<quote>Outside of cities though, AT&amp;T has pretty good coverage. Verizon is going to get you the best cell service, but like you said, its Verizon. T-Mobile would be the company that I would reccomend, but sadly their coverage isn't too great.</quote>

I used to have Verizon, and in rural areas / areas far away from cities, I would usually have some coverage. I'm on AT&T now, and the coverage is nonexistent in many places.

Coverage in the location where you live and where you spend time will matter more, though, and both companies have coverage maps that I have found to be fairly accurate.

The anonymous coward wasn't the only one offended.

Both heterosexism (the implied "fag-football") and notions of masculinity that associate masculinity with GTA (calling non-GTA style games "pansy" games) are bad things. They hurt people.

Even if what you're saying is accurate, and OP was only framing the issue in terms of 13 year olds, are you actually saying that is a good thing? 13 year olds are sexist and heterosexist and we should cultivate that rather than work against it? That's the entire point of the study: the games don't have to cultivate negative values to be fun.

I do agree that the study could do with a lot more rigor and a bigger sample size, but that doesn't mean that it has a bad mission.

The idea isn't that people will search for a long string of adjectives. More likely, it would work like Pandora where you identify a game you like and they show you games that have similar elements. Or you could take a survey of many games and it will find the common themes, or maybe you could just take a survey of the themes. I wouldn't think of "post-apocalyptic fun fantasy" on my own, but I might mark it up on a survey.

From the article:
"The Government's approach will be informed by the filtering technologies adopted in countries such as the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Canada where ISP filtering, predominantly of child pornography, has been successfully introduced without affecting internet performance to a noticeable level."

I wasn't aware that those countries had filters. Their internet isn't so horrible, is it?

Where I stand is that I am not ideologically opposed to censorship so much as I think that you have to be very careful about it. If the IP blacklist was subject to public scrutiny and input, and if there were still some way to access the information if you really needed to (ie, people doing research on the kiddie porn industry), and there were strict limits to the expanses of the blacklist, and it didn't slow down internet speed, then it would probably be an OK plan.

Their plan probably won't fulfill at least some of those conditions, but I still think that it might be most productive to reach for a reasonable compromise.

I would be interested to see the energy difference between a laptop with a fan versus water cooling. I know that the specs haven't been released yet, but it seems like pumping water around would eat up the battery.
I have a HP laptop which runs fairly hot, but that's still better, as far as I'm concerned, than carrying around a heavy pump that uses up the battery.

Of course, if they manage to make it more compact and energy efficient than fans, all the power to them. I would still worry about it leaking and destroying my laptop, though.

Since Apple is trying for a patent for all types of mobile devices on this, it would be particularly interesting to see a water cooled iPhone...

You say that the best songs (or articles) will still succeed even in the current unfair system, and that the issue is just the middle.
On the internet, there is a saturation of opinion articles. If there are enough of the best out there, why do we, as consumers of information, need a sorting algorithm to promote the middle?
I completely agree that, from the standpoint of a writer or a more democratic marketplace of ideas, it would be better to have some sort of better moderation system than the current one.