I was saying that the attitude that the government will just make decisions that favor it over the people is a sign of despotism.

But this isn't one of those decisions. Removing the $1 bill saves the people money. It doesn't particularly help the government at all. So how is this despotism?

You really don't understand the concept of equity vs. equality, do you?

I think I might finally be starting to understand the American right-wingers.

What a scary concept.

If you have a billion dollars worth of wealth that wealth costs a billion times as much in infrastructure, manpower, public services, etc than a dollar worth of wealth

Where could you possibly get such an insane idea?

So if I have a billion dollars in the bank, it costs a billion times the infrastructure of having $1 in the bank? Wow, hard drive prices must have taken a steep jump lately!

I disagree. According to Walmart here, the average Walmart associate makes $11.75 an hour.

If 4 such associates were to pool their resources, they would collectively make $94,000 a year. More than enough to allow 4 people to live a very comfortable lifestyle. Or even 9 people to live a somewhat comfortable lifestyle (assuming 4 adult workers, 1 adult child care, 4 children).

Of course this isn't the "American Dream" of 2.1 children, a white picket fence, dog in the yard, 2 cars, a home entertainment system, cable, internet, smartphones, Disney vacation per year, Starbucks latte every day, Prada purse, etc. etc. etc....but it's certainly livable.

-

because it allows one to obtain a US Passport (faster border travel),

Really? How so?

As a fellow Canadian, I've never had any problems / delays when traveling to the US. I've gone there at least a dozen times over the past 5 years,and I can't see how having a US passport would have sped up the process. Is there a special line for US passport holders?

Maybe I've just got an honest face (or the fact that I often travel with the wife & kids), but customs has usually been: show passport & declaration, move along....

Illegal immigration is the vast majority of current immigration. No need to assume, when you can measure.

Bullshit. And why bother measuring, when you can just make up numbers?

According to Wikipedia, there is 7 to 20 million illegal immigrants in the US.

According to the US census bureau, there are 40 million immigrants in the US as of 2011.

Doesn't quite seem like a "vast majority", or actually any kind of majority, does it?

Seriously. 2 minutes of googling. But why bother if you already have the wrong answer in your head?

The saying "Steve Jobs did not suffer fools" means that Steve Jobs did not like hearing things that he didn't want to hear.

I don't think that saying means what you think it means.

Yes, I agree, Steve Jobs was a dick. He also demanded excellence from those around him. If you believe the Kool-Aid that Steve was solely responsible for the success of Apple, the designs of the iPod / iTouch, and the rise of iTunes, then I could see how you would think that he had nothing but "yes-men" around him.

Unfortunately, though that makes a good story, it ain't true. What Steve had was the ability to determine marketable ideas from unmarketable one's, and an ego the size of Everest. Sure, this lead him to being a jerk to his customers sometimes (i.e. Antennagate), but it also meant that he tended to surround himself with creative, strong-willed people so he could sell the best ideas.

I disagree. For $120 you are basically getting exactly what the OP described in one of his responses: a bunch of metal configured in a certain way.

Antennas are one of the easiest "geek projects" to do, and if the OP has access to the materials described, it should be a fairly simple (2-4 hours) project...

Actually, just googled "DIY LTE Antenna" and came across this . Apparently 4 hours to build, and cost all of $10.

Sure from a pure time/money perspective, you are only saving $27/hr, but IMHO it's time well spent.

Also, we have money where you can actually tell one bill from the other at a glance.

And it's now washable, un-tearable, partially transparent, worth more, and all-around much cooler than USD.

But the weather kinda sucks.

"There are the occasional accidents in which wearing seat belts has actually been to the detriment of the occupants. "
citation?

Here

I disagree completely.

I don't particularly like iOS devices, and use an Android phone myself (Samsung SGH-T989), but I agree that it was in Apple's best interest to stop relying on a direct competitor for core functionality of their phones.

Apple is very much about marketing and branding. They want to be the hip, stylish, geek accessory that everyone wants to have. They want complete control over how their devices work, look and feel. This mandate has worked very well for them.

Google's requirement to increase their own branding in a pretty core function of the phone goes entirely against this philosophy. Suddenly Google is providing some cool features, and get's to advertise this fact to all of Apple's customers.

A mapping team wasn't just a good idea, it was an essential idea. The bad idea was releasing it before it was ready.

Apple should have either (a) bit the bullet and delayed the newest iOS launch, (b) used Google for one last version, then kicked them out in the next version, or best yet (c) written their own mapping software a long time ago.

I'm quite certain that this Mr. Williamson probably didn't say no to his bosses very often, and I don't particularly feel bad for him.

Quite certain? Really? Quite certain?

And on what, pray tell, do you base this certainty? Did you work for Mr. Williamson? Had you prior dealings with him? Have you worked for Apple and know their management style?

Or is it just some self-justifying "this is the way I believe the world works, and I'm going to cover my ears and shout 'LA LA LA' ever time it doesn't"

I'm quite certain the sun will rise tomorrow.
I somewhat certain that it'll snow later this week
I think that the LHC probably found the Higgs Boson.
I have to f'ing clue whether Richard Williamson was a yes man or not.
And neither do you.

If your driverless car is about to crash into a bus, should it veer off a bridge?

This is the kind of stupid question that comes from anthropomorphizing machines.

The "question" (as such) that the car will need to answer is:
Obstacle detected. How best to avoid? If avoidance is impossible, how to minimize damage.

These are fixed engineering questions, not "ethical decisions".

And yes, in some cases, the car may "decide" to do something that is not as optimal as what a human would do. e.g. Car detects road is suddenly blocked by a school bus & a semi-trailer. Car brakes & steer towards school bus as it is slightly further up the road than the semi.

However, we have that situation right now. There are the occasional accidents in which wearing seat belts has actually been to the detriment of the occupants. That doesn't mean we shouldn't wear seat belts.

The "ethical" questions are around how we should define the laws, liability, and rules of the road for driverless cars, not the engineering.

Easy solution: Manufacturer's lease the cars to you, and the lease price includes the cost of liability insurance.

As these cars would likely be involved in fewer accidents than occurs currently, the insurance cost should be less than what you pay right now.

A couple of points your argument misses:
1) You conflate the % of accidents that occur with human drivers with those that occur with self-driving cars.

2) You miss the point that right now accident liability costs are covered. There are whole reams of lawyers who specialize in prosecuting/defending people due to car accidents, yet somehow society manages these costs. Changing who pays for the liability shouldn't suddenly make the whole thing unaffordable (especially given that the number of claims should go down).

+1. Exactly.

Trying to impose today's liability standards on what is a fundamentally new technology is like worrying about how traffic at intersections would be handled prior to the introduction of automobiles. New technologies may introduce changes to our social norms. This has happened frequently in the past, and I can't see why this technology would be any different.