And this is exactly why rational discussions of drunk driving can never happen. People like you cannot even discuss the subject without resorting to name calling.
"Yeah, and those blood alcohol readings on those drivers... to hell with those readings!!
and the smell of alcohol on their breath.... its really listerine."
This is a misunderstanding of cause and effect. The argument is not whether people drink and drive. We are in an argument over how many deaths are CAUSED by driving with alcohol in your system. You are trying to claim that if the person has drank any alcohol, that the alcohol MUST be the cause. This is clearly wrong.
"are you out of your mind? Drunk driving is a problem."
This is a classic ad hominem attack, which does not speak well of your position on the subject.
"Ok, say its not 18,000 deaths a years, its 5,000.... that still is a horrendous number."
That is just it. We don't know if it is 5,000, 3,000, or 2. So, we don't know if it is a horrendous number. The number could be lower than the deaths caused by playing the car stereo, having a dog in your lap, having a passenger in the car, having eaten carbohydrates in the last 24 hours, or a million other things. The point is, since the people collecting the data are faking the data, and because there are some very large and influential groups that are using drinking and driving as a tool to push their actual agenda of prohibition, saying that it is a horrendous number is not thinking very clearly.
The 50 people a day number is simply bogus. There is no way to tell how many people are in a alcohol CAUSED accidents. All you have to do is look at the forms that the police fill out when there is an accident. It has check boxes for alcohol, cell phones, and a few other things. There are not check boxes for stereo, animal in lap, faulty road, egomaniac, or the millions of other reasons people get in accidents. Police are trained to blame alcohol if there is any possible way to do it. This means that the only thing you can tell from the reported numbers is that the real number is dramatically lower than reported. Just how low the number really is, is impossible to tell.
No, the people that claim deaf people have a more advanced communication method are just wrong, and sound just like the parents that say they are happy that their kid has down syndrome because it makes them special. Rationalization pure and simple.
That being said, I really wish that more schools would offer sign language as a foreign language course. While it is great to be bilingual in English and Spanish, French, or German, it would be FAR more useful to be bilingual in English and Sign Language. While both Spanish and Sign Language would allow me to speak to some people that I currently cannot, the people that speak Spanish could learn English (the dominant language here in the US), while most of the Sign Language using people do not have that choice. Of course, even if you never run into anyone that cannot speak English, Sign Language is a useful second language for the across the room example, or for scuba diving, other side of windows, or many other situation. Sign Language may be a superior SECOND language.
"basically the CEO admits to having a throttle algorithm, and calls it a "trade secret":"
"I in no way accused Netflix of throttling."
Yes. You did. The first quote is you making an accusation, and the second is you denying making an accusation.
"Well, if you want to let the most people see that one disk ASAP"
Netflix has never in any way stated or implied that they were trying to get "that one disk" to as many people as possible as quickly as possible. In fact they have always been quite clear that if the first movie in your queue is not available, that you would be sent the next movie on your list. This means that you are NOT THROTTLED. It means that if there are not enough copies of one particular movie, that you will still get a movie as soon as possible.
You can argue all day long about what the best way to handle fewer copies of a specific movie than subscribers that want that movie, but to use the word "throttling" without the word NOT in front of it is simply untrue.
He in no way admits to a "throttle" algorithm. People keep making the claim that Netflix admits to throttling. They then link to a page that in no way shape or form comes even close to admitting throttling. What was the point of the link? The only thing that Netflix has ever admitted to doing was to admit that they make sure the most movies deliver as quickly as possible.
Here is a little math. If you have one disk in your queue because you only watch one movie a month, and I have 100 movies in my queue because I go through 30 movies a month, and we both have Conan The Barbarian in our #1 slot, AND there is only one Conan The Barbarian disk to send, how do you get the most movies out that day?
What Netflix did and continues to do is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF THROTTLING. But for some reason people keep repeating the same old myth.
No, they have not. The law suit that they lost was had nothing to do with 'throttling', as keeps getting repeated. What they were sued for was for immediately sending high usage subscribers a movie lower on their list instead of the top one if they had to choose between sending a high usage subscriber the last copy, or a low usage subscriber. They have since updated their TOS to reflect this.
You should rally have been looking at your post office as the culprit. Netflix has way to many people to be individually targeting people for delayed shipments. The only way that they could realistically get any benefit from it would be if they had a system to automatically flag accounts. There are way to many people like me that have spent years (over 5 for me) returning just about every single movie the day after they receive it for Netflix to have an automated system to throttle.
Although, I don't see this being used as a cheat too often. The big problem isn't that it takes ten minutes to load the game. The problem is that game makers think that people WANT to watch 10 minutes of animation in 1 minute segments prior to actually playing the game. It's a design choice, not a technical problem. The strong sales of games like Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts says that they are not wrong with at least a chunk of the game playing(?) market. The unanswered question is whether more the game market is bigger or smaller due to this choice.
Don't forget: "And I'm not even going to get started on what it takes to make complex shapes like a pressurized habitat or a seal for an airlock."
a pressurized habitat does not have to be a complex shape, and BRING THE DOOR FROM EARTH. Just because 99% of the product is domestic, doesn't mean that you can't bring the 1% that would be really hard. It would definitely simplify things for astronauts could show up, install a door, and pressurize, instead of having to build the entire structure.
"2. When the help desk guy was assigned to make the followup call, he didn't notice and find it odd that the original call came in 10 years ago? He didn't call his supervisor over and say, "hey I think somebody made a mistake here! Maybe we should just close this out.""
I have to suspect you are right about this. When I spent the hour jumping through hoops to get a trouble ticket opened for a Microsoft Money bug that caused MS Money to fail at showing correct values in accounts, a ticket was opened. Then approx. 3 months later they left a message on my answering machine that said they saw the trouble ticket, and since I wasn't home when they called, they were just going to close the ticket.
Given that MS closes tickets whether the problem is resolved or not, I would be pretty surprised if a ticket lasted 10 years.
On the other hand, if MS is still running on a help desk system that was written over a decade ago, all it would take is for the ticket to have been assigned to a group that was later dissolved, or even renamed to prevent the notifications or reports from showing up. If THAT bug were fixed recently, orphaned trouble tickets could start showing up in support queues. One support person that didn't notice the year of the original ticket, and they could easily try to follow up with it.
"(3) I know some people that have had the same number for 10 years. Some for a lot longer than that."
I got my current phone number in 1990. So that makes 18 years for me. It is actually the second number that I ever had with the phone company. Luckily, Vonage arrived on the scene before I moved out of the area, so I was able to preserve it as my home phone number for the 2 years that I was out of it's local area.
What does a game review stating how long it takes to get to actual game play have to do with loading a mini game during the full game load? Or did you just want to put an unrelated comment about how a bad patent system stops improvements to society, and this was the best place you find to attach it?
Liar!!!
br>
There is no way that you played cowboys and Indians before video games. It is well established that all violence in society is a direct result of kids playing video games. Thus it would be impossible for your mind to understand cowboys and Indians or army without first being trained as a killer by video games.
"there are components in my server which were never certified to work together"
The same could be said about your TV and DVD player. Really, you could say that about any electrical device and your house wireing. So, you should feel just as nervous about that off the self PC. To make matters worse, the plug in your house is generally going to be running with uncertified devices at 120v/20amps. The stuff you are plugging in together in your self built PC is certainly lower in both voltage and amps.
The problem with modern games isn't the 50 hours it takes to win. After all, DK took forever to win. Literally.
The problem is the time it takes to actually start playing. I have seen games with upwards of 10 minutes of animation that not only can you not bypass, but that you must press the button every 1 to 2 minutes to keep the animation going.
Any modern game reviewer is doing a disservice to their readers if one of the criteria for rating isn't 'Time until actual play'.
There is a bigger difference. With the other items you listed, the person who has paid for the item, owns the lock. When I have a car, home lock, email account and computer firewall, I get to control the lock on my stuff. I can even unlock them and let anyone or everyone have access to them. DRM is the only lock where someone else gets is trying to lock up my stuff, and telling me who I can give access to, or even how I access my stuff.
"basically shady mortgage brokers forged lending documents and got people into homes they never should have"
That is too narrow in the blame. The problem WAS shady brokers, but it was also, shady lenders. My wife worked for a couple of different direct lenders during the boom, and the number of forgeries that went on at the lenders themselves were amazing. The lenders were giving loans that they knew the borrowers could not afford. They were just counting on the borrower refinancing later when the house went up in value.
There was also the problem of shady real estate agents that would convince buyers that they could afford more house than they could afford. When we were buyers during the boom, we would go through real estate agents like they were used baby diapers. The agents would just flat out refuse to show a house that was not at the absolute limit of what the shady brokers/lenders would give you a loan for.
Then you can't dismiss the buyers themselves. It was common practice for people to buy houses that they knew they couldn't afford. They just assumed that they could sell or refinance after the price went up.
The housing crash is a perfect example of a system that broken on every level.
You are free to cease producing, but you won't. You will simply take money for the production of the work instead of milking your current artificial monopoly.
Those links prove that piracy is killing consoles as much as links to RIAA press releases prove that piracy is killing the music industry. The biggest reason that consoles have DRM is to prevent "unlicensed" software. Nintendo is making a killing on "licensing fees". If they did not have DRM, software developers could sell their products directly without paying anything to Nintendo. After all, how many companies pay MS a fee to release PC software? None. Why? Because there is no fee to be paid to MS to bypass DRM.
Read my post to the entry above yours, and you can continue to have a bone to pick with me or not. I would repeat it here, but it is a bit long. Suffice it to say though that the statement of 'The "I don't have a TV" crowd' is in reference to those that express superiority do to their choice of entertainment, and belief that if a statement is printed it is somehow MORE reliable than if it is video taped.
If you still feel lumped in, then please feel free to tell me where you disagree.
"Too bad you, like most 20-30 year olds in the entitled generation (just guessing from your attitude) had to take it too far."
While I wish that I could have that extra decade of life that your ad hominem attack tries to grant me, unfortunately, I am not.
It isn't the lack of TV that makes you ignorant. It is the belief that the lack of TV is somehow a positive trait. The amount of quality TV that is produced today is simply massive. The fact that you are unaware of it points to your ignorance.
"Movies > TV due to no commercials and no need to justify another season."
Are you really trying to argue that trying to create repeat business lowers the quality of a product? Really? That is ignorant.
"Also you can usually fast forward through all the ads at the beginning."
Apparently you are ignorant of the existence of this neat device that has been around for almost a decade. It's called a DVR. Check it out, and you won't sounds so ignorant when you complain that you have to watch commercials if you watch TV.
"I waist far less of my life watching ads and more keeping up on what is going on in the world. If more people did that instead of watching TV perhaps you would be less aware of current media hype and more aware of the truth."
And where do you get this great truth? Newspapers? The Internet? Your religious leader? The coffee shop? I have yet to see any form of communication that is any more reliable that TV. In fact, the most successful method of determining the truth of a subject that I have found has been to hear from multiple sources, and compare them to see which is the most plausible. Please, let me know where this "truth" is, as I am always willing to add another source to compare credibility with.
"and thus waist your time watching American Idol and/or Fox News,"
While I watch neither, it is ignorant to think that spending time doing either is a waste. It is a very sorry person who toils their life away without any entertainment. Thinking that anyone who enjoys a different form of entertainment than you is wasting their time is... well... ignorant.
"or can't figure out how to use netflix"
It is ignorant to think can't figure out how to use Netflix, or for that matter that they don't use Netflix, just because they are smart enough to understand that Netflix is not inherently better than broadcast TV (whether that be over the air, cable, or satillite).
"to get a show you can watch on YOUR schedule and saving 15 minutes per episode."
[see comment about DVR above]
"Books > Movies as they stir creative portions of the brain"
Absolute BS. There is at least as much crap published in books as there is on television and in movies. The only benefit that you will get from reading a story over watching the same story in a movie is that you will get practice at reading. Once you get past about a sixth grade reading level, you are not even getting that, as you will have already mastered reading. Both TV and books deliver a specific set of information in any segment. Everything that is not delivered is ripe for the imagination. Claiming that books stimulate the imagination and movies don't is just plain ignorant. Have you ever watched a kid play with an action figure from a Movie? They are rarely recreating the movie.
"and never have ads to begin with."
Uh... That is a mighty ignorant thing to say. It is a rare home that doesn't have a book without ads. Try this. Go into your kitchen. Look on top of the refridgerator, and microwave (thats where a lot of people keep them, your might be kept somewhere else). See that thing labeled "Phone Book"? Open it up. You might see an ad or two. Hell, I just walked over to my book shelf and looked in the first eight books. Every single one of them had ads. 6 were technical manuals, and two were fiction. Come to think of it, I don't know that I have ever seen a book witho
What you did was vandalism. Pure and simple. If your manager was smart, he would be looking for an excuse to fire you. After all, if you are willing to screw with one business because there is a little bit of movement in the corner of the room, then just imagine what you would be willing to do to a business that you are on the inside of when there is a bunch of movement.
Seriously, the "I don't have a TV" crowd don't even realize how ignorant they are. I can assume by your wording that you do have a TV, you just watch movies instead of broadcast television. Here is a secret. Movies are not inherently better than TV. Heck, even books are not inherently better than TV.
And the Cosby joke you reference isn't saying the parents are right. It is saying that parents are self serving pieces of crap that will be unjust to get what they want. By using that quote, you are openly admitting that you don't care about right or wrong as long as you get your way. Do your children know that you are a bad person, and are willing to screw them for your convenience?
Slashdot Mirror
And this is exactly why rational discussions of drunk driving can never happen. People like you cannot even discuss the subject without resorting to name calling.
"Yeah, and those blood alcohol readings on those drivers... to hell with those readings!!
and the smell of alcohol on their breath.... its really listerine."
This is a misunderstanding of cause and effect. The argument is not whether people drink and drive. We are in an argument over how many deaths are CAUSED by driving with alcohol in your system. You are trying to claim that if the person has drank any alcohol, that the alcohol MUST be the cause. This is clearly wrong.
"are you out of your mind? Drunk driving is a problem."
This is a classic ad hominem attack, which does not speak well of your position on the subject.
"Ok, say its not 18,000 deaths a years, its 5,000.... that still is a horrendous number."
That is just it. We don't know if it is 5,000, 3,000, or 2. So, we don't know if it is a horrendous number. The number could be lower than the deaths caused by playing the car stereo, having a dog in your lap, having a passenger in the car, having eaten carbohydrates in the last 24 hours, or a million other things. The point is, since the people collecting the data are faking the data, and because there are some very large and influential groups that are using drinking and driving as a tool to push their actual agenda of prohibition, saying that it is a horrendous number is not thinking very clearly.
The 50 people a day number is simply bogus. There is no way to tell how many people are in a alcohol CAUSED accidents. All you have to do is look at the forms that the police fill out when there is an accident. It has check boxes for alcohol, cell phones, and a few other things. There are not check boxes for stereo, animal in lap, faulty road, egomaniac, or the millions of other reasons people get in accidents. Police are trained to blame alcohol if there is any possible way to do it. This means that the only thing you can tell from the reported numbers is that the real number is dramatically lower than reported. Just how low the number really is, is impossible to tell.
They don't really want to go to tiered. If they do, they would need to stop advertising "Unlimited Internet" for their lowest price.
No, the people that claim deaf people have a more advanced communication method are just wrong, and sound just like the parents that say they are happy that their kid has down syndrome because it makes them special. Rationalization pure and simple.
That being said, I really wish that more schools would offer sign language as a foreign language course. While it is great to be bilingual in English and Spanish, French, or German, it would be FAR more useful to be bilingual in English and Sign Language. While both Spanish and Sign Language would allow me to speak to some people that I currently cannot, the people that speak Spanish could learn English (the dominant language here in the US), while most of the Sign Language using people do not have that choice. Of course, even if you never run into anyone that cannot speak English, Sign Language is a useful second language for the across the room example, or for scuba diving, other side of windows, or many other situation. Sign Language may be a superior SECOND language.
"basically the CEO admits to having a throttle algorithm, and calls it a "trade secret":"
"I in no way accused Netflix of throttling."
Yes. You did. The first quote is you making an accusation, and the second is you denying making an accusation.
"Well, if you want to let the most people see that one disk ASAP"
Netflix has never in any way stated or implied that they were trying to get "that one disk" to as many people as possible as quickly as possible. In fact they have always been quite clear that if the first movie in your queue is not available, that you would be sent the next movie on your list. This means that you are NOT THROTTLED. It means that if there are not enough copies of one particular movie, that you will still get a movie as soon as possible.
You can argue all day long about what the best way to handle fewer copies of a specific movie than subscribers that want that movie, but to use the word "throttling" without the word NOT in front of it is simply untrue.
He in no way admits to a "throttle" algorithm. People keep making the claim that Netflix admits to throttling. They then link to a page that in no way shape or form comes even close to admitting throttling. What was the point of the link? The only thing that Netflix has ever admitted to doing was to admit that they make sure the most movies deliver as quickly as possible.
Here is a little math. If you have one disk in your queue because you only watch one movie a month, and I have 100 movies in my queue because I go through 30 movies a month, and we both have Conan The Barbarian in our #1 slot, AND there is only one Conan The Barbarian disk to send, how do you get the most movies out that day?
What Netflix did and continues to do is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF THROTTLING. But for some reason people keep repeating the same old myth.
No, they have not. The law suit that they lost was had nothing to do with 'throttling', as keeps getting repeated. What they were sued for was for immediately sending high usage subscribers a movie lower on their list instead of the top one if they had to choose between sending a high usage subscriber the last copy, or a low usage subscriber. They have since updated their TOS to reflect this.
You should rally have been looking at your post office as the culprit. Netflix has way to many people to be individually targeting people for delayed shipments. The only way that they could realistically get any benefit from it would be if they had a system to automatically flag accounts. There are way to many people like me that have spent years (over 5 for me) returning just about every single movie the day after they receive it for Netflix to have an automated system to throttle.
Ok.
Although, I don't see this being used as a cheat too often. The big problem isn't that it takes ten minutes to load the game. The problem is that game makers think that people WANT to watch 10 minutes of animation in 1 minute segments prior to actually playing the game. It's a design choice, not a technical problem. The strong sales of games like Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts says that they are not wrong with at least a chunk of the game playing(?) market. The unanswered question is whether more the game market is bigger or smaller due to this choice.
Tickets available through Ticket Master or at the... uh... door?!?!
Don't forget: "And I'm not even going to get started on what it takes to make complex shapes like a pressurized habitat or a seal for an airlock."
a pressurized habitat does not have to be a complex shape, and BRING THE DOOR FROM EARTH. Just because 99% of the product is domestic, doesn't mean that you can't bring the 1% that would be really hard. It would definitely simplify things for astronauts could show up, install a door, and pressurize, instead of having to build the entire structure.
"2. When the help desk guy was assigned to make the followup call, he didn't notice and find it odd that the original call came in 10 years ago? He didn't call his supervisor over and say, "hey I think somebody made a mistake here! Maybe we should just close this out.""
I have to suspect you are right about this. When I spent the hour jumping through hoops to get a trouble ticket opened for a Microsoft Money bug that caused MS Money to fail at showing correct values in accounts, a ticket was opened. Then approx. 3 months later they left a message on my answering machine that said they saw the trouble ticket, and since I wasn't home when they called, they were just going to close the ticket.
Given that MS closes tickets whether the problem is resolved or not, I would be pretty surprised if a ticket lasted 10 years.
On the other hand, if MS is still running on a help desk system that was written over a decade ago, all it would take is for the ticket to have been assigned to a group that was later dissolved, or even renamed to prevent the notifications or reports from showing up. If THAT bug were fixed recently, orphaned trouble tickets could start showing up in support queues. One support person that didn't notice the year of the original ticket, and they could easily try to follow up with it.
"(3) I know some people that have had the same number for 10 years. Some for a lot longer than that."
I got my current phone number in 1990. So that makes 18 years for me. It is actually the second number that I ever had with the phone company. Luckily, Vonage arrived on the scene before I moved out of the area, so I was able to preserve it as my home phone number for the 2 years that I was out of it's local area.
What does a game review stating how long it takes to get to actual game play have to do with loading a mini game during the full game load? Or did you just want to put an unrelated comment about how a bad patent system stops improvements to society, and this was the best place you find to attach it?
Liar!!!
br> There is no way that you played cowboys and Indians before video games. It is well established that all violence in society is a direct result of kids playing video games. Thus it would be impossible for your mind to understand cowboys and Indians or army without first being trained as a killer by video games.
"there are components in my server which were never certified to work together"
The same could be said about your TV and DVD player. Really, you could say that about any electrical device and your house wireing. So, you should feel just as nervous about that off the self PC. To make matters worse, the plug in your house is generally going to be running with uncertified devices at 120v/20amps. The stuff you are plugging in together in your self built PC is certainly lower in both voltage and amps.
The problem with modern games isn't the 50 hours it takes to win. After all, DK took forever to win. Literally.
The problem is the time it takes to actually start playing. I have seen games with upwards of 10 minutes of animation that not only can you not bypass, but that you must press the button every 1 to 2 minutes to keep the animation going.
Any modern game reviewer is doing a disservice to their readers if one of the criteria for rating isn't 'Time until actual play'.
There is a bigger difference. With the other items you listed, the person who has paid for the item, owns the lock. When I have a car, home lock, email account and computer firewall, I get to control the lock on my stuff. I can even unlock them and let anyone or everyone have access to them. DRM is the only lock where someone else gets is trying to lock up my stuff, and telling me who I can give access to, or even how I access my stuff.
"basically shady mortgage brokers forged lending documents and got people into homes they never should have"
That is too narrow in the blame. The problem WAS shady brokers, but it was also, shady lenders. My wife worked for a couple of different direct lenders during the boom, and the number of forgeries that went on at the lenders themselves were amazing. The lenders were giving loans that they knew the borrowers could not afford. They were just counting on the borrower refinancing later when the house went up in value.
There was also the problem of shady real estate agents that would convince buyers that they could afford more house than they could afford. When we were buyers during the boom, we would go through real estate agents like they were used baby diapers. The agents would just flat out refuse to show a house that was not at the absolute limit of what the shady brokers/lenders would give you a loan for.
Then you can't dismiss the buyers themselves. It was common practice for people to buy houses that they knew they couldn't afford. They just assumed that they could sell or refinance after the price went up.
The housing crash is a perfect example of a system that broken on every level.
You are free to cease producing, but you won't. You will simply take money for the production of the work instead of milking your current artificial monopoly.
Those links prove that piracy is killing consoles as much as links to RIAA press releases prove that piracy is killing the music industry. The biggest reason that consoles have DRM is to prevent "unlicensed" software. Nintendo is making a killing on "licensing fees". If they did not have DRM, software developers could sell their products directly without paying anything to Nintendo. After all, how many companies pay MS a fee to release PC software? None. Why? Because there is no fee to be paid to MS to bypass DRM.
That's why I get all my recordings on wax cylinders!
"blow it out your ass, child."
Irony...Excellent!!!"
"I haven't had a TV in years and I don't miss it. I prefer to engage my brain rather than force-feed it tripe."
Just because you don't know how to use a technology doesn't make it evil.
By the way. I going to get off your lawn now...
Read my post to the entry above yours, and you can continue to have a bone to pick with me or not. I would repeat it here, but it is a bit long. Suffice it to say though that the statement of 'The "I don't have a TV" crowd' is in reference to those that express superiority do to their choice of entertainment, and belief that if a statement is printed it is somehow MORE reliable than if it is video taped.
If you still feel lumped in, then please feel free to tell me where you disagree.
"Too bad you, like most 20-30 year olds in the entitled generation (just guessing from your attitude) had to take it too far."
While I wish that I could have that extra decade of life that your ad hominem attack tries to grant me, unfortunately, I am not.
It isn't the lack of TV that makes you ignorant. It is the belief that the lack of TV is somehow a positive trait. The amount of quality TV that is produced today is simply massive. The fact that you are unaware of it points to your ignorance.
"Movies > TV due to no commercials and no need to justify another season."
Are you really trying to argue that trying to create repeat business lowers the quality of a product? Really? That is ignorant.
"Also you can usually fast forward through all the ads at the beginning."
Apparently you are ignorant of the existence of this neat device that has been around for almost a decade. It's called a DVR. Check it out, and you won't sounds so ignorant when you complain that you have to watch commercials if you watch TV.
"I waist far less of my life watching ads and more keeping up on what is going on in the world. If more people did that instead of watching TV perhaps you would be less aware of current media hype and more aware of the truth."
And where do you get this great truth? Newspapers? The Internet? Your religious leader? The coffee shop? I have yet to see any form of communication that is any more reliable that TV. In fact, the most successful method of determining the truth of a subject that I have found has been to hear from multiple sources, and compare them to see which is the most plausible. Please, let me know where this "truth" is, as I am always willing to add another source to compare credibility with.
"and thus waist your time watching American Idol and/or Fox News,"
While I watch neither, it is ignorant to think that spending time doing either is a waste. It is a very sorry person who toils their life away without any entertainment. Thinking that anyone who enjoys a different form of entertainment than you is wasting their time is... well... ignorant.
"or can't figure out how to use netflix"
It is ignorant to think can't figure out how to use Netflix, or for that matter that they don't use Netflix, just because they are smart enough to understand that Netflix is not inherently better than broadcast TV (whether that be over the air, cable, or satillite).
"to get a show you can watch on YOUR schedule and saving 15 minutes per episode."
[see comment about DVR above]
"Books > Movies as they stir creative portions of the brain"
Absolute BS. There is at least as much crap published in books as there is on television and in movies. The only benefit that you will get from reading a story over watching the same story in a movie is that you will get practice at reading. Once you get past about a sixth grade reading level, you are not even getting that, as you will have already mastered reading. Both TV and books deliver a specific set of information in any segment. Everything that is not delivered is ripe for the imagination. Claiming that books stimulate the imagination and movies don't is just plain ignorant. Have you ever watched a kid play with an action figure from a Movie? They are rarely recreating the movie.
"and never have ads to begin with."
Uh... That is a mighty ignorant thing to say. It is a rare home that doesn't have a book without ads. Try this. Go into your kitchen. Look on top of the refridgerator, and microwave (thats where a lot of people keep them, your might be kept somewhere else). See that thing labeled "Phone Book"? Open it up. You might see an ad or two. Hell, I just walked over to my book shelf and looked in the first eight books. Every single one of them had ads. 6 were technical manuals, and two were fiction. Come to think of it, I don't know that I have ever seen a book witho
What you did was vandalism. Pure and simple. If your manager was smart, he would be looking for an excuse to fire you. After all, if you are willing to screw with one business because there is a little bit of movement in the corner of the room, then just imagine what you would be willing to do to a business that you are on the inside of when there is a bunch of movement.
Seriously, the "I don't have a TV" crowd don't even realize how ignorant they are. I can assume by your wording that you do have a TV, you just watch movies instead of broadcast television. Here is a secret. Movies are not inherently better than TV. Heck, even books are not inherently better than TV.
And the Cosby joke you reference isn't saying the parents are right. It is saying that parents are self serving pieces of crap that will be unjust to get what they want. By using that quote, you are openly admitting that you don't care about right or wrong as long as you get your way. Do your children know that you are a bad person, and are willing to screw them for your convenience?