Crafting has always been unimportant to the games of most people, who would rather splatter some goblin brains than make some arrowheads or trade in exotic spices.

Considering the intricately detailed magic item creation rules in the 3rd edition derived games, I have to disagree with you. There's obviously a market for it, as Pathfinder spent a lot of effort on refining the existing mechanics.

And I said metallic dragons. Chromatic dragons were in the 4e Monster Manual. And that was exactly the problem: The book only had things for you to fight, and only the details you needed to fight them.

I'm pretty sure there's precedent for staggered releases of the core rulebooks. 3.5 and 3rd edition were like that, from what I remember, which actually allowed some third-party publishers to swoop in and fill the gap a bit for a few months.

Also I find it amusing that the things you list as "positive" changes to 4th edition are the exact things people like myself didn't like about it. Considering Pathfinder is far and away the best selling tabletop RPG today, it seems people who liked the 4e "improvements" are in the minority.

I'd also add that when I bought the 4th edition books, I was shocked to see they lacked rules for crafting (or anything not related to combat, really), stats for metallic dragons, or really any information about monsters other than their most basic combat statistics. So, again, precedent.

After seeing 5th edition played, and talking to the designers, I'm much more hopeful for it. At the very least, my group is going to try the starter once we're done our current Pathfinder campaign.

The real aim is to move the internet under Title II so that it can be heavily regulated. It would also be subjected to the 16.1% universal service fund tax (as spelled out in the telecom act of 1996).

Neither of those assertions are remotely true. There were already periods where Internet access was subject to Common Carrier regulations, and parts of Verizon's FiOS network are still under it to this day because it gave a tax and subsidy benefit to Verizon. If anything, internet access is already HEAVILY regulated, and Title II would simplify things immensely.

The bit about the USF tax is just propaganda from the NCTA.

Let's see - Jesse Jackson, the Urban League, and Comcast don't agree with you. That's quite the diverse collection of people from all over the political and ethnic spectrum

Yes, such a wide spectrum, consisting of Comcast and political activists funded by Comcast...

Thankfully no one is proposing 'strict regulations'. The modest and reasonable regulations (which already apply to not-insignificant chunks of Verizon's FiOS network) being pushed for by Title II advocates would cut off things such as paid prioritization schemes and providers favoring their own paid services by exempting them from technologically unnecessary bandwidth caps, however.

Dude, by your argument, "compatibility" counts as "place your arguments in registers A, B, C..."

The compatibility between C and C++ goes a bit deeper than that.

Comcast and Verizon have an government-approved agreement to not compete. Comcast sold Verizon spectrum, and in return Verizon has stopped rolling out FIOS. Now you can walk into a Comcast store and buy Verizon Wireless Plans bundled with your cable sub, and buy Comcast subscriptions in Verizon Wireless stores in regions where FIOS isn't available.

What competition?

So, what you're saying, is you didn't know what anyone was talking about and opened your yap, and now you don't know how to extricate yourself from the thread without admitting you're an idiot and didn't read the post that was being responded to. You know, the one that implied the DoD was funding the development of Call of Duty for propaganda purposes.

I actually bought a new router within the last year. A "nice" Buffalo model with DD-WRT built in. Only to find out DD-WRT doesn't support native IPv6 (which my old, faulty NetGear did, go figure). They just support Toredo or other tunneled IPv6 solutions.

Man, was I disappointed.

I always found it amusing that the Author's Guild always seems to enthusiastically back whatever it is the publishers want to happen, even to the detriment of their supposed constituency...

I'd rather hear from authors, personally, than a group that fought against libraries/universities making electronic archives of books for research...

Look, if authors/publishers aren't happy with Amazon, they don't have to do business with them. They can sell their books direct to the customer, even in a format the user can load right onto their Kindle, nothing's stopping them. Saying Amazon is the "only buyer" is B.S. The term 'buyer' doesn't mean anything (in the way you're using it) when you're dealing with purely electronic goods. Amazon doesn't "buy" an inventory of ebooks to sell, there's no supply to monopolize.

Excluding (only for the sake of argument) outlier cases like textbooks, with significant expense spent on gathering and checking specialized materials, I don't believe for a moment the "fixed costs" for the average mass-published novel, self-help book, or whatever are anywhere high enough to justify the publishers' objections to Amazon's "maximum" price of $9.99 for an ebook. Let's see some actual numbers to back up these assertions.

And even if (again, for the sake of argument) it's true that traditional publishers' costs are high enough to justify $14.99 for an ebook, then maybe they should consider changing the way they do business to bring those costs down instead of illegally colluding to raise prices.

Yes, it's a serious question. How do you sell something with a reproduction cost of zero below cost?

How do you sell an ebook below cost? Do you pay a customer to take it?

...