're unable to get through your victim playing bullshit cry for sympathy."
Explain how you aren't a bigot?
[x] Believes their group is superior [x] Generalizes other group of negatively [x] Irrational intolerance of other group (i.e. they are mentally ill)
You fall in to a much smaller group of people -- about 15% (lumped in with secular and agnostics). If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy that 85% of the world is mentally ill, go for it. Who am I to burst your bubble. I reminded of a Heinlein quote:
This sad little lizard told me that he was a brontosaurus on his mother's side. I did not laugh; people who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them. Humouring them costs nothing and adds to happiness in a world in which happiness is always in short supply.
That's right. You are anthropomorphizing God -- who is not human. And attributing contempt to God for actions that would be understandable were it being done by Bob in accounting rather than God.
"It has nothing to do with the myriad lies told in the bible."
Re-read my statement. I wasn't claiming anything other than reasons are far more nuanced than you care to accept. And what I said had everything to do with your over simplification of the bible and anthropomorphizing God.
"IKR, how egotistical of me to think that giving a child cancer would be seen as a dick move by anyone but me."
I'm not trying to explain the mind of God. Pointless to try. It's pointless to try and explain any HUMANS mind as well.
What I am trying to explain that it is silly to attribute human values to something not human. I wouldn't call you egotistical for anthropomorphizing a shark as being a dick for bitting your leg off -- but I would call you silly for doing so. I wouldn't call you egotistical for anthropomorphizing a tornado as being a dick for destroying your home town -- but I would call you silly for doing so.
Likewise, I would call you silly for anthropomorphizing God.
"Lol, anyone that "loves" me enough to drown the entire planet and kill everyone, including babies and innocent people on other continents, is someone whose love I can do without, thankyouverymuch."
Because it's that simple, right? I'm sorry -- I don't subscribe to the "mac-and-cheese" toddler version of "truth". I believe it to be much more nuanced than simplified and cut and dry like you present it.
Real world human examples: I've walked away from people I love because they were self destructive -- not only self destructive, but they were taking down people with them and I had no power to stop or assist. The only power I had was to walk away and hope that if enough people did so they would see they needed to change their behavior. Sometimes you need to let people hit rock bottom and allow them to pick themselves up -- and when they are ready to accept help, provide it. Abandonment may sound cruel on the face -- but there's oh so much more going on beneath the skin.
Also, some parents of conjoined twins have risked sacrificing of one or both of their children out of love -- love of both -- some have not. There's always more going on beneath the skin.
Why bother? I'm not trying to win converts -- I'm just trying to dispel silly mis-characterizations that are repeated as truth. If you are interested, find out.
"You might be right, but from a human perspective, God can really be a colossal dick."
I disagree with your statement as it is written. Perhaps from YOUR point of view, yes. I can't argue with subjective impressions. However, obviously, not every 'human' has that perspective.
"Yeah! God loves you so much that he'll torture forever if you don't love him back."
A lot of people like that trope you just keyed and repeat it quote often. The problem is that it misrepresents Christianity completely. In Christianity, one does not "love" God like one "loves" a person -- or a dog -- or a sandwich. It's not the same thing.
"What you call liberals, or really illiberal-progressives only support democracy and the right of citizens self-determination with regards to government "
Which, as many people forget is NOT what America is based on. It's a constitutional republic. It's designed that way to PREVENT exactly what you describe (sort of). In a "democracy" where "self determination" is in the hands of the people solely, you can get popular votes like segregation, jim-crow, no gay marriage......and HUGE swings in government direction. Which makes government unstable. We have a process to update the Constitution -- the amendment process is well documented. SLOW social changes when a a large majority of the population supports them provide for a stable government.
Democracy isn't the foundation of American government -- it's the "insurance policy" against a government that becomes too oppressive. The foundation of our government is to promote LIBERTY.
I believe Scalia had it right in being an originalist. Example: In US v WIndsor (2013), SCOTUS found that marriage was essentially the realm of the respective states. 2015, the Hodges case basically turned that upside down. In less than 2 years. Scalia, in 2015 said our "ruler" was our president, or congress a majority of 9 people on the supreme court and their whims.
"Any nominee has to pass approval by the Republican-controlled Senate, so anything other than a centrist is very unlikely at this point."
I doubt that. See, I doubt Scalia himself would believe that the Constitution allows the senate to hold up nominations based on political leanings. There's more than enough Republicans that will confirm so long as their qualifications as a jurist are impeccable and not enough republicans to succeed at a filibuster.
However, there might be some snags getting the nomination out of committee. But I believe that will happen, too.
"So this is no different than downloading a torrent from an untrustworthy source... assuming anyone using The Pirate Bay cares about trustworthy sources. To execute the malicious code, you'd need to exploit the media player used by the application/browser."
Actually, I think it is a bit different. Maybe they can exploit media player, or vlc or whatever *IF* it's not updated/patched -- but that's from a maliciously created media file. What bothers me is that there's a browser layer on TOP of that AND a different media player. The exploit doesn't necessarily NEED to be in the media stream.
It's one thing if I run a torjan'd AVI or something -- it's another if the browser sends a trojan'd AVI I didn't request. I'm sorry, but sketchy ads at a number of torrent sites (including KAT) do enough damage now to people who aren't diligent. How much more damage could those do ALONE and how many other ways can a browser interact with the media player to "break" things in a bad way? What if a malicious ad ends up at legitimate sites (it happens quite a bit)?
"Instead of reprogramming your own memories to suit your perceived ideal, erase it ineffectively?"
I didn't get that from the article at all. I don't believe it's trying to change perceived reality but provide some 'privacy'. This is not a 'bad' thing.
Example: My daughter (lets younger than a teenager) was kidnapped a few years ago -- and her name and/or picture were all over the radio/tv/internet before she was recovered. It's taken a few years for the search results of her name to dwindle (with me running around to various news sites asking them to please remove my daughters name and blur her photo). Honestly, most news sites were very helpful with this -- it just took time and a hell of a lot of 'foot work' finding the right people to talk to. Blogs on the other hand were a mixed bag. Some were "no problem" while others were outright hostile (I used the same polite request to all sources -- basically copy-paste).
But now, search for her name and nothing on any search engine comes up page 1 or 2.
THAT info screams to me to be removed. Not the NEWS but instead of a victims real name use something else. Instead of photos, blur them.
What kids dont search their names on the internet -- or their friends names? How is it helpful to have kids re-traumatized with nosy questions (at best) and mean/nasty comments at worst? I believe we have the right to keep some things private -- and we can argue this if you like but I believe very few people would argue about victims privacy and fewer still about children's privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Never take a class in government or civics? The preamble is just a statement that says "We accept this constitution". It was ratified by the various states.
Ask yourself this: How long would slavery have gone on in the americas if we didn't come together as a single republic?
The anti-slavery delegates made decisions and compromises during the CC (1787) based on the idea that slavery was already starting to become economically unsustainable. They believed maybe another 25 years and they made compromises to insure the security of the states and there peoples respective liberties. No-one saw the cotton-gin pushing that out decades. We went to war with ourselves committing mass slaughter to stop it. In the real world -- sometimes pragmatism is the best approach.
Hell, even Ben Franklin (one of the most vocal anti-slavery advocates) encouraged compromise.
There's an excellent and fairly short book written by (IIRC) Jeffry St. John called Constitutional Convention Journal (I think it was written 30 years ago?). It's a great format to understand how we got our constitution for someone who has difficulty reading through the many letters, notes and documents left by our framers. I cant recommend it highly enough and strongly suggest you read it.
I've spent over 30 years actually reading the hand written documents of our founders -- not just works of historians. I've held many originals in my hands. I've assisted doctoral candidates in locating material that may not be in a computer database anywhere. I am not ignorant on this topic.
Who wrote the preamble? The words on the document? If you need to look it up you can feel confident you don't know what you think you 'KNOW". Hint: He had a wooden leg (but didn't chase moby dick).
Enjoy your hate. Relish in it. Just realize it's not based in the whole history -- just the pieces of it you've chose to focus upon.
In all honesty, I took it as an "Idiocracy" reference. Not an insult, but a complement.
"Plato, for example, wanted to limit voting to the educated. I tend to agree,"
In the US, once upon a time, there was a layer of separation between the people and the federal government (the exception being the House of Representatives). Senators were mostly appointed by state legislatures and states would select who they wanted to be President by a popular vote and electors would actually VOTE but their votes were weighted by the number of representatives they had in congress (not quite, but close to populations).
We've been moving away from that and more towards direct democracy. Senators are now popularly elected. Some states are toying with the idea of splitting electors. Supreme court justices are now appointed based on their views rather than their understanding of the constitution and their qualifications as jurists. Few people seem to understand that democracy doesn't exist in the US to promote freedom and liberty -- it exists as a safeguard against the tyranny of a government that over extends power beyond what the Constitution allows.
To our founders, democracy was just as if not more scary than monarchy. Democracy, as scary as it was, was reined in and used as a tool to give the people a chance to "undo" or "fix" a government that went too far. The Constitution not only defines the governments powers, but by design, limited the damage the "mob" could do by limiting their voice -- the Constitution, which SHOULD be protecting our rights, liberties and freedoms has been nibbled away by rulings not based on reason and the constitution but by passions.
I honestly don't know if this snowball can be stopped. One of our nations rally crys at birth was "no taxation without representation". We have countless examples of the opposite (which I believe to be equally bad) -- representation without taxation. With both the Senate and House being elected by the people directly and the constitution being "interpreted" based on things other than it's intent and a senate (directly elected by the people) it makes it impossible to get a Justice appointed who doesn't fit the majority parties "group think". There is very little to counter the will of the people who have no skin in the game to ask for more as they don't need to pay for it.
We can focus all we want on the 1% -- but the fact is if you seize all their wealth in the US, you wouldn't even be able to cover a few years of deficit spending (never mind paying the debt) -- and in the meantime you've wreaked the economy.
Yeah... and Iraq's open and transparent inspection process showed they were lost and misplaced right? Not that they were hidden.
As far as old and unusable... Read up on how many of our guys have been injured due to exposure while destroying them.
You claim they were unusable, lost or misplaced. I call bullshit. Iraq spent the better part of 20 years hiding what they had. They probably were only "lost" or "misplaced" after Iraq fell and anyone in the government or military who KNEW about them were either killed or went in to hiding.
Wow. Re-write history much? I'm not going to argue that going in to Iraq wasn't a mistake -- it was. But that's based on hindsight. We went back in to Iraq in 2003. After nearly 20 years of trying to get Iraq to fulfill it's obligations which it AGREED to after the first Iraq war.
BTW, WMDs were found in Iraq (see NYT).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11...
Old, yes -- Iraq, violating the UN and the agreements they signed to end the 1991 war, held on to what he had and maintained the ability to ramp up production the moment the world gave up playing inspection games.
The ONLY thing 911 did was make the US (and not JUST the US) say 'enough is enough'.
With regards to the 'visitors', that is almost ALL due to the mis handling of the middle east in the last 15 years -- and in particular the last 6. Seriously? Destabilize Iraq? Ok. But Egypt, Lebanon AND Syria all at the same time? That's just stupid.
"A lot of the examples you quote are just plugging numbers into formulas that other people have already worked out."
I'm sorry but I just don't understand your point. I drive a car -- which is basically a solution to the problem that somebody already worked out (how to move mass across space quickly). It is a skill I need to have to function in life (living in California, anyway). Just because someone already figured out a "formula" to a given problem doesn't mean that the knowledge hasn't become almost required to survive and thrive.
He said growth. Read it on context -- dont just pick words and phrases at random.
I lack a skill that most people posses -- I find it difficult to "read between the lines" when I'm talking to people. I miss subtext and "unspoken" bits of info. I don't lack that skill when READING.
You pointed out the exact example (in a different way) that the parent provided (you with compounding interest and the parent with compounding growth). While % itself is exactly what you describe, it is also exactly what the parent described over time which makes sense given the context of his post.
Basically, the parent left out just two words at the end of his second sentence -- "over time". But that is made abundantly clear by the second sentence.
So are unusual shapes to which knowledge of the surface area and volumes would be handy...
"I actually found this funny"
Funny in a very sad way.
So... our solution to increasing drop out rates is to make the curriculum simpler? Idiocy! (That should be pronounced 'Idiocracy') Its true that I'm not calculating trajectories or finding the surface area of unusual shaped solids defined by funky formulas -- most of that knowledge has been lost to me over the years. I've retained maybe 1/3 of my leet-math-skills(tm). If all we teach is basic algebra and some statistics and there is a SIMILAR loss of retention in students then what will they have left 10-20 years later? I fear maybe barely enough to balance a checkbook. Hell, basic cashiers don't even have to do basic math any more -- they just need to know how to push buttons and read numbers.
"Do the crime, do the time, that should be the end of it."
I question if this is the "best" way for society to handle criminals. Particularly with sex-crimes.
With regards to crimes against children in particular, I'm of the mind that they should be stripped of all human rights, tattoo'd green and let loose naked on the streets. If someone wants to take them in and protect them, bully for them. Otherwise it's open season and free taxidermy for trophies.
(note: Yes I'm extra harsh on child-crimes. One of my children was the victim of such crimes -- our monster gets to spend the rest of his life (14 life sentences, to be precise) behind bars. He became our monster because of California's AB109 and an overuse (abuse) of "pleading down" on past offenses).
" Sorry, because someone doesn't enable your delusion, or fall for your con-job, doesn't mean people pointing out your mental illness or fraud s a bad thing.... it simply means they're unable to get through your victim playing bullshit cry for sympathy."
Explain how you aren't a bigot?
[x] Believes their group is superior
[x] Generalizes other group of negatively
[x] Irrational intolerance of other group (i.e. they are mentally ill)
All the check boxes are there... you are a bigot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You fall in to a much smaller group of people -- about 15% (lumped in with secular and agnostics). If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy that 85% of the world is mentally ill, go for it. Who am I to burst your bubble. I reminded of a Heinlein quote:
This sad little lizard told me that he was a brontosaurus on his mother's side. I did not laugh; people who boast of ancestry often have little else to sustain them. Humouring them costs nothing and adds to happiness in a world in which happiness is always in short supply.
Statistics. It seems in vogue to pound on the Christians of late.
"According to the bible it is."
Then you didn't read the bible very carefully.
"All that makes me is human."
That's right. You are anthropomorphizing God -- who is not human. And attributing contempt to God for actions that would be understandable were it being done by Bob in accounting rather than God.
"It has nothing to do with the myriad lies told in the bible."
Re-read my statement. I wasn't claiming anything other than reasons are far more nuanced than you care to accept. And what I said had everything to do with your over simplification of the bible and anthropomorphizing God.
"IKR, how egotistical of me to think that giving a child cancer would be seen as a dick move by anyone but me."
I'm not trying to explain the mind of God. Pointless to try. It's pointless to try and explain any HUMANS mind as well.
What I am trying to explain that it is silly to attribute human values to something not human. I wouldn't call you egotistical for anthropomorphizing a shark as being a dick for bitting your leg off -- but I would call you silly for doing so. I wouldn't call you egotistical for anthropomorphizing a tornado as being a dick for destroying your home town -- but I would call you silly for doing so.
Likewise, I would call you silly for anthropomorphizing God.
"Lol, anyone that "loves" me enough to drown the entire planet and kill everyone, including babies and innocent people on other continents, is someone whose love I can do without, thankyouverymuch."
Because it's that simple, right? I'm sorry -- I don't subscribe to the "mac-and-cheese" toddler version of "truth". I believe it to be much more nuanced than simplified and cut and dry like you present it.
Real world human examples: I've walked away from people I love because they were self destructive -- not only self destructive, but they were taking down people with them and I had no power to stop or assist. The only power I had was to walk away and hope that if enough people did so they would see they needed to change their behavior. Sometimes you need to let people hit rock bottom and allow them to pick themselves up -- and when they are ready to accept help, provide it. Abandonment may sound cruel on the face -- but there's oh so much more going on beneath the skin.
Also, some parents of conjoined twins have risked sacrificing of one or both of their children out of love -- love of both -- some have not. There's always more going on beneath the skin.
Why bother? I'm not trying to win converts -- I'm just trying to dispel silly mis-characterizations that are repeated as truth. If you are interested, find out.
"You might be right, but from a human perspective, God can really be a colossal dick."
I disagree with your statement as it is written. Perhaps from YOUR point of view, yes. I can't argue with subjective impressions. However, obviously, not every 'human' has that perspective.
"Yeah! God loves you so much that he'll torture forever if you don't love him back."
A lot of people like that trope you just keyed and repeat it quote often. The problem is that it misrepresents Christianity completely. In Christianity, one does not "love" God like one "loves" a person -- or a dog -- or a sandwich. It's not the same thing.
...or congress -- but a majority of 9 people on the supreme court and their whims.
Sigh... wish there was an edit function... Or at least an "update" where we can append text to the end of a comment.
"What you call liberals, or really illiberal-progressives only support democracy and the right of citizens self-determination with regards to government "
Which, as many people forget is NOT what America is based on. It's a constitutional republic. It's designed that way to PREVENT exactly what you describe (sort of). In a "democracy" where "self determination" is in the hands of the people solely, you can get popular votes like segregation, jim-crow, no gay marriage... ...and HUGE swings in government direction. Which makes government unstable. We have a process to update the Constitution -- the amendment process is well documented. SLOW social changes when a a large majority of the population supports them provide for a stable government.
Democracy isn't the foundation of American government -- it's the "insurance policy" against a government that becomes too oppressive. The foundation of our government is to promote LIBERTY.
I believe Scalia had it right in being an originalist. Example: In US v WIndsor (2013), SCOTUS found that marriage was essentially the realm of the respective states. 2015, the Hodges case basically turned that upside down. In less than 2 years. Scalia, in 2015 said our "ruler" was our president, or congress a majority of 9 people on the supreme court and their whims.
"Any nominee has to pass approval by the Republican-controlled Senate, so anything other than a centrist is very unlikely at this point."
I doubt that. See, I doubt Scalia himself would believe that the Constitution allows the senate to hold up nominations based on political leanings. There's more than enough Republicans that will confirm so long as their qualifications as a jurist are impeccable and not enough republicans to succeed at a filibuster.
However, there might be some snags getting the nomination out of committee. But I believe that will happen, too.
"So this is no different than downloading a torrent from an untrustworthy source... assuming anyone using The Pirate Bay cares about trustworthy sources. To execute the malicious code, you'd need to exploit the media player used by the application/browser."
Actually, I think it is a bit different. Maybe they can exploit media player, or vlc or whatever *IF* it's not updated/patched -- but that's from a maliciously created media file. What bothers me is that there's a browser layer on TOP of that AND a different media player. The exploit doesn't necessarily NEED to be in the media stream.
It's one thing if I run a torjan'd AVI or something -- it's another if the browser sends a trojan'd AVI I didn't request. I'm sorry, but sketchy ads at a number of torrent sites (including KAT) do enough damage now to people who aren't diligent. How much more damage could those do ALONE and how many other ways can a browser interact with the media player to "break" things in a bad way? What if a malicious ad ends up at legitimate sites (it happens quite a bit)?
"Instead of reprogramming your own memories to suit your perceived ideal, erase it ineffectively?"
I didn't get that from the article at all. I don't believe it's trying to change perceived reality but provide some 'privacy'. This is not a 'bad' thing.
Example: My daughter (lets younger than a teenager) was kidnapped a few years ago -- and her name and/or picture were all over the radio/tv/internet before she was recovered. It's taken a few years for the search results of her name to dwindle (with me running around to various news sites asking them to please remove my daughters name and blur her photo). Honestly, most news sites were very helpful with this -- it just took time and a hell of a lot of 'foot work' finding the right people to talk to. Blogs on the other hand were a mixed bag. Some were "no problem" while others were outright hostile (I used the same polite request to all sources -- basically copy-paste).
But now, search for her name and nothing on any search engine comes up page 1 or 2.
THAT info screams to me to be removed. Not the NEWS but instead of a victims real name use something else. Instead of photos, blur them.
What kids dont search their names on the internet -- or their friends names? How is it helpful to have kids re-traumatized with nosy questions (at best) and mean/nasty comments at worst? I believe we have the right to keep some things private -- and we can argue this if you like but I believe very few people would argue about victims privacy and fewer still about children's privacy.