My only objection is that PBS can easily sustain itself on Sesame Street alone. Nevermind its other properties that make a ton of money on merchandising. It does not need government's money. There are a lot of things that must be cut in order to bring the deficit spending under control. We have a choice, borrow from China and other countries/people or print money in the Fed which devalues the dollar. Devaluing the dollar hurts the poor and middle class more.

I completely agree with this. As a full on Romney supporter, Linus words only reflect poorly on his own judgment, not that of the community's. Linux is still a great OS and group of millions of users and developers. We all have our own political opinions.

Which, for the past 3 months, is exactly what Obama has done - gone on the attack on Romney. Almost all of his ads are negative Romney ads. And that is why Obama's favorabilities are dropping like a rock.

Pretty much every state has the problem of the [insert big city] liberals vs. the rest of the state conservatives. There are some exceptions to this case. (The entire state of NY is pretty much liberal.)

As opposed to, say, when the Clintons, Obama's, or others show up in black southern Baptist churches to campaign? The LDS Church, as an organization, is so strict on the policy of no politics in church that it refuses to allow campaigning, electioneering, voting, or other political actions within the grounds of its properties. There are no speeches at the pulpit or in classes about politics. Romney is about as likely to change government policies or take orders from the Prophet as it was when John F. Kennedy was President and didn't take orders from the Pope or enact government policies that favored his religious beliefs. Or as likely as Harry Reid to do any of that.

That may be true, but it hasn't stopped some POTUS from trying (from any party, Democrat, Republican or Whig). Recently, Obama had issued an EO which most certainly will be heard and struck down in courts, but not until after the election.

Long before there was Fox News, I knew Unions were a bad deal. They were necessary in the early 1900s because of corporate abuses. But the laws have caught up. Now, far too often, Unions prevent bad workers from getting fired, good workers from giving a darn after a few years (because the bad workers have tenure and get paid better), and are a general cancer to business.

Add to that the Unions grease the palms of one particular political party, as the party returns the favors with favorable laws and contracts. The actual workers, middle and poor classes, and the tax payers all get hurt in the process.

I don't think the premise to the question is correct. I'm thinking the rush is to get some of the better Android devices before sales are discontinued. Not that Apple has convinced anyone that a Samsung device is better.

People do react strangely, but one thing about this is not strange - if a desired item is threatened by banning, then that item will see an increase in sales. People want Samsung devices, Said device is about to leave market, better get one before their gone. People want guns. Guns are under constant threat of being confiscated, better stock up before they are no longer available. Incandescent bulbs are going to be discontinued. After a certain time you won't be able to buy them, better stock up now and have years supply of them. (Especially if you live in a cold winter climate.)

For those who don't want to live in the Apple-verse, would like a little more freedom with their devices and apps, and want one of the best Android devices on the market, this is an obvious move. I understand that Apple wishes to protect its properties, but this limits customer choice. They did, after all, get a nearly 5 year headstart with their devices, made billions of dollars from sales and continued cross-market promotions, etc. But Apple won't make one dime off of me.

Before you go and throw a hissy fit about Romney data mining, don't forget that Obama also data mines. But he goes farther in that it will lets you download a mobile app to identify all the Democrats in your area.

Said one Democrat: "I do think it's something useful for them, but it's also creepy," said Lori Carena, 58, a long-time Brooklyn resident, when she was shown the app. "My neighbors across the street can know that I'm a Democrat. I'm not sure I like that." http://www.propublica.org/article/is-your-neighbor-a-democrat-obama-has-an-app-for-that

Of all the games I have ever owned, I have never resold any of them. That's not to say there is no market for it, obviously there is and I am just a number of a data point. My point is that not being able to resell a game, one in which you might want to play again in a few years, is not at the top of a person's list to not buy a game.

At the top of my list is always online. Steam does not have this problem as you can play offline. Many Steam games that are not multiplayer, do not have this requirement. Where a person may run into trouble is when a Steam provided game from, say Atari or Activision, tacks on two or three other DRM schemes on top of Steam's inherent DRM.

There is some truth to that. However, for those of us who only have moderate debt, the cost of living has seriously soared in the past three years. Gas has nearly doubled, which increases food prices. Housing is cheap, if you (l)own a house (low interest rates). But rent is increasing.

I've worked for two companies since I've graduated. The first company gave me a raise the first year. The economy was bad, the company owner projected a bad year = no raises and some people got fired. We ended up in the black and doing well, with the company owner projecting a good year. But still no raises. I left for another company with $15k increase. The company I went to is a consulting company that sent me to a healthcare shop. That healthcare shop hasn't given any substantial raises in several years.

My point is, people are not getting raises, but cost of living is greatly increasing. Our current government overhauled the health provider industry, which is causing a lot of uncertainty about future costs. Add to that they keep threatening to raise taxes on the "top 1%". This causes everyone from small businesses (that fall into that top 1% category, because they are taxed as individuals) to corporations (that have to get a handle on new taxes and government run health insurance). EVERYONE is saving where they can.

So voting for Obama, solidifying the move to economic socialism through higher taxes (See Greece, Italy, France, etc) is preferable to actually spending less, reducing government waste, duplication, government debt, and creating an economic environment that will create jobs with a Romney vote? Curious. I thought we want to improve our economic future and make things better for us and our kids. The opposite is complete government dependence and loss of freedom.

I guess it is just counter-balancing the dead voters, the illegal alien voters, and the union voters that vote early and often...

I still have the braid, solder wire, and flux tip cleaner that I bought back in the late 90s. Yes, it's all been used some, just not a whole lot.