Actually the main purpose is to wound as many enemies as you can. Each wounded soldier takes 2-3 support people to care for them. The purpose of engaging in battle is to gain the specific objective (hill, town, city) as described by the mission objectives. A lot of killing takes place, yes, but it's actually the wounded that count the most from a tactical standpoint.

Helping makers of internal combustion engines create more efficiencies certainly does help direct competitors of Musk's.

First, don't think that I'm supporting spying on the general population. However, I don't feel it is the information that is bad, but what governments will do with it. For example, I don't see Google doing anything bad with the data they have on me. Yes, it's an invasion on my privacy, but frankly, I don't really care. What can they do? However, I can see governments abusing the data, especially given the recent IRS scandal where the government used information to punish groups opposing the president.

As for the "chilling" aspect of it, it's only a problem if 1) You know about it, and 2) You let it.

I can't say that a secret invasion of privacy limits my freedom in any way. How could it? I had no idea. That's not to say that it won't be used to limit my freedoms later. Everyone at one point or another is against the powers in Washington. Today, it's conservatives. In a few years, it will be liberals. Libertarians scare the bejeezus out of both parties.

Tell that to the failed Mars Climate Orbiter. If we'd settled on one set of units (either would be fine) it probably wouldn't have been lost.

I'm not sure where you got that one. The only credible theory related to it is the Chicxulub crater, which is on the Southern edge of the Gulf, near the Yucatan Peninsula. That's what's left by the impact that many believe killed most of the dinosaurs, as well as many other species. It's not even close to the size of the whole Gulf. What theories are you talking about?

It is just another example of shoddy tech/science journalism, to use the latter term loosely. Sensationalism gets people to click.

He just described it incorrectly. You don't have to be a douche about it. It ionizes a small area of the air, creating a 'plasma field' (their words) that disrupts the shock wave.

You are confusing privacy with liberty. While I view I have a right to a certain level of privacy, it has no effect on my liberty.

For example, if I were to strap a camera to my head and stream my life 24/7 onto the web, am I any less free than I was before? No, even though I had given up 100% of my privacy. My liberty would only be limited if I limited it myself. For example, if i decided not to view porn because the camera on my head would broadcast it and the whole world would know that I'm into midget-barbarian porn.

Liberty is diminished, however, when that lack of privacy is used against you. For example, if the state puts a GPS on your car and sends you a fine every time you exceeded the speed limit, your liberty would obviously be diminished. Or if the state put a camera in your bedroom and arrested you for masturbating in an unapproved manner.

Privacy is nothing more than the securing of information. Information has nothing to do with liberty. However, it could be used to restrict freedom.

Grumpy? Not at all. You wouldn't want to see that; nobody does :)

It's just an example of a solution looking for a problem and thus opening the doors to more potential problems.

I'd rather make my own security decisions. I don't need the 'AI' in my phone deciding if it's me or not.

I didn't do anything of the sort. It 'doesn't necessarily' disqualify an applicant is all I said. It does not. The converse of that is it also often does.

It is not illegal to deny employment on the basis of criminal background. That's the very reason so many employers do background checks. It doesn't necessarily disqualify a person but it certain can be used in the decision making process.

Few if any corporations have ethics. They generally (not always) do what is legal, but not necessarily what is ethical, and almost never what is morally correct. They exist for one purpose and that is to make a profit.