Holy crap, I never called it a tool for learning. I was removing the notion that video games are worthless investments of time. They can be fun, enjoyable, and engaging of the mind. I collected resources, determined the best way to eliminate a defended site, and learned a little Saracen history. If you don't see any benefit from that, you're being obstinate.

If my kid wanted to know more about the Saracens, I wouldn't boot up AoE, I'd direct him to a book, or Wikipedia, as you said. I never said, "I'm going to teach my kid using AoE." That's a ridiculous statement. I did say I'd be overjoyed if my kid liked to play it, because I personally know it can be quite a catalyst for further learning.

I didn't specify you took it as 'an exact historical reference'. I know a very basic history of what Saladin and the Saracens were all about because of the campaign mode in AoE. If I were to ask the majority of my friends who Saladin was, they'd be lucky to say 'some Muslim'.

I'm not going to write a book report on Saladin. But I did learn something new, through a medium that most teenagers probably enjoy more.

As for Civ, that game is rich in problem solving with a historical angle. If I were a parent, I would be overjoyed if my kid liked playing it.

Again, it depends on what games you play. Historically-oriented games (Age of Empires, Civilization, etc..) can give a very good basic foundation of human history, while any decent RTS or RPG can foster mathematical and logical decision making abilities. Plus, there have been studies on eye-hand coordination and pattern recognition that point in favor of playing video-games.

In all, these things can make you a 'better' person much in the same way piano playing and scuba diving can. If they all enrich the quality of your life, who's going to say it hasn't made you a better person?

Lets hope the Iron Lung has a battery backup.

I understand and agree with what you say. However, the main difference here is the differences in personal liberties. You generally have a large amount of personal liberty in your everyday life in the United States. Comparing your ability to influence your everyday choices to influencing legislative policy is just being obstinate.

You're missing the point. Who exactly is the victim in this 'crime'?

I refuse to accept wampum as a currency.

I'm not really sure what you thought I was talking about.

I was referring to an individual's ability to take direct action if he was unhappy with services rendered from a business entity. If you think canceling cable service because they suffered a security breach and electing privacy-minded public officials that may or may not change policy is on the same level, we must be living in different Western governments.

This is true. However, logic would dictate that demand drives change. The breakdown in this system is that the mass of people really don't care enough or understand what happens when they hand their private information to a third party. As long as this remains the case, demand for stricter security systems for private information will remain low, allowing companies to neglect improvement.

Being a Libertarian, I would make the argument that the individual knew, or should have known, the risks prior to making the choice of using those services. Handing out critical personal information is a great risk that shouldn't be taken lightly.

The power rests in the ability of the individual to rectify this. He can stop using the corporation's services, remove personal information, etc.. You have no such ability in regards to the government.

There's no difference between the Google van catching you doing the dirty with someone else and your girlfriend casing the joint. Aside from the fact that your girlfriend has a higher chance of catching you.

If you want to throw your windows open and chat, go ahead. You probably don't have an issue of anyone seeing you doing so, from the street or otherwise.

Maybe has something to do with a piece of that clean-energy money pie.

Simpsons. "No one who can speak German could be evil". PAROLED.