Or if this article has any merit...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

We could stop shipping crap across the ocean, as it's apparently causing more pollution than all of our cars combined...

Tasers are anything but a humane alternative. Consult Youtube for about 15 seconds for an example.

The thought behind the taser, is to use the weapon in a situation that would have otherwise necessitated lethal force (i.e. a gun). In practice, however, police just zap anyone that they find annoying. Worse still, because it's not a gun, these idiots don't consider tasers to have lethal consequences. There have been numerous serious injuries and even deaths as a result of the abuse of a weapon.

Consider the folks who have heart conditions, or who have been struck by multiple tasers.

Tasers should be banned.

Wow, lot's of hostility to my comment, and a few good points too.

Boats - I stand corrected, boats have some modest emissions controls. We could definitely stand to see something stronger though:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

Planes - Yes, I understand that the U.S. is large, but we can start with modern trains that connect smaller distances, like Milwaukee to Chicago, L.A. to Vegas, etc. Trains are more efficient than planes, and can actually travel very fast. I'm also speculating that trains suffer from fewer delays, have quicker security checkpoints, and require less maintenance.

Coal power plants: There is no such thing as clean coal plant. Look at the destruction caused just to GET the coal, let alone burn it. It's dangerous for the workers and disastrous for our environment. Search for images before and after mining, it's unsettling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_the_United_States, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania

Lawn Mowers - Operating a mower for an hour is the pollution equivalent of driving a car 200 miles. Consider how many lawns are in the U.S. alone. That is not insignificant: http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/community/details/yardequip_addl_info.html.

Excessive Water Consumption - Too many people underestimate the value of clean, fresh water. It takes energy and costly equipment to clean and deliver fresh water to your home. Water is also a limited resource. If/when our rapidly draining aquifers run dry, the consequences will be disastrous to our food supply and economy. We can do some simple things to reduce our usage, without much effort. Front load washing machines save ~20 gallons per use. Low flow toilets can save ~2 gallons per flush. I have no regrets switching to either, and I have a lower water bill. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/water-conservation-tips/

I understand that there are many arguments as to whether global climate change exists, and/or how sever it is. I also understand that trying to reduce our emissions significantly can come at some economic cost. But there are still many low hanging fruits that we could easily tackle as a compromise, at very little cost.

To name a few:

- Boats - No emissions controls at all currently
- Planes - Trains should be a better option (particularly in the U.S.)
- Coal power plants - Outdated tech
- Lawn mowers - Electric mowers could replace most people's mowing needs
- Excessive water consumption - Top loading washing machines are a colossal waste of fresh water

Additionally, there have been numerous studies linking various forms of pollution to cancer and other serious health effects. So we stand to gain healthier people and lower health care costs by reducing our emissions as well.

Terms like this and mandatory arbitration clauses should be illegal. It's a very slippery slope to when people can forgo their legal rights, and we're already slipped too far.

This is something that doesn't get noticed enough. You can talk about "Drill baby drill", "global warming is a myth", etc. all you want, but at the end of the day, it is wildly unwise to have our entire economy based around one technology. We are much better equipped to handle change if we're diversified.

We've seen oil prices spike too many times not to know better by now.

Maybe the ads don't effect many users now, but that's how they get their foot in the door.

Remember the Xbox 360 dashboard when the system first came out? Now look at it. You can barely see the screens you want to use, because everything is cluttered with ads.

Yeah, I'm a Minnesotan, so I'm all too familiar with the cold weather problems. But I can still appreciate innovation, even if the solution doesn't work for everyone (yet?).

I was hoping to purchase a Nexus 4, and was very disappointed that I can't get one for Sprint. After a little research, I came across this article explaining the lack of LTE: http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/29/3569688/why-nexus-4-does-not-have-4g-lte

In short, blame your greedy carrier.

I can appreciate your monopoly concern, but I think you're missing the obvious. If Google gets more control, it means that the carriers have less control.

Carriers and phones need to be 2 VERY separate entities. Google is pushing for that openness and separation. They are not asking for their own set of locks and restrictions. So, if Google wins this, it stands to reason that more manufacturerswill be able to build open devices.

I think the screen size is a reflection of the market. People are migrating towards phones with larger screens. For example, I'm guess that the Samsung S2 and S3 owe their success, at least in part to their large crisp screens. I'm not saying that 4.7" hasn't gone a little too far for the average user, but I bet that screen looks a lot prettier than the competition.

Personally, I have huge hands, so my next phone will be humongous. I avoid texting because I can't help but hit like 5 characters at once. I'm even considering the monstrously large Note 2.

It's not that someone is making a profit. It's that all of the major phone companies are working together to make phone prices ridiculous. Without contract, you're looking at: $649/16gb, $749/32gb, $849/64gb.

That is one hell of a mark up.

I guarantee that people would be rushing to stores a little slower if it weren't for the 2 year contract "discount". It seems a little fishy that all of the major phone releases have similar pricing and, generally speaking, the phones are locked to one provider. It reeks of collusion.

You mean, a whopping 1,029 people might not be an accurate poll of a country with 314 million people?

I've noticed more and more games are requiring a 1 time use only code to play. For example, EA NHL12 requires you to enter (which is a complete pain in the ass on an xbox) a 16 digit code to play any on-line modes. Essentially it makes the game worthless for re-sale.

So for those of you siting Steam's reasonable prices as "the system works" I disagree. EA dominates a VERY large portion of the gaming market, almost entirely the sports game genre. They have no intent on playing nicely. Yes I can boycott them (which I largely do), but that is LOT of games to boycott.

I had a Pre, and and loved the OS. It was a work of art, and I still think it's more intuitive than anything else available today. Unfortunately, Palm cheaped out on the hardware. The phone scratched at anything more than a gentle breeze, and the plastic began falling apart in a couple of weeks let alone 2 long years. Had Palm worked with HTC to put Web OS on some decent options, the company might be in an entirely different place today.