Not that a seal from Gamestop means much of anything. See: GameStop Selling Games Played By Employees As New

There's a reason why they have shrink-wrappers in the store...

Honestly, not badly enough to want to install Silverlight on my PC.
I'm not planning on installing it until A) I need it to access critical websites (that is, critical by my definition - sites for my bank and credit cards, for example) and B) the Flashblock plugin will treat Silverlight on webpages like it does Flash.

Except for that whole concept of 'Herd Immunity'. There will always be some people who are unable to be vaccinated - whether from a weakened immune system, an allergy to ingredients in the vaccine, or other reasons. If enough people are vaccinated, then anyone who gets sick can't expose enough people to propagate the disease, leading to the disease dying out. Can a person going through chemo who gets infected and dies from a vaccine-preventable disease really be considered a victim of natural selection? (Well, I mean, they could, in that any death can be attributed to natural selection of one sort or another. But this isn't natural selection against those who *choose* against vaccines, but rather against those who are *unable* to have vaccines)

(I'm assuming you were going more for funny than insightful; thus I'm not so much responding to you as I'm responding to those who mark you insightful.)

Necessary? No.
Profitable? Probably.

The only problem is trying to 'invest' enough time to learn everything you can do in the game - Nethack, anyone? Being able to #rub is useful, but it isn't exactly the most intuitive command.

You said what the major difference is: Braid doesn't solve the puzzle for you.

Yes, both methods allow you to avoid the 'grind' to the point of difficulty, but there's a significant difference between letting a person learn from their mistakes (and then trying something new), and letting a person 'give up' (and then watching the computer do it for you).

I quote from the article, "Raising money from private donors and foundations, the coalition had set up 70 cameras by last year. And the crime rate rose."

"How does increasing arrests not reduce crime?" Easy. When the change in the number of people who are caught committing some level of crime increases at a slower rate than the rate at which the number of crimes observed increases. With population growth, all things are possible.

As for your challenge, it's a theoretically interesting exercise to ponder the economics of crime, and what it would take to turn previously model citizens into thugs. There are probably some people who would commit crimes, but the existing criminal element in society intimidates them into proper behavior. Thus, if the existing thug supply dwindles, those intimidates lose their motivation for proper behavior and thus increase the final thug supply.

(In other words, don't challenge an idiot to a battle of lack-of-wits.)

Paranoia? Perhaps.
However, the question I was trying to answer was the difference between neighborhood watch and surveillance cameras. I don't see much of a difference between the two myself, but I tried to describe the difference I could.
In general, I agree that such cameras are useful and helpful - when there's a need for them. Another comment describes a rash of smash-and-grabs near a high school. If there's a camera, you're much more likely to catch or deter the person/people doing this.

This is exactly why I dislike this security camera plan.
Though I don't doubt that the politicians want to make things safer for everyone, the primary thing they're interested in is increasing the arrest rate. Reducing crime is not the same as increasing arrests. For politicians, more arrests means they can claim to be harder on crime.

What's the difference? For one thing, there's the matter of scope. I know the people in my neighborhood, I watch out for them, they watch out for me, we all benefit. With this, it's a select group of ten or so people *recording* the entire city. I don't know them, or even who they are. It's not so much neighbors helping neighbors as Big Brother watching neighbors.

Also, with the neighborhood watch, nobody sits there all night long with a video camera, except for good reason. (You know, if there's been a pattern of criminal activity or whatnot.)

It's similar to having your local policeman who has patrolled your neighborhood for years replaced by state troopers patrolling your neighborhood. Yeah, they'll both keep your street safe, but one carries a lot more heft than the other.

While I don't live in the UK, I know how I'd feel about such things if they were happening to me.

To begin, it's a private company, and they're allowed to censor whatever they want from their customer forum. Keep in mind, they have to worry about marketing and PR as much as any other private company. Generally, you have options to go to another company if you don't like how they operate. If not, find another place to discuss your beef.

Second, advertising is a means to profit for most any media. We're going through a transition and *everyone* needs to adapt, equally. Many people pay for cable or satellite TV. There are free programs, and paid programs. Everything needs to be funded, somewhere. Let's all try to be reasonable and work this out. There's a learning process to be had, but it'll get sorted out.