I could never figure out the point of all these restrictions. One of the 1st things the govt did after 9/11 was lock and harden the cockpits and cockpit doors. Because of that, something like 9/11 can never, ever, ever happen again because terrorists can't get into the cockpit. Planes might have terrorists and they might get blown up or some passengers might get killed, but no terrorist will ever again have control of the plane and use it as a missile/bomb. Pilot's simply won't relinquish control.

So, what are we protecting against? Planes were hijacked long before 9/11 and we didn't have these restrictions, so wtf? NOW we're worried about bombs or a stew getting cut? Bullshit. It's all designed to make people feel better w/o actually providing better security. Making my 3 yro and my 70-something yro MiL take off their shoes was bullshit, too. That's changed now and lessening these restrictions is good, too, but they were never real security measures.

Gamers don't care about that. The good news would be your mess is un-f'd.

Actually, I think this is a great example of why digital downloads (of anything) shouldn't cost as much as the same thing distributed on disk. Obviously the net worth of the digitally distributed version of these games is such that EA can pass out a bunch of them in the name of good will. Doing that is an economic decision and speaks to the lesser value of the digital good.

In conclusion, screw EA.

I don't think that was necessarily flamebait. I might have worded it a little differently, but I think ther eis a bit of truth in that post. Truth, in that, many gamers are fairly young or may not have the emotional growth and experience to relate purchasing to power.

I mean, how many adolescent gamers (read: those with the least experience in the market) really understand that by purchasing a product, you are, to the seller, endorsing the product and how it was made and marketed?

And it's not even adolescents. Plenty of adults don't make that connection, either. Many people know the phrase "money talks" but few seem to fully grasp what that means.

OK, so, now you're saying that having the US bogged down in another country, not possessing nukes, is what has kept the US from invading Iran.

Yet, the US has not been in Iraq for a while now and while Iran still has no nukes, the US hasn't invaded. That also seems contradictory to what you originally posted. Further, the US seems to have had no qualms about being in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time, so invading Iran, with its lagging nuke tech, would seem to be no problem. But, again, that hasn't happened.

You should at least be honest about why you want nukes: you want a big stick to wave around and feel like you have some power and get some respect in that part of the world. Not that that would win you any more friends amongst the nuclear powers, but at least its not some bullshit lie like "this would be the only thing preventing the US from invading."

I don't think that. Dude I was replying to thinks that.

That's definitely a factor. But, it's not like retired folks are the only victims, nor are they the only immigrants. I think it's also influenced by the large population living of poor people, people for whom English is a second language, and the fact that so many Floridians are simply from elsewhere and perhaps don't fully understand local rules and regulations.

Forgot to mention the prescription drug fraud earlier, too. Oxycontin smuggling in to Appalachia is pretty much because of Florida and our foot-dragging on the prescription drug database these days.

To the absolute surprise of no one.

I think fraud is simply in Florida's DNA. I mean, what is Florida in the early to mid 20th century, if not "buying swampland for cheap?" Now, it's the height of US insurance fraud, medicare fraud, mortgage fraud, and identity theft, in addition to the drug smuggling and human trafficking that comes along with major ports of entry into the U.S. It's a crazy, crazy place and reality is far removed from the Mickey Mouse and orange juice that Discover Florida is selling.

And before you blow me up, know that I say all this as a long-time Florida resident...

You know, I want to say it's for the best, due to the twitching on the gurney factor, like you say. But, really, it's not. We consumers need good competition to get the best out of these companies and a big player like Yahoo finally biting the dust we not be good for us

I suppose an alternative view is that Yahoo has been wallowing around for so long that the competition has not been there anyway. That might be true...

Right now, my wife is taking 2 courses online from a local CC, before she returns to school this fall to finish her B.A. Although we generally like it because these classes have a TON of helpful ancillary materials (video lectures, practice quizzes, practice homework, etc) and the instructors for both have been very responsive to electronic communications, there are still difficulties not associated with the regular classroom experience.

One of my biggest peeves with it is that, at times you're working to figure out the system, in addition to the school work. For example, it can be a real struggle, if the directions are sufficiently vague, to determine the desired format of an answer. One of her classes is an algebra class. Getting the correct answer isn't hard. Earning proper credit for that correct answer by determining if the program wants you to actually simplify the answer when it says "Simplify" is something else entirely. Really frustrating when you know the grading experience would be much better if this was a face to face, human graded deal.

You beat me to it. My 1st thought was "wtf is the AAPS?"

From the linked wiki, they're "a politically conservative non-profit association founded in 1943 to 'fight socialized medicine and to fight the government takeover of medicine.'"

Oh.

"The good news is that Google has so far left many of the links up."

How is that good news? If the studio wants a link to their own Facebook page for a movie removed from search results, DO IT. Google should comply with the idiotic requests. I would imagine the response would be similar to those newspaper sites that have requested their stuff be removed from Google News: traffic dives and they change their tune rather quickly. IMO, the best way to show the stupidity of the DMCA is to plainly demonstrate it to the content creators.