I suppose expressing a question contrary to the groupthink has always baited a flame, but somehow I think it's still an abuse of the flamebait mod.

... teachers invade students' privacy. This is a tool, nothing more. If you ban it, then you'll have to ban things like computers, because they can be used to invade people's privacy too.

(Not anticipating a positive reaction to this satire...)

It's depressingly true. The people who have grown up simply look on at the "childish" passion with envy. Sometimes envy masked with disdain, but unmistakable envy.

The exceptions to this rule are the people who are truly dead inside.

Wrong on both counts there. For one, that's not an argument trotted out by anyone. It's a blatant strawman. I know of the argument you're referring to, and it's more complicated than that.

For two, even if it were an argument, this doesn't even refute it. You've had a suspicious event and a possible explanation that fits your worldview handed to you. The entire "refutation" comes from confirmation bias.

Not that I should have to say this, but please note I'm not saying the government is trustworthy. Power in the hands of humanity is inherently untrustworthy, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find people who disagree there. I'm also not saying that the government isn't doing something shady here, or the explanation you've leapt to is wrong. But, for the sake human rationality, please think before leaping to conclusions.

Right. Heaven forbid people be accountable for the choices they make and the lifestyle that they live.

... such as all those people with hereditary conditions, victims of accidents or other people's negligence, people who didn't understand the consequences of their lifestyle, and people who did, but were simply too poor to make any significant changes to their lifestyle?

"quit being a little bitch" -- ghandi_2

Fitting.

It's worth remembering here that the objection is not that children do not possess the ability to recognise the difference between fantasy and reality, rather it's that they're "impressionable". Their behavioural patterns are still being established, via a system of negative and positive rewards for their behaviour.

Normally, when a child commits a needlessly aggressive act, they are negatively rewarded by their parents telling them off, or possibly by the parents hitting them in (hopefully) extreme circumstances. When a child plays a violent video game, the game purposefully rewards violent behaviour with things like progress, a sense of achievement, unlockables/collectables, etc.

Being children, they unconsciously associate the endorphin rush with aggressive acts, or at least, the aggressive acts they commit to video game characters. The obvious question, of course, is whether that positive association with simulated violence corresponds to a positive association with actual violence, or even just aggression. That's something for the behavioural psychologists to decide. Until they do, I think it would be wise to exercise caution.

Let's not also forget that Season 6 will no doubt cost something similar, from iTunes. Apple has essentially given him the full two seasons, plus extra flexibility. So what if it doesn't cost Apple anything except opportunity costs? Apple's just delivering more than what the guy originally wanted.

From TFA:

Conclusions

We failed to find evidence that playing video games affects prosocial behavior. Research on the effects of video game play is of significant public interest. It is therefore important that speculation be rigorously tested and findings replicated. Here we fail to substantiate conjecture that playing contemporary violent video games will lead to diminished prosocial behavior.

Could you, or anyone else, clearly explain to me what Apple is doing that's objectionable, without assuming that I'm against patents (including software patents) in general?

This is not a rhetorical question, by the way. I haven't been reading /. for quite a while now, and I'm just curious.

Uh, don't look now, but I think your smugness is showing. Just a little.

If USA cannot compete without artificial limits on copyright and patents then they deserve to lose.

Perhaps, but without the US, those copying the US also lose out, since they'd actually have to pull their heads out of their asses and create something for themselves. You know, like they're supposed to be doing now.

Or trivial in hindsight.

What? Just because it's inconvenient to your argument, doesn't mean it can't be the case.

The copyright holders were receiving a sum of money from Telstra to be the exclusive broadcaster of he NRL on mobile devices. Naturally, if Optus could get away with it, then both Telstra and the NRL lose a lot of money.