This article simply ignores basic economics - the purchase price of an item is fixed, hence the cost of a computer is "sunk" once the transaction is completed. You can't say that the cost of an item changes based on resale value, but you could say that the overall value or benefit of the computer is better for people who sell their computers after a year.

But who does this? Its not a smart strategy, since you'll have to dish out even more cash for the next computer. New computers won't cost less than what you just sold your old computer for, so you've got a net loss on the transaction (new computer purchase price minus cash received from the sale of the old computer). Its far more relevant to note that computers are not an investment. They don't gain in value or appreciate over time - selling used computers is just a way to salvage some of the original expenditure.

The author didn't even attempt to compare similar computers or bother to discuss peripherals. What about repair costs? What about software? What about all of the other differences between Mac and PC systems? What about the transaction costs associated with scrapping your system after a year and restarting on a new machine? You simply can't say that the costs of ownership are limited to the purchase price of the main unit - any computer owner knows this to be false! A better article would examine true costs over the expected life/use of the machine, not some artificial construct dreamed up by the author in an attempt to prove a point.

Most people would agree that a first date can't tell us everything we want to know, especially if you're at dinner trying to "imagine kissing him or holding his hand or touching his shoulders or relaxing on the sofa with a video and popcorn with him." Drinks and dinner may help you decide if you're attracted to him, if he's intellegent, or if he's a good conversationalist - but there's nothing about the typical first date scenario that can help predict intimacy!

If the guy seems interesting, nice, and non-revolting, why not agree to a second or third date to try out some of these more intimate behaviors? I mean, you can imagine what a kiss might be like, but its all just a guessing game until you really try it!

My father served in Vietnam and participated in Rolling Thunder for the first time way back in the late 1980s. It was his first trip to Washington DC and he went specifically to visit the Vietnam Wall. For a man not prone to emotional displays or sentimentality, he'll readily admit to shedding tears that day as he remembered many of his fellow soldiers that didn't make it home. He went during Rolling Thunder because he felt comfortable - he was surrounded by people like him, who first-hand have experienced the guilt, pride, anger, and devotion that comes with serving your country.

So while you roamed an art museum on your day off, many men and women like my father were taking time out of their lives to remember and celebrate the sacrifice of the members of our military. Think about that the next time you're complaining about the inconvenience of thousands of visitors coming to pay their respects at national monuments and cemetaries.

The UASI program does not provide funding to States - it provides funding directly to the nation's largest metropolitan areas. So Wyoming receives no UASI funding whatsoever. The author was probably referencing the State Homeland Security Grant Program, which provides formula-based funding to State and local governments. In the rush to "protect America" after 9/11, the Federal government funded this huge grant program and simply shoved money down the throats of States and local government agencies. These organizations weren't provided the guidance, resources, or support necessary to manage these grants in any strategic way. Add in ever-changing rules, inconsistent funding formulas and allocations, and endless layers of added bureaucracy and its no wonder that the program missed the mark. The many good things that resulted from this program have been overshadowed by the unrealistic expectation that States and local governments are somehow capable of providing homeland security. In many ways, the post-9/11 focus on homeland security felt a lot like the old civil defense days. Katrina and Rita were a grim reminder that we can't abandon our all-hazards approach to preparedness, lest we lose sight of our highest probability risks.