Okay, so depressed people sent emails, did internet chat, watched videos online, played games, and ran more file sharing programs. It doesn't sound like they're depressed to me; it sounds like they're just more advanced users who aren't falling in line with the corporate-approved activities and making someone money for clicking on their stupid webpage advertisements. And for that, those people are being labelled "depressed"?

So if I take a picture of the crowd at a nightclub and post it quickly, then it's okay. But if a service has a bunch of video cameras and takes a snapshot and has some software to look at it to judge how many people are there, then it's a privacy violation? I always thought the point of hanging out at bars and nightclubs was to be seen in public.

I thought one of the original promises of cable was to deliver ad-free programming. Finally, after after all these years, someone is holding them up to that.

A generation ago, a relative of mine was told that the Sciences were the way to go. Be a chemist and he'll have a high paying job for life, so that's what he chose for his career path. Decades later, realty proves it turned out to be quite a lie. As usual, the market forces work, and until STEM jobs start making significantly larger sums of money and have more job security, I can't blame this generation for ignoring the management call that we need more dummies to flood the market while they continue to receive higher pay.

I don't understand why anyone compares the internet and social media to addiction. We could just as easily have said that people are addicted to talking on the phone or watching TV. Heck, why not say that people who communicate by any means with other people are somehow addicted and should stop? I challenge the non-internet savvy crowd to stop talking to anyone or else I say that you too must have some sort of illness!

No, desire for interacting with others not addiction. The technophobes are just jealous that there's another popular form of socialization to which they are unaccustomed. Social media is in no way "evil".

These types of products with content lock and DRM should come with some sort of big warning label for consumers that you are not really buying the game. Essentially you're renting the software with an up-front one-time payment under the terms and conditions of the license. For the publishers to claim otherwise seems like false advertising to me.

Big government seems to have an anti-Midas touch; instead of turning to gold, everything it touches turns to crap, and that which it regulates costs way more than it should. I realize that life costs money, but I don't need it costing ME even more as punishment because a judge lets repeat DUI offenders off the hook.

How about this: If you don't have the gumption to put drunk drivers in jail, then go ahead and install a safety device on my car. The only catch is that YOU and YOUR ORGANIZATION have pay for it with your own non-taxpayer funded money. If M.A.D.D. wants it so bad, then I say let them.


... *mumbles something about a foolproof society*

Speeding up the PS4 could cause it to jump the gun, much like the Sega Dreamcast couldn't compete against the next-gen of consoles. That's not to say that the Dreamcast was a bad system, or that the PS4 would be a bad system, but the cost would be too high could be quickly surpassed by higher-performance and lower-cost hardware. Speeding up without a good reason to do so could really hurt Sony, as if the early PS3 days didn't hurt Sony's bottom line enough.

In other words, the Laffer Curve in effect, which reminds everyone that taxes are a penalty, and that you'll recieve more in tax revenue with a low tax rate than a high tax rate attempting to collect taxes on nonexistent businesses.

Because the politicians (and make no mistake, I'm talking both major parties in the U.S.) are bought and paid for by the multinational corporations. They have absolutely no consideration for the trade deficit, or the standard of living for citizens, as long as they can profit from the situation.

Unfortunately, meaningful economic changes will not occur in the U.S. until there is a large shift in the way voters choose elected officials which allows outside independent candidates without connections to lobbyists to succeed at the ballot box.