I agree. Between Microsofts Kinect and Apples Siri the interface might get really good. I think it will take a while, eg a few missteps, before either are really good. But I am looking forward to good things with both. I hate using a mouse and attempting to touch a PC display sucks. I really like the apple trackpad. With good interface design the Kinect could make the mouse all but obsolete. (Good logical interface Microsoft. Interface! Come on MS, please think!!!!) I am not sold on the new look (Metro). I am hopefully for the filesystem. And some of the other changes worry me a bit.

What if they actually save money by being more productive?

Right now there really is no indication of a problem. We could ground the fleet over what is probably nothing. But if we do that too many times then airlines go out of business, or at minimum raise prices. Then many more people drive. And, as we all know, driving more leads to a higher fatality rate due to flying being safer.

Most of us are not trained aerospace experts, so let's avoid foolish kneejerk reactions. I would wager there are a lot of people still looking at that plane as it is so new. Lets let them focus where they think they should. They may be some safety issues on the plane. And if so they will likely be fixed before they become problematic.

Partially. High MPG cars tend to be cleaner because they use less fuel. Diesels tend to have a lot more particles. But there are many other factors, including how new the car is and what kind of fuel it is using, and so forth. New Diesels with better fuels have a less particles. The Civic hybrid is an ultra low emission vehicle. That ultra low emission can be achieved even with lower mpg.

How many miles did you go before the software update? I have a 2006 and was getting 45 mpg up to about 60,000 miles. I just got the software update and now get 37. It was an instant drop. I do think the car is mostly designed very well. However, the software has never been as good as the hardware. And, apparently, there is a issue where the battery has too many series connections and not enough parellel connections. This leads to premature failure off a small number of cells within the battery, and consequently, under utilization of any other cell in that series.

15 miles one way does not seem that far.

Where are you going with your comment? You start with "Laws of physics." and go on to state, "The amount of force required to accelerate a vehicle of mass M, from dead stop to speed Y, over time T, does not change. Modern engines have increased by a marginal amount of efficiency at best......"

Are you saying that cars have not improved and will not due to laws of physics?

Also, I have a car with Continuously Variable Transmissions, as do several of my friends. One has over 150,000 miles on with no engine\transmission problems. (Does have issues with all the door handles - but that is another issue) Is that not evidence automotive implementation? Or are you talking about something else?

I wonder how many lives would be saved if we instead put that money towards improving road safety?

I know several people who now drive rather than fly due to TSA. I guess that If they were to go far enough they would fly, but on other trips where driving can a option, but a longer one, they drive. I am sure the number of flight seats not taken due to TSA is far more than 500. Added to privacy issues are increased costs due to security requirements. This too will reduce the amount of flying people are doing.

On side note: You are correct that this is based on air travelers worldwide. I would wager that TSA has more influence in the US than the rest of the world. And I wonder what other changes in overall patterns have occurred. Are there more flights outside of the United States now? Less? Are people taking more longer flights and less shorter flights? Are certain kinds of carriers flying more?

All good examples. I was thinking US and not Europe. Europe tends to tax fuel much more than the US. The US taxes fuel too, but it also subsidies fuel at several stages. I do agree that government subsidies can alter the landscape in a negative way. But, in the US at least, ALL forms of energy are subsidized at some point.

I would also point out that nuclear plants have a very high decommission cost and risk. Even with very high taxes nuclear can be a net cost to governments.

So I think the energy picture is complicated and interwoven with many issues. There is not a single solution. And it is wise to put our eggs in many baskets.

This!
China seems to have a model they use to undercut us on manufacting. They start out cheap and with massive government assistance. Once our companies go under they move up a bit and make some profits. Plus their workers are often treated like fodder.

Sitations?
It is very easy to find tax exemptions for oil and mining exploration. There are even sections in the 1040 instructions for it. I am not a tax expert, but clearly there are government subsidies for fossil fuels.

I too have seen a lot of them. I was just on a flight and several folks on the plane had one. They may not be prevalent in all demographics, but certainly in some they are.

Yeah that bugs me too. As a developer I have been using a lot of tools that are now starting to break with the upgrades. Firefox has started to have some pain with it, and Chrome has become a pretty good browser. Just out of convenience I end up using Chrome more than Firefox now. I do not hate Firefox, but I am starting to like Chrome more.

1. I have observed legal citizens living cheaply and sending most of their money to other counties. And I have observed illegal aliens spending most of the money they earn here. It seems to depend more where their family is, and less on legal status. At any rate, if you study the value of the dollar, then you learn that when lots of currency is sent to a country, and becomes a de facto currency of that country then that increases the value of the dollar.

2. If ALL government jobs are net losses then we should stop building roads, water pipes, sewer pipes, medical research etc. The military folks are all government workers too. So you would want to get rid of them as well. 'nuff said here.

3. This is one half true. Give them opportunities to grow their money and they'll come-a-running to invest. Yep. The rest, utter BS. I would rather invest where I can grow my money at 23% and pay 33% of that in taxes, than where I pay 0 in taxes, but my money only grows at 3%.

4. I am not going to touch the WWII thing because the original poster took a leap from causes of great depression to the start of WWII in one sentence. His attempted point was more on the need for guided capitalism anyway. (I think)