It really depends on how much "safer" autonomous cars are doesn't it. The current problem with software is that when it fails it fails usually catastrophically, what do you do when you fail, stop that could be dangerous, keep going dangerous too. People don't usually fail as completely as software they make lots of small mistakes but usually do a good enough job.

the road toll is 14.9 per 100,000 per year that is quite low considering how much people drive, you would need a lot of testing, in real life scenarios to convince me that automated car was safer. And each release would need that level of testing. Yes you may get one driver who is bad kill a few people but a bad software release could kill much more.

I am not saying automated cars aren't safer, just that just because they are automated doesn't automatically make them so.

Not true it does have a lot, but only to the point that people don't rebel against it. The trick is to make the people happy enough so they don't rebel while getting as much power as possible. Monitoring everyone greatly increases this power since you can squash dissidents (opponents to your power) much sooner, you can do this by labeling them the boogie man of the time, (currently terrorist) and imprison then for as long as you like without trial, or just assassinate them of course.

The scarey thing is, I think they will do it believing that they are doing for the common good. Your beliefs are obviously right, and your opponents are wrong, they wouldn't be your beliefs if you didn't consider your beliefs right. You wouldn't want someone in power that you think would do the wrong thing, would you?

It actually could, well much more than the current system, given a couple things.

1. The hardware does a challenge response, that way the private key is never given to untrusted hardware software system. Ok the untrusted system could log in once but only once.
2. The USB key doesn't allow the firmware to be reprogramed (https://srlabs.de/badusb/).
3. There is no other way than physically pressing the USB key to activate the challenge response each time.
4. Do not allow a session to remain open indefinitely especially if the same dongle is used to log in form somewhere else.

I have been saying for years that this mechanism would be great for credit cards, and a password replacement, of course you could still have passwords but with this mechanism would be fine for me without them.

You could log in to any site with this, if the system used private/public key encryption simply give the site your public key, and use it to log by encrypting the challenge with your private key. Now if you ever use a password on a website you may as well consider it compromised.

You could have multiple USB keys, if you wanted. You could even allow them to change the private key as long there was a physical block on writing the key, a switch or something.

Agreed, In real life you don't go to jail for 2 year for being rude what makes the internet so special.

Of course its right to use technical means to stop the government accessing your files. It always has been like that, you could always write you documents in code, or hide them and you where under no obligation to reveal the code or location, you have the right to remain silent.

The government has the ability to watch us more than it ever has in history, but it will never be enough.

I think it is less about allowing encryption on cell phones as opposed to having it on by default. Most people will not bother (mainly because they don't understand how easy it is to monitor someone) so it is an indicator to look further if your phone is encrypted, once everyone has encryption turned on it will no longer be an indicator.

Really its the spy agencies own fault they overstepped their bounds, by issuing secret warrants to companies and monitoring everyone, now they get the backlash.

When something you had is taken away it feels much worse than if you never had it in the first place.

So the goal is to encourage people to consume as much as they can. That sounds totally reasonable.

Everybody can be x months away from abject poverty, if they loose their jobs.

Of course I would pay my wife, and she would pay me, problem solved.

No that is the poor pretending to be rich you don't get rich by spending more than you earn.

Yes the rich buy stuff on credit, but it is as an investment, if the cost of borrowing is less than what you expect to get in return, then it is prudent to borrow. Also if it turns out you fail other people bare the burden on you loss. Bankruptcy is not that bad ask Mr Trump.

The poor tend to by on credit not backed by anything, because they have no choice and end up paying higher interest and being able to buy less in the long run.

Although the rich buy more expensive items, the percentage of there total income they spend is much less. If you can barely survive you are spending 100% of your income. Where if you can save you are not consuming so you are not being taxed. A regressive tax is one that taxes a higher percentage of poor persons income than a rich person, not a higher absolute value (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regressivetax.asp)

Not taxing food is a start at addressing this but there are other essentials that the poor must buy in order function, housing, transport, clothing. A consumption tax should be only taxing unnecessary consumption. Think of it this way you need a certain level "consumption" just to go to work, so really it is an investment for making more money. What percentage of your income do you pay in rent? What percentage of rich persons income do they pay? probably 0% since they will own the property, ok they have to pay maintenance and stuff, but it is probably much smaller as a percentage of their income.

Also there are luxury foods why shouldn't they be taxed?

This system would probably be far too complex to maintain, and the rich are the ones that can afford the accountants in order to avoid the taxes anyway.

Afraid, weary same thing, the reason we have fear is because we need it, we evolved to need and we still need it. Kids don't usually jump of high thing because they are afraid.

If this case if we underestimate the danger, it will be too late, you are right we will not be able to run an hide from this. So a little bit of overreaction is better than a little bit of under reaction.

So be afraid, be slightly afraid.

Being afraid accomplishes lots, it motivates us, it is stops us doing stupid things,
but too much, of pretty much anything including fear can be a bad thing too, it can do the opposite, paralyze us, make us do stupid things.

Maybe if the nurse was a little more afraid she would have followed procedures better. (don't know what went wrong so I am only guessing).

Maybe if we are afraid we have tested this first patient at the border instead of taking his word for it.

Maybe it will stop the US spending billions on fighting terrorism which truly is an insignificant problem, and has very little potential to become bigger. And start focusing more on this which is small but has the potential to become massive.

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.