If it knows your position at some point it should still be able to extrapolate your position at a later point, think accelerometer, compass, or even cameras/lasers to build a 3D model of the environment around you and compare it to the map.

Do you seriously believe there is a tangible difference between the Democrats and the Republicans in matters of any consequence? No matter which party is in power, in any country really, capitalists are the ones really in charge by simple virtue of their power to control so much of the economy and their unparalleled resources to drive legislation and influence the media which they own.

Interesting system, I assume the speaker of the house the only one who can introduce legislation? I always assumed that any parliamentary member could introduce legislation, in the Swedish parliament, there are two different ways of introducing legislation, the first being a "proposition", introduced by the government, and the second being a "motion" which can be introduced by any MP or any group of MPs.

What Americans call "corporatism", the rest of us call "capitalism". A capitalist system does not become "socialist" simply because the capitalist-controlled government makes a few concessions in terms of social welfare to avoid an all-out revolution, and a capitalist-controlled government giving profitable "contracts" to private corporations or using taxpayer money to bail out failing private corporations (i.e. enriching a few capitalists using resources collected for common use) is about as far from the definition of "socialism" as you can get.

This all stems out of confusion as to the meaning of the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" which seems quite common everywhere, but especially so in the US. "Capitalism" essentially means that means of production is in the hands of the few, the "capitalists". A hallmark of capitalism is that a minority gains more and more money from interest, rather than work. Socialism, on the other hand, means the means of production is owned by the workers themselves, whether via cooperatives, via a (truly) worker-controlled state, some other means or (more likely) from a combination of these.

A capitalist economy can never truly become a democracy simply stemming from the discrepancy in power between the workers and the capitalists. Capitalists have so much more power than workers by simple virtue of their wealth, that even if completely free and fair elections were guaranteed, the media was in no way influenced by the interests of their owners, and corruption was unheard of (i.e. an ideal fantasy world), capitalists, by virtue of their single-handed control of the means of production can still exert undue influence over society and thus put any democracy out of action by for instance threatening to withhold production of some essential good if their interests are not satisfied.

No, even the US has a real left wing, they're just not represented by any of the two mainstream parties. They are however quite well organized, there are several very good American leftist publications ( http://jacobinmag.com/ being my favorite) and even a daily radio/TV news show that by American standards is certainly quite left-wing (and very good, http://www.democracynow.org/ )

I don't know if or when any of them were denied permission to come to the UN, but what exactly makes you think the US should have the right to deny any of them full access to the United Nations, an international organization of which their nations are members? Maybe we would be better off moving UN headquarters to Switzerland given the obvious attitudes the US has towards their "enemies" gaining equal access to it, or somewhere in no-mans land like a platform in international waters. I'm also somewhat bewildered as to your choice to include Castro with the other two, they are hardly comparable, despite what you have been told by mainstream US media where anyone who dares challenge US hegemony is painted to be disciples of the great Satan himself.

A Swedish company already did this, they call it "myFC" and it's powered by a "puck" of hydrogen. Wether it's useful, I have no idea.
http://www.kth.se/en/forskning/pa-djupet/ladda-mobilen-med-vatten-1.381551
http://powertrekk.com/

No, it's because Israel *claims* to be a first-world democracy, and as such it is held to higher standards by the world than some random tinpot dictator, unless you want to be the moral equivalent of these. In this context, it is unacceptable for a self-proclaimed civilized country to enforce what is essentially the equivalent of apartheid or worse in the Palestinian territories. It's in no way acceptable in South Africa and it's in no way acceptable in Israel or the occupied territories of Palestine, it has nothing to do with your little religion, of which I could care less (and that goes for all religions)

I think the point is that if the data-centers are on Brazilian soil, those responsible can be prosecuted for espionage, whereas if the data is stored in the US, the Brazilian government basically can't do anything, it's out of their jurisdiction.

I agree that Sweden is certainly no safe harbor in terms of data storage. In fact, we both have our own spy agency (FRA) that is legally (since 2008) allowed to tap into "international" cables (and with it, the datamine the data of most Swedes as well), and our government put in their veto against EU condemnation of NSA spying on EU governments and citizens. Despite our supposed "neutrality", our government has had a close relationship with the US for a long time, but in no time previously has the government so obviously kowtowed to US interests. Back in the day, at least the prime minister (Olof Palme) harshly criticized the actions of the US government when appropriate (e.g. the US bombings of Hanoi, resulting in the US withdrawing their ambassador). Sadly, since his assassination, the ties to the US have grown ever closer, to the degree that Obama actually came here earlier this month for what the foreign minister called a "feelgood meeting" after a love letter from our prime minister practically begged him to, this after the revelations of NSA spying...

That may be *technically* true, but in general opinion, computers are held to a much higher standard than human beings.

The same can be said of self-parking cars, though, where as far as I know, the driver is still responsible. It's just another convenience. If you want to slack off and read a book while driving, sure, but IF you crash, then you're responsible for letting it happen. In the red light case, any driver should be able to detect that the car is not braking and override the autopilot. If you want to read a book then take the train/bus, at least for the foreseeable future.

I'm just saying that this is likely what will be required to begin with, until these systems have a proven track record, at which point the manufacturer could potentially license their system for completely autonomous driving, and the manufacturer at that point would have to be somehow responsible if the system causes an accident. (Which should be relatively easy to prove, any self-driving car would likely have to keep logs of their actions)

My guess is that, at least initially, a driver will be required to be in the drivers seat at all times ready to override any actions taken by the car. In that case, the driver would likely be at fault for not correcting any action taken by the car that leads to an accident, just as in some vehicles out on the roads now, a driver is responsible for making sure he/she doesn't crash into other cars even when there is a system that can detect obstacles and take action or if the car can park automatically.

Of course, if the bought all of Nokia, they'd be in the tire business, and while I guess diversifying could be a good thing, running a tire manufacturer may not be Microsoft's forte.