http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... http://www.quora.com/Homelessn...

So maybe not the norm, but it does happen.

I guess I'll have to roll out my usual feedback to Google when they change something: "Stop fixing shit that isn't broken."

While a business shouldn't be allowed to not serve a segment of society, a business shouldn't be forced to contribute to something to which they object (on any grounds, but religious grounds for this argument). So while a bakery should have to sell a pre-made cake/cookie/whatever to any customer that walks in, it shouldn't have to make a cake promoting a gay wedding or a NAMBLA meeting or a Jihad Dance Party or Furry Orgy (I'm not equating those things, I'm just listing things that many people would object to being a part of). In an extreme example, a Jewish-owned bakery shouldn't have to make a cake with a swastika or "Death to Jews" written on it. Some people would see making a cake with a rainbow on it for a gay wedding as just as offensive. Let them believe that and take your business elsewhere - why would you want to give them money in the first place? Bring attention to that business, boycott them, do everything legally possible to embarrass them, but don't force them to go against their beliefs, no matter how wrong you think that those beliefs are.

Parties fight - it's what they do. If they didn't, their "constituents" might go from slightly upset to mildly upset. Good/great Presidents find a way to compromise through all of the fighting. Do you think Reagan didn't fight with Tip? Clinton didn't fight with Newt? You may not agree with what they got passed, but they got shit done.

Then why did the pilots not declare an emergency (or at the least radio someone/anyone) upon seeing the smoke/smelling the fumes? It's not like smoke and fumes make you unconscious immediately.

Yes.

Like annual domain registration fees?

So whoever "owns" it gets a half price discount every year? Brilliant.

Forget genre - his writing is very strong (unless it's mostly written by Wright, and Pegg is taking too much credit, which is doubtful). Take any of the films in the Cornetto trilogy and try and find a serious flaw. I don't mean whether or not you thought it was funny. The screenplays are solid pieces of writing. Just look at the opening scene of Shaun of the Dead: We learn very quickly all we need to know about each main character, the dialogue of the characters completes others sentences in a clever and funny way, and it sets the (I would argue actual) plot in motion by establishing that Shaun is slacker who needs to start caring more about his girlfriend. The zed-words are just the MacGuffin to help show that Shaun really does care. I for one am ecstatic that he'll be on board for the next Star Trek, because I was done with the franchise otherwise.

I actually don't mind games that have a high degree of luck involved, though I prefer somewhere around "low" luck. What I do mind is if that luck knocks a player out of a game well before all of the other participants are out, so that there is extreme downtime for one or more players. Games like Ticket to Ride, Lords of Vegas, Power Grid, etc... deal with this by having all players play until the scoring phase at the end. I played Risk Legacy once, and lost before I even took a turn (!). Sure I got back into the game with reduced resources, but I had already really lost the game. Letting people play (mostly) until the end is probably the single biggest requirement aside from actual fun/interesting mechanics.

Those proposals would hardly make things more efficient. Certainly for the traveler, but (as another reply pointed out) ticket prices would skyrocket and the amount of work each airline has to do would similarly increase. The first part of #2 is already present on every airline's website - there are no hidden fees waiting for you at checkout, unless you count options like wi-fi and early boarding. But every single other proposal (especially #4) would be a nightmare for airlines to implement. If airline travel was the only way to get somewhere, then more regulation would make sense, but we can go by car, train, bus, or boat, so forcing airlines to change their product so drastically because most deem it inconvenient is just not reasonable.

Just implementing this aspect would likely not result in airlines not making a profit, but they would make less of a profit than they currently do, and the point of a business is to make as much profit as possible. There's nothing wrong with charging as much as the market will bear. We all want cheap and plentiful non-stops to every point in the country, but that's just not realistic.

Here's an idea: Start your own airline with these features and see how long it lasts.

No, but if you do that multiple times, they will likely ban you from flying with them.

I truly don't get this. How can you claim that a pricing model is insane when people freely pay that amount? The fare from A to B is directly related to demand for the route flown, and not for how many miles the journey is or how many stops the plane makes. It may not be ideal for the traveler, but there are many alternative methods of travel, so go another way if the price doesn't suit you. There are many things that I don't like about air travel, but weird/high pricing is not the fault of the airlines.

That's not true, or at least it isn't for some airlines. I missed a flight after checking my bag once due to an extraordinarily stupid airline employee and an unusually long security line, and my luggage went without me. To make matters worse, I was put on another airline's plane, and when I got to my destination, I had to wait four hours for my original airline's baggage office to re-open because they only operated two flights a day into/out of that airport, and didn't have full time staff. So delays and costs were involved, but certainly not for the airline.