I agree 100%. In the mid 90s, EGM was 100% of all gaming news and tips for me. It was so popular that, for a time, they even had EGM^2, a second magazine each month with yet more information.

I loved the reviews by Sushi X.

2. It is free, it is quite literally clicking one button, you're quite literally spending more of the customers money trying to get paid than doing the service. Back when quality service meant something, a store would frequently be willing to do the one click just to have positive word of mount. Fair exchange really.

Back in the 80s, my video store used to charge a dollar (or maybe it was $2) for not rewinding. It's free at home, takes 1 second to hit the button, and so therefore was fraud?

I think that the decision between Roman and Arabic numerals is more important than you give it credit for. It is an extremely important decision artistically. Whether to call yourself "The Godfather, Part II" or "The Godfather, Part 2" is more than just a marketing idea for a poster, even if from the studio's POV it might be.

Like the movies Se7en or Face/Off, in calling someone John Appleton II instead of John Appleton 2 (or even John Appleton 2.0 - someone will do that soon) conveys a different meaning. So in conversation, while only an arse would correct you for saying "It's Warcraft II, not Warcraft 2, ASSHOLE!" it is technically and artistically correct. And if you're going to shorten Civilization to Civ or civ, you might as well keep the punctuation too.

I completely agree with the GP, and as I read the article, the reply-I-was-ready-to-type was almost word for word what I was going to say. First time in like 4 years, I'm "friend'ing" someone on /.

uhm? Are you sure they have to pull them back? That would be a bit against the way lottery math works.

I see your point from a mathematical POV, but not in a legal one. When you advertise "You could win up to 1,000,000 today with 'Scratch-Off-Millions!'" after the million dollars was won, you are in fact lying, since that's no-longer possible.

A casino can advertise that you can win up to $10,000 on this roulette table because you can, every time. But they can't advertise "win the 1,000,000th-customer prize of $1,000,000" after the prize has been given out...

If that's what he's saying, then you're saying, "Do the crime, ruin people's lives. The worst that'll happen? They put you up in a hotel."
Punishment is fine, but imprisoning this guy just might not be punishment. He's not being used, and he's not being hurt.
At least use him, for something.

Um... prison is a punishment, not a hotel. You are cast out of society and civilization. You are withdrawn from normal human beings. You lose (almost) all of your rights (including most of the Bill of Rights).

You sleep when they tell you.
You will never have sex again (er... voluntary heterosexual).
You will never see a single human being ever again who won't/can't travel to the middle-of-nowhere prison.
You will never go to your place of worship again.
You'll never see your home again.
You'll never see a sport event ever again.
You'll never drive a car or ride a bicycle in the breeze again.
You'll never have your mother's/wife's/son's/daughter's food again.
You'll never see your daughter get married or walk her down the aisle.
You'll never again wear any clothing you want for comfort or any other reason.
You'll never go to a bookstore/tech store/flower store again and browse.
You'll never sleep-in ever again.
You'll never smell a rose or fresh-baked bread ever again.
You'll never... EVER... go anywhere ever again by yourself because you wanted to go there.
You'll never swim ever again.
You'll never poop ever again in privacy.
You'll never again see the ocean, a mountain, a farm, a skyscraper or the home you grew up in. Ever.

Seriously... you lose everything that's worth living for. And he has nothing to look forward to either since he'll never get out.

Basically, anything and everything went wrong with the rovers. Everything from the funding to all the equipment breakdowns (both before and after launch). It's absolutely amazing that they got them off the ground.

And it really was designed for 90 days. Dr. Squyres talks about how "90 days" to the NASA engineers usually means up to 180 days (x2). Like Sojourner, Mars Polar Lander, it was NOT meant to last through the first winter. I remember Dr. Squyres telling us in class that they purposely didn't design anything to clean the inevitable dust-buildup over the solar panels (and he talks about this in the book as well). They considered windshield wipers, a saran-wrap-like plastic that would simply revolve and create a fresh surface, and other means. They had to account for every GRAM on the machines, and adding these didn't make sense (money or weight-wise) because the entire thing wasn't supposed to last more than the solar panels would last anyway. The whole dust-storm-cleanups was obviously a complete surprise.

The entire rover was designed with the 3-6 month power-loss in mind. It's seriously an amazing mission: unbridled dedication, creative and intelligent team members, and dumb luck - time and time again Squyres talks about how they got through every mission-crippling hurdle. It's all in the book. Seriously, pick it up on half.com for a few bucks. Great read.

that's absolutely ridiculous. So you're saying "Do the crime, ruin people's lives. The worst that'll happen? You pay it back and break even."

I'm wagering that designing a rover that you are certain is capable of running around Mars for 90 days would necessarily entail a degree of engineering that makes it at least theoretically capable of running around Mars for years.

I mean this in the politest way, but you're wrong. Read Steve Squyres's Roving Mars. He was the head of the entire project. It's amazing how many things almost didn't work (for example, they got one chance to test their chute - and it shredded to pieces. And it was like 30 days before launch). It's an amazing book.

On a personal note, Steve Squyres was my professor at Cornell, and he was one of the most amazing professors I ever had or ever would have after. I still remember the day he came off the plane from Pasadena and told us about the Rovers about a week before the press was told. He told us all that it was "off the record" and any reporters in the room (student paper, etc) had to treat it as so.

But lately it seems like Pixar is making movies to impress themselves while forgetting who their audience is.

Brad Bird says he doesn't make "cartoons." He makes motion pictures that just happen to be animated. My 4 year-old neice hated the first 30 minutes of Wall-E because it had no talking or singing or dancing (Hello Dolly clips not counting). But the adults - they loved it.