Some people have more, some have less days off pet week. Days off existed long before unions and even the US of A.

Harper's dictionary says this word is from 1638, you might be a little bit confused about its origin.

So if he is a retail clerk working on weekends he has to thank unions for that?
Or if he is a doctor working Monday and Wednesday and yachting on weekends he has to thank unions for that?
What for exactly?

If Verizon has been losing money by employing these 45K union "workers" then the Labor has won just because they have not been all fired and kept the jobs where they add negative value ( i.e. steal) to the Big Business' bottom line.

If you are trying to present your AGW idiocy as science at least make some effort to make it looking like science and not an elementary school class assignment.
Why the road maintenance impact is not counted? Bikes might not be damaging the pavement as much as semi-trucks during normal operation but on the other hand they tend to create messier accidents than cars.
Where is the account for the showers bikers take at work? Hot water does come (carbon) free.
What about carbon making all the fancy bike gear? I'd imagine some fancy synthetic fiber that goes into $200 biker shirt is not spun from grass.
What about bikers buying bigger cars so they can take their bikes to a trail a dozen times a year?

Oh yeah, that evil Scott Walker, the Union Buster. Poor union bosses lost their jobs of doing nothing, how sad.

Have you seen Monaco Grand Prix or just read that it happens on the street and concluded it goes through traffic? Watch it on youtube - it's a racing track built on the streets (it takes over a month to build), there is no traffic (duh!) other than Formula 1 cars and there are tire walls and deflectors whenever possible. Still I'd like to see what happens when a formula 1 card drives into concrete walls at 150 mph - any particular accidents you had in mind?

1) Any citations to support your claims? I could not find any statistics about mortality of Formula 1 car drivers in street accidents, could possibly have to do with the fact that Formula 1 cars are not allowed on the streets at all and all the accidents happen on specially designed tracks with only other 600kg cars and tire walls to collide with. I somehow doubt that you had "very very very" good chances to survive after driving under a truck in a Formula 1 car, unless they invented some cure for decapitation recently.

2) Death rate per population would be meaningful if the number of vehicles per population and the driving habits had been the same. Death rate per vehicle*Km is much closer (5.7 and 8.5 according to Wiki) and could be explained by the fact that people drive more through urban areas at low speeds in UK.

What you are trying to prove here is that physics are wrong.

It's not Republicans but the Tea Party, the reason you have not seen them taking a stand before is that they have not been elected before. And their motive is nothing but ulterior - during the election they pledged to stop spending money the US does not have and prevent "wealth redistribution" that Obama wants.

Carbon dioxide starts somewhat affecting humans (and presumably other animals) at concentration of 1%, the natural concentration is 0.04% (that's 4 hundredth of a percent) so its concentration, which allegedly rose 2 times over past 100 years, has to raise 25 times more to cause air quality issues. There are way more dangerous substances in the air right now that are already at dangerous levels in many places and fighting those instead of CO2 would actually improve people lives as opposite to Al Gore's net worth.

Yeah, but you are definitely too old to remember your teens. The times when you thought "30" is the end of life and 20 y.o. guys were so smart and cool.

I knew about NASA special forces since 1990. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57qbKeLUpX8

In the US you can see difference between DVD and Bluray movie whenever you can comfortably watch that movie. The difference is not only in the resolution but in the frame rate too. Movies are made in 24 fps, supported by Bluray and expensive TVs while DVD supports only 25 or 30 fps (30 fps in the US) and cheap TVs won't show 24 fps either. A 24 fps video played on a 30 fps device is jerky at any distance ( a PAL 25 fps TV is fine because it just plays the whole movie faster ). There is also an issue with the color reproduction, a single pixel in modern flat panel TVs does not reproduce as many shades as there are in the source so the TV uses process known as "dithering" that works best when you don't see individual pixels and is better the more pixels there are. That is a minor advantage though as a lot of people suffer from color blindness in different degrees and cannot see the color issues even if they sit 1 ft from the screen.

Lenses also become better after people started to use computers to read about them instead of actually using them and comparing results :)
Sure - there are different degrees of aberration on different lenses and yes, in a case of more than 10x times price difference you can see 3x times difference in results. I thought your OP was about comparing cameras in the same price range though, sorry. And I did not mention fixed lenses - it's obvious you can eliminate CA on a fixed lens.

You cannot compensate for chromatic aberration in a zoom with glass elements (because a body of glass won't change its shape under normal conditions), this is the point. Rather you can move the minimum of aberrations in the zoom range. On real cameras it's usually at the tele end (because people usually use a zoom lens as a cheap alternative to a set of teles) on a camera with a fixed lens it's probably up to marketing where to put it.