What you are proposing is a total upheavel in the economic system. Do you really believe that the wealthy will give up the power that their wealth has to live in a utopian society where everybody gets what everybody needs? Plus if "jobs" all end up being about maintaining social order and stability, which pretty much means government jobs, where will the government get funds to provide those services? Nobody is working, there is nobody to tax.

But that is besides the point. Surely, somebody, somewhere is going to have to do some work. And those workers are either going to demand wages (or goods and services) or be treated as slaves. Either prospect does not look favorable.

I don't understand why having a headphone and a microphone is fine, whereas having a headphone and microphone without the cable makes you a loser. I guess it's the same reason why wearing the wrong brand of clothing makes you a loser. All hail the arbitrary dictates of fashion.

The pocketwatch wasn't wrong, any more than the horse and carriage was wrong. However, like the horse and carriage, you don't see many pocketwatches around anymore. Noting that A has been superceded by B doesn't imply any moral failing on the part of A.

Chips are called chips, and look like this - http://www.mccain.co.uk/Global/Images/Products/Product%20Category/Healthy/oven%20chips%20sc%20large.jpg
Crisps are called crisps and look like this - http://images2.mysupermarket.co.uk/Products_1000/37/174137.jpg?v=2

In Europe, and most of the rest of the world, we use smart-chips when we aren't using contactless. There is a magnetic stripe on the card, that that is only so that the card can be used in the USA and other similarly backward countries.

I'm not sure about those two stores, but in a lot of stores, especially ones owned by smaller companies, the credit card terminal is not linked to point of sale system. The checkout operator presses the button on the till for card or cash, nobody takes cheques any more, then if it is card, they enter the total amount into the card terminal, process the payment, and usually put the store copy of the card receipt in the till. It may well be that they thought the card terminal wasn't working, and put the payment through again.

There are accounts where you have to register with an email address and password to access content. For those sorts of accounts, I don't care if someone else finds the password and uses it to read the stuff on the site. I have a spamcatcher webmail account, password the same as the username, and the username and password on the sites I register using it are the same as the webmail ones. The name and address details are completely made up based on a fictional character. Completely insecure, but I do not care. If someone else gets in, they are welcome to have a look round.

There is a case in Europe of people getting into bank accounts by compromising their cellphone. They sent a phishing message puportedly from their bank telling them they needed to install some security software on their phone, with instructions on how to do it for iPhone, Android and Blackberry.

Then, having got the login details for the bank account, they log in, do a transfer instruction, and when the bank sends a code to the phone to authenticate it, the malware on the phone intercepts the message, and sends it to them, so they can complete the transaction,

nobody will need a job. Unless they want to eat, that is. Or will food production and housing become free in the future?

It is simply wonderful that you picked 1960 to make your point. Did you know that in 1960 the total tax burden on American citizens was close to the highest it ever was in the country (combining federal, state, local, property, fuel, etc.)? And yet, it was also one of the most prosperous times in the country for real growth. Kind of shoots a hole in the whole taxes are crippling the economy argument. So, yeah, lets go back to the 1960 tax structure. Hell, lets go back to the last time we had a balanced budget, which would be under Clinton. Taxes under Clinton were quite a bit higher than they are now, we had a balanced budget and again we had astronomical growth.

The moral of the story is that taxes are not by their nature bad. Some of the most prosperous times in the country were times of highest tax burdens.

I haven't seen Into Darkness but a lot of this review covered what was painfully realized in the first movie: no longer is Trek about philosophy, ethics, tolerance, gray areas and real world problems. It's mostly absolute good versus absolute evil. I think the driving force behind the bad guy in the first movie was largely a misunderstanding ... which is incredibly boring. His motivation was confusingly laughable.

Unsurprisingly I'm pretty sure I heard JJ Abrams tell Jon Stewart that "he never liked Star Trek" on The Daily Show. Well, now he's had a chance to kill it by turning it 100% into a modern day blockbuster action flick and shirking any attempt to tackle an interesting philosophical or ethical dilemma as the main plot. As the modern reemergence of comic book and super hero movies have shown, those films are a dime a dozen that anyone can do. Tackling something deeper while still holding our attention is the hard part. The Watchmen was a good candidate for it but fell short. I'm sure JJ Abrams would rather cover up the complicated parts that question good versus evil with another lens flare.

Less people getting screened (or at least less often), because they don't want it showing up on their medical records.

It's not like they can just pack up and move to the next country over

And we (the Canadians) are all very thankful for that!

"By my hand, a $BAD_EVENT can happen to anyone, any time. There is no defense unless you crawl into your shell and stop living life. You might sometimes think you are safe but no matter who you are, I might inflict $BAD_EVENT upon you. The random $BAD_EVENTs will continue until you, my pool of victims, collectively persuade your government to alter its policies in accordance with my wishes."

We all agree that the above really is the very essence of terrorism, right?

export BAD_EVENT=reporting innocent people to the terrorist suspect database

No. That's what media outlets are spouting, but it's not even that - it's 97% of published papers, not scientists.