I have lived in numerous major cities, and have not owned a car in about 10 years. I bike, I walk, and if available I take subways/trains. I try to avoid buses as much as possible.

Why? They are the worst form of transportation I can imagine. They are slower than driving (since they have to stop more often than a car on the same route), and only go on pre-determined routes. Subways and trains, while limited to a certain route, at least are quicker than driving. Taxis and other forms of automobile transportation are more expensive, but are faster than a bus. Making a bus free does not change its limitations.

I believe that all pubic transportation should be free (where "free" is defined as "no admission charge") to encourage public transportation. Asking why people do not take buses, though, is not a financial conversation, in my opinion.

Getting people to take public transportation is much more about making it convenient and fast. Does it pick up near where I am beginning my route? Does it drop me off near where I want to go? How much longer will it take than driving?

If you want people out of their cars, solve these questions satisfactorily. Make more and better bike lanes - and even dedicated bike paths. I would even encourage dedicated bus lanes with enforcement. I lived for a while in Boston, where "Bus lane" meant "double park lane".

Having gone through the hiring process a couple of times in the last couple of years, HR and recruiters are the biggest hinderance to companies hiring talented individuals. For a tech position, HR has become a gatekeeper to the hiring manager. Unfortunately they have no knowledge of the position or the technologies.

Certificates get you past this gatekeeper. They are fairly useless otherwise, but since HR has wedged themselves between the candidate and the hiring manager, they become a bit of a necessary evil.

Iâ(TM)m not blaming âoebankersâ exactly, Iâ(TM)m blaming people who loan money to people who are may or may not pay it back and when they dont get paid back they go running to their central banks or governments and demand they get made whole at the expense of everyone else. Same thing happened in the U.S. in 2009 with the TARP and assorted other bail outs.

Yea the rating agencies really sucked especially leading up to the crash in 2008, but it doesnâ(TM)t relieve lenders of ultimate responsibility for their actions. If the credit ratings are wrong its the responsibility of the lender to figure this out, no one else.

Lenders collect interest on their loans partially to cover the potential risk they wont get paid back, the higher that risk the higher the interest they collect. If they collect high interest rates on risky mortgages and then when someone defaults on them central banks and governments make them whole it creates massive moral hazard.

If the Greeks were a bad risk prior to 2008, which they probably were, the interest rates they had to pay should have been higher and they would have been dissuaded from borrowing or lenders would have been dissuaded from lending to them. Instead the EU created a perverse system where risky borrowers (all of the PIIGS) got relatively cheap money and a lot of it and were incentivized to take as much of it as they could. The EU and the lenders are 100% to blame for this situation for throwing the money at them.

The PIIGS shouldâ(TM)ve never entered an economic union with Germany in the first place, they had no chance of competing with Germany locked in to the same currency. It was a win win for Germany on all fronts.

You donâ(TM)t actually know what you are talking about do you.

Most of the loans in question here were in fact loaned by German and French bankers to the Greeks prior to the 2008, Deutsche bank was one of the biggest. They could get somewhat higher returns loaning to Greece and they had some security because Greece was in the Eurozone. That security unravelled with the 2008 crash.

The ECB, EU, IMF gave massive loans to Greece in 2010, and most of it immediately went to extricate the German and French banks from their bad greek loans. If the Greeks has defaulted on the original loans then there would have been a massive banking crisis in Germany and France. The 2010 EU bailout was to save their banks more than it was to help the Greeks.

The Greeks just got more debt piled on top of too much debt and its totally destroyed their economy. Recently released IMF studies confirm the Greeks canâ(TM)t sustain their current debt load and it has to be restructed or they have to default. If they stay the current course with austerity and more and more bailout loans they are doomed.

If the Greeks had been smart they would have exited the EU and defaulted on the debt in 2009 and the people who made the bad loans, the German and French bankers, would have paid the price. Instead they got off scot free.

Iceland immediately defaulted in a similar situation, they had some short term pain but they rebounded, while the Greece has gotten nothing but worse and worse under the yoke of a corrupt European and global banking system.

For banking and loans to work there is a simple rule, if you are foolish enough to make a bad loan to someone who probably wonâ(TM)t pay it back, then you pay the price when they default. Instead the people who make the bad loans (i.e. bankers) get to keep their bonuses profits and everyone else gets to pay for their stupidity, greed and corruption.

You know whats worse than todays pilots flying ancient airplanes, a brand new extravegantly expensive F-35 that cant match an F-16 or F-15E built in the 80s, planes built for a fraction of the price.

The F-35 might be an OK successor to the F-117 as a mostly stealth small bomber, but all indications are its completely worthless in a close in dogfight, you just have to read the leaked report from a recent test against an ancient F-16.

The F-35 simply doesnt have enough power, cant turn fast enough and bleeds off to much energy. The pilot found one manuever he could use to shake the F-16 but it consumed so much energy he had to run away and try to get the energy back.

The F-35 will also be horrible in the close air support role at which the A-10 excels, again at an even smaller fraction of the price tag.

F-35 is a classic jack of all trades and master of none.

There might have been a place for a few hundred of them but for the U.S. and every allied air force to think they are going to use one horrible design to replace every fighter they have is complete insanity. If it ever reaches full deployment, one accident or problem and the entire western world will have no air force. At least the Navy has the sense to keep the F-18 alive.

The F-35 is a tribute to the extent Lockheed has seized total control of Congress and the Pentagon, they could literally sell the Air Force actual turkeys for a hundred million a pop and get away with it.

Those B-52â(TM)s still flying today is because Northrop, has also seized control of the Air Forces generals made the B-2 so expensive and so few in number the Air Force canâ(TM)t afford to risk it in combat.

Besides the U.S. has been fighting people living in mud huts who have no air force and air defenses for over a decade, B-52â(TM)s and A-10â(TM)s work incredibly well in that role.

As another thought experiment, imagine that there was a horse with the following properties:
- Pink in color
- Of appealing physical proportions
- Has a single long, straight horn projecting from its forehead.
- Possesses the ability to fly.

It would undoubtedly have significant value to collectors, and I would certainly want one.

If you're concerned about delays, then for an annual fee you could sign up to be PreWeighed by the TSA. Then you could breeze right by the passengers waiting in line at the scale.

I definitely think there are games out there fitting my needs - as I said, I place the blame partly on me for not wanting to do the research to find them.

I do agree that there are a lot of casual "Play this game on the bus on the way to work" games out there for mobile devices. Mobile device gameplay is a whole other ball of wax, though. I would prefer to sit down in front of a large screen and use physical buttons. I suppose I am just old like that. I can see the appeal of mobile gaming, and have played a few over the years.

I suppose one drawback to mobile gaming is the lack of socialization. I am not one to sit down and play a video game on my own very often. I would much rather play in a group. The few games I keep on my iPhone are mobile versions of board games that I play against other people via Game Center.

Growing up in the 80's, I played video games quite frequently. Now, though, I find myself avoiding them.

One reason is cost. I realize the cost really has probably not gone up that significantly from the NES days, but at that time it was my parents paying for a new console and games. Now I have to figure out how to justify a $60 game.

Another reason is that I much more enjoy a "play for 10-30 minutes, have fun, and then walk away" type of game. MarioKart is a great example of this. I can play with 0-3 other people and have fun. We can play for 10 minutes, or we can play for an hour. When we get done I can put the controller down and not feel like there is more to do. The playability even remains after I have "beat the game". Commingled in there is an easy learning curve. Sure, the game might be challenging, but I do not want to spend an hour just getting the basic controls figured out.

I am sure there are more games that fit this description, but as a casual gamer I am not willing to do the research just to figure out what games are out there. It is far easier to load up an emulator and play the original Castlevania for NES.

The games described int he article do seem to be closer to the type of game I would like to play.

No, maybe you should show me your plan to produce rice that is profitable at $1.29 per pound retail using only desalinated water.

Desalinization costs around $2000 per acre-foot. Beef production uses around 1800 gallons per pound. Feeding cows from California-grown crops would therefore tack more than $11 per pound onto the price of beef. Almonds use a similar amount of water per pound as beef, so would face a similar markup.

Rice needs 300 gal/pound, which would add $1.84 per pound to its price. Maybe Israelis pay these kinds of prices for their food. However, that's simply not realistic for this country. We'd shift to imports or food grown in other states before paying for staple crops grown with desalinized water.

You'll have to use "Ctl+[".

Why not?

Because in the real world, it's NOT simple to move water around at all. Moving water around has involved some of the most expensive undertakings this country has ever attempted, and has been responsible for massive environmental damage and the disruption of the livelihoods of countless people.

Moreover, the water has to come from somewhere. If you hadn't noticed, the entire western US has almost no extra water. Precipitation is simply not refilling the original sources of Western water supplies. Maybe you think it's cheap and easy to pipe it over the continental divide, after somehow wresting water rights from people in the East. If so, you're an ignoramus.

And desalinization is totally unrealistic to address anything but urban water use, which is a drop in the bucket.

I don't know why you're surprised by "weird nastiness" over water rights. Civilizations all over the world have been highly protective of their water rights for millennia, and many wars have been fought over water. Fresh water is probably the single most important resource on the planet, and nobody is going to give up their water without a fight, even if they're not using all of it at this exact moment. There is simply not going to be any Kumbaya solution to these issues.

I'm harmed because huge water boondoggles are usually bankrolled by the Federal government.

Why don't you look at my original post, where I said your white elephant projects are fine, as long as it's 100% paid for by the people who chose to live there.

And while you're at it, why don't cut out the passive-aggressive fake empathy that drips from every one of your posts? It's not fooling anyone.

Because I don't want to get stuck with the bill for their stupid decisions.

They should find that they can live better lives by moving to where conditions are more suitable to human habitation.