Honestly, I agree that there shouldn't be a tax break for having kids. Still, I think it's simpleminded to look at kids as an expense everyone is forced to bear. Assuming you're in a first world country, who do you think is going to be subsidizing your healthcare, your income, your assisted living, etc. once you retire and stop contributing to the workforce? Who is going to be paying the taxes that support your roads, your police, your fire fighters, and the rest of your infrastructure? It's going to be the kids of today. My guess is they'll spend a hell of a lot more supporting you than you ever spent on them.

To answer the question of "Why aren't fuel cells, not internal combustion engines, the "range extenders" in plug-in hybrid cars?" posed in the TFS...

In this case, the fuel cell is powered by butane. Butane is not readily available, in pure form, in large, easily transferable quantities all over the world. Gasoline, however, is. I understand that butane itself isn't rare, but the ability to get a fair quantity of it safely into my vehicle in a few minutes is.

Seriously? So what? I'm pretty sure that a change in the religious leadership for over 1 billion people spread across the entire globe fits in the "stuff that matters" category. The guidance of the pope strongly influences the way that a very large number of people think about important topics such as family planning, the role of government, charity, women's issues, the relationship between religions, and more.

I'm an atheist from 'Murica and even I understand the potential significance of such a change. I mean, it probably isn't as important as DRM on video games or complaining about Apple, but it merits a spot in the list.

When I was a kid my family didn't have much money. At 12 years old I got a paper route and started earning my own cash. After fixing up my bike and purchasing clothes for school I could spend my money on whatever I wanted. I eventually saved up and purchased a console. I manged two games (at around $49 each) and then decided that the cost was bigger than the benefit. I lived with those two games for around a year an a half. I got by borrowing games from friends and I eventually found a pawn shop that sold used games for $5-$10 per cartridge. Suddenly, games were affordable again. I started stocking up on games and built a love for gaming.

Today I can afford new games. I can afford new consoles and peripherals and subscription fees. I can't say that I pay the prices happily, but I do pay them. In the end, the gaming industry extracts quite a bit of money from me every year. That's money they wouldn't have if they hadn't instilled a love of gaming at a young age.

Today I have kids that love gaming. I want them to develop an appreciation for the things they have so, with the exception of Christmas and birthdays, they have to purchase their own games. They thrive on borrowing games, trading games, and used games. I have no doubt that they will be first in line for new games once they can afford them. In the absence of used games I'd probably buy them new games (but a lesser number than what they get in total today). Still, in today's slow global economy, I have to believe that there are a large number of parents who just don't have this luxury. Parents might be able to make a special Christmas gift of a console for the whole family, but they surely can't regularly spring for a $60 game.

Exactly. At many schools football makes all of the other sports possible. Soccer, volleyball, softball, baseball, swimming, etc. are all financial burdens. The losses from these sports are often 'balanced' by the gains of the football program. If you think it's bad that a given major University might lose a few million a year overall on their athletic program imagine what they would lose without football.

The suit has been filed by AIG shareholders - led by Hank Greenberg (former head and majority shareholder of AIG). He is approaching the AIG board and asking them to join the suit. The board sees the need to listen to his arguments because he is a majority shareholder and has a large number of other shareholders on his side. In short, the board is merely doing its duty and listening to the shareholders who have appointed them.

AIG, at this point, has not joined the lawsuit. At this point, your anger should be directed at the group led by Greenberg. You may also want to note that this is not the first suit that Greenberg has filed regarding this issue. Another similar suit (I believe targeted at the New York branch of the Fed) was recently thrown out. AIG was not party to that suit.

Little, laser-writable stickers that fit over the contactless patch on said games so that your console thinks the game is being played for the first time every time you put on a new sticker.

Have you looked into a DICE integration? I had it on my 2004 330 and my 1999 328. It worked great, took about 30 min to install (no wire cutting, etc) and cost around $100. No, I don't work for the company...

Have you heard of the Wii U?

Might as well take the alliteration in the title all the way.

"I tried very hard not to laugh at them."

They probably got that response whenever they mentioned the fact that they were film majors.

Bezos? Seriously? It seems his company's patents helped take the patent war to its current extremes. I hate the patent war, but I smile a little when I think that it could come 'round to bite Amazon in the ass.

I think we're arguing on different topics and that, as a whole, we don't necessarily disagree. I stated that Jesus never commanded his people to help via government programs. I also stated that people who invest themselves in helping people directly are far more impactful than people who simply pay taxes.

I don't see an objection to either of my points. Instead, you seem to imply that someone paying taxes is far more effective than someone giving money to charity. The example you give here is alms to the poor. That's really reaching for the worst possible example of charity. After all, it was a practice that more or less transformed into a mechanism whereby the ruling class could keep the poor completely destitute - promoted by the church and handily adopted by the government (though the two weren't altogether separate at the time).

I think that there are far more effective charitable endeavors. Evidently, so does the US Gverment who provides funding for a vast number of charities because it believes they are better prepared to address problems at the local level.

All that aside, this point isn't really germane as I'm talking about helping people directly - not necessarily via a charity. Quite a bit apart from what you think I'm saying, I don't think that helping people directly has to be exclusive of paying taxes. I simply believe that those who help directly (help - not hurt as was part of the alms program) can have a greater impact. Don't get me wrong, I see what you are saying - the government allows resources of a great many to be combined; creating substantial impact in a broad area. I don't think it manifests itself the same way at the individual level. There is a family here that has taken in numerous teens that would have otherwise been homeless (in spite of government programs designed to help them). They have raised them as their own and seen most of them off to healthy adult lives. I'd gather that these people have had far more impact on their community than those of their neighbors who simply pay their taxes in full each year. Imagine if the whole world was full of people like this...

It isn't, thus the need for government intervention, but hopefully you now see where I'm coming from when I refer to the impact that an individual can make by directly helping their neighbors.

No - the incorrect assumption is that you can't help people without doing so via the government. I'm not a Christian, but I've spent a significant amount of time studying the teachings the Bible purports to be his (in a collegiate setting). I don't recall Jesus or his disciples ever telling their followers to petition their government to enact laws to help people. They told their followers to help people directly.

Most Christians don't follow that teaching either, but those who do are far more impactful than any of us who simply pay taxes and figure we've done our part.

People like you amuse me. When someone criticizes a non-Christian religion you respond with "Well, the Bible is bad too..."

Why do you feel that everyone that criticizes a non-Judeo-Chrisitian religion must be a Judeo-Christian? Couldn't it be possible, for example, that a person who rejects Islam because of it's seemingly violent nature rejects Judeo-Christianity for the same reason?