Did you forget about your post where you compared the number of people governments have killed to the number killed by free enterprise? That comparison (one which you make without providing the least bit of supporting evidence) is completely ridiculous, so I tried to make an equally ridiculous comparison, but apparently that was wasted on you.
To show how your comparison doesn't make any sense, let's consider the Iraq war for a second. I'm assuming you'd chalk up the deaths for people killed by governments, but was the war started because of the government or because of corporate interests? And for that matter, a government is created by people and is an actual entity, while "free enterprise" is an idea. How can you compare murders committed by people to murders committed by an idea?
The point is, your post didn't make any sense. Yes, mine didn't really either, but it's hard to argue with unclear, unsupported, illogical statements.
I think Cisco should arrange for release of employees, pull up their tents and let the Brazilians make their own routers.
Without paying the fines? I don't think that would fly in the US.
That is laughable considering that governments could only exist without business through a police state. Governments have killed millions and by comparison free enterprise has killed...very few.
Ok, so considering that in 2005, the US DoD estimated the value of an American killed in combat at just over $12,000 (I'll round up to $15,000 because it's a little easier), Cisco stole the equivalent of about 55,000 American soldiers' lives. I think corporate executives should be held more accountable for their crimes. Businesses look at nearly everything in terms of how much it is worth, so if they can put a price tag on the life of a person, maybe we should prosecute them based on how many lives the money is worth. In that context, the arrest wasn't taken seriously enough at all.
Cisco offices raided, executives arrested in Brazil: reports
The first sentence in the article (emphasis, again, mine):
Senior executives of Cisco were reportedly arrested in Brazil this week in a tax fraud investigation of the company.
Now, which peons were you referring to? 40 arrests were made, and there is nothing in the article that says anything about "peons" as so many people keep saying.
No, but good thing we aren't talking about taking pictures of dragonflies and instead are dealing with taking pictures of tiny flying robots that are roughly the same size as dragonflies. Of all the videos I've seen of small robotic flyers, none of them are able to dart around with anything close to the quickness of a dragonfly. Like some other people said, if random people are able to catch blurs of UFOs, my 2 megapixel camera phone should at least be able to see a blur if I transfer the image to my computer screen. It's also not that hard to get the thing into your camera's window... if you can see that it's in between two trees, then you just take a picture that captures both trees.
The flaw in your plan is that you will be a positive match for the DNA at the crime scene.
...unless you insert some other DNA, like your original DNA, afterwards. I thought that part was pretty easy to figure out so I didn't bother to explicitly state it.
If the fact that it would be skin instead of blood was what was bothering you since the summary talks about how the blood is changed but the skin remains the same, then the guy could cut himself and leave a few drops there. Either way, the point is that this could lead to some interesting scenarios.
And that's not even getting into the idea of people getting stem cells after the crime.
It's the type of thing I think you'd only see in movies, but imagine a hitman with a private doctor who injects stem cells after every hit... of a hitman who does it without the help of a doctor. The guy could leave different DNA at each crime scene with almost no worries of being linked to each murder.
Or what if someone inserted the DNA of another person in an attempt to frame the person? Insert DNA, kill someone, scratch yourself with the dead body's nails: instant frame job.
I didn't read the artical so I don't know how long it took for the person's DNA to change, and the second scenario would require having the to-be-framed individual's stem cells or a some way to synthesize it, but that doesn't mean it won't be possible soon... of course it doesn't mean it will be possible either.
And that's a whole other problem. Heavenly Sword looked awesome back when it was a potential launch title and no one new it was only 6 hours long. I was excited about Warhawk as a launch title as well, but it's been a year and there's no single player. FIFA '08 was half a game, along with some other EA titles. There's still a lot of time between now and LBP's release date for the game to be changed for the worse. I don't even want to think about what might happen to GTA.
Sony seems to do a great job of hyping all the new games, but then fails to deliver... miserably. It's so damn disappointing.
Ok, I think I see the problem here. In the parent of your initial post, I read it and focused on the bold:
Yeah, there's nothing more relaxing than being stuck out in nature dealing with a lack of bathroom facilities, a bunch of bugs and mosquitoes and constantly wondering if things are fine at work or if someone needs your help or if your own company that you run on the side is in good hands and not having the technological resources strapped on you to deal with them should you be needed.
Thanks, but I think I'll stick with my laptop, cell phone and city landscape. Nature is ass and unplugging is highly overrated.
While you seemed to focus on the part not in bold, and then commented about the bold anyway. There's the disconnect. I think that it's the bugs that are keeping the guy out of nature, not the lack of tech, while you seem to think it's the opposite. Fair enough, I can't claim to know the OP's thoughts. From my assumption, it makes your posts look a lot different.
As for my thought that it was an attack on people who don't like nature, am I so wrong in seeing it that way? It is condescending. Here's part of another post higher in the thread:
Do outdoorsy stuff. Go hiking, camping or just go climb a mountain.
And if you do this regularly, you realize just how relaxing it is to not be connected to anything.
It's written as if the person reading it has never heard of "outdoorsy" stuff, much less ever been in the country. Maybe I'm taking it wrong, but that seems like talking down to people. Also, I never said I didn't leave the city. I don't even live in the city. I have no interest in living in the city. I like living on a lake and taking my jetski or pontoon out for a ride. Then I go back inside on the internet. It's not about being a "slashdotter."
With that said, nice job with the ad hominem attack. Were you trying to be funny or did you not notice that you went from one sentence where you said slashdotters react by thinking it's a personal attack, and then personally attacked me with the "geek angst" comment? Could you try to stick to logical arguments instead of gross generalizations and thinly veiled insults?
Much like the Boston stunt with the Aqua force whatever team signs....this is horrible overreaction.
I will completely agree with you that the Aqua Teen Hunger Force incident was an over reaction, but I don't think this is the same thing.
She was wearing something with wires, lights, and a battery (although it was just a duracell, lol) on it. I think the police acted appropriately by stopping her. There are some things that could be bombs, and it's best to know for sure that they're not, even if most of the time they are harmless. However, I do think submachine guns were a little unnecessary. I'm not sure how the actual events went, but if she said its art, they should have run it through an x-ray or whatever they have to do to determine if its real or not. Then tell her not to wear it until she leaves the airport on the other side.
Aside from the fact, that I think someone wearing a bomb, wanting to get in as far as possible, would NOT be wearing the mechanism on the outside of their clothing, advertising it for a guard to see....I think we've just with this incident, given the 'terrorists' a good clue how to sneak stuff by. If it doesn't have wires and components hanging out of it...if it doesn't look like a hand fabbed piece of electronic equipment, they probably aren't gonna get stopped at gunpoint for wearing a bomb.
Terrorists aren't the only ones to use bombs. She could have been depressed and wanted to commit suicide while taking as many people with her as possible, or could be trying to prove a point that airport security isn't very good by blowing up an airport, or could have been a mentally unstable person who thinks airports are where aliens come from. It doesn't have to be a terrorist act to be dangerous.
If you continue to read up the thread chain to the GGP (or GGGP from the post I'm making now), you'll see that it was about nature. They were talking about nature from the beginning of the thread.
Speaking of putting words in people's mouths, I didn't say anything about worrying about work. To me, getting away is sitting down and playing Civ4 for 6 hours, then surfing the internet while I watch a movie. I don't think about work while I'm doing that. Is that so ridiculous?
Well if you're going to think of it that way, there was DRM on the Dreamcast too. Trying playing a Dreamcast game on a SNES. But that's not really relevant to what we were talking about, similar to your comment.
1. Where's the battlefield? You can't answer that question without either going back on the "non on US soil" part or claiming that we are at war with another country.
2. How do you determine the "End of conflict", when there isn't any conflict?
3. Diplomacy with their home country... which home country is that? Which country are we at war with?
4. There are prisoners of war? I thought they were called "enemy combatants" and therefore didn't fall under the Geneva Conventions or anything else for that matter. I'd love it if they were designated as prisoners of war, because then they would actually have some recourse.
No, I think you're missing the point, just like the article. Let me put a little spin on it:
---In other news, studies found many American adults have kicked their addiction to going off the grid and social interaction. Instead of being obsessed with hearing themselves talk while others wait their turn to do the same, 20% of adults say that they prefer to have conversations online, where, although they have to deal spammers and a few other nuisances, they find they can locate others with a desire for real discussion. On the nature side, many adults these days find they are more comfortable being in constant contact with current events and their friends and co-workers, instead of leaving on long trips where they can do nothing productive during that time.---
Now if that sounds a little condescending, you know how some of us feel in reading this summary and some of the comments that followed. We all have our ways to wind down and "get away," so don't try to tell me that yours is better than mine. I don't like being in nature or being away from the internet for long periods of time. It's not an addiction, it's a preference.
Sorry for the late response, but there are a couple things I want to comment on.
When I said the curve was brutal, I meant the curve was brutal, not the way he set up tests. The sentence you left out when quoting me was about how the curve worked. The curve is different from the test. Maybe I should have separated that part into another paragraph to make that more clear.
As for pitting students against each other, I'll agree with you that there isn't anything inherently wrong with it. However, there are two problems with what you're saying.
First, it totally overlooks the way colleges work. Let's face it, college isn't only about learning. The majority of people go to college to get a degree that they can use to get a certain job. Students go to get a degree that certifies they have acquired some level of knowledge about a subject or are capable of doing certain tasks. By pitting students against each other and deciding their grades in that manner, the degree certifies something different each year. If I go in for a job interview against someone with the same GPA from my university, then the interviewer should base his/her decisions on some other aspect. However, if the other person graduated a year earlier and has a higher GPA than me because the students in his/her classes didn't do as well, then the interviewer might base the decision on the GPA even though I learned more and worked harder in all my classes. If I do well one year, I should do just as well the next year (assuming only the students have changed).
Also, I will argue that it's not like the "real world" (it makes me laugh a bit when people try to say College isn't part of the "real world") to pit people against each other in this manner. There aren't a whole lot of jobs that base your pay on how well you do on a project (comparative to the level of this class). Imagine if you went to work to start on a new project and your boss said, "Of the 100 of you working on this project, your pay will be based on how well you do the project. You will receive a percentage of your pay equal to your rank." I doubt many people would work at a company like that for long.
I'm a computer science major at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. I went to Pomona College for 2 years and have taken classes over the years at Joliet Junior College.
In all the classes I've taken, I've only had one "real curve". In every other case when a "curve" was used, it was used to bump up scores similar to what you pointed our or to smooth out the distribution of grades (still without dropping any one student's grade). Usually this is done at the end of the semester where teachers would drop the bounds of a letter grade to even out the number of students in getting each letter (instead of a B being 80-90%, it might drop to 75-88%).
As for the "real curve", it was kinda brutal. First off, the teacher geared his class to completely work around a curve. At the start of the year, he told us the break down of percentages of students that would receive each letter grade and that our rank in the class determined our final grade. Then, for tests and assignments, he tried to make things difficult enough so that the average grade would be 50%, thus making a nice curve to assign letter grades with (although letter grades didn't matter at any one point because it all depended on the final ranking). I got a 34% percent on the first test and a 43% on the second, which ended up being an A and a B respectively. It was pretty strange to score almost 10% higher on a test yet get a whole letter lower.
Personally, I don't agree with pitting students against each other. I don't think that another guy's ability in the class should affect my grade, but none of that really mattered if you were worried about passing the class. In the case of this class, it was so hard that a lot of students dropped out or just gave up, and they made up the vast majority of failing grades. However, getting an A in the class was very dependent on the competition.
Ok, but there isn't DRM on the XBox 360 version, so it's not the game's fault that you don't have an XBox 360 to play on. But that doesn't really matter either, since I wasn't arguing for either side, just arguing against the logic used by the GP.
Although this isn't quite related to the article, I think following the ethical policy all the time isn't always a good thing (of course, always doing anything will rarely be the right course of action).
At my university, they recently sent out an email to a couple thousand students that included an attachment containing personal information about every student in the engineering department, including GPA, phone numbers, and addresses. Instead of calling up the IT guys and deleting the emails from the accounts that received them, the university sent out emails asking students to manually delete the emails. I'm not sure if they did this because they didn't want to invade the student's privacy, but if that's the case, then I think they went too far in following their code of ethics. Sometimes you have to bend the rules to fix a problem.
The game is called "planned obsolescence," or at least it is very similar to it. And it's not just hardware companies, but Microsoft, car manufacturers, bad plumbers or electricians, and just about everything else these days. Why sell a good product when you can convince a customer to keep upgrading (read, buy replacements) or just wait until the old stuff breaks? (-Rhetorical, please don't answer that question)
I'm not trying to comment on whether or not the DRM issue should be part of the review, but your logic could be used to support either side. Example:
The DRM issue has nothing to do with the quality of the game. Consider going to see a movie. The location of the movie or the theater you see it in should have no bearing on a review of the movie itself. Just because I see it in a nice theater doesn't mean it's a better movie than the one you saw in a run down theater because it's the same movie. If my movie theater is right on my block while you have to walk 5 miles in the snow to see it, that's not the movie's fault. It's the same with games. It's not the game's fault if your XBox 360's controller sucks, it's the system's fault. If you want to write a review of Windows, then by all means, include the fact that you are having trouble installing BioShock, but don't blame the game on the system when you can play it just fine on the 360.
The incident was so serious that President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were quickly informed and Gates has asked for daily briefings on the Air Force probe, said Defense Department press secretary Geoff Morrell.
No one else thought that was a little funny? It's as if there was a guy who had to make a decision between informing the president immediately or waiting until after he finished watching the Scooby Doo movie. While I'm not sure that this is something for the average American to be worried about, surely a mishap involving nuclear weapons is note-worthy for the president. But then again, who expects a lot of action from the guy who's about to break the record for most vacation days taken while in office.
I could be wrong, but Slashdot is considered a "social network" according to their guidelines. So is wikipedia, along with any other site where a user can post comments.
You're right, this isn't surprising news for a fair portion of the US, but it's a start for those that blindly trust the current administration. Either way, we'd all be a lot more pissed off if this didn't make the news.
The precedent had already been set about 10 years ago by our then sitting President!
Not really. There wasn't any be-all-end-all precedent set because of Clinton, so that really doesn't have any effect on the case with Libby.
If it's wrong, it's wrong regardless WHY it happened!
Yes, if it's wrong, it's wrong regardless of whether or not someone got away with it before. Clinton has nothing to do with what is going on now, but good attempt at distraction.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you forget about your post where you compared the number of people governments have killed to the number killed by free enterprise? That comparison (one which you make without providing the least bit of supporting evidence) is completely ridiculous, so I tried to make an equally ridiculous comparison, but apparently that was wasted on you.
To show how your comparison doesn't make any sense, let's consider the Iraq war for a second. I'm assuming you'd chalk up the deaths for people killed by governments, but was the war started because of the government or because of corporate interests? And for that matter, a government is created by people and is an actual entity, while "free enterprise" is an idea. How can you compare murders committed by people to murders committed by an idea?
The point is, your post didn't make any sense. Yes, mine didn't really either, but it's hard to argue with unclear, unsupported, illogical statements.
Your difficulty in believing something has little to do with whether or not its true.
I think Cisco should arrange for release of employees, pull up their tents and let the Brazilians make their own routers.
Without paying the fines? I don't think that would fly in the US.
That is laughable considering that governments could only exist without business through a police state. Governments have killed millions and by comparison free enterprise has killed...very few.
Ok, so considering that in 2005, the US DoD estimated the value of an American killed in combat at just over $12,000 (I'll round up to $15,000 because it's a little easier), Cisco stole the equivalent of about 55,000 American soldiers' lives. I think corporate executives should be held more accountable for their crimes. Businesses look at nearly everything in terms of how much it is worth, so if they can put a price tag on the life of a person, maybe we should prosecute them based on how many lives the money is worth. In that context, the arrest wasn't taken seriously enough at all.
The first sentence in the article (emphasis, again, mine):
Now, which peons were you referring to? 40 arrests were made, and there is nothing in the article that says anything about "peons" as so many people keep saying.
No, but good thing we aren't talking about taking pictures of dragonflies and instead are dealing with taking pictures of tiny flying robots that are roughly the same size as dragonflies. Of all the videos I've seen of small robotic flyers, none of them are able to dart around with anything close to the quickness of a dragonfly. Like some other people said, if random people are able to catch blurs of UFOs, my 2 megapixel camera phone should at least be able to see a blur if I transfer the image to my computer screen. It's also not that hard to get the thing into your camera's window... if you can see that it's in between two trees, then you just take a picture that captures both trees.
If the fact that it would be skin instead of blood was what was bothering you since the summary talks about how the blood is changed but the skin remains the same, then the guy could cut himself and leave a few drops there. Either way, the point is that this could lead to some interesting scenarios.
And that's not even getting into the idea of people getting stem cells after the crime.
It's the type of thing I think you'd only see in movies, but imagine a hitman with a private doctor who injects stem cells after every hit... of a hitman who does it without the help of a doctor. The guy could leave different DNA at each crime scene with almost no worries of being linked to each murder.
Or what if someone inserted the DNA of another person in an attempt to frame the person? Insert DNA, kill someone, scratch yourself with the dead body's nails: instant frame job.
I didn't read the artical so I don't know how long it took for the person's DNA to change, and the second scenario would require having the to-be-framed individual's stem cells or a some way to synthesize it, but that doesn't mean it won't be possible soon... of course it doesn't mean it will be possible either.
(at least it looks to be fun)
And that's a whole other problem. Heavenly Sword looked awesome back when it was a potential launch title and no one new it was only 6 hours long. I was excited about Warhawk as a launch title as well, but it's been a year and there's no single player. FIFA '08 was half a game, along with some other EA titles. There's still a lot of time between now and LBP's release date for the game to be changed for the worse. I don't even want to think about what might happen to GTA.
Sony seems to do a great job of hyping all the new games, but then fails to deliver... miserably. It's so damn disappointing.
As for my thought that it was an attack on people who don't like nature, am I so wrong in seeing it that way? It is condescending. Here's part of another post higher in the thread:
It's written as if the person reading it has never heard of "outdoorsy" stuff, much less ever been in the country. Maybe I'm taking it wrong, but that seems like talking down to people. Also, I never said I didn't leave the city. I don't even live in the city. I have no interest in living in the city. I like living on a lake and taking my jetski or pontoon out for a ride. Then I go back inside on the internet. It's not about being a "slashdotter."
With that said, nice job with the ad hominem attack. Were you trying to be funny or did you not notice that you went from one sentence where you said slashdotters react by thinking it's a personal attack, and then personally attacked me with the "geek angst" comment? Could you try to stick to logical arguments instead of gross generalizations and thinly veiled insults?
She was wearing something with wires, lights, and a battery (although it was just a duracell, lol) on it. I think the police acted appropriately by stopping her. There are some things that could be bombs, and it's best to know for sure that they're not, even if most of the time they are harmless. However, I do think submachine guns were a little unnecessary. I'm not sure how the actual events went, but if she said its art, they should have run it through an x-ray or whatever they have to do to determine if its real or not. Then tell her not to wear it until she leaves the airport on the other side.
Terrorists aren't the only ones to use bombs. She could have been depressed and wanted to commit suicide while taking as many people with her as possible, or could be trying to prove a point that airport security isn't very good by blowing up an airport, or could have been a mentally unstable person who thinks airports are where aliens come from. It doesn't have to be a terrorist act to be dangerous.
If you continue to read up the thread chain to the GGP (or GGGP from the post I'm making now), you'll see that it was about nature. They were talking about nature from the beginning of the thread.
Speaking of putting words in people's mouths, I didn't say anything about worrying about work. To me, getting away is sitting down and playing Civ4 for 6 hours, then surfing the internet while I watch a movie. I don't think about work while I'm doing that. Is that so ridiculous?
Well if you're going to think of it that way, there was DRM on the Dreamcast too. Trying playing a Dreamcast game on a SNES. But that's not really relevant to what we were talking about, similar to your comment.
1. Where's the battlefield? You can't answer that question without either going back on the "non on US soil" part or claiming that we are at war with another country. 2. How do you determine the "End of conflict", when there isn't any conflict? 3. Diplomacy with their home country... which home country is that? Which country are we at war with? 4. There are prisoners of war? I thought they were called "enemy combatants" and therefore didn't fall under the Geneva Conventions or anything else for that matter. I'd love it if they were designated as prisoners of war, because then they would actually have some recourse.
No, I think you're missing the point, just like the article. Let me put a little spin on it:
---In other news, studies found many American adults have kicked their addiction to going off the grid and social interaction. Instead of being obsessed with hearing themselves talk while others wait their turn to do the same, 20% of adults say that they prefer to have conversations online, where, although they have to deal spammers and a few other nuisances, they find they can locate others with a desire for real discussion. On the nature side, many adults these days find they are more comfortable being in constant contact with current events and their friends and co-workers, instead of leaving on long trips where they can do nothing productive during that time.---
Now if that sounds a little condescending, you know how some of us feel in reading this summary and some of the comments that followed. We all have our ways to wind down and "get away," so don't try to tell me that yours is better than mine. I don't like being in nature or being away from the internet for long periods of time. It's not an addiction, it's a preference.
Sorry for the late response, but there are a couple things I want to comment on.
When I said the curve was brutal, I meant the curve was brutal, not the way he set up tests. The sentence you left out when quoting me was about how the curve worked. The curve is different from the test. Maybe I should have separated that part into another paragraph to make that more clear.
As for pitting students against each other, I'll agree with you that there isn't anything inherently wrong with it. However, there are two problems with what you're saying.
First, it totally overlooks the way colleges work. Let's face it, college isn't only about learning. The majority of people go to college to get a degree that they can use to get a certain job. Students go to get a degree that certifies they have acquired some level of knowledge about a subject or are capable of doing certain tasks. By pitting students against each other and deciding their grades in that manner, the degree certifies something different each year. If I go in for a job interview against someone with the same GPA from my university, then the interviewer should base his/her decisions on some other aspect. However, if the other person graduated a year earlier and has a higher GPA than me because the students in his/her classes didn't do as well, then the interviewer might base the decision on the GPA even though I learned more and worked harder in all my classes. If I do well one year, I should do just as well the next year (assuming only the students have changed).
Also, I will argue that it's not like the "real world" (it makes me laugh a bit when people try to say College isn't part of the "real world") to pit people against each other in this manner. There aren't a whole lot of jobs that base your pay on how well you do on a project (comparative to the level of this class). Imagine if you went to work to start on a new project and your boss said, "Of the 100 of you working on this project, your pay will be based on how well you do the project. You will receive a percentage of your pay equal to your rank." I doubt many people would work at a company like that for long.
I'm a computer science major at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. I went to Pomona College for 2 years and have taken classes over the years at Joliet Junior College.
In all the classes I've taken, I've only had one "real curve". In every other case when a "curve" was used, it was used to bump up scores similar to what you pointed our or to smooth out the distribution of grades (still without dropping any one student's grade). Usually this is done at the end of the semester where teachers would drop the bounds of a letter grade to even out the number of students in getting each letter (instead of a B being 80-90%, it might drop to 75-88%).
As for the "real curve", it was kinda brutal. First off, the teacher geared his class to completely work around a curve. At the start of the year, he told us the break down of percentages of students that would receive each letter grade and that our rank in the class determined our final grade. Then, for tests and assignments, he tried to make things difficult enough so that the average grade would be 50%, thus making a nice curve to assign letter grades with (although letter grades didn't matter at any one point because it all depended on the final ranking). I got a 34% percent on the first test and a 43% on the second, which ended up being an A and a B respectively. It was pretty strange to score almost 10% higher on a test yet get a whole letter lower.
Personally, I don't agree with pitting students against each other. I don't think that another guy's ability in the class should affect my grade, but none of that really mattered if you were worried about passing the class. In the case of this class, it was so hard that a lot of students dropped out or just gave up, and they made up the vast majority of failing grades. However, getting an A in the class was very dependent on the competition.
Ok, but there isn't DRM on the XBox 360 version, so it's not the game's fault that you don't have an XBox 360 to play on. But that doesn't really matter either, since I wasn't arguing for either side, just arguing against the logic used by the GP.
Although this isn't quite related to the article, I think following the ethical policy all the time isn't always a good thing (of course, always doing anything will rarely be the right course of action).
At my university, they recently sent out an email to a couple thousand students that included an attachment containing personal information about every student in the engineering department, including GPA, phone numbers, and addresses. Instead of calling up the IT guys and deleting the emails from the accounts that received them, the university sent out emails asking students to manually delete the emails. I'm not sure if they did this because they didn't want to invade the student's privacy, but if that's the case, then I think they went too far in following their code of ethics. Sometimes you have to bend the rules to fix a problem.
The game is called "planned obsolescence," or at least it is very similar to it. And it's not just hardware companies, but Microsoft, car manufacturers, bad plumbers or electricians, and just about everything else these days. Why sell a good product when you can convince a customer to keep upgrading (read, buy replacements) or just wait until the old stuff breaks? (-Rhetorical, please don't answer that question)
I'm not trying to comment on whether or not the DRM issue should be part of the review, but your logic could be used to support either side. Example:
The DRM issue has nothing to do with the quality of the game. Consider going to see a movie. The location of the movie or the theater you see it in should have no bearing on a review of the movie itself. Just because I see it in a nice theater doesn't mean it's a better movie than the one you saw in a run down theater because it's the same movie. If my movie theater is right on my block while you have to walk 5 miles in the snow to see it, that's not the movie's fault. It's the same with games. It's not the game's fault if your XBox 360's controller sucks, it's the system's fault. If you want to write a review of Windows, then by all means, include the fact that you are having trouble installing BioShock, but don't blame the game on the system when you can play it just fine on the 360.
I'm just saying that logic works both ways.
No one ever says anything interesting when I have mod points, but every time I run out, all the best comments show up. It never fails.
I could be wrong, but Slashdot is considered a "social network" according to their guidelines. So is wikipedia, along with any other site where a user can post comments.
You're right, this isn't surprising news for a fair portion of the US, but it's a start for those that blindly trust the current administration. Either way, we'd all be a lot more pissed off if this didn't make the news.
The precedent had already been set about 10 years ago by our then sitting President!
Not really. There wasn't any be-all-end-all precedent set because of Clinton, so that really doesn't have any effect on the case with Libby.
If it's wrong, it's wrong regardless WHY it happened! Yes, if it's wrong, it's wrong regardless of whether or not someone got away with it before. Clinton has nothing to do with what is going on now, but good attempt at distraction.