jQueryIsAwesome

>Finally, I'm sorry to say this and I know it gets old, but the U.S. constitution identifies a right to keep and bear arms.

But ok; I am going to pile on the other hundreds of comments making noise and tell you what I think America should do.

Decriminalize all drugs first (or at the same time). Then change the constitution and proclaim nobody should have guns except the police/military and some special cases (some bodyguards, bank guards); despite the popularity of "guns don't kill people" is pretty clear that where guns are the number of gunshot victims are always higher. Anyone who thinks they can overthrow the USA government from inside is delusional, before there is even 1000 people organized all forms of communication would be shout down; even internet. Your only hope to overthrow the USA government if such thing ever is required is that some generals and soldiers of the USA army itself revel.

Obviously this change would need to happen gradually; first the high caliber guns and then progressively the others; the government should pay for the guns so citizens have one more incentive to give them away.

Time goes on; people with guns die, bullets are used and the police arrives where that happens, guns and bullets get oxidized and everyday become harder to get. The career criminals usually want to kill the competence (other carer criminals) or the police; two sides that would remain armed.

>We arguably have comprehensive drug control. How well does that work?

Straw man; when killing another person with cocaine becomes a trend we can start discussing this.

If the constitution is wrong, it needs to be changed, is just that simple.

That is certainly not the opinion of the masses because they don't want kids to see porn even years after they have been educated about sex.

If you need to hide something is gore, sites like Reddit are full of it and contrary as porn it can be a little bit traumatic.

The lack of sexual education before sexual encounters is a real issue, not really with porn.

The issue is social perception, dumbness by the masses pretending there is something evil and inmoral about watching other people have sex.

This is the part I don't understand, what are those worries? What do you think it happens when a kid watchs porn? What negative consequences have been demonstrated to happen? And is not like porn randomly plays itself in the browser, you have to use explicit sexual words for Google to respond with links to porn sites.

That is not how societies work, if you believe Hydrogen cyanide is the best thing to paint your house that doesn't mean you are allowed to do it; it doesn't matter if you realize or not how poisonous it is.

Negative utilitarianism is so silly, happiness and suffering are absolutely subjective and multiple points of perception can't be outweigh because they are all independent and anyone reading this is just one more.

So everyone is suffering from this world except one man, the only reasonable thing is to end the world. Problem is that this conclusion would come from a suffering individual wish the only thing he haves to do to end the world is to kill himself; wish is completely unrelated with the faith of the world perceived by everyone else.

Not to mention the issue with current time, meaning an individual feeling severely depressed for 60 years that today somehow feels extremely happy will say that is not so bad, because emotions are blinding and are usually loosely attach with logic specially statistics.

The other thing is that there should be a way to end the world without provoking more suffering than it will get attempting it for negative utilitarianism to have real-life applications.

Perhaps is related to the kind of subjects you are searching for; or it may just personalization by google.

Or maybe we are both biased for ultimately silly reasons and the truth lies somewhere in the middle but the lack of available data reduces everything to mere speculation.

    <style type="���">

And you overall do have a point, but is not as strong as you think it is.

Most people don't return to Google after the initial access to the website, they keep using the Wikipedia interface when they need to search related subjects.

And I will surely throw away some books from the library if random people were allowed to put their books in there.

And the killer blow is the second part.

Plus the big problem of sources curation, those are more unreliable in unpopular articles for the lack of eyeballs on them. The amount of work mods have to do would grow exponentially if they didn't take notability into account.

Of course Wikipedia could do better, but it is a hard problem, not an easy one.

Just drag and drop the "requirements.txt" file over the website and that's it.

I sent the gist to the author of the app too (not the submitter) so perhaps he will include it in the code.