No, even if it is anonymized, this is a big "do not want". You must assume that this data will make its way into the hands of Coke, Apple, the banks, and government entities.

These guys are quickly figuring out how the human brain works through methods like this, and they aren't using it for your benefit. It's being used to figure out how to sell you more crap, how to convince you to get others to buy more crap, and how to adjust your thinking patterns.

I find it amazing how well people are programmed through today's media. Even here on slashdot you have so many "individuals" who parrot media talking points to a tee, that it's unlikely they came to those conclusions on their own.

The human mind is simply another machine. Once they figure out what thought categories you fall into, they know what code path to feed you to influence you in their direction. This idea won't sit well with most folks, because they think they're too smart to fall for that, but I see it time and again with otherwise brilliant people who are suckered in by the agendas of others. I see it happen to myself as well, and it's scary.

There is no way I want my kids to be providing data for the enemy.

Exactly. The thieving scumbags immediately crawl out of the woodwork, push their way through to the front of the crowd, and like greedy little leprechauns, pocket all of that money, leaving none for the intended purpose.

Yet another example of "trickle-down" being massively overwhelmed by "hoover-up".

I've also read that I have won $500,000 and I should email some guy to claim my reward. It must be true!

Bad example, because if you were given the choice of a pacemaker that used a battery and one that didn't, with the one that didn't having a significantly higher chance of not failing, which would you go for?

If you look closer at your examples, maybe you can see why there's a distinction. Lying in those situations has a direct negative impact on another person, is what differs. Someone's mere ownership of an item doesn't affect anyone else. Your argument doesn't distinguish definite harm to another compared to "potential" harm to another.

We already have laws for misuse of weapons against others. If we confiscated any item that someone could potentially use to harm another, you'd find yourself without a vehicle, kitchen knives, shovels, baseball bats, tire irons, and maybe even hands.

Yes, you can. And, to add some irony to this article, you can even play against a friend over the Internet, even though the original game had no such support. Google "vice netplay"

I don't think going private at this point would change anything for them. They're just too big.

Big companies only care about where their next dollar is coming from, and they never care about fucking over customers until there's a massive backlash that gets negative media attention. Even then, they'll only throw the most meager of bones to people to get that one incident swept under the carpet, and then go back to sipping brandy and twirling mustaches while they plot their next take-over.

I'm not surprised at all that people still play it. It is an excellent game. Video games are much like music and movies. People still watch Citizen Kane. People still listen to the Beatles. 100 years from now, if people are still around and it's still possible, people will still play Pac-Man.

They'll probably set it up like a video rental. If you don't return it, you get a bill for some outrageous amount in the mail.

Most people don't get how law works. It's designed that way, so that lawyers have jobs, and anyone can be considered a "perp" when it's convenient.

What you describe is a nightmare. I sincerely hope that when my son gets older, he does not fall into some kind of trap like this where he poop-socks it for some stupid game just to get some pointless digital trinket.

I'd rather deal with just finding weed in his jacket pocket, like normal people.

They pull this hypocritical card all the time. If prices on something are high, they just dismiss with "supply and demand, econ 101, deal with it, blah blah". Then they go and purchase laws that prevent competition, and other laws to prevent you from importing the product from overseas for a cheaper price.

On the other hand, when there's a low supply of skilled of workers (or even if there isn't), rather than raising salaries to attract the talent, they again purchase laws that allow to bring overseas employees into the picture and screw over the local workers once again.

This is absolutely the best post under this article. Sadly, few will see it because it's so far down and moderators rarely make it this far.

There's a cap on the President's pay though, isn't there? It's like $400k per year, if I recall. It doesn't matter if he does a great job, or a lousy job. This guy's basically the CEO of an entire country, yet his pay is about 10x the average citizen's salary, not the 100x+ you see in corporations.

Of course, this is ignoring any side and backdoor deals he gets, but we're doing that for CEO pay here as well.

Exactly. When a company provides an employee some sort of benefit, like say a parking spot, the value of that benefit is counted as income as far as your taxes go. If the exec is allowed to use a $4M dollar house that is somehow owned/rented by the corp, it should be treated as a rental that's paid for by the corp and the appropriate rent counted as income.