Please take a look at this video.

It was uploaded 1.5 years ago, and has only 460,000 views. Obviously, it has not yet experienced the "Slashdot effect." Don't you think maybe, it should?

Are you giving me an example of a massive fuckup as evidence why we don't need SSNs?

*sigh* Here's a video suggesting why we're fucked by the rich through SS. Jump to 4:15 and 6:10 to to feel that fucked by the gov't (rich people, Bush, right-wing tools) feeling once again.

Really, capitalism is based on continual growth, which is impossible. I wish we humans could produce some smarter outlier individuals like Einstein, Newton, Aristotle, etc... A Tesla of Economics who could formulate provable optimal strategies for the world economy. Seems logically possible. The problem is these kind of economic/social theories are too complex to be understood in the context of a democracy (*cough* republicans, "Jesus says birth control is evil."). Then without a drastic switch in the "purpose" of our gov't, from "ensure no limit to individual power" to "ensure a sustainable way of life".... and/or, a benevolent dictator, we're all fucked.

I can imagine SSNs not existing. What's so bad about that? How would I identify myself? Like this: "Hello, here I am."

If SSNs didn't exist then it would stop a lot of identity theft. I have creditors calling me for things like unpaid phone and electric bills in states I never lived in. This could not happen if there were no SSNs. I can't think of one good reason for Gov't mandated unique identifiers except for the purposes of totalitarian oppression.

Take for example: wage taxes. An idea once fought against: "The power of direct taxation applies to every individual ... it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise, and will be paid, because all that a man hath will he give for his head. This tax is so congenial to the nature of despotism, that it has ever been a favorite under such governments." And guess what, our so called "income taxes" supposedly temporarily enacted for national security during war time, has enabled our imperialist gov't to wage war ever since. IMHO, a wage tax, as opposed to a tax on true income which you earn passively from the sweat of others, such as a business's profit, is abhorrent. It makes murderers of us all as we have no way to avoid funding wars designed to secure the affects of the rich by grinding the blood and bones of the common man.

I suppose you'd counter with, "How would people buy small things on credit?" Well, they wouldn't. You secure credit with equity. Society still managed to progress ~70 years ago before credit cards. The SSN and small lines of credit are a bane on society used by people who lack critical thinking skills about the tools of totalitarianism and algebra. Giving a broke person a $100 line of credit which ends up costing them $800 in fees because they're broke is definitely not in their best interests. All the ridiculous profits made by credit card companies is money extracted from the local economy to the direct detriment of the poor.

Give me one good example of where an SSN is not used by a totalitarian regime to subjugate the poor.

The poor don't need credit cards. And they don't need SSNs. Wages are not income. Gasoline should not be cheaper than water. There is no news at 11. Question authority. Eat the rich!

Considering your sig, would your statement perhaps be born out of self-reflection?

That's cool. I do that too. But, I'd rather be right on the Internet than hang out with a bunch of imprecise idiots and their stupid boobs.

Where is the article where he "shared his problems developing cryptocat"?

BTW, cryptocat.com is not the correct website, but it's interesting. Does anyone know of a Linux router firmware software package that does similar automatic decryption?

Seems like a simple circuit could deactivate the flush device until the toilet needed flushing.

Any citation for the gut bacteria swapping reference? I'd really like to forward that to a family doctor who refuses to prescribe me some baby poop.

Every time the police violate the civil rights of (a friend who isn't me) the police video recording equipment was coincidentally broken that day.

Yeah, fuck that guy.

sudo aptitude install youtube-dl

Nice claim. Exactly how is a computer program a mathematical formula? It's more accurately described as a binary string which can be interpreted by a turing compatible machine.

p.s. It wasn't the highly suspicious "confession tape" that finally gave the gov't proof. (really you should look into that) It was the dossiers and databases on the hijackers the gov't already had which linked them to Al Qaeda.

Very quickly (in just a couple of days according to my recollection) the media showed mosaics of a dozen+ of the hijackers. This was not airport footage. It seems likely this image was submitted to the media, as opposed to being due to investigative work on the part of the media..

Oh, wikipedia confirms all of this: On September 14, three days after the attacks, the FBI announced the names of 19 persons.

It seems weird that you would claim our President lied to the American people saying our gov't quickly learned "the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda". But, perhaps we actually are in agreement here, in that there was something fishy about the "proof".

I thought it was strange how quickly the attacks were originally attributed to the Taliban... thinking that it was mighty convenient for them to so quickly solve the investigation considering the PNAC goals. But here I was playing devil's advocate stating that it would have been easy to identify the most likely perpetrators given the choices of A: 3 members of the Springfield Junior-high PTA, and B: 19 Arabs with ties to a terrorist organization. Really, do you require more proof that said terrorist organization was involved in planning the attacks? Or, are you really arguing that we ought to give those guys the benefit of the doubt because it might have just been a coincidence they were all on the planes?

Where it says "Charles Carreon [...] first incited all of his users to harass The Oatmeal anyway"

Since in this link the Oatmeal guy asks *if* he should send a C&D. Then at the bottom it seems to suggest contact (DOSing?) the other guy: "I felt I had to say something about what they're doing. Perhaps you should too".

So, maybe funnyjunk got crowd-DOSed first?

There can still be regulations.

All you're saying is, "Since suing is hard, it should be impossible to sue."