It does appear that the goal is not to reduce crime, though that is used as a statistic. I do agree that the banning of guns appears to be an end on its own for these people. It makes little sense. There is an irrational fear, probably instilled at an early age. It is similar to the irrational fear that other people have towards people instead of objects. I think it is the same base motivation, and the separate groups each see their cause as just. It doesn't mean they both aren't delusional though.

This is an easy assumption to make, but it isn't always the truism you're making it out to be. Many software packages are highly specialized. There may only be a handful of options available that perform their function. Many of them may be difficult and far more expensive than you realize to upgrade, may have been abandoned, may have been ruined by "improvements" during upgrades, etc. When a piece of software is integral to a business, and there is no simple upgrade path, sometimes the cheapest (and *correct*) option is to stay on an "outdated" platform. Often, mitigating the issues with the old systems are cheaper than upgrading the software (if that is even possible).

And not a hypervisor at that point, but just an OS executing applications. Oh how novel!

Incorrect. Backscatter machines use very low amounts of ionizing radiation.

You're confusing them with the models being left in place, the "millimeter wave" ones, which do not.

In every example that you present, you are in the environment due to your own choice. You are free to refuse the badge and leave at any time. Therein lies the difference.

*individuals (woops)

One need not be a religious nut to see the danger in indoctrinating children to accept this level of location tracking, even if it is only within the confines of a school, it still opens the door to more by creating a generation of individual's who are less averse to privacy invasion due to familiarity.

Why do people just make things up as you've done here?

Using the built in browser, browsing to maps.google.com redirected to just the generic search page. Google was refusing to serve up the webpage to windows phone users. This has nothing to do with APIs accessing google maps. They blocked the phones' browsers entirely.

3mm/yr * 100 yrs = 0.3m

The math you have performed for the numbers that you have presented is off by a factor of 10.

I've never understood this bizarre belief that "Oh, it's activated, that means I have a legitimate copy".

So it activates it, you still have an unlicensed copy. If you were a corporation and exploited this, let's see how the civil court views your "free license".

Amusing that you try to equate a resistance to the erosion of freedom as a loony position.

Respect is earned. None of the current elected officials in the US have done anything in particular to earn my respect. In fact, I think that the whole system is problematic because I feel that anyone who seeks out a position of that much power is by definition unsuited to possess power. The only people who I feel that would not misuse it are those uncomfortable having it.

Sadly, this is an unworkable system and a utopian dream.

You may try to dismiss anything I may say as the ramblings of a militant religious nutjob (which is thoroughly laughable because none of what you tried to characterize me as in your ad hominem fits), but I will defend your right to make such moronic dismissals just the same.

There's some pretty severe cognitive dissonance in your post. Limiting our ability to criticize our elected officials does exactly what your claims that criticizing our elected officials does. That is makes us "[look] like one of those Middle Eastern countries with shelled out buildings and rubble filled streets."

When you start promoting the stripping of freedoms as something that makes a state a better place, it is time to take a step back and evaluate exactly what it is you believe.

Smartglass is available for both WP7 and WinRT, but hey, don't let reality interfere with your fantasy world.

Correct. I was merely adapting his analogy to more accurately fit how it could be used as a defense instead of the straw man he'd made ;)

That's not the argument.

The argument is that if it is ok for you to steal $2,000, why is it not ok for me to steal $1,000.

There is a big difference there.

You suggested that both our stealing is wrong. The defense would be "You seem ok with the other guy stealing $2,000. That suggests to us that this is a politically motivated action and not based on the merits of your case because if it were, we would expect suit against the more egregious offense where there is none".