Any solution is better than no action, even if it may be the wrong one (almost).
The fact that so many people sincerely believe this is a major underlying cause of most of our problems.
Making things worse is most definitely NOT better than leaving things alone.
I agree that things need to change, but care should be taken to ensure that they actually change for the better. It's foolish to advocate change for change's sake.
As if anyone gives a fuck where you drive.
That's far too simplistic a way to look at it.
The problem isn't anyone wanting to know where people drive. The problem is what happens when you combine this database with a few others, and the analytics that are possible.
Do some research. The level of detail of a persons life that they can identify from these "harmlessly tiny bits of information" is staggering.
And No, your VOIP should not have QOS priority over my downloading a debian DVD.
Of course it should. VOIP is time sensitive, your iso download is not. There is a debate to be had over whether that QOS should come with an extra charge, but it should absolutely be an option. And VOIP is pretty low bandwidth, giving it priority over your download is probably going to make the difference between getting your iso in 10 minutes 53 seconds VS. 10 minutes 57 seconds.... Not really enough for anyone to throw a fit over....
The real problem is last-mile providers being monopoly providers, therefore so stingy in making prudent upgrades to the infrastructure that everything is constantly pushed so close to the limits that stuff like this start to make a noticeable difference. On an intelligently designed and provisioned network, time-sensitive traffic could be given all the QOS priority it needs without you every noticing a difference.
My friends have lots of pictures and videos of their kids.
Ahhh.... So you're one of those.... People who think it's more important to create a record of life than to actually live it.
You're missing out on a lot. I feel bad for you.
All of your points are invalid.
The practicality of that depends on the weather, whether the streets between where you live and the nearest public park have sidewalks, and crime levels in your neighborhood. A lot of parents are unwilling to let their kids play outside due to stranger danger hysteria.
If you have kids and live in a neighborhood where crime level is a factor in whether you can let them go outside during daylight hours, perhaps you need to re-examine your priorities. If you by into the "stranger danger" hysteria, perhaps you need to wake up. Yes, shit happens, but if you live in a generally safe location, the risk is low. If you don't live in a generally safe location, then you're just stupid.
The practicality of that depends on whether you happen to live within walking distance of a public library branch.
No. Get a tablet. Install the various e-book apps. Kindle, Nook, etc... Pretty much every book ever published is available. 5 minutes logged in to the free WiFi at a McDonalds would let you download enough books to satisfy your reading needs for a month. Also, why walking distance? Most people have to drive to get around, and those who don't tend to live in places with very good public transportation.
In order to determine in which direction to take my next post, I'd like to know this: Do you consider people who play video games likewise "couch potatoes"? A game download can be several GB.
Of course they are. Duh...
Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
California is an aberration, not representative of the US as a whole. NYC as well. Most of our political problems could be solved by getting rid of them.
That's why I'd be happy to pay more taxes for a government provided infrastructure
That's the part of your comment that makes no sense.
Government at all levels already extracts way more than enough tax money from us. There's no need for more.
The way to make funds available for worthwhile projects is to eliminate wasteful ones, and competently manage the substantial funds they already have to work with. Until that is done, there is NO acceptable reason for anyone paying more taxes than we already do.
If you can kill the same 10 million people with a smaller bomb and a more accurate missile
Making your weapon smaller and more accurate DOES make it less scary.
Violence is scary. Random, indiscriminate violence is more scary.
I would counter your argument with the suggestion that a ridiculously large, but clumsily inaccurate weapon is far more scary than a weapon that only hits its intended targets.
If all I have are precision weapons, then all you need to do to be safe is make sure not to piss me off. If I have extremely powerful weapons with "unreliable" targeting, then it might be in your best interest to also put pressure on your neighbor to not piss me off.
Your thinking is shallow.
At the end of the day, there is no such thing as a weapon of war. There are just weapons. There is no such thing as a tool of peace. There are just tools.
They are all just objects. Like pebbles or fallen branches. The don't *do* anything. They just exist. That's all. They don't endorse causes or have a political agenda. They just sit there and exist, perfectly content to do absolutely nothing and be perfectly harmless for the rest of eternity.
What matters is *who* has possession of them. The living, thinking creature that can make them do something.
Personally, I would prefer that the most powerful weapons be under the control of somebody who is, to at least some degree, on my side.
Quite true. However, sometimes the thing that was failed was the attempt to convince someone else that you are sincere about being left alone.
Even more often, the "failure" was a hesitation to meet the unreasonable demands of an aggressor who wants you to relinquish possession of something valuable.
Violence is a two party game, you can't simply "choose" to never be involved in it.
What you can choose is whether or not you want to be the loser every time you are forced to participate.
If my destruction is already determined, and there is no other way out, then having a way to convince the aggressor that he'll be going down with me is a perfectly valid tactic. Really, it's the only valid tactic on some situations.
That may be a valid point, but it is an argument for *upgrading* weapons, not eliminating them.
You misunderstand the true value of weapons.
If you have to use a weapon, that means you didn't have a big enough one.
Much better to have a weapon that is big enough, and scary enough that you don't ever have to actually use it.
We couldn't possibly give up our strategic advantage in an area that has almost no usefulness in this period of time!
We could give up our strategic advantage, but it would be exceedingly stupid.
Weapons should be thought of as a form of insurance. In a perfect world, you'd never have to use it, but in the world we live in, it's foolish not to have it.
Neutrinos have bad breadth.
