The fact that this is even news and not just someone's uninformed personal decision is because of the nature of public education. If this was a private school making this decision, some parents who send their kids there might be upset, but the impact is much more isolated. Parents at such a private school could then choose (yes, choice...what a wonderful thing!) to take their money and their kids and go elsewhere, where they teach the scientific theory of evolution. This is one of many reasons why I am against public education out of principle and support a much more rigorous switch to private education of varying levels (cheap schools all the way to very expensive schools, online education to old-fashioned education).

"Wouldn't this make the long-term profit on more durable items larger?"

No, this is a tax and thus is a net drain on society. Morality can't be legislated, even if recycling is a good thing. This is nannying the general populous in a very large way and will result in more special treatment for special interests. When these companies can no longer compete with the rest of the world, they'll either move out of Europe or seek special favors from the EU politicians to help keep them afloat. This happens again, and again and is nothing new.

Is this really a surprise at all? If these scientists had to raise their own funding via private means, this wouldn't be news at all. This is just wasted time, energy and smart minds rent seeking the government. Move along.

Ok, that's fair that we differ. Then in your opinion, what is it that defines good governance? How does good governance go bad? How is it that a country goes from bad governance to good governance?

So by your "logic," a government should have as many laws as possible, because this is ultimately what makes people and corporations moral. What you're lamenting, in reality, is that people don't behave the way that you desire them to. People (and companies and other organizations) are diverse. The best government is the least government (I didn't say none). Set a very consistent set of basic rules, provide an efficient and fair judicial system, and then live people to live their lives as they see fit. If you disagree with that, then I say how many laws is enough before companies and individuals are all moral and utopia is obtained?

I agree, and another way to pay the bill is to never incur a bill in the first place. Let productive, private citizens make decisions of what to build, not inefficient governments. That's not to say that I'm against the government doing anything. I just believe it's far too large and too out of control at the moment. Given that governments all around the world are in grave debt, this seems to make my case.

This shows a really sad state of affairs for the U.S. government. The fact that these companies feel it is worth their time and money to lobby the U.S. government to get what they need shows:

1. That they no longer believe that they can control their own corporate destiny sufficiently without the government mandating new laws to their liking
2. That it's more efficient for them to lobby the government to get what they want than to risk doing things without the government
3. That the U.S. government has far too much authority and perceived "value" that these companies want a piece of

My solution is simple: reduce the size and scope of the government and these companies will no longer feel like they have anything to gain from lobbying the government.

I'll take your word on that. However, regardless, spending is clearly out of control today given that local municipalities, states and even the federal government are toying with bankruptcy. Big infrastructure is dead for now, lets maintain what we already have while cutting a lot of spending.

Here here!

I completely agree, although there are many people who are lazy, have no passion, and have pretty much given up on life. Though I like to take that as an opportunity to try and encourage those people and bring passion back into their lives.

"The popular sentiment these days is that everyone should just fend for themselves, compete with each other as vigorously as possible, and those who are unable to compete do not deserve to live in our society. The entire outlook can be summarized in just three words: greed is good."

That's complete crap. It's about freedom of choice here and not being told what to buy by the benevolent dictators in Congress. Why is it that if people don't agree with supporting people through redistribution and taxation that they automatically get labeled as greedy? The private donations of individuals and organizations that are not the U.S. government far out give the government. Politicians are the ultimate in greedy, taking other people's money to do as they please.

I wouldn't argue against that, however, the expansion needs to stop somewhere. Also, it is very hard to undo something once the government takes it over. Therefore, I suggest you be highly skeptical of providing for "all" and making "everybody's life better." There are no perfect solutions, only tradeoffs. It's almost always better to push choice to the individual versus the collective to avoid tyranny.

"[I]f highly detailed images become available, criminals could create more complete schematic maps of the power and water grids in the United States. With the vast amount of infrastructure across the country, it would be impossible to secure every location."

Right...because today, every square inch of the undocumented US infrastructure is completely secure. /sarcasm

Having just finished working there for 4 years, they are indeed very unprofitable. Yes, certain ventures like movie editing make some money, but the overall company (Thomson/Technicolor) has been unprofitable for the last 11 years. They have over 1 billion euro of debt. The transition to digital movie making is one of the only things they did right. Everything else has been a disaster, and they are being brought down by over-zealous French unions and bloated middle management. It's a company that needs to go away in its current form, and be broken up and sold for assets.

I couldn't agree more. The TSA costs way too much money, violates far too many freedoms, and produces nothing more than FUD. I would seriously like to see the TSA removed and each airport and airline worry about their own security.