I'm a Childs Play fan myself. I choose the gift. I choose the children's hospital. Penny Arcade runs it, but they take ZERO overhead.

It's easy, trustworthy, and reflective of me.

This is not insightful. It's ignorant of history, truth, and completely hyperbolic.

The truth is that the US judicial system has been *the* floodgate that opens to change from status quo rather consistently. Civil rights, women's rights, rights to contraception and inter-racial marriage. The three branches of our government all have their flaws, but the one that has consistently had less to do with bribes and pressure has always been the judicial.

Defeatism is surrender to the cause you hate. Apathy is just short of volunteering for that cause you hate.

1) I would not fault you for violent actions in the case of being requested to cook a steak "well-done". ;)

2) If I genuinely knew that you would likely be violent if I asked for a well-done steak and then did so, you would not be held entirely liable for your violent actions on me and if you hurt others, I would be held at least partially liable.

Yes, while we all accept that the statement of words of any fashion should not immediately compel the rational person to violent action, we live in a world where they still do. Given the realities of the effects of words on people, we must still be judicious in their use.

Free speech is not a blank check to do as one wishes without consequence. It is as much as responsibility as it is a luxury.

But let's change the players a bit. If it wasn't a private citizen that made this video and was, instead, an arm of the American military forces and their goal was to goad Muslims into combat, would there be much protection of the video and its creators? What would be the difference?

My post had nothing to do with my feelings. It has to do with US judicial precedence.

And I don't care for what religion or reason one kills another, given the history of of humans killing humans, it's almost never been for a good enough reason.

Actually, you can be held liable for the content of your speech directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action (Brandenburg v. Ohio) or if your speech includes "fighting words" (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire).

In the Chaplinsky case, there was a guy that was arrested and fined for verbally abusing members of organized religion on a street corner. The Supreme Court found that his speech was strong enough to incite violence and upheld his citation.

From the decision:
"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

It can be rather strongly argued that the producer of the video overstepped the bounds described in the case.

How far (time, distance) from work now?
How far (time, distance) from new place?

Are you willing to move closer to your current job?

Do you have other people to whom you are obligated that have commitments near where you are now? (schools, other jobs, family)

My bias: Happiness at work (job satisfaction, challenge, belief in the work, being around good people) is more important than wage. I don't say this as someone who has already made a bunch of money. I'm 29 and making under 50k in an area with high cost of living. I also live only 3 miles from my office and bike commute. I would need an offer of at least a 40% increase in pay WITH all the job satisfaction, challenge, and belief in my work to *consider* changing my place of employment. I have no kids and have had the same partner for a decade.

Indeed. If there were days of "shock enforcement" where 100% of available traffic officers specifically sought out to enforce cell phone driving laws instead of other non-immediately-deadly traffic infractions, people would respond QUICKLY.

Why do people continue to talk on their cell phones when it's against the law? Because they think they can get away with it. How do you change that? Ticket SO MANY PEOPLE that they talk and whine and bitch about it... that way the risk is genuine.

Do this once a month for three months without announcing the plan to anyone an watch things change QUICKLY.

PS -- Use unmarked cars and cameras, too.

Social and Mobile gaming appeals to a very small overlap of EA's traditional core audience: invested gamers. Moreover, EA has its own mobile gaming arm.

EA is tanking because it has tried to cover ALL the bases (Xbox, Playstation, PC/Mac, iPhone, Android, Kindle, Facebook...) and has thus lost the ability to accurately and reliably cater to a single audience. EA has become so big that, like an octopus that has too many arms, can't manage to feed itself.

If they want to survive and be genuinely profitable, they need to Ma' Bell it up, divide their separate divisions up into actual self-sufficient companies and see who sinks and who swims. Focus on your audience, not the entirety of the Earth's population.

Ya. I work in transportation and LPR is a growing successful way to capture a massive amount of data while not doing much. You can send enforcement officers out to check for permits, or you can use permitless LPR systems with which people register their plates. If someone isn't on the list, ticket! If they are, keep on driving.

In the parking world, the list of read plates are expunged nightly or at LEAST weekly.

I'm too big for a pony. But, hey, I'm pretty sure I could resell it for more than the phone... so sure!

I don't think I ever, in any of my posts in regards to this article, suggested that anyone else should be limited by my preferences. There are plenty of people like me, but I never suggested that everyone was.

I never said YOU shouldn't have access to a smarphone or cellular internet access.

*I* just don't want my multifunction device to be a source of accidental charges ("To use this function, you will have to connect to internet..."), have the batter drained by functions that I find unnecessary, and to still have sub-par function for touted features (like media players).

Twice as many of any other president. But doubling a small number is not particularly notable.

Going from 1 to 3 is a 300% increase, but a difference of two.
Obama went from 3 to 6, a 200% increase, but a differernce of three.

What should be focused on are the cases, not the statistics of very small numbers.

Moreover, the president is *accountable* for the actions of those below him. His validity as a president can be jeopardized for their actions (accountability), but since he doesn't directly control them, he cannot be responsible for all their actions.

I don't think racking up a total count of SIX is sufficient to refer to him as a "radical authoritarian". Also, was it OBAMA who initiated the proceedings or, say, the DOD and CIA?

But there's cost to the user. Modern feature phones are made to do whatever they can to get you to either buy a data plan you will not be able to use well enough or to get you to transfer data without a data plan and thus pay out the nose for 600KB of transfer.

I, too, would like a phone like the one you describe. It would be the only one I would give a child. ;)

I actually like the tactile response of buttons. I almost put on the list that I want a button-based system (not touchscreen). Buttons allow me to do stuff on a phone without having to look at the phone (such as speed dialing or changing MP3 tracks).