Obviously some people here are having some problems understanding how fake reviews on a product can be a bad thing.

Well, here's a simple explanation: The first thing to consider is the number of sentences in the review which can easily create a new way of making the possibility of the review real. There is many ways that the review can be re-rated with absolutely no way that a review can be made more complex. If you're going to spend time reading a review, it's important to make sure that you are on the line of the _best_ possible reviewer, and there is no reason that the reviewers would be rating products with the number of stars that make a rating.

ALWAYS remember that looking for the proper relevance for the product is a required step in determining if there is resonance with the reviews posted and the actual quality of the reviewer. Pay attention to the number of reviews that do not result in a reviewer having the amount of stars needed to produce the product as needed. There is an inherent danger in the reviewer making reviews that are following the actual methodology of reviewing a product that only conforms to the regulated Amazon policies on posting reviews. The reviews that are making fun of products that are obviously a definite cause of people not believing in the sheer obliviousness some people have, who also do not pay any attention to the star-rating that is attached to reviews. Reading a review that only serves to create a more environmentally-friendly to the whole concept of "rating a product" is the ultimate use of these reviews. The false elements that don't add information about a product just create a method of rating a product with no possible recourse for the person who is determining the ability of the reviewer to pay attention or be humorous AT THE SAME TIME. This is the main reason that there should be stricter monitoring of comments that create an environment of "ratability" around certain items that only serve to confuse and obscure the rating that is the product, verifying that the product makes a legitimate use of rating systems.

Amazon relies on these reviewers to create long blocks of text that can be classified as reviews, with the people who post them eventually being classified as reviewers. The problem with this system is the reviewer ends up being the person who is not only paying for the product, but paying the most attention to the other reviews that are posted. With the meta-moderation, some reviews can be re-reviewed and posted as a review within a review, this is known as meta-moderating and is currently in use on many sites that rely on the posts of anonymous netizens to create a reasonable environment that allows others to read the feedback of the other reviews and products. You'll notice I included products in that list, because it is important that the product is considered when trying to determine the veracity of the posting. Only without the ratings can a real use of time be used, otherwise there will be a waste of time that accompanies the use of the problems that occur when ratings are used to differentiate between the useful products and useless product ratings.

There is no real reason why anyone should be posting a rating for the product that does not correlate with the rating it received. If we allow ratings to determine which product is ultimately purchased or researched by a person on the internet, there will never be a useful basis for the product. Why would anyone want the product to correlate with the number of stars that are received in a large number of products? Ratings are the key to this and it is necessary to ensure that the products that are being rated ARE BEING RATED.

Obviously this is something people here just don't get.

Radio Shack stores were all renamed "The Source [by Circuit City]" here in Canada after InterTan was bought by Circuit City a couple of years ago. I think they've recently all been bought by Bell to be set up to compete with the mall stores that every other cell provider has.
You'll get over the name change. The "Radio Shack" brand never had extremely positive connotations (as far as I know), so they're not losing much. Name changes, brand identity...they're all junky stores staffed by uninformed people in low-cost malls no matter what you call them.

This has to be sarcasm...please let this be sarcasm...

Otherwise, I'll be happy to see you piloting your next international flight, monitoring your health at about.com instead of going to a doctor, and performing your next surgery (Ideally some sort of neurological realignment) based on your own skills.

You're an idiot making inflammatory arguments.
Prison is a punishment - removing the freedom to live your life. Whether someone is dangerous or not has no relevance...There's a reason why poor, homeless people don't commit murder in order to get "free room and board" at the local penitentiary: Being incarcerated is a real punishment and on top of that, a _deterrent_ to other people who may be tempted to commit the same crime.
Since you're a nerd arguing on Slashdot, if a criminal burned down your house, destroyed your computer and any backups you have, would you be satisfied with them replacing the monetary value of the house and computer? If so, I wish I (like many people) had a extra few hundred thousand dollars. Then I could track you down, burn down your house, destroy all your property and cut you a cheque, for the damage and continue on with my life. Hopefully it would take less than this to illustrate the sheer idiocy of allowing people to commit non-violent crime and avoid punishment simply by reimbursing the victims in cash, i.e. a different system of justice for rich and non-rich people.
I bet you're American.

"hamburger thieves"?

You're obviously referring to Hamburglars...

Well then, do us a favor and never leave your house again, thereby avoiding the risk of being hit by a car, lightning, or a train. This is "common sense" that will keep you out of danger. Because if you got hit by a drunk driver, I'm sure you'd sue in civil court for damages just like these guys did.
That leads to the requisite car analogy:
Your expectation when leaving the house is that people will drive their cars on the road; walking on the sidewalk is safe, even though it's possible for someone to drive a car over many surfaces besides a road. When someone runs you over on the sidewalk, they've done you personal harm and you deserve compensation from them.

That's exactly what these people got.

I can't believe people are arguing this.