Looks like they've merely added that "tag" for all URLs from the Onion.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of sites who are trying to be like the Onion, but with bad intentions and an ugly agenda. And no talent for satire, which is a problem when you're trying to create a satire site. (e.g., "Guns'N'Butter" and "The People's Cube"). And as we well know, there are people stupid enough to believe whatever they see on the Internet.

(*Never mind about Guns'N'Butter. It looks like they went off the air for sucking too much. They were sort of like the Vox Day of Onion impersonators.)

Damn. The over/under was set to 2881 and I put $50 on the under.

No system can survive explicitly being banned by the state.

Then we need to see if the state can survive banning privacy.

You could be downloading an illegal copy of a movie from Starbucks and be busted while simultaneously a drug addict and a pimp are engaged in some sort of dispute across the street.

It is not illegal for a "drug addict and a pimp" to be engaged in some sort of dispute.

Go back to CB, Amateur, and walkie talkie radio for communication.

And learn to speak Navajo.

How about fraudsters, thieves, rapists and murderers, embezzlers of public funds and bribe-takers?

Where do you live, the Barbary Coast?

I don't think, I'm willing to have even a 10% higher rate of those things in exchange for unbeatable https.

OK, so I am willing to have a 10% higher rater of those things in exchange for unbeatable https and a government that has much stricter controls over it's police powers.

You must love the militarization of local police, all the masked and camouflaged cops driving Lenco BearCat's with .50's mounted on top. As long as you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about, right, comrade?

But, unless you are going to suggest, the government ought not to have such powers at all

I'm suggesting that it should not be an inherent power of government. It's one they are granted when evidence is presented to a court for a warrant. In a public hearing.

I'm pretty sure that the past decade has taught us that government does not respect this constitutional requirement. So, they should get a time out from those powers until they can demonstrate that they know how to behave. I would rather take my chances with the armies of terrorists and child molesters that we are constantly being told are invading our shores from Canada, or something, than with a government that believes they have the power to search (and tail) every single citizen because they think that's the most efficient way to catch a bad guy.

So no, they should not be able to circumvent https until they've shown they can act responsibly.

I see Elon Musk as a sort of Pablo Escobar, Gaining insane profits over crooked system and other's suffering

You mean all the suffering ebay users? Oh, the humanity!

If VeriSign gets caught issuing bogus certs for the government, browser vendors will revoke their roots.

Hasn't history taught us that, "They wouldn't dare" is not something on which to base trust?

I'm sure there was some dim bulb somewhere who believed, long ago, that AT&T "wouldn't dare" help the government spy on people because then all their customers would cancel their service.

No, you've got to do better than, "I wouldn't think of doing such a thing" when it comes to 21st century governments.

And that is, how things ought to be — unless we want to strip the state off their power to search us (and trail us).

That is a discussion we should have. "Searching" and "trailing" have come to mean something very different than they did when the US Constitution was written.

Yes, we should be having that discussion right now. A power to "search us (and trail us)" might very well not be something we want to have by default. They should first be required to meet a much higher standard than currently, and that standard should be applied by someone besides a secret court that interprets secret laws, and operates secretly.

I bought a ruined Eames chair and ottoman at an estate sale a decade ago. Cost less than a piece of junk from an office supply store. Took a little fixing, and it's not pristine, but man, for the past ten years it's been my second favorite place to sit in the house. It's my first favorite place to sit where I can't also relieve myself. Actually, I could relieve myself while sitting in the Eames chair, but my wife would probably beat me with a rolled up newspaper. Again.

I don't know if you read any of the article you posted as a refutation of my point, but you ought to know that nothing in that article refutes anything I said. In fact, it confirms what I said.

I responded to a guy who claimed "half the state (California) is on welfare" by showing that no, only about 4% of the population of California is on welfare. You post a link to an article that tells us,

Of the state’s 1.47 million recipients in 2011, more than 1 million are children.

OK, notice there is a fact in that statement. We have a number, 1.47million (including over a million children, but since we're all pro-life around here and they're not fetuses any more, fuck them). Now as of July 1, the total population of California is 38,332,521. Now, if we divide 38,332,521 by 1.47miillion, we get, approximately 26.076544897959183673469387755102 which means less than 4% of the population of California is on welfare motherfucker.

Further, if you had read the article you posted, you would know (if you had read it, that is) that,

California’s new welfare rules for some 1.47 million recipients will cut off aid after 24 months of assistance starting Jan. 1, although there are a number of exclusions. The average California recipient had moved off welfare in 34.8 months.

The article is dated July 28, 2012, which is - oh my! - over 24 months agoKind of changes the way the problem looks, don't it?

Now, you want to tell me how I'm "wrong, asshat"? Maybe you can call your favorite talk radio show and ask them.

There is a difference between "California spends the most on welfare of all states and "Half the people in California are on welfare". One is a fact and the other is Fox News/Talk Radio nonsense.

Will someone make a goddamn Gangnam Style joke already?

Fifty-seven comments in and not a single one. I mean, seriously, what do I pay you guys for?

That's about all they have....and oh half the state is on welfare.

I bet you don't know that California's welfare caseload today is about half of what it was when Ronald Reagan left office. The percentage of Californians on welfare is under 4%, according to that left-wing website Forbes.

http://www.ppic.org/main/publi...

Man, you gotta break that Fox News habit.