By the way, I said "income potential" which is to be considered as an opportunity cost. I am thinking of this purely from an economical standpoint as there are several other non-economic factors which may easily override this. Hence I made no attempt to state what is right/wrong for any given person or family.

This will bite you in the ass... just as soon as your kids are ready to start college (probably at your expense) your parents will be calling dibs on their bedrooms so that you can support them in return... while keeping your kids' tuition paid. It might be worth it, or might not.

Having someone else care for 7 children (even if only 3 were in daycare at any point) would almost certainly be more expensive than working unless his wife had particularly high income potential (if she went to school to be a pri/sec teacher then forget about that.) However it goes without saying that having 7 children is the exception, not the norm.

Given you can pay for $5000 of your annual daycare expenses with completely pre-tax money, for the first child you would have to earn less than minimum wage (working full time) to make that true (assuming the US average center based daycare cost) so I don't think your experience is typical (based on median wage data). If you opt for an in-home care situation (i.e. at your neighbor's place who watches kids for the thrill) then you can probably find a spot for 2 kids on what amounts to a $15/hr wage. Two kids at an average center-based daycare gets tough, and by the time you get to three you are probably in the red unless you make significantly above the US median wage. I have sticker-shocked many prospective parents with cost figures on child care, but always follow it with this: "if you think daycare is expensive, try not working."

That's really only a half-truth. Kids cost either A) the net of the salary the parent gave up to stay at home to raise them or B) the price of the daycare so that the parents can continue to work. The presumption that there is a careerless, stay-at-home parent by default is rather quaint, so A is usually a pretty high number. If you live in a particularly populous area, the cost of B will be rather high if you want your kids to be in a well-staffed facility (and who wouldn't want that?) So, there is a specific and considerable cost to having kids, and backend-loading the cost after your earnings have risen is a very attractive proposition, especially for people who are accustomed to a pretty high standard of living, i.e. a roomy house, vacations, driving a "newer" car, etc.

The "Bad guys" that any subversive gun is intended to defend against is not some random assailant on the street, it's a totalitarian regime in which the occupiers are not going to be as blunt as to simply try to murder all the locals (maybe some of them) rather it's for a guerrilla style resistance to allow bands of "minutemen" to have some chance at putting up a fight with particular tactics. With that, any gun that is not effective at least at 100+ yards (typical duck/shoot situations) is really not going to help, hence why this whole charade was (in the case of WWII) and still is a bad idea.

Outdoor photos (and even some indoor ones) tend to look like complete trash if a camera has no IR filter, so I would venture a guess that it does indeed have a decent IR filter in place.

lolololololololol. Or is it Troooooooooolololololololo?

Anyway, saying that the west had more than a whisper of influence on the resurrection of post-Soviet Russia, you are seriously delusional. They basically took everyone from the old club (Putin included) and shook them up in a snow globe, and let them fall in to place in the new club. Then, they passed a "constitution" that did little more than switch on the faucet of capitalism, and allowed money to gather into any oligarch that still had a piece of Old Russia. Is the west in the picture yet? Nope, didn't think so. Then, as energy prices rose from the rock bottom 80s level, money flew into Russia faster than anyone could even catch it. Billionaires were being minted weekly and so many were from the old party that corruption surged to all time highs. Aha! That's what the west did! They bought all that Russian oil and gas! How dare they, those meddling westerners.

The government's first response to someone who was tasked to keep secrets safe and secure, but instead rounded up many thousands of said very important, sensitive national secrets and shared them with several reporters and then gallivanted across Asia with them in tow, was to call him a traitor? Hmm. How out of line. You can't argue for a second that he didn't completely betray his duties at the NSA, the only outstanding question is whether or not his betrayal was warranted given that the secrets he shared appear to illustrate abuse of power by the NSA. Had he stayed in the US and given his evidence to trusted sources within the US, the government's reaction would have been much different. Grassroots support would have been a lot more organic and presistent, too. The "Free Snowden" crowd can't exactly picket at the Russian embassy with any effect.

Yeah, show them you know your shit, go ahead and make single character changes all over the place to prove them that their system is pointless. Start with /etc/hosts and then work your way down to /etc/fstab.

With tongue removed from cheek, there is a reason CABs exist in the first place, namely that what one person sees as a no-brainer one character change actually impacts availability to a large number of people because they didnt realize what the true scope of the change was.

That reminds me, pick up an IR filter element for my hipster coat button cam...

So to summarize, you (or the hypothetical "you") are not worried that someone would covertly record you without your knowledge, but you are worried that someone with a casual camera will point it at you with only the slightest possible chance of intending to attempt to capture images/video of you? If Google Glass (or just about any other casual camera) were constantly recording/uploading, its tiny battery would wither in minutes. To perform surveillance with it would require dedicated effort, much like the aforementioned hidden cameras. However, the distinction is apparently lost on you in an attempt at privacy-posturing as a replacement for actual privacy.

This has an obvious flaw... It's easy to spot cameras that are *in plain sight* however there are plenty of presently available technologies that completely conceal cameras from view, making this irrelevant to someone really intent on snooping your private information (or posting about you on facebook/google+/etc). Sadly there is no supremely high-tech activity at work in this patent like sending out a flash and scanning for feedback from lenses, instead it is basically an automated anti-glasshole ready to punch anyone who is idly passing by with a recording device, but will completely miss the person with a hidden camera recording them for some time from arms length.

Something is terribly broken at that school... From TFA:

The incident happened in direct contact with one of the boy's teachers. The teacher failed to control the classroom, failed to discipline the antagonists, and apparently failed to report the incident to the administration (wonder why). The boy's only hope is to get the hell out of there, his teacher (and probably most of the administration) is disturbingly incompetent.

When deciding on an app there are only so many variables that come in to play that can allow someone to compare apps:
1. Number of downloads
2. Average review
3. Specific feature list
4. Price
5. "Editor's choice", top search ranking, "top apps" chart, etc

How each are weighted, in which ecosystems, and by demographic would start to expose where the knowledge gap lies and how to close it. Since you sound more like you are interested in a thesis to solve the problem, you should start from the problem and work backward. You need to know what drives purchase decisions before you hope to influence them.