I know you're trying to make a funny here, but... well... why wouldn't someone notice? (Given how much coverage /. has given it, someone has, anyway.)

Do they care, or just virtually care? Thats another question.

When Disney announced they were shutting down VMK, they did so after a quest weekend where they ended up accusing their players of cheating. The final week of VMK was run exactly as the entire history of the game was - filled with lies and empty promises.

Funny... when I install something like iTunes for Windows on my machine, I automatically get the Apple Updater. Which runs on its own schedule and not just when I run the programs that are installed. Sounds like someone at Google was just making sure that OSX users had the same experience.

I went into reading about this very skeptical. I've been part of a few "no-subscription" virtual worlds aimed at kids, and watched a bunch of inventive and creative kids be horribly disappointed when the companies (I'm looking at you, Disney) pulled the plug on them.

But from the rather poor write-ups I'm finding, it sounds like this is Open Source, so even if its pulled there is still use for it.

Care to actually tell us more about the platform?

The concept of "local power" was first advocated by... Thomas Edison. He was advocating small power stations all around a municipality for local distribution via his DC-based systems.

Westinghouse's AC system, however, allowed for transmission of power great distances. Despite using his name, and some patents, most of what we use today owes more to Westinghouse than Edison.

Sounds like the "go local" movement is gaining strength when it comes to power generation, too. Wonder if we'll be able to go back to DC? Probably not.

Heh... someone score that post up as funny, please. {:

I'm not sure if its "supply and demand" or just "demand". It sounds like the argument is that the supply is, currently, not a limiting factor.

You know, we sound pretty lame when we start talking about "insufficient competition".

At first, it was just "monopolies" that were bad.

Then we started talking about how cable and telephone companies, although competing against each other, didn't provide "enough" choices for consumers.

Now we're saying that seven four cell companies aren't enough competition for each other. And we point out as evidence that they're all doing essentially the same thing to rake money in hand over fist.

Don't get me wrong - I think that text prices are, from a consumers point of view, stupidly high. But it sure doesn't sound like adding more companies to the mix is actually fixing the problem.

So perhaps the problem isn't them.

Perhaps the problem is us.