First of all, great article. You really show how dire the situation is out there.

The US spends more on military than all other countries combined. They are spending eighty billion dollars on attack submarines, three billion apiece on new destroyers, and hundreds of billions on two different new models of jet fighter.

All useless for our current situation. Yet the people who need it most, the people whose lives depend directly on military spending---the soldiers themselves---don't have the supplies they need.

Who is going to get fired for this? Who is going to go to jail for this? My guess is no one.

ps- the numbers above I got from a New Yorker article that shows the other side of the funding game:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060807ta_talk_surowiecki

On a recent trip to Bonn, while walking through the part of town that housed the embassies, I was struck by how different the American embassy looked from all others.

Most other embassies were inviting buildings with not even a guard standing outside; no fence and anyone could walk inside.

The American embassy, however, was completely surrounded by 10 foot iron bar fences with armed security at several places around the perimeter. It's a forbidding place. I was scared just walking around it.

I do believe that this is a slightly different issue---American embassies have been terrorist targets for many years. But, then again, so have other countries' embassies.

Why is it that it is only American architecture that is being affected by runaway security concerns? Other countries, too, have suffered from horrible terrorist bombings, but why are there buildings not being fortified to the same extent?

I'm happily married to a "career" woman. She makes more than I do. It's great.

If Noer's article is to be believed, then I should be expecting her to leave me any day now. I can't think of anything more silly.

I can also think of many of my friends and aquaintances happily married and with the woman as the primary bread winner. So far, no divorce and no cheating.

Where did he get this crap?

ps- the google cache of the original forbes article can be found here:

http://tinyurl.com/zonf3

the point/counter-point article is here:

http://tinyurl.com/eh6mo

The use of energy in terms of shipping produce from China or Mexico (arguably) outstrips the environmental degradation caused by purchasing produce locally.

(http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2006/05/18/fromartz/index.html?source=rss)

But as organic farms merge and the business becomes more "efficient", I believe the environmental effects will only become more pronounced. One of the best reasons to buy organic (originally) was because the farm tended to be smaller and run by people who really cared for the land. As organics become commoditized, I doubt that this will remain.

I do think that there are other options.

In Havana, Cuba, because of all the embargoes placed on it by the US, energy is particularly expensive. They have gotten around this by growing 90% of their produce within city limits (http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=150). This is not "organic" produce in the typical usage of the word, but the benefits of this kind of farming, I believe, is far better than what they could do using officially recognized organic methods.

I don't know how feasible this is in more modernized cities, but in the one that I live in, Vancouver, Canada, there is a huge push for community gardens to produce their own veggies that are sold in local markets (can't find any links, though).

The benefits of community gardens actually growing food is tremendous on many levels. Some of these are urbanites getting to know where their food comes from, reduction of transportation wastes, and the greening of the city itself.

OK. Correct me if I'm wrong, but fish move. How can land rights be applied to a resource that is there one day, but gone the next.

Salmon, for example, swim upstream a river to spawn. After they spawn, they swim downstream and they are (relatively) fair game for fishermen. If my rights are for one part of the river and yours are for a part slightly downstream, why would I leave any fish behind for you to catch?

In situations like these, the tragedy of the commons is still there. The land stays put, but the value moves.

I can understand how this might work for lobster, scallops, shrimp, etc who don't move much, but not for anything else.

Like many other posters here, I am simply confused by this article. Never in the history of computing has there been so many opportunities to customize, learn about, and program your computer as so many previous posters have already pointed out.

Is he intimidated by the complexity of modern computers? Is this why he is reluctant to try new things and new languages?

I'm glad that Johnny is not following in his father's footsteps and is putting himself on the line and playing with all these neat, new (for him) toys.

How about just giving him one of those Diebold machines? I hear they are pretty easy to reprogram.