I will have to allow for that and it is an option I never considered based on the news reports (obviously filtered by our media) and my one relative who is native to China but has not lived there in many many years.

I am basing my opinions solely on my impressions and how I would feel / think were I in a similar situation but obviously being taken from what I know today as opposed to having only known their lifestyle. I liken it to a work horse who has only known the yoke and the cart - years later when the horse is too old to work and is set free in the pasture will rarely do anything but stand there and wait for the yoke to be put back on.

I'll go so far as to offer this article as evidence that people - HUMANS - have an innate desire to be free even under repressive controls.

http://news.yahoo.com/china-daring-few-challenge-one-child-limit-051010073.html

The birth of our own nation was at the hands of a few who chose to break away from their country's attempts at control.

Also true in the UK, US and numerous other countries - sadly.

I'll grant there is a considerable amount of information manipulation here in the US. Having spent a time working in and around our government and some of the things that are kept away from public scrutiny I understand first-hand there are reasons some information is kept secret.

That is not my point and was not the comment I was making. It was not about government information being kept secret - my comment was plainly about government's controlling what their people can do on a day-to-day basis. Take the actual content of the article discussing people having access to social media - that isn't controlling access to government secrets, it's controlling access to the outside world. Again, I also said if people choose to remain within the bounds of that control by choice, it's their choice (as you said "A lot of people like their government-imposed veils") but if not they should have the ability and basic human right to be free and think for themselves.

I could absolutely care less what deep-dark secrets of the inner-workings of the government want to remain veiled - that is up to their people to deal with as it is ours. I am talking about the proscribed birth-rate limits, the limits on what sex a baby can be, where you can seek information, what you are allowed to hear, what you can do to earn a living, etc. I am talking about basic freedoms. The same is said about slavery in the US but in the end the same truth was present - people wanted to be free. That has nothing what-so-ever to do with government manipulation of banking or insurance, nothing at all to do with the next weapon or how to infiltrate an enemy, it has only to do with the ability of people to make some of the choices in their lives for themselves.

At the end of the day my question remains. Does it really work? If it did would there ever be anyone trying to shrug off the yoke of control and manipulation? At the end of the day my question was really rhetorical.

As strongly as the Chinese gov't tries to control the information flow in and out of their country, does it really work? At some point doesn't the human mind and human nature cry to be free and see what's beyond that veil? The more tightly controlled any group is the more they try to circumvent or abolish those controls and when they do get that first breath of real free air, they seldom do anything but try to remain free.

Most certainly, there is a large amount of censorship all around and no amount of legalism will prove one is better than another. I will say that people need to be free to think for themselves, to believe for themselves, and feel as they want. If that desire is under the control of another, then so be it - that is their choice.

LOL!

No kidding?!

Yes texting while driving is banned - why not in all 50 states?? Did anyone say something to the contrary?

so stop trolling and actually read what's been said.

Absolutely not. I have enjoyed and appreciated every other previous comment not only making a similar assumption, but also further making my point. It is ludicrous to call for a ban on only one among a host of distracting activities.

No, texting is absolutely no different, no more or less dangerous, no more or less distracting than all the other mentioned activities - yet there is no legislated prohibition against them. If someone is in an accident and there is food in the vehicle you do not have officers taking the food and faulting the driver because they were eating, nor to you find people being fined because someone was drinking.

I am not advocating texting while driving but neither am I advocating vilifying one driving distraction and leaving the myriad others. Why single out one grossly distracting action and not others? People are just as apt to have their attention drawn away for more than a few seconds by changing CDs, eating, fumbling for a cigarette, etc, yet those are do not face the same publicized prohibition. I'd simply say they should all be considered equally distracting and those doing them while driving are equally culpable.

The UK police are testing something that came out some time ago. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20011548-71.html

Way to stay on top of things!

As for police forces having another tool in their arsenals, that's fine. Far too often police in the US are hamstrung by being under-funded, under-manned, out-gunned, etc. In all honesty, if you've done nothing wrong you should have no reason to fear any police force operating in the bounds of law so long as they remain within there. The problem lies not in the power but in the abuses. Far too often governments, police, and military misuse and abuse the power they are given by the people. This device could help if used rightly to avoid the use of 'deadly force' - but like any tool, the misapplication can have significant impact.

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

A ban on all cell phone use is utterly devoid of any form of logic.

Reaching for a dropped cigarette, fumbling for your lighter, dealing with a crying/screaming/misbehaving child, changing the radio, fiddling with your GPS, eating, drinking your morning coffee/tea, shaving, putting on make-up, even talking with your passenger are all PERMISSIBLE distractions, yet they all cause accidents. I am not advocating texting whilst driving - far too much attention has to be placed on the screen and keyboard for anyone to read or send a text safely. But banning _all_ cell phone use is ridiculous unless all other forms of driver distractions are also banned. Talking on a cell phone (hands free, naturally) is no different than speaking to (but not looking at) the passenger next to you. At least when speaking on a cell phone you are less likely to turn your head and speak to someone as you do when they are present in the vehicle.

Over-reaction of this caliber is tantamount to the mind-set that brought us prohibition and other such similar knee-jerk reactions from the government.

All completely correct. It is the trade-off of convenience over security. In the end it will not be the businesses who suffer the greater loss - it will be the customer / patient. Capitalism is fine - but there must be some form of responsibility. At least in my idealistic version of reality.

This will show who's asleep at the wheel. All the services offering SaaS and Cloud-based services including anti-virus, mail storage, NAS, vulnerability management, the list grows - come at a cost. Namely who are the vendors and who are the customers? When a business had all their enterprise servers on-site there was no question who managed, maintained, and monitored the data at rest or in motion. Now, if a company (and what happens if the "company" is a hospital or retailer having to meet auditory compliance) used a cloud-based service offering they have no way of knowing who is managing, monitoring, maintaining or accessing their data. This is off-shore outsourcing gone awry. It may make sense briefly on the bottom-line, but the bean counters are not considering the extended costs of security and vulnerability. Put your trusted data in someone else's hands and you are assuming they are just as, if not more, safe as you would be.

It seems more likely the impending surge in prices being forecast because of [insert excuse] are a ploy on the part of the same manufacturers to artificially drive up prices ahead of the "next big thing" or to combat the competitiveness of the SSD. It's all anybody's guess but the reality is the prices won't stay elevated long.

When the "vaccine" for HPV was released it was quickly passed through FDA approval and put out with a spate of Government fanfare and PSAs. Then came Perry's famous executive order in TX forcing all girls 12 and older to have this "vaccine". Shortly after came parents bringing their daughters in to their doctors because of joint pains, flu-like symptoms, and other chronic arthritic-like symptoms.

They were ignored until several studies later showed a correlation to several issues in young girls who had received the full vaccine series and the on-set of these joint-pain issues. The Government passed these off as unrelated or small cases of side-effects.

My bet is that when young males begin developing these or other symptoms the "vaccine" will be pulled from the market immediately. Remember the "mail birth control" that started causing cysts and other issues similar to what women face when taking birth-control pills and patches and IUDs? The male birth-control was immediately yanked off the market. If it affects women the media, the government, and the public are quick to be dismissive - when it affects our males then it's full speed ahead with finding an immediate solution or pulling the product.

Talk about a double standard.

and that is the most common business practice in use today. No one ever said it was "good" business, or even good FOR business - but all too often today it is the prictise /du jour/ being employed by companies who have forgotten they are only open because their customers keep them operating.

oh wait - then they just cry for a bailout so they can afford their exorbitant executive bonuses.