Or, perhaps, like trying to compare monetary values of the past to today's currency, comparing parties of the past to today's parties is comparing apples to oranges. However, I agree that the "(D)" was unnecessary.

Why is it that HR departments always want the employees to be doing something HR-ish instead of doing the work that makes the company money? Honest question.

. . . by the time I completed Barbie Wild Horse Rescue, I wanted to kill someone!

Grand Theft Lasso

Whoever makes the console rakes in the developer fees. Consoles are uber profitable.

Lol, 20 years ago Bill Gates was the new Steve Jobs.

That doesn't change the fact that it is the -ONLY- casual hand-held gaming device in its class. Flash or no Flash, it's catering to a huge audience and filling their needs better than any similar device. If another similar device comes along that does implement Flash, the iPad will have a contender, but since that is not yet the case . . .

It very nicely fills a gap in hand-held casual gaming appliances.

I think you're all overly-complicating things. I would guess that the authors just didn't care because they figured that 99.99999% of players would never reach the limits of a signed int, so what difference would it make? For the incredibly small minority of people who do hit the limit, they just saved them 3 years of their life by not making it unsigned. Having just finished writing a commercial game, I can tell you that I didn't care whether my ints for keeping track of score were signed or unsigned because the people who will hit that limit represent, for all intents and purposes, none of my potential customers. Anyone who is that serious about playing my game probably needs to chill once they hit 2^31-1 points (although I actually used 64-bit ints, so good luck with that).

How is that so much different from the time spent by actors, directors, artists, etc.? I'm asking this honestly, not rhetorically.

Facebook is for keeping clued in on the lives of people who you can't be around all the time, that way when you finally get to see them again, you have something to talk about. In other words, it prevents long-distance relations from becoming complete strangers. It's not likely that you'll have a meaningful relationship if you never see that person in real life, but it is also untrue to say that Facebook can't aid in strengthening/maintaining an existing relationship.

Twas brillig and the slithy toves. Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.

Looks like the Monolith was discovered on Mars. For some reason I was expecting it to be found on the Moon . . .

Or IMEEM, which now has an iPhone app (although I haven't tried it).

You're absolutely right that there is no reason to be afraid of dying in a terrorist attack. The chances are astronomically low that you will. Yet I contend that the additional security measures taken to "stop" terrorism are actually a good thing. Do you really think for a minute that security experts don't know the same statistics that you do? The point of additional security after 9-11 is not to ACTUALLY protect anyone, the point is to make the American public feel like they're being protected. Just as terrorism itself is theater, so must your response to terrorism be theater. It's a psychological battle. You're right that there is no reason to be afraid, but it's a moot point. After 9-11 there were 300M people who needed convincing, and simply telling them "the odds are 0.001%" is not going to quell panic on that scale. You and I know the additional security is just theater, but in this case theater is the correct response.