# Decision time:



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

I recently purchased a Wife 15 (W15 for short) after being told W10 was no longer going to get any upgrades. 

W10 was pretty reliable, if slow for a number of years. However several "features" were never realized.

Shortly after bringing home my new W15, I started experienceing issues, some I chalked up to learning how to work her interface. But, after a while I noticed that she was not cooking, cleaning or perfroming other "duties" as desired (wink wink). 

She also could not tell the clean laundry from the dirty laundry, so many things got washed over and over. But at least the clothes are clean right?

My friends told me not to worry about it, they said "you can't expect a wife to perform correctly, after all look at the marriage failure rate. Any time you get married have to expect 50% chance of failure."

"My wife stopped doing that when we got married, too" was another popular comment

I expressed that I wanted my W15 to work as promised. They told me something about Microsoft and the need to lower expectations..I didn't really get the point.

They told me that W10 once had problems...I explained that as a baby I wore diapers, but now that I don't, I don't expect to go back.....at least not for a couple decades (crossed fingers)

A few friends suggested, I only ask her to do a few things. Instead of hoping she will clean, cook, and breathe, I should only ask her to do one thing at a time, and not change the order or preference.

This made me long for my W10, which could cook, clean and go back to cooking without losing her place or needing to be reset.

Soon things got a lttle better, Sure the food was black, but at least it was cooked. She was only stepping out on me twice a month and not nightly.

But then I heard about W20-700......W15's sexier and younger sister...I am told she can do things her sister won't (wink wink)

Her specs blew W15 away, and I have always been a spec guy.....sure some features were enhanced, not natural..but who cares right? I mean, no one watches an action movie and complains no one really died!

So now I have a quandry....go back to W10 and have a happy, peaceful but unspecatcular marriage, the W15 which can be wonderful at times but tremendously inconsistent, or the W20 which could be better or worse than either of the above.....:grin:


----------



## sheridan1952 (Mar 16, 2006)

Now that is funny.


----------



## profbobo (Jan 22, 2006)

My wife and I had two W15s.  The house turned into a disaster area.

We sold them and picked up two W10s.

Now it's a party every night.


----------



## cabanaboy1977 (Nov 16, 2005)

LOL, nice one.


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

Too funny. :icon_lol:

Also reminded me we need to recycle your earlier work too: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=58706.

Guys from the HR20 side of the world need to see this also.


----------



## qwerty (Feb 19, 2006)

Wolffpack said:


> Too funny. :icon_lol:
> 
> Also reminded me we need to recycle your earlier work too: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=58706.
> 
> Guys from the HR20 side of the world need to see this also.


I was looking for that post a couple weeks ago to give it a bump for the new folks. I couldn't find it though. Good work.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

qwerty said:


> I was looking for that post a couple weeks ago to give it a bump for the new folks. I couldn't find it though. Good work.


Thank you both.

Maybe we should have a Directv Humor Forum.....( sayin this is it cause the R15 is a joke is too easy so I will say it so noone else has to)

Don't forget my satirical debut..

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=584408#post584408

it is kinda funny seeing months later how accurate these "jokes" are...


----------



## cybok0 (Jan 5, 2006)

mikewolf13 said:


> I recently purchased a Wife 15 (W15 for short) after being told W10 was no longer going to get any upgrades.
> 
> W10 was pretty reliable, if slow for a number of years. However several "features" were never realized.
> 
> ...


that's very funny. :uglyhamme

all of you're humor is hilarious.:lol:


----------



## jwd45244 (Aug 18, 2006)

mikewolf13 said:


> My friends told me not to worry about it, they said "you can't expect a wife to perform correctly, after all look at the marriage failure rate. Any time you get married have to expect 50% chance of failure."


Very funny. One note, the correct statistic is *not* that 50% of all marriages end in divorce. It is that the annual number of divorces is 50% the annual number of weddings. These are two very different statistics.

But, otherwise very very funny.


----------



## ZoSoAir (Sep 19, 2006)

That's why I purchased W10-500. The 500 model (although not made in the USA) far out performs all other models.


----------



## walters (Nov 18, 2005)

Actually, this site says specifically "Percentage of first marriages that end in divorce in 1997: 50%".

http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml

It's higher for remarriages, so it would be accurate to say "any time you get married [you] have to expect _at least a_ 50% chance of failure." But of course that assumes random chance. There are things you can do, of course, to improve your odds. Such as picking the correct DVR.


----------



## jwd45244 (Aug 18, 2006)

walters said:


> Actually, this site says specifically "Percentage of first marriages that end in divorce in 1997: 50%".
> 
> http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml
> 
> It's higher for remarriages, so it would be accurate to say "any time you get married [you] have to expect _at least a_ 50% chance of failure." But of course that assumes random chance. There are things you can do, of course, to improve your odds. Such as picking the correct DVR.


Not that it matters but...

from that same place you cite, further down on the page:
http://www.divorcereform.org/nyt05.html

"How many American marriages end in divorce? One in two, if you believe the
statistic endlessly repeated in news media reports, academic papers and
campaign speeches.

The figure is based on a simple - and flawed - calculation: the annual
marriage rate per 1,000 people compared with the annual divorce rate. In
2003, for example, the most recent year for which data is available, there
were 7.5 marriages per 1,000 people and 3.8 divorces, according to the
National Center for Health Statistics."


----------



## qwerty (Feb 19, 2006)

walters;691410There are things you can do said:


> Or leasing! :lol:


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

The W10 may be faithful and dependable, but the W15 can be a thrilling adventure, if you know how to 'push her button...'.

:icon_kiss


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

jwd45244 said:


> Not that it matters but...
> 
> The figure is based on a simple - and flawed - calculation: the annual
> marriage rate per 1,000 people compared with the annual divorce rate. In
> ...


People you are putting far too much thought!

a) I never said it was an accurate stat, just what my "friends say"
b) Close enough
c) You are getting "off-topic"
d) shuddup and laugh :hurah:


----------



## jwd45244 (Aug 18, 2006)

OK, i am game :lol:


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

jwd45244 said:


> OK, i am game :lol:


Ok , You sucked me in....

If population continues to increase. I suspect marriages would increase

*IF *that is true ( and i realize it may not be, but this is my hypo), and the rate of a given years marriages and divorces is constant at 50%

wouldn't the divorce rate (over a larger span of time) actually be greater than 50%

I mean let's say

1900 20 marriages 10 divorces
1910 30 15
1920 50 25
1930 100 50 
1950 200 100
1960 300 150 
At this point there are 700 M and 350 D

If marraige is outlawed in 1961, as long as more divorces take place post -1961 than took place in 1900 due to marriages that took place pre -1900 the divorce rate would be >50%

Am i right? or nuts? or quite possibly both?


----------



## bearymore (Sep 1, 2006)

mikewolf13 said:


> Ok , You sucked me in....
> 
> If marraige is outlawed in 1961, as long as more divorces take place post -1961 than took place in 1900 due to marriages that took place pre -1900 the divorce rate would be >50%
> 
> Am i right? or nuts? or quite possibly both?


Actually, the marriage rate would become undefined since the denominator would be zero - there are no marriages in 1961 or after, hence no divorce rate (defined as divorces this year / marriages this year).

But seriously, assume there are some marriages, but a smaller number than 1960. Remember the numerator is not the sum of all the divorces that occurred to everybody, but only divorces that took place during the year of the statistic. So if there were a total of 100 divorces among 200 couples who married in 1900, most of them would have occurred before 1961 (the year of the marriage bust). After all, how many couples get divorced after 60 years of marriage? Perhaps only 1 of them got divorced in 1961. So whether or not the divorce rate goes over 50%, depends on the pattern of probabilities of divorce by length of marriage. Suppose the number of marriages fell 50% in 1961. If 90% of divorces occurred in the first year of marriage, then the 1961 divorce rate would go way down. If only 10% of divorces occurred in the first year of marriage, then it would go over 50% that year.

The answer is it depends.

---------------------------------------

Professional demographer. Do not do this at home.


----------



## Malibu13 (Sep 12, 2004)

Marriage and divorce rates can be discussed in another forum.


----------

