I'd rather err on the side of too little spying and play it safe. I see little in history to convince me that governments can ever successfully spy only on the bad guys and never for political reasons. If you allow the NSA to listen into only one phone call a day, I suspect they'll spend each phone call listening in on people who they identify as responsible for putting that limit on them. Dismantle the whole thing and there won't be a question of "are they still spying on us even though we told them they couldn't."

What's your point exactly? "Other states and a president 22 years ago are bad too?"

CONGRATULATIONS! You have proven that Indiana's actions are NOT UNPRECEDENTED! You MIGHT have even proven that Bill Clinton is not the paragon of liberalism that... let's see here... NO ONE is claiming he is!

Speaking as someone who wants to see the NSA dismantled, I hope these shooters died painfully if they were doing it as a political statement. This will only garner sympathy for the NSA, will make NSA staff more certain that they're the "good guys" in a world full of bad guys, and will distract from valid criticisms against global spying. Violence is the last refuge of desperate men, and there's no reason for those opposed to big brother to be desperate. Public paranoia about terrorism, which allowed them to justify the spying, is waning slowly. Political opposition to the spying is growing as the spying community makes missteps like spying on senators. And younger generations don't seem too fond of the war on privacy.

Going all Rambo is a good way to threaten to reverse that momentum.

How long does it take you to read? Because 300 pages is a lot, but not a lot to read in two weeks. Is there anything that you've come across that's objectionable or is this just FUD?

Do we have any indication that Martin would allow the books to be finished if he died? The only way I could see him allowing that in his will would be if A: it was a sticking point for a contract with HBO or B: if he trusted a writer enough.

As you said, obviously the TV show wouldn't be as detailed,. But the TV show is good enough that I wouldn't throw myself off of a rope bridge if Martin died.

Hey now! Press releases from the wireless industry and political bribery on the part of the wireless industry generates an additional forty thousand jobs a year! If you question these stats, that risks two hundred billion jobs!

I do wish more people realized that cops in the US have serious problems and operate more like big brother than they need to. That said, I don't follow your logic here. "Cops do bad things, anonymous doesn't do and won't do as many bad things, therefore this thing that they're thinking of doing is okay"?

"If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" has got to be the most disingenuous lie that law enforcement has ever come up with.

The fact that they're whining about how hard they have it suggests to me that they do have it easy. It's the new first rule of PR: if you're on top, make it sound like you're a victim of something, an underdog. Witness MS trying to make it sound like Linux is stealing trillions of dollars from them, or the religious majority of the country claiming there's a "War on Christmas."

You seem to be assuming that operating glass hands free is safer than pulling out your phone. This sounds unlikely to me given the available data.

Outside of a car, again, pull out your smartphone's camera.

I didn't say I hated glass.

Plus there are different fan bases reacting as far as I can tell. I watched the original "Wrath of Khan" after the latest JJ star trek and almost couldn't get through it. At the risk of the wrath of the trekkies, I'm going to say that aside from nostalgia for the old series, most viewers would prefer the newer one. The hardcore fans were pissed, but they're dramatically outnumbered by people who liked it. So I wouldn't say "some people have this opinion," I would say "very few people think JJ star trek movies were awful compared to the older movies."

Previous attempts to convince people have not been successful yet either. It's been said you can't reason someone out of a position they have not reasoned themselves into, this is true for climate change. Simply letting the truth speak for itself and guide policy has been a depressing failure. Different approaches must be tried.

My point was that politics sometimes sometimes follow facts, often they don't, but that doesn't change the nature of the facts themselves. Concluding "any facts politicians agree on must be wrong" is as stupid as suggesting the reverse. Anon-admin was suggesting that since climate change is being discussed by politicians, it's not science. That's backwards.

I don't understand why it needs to have a camera on it. I just want a heads up display. It requires a smartphone right? Are there ANY smartphones which do not already have a camera on it?

If I'm walking along reading a text on a glass display and I see Bigfoot, I could pull out my phone and use that camera. Not having a camera on the glass itself would not be an issue. Bigfoot could say "Hey man, could you not film me," and I could put my phone back in my pocket and apologize. Then bigfoot would say "Are you still filming me with that google glass?" and I could say "No, it's glass 2, so there's no camera" and he would say "Oh cool, now I know I'm not being filmed and I can relax. Hey, have you seen 'Harry and the Hendersons.'" And I could say "Uh... I'm watching it right now!"

With the camera on there, I would assure him I'm not filming him still, and he'd still be nervous, and then might rip my head off. That's why I won't be buying a glass with a camera on it. I like my head where it is.

I'm saving my "stop spying on me" outrage for the government. When we arrest Brennan and dismantle the NSA, then I'll have some room on my plate to get mad at individual people who might be filming me without my consent.