All right, some budding musical genius make that into a song.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.