Sounds closer to inertial navigation than it does GPS. Also, doesn't magentic North shift around on a regular basis and doesn't the Earth's magnetic field fluctuate and is actually a little different in some places? How are they compensating for all this?
The first thing I'd do is not purchase appliances with these sorts of features. Seriously, why the hell do you need a refrigerator with a large enough screen to display ads in the first place? All you need is a thermostat control. Simple is always better, fewer things to break. Ads in my car? That's a distraction, which creates a safety hazard. On my watch? Why would you buy a watch that can do that? Also, why would you have a watch that has a wireless connection? It's a watch! Thermostat for your HVAC? Why the hell does it need a screen big enough to display ads in the first place? All it's supposed to do is control your HVAC! Google is smoking crack when they say shit like this. Nobody is going to pay extra for appliances and stuff that is even capable of this, and nobody is going to accept ads in their face on every goddamned thing they own, either.
Don't get me wrong: I liked Lost and Fringe. However I wanted to strangle someone over Star Trek. The first three Star Wars movies were pretty good, I thought, and didn't need to have anyone pile on for more profit, but they did it anyway. I'll even admit to kind of liking the animated television series. But now Disney mucking about with this, and getting J.J. Abrams involved in it? Screw that, it's probably going to be a crime against humanity by the time they get done with it. Memo to Disney: Dump J.J. Abrams. I'd rather he keep making weird television series and stop mucking about in movies. Of course if I had my way I wouldn't have Disney having anything at all to do with anything Star Wars, either.
Substitute "China" or "Soviet Russia"
on
Why Lavabit Shut Down
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You could change a few words in this story and make it about something that happened in China or Soviet Russia or any other oppressive nation on Earth, past or present, and it would be plausible.
I've said it before: The United States that I thought I grew up in? It wasn't real; it was a fantasy, a lie. THIS is the reality, and it's a goddamned depressing one. 'Secure in your person and papers', indeed. When was the last time those words actually meant something? Did they ever mean anything?
If you're going to create extreme examples then of course you'll find a way to poke holes in what I'm saying, but that's not what this news story is about now is it? Nobody is hitting school kids in the head every day and telling them it's normal and right, they're monitoring them and surveilling them and if they ever wondered, they'd be told it's 'for their own safety' and 'we just care about you and don't want anything bad to happen to you' or whatever plausible phrases they need to tell them to make them comfortable again. Also if I had to describe every single individual child and their theoretical reactions to what this story is talking about I'd have to write a multi-volume novel about it and I still wouldn't be done, so of course I speak in generalities to one extent or another just like everyone else including yourself does so what of it?
That's how I interpret this. Humans, for all their faults and flaws, have an amazing degree of adaptability, especially when they don't have a baseline for comparison of their circumstances. If you raise a child in a bad situation, and that's all they really know, then they adapt to that situation; it becomes 'normal' to them, and they'll actually become uncomfortable if you try to 'improve' their situation, actually seeking the conditions they're adapted to. That's what these corporations and the government are doing here: They're raising an entire new generation under total surveillance, while at the same time so-called 'social media' is teaching them that 'sharing is right and good, privacy is wrong and only bad people with something to hide want that!'. The result will likely be an entire generation of adults who not only think being watched and monitored everywhere they go and in every thing they do is OK, but will get uncomfortable and even downright insecure if they detect that they're not being watched, surveilled, and monitored 24/7/365. If the current generation of adults in this country, regardless of whether they have school-age children or not, don't protest and fight back against these practices, then I fear greatly for the future of this country.
I gave up on cable a few years ago and went back to OTA and never looked back, don't miss it a bit. What I can't get from the local OTA stations I can get from the internet.
This guy seems to be pretty damned successful at whatever he puts his mind to, so why couldn't he spin off the battery-making business into another company that still supplies Tesla for their vehicle production, and sell batteries to everyone else as well?
I hear you, and I believe you; but I think that a component of the problem is they're being encouraged to make 'poor choices' through peer pressure and propaganda (both the corporate and government types). It's much easier and cheaper (and more profitable with regards to corporate America) to get people to provide their personal information than it is to have to pry it out of them, and that's what so-called 'social networking' is designed to do.
I'll read your link when I have time, I'm sure I'll find value in the insights.
If they 'have had everything they need to track someone down' prior to the Internet then why do they now need to monitor and sift through the entire internet on a continual basis? Also they're being 'proactive' now, meaning everyone is a potential terrorist/criminal so far as they're concerned. Get your head out of the sand, buddy, it's not 1950 anymore and the United States you thought you were living in is never really existed in the first place. One last thing: If you think you're not being monitored/tracked, then that's just a combination of your not paying attention to what's going on, and them doing their job well enough that you don't ordinarily notice. You can tell me and others like me that we're all tinfoil hat-wearers all you like, won't change a damn thing.
The three main weapons in the arsenal against freedom.
Guess what, everyone? The number of threats against the United States has likely been about the same from year to year for decades and decades now, they're just trotting out these 'independently gathered statistics' because they've been caught with both hands in the surveillance cookie jar and crumbs all over their faces, so now they trot out the FU&D to try to justify themselves. Them, them, fuck them, I say. Go back to traditional spycraft techniques and stop rummaging around in America's underwear drawer, you fucking creeps.
I never said it ever was intrinsically safe. However there was perhaps a 'golden age' where it was becoming popular, yet there really wasn't anyone monitoring everything going on, either. We're well past that point anymore. We may never see those days again, either; the Internet may be past the point of redemption, if you've been paying attention to the news the last few weeks. The Internet may in the future just become something you use to pay your bills and rent streaming movies to watch, and something you're required to use in order to do your job everyday, and otherwise useless for anything else.
In the current socio-political climate, the more you try to protect your privacy, through such means, the more scrutiny you're attracting to yourself. My best advice to you? Have a rich online life, but just fill it with nonsense and giggles, nothing important. If you're a clever man, throw in some misinformation just to screw with any profiling that may be occurring. Never name names of people, or allow photos of you, identifying you, to be posted online. People you personally know who won't comply with your wishes so far as photographs go? Consider not associating with them anymore. Never post specifics about where you've been and when you were there, just speak in generalities.
Of the few people who have commented on my original comment, I decided to reply to yours since you're touching on the most points I'd additionally like to cover anyway.
Yes, the real problem is that almost nobody will listen -- but my theory is that of that group of people who won't listen, they break down into people who don't understand, or care, or have been indoctrinated to not care, that their personal privacy is actually something of value to them, and once it's gone, it's gone, and it may not be possible to get it back. I think that the younger the person we're talking about, the less they care, and what's worse, they really think that anyone who does value and protect their privacy 'has something to hide', i.e. they think those people are Bad People who are committing crimes or something. I blame corporate brainwashing and perhaps government propaganda for this attitude; these younger people will grow up into a world where the idea of not sharing more-or-less every moment of their waking lives with the world is completely foreign to them, and that if you don't share everything, there's something wrong with you. Older people remember a world where individual privacy was something that every healthy person wanted, and was entitled to as a human being -- and because of this attitude, younger people say 'well, they're old, they don't understand' and any warnings about privacy being violated is ignored.
So far as planning to discontinue usage of your debit card (and presumably go cash-only)? Hate to tell you, but the situation has deteriorated to the point where if you do at some point have your financial paper trail taper off to almost nothing, you'll draw the attention of the government, which will assume you're up to no good and will start scrutinizing you. Then when they see you online footprint is also next to nothing, they'll be nearly convinced you're up to some sort of criminal activities, and you very well might be surveilled and profiled. If you happen to be in the wrong place(s) at the right time, you may be implicated in something you have absolutely nothing to do with, but since their 'profile' of you will seem to indicate to them that you're hiding something (because you're not one of the bleeting sheep they've carefully indoctrinated to be that way) it won't matter what you say to them or can prove. Welcome to the Dystopia, friend. "I do not plan on ever being a threat", you said at the end of your comment; I'm sorry, but in the end, as I said above, it won't matter, if you happen to get caught in one of their drag-nets. I do sympathize with you, and hopefully one decade things will turn around, but until then, I actually recommend you 'hide in plain sight' because to do too much to erase yourself, ironically, will just draw attention.
I seriously hope you guys don't do this. Got important conversations to have with people? Sensitive information to convey? Do it in person. The Internet isn't safe anymore, hasn't been for a while now, and it's just likely to get worse.
'Slow or halt network upgrades'? 'Consumers would face less choice'? How the actual fuck is that any different than things are right now, you retarded baboons!? We already have little to no choices when it comes to which ISP we can use, and while other countries of the world are regularly rolling out near-LAN speeds to their customers for the same amount of money or less, you're over-booking your network capacity like some shit-tier hotel or airline, extorting money out of content providers, giving shit-tier customer service, and all the while charging us a premium price for the 'privilege'! MEMO TO ISPs: How about you all go fuck yourselves!?
Does it matter? Hell yes it does. People in positions of power need to be responsible and have respect for the people who are affected by their decisions, not just do whatever benefits them personally the most.
You can't convince me that's a real number. Would you really try to convince me that some kid in Africa who is starving to death has a cellphone? Assuming the local warlord didn't take it away from him, his parents would to sell for food. If on the other hand you want to try to convince me that there have been somewhere near that many cellphone accounts activated since the invention of the cellphone, and you want to also include pre-paid 'burner' phones that may have only been used a few times, then you might be able to do that. But 8.1B in active use? Bullshit. I'd wager there's maybe 1B in active use total on Earth.
Sounds to me like someone is interested in preserving their job at the FCC rather than anything as altruistic or abstract as 'protecting the public's interests'.
Never mind that the laws have little to do with interactions between cyclists and motorists, the attitudes of one towards the other has much more to do with it. In the same way that you can't legislate morality, passing a bunch of laws giving cyclists a different set of rules than motorists isn't going to necessarily make things any safer for cyclists. In fact, it might very well make things less safe overall, if motorists don't like the laws enacted, or like cyclists themselves much in the first place. Everyone needs to be operating under the same set of rules or, at the very least, things will get confusing, and that's when a cyclist will end up getting run down by a motorist. Also, let's face the ugly truths: About half of all motorists probably shouldn't be driving because they're not really fully competent, and at least half of all cyclists don't think for some reason that traffic laws actually apply to them (or just don't care). Honestly it's amazing to me that there aren't more cyclists run down by motorists, the way things are. Passing laws that give cyclists special privileges at intersections, in my opinion as an experienced cyclist and motorist, is just going to cause more accidents, not less.
Sure, this is the Internet, and it's full of trolls, and even as I wrote that I recognized a large possibility that it was just a stupid troll. But I'd prefer not to see misinformation spread around on this subject.
I'm skinny. Everyone comments on it. At 35 you can put your fingers around the widest parts of arms without difficulty.
I basically live on sugar. I drink Coca-Cola endlessly (do not drink hot drinks, tend to have sugar in them when I do). I pig out on high-fat, high-sugar food and lived off fast food for many years. I eat sweets like a child and have to curb my appetite for sweets only because I work in a school and they are banned there for the kdis themselves (so I have to hide them, etc.). I also don't really exercise. At all. Ever. Never been to a gym in my life.
I hate to be the one to tell you, but you're 'skinny-fat'. You're thin because you have no muscle anywhere on your body to speak of, because you probably don't eat enough protein to start with, too much carbs, and zero meaningful exercise to speak of.
Furthermore: Someone like you, making the statements I quoted above, should not at any time be giving unsuspecting, naive people any sort of advice on diet, exercise, or fitness, because you are the absolute poorest of examples. Don't believe me? Go get body composition analysis done. Wouldn't be surprised if your bodyfat percentage is something like 30-40%, and afterwards the doctor insists on consulting with you regarding your possibly being anorexic. Additionally with your 'lifestyle' you're at serious risk for diabetes because of the high simple-carbs intake. I also wouldn't be surprised if you develop digestive issues from overgrowth of certain intestinal flora from all that sugar, tooth decay from all the sugar and carbonation, and generally declining health as you start getting older because of all the above.
I ride 4-7 days a week for at least a couple hundred miles, so you can't say I'm anti-bicycle or pro-automobile, but while I, in theory at least, approve of, but there are problems with it. What do the elderly do? How about disabled people, or injured people (broken limb, for instance)? Do you tell the guy who got a limb blown off in Afghanistan 'tough luck buddy, get someone to pedal you around'? What about when you're sick and riding a bike any distance is going to make you that much sicker that much longer, or just being outdoors in the middle of winter when it's cold and snowing is going to turn a simple headcold into pneumonia? As much as I'm an advocate in theory of you and others that keep suggesting this, it's just not practical on the absolute scale you keep insisting on implementing it in. Finally, forcing people to exercise just plain doesn't work, they have to choose to do it. Mandating it by forcing people to ride a bike everywhere (or walk everywhere) just plain won't work, people will find a way around it one way or another, or so many citizens will complain to the government about it that it wouldn't stand. You want to change the world and get people to be more fit and less fat? Find a way to get people to want to be that way. If you can find a sure-fire way to make even 50% of all people from all walks of life to want to do it voluntarily, you'll be a billionaire and get a Nobel prize.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds closer to inertial navigation than it does GPS. Also, doesn't magentic North shift around on a regular basis and doesn't the Earth's magnetic field fluctuate and is actually a little different in some places? How are they compensating for all this?
We're experiencing a global warming trend, and you want to resurrect a species of large mammal that was adapted to cold climates?
Why do you need your TV to be internet-capable in the first place?
The first thing I'd do is not purchase appliances with these sorts of features. Seriously, why the hell do you need a refrigerator with a large enough screen to display ads in the first place? All you need is a thermostat control. Simple is always better, fewer things to break. Ads in my car? That's a distraction, which creates a safety hazard. On my watch? Why would you buy a watch that can do that? Also, why would you have a watch that has a wireless connection? It's a watch! Thermostat for your HVAC? Why the hell does it need a screen big enough to display ads in the first place? All it's supposed to do is control your HVAC! Google is smoking crack when they say shit like this. Nobody is going to pay extra for appliances and stuff that is even capable of this, and nobody is going to accept ads in their face on every goddamned thing they own, either.
Don't get me wrong: I liked Lost and Fringe. However I wanted to strangle someone over Star Trek. The first three Star Wars movies were pretty good, I thought, and didn't need to have anyone pile on for more profit, but they did it anyway. I'll even admit to kind of liking the animated television series. But now Disney mucking about with this, and getting J.J. Abrams involved in it? Screw that, it's probably going to be a crime against humanity by the time they get done with it. Memo to Disney: Dump J.J. Abrams. I'd rather he keep making weird television series and stop mucking about in movies. Of course if I had my way I wouldn't have Disney having anything at all to do with anything Star Wars, either.
You could change a few words in this story and make it about something that happened in China or Soviet Russia or any other oppressive nation on Earth, past or present, and it would be plausible.
I've said it before: The United States that I thought I grew up in? It wasn't real; it was a fantasy, a lie. THIS is the reality, and it's a goddamned depressing one. 'Secure in your person and papers', indeed. When was the last time those words actually meant something? Did they ever mean anything?
If you're going to create extreme examples then of course you'll find a way to poke holes in what I'm saying, but that's not what this news story is about now is it? Nobody is hitting school kids in the head every day and telling them it's normal and right, they're monitoring them and surveilling them and if they ever wondered, they'd be told it's 'for their own safety' and 'we just care about you and don't want anything bad to happen to you' or whatever plausible phrases they need to tell them to make them comfortable again. Also if I had to describe every single individual child and their theoretical reactions to what this story is talking about I'd have to write a multi-volume novel about it and I still wouldn't be done, so of course I speak in generalities to one extent or another just like everyone else including yourself does so what of it?
That's how I interpret this.
Humans, for all their faults and flaws, have an amazing degree of adaptability, especially when they don't have a baseline for comparison of their circumstances. If you raise a child in a bad situation, and that's all they really know, then they adapt to that situation; it becomes 'normal' to them, and they'll actually become uncomfortable if you try to 'improve' their situation, actually seeking the conditions they're adapted to. That's what these corporations and the government are doing here: They're raising an entire new generation under total surveillance, while at the same time so-called 'social media' is teaching them that 'sharing is right and good, privacy is wrong and only bad people with something to hide want that!'. The result will likely be an entire generation of adults who not only think being watched and monitored everywhere they go and in every thing they do is OK, but will get uncomfortable and even downright insecure if they detect that they're not being watched, surveilled, and monitored 24/7/365. If the current generation of adults in this country, regardless of whether they have school-age children or not, don't protest and fight back against these practices, then I fear greatly for the future of this country.
I gave up on cable a few years ago and went back to OTA and never looked back, don't miss it a bit. What I can't get from the local OTA stations I can get from the internet.
This guy seems to be pretty damned successful at whatever he puts his mind to, so why couldn't he spin off the battery-making business into another company that still supplies Tesla for their vehicle production, and sell batteries to everyone else as well?
I hear you, and I believe you; but I think that a component of the problem is they're being encouraged to make 'poor choices' through peer pressure and propaganda (both the corporate and government types). It's much easier and cheaper (and more profitable with regards to corporate America) to get people to provide their personal information than it is to have to pry it out of them, and that's what so-called 'social networking' is designed to do.
I'll read your link when I have time, I'm sure I'll find value in the insights.
If they 'have had everything they need to track someone down' prior to the Internet then why do they now need to monitor and sift through the entire internet on a continual basis? Also they're being 'proactive' now, meaning everyone is a potential terrorist/criminal so far as they're concerned. Get your head out of the sand, buddy, it's not 1950 anymore and the United States you thought you were living in is never really existed in the first place. One last thing: If you think you're not being monitored/tracked, then that's just a combination of your not paying attention to what's going on, and them doing their job well enough that you don't ordinarily notice. You can tell me and others like me that we're all tinfoil hat-wearers all you like, won't change a damn thing.
The three main weapons in the arsenal against freedom.
Guess what, everyone? The number of threats against the United States has likely been about the same from year to year for decades and decades now, they're just trotting out these 'independently gathered statistics' because they've been caught with both hands in the surveillance cookie jar and crumbs all over their faces, so now they trot out the FU&D to try to justify themselves. Them, them, fuck them, I say. Go back to traditional spycraft techniques and stop rummaging around in America's underwear drawer, you fucking creeps.
I never said it ever was intrinsically safe. However there was perhaps a 'golden age' where it was becoming popular, yet there really wasn't anyone monitoring everything going on, either. We're well past that point anymore. We may never see those days again, either; the Internet may be past the point of redemption, if you've been paying attention to the news the last few weeks. The Internet may in the future just become something you use to pay your bills and rent streaming movies to watch, and something you're required to use in order to do your job everyday, and otherwise useless for anything else.
In the current socio-political climate, the more you try to protect your privacy, through such means, the more scrutiny you're attracting to yourself. My best advice to you? Have a rich online life, but just fill it with nonsense and giggles, nothing important. If you're a clever man, throw in some misinformation just to screw with any profiling that may be occurring. Never name names of people, or allow photos of you, identifying you, to be posted online. People you personally know who won't comply with your wishes so far as photographs go? Consider not associating with them anymore. Never post specifics about where you've been and when you were there, just speak in generalities.
Of the few people who have commented on my original comment, I decided to reply to yours since you're touching on the most points I'd additionally like to cover anyway.
Yes, the real problem is that almost nobody will listen -- but my theory is that of that group of people who won't listen, they break down into people who don't understand, or care, or have been indoctrinated to not care, that their personal privacy is actually something of value to them, and once it's gone, it's gone, and it may not be possible to get it back. I think that the younger the person we're talking about, the less they care, and what's worse, they really think that anyone who does value and protect their privacy 'has something to hide', i.e. they think those people are Bad People who are committing crimes or something. I blame corporate brainwashing and perhaps government propaganda for this attitude; these younger people will grow up into a world where the idea of not sharing more-or-less every moment of their waking lives with the world is completely foreign to them, and that if you don't share everything, there's something wrong with you. Older people remember a world where individual privacy was something that every healthy person wanted, and was entitled to as a human being -- and because of this attitude, younger people say 'well, they're old, they don't understand' and any warnings about privacy being violated is ignored.
So far as planning to discontinue usage of your debit card (and presumably go cash-only)? Hate to tell you, but the situation has deteriorated to the point where if you do at some point have your financial paper trail taper off to almost nothing, you'll draw the attention of the government, which will assume you're up to no good and will start scrutinizing you. Then when they see you online footprint is also next to nothing, they'll be nearly convinced you're up to some sort of criminal activities, and you very well might be surveilled and profiled. If you happen to be in the wrong place(s) at the right time, you may be implicated in something you have absolutely nothing to do with, but since their 'profile' of you will seem to indicate to them that you're hiding something (because you're not one of the bleeting sheep they've carefully indoctrinated to be that way) it won't matter what you say to them or can prove. Welcome to the Dystopia, friend. "I do not plan on ever being a threat", you said at the end of your comment; I'm sorry, but in the end, as I said above, it won't matter, if you happen to get caught in one of their drag-nets. I do sympathize with you, and hopefully one decade things will turn around, but until then, I actually recommend you 'hide in plain sight' because to do too much to erase yourself, ironically, will just draw attention.
I seriously hope you guys don't do this.
Got important conversations to have with people? Sensitive information to convey? Do it in person. The Internet isn't safe anymore, hasn't been for a while now, and it's just likely to get worse.
'Slow or halt network upgrades'? 'Consumers would face less choice'? How the actual fuck is that any different than things are right now, you retarded baboons!? We already have little to no choices when it comes to which ISP we can use, and while other countries of the world are regularly rolling out near-LAN speeds to their customers for the same amount of money or less, you're over-booking your network capacity like some shit-tier hotel or airline, extorting money out of content providers, giving shit-tier customer service, and all the while charging us a premium price for the 'privilege'! MEMO TO ISPs: How about you all go fuck yourselves!?
Does it matter? Hell yes it does. People in positions of power need to be responsible and have respect for the people who are affected by their decisions, not just do whatever benefits them personally the most.
You can't convince me that's a real number. Would you really try to convince me that some kid in Africa who is starving to death has a cellphone? Assuming the local warlord didn't take it away from him, his parents would to sell for food. If on the other hand you want to try to convince me that there have been somewhere near that many cellphone accounts activated since the invention of the cellphone, and you want to also include pre-paid 'burner' phones that may have only been used a few times, then you might be able to do that. But 8.1B in active use? Bullshit. I'd wager there's maybe 1B in active use total on Earth.
Sounds to me like someone is interested in preserving their job at the FCC rather than anything as altruistic or abstract as 'protecting the public's interests'.
How'd they manage that?
Never mind that the laws have little to do with interactions between cyclists and motorists, the attitudes of one towards the other has much more to do with it. In the same way that you can't legislate morality, passing a bunch of laws giving cyclists a different set of rules than motorists isn't going to necessarily make things any safer for cyclists. In fact, it might very well make things less safe overall, if motorists don't like the laws enacted, or like cyclists themselves much in the first place. Everyone needs to be operating under the same set of rules or, at the very least, things will get confusing, and that's when a cyclist will end up getting run down by a motorist. Also, let's face the ugly truths: About half of all motorists probably shouldn't be driving because they're not really fully competent, and at least half of all cyclists don't think for some reason that traffic laws actually apply to them (or just don't care). Honestly it's amazing to me that there aren't more cyclists run down by motorists, the way things are. Passing laws that give cyclists special privileges at intersections, in my opinion as an experienced cyclist and motorist, is just going to cause more accidents, not less.
Sure, this is the Internet, and it's full of trolls, and even as I wrote that I recognized a large possibility that it was just a stupid troll. But I'd prefer not to see misinformation spread around on this subject.
I'm skinny. Everyone comments on it. At 35 you can put your fingers around the widest parts of arms without difficulty. I basically live on sugar. I drink Coca-Cola endlessly (do not drink hot drinks, tend to have sugar in them when I do). I pig out on high-fat, high-sugar food and lived off fast food for many years. I eat sweets like a child and have to curb my appetite for sweets only because I work in a school and they are banned there for the kdis themselves (so I have to hide them, etc.). I also don't really exercise. At all. Ever. Never been to a gym in my life.
I hate to be the one to tell you, but you're 'skinny-fat'. You're thin because you have no muscle anywhere on your body to speak of, because you probably don't eat enough protein to start with, too much carbs, and zero meaningful exercise to speak of.
Furthermore: Someone like you, making the statements I quoted above, should not at any time be giving unsuspecting, naive people any sort of advice on diet, exercise, or fitness, because you are the absolute poorest of examples. Don't believe me? Go get body composition analysis done. Wouldn't be surprised if your bodyfat percentage is something like 30-40%, and afterwards the doctor insists on consulting with you regarding your possibly being anorexic. Additionally with your 'lifestyle' you're at serious risk for diabetes because of the high simple-carbs intake. I also wouldn't be surprised if you develop digestive issues from overgrowth of certain intestinal flora from all that sugar, tooth decay from all the sugar and carbonation, and generally declining health as you start getting older because of all the above.
I ride 4-7 days a week for at least a couple hundred miles, so you can't say I'm anti-bicycle or pro-automobile, but while I, in theory at least, approve of, but there are problems with it. What do the elderly do? How about disabled people, or injured people (broken limb, for instance)? Do you tell the guy who got a limb blown off in Afghanistan 'tough luck buddy, get someone to pedal you around'? What about when you're sick and riding a bike any distance is going to make you that much sicker that much longer, or just being outdoors in the middle of winter when it's cold and snowing is going to turn a simple headcold into pneumonia? As much as I'm an advocate in theory of you and others that keep suggesting this, it's just not practical on the absolute scale you keep insisting on implementing it in. Finally, forcing people to exercise just plain doesn't work, they have to choose to do it. Mandating it by forcing people to ride a bike everywhere (or walk everywhere) just plain won't work, people will find a way around it one way or another, or so many citizens will complain to the government about it that it wouldn't stand. You want to change the world and get people to be more fit and less fat? Find a way to get people to want to be that way. If you can find a sure-fire way to make even 50% of all people from all walks of life to want to do it voluntarily, you'll be a billionaire and get a Nobel prize.