WIth an analysis that insightful in it's ability to see through a false, consensus reality, allow me to introduce you to the American political system!

"The justice system is not a joke."

Maybe you haven't had much firsthand experience with it, because I can assure you, it most certainly IS a joke.

The system does not work how we learned it is supposed to work in school, nor does it work the way you see on TV.

I went through a year long legal process over custody of my child, and I had seen friends and family have to deal with various aspects of the system. It's completely ridiculous, unfair, and not at all what the law specifies it is supposed to be.

I agree; entirely.

I agree. The UK seems to almost be at that point

No, actually it doesn't exist, according to many researchers, according to the BBC not in the way you're referring to - though certainly there are plenty of people who say that it does.

This is not the only source by far, but it gets to the point (BBC documentary):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mztfFdpd1Rk

My understanding is that the word means "the base," and according to some the true meaning of that term comes from a database of foreign fighters (EG mujahadeen) that the CIA used and trained in the proxy war against the soviets in Afghaistan in the 80s - some of whom later became the Taliban.

You're exactly right.

Al Qaeda was the example I was going to use, but a lot of people aren't aware that it is a fictional organization and seem to not like being told this, despite the fact that it is true and verifiable.

Just because some western polticians and corporate news networks refer to it incessantly like a bogeyman doesn't mean it exists; in fact, in this day and age it very likely means you really need to check into any purported bogeymen that are repeatedly mentioned by either.

There is no reason why they should need THAT MUCH MONEY on an annual basis.

I lovew the idea behind Wikipedia, and I love the site itself - but it's grown increasingly political as far as editing goes - other posts have made that point already.

I think ads are a bad idea, it would just compromise the site faster than size, egos, and donors with agendas already have.

I agree.

I think it's entirely possible that "Anonymous" could be an operation specifically designed to give the governments of the world an excuse to try to ban anonymity online.

That is the sort of method that these governments use when they wish to curtail a freedom, or criminalize something that the populace would NEVER support criminalization of. Create a bogeyman, build it up in the media and the minds of the public and legisltors, and then cry out that "it must be stopped."

I am NOT saying that this IS the case, but I think it's something that should be considered as I am convinced that the powers that be see the internet (as it is now, fairly open) as a major threat to their pwoer and dominance - and in a way it is to them because it stops the corporate monopoly on news and information, it allows people to learn about things they'd never be able to find out about otherwise. It allows organization of people instantly, regardless of location worldwide and gives people access to information and resources fairly anonymously that they otherwise would never have access to.

It is a great equalizer when it comes to information distribution and organization - and those are two things that are an anathema to those who want to control populaces.

Obviously they just don't get it.

If you say you are a member of "Anonymous," then at that moment you are a member of "Anonymous."

If, several minutes later, you say "I am not a member of "Anonymous," then you are not a member of "Anonymous."

Anybody can be a member, for any amount of time. There are no central lists, no membership rosters.....in many ways the organization doesn't exist, it;s a "dis-organization."

Like they'd come out and admit it if it IS true.

Single player games rule.

Two perfect examples of this are Assassin's Creed Brotherhood (an amazing game, way more polished and varied than the last two - which were good as well - and it has a multiplayer mode, but the single player campaign is where it's at - I've already got about 60 hours invested and I am still not done) and Mass Effect 2 - two GREAT games.

I like multiplayer gaming when I am in the mood for it, but it's not as immersive of an experience.

This guy is short sighted and is primarily focused on the financial benefits of having a game that can be repeatedly milked with DLC and other such.

Whatever; EA makes some great games, but they sure have ignorant people when it comes to PR of this sort.

Giving it to Obama proved that it's totally meaningless. ....the ironic thing here though, is that it's packed with allegorical meaning in that that prize and the way it was given to Obama is the perfect example of what the US stands for now - a meaningless "peace" prize founded by an arms manufacturer given to the "leader" of a sole superpower country that talks peace more than any other, but does more to create war and show disdain for peace than any other country in the world right now. There's some meaning for you.

Considering that one thing we heard when the decision to give this to Obama was questioned worldwide was that "The decided to give it to him because he ended Bush's reign, and Bush had started 2 wars, tons of illegal prisons, authorized torture, etc - and the funny thing is that despite all of his talk, Obama is doing EXACTLY the same thing.

We'll call it UCANNT *rimshot*

Universal Co-op for Assigned Names, Numbers and Timeservers

Seriously though, I do think a backup system would be a good idea....It's needed in order to stop the growing attempts (that I think we're going to see a lot more of) to control, censor, filter, and police the internet....Due to the practicalities involved in how the system works, I am not certain how plausible it would be to have two competing systems while everything is working smoothly, and there are other points where the system could be messed with, but having a framework in place might not be a bad idea with the political realities we live in...

No.

Speaking for myself, there are only three reasons I don't finish games (and most of the ones I play I finish):

Getting stuck a ridiculously difficult part: If the game is good, then I always finish it unless I get hopelessly stuck somewhere and try and try and try to get past it, but cantt. I then get tired of it and move on to something else, but this hardly ever happens anymore. Now what I usually do is set it aside and come back to it later, with fresh eyes, and that usually works.

Quality issues: If I quit early on, then the game just wasn't compelling or was too boring or had way too many bugs, etc.

Something new and much more interesting comes out and I start playing that; if the initial game I was playing was a quality, compeling game, then I'll return to it fresh....

I can't imagine anyone not finishing a Mass Effect game though, unless the reason is time - those games are so fun and they're quite easy.