I remember watching shows about the future warrior or OCIW system that this is based on. From what I remember, the rounds only burst at exactly the distance they are programmed for, so in all likelyhood, collateral damage would be less because you're not going to get any rounds "missing" and going through walls, or downrange from the target where innocents might be holed up. While I see your point, the end result may be a wash. Until humanity can evolve beyond greed and desire to accumulate wealth, there is going to be war. People die in war. War is SUPPOSED to be horrible, not neat and clean. It is exactly the horrible nature of war that prevents it from occurring more often then it does. The problem with US tech is that it tries to make war neat and clean, and this is exactly why the US causes more wars then any other nation. If we still had to rely on carpet bombing instead of smart bombs and drones, you can bet that we'd have fewer armed conflicts. -W

There are tons of weapons now, some even based on the M4 type receiver, that fire 6.5mm grendel rounds, which are as effective as 7.62 Nato without the weight and recoil. Unfortunately, the weapons the US military chooses to deploy have everything to do with politics and nothing to do with technology. The OICW was a great weapon system that suffered from scope-creep, and in the end the battery and tech cost of the day in addition to the fact that they wanted the damn thing to do everything killed it. There were other XM, SCAR, and MR programs that suffered the same fate. . . most have to do with the fact that the best technologies are from other countries and the politicians want the weapons to be home-grown, sourced in 15 different states, ect. In the end, the most effective killing machine is a red-cheeked US politician, the actual weapons are just apendages. -W

What is the benefit to society to fight obesity or cancer? Right now, treating the symptoms that those diseases create is a great financial boon to society. Until we figure out that money is meaningless, then we will continue to do whatever makes money. Security makes more money then liberty. Money money money.

To Verizon's benefit? Verizon has a better network, but that network will crumble under an onslaught of additional smartphone users. What may be Verizon's benefit will not be the benefit of their customers, who, right now, only stay because of the network. The iphone will be the equalizer of mediocrity. -W

Try not writing boring software?

Modern routers are actually switches, not routers. They use packet based switching, not processor based routing like their ancient predecessors. Hell even Cisco tried to fix this when they introduced the GSR (gigabit switch/routers) late last century. It is really "how" these devices direct traffic from one port to the next that defines what they "are", not what OSI layer they operate at. That said, it's still easier for people to understand using the old-school nomenclature.

Most laws are generally a bad thing. Supporting something just because it is "a law" is sheeple behavior. Question everything.

Is there even an option to purchase a "high quality" motherboard, or any computer components for that matter? Cheap mass-produced goods abound in many types of products, however there are usually options. I can buy a cheap Korean car or guitar, but I might choose not to, paying a premium for an item designed and assembled in Germany, the US, or even Japan. I realize that it's very expensive to produce electronics in the US, and environmental laws make it highly unlikely to happen here, but it seems there would be a strong niche market for "computerphile" goods given how damned cheap the mass produced junk is these days. I'd rather pay a premium for a high-quality home-produced video card based on last years model, then pay a premium for the "latest and greatest" mass produced piece of Chinese junk. Am I alone here?

It is horrific, but I believe it is necessary. "Intelligent" people breed far less then "unintelligent" people do. Since we're all striving towards democracy, this can only mean the collective devolution and dumbing down of our society (one only need to look at the last few US elections to see this). As horrific as it may be, the only way to keep this from happening is to indeed introduce some means of population control. Why not keep the uninterested and unqualified parents out of the process at the same time? We spade and neuter our pets after all, why not our peers? -W