As the very first sentence I wrote started, "One of the reasons...", I'm not sure where you got the idea that I "honestly think that competition to lower prices is only achieved through skimping on quality or reliability..." Obviously I don't. Read more carefully before replying please. ;)

That said, as others have pointed out, a sanctioned and regulated monopoly is not necessary in the example you cite.

Limiting competition is indeed the goal of a regulated monopoly -- that would be the reason we use the word "monopoly." However the goal here is not inherently to allow a single entity to profit in as much as it is to make sure a scarce resource (telephone poles, underground conduits, water pipes, etc.) are used to best effect. The only other alternative is to have the government own the infrastructure and provide the service themselves. I don't think that's a good idea either.

If you honestly think free market competition is the best way to go for crucial infrastructure services, I point you at California's electric power fiasco as evidence you are very wrong. California did exactly that in 1996. Now prices are high, supply is low and you get to enjoy rolling blackouts every summer! w00t!

One of the reasons for enforced monopolies is that for an infrastructure service that is considered "crucial", like electricity, phone and water you don't want the inevitable pressure to cut costs by scrimping on reliability in order to compete. That is why these enforced monopolies are, in theory, regulated heavily.

Of course, I personally don't think that precludes heavy competition with heavy regulation, but what do I know. :)

All I can really say is as a GM back in the days of 1st and 2nd edition (I stopped playing once WOTC took over), the fact that there were no specific rules for certain situations is exactly why it was fun to play. The GM could make up whatever was necessary to move the game along without having to worry about some player screaming about the rules. Most of the folks complaining about the lack of ability to role-play with the new ruleset -- this is really what they mean. If you want rigid game mechanics, play a video game.

Gladiator had a very final ending. That was much more recent than most of the movies mentioned so far and I certainly enjoy it enough to watch it again periodically.

I think the ending versus hook into sequel has a lot to do with the director.

Obviously I did, or a) I wouldn't have made the coffee reference, and b) I wouldn't have mentioned the open source software part.

So since you seemed to have found magically invisible information at the page you linked, perhaps you can share it with the rest of us?

As I said, $10K is hardly enough to live on so they either had money coming in from somewhere else, developed the whole game in a week, or they are not human.

I'm curious what they spent the $10K on. That seems too small for living expenses (unless perhaps you are single and living on ramen noodles), and it seems too much if they used open source software for the most part. Of course, $10K buys a lot of coffee. I might budget $10K for coffee...

...will love using this new way of harvesting power.