Mergers work in some industries like banking where you can spread the costs of developing online services and backroom operations over a larger group of customers. But the airlines just fly one airplane at a time with the same compliment of crew. There's no economy of scale.

Also for the poster who said flying was better in the old days, I actually disagree. Planes used to be much less mechanically reliable and were for prone to lengthy delays for that reason. Plus, smoking was allowed on all airplanes and in the terminals too. Yuck. And flying was much more expensive. The first few times I went to Europe was on a student charter because the cost of buying a ticket on a scheduled airline was prohibitive. Now a ticket to Europe costs the equivalent of a couple fancy dinners out.

I don't get these mergers. What advantage does a large airline have over a smaller one? The big money seems to be made with start ups like Southwest (70s) and JetBlue (90s). The legacy carriers are struggling on, but hardly employing a size advantage. Plus, if they merge and there are layoffs, the newer, lower paid pilots will be the first to go, leaving the surviving carrier with higher pilot costs. There's a saying on Wall Street -- two losers don't make a winner.

Isn't Romney quiting to support the war just a variation on fellow Massachusetts official John Kerry quiting the Democratic race to oppose the war as he said last year. Isn't there more than one speechwriter in Boston these days?

What the UC scientists failed to notice is the difference between energy used to generate electricity and energy that can power a car or other mobile vehicle. Coal is abundant and can generate electricty but cannot easily be used in a car. Even though ethanol absorbs many energy inputs in terms of fertilizers and electricty to run the plant, the result is a form of energy that can be used in a car. The talk about carbon in the atmosphere etc., misses the point that ethanol can power a car.

Hillary's problem in Iowa was that she only polled well among women over 60. Younger women went for Obama. So who does Hillary get to write an op-ed piece for her in the New York Times? A 73-year-old woman. She's got to convert new voters, not just preach to the choir. Iowa showed her choir wasn't large enough. She needs to reach out. Plus, Steinem is a notorious man hater and a lot of people secretly fear that Hillary also is not only pro woman but anti man. And Bill certainly gave her plenty of reasons to hate all men.

Why doesn't Oprah cut the middleman and run for president herself. She is certainly more qualified than most of the candidates now in the field. I don't think Hilary's six years in the senate match up with Oprah's 20 years interviewing everybody in the world, running her own production company and speaking out in all sorts of forums. I can guarantee you that if Oprah ran, she wouldn't have to wait for a recount in Fort Lauderdale to see if she won. Plus, she would raise world admiration of America 100 fold.

The subtext to all this is that 1. Gays should be fired. 2. Gays are subject to and engage in sleezy blackmail and shouldn't be trusted. 3. Gay sex is dirty and shameful and occurs in public rest rooms.

I think the weather probably limits the amount of toplessness that occurs in Sweden. Maybe a few days in the summer, but mostly it's a country to bundle up. I'm also interested in the thought that Sweden would want to desexualize anything since it has the lowest marriage rate, the lowest birth rate (and probably lowest sexuality rate) and the highest suicide rate in the world.

All Apple computers ads are BS. I used one for a long time and used a PC too. Apple kept running these commercials about how superior their's was, and it just wasn't true. Wasn't true in the slightest. The only difference was how often you clicked the mouse in certain situations. But then again, the teller at the bank never knows your name, the telemarketing lady at Time Magazine isn't a glamorous babe, and you will likely never drive your car on Route One North of San Francisco.

The cost benefitters are missing the point that you're going to spend the money anyway. Can't take it with you, doncha know. People without kids eat out at swankier restaurants, take more elaborate vacations (one of my childless aunts bicycled through China the summer we went to Hershey Park), buy boats or vacation homes, buy more expensive furniture and furnishings, buy fancier cars, dress in the latest fashions etc. They may even stop working in their 50s instead of their 60s. When they die, people write on their gravestone "No Runs, No Hits, No errors."

I'm not saying Smart doesn't have some applications, just that it's not going to be profitable in the US. By the way, it isn't profitable in Europe either. Particularly when they settled the lawsuits about the Smart slipping on ice.

Mercedes just blew $37 billion on Chrysler. They bought it for billions, invested billions more in Chrysler and just paid a company to take it off their hands. So we ain't talking business geniuses here.

Here's the scenario. Smart will be introduced and the general media will give it fanfare like the Iphone. Sales will be quick the first few months and there might be a waiting list as early acquirers buy it. In three years sales will tank as the fad ends, the car has no resale value, and the quality is revealed to be marginal.

Mercedes will then write off the whole thing losing billions more for their shareholders.