As it turns out, this account was my personal account made back in the 1990s. But in 2006, I took a job with NetQoS, and created a new account, boyko.at.netqos - to submit stories to slashdot (Basically, I wanted to make sure that Slashdot's editors knew my affiliations). When NetQoS was bought out by CA, I left the company, and left the account. So that's why you don't see a lot of activity on this account.

Awesome! I know I have a weird voice, but there's worse things to compare it to.

I just finished the rough draft of my book. This is going to be a godsend. Let me explain. All the thoughts are original; the problem is that I'm referencing one or two books quite often; the worst of it is that I'm not sure if I've cited material correctly. Alot of the book was written in the hours between 3am and 6am, on weekends, when I couldn't sleep. I wouldn't be suprized if something bleary eyed came by without a footnote citing it. I just paid for the service, and I'm using it to make sure my book has all the proper citations before sending out proposals.

Reading it, I can see why. Thomas believes that video games, by their "interactive" nature, are not protected speech, and doesn't agree with the idea that free speech automatically applies to new technologies. Thomas is an jerk, but we knew that. Breyer, on the other hand, makes the argument that games are protected by free speech, but that California's law doesn't prohibit the consumption of material to minors, only the sale of the material to minors. Viewed from that perspective, it places violent video games in the same category as Playboy magazine. Breyer doesn't make the argument that California has proven that games are harmful, he just makes the argument that it's not unconstitutional to restrict the commerce of goods from minors, and that the rules were not ambiguous or vague. Nor did it restrict consumption of speech - only the *sale* of it to a specific group. While I happen to agree with the court majority opinion, I can see Breyer's point.