birdog1960

ding, ding, ding....wiener. i mean winner! not a winner but thoughtful. that's right in there too...

it has to do with compression of signal. see rudolfo's post here http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14882

a few years back they only had wireless transmitters that could send signal to 1 receiver. don't know if they've perfected a system yet with more than 1 receiver but this would make running wire all over your house completely unnecessary and also eliminate the need for things like DTV's genie if you were happy watching the same show in every room. opens up lots of possiblities like sending roku or apple tv signals to other displays as well. also allows for watching a tv out on your patio or yard. range was claimed to be about 100 feet i think.

components have more signal loss in my experience than hdmi. 50 ft is pushing it. for a run that long, i'd consider a wireless hdmi. had one that worked beautifully in my old house.

many of the geeks on avs forum swear by monoprice cables. i have mostly amazon's proprietary brand around my home and they work fine and are cheap. theoretically, some signal loss could occur with long runs of cable to the point where you have inadequate signal make it from the source to the display resulting in no picture. i run 25 ft of no name hdmi cable to my projector and have never had this happen. i wouldn't worry about it. for A LOT more discussion on this and other cabling topics, go to avs forum.

i think there's more to the bottom line than this but it's definitely about the bottom line. I think the nfl and many others sense a paradigm shift in television overall and their sense appears correct. the networks and especially the local affiliates become less relevant and important every day. they really are just content providers now. and there are plenty of other choices for content excluding sports, right now. hbo arguably produces better primetime shows than any of the "major" networks. even fx is producing better shows imo. the nfl can broadcast their own games if necessary. they've been pretty successful at this on a limited pilot scale with the nfl network. they won't or even possibly don't now need the networks for this task. other sports will likely follow suit if they can afford it. it might be a while more, but i'll bet we're headed away from the networks and towards google/apple etc as the mainstream and dominant sources of our tv enetertainment including sports.

underrated but rising fast: pokey lafarge http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SUAunAV2HQ.

and this: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/cbs-vs-time-warner-cable-death-match-win-145845398.html

i'm thinking we're witnessing the beginning of the decline of cable/satellite tv and that's just fine with me. sports are their last exclusive product if you can get over the air networks (and maybe even without that if apple or google make a deal with them). i saw a business estimate that cable/satellite subscribers are paying $50/ month for sports when the numbers are crunched. for now, many are paying it but google winning sunday ticket would be a dagger to the heart. and the issue of incompatible tv's becomes moot if you can recoup the relatively low cost of a $3-400 hdtv in a few months of nonexistent cable bills. i don't believe google and the nil would even be meeting if the streaming capacity for sunday ticket wasn't currently available. linky:http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/sports-last-barrier-cutting-cord-174048139.html

don't be obtuse. it's about regulation or lack there of including wage standards.

i wonder what friedman would comment here. "they were fortunate to have jobs"? just great...eugenics. not even venturing near there. it's much the same for me with you and 3rd

do you remember this?http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/asia/hundreds-die-in-factory-fires-in-pakistan.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. maybe i shouldn't assume that you'll see the connection between this event and your question, but i will anyway.

i'd diasgram the logical sequence of this argument but i doubt it would help.

absolutely true. sweatshops and peasant labor still are quite prevelant in places where they've not been made illegal.if by "stewing", you mean complaining about employers exploiting workers and consequently taxpayers, then i disagree. but i don't think that's what you mean.

how many fast food workers live in subsidized housing (eg "projects") would you estimate? it wouldn't surprise me if sf was a bit ahead of the curve on this but it's far from a generalized phenomenon.

answer: because many are being subsidized by taxpayers through various gov't programs to compensate for their low pay. firstly, there aren't near enough jobs right now for many folks to be able to work 80 hours. if a significant portion of the population did this, the unemployment rate would be even higher. secondly, they already are subsidized for subsistence. raising the minimum wage will shift that cost from gov't to employer. therefore, i don't think mandating or incentivizing working 80 hours is a good thing.

he made 10k or about 800/mo. even in rural va, rents are $500-600 for trailers. lets say he had a roomate. so lets say $300 for him. how much you wanna allocate for food and transport, clothes and hygeine? it's gonna be pretty tight if ends meet at all. so that's where the likelihood of subsidy comes from. if you think i meant that the pay for the internship from his cheap employer was directly subsidized, you misunderstood. have always provided full benefits including low deductible health insurance.. $10 was the lowest starting pay which usually rapidly increased and that was several years ago before i became an employee myself. even now, 25% above, min wage.

i'm shocked. milton friedman opposes minimum wage laws. stop the presses...

what's a 1 bedroom apt go for in sf? even divided by 3, it's not gonna leave much on minimum wage. and before you say they should live away from the city, how do they get to work? btw, your example doesn'tr help your case. a guy making 200k with nthat living standard makes it even more likely that $7.25 is inadequate to survive.

a little lesson in contraception: even tubal ligations can fail.

if you haven't gotten "hbo go" yet, do it. it's free and streams to my apple tv. i think it can stream to multiple devices. can see recent episodes from all recent series and movies on demand. also can watch on your computer.

my point is the same as it was initially. that underpaid internship was likely subsidized by someone, most likely the gov't. so his cheap employer benefits while he and nearly everyone else loses. the populace is aging but there still plenty of folks below working age. so the answer is clearly "no".

so, what would have happened had you developed pneumoniaand missed weeks of work? weren't you trying to treat an ear infection with chants and ashes last year? how bout if your transmission went on your car? what if you got your girlfriend prenant? do you benefit from any form of gov't assistance? food stamps, subsidized housing, subsidized transport? was there non gov'yt subsidies like living in your parents basement?

not necessarily handicapped. is an IQ of 80 handicapped? is someone with 25th percentile intelligence likely ever to work as a fast food manager? are they likely ever to make more than minimum wagew? by definition, this is 25% of the population and even that number is arbitratry. it may be more like 30-40 that are destined for such work.the current min is $7.25 right? so that's about $1200/mo before taxes. even living alone it's damn near impossible to feed, clothe, transpot and house yourself on that. and a bump in the road or two and your at the title loan place paying 30% interest. the current minimum wage is not a living wage. ridiculous to even argue it.

well, no. i worked at a dairy from about 13. mowed lawns before that. worked the holiday inn in niagara falls as a dishwasher at 16. and i wanted better. just like you. but i also worked with people that were never likely to get any better. the raw materials weren't there. so should they be paid a living wage by their employers or subsidized by the gov't cuz i can't fasthom anyoner here saying we should let em starve?