LN worries me, the ship heels to centralize too much, or am I not distinguishing the future LN correctly?
 

Thanks for the hat. I don't mind that GreatArkansas is using it too.

Yeah, the concept is really good, we all have different interests, but for me the allocated % for every part is really good for me.

Why do you have to say anything?  Cooperation is voluntary, correct?  So you can just refuse to cooperate and provide absolutely zero information.  Right?

   To Whom it May Concern,

    Pursuant to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution, the only information you are empowered to request is the total number of occupants at this address.   My “name, sex, age, date of birth, race, ethnicity, telephone number, relationship and housing tenure” have absolutely nothing to do with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives.  Therefore, neither Congress nor the Census Bureau have the constitutional authority to make that information request a component of the enumeration outlined in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3.  In addition, I cannot be subject to a fine for basing my conduct on the Constitution because that document trumps laws passed by Congress.

    Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 479 (May 26, 1894)

    “Neither branch of the legislative department , still less any merely administrative body, established by congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190.  We said in Boyd v. U.S., 116 U. S. 616, 630, 6 Sup. Ct. 524,―and it cannot be too often repeated,―that the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of government and it’s employees of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of his life.  As said by Mr. Justice Field in Re Pacific Ry. Commission, 32 Fed. 241, 250, ‘of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from inspection and scrutiny of others.  Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.’”

    Note: This United States Supreme Court case has never been overturned.

    Respectfully,

    A Citizen of the United States of America

...
While pictures like that look impressive, they're not necessarily significant. Humans only occupy some 10% of the land on earth, which just isn't much.
...

LOL how?

How could you deny the environmental pollution causing by the industrial smokes, cars etc?
How could you deny the fact that we are destroying the environmental ecosystem by cutting the forests?
How could you deny that we are killing animals and imbalancing the entire food chain?
How could you deny the climate change?
How could you deny the increased sea level?

Do you know what will happen if the last bee dies?
Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjID1ugr1fo

In the USA it seems to be used mostly to describe pedophiles who prey specifically on young boys.

Aren't words fun? 

Fuck, every day there's some shit.

Alternatives:

You couldn't, nobody cares about you unless you're doing dumb shit in a dumb way that draws attention.

Ah my days!
Too busy.
How are you all my brothers?

I might be alone with this but this modern day political correctness shit is annoying. I’m not interested in International Women’s Day.

Sounds like a load of bull shit to me.

In a Senate report, Equifax is accused of neglecting its own cybersecurity policies which ultimately led to the 2017 data breach that exposed personally identifiable information (PII) of 145 million Americans . The company's key Senior Managers didn't attend cybersecurity meetings and an audit identified a backlog of over 8,500 known vulnerabilities in its network. Over 1,000 of these were considered critical, high, or medium risks that were found on systems that could be accessed by individuals from outside of Equifax's information technology ("IT") networks.

The company instituted an "honor system" for patching its systems and didn't abide by its own patching policy that required the company's IT department to patch critical vulnerabilities within 48 hours. Equifax wasn't even sure of the network assets that it owned, so it was impossible for Equifax to know if vulnerabilities existed on its networks. When threats were announced by the U.S. government with the highest critical score possible; the company's security scans failed to identify the vulnerability. This is because the company lacked a comprehensive inventory of its IT assets. Equifax also allowed its SSL certificates to expire 8 months prior to the 2017 data breach which allowed hackers access to the network for 78 days undetected. Equifax waited six weeks before notifying the public of the breach.

Equifax's online dispute portal, the hackers also accessed other Equifax databases as they searched for other systems containing PII. They eventually found a data repository that also contained unencrypted usernames and passwords that allowed the hackers to access additional Equifax databases. The information accessed primarily included names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and, in some instances, driver's license and credit card numbers.

The usernames and passwords the hackers found were saved on a file share by Equifax employees. Equifax told the Subcommittee that it decided to structure its networks this way due to its effort to support efficient business operations rather than security protocols. In addition, Equifax did not have basic tools in place to detect and identify changes to files, a protection which would have generated real-time alerts and detected the unauthorized changes the hackers were making.