So my objections to this are 2 fold. 1. I don't want strangers sitting outside of my house where I have children because it is a free and easy hotspot to get wifi. I can just see a row of cars out front with people lined up to watch youtube and netflix on their phone. We already pay for libraries with our taxes. Why don't they go to the library? Or the coffehouses? Or the growing pool of companies that offer free wifi? 2. I need my bandwidth for what I do for a living and for my entertainment activities. I am already supporting my household's consumption. I don't want to compete with strangers when I need throughput. What makes other people special enough to be able to get away with using a service that I pay for? How is that improving humanity? The service is already provided for free in many areas. Have them download Gooogle's Field Trip app and track library locations.

While it is true that women tend to be sneakier about it, Men also have more psychopath traits. I am not calling men psychopaths, but if you look at how the traits of it work, men are more prone to elevate themselves without concern for the others around them. Women are less so. Most women. This is very generalized with exceptions on both sides.

First, if robots take over all of our jobs and give us more free time for our families AND we can still make a living that will sustain a family, then I am all for it. As a person who has programmed those assembly line robots, it is to eliminate human error and costly waste. There are somethings robots just can't do, but if it is a routine task that is deterministic, it is a better fit. We need to educate our population to be able to have higher skilled positions. We need more education (and people to CARE about their education) than we need less robots. Middle class is not made up of assembly line workers. Maybe in Detroit they were, but we see where that went. The cities have agreements with manufacturers to limit the hourly wage to keep the local area competitive. Government does prohibit progress. So does corporate greed. You have to find out which is worse in your cities. I have seen both cases. We also need to offer more trade related classes than just academic classes. Making people do the same math from 4th grade to grad school is just inane. If someone is interested in finance, teach them financial math. If they are interested in engineering, teach them the maths required for engineering. If we target education to actual careers instead of this generalized method that few people care about, I think more people will come out of school with actual fundamentals to get good paying jobs. Make the fluff optional. I like the rest, but I think it causes some people to tune education out.

I am a mother who played video games as a child (moon patrol when i started) and now as well. I think ratings are good to have as a guideline because some parents just aren't that intelligent, but I don't think ratings should be the tool to teach morality in children. I think too many people are trying to say they are teaching morals to their children by restricting what they watch rather than explaining how the world is. If we purposefully hide information from our children, they do not have the appropriate information with which to make decisions. I think it is a parent's responsibility to teach their children morals. I also think if you tell your teenager that he can't play Battlefield because people get shot, he will play it at a friends house and it can become an obsession. I also play with my children because it is a medium in which we can communicate on their level. I feel that it is important to try to see things from their perspective so that I can help guide them in a responsible manner. I don't blame video games or television for criminal activity in children. I think it is a failure of parents to actually perform the parenting part of the child's life.