I have some difficulty arguing against machines and robots, so long as they're ecologically friendly (renewably electric, no fossil fuels involved, etc.) But the question is valid... in a society that defines life by money, and money by labor, how is anyone to survive? The answer is to abandon those definitions, examine what human being truly needs not only to survive but to thrive, and organize civilization around that. Shelter? Healthy satisfying food? Productive activity? Relaxation? ... food production on earth is in serious trouble given the extraordinary burden seven billion inefficient souls place upon what little arable space we have... still, reorganization can make those souls more efficient, less stressed out and, frankly, less likely to breed (thus tapering off the dangers of overpopulation in the most kind of ways. (i.e., basically all post-industrial nations have stable or negative population trajectories.)

Oh absolutely; in the name of brevity, I just went with the first thing that came to mind.

While E.Starlings are not as talented at it as other mimics, they can achieve a somewhat 'bad recording' style mimic of the human voice. They're also the ones notorious for producing large undulating clouds in the sky (consisting of thousands if not, in extreme cases, millions of birds.) Point being, I've always wanted to somehow snag a gigantic flock of these birds and train them all to say something creepy like 'i'll get you' before releasing them back into the wild.

Starting to sound like the FBI is a threat to national security. I'm sure there are some really great people working there doing really important things; and investigating criminal activity (or protecting soldiers on the battlefield) is important! But when you start being afraid of the truth, you're also doing something wrong.

I do appreciate that short term financial gain is more important to us than long term survival.

These guys and Evergreen Solar both had viable advanced products, good ideas, and solid business practices and a eagerness to hire local/american workers to do a job that desperately needs doing. The folded because of 'free trade' competition with China who is more than willing to dump silicon tetrachloride in people's backyards (rather than recycling it as is required here) and pay people nigh-on slave wages in the process. You can't compete with that. If you want high quality jobs here in the states... if you want progressive, good-intentioned, future-forging entrepreneurship... then exit free trade and renegotiate in fair trade deals... or reinstate rational tariffs.

to what end? Make trade even more abusively exploitive of labor than it already is?

To learn one computer language isn't just learning the language, but learning how to learn languages; each additional one you pick up should be that much easier. It's not effortless, but it's doable. FURTHER; while less popular languages don't have as much of a calling, they often do end up being legacy code that some employers becoming increasingly more desperate to have maintained, adjusted, et cetera... so maintaining a working relationship with an 'old' language may make you a rare commodity later (and thus worth more.) It's something to keep in mind, if not bet the bank on.

Just make an always-online and a never-online version, so you don't lose customers while not compromising the security of the online market.

I hated having to have a disc just to get streaming content... now I can have only what I want and effectively pay less for it.

I can almost kinda see competition helping scenarios like this as the poster appears to be indicating, but not in any model resembling 'competition' and/or 'free market' as it is now, as neither exist. Wherever government is weakened, regulations (i.e., the rules of the game) are obliterated (or otherwise rewritten BY the 'free market' (i.e., specific big-fish corporations)), and business takes on the mantle of fact-checking itself, what we see, instead of competition, is extinction. A handful of fish eat ALL the other fish and all of a sudden you have cartels or outright monopolies that result. In order for true competition to occur, the players on the field must be unable to determine the rules of the game, while the referee (i.e., government) has the power to enforce the rules, but makes no attempt to play on the field itself. As long as the two blend together, all you'll get is a new TSA that specializes in economic rape of the masses, as is occurring quite ubiquitously nigh on everywhere else the 'free market' has intruded. Profit, as a motive, is very powerful... but when people can fudge, they WILL fudge as that is easier than playing harder (i.e., competing.) So either the people (i.e., government) have to have enough power to kick cheaters entirely off the field or to 'tweak' the meaning of profit (perhaps through credits or subsidies or scenario-responsive tax rates) so that for-profit entities providing security services (a.k.a., police, fire, military, health, environment protection, food protection, etc) perceive success for their clients as more profitable than cutting corners.

I would agree if he were releasing info that endangered ongoing operations (troop movements, missile deployment sites, etc, in the midst of a battle and to the enemy), but when he's whistleblowing on the criminal actions of his superiors, he must be protected. Every agency at EVERY level must be routinely audited for corrupting, and with 54% of our taxpayer money going to feed this military machine in a time of nation crippling deficits, they deserve scrutiny most of all.

I do find myself wanting some kind of mobile perma-token that goes to each internet accessing individual. Hi, I am E341-AA0B-C3A9-5505-30FF, and my internet access account began on July 3, 2013! I am male, 27 years old, etc. My token knows that I exist, that only I belong to this token, that I am certifiably human, and maybe that I've demonstrated a preference for buying Anime from Amazon and invest heavily in Silver Mint. -- point being, I don't necessarily think such a token should really store sensitive information about identity, per se... but that it can prove that you are who you say you are when online in some verifiable and prohibitively difficult to steal kind of way (at least it terms of the minimalistic rewards such theft grants). When you read a review on an apartment or a product or a service... when someone trolls you on a forum... etc... you can know first that it's not a machine and second that that person will be accountable for any false information they give. I should think this would even be applicable to voting, taxation, etc. I just can't help getting past the notion that in a communicable universe where one can trust the content they encounter and people are liable for their actions, not only will there be less cybercrime, spamming, etc, but also less incentive to want to engage in them as well.

Run-on sentences notwithstanding

Probably ~not~ but I would argue that the university system isn't immune to monetary temptations either; I went to a state university system, came from a working class family that could not afford to help me out... though the compsci and physics programs were challenging and rewarding (and well respected), the financial aide department was apparently (for lack of any rational alternative probability) offended at a 'poor' boy coming to their school. They raked me over the coals, lied through their teeth, and set me up for a lot of unnecessary pain including myriad courses audited due to their shinanigans preventing me from being able to afford the textbooks! This may sound like whining, but compare this to my wealthy ex-girlfriend at the time who came from out of state (re: triple tuition costs) who, in spite of a much more shallow and far less lustrous academic background, got a free ride through school. To her credit, she maintained it well... I'm not blaming her. But the school played serious favorites with what their fiscal equations must have indicated that she was better odds in terms of alumni donations to the school. They rewarded her and punished me based on equations and assumptions, best as I can figure. Well, now she's working in a department store and I'm writing code that empowers a million plus people, and that school's behavior has taken on something of a self-fulfilling prophecy; they'll never get a donated cent out of me.