Got live cricket on right now, on ESPN of all places.

TV is also my radio. Optional background "noise".

ESPN is my channel of choice because it is the real world, as opposed to fake sit-coms, even worse "dramas", hideously depressing CSI type shows, and trailer trash reality shows.

My father played cricket, so there is a back story that adds to this live event.

I've played numerous sports, and love a few of them enough to watch them on TV. For the rest, it is about the human spirt. Amazing feats of endurance, athleticism and will.

Besides, TV is part of our "bundle", coupled with two things we absolutely need -- iNet + WIRED phone service.

To each his own. TV is not needed by some (especially those who are not interested in sports). TV works for others who find something good in it.

This thread is really about Comcast, and Comcast is really about monopoly. If there wasn't one, Comcast wouldn't be playing billing games. They would be offering things customers want, in a bid to _earn_ customers.

I went through a phase where I would read a Scientific American magazine in bed. Put me right to sleep. But obviously not because it stopped me thinking.

I don't agree with your premise. For one thing, it would depend on what the podcast you are listening to is about.

You say "the only evidence is one flawed study". (1) not true, tons of evidence, (2) you can't prove something is the "only" by linking to a "study" that you say is the "only" one.

Regarding the movie I linked to, I happen to know more about that movie than I let on. Inside story type of info, but I want to preserve confidentiality.

In any event, it is not the movie but the information the movie reveals, that should be debated, attacked or learned from. Instead of doing this you ask if I am "for real". Since this is a pressing question for you, I shall endeavour to reassure you by saying I am quite real, with the usual numbers of fingers and toes.

I await you actually talking about the three or four points I brought up in my original post...

Oh, thank goodness you quoted Wikipedia. That settles it.

To the grandparent poster, check out "The Greater Good". Will totally change your view of vaccinations. One of the most profound things I learned was that in "vaccine vs no vaccine" studies, the "no vaccine" people in some cases still received the mercury (!) and in other cases received a different vaccine (!). That's right, there was no "control" group so they compared the health effect of a mercury-containing vaccine with...a mercury-containing control and/or a different vaccine.

Other juicy bits from that documentary:
- The number of vaccines given to kids these days is TEN times what was given 30 or 40 years ago.
- some vaccines still use mercury.
- some autistic individuals became so at the same time they (1) got a bunch of vaccinations and (2) were then tested and found to have toxic levels of mercury in their system, prompting (3) a successful lawsuit, and resulting compensation.

Best comment I've ever seen on autistic people.

I have extensive experience caring for and living with them.

At this point I agree with Dr. Robert Melillo, as I posted above. With TAS individual I live with, I have seen considerable improvement but it has come through repeatedly teaching new/better behaviors, not through letting the individual become more and more shut off.

FWIW, I think armchair experts are the biggest problem. Try living with one, or caring for many of them for many years. You'll change your tune.

The reason many call it a craze or a fad, is that it deflects attention away from the real cause(s).

I like the book "Disconnected Kids" because it points the finger at developmental imbalance in the brain. This makes the most sense to me because (1) when you've met one autistic person, you've met one autistic person, (2) many things can throw off development (especially with the dozens and dozens of vaccines now given to infants, and fluoridation, and microwave radiation broadcasters...I mean, baby monitors), (3) the guy offers techniques to re-balance one's brain that I think makes sense and work to at least an extent, (4) he has opened dozens of clinics to help treat people, etc.

"It's a fad" is the 21st century equivalent of "You're a racist!" Quick and easy deflection. The real fad is corporations having armies of minions who reverse-troll for their clients by the hour on social media and places like /. and Ars.

I'm not sure why you think security cameras are a problem.

Let's study the behavior of a customer called Nefarious. He opens packages in the store, pocketing a handful of delicious Lindt chocolates here, and pouring half a pound of Starbucks beans into his other pocket over there. A quick checkout for his case of Bud and then he breezes through the exit doors.

Retail has slim profit margins. Grocery stores, it is like 1 or 2%. At Costco let's say it is 5%. But the cost of Nefarious's visit is beyond what he took out. He left a $9.89 bag of Lindt that is fit only for the break room. Same for the Starbucks bag -- all 5 pounds of it. That case of Bud only cost ...I have no idea, not having consumed alcohol for 30 years, but let's say $18. Rough calculation, the store made a buck on the Bud, and lost $20 or $30 on the other two items. How long can they sustain that?

A big part of store security is deterence. You won't stop everyone, but cameras, or store walkers, or receipt checkers will discourage many from abusing the system.

I want to shop at a place that deters cheat, crooks and scumbags. This is definitely a case where, if you are not breaking the law what do you have to be concerned about?

Getting back to your camera concerns...When you were going through the checkout, the cashier was watching you. If you pocketed something, or tried to slip something past them in the bottom of your shopping cart, they would catch it. Cameras "see" more but notice a hundred times less. IOW, on average no one ever looks at you on tape. It is there to settle the question of did someone put something in their pocket (or what did the guy with the cap gun look like)?

If you really want to be creeped out, go to a clothing store. The level of security and inconvenience there is very off-putting (to me anyway). Stuff is cabled together. Huge dongles hang off that T-shirt you wanted to try on. There is a limit on how many things you can try on in the change stall with 2 foot tall saloon doors. Etc.

Still, the only camera that would bother me is one (1) in a change room, or (2) in a toilet stall. I'm not aware of any of those...

I question the sincerity of your response, but can agree with the point that different inspections have different levels of gain for both parties.

Parents checking the texts on their kid's phone can learn quite a bit, and this is a good thing, even if the child would freak if she found out.

Your local auto repair shop is probably looking for extra work when they tell you your radiator could use a flush. But this is a relationship, that can work both ways. If they report stuff as broken that ain't, you find some other repair shop. If they are right about the radiator flush, you thank them (at least to yourself) and the relationship improves.

Your employer checking what you say on Facebook is not a bad thing. Them requiring you hand over your password is beyond a bad thing. Still, it also serves to tell you that you don't want to work for this company...and that is a good thing.

Not everything is a zero sum gain, denzacar.

That "inspection at the door" works both ways. On several occasions, Costco inspectors have noticed I forgot to pick up my Forever stamps, etc. Two of them are among the friendliest staff in the whole store, and if they catch someone taking stuff then that translates into them keeping MY prices down. Everything about Costco comes across as "a great and fair deal for all", and yet that is the only store I exit that checks my receipt.

First few seasons were quite lame, I'll give you that. But this is true of many ultimately good shows.

Luckily for me I had avoided STTNG until the STTNG pinball game came out. That hooked me. By then I think there were 5 or more seasons in the can.

There are some soap opera episodes, I will give you that. I constantly cherry-pick from the rebroadcasts. But then who doesn't do this?

I thoroughly enjoy the Data character (in addition to Picard) but I also like many "design" aspects of the series. Resolution usually happens at the end of an episode, "good guys win" (otherwise, what's the point?), intelligent use of special effects.

Best of all the ST series, to me.

Actually, aluminum corrodes (i.e. oxidizes) very readily. It just so happens that the coating -- a mix of Al & O atoms -- takes up the same space as pure Al atoms. So the surface Al oxidizes to Al2O3, and once the surface is covered with the oxide, O can not get through to react with the Al. End of "corrosion" but very much an oxide surface. Oxide surface = not attractive in jewelry (just like what happens to silver). Also, absorbing Al through the skin contact is not a good idea.

You forgot to mention gold's inertness. Yes, copper and silver conduct better than gold but both of them corrode like fiends. To combat this you have to alloy, or coat. You don't need this with gold, and combined with its "softness" (better described as extreme ductility), you can lay down a very thin layer indeed. "Atoms" thick, vs "fractions of an inch" thick. Ask someone designing a satellite which is more valuable. Or a jeweler. Or a circuit board maker.

Crude becomes gasoline (and other stuff) in two stages.

(1) Fractional distillation does the initial bulk separation
(2) Catalytic cracking of longer chain hydrocarbons into gasoline (i.e. octane).

I think that cat cracking is much more energy intensive, so some (probably most) octane comes from a more energy intensive method.

I'll bite. Are you considering wireless radiation as the cause of "metabolic syndrome"?

And more on topic:
The perpetual motion machine of modern physics is a great provider for those who get paid to speculate.

Probably a reason for it. I imagine they don't want people endlessly scanning and scrolling around a video. Massive files. Thrashing around them and serving random chunks not something they want to do endlessly.

YouTube does something similar, in that if you pause your video for too long you then have to refresh the tab to resume it later. Maybe they assign a machine to deliver the 'tube. You walk away and they reassign the machine. Firing off the cryptic "Error processing this directive", or running the endless buffering ruse, are just the kind of things that will make people stop doing what the big streaming companies don't want them to do.