It doesn't need to be a credit account, US ATM cards are frequently branded Visa/Mastercard and pay rewards when processed as credit cards (but they come from your account like a debit card, though it usually takes an extra day for processing).

I grab books on CD there before most trips. Fairfax County has a very nice library system and strict enough zoning that the problems an earlier AC referenced are segregated to certain branches.

Each channels fees would massively rise, take a really cheap channel like Bloomberg under a quarter per sub in a basic or premium tier, but $2 if you want it a la carte on C-Band. Most channels would probably be $3-10 and sports channels would be $5-$20. And even with that pricing, many smaller channels wouldn't be able to make up the difference on ads (now they can't show we're in 80million households) and would fold. An awful lot of the small channels with niche audiences are viable because they ride the coattails of ESPN, USA, Bravo, Discovery etc. Take away those coattails and they'll have a much harder time surviving.

But how many people are in the opposite boat as you, who don't watch the channels you want yet pay $0.50-$1.00 per month for them. You might be made worse off by losing their subsidy. The cost of running a channel doesn't decline with fewer subscribers. The most likely result is specialists would be about equal (similar pricing for the channels they watch) but generalists (people who watch a little of many channels would be much worse off). If there were enough generalists who decide to forego the now very expensive bundle, everyoone could be made worse off.

I'd guess they were probably Ukranian.

You're right. If you want to see the result, just take a look at the black inner cities of the US, they're trend downward for marriage started in the 60s rather than the 80s.

Also people tend to be considerably more frank and open when they percieve themselves to be alone in front of a computer rather than talking to someone face to face. Thus, /b/ and divorces.

Everything I saw on Snakes on a Plane prerelease was ironic, very tongue in cheek, but I wasn't surprised that the studios missed the joke.

Considering that there's an entire industry across town from the MPAA who expressly flaunts MPAA ratings and was quite financially viable untill millions of amatures began flooding free product on the internet, I don't think the MPAA's rating system is keeping people from making films.

What do you mean, they just remade that (and did worse) a couple years ago.

There's a nice article on slate by Ken, he knew it was over when he didn't find the last daily double which would have made going into final much more competitive.

What I meant was, in the modern stock market, there's an awful lot of marketing required to investors, too. The CEO's real job is being the top stock salesperson. Good marketing companies are likely to be good at marketing their stock in addition to their products.

Something like 99% of roofies tests come back with nothing but ethanol in the blood.

Absolutely agree. Apple does it much better than the other big companies. Evidence? Look at their MASSIVE stock price premium as compared to quarterly or annual earnings per share. Investors aren't stupid. They know Apple has positioned themselves well.

The true zen investor might say that's a good example of their marketing prowess, as well.

Most of the cost is to US servicepeople (pay for reserve/guard units called up, extra duty pay for actives, hazard pay etc). The rest is the cost of materials, the US is still the largest arms dealer in the world, and most of our military equipment is US made, the main imported product used would be oil/gas.