While this person must have spent a great many hours accomplishing this goal, it may be a little unfair for us to infer that he has little to no social skills or "life"...

He needs a guild or a bunch of "friends" behind him to accomplish a great many of these achievements. Even if he is in a huge guild that is defeating the most difficult end-game content, at some point there are going to be achievements that others are going to set out to do specifically and entirely for him (and maybe some others that luckily get to tag along)... The amount of achievements in this category is probably about 100-150 whereas the others are either able to be done solo or will just happen in any decent group.

So, he befriended his guild or his group of online friends, with or without their knowledge, to help him get to this end-goal.

We can even go further into specifics and say that the Quests completion may be more of an accomplishment than the Achievements completion. It is very easy to do about 3500-4000 of the quests in the game without any help, but beyond that there are chains that need help for sure. These hurdle quests don't make up the next 2000, probably only 100 or 200, but he still needs a group that he can call on whenever he hits that wall. Also remember those people may have already done the quest in some cases and are getting absolutely nothing out of it. In the case of achievements, at least there are a bunch of people (5-25) that are going to get that achievement credit if they haven't already.

Actually, I think this guy may have more social skills than most...

Assuming they do get off their wheelchair, and "scoot" up a few steps like you suggest, then what? Does their wheelchair magically do the same thing and then they continue on their journey into the building?

Admittedly I was exaggerating, but I didn't imply that he said was lobbying for a coast to coast vote.

As far as advocating requiring state ratification for treaties, where is the line drawn? That line is determined by the people that don't want to move the line, unfortunately.

But, then you vote people in that hopefully change that.

In the article:

That would be a step in the right direction, if it had any teeth to it, and wasn't just to make Obama look good to the general public.

Maybe true reform will come some day.

I understand that your solution makes sense to you and perhaps to some others, but in reality it really is not that great of a solution, and it is certainly not obvious as you noted. Not only would that never happen, but the issues would quickly pile up and the situation spin out of control where uninformed people were voting and making decisions that they really have no business making.

I'm not a fan of big government or of having a small percentage of people making decisions that effect everyone else, but that is exactly how our system is setup and exactly how democracy works in practice.

The government can, will, and should make decisions without the consent of the governed. You think it takes long now to get things done? If all the state legislatures had to put their $0.02 in even less would get done. Then city officials would start saying their view is important, too. Soon everyone would be saying their voice should make a difference! If only there was a system in place to have each person's voice heard...

The single most powerful tool that Americans have is the power to VOTE. Unfortunately most Americans do not invoke this power because they feel it is useless. Maybe so, but at least those that made bad decisions will be gone in at most a few years anyway, then. If it is really a big issue then there is always impeachment, but to start tying hands up at that level and incorporate more chefs in the already crowded, trip-hazard-filled, hot, sweaty, mess of a kitchen we call our government, well, that would just be making a bad problem even worse.

Most human beings (and all politicians) fundamentally will try to get away with anything they can. Whether it is a spouse cheating or a student copying answers during a test, until someone is caught doing something they know is wrong (however it is you define "wrong" is up to you) they will not stop the behavior.

No one does anything they think is wrong. Even if society deems it to be wrong, they somehow have convinced themselves it is right, because it is necessary, or it is okay "this one time"... The government, as a whole, or as a local office, is not exempt from this. They become their own "person" in this regard, acting in such a way that for whatever reason they think is right.

When it boils down to it, we are better off having that few % making decisions for us than to give each and every person from coast to coast a voice by way of vote for big decisions.

Which is exactly how they want to be viewed.

Well that's obviously because this is a biased community, but when attempting to look at this objectively you quickly see other reasons.

Every browser has issues, IE has more than most, and it should be focusing on other areas rather than speed. The fact that they are focusing on speed and then mixing into their marketing how they care so much about security, which I hope everyone sees right through but I know they don't, just shows how misguided they are as a company trying to produce a product.

A web browser is the portal to the Internet and is the application that most people are using most of the time they sit at a computer. There are huge benefits to having that captive audience.

Microsoft, with all their money, "experience" and experts, should be dominating the market. This should not even be an issue! The fact that we even have news like this and browsers like FF and others keep creeping up and stealing market share just shows how poor of a product IE is.

There's a certain percentage of people that will always "go against The Man" (in this case IE) but the percentages are getting higher and higher because other browsers are being recognized as superior to IE, period.

The only reason that IE still has close to 70% market share is because some people just don't know any better, may be older and comfortable, have never been exposed to anything else, etc.

Before giving IE "a little bit of credit" think about if you were able to go door to door and install all the different popular browsers out there and have the person make their own choice.

Out of IE, FF, Safari, Chrome and Opera... how many people would honestly, HONESTLY, choose IE?

Lastly, imagine a necessary high blood pressure medicine that has the possible side effects of enhancing or causing asthma, explosive spontaneous diarrhea, yellowing of fingernails, or the possibility of raising blood pressure more.

Wouldn't a company be stupid to work on the yellowing of fingernails problem first?

You just leave off the drive-thru's cover and save yourself some money, or, if it's a necessity, you build it to 7' because I'm pretty sure that 5' can fit under that too.

Good point for sure. Just because 25% of some industry is doing things the right way, the way it should be done or the way of the future it ultimately still only means that 25% of the masses feel that way.

Obviously every browser has their issues and IE has more issues than most, but the one thing that IE still has over all the other browsers is that most every website designer, even if they use another browser, will load up their site in IE to see if it is displaying the way they want it to because they know 75% of the traffic coming to them will be IE users (unless you're Slashdot :-P)... The same reason why a fast-food business would be stupid to build a 5' cover.

The point is, aside from me speaking in generalities, I agree with you that although this new 25% on the scene is doing things more efficiently or "better" that they are still only 25%. The standard still has to go with the majority.

But, as the guy up there said, more and more people will be building separate websites and IE is making it harder for them, so they remove that difficulty from their design plans and instead just give IE users a stripped down version that takes them less time to produce.

Although you make a good point, pbhj, it kind of sounds like those that do that are cutting their nose off to spite their face. As a website owner, business owner, corporation, whatever, your job is to meet the needs of your customers.

I run a retail shop and I'm pretty sure it would not be good for me to put up a sign that says: If you're going to be a difficult customer and your transaction is not going to go exactly to plan, please don't bother making any purchase in this store. In fact, go across the street, I'm sure they'll deal with you.

...or: Cash is so 20th century. Get with the program. Not using a debit/credit card? Here, you can pick from this bin of items priced at exactly $1.00, and please have exact change, because we have none to give you.

...or even the [slightly] less abrasive: Customers running IE have access to Aisles 1-3. All other customers may peruse 4-19.

Seriously? Is this what news has become? Alarmists are growing in numbers, it seems. TFA's title is even Game consoles 'cause skin sores' and has a PlayStation remote pictured. Now unless some chemical was used in the manufacturing of these remotes/consoles that causes this, that is such a misrepresentation... but hey, it got me to read it.

I have a theory of my own... And maybe I'll post an article and say that I discovered Clutchingson's Disease. She was just clutching onto the remote, squeezing, playing intensely, sweating, rubbing, probably getting scared (obligatory: because she's a girl) so half letting go of the remote due to being startled then grabbing again and causing herself extra rubbing/trauma.

The fact that she kept playing, in discomfort/pain, only shows that she has a bright future as a gamer and may even read this post a few years from now when she starts reading Slashdot and looks through some archives. Hi. How's your hands?

"This is an interesting discovery and one that the researchers are keen to share with other dermatologists, should they be confronted with similar, unexplained symptoms in a patient."

So, patient presents with sores on their palms. IANAD but I'm pretty sure the first thing they'd ask is "Whatcha been doing with your hands lately? Riding a bike?" and when the patient indicates they haven't been clutching onto handles the next question will be, "Well, have you been in contact with any chemicals, soaps, objects, anything out of the ordinary?" Now unless this is a male child, deformed (somehow), ya know "down there," and recently has become curious and is embarrassed to admit it, I'm pretty sure any other person, even a child, would be able to realize what they have been doing that has been out of the ordinary. I guess this is why they call it Idle... really shouldn't even be here, but, is. Worked out today, for me.