It's very reasonable to use Firefox, because it allows you to install the most essential privacy extensions.

Honestly, you can only browse the net nowadays with strong ad blockers, cache cleaners, automated cookie deletion and a whole bunch of web-tracker killer add-ons. Or, pay for a good VPN service.

It would be easily spread by coins and monetary notes, though, wouldn't it?

What I don't understand: Wouldn't it be possible to put the wearer through a disinfectant decontamination shower before he or she takes off the suit?

Precaution. They can carry the virus but no dog -> human transmission is known.

I tend to mess around with them so much that it doesn't really seem to matter with which one I started anyway.

That's not a very compelling analogy. OOP has turned out to be a tremendous resource hog, unnecessary in most cases, and leads to code that is extremely hard to parallelize. Now functional programming with immutable data structures is en vogue - not saying that it's better, you've got to choose the right tool for the right job anyway, but if your analogy held then systemd would correspond to Java and I surely don't want to have it.

I'd rather say they fear loosing their job. Originally the idea of the robotic revolution was that everyone would have his own robot who does all the hard work for him. That didn't work out so well now, did it?

As long as 1% of the population owns 35% and the top 20% of the population own 85% of a nations wealth, it is not very surprising that people oppose to change that gives the richest 1% even more money - money which according to their own theory (Principle of Diminishing Marginal Utility) should be pretty much useless to the them but would be very useful to the poor.

Well, there are international extradition treaties, trade agreements, (applications) of law, etc. If the US DOJ continues down this path, they will have a hard time getting useful cooperation in legal matters with other countries in the future. Good luck enforcing your treaties and copyright claims abroad. There is only so much injustice and double standards that other countries and their voters will accept, and the legal systems of most countries explicitly prohibit the application of foreign law and law enforcement procedures on their home soil.

Moreover, hopefully, foreigners conducting business within the US or residing in the US are protected by the constitution and national laws as well, or otherwise companies from abroad would be crazy to deal with your country at all. The USA is not North Korea.

What you describe is very similar to the future in Gattaca, a nice sci-fi movie worth watching.

Why don't you just use AdBlock?

In my opinion, the problems are even bigger. No fly lists and other terrorist lists are completely beyond and above law and due process. There is no way you can appeal them or challenge them in court, except possibly, under very exceptional circumstances, at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

And as you rightly mention, there are more and more national "rubber laws" not just in Britain but all over the EU (not to speak of US, who seem to have them traditionally). These are laws that leave it nearly open what exactly constitutes the respective criminal ofense, making it possible to prosecute just about anyone for just about anything if somebody feels a need for it. They violate a basic rights principle, namely that an informed and educated citizen has to be able to tell exactly, from the text of the law, when he would transgress the law.

Last but not least, the biggest problem is that there is a strong tendency to make laws stronger rather than abolishing them or making them weaker, because this is always the safe route for a politician to go (unless he has reasons to believe the law might affect him, so this tendency does not concern anti-corruption and tax evasion laws). Who wants to be held accountable for not having signed this 'anti-terrorist' or 'child protection' law when the something bad happens? And something bad will always happen, that's for sure.

The long-term effect of these processes is increased legal uncertainty for common citizens, much more power for rich citizens who can afford excellent legal council, and an overall fascist society.

You're kidding, right? We're talking about the Pinochet regime, with American-trained death squads, extensive torture, people 'disappearing' etc. Oh wait a minute, I get it ... you're just some random asshat troll.

WTF, how does that invalidate at all what the OP said? It even directly confirms it!

Well, if I don't see a picture I'll assume she's ugly. In fact, even if I see a nice picture my first suspicion will be that it's an exceptionally good one (the "Myspace angle") and that in reality she's too fat or too skinny and in any case too ugly. And if she's really beautiful, as proven by dozens of hot pictures and thousands of "likes", hearts, or whatever, then it is very likely that she's in the beginning of her 30s, extremely frustrated by men (viz., her own choices based on repeating the same mistakes again and again), and has all kinds of romantic wishes and unrealistic fantasies that will annoy you to no end.

Moreover, it is virtually guaranteed that there are no hot women on dating sites that *also* like helictoper simulations, and for that reason alone I don't use those sites.

Finally: Women want all kinds of things from men, whereas men want only one thing from women. That's all there is to say about the "battle of sexes".

You've been modded funny but unfortunately what you've said is true. :-(