I deploy pepper spray with my off hand, strong hand on my handgun.

Cite?

I think you're talking about Indiana's Castle Doctrine law, which gives you the right to assume that you're threatened with death if someone breaks into your house or car (some states also include place of business). But the authorization is for self-defense, not defense of property. The Castle Doctrine just means that the law automatically assumes that you were at risk of death or serious injury in those locations, and you don't have to justify it.

I can use non-lethal force. There are lots of options available.

But, no, I will not kill a man to stop him from taking my stuff. I have insurance. The situation changes dramatically if my kid is in the back seat, of course.

Most states allow deadly force for forcible felonies, and include burglary. The rationale there is that the house may not be empty, and so there may be human lives at risk. It's a reasonable choice.

This is even more wrong.

Clearly, we need a major war which absolutely requires that every soldier be equipped with a personal jetpack.

Often illegal, yes. Firing birdshot into the air is not dangerous. That's why we use shotguns and birdshot to shoot birds. From the air. Birdshot's terminal velocity is low enough that by the time the shot falls to the ground it's not dangerous.

Texas is the only state that allows deadly force to be used in defense of property. This is a case where Texas is wrong and the rest of the country is right. I'm all for the right to keep and bear arms, I carry daily and am a certified concealed weapons instructor. But deadly force should only be used to defend people, not stuff.

This.

Further, even after you've unloaded it you should still obey the golden rule of gun safety: never point it at anything you don't want to destroy. If what you're doing requires breaking that rule, first disassemble it so it's no longer a gun. Then, and only then, can you stop worrying about where you're pointing it.

The reason for this is that most people who hurt themselves or others while cleaning their gun *did* unload it first. Or thought they did.

Relatively little of what teens do is going to cause them problems in later life. It's what people do between about 18 and 25 that tends to screw them. Mainly because they're old enough to drink (without having to hide it) but not yet old enough to think (well).

Do you have any evidence to back that claim up?

There are a number of features in Chrome that optionally talk to Google. But you can change them all if you prefer. Do you have any proof that it "phones home" in any hidden way? It should be quite easy to prove; Wireshark is all you need.

FWIW, I know some of the guys who started the Chrome project. Actually, they didn't start Chrome, they started V8. The point was to prove that Javascript engines could be orders of magnitude faster than they were, and to push the rest of the industry to get better, so Google's apps would be able to do more, faster. The rest of Chrome was just to show off V8. Then it became successful, both at pushing Javascript engines to get better, and as a popular browser, and Google started to use it as a test bed for other ideas about how to make the web "platform" better. Security improvements like certificate pinning. Performance (and security) improvements like SPDY and QUIC. UI simplifications like the omnibox (which geeks like to hate, but non-geeks love). Better development tools (though Firebug was and is quite good). And so on.

I don't think "better tracking of users" has ever been a goal, stated or unstated, of the Chrome project. And, seriously, why would it? It's not like the normal web standards don't offer everything that's required for whatever tracking anyone would like to do.

Trial and error, I expect. Look at what other sites do. I realize that this isn't a very good answer. There isn't a good answer, just bad answers that are still better than passwords. Classic OpenID isn't the answer because users don't know how to use it and many RPs don't trust random providers. But as a practical matter providing login with, say, Google, Facebook, Yahoo and AOL will give better than 95% of your users the ability to log on with better security than the password-based model you'd build, and do it just by clicking a couple of buttons.

If you find that your user base tends to have an account with some other provider (no, I can't tell you how to find out who your users are or what they use), then add that.