1. Because of the games that are only available consoles.
2. Because the cost of buying a new console every 6-8 years is less than the cost of keeping a computer current enough to play the new games when they come out.
3. Because some people like simplicity, and when you buy a PS3 game, you know it will play on your PS3 without having to look up a single hardware requirement or driver compatibility crash bug report.

For me it's primarily number 1, although number 3 is nice at times. I play both PC and console games, but honestly, there's just far more console exclusives I want to play than PC exclusives, so I spend more time on my console. As a note, both user mods and keyboard/mouse play are supported for at least some of the consoles, even if developers don't always take advantage of it and their might be some extra red tape around the mods.

Yeah, I won't say racism is completely dead, but I do think it's often blown way out of proportion and gone to as the default motivation for the dislike of any minority figure. We all know politics itself provides more than enough reason for vitriolic hate, lies, conspiracy theories, and the like. Identifying racism in such a situation is like listening carefully to figure out if anyone near you is tapping their foot when you're surrounded by jackhammers tearing up the road.

Obama's a Muslim who wasn't born in the US, wants to turn America into a socialist nation, and doesn't mind if Israel is wiped off the map. Bush was secretly behind 9-11 in order to get the support to invade Iraq for its oil. Bill Clinton was a rapist who sold out to the Chinese for campaign funds. I don't really see any noticeable difference in how they're treated by their opponents that would indicate racism was a significant factor.

I'm up for a discounted phone in June. I'm hoping I can lock in two more years of unlimited before this change goes live. At the prices they currently charge for data, I'll switch to a feature phone and carry around my old smartphone in wifi mode before I switch to one of their limited plans.

There's no rule that they can't let you keep the number. It's just not required. That said, I believe it's up to you current carrier to agree to release your number to the new carrier, and we all know how accommodating companies can be about helping you switch to their competitor. Maybe your old carrier gets high marks for customer service, or someone didn't notice it wasn't a local port and gave the green light anyway. Not everyone will be so fortunate.

Actually, this is only partly true. The ability to keep your number is regulated by the government in the Wireless Local Number Portability. However, as the name might suggest, it's only applies if you're living in the right area code for your cell phone. I don't have that option because I moved across state lines but didn't want to change my number. If I switch carriers, I lose my number.

Registered republican here. I'm not particularly fond of Romney, but I'd decided a long way back that if Ron Paul won the nomination, I wouldn't just vote for a third party, I would vote for Obama. Ron Paul has ideas that are just too extreme for my tastes, and I strikes me as the type that would fight tooth and nail to get his ideas through, whatever the consequences.

I'm sorry, but as long as he keeps calling for the likes of a return to the gold standard, I simply don't trust him in a position of power.

As glad as I am we got rid of CFCs, it's actually a bit of a funny story where things went from there. The replacement chemicals for CFCs are greenhouses gasses over 4,000 times more potent than Carbon Dioxide. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/19/AR2009071901817.html

Sure, Sony has done plenty to legitimately earn the scorn of its customers. Still, I myself am one of those who would readily spend money for the right Sony product. I've bought exactly four pieces of hardware from Sony. The PS1, PS2, PS3, and PSP. I don't regret any of those purchases, and I fully expect to buy the PS4 when it comes out. I'll probably get the PS Vita eventually as well.

There are two reasons I won't shy away from those purchases. First, I can hardly imagine a feasible scenario where I would withhold money from a company as punishment for a past action. Perhaps in protest an ongoing action such as "I won't buy anything from this company until they stop donating money to terrorist organization X every month." Other than that, I'll take how trustworthy I consider a company into consideration, but ultimately choose the option that provides me the greatest benefit.

There are games exclusive to Sony's system that more than justify buying those gaming consoles in my eyes. It doesn't hurt that I don't believe I've ever actually been harmed by any of Sony's actions, which makes it easier to take a logical rather than emotional approach.

The second reason I'll buy from them is that, whatever laws are in place, I don't consider a corporation a person. Kaz Hirai became the new President and CEO of Sony two weeks ago. What kind of turnover have other executives had? Who was actually responsible for the decisions you loathe, and how many of them even still work for Sony?

I believe the quote from Juan Williams you're looking for is the following:

It may be a bit pedantic, but that statement is definitely not racist. You can argue it's bigoted, but I wouldn't say it's racist at all. Muslim is not a race, and if you take his statement at face value, it's not even Muslims that make him nervous. Only Muslims that choose to wear Muslim garb on a plane. Not to mention that saying he gets worried and nervous doesn't seem to me as if it should be very controversial at all. Even the claim about identifying primarily as Muslims is still just presented as what's going through his mind when he sees them.

I'll admit to not having the whole context around the statement, but from what I see he never claimed any of those thoughts were fair to the person in question. It speaks of an instinctive response that could speak as much of the culture of country and the nature of what our mass media exposes us to that it would have become an instinctive reaction. Nor is such a statement without merit in discussion.

If that sort of reaction is normal, perhaps we need to rethink how the topic is presented in the media. Or maybe that information would actually be appreciated by Muslims who might not even have considered how their choice of clothing could influence people's first impression of them. They would still have the right to choose to wear that garb, but perhaps for some of them, it isn't important and they want to avoid it. Regardless, I think discussion of this level should be encouraged rather than squelched.

I don't think they'll delay it, as that would be a bit too irresponsible. The individual mandate goes into effect in 2014, and the longer businesses are unsure of which way it will go, the worse off we are. Uncertainty is almost never good for encouraging businesses to hire. The court wants to make their decision and give congress and the president as much time as possible to try to pass new laws to save the bill.

I do find it interesting that they could have crafted it to have almost the same effect while having almost no chance of being declared unconstitutional. Raise taxes on everyone by the amount the fee for not buying health insurance would have been. Anyone who buys health insurance gets a credit on their taxes equal to that amount. Those with earnings low enough that they would have avoided the mandate also avoid the tax in this scenario.

The effect is virtually identical, but it's clearly within congress's power. Of course they took the path they did because raising taxes on the middle class is all but political suicide so it was unlikely to have made it through congress. So they picked their path, and now they have to deal with a congress even less likely to pass a tax increase than the one back when they first made the choice.

PS - My prediction is that the individual mandate is declared unconstitutional. They'll also decide that the parts requiring insurance companies to accept people regardless of preexisting conditions and charge the same amount will be struck as not being able to stand without the mandate. The rest of the law will be left as is.