The problem with health insurance is that some people are just not very healthy, through no fault of their own. I have multiple auto-immune disorders that are just a part of my genetic code and which are untreatable. From an insurance stand-point I'm a huge risk because stuff is going wrong all the time and I'd be making endless claims.

Fortunately where I live we have socialized medical care so I get the treatment I need, but if the system were such that I had to pay based on my risk to the insurer I'd probably have no insurance. That would be bad for society in general because although I cost money to treat I also pay tax and generate a lot of value through my job and social interactions. If you just price all the unhealthy people out, even the ones who are unhealthy because of their lifestyle, the impact on the economy and society tends to be quite negative.

Just wrap the meter in tin foil, problem solved. Most of the EU is standardizing in 139MHz and the UK on GSM+2.4GHz (because we suck), both being quite easy to block. With some craft skills you could make a nice Faraday cage out of wire mesh, allowing for manual readings when they call you about it.

Why are certain beliefs privileged? Could a non-religious person decide they "believed" in not providing certain healthcare to their employees and just let the government pick up the bill instead?

The limiting factor on a phone is what you can wrap your hand around. This thing looks so wide it couldn't be operated in a single hand. I notice that a lot of BB users are two-handers though, perhaps because of the keyboard, so maybe it isn't a problem in their target market.

GPS is just a stand-in for the system they would use on Mars, which would be a much simplified version using existing satellites and the transport vehicle for the lander itself.

The atmosphere in Mars is fine for a quadcopter if designed correctly. How do you think the parachutes on NASA landers work?

That's a very pessimistic view. I for one hope that technology eventually makes the 40 hour week unnecessary, and that we can move towards a Star Trek style economy where people for for pleasure or to better themselves.

The hard part will be handling the transition.

Only if it is daytime and not foggy or snowing heavily. Otherwise the windows don't help much either and pilots have to fly on instruments only. These days most of those instruments, even basic things like the artificial horizon, are LCD screens and need power.

The question is if an artificial display helps enough under normal circumstances to outweigh any draw-backs in extremely unlikely circumstances. Being able to see the world around you at night or in fog during routine landings, or seeing other nearby aircraft highlighted in space around you seems like it would avoid many accidents, so perhaps the trade-off is worth it.

If it had happened at night the pilots of the landing plane probably wouldn't have seen the one on the runway. If they had a screen with IR or night vision capability they would have a chance.

He doesn't mean the autopilot lands, although it is possible. He means that the pilots land "blind", using instruments only.

When you learn to fly aircraft you start off on Visual Flight Rules (VFR). You have to be able to see outside at all times, so no flying at night or in fog or in clouds. You then move on to Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), and can basically fly through anything the aircraft can handle without the need to ever look out the window.

A display screen would be able to display an IR or completely virtual overlay image, so in fog it would be a lot better than an actual window.

Snowden is making a dent in American's wallets though, or at least in corporate profits. Financial pain is the only language the US understands, and the only thing that will make it stop.

Disagree. We can do a lot to make mass surveillance of the internet impractical. Real life is a bit harder, but private communication and thought is a worthwhile goal in itself.