We've all heard the quote, "The best camera is the one that you have with you." (The Internet seems to attribute this to photographer Chase Jarvis). Well, the best computer is the one that I have with me. Sure, my pocket sized Linux based mobile computer which also makes phone calls is far from ideal for gaming, word processing, etc., but it's perfect for when I'm bored at the train station or family reunion or whatever.

In a fast-paced lifestyle, people want a device that can send and receive content and entertainment a few minutes at a time, then go back into their pocket on standby for the next 2 minutes of free time. So, while my laptop might be better suited for many things, my phone is what I use. Some newer phones now are capable of docking with a "lapdock" which essentially turns the phone into a laptop computer with full sized screen and keyboard. With mobile processing power and network speeds increasing rapidly, this new use of mobile phones can easily replace the laptop/netbook/tablet that many people lug around.

For those griping about battery life, you do have a point, but I would counter with this: even with my dual core 4.5" display fancy new cell phone, if I shut off background services and turn off data (essentially reducing it back to only cell phone and PDA functions), I can easily get 2-3 days on one charge.

What I'm saying is, stop thinking about cell phones as such, the name "phone" is just a legacy at this point. They are rapidly evolving, ultra-portable personal computers and entertainment systems. Sell a high quality power drill and call it a "Margarita Mixer", and your customers will bitch that it is a crappy margarita mixer.

Really? As in, a 45% increase in rear-end collisions while decreasing T-bone collisions by 33%? Still worth it given the comparative severity, but I'm just surprised by that high an increase in rear-ends.

Her plan makes sense, but why only apply this to Medicaid dependents? If you are healthy and pay for health insurance, your premiums are driven sky high by the obese and the smokers who are customers of the same insurance company. If I am a physically fit 20-something non-smoker, why should I be paying higher premiums to compensate for the fat ass smokers who go to McDonald's for lunch every day? This is how the insurance industry works; the people who don't make high claims pay for the ones who do, and the insurance company takes a little off the top for themselves. What Brewer doesn't understand is that it isn't just poor fat smokers who are affecting the economy with their poor health choices. The fat smokers who can afford health insurance drive up the costs for the rest of us. When I, having never made a single claim on my health insurance, still have to pay 30% of my income towards it, that hurts the economy as a whole. If we really want to dig into the collective health cost issue, we could also increase taxes on chemical and mining companies for introducing an increased incidence of cancer into our society. We could also require that golf courses pay a levy for their excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides that are known to cause mutations and birth defects that require a lifetime of expensive health care. We could also make bacon illegal, but I really really really really really really really like bacon.