Killing an aggressor in self-defense is a perfectly valid purpose.

Yes, hunting, deterrence and self-defense come to mind.

Obligatory: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1817

The reasonable statement would be that while Onity cannot guarantee the lock won't be hacked, it will offer a free replacement if such a hack were to be found. This puts the incentive in the right place. Onity could even have a third party insurer cover the risk if they don't want this exposure on their balance sheet.

Right, because every other electronic device - the prices of which keep falling - are produced by not-for profits.

Among many reasons are the high costs of medical regulation, liability insurance, the fact that paying with insurance seriously blunts the pressure on prices. But no, let's just say it's "greed" and feel self-content with a non explanation.

Well, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile_under_Allende, take your pick:
Nationalizations, land seizure, raising the minimum wage, hyperinflation...

Like all socialist leaders eventually do, Allende would have denied its citizen the right to leave the country.
Again, I don't see how the adjective "democratically" changes anything.

What do you mean exactly by "as hom"? Do you mean "ad hominem"? If so, it seems that you know neither the meaning nor the spelling of the expression.

What does it matter if he was democratically elected? Allende threatened to dispossess Chileans, to imprison then in the borders of the country, to draft them as slaves in the army, to create mass starvation by adopting a socialistic economy.

According to http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx, the rate of fatal automobile accident in the US is about 1.11 fatal accident per 100 million vehicle mile.
Assume the Google car's traveled distance between two fatal accident follows a Poisson law (that is there's a constant probability of having a fatal accident in a Google car for any mile traveled).

Null hypothesis: the Google car has the same rate of accident as the U.S.
The probability that the Google car given the null hypothesis has no fatal accident over 300,000,000 miles traveled is exp(-3.33) ~ 3.58%
Thus the null hypothesis can be rejected with a p-value of 3.58%.

To get a p-value 5%, the following would do:
270M vehicle mile with 0 fatal accident
430M vehicle mile with 1 fatal accident
570M vehicle mile with 2 fatal accidents
700M vehicle mile with 3 fatal accidents
etc...

3e8 car mile ~ 3000 cars * 1 year * 35 miles / hour * 8 hours / day * 365 days / year

So if Google wants to reach that milestone, they need to start cranking out those self-driving cars.

Fixed that weaselly passive voice for you.

google: ( ( lunar cycle / 2*pi)^2 * mass of the moon * gravitational constant )^(1/3)
That's 429,000km .. 1.12x the earth moon distance. Uhhh

And yet, when those pills hit the market, they will all line up to buy it. This poll reveals how people think in "far mode". People enter "far mode" when contemplating events they assume are unlikely or distant in the future... far more is selfless, idealistic. Put the pill under their nose and you'll get a very different reaction.

How do I know? Old people don't massively take their own life, people overwhemingly chose treatment when facing cancer, etc.

It's soothing to imagine one's to be comfortable with death, it makes the whole prospect less absurd and cruel. This is just a protective form of denial, unfortunately, death-ism seriously hampers anti-aging research.

It's not funny if you explain it, but yes, that's the whole joke. The person I was replying to used "effect" incorrectly.