Not to mention that wildfires are a natural occurrence, and part of the forest life cycle. If they didn't threaten human stuff, the best thing to do would be to let them (the naturally caused ones, anyway) burn themselves out.

Except that if you're highly allergic to something, you risk a good chance of death by NOT having an EpiPen or similar around. If you simply don't have the obscene amount of money they're asking for them, your choices are:
1. Risk death by not having an EpiPen(cil)
2. Risk death (but probably much less so) by constructing your own.

Which would you pick?

Unfortunately, with our idiotic healthcare system here in the US, that logic applies to more than just epinephrine.

And don't let anyone who owns wires or provides service also create/sell content.

Slashdot Editors' Health Concerns Serious, Say Most Commenters in Slashdot Poll.

85.3% think frequent dupes evidence of Alzheimer's.
92.12343% consider recent story selection the result of brain damage from a serious concussion.
5% think editors really born in CowboyNealistan, demand to see birth certificates.

My PIN isn't real, either. It's 342i

Goober :P

I think it might be more accurate to say that most people actually do care. BUT, they also realize that absolutely nothing they do on an individual level will have any impact whatsoever - everyone has to do it, or it's wasted effort. So there's very little incentive to make one's own life more expensive and less pleasant when everyone around you *appears* to not care (because they also all see everyone else not doing anything).

Another interesting thing that might result from reuse: I keep hearing people say, "who would risk their expensive cargo on a used booster?" I wonder if it won't actually turn out that the second, and maybe even third flights of a given booster prove to be more reliable than the first. (basically natural selection rocket-style)

And, IMO, the games are way more fun, even if they're a bit less shiny.

That's actually a great idea. Can't ban something that you can't refer to in legislation! :D

Depends. What situations like this do is put a pretty firm dollar amount on the failures that IT asks for $X to mitigate/prevent. That way, next time they ask for $400k for something to avoid a $2M problem, they can ask in a language that upper management understands, and have memorable evidence to back them up.

Sad that management won't trust the expensive experts they hire, but sometimes it takes an expensive lesson for them to learn (just sucks that the customers usually get screwed in the process).

You forgot C) the lowest common denominator of equipment condition. Vehicle inspection standards in the US are a joke, and there's a lot of cars on the road that shouldn't be going 40 MPH, let alone 80.

You missed the part where the author complains about the "unreasonable" cost, then turns around and lauds Apple... :P

If I had pre-approved vacation with a lot of non-refundable money invested, I would expect the company to reimburse me if they demand I cancel it. In fact, their refusing to do so would be one of those situations where I might quit without notice. It might very well cost me less to go unpaid for the two or three weeks it took to land another job than to cancel the vacation plans! Either get by without me, or hire a contractor.

Holy crap! $8,500? That seems really high. Here are my numbers:

2001 Toyota Solara (yearly, bought new):
Depreciation: $1700
Maint (avg): $500
Insurance: $1150
Gas: ~$1000-1200
Total: $4,550/yr

2008 Porsche Boxster S (yearly, bought used):
Depreciation: $1400
Maint: $800
Insurance: $1000
Gas: $1000-1200
Total: $4,400/yr

Am I missing something (other than the urge to go switch cars every three years)?