Possibly that NSA is operating with presumptions that the info has already leaked. They don't really care. What Snowden did was unforgivable however, because he disclosed their illegal operations to the American public.
The low cost of entrance created quite a competition and kept prices low. Gradually many such micro-ISPs were merged or bought by bigger companies and quality gradually improved. The possibility of competition never disappeared and eventually it forced all major ISPs lower prices.
The reason why airlines sometimes are so anal about scrutinizing passport or visa status of international passengers is that they have to pay enormous fines if a passenger in question is refused entry into a destination country due not having a proper passport or visa. It is an airline's job to check if a passenger has these in order and if the airline fails to do this then they will be fined at least $15000 and probably even more. The airline licence to fly to international destinations usually comes with such conditions.
Visa rules are complex and constantly changing so they may refuse boarding in complicated cases where a passenger appears to be violating some rules. In most cases it is indeed the fault of a passenger. For example, when visiting the US under visa waiver program one has to have a return ticking within allocated time. Also a visa waiver cannot be used when flying to the US in transit and then taking ground transportation to ultimate destination in Canada. Many passengers forget about this and then they blame the airline when they are not allowed to board the plane.
But in some cases it is clearly the fault of airlines who is not aware of some rare exception or recent changes in immigration rules. Nobody's perfect. In such case I would recommend a passenger to study the entrance rules and be ready to explain them to airline's representative and refer to authoritative sources. I have heard cases when people have successfully received reimbursement from the airline for their inconveniences including additional hotel bills etc. because they were unjustly refused boarding.
Why not? Progress of science and technology can help us to produce more, to live better and have more wealth. In fact, improvement of technology goes very well together with greater social equality. A slave is not as effective worker as a well paid technician.
Global trade is good in theory. In practice it doesn't work too well in many cases because of asymmetric power. Rich countries can afford to influence trade in their favor and there are no world government that would not allow this.
It's the same when you look to different countries too, the cost of living makes a difference.
Absolutely not. If you want to compare taking into account the cost of living then use purchase parity by all means. On a national level you may be right but to say that some malnourished Somalians have approximately the same quality life as Londoners is nonsense.
The line diving 1% is arbitrary. It is not about some mystical qualities that divide them from us but that the fragile balance of democracy, power and wealth generation is broken and needs to be reestablished. It is not against people having more money but objection towards the system where wealthy have most of political power and use it unwisely, not for the benefit of the nation, what to speak about world's population.
No other species have done what humans have done. It makes any biologic comparison meaningless when discussing human culture, economy, science etc. It is one of the most basic logic fallacies called "Appeal to nature" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature".
Nope, "life always worked" is not how economy has ever worked since humans climbed from the trees and started to organize societies. It is all conscious intellectual construct. Some systems are better than others (capitalism vs. communism) but every one is created and continuously tinkered by careful deliberation.
I have no problem having some income inequality as long as it creates the most efficient system for growth. It is not happening at the moment. 20% unemployment in some parts of Europe is obscene. Unemployment among young people is almost 50% in certain areas. Something needs to be done and the richest people has the greatest power and possibility to rectify the situation. But as they are relatively wealthy they don't feel the pressure. They don't feel the pain of young people whose dreams are crushed by inability to find meaningless employment. It is the responsibility of us, 99% to exert pressure on them to do something.
Just do whatever that leads to economic recovery and growth and more income equality.
But don't mix up morality with legality, please. When bankers engaged in reckless risk taking and bankrupted us all in the process, it is hard to find a law against them but morally they were thieves in the direct meaning of the word.