You determine a game's worth by how fun it is. (Obviously, this varies with the tastes of the user.)

So, how can you find out without dropping a fortune on a questionable title? First, don't buy new right off the bat. If possible, either wait for a demo or rent a title before purchasing. Also, hold off for about 3-4 months following the release date. This is about the point where stores begin discounting these titles by up to 50%.

Finally, check sites like DealNews for updates on special pricing, or find a reliable store online that routinely offers cheap prices on titles you want. (Personally, I've found GoGamer to have fantastic discounts on new titles in their 48hr Madness section... sometimes by as much as $20 below average pricing on new titles.)

Depending on advances in technology and physics, mere positioning in a space battle might not be all that decisive in itself. For example, could a ship be armed with a shield that acts as an "always on" wormhole, redirecting all incoming weapons fire to an alternate point in space... such as the interior of the enemy ship itself?

The anime series "Gurren Lagann" used another interesting weapon system in which a form of time travel was applied to warheads, allowing them to make impact with a target randomly at multiple points on the timeline from a few seconds into the past to a few seconds into the future, effectively negating the possibility of blocking the attack.

... the very first programmer was a woman... Ada Lovelace.

Actually there were/are many more notables as well.

It may seem that way, but this isn't the early 90's anymore. Our society is now built around a premise of fear, rather than trust. For many, that means the majority of social interaction we have occurs from behind a computer screen. You're not likely to get abducted, raped, beaten or killed if you don't leave the comfort and safety of your home. This is the new norm... children are actually discouraged from playing outside for their well-being. This mistrust of the outside world gets carried on into adulthood.

Strangely enough, the ones most likely to react negatively to a mere comment on the internet are probably the same individuals who fear the real world is already out to get them. Getting others to react to a comment on a website only serves to reaffirm the fantasy of ever-growing dangers lurking in the real world.

... back when a conversation would simply "die" after whatever dumbass comment was made on impulse during a brief moment of frustration?

Nowadays, we're all expected to bottle our emotions, letting them slowly fester into a mental illness that could eventually result in a random explosion of violent behavior toward anyone who might rub you the wrong way at just the right moment.

Knee-jerk reactions to off-color commentary made to a completely unrelated audience are likely going to be the cause of several future columbine-like incidences. And why? Because you can't give anyone even the slightest bit of breathing room to themselves.

The internet may have brought the world closer together, but perhaps that difference is starting to make a number of us feel claustrophobic.

Also, how do such comments reach such seemingly unrelated audiences? Is it just coincidence, or is someone constantly watching this person for some specific purpose?

After years of running a large scale message board myself, one thing I have learned is that you simply can't quantify every situation enough to objectively make the correct decision every single time. An automated system can either be inadequate and unintrusive, or, draconian and inefficient. Using a team of humans is even more chaotic, because each one ultimately ends up falling back onto their own experiences to determine right from wrong. This can vary greatly from person to person, leading to either being too lax or too iron fisted. Both extremes have their own consequences and effect upon the community being watched over.

Even a system like Slashdot's setup, where the community polices itself, isn't free of flaws. A community that polices itself will ultimately normalize with whatever the averages deem "appropriate", for better or worse. In addition, any attempt to override this average will often be met with opposition from the community when the operators' trust in the community gets put into question.

No online system will ever be perfectly safe for children. But neither is the real world.

The only real way to protect children both online and off is for the parents to be more involved in their kids' lives. Talk to them. Keep the video games and computers out in neutral parts of the home where you can actually see what's going on, rather than putting them in the bedroom. Furthermore, don't violate your kids' trust in you by monitoring their actions from behind the scenes using keyloggers or VNC servers. You can be just as effective by watching their actions out in the open when you walk by. If they make a sudden knee-jerk reaction like turning off the monitor or closing windows, you know their up to something and your actions immediately after should be enough to put the fear of god into them when they know they're doing something they shouldn't be doing.

Want your kids to grow up "right"? Then don't let others do your job for you!

getting your name off of a sexual predator list after suffering a frivolous statutory rape charge.

In other words, you lost control of the situation after it was mirrored from the original source.

More on "the frizzies"

For anyone still scratching their heads... here...

For anyone else, congrats on "getting it"

Just had to say it.

Ok, this actually makes sense to me. Even if the app can identify itself as legitimate or pirated in a server/client setting, even the bandwidth used for verification of each copy of the app alone would eventually add up.

A product is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. This is how "supply and demand" works. If the consumers are telling you it's overpriced rather than buying it, then it is overpriced. If you paid too much in developing software that's deemed overpriced by your customer base, you can hardly blame the consumer for that. You simply over-invested in a failed project.

Whenever a developer claims to be "losing money" to piracy, one has to wonder... are the developers losing this money trying to combat piracy directly (lawsuits and DRM tactics), or is it simply a case of self-flattery, where the developer is grossly over-estimating the value of their software, thinking "If my software isn't great, then why would anyone pirate it?"

Perhaps its time for some self-reflection. You are just another pawn in an industry wide problem spanning over 30 years. Chances are, you and your app aren't special. The piracy was likely nothing more than a bulk job handled indescriminately with no concern for you or anyone else.

Being disabled myself, I can sympathize with such frustrations... but guess what... even the disabled can be totally unreasonable!

Sure, it's one thing to expect handicapped accessible ramps and bathrooms at places of business which deal directly with the public, but it's something completely different to expect a business to cater to any and every conceivable disability when the person in question isn't even on their property or being dealt with on a personal basis.

Why should this person be suing Sony for problems extending beyond the scope of their hardware's intended use when the guy could just as easily find a 3rd party solution for such issues and get government assistance to acquire it? Are they somehow entitled to a first party solution simply because a third party solution might not be as pretty to use or look at? Is there a reason this person should expect every piece of software/hardware he encounters to have a built-in zoom function, when he could just as easily use something like a display magnifying glass like that featured in the film version of "1984"? And how would they prove that using such an external solution would "damage" them to the point that the only logical solution is to sue not the display hardware's manufacturer, but the manufacturer of other hardware using that display?

After all, is it Sony's fault that this person purchased a TV with pixels too small for them to view the images shown on it adequately?

"Here's my understanding of the situation: In both the Glider case and this one, we're talking about the original software being loaded into RAM potentially with third-party modifications to parts of it. This means that, even if the original software (the WoW client, and Mac OS X) was bought and paid for, and a RAM copy at runtime would be subject to the section 117 exception, there is room to argue that what is being loaded is not the bought and paid for authorized copy, but an unauthorized derivative work made by adding the third party modifications."

Doesn't this also describe practically any modification to the OS, such kernel extensions installed by any third-party program for added functionality? For example, can you imagine the chaos that would be created if everyone who owned a copy of Adobe Photoshop was suddenly accused of running an pirate copy of Mac OS X, simply *because* they installed Photoshop on their machine and rebooted it with a few extra .kext files?