If you are replacing broken plastic parts as na1led suggested, why would they be a different substance? In any case, the parts I immediately thought of were the stupid little plastic brackets that hold my dash panels on. They aren't some hi-tech super material; they're cheapest plastic the manufacturer could get. That's why they broke. I could print replacements out of several stronger materials for a fraction of what the dealer would charge me. (If I didn't like the sweet baling-wire look I've got going.)

Apple claims some rights over what you make using their software. I know of no other software that does this, and the very idea strikes me as objectionable and worthy of ridicule, regardless of practical effect.

I've not used the software, but your description suggests it's a stupidly trivial program that does almost nothing, so maybe it doesn't matter in practical terms. Then again, Apple bothered to add this clause to their EULA, so Apple thinks it matters.

My marriage is a marriage, thank you, and I shall not begin describing it otherwise to please some religion I don't subscribe to. Anybody who wants to start performing and recognizing non-marriage "Religious Unions" is welcome to do so, today.

When you "photoshop" something, literally or figuratively, you know what result you want. If you adjusted your adaptive optics based on whether the image looked like an extra-solar planet, that would be a problem. If you adjust your adaptive optics to make a laser guide star appear the way you know it actually does look, and as a result you start being able to image extra-solar planets, that's not "photoshopping", it's calibration. The friend in question is wrong.

Since you mentioned Buffet, I assumed you meant what he was arguing for in the op-ed that attached his name to the tax debate in the first place. After a bunch of discussion about the fact that dividends and capital gains are why he pays a lower rate than middle income earners, the actual policy proposal is: "I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains". Buffet is definitively arguing for raising his own taxes, and suggest doing it in a way that would be effective.

The 'millionaire' tax I'm familiar with, that Buffet proposed, is a rule saying those whose income exceeds 1 million dollars must pay taxes at a rate equivalent to that of middle-income earners regardless of the source of that income. i.e. It will affect him, because it specifically closes the loophole you mention; that's the whole point.

"We could tax ever dollar of income made over $1 million and it would not cover the shortfall." What numbers are you using to make that calculation? If you have a good source for what the total income over 1 million is, I'm genuinely curious. Effective tax rates in the highest income bracket are the lowest they have been since WWII. Various people are arguing they should be raised, but nobody I know of has suggested raising them to as high a level as they were at under the renowned socialist Ronald Reagan.

L2 is better and cheaper. Besides, putting a telescope on the moon is no reason to put people there. Astronomers today largely use remotely controlled telescopes on the other side of the earth just to avoid having to work the night shift.

If, in this context, "austerity" means something other than "reduced government spending" or "size of the public sector" means something other than "total government spending", you should provide whatever (weird) definitions you are using.

I gave one: 20 seconds of Googling; they are just the first numbers I found. Not a great citation, but the amount of research I'm willing to do in response to your doing none is limited. Now you've done more, and found numbers that say you were wrong by a factor of 3 instead of 10. Well, OK. Personally, I think total spending is a better measure than employees, so this: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year2011_0.html tells me total spending on Education is more than twice total spending on "Protection", which includes the things you worried were left out and firemen to boot.

I'll concede there are problems that ought to be addresses in both our criminal justice and education systems. Indeed, I have never argued otherwise.

You won't have to hold it long. Certainly good ideas that will improve things should be done even if they don't cost anything. Of course, when your economy is deeply depressed due to shortfall of demand, and particularly when monetary policy is exhausted by the zero lower bound, what you desperately need in the short term is for the government to spend more on something. So solutions to societal problems that do involve spending increases would be particularly welcome, especially temporary increases. Personally, I'd go for infrastructure improvement, (because you can do something useful with temporary increases) and an enhanced social safety net (goes away when the economy recovers, automatically comes back next time). Education wouldn't be temporary, but, in my opinion, good solutions are likely to involve spending increases (the other countries that you point out we are doing worse than tend to spend more). I wouldn't go for criminal justice because I don't think the things that are wrong there need spending to fix.

But frankly, if I wanted to have a serious public policy discussion, I wouldn't pick someone who uses North Korea as an example of what a larger public sector would look like, or who says "low wage jobs are plentiful" about today's economy. Sometimes I just take guilty pleasure in pointing out that other people are saying something inane. But I've got my fix now, so I think we're done. Next time, if you want people to take your ideas seriously, don't start off by saying something stupid. By the time you get to "What I actually meant was this totally different thing."... nobody cares. HTH.

"Yea, I was wrong about the DHS. It's the "third largest cabinet department" behind DOD and Veteran's Affairs."

You were wrong twice in a row about a fact whose relevance I can't imagine.

I'm not being contrary to be contrary, I'm being contrary because there is no point discussing your conclusions because I can't even figure out what they are, but I assume they proceed from your premises, which all appear to be wrong.

"Why would you assume I'm advocating austerity,"
You keep making ridiculous suggestions about a large public sector meaning China or North Korea. I assumed the use of such disingenuous arguments was motivated by a belief that a large public sector was bad. Do you favor a smaller public sector but oppose austerity because you fail to understand they are the same thing?

"Still, it's not really fair to compare them to the entire public school system - you would have to include all the local and state police, sheriffs departments, prisons, rangers, etc. And considering the US has the world's largest prison population and really lousy results from the public schools (compared to other first world countries), I can only guess that the police-state size is likely bigger and better funded."

No! You can do more than guess! You can look it up! I myself had no idea, but based on experience guessed that your guess would be wildly wrong. But I didn't stop there, I did a whole 20 seconds of googling, and: there are roughly 700,000 law enforcement personnel in the US and 7 million teachers. Will this data cause you to reconsider your conclusion that the US is a distopian police state? I'm not holding my breath.