I remember a time when I was in school and this happened....the kid got on the wrong bus.....when the bus got the the last stop the driver made everyone get off so he could take the bus back to the yard. If it hadn't been for the fact that one of the parents at this "last stop" asked this young girl looked so confused and then help to find her parent who knows know this would have turned out. In that situation how would "screaming at" the school help? The poor person you are screaming at likly has JUST as little idea what happened as you do and finding the kid is what takes precedence at that point...yelling is good for getting an apology and perhaps some methodology changes, but not at finding the kid.

Yes, but the cars in "the last 10 years or so are designed around at least partial ethanol fuels" mean 10% ethanol. My 2004 vehicle manual specifically says that they fuel should not contain more then 10% ethanol and any more "could cause serious damage to engine components" and that just putting something higher then E10 in the tank would void my warranty on my power train. So if I go to a station like those in the article that's higher (intentionally or accidentally) it could damage my engine because it's not designed for it. If the government raises the percentage to 15% what do I do? Run it an hope I don't get damage? Spend $$$ to upgrade/replace components? Replace the car? Do you consider a 2004 an "older car"?

And what about those that DO need the size/weight of vehicle they think they do? This is why the standards are crazy....manufacturers have been known to make small, cheep, fuel efficient cars they know they cannot sell, just to get their MPG average up. I am all for more fuel economy but removing options and choice from consumers is not the way to do it.

It's also interesting to note that at the theater near me Wolverine opened on 3 screens...Star Trek opened on only one of Friday/Saturday and then two on Sunday.

And it's made to look like Tron! I think someone is a few days late for April Fools!

Or it's Cox playing on the misconception that people might have that this does effect cable, allowing them to say "Yes you must rent a digital cable box and pay more for digital cable. Have you heard about legislation to mandate the switch to digital broadcasting?" It's not like they said congress required them to change....but people could think so and so now it's not Cox (or comcast's) fault the bill is going up. See here for one such story.

"That why if you are doing something that seems ethically questionable make sure there is paper work to back it up. Even an email from your boss saying its OK we will handle it. Prevents you from getting hung out to dry." For all we know Mr. Bayard has just such an e-mail. However Mr. Reynoso (8 levels up the food chain) who gave the quote here did not say that Mr. Bayard was the only one responsible, just that it was isolated. Perhaps when the dust settles there will be multiple people involved, ans some have e-mail proving their manager OK'ed the plan.....but the question is will that e-mail spare their job or will they be held just a responsible as the person who told them to do it? A paper trail usually just gets more people into hot water, not you out of it.....

But what about in-state mileage that's NOT on roads? Would someone have to pay for driving there 4x4 on a trail? What about if someone drives there truck mostly on a farm and it doesn't hit the streets? I know currently you can buy gas for these activities that's not taxed (you are not allowed to use the car on the streets if it's got that fuel which is colored funny in it) how does all this fit in with there per-mile fee?