BMW, Mercedes, Audi, etc. They make out like bandits because they reprogram 3rd party parts (transmissons etc) explicitly to make sure they can't be replaced by an otherwise identical part bought direct from the 3rd party manufactuer, then their dealers can and do charge like 3x the actual cost for the same thing and pocket the difference.

This is tiresome.
I get this nonsense whenever a major brand decides to ditch a technology.
Normally Apple has been the first, however other follow suite after people realize it isn't that big of a deal.

1. Apple is giving with their phone a converter.
2. Most of the time when people get a second hand device they will get wireless.

I am not trying to sound like an apple apologist but really is the headphone jack that big of a deal?

Or are you angry that the iPhone doesn't have a 25 pin Parallel port so you can connect your old Dot Matrix Printer?

Well the rich/poor divide is a problem.
It is mostly due to both sides not understanding the other.
While many wealthy people worked hard or smart for their wealth. And many poor are there due to slacking off and bad life decisions. It isn't always so cut and dry as the old moral argument for being wealthy. There are degrees of luck especially for the super rich...
IBM may had wanted to have full license over DOS.
HP may had denied woz the rights to the Apple 1
That one lucky incident that got your name out just didn't happen.
Your parents didn't have a few million dollars for you to start out with.
Also for the poor.
You may had to deal with undiagnosed ADD
You could have low level autism without any additional help
The teachers and society said you wouldn't amount to anything
Your parents had no money to give you any advantages
That one chance for a break was lost.

As the rich see it the poor are just being lazy so giving them money will not encourage them to try harder.
While the poor see the rich of just holding onto their money without giving them a break so they can try again.
When you are rich you can take risks as failure is an option and try again. For the poor failure means death.

Ahh VERY interesting.
So all you need is about $500 worth of used broadcast equipment, a bible, a white suit and a fake smile, and you can scam stupid people for donations region-wide on TV for free. Nice.

Right, they didn't recommend charges because the entity that makes the decision about prosecuting wouldn't indict her. Not because they didn't gather ample evidence of her blatant mis-handling of classified material, destruction of records, and lying. The decision wasn't based on the evidence, it was based on whether or not Loretta Lynch would directly or through her underlings, pursue a prosecution. Obama signaled months ago, before the FBI had even been allowed to see much of the evidence, that there was no chance of an indictment on his watch.

But Comey said right to you that his decision about recommending an indictment was based on his assessment of the likelihood that the DoJ would actually prosecute her. It was a 100% political decision that came mere days after Clinton sent her husband to have a one-on-one private meeting with Lynch. Replacing Comey with someone else wouldn't have mattered, because the FBI director doesn't get to decide whether or not the idea of a prosecution will be preemptively shut down by the administration, which it was in this case.

You're falling into the same broken thinking that the cable companies are doing, and assuming the number of subscribers will remain constant if they do nothing, which is clearly false.

$3*n can be more profitable than $10*n, because the value of n will be different in each case.

There is nothing so special about cable TV channels that they should get protection from free market economics. As far as I'm concerned if a channel has no subscribers then it deserves to die. Per your example, IMHO the less crappy evangelist channels we have the better. For me personally the ideal would be zero, but I get that others may not agree. Let them pay for those channels, not me.

Despite the grime. If you leave the disk in, and use the drive it more or less keeps the internals clean. I had worked at factories, where the PC's have been running for decades, when I open them up the area where they are fans are grubby, however places where there is limited airflow they are like new.

A cartridge is mounted in the back.

Currently that generation is called iGen. It will probably change as times goes on. As what we call millennials now use to be gen Y.

No. Business unit managers and officers. Even senior people helping to run his campaign. One of his most frequent PR surrogates is a Latina, not to take the fun out of your jab. Likewise with people from every other color, creed, and walk of life throughout his operations. Probably he doesn't promote too many crazy jihadi wackadoos though. Which is just plain good sense.

If they let people only pay for the channels they want rather than force them to buy a whole package of useless crap, far fewer people would be cutting the cable.
The cable companies have known for years that people want this, but they remain too greedy/arrogant to provide what their own customers actually want, so the market is rightfully killing them off.
At some point they will finally be forced to deal with their own egos just to survive, but by then it will already be way too late for them, because most of their market share will have already moved to other sources such as Netflix, Amazon etc. that already do a much better job of meeting individual needs affordably.

However you have the choice to drop a service if you want. Also many services don't have commercial or limited commercials For cable TV you are paying for 20-30% of adds over your shows.

Its beyond obvious that Comey is Hillary's stooge. Not only from his conclusions into her investigation but when you dig into the other ties between them.
I can't believe how anyone is continuing to take him seriously on anything, especially anything to do with Hillary.
Come to that, I can't believe how he's still employed and continuing to avoid his own prison stretch.

Really? Are you referring to the totally failed, money-wasting exercise on upstate NY revitalization? Or were you referring to her support and vote for the war in Iraq? Or were you referring to all of those other great pieces of legislation she sponsored and saw through ... oh, right, there really weren't any.

Why? Because her phony "reset" stunt with Russia worked out so well? Check with the people in Crimea and throughout Ukraine on that one perhaps. Or were you thinking of her proud handling of the affairs in Libya, where her championing of the use of force to topple the leader there, with essentially no further involvement, has resulted in chaos, death, and the insurgence of whole new ISIS and AQ-style franchises murdering people by the thousands? Yes! Really something to be proud of. Or were you thinking perhaps of her wise ability to so gracefully handle the situation in Syria, which has turned into a calamity for millions of dead and feeling refugees that are now swamping Europe and carrying radical jihadism with them? Yes, that was really a moment of pride, promising but never delivering on the support that the moderate anti-Assad segments of Syrian society needed, allowing the radicals to move in wholesale, followed by Russia and Iran. A real moment of pride, there.

I suppose what you really mean is that she can be proud that she leveraged her position as Secretary of State to get foreign governments to hand millions of dollars to her family business while she was in office, in exchange for better access to her while they had issues in front of the State Department. Yes, by her standards, she should definitely be proud of how wealthy she made her family while she held that public office. Way to go, Hillary!

You're not really saying that you can't understand a rhetorical reference to the rise of ISIS coming from the power vacuum that Obama created by pulling out of Iraq. Really? Or are you that unable to understand those sorts of references?

Right. In practical terms, he can't recommend prosecution because it was clear before hand that Obama's political appointee in charge of the DoJ wasn't going to prosecute his designated successor no matter how clearly the FBI established her trail of untruths and mis-handling of classified material. Loretta Lynch (and thus her boss, Obama) is the decision maker here, not Comey. You're just pretending you don't understand this.

Weaker than the presence of classified material in Patreaus' home safe? Weaker than a bit of sensitive material in the background of a sailor's selfy shot? You know, things that resulted in criminal convictions and even jail time? But her flouting of both administration rules and the law, her possession of many classified documents on unsecure systems and her passing them around to her staff and lawyers (people without security clearances) - that's "weak" by comparison? You're deliberately pretending you don't understand the situation.