I see your point, but it makes me think... how do you propose to "fix the canals"? Cement the bottom better, or close-over the top? I ask, because I truly don't know the sources of the loss, but....

...if the loss is mostly into the air (evaporation), I agree, that sucks (unless the rain stays somewhat local). I wonder though how many acres of land are "accidentally" watered by seepage/waste/runoff/spillover/outward-gradual-soil-moistening. I'd imagine lots of creatures are making new homes along the shore in previously scrappy (from your description) land. Granted (to play devil's advocate against myself), my gut tells me that (a) it's likely opportunists (weeds and annoying creatures) moving in along the canal, (b) some nice native creatures are being pushed out of their "desert paradise" and (c) it's probably still more net harm than good... I just think it's worth thinking about the upsides of "inefficient water transport" ;-)

Sorry, just in that kind of mood today.

It seems I'm somewhat agreeing with the other replies to your post here, with a "we had useful PhD's at my highly-specialized niche company". We build bespoke data management systems within the financial realm, and one of our best tool/product builders was a PhD (Physics, I think). He was of course "a bit goofy", but very easy to work with, willing to put in long hours and wear a suit if needed on-site. Sad to have lost him, frankly, but the new owners have a hard time seeing salaries that high...

I can guarantee you, from years of overseas consulting, that this is not a US phenomenon.

Just this month, we found out at a non-US client recently that a new build of our server made it from Dev to Prod *untested* by the bank who was implementing it. A sub-beta-build, at that (spot/hot-fix). It treated a certain type of function call differently (almost unarguably better) than before, however we have to defend why the old version "worked"; while on the new server, this causes a "bug" due to a consultant's *cough cough sorry* poor coding.

I'm all for trashing on the US (though shooting fish in a barrel is generally not recognized as sportsmanlike), as I think it's only being intellectually honest to treat all downward-sloping-gradients equally; but please don't believe that we're exceptional in this regard.

Most of the non-bottom-of-the-barrel airlines offer this, for United at least it's called economy plus.

I've flown US->Brazil 6 times in the last year. I've kept an eye open for business class at an affordable price each time, but the difference tends to be $1400 vs $6000 (sometimes 8). Economy plus is an extra ~$115 each way, and gets you 'up to' 5" extra legroom. As an added bonus, you generally get to board early, so the overhead bins will be nice and empty.

Still, I feel your pain. Try to shop around and see if you can find a similar-priced flight on an airline with this option. For me at least, the difference between having that metal bar from the top of the magazine rack (WHY do you need to put a damn metal bar in there! my knees protest verily!) and suffering for days, vs paying the extra $115 or so and getting room to shift my legs freely, is making flying tolerable again.

Best of luck.

One of my favorites was the time when, after getting through security in Zurich on a flight to the US (and mind you, having my ovomaltine crunchy cream (think nutella consistency), a gift for my wife, confiscated; because it's a "liquid"!), being able to buy cask-strength whisky and lighters *in the same shop*, dozens of feet from the gate to my plane.

...(also, yes spellcheck, whisky is the right spelling of that word, considering my heritage).

...your first point may be valid (but really? *this* is what the laws spend time protecting?)... but your second point is handled already by the GP's HS math teacher reference. Or, your own post, which points out that in order to break the average speed >= speed limit rule, your speed must either always equal the speed limit, or have exceeded it at some point.

If you need an in-depth lesson (sans actual math), I recommend the first few lectures from http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/Courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=1413 .

Indeed, re-purposed weapons-grade material is a great source of enriched uranium. In general it's enriched *way* beyond what's needed to run a plant, so can in fact be diluted before being used.

http://www.cfr.org/energy/global-uranium-supply-demand/p14705

...the fun part is that, for a while, this led to mining/processing companies not actually supplying the amounts needed per year. As the flow of HEU from established stockpiles was slowing down, this led the market price to spike - I'm still kicking myself for not investing in uranium-linked financial instruments (for some silly reason they don't just let people buy uranium hexafluoride like many other commodities ;-) ) over the last few decades. Note that recently, due to less-than-expected new reactor building, and a ramp-up in mining/processing, the price has stabilized a bit, but for a while there was a small fortune to be made if you read the supply/demands right.

I did, and unless I'm off today I think you miscalculated. If they had a 15% share, and dropped to 5%, that's a 66.6% loss; if they went from 20% to 2% that's a 90% loss.

Ding ding. I couldn't possibly drive to work. My VP used to, it cost him ~$350/mo for a parking space nearby our office. That's double my monthly train ticket.

I do also consume 5 cups/day of coffee (K-cups, not terribly cheap), with fresh milk. I don't bring my own batteries to work to power my computer. I flush probably 5 toilets/day without paying for the water. I'm typing this post on a computer I didn't pay for...

I'm not saying that taxing services/benefits/freebies/comps/whatever isn't legitimate, but I'd like to see a strict formal definition before deciding whether it's rational.