It probably depends on what you are into. Also, keep in mind some of why I enjoy these may have to do with me not having enough time to play games myself, but having time to watch an LP.

• Giant Bomb's Quick Look of "Digital Combat Simulator: A-10C Warthog"
• Beagle Rush's XCOM: Ironman Impossible Series
• Videos by CHKilroy such as this one or this one.
• Videos by NerdCubed such as this one or this one.
• The WTF Is... series by Total Biscuit

Yes, really. The particularly popular LP-ers make their entire living off of the videos they produce.

That might sound strange at first, but some of the best LP-ers are something of a cross between comedians and critics. Both of these are jobs that we are accustomed to seeing making a living off of their work. A good LP-er doesn't just play the game, their value is in their commentary and jokes as they play the game.

What three new wars did Obama start? (I don't intend that to sound snarky. I just don't know what you are refering to.)

Alsup for Supreme Court!

Seriously though, this judge spent a good bit of time doing the legal research needed to produce a solid ruling. He knew it would be appealed so he included stuff in it to keep the appeals court from having the wool pulled over their eyes.

I think the argument is that winning a large city such as Chicago, Miami, Atlanta could no longer be used to win high value states.

I'm not sure I buy the argument. Like you say, someone would have to run the numbers for the past several elections. However, even those results would have to be taken with a grain of salt because how an election turns out depends on how candidates campaign which in turns depends on the rules. For example, in 2000 with the current rules it made no sense for Bush to spend much time campaigning in Texas but under a popularist system it would make a lot of sense(*). Thus it is kind of silly try to use the popular vote results from 2000 to predict who would have won under a popularist system.

(*) Which is one of the arguments against a popular vote for president. Candidates pander to voters that give them the most votes per unit effort (e.g. advertising dollars, candidate time, etc.). While your votes might count equally in a popularist election, the amount of effort to win your vote varies widely depending on geographic location. Thus a popularist election would not give voters equal political power.

The Kansas City airport is an International Airport. (Yes, technically the airport is in Missouri, but it's less than ten miles from the border.)

I think it is for the same reason that (some) people are against GPS tracking by cops even though manual (by human) tracking is legal. When it is more expensive for the government to do, there is an in-built incentive against casual use.

We see the same dynamic with privacy and personal information. Before computers, technically someone could track and mine just as much information about your buying habits, but it wasn't worth the effort until computers made it cheap and easy. There may have been a few instances of abuse before, it didn't become a serious concern until it was widespread.

Since this is implemented voluntarily by the ISPs instead of being imposed by law, I don't see how this violates any treaty rights. (Though that doesn't change the fact that it's still stupid and wrong.)

It's puzzled me for some time that ISPs are so eager to help with these piracy measures. Can someone explain to my why they are so eager to please when there is no reasonable legal threat against them? (IIUC, the DMCA safe-harbor clauses immunize them.) The same goes for YouTube. Why is Google so eager to go above and beyond the DMCA(*)?

(*) I am aware of Viacom v. Google, but my understanding is the appellate judgment in many ways reaffirms the DMCA safe-harbor provisions.

I think it is more complicated than that. If you take something from me and I tell you that I'll call the police and have you procecuted for stealing unless you pay me for the thing you took, I don't think that would be considered blackmail.

What do you do when they don't repeat it?

On the other hand, threatening to call the police isn't exacly incriminating so they might not care anyway.

Why are the ISP's being so accommodating of everything the MPAA/RIAA want? Given safe-harbor rules, it's not like there is any legal reason they have to do this is there?

No, they don't. I know of no major credit card vendor in the US that does this. Same for phones. It would be a major security whole if credit cards did this.

You jest, but wouldn't a cloud of reflective/diffusive things (e.g. chaff, glass beads, smoke, dust, etc.) counteract this quite well.

In order to convince non-programmers, we have to show how software patents block technology they use and want. An example is Mosaic and the web. (I'd welcome others.)

If the implementers of the Mosaic web browser had patented "displaying hypertext images inline" in 1993, the web and all its benefits would never have happened. (E-mail and FTP still exist if that's any consolation.) Locking up that technology behind a patent that wouldn't have expired until 2010(!), would have hamstrung our technological development. A few very rich companies (Microsoft?) might license it, but the extra cost of licensing would prevent the web from gaining critical mass. Without the web many other technologies never exist. Apple never builds the iPhone (smart phones aren't all that useful without web infrastructure). Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. never even exist.

If this much damage could be done by just one software patent, think how much an entire industry of software patents does.