The government can already do what you're claiming to be so worried about. Happens every day. Shit, you could be driving to your mom's house and get pulled over. The cop thinks you might have drugs in the car, so they confiscate it, and take your cash while your at it. Good luck getting all that back without hiring an expensive attorney.

So in other words, the Constitution doesn't mean anything when you don't have the means to actually claim your constitutional rights. There are a million things the government does already that are blatantly unconstitutional, but because they have a patina of cooperation between the two parties, it gets away with--illegal wiretaps, spying, drone strikes, etc.

Another amendment wouldn't actually do anything. If politicians and their appointees have no fear when violating your civil rights, they're going to keep doing it. The only thing that will actually change that behavior is jail time for government officials who break the law.

Instead what happens, the people who go to jail are the ones who leak information about the illegal behavior.

The obvious solution is to just use the binary you compiled yourself, which if you're paranoid about security is a trivial step to take. But more in-depth auditing obviously is out of reach for even the most knowledgeable tinkerers, especially if a program is intentionally crippled at the source level--for instance contains a bug which under a very specific set of circumstances will leak private data, but which isn't obvious from looking at the code. That's definitely the kind of backdoor a state security service would introduce into an open source project.

It's like some kind of disease spreading through Silicon Valley: any company touched by venture capital immediately compromises the ethics and value their product might have had to anonymity, or privacy the moment they start being popular.

Or maybe it's the inverse. Companies claiming to uphold the sharing of ideas or their user's privacy are merely waiting for the money to roll in before they sell-out their users.

Either way it makes you highly suspect of any app on Google Play or the App store claiming to be the next best thing in privacy/security, especially if it's free.

Where did you hear this? I have a stock 3.16 kernel running on my Acer C720 Chromebook, plus all the hardware is fully supported by Linux

Is that the smarter babies will have higher incidences of schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, depression, and drug addiction, things usually associated with genius. Even Einstein had his problems. Source: http://www.medicaldaily.com/wh...

Selecting for kids with even higher intelligence might mean they have more severe mental problems.

Except that the Republican party in its current incarnation is more akin to a special interest group for the wealthy and multinational corporations. To that end their politics and governing style is pretty radical.

But you seem to think that Republicans are conservative in the same way they were 40 years ago, when that's just not the case. Furthermore, equating maturity with getting your facts from Fox News is pretty immature.

Yeah, but there are other ways to do that than just intro javascript or html classes. What about an introduction to philosophy and logic, you know, the foundation of Western civilization? Or basic science classes, i.e., the scientific method, how to run an experiment, how to test a hypothesis, etc.

Those types of classes would be far more valuable and interesting than any coding class

But isn't this a bit like someone in the 1960's or 70's saying "our children need to learn electrical engineering"?! After all digital watches, transistor radios, and these newfangled micro-computers will be the basis of our new economy, right! We must teach children to program logic gates now! And that was during the height of the Cold War, when we actually funded STEM programs.

Yet in reality the kids that truly did have a "future", meaning made lots of money, were the ones who studied finance, law or medicine. Wouldn't a hedge fund manager just hire a software developer when he needs coding done?
Unless Zuck and Gates have an ulterior motive, but that couldn't possibly be the case.

But the point is, and this is why I have such little respect for feminists and other who harp on the "you're just blaming the victim" trope: bad things happen, sometimes to good people. Why would someone put themselves in such a situation in the first place, knowing that you live in a dangerous world?

Sure a woman should be able to walk-around naked and have only wanted attention, but in this world, she's going to have some unwanted, possibly physical, attention as well.

Similarly with this guy's cousin: sure he should be able to wear all the gold he wants, but with the understanding that you might get mugged.

Ordering a hit on someone is still illegal, high-stakes or not.

He's facing life in pound-me-in-the-ass prison, and the "Government" caught him red-handed, so to speak. Any leverage he might have would be as an informant, which, if he's sane he'll agree to. But at least he might get out in 10 years.

I think that applies to men more-so than women. Even plain-looking women get a lot of messages on the internet, whereas the man has to be an underwear model to get the same kind of attention.

" If a woman is suitably impressed by a man's answers, she can make herself visible to him. "

It seems pretty unworkable to me. I suppose these women must be a mix of Angelina Jolie/Kate Upton and Jennifer Lawrence, to insist on being anonymous.

What I don't understand is why would a desirable man put up with all of these games just to view a woman's picture? If a man is attractive enough to get replies and messages from women on online dating sites in general (most men can easily send out hundreds of messages to get only a handful of replies), presumably he's attractive enough to go on other sites that don't make the man jump through these hoops, just to view the woman's picture, let alone go out on a date.
Which means that the men who are willing to put up with these kinds of hoops wouldn't be attractive to these women in the first place.

Madisonian Democracy is like that by design. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

It was doing what it was programmed to do! What do you think a human being would be to a robot anyway, if not other moving objects it has to keep out of a hole?