If travelling to one destination does not count against your data cap, then that destination is not on equal footing.

It does violate net neutrality, because it affects the cost of delivery of data to and from the end user.

What Wikipedia is doing here is a good thing by itself, but if the practice were to become commonplace, it's something that would be very bad.

Yes it is, imagine if you had a single tank of petrol each month, and there were some stores you could drive to but it wouldn't use up any of your petrol. Even if most months you didn't use all your petrol up, you'd still prefer to visit those stores because you might need that petrol later if something comes up.

Network congestion is a pretext (a reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason), the real reason for data caps is two-fold:

1. It allows ISPs to use a pricing model that takes advantage of market segmentation

2. It provides ISPs with leverage they can apply to other market entities to gain benefits, such as cash or quid pro quo (preferential treatment).

Net Neutrality, just like freedom of speech, or any other broad principle, has some downsides. But ultimately the good vastly outweighs the bad.

Those exist, they're called Repraps. http://reprap.org/

Why wouldn't you replace it before that happens?

You forgot 3. grow good crops with free seeds.

Repressive Intellectual Property laws are prolonging global poverty and hunger by restricting access to technologies that could realistically be provided freely or at cost.

How is it that police are unable to refuse these requests? I mean if I asked for all the records the police held on Person X, would they just cough it up?

If yes, then the problem has nothing to do with body cams specifically.

If no, then why are these recording being treated so differently?

Isaac Asimov's essay, "The Relativity of Wrong"does a wonderful job of revealing the foolishness of this type of thinking. http://chem.tufts.edu/answersi...

Okay, I don't think you understand the issues that climate change presents; for the Earth to sustain a healthy biosphere with 7+ billion humans we've had to develop a lot of infrastructure to make effective use of it's resources. Changes in the climate will require us to devote resources to re-configuring our infrastructure, the faster it happens, the more resources we'll need to devote, which will impact living standards. We do not know exactly how high the cost will be, but we do know that it will be cheaper if we act now.

Because of 1. the greenhouse effect and 2. climate forcing.

The politics is the only reason it gets discussed so much; if we were just talking about the science there wouldn't be all that much to talk about, because most of us lack the necessary knowledge to discuss the finer points of climate change modelling.

No, they've known this for a long time. Next question?

Lovejoy's Law: "As a discussion on violating civil rights grows longer, the probability of using the protection of children as a justification approaches 1."

How about protecting the public from the lobbyists and legislators pushing oppressive copyright laws?