I'm not entirely sure I agree with you when you say "we don't like [moral ambiguity] in games".

I'd argue the problem is more moral ambiguity is difficult to write in games. It is hard to create characters and situations that are both morally ambiguous and rewarding to play, but when it's done right it can be extremely effective. The problem is it's extremely easy for a writer or game designer to take the easy way out and just state "this man is bad" versus "this man is driven by a series of complex emotions and decisions".

For example, Deus Ex is pretty much in every single Top 10 Games list ever made, and that's a game which takes great pains to make almost every character morally ambiguous. Everyone you're up against will have some plausible logic behind their actions, and you're frequently chastised and praised for your violence or passivity as a player by NPCs. And it's undeniable that players responded extremely positively to that game.

People *are* drawn to ambiguous characters for the simple reason that they reflect ourselves: nobody is perfect, after all. I'm not saying every game should offer you differing ethical choices and perspective (hey, sometimes its fun to just gun down Nazis without worrying about the consequences of your actions), but morally ambiguous characters *can* be enjoyable to watch (hey, The Sopranos and The Wire were based around that entire premise), and to play.

It amazes me that people here just don't get the fact that Assange has no case. If you actually read the ruling (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2011/index), you'll see that not only legally did he have very little to actually complain about, but his own defense lawyer basically lied to the court.

So go ahead, rant about big government and scary oppression all you want, but it's completely irrelevant to this case. Britain and Sweden are members of the European Union. One of the major benefits of the EU is the easing of border restrictions. You can cross from France to Germany, for example, without a passport. Citizens of one EU country can legally work in any other EU country. However, this runs both ways. You can move freely between EU countries as an EU citizen, but so can the law. That's the whole point of a European Arrest Warrant. That's why Assange has no case. It's got nothing about the US, nothing about him...and all about the law.

In case you didn't get it: every single point of Assange's defense was demolished by the judge. Now, you're probably going to say "well, of course, the judge was in on it too", but read the ruling. He allegedly committed a crime in Sweden. He may well be innocent, but that's completely irrelevant. This hearing had absolutely nothing to do about his guilt, and everything to do about whether Sweden is legally able to extradite people in another EU country for crimes they are wanted in connection with. And there's not question that Sweden has that right under EU law.

I'll say it once more: read the ruling I linked to above. Assange's legal defense was very bad, and never stood a chance. It's not about people out to get him, it's about a terrible legal team

.

Exactly - it wasn't unusual. It happens in almost every new piece of media - for a time its cultural value is under appreciated, and much material is lost. The same things happened in the 1910s-20s with film. Film stock *was* volatile, but with the right storage could have been preserved. Today, less than 10% of films made during that time period exist, mainly because the rest got thrown out.

The same thing happened in the 60s/70s with video tape (the stuff cost a fortune, and nobody thought people were going to care about the programs they were erasing 50 years in the future), and again with websites until crawling and archiving became commonplace.

I thought I'd add the caveat that whilst it's quite common in Europe it's highly unusual in the UK, with only a few instances of a coalition government forming and even fewer where it has actually lasted a substantial period of time.

No idea whether the current one is going to ride the next year's worth of pain and come out the other side or not.

Whilst the crux of your argument is correct, that's not completely true. Thousands of these cameras are going to be in mainline rail stations, underground stations and plenty of other high-risk areas like the West End, Oxford street etc. Granted, we're still talking a few square miles in the centre of London, but no-one really talks about the suburbs much with these statistics.

If you RTFA, you'd realise the link you just posted *is* TFA. It's the same Wired content reposted on Ars... :/

It seems that Nokia has a bit of a following on /., probably because their hardware is pretty decent, and key handsets like the N900 appeal to the demographic here. But the fact is in terms of an *ecosystem*, Nokia has nothing. They are in the gutter.
Nokia are at the point where they are actively having to pay developers to write apps. And we're not talking small apps here - big, branded apps for global companies, who are being approached by Nokia asking them if they'd like an app for Ovi. I couldn't tell you the number of clients I deal with day in day out during my day job who have already been rung up by Nokia. Even with an app developed at no cost, very few companies will take Nokia up on it.
It is simply not a space that people want to release software into right now. It doesn't get you press, and it doesn't get you sales. At least Blackberry have realised their previous app space strategy wasn't working, and are attempting to engage with mobile developers in a meaningful way. Nokia's left there without a clue.

It is in keeping with the current design language: my current gen MacBook Pro has a silver bezel - it's a custom order option if you get the high-res matte display. I actually think it's nicer than the black.

My Bravia TV running Linux says you're wrong. Sony want nothing to do with an *open* implementation of Linux. They use Linux all the time as an embedded OS on their own products.

Whilst the Dome was a huge waste of taxpayer's money the London Eye is a profitable private enterprise.

Yes, but Sky are also the major premium TV and content provider. Programmes broadcast on Freeview (free OTA digital terrestrial) are effectively free whereas you need to pay for Sky's TV, content and services. If people torrent programmes the biggest loser is Sky as you're less likely to subscribe, then the advertisers on commercial Freeview channels and the BBC who lose long-term DVD sales. If I can torrent a Sky-only show like House why would I be swayed to pay Sky £20/month for House with adverts?

Sky have an active interest in preventing people from torrenting, whereas most other ISPs are just ISPs and therefore have very little interest in restricting their customers. Virgin Media are another TV/ISP company and I remember them being fairly pro DEA too.

The submission is wrong. It's flash memory, not RAM. The TFA even says so.

Two words for you: Resistive touchscreen

I'll admit I haven't gone through Wikileaks, although these leaks don't specifically affect/interest me there are others where I might be interested.

For example, The Telegraph got the UK expenses list and they happened to publish the (partially redacted) data, similar to Wikileaks. I took this as an opportunity to research my own MP's ethics. This was actually an unusual case where the whole leak was published, although they actually used crowdsourcing to try and analyse the data!

This particular leak is a bit more awkward for someone to pick through, it's hundreds of thousands of documents. But, over time, I do believe that it will be gone through. If nothing else, this does help reduce the ability for a reporter to take something completely out of context as the context can be checked. How many times have you seen someone accused say "it was taken out of context" and from there are unable to make any conclusions as the full context is never released? Have they just brushed it off or was it misconstrued?

Exactly, instead it will go back to the newspapers/TV news as being the main avenue for releasing leaked information. Once they get their hands on it there's no knowing what they'll do to it in the process of editorialising it and publishing their POV on the incident.

With wikileaks you are able to see the original documents, so even though there may be bias added to some of their reporting (many complained about the shortened & commentated video of the helicopter attack), the original source is also available.