Compared to everyone else, $70 a month is an amazing price for Gigabit speeds. I am paying that much just for a 75Mbps download, 75Mbps upload connection. Google Fiber is literally over 13 times faster than my speed for the same price. Besides, you are forgetting why Google started Google Fiber: market disruption and to show everyone the power of Gigabit speeds. You can't do that if everyone only has 100Mbps internet.

I would say this is a below minimum feature set.

The new chip-based credit card will cover the issue with brick and mortar stores. The chip only gives enough information to the merchant to complete a single transaction. The chip is an active component unlike the current magnetic strip. It contains an public/private key encryption module that signs information that can be used to verify that specific authorization. I could be wrong but I think the mobile NFC payment technologies do something similar.

I think parking will be less of an issue. Think Uber/Lift with autonomous cars. This would be especially true in cities where parking costs can get ridiculous. The fleet would spread themselves out based on historical data and probabilities on where people are likely to request them from. I could see systems that will automatically call a car while you are waiting at the registers of stores so that by the time you are a the front door, a car is reserved and waiting there.

I think the biggest hinderance to fully autonomous cars will be the illogical nature of the human psyche. At some point, these cars will be advanced enough that they will be significantly safer than human-driven ones and will start making life-and-death decisions based on the rules that will reduce overal loss of life and limb to the human population in general. For example, image that the car as been put in a position where it needs to decide whether it is likely going to kill two people or kill one. Which path should it choose? Most people would say kill the one instead of the two. Now, what if the car is yours and you are the one person?

Even though the chance of a car getting put in that position might be orders of magitude lower with autonomous cars over manual cars, a lot of people will not like the idea of their property chosing to kill them to save two complete strangers.

How so?

Providing the password to potential evidence that is encrypted is self-incrimination.

Let's say the justice system believes you are a drug trafficker. They believe you have drugs stashed somewhere in your house. With a warrant, they try and try but they just can't find your stash. Under the Fifth Amendment, they cannot force you to tell them where the stash is.

Encryption is the same way. The encrypted container is the house; the evidence within that container is the drugs; and providing the password is the equivalent to telling them where the drugs are.

If we pretend the self-incrimination part of the Fifth Amendment didn't exist, there are a lot of other issues.

What if the evidence doesn't actually exist? What if what they believe is a encrypted container is actually a corrupt file or random noise? If the evidence does exist, what if the accused does not remember the details either by amnesia or simple forgetfulness? What if the acccused never had the password to begin with or use encrypted keys that no longer exist? Yes, the accused could be lying but how are you going to prove they are?

I agree. It makes more sense to give all blind people car detectors than to make all cars noisy.

Apparently, they are using a propietary ink: http://www.consumeraffairs.com... rather than RFID.

News to me considering the founders of the United States fought a war partially over this. Ever hear of the Bill of Rights?

Irrelevant to what? His stated purpose was to make the public aware of what the NSA was doing so that there can be a public discussion rather than a backroom one. For that purpose, his leaks are highly relevant,

10Mbps for broadband is garbage now.

The constitution was never meant to be imutable; it was meant to be supreme. Because it is supposed to be supreme, the rules for modifying are much greater than the rules for creating/modifying lesser laws. The problem is that many of the government's parts do not want to treat it as supreme because it is so hard to modify. They would rather do what they think they can get away with constitutional or not.

Not sure you second statement is true. By opening the patents of his super charging systems, it encourages other parties to put up more stations. This would make Teslas more enticing to prospective buyers. Sometimes, pro-society and pro-profit are not mutally exclusive.

The point is that if a flaw exists, when found, it can be quickly fixed in open source. You can also do your own security audit on open source software if you are really security conscious. With closed source, you have to wait for the vendor to both find and fix it (if they ever do). That said, assuming the vendor is trustworthy and would rather shut down than backdoor their software, heavily auditted close source software could easily be more secure than lightly audited open source software. If the audit levels are the same, open source wins. Part of the problem is that until recently a lot of open source security software/libraries like OpenSSL have not gone though enough auditting and vunerabilities are overlooked.

A whistle blower's exclusion of their name is likely only going to protect them for so long. It is better to be seen as a hero than just to disappear or be cleverly murdered one night. Also, revealing themself as a source adds validity to the information leaked.