At $650, the GTX 780 costs less than one monthly rent payment for me.

Of course the original purchasers stopped playing.

He doesn't have the game anymore you twit.

Think of it this way. Say I am the one millionth person to purchase a game to play online. If I sell or give my copy to someone else who goes to play online, I have stopped playing since I no longer have the game. The person who got the game from me is now the one millionth person online. Doing some arithmetic, 1,000,000 + 1 (the player I sold the game to) - 1 (being me the person who stopped playing) = 1,000,000. Math shows that you had one million players before the game got sold second hand to someone else, and that after the game was sold, you still had only one million players online (not one million and one).

What this looks like is a developer/publisher looking to get paid TWICE for ONE game license. And if that second person decides to sell it second hand to a third person, then that's the developer/publisher getting paid THREE times for ONE game license.

As a developer/publisher, you already sold that copy of the game. What the customer does with that game copy, either selling it or giving it away to someone else, as long as he/she didn't copy it, is not doing anything illegal or ethically wrong and frankly it's none of your business.

It's an anecdote—an extremely well known anecdote I might add; meant to be used to convey an idea, not represent scientific facts. So first thing, get off the high horse.

Secondly, from a legal perspective, states maintain databases such as the one suggested, through DMV records. Obviously that requires a level of voluntary acceptance by the populace, since nothing forces you to maintain a state ID or driver's license.

Thirdly, the federal government in reality probably already has a national database derived from DMV records and passports. The clause being included in this bill is nothing more than a formality making a current practice officially legal.

My original comment still stands.

No where in his post does he touch on someone's "right" to suicide. He is talking about the rate of suicide in relation to the prevalence of a deadly mechanism. There is no relation, is what he was saying. Not once did he talk about suicide rights.

In response to your question though, I will ask you a question. What do you think the people that tried suicide but were stopped by a friend or family member would say about it? Those that are happy about it at least. Don't fool yourself into believing that out of the people that were attempting suicide or plannining to, none of them feel grateful for the individuals who stopped them from doing it. I can't give exact percentages, but there are people who have attempted to kill themselves and were stopped—against their will at the time—who are glad someone was there who cared about them enough to save their lives.

Suicide is a permanent "solution" to temporary problems. Yes, there are people who genuinely want to off themselves, and the fact that nothing would help them from seeing the value in their lives is sad. The people who fail, whether by their own failure, or who are forced to live by others do still have to live with the depression. Well, they can always try again.

But if we did what you would seem to suggest, which is "just let people off themselves at will with no intervention of any kind", people who truly didn't want to kill themselves will, because they had no one to try and stop them.

I am sorry, but this is extermely short-sighted and naive. If an individual or entity has a history of abusing powers granted to them, you do NOT set up a system that makes it easier for them to abuse power.

>If the US were going to turn into "papers, please" it would've done so already

This is flat out false. The ideals of freedom are so deeply rooted into our culture and society, if it were to just switch from freedom to police state, yes, that would cause problems. But that is not what is happening. The federal government is gradually expanding it's powers.

To use a well-known, simple analogy, think of boiling a frog. Drop the frog into already boiling water, and it will jump out. Put the frog in the bottom of the pan and slowly heat up the pot to a boil, and the frog will boil.

It's a slow expansion of power, and almost always granted to help increase "security".

Yes and no. The 360 was used in the last few years more of a 'proof of concept' and to stay competitive with things like AppleTV. I predict the 720 will include a "wealth of new features" that includes Microsoft Office, and full IE integration. Launch accessories will include wireless keyboard and mouse, and the Kinect (or next iteration of) will be utilized for the Metro interface that the 720 will most likely carry.

I wouldn't be surprised if eventually Windows is fully utilized on the 720 at a later date if it's not included outright.

So here begins service based computing. This is the direction Microsoft is trying to bring the computer industry, and it's all starting with the next Xbox. I know it's a futile hope, but I still hope the Xbox 720 fails, or at the least has significantly less adoption like Windows 8. This is the opportunity consumers have to try and stop Microsoft from taking computing in this direction. I doubt it will happen, but I do hope.

His point is, that there is a wealth of information that SHOULD be getting told to the people, but doesn't because government knows that the people aren't truly interested. Since when we do find out when the government has overreached it's bounds or violated the Constitution, people don't give a shit. Which is sad, and stupid on the part of the people.

I certainly hope so. The last 3D film I went to was Tron: Legacy, and the reason it was my last was before the movie started, there was a disclaimer that said that all scenes were not in 3D, but to keep the glasses on. If everything is not in 3D than what the hell am I paying an extra six dollars for? I also never liked 3D anyways since I do not enjoy having to wear an apparatus to view it.

That's not really the point. Yes, Usenet is old, but it was generally unknown to the majority of your average computer users. For years, the MAFIAA has been going after torrenting, with seemingly no knowledge of the capabilities and common use for Usenet. Now all of the sudden, NZB sites and Usenet providers have been getting hit with the DMCA notices. Again, seemingly it's apparent that the MAFIAA has only recently become aware of Usenet, so spagthorpe was using a funny and appropriate movie reference to point out that a lot of people couldn't keep the Usenet secret to themselves.

This is one of the fundamental reasons why we have the issues we have. Including amendments or clauses that have absolutely nothing to do with the main content of the bill itself should not be allowed. It has historically and currently used to sneak in laws that are not openly discussed with the public in order to pass those laws without public knowledge. This is because they know it is harder to eliminate a law after it has passed than it is to block a law before it passes.

While arguments could be made that legitimate laws that should be passed would take too long to get passed, this ability is abuses far more frequently than being used for legitimate laws. And for that reason, things like this need to stop.