I live in Australia, and seeing all those dots, seeing the density of them, is astonishing to me.
I noticed the comments from people being upset that these represent a possible "shopping list" for people who wish to acquire a gun, however as is commonly pointed out in other contexts, security via obscurity is very minimal security indeed. If a newspaper can acquire this information, you can safely assume any other interested party can do so.
If my interpretation of the second amendment is along the right lines, it was to intended to make sure that a government could be overthrown by the people, I think you guys need to reevaluate how effective any gun you can own is in a modern age. You would be up against the largest military in history.
If you wish to have no tracking or boundary for gun types, you are effectively creating the environment where there is a constant battle between those who would do harm with guns and those who need to protect themselves. An environment of escalation. If on the other hand you take steps to reduce the overall availability of guns over time, you would at least be slowly calming the situation. Looking at these numbers I can't help feeling it would take decades however. It would have to be carefully done not to create the equivalent of your prohibition of alcohol, where guns become a black marketed item for the general populous.
I feel for you guys - it seems an unenviable situation, particularly when I look to the future of weapons and see them becoming even deadlier with each passing year.

What is going to be considered porn? If I write something sexy in an email - does it get blocked? Does this happen in every language? If someone sends a sexy photo to someone who hasn't opted-in are they breaking the law?

Who is responsible for that, the ISP/government/sender?

If you "opt-in" who gets to see the list of people who have done so? How will this be audited and by whom?

Can this be the basis of a search warrant? If you bypass the filter are you breaking a law? If you help someone bypass a filter are you breaking the law? If you are a child and you bypass the filter are you breaking the law?

Will MP's have to own up to if they have opted-in? How will we know they are being truthful? What will happen if they are not? What happens if they visit friends houses where the friends have opted-in? Will this be true for all public figures and government employees?

If you "opt-in" and your children "see porn" does this mean you are accountable to the government in some way?

If your kids go visit their friends in a "opt-in" household does this mean their parents are responsible in defying the law some how?

If the ISP accidentally allows someone access to porn without their "opting-in" what does that mean? Can parents sue the government/ISP/auditors?

If your in a custody dispute with a spouse, will it be legitimate for them to discover if you have opted-in to internet.

What happens if the ISP blocks things that aren't porn? Who will know? What recourse will there be if they block a legitimate business site?

Who will make the list of porn sites?

If the government does it, and they start blocking "non-porn" sites - how will people know? How will it be fixed? How long will that take?

Will companies and institutions be able to opt-in en mass or will they need approval from every member of their staff?

Will libraries automatically "opt-in"? If the filter is not accurate and blocks items that are medical or sexual education - and you are a school/library/university etc will you have to opt-in just to be sure you get the information you need?

I am sure they are not thinking this through...

I live in the country and have no realistic choice but Bigpond. Not sure what the hell to do about it quite frankly.

*facepalm*

Is this just self promotion?

I would have thought the next best thing would be to simply lase the target so the big stuff can be delivered accurately on target - without having some poor grunt in the field having to put his head up. Not sure how big a laser you need to do the job - but can't imagine it's very much weight or power. Looks stable enough to keep a beam tracking on a target. A lased target could be the focal point for various armaments, and would effectively allow the drone to be used to take out targets like tanks, armored personnel carriers, rocket launchers, - basically you name it. I guess it might even be able to tag hardened targets for big strikes. I assume someone has put an gps in it so the general location is known. Another, alternative might be to arm it with a florescent paint ball, to you can tag a target at night - so they can be tracked easier.

I thought faith was belief without or independent of evidence. Science is about discovering pattens consistent with evidence. The epistemology of science is philosophical.
You can have faith in the underlying 'truthfulness' of science, however there are also strong philosophical reasons to support it. Science doesn't require faith after that point.
I think what this post is saying is that although in principle everything that is known by science can be derived from testable and observable aspects of the world, the lay person is not in a position to undertake those tests directly, so it then becomes a different matter as to how they assign accuracy to "science" as a way of describing the world.
I think faith is an inappropriate phrase to use here, as there can be direct evidence that trusting a scientific description of the world is more consistent with the real world than any religion is. Ultimately we are have a discussion about science when it's actually a discussion about philosophy and epistemology.