PC games are just as bad - Bethesda didn't sell me a copy of Fallout: New Vegas, they sold me a Steam key with a DVD, meaning I can't resell that disk. With Activision, I think we all know how D3 isn't capable of resale.
I see a much bigger concern over perpetual use of the license than first sale. I'm not as worried about being able to re-sell a game as I am worried about whether or not I can use it wherever I happen to be trying to use it - online or offline, my console or a friend's, or which player account in my household can use it. That's my larger concern with D3, for instance - I don't care that I can't sell or transfer the ownership of the game, but I am bothered by the fact that I can't play it offline. I understand a lot of that is about defeating client-side hacking, but that's beside the point. If I want to play online, fine, store my character and items server-side so I can't cheat when other players are involved and ruin their experience, but I should also be able to play a purely local game, including hacking my inventory to give myself a +999 Flaming Vorpal Sword of Invulnerability if I don't care about my own private experience. The more pressing concern with first sale/secondhand issues for me is that, with the advance of digital licensing, we should see a drop in prices since all the expense of producing, storing, shipping, and shelving physical goods are replaced by relatively much smaller hosting and bandwidth costs. In short, if I'm getting a completely digital license, I should be paying so little that I don't CARE about being able to resell it. Does anyone worry about re-selling their copy of Angry Birds? Of course, not, why should you care about re-selling a game that cost less than a can of Coca-Cola? This is the eBook conundrum - why must I pay $9.99 for a Kindle book that is locked down to my account/device, when I can buy the same title in paperback form (which I can then loan, sell or give away if I wish) for $7.99? The vast majority of the cost of a real book is the paper, whereas it costs only pennies to store and transfer the few megabytes of data that make up the electronic version of the same book. I should be able to buy a top-selling Kindle book for $1.99 or $2.99, and the publisher and author would STILL be clearing a much bigger margin than they do selling dead trees. At a couple bucks, I wouldn't care if I couldn't loan it to a friend, because if I enjoyed it enough to recommend it that highly, my friends would buy their own copies because a couple bucks is a small risk to take compared to $10. Ultimately, the digital model ought to drive the middleman completely out of the picture anyway - I know artists who produce and digitally distribute their own books and music without publishers or labels, and they tend to actually receive most of their content's sale price for themselves (I think Amazon's payout structure is 70% to the author for self-published Kindle books).
From the parent post
Well, we only have 88 years to deal with a foot rise in water. Damn, that's devastating, we'd better get right to work.
From the summary
...32.2 cm from thermal expansion alone...
If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas. The Netherlands, the low-countries: absolutely devastating.
The above statement is basically true. If you broke up the entire Greenland ice sheet, the rise in sea level would be catastrophic. Mr. Gore does not say this will happen in the next 100 years. It is a conditional statement. If something happens, then something else will happen. The time scale is not certain, though given recent trends in melting, three feet by 2100 is not unlikely. A basic search of recent literature will support this.
The problem is that actual scientists have now done actual science and determined that, in the Antarctic at least, there is no appreciable loss of ice mass, and that water temperatures have not changed appreciably as has been previously claimed by global warming/climate change nuts. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/25/antarctic_ice_not_melting/
The decision doesn't have to be logical; it was unanimous.