There are some bad on/off ramps where it was physically unreasonable to do it otherwise, so people just need to pay attention (heaven forbid).

But, with some exceptions, most cross roads go over the interstate, and that works great because those on-ramps are down hill to gain speed, and off-ramps are up hill to help decelerate. Why I get stuck behind the guy braking down hill on the on-ramp, when he's not even halfway up to the speed of traffic we're going to have to merge into, is something I'll never understand.

The people I end up behind on the surface streets might be able to do 0-60 in less than 10 seconds, but for some reason they won't even do 0-45 in less than 20, if they get there at all. Even when I'm getting on the interstate... less than half the people seem to use the onramp to accelerate up to the speed of traffic, they go slow the whole way and only speed up where the lanes actually merge.

I guess what I'm saying is I'd prefer 0-60 in 20 seconds if

people actually did that

compared to what they are doing with their much higher performance cars now.

I haven't signed up yet. Why should I when, if I want that sort of interaction, I use facebook (I don't, my account is not deleted, but it's disabled, and all my cookies deleted). How many more users are there on facebook - and all constantly using and posting, I don't get why anyone thinks they'd all suddenly just jump ship to G+ when facebook is doing what they want. It doesn't even matter if G+ is better... facebook is good enough (apparently) and everyone is already there.

I've watched some shows from networks online (ABC and CW, for example); they put commercials in that you can't skip through. I find it hard to complain, since I'm not paying anything. The only problem is the last time they had full commercial breaks (as long as they'd have over the air), and repeated so much crap it was pointless. Still... I can only record two things at once on DVR, and although I don't watch a lot of TV (relatively speaking), sometimes three shows are on at the same time... so I occasionally go this route. I'm happy enough with it. I'd rather have 10 minutes that you can't skip through at the beginning though - it ruins the mood of the show when you get to some really extreme part and then... a commercial for tampons.

As an employee of TW, let me just say we all had a good laugh at that one.

I'd also point out that the Turner channels are some of the worst as far as amount of commercials are concerned.

I've been mentioning a lot in previous posts about copyright infringement and how honest users are punished, but a similar thing happens on broadcasts when they don't understand basic psychology... people got upset over all the commercials, so started taping, and now DVR-ing, their shows, largely so that they could skip the commercials. The response on the networks was... to increase the number of commercials, making it more worthwhile to DVR the shows to skip commercials.

Agree 100% - I don't think people ought to be violating copyright at all, but I also agree that the entertainment companies don't understand basic psychology. Right now the honest consumers get "punished" and locked into platforms and devices that they can't always have or use - while the dishonest people are shackle-free. What did they think was going to happen?

I understand your complaints, but what you "want" is irrelevant. Believe it or not the entertainment industry has changed greatly over the last decade or so - that you're too impatient to wait for them to catch up with what you "want" doesn't grant you any extra rights; that you can't entertain yourself legally on your numerous long trips on trains through tunnels is not their fault.

For the record - while I do work in the entertainment industry - I agree that DRM sucks and I think the honest users are doubly punished with the shackles of DRM on top of part of the cost they pay going towards paying for those shackles. I think the industry would likely be better off if they accepted that some piracy was going to happen, and instead focused on making it more worthwhile (not less) to get their content honestly. But just because they haven't "woken up" yet doesn't give you the right to violate copyright law.

So buy the DVD... do you think you get some "right" to view content just because it exists? It wasn't so long ago you couldn't even stream, let alone DVR something; because you're too impatient to allow the entertainment industry to catch up doesn't somehow grant you rights.

Another single user here - I've only ever used bittorrent to get new distributions of Linux. I can't think of a single time I've used it for anything else. And just because you disagree with a law (at least those regarding copyright) doesn't give you the right or moral standing to break it - it's not like "dead shows" are a necessity, so thank you for making life difficult for the honest people.

What makes you think that, because someone buys their own "comfortable" clothes, that necessarily means he doesn't buy good quality, decent looking clothes?

But I also don't like people picking out clothes for me. That doesn't mean I walk around in cheap jeans and raggedy t-shirts; I wear nice button down shirts and shoes to work, I just happen to pick them out myself. I don't like shoes with tassels, and I'm not afraid to tell my wife to return them when she buys something like that for me. So sue me.