My suggestion of a "URL cookie", if you want to call it that, allows *you* to allow a site to give you a specific experience, *if* you so desire. That's all it does, because it is unique to the site. It can't do anything more. There is no question that on some sites, the site knowing your preferences is a good thing. For instance, slashdot knows I don't want to see the perl.com slashbox, and that's a good thing, because I despise Perl, see. That could easily be done just this way. They don't need to know who I am, they just need to be able to associate my interests with the relevant experience on the site. Doing it this way gives the site nothing to sell or share about me, because no other site can use that "URL cookie" to see that it is, in fact, me.
The "traditional cookie", in sharp contrast, allows *everyone else* to choose your experience, while in addition, sharing your preferences far and wide, which in turn provides information that can be used to identify you, which in turn creates a tracking mechanism as well as a pretty transparent set of footprints of when and where you have been all over the web. Which again, as we have seen and know very well, is a wide open door for bad behavior, the poster child of which is the advertising industry.
- Global warming - working on it, although it's just moderate quality speculation - Killer viruses - working on it, very much so - Rogue black holes - no way to design a recourse - Rogue artificial intelligence - not a defined problem yet, no way to design a recourse - Aliens - not a defined problem, not even known to ever present one, no way to design a recourse - Gamma ray bursts - can't be fixed with any practical tech means we know of or can imagine - Giant solar flares - for some values of "giant", already addressed in many ways. Otherwise, can't be addressed - Magnetic field reversal - can't be addressed - Supervolcanoes - can't be addressed - Biotech disaster - we have done quite a bit to mitigate this, and can do more if something actually happens - Nanotechnology - not a defined problem, no way to design a recourse - Particle accelerator chain reaction -- not a defined or even known problem, no way to design a recourse - Divine intervention - superstitious bullshit - etc. - keep trying, silly person
Asteroids and comets on the other hand: Do happen. Have happened. Will happen again. Can be addressed. And SHOULD BE.
You are so, so silly. Those "terrorist groups" are a near zero threat to us. The risk -- the chance multiplied by the badness -- is just about zero.
Your problem is that you base your reasoning on nonsensical hysteria built on the baseless rhetoric instead of fact.
As for the rest... well, the answer there is clear, and it's my fault for not being specific enough: Brown people with natural resources we covet. The others (like Africa and Bangladesh) we just let stew in their own juices. Iran, them... we're could start bombing any day.
The page you linked to does not support any assertion of the class "guns are the problem in the USA."
That page shows that the actual problem is homicides per 100,000 population. And it shows that it is worse here than in other countries. It also shows that the problem comes to a head using guns -- pretty obviously because yes, we have guns. It does not show, in any way, that guns cause the problem. It does not show that taking guns away will solve the problem. It does not show that guns are the problem.
The root of the homicide problem here is bullying, shaming, classing, physical and mental abuse of one individual or group by another individual or group. These things are rampant in our schools, in our government's approach to personal and consensual choice, and they are not the least uncommon in life after school without government cause, either.
Pretending the problem is guns is wrongheaded. Look at the relative homicides per capita compared to other countries that data shows right on that page. We kill more people per capita without guns than other countries kill. That should tell you exactly what the problem is. All guns are is the current tool of choice. It is blatantly, obviously clear to any truly thinking person that the problem is the choice, not the tool. And -- again really obviously -- there are plenty of other tools. Look at the chart and think about how many in the USA are already using those other tools, and that is with guns readily available. Take guns away, the next chart you see will be counting hammers, or kitchen knives, or vehicles, and/or anything that can poison anyone, etc. It's not that we have a "gun culture", it's that we have a "I_am/We_are going to abuse the fuck out of you" culture, and some people -- quite predictably, in fact -- react horribly to those abuses.
And you know what really sucks? Because there is such an intense and myopic misfocus on the choice of tools being used by many, nothing substantial is being done about the real problem, interpersonal, personal/group, group/personal and group/group abuse.
When you say that guns are the problem and get all concentrated on that, you are letting the real problem continue to fester, while you try to address something that simply will not help instead.
If anything the threat of being purged from existence might be best. You and your property will be burned, people will be asked no to speak of you by name, birth records destroyed, any remains that speak to you ever having existing will be buried deep in an unmarked undiscovered location. That might give some of them pause.
That's an excellent follow on, but also needs this: When such an event occurs, no general publicity at all should be given to it. The police know, the courts know, any surviving victims and the families of the victims know, their friends know, and that is wholly sufficient as far as who actually needs to know. Stop giving these people their ten minutes of fame, their wiki page, their "book / movie / tv show / news report / editorial about the atrocity" publicity. Make sure that one thing they cannot get out of such an act is being splashed all over every headline and public informational venue in existence. That was never a good idea, and with the "fame is good, people who sympathize need to KNOW about my (ideas, problems, open source efforts, ability to juggle, cute ass, victimization, revenge, etc.)!" attitude that pervades our society now, broad publicity stands as a powerful motivating factor. Cut it off for these people. If Joe Smith on the other side of the country does Bad Thing, I don't need to know, and you don't need to know either. So quit it.
Conspiracy to commit murder is pretty much 99.highNines% a "bad thing" and so if people do that, we have a good reason to drag them into court, and henceforth to prison. The fact that some assholes will do this is true; the fact that we want to then isolate them from everyone is also true. This, then, is a good law, because it does not interfere with everyone else's legitimate goings-on, and it can actually protect us from those assholes -- it's just about a perfect guarantee that if people are engaged in conspiracy to commit murder, it'd be much, much better for everyone else if they are stopped.
Carrying a gun is pretty much a 99.highNines% okay thing, as in, no one is going to get hurt by that, and so if people do that, we do not have a good reason to drag them into court, and henceforth to prison. The fact that very, very rarely, some assholes with bad intent will carry guns is not a good reason to tell everyone else they cannot carry guns. Further, as anything these assholes do that is actually asshole-ish already has a law against it (including conspiracy to commit murder, as above), we already have somewhat working tools to address, punish the actuality of, and in some cases even prevent, the problem. Do we need more tools? Yes, we do, because the problem continues to arise -- we have not solved it.
So, as to appropriate and effective tools: I think it's fair to say that most young who are in a state of mind of "I want to [kill|maim] [person|list]" have been pretty severely mistreated in one way or another. Classing, bullying, shaming, beatings and so on. Reducing that is where the effort should be applied by society. Not only because those things are bad, as they certainly are, but because they are known to be significantly contributing or primarily causal factors in this kind of acting out. Which, by the way, guns are not. The act of keeping and carrying arms is not what makes a person want to use it on other people. It's the wrong behavioral target. The problem is not arms. The problem is our defective culture, specifically in how our people, most definitely including our young people, treat each other due to perceived differences. Schools pretty much ignore this stuff. I remember all of it going on at a pretty good clip in my high school, and also in the high school my kids went to decades later. When they were bullied and shamed and I went in to talk about it with the powers that be at the school, I was told the kids "just have to work it out", which is, in my opinion, the root of the problem. No, the kids don't have to work it out on their own. The authorities should be eliminating the problem in every way possible, root, stem and branch. The entire competitive landscape in schools is wrongheaded, from academia to sports to any other means of holding up A as "better" than B. That's a whole different discussion, but that does provide a good overview of the problem.
Restricting arms won't solve the problem. Two reasons: One, it isn't the problem, and two, once someone is in the state of mind that says "I'm gonna [maim|kill] alla these fuckerz", they're already well past obeying laws, and well past caring about how it is done. So say there are magically no more guns. Does that clear the deck of easy ways to [maim|kill]? No, of course it doesn't. A little sword work, some mace swinging, a well-timed exercise of driving a vehicle into a crowd, home-made explosives, any number of poisoning mechanisms, sabotaging a bus, a well-set fire... it's just not that difficult to create huge amounts of mayhem, specifically or generally, by any number of easy means, even if all guns were magicked away. That is the core matter -- not how the mayhem is created. Guns are simply the preferred tool right now. Take them out of the equation, and it is a certainty that something else will become the preferred tool. Because all such a restriction does is take away that one tool. It doesn't take away either the motivation for mayhem, or
One more thing. Let me put this into a concrete context, perhaps that'll transfer the idea a little better.
I go to the Kindle store. I only like science fiction, books on Python. I can tell them so, or I can let them figure it out. But either way, that's what they'll show me for specials and so forth. If I enter my email, they can email me (see, no way for them to know my email otherwise unless I actually buy.) So, this, for me, would be good. I see books I want, and I never see another stupid vampire book again. They, in turn, have a customer who is more likely to buy, because (shock) they're actually showing me things I want.
But when I leave the site, all knowledge of me, goes with me. Now, when I'm visiting, say, KangaroosInFancyDresses.com, that crap does not -- can not -- follow me around.
Now, say someone visits the Kindle store using my URL. I thoughtlessly pasted it into an email to them or something, and off they go. One thing will happen, and another might. First, they get Python and science fiction suggestions for the personalized part of their advertising experience. If they buy from those suggestions, no harm done. But second, they may buy something else, such as a stupid vampire book. Later, I come back, a vampire book is presented to me, I hop to my clickable prefs, am hopefully offered the opportunity to unclick "vampire books" or whatever, and off I go.
Is this so bad? Right now, my SO and I use the same Amazon account. I like, as stated, Python and SF. She likes mysteries and cookbooks. So I see those. All the time. It's not the end of the world. What's missing here is the ability to tell Amazon that I am not her, and for our shopping experiences to be differentiated.
I suspect -- I'm just guessing -- that if the limits of how the site knew what you wanted were set the way I suggest, they'd be a lot more careful to show you what you wanted, because it's one of the only avenues left to better the targeting of their advertising.
Anyway, again, just mulling it over. Maybe it truly sucks as an idea. Your thoughts on how to get out our shared cookie/scripting nightmare are?
The point is, it'd be a new way of operating. The site would provide copyable links to share.
No question it's more work.
But OTOH, it gets you a personalized experience.
It's not like most websites are using cookies and scripting responsibly now anyway. Certainly the ad companies aren't. Be a treat to turn all that crap off. But if, and it's a big if, I admit, you wanted the site to know your shopping habits, that's a way for them to do it without your browser having to shovel in a bunch of bandwidth eating, data-stealing crap from WeFuckCustomers, Inc.
As I said, it's just an idea. Seems like we're in need of some ideas, though.
Perhaps there is a way to put the load, and the expectations, on the user.
You go to a website. If you desire a personalized experience, "click here" and then bookmark.
Resulting page is site.tld/longRandomGeneratedUniqueThing/restofurl.whatever
All links on the resulting page are set that way now. The site is responsible for keeping that "thing" associated with your preferences and etc., as well as generating the right links on all the pages you visit there. That's doable.
As long as you come and go from such a formatted URL, the site knows it's the same person.
If you don't do this, you get a non-personalized experience.
No cookies required. But it does require the user to be a little bit proactive if they want the experience to span multiple visits, because they'll have to bookmark. Otherwise, this visit will know it's them all the way across the visit, but when they leave... the info is either gone or buried in their history.
It's a bit clumsy, and it certainly isn't secure in the sense of others not being able to appear as that person and so forth, but "secure" surely isn't a word I'd use for cookie technology, either. It does allow for basic identity, and it does put control of it in the hands of the user. So for cases where the limitations are acceptable, seems like a reasonable approach.
If not this, then something else. But cookies and forwarding the browser all over creation should die in a fire. Somehow.
The best option, IMHO, is the hosts file, frankly. Be nice if we could work out some solid collaborative way to make my block discoveries help you with yours, etc., but it's just fraught with too many problems and potential black hat undertakings.
Still, it's pretty easy to just have a little app you can paste domains into that just appends your hosts file with Yet Another Reference to the Black Hole Of Data.
Well, under OS X and Linux it is. Not sure about Windows. But years ago, when I was using Windows, it did have a hosts file you could get at. Still true?
You don't even need a big hammer. The combination of some easily-obtained drugs, any solid surface, the secret-holder's fingers or other body parts, and just a small ball peen hammer will fully suffice to access any data, or the password to get at said data.
If you want to keep something private, store it somewhere that isn't connected to a network.
And encrypt it. And prevent others from physically accessing it. And never carry any media or printout from said that machine outside the physically secure area in which it is installed. And never, ever, mention any of this to anyone.
There's no such thing as a "secret" when two or more parties know. When one party knows, that's a secret. When two or more parties know, that's just gossip -- you have completely lost control of the information.
Note that under your interpretation, if a police officer sees someone committing a rape he can't arrest the guy until somebody comes down from the station with a warrant because arrests are "seizures."
No, arrests aren't seizures, and no, a police officer doesn't need a warrant to arrest someone. Constitutionally speaking, they do need a warrant to search and/or seize, just as the 4th amendment stipulates. Or else any government actor can do anything they want along these lines, as long as someone, somewhere, is willing to say "Well, hey, Cletus, that seems reasonable to me." In which case, as I have pointed out previously, there is no reason for the 4th amendment to exist, because it it utterly meaningless under such an interpretation.
The Courts actually have a lengthy list of types of search they consider reasonable.
Yes, the copious malfeasance of our many dishonorable, sophist, oath-violating judges has indeed become well entrenched. But as with slavery, women's rights, the drug war, and a huge host of other things, they are, as they very often are, completely, utterly, and without even the slightest shadow of a doubt, wrong.
Keep in mind I am not talking about what the courts say here. I'm talking about the constitution itself. Which is above the courts, because it defines the government, under which the courts operate. No judge can legitimately say "yeah, but I don't think so, so no." Among (the many) other problems with that is that it is an abject violation of their oath, and as such disqualifies them from holding the position. Of course the reality is that the judges and lawyers have captured the system, and whatever they say goes -- but to claim that this is constitutionally valid is just ridiculous. It's simply the usual banana-republic / despotic rule-making: whatever we say, goes.
Just toss the phone in the industrial shredder before turning it on.
Just so you know, your phone is almost certainly always on, as long as the battery is in place and holding a charge. The suggestion that you have to "turn it on" has no relation to what the phone will be doing before it is turned on, which is basically anything the software/firmware in place tells it to do. Turning it on means you get to see and interact with the UI, and not much else.
Slavery was "the law" for a great span of time as well. It was still 100% wrong. As is the whole misinterpretation of the word "unreasonable" as converting the trivially obvious and quite specific definition of "reasonable" in the fourth to "optional based on any government drone's opinion at the moment."
What you are arguing here is that following the constitution is inconvenient for the government in that it makes some part of its job (catching contraband) more difficult.
Now go read the constitution. The entire bill of rights is an exercise in making things more difficult for the government. Can they restrict your speech? No. Doesn't matter if you're calling them a bunch of numb-nutted fucktards. They still can't. There are no exceptions. Can they infringe on your right to bear arms? No. Even if that means you walk into the courtroom with a sword on your hip. There are no exceptions. Can they require you to quarter soldiers in your home? No. No matter what. There are no exceptions.
Now, ask yourself: WTF is going on when a judge - at any level - or congress - says otherwise? It's as plain as day: They are violating the constitution.
There is not one word in the fourth that says, or in any way implies, "except at the border." Including the word "unreasonable", which simply is telling you that any process that does not comply with the fourth IS what is unreasonable. The fourth lays out the precise formula for reasonable:
"no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Anything else is unreasonable.
Otherwise, the fourth has no teeth whatsoever and might as well not be there at all. Which is straight-up absurdity.
Therefore, no such "at the border" exception actually exists.
Much less in a band of land extending 100 miles into the body of the country.
Dude, I hope you never write ANY software, because you demonstrated a complete failure to understand a very simple algorithm:
Reasonable is this: "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Unreasonable is anything else
Otherwise the whole fourth is optional based upon the opinion of the searcher which is both absurd and, ironically enough, unreasonable.
The bill of rights is not a list of "well, if you think it's reasonable" items. It is a list of absolute restrictions on government power.
Case (or any other kind of) law: Any law that is unconstitutional, no matter what level it is formulated at, is unauthorized. Because the constitution is what authorizes government, from the top down. It doesn't matter if said law is made by congress, or the result of some the sophistry of a judge. If the constitution says they aren't authorized to do that, then they fucking well aren't authorized to do that, and they are acting criminally and furthermore have discarded all personal honor, as they have sundered their oath of office.
And as we all well know, "I was following orders" is not an acceptable excuse.
Silva does not seem to understand that searches at the border are, by definition, reasonable and therefore exempt from the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.
Another person who completely misunderstands the 4th amendment's use of "unreasonable."
This is precisely what "reasonable" means in the context of the fourth:
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Anything else is unreasonable.
Otherwise, we have to read the fourth as: "you only have to pay attention to these limitations if you want to", which is both absurd (not an uncommon result WRT the reasoning of lawyers and judges, sad to say) and directly contradicts the logos of the bill of rights in specific, and the constitution in general.
Finally, just in general, the courts and congress often make very serious mistakes. Something being "law" (or in this case, judicial fiat masquerading as law) is no guarantee that it is sane, right, or constitutional. From slavery to women's rights to the drug war to all manner of straight-up violations of the clear intent of almost the entire the bill of rights, US citizens have been victims of the very worst kinds of sophistry at the hand of the legal system. Unconstitutional border searches fall directly into the class of unconstitutional governmental malfuckery.
And before someone brings up article 3 awarding the judicial power over the constitution to SCOTUS, let's just take a quick look at what the judicial power is/
Say there's a law that says, in plain English, "if you get caught with meth and are found guilty, you go to jail, no ifs, ands or buts." Can the judge say "I'll just ignore this"? No. The judge cannot do that. The judge must obey the law. The judge does not have the authority to say, "well, no, what this really means is if you have a "mess in your room", obviously congress has a lisp." The law applies to the judge. The judge does not apply to the law.That is the "judicial power": Enforcement. Likewise, SCOTUS's "judicial power" as awarded in article 3 is to enforce the constitution. Not to re-define it. So when, for instance, the constitution says "shall not infringe", and SCOTUS says "of course the government can infringe because we say so", that is not a legitimate exercise of "judicial power", that is simply intentional constitutional violation by traitorous government actors.
Slashdot Mirror
My suggestion of a "URL cookie", if you want to call it that, allows *you* to allow a site to give you a specific experience, *if* you so desire. That's all it does, because it is unique to the site. It can't do anything more. There is no question that on some sites, the site knowing your preferences is a good thing. For instance, slashdot knows I don't want to see the perl.com slashbox, and that's a good thing, because I despise Perl, see. That could easily be done just this way. They don't need to know who I am, they just need to be able to associate my interests with the relevant experience on the site. Doing it this way gives the site nothing to sell or share about me, because no other site can use that "URL cookie" to see that it is, in fact, me.
The "traditional cookie", in sharp contrast, allows *everyone else* to choose your experience, while in addition, sharing your preferences far and wide, which in turn provides information that can be used to identify you, which in turn creates a tracking mechanism as well as a pretty transparent set of footprints of when and where you have been all over the web. Which again, as we have seen and know very well, is a wide open door for bad behavior, the poster child of which is the advertising industry.
Science. Technology.
You should really learn about these things before you proclaim what we can, or cannot, to.
Space Nutter == people who think expansion into space should be ignored
- Global warming - working on it, although it's just moderate quality speculation
- Killer viruses - working on it, very much so
- Rogue black holes - no way to design a recourse
- Rogue artificial intelligence - not a defined problem yet, no way to design a recourse
- Aliens - not a defined problem, not even known to ever present one, no way to design a recourse
- Gamma ray bursts - can't be fixed with any practical tech means we know of or can imagine
- Giant solar flares - for some values of "giant", already addressed in many ways. Otherwise, can't be addressed
- Magnetic field reversal - can't be addressed
- Supervolcanoes - can't be addressed
- Biotech disaster - we have done quite a bit to mitigate this, and can do more if something actually happens
- Nanotechnology - not a defined problem, no way to design a recourse
- Particle accelerator chain reaction -- not a defined or even known problem, no way to design a recourse
- Divine intervention - superstitious bullshit
- etc. - keep trying, silly person
Asteroids and comets on the other hand: Do happen. Have happened. Will happen again. Can be addressed. And SHOULD BE.
You are so, so silly. Those "terrorist groups" are a near zero threat to us. The risk -- the chance multiplied by the badness -- is just about zero.
Your problem is that you base your reasoning on nonsensical hysteria built on the baseless rhetoric instead of fact.
As for the rest... well, the answer there is clear, and it's my fault for not being specific enough: Brown people with natural resources we covet. The others (like Africa and Bangladesh) we just let stew in their own juices. Iran, them... we're could start bombing any day.
The page you linked to does not support any assertion of the class "guns are the problem in the USA."
That page shows that the actual problem is homicides per 100,000 population. And it shows that it is worse here than in other countries. It also shows that the problem comes to a head using guns -- pretty obviously because yes, we have guns. It does not show, in any way, that guns cause the problem. It does not show that taking guns away will solve the problem. It does not show that guns are the problem.
The root of the homicide problem here is bullying, shaming, classing, physical and mental abuse of one individual or group by another individual or group. These things are rampant in our schools, in our government's approach to personal and consensual choice, and they are not the least uncommon in life after school without government cause, either.
Pretending the problem is guns is wrongheaded. Look at the relative homicides per capita compared to other countries that data shows right on that page. We kill more people per capita without guns than other countries kill. That should tell you exactly what the problem is. All guns are is the current tool of choice. It is blatantly, obviously clear to any truly thinking person that the problem is the choice, not the tool. And -- again really obviously -- there are plenty of other tools. Look at the chart and think about how many in the USA are already using those other tools, and that is with guns readily available. Take guns away, the next chart you see will be counting hammers, or kitchen knives, or vehicles, and/or anything that can poison anyone, etc. It's not that we have a "gun culture", it's that we have a "I_am/We_are going to abuse the fuck out of you" culture, and some people -- quite predictably, in fact -- react horribly to those abuses.
And you know what really sucks? Because there is such an intense and myopic misfocus on the choice of tools being used by many, nothing substantial is being done about the real problem, interpersonal, personal/group, group/personal and group/group abuse.
When you say that guns are the problem and get all concentrated on that, you are letting the real problem continue to fester, while you try to address something that simply will not help instead.
That's an excellent follow on, but also needs this: When such an event occurs, no general publicity at all should be given to it. The police know, the courts know, any surviving victims and the families of the victims know, their friends know, and that is wholly sufficient as far as who actually needs to know. Stop giving these people their ten minutes of fame, their wiki page, their "book / movie / tv show / news report / editorial about the atrocity" publicity. Make sure that one thing they cannot get out of such an act is being splashed all over every headline and public informational venue in existence. That was never a good idea, and with the "fame is good, people who sympathize need to KNOW about my (ideas, problems, open source efforts, ability to juggle, cute ass, victimization, revenge, etc.)!" attitude that pervades our society now, broad publicity stands as a powerful motivating factor. Cut it off for these people. If Joe Smith on the other side of the country does Bad Thing, I don't need to know, and you don't need to know either. So quit it.
Here's the thing.
Conspiracy to commit murder is pretty much 99.highNines% a "bad thing" and so if people do that, we have a good reason to drag them into court, and henceforth to prison. The fact that some assholes will do this is true; the fact that we want to then isolate them from everyone is also true. This, then, is a good law, because it does not interfere with everyone else's legitimate goings-on, and it can actually protect us from those assholes -- it's just about a perfect guarantee that if people are engaged in conspiracy to commit murder, it'd be much, much better for everyone else if they are stopped.
Carrying a gun is pretty much a 99.highNines% okay thing, as in, no one is going to get hurt by that, and so if people do that, we do not have a good reason to drag them into court, and henceforth to prison. The fact that very, very rarely, some assholes with bad intent will carry guns is not a good reason to tell everyone else they cannot carry guns. Further, as anything these assholes do that is actually asshole-ish already has a law against it (including conspiracy to commit murder, as above), we already have somewhat working tools to address, punish the actuality of, and in some cases even prevent, the problem. Do we need more tools? Yes, we do, because the problem continues to arise -- we have not solved it.
So, as to appropriate and effective tools: I think it's fair to say that most young who are in a state of mind of "I want to [kill|maim] [person|list]" have been pretty severely mistreated in one way or another. Classing, bullying, shaming, beatings and so on. Reducing that is where the effort should be applied by society. Not only because those things are bad, as they certainly are, but because they are known to be significantly contributing or primarily causal factors in this kind of acting out. Which, by the way, guns are not. The act of keeping and carrying arms is not what makes a person want to use it on other people. It's the wrong behavioral target. The problem is not arms. The problem is our defective culture, specifically in how our people, most definitely including our young people, treat each other due to perceived differences. Schools pretty much ignore this stuff. I remember all of it going on at a pretty good clip in my high school, and also in the high school my kids went to decades later. When they were bullied and shamed and I went in to talk about it with the powers that be at the school, I was told the kids "just have to work it out", which is, in my opinion, the root of the problem. No, the kids don't have to work it out on their own. The authorities should be eliminating the problem in every way possible, root, stem and branch. The entire competitive landscape in schools is wrongheaded, from academia to sports to any other means of holding up A as "better" than B. That's a whole different discussion, but that does provide a good overview of the problem.
Restricting arms won't solve the problem. Two reasons: One, it isn't the problem, and two, once someone is in the state of mind that says "I'm gonna [maim|kill] alla these fuckerz", they're already well past obeying laws, and well past caring about how it is done. So say there are magically no more guns. Does that clear the deck of easy ways to [maim|kill]? No, of course it doesn't. A little sword work, some mace swinging, a well-timed exercise of driving a vehicle into a crowd, home-made explosives, any number of poisoning mechanisms, sabotaging a bus, a well-set fire... it's just not that difficult to create huge amounts of mayhem, specifically or generally, by any number of easy means, even if all guns were magicked away. That is the core matter -- not how the mayhem is created. Guns are simply the preferred tool right now. Take them out of the equation, and it is a certainty that something else will become the preferred tool. Because all such a restriction does is take away that one tool. It doesn't take away either the motivation for mayhem, or
Nope. There is definitely no Slashdot with an effective moderating system. But it's a nice fantasy.
See, but here's the thing. While the CHANCE is low, the DEGREE OF BADNESS of an asteroid or comet impact is infinite. As in, extinction.
As CHANCE is non-zero, the RISK is infinite as well.
Therefore, we should be taking steps.
But hey, we have brown people to bomb.
One more thing. Let me put this into a concrete context, perhaps that'll transfer the idea a little better.
I go to the Kindle store. I only like science fiction, books on Python. I can tell them so, or I can let them figure it out. But either way, that's what they'll show me for specials and so forth. If I enter my email, they can email me (see, no way for them to know my email otherwise unless I actually buy.) So, this, for me, would be good. I see books I want, and I never see another stupid vampire book again. They, in turn, have a customer who is more likely to buy, because (shock) they're actually showing me things I want.
But when I leave the site, all knowledge of me, goes with me. Now, when I'm visiting, say, KangaroosInFancyDresses.com, that crap does not -- can not -- follow me around.
Now, say someone visits the Kindle store using my URL. I thoughtlessly pasted it into an email to them or something, and off they go. One thing will happen, and another might. First, they get Python and science fiction suggestions for the personalized part of their advertising experience. If they buy from those suggestions, no harm done. But second, they may buy something else, such as a stupid vampire book. Later, I come back, a vampire book is presented to me, I hop to my clickable prefs, am hopefully offered the opportunity to unclick "vampire books" or whatever, and off I go.
Is this so bad? Right now, my SO and I use the same Amazon account. I like, as stated, Python and SF. She likes mysteries and cookbooks. So I see those. All the time. It's not the end of the world. What's missing here is the ability to tell Amazon that I am not her, and for our shopping experiences to be differentiated.
I suspect -- I'm just guessing -- that if the limits of how the site knew what you wanted were set the way I suggest, they'd be a lot more careful to show you what you wanted, because it's one of the only avenues left to better the targeting of their advertising.
Anyway, again, just mulling it over. Maybe it truly sucks as an idea. Your thoughts on how to get out our shared cookie/scripting nightmare are?
The point is, it'd be a new way of operating. The site would provide copyable links to share.
No question it's more work.
But OTOH, it gets you a personalized experience.
It's not like most websites are using cookies and scripting responsibly now anyway. Certainly the ad companies aren't. Be a treat to turn all that crap off. But if, and it's a big if, I admit, you wanted the site to know your shopping habits, that's a way for them to do it without your browser having to shovel in a bunch of bandwidth eating, data-stealing crap from WeFuckCustomers, Inc.
As I said, it's just an idea. Seems like we're in need of some ideas, though.
Facebook? You use Facebook and you're concerned about ads?
127.0.0.1 www.facebook.com facebook.com
Also, from my POV, the only "independent sites" out there don't depend on external ads. The others are, by definition, dependent. Like this one.
Perhaps there is a way to put the load, and the expectations, on the user.
You go to a website. If you desire a personalized experience, "click here" and then bookmark.
Resulting page is site.tld/longRandomGeneratedUniqueThing/restofurl.whatever
All links on the resulting page are set that way now. The site is responsible for keeping that "thing" associated with your preferences and etc., as well as generating the right links on all the pages you visit there. That's doable.
As long as you come and go from such a formatted URL, the site knows it's the same person.
If you don't do this, you get a non-personalized experience.
No cookies required. But it does require the user to be a little bit proactive if they want the experience to span multiple visits, because they'll have to bookmark. Otherwise, this visit will know it's them all the way across the visit, but when they leave... the info is either gone or buried in their history.
It's a bit clumsy, and it certainly isn't secure in the sense of others not being able to appear as that person and so forth, but "secure" surely isn't a word I'd use for cookie technology, either. It does allow for basic identity, and it does put control of it in the hands of the user. So for cases where the limitations are acceptable, seems like a reasonable approach.
If not this, then something else. But cookies and forwarding the browser all over creation should die in a fire. Somehow.
If I surfed to "x.com" I don't consider it reasonable to find my browser heading over to "y.com"
If, as a webmaster, you don't source your own ads, then I'm strongly inclined to block your advertising.
The best option, IMHO, is the hosts file, frankly. Be nice if we could work out some solid collaborative way to make my block discoveries help you with yours, etc., but it's just fraught with too many problems and potential black hat undertakings.
Still, it's pretty easy to just have a little app you can paste domains into that just appends your hosts file with Yet Another Reference to the Black Hole Of Data.
Well, under OS X and Linux it is. Not sure about Windows. But years ago, when I was using Windows, it did have a hosts file you could get at. Still true?
You don't even need a big hammer. The combination of some easily-obtained drugs, any solid surface, the secret-holder's fingers or other body parts, and just a small ball peen hammer will fully suffice to access any data, or the password to get at said data.
XKCD explains it in a nutshell.
And encrypt it. And prevent others from physically accessing it. And never carry any media or printout from said that machine outside the physically secure area in which it is installed. And never, ever, mention any of this to anyone.
There's no such thing as a "secret" when two or more parties know. When one party knows, that's a secret. When two or more parties know, that's just gossip -- you have completely lost control of the information.
No, arrests aren't seizures, and no, a police officer doesn't need a warrant to arrest someone. Constitutionally speaking, they do need a warrant to search and/or seize, just as the 4th amendment stipulates. Or else any government actor can do anything they want along these lines, as long as someone, somewhere, is willing to say "Well, hey, Cletus, that seems reasonable to me." In which case, as I have pointed out previously, there is no reason for the 4th amendment to exist, because it it utterly meaningless under such an interpretation.
Yes, the copious malfeasance of our many dishonorable, sophist, oath-violating judges has indeed become well entrenched. But as with slavery, women's rights, the drug war, and a huge host of other things, they are, as they very often are, completely, utterly, and without even the slightest shadow of a doubt, wrong.
Keep in mind I am not talking about what the courts say here. I'm talking about the constitution itself. Which is above the courts, because it defines the government, under which the courts operate. No judge can legitimately say "yeah, but I don't think so, so no." Among (the many) other problems with that is that it is an abject violation of their oath, and as such disqualifies them from holding the position. Of course the reality is that the judges and lawyers have captured the system, and whatever they say goes -- but to claim that this is constitutionally valid is just ridiculous. It's simply the usual banana-republic / despotic rule-making: whatever we say, goes.
Just so you know, your phone is almost certainly always on, as long as the battery is in place and holding a charge. The suggestion that you have to "turn it on" has no relation to what the phone will be doing before it is turned on, which is basically anything the software/firmware in place tells it to do. Turning it on means you get to see and interact with the UI, and not much else.
Slavery was "the law" for a great span of time as well. It was still 100% wrong. As is the whole misinterpretation of the word "unreasonable" as converting the trivially obvious and quite specific definition of "reasonable" in the fourth to "optional based on any government drone's opinion at the moment."
Mahatma Gandhi — 'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'
What you are arguing here is that following the constitution is inconvenient for the government in that it makes some part of its job (catching contraband) more difficult.
Now go read the constitution. The entire bill of rights is an exercise in making things more difficult for the government. Can they restrict your speech? No. Doesn't matter if you're calling them a bunch of numb-nutted fucktards. They still can't. There are no exceptions. Can they infringe on your right to bear arms? No. Even if that means you walk into the courtroom with a sword on your hip. There are no exceptions. Can they require you to quarter soldiers in your home? No. No matter what. There are no exceptions.
Now, ask yourself: WTF is going on when a judge - at any level - or congress - says otherwise? It's as plain as day: They are violating the constitution.
There is not one word in the fourth that says, or in any way implies, "except at the border." Including the word "unreasonable", which simply is telling you that any process that does not comply with the fourth IS what is unreasonable. The fourth lays out the precise formula for reasonable:
"no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Anything else is unreasonable.
Otherwise, the fourth has no teeth whatsoever and might as well not be there at all. Which is straight-up absurdity.
Therefore, no such "at the border" exception actually exists.
Much less in a band of land extending 100 miles into the body of the country.
Dude, I hope you never write ANY software, because you demonstrated a complete failure to understand a very simple algorithm:
Reasonable is this: "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Unreasonable is anything else
Otherwise the whole fourth is optional based upon the opinion of the searcher which is both absurd and, ironically enough, unreasonable.
The bill of rights is not a list of "well, if you think it's reasonable" items. It is a list of absolute restrictions on government power.
Case (or any other kind of) law: Any law that is unconstitutional, no matter what level it is formulated at, is unauthorized. Because the constitution is what authorizes government, from the top down. It doesn't matter if said law is made by congress, or the result of some the sophistry of a judge. If the constitution says they aren't authorized to do that, then they fucking well aren't authorized to do that, and they are acting criminally and furthermore have discarded all personal honor, as they have sundered their oath of office.
And as we all well know, "I was following orders" is not an acceptable excuse.
Another person who completely misunderstands the 4th amendment's use of "unreasonable."
This is precisely what "reasonable" means in the context of the fourth:
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Anything else is unreasonable.
Otherwise, we have to read the fourth as: "you only have to pay attention to these limitations if you want to", which is both absurd (not an uncommon result WRT the reasoning of lawyers and judges, sad to say) and directly contradicts the logos of the bill of rights in specific, and the constitution in general.
Finally, just in general, the courts and congress often make very serious mistakes. Something being "law" (or in this case, judicial fiat masquerading as law) is no guarantee that it is sane, right, or constitutional. From slavery to women's rights to the drug war to all manner of straight-up violations of the clear intent of almost the entire the bill of rights, US citizens have been victims of the very worst kinds of sophistry at the hand of the legal system. Unconstitutional border searches fall directly into the class of unconstitutional governmental malfuckery.
And before someone brings up article 3 awarding the judicial power over the constitution to SCOTUS, let's just take a quick look at what the judicial power is/
Say there's a law that says, in plain English, "if you get caught with meth and are found guilty, you go to jail, no ifs, ands or buts." Can the judge say "I'll just ignore this"? No. The judge cannot do that. The judge must obey the law. The judge does not have the authority to say, "well, no, what this really means is if you have a "mess in your room", obviously congress has a lisp." The law applies to the judge. The judge does not apply to the law. That is the "judicial power": Enforcement. Likewise, SCOTUS's "judicial power" as awarded in article 3 is to enforce the constitution. Not to re-define it. So when, for instance, the constitution says "shall not infringe", and SCOTUS says "of course the government can infringe because we say so", that is not a legitimate exercise of "judicial power", that is simply intentional constitutional violation by traitorous government actors.