Uh, no. If you read even the summary, that's the procedure they're moving away from.

They're actually now trying to correlate security screening with specific, known information about actual suspects, rather than saying, "So you're from Pakistan? Would you mind coming with me, sir?" The new policies will be far from perfect, I'm sure, but they seem more sensible than a "random" screening based solely on nationality.

As to the body scanners, I have a hard time being bothered by this.

Fair enough, but I think the founding fathers would also have had a difficult time envisioning several dozen unrelated people climbing into a flying metal tube to cross the ocean in a matter of hours. They also probably didn't foresee the rise of ideologies that make those flying tubes attractive targets for persons armed with concealable explosive devices. Saying that the Founding Fathers were poorly-versed in 21st century technology and geopolitics doesn't mean much by itself. I'm willing to bet the passengers on any of the airplanes that have been subject to terrorist attacks in the past few years would have been willing to undergo a full body scan if it meant the bad guy couldn't get on the plane with them. Full body scanners also don't care what country you're from, if that means anything.

So essentially, I pay $15 for the "privilege" of being a beta tester? I get to play (part of) a prerelease version of the game, so I can tell them what needs to be fixed before it ships?

That last bit is especially rich, coming from a bloke named "Patcher."

What are you talking about?

Anyone making noise about contractual entitlement had better be prepared to point to a contract detailing that to which he is entitled. I'm not sure any contractual provision between NewEgg and its customers provides for a "counterfeit CPU" scenario. Closest match would probably be a defective product, which requires you to submit to a return process, obtain an RMA number, etc. NewEgg is acting fast for something that doesn't seem to me to be their fault. Sellers like NewEgg should be able to trust suppliers, and there probably is an agreement between NewEgg and IPEX that has been violated (hence NewEgg's termination of that relationship). I'm not sure the affected consumers are "contractually entitled" to anything more than what NewEgg is doing to rectify the problem--can you point to something that says differently?

I'm glad you brought this up. Let me turn this question around a bit.

I'm not actively offended by profanity. I grew up with it, hear it at work, in the media--about like we all do, I suppose. But even if I'm not actively offended by it, I'm not actively impressed by it either. Are you?

I suppose I may have had a bit of a "brainwashed upbringing" in that I had parents who were concerned that I learn to speak English well and communicate effectively. English is a language with an extraordinarily broad and varied vocabulary--in part because it's borrowed so heavily from so many other languages. When I hear a person who seems unable to construct a sentence without using four letter words--for whom "fuck" and its variants act as noun, adjective, pronoun and/or verb without any apparent notion of what that word actually denotes--I admit that at first blush I'm probably going to have a low opinion of that person. If I were an employer, I wouldn't hire him or her. I wouldn't want him or her dating one of my children.

I share your sentiment on "like" as a placeholder (I'm not too impressed by that either), but feel that even that is probably preferable to pointless (and invariably grammatically incorrect) references to sexual acts, excrement, and religious figures. And if you're making those references with a purpose to offend, are you really trying to communicate anything useful anyway?

Expungement of a record wouldn't really be an issue--she hasn't committed a crime. In U.S. copyright parlance, she may have infringed copyright, but that's a civil matter that doesn't entail the creation of a criminal record.

I agree entirely that she should have sought permission from the authors whose work she was cribbing. The article indicates she lifted an entire page from someone's else's work with only minor changes. The authors whose works were use without permission ought to sue, and if Hegemann's half as smart as the article makes her out to be, she ought to settle up. The whole "this is what my generation does" schtick is not a new excuse for artistic laziness, but it does seem to be gaining some unfortunate traction here. I'm amazed the book prize committee even gave her a second look, much less a finalist spot, with full knowledge that she'd failed to attribute her sources.

I think between the time I think of something to type, and the time I use my fingers to put it on the screen, I'm forced to focus a little more to put my thought into a communicable form that will make sense to someone else.

And really, actually having to think of each individual letter (something my brain sends to my fingers in a fairly automatic fashion) seems like more effort to me than just pushing a button and having the letter pop up on the screen.

And as to making surgical incisions in my skull to lay sheets of electrodes on my brain, well...I'll stick with my keyboard.

Actually, on a planetary scale, that's exactly what the Death Star was for.

Or how about '-1, Too Informative'?

Wow...for real? Is this right written down somewhere? It sounds more like your understanding of "rights" is "something I really want to do and therefore feel I'm entitled to."

I sympathize with you on wasting money on movies that turn out after the fact to be lousy. I've paid for movies in theaters that I've walked out on. I didn't think for a second, though, that if I stormed up to the ticket window demanding a refund that the theater would be under some obligation to give me one. I would certainly never stretch the argument into a statement about "rights."

Films and television programs are luxuries. Let's not confuse them with the actual rights that are guaranteed by constitutions and statements of law--rights of the sort that usually cost lives to secure. The Swedish courts seem to disagree with you that consumers have the right you assert, and I think the weight of national and international law generally is against you.

Copyright has problems, and needs fixing. There are a lot of good, interesting, well-thought-out arguments in favor of reforming laws as they currently exist. "I want it so it's my right" isn't one of them.

Is it really "piracy" if the rights-holder gives you permission to reproduce his work?

"Most gamers" consider the ESRB as "the enemy?" How so, and why? I'm a gamer over thirty years of age, and I have a child. I like the ESRB. I certainly don't think it's on its way out. I suspect the gamers who view the ESRB as "the enemy" are under twelve, and have conscientious parents.

Alarmist headline? Maybe?

"California City Mulls Evading the Law!"

So...there's apparently a law that "authorizes" cities to install red light cameras, and one city is thinking that's not the way to go. How is that "evading the law?"

Yeah, those entitled jerks! (As opposed to throwing a temper tantrum when you have to pay 10 bucks for a CD...)

It's cute that you think mass theft makes a positive difference. Guess what--it fuels massive litigation (which enriches copyright lawyers), and gives corporate entities and pro-copyright lobbyists a pretty valid (by your admission) argument for negative copyright reform. ("We need tighter laws because pirates are taking money to which rights-holders are entitled by law.")

Want to truly make a difference? Here are a few ideas:
Donate to (or hey, participate in) an independent film project.
Work on an independent or open-source game project.
Write, paint, draw, or record a potentially profitable creative work and publish it independently. (Best option--almost all profits go to you!)

All of these involve working around a dinosaur of a copyright regime that does need reforming. All of them are potentially profitable, and encourage positive reform. All of them also involve doing something besides sponging off Bittorrent, pretending the RIAA or whoever has done you some personal wrong by insisting that you pay for what they're selling.

I mean, really. Was there a shortage?

I dunno. In principle I can't see a problem including a "game plays itself" feature if the developer wants to go that route. Let them put in whatever they want--it's their game.

As a practical matter though, if "accessibility" comes to mean "player is now a spectator," it's not clear to me how you're attracting people to gaming. If you remove the interactivity, you have a film, not a game. In the case of Mario Bros., it's an extremely boring, linear film with shallow characters and only one possible conclusion.

On second thought, maybe Nintendo is trying to make some sort of existential statement...