Except that the author pretty much says exactly the opposite of that.

“The startling results of this study suggest that when left unchecked texting and other widely popular methods of staying connected can have dangerous health effects on teenagers,” said Frank. “This should be a wake-up call for parents to not only help their children stay safe by not texting and driving, but by discouraging excessive use of the cell phone or social websites in general.”

That sounds like "if your kids text, they'll start doing drugs!" to me. Which is sad, because usually the original study is well-intentioned, but is misquoted and turned into fearmongering bullshit by the media. In this case, it looks like the author intended for that from the beginning.

There is a large but quiet contingent of computer gamers who do play alone. I don't intend to play any SC2 multiplayer, for example. And I'm going to have to drag my gaming computer halfway through the house to get it an internet connection if I want to install SC2 and play the single player campaign. That's wrong. Period.

When Valve first started requiring an internet connection to install HL2, people treated it like the DRM end of the world. I certainly haven't bought anything from them since they started doing that. The fact that "restrictive DRM" now means that you're required to be connected to the internet to play is insane. Restrictive DRM is anything that makes it harder for a paying customer to play the game than a person who pirated it. Requiring me to register online when I install is more work than the pirates are going to have to do. And that's both ethically wrong and counterproductive.

The reason I'm not paying any attention to the U1 is because apparently Lenovo doesn't want me to. Around CES there was a bunch of buzz about it, but then Lenovo completely let it drop off the radar. No pricing, no release data, no live demo units at CES. It's like they were trying to kill it. Bummer too, because it's not a bad concept. I can only assume they had some kind of massive hardware or software problems, and decided to keep it under wraps a little while longer.

I'm amused by how little companies even try to not make it sound like they're lying. Shutting down XBL is good for XBL customers. Oh, of course, why didn't I think of that. Here I just assumed it was because subscription levels had reached a low enough point that it was no in Microsoft's financial interest to continue to support it. Too bad I and the gaming public are too dumb to understand things like that.

Do you honestly think Apple would give more than a passing thought to inconveniencing programmers?

Here's how it would go.

Launch Day: Programmers are notified that they will have to rewrite their programs to work on the Nano. Everyone whines, bitches, moans, and claims that the Nano will fail within weeks without programmer support. A lot of them vow not to buy it or program for it.

Fifteen minutes later: The first fart app for the Nano is ported.

A week after launch day: Programmers of apps that make obscene amounts of money grudgingly announce that they're working on porting their apps.

Six months after launch day: The Nano 2nd generation is announced. All apps have either been ported, or portable equivalents have been written.

You know that's how it'll go down.