Why is it that everyone who links to this article uses "Xbox" or "Xbox Live" in the title instead of the more specific (and less newsworthy) "Xbox Live Indie Games?"

There's been a slew of articles lately describing how difficult it is to profit from the XBLIG channel. If the games were on the Xbox Live Arcade and got trounced by Steam, that might be worth reporting. As is, saying a game could not find success on the Indie Games channel is borderline obvious.

Sony may have blamed Anonymous for the attack, but they're not accusing Anonymous of executing the attack itself. They said the following:

• They found a file named "Anonymous" on their servers that contained the text "We are Legion."
• They were too distracted by Anonymous' DDOS freakshow to notice the real intrusion that was taking place.

Granted, Sony can say anything to cover their butts, but Hell... The hackers could have just as easily left an "Osama wuz here" file. Would that mean Al Qaida definitely did it? Could they abandon any further investigation and blog posting because the dude is shark food now?

Thinking I was cute, I posted a comment on my Facebook Wall this morning saying something to the effect of, "Donald Trump won't believe Osama is dead until he sees the birth certificate."

A half-hour later, my conservative aunt replied with, verbatim, "Neither will I!"

There's no way the current administration is going to walk away with credit for this. It's going to be hailed as a hoax, or it'll be painted to look like he was just applying the final brushstrokes to a Bush administration project. Yes, I wish they took him alive so he could be questioned and tried, but you can't exactly tackle and cuff a man in a militarized compound. It's not as simple as just completing an extended QTE and mashing the [A] button when the prompt appears.

An article was recently posted on some tech blog (no link because I just viewed it in passing on my Chumby) about how YouTube was ready to start providing video rentals for Hollywood movies.

One of the Big Media talking heads in the article said something to the effect of, "We're glad that we have another competitor in the digital rental market, and thank goodness they don't use a subscription model!"

I doubt that quote will ever be read anywhere outside of a tech blog. If it was a morning news show that dropped that bomb, more people would be aware about how Big Media is trying to kill the subscription model in favor of an antiquated, overpriced, pay-per-view model that makes them a ton more money.

I suppose that this is one unintended benefit of releasing an underpowered console for the current generation.

Nintendo is releasing a new platform at a point when the 360 and PS3 platforms are starting to stagnate, resorting to parlor tricks like the Kinect and Move to cover up the fact that it's not economically viable to release a new "next generation" platform at this point in time.

If they handle the new home console the same way they handled the 3DS, many people should be very happy. Backwards compatibility, data transfers, a more fully-featured eShop with non-game media, and a large assortment of large titles and large window titles... I'm looking forward to it.

What do you do when the awesome, independent coffee shop down the road has the "$10 minimum credit card payment" sign up? Consider that a premium payment, or take your business elsewhere?

I find that more annoying than having to pay the fees as a consumer. Charge me a little extra, but don't tell me how much to spend.

Letting users name their own prices with the Humble Indie Bundle and giving the proceeds to charity wasn't enough to stop piracy. The argument just changed to, "It's more convenient to get it from a Torrent site."

Free is always going to be cheaper than cheap. That's what piracy is all about. It has nothing to do with "sticking it to the man" or "improving the user experience" or "taking control of your purchases." It's about getting something for nothing. I know there's plenty of people out there who justify their piracy with many legitimate-sounding goals, but in the end, that's not the issue.

The list is mostly tablets and smartphones.

Even if any one of those products manages to trump the Apple counterpart in features or specs, it won't matter. The brand recognition and loyalty that Apple carries negates any competitor superiority.

I agree with you. I'd rather see something that offers something I've never seen before over the "better, faster, stronger" wannabe of a device I've been using for a year now.

Sounds like the story of Facebook. Or, at least, The Social Network's version of the story of Facebook.

For a false promise? Had I known that, I wouldn't have responded to this spam advertising the same thing for $49.95/bottle.

I can't speak for RCN, but Verizon's FiOS rollout in Philadelphia won't be complete for another six years, if all goes according to plan. And it won't. Having Comcast world headquarters a few blocks away from City Hall doesn't help that situation.

I used Verizon DSL for the past year and a half in my apartment about an hour outside of the city. I consider it the broadband equivalent of two tin cans connected by string. Frequent dropouts and slow speeds make its month-to-month price rather obnoxious.

Then, there's Clear. They recently started throttling their users. If you go over 7 GB/month - extremely easy to do with Netflix - you get taken down to 0.25mbps for some inconsistent length of time.

In Philadelphia, at least, Comcast can afford to get away with this. Their "competitors" are only such in name only.