Interesting. I hadn't heard of the possibility of "getting Ebola" but not getting any symptoms. Considering that you apparently can't transmit the disease unless you get the symptoms, would these asymptomatic Ebola people be able to transmit it to other people?
The words I'd use are "extremely unlikely". From what I've read, there's no evidence of viral shedding in exterior bodily fluids by these individuals (with the obvious caveat that such a statement probably requires extrapolation based on a small sample size). If someone in that state got a bad open wound, I suspect there would be a nonzero chance of spreading it, but only during a fairly short interval between when the blood's viral load became high enough for the immune system to notice it and when the viral load became low enough to be largely moot. Even during that period, it isn't clear how big that risk would be, but it is probably very small. Otherwise you'd see Ebola cases popping up randomly in affected countries, and you just don't see that in practice.
In any event, the only people who came down with Ebola symptoms after contact with a person with Ebola were those two nurses. It indicates that non-asymptomatic transmission of the disease isn't an easy thing to do. You won't get Ebola because you sat next to someone on the bus and they had Ebola. (Not unless your bus trips involve WAY more bodily fluid contact that the normal person's bus trip.)
Absolutely. There might be a very remote possibility if you make out with the soon-to-be Ebola patient, but it is pretty darn unlikely even then.
On the flip side, depending on which study you look at, assuming I read the paper correctly, anywhere from about half to three quarters of asymptomatic people who had close contact with an Ebola patient later tested positive for Ebola antibodies, and the resulting herd immunity for Ebola is likely to dampen outbreaks considerably.