This contains a pronouncement of truth "The truth is that we cannot...." which isn't really true, and/or terms (such as "distant past", "virtual", and "real" are so poorly understood or undefined that the pronouncement fails to communicate something which actually is true.

Also, the egg did, in fact, precede the chicken, (as another poster pointed out, there were animals that laid eggs, and one of them laid the egg of the first chicken).

The statement about people "who believe science can offer more than a theory" appears to capitalize on misunderstanding of the scientific method, as if a "theory" were a "hypothesis". This statement (and the rest of the post) also appears to completely discount empirical evidence, (without which, oddly enough, "faithful" people could not learn or develop "divine" explanations.)

Hmmm.... I wonder if the major effect of this will be for people to use more live musicians instead of recorded music.

As long as the purchaser or recipient understands the limitation before buying or accepting the gift, there's nothing wrong with selling or giving the modified device.

If he misrepresented the device as being in "like new" condition, that would be different.

I bet HP doesn't want to fight a PR battle with a major customer and potential customer. Anything substantive they say about this would probably be in the course of a formal investigation.

Hmmm... Maybe I'm reading this wrong and this is really a political battle between the Comptroller and the Deputy mayor for Operations, where the Comptroller is trying to pin the blame for what he asserts is an overly expensive project on the Operations guy.

No, in other words, the Comptroller is deliberately making it SOUND as if HP and NYC weren't using change control documents.

I don't know what the political situation is, but I'm SURE that the comptroller's office is trying to assert that cost overruns are the fault of somebody other than the city, and trying to force the contract's cost penalty (to the contractor) provisions to kick in, thus saving the city money.

It's not strictly true that "no public insurance companies sell flood insurance" but you're generally right, it's not like a traditional insurance model because of the federal legislation regarding flood insurance requirements and the involvement of FEMA. From the page linked here:
"Today, flood insurance is available in more than 20,000 communities and U.S. territories and there are about 100 private insurance companies nationally that offer flood insurance backed by the government. Although federal assistance is still a vital part of disaster recovery, the NFIP saves the United States taxpayer millions of dollars every year."

Shush, you... If you give them the idea, you KNOW they'll do exactly that!

A fake moon landing? ;-)

According the the Deputy Mayor for Operations, nothing was overbilled.

The reason these giant IT projects almost always cost more than the original bid is that the purchasing entity (NYC in this case) frequently either hides or isn't aware of some of the items that will affect the cost.

In a bad economic environment, this means there's ALWAYS someone saying "that company screwed this system up, delivered late, overbudget, and violated the terms of the contract!" Sometimes it's true that the contractor screwed up, but frequently the purchaser makes it impossible to deliver according to original cost projections.

Yikes; said that last part backward. Should have been:

"Therefore, most insurance companies will (maybe already do) refuse to write flood insurance policies in NC. The only way people would be able to get flood insurance is through a public pool (huh-huh) backed by FEMA."

Insurance-wise, I expect this:
I suspect that the law is currently that the insurance companies are only ALLOWED to consider historical flood data when formulating their rates.

Therefore, few (if any) insurance companies will (maybe already do) refuse to write flood insurance policies in NC. The only way people would be able to get flood insurance is through a public pool (huh-huh) backed by FEMA.

I look down on the vendors who are exploiting people's worst instincts, not the people who are thirsty, and happen to like soda. Many people cannot resist buying when the price looks good. The same principle causes people to make purchase decisions like "oh, that's on sale for only 2 for $1... Yeah, I'll get 2 of them, then."

I don't know if the fact that I don't buy drinks from vendors or vending machines means I'm a cheapskate, or health-conscious. However, I have learned that there's almost always a water fountain, or they'll give you a water cup for cheap.

Hmmm. Maybe I'm not as smart as the vendors who are charging $1 for $0.1 worth of product people don't really want.

You don't get it. This is a proposal that curbs the ability of Machiavellian vendors to profit because of people's misunderstanding of basic economics. It's a regulation of the vendors, not the buyers.

Here's how it works:
Most people don't really want the oversized cup. The theaters, stadiums, etc sell it because people will pay $1 more for a larger amount that has an incremental cost for the vendor that is significantly less than selling another cup.

In other words, the vendors sell it for no other reason that it's insanely profitable to get people to pay more for something they don't need at all (but feel as if they should want because it seems like a good price for the excess amount). People see that the second 16 ounces cost significantly less than the first 16 ounces, so they feel compelled to buy it in order to get "a good deal". However, most buyers don't consider that the value to them of the second 16 ounces is close to $0, but they're paying close to $1 for it.

True- thank you for the informative links. To complete the picture in the US, here's the US Census data about surnames from the 2000 census.