Just the ones I've read:
GERALD'S GAME, by Stephen King
THE PELICAN BRIEF, by John Grisham
WHERE IS JOE MERCHANT? by Jimmy Buffett
OH, THE PLACES YOU'LL GO! by Dr. Seuss

The ones I recognize but have not read:
WAITING TO EXHALE, by Terry McMillan
THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY, by Robert James Waller
DARK FORCE RISING, by Timothy Zahn

I'm all for cutting back the length of copyright, but I believe it's only fair to allow authors to be paid during their lifetime.

I know this was a joke, but personally I can't stand Yahoo FF. ESPN's is far superior IMHO.

The key that my parents, and many of their generation, still don't know exists or how to use?

Not only that, but look at the collections. Books 1-6 are sold as a collection and priced at $59.99. That's still $10 per book. If that price were lowered, the number of people pirating his stuff would be reduced.

Now that's funny, I don't care who you are.

Here you go: http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/41/moodinq-tattoo.shtml?srp=6

Piccadilly Jim, My Man Jeeves, Not George Washington...some of my favorites. Light, easy, quick reads.

I think part of the problem is this whole Black Friday/Cyber Monday mentality that we have now. People will buy shit, because it's now cheaper than normal shit, and then determine who to give the gifts to. It's impersonal and rather than take that approach, I prefer to figure out what I would like to give someone before looking for the best deal available. I know one person (and yes this is a personal anecdote, so take it for what it's worth) who literally stood in line in front of Wal-Mart for hours for their Black Friday specials and bought six (6!) waffle makers to give as gifts to people. Not because they know six people who really want a waffle maker, but because they were on sale. I see that as one of the major reasons the spirit of gift-giving is being frowned upon as "evil consumerism."

It's cosmonaut, get it right or pay the price.

Agreed. I hate to rain on everyone's "Look, Google is doing EVIL!!!" parade, but until the clause in the agreement between UMG and YouTube is disclosed, and I'm proven wrong, I'm more inclined to believe that this is a gross abuse on UMG's part. Google has already reinstated the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCkI5I8vsBg and put the onus of proving copyright infringement on UMG. What is more probable (at least imho) is that UMG and Google did have an agreement that allowed UMG, in good faith, to pull videos thought to be infringing on their content quicker and easier than filing formal DCMA takedown notices. I know this is probably an unpopular sentiment around here, but I'm going to see how this all plays out and how Google responds before picking up my pitchfork.

I still play the game, and Hall of Giants is still one of my favorite maps.

Ars Technica did a write up of this also http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011/06/inside-google-how-the-search-giant-plans-to-go-social.ars/ I read this in their article:

"Right now, Google won't even suggest who should be in your circles. But it has the technology to do so (it's already making suggestions on who you might include on Gmail mailing lists). So in the future it's conceivable that Google might indeed provide plenty of nonbinding suggestions for who you might want it your Circles. "We've got this whole system already in place that hasn't been used that much where we keep track of every time you email someone or chat to them or things like that," says Smarr. "Then we compute affinity scores. So we're able to do suggestions not only about who you should add to a circle, or even what circles you could create out of whole cloth.""

A little concerned over the "things like that"

Ice Pirates, IIRC.