Well said. But for the many, many cases for which we haven't tested, can't test due to ethical concerns, or can't sort out due to the massive complexity of the systems, well, we're not left with much to go on, are we? Part of science is that even things that are firmly believed can be unseated with appropriate evidence, and here we are overturning things all the time (cholesterol, fat, alcohol - all have piles of evidence on both sides about health benefits and risks), and it's hard not to blame people for growing a little weary of it all and starting to not trust things that are published. It's a shame so much of the weariment comes from the popular sensationalism ("For most people, taking a shower is not dangerous" - the disease is still quite rare even where people shower a lot) rather than the actual overturning of previous beliefs. There was a recent article in Science News (can't find it now) arguing how scientists really need to change their language when they talk to the public: particularly, that we're not completely overturning ("revolutionizing" is too commonly used) what we knew before, merely filling out pieces that were missing. Showers aren't all of a sudden dangerous, and we haven't invalidated the things we knew before about bacterial growth if you don't wash yourself (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-477378/Six-weeks-wash-The-soapless-experiment.html) or the history of humanity before sanitation... but all this is lost under the mound of social taboos against not showering and the mass of advertising (and more social expectation) that you should use various products, without investigation into safety.

What would this bill be aimed at, even hypothetically?

• Carbon pollution? Better to tax gasoline and toughen up emissions laws.
• Congestion? Isn't sitting in traffic already plenty of tax for that? Or if not (maybe you're not all in Seattle), implement a congestion tax (like London) or collect tolls for single drivers to ride in the carpool lane (like some areas around Seattle do, and more are planning to).
• Wear on cars? Don't we already pay for this through auto maintenance and/or buying more cars?
• Road pollution due to tiny shreds of rubber from tires? This is actually a nontrivial issue, but... tax tires and use the money for cleanup, in proportion to what's causing the damage.
• Wear on roads? Isn't this already covered in vehicle registration, if a bit disproportionately? I suppose this is the one thing that might be well targeted this way (weight * miles), but isn't this a fairly small cost averaged over everybody, and probably not that far off from fair now?

I can't see any good coming from this, even without the RFID/GPS craziness (which just screams police state to me, but then I'm like that.).

I hadn't really thought about the monitors as a motivation factor, since, despite being a math nerd and programmer, I really don't like all the emphasis on numbers as a way to measure fitness. We don't understand enough about medicine yet to be able to say for sure what's really good and what isn't (hell, there's still huge controversy about fat and cholesterol). Besides which, the only question I really care about is, "Does my body feel functional and capable and able to support me on all the adventures I wish to undertake?" But to each their own - I support finding motivations and learning styles that work for everybody far more than my own ideology about what people should or shouldn't think about fitness and how to get there. If having a beeping thing is motivation, by all means, use it.

I'd barely heard of the book, but my husband is a huge fan, so we went to the midnight show last night - that's how somebody who isn't a huge fan winds up having seen it already.

My opinion on it is straightforward: OMGITWASABSOLUTELYFUCKINGINCREDIBLE!!!!!!1!!eleven!!!!

Seriously. I sat there for three hours, wide eyed, only wishing there was more. It was beautiful and brilliant. Even my husband said "They did right by it."