yes it is passed on by touching someones sweat.

http://www.afro.who.int/en/clu...

Isn't sweat, a bodily fluid? or is ebola not passed on by that one?

Where I live a car is not an essential item, it maybe in some places, but people still buy cars that the cannot afford here. Without one you will probably end up healthier anyway. It costs a lot of money to maintain. This may be different in places without public transport.

If you cannot afford to buy a car for cash you probably cannot afford to pay double or triple that price in interest to borrow the money to buy that car. If you borrow to buy the car you are effectively paying a higher price for the car, so if you are broke do you really want to throw your money away? It is a bad decision.

If you actually need a car, and I mean NEED, for example for work, not just really really want because would be more convenient, that logic would change of course but you should still get the cheapest possible car. Be careful you don't convince yourself you need the car, when you really don't, if you try hard enough you can come up reason to justify any purchase. I need a TV to keep up with current events, I need a smart phone, keep up my emails, ... people survived thousands of years without any of these things and you probably can too.

I drive a 1994 Toyota, works fine doesn't break down often. I don't actually need the car.

There are countries that are socialist, (e.g. Nordic countries) compared to the US and doing quite well, better based on quality of life measures.

Don't get me wrong capitalism as severed the world well, it has increase its production capability nicely, but times have changed, we have reached a point where we are now not struggling to survive, on the contrary our excesses are now killing us, we are now simply consuming for the sake of consuming, there is no reason our economic system shouldn't change to meet our current needs.

The world is not black and white, and not even shades of gray. There is no need either one or the other, you can be in between, their may also be other alternatives, we can throw in the mix as well. If we limit our thinking to Capitalism vs Communism we limit the possible solutions we can come up with.

If third world countries become richer the should have less children, so 2 birds with one obese stone.

So if you loose your phone, or it getsbroken you loose all your iMessages? I am not sure you might be right but doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of the cloud.
Tim Cook Says:

saying they are not held in "identifiable form." means they are held. therefore they are idenfiable since the apple user can identify them, since apple has the knowledge to identify them.

He also may be using weasel words, he may be stating there is no application that currently exists that allows a staff member read your emails. Not that one cannot be written, rather simply.

This maybe true, but the intent of the statement is still to deceive.

The questions are this:
1. If you get a new phone can you access your emails with that phone?
2. Can you reset your password?

If 1 is true clearly there is nothing on your phone that is needed access your emails.
If 2 is true and they use your password to encrypt your data:
They clearly can decrypt it without you providing the old password, and re-encrypt it.
else they decrypt it with some key stored on their sever so they can clearly decrypt it.
else don't encrypt it at all.

So either Tim Cook's technical knowledge is lacking or he is lying.

Disclaimer:
I don't have an iphone or use icloud, so I don't know for sure but I assume the answer to both questions is yes

You make it sound like they work out what a reasonable profit is and then charge you for it in one way or another.

They will charge you as much as they can get away with, and give you as cheap and crappy service as they can without effecting there bottom line. Maintance of their equipment is not an advertised cost, they are not really competing on this, they will charge as much as they can. Any extra money goes right into the CEOs and shareholders pockets.

They don't have to be, although simply taking a picture of a card and being able to make purchases through an actual terminal is actually quite scary.

Credit card should always do a challenge response even over the internet, that is "plug" the credit card into the device, make the transaction.

An even simpler solution would be for the bank to txt/inform your cell phone as soon as possible that a credit card transaction has been made.

Frankly the only computer I am happy for my credit card details to be stored on is the banks, basically because I have no other choice, well actually they only need the public key as well.

Why? Why can't you like one part of capitalism and not others, why does it have to be an all or nothing choice? Because someone says so?

Just because the crime rate in cities is decreasing doesn't go against the point that packing people closer together may increase violence. There are many factors that contribute to crime, population density may only be one.

This article http://science.time.com/2013/0... says cities are safer to live but if you read further its basically because you are far more likely to die from accidental death. murder per person is still higher in cities.

I personally don't know if it true that packing people in, increases violence I think at some point it probably does, but it is not a valid counter argument to look at decrease in city crime rates.

This is actually more of a problem than a solution, low transaction amounts are more likely to be missed by a person, here is a quote from the terms and conditions of a credit card I assume most have similar clauses:

I am very likely miss a $20 transaction on my credit card statement and not at all likely to miss a $2000 one. So I am likely bare the burden of the crime. If they are really that secure why not have all transactions contactless no pin.

I also am interested in knowing if I increase the power of transmission and the size of of the antenna can I increase the range on NFC, Yes it may violate safety standards, but I am sure criminals won't be too concerned.

What really annoys me is I should have a choice of if I want contactless enabled or not, I don't appreciate it being rammed down my throat if I have a credit card, it could simply be an option on the server side saying allow contactless/pinless transactions. When credit card is upgraded I intend to ring my bank and question every transaction under $80, every month.

Yes I understand there are a lot of insecure things about credit cards, but I don't need another.

That would be all well and good if it was true but actually having great disparity between winners and losers everybody is worse off even the winners.

There is a talk here https://www.ted.com/talks/rich... if you want skip to the relevant section it starts at about 11:06

and that is the problem with banning trolls, Extremists aren't trolls they are people that disagree enough with you, that you consider their opinion extreme. People who considered women should have the right to vote where probably considered extremists a one point.

Trolls are people who make comments, who's purpose is meant to invoke an emotional response. when he says:

If he is expressing his true belief then he is not a troll, if he is just doing to to annoy religious people then he is.

I personally like having people disagree with me, it makes for much more interesting discussions than with people who agree with me.

Once you introduce moderation, you are likely to remove peoples opinions that you strongly disagree with as well. I would rather have a few idiots posting stupid comments, which I can choose to ignore, and keep strongly opposing views. My life won't be significantly effected if someone I don't know insults me, or my beliefs, and if it does significantly effect someone's life I think they had bigger issues to start with.

It maybe society as a whole has a problem that we are creating so many people who have so little self esteem.