Saturday, March 26, 2005
Customer Disservice
I used to say that "There is no such thing as customer service in Boston." And while I'm positive that's still the case (they still charge to give you estimates on construction work, for example), I wonder if the Boston effect is slowly migrating south.
I went to Costco the other day, and bought "The Incredibles" on DVD. It was 19 bucks, and came with a cute little book that I'm never going to use. Regardless, I got home, and realized it was the full screen version, which just wouldn't do. Hell, one of the main reasons to watch a movie like "The Incredibles" is to see it in its wide-screen glory.
So, I decided to return it, although I had torn the outer plastic off the box. Fortunately, it was one of those special Costco extra-wasteful packages, where they repack items into progressively bigger boxes. The outer packaging was useless, but what it means was that the DVD itself was still wrapped as if it had been sold from a normal store. I figured given that it was completely new, I would just take it back to Best Buy. Costco was way too far away, and basically feels like a zoo. I wasn't even sure they'd take returns. To be honest, I'm still not sure why we go there. I mean, it's nice to buy 75 sticks of deodorant at once, and then never have to buy it again, but buying food items there is ridiculous. Anything perishable either has to go into the freezer and take up 50% of the space, or just ends up rotting. Maybe when I own a house and have more space it'll be a different story.
I head to Best Buy and go up to the customer service counter. The two people ahead of me take like 20 minutes, but I finally get up there. I tell the lady I'd like to exchange the DVD for a widescreen one. She asks if I have a receipt, and I say that I don't because it was a gift. She says she can't take it back, and I reply that's absurd, they can just put it on the shelf and sell it for retail value with no problem. She's clearly in no mood to deal with me, so she shouts for her manager.
The manager plods on over, clearly in no hurry. She asks what the deal is, and I explain that I just want to exchange it for a different format, but don't have a receipt. She protests a bit, and finally says, "Oh, just let him do it. He just wants to get a widescreen version." I'm appreciative, but then ask, "Where could I have returned this, then?" She says I could have gone anywhere. I asked her what that meant. Anywhere but Best Buy? She says sure, Wal-Mart, Target, etc. I tell her I'll keep that in mind for next time.
I had never encountered this policy before - no returns at all without a receipt. I can understand not taking back opened items without a receipt, but a new item? It makes no sense. Furthermore, if they're the only store with that policy, I think the choice is pretty clear: Shop somewhere else. Maybe I should be grateful that I got to make the exchange, but really I think Best Buy should pay for having such a customer-unfriendly policy. In conclusion: Go to Circuit City instead.
I went to Costco the other day, and bought "The Incredibles" on DVD. It was 19 bucks, and came with a cute little book that I'm never going to use. Regardless, I got home, and realized it was the full screen version, which just wouldn't do. Hell, one of the main reasons to watch a movie like "The Incredibles" is to see it in its wide-screen glory.
So, I decided to return it, although I had torn the outer plastic off the box. Fortunately, it was one of those special Costco extra-wasteful packages, where they repack items into progressively bigger boxes. The outer packaging was useless, but what it means was that the DVD itself was still wrapped as if it had been sold from a normal store. I figured given that it was completely new, I would just take it back to Best Buy. Costco was way too far away, and basically feels like a zoo. I wasn't even sure they'd take returns. To be honest, I'm still not sure why we go there. I mean, it's nice to buy 75 sticks of deodorant at once, and then never have to buy it again, but buying food items there is ridiculous. Anything perishable either has to go into the freezer and take up 50% of the space, or just ends up rotting. Maybe when I own a house and have more space it'll be a different story.
I head to Best Buy and go up to the customer service counter. The two people ahead of me take like 20 minutes, but I finally get up there. I tell the lady I'd like to exchange the DVD for a widescreen one. She asks if I have a receipt, and I say that I don't because it was a gift. She says she can't take it back, and I reply that's absurd, they can just put it on the shelf and sell it for retail value with no problem. She's clearly in no mood to deal with me, so she shouts for her manager.
The manager plods on over, clearly in no hurry. She asks what the deal is, and I explain that I just want to exchange it for a different format, but don't have a receipt. She protests a bit, and finally says, "Oh, just let him do it. He just wants to get a widescreen version." I'm appreciative, but then ask, "Where could I have returned this, then?" She says I could have gone anywhere. I asked her what that meant. Anywhere but Best Buy? She says sure, Wal-Mart, Target, etc. I tell her I'll keep that in mind for next time.
I had never encountered this policy before - no returns at all without a receipt. I can understand not taking back opened items without a receipt, but a new item? It makes no sense. Furthermore, if they're the only store with that policy, I think the choice is pretty clear: Shop somewhere else. Maybe I should be grateful that I got to make the exchange, but really I think Best Buy should pay for having such a customer-unfriendly policy. In conclusion: Go to Circuit City instead.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Overstepping Their Bounds
I'm gonna delve into politics for a bit. Don't worry, this isn't going to be a "Bush is terrible" screed - I have another blog that serves precisely that purpose. No, what's really getting my goat is that Congress seems to be overstepping their bounds on a daily basis, and it's driving me batty. This is, of course, nothing new. But I think if people don't get pissed off about it from time to time, then they keep pushing and pushing and pushing.
It clearly takes some amount of ego to run for any public office. And right now, the party in power is brimming with ego. (I'm not implying that the Democrats wouldn't be similar if they controlled the Senate, House, and Oval Office, but they just don't right now.) The GOP holds the House by like 15 seats, and the Senate by 5 (well, 10 really 55-45), and still believe that 51% of voters gave Bush a mandate. And even though they're the party of "less government", well, c'mon, they were elected to do a job, right? Once again, this isn't necessarily a partisan issue, though - Democrats often seem quite complacent and willing to play along.
Most recently, this has been with the steroid hearings. I love baseball. I think using steroids is cheating. Players who do so should face serious ramifications. Baseball changed their steroid policy this year, and it's for the better for everyone involved. Had they not done anything about their impotent policies, I think Congress would have been somewhat justified in getting involved. But they did something. And now they're not being given a chance to work.
So that paragon of integrity Jose Canseco comes out with a book alleged widespread steroid use, and Congress just hops on the bandwagon. They decide to hold high-profile hearings, summoning players like Curt Schilling and Mark McGwire. Why? Well, it's not quite clear. Are they trying to prevent future steroid use? Are they trying to hold people accountable for steroid use in the past? Or are they just trying to grandstand and make names for themselves in front of millions of Americans? More and more, it seems like the latter.
Is it all necessary? Is anything going to change? I can understand the harm of kids using steroids, and maybe they're worried about the impression kids get from such behavior by athletes. But I don't see Congress intervening about hockey brawls. I don't see them intervening when the Portland Trailblazers smoke pot. And you know what? That's a good thing. You might say that steroid use is more detrimental (and more illegal) than other transgressions. I'd argue that kids are much more likely to emulate the behavior and public personas of athletes than try and use steroids, even though some of them do. But if there's effective testing? C'mon. Let baseball police itself, if it proves that it can. And if you want to try and hold the Commissioner and others accountable for the egregious violations in the past, well, I think that's somewhat silly. For the players, yes, they were cheating, but at the same time, it was so commonplace (and probably so rampant) that it just seems insane to try and prosecute every user in the past thirty years. I don't see them going after Bush for his cocaine use.
Furthermore, I can't imagine Congress doesn't have better things to do with their time. The White House is paying off reporters. There's a war that's been going on for two years and shows no signs of stopping. Millions of people can't afford health care. Yet we're stuck on whether a few hundred athletes used illegal drugs five years ago in order to gain a competitive advantage. Would that be bad if they did? Yes. But where's the sense of perspective? This is not how I want my elected officials spending their time.
The steroid thing rankled me, but the results may still make me happy, if baseball does get stricter testing. At least Congress pushed them to do that. But enough with the grandstanding hearings. But what really pushed me over the edge is this Terri Schiavo nonsense. I assume you've been following this story. To me, Congressional leaders are hopping on a media bandwagon, and they clearly don't belong. Congress defines laws. Congress does not get involved in specific, personal cases. We have people who do that - they're called judges.
To me, the whole reaction to the Schiavo case disgusts me. And I can somewhat forgive the parents for their response. I think of them as somewhat mentally unstable. They've been fighting to keep their daughter alive for years and years now. It's probably all they know. They've probably convinced themselves that there's a reasonable chance she could get better. Listen to the mother - she speaks out of conviction. I'm sure she loves her daughter. I don't begrudge her that. But I think she's so blinded by her love that the case has become less about Terri, and more about the parents. The husband seems to get it. You don't fight for something for years and years because you don't care. He wants his wife to die in peace. He knows it's time to let her go. You can see where they might have difference perspectives. That's why we have a method of conflict resolution - it's call the courts.
Those courts have ruled for Michael Schiavo over a dozen times in the past years. I can even understand why there might be a conflict between who has the right to determine when it's time to let Terri go - her parents or her husband. It's conceivable that she wasn't connected to her parents. It's possible that her husband never liked her and wants to be rid of her. Once again, that's precisely why we have courts.
So, now Congress wants to get involved. They're trying to "save her life". But that's not what they're really doing. If they had any respect for these people, they would stay out of their private matters; matters that have already been resolved by the proper authorities. No, what they're really trying to do is push their moral values into every single household in the country (maybe further). They're emboldened by the recent election. They think it gives them the right to legislate morality and push what they believe is the majority view onto every citizen. They're wrong.
They're wrong on so many accounts that it makes it difficult for me to coherently explain why. This has clearly become a symbol for a bigger issue. It's not just about the right of one woman to die in peace. No, it's about pro-life issues, and "judicial activism". It honestly feels like these people have joined a cult, where every single semblance of life must be nurtured to the extreme. You don't get a choice. You don't get a say. You must live your life in what they believe is the most "life-promoting" manner. No birth control. No abortions. No peace for the terminally ill. Only God can give and take life, and you have no right to stand in his way or do his work for him. Well, except when we're talking about the death penalty...
They're wrong because they're advocating the tyranny of the majority. Even if 90% of the country believed exactly as they do, they would have no right to affect the actions of the 10% of those who disagreed. We don't live in a theocracy. I don't understand why people don't get that. Even if the majority of the country agrees with you, in America, that doesn't make it law. If you want to live in a country where the religious beliefs of the majority dictate legality, there are plenty such countries in the Middle East that would be happy to have you. Well, except that you're American. It's not lost on me, by the way, the hypocrisy of trying to spread "democracy" to the Middle East while simultaneously pushing for a theocracy at home. It's just that here they're pushing so-called "Christian" beliefs (and the people doing the pushing have really perverted the meaning of Christianity beyond the bounds of sanity) so it's OK, whereas abroad they're pushing Islam, which is definitely not OK.
But mostly they're wrong because of simple common sense. There are lots of issues that really only have one right side. I'm certainly not saying there are no absolutes. Murder is illegal and should be punished. Freedom of speech is necessary. But there are some issues that are quite gray, and need to be left up to personal choice. Abortion is one of those. You can't tell me that it's completely clear that abortion is always murder. It's just not true. You also can't tell me that abortion is never appropriate and should be illegal. That's not true, either. (We can all agree that there should be less abortions, but that's a different discussion.) So in cases like this, where it's pretty clearly a gray area, let people decide. Have courts handle cases that are somewhat egregious one way or the other. Why is this so hard?
The Schiavo case is another example of a gray area. So let people decide on their own. If there's a personal conflict (which there is - between the parents and the husband), then have the courts sort it out, which they already did. It's time to let her go. It's time to let people make their own decisions. Our government's responsibility is to all citizens - not just the religious zealots, not just the people who scream and cry and shout the loudest, but to all citizens.
Fortunately, polls shows a significant majority of Americans (like 80-90%) think it's time to let Terri Schiavo die. 65% think the husband should make the decision. Hopefully if Congress keeps butting its nose in where it doesn't belong, people will start to throw the bums out. Of course, the re-election rate of Representatives is something like 98%, so I'm not going to hold my breath.
It clearly takes some amount of ego to run for any public office. And right now, the party in power is brimming with ego. (I'm not implying that the Democrats wouldn't be similar if they controlled the Senate, House, and Oval Office, but they just don't right now.) The GOP holds the House by like 15 seats, and the Senate by 5 (well, 10 really 55-45), and still believe that 51% of voters gave Bush a mandate. And even though they're the party of "less government", well, c'mon, they were elected to do a job, right? Once again, this isn't necessarily a partisan issue, though - Democrats often seem quite complacent and willing to play along.
Most recently, this has been with the steroid hearings. I love baseball. I think using steroids is cheating. Players who do so should face serious ramifications. Baseball changed their steroid policy this year, and it's for the better for everyone involved. Had they not done anything about their impotent policies, I think Congress would have been somewhat justified in getting involved. But they did something. And now they're not being given a chance to work.
So that paragon of integrity Jose Canseco comes out with a book alleged widespread steroid use, and Congress just hops on the bandwagon. They decide to hold high-profile hearings, summoning players like Curt Schilling and Mark McGwire. Why? Well, it's not quite clear. Are they trying to prevent future steroid use? Are they trying to hold people accountable for steroid use in the past? Or are they just trying to grandstand and make names for themselves in front of millions of Americans? More and more, it seems like the latter.
Is it all necessary? Is anything going to change? I can understand the harm of kids using steroids, and maybe they're worried about the impression kids get from such behavior by athletes. But I don't see Congress intervening about hockey brawls. I don't see them intervening when the Portland Trailblazers smoke pot. And you know what? That's a good thing. You might say that steroid use is more detrimental (and more illegal) than other transgressions. I'd argue that kids are much more likely to emulate the behavior and public personas of athletes than try and use steroids, even though some of them do. But if there's effective testing? C'mon. Let baseball police itself, if it proves that it can. And if you want to try and hold the Commissioner and others accountable for the egregious violations in the past, well, I think that's somewhat silly. For the players, yes, they were cheating, but at the same time, it was so commonplace (and probably so rampant) that it just seems insane to try and prosecute every user in the past thirty years. I don't see them going after Bush for his cocaine use.
Furthermore, I can't imagine Congress doesn't have better things to do with their time. The White House is paying off reporters. There's a war that's been going on for two years and shows no signs of stopping. Millions of people can't afford health care. Yet we're stuck on whether a few hundred athletes used illegal drugs five years ago in order to gain a competitive advantage. Would that be bad if they did? Yes. But where's the sense of perspective? This is not how I want my elected officials spending their time.
The steroid thing rankled me, but the results may still make me happy, if baseball does get stricter testing. At least Congress pushed them to do that. But enough with the grandstanding hearings. But what really pushed me over the edge is this Terri Schiavo nonsense. I assume you've been following this story. To me, Congressional leaders are hopping on a media bandwagon, and they clearly don't belong. Congress defines laws. Congress does not get involved in specific, personal cases. We have people who do that - they're called judges.
To me, the whole reaction to the Schiavo case disgusts me. And I can somewhat forgive the parents for their response. I think of them as somewhat mentally unstable. They've been fighting to keep their daughter alive for years and years now. It's probably all they know. They've probably convinced themselves that there's a reasonable chance she could get better. Listen to the mother - she speaks out of conviction. I'm sure she loves her daughter. I don't begrudge her that. But I think she's so blinded by her love that the case has become less about Terri, and more about the parents. The husband seems to get it. You don't fight for something for years and years because you don't care. He wants his wife to die in peace. He knows it's time to let her go. You can see where they might have difference perspectives. That's why we have a method of conflict resolution - it's call the courts.
Those courts have ruled for Michael Schiavo over a dozen times in the past years. I can even understand why there might be a conflict between who has the right to determine when it's time to let Terri go - her parents or her husband. It's conceivable that she wasn't connected to her parents. It's possible that her husband never liked her and wants to be rid of her. Once again, that's precisely why we have courts.
So, now Congress wants to get involved. They're trying to "save her life". But that's not what they're really doing. If they had any respect for these people, they would stay out of their private matters; matters that have already been resolved by the proper authorities. No, what they're really trying to do is push their moral values into every single household in the country (maybe further). They're emboldened by the recent election. They think it gives them the right to legislate morality and push what they believe is the majority view onto every citizen. They're wrong.
They're wrong on so many accounts that it makes it difficult for me to coherently explain why. This has clearly become a symbol for a bigger issue. It's not just about the right of one woman to die in peace. No, it's about pro-life issues, and "judicial activism". It honestly feels like these people have joined a cult, where every single semblance of life must be nurtured to the extreme. You don't get a choice. You don't get a say. You must live your life in what they believe is the most "life-promoting" manner. No birth control. No abortions. No peace for the terminally ill. Only God can give and take life, and you have no right to stand in his way or do his work for him. Well, except when we're talking about the death penalty...
They're wrong because they're advocating the tyranny of the majority. Even if 90% of the country believed exactly as they do, they would have no right to affect the actions of the 10% of those who disagreed. We don't live in a theocracy. I don't understand why people don't get that. Even if the majority of the country agrees with you, in America, that doesn't make it law. If you want to live in a country where the religious beliefs of the majority dictate legality, there are plenty such countries in the Middle East that would be happy to have you. Well, except that you're American. It's not lost on me, by the way, the hypocrisy of trying to spread "democracy" to the Middle East while simultaneously pushing for a theocracy at home. It's just that here they're pushing so-called "Christian" beliefs (and the people doing the pushing have really perverted the meaning of Christianity beyond the bounds of sanity) so it's OK, whereas abroad they're pushing Islam, which is definitely not OK.
But mostly they're wrong because of simple common sense. There are lots of issues that really only have one right side. I'm certainly not saying there are no absolutes. Murder is illegal and should be punished. Freedom of speech is necessary. But there are some issues that are quite gray, and need to be left up to personal choice. Abortion is one of those. You can't tell me that it's completely clear that abortion is always murder. It's just not true. You also can't tell me that abortion is never appropriate and should be illegal. That's not true, either. (We can all agree that there should be less abortions, but that's a different discussion.) So in cases like this, where it's pretty clearly a gray area, let people decide. Have courts handle cases that are somewhat egregious one way or the other. Why is this so hard?
The Schiavo case is another example of a gray area. So let people decide on their own. If there's a personal conflict (which there is - between the parents and the husband), then have the courts sort it out, which they already did. It's time to let her go. It's time to let people make their own decisions. Our government's responsibility is to all citizens - not just the religious zealots, not just the people who scream and cry and shout the loudest, but to all citizens.
Fortunately, polls shows a significant majority of Americans (like 80-90%) think it's time to let Terri Schiavo die. 65% think the husband should make the decision. Hopefully if Congress keeps butting its nose in where it doesn't belong, people will start to throw the bums out. Of course, the re-election rate of Representatives is something like 98%, so I'm not going to hold my breath.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Sick
I've been sick for the past week. I'm just now getting better, but man, was it annoying. I'm rarely actually sick, and I suppose I should consider myself pretty lucky for that fact. On the other hand, it means it's incredibly disruptive when I am sick, especially because I'm not used to it. Sure, from time to time I'll call out of work if I'm not 100% - maybe I didn't get enough sleep, or have a slight headache or cough or something - but I think doing that, and resting up, helps to contribute to me rarely actually catching something more serious.
I definitely caught something more serious this past week, though. On Monday night, I started feeling tired and feverish. I went to bed, but had a ton of trouble sleeping. I tossed and turned all night, and when I woke up, I felt very hot. I took my temperature, and it was 100.8. I figured I should stay home. I didn't have a ton of other symptoms, though - just a fever, a runny nose, and a sore throat. I thought it would pass pretty quickly. I was wrong.
So, in the mid-afternoon, I take my temperature again. It's around 99, so I figure I'm getting better. I take a nap, and wake up feeling even worse. The fever's coming back, and my throat's getting worse. Before I go to bed, my temperature is back around 100. I still think I'll get better if I just go to bed early and sleep in a bit. Once again, I was wrong.
I don't sleep at all at night. I've been drinking water nonstop, trying to drown this virus or whatever it is, but all that really happens is I have to pee a lot. And since I have body aches along with my fever, every part of my body is hyper-sensitive, which makes peeing pretty uncomfortable. But since I'm waking up pretty much every hour to do precisely that, well, it's not a very enjoyable evening.
I wake up around 8, when Sam's leaving for work, and decide then that I'm in no shape to go back to work. I take my temperature a little later, and it's 102.5. Hmmm....not good. Since I'm unable to go back to sleep, I just collapse on the couch. I actually start to feel better, and later in the afternoon I take my temperature. It reads...106.6! That can't be right! I know it can't be right because I'm conscious. Or at least, I think I am. Somewhat nervous, and somewhat bemused, I search for a different digital thermometer, and find one. Using that thermometer, I'm at 98.5! Close to normal! I figure I must be getting better. Yet again, I'm wrong.
I take a nap in the afternoon, and wake up feeling horrid. As evening approaches, my fever increases again. By this time, Sam's bought me some NyQuil, and I'm taking it as often as I can. Right before I go to bed, I'm as feverish as I can remember ever being. My entire head is throbbing. I take my temperature (with the functioning thermometer) and it's 103.3. That's also a bit worrisome. (I take my temperature with the broken thermometer just for the heck of it and it reads "Error".) I call Sam's dad, who is a doctor, and he tells me not to get worried yet - just to take a few Advil in addition to my NyQuil. I do so, and try to go to bed.
Somehow, I sleep a bit better - for a few hours at a clip. I wake up, and my fever is magically gone! I figure what the hell, and go in to work. I'm a bit groggy, and work only sever hours or so, but I survive the day. On Friday, I'm marginally better, and go into work again. Sine then, I've been getting better in very small increments. I learn from other sick people at work that whatever's been going around tends to linger for a long, long time. Basically, it's turned into some sort of cold now, with me filling up the trash can with gallons of snot, (well, snot-coated tissues), but the fever hasn't come back. It's Monday now, and I'm at 95%. Being sick sucked.
I definitely caught something more serious this past week, though. On Monday night, I started feeling tired and feverish. I went to bed, but had a ton of trouble sleeping. I tossed and turned all night, and when I woke up, I felt very hot. I took my temperature, and it was 100.8. I figured I should stay home. I didn't have a ton of other symptoms, though - just a fever, a runny nose, and a sore throat. I thought it would pass pretty quickly. I was wrong.
So, in the mid-afternoon, I take my temperature again. It's around 99, so I figure I'm getting better. I take a nap, and wake up feeling even worse. The fever's coming back, and my throat's getting worse. Before I go to bed, my temperature is back around 100. I still think I'll get better if I just go to bed early and sleep in a bit. Once again, I was wrong.
I don't sleep at all at night. I've been drinking water nonstop, trying to drown this virus or whatever it is, but all that really happens is I have to pee a lot. And since I have body aches along with my fever, every part of my body is hyper-sensitive, which makes peeing pretty uncomfortable. But since I'm waking up pretty much every hour to do precisely that, well, it's not a very enjoyable evening.
I wake up around 8, when Sam's leaving for work, and decide then that I'm in no shape to go back to work. I take my temperature a little later, and it's 102.5. Hmmm....not good. Since I'm unable to go back to sleep, I just collapse on the couch. I actually start to feel better, and later in the afternoon I take my temperature. It reads...106.6! That can't be right! I know it can't be right because I'm conscious. Or at least, I think I am. Somewhat nervous, and somewhat bemused, I search for a different digital thermometer, and find one. Using that thermometer, I'm at 98.5! Close to normal! I figure I must be getting better. Yet again, I'm wrong.
I take a nap in the afternoon, and wake up feeling horrid. As evening approaches, my fever increases again. By this time, Sam's bought me some NyQuil, and I'm taking it as often as I can. Right before I go to bed, I'm as feverish as I can remember ever being. My entire head is throbbing. I take my temperature (with the functioning thermometer) and it's 103.3. That's also a bit worrisome. (I take my temperature with the broken thermometer just for the heck of it and it reads "Error".) I call Sam's dad, who is a doctor, and he tells me not to get worried yet - just to take a few Advil in addition to my NyQuil. I do so, and try to go to bed.
Somehow, I sleep a bit better - for a few hours at a clip. I wake up, and my fever is magically gone! I figure what the hell, and go in to work. I'm a bit groggy, and work only sever hours or so, but I survive the day. On Friday, I'm marginally better, and go into work again. Sine then, I've been getting better in very small increments. I learn from other sick people at work that whatever's been going around tends to linger for a long, long time. Basically, it's turned into some sort of cold now, with me filling up the trash can with gallons of snot, (well, snot-coated tissues), but the fever hasn't come back. It's Monday now, and I'm at 95%. Being sick sucked.
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Quick Quiz
From the Department of Overreaction:
You're the CEO of an evil defense contractor who sells arms to terrorists. (If that wasn't bad, we know you're bad because you snarl all the time.) Unfortunately for you, the best Counter-terrorist agent in the world has traced a lead back to your company. They're searching through your files from one of your computers (they insisted), looking for evidence of your company's connection to terrorists. You tried to delete the files before they arrived, and can monitor them as they search through your network, but it's looking like if you don't do anything, their discovery of the incriminating files is inevitable.
Time's running out. If they find the files, the company you built from the ground up is finished. Do you:
1) Confess your sins and turn yourself in?
2) Cut off their network access, so they can't find the files?
3) Kill the power to the building, so they can't find the files?
4) Attempt to kill or maim them, so they can't find the files?
5) Set off your EMP Bomb, which you've been convenient developing in the same building, and while it may take about 15 minutes to detonate, it will effectively destroy everything electrical in an 8-block radius, so they can't find the files?
I think you know what the fictional CEO in question chose. This may prove to be the moment where "24" officially jumped the shark.
You're the CEO of an evil defense contractor who sells arms to terrorists. (If that wasn't bad, we know you're bad because you snarl all the time.) Unfortunately for you, the best Counter-terrorist agent in the world has traced a lead back to your company. They're searching through your files from one of your computers (they insisted), looking for evidence of your company's connection to terrorists. You tried to delete the files before they arrived, and can monitor them as they search through your network, but it's looking like if you don't do anything, their discovery of the incriminating files is inevitable.
Time's running out. If they find the files, the company you built from the ground up is finished. Do you:
1) Confess your sins and turn yourself in?
2) Cut off their network access, so they can't find the files?
3) Kill the power to the building, so they can't find the files?
4) Attempt to kill or maim them, so they can't find the files?
5) Set off your EMP Bomb, which you've been convenient developing in the same building, and while it may take about 15 minutes to detonate, it will effectively destroy everything electrical in an 8-block radius, so they can't find the files?
I think you know what the fictional CEO in question chose. This may prove to be the moment where "24" officially jumped the shark.
