Actually, it's a million dollars of insurance per customer. Of course, they're paying far less than a million per customer for that insurance, as the security company knows the average customer is going to cost them far less than that.

I moved from the Buffalo/Rochester area to central NJ and was looking forward to getting less snow. It worked out fine for me the first couple of years, but these last two make me want to pack up and move south again. I would gladly live the rest of my life without ever seeing snow or having the temperature fall below 50F again.

I've long been confused by why so many Christians are so adamantly opposed to the principles behind evolution. Yet at the same time they don't try to challenge the distance of the stars or the speed of light. If a 6,000 year old universe really is true, the only way we'd be able to see the stars is if they were created along with the light they would have been sending out if they'd been around for billions of years.

If that were the case, why would it be so hard to accept that the creator the universe would have made life on earth instantaneously but set it up as if it were billions of years old, complete with the mechanics that would have allowed for it to develop on its own. Is it really any different than video game designer who creates a history for the world they developed that can be inferred to have happened despite never actually existing?

I also find some fault on the evolutionist side. At least in my school, a biology class with a large focus on evolution was mandatory, while physics was an elective class. In my opinion, physics would be useful to far more students. Even ignoring the career applications of the material, Americans could certainly use the extra practice in math more than the rote memorization that is high school biology.

If they simply switched the two and made physics mandatory and biology optional, they would avoid many lawsuits, parental complaints, and general headaches. Now, I don't support refraining from teaching anything just because it's considered controversial, but as I previously stated, my logic would seem to indicate physics would be the better choice for a mandatory science class if one were to ignore the controversy.

So to me it appears like the decision was made almost because of the known controversy, and I consider being deliberately provocative just as bad as capitulating to any pressure. If physics is the more useful subject it should be the mandatory science, and avoiding much of the hassle of teaching evolution is just a bonus. Of course, that's only if you look at the science courses in a vacuum. If you consider some of the other mandatory curriculum, there are things I would have cut far sooner than biology.

Well, according to some theories, democracy can't exist indefinitely. Eventually the voters realize that they can just vote themselves money and start electing the people who will give them the most. Obviously that's not sustainable in the long run, and will eventually lead to national default and/or the collapse of the economy. I don't think it's quite so set in stone as that, but I certainly find such an outcome plausible.

I don't think I would wish to replace our mixed economy/democracy with any communist/socialist system I've ever heard of, however. I don't trust in the goodness of mankind enough to believe that we'd all do our fair part without the fear of poverty or the hope for riches. At least not without some other carrots or sticks taking their place.

So the question becomes, without income incentives, how do you get people to train for/do jobs for which the demand is much higher than the supply of people wanting to do them? One solution is to force some people into jobs they may not otherwise take with the risk of jail or other punishment if they refuse. Say there was a shortage of doctors and I had been told that I was mentally capable of the job and good at dealing with blood, so I had to be doctor.

The thought of doing that as my career is so abhorrent to me that I would attempt to flee the country if they made such a demand. Even in a less extreme case, I would much rather deal with all the financial risks of capitalism than with the tyranny of not being able to choose my own path in life.

Of course I'm well aware that there are far less extreme version of communist or socialist governments. Many maintain a very mixed economy with a good number of aspects of capitalism still present, such as different wages for different jobs. The government just takes a more direct hand in the economy, eliminating the obscenely wealthy, controlling businesses directly, and regulating their hiring, wages, etc.

Such a system can have some success when well managed, at least in the short term. However, it still puts far too much power in the hands of the government for my liking. Leadership in governments changes hands fairly regularly on a historical scale. It stands to reason that sooner or later the person(s) in power will mismanage the economy rather severely. I think no matter what your political view you'll agree that's happened in the US on more than one occasion.

Now imagine if those responsible for the mismanagement had complete control over the entire economy, and not just government spending. The errors in judgment would only be compounded due to the larger scale. A decision that might have only lead to an economic slowdown could now lead to the complete collapse of the economy.

Whatever system is in use, I'm a firm believer in dividing up the power among a large number of people. Statistically, at least some of them will be getting it right at any one time.

However, gold can and has fallen precipitously in value. I'm not foolish enough to think I understand the economy to the point where I can give you solid advice on where the best returns will be in the future. Sadly far too many people become absolutely convinced they know just that. The one recommendation I can give is to never put all your eggs in one basket. Dumping all your savings into gold could end just as badly for you as the people who were dumping it all into real estate not too long ago.

You may have legitimate concerns about inflation, but gold is far from the only safe haven to protect against it. At the very least you should add some additional commodities, such as oil and silver. Additionally, you might want to look into buying Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities. They'll automatically grow with inflation and give you a small return on top of that.

There's also the foreign exchange market if perhaps your interested in the yen or other fairly stable currencies. Maybe some developing market funds if you expect growth in China, India, or other such areas.

If you really want to gamble, hoping to get the best possible returns, I won't try to stop you. If, on the other hand, you just want some decent returns without so large a risk of a major crash in your portfolio value, I suggest diversifying a bit.

Yeah, this was pretty much a deal breaker for me. I chose to only get a PSP as I can keep it connected to my TV at all times. I don't take it with me when I travel, as I use that as an excuse to take a break from video games and catch up on some reading. Besides, it would be possible as the 3DS has the option to turn off 3D. That's the way I'd want to play it anyway, as I get enough eye strain as it is, so I'd be happy with a TV out that didn't support 3D.

If they leave it out, then, especially considering the price, I'll probably skip another generation of Nintendo handhelds.

It's certainly one of the warmest years on record. However, if you go by the satellite records he wants to use in the first place, that title is still held by 1998.

Yeah, there are actually a couple of satellite temperate datasets commonly in use already. UAH and RSS I believe. Most likely any agreement would just be to use one of those datasets.

If you want to day trade or do other short term trading. However, that was almost never a good idea, even before high-frequency trading. It's still possible for the average investor to take more of a Warren Buffet approach to investing. Always go for the long term. He's advised people to think about stocks as owning a stake in the company and to invest in ones you believe have a solid long term business strategy. Considering yourself a partial owner makes you feel more tied to your investment and less likely to reflexively sell because of short term fluctuations.

I don't know the technical details of any of this, but didn't the other OS removal occur months ago? I assume that was fear from Sony that they were getting close to a hack that would allow piracy. It's possible that the decision did buy them some extra piracy free time. You also can't assume the current hack wouldn't have been discovered by someone else even if they'd left Other OS active.

Even with my limited knowledge, I'll grant that pirated software will probably be available sooner because of the Other OS removal than it would have otherwise. However, I don't subscribe to the opinion many seem to have that only those upset by the Other OS removal were capable of discovering the PS3's security flaw. Likewise, I don't consider it at all certain that had they not removed it, it would have remained perpetually piracy free.

That said, at this point in its lifetime, they're probably already beginning development on the PS4. Having people find the vulnerabilities on the PS3 will help Sony avoid the same mistakes on the PS4 (and possibly lead to the firing of those who made them). I'm sure they would have preferred another year or so before it was found, but in the long run, it may only help them make their next iteration more secure.

This does bring up an interesting ethics question I've long pondered. I believe that we should support those who need health care even if they can't afford it. However, is there a limit to the amount of support we should provide before we cut them off? As heartless as it sounds, I've decided the answer is yes.

I'll use an extreme example to make my point. Imagine someone had an illness the caused them excruciating pain, truly made life virtually unlivable for them. Now someone discovered a treatment but it involves them taking daily pills of some ridiculously expensive substance to make. Such that you would have to utilize 5% of the US's economic output simply to make enough for the person to live off of.

Should we provide that for the person? What if there were 10,000 people with the condition and economy of scale didn't make it any more efficient as you made it for more people? Should we consider them lost causes and refuse treatment? It would be heartbreaking to make that decision, but I think the answer has to be yes. What's more, I think one would reach the point you would have to refuse treatment long before 5% of the US's economy.

Although that does bring up the further question of how much is too much? $100 million a year? $10 million a year? I'd hate to be the person who had to come up with that number, but I do believe a line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere.

You misunderstand, I'm not questioning the truth of the answers. I'm claiming that a person is more likely to answer incorrectly on a question where the answer reflects poorly on their beliefs. Especially with multiple choice questions.

Picking the much more conservative Fox News crowd and giving them questions conservatives don't like the answers to will naturally disadvantage them. If you picked questions where the correct answers that made liberals look bad, I'd wager heavily the Fox News crowd would score much higher than MSNBC viewers or the Daily Show/Colbert Report group.

I'm not going to defend Fox News, but reading the questions they asked it's obvious this whole survey was designed in a way to create the answer they found. I couldn't find a single question where giving the right answer wasn't something that would look bad for a Republican and/or good for a Democrat or at the very least create some cognitive dissonance among Republican beliefs.

1. In these situations, Republicans aren't going to want to admit the truth even if they know it is true.
2. A conservative leaning news organization is less likely to have reported this news in the first place.
3. If they truly don't know the answer, Republicans will more likely pick an answer that would reflect well upon their beliefs and Democrats likewise.

If you reversed the questions and asked things where the correct answer reflects badly on Democrats, you would find very different results. Say if they were about Charles Rangel's ethics violations or Robert Byrd filibustering the Civil Rights Act. If every question were designed so that the truth reflected poorly on Democrats, I'm sure the result would have been that Fox News made for better informed listeners.

No matter how tech savvy the group of users, isn't it all but a given that most common passwords will be weak ones? There's always going to be a subset of users that just use simple passwords. More interesting would be a comparison of what percentage of the users had these weak passwords compared to other, less tech oriented sites.

I won't dispute this is of low value to terrorists. But low value is not the same as no value. Look at the list. There are items on there you would probably never have considered if you were looking for a place to attack that would hurt the US. Even if they had plenty of other targets already, I know I'd feel pretty guilty if I released that and one of the locations on it was subsequently the target of an attack.

On the other hand, no value is exactly what this seems to the be to the general public. How does knowing "all installations whose loss could critically affect US national security" help me? I just don't see the benefit. It gets back to my point. I don't think leaked information should be published just because it can be. There should be some purpose behind it.