Yeah, but your Roku doesn't have a microphone and camera built in.

I just don't get that, though... surely you have something besides the TV - a bluray player that has Netflix apps on it, or a gaming machine. You don't need a dedicated computer for it. As others are mentioning, even if you just get a Roku or something, you can completely ignore the "smart" part of the TV. The only frustrating part is paying for extra features on your TV you won't use, but frankly, as devices like TVs become more software/firmware oriented anyway, they can just slap on the "apps" for little or no cost, just like for your smart phone or tablet... you're not really paying for it, since the TV is built to run it's own software for doing things like settings and channel set ups.

Some universal remotes can handle Roku... and besides, the trend is towards using your phone as a remote, you'll be able to get dynamically adjusted remote control. Even if that doesn't suit you, surely the violation of your privacy makes it worth the terrible "burden" of having a second remote?

But is the online aspect a significant reason people bought the game? Is that what it was marketed as? It usually is.

Because most other content didn't require the bandwidth; if comcast wants it's customers to be happy, they should make the content their customers want more readily available without extorting the content provider - yes, work with the content provider, but not extort them. But comcast doesn't care about it's customers because it has an effective monopoly on high speed bandwidth in most places it operates.

Happy customers not switching to competitors? Happy customers telling others how great Comcast is? Oh... wait... that only works in a competitive market.

Additionally, as Comcast's customer, I am the one paying for Comcast's infrastructure, and I should be able to use the bandwidth I already paid for the way I see fit - Netflix is not Comcast's customer, I am, and I'm already paying. Comcast is now double dipping.

It's not Neftlix wanting unlimited bandwidth access to Comcast's customers, it's Comcast's customers wanting what they actually paid for already. If Comcast has a problem with me using the service I already pay for to access Netflix, then their problem is with me, not Netflix. I'm the customer. I'm the one paying for bandwidth, and I'm the one choosing to use that bandwidth to access Netflix. I understand they argument they weren't throttling Netflix, that there were other problems, but I would think Comcast would actually want it's customers to be happy... that is, unless they had an effective monopoly on high speed internet service to their customers... which is exactly what they have with the majority of them.

So, Americans fail at maths and geography.

I'd feel smugly self-satisfied about that if it weren't for the fact that they clearly win in the impending zombie apocalypse.

Or maybe they're smarter than you think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

We don't warp the language the way you British fucks do.

Funny, hopefully intentionally.

I'm not a fan of recreational drug use, but I don't see why someone should require someone else's permission to do something. In other words, prescriptions are great for two reasons: the doctor knows better than me what will help, and I acknowledge that; and you can get your insurance company to pay for it (or at least offset your deductible) because the doctor actually prescribed it. But I've never felt a prescription should be necessary to obtain a drug. Then again, I don't agree with vice laws at all, even if I don't recreationally use drugs or solicit prostitutes.

Agreed... the more we let society baby us, the more society is allowed to dictate our personal behaviors. I don't see why people don't get that.

I've had several shoulder surgeries and was prescribed both oxy- and hydro-codone. I experienced the itching, but it worked great, and the OTC pain relievers did nothing. I still suffer, in fact; I never became addicted - once it ran out I tried all the non-opiate alternatives the doctor prescribed. None of them worked. I live in pain every day, but most days are completely bearable. When I do feel pain, the other medications don't help. I know that if I work out or do yard work or something, I can take the non-opiates and stave off the terrible pain I would feel hours later, but when I already have pain they are ineffective. I haven't had any of the "strong" stuff in over a year and a half... and yet, if I mention that the other drugs don't help to my doctor, it's obvious to me he thinks I'm pill shopping.

I mention it because the biggest complaint I see against this over-the-top, for-your-own-good regulation is that the people who are actually in pain are treated like criminals and often denied medications that would make life more bearable. I admit I've managed without, so I'm not including me in that list... but I understand the position completely.

Frankly, even before my surgeries, I never agreed with the war on drugs; I do not agree with vice laws in general.

Agree completely with 'causality,' but have no mod points. I'm sorry if it hurts friends and family, and if they deem an intervention is necessary, then that's fine... using government to mandate behavior that doesn't violate the rights of others, however, is not.

You ought to ask the Family D'Alembert...