That's what I was thinking too; and probably just function like an 18-wheeler where a tire can blow out and there's so much support that the load is still distributed adequately.

Basically, all this means is Google designs like Mack while everyone else designs like Chrysler...

Where I regularly go to lunch, said he freaking loved it. He had never read the graphic novel, and had only seen the previews on TV. To be honest, if Snyder's previous work is any indication, it's a crowd pleaser. Wordiness is really only an issue if you assume the public is so blatantly starved for attractions that they need movies to be just non-stop action scenes. Based on how many people who had never read the books got into the LOTR movies, I'd say the public is pretty damn tolerant of dialogue as long as there's a strong finish.

Here's the thing: you're assuming all trees cut down and processed into paper are grown on land owned by paper manufacturers and mills. You're also assuming that replanting always occurs.

What actually happens is a little different. Let's say I'm a company, and I happen to--for some reason--own a forest. Perhaps I use it for experiments, perhaps for milling. I replant because I have an incentive to keep processing wood or using the forest.

I go bankrupt or get bought.

Now these "friendly" fellows called Asset Strippers come in. They do just as their name implies...and strip my assets. This means removing every conceivable resource from the land, and then selling it for as much money as possible.

The truth is that there hasn't been any money in cutting down forests as a sustainable business for about 10-15 years. So a lot of forestry these days is a consequence of asset stripping, rather than any normal business practice. If the bottom dropped out on timber for paper use, you'd probably see clearcutting from asset strippers cease because the cost of the logging would be greater than the profit to be reaped.

Boom! Problem solved and explained.

Yes it does, but once a criminal is incarcerated, that obligation has been fulfilled. Permanently locking someone up is equally effective as killing them, costs less, and oftentimes gives back to the state in the form of labor performed by the inmate. Do your research, and you'll find that the death penalty is just a way for angry people to try soothe their ills through the deaths of others...which in the end, is why we would be sinking to the level of the criminal.

Exactly! DUE PROCESS. Which is why it's so expensive and makes so little sense. In order to fulfill its obligations, the state wastes so many FTEs on the criminal that it becomes inefficient. I think we can all agree that inefficiency in Government is a bad thing. So why kill 'em? Isn't forcing someone to sit in a cell making license plates for 70 years more vindictive?