"Proving that science fiction can still be great entertainment"

When was this something that needed to be proven? I've found plenty of entertaining science fiction around. Did I miss the elitist newsletter that told us all we had to say science fiction was crap now?

Jeez, miss one meeting...

Who's going to patch it? The development company went out of business back in '05, and only lasted the last year becasue they laid off all their staff. None of the companies involved in UT had anything to do with it. Valve sold the engine (or liscensed it) to Troika, and doesn't have any financial incentive to patch it. The amature patch is the best you will ever get.

The only way I can reconcile that statment regarding the "techno-savvy crowd" and syfy, is that they constituted their focus groups entirely of ravers and techno music afficionados.

Why are you engaging extreme nationalists with logical debate? There's no point in it, you cannot convince them, you cannot stop them and you certainly cannot win.

It's like the old maxim about wrestling a pig. You get dirty and the pig likes it.

The FTC lost because they were trying to stretch anti-trust law to cover bad-faith acting in creating a standard. I think it's a weak argument, and obviously the courts thought so too.

While it definitely qualifies as douchebaggery, and quite possibly falls under civil contract law, I don't think it's really an anti-trust violation. Trying to expand the definition of a law isn't the place of the FTC.

No, the problem is they're looking for a link to an increase that doesn't exist. Science explicitly explains the "increase" in autism cases as actually better and earlier diagnosis due to broadened awareness.

These people are dangerous becasue they're trying to explain something that doesn't exist, and damning everything that gets in their way.

The Family Entertainment Protection Act died in committee, so I'd say no. As I recall, the SCOTUS judgement in question only gave partial 1st amendment protection.

And people shouldn't ignore him. The press should publish his rhetoric, and give him the audience he deserves. It's far better to have the voice of the censor lobby to be someone this insane, rather than someone more reasonable sounding, but who has the same views and goals. It allows for that entire side to be marginalize, and thus for acutal progress on reasonable restrictions (if any are appropriate) to take place.

If not for wingnuts like good ol' Jack; Lieberman and Rodham-Clinton may have been successful in creating government censorship of games.

"Their mid-range also seems a bit ambitious - more like mid-range of new hardware for serious gamers"

Well the site's tagline is "Home of the hardcore gamer" so yeah, the specs on x-range are going to be different from other people's.

Excepting that the naked short sellign issue is being taken up by a considerably varied group of financial people here, not just the "Crackpots" you describe.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122885715615592401.html for one example.

While it's far from total mainstream acceptance, the current state of wikipedia articles is abysmally onesided and biased toward the NSS=ok viewpoint, with all other viewpoints supressed, and anyone attempting to add such information banned as a sock of a certain user. And no, I am not that user, and have never edited such articles, despite being appalled by their complete lack of objectivity.

Nope, you'd be labeled as meat/sock/whateverpuppets and your contributions to the policies without sufficient article-space edits would be discounted, if you weren't outright banned, as part of an obvious campaign to sully wikipedia's "purity".

For the "sum of all human knowledge" they don't play well with outsiders who don't follow their very specific, and often times completely arbitrary, way of doing things. Expect many many hoops.

Since when are items which give an experience bonus considered fluff?

That's a matter of fact for a jury at trial. The question about who to sue and if the anonymity is protected or can be divulged, it a matter of law for a judge to determine prior to a jury being seated.

As long as he has a case that appears to be valid, a judge can't toss it out based on facts, only a jury can decide that (unless both parties allow for a bench trial, which obviously they can't since one hasn't been served yet).

Shouldn't this be directed not at the publisher, but at the retailer, though? If you get a bad dinner,you go to the restaurant and demand they give you a refund, do you go to the food wholesaler and demand a refund from them?

This might actually be part of the problem. It would interfere with the long-standing internship/apprenticeship period which most law school students/graduates have to go through. Tradition, exploitation of cheap work, and a feeling of "this is what I had to do, so you do too" that all to many of us foist upon younger generations out of spite.

Althoug, really, I suspect more of it is the law school being hampered by overly cautious and spineless administrations.