As someone else pointed out, your answer sounds oh so logical, but suffers from the problem of being false. The VA received a much lager increase in resources than it did patients.
So, explain to me again why I should believe this Administration official when they claim that no private personal information was stolen during this breach? Bear in mind that this official answers to the same people as the IRS officials who claimed that Lois Lerner's emails had been lost due to a hard drive crash, only to admit that backups existed when a judge insisted they testify under oath about exactly what had happened (the judge making it clear that he would hold the specific people who testified accountable for the accuracy of their statements).

Well, at least that is what the government officials are claiming, but these are from the government officials who answer to people who were telling us a few years ago that the VA was the model of ideal healthcare delivery.

No, he was either lying, or he intentionally did not listen to his advisers who were trying to tell him that people would not be able to keep their insurance or their doctors. Well, it is also possible that he assumed that people had voluntarily chosen doctors and insurance they did not like, so would be perfectly happy to give it up for insurance which covered less and cost more and doctors who delivered poorer service (largely because new regulations would require the doctors to spend more time filling out forms for bureaucrats than actually treating their patients).

Except of course when that murderous stalker works for the LAPD (or another police department): http://www.philly.com/philly/n...

Except that Google lobbied against requirements for these cars to have steering wheels and other physical controls.

Translation: "Why should I learn from the mistakes made in the past? I'll just make them all over again. All in the name of progress."

Not a problem, of course, I am sure you will not complain when you are left completely out of the loop while we make decisions which involve your future work responsibilities.

The silliest part of this is that the posts they are claiming are infringing actually increase the value of their product.

Anyone who lacks humility will, sooner or later, make a fool of themselves. However, self-confidence in one's ability is often mistaken for a lack of humility, especially when the one who is self-confident is highly gifted

That is not an obstacle. That is merely less of an incentive.

What that appears to mean is that without the subsidies and questionable business practices, no one in their right mind would buy solar panels for their home. That may not be the case, but the fact that the article fails to spell it out, suggests that it is.

What about those business models is illegal? Is it perhaps something that might reflect badly on the companies that practice it?

I read the article to try and find an example of the sorts of obstacles which "power company executives and regulators" had erected to keep home owners from using sunshine to generate their own electricity and found NONE. The article fails to mention a single one of the rules which prevented Mary Wilkerson (or anybody else) from installing solar panels. They do mention that the business models used by the businesses that sell solar panels are illegal in Florida, but they are less than clear what that business model is. The article says that the solar panel industry leases the panels to the homeowner rather than selling them. They than say that the homeowners sell excess power to the electric companies and pay the cost of the panels over time. What they do not tell us is what part of that business model is illegal.

The article actually seems to say that the low cost of electricity in Florida combined with a failure of the state to subsidize solar power through various incentives (including regulations requiring electric companies to generate some portion of their electric through more expensive "renewable" sources). All in all, it fails to support its thesis that it is harder to install solar panels in Florida than in Massachusetts. All the article does is make the case that it is more expensive.

I can, and do, work in Windows 8 without tweaking it, but it is a pain. Just not enough of a pain to go to the effort of figuring out how to make it work without being a pain (I am aware that I can download and install Classic Shell, but I have seen that on other people's desktops and do not like the look. I do not know if that is because of the way they have configured it, or if it is because of the way Classic Shell just is and have not yet reached the frustration level with 8 to do the work to find out). Windows 7 works for me the way it comes out of the box with minimal modifications that I can make when I decide they are worth the effort. Nothing to download and install.

I did not have to tweak Windows 7 to get it to work for me, nor Windows XP before that.