Late response, but I'd like to point out that the SCIgen project has been around for quite a while (I remember seeing it something like 3 or 4 years ago and even then it wasn't "new"). Someone used the output of that and submitted it to a conference, which is probably not that rare an event, although it does take some balls to follow through with it.

The reason I talked around it, is I was trying to make a point about how copyright has become more complicated recently. Your original post made it sound like it's all very straightforward, which to a certain extent it is (at least now, give the lobbyists a few more years), but compared to what the situation was when copyright was originally created it's massively more complicated. I do agree that the courts need to make some decisions with regards to EULAs, and I really hope they find them to be the bunk that they logically are, but the legal system being the legal system just because something is logically bunk doesn't mean they won't uphold it in court. What we really need to happen is to have a case that hinges on a EULA being upheld (and is perfectly legal otherwise) and have a competent lawyer on the defense (or prosecution is the defense is relying in the EULA, which I admit is unlikely) to stand up and point out the explicit exemption in copyright that allows for installing and running software without violating copyright, and then to point out the a EULA is a contract that's imposed retroactively after a purchase has already occurred. At that point it's basically all out on the table and relies on the Judge not being an utter moron and/or being in the pocket of some corporation.

Computers, or more accurately digital data massively complicates copyright due to the ease with which copies of digital information can be made and distributed. Prior to the widespread adoption of computers copyright violation entailed at the minimum a not insignificant expenditure of time and money in order to acquire the goods necessary to duplicate a work, as well as the effort required to transcribe the protected work. With computers the cost involved has been reduced to fractions of a penny and the time to a matter of seconds. Worse still, the basic nature of computers requires that in order for them to function properly they must duplicate copyrighted data which even if its explicitly exempted from copyright protection still muddies the waters somewhat.

Further complicating matters is the recent rise of the legal fiction that is the EULA which basically tries to claim that you can purchase something (legally at this point it's been sold to you so you own that physical copy and can do with it as you please), but that to actually utilize the thing you just purchased you must then agree to a contract with the supplier after you've already bought the item in question. It's somewhat like as if you purchased a new car, drive it around for a bit, go to refill at the pump and discover a lock on the gas tank that says you need to sign a contract with the manufacturer in order to get the key to unlock the gas tank, and that any attempt to otherwise access the gas tank is a patent violation.

You're implying that those things are the primary measurement of freedom, and although they are freedoms in the US, they are not the only freedoms or even necessarily the most important ones. The rest of your comment is fine though, although I would point out that one advantage to giving the rights to the states as opposed to the federal government is that it promotes diversity which is generally a good thing.

Not that I necessarily agree or disagree, but out of curiosity what exactly is supposed to happen when we "wake the fuck up and realize just how deluded we've all been"? Will that change anything? The annoying tourists that ask stupid questions and make asinine demands will still be just as annoying and stupid, and still just as arrogant in trying to force everyone else to conform to what they want. The US will still be one of the better countries to live in, even if the populace is a little more jaded. Sure it would be nice to reduce the collective ignorance that little bit, as it's good anytime ignorance is reduced, but I don't really think it will make much of a difference one way or another. Everyone will still hate the US, and the US will still be what it is, and we'll continue the doing the same things we always have, just with the slightly bitter knowledge we're not as "free" as we thought we were, but that we're still better off than a lot of people are.

Traffic cameras don't "FORCE" anyone to do anything, and in fact they seem to provide nothing more than a steady stream of income to the police for relatively little expenditure. Any pedestrians killed by cars were killed for one of several reasons, none of which have anything to do with traffic cameras. Either the pedestrian, or the driver wasn't paying attention (speed is a minor factor here, assuming the driver or pedestrian saw the vehicle coming the difference of 10 or 20 MPH would not appreciably change the outcome for anything faster than 30 MPH and very few roads have speeds under 30 MPH), the driver misjudged driving conditions (ice, wet roads, etc.), or there was some kind of mechanical failure (bad breaks, bald tires). That's pretty much it, barring a bridge collapsing, or chain reaction involving multiple vehicles (in which case the original crash is attributable to one of the previous issues). The fact is, anytime a pedestrian is near a road irregardless of the speed of the cars on that road, there's a risk involved and it's the responsibility of both the pedestrian and the drivers of the cars to be aware of their surroundings and take whatever precautions are necessary. In the case of pedestrians this means crossing at crosswalks preferably while traffic is stopped at a red light, and otherwise staying the hell off the road and as far from the road as possible. For drivers that means not tailgating, being aware of the condition of the road surface and upcoming road hazards or traffic devices (stop signs, lights, cross-walks, school zones, etc.), and always assuming that the guy in the next car over is a complete and utter moron which more often than not is true.

True enough, although when you get both of them you've got almost all the features (and remember both can be had for less than the cost of the PS3 by itself). The 360 actually networks with Windows Media Center (if you have it), or with a plugin to Windows Media Player, which under the scenes probably does leverage some sort of SMB/CIFS scheme, although I'm not certain about the technical details. It also supports Netflix through live for streaming video, although in that case it's a subscription service and you're limited to whatever the service has available.

All of this shouldn't be taken to mean that I don't like the PS3, I really do, I just think they goofed badly when deciding on the price point and what features they needed or could cut in order to reduce that price point. If I could spare $600 I'd go out and buy one right now (and I was seriously tempted with the release of little big planet), but it's simply not in the budget at the moment.

On the one hand, it's a clear win for "Sony", even if it's a lose for SCEA, as it was arguably the nail in the coffin lid for the HD-DVD format. On the other hand had they opted to axe the Blue-Ray drive and knocked ~$300 off the retail pricetag I think we'd see a much tighter race between the PS3 and 360. With the inclusion of the Blue-Ray drive, and the $600 retail price, Sony has effectively branded the PS3 as a luxury console, and as is common with luxury items its got a much smaller install base. In terms of consoles that also carries with it the extra baggage of being less attractive to developers, which results in fewer exclusive titles, and a lot more poorly implemented ports that don't really take advantage of the full power of the hardware.

Infidel

Actually I think that would make Linux Buddhism and Unix Hinduism.

Thou wilst follow thy K&R style guide or be beaten to death with dangling pointers. Always remember to cuddle your else clauses, they get lonely easily.

Yes, you can write horrible unmaintainable code in any language, but that doesn't mean the language should encourage writing bad code. In C++ you really need to work to have good clean code, and it's trivially easy to write utter garbage, this is the exact opposite of the design you want for a good language. C++ was a nice first attempt at an object oriented language using C style syntax, but the goal of making the language syntactically backwards compatible instead of merely allowing it to link with C code turned it into an utter mess.

Yes it's your responsibility to not shoot yourself in the foot, but at the same time the language should not be handing you a gun covered in grease, with a hair trigger, and a barrel that randomly points in some direction.

The problem is, almost all those things you mentioned are also available on the XBox 360, and I'm betting will soon be available on the Wii.

• DLNA = Live/Wii Store
• Photo, video, music = Dashboard
• CD Ripping = Dashboard
• Web Browser = Not available on 360, but available on Wii
• Audo/video chat = Available on 360, soon to be available on Wii
• Built in card slots = Available on Wii, 360 has proprietary memory card and can accept any USB storage medium as well
• USB Ports = Both 360 and Wii have USB ports
• Backwards compatibility = 360 is mostly backwards compatible (admittedly not as much as the PS3), and Wii can play all or almost all Gamecube games (plus the WiiWare archives for older systems).
• Ability to run Linux = Could be done on the 360 as far as I know, although not out of the box, and not without voiding your warranty, not sure about the Wii

You also left out at least one major feature that's unique to the PS3 and a major contributor to the price of the system, the blue-ray player.

So, to summarize what you get for shelling out twice the cost of a 360 and three times the cost of a Wii is... Linux that doesn't void your warrantly, a blue-ray player, and arguably better graphics which most games aren't taking advantage of right now.
The Problem is, if you're not particularly interested in Blue-Ray right now, you could take that same $600 and buy yourself a 360 AND a Wii, have money left over, and only be out a extra Linux box and a Blue-Ray player.

Once you start debating a person motivations for something you move beyond the realm of reasonable and are left with mostly speculation based on whatever evidence is available. This doesn't change the fact however that a number of laws are dependent on determining the motivations involved (E.G. first degree murder versus second degree). Suicidal people are generally rational within their own mind set, however that mindset is itself irrational. The key question then becomes exactly why and how they came to be in that state. Very few people are rational 100% of the time, and in fact someone that was would probably be considered maladjusted in some way.

You're somewhat correct in that there really isn't any such thing as really crazy versus rationally crazy, but there is more or less rational, as well as different kinds of irrationality even without factoring in chemical imbalances and other physiological issues.

The fact that you say this shows you haven't actually experienced this and are making assumptions about the kind of treatment necessary to put scratches on the disk. To be clear on some of the defective models (not all the 360s are affected, depends on which drive you happened to get) something as minor as the vibration caused by the consoles own fan causes enough movement to scratch game disks.

The market didn't shun the PS3 because it was late to market, they shunned it because the games on offer aren't appreciably more compelling than the ones for the other consoles, but it retails for twice, and three times the cost of the 360 and Wii respectively.