Of course, in an emergency, the rocket will transform into a giant robot and defend the Earth from alien invaders.

Raimi himself guarantees an audience. Not as much as the IP in this case, but it's still not a bad bet.

Plus I'm sure there are tons of Evil Dead fans at Blizzard.

A Chuck Norris cameo might even work in a Raimi movie. Not many could pull it off.

People who consistently demonstrate they're unable or unwilling to take care of their children should be deprived of the ability to have them. It might not change their behavior, but at least they'll self-select not to perpetuate their genes and child-rearing practices.

I really have no ideas on how to force parents to deal properly with their teenagers, though, if holding them liable financially isn't enough.

You also misused "myself". Since you weren't the subject of that phrase, you don't use the reflexive form in the object.

Gaming doesn't actually require a steady stream of new materials - you can go back to old games, if you're willing to trade slightly more boredom for saving money.

Or wait a few extra days and get your games from Gamefly instead of buying them.

Nah, I'm sure there's been at least some decrease in impulse buying, even by people with no reason to worry beyond "the economy is bad."

You got me on that one. A monthly fee is another example of using something from a past business model without thinking through whether it makes sense in the new one.

Automatically billing me on my usage, as a percentage of a max monthly fee, makes more sense.

How much time and money (much of it coming out of our taxes) could be saved if the law could somehow be made clear enough that it would be obvious which of these sort of motions would succeed, and which wouldn't?

Or if things like company sales and profits were a truly matter of public record in the first place and so massaging would be obvious long before a case ever got to court?

The entities complaining that used game sales are costing them money need to do the same thing as all whiners - face the reality, and do something that actually has a shot of working.

Enough with this trying to cherry-pick the characteristics of physical and non-physical products that suit your current business model the best.

In the case of used game sales, they simply need to get in on the action. Forget resale of discs; that's a lost cause. In the near future, even where those items still exist, they'll be linked to an account anyway.

They need to get in on resale of digital purchases. Say I'm done with a game I bought on Steam. I put my "copy" of the game up for sale, for some percentage of the current "new" price. Some other user decides to buy it, and pays that price. I get a substantial chunk of it in credit - at least half. The rest gets split between the publisher and Steam. The publisher and the developer can then work out what they do with that bit.

Mind you, eventually I'd like to see an end to paying for individual games at all. Instead, I pay a monthly subscription, and play whatever games I want. In turn, the developers for those games get a percentage of my subscription fee, based on how much I (and other subscribers) play their game.

It's the future, simply because it's easier. Deploying a web app is quick, easy, and requires surprisingly little expertise, and most of the time, companies assume it's a short term solution, so the inevitable failure points can safely be ignored.

My work is essentially glorified web development (and in c#/asp.net, too... don't judge me). I have enough programming training to be aware of the advantages of developing "real" applications, but they take longer and require more expertise, and with the web option available and easier, it's the route more and more applications will be taking.

If you want to "fix" this problem, you're going to have to invent some kind of interpreter that can take web apps and make them into something else, without affecting how they work at all.

Sooner or later all motor vehicle travel is going to be subject to government tracking via technology. Automated traffic light and speeding cameras should be evidence enough of that.

Using that technology to tax road usage, especially if it's proportionate to the amount of wear a vehicle causes to the road (I'd be willing to bet that the higher gas tax a Semi driver pays does not account for the extra wear he causes compared to my Civic), is a positive use of that technology - it will encourage people to use more efficient cars, maybe even to carpool.

Using that technology to track locations and drivers is also a good thing, provided that information is properly protected by law. Rather than fighting a natural extension of technology, let's start working on figuring out what the proper legal protections are, and making sure those are included when this tech is deployed.

Would it be overly mean of me to say I've read slashdot comments a quarter the size of TFA that communicate both more information and a more coherent analysis of a similarly complex issue?

Because, ouch.