It seems like every time a new system comes out they use a new technology in the optical drive. Cartridges, then CDs, then DVDs, then Blu-Ray. I understand that in prior console releases it made sense to do this, however I don't want to see a change in optical drive technology just for the sake of having different optical drive technology.

Microsoft, support Blu-Ray.
Sony, don't create a new craptastic optical tech (UMD anyone?) just to be different. Use Blu-Ray again.
Nintendo, well... ships already sailed.

You can also choose as a default setting the ability to install apps from anywhere if you so choose. There really isn't anything nefarious going on here.

I'm surprised someone hasn't found a way to say Apple is evil for defending its app developers. Pretty much every other story on Slashdot about Apple brings the haters out.

A recent story posted to AllThingsD includes a nifty Google trend line for the words "app" "application" and "app store." I only wish they had included program or software.

The term many here are trying to claim is obvious and generic didn't exist until Apple trademarked and implemented it's App Store in 2008. Even the term "app" had little to no usage until then.

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20110512/microsoft-apple-word-war-spreads-to-europe/

If the term is obvious it would have been used before. Plenty of vendors sold applications and programs through stores. Cellphone providers had their named stores to buy overpriced crap for you phone. Palm had a store available on its Palm Pilots.

But they never sold "apps." They sold games, ringtones, images, and applications. Apple sells apps. It's the difference between drinking a cola and drinking Coca-cola.

This entire thing just feels like sour grapes to me. Apple trademarked a term they themselves created and popularized, and now their competitors are upset they can't get away with violating Apple's trademark. Amazon should just call it the Amazon Application Store (a generic term) and be done with it.

Gonna back that up with anything other than "Wrong."??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system
"A parliamentary system is a system of government..."

Don't forget Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote in 1992.

Actually parliamentary systems are much more democratic than the US system. Yes many parliaments still require a threshold of votes, but parties get their fair share of the government pie. Ex 1. If 15% of the citizens in England vote for Party X, Party X will make up 15% of Parliament. Ex 1. If 15% of US citizens vote for Party Y, Party Y makes up 0% of the Legislature. The US is a Republic. Don't get me started on US States, counties, municipalities, cities, etc though.

But a majority doesn't always rule here. The President can veto any and all legislation and then it takes a supermajority to override. By virtue of our having a chief executive who is not part of the legislature nor elected by a majority of the People we are a republic and not a representative democracy.