Who says the network wasn't designed that way on purpose?

I know of malls that have actively resisted efforts to extend public transportation (buses) to their premises. Seems that the management there didn't think that their target demographic (upper-middle class suburbanites with money to burn) have any use for public transportation, or want to shop in an establishment alongside those who do.

Maybe he is auditioning for head writer on the soon to be released Sony PS4 ad campaign?

"How about a bomb anecdote? You know, no punchline, just a really cute story. Or suppose you intended to remark, not as a joke, but as an ironic musing. Are they prepared to make that distinction? Why, I think NOT." George Carlin

For the same reason they haven't flooded any technology market with cheap, high quality goods. Because that is not their stong-point. Cheap, questionable quality (possibly toxic) hearing aids would be their market.

Of course you won't be able to have a Chinese hearing aid if you work for the US Government or want to maintain a US security clearance.

I thought that was the whole point in the first place. Oh, that and crappy flash games.

That includes too many variables to derive any meaningful insight.

Here let me make it worse: In 1950-70 the average American paid 21% of their wage to Housing, Interest, Taxes and Porn... now spends 71% of his income on housing, interest, tax and porn. Clearly we must take action to reverse the unstatainable upward trend in pornography costs.

If a pharma company publicly argues that an old version of its product is unsafe then aren't they opening themselves up to huge liability claims, and even criminal negligence charges if they sat on that information until after they patent version 1.0.1a?

How about this: Allow anyone to take an existing product (even one that is still under patent protection), make is slightly stronger or last slightly longer and allow them to file for a patent on the new product. The original patent owner would still have their patent but the owner of the improved-product patent is not encumbered in anyway by the still existing patent for the inferior=original patent. If minor changes indeed create a new patentable idea then it shouldn't matter who makes them. This would at least prevent the original patent owner from sitting on improvements until 1-day before his existing patent expires. First-to-file might be good for something after all.

In theory in the private health insurance scenario, Mr. Unhealthy will pay more for his than Hal_Porter therefor he is not penalized for Mr. U's lifestyle. Under the national health service scenario HP probably ends up paying more than Mr. U once he ends up on permanent disability due to his poor lifestyle. That's fair right?

Clearly they need to be banned or at least restricted to require the driver has to swap gearboxes every 5 shifts. Anyone who needs to shift more than 5 times must be up to no good.

Yes, the concept you are describing is the conservation of risk. Safer cars make drivers less careful, helmets make bicyclists less careful and drivers (the ones that see them) treat them as less fragile objects, criminals are bolder where the freedom to bear arms is curtailed, and people who know they can get health insurance on their way to the ER are less likely to have it already.

Oh and the one thing improved armor technology is never used for is lightening the load on the soldier, cop etc. The just increase the required protection level and maintain a fixed weight.

Would that be the second plane, which by total coincidence is also the first scheduled to leave?

Without knowing how wide the margin of error is the fact that they were within them is meaningless. My model predicts average global temperatures will drop by 1.27 degrees celsius over the next 5 years (+/- 23.97 degrees). There, I just disproved AGW.

I believe it is safe to assume that they (Walmart) also receives some form of direct compensation as well to host the lockers, either on a fixed monthly or per-use arrangement.