Protip: every country spies.

That's asinine. Since when do educated kids not snoop around for things to play with and get into trouble?

Also, the parent keeping a gun in a bedroom drawer and not locked in a safe with a child in the house is doing it absolutely wrong.

How is it different? The public is legitimately concerned with its safety when firearms are involved. While someone wielding a Bible or campaign pin could technically kill you, it's VASTLY easier for someone wielding a gun to kill you.

Small correction: mode would be the range that the plurality of people belong to, not necessarily (and not likely) the majority.

To a broader point, the median household income is far from meaningless. You just have to have an understanding of what it represents. Yes, that means knowing that 50% of the subject population make more; and 50% make less meaning that, if that stat is taken alone, you can really only tell if you're in the top or bottom half. The more factors you start to look at, the better the information you can gleam about where you fall in the population.

Probably the best example is unemployment. What would a lower median income and higher unemployment/underemployment tell you? It means the jobs aren't necessarily paying that much less than in other places with slightly higher median incomes, just that there are a lot more people making very little on unemployment/underemployment. However, if there's a higher median income AND a higher unemployment/underemployment, you could say that even the lower level jobs in the area are paying pretty well, you just might have a harder time finding one.

Being successful in life has little to do with one's genetic material and a lot to do with one's environment. A person's being on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale is not in and of itself a valid reason to say his or her genes are inferior to those that live more privileged lives.

Also the facts that A) it does not ban game lending and B) the Kinect is only always-on by default and can, in fact, be turned off.

And adjusted for inflation a gallon of gas should have cost $3.11 when the 360 was released, but it didn't. It cost $2.20. You can't use inflation to justify a single good's price change. That's not how it works or how it's intended to be used. Plus, why compare present to past when you have a perfectly good present to present comparison to make? The fact is an XBO will cost 25% more than a PS4 (minus a PS Eye). Each consumer is going to have to make up his/her own mind as to whether or not it's worth that 25% higher price tag.

*Spoiler* (sort of)

I wonder how many people were numbed by the never-ending action and missed Zod kicking the Lex Corp tanker at Superman.

As if anyone would make a Superman reboot and leave Lex Luther out of the multi-movie arc.

*End Spoiler*

You lost right there. How are people still unaware that the Kinect is always-on only by default currently - though that will likely change with all the hostility towards it - and has been explicitly said could be turned off (thus, by definition, NOT "always-on").

^This. Price is so much more important to the average consumer than "I have to plug this thing into my modem/router? OK." If the PS4's Eye was a mandatory bundle with the PS4, the price difference wouldn't be that big of a deal at $40ish; but the full $100 difference will definitely push a lot of consumers to the PS4, especially considering that neither one will let you play your current game library at launch.

That's a blatant lie. A) The CAMERA is not always on ever, especially not by default, so when the system's off the camera's off and B) the MIC is always listening for "Xbox on" assumedly by default (will probably change to an option with factory default = off), but MS has explicitly said that you can turn that setting off

No, it's not new at all, but there is at least one "news" story on it every year.

See here for 2012's, or here for 2011's, here for 2010's, etc., etc.

It's very likely in a planetary system for large bodies to collide. Now, to aid in the planet formation process, those large chunks stick (mostly) together; but, with so many bodies orbiting the star, there will inevitably be some planet-sized bodies that either get decimated by these impacts, lose large masses (see: Earth's Moon) from these impacts, or have their orbits altered and begin a spiral of either death towards their star or loneliness out of their solar system.

Another fair question is how many moons do these planets have? How much is that blob we seen in our telescopes made to seem larger by moons, possibly dozens, orbiting that planet?

The fact that people can't or won't take "proper care" of their pets has little to do with PETA. PETA was around well before this bad economy and will be around long after its full recovery. In the same vein, PETA's existence does not justify their message, nor is their message the truth behind their actions. As has been pointed out in other posts in this thread, PETA's main goal is not that every animal be happy, it's money and always will be. What does suing people in civil court for defamation have to do with animal rights? Jack squat, that's what. Their only motivation in this is cash (and maybe a dash of petty vindictiveness).

War of the Galaxies.