Wow. Such ignorance.

Drop us a line if you ever come back to Earth.

Sure the current administration owns an "industry" that will benefit from these regulations. THE industry, these days: the Federal Government and all of the other governments who will benefit from being the generous philanthropists, handing out health care.... to those who cooperate, at least.

Pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and other businesses aren't funding "hatred" against single payer health care. They don't need to. People read the proposals and see their freedoms being taken away, see themselves being "strongly encouraged" to go in certain directions by a government seeking to force its philosophies and values upon us all, and they naturally reject the ideas. People can see the scumminess of this process and inconsistencies in political pronouncements without some evil corporation hilighting them.

The "hatred" for single payer options comes from a simple fact: people don't all agree that it's a good idea, and resent having it forced upon them.

In many areas roads are just as much about making work as they are about getting cars from place to place.

Decrease maintenance costs and displace plow crews and you take away half of the infrastructure's utility!

Yes, but you can go one step further there: why did the Republican want to beat Obama? Probably because he thought Obama's solutions were not in the best interests of the people.

Back to non-evil.

Since storing movies tends to be a write once activity, would using the various flash options be reliable?

A full season of a TV show or a few movies could fit on a single 4GB card, and the things are small enough to sort and stack just about anywhere. No need to worry about spinning them up once a year, either.

Does anyone know where to get cheap SD cards in bulk?

Maybe the MMPI tests were discredited with respect to hiring uses, but they're still widely used, well researched, and actively developed exams.

Psychology has its factions with different groups not giving sufficient credit to each others' methods much like physics has its string theory believers and dismissers.

That's right: you have no inside knowledge... meaning that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

What you described is simply not how such tests work. They don't look up specific answers to look for the person they want to hire. They analyze the entirety of the test, which includes many, many interrelated questions, to form a more complete picture of the individual.

With very, very few exceptions, individual questions mean absolutely nothing in this sort of test. So no, this question or that question isn't biased against anyone; if you have a problem with the analysis that's one thing, but clearly you don't know anything about that.

In this case the landlord, in the common usage of the term, is the government, not the people.

The government manages the spectrum for the people as it sees fit and has no responsibility to make anyone whole because nothing was taken from them.

The government manages the spectrum for the people as it sees fit and has no responsibility to make anyone whole because nothing was taken from them.

The government manages the spectrum for the people as it sees fit and has no responsibility to make anyone whole because nothing was taken from them.

You really want to go down the road of silly, childish rhetorical devices?

Right then. I owned that spectrum too, so why are only people with TV sets to get the benefit of a $40 coupon?

Clearly that's punishing me, withholding benefit I should be receiving for my share of the rent proceeds.

As I said, the spectrum wasn't owned by the people with the TV sets. It was owned by all citizens, TV sets or no. So let's put the broadcasters' payments into the general fund so that it can benefit all people, the real class of owners, and not just those with obsolete TV sets.

Again: go back and read what I wrote and try again.

You seem to keep bringing up things that in no way contradict what I said.

That's as silly as saying you should be able to go whatever speed you want on the interstates since, after all, you, the People, own them.

The people may very well punish their officials for their management of the spectrum, but that's all it is: political punishment for management. There's no rights involved here, the officials are tasked with proper management, and if they don't properly manage they get replaced.

It hasn't the first thing to do with "the People" or having anything "stolen" from them. These converter boxes are not an attempt to make people whole. It's all just a political calculation whereby the politicians attempt to manage the spectrum and not get fired.

Did the government take the channels from the people with TVs? Did the government walk into their houses, pick up the channels, and walk out? Maybe the consumers left the channels there sitting in their front yard, so the government walked away with them without even a police escort.

No: the government declared its control over all spectrum long ago. These people who are lining up for converters didn't own the spectrum; the government didn't take it from them. They didn't even have the right to broadcast on the spectrum.

So how can one claim that they're owed for their loss? They didn't lose!

The actual mechanisms of the deal are beside the point. You say it was sold to the private entities; others say it was only leased and in fact could not be sold. That sort of detail just doesn't matter.

Fact is, this spectrum wasn't owned by the people with the TV sets. They had no right to the spectrum, and no guarantee that it would remain reserved for analog broadcast, so that was not taken from them.

The broadcasters had a right to the spectrum: they had arranged with the government to insert their signal into a slice of the spectrum. If anyone is having the spectrum taken away, it's the broadcasters.

In the end the consumers bought analog TVs and gambled that they would continue to be compatible going into the future. They had no guarantee that they would be, and so they are owed nothing.

We should have given these people a few years' notice that analog TV would become obsolete, and then encouraged--not required--broadcasters to provide converters to consumers. After all, the consumers are a fundamental part of the broadcasters' business model and they have every reason to want viewers to keep on watching.

But redirecting money (tax dollars or lost revenue from the sale, it doesn't matter) so that these people can have TV? Give me a break.

This is nothing but welfare from a political perspective and a subsidy from a fiscal perspective.

Um.

Go back and read what I wrote and try again.

That's weird... I could have sworn I was at least four digits.

RACISM!