You fail at math. Because the absolute numbers of gamers are going up that means that the percentage of those gamers who are hardcore gamers is going down, even if the absolute numbers of hardcore gamers is steady, or even growing at an "insuficent" rate. By adding casual gamers to the mix you make the market larger, making it require more units to be at the same market share. Thank you for trying.

Um, excuse me, but you are without a doubt a stupid sack of shit. As individuals, no we do not have a great "need" for electrical power, or power of any type. But as a society we do. The numbers of humans we have would be unable to survive without the following. 1. Agriculture. Hunter-gatherers simply require too much space, and there isn't enough room on earth, nor game, nor forragable vegetables for the current population to be sustained as hunter-gatherers. 2. Transportation. Just because we can grow the food doesn't me we can get it where it needs to be. Look at the USSR durring the cold war. Their food production was wonderful, some of the best in the world, and yet in the cities there were still bread lines because there was no way to get wheat to market. 3. Refridgeration. Most food goes bad, and goes bad quickly. Refridgeration retards the spoilage, so that food can be transported from far off parts of the world to your plate. 4. Employment. Farmers work hard, they want to be rewarded for their work, so you must have employment so that you can get the money to pay the farmers to allow them the rewards for their labor, so that they will continue to feed hundreds to thousands of people each. 5. Heavy machinery. Farming takes heavy machinery. Moving food takes heavy machinery. building the roads over which food is moved takes... wait for it.... heavy machinery. It also takes heavy machinery to make heavy machinery. It takes work to design the machiery, to build it, to move it. All of this also takes energy. I could go on, but I'm not going to. The point is that yes, contries have energy NEEDS. Even when energy may be used on what can be considered luxuries for individuals that is an essential part of the production and maintenace of the full population. Yes individuals can restrict their energy usage, but consumer consumption isn't a gnat's fart in a skyscraper compared to the genuine needs of a modern society.

My point is that simply by giving them a diffrent label doesn't change things. If we way that invisible demons make us sick, or that bacteria make us sick, there isn't a lot of diffrence. There are other things that "demons" are purported to do, and we can consider them diffrently, but for making cheese, causing illness, making wounds fester, and a myraid of other things, one label is as good as another.

Demons, bacteria, what's the real diffrence. Both are things that you can't observe with the naked eye that you have to take a shaman's word for existing. You can sometimes see the effects of them, like milk going sour, or meat rotting, but you can't directly observe either without mystical tools.

I know that you're not supopsed to use tertiary sources, but I'm too lazy to find any primary sources. But, let's just go with This tertiary source as proof that you can use torture to get people to do things that they otherwise would not do, incluing confessing to something that will get them hanged.

Um, that's pretty easy actually. Sign this, or we make you watch the movie again. Sign this and we'll put some sugar on your rice today. Sign this and we won't put in in stress positions. Sign this and you can have $random_comfort. Sign this and we we'll let you sleep...

Torture works. Also, it's possible that he did have a sense of humor. People somtimes do things for strange reasons, and after the bug hunt there is pretty good evidence he was a bit cracked before the US got ahold of him.

Playing with your dog food analogy. If your dog rejects the food, it doesn't matter how pretty it looks, you'll buy another dog food. If the readers reject the newspaper, it doesn't matter how "Advertiser Centric" the paper is, they'll shop their business until they find one that their "dog" actually eats. This is like a dog food company replacing half the beef or lamb in its formula with soy, and then complaining that they are loosing business to a company that makes higher quality dog food, and then suing a vetrenarian for recomending the better quality dog food.

I don't know where you get that farmers don't care about cattle. A single steer represents a sizeable investment, and a sizable return. Yes they try to avoid emotional attachment to the steer, but the health and wellbeing of the steer is quite important. The live price of beef is $.8250 per pound for a beef steer weighing 1300 lbs (Normal butchering weight for a beef steer). That means that the total steer is worth about $1100 This explains why ranchers are so eager to do anything they can, including artificial insemination, hormone implants, and factory farming to get their beef up to weight as quickly as possible. Dairy cattle are even more valuable, at least, the cows are. The steers are considered a byproduct, and typically sold at firesale prices and used by family farmers for personal consumption. Brood cows and proven stud bulls have even higher values than steers, because they are used to produce more steers. Also, happy beef tastes better. For beef for market most ranchers do not consider this to be a worry, since the market does not currently have a way to differentiate on that unless the farmer is selling directly to a high end reseraunt, on the other hand, if a farmer or rancher intends a particular steer, or cow, for their personal consumption, you can be sure that they will give that animal extra special attention. Getting back to newspapers with this, no, they newspaper doesn't care about its readers as readers, they care about them as eyes for the advertisments. Happy readers are more receptive of advertising, especially if, as is possible on the internet, the advertising is relevant to their interests. As their readership declines they have less and less to sell to the advertisers, just as if a steer gets ill, and starts to lose weight the rancher will have less and less to sell to the butcher. By attacking aggragators the newspapers are freaking out as if this is something that could destroy their entire herd, instead of something that means they need to treat the steer with penecillin (which I guess with this analogy is more interesting stories). Anyway, I think I've taken this analogy as far as I can, and much farther than I should have. Please pick a better analogy in the future.

It's not rocket science to set up a server to NOT federate. Unless you federate, no connecting to the outside. Restricting users to only the settings you want them to have access to with group policies can make your life a little easier as an admin.

Um... I think you missed the point. The GP specifically stated that the US killed more civilians than Gemany, but was PERCEIVED as the humanitarians. Also Fallujah held on a hell of a long time after the war was clearly lost. Bad things happen. All the deaths in that city were for more or less the same reason as until the 19th century the standard laws of war allowed a complete sack of any town that resisted beyond a practiable breach. There was no longer any chance to win, only to inflict more casualties on the victor, so as a deterrant a city that continued to resist would be destoyed. As the aggressors in the war there are certain standars that we should be held to, but those standards should not include a requirment to lose.

Terrorists kill buildings. Nations kill clans, tribes, and cities. The reason there is terrorism is that some types of it work. Terrorism works if your willingness and ability to inflict it upon your enemies is greather than their willingness to suffer it. If your own willingness or ability is inadequate it just really pisses the enemies off, and that is when nations destroy nations. Happened with Japan in WWII, happend with Al Queida and the Taliban after 9/11.

Actually, it's not a ZOMG, just explain to the owner that you have certain ethical standards, and that you will not break the law for your job. Then put together an itemised list of licences needed to bring the company into compliance, with prices. If they are unwilling to pay, provide itemised list 2, which has FOSS options that can be migrated to, with an estimate of how long it would take you to do so, and how much downtime would be involved. If they are unwilling to go with either option, "You don't want to sell him death sticks. You want to go home and rethink your life."

Pulled or cut out? Actually getting them pulled (normal extraction) carries far less risk of complications. OTOH, if they are coming in so that normal extraction is possible, there usually isn't a need to pull them.

Rat Terriers will go into holes. For that matter so will daschunds. And they are naturally aggressive. Miniature daschunds were even bread for fighting that size of prey in its hole. There's even a non-blood sport to test their abilities, called ground dog trials. If you want to use predation on the little buggers, ground dogs are the way to go.

Actually, they are. With a machine gun you get something that is usefull, that has a real physical presence, and which can help to either prop up your government, or overthrow it, depending on who is doing the buying. It can assist you in getting food, mates, status, and a nice warm fuzzy. It can defend your village, or it can be used to raid other villages. All in all, the machine gun sounds like a much better purchase. Now, no, this isn't the way to make the world a better place, but the logic is sound. The same money that would e spend on Windows licences can also be spent on food, on clothing, on soldiers, on graft, on construction projects to gloify the Great Leader, or any number of other things. Some of these things matter to the citizens, some matter to the government. Either way, Windows seems like a bad investment to me.