It comes with a vastly superior OS. It will be interesting to see what those resale values do when people realize that you should be able to take an old windoze box, format the hard drive to get rid of the windoze crap, and mount OS X written for a CISC processor on it. You could, of course, skip Apple's implementation of the BSD version of Unix and go straight to Linux (which I've done) but Linux doesn't have brand recognition that Apple does.

(this was processed by an Apple G5)

And when he suspends elections in accordance with the Patriot Act and sweeps away the last remnants of the old republic, you'll be able to see new depths into which we can fall.

Two Comments:

1. What business does the federal government have in solving this problem that the power companies have? Especially with idiots like Jeff Sessions being the federal government's nosey parker.

2. A number of years ago I read a quotation that ran something like:

Today's youth are atrocious. They disrespect their parents; they ignore their elders and teachers; they are lazy and are only interested in pleasure

The source of the quotation is a gentleman by the name of Aristotle. 3,000 years and countless generations of atrocious youths later, we're still here. So when somebody like Sessions shoots his mouth off about "slacker" youth he has august company. Not that either one of them knows what they're talking about.

I couldn't agree more.

I won't take issue with your description of the A380. A picture of elegance, it ain't. I will take issue with your claim to not be known in the aviation media. There I was at the Der Speigel website and what should I see? Your column today on the A380.

So you certainly must be known, if not famous.

And we wouldn't have a divorce problem if people didn't get married. And that's not the simpleminded suggestion I know it sounds like but I don't feel like elaborating on it for everybody's edification. Suffice it to say that I am categorically opposed to marriage (based on experience) and favor what I would think you lot would prefer: POSSLQdom.

I would like to add that Idaho does not look like the 1950s. I know because (a) I lived through the 1950s and (b) I now live in Idaho. Of course, you may be thinking of the southern part of the state which is really part of Utah.

has had a few successes. You identify one. It has a much longer list of failures.

And, what private company in their right mind would compete against an organization backed by the deep pockets of a sovereign nation? Boeing is doing it against Airbus but they are a very established company.

As you inadvertently note, the power to tax is the power to destroy, not promote. Not identified as manufacturing in Korea? Hello, 20% extra tax bite. You may like the idea of governments making business decisions but, then again, you're not in business.

I personally find this whole creationism vs evolution argument hilarious. It brings to mind a conversation I had with a guy I carpooled into work with years and years ago. Stan is a born again Christian and a firm believer in creationism. I am neither. He was constantly trying to push his creationism/ID at me and I was constantly poking holes in it.

One particular conversation which started with Stan jumping up and down about something Steven Gould had said and went around and around until he just about shouted in frustration: "Well, what DO you believe?" And this is what I said: "Stan, I don't BELIEVE anything or, at least, not very much. In the world of scientific hypotheses and theories, the only thing you get is the best explanation. Someone proposes a hypothesis to explain an observed phenomenon. One then tests the hypothesis by looking at the hypothesis itself and/or its implications to see if what the hypothesis predicts can be observed. If you observe the prediction, then you can claim confirmation of the hypothesis. After a hypothesis has been confirmed in numerous different ways, on numerous occasions, by numerous different researchers, someone bestows the moniker theory on your hypothesis. That still doesn't mean I believe it. It means that I accept it as the best explanation and use it to understand other phenomena related to it. But that's not the end of it. Someone could propose a new hypothesis that does a better job of explaining the observed phenomenon and I would start using that hypothesis. Unfortunately, creationism doesn't rise to that standard because (a) none of the phenomena predicted by this theory have been observed and (b) your arguments about the dating process require that I suspend vast stretches of atomic theory that has been demonstrated over and over again."

So what do you teach the kids? Well, you don't teach them a theory that is as full of holes as Swiss cheese (If they want to teach creationism, they have to include the flying spaghetti monster). But you don't teach them evolution as pravda (Russian for "the ultimate truth") either. Evolution has its issues and those are being looked into. Stay tuned. However, those issues are very unlikely to be resolved by the acceptance of creationism as the correct answer. Until and unless creationism is scientifically proven, it should be taught for what it is: the Jewish creation myth. As such, it is neither better nor worse than anybody else's creation myth. And leave us not forget, creation myths are like assholes; every religion and society has one and they're all different.

"an artificial construct, rooted in class structures that no longer exist" which isn't to say that there aren't elements of that. You almost get to the correct answer on page 2. To put it succinctly, manners (or civility if you wish) are the grease that lubricates human interaction. Your car's motor won't run without lubrication, neither will human relations.