Considering there was the recent killings of doctors who were trying to educate the unwashed masses on how to prevent or mitigate the spread of Ebola, along with the other attacks and general mistrust of health workers, letting the disease spread might not be a bad option.

Those who don't want to listen to experts die off, those who are too panicked to touch the dead bodies live, and things work themselves out.

Cruel? Maybe. But when you're already putting your life on the line trying to help people and those people attack and kill you, sometimes you have to make the tough decision to let nature take its course.

our so-called representatives voted to bail out the supposed `too big to fail` organizations.

Which was the direct result of the financial industry whining that the proposed regulations would make them less competitive in the markets.

I have an article at home which outlines how the proposed regulations would have either mitigated to a significant degree, or even prevented, the bailout such by requiring higher capital requirements, more diligent use of mark-to-market, risk analysis and so on.

One can blame Congress and the President for agreeing to the bailouts, but there is a direct line between the bailouts and the lack of regulations.

Exactly. Look at how great limited regulation fared in 2006-2008 when the financial industry whined and complained about the "burdensome" regulations that were proposed regarding their use of derivatives, capitalization and related matters.

Not having regulations worked out really well, didn't it? It only cost us taxpayers a few billion dollars to clean up the mess.

So I am a bit confused about why that is a problem. The cost to the insurer of offering maternity care to post-menopausal women should be about zero. Why not tack that onto an otherwise good plan if that's what the law requires? Wouldn't that make more sense than scrapping the plan for such a flimsy reason?

Napalm is quite effective against locusts.

The crops, not so much.

While the lack of knowledge of science might seem to an inhibitor, in this case it was unknowingly a brilliant stroke of luck. By over engineering the house the builder assured its survival under all but the most extreme weather conditions.

Since, at that time, trying to rebuild a house was a long and tedious process (compared to today), the over engineering served to protect the investment. Spend a little extra now instead of a lot more later.

We can't have nice things (chip & pin) because American industry is too cheap to upgrade infrastructure.

No. We can't have nice things because some people think it's acceptable to steal other people's information or works. If people wouldn't steal there would be no need for chip and pin, or even pin.

Further, since we coddle such people when we catch them, this will be an ongoing issue. If you get rid of them you send a clear message that even if it doesn't deter someone, this will be the penalty you will pay if you do the same thing.

Hasn't the RIAA been filing suits against people for downloading music without paying for it for a decade or so?

You paid for this music when you bought the phone.

Keep trying.

You can only lower taxes if you lower your spending. I have yet to see any government entity, Federal or State, do so.

Further, if you have read The Federalist Papers you will see both how naive Madison, Hamilton and Day were on the tax issue, as well as their ideas on taxes in general. They square, more or less, with how things are done in that those who make more should pay more not as a form of punishment but only because they can.

However, this should be taken in context as in their day the difference between the rich and everyone else was just as wide as it is today but it was somewhat easier for a person to move up the financial ladder than it is today for numerous reasons.

As to taxing the rich, see above. It's not a punishment, regardless of what some on the left will say, but only the fact that they can afford to pay more without that extra money affecting their lifestyles. Compare someone making $50K/year who has a 2% increase in their federal tax rate to someone making $250K/year. That 2% impacts them significantly more than the second person even though the amount is more in the latter case.

If we're going to lower taxes we need to make across the board cuts. There are no sacred cows. Reduce the Social Security programs, cut out military projects, stop most food and fuel subsidies, remove tax loopholes and tax benefits to a bare minimum (mortgage deduction, depreciation, etc), and so on.

At this point there is no other way to lower taxes other than cutting what we spend and having, in this case Nevada, spend over $1 billion of its taxpayers money does not help the matter. That lost money has to come from somewhere and it will not be made up by those employed at the plant, those who build the extra road and development, the ones who feed these people and everything else. It won't happen. A large portion of that money will never be recovered in any form.

So the argument becomes, if we want to lower taxes we have to cut our spending or if not, the tax code needs to be rejiggered so more money can be found to keep paying for all the subsidies and the like we keep spending money on.

It happens regularly in this country. The taxpayers get the shaft so private industry doesn't have spend their money. Our football teams (U.S. football, not your football), when they need a new stadium, threaten to take their team to another city unless the taxpayers cough up their money to build the new stadium and related matters, while the team continues to charge exorbitant prices.

This country wastes hundreds of billions of dollars each year by making sure private industry doesn't have to suffer the pangs of going out and getting financing for its projects like the rest of us do when we want to buy a home or do major repairs.

Don't forget we used several trillion dollars to prop up our banks and financial firms when, through their own incompetence, our financial system went into meltdown. These folks then used the taxpayer money to give themselves bonuses for the great job they did AND have told us taxpayers to go pound sand any time it is mentioned they should thank us for protecting them.

For all our talk about free markets and capitalism, we are incrementally closer to fascism than we are to a representative democracy. Industry, as a whole, gets what it wants, even if it means the taxpayers have to bend over and take it.

digital TV broadcasts don't need the full 6MHz of broadcast spectrum that was used for analog TV.

Which is why the signal is worse than analog. Clipping, blocky shadows, dropped signals.

The only time digital has been better was the move to DVD from VHS/Beta and CDs from tape. 78s and 45s are still better than digital.

Maybe the manufacturers of formula can use this as a marketing angle.

If the majority of people would vote (at the ballot and with their wallets) for their own rational self-interests once in a while, and not what the silver-tongued TV sound bite sold to them, this would happen much more often. My cynical side tells me that few will ever appreciate the value of abstract principles in and of themselves, but the self-interest angle should be at least achievable.

Clearly this particular Puritannical (shallow, phoney) "moral" crusade must prevail. We must make certain that small children NEVER see a woman's nipple!

Or he's taking personal responsibility and accepting whatever awaits him because he knew what he did was wrong.

Unlike the guy who deliberately put his equipment in someone else's closet, attempted to hide that equipment, then whined when he was caught and tried to claim he was the victim before he killed himself.