I agree. I only bought an additional PS3 because it is a nice integrated Blu-Ray and media player, and I need that in any home I live.

I haven't bought any new games since a couple years ago, because I no longer care about iterations of old franchises and the new ones mostly annoy me (that's me getting old, I know). Basically all my entertainment needs are satisfied with those two functions mentioned above.

Completely agree. This is the reason I stopped contributing to Wikipedia several years ago: complete buffoons that believe they know it all and that have done enough brown-nosing with the other admins, in order to be admitted into the elite circle.

It's like a game for them, winning by being admitted into the fold of the privileged users with censorship power.

The ISP gets its money by selling Internet access to his paying customers, not by allowing all the ad crap to sneak through.

Blocking the crap is just value added to their clients service IMHO.

I certainly wish there was such a convenient ISP service near home.

Agree.

It's easy to think that because these modern things were hard to get for people in the west, therefore they will also be for the rest as well. As if the poor people in Africa would buy old BBNs and DEC PDP-11s and make their own ARPANET, instead of buying state of the art equipment, which is cheaper and better by the day.

For some things (like medical infrastructure or education), the way ahead may still be hard for many of those countries. But for information technology, that doesn't really apply. Newer is actually better and cheaper.

And cheaper stuff is precisely what allows poorer people to get connected.

Nanny states produce that kind of mindset on their population. As many things become rights and then entitlements following a true (or fallacious) group benefit as justification, it logically follows (to the so entitled) that compensations in any willing two party commercial exchange (like jobs) should as well, because people start thinking that every exchange should follow a societal/group benefit value like the ones they customarily receive, instead of just requiring the plain willingness from both parties.

Tough luck. Commercial transactions with willing parties are only dependent on what the two parties are willing to exchange. And that regardless of the societal/group value of the goods exchanged.

Because they are such duds by bringing up a best-selling game in several platforms, that already earned Bethesda reviewer accolades and millions in revenue?

They should certainly fire them ASAP.

I agree. If life extension becomes possible, people would be more thoughtful about a lot of issues because one powerful reason: it won't somebody else's problem anymore.

People get strongly motivated by fear of what may actually happen to them. And significantly less about what may happen to their descendants.

I think almost nobody really wants to live more time, if such life is plagued with senility, disease and extreme dependence on others.

And almost everyone would like to live a bit more, if they actually could continue feeling and acting youthful, with full autonomy and capabilities.

It seems obvious, but we do appreciate our life in function of the enjoyment we get out of it.

The amount of time you would like to live is a matter of preference, but I'm certain that people that now say they would like to bite it at 120 for nature's and world's sake, would think otherwise if we really had a way to stay youthful and healthy at such advanced age.

Besides it's not like we could avoid universe's randomness forever. Sooner or later an accident or any other fortuitous reason will get you, no matter how good SENS technology gets.

The reason why Zuck and his fellow college drop-out CEOs are so compelling examples for many, has something to do with rejection of the mandatory college model we have been fed since some decades ago. The belief that in order to prosper, you have to have a paper showing off your grades is simply wrong. It rests on the societal delusion that education alone gives you the edge on the jobs market, where in fact talent, motivation, interpersonal skills, personal interests and/or self-imposed experimentation and work are much more fruitful.
Some people do have other talents that don't require them to finish a college degree or more in order to be marketable. And that should be OK.
The problem I see is that society can make such model a de facto imposed rule impacting everybody's lives, if everyone comes to expect for you to have a diploma, and it may end up disqualifying you from opportunities just because you fail that basic test.
Really talented people tend to overcome that, but the young and impressionable feel compelled to pursue a degree just to avoid that potential rejection, and because "it's the thing to do".

Nothing new here. Just the same old complaint of cognitive bias due to our desire to find someone else. Which does not change the fact that life, and even intelligent life are verifiable possibilities in the universe: we do exist, so the process can be repeated somewhere else. Unless you give up on the mediocrity principle and accept that Earth is special. Which from a scientific point of view increasingly seems not to be the case (with all the other confirmed extrasolar planets, some in the Goldilocks zone, for example).

For a moment I felt I was in one of those Star Trek TNG episodes where the plot advances thanks to an ad hoc particle/field that can be polarity-reversed. Usually the particle/field in question was seldom, or never mentioned later. Talk of science imitating art.

I have nothing against ongoing training and learning what is good from the latest fashions in the market. But I think your "marketability" (how attractive you are to potential bosses/hiring staff) depends on how much your skills are tied to any specific tool/software, and how you reflect that into your CV. IMHO, you should focus on providing good highlights of your previous job roles, and clear descriptions of your skills more than your obsession with the latest tools& versions. Things like personal projects, philanthropic and academic achievements (papers, posters, projects, not your grades, unless you are fresh out of high-school) are also surprisingly good eye catchers for hiring staff/potential bosses. Unless your potential boss demands a ultra-super-duper expert in any piece of software, they will simply look for the most outstanding CV from the bunch, in terms of clearly understandable experience and roles, and displaying 'the right' attitude (team worker, self driven, self teaching, etc).