Everything I've learned tells me you're going in the wrong direction. You'll stick them on something that they're going to hate. Get the old folks Macs. Sucks because they're more expensive, but in my experience the technologically challenged should generally be on them.

Really, guys. My thoughts on human liberty extend far beyond the arbitrary barriers I was born inside.

You can move a LOT of exceptions through the hole you created with the words "generally unregulated".

First of all, how is it that one doctor's opinion is considered proof that "diet drugs work"? I think the author needs to re-evaluate their understanding of scientific method and the criteria by which they assert facts. Even if FDA has been given enough data to pass it's standards with four new drugs, this doesn't translate into an unfortunate situation where diet drugs "work" but aren't being prescribed. Endemic to the problem of a diet drug is the issue where the patient seeks to find a magical way to eat bad things in a world where people can easily eat bad things all the time and are encouraged to do so. Alternatively the patient seeks to remove the urge. So a drug either alters the metabolism or suppresses the appetite. I've no doubt these new drugs make advances over their harsher or more deadly predecessors, but taking them fails to address the root of the problem. Physicians understand this. When you go in to your doctor looking for a magical prescription for something like this, they ask you a few questions as they are required to do, urge you to consider that merely changing your lifestyle is actual solution to the problem, then resignedly give you the magic pill. The drug is supposed to be the last resort, but everyone from the manufacturer to the patient conspire to use it as a blanket solution. And then you may get the effect you desire, and you also get the expense and side effects of the drug, and you've ultimately done yourself a disservice that will descrease your quality of life or possibly even kill you eventually. Every doctor will tell every patient that they need to eat a better variety of foods, less unhealthy foods, and smaller portions. But then society and in most cases, the individual, proceed to ignore the true solution and encourage the opposite.

Almost everyone has more computing power than they need at this point. So they want tablets. There will have to be a must-have software item requiring newer computers before that will change. Also, don't know about you guys, but I have to laugh at anyone predicting what computers will be doing in 4 years.

The only way it would be 50% cheaper is if there was something twice as advanced, and most of us here would be coveting the one that cost double this one.

...inside its own petri dish. Most countries have a terribly broken society and government, preventing that infusion of capital from being properly injected.

I also do not care for Bullock. But I now have to conclude it's due to the roles she's been cast in, because she won me over in Gravity.

Oh, and add "hyper-sexualized" to that description.

Actually I should have read OP first, not just headline. I definitely don't think there is that much subcontext to the film. At best, maybe it seems more timely because Western society has become more militarized.

The "stiff acting by brainless models" was poking fun at Heinein's work: the girls in his books are always perfect 10's with MENSA IQ's.

I have always thought this film under-appreciated, and I'm not the stereotypical ranting and raving science fiction junkie. It's a fun sci-fi action romp, and Verhoeven really kind of nailed the blending of television and internet just ahead of the curve. But it's also a fun satirization of Heinlein's work: beautiful, young geniuses piloting starships in a society re-engineered to disqualify the underachievers. An important minor role by Neill Patrick Harris is the cherry on the ice cream sundae. I was truly disappointed that the film didn't achieve greater success and spawn sequels (IMO those crap direct-to-video sequels don't count). I consider this film to be as good or better than his bigger box office draws.

I'd also bet that among all these insane number of awarded contracts, none was to a bug testing firm.

At some point, doesn't the world just have to say "Sorry, government of France, this is how the internet works and we can't take parts of it out just because someone in France is offended by it"?

Hijacking the thread at this point, but English is a fluid and living language. We've nigh-universally agreed that homophobic is the term we use to describe people who have a problem with homosexuals. So you might as well be standing on a crate in the town square, railing against society for using worlds like television, because they are a mixture of Greek and Latin. It's universally accepted and you're wasting time and energy complaining about it. How is it "often a very important skill"? The universe is full of art and to enjoy it is mere pleasure, usually, not "often very important". People see a foaming-at-the-mouth cunt and don't want to rush to the cinema to fork out 20 bucks to celebrate his work. Audiences are fickle and easily alienated, and artists either take that very seriously or don't give a fuck. Card seems to be in the latter category, and I am glad his 15 minutes have peaked. He may now go back to generating pulp for the Sci-Fi section of the bookstore for his readers.