Giving people money for marrying is no different from fining people for not being married in the end.

No. The default result of a marriage is that one person continues to work and the other stays home and takes care of it. That means that one income is now supporting two people, and that's what the tax break is intended to address.

I do think that both parents regardless of their relationship with the other parent should see tax breaks for having children since having children should be promoted.

Really? Why do you think that a man should get tax breaks for fathering children if he's abandoned the relationship and makes no effort to help the mother either by being there or by paying child support?

Especially when you consider that she's said to have little patience for basic editing. I've not read any of her work (I'm not interested in that type of story.) but I understand that her syntax sometimes leaves quite a bit to desire. As an example, I once ran across a sample of her work where a misplaced modifier made it look like a woman's eyes were a gift from her father rather than the necklace she was wearing.

For the record, Steel has written at least 185 books.

Or, if you take her at her word, she's written one book at least 185 times.

While I'm sure a lot of those original movies are, in fact, total crap and deserve their obscurity, there are still going to be some diamonds in the rough - plenty of what are now regarded as classics (cult or otherwise) did not do well at the box office during their original runs.

In part, that's because a large percentage of them were originally made as B movies: low budget films intended to be the second part of a double feature. As examples, all of the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies and all of the Charlie Chan movies were B; the only exception being the 1939 feature film The Hound of the Baskervilles that launched the series.

There's been a live action Doc Savage movie that mixed several of the early stories into one. The audience laughed at some of the incidents such as having Doc's arm muscles bulge so much when he's pulling a bullet out of the side of a safe that they split the seams of his jacket, even though that's straight out of the book. There was also an anime version of The Lensman made by a Japanese animator who neither understood the material nor had proper permission to make or release it. And yes, they deserve to be made again, along with some of the later Oz stories.

Go fix the fucking border.

These are Democrats; they like the border as it is. It's the Republicans who think it needs fixing.

Well, Tarzan has been done to death, but there's another rip-roaring adventure series Burroughs wrote that takes place on Barsoom, his version of Mars, along with several different races of aliens, including giant Green Martians with four arms, and a set of four novels and a novelette that take place on Amtor AKA Venus. Lots of room for great movies with stories that are new to today's audiences without needing the slightest bit of originality from the screenwriters.

I can well remember when Linda Lovelace was better known than Lady Ada. Does that make me an old phart?

Combined with the robots, the robot could flank just because you feel the need you should have a flank.

You always have two flanks, one on each side, because that's what flanks are. You either need to anchor your flanks on something that the enemy can't get around, such as a river or a ravine, or you need to station some troops to guard your flanks unless you want to have the enemy attack there and roll your entire line up. Using robots there would be reasonable because anybody they detect coming at them can only be the enemy.

What method is best sometimes depends on what you know how to do, not which one is most efficient. I've seen cases where inexperienced coders, or coders whose only computer education was a coding school, have used bubble sorts on files large enough that more efficient sorts would be better simply because that's the only sort they knew.

Now you're adding arbitrary restrictions. Who said that it had to be written in C?

...along with the obvious differences in variable names and such.

Changing the variable names is trivial and doesn't make any difference in how the code runs. What matters is changes in the structure and underlying logic. There's more than one way to do any task on a computer, and using the exact same way as the program you're accused of stealing is a great big red flag, especially to a jury of non-computer people.

Suppose we elected 338 independents to Parliament, each one of them selected through a good election based not on partisanship but on reasonable platforms in an effort to actually represent the wishes of the constituents.

What you would have is exactly what the Confederacy had. With no political parties (although they were starting to form by the time the war ended) the Administration would have to put together a coalition to work on getting each bill passed, expending political capital as needed to bring the members together. Then, once the bill was passed or defeated, the coalition would fall apart, meaning that the whole process of getting together enough votes to get a bill passed would have to be taken again and again and again. A lack of stable groups of members who shared common goals (and that's what parties are, when you come down to it) proved to be a great stumbling block for them because it slowed things down considerably when time was of the essence.

This is like saying Xu Yanjun is in the clear because somebody else leaked the trade secrets to him.

Why wouldn't that work? It worked for the people who published the Pentagon Papers, didn't it?