I think the quote stating that having a war video game dishonors those who have fought in real battles.... is interesting. I take issue with this for several reasons. 1) Video games serve as a tactical simulation and provide an enhanced learning experience for participants. 2) Video games will most accurately simulate the war of the future. [Remote control, camera and sensor based] 3) How can a video game dishonor war veterans? Do people really think war veterans care if you play a video game about a battle they were in? Really? I can understand the protester trying to make a point, but let's keep it real.

who would you want on your side?

HP or IBM?

Personally, IBM research and development puts me in a constant state of awe. I believe they have some of the most brilliant minds in the world pushing the boundries of science. Maybe thier end products don't always reflect the level of R&D invested, but don't kid yourself... the last thing HP wants is IBM's full, undivided attention at it's market share.

IBM's strength is in it's diversity. Just because they cut PC's to Lenovo doesn't mean anything about the future of the companies presence in the future technology market.

Remember this little gem?..... http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportat ion/index.html